| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
OT: Use of "Socialist" to condemn conceptsOT: Use of "Socialist" to condemn conceptsPosted Aug 30, 2003 12:04 UTC (Sat) by MLKahnt (guest, #6642)In reply to: The EFF's anti-SCO congressional letter campaign by dbhost Parent article: The EFF's anti-SCO congressional letter campaign I find it interesting that most Americans have never sat in on a political meeting, or watched a political debate on television, where a candidate has pursued a Socialist platform, and yet the term, to some, constitutes an epitaph for all concepts counter-American and counter-liberty. Having active socialist parties in most European countries as well as here in Canada, we've encountered their platforms as well as their values and weaknesses. I do not personally support them, but I welcome the concepts and the expansion of the range of options they bring to the political debate. I also welcome hard-right wing contributions to the spectrum of political debate - so long as the debate is honest and free from scare tactics and slurs from any side, that is part of what makes democracy work - the open availability, evaluation, and collective popular choice from among various alternatives. On the issue of "socialised" medicine, the amount spent per person on health care in any "socialised medicine" country is substantively less than the average costs spent by an HMO system per member in the United States, representing part of the reason that sometimes a test or involved treatment cannot be conducted immediately. Having worked in the Life and Health Insurance industry on my "day-job" side for much of my working career, and having earned the Managed HealthCare Professional (MHP) designation from HIAA, I know some of the details involved here. This is an important consideration in why sometimes in the Canadian system services are not as widespread and immediately available as they are in the American environment. In Canada, there has not been the "pooling" of medical practices that exists within HMO (and sometimes PPP) environments, meaning that the cost savings and efficiencies as well as some improved services have not been realised. Additionally, there aren't the restrictions that exist in the HMO and to a lesser degree PPP systems to restrain usage and access within the health insurance supported aspects of the system. HMOs, by their basic structure, are market meddling and management tools to cap costs, and should not honestly ever be pointed to as "free market" examples - their basic premise is to close the market choice of the patient with respect to the coverage the HMO provides for the premium paid, or force the patient to turn to alternate resources to pay for any options "declined" by the HMO. Beyond those points, the premise of public medicine is that health is too important, and too unpredictable, to be left to the vagaries of the marketplace. While hospitals and medical practitioners in any country will address immediate trauma to stabilise the victim without concern of ability to pay, when it steps beyond the realm of "basic survival" and "preventing the spread of dangerous infectious diseases" the questions of costs arise. The Canadian version is a system that decides that certain ranges of additional services of hospitalisation to pursue recovery and health are in the nation and society's collective interest. Set rates are established between doctors' organisations and provincial health insurance systems on these plans, where the doctors are not permitted to charge additional amounts to this per procedure (similar to HMOs, although there the doctors' choice is between participating in the HMO or not, and quite often the HMO will pay doctors a set rate per "rostered" patient regardless of services provided.) Private health insurance still exists, but on matters outside the range of what the public plan covers - things like extra time in hospital after giving birth, or private hospital rooms, medical drug coverage, or better quality home recovery devices. What private insurance, or deep personal pockets doesn't permit in the Canadian system is to outbid anyone else for health care resources - health need and availability of treatment resources is the sole deciding point on priority for services in the Canadian system. American businesses operating in Canada encourage Canada to keep the public healthcare and insurance system, as it allows them to avoid significant costs in payroll that the provision of health insurance through employment constitutes to them in the United States. Why should employers be expected to finance health insurance, even at the reduced costs of HMO plans? Private basic health insurance in the United States is widely considered an aspect of standard remuneration where enough competing employers offer such coverage to gain/hold skilled staff - where basic health insurance is provided by the state, employers enjoy the liberty to compete for workers on the basis of the nature of the job, actual pay and actual work conditions. Additionally, when changing jobs, people in Canada don't need to worry about "pre-existing" health conditions arising and being denied coverage. Sure, the private health plans on top are nice, but with basic health care being provided from the tax rolls under public health insurance, private coverage is far less expensive to employers and far less of a consideration to employees.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||