In 1918, the Soviet Union became the first country to promise universal “cradle-to-grave” healthcare coverage, to be accomplished through the complete socialization of medicine. The “right to health” became a “constitutional right” of Soviet citizens.
The proclaimed advantages of this system were that it would “reduce costs” and eliminate the “waste” that stemmed from “unnecessary duplication and parallelism” — i.e., competition.
These goals were similar to the ones declared by Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi — attractive and humane goals of universal coverage and low costs. What’s not to like?
The system had many decades to work, but widespread apathy and low quality of work paralyzed the healthcare system. In the depths of the socialist experiment, healthcare institutions in Russia were at least a hundred years behind the average US level. Moreover, the filth, odors, cats roaming the halls, drunken medical personnel, and absence of soap and cleaning supplies added to an overall impression of hopelessness and frustration that paralyzed the system. According to official Russian estimates, 78 percent of all AIDS victims in Russia contracted the virus through dirty needles or HIV-tainted blood in the state-run hospitals. FULL ARTICLE
{ 60 comments }
Next Comments →
A wonderful article, and a great look into what Soviet health care was like. I wonder what the truth is about Cuban health care—I was able to speak to a student physician at Cato University, but his arguments were not completely compelling. On the other hand, this goes a bit to the extreme—although, I am not covered by the Spanish universal health care system (although I am a citizen, and I was living there for a long time), I do know that Spanish hospitals are not poorly maintained.
Very good article.
In the US, I believe our problem is not access to health care, it is too much access to health care. Employer paid insurance and Medicare has increased the demand for care and drugs which has put pressure on upward prices. Because of this demand, drug companies can charge more in the US to offset the lower prices they have to charge in countries where demand is less.
I would like to see the US take and eliminate all employer and government paid health insurance. Without that expense, employers and government can pay workers more. With the extra income, people can choose the level of insurance they want to carry. I would bet that the majority of people will opt for higher deductibles and this would decrease the demand on healthcare and prices would fall.
Greg,
I believe that in the USA, the problem too much regulations, roadblocks and burdens against medical enterprise.
Any company that wants to innovate, invent, develop and market any medicine or medical technology is in deep trouble facing bureaucracy and government road blocks.
I believe that the health care system is chocking in it’s own red-tape. Give them enough rope, in this case give them enough red tape and they will hang themselves in it. That’s what’s going on.
Greg -
I have my own high deductable plan (I wish the premium increases would stop), but that plan totally changed my thoughts on how I use health care. Before the plan, I would take the kids to the clinic for every ailment as my employer picked up most of the cost.
Now, I search out alternative options for ear/nose and throat problems. Minute Clinic is awesome and it delivers the same service at half the cost of the regular clinic.
My only complaint is the lack of cost comparison. Recently, I developed hives at work. I didn’t know it was hives
I asked my insurance company for doctor alternatives based on price, so I could choose where to be seen. The insurance company couldn’t tell me the information I wanted and I wasn’t going to call a bunch of clinics, so I went to the regular clinic to get my 2 minute diagnosis for $131 US dollars….oh well one day more information will be available or congress and the president fix everything and we live in utopia 
Yuri-
You mentioned, “In fact, both analytical reasoning and empirical evidence point to the opposite conclusion.”
Could you note any specific studies that show this evidence? It would be great to have this information available so I could send a very short and highly understandable synopsis to my “representatives”.
Paul Krugman:
“One purpose of the public option is to save money. Experience with Medicare suggests that a government-run plan would have lower costs than private insurers; in addition, it would introduce more competition and keep premiums down.”
This is a nobel prize winning economist. You know his word is golden. Betting against Krugman is like betting against Kobe or Manning. Krugman is the king of economics. He knows his stuff. If he didn’t then he would not be printed in the NYT. When Krugman says the public option will lower costs, then it will lower costs. I do have one question, I thought the public option was to provide HC for all uninsured Americans. Now it is about costs. Which is it Mr. Economic Guru, the second coming of Keynes?
Now here’s something that needs attention — and refutation:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/464837/joe_scarborough_is_shocked_yet_awed_by_single_payer_logic
“One purpose of the public option is to save money.”
Who’s money ? Since when do socialist want to save other people’s money ?
“Experience with Medicare suggests that a government-run plan would have lower costs than private insurers;”
It’s very easy to cut costs when you are a state run monopoly. You simply deny care and move patients to the death panel.
Health care costs are almost zero in North Korea. But their care is almost zero as well. It costs nothing but you get nothing.
HayeksHeroes,
“This is a nobel prize winning economist.”
I believe that Paul Krugman won the nobel prize because of who he knows and not because of what he knows.
Mr. Maltsev,
Great article. Excellent proof that sound economic histories are a great aid to advancing sound economic policies and theories. Especially among those who don’t necessarily call themselves libertarians.
Regards,
Ken Mathews
>the filth, odors, cats roaming the halls, >drunken medical personnel, and >absence of soap and cleaning supplies
Its very elitist to criticize their selfless intentions. Im reporting you to Obama.
What do you have against cats? Theyre very clean.
Stephen Grossman, you’re funny !
Now here’s something that needs attention — and refutation:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/464837/joe_scarborough_is_shocked_yet_awed_by_single_payer_logic
First of all, private insurance companies and employers have formed Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBM), which is a third party administrator of prescription drug programs. They are primarily responsible for processing and paying prescription drug claims. They also are responsible for developing and maintaining the formulary, contracting with pharmacies, and negotiating discounts and rebates with drug manufacturers.
There is nothing new here. It is just that Scarbough is uninformed. Weiner is playing games. Weiner wants price controls, where the government mandates the price of pharmaceuticals. This will lead to shortages and lack of innovation.
Now here’s something that needs attention — and refutation:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/464837/joe_scarborough_is_shocked_yet_awed_by_single_payer_logic
First of all, private insurance companies and employers have formed Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBM), which is a third party administrator of prescription drug programs. They are primarily responsible for processing and paying prescription drug claims. They also are responsible for developing and maintaining the formulary, contracting with pharmacies, and negotiating discounts and rebates with drug manufacturers.
There is nothing new here. It is just that Scarbough is uninformed. Weiner is playing games. Weiner wants price controls, where the government mandates the price of pharmaceuticals. This will lead to shortages and lack of innovation.
From Reisman,
In the case of anything that mus be produced, the quanitity supplied falls if a price control makes its production unprofitable or simply less than average profitability…. [Not all producers will be equally affected. Production will tend to fall for those companies the highest cost or marginal producers in the industry. These producers will will go out of business or operate on a smaller scale.
This means Weiner wants to subject the American people to cheap generic drugs and surrender the incredible advancements in the pharmaceutical industry. Forget the cure for cancer. Forget the cure for AIDS. There will be plenty of Pepcid AC.
Doug,
Everything is negotiable. Next time you go to the clinic, ask how much they charge to look at your problem and offer them less. I had a kidney stone removed by a mobile clinc an had to pay the hospital for their part in the proceedure. Two sets of X-rays, blood test, IV’s, pre-op and post-op. I got all of that for $176.00. Just told them I wanted their cash rate, made them an offer and wrote the check on the spot.
The main point that everyone is missing is that 90% of you that pay for healthcare insurance is paying for the 10% that have greater cost than they pay into the system. You have better odds taking your money to Vegas. And so you pay for insurance because of the fear you may be one of the 10%. Kind of sounds like a mafia scheme!
The comparison between state-run healthcare and the Soviet System is a bit too harsh, I think. The talk about “death panels” is utter nonsense, as well.
Maybe you should draw a comparison, which is a little more realistic. My home country Germany, for example, has a hybrid healthcare system, where most citizens are insured at government sponsored insurers and the “wealthy”, the self-employed and the publicly employed (the government wants its own employees to be well-insured) can choose between public or private insurance. Almost everyone who can choose, takes the private option.
The public system is quasi-bankrupt all the time. That’s why we have a “Great Healthcare Reform” every year (sometimes twice a year) that only worsens everything. The prices for treatments and medicine which the public insured have to pay are set by a quasi-socialist healthcare panel and, of course, too low. The last 2-3 months of every year, most doctors won’t receive any payments from their publicly insured patients, since the public healthcare system is bankrupt again (but they are forced to treat them).
Hence, they must charge all the more from their privately insured patients, which makes private health insurance artificially costly.
Many socialists now bemoan the “two-classes healthcare” (they mean that the privately insured are treated much better) and want to abolish the private system altogether, so that everyone is equally bad insured (no joke!)
I think that will be what you can expect from Obamacare. No death-panels, no cats in the hospitals, no starving patients, but a really inefficient and expensive healthcare system.
Austrian economics teaches us that it is those who pay who decide.
By adopting a single payer system, we would also adopt a single decider system. And a single policy will never fit everybody and will not-even fit anybody. We will end up with a one size fits nobody type of arrangement.
Do we really want our health therefore our lives to be at the mercy of government policies ?
“No death-panels,”
Instead, people will die on waiting lists and care rationing just like in Canada. To avoid the political scandal of deciding to pull the plug on someone, they will simply delay the plugging in the first place so that the patient will die before they have to plug him so they won’t have to pull the plug since the patient will not be plugged in the first place. Thus they will avoid the political scandal of giving death. Rather they will let die.
It’s happening in Canada all the time and there is no death panel there.
2A is correct. Canada’s soviet-style health care system has the same kinds of gross inefficiencies, corruption and negative results as in the USSR, only less extreme because there is more freedom in Canada for doctors to move away to make more money, and more freedom for people to pay for private treatment and diagnostics if they are able. There is still some wealth remaining and some freedom of movement so the situation is not intolerable.
The comparison between state-run healthcare and the Soviet System is a bit too harsh, I think. The talk about “death panels” is utter nonsense, as well … My home country Germany, for example, has a hybrid healthcare system … I think that will be what you can expect from Obamacare. No death-panels, no cats in the hospitals, no starving patients, but a really inefficient and expensive healthcare system.
Right now your German health care system is not as bad as in the USSR, and neither is Canada’s. But do you think that these governments can simply borrow and print money forever? In order to keep their partially-sovietized health care systems partially functioning, they are consuming the capital of their citizens and of the foreigners who have purchased their bonds and who are holding their CAD or Euros. This cannot continue forever and it will not. When there is no more capital to consume then they will have fully-sovietized health care systems. It is to be hoped that before it gets this bad, these governments and their foul socialist ideas will collapse into the toxic waste containers of history where they belong.
Education and Ethics
Friday, August 21, 2009
Soviet-Style Health Care Pleases The “Progressives.”
What was the ulterior motive of Stalin?
Are the motives the same here in the USSA?
It is already clear as day that there is a two-tiered system of health care. Has anyone compared the health care plans of the ‘elected’ ones and their lifetime guarantees to those who do not cozy up to the medical industrial complex?
Thanks to the Mises Institute and in this case special thanks to Yuri Maltsev for exposing the lies and the corruption and the criminal violations of human rights that can be directly attributed to the ‘progressives’ and the ego-driven interventionists, you know, the socialists and fascists who lust for power.
Dear Bloggers!
thank you for your comments – really appreciated!
I am also blessed with over a hundred e-mails. I wish I could answer everyone /and I’ll try to/, but I would like to address the most general comments and observations.
I agree that there are serious cultural differences between countries: it took Russia almost 80 years to destroy the work ethics, trust and responsibility and almost everything else was destroyed afterwards. Even many things which supposedly could not be destroyed were destroyed as well. Good example – the Aral Sea /please Google it – you would be amazed!/.
With us here – it depends on the willingness of many to sell our freedoms for various handouts and bailouts. With this willingness growing so fast there would be not much left to sell very soon.
I agree that in many European countries as well as in Canada there are no dirty needles, odors, cats, and drunken doctors. Their socialized system did not deteriorate so much as there are private property rights in other sectors and there is some competition even in health care itself. Our and their future depends, however, on our ability to preserve market economy, private property and whatever freedoms we have left with.
One of my favorite writers, William Somerset Maugham, wrote in 1941 that ” If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that, if it is comfort or money it values more, it will lose that too”.
In Liberty,
Yuri Maltsev
“One purpose of the public option is to save money.”
Who’s money ? Since when do socialist want to save other people’s money ?
I think the point is to eliminate money from things entirely, if possible, thus “saving” people from money itself and the awful decisions it involves. It seems that the main problem people have with a free market is that it will do what it does, rather than what they personally want it to do. Even if the alternative centralized control system is worse, at least it’s doing something you have control over (even if your options are merely between poor, bad, and really bad. The same could be said of having a population that’s well-informed, critical of things, and assertive of their views; they aren’t easily controlled,
The socialized medical systems in Europe and Canada work to a much better degree than the USSR’s (and soon the US’ as well) for one simple reason – Canada and the EU do not have empires to maintain.
In the aftermath of WWII Europe rejected empire and the wars that go with it. Instead the future EU turned its productive ability inward. They saw first hand what happens when people are miserable and desperate and they vowed never to let that happen again.
Meanwhile, the USSR embarked upon its quest for expansion before the burning ruins of Berlin had even cooled. In the Guns vs Butter debate, Guns won out in Moscow. You want a new X-Ray machine? Sorry, the Warsaw Pact needs more tanks.
(While the mid to late 1970′s were hard economic times in the US, I’d love to see the figures for how much money the Soviet Union lost in the Vietnam war.)
It took a while, but the US is now following the same path as the USSR. They had their worker’s revolution, we now have “spreading democracy.” And like the Soviets the US will go down kicking screaming and will give up the global bases only when the economy is so bad that even the troops can’t be paid and fed.
In the meanwhile the US will be in full “Ð’Ñе Ð´Ð»Ñ Ñ„Ñ€Ð¾Ð½Ñ‚Ð°!” mode (everything for the front!) You want a new MRI machine? Sorry, the Iraqi Army needs more tanks and…my, this sounds familiar.
The destruction of the America people’s wealth abroad is tied directly to the failings of the US health care system and the overall decline in the standard of living.
Turning control of health care over to a government that has nothing but conquest and killing on its mind is the most insane thing America could do. DC has no interest in healing anyone.
Mr. Maltsev,
Thank you so much for this outstanding article. Every economically-illiterate advocate of “universal” healthcare (but I repeat myself) should read it. This is the result of the system they’re trying to force at gunpoint on every American.
Yes, instead of repealing all of the government’s previous intrusions into the market that are the root cause of healthcare being so expensive, let’s pile on even more intrusions, force everyone at gunpoint to wait in line for healthcare, and give government bureaucrats final say in who receives treatment, in who lives or dies.
Except the government is synonymous with the wealthy, what is the net worth of the people in power and their customers? (private industry) who manufactures most of the weapons and who’s benefiting here? Please lets not blame “government” when the problem is certain groups of wealthy people and their vision for the world.
People here have no idea how government is run nor the who’s who in how government really operates, governments are owned by the private sector, and anyone who thinks differently is quite frankly historically illiterate.
This is why I find it so hard to take this site seriously sometimes, it’s like these people have no historical genuine scholarly background in history at all.
Like many others have said, job well done, Mr. Maltsev.
Your ending was fantastic. I walked away thinking of when people say, “Look how well Britain, France, Canada, et al. are doing,” and knowing that these plans cannot last. The government consumes, it does not produce. The Soviet Union did not fall immediately. This does not mean socialism is one bit of a success. As we saw, as time wore on, the USSR was forced to accept privatization more and more. This is inevitable.
Thank you, Mr. Maltsev, really well done. I could only add that my post-Soviet country, Latvia, is still coping with the Soviet-system health-care arrangements that are backed largely by the people. Private health services on a mass scale still seem a far-away future because the public mind does not accept them, leave alone the higher officials.
BobD,
“governments are owned by the private sector, and anyone who thinks differently is quite frankly historically illiterate.”
Where, Bob, do you find “the private sector” under socialism? Who owns the government in a socialist country?
“Right now your German health care system is not as bad as in the USSR”
…As long as you don’t mind being ripped a new one by mistake!
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/03/german-surgeons.html
BobD,
Those private companies and wealthy people use the power of the government to gain more power for themselves. If we do not allow the government such powers, where does that leave the private companies and wealthy people? …Not abusing the government for their own ends.
I read your article about the appalling condition of health care in the USSR.
You seem to extrapolate from the case of a broken system in a tyrannical country to say that all universal health care models are useless.
I don’t agree with that premise. Here in Australia we have a better quality of health care than the USA, and it is accessible to everyone. We can choose our own doctors, and they can charge us what they feel like. Public hospitals are free for all people. We have a flat tax specifically to fund the health system, of 1.5% of gross income. I know of no-one who would say our system has failed Australians.
As with all complex systems, there are some minor issues, and there are waiting lists for less than critical surgeries. I am an asthmatic, and I have presented at hospitals a couple of times in my life with troubles breathing, and always I received immediate and effective care, with no bill at the end of the treatment.
Please, do not tar all possible models for universal health care with the soviet tar brush. It is not valid to say that all such systems are doomed to failure simply because under the corrupt, tyrannical regime in the USSR it did not work.
I’m curious, you did not mention China’s health system in your article. Does it have the same problems as the USSR system did?
How about Scandinavian systems as a comparison?
Regards,
David Ross
Perth, Western Australia.
Let’s do some simple math here:
According to the OECD, the US spends 16% of GDP on health care, with 46% of that spending coming from government (Medicare and Medicaid). That works out to 7.35% of GDP to cove roughly 1/3rd of the population (Medicare + Medicaid).
So, if the government moved to cover 100% of Americans with a public option, you’ve got at least 22% of GDP being spent on health insurance.
However, you’d have a 20% increase in the number of covered individuals currently uninsured, which would push prices up about 20%.
So now, you’re looking at 26.4% of GDP being spent — and that’s without the inefficiencies that come with government operation!
Conversely, the private sector covers about 1/2 of the population for 8 1/2 percent of GDP.
If you took the trillion dollars in government money spent on health care every year, you could give every American $275 a month to buy health insurance — right in line with what a private plan costs (http://www.consumerhealthratings.com/index.php?action=showSubCats&cat_id=179).
Dear Mr. Ross,
thank you very much for your feedback!
I agree that in Australia, many European countries, as well as in Canada there are no dirty needles, odors, cats, and drunken doctors. Your socialized system did not deteriorate so much as there are still private property rights in other sectors and there is some competition left in health care itself. As I understand, in Australia, you can run a private medical institution; state, however, is the payee for services rendered. We deal here not with a government monopoly, but with a government monopsony – i.e. with a single buyer rather than single provider.
In many other countries of socialized health care government is the provider and medical personnel is all unionized, like public school teachers in the US!
I am glad that you believe that “Here in Australia we have a better quality of health care than the USA”. I do not share this belief, however as over 90 percent (!) of all world innovations in the field and 95% of new drugs are being generated from here. I travel a lot and never saw anything comparable with the quality of the US health care in Scandinavia, Germany or anywhere else.
Having said that, I should admit that the health care system in the US is also mostly government run and funded – almost half of health care expenditures covered by federal and state governments. Another half is a third party payee system which is also absurd from economics point of view. Both do not have anything to do with free market or capitalism. Contrary to your belief I’ve never saw a bill at the end of the treatment and it it shows that we are not price sensitive in our purchases of health care. Can you imagine buying anything else with a “third party payee” without looking at the price tag? Can you also imagine how much better it could be without heavy handed government regulations and mandates?
Your quality of life and care in Australia depends, however, on the market economy, private property and whatever freedoms you have been left with.
You’ve mentioned China, a country that I visit pretty often. I think that Chinese health care system is something better to avoid. Most people have very bad teeth and in rural areas you can see a lot of visibly sick people. They spend something like $50 per person on the average a year. Chinese government developed a great system for the Party bosses and foreigners. In this system they would present you with a fantastic bill at the end of your visit. I would presume that Party bosses would enjoy a free ride.
Be healthy,
Yuri
to david ross:
please read “the west australian”, there is a constant stream of stories relating to ambulances being diverted from one hospital to another, for want of beds. 100% occupancy of is a regular occurrence in perth public hospitals. waits in casualty for non-ambulance arrivals can be very long.
federal medicare (from a small start in the seventies) has become the budget item that threatens to eat up all others. much like a ponzi scheme, where the early-comers get the benefits and the late pay, our socialized medicine experiment has a while to play out fully.
the system is not as inefficient as canada to the extent that there exists a private health sector (medical practictioners, clinics and hospitals). dentistry has been socialized to a far lesser extent.
Mr. Ross,
If you’ve never read it, I would encourage you to read Frederic Bastiat’s work about the seen vs. the unseen.
Lots of government programs “work” in the sense that they provide some tangible value, but that’s not the important question; the important question is what a free market could provide instead if it weren’t crowded out by government.
With healthcare, imagine a system where medical professionals, medical facilities, and insurance companies had to earn their money on the basis of how well they serve their paying customers — the patients, and where competition and technological advances constantly increase quality of service and decrease prices, as they do in other, freer sectors of society.
Yes, lots of government programs “work” — but compared to what? Maybe when compared to nothing, but not when compared to what a free market could provide.
BobD,
Much of what you say is true. Most government regulations were enacted by big business, using its money and political connections to use the force of government to give it income and profit levels, monopolies, cartels, run competitors out of business, get other protections from competition, etc., that they wouldn’t be able to obtain on the market.
Then the average people who are the victims of this system are brainwashed in government schools to think that regulatory system is for their protection, because they wouldn’t support it if they understood its real purpose — to erode their standard of living for the benefit of their masters.
But I can’t imagine you’ve spent much time on this site; I’m sure many other people here would agree with you, and Murray Rothbard used to write about this sort of thing frequently.
What I can’t understand for the life of me is how people who are sophisticated and educated enough to know this can look at this situation and come to the conclusion that the answer is to give government even MORE power, or to have it run by different people.
No, the answer is to abolish government; then all businesses will have to earn their money based on how well they serve their customers.
Thanks very much for the article, Mr. Maltsev. Back in the days when my future was not behind me, I was Trust Chair for a union health care trust under ERISA. I read everything I could, including “Hillary Care,” (It was unreadable as it constantly referred to other Federal Laws, Acts, and Regulations in the middle of sentences; but I persevered through it.) Dealing at ground level with the economic pooh, it was clear to me that “government” health care was no answer.
The one issue of American health care that haunted me was the issue of infant mortality. I should have known that the stats were fixed (what is the definition of “infant”); as I had previously been involved in fixing government stats on recidivism as a parole agent.
Americans dont have to point the zenophobic finger. We have our own nightmares currently in the news. 1. Prison health care is a perfect parallel to “single payer.” If you like it, swell. 2. The hysteria over H1N1; innoclations, and their costs, are controlled by “Big Brother”, and it aint rationed; there aint none.
Thanks again Mr. Maltsev; I may not live longer, but I will sleep better.
Dear Overseas Bloggers,
I am glad that many of you from Europe and other countries believe that you have a better quality of health care than the US.
I do not share your enthusiasm, as over 90 percent (!) of all world innovations in the field and 95% of new drugs are being generated from here. I travel a lot and never saw anything comparable with the quality of the US health care in Scandinavia, Germany or anywhere else. This is the reason that ailing kings, dictators, presidents and top bureaucrats from all over the world end up in Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota to which I have the same access as they do and as well as 300 million of Americans and others living here, no matter legal or illegal. Many of you have been completely uninformed or misinformed by your mass anti-American mass media about the current access to health care in the US. Nobody is denied it except characters in Michael Moore’s fabrications.
Having said that, I should admit that the health care system in the US is also mostly government run and funded – almost half of health care expenditures are being covered by federal and state governments. Another half is a third party payee system which is also absurd from economics point of view. Both do not have anything to do with free market or capitalism. Can you imagine buying anything else with a “third party payee” without looking at the price tag? Can you also imagine how much better it could be without heavy handed government regulations and mandates?
Enjoy what’s left of our freedoms and this beautiful summer,
Yuri
Dear Mr Maltsev,
I think that you are right with what you said about the advantages of the current healthcare system in the US. I was just bothered about your comparison of a nationalized healthcare system with that of the USSR. Any new reader to Mises.org who wants to get informed about the disadvantages of Obamacare will not find your arguments convincing, since in many European countries government healthcare is doing much better than your desciption of the Soviet situation. Hence he will be easily convinced by lefties, that the opponents of Obamacare don’t have any valid arguments at all.
I think that the line of reasoning you have posted above is much more convincing than your original article.
I thought the article was tremendous because it penetrated the bogus statistics being used to justify government controlled “health care”. In fact, when statistics are controlled for different national treatments of infant mortality, as you discussed, and the additional nonmedical factors of accident rates and homicide, the US has the highest life expectancy and clearly the best overall medical care in the world. Steven Chapman wrote an article on the latter factors.
@ damocles: Would you mind posting a link to your sources? Thanks.
@ Toby
Here’s a link regarding accidents, homicides and life expectancy (pdf).
Literature on this topic is overabundant.
There is a great website on this topic:
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#britain
Google for more. My eyes and memory are sources for cats, odors and drunken doctors.
I am leaving for Northern Canadian wilderness (probably with no internet available) for a week, but would be glad to discuss these issues upon my return. Will try to stay out of their socialized medicine as well.
Best regards and be healthy,
Yuri Maltsev
Have the Paul Krugmans of the word actually laid out how a single payer system would actually go about allocating monies and resources in the healthcare sector? The Austrians have a very good case that governmental control of the economy leads to waste, misallocation of resources and bad outcomes. The Krugmans never seem to want to put real flesh on the bones of their single payer pipe dreams. They talk about lowering costs, expanding coverage etc. etc. I want to know how governments can actually detirmine the optimal numbers of MRIs in a year? How much should a Dr. be compensated for their time? If the single payer option says a routine Drs visit is $100 (maybe $0 or $20 to the patient) how will they actually arrive at that figure? All we hear are “the French do it”, “the Germans do it”,”Canada does it”. on and on? Let’s press them to talk about a little reality. As Prof. Maltsev alludes to, these countries still have private property, stock markets, and some competition within the healtcare sector. But there has to still be a rational calculation of cost and profit. And that requires private ownership of capital goods. I seriously doubt a single payer system will rubber stamp any price Drs and hospitals choose to assign to treatments and procedures.
Hey Yuri,
Don’t U think its an extreme comparison, USA to Russia?….Why not USA to Canada or a Scandanavian country?
U state, “many European social democracies, intend to privatize the healthcare system in the long run”?
What countries and how do U know this?
L. Iver
Yuri,
So if we get rid of government in all things what exactly are you going to do with the disabled, homeless and mentally ill?
To base any conclusion about socialism on the Soviet system is irrational since that system never reached any true level of socialism that could be considered a measure of its effectiveness. To unconditionally denounce Marx is just as irrational.
First, the US Health-Care system is in serious trouble for many reasons, most of them being the increasing and direct relationship between corporate profits and the actual provision of health care. This has been very well documented in terms of private insurance companies refusing to provide necessary treatments on the grounds that it is not cost justified.
Two, the pharmaceutical companies have turned serious research on its ear with its equally derisive quisling in the government, the FDA. As Harvard researchers have shown consistently, US drug development hasn’t produced a credible medicine in over 20 years and physicians today are now beginning to openly warn patients to stay away from drugs they have no understanding of beyond the fact that the doctor may be recommending them.
Statin drugs for example have been proven to be clinically useless.
The Soviet style system of health care may have been designed along socialist tenets however, there was never any socialism in the Soviet Union. In its place you had Stalinism which was another form of totalitarianism that lasted in varying degrees up to the collapse of the Soviet Union itself.
Now, I have no issue with capitalism. It is probably the best economic engine for growth that has been developed to date. However, the consequences for unrestricted capitalism have been well documented and demonstrated to the public at large. And yet, capitalist ideologues still insist on promoting such economics over any other form of economy merely on the basis of competition and profits, neither of which have ever shown to produce a better product except in those situations where there have been many small companies competing on a level playing field.
“Big Business” as we know it today is not capitalism but instead merely another form of oligarchical control over the business environment.
To those who submit to true Austrian economic theory there can be no doubt that what they are witnessing today is hardly any form of true capitalism as it was originally envisioned. And I challenge any such adherent to dispute my contention.
In terms of socialized medicine, no health care system is perfect. However, European socialized health care systems are currently outpacing anything the US has to offer with France having one of the finest systems in the world.
And in fact, the US has already seen the implementation of a highly successful socialized health care system in the early 1990s with the creation of the Rochester Health Care program that was so successful that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t even allow it to be a model for consideration when she was promoting her own health care form.
I suggest that Mr. Maltsev should go back to his research and refine his work to not rely so much on specific statistics but the underlying sociological factors that have dragged US health care into the gutter it now lays in in the same fashion as US and UK education has deteriorated in much the same way in the past 20 or 30 years…
To base any conclusion about socialism on the Soviet system is irrational since that system never reached any true level of socialism that could be considered a measure of its effectiveness. To unconditionally denounce Marx is just as irrational.
First, the US Health-Care system is in serious trouble for many reasons, most of them being the increasing and direct relationship between corporate profits and the actual provision of health care. This has been very well documented in terms of private insurance companies refusing to provide necessary treatments on the grounds that it is not cost justified.
Two, the pharmaceutical companies have turned serious research on its ear with its equally derisive quisling in the government, the FDA. As Harvard researchers have shown consistently, US drug development hasn’t produced a credible medicine in over 20 years and physicians today are now beginning to openly warn patients to stay away from drugs they have no understanding of beyond the fact that the doctor may be recommending them.
Statin drugs for example have been proven to be clinically useless.
The Soviet style system of health care may have been designed along socialist tenets however, there was never any socialism in the Soviet Union. In its place you had Stalinism which was another form of totalitarianism that lasted in varying degrees up to the collapse of the Soviet Union itself.
Now, I have no issue with capitalism. It is probably the best economic engine for growth that has been developed to date. However, the consequences for unrestricted capitalism have been well documented and demonstrated to the public at large. And yet, capitalist ideologues still insist on promoting such economics over any other form of economy merely on the basis of competition and profits, neither of which have ever shown to produce a better product except in those situations where there have been many small companies competing on a level playing field.
“Big Business” as we know it today is not capitalism but instead merely another form of oligarchical control over the business environment.
To those who submit to true Austrian economic theory there can be no doubt that what they are witnessing today is hardly any form of true capitalism as it was originally envisioned. And I challenge any such adherent to dispute my contention.
In terms of socialized medicine, no health care system is perfect. However, European socialized health care systems are currently outpacing anything the US has to offer with France having one of the finest systems in the world.
And in fact, the US has already seen the implementation of a highly successful socialized health care system in the early 1990s with the creation of the Rochester Health Care program that was so successful that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t even allow it to be a model for consideration when she was promoting her own health care form.
I suggest that Mr. Maltsev should go back to his research and refine his work to not rely so much on specific statistics but the underlying sociological factors that have dragged US health care into the gutter it now lays in in the same fashion as US and UK education has deteriorated in much the same way in the past 20 or 30 years…
Medicine in 1918 has no relevance to medicine in the last 50 years. I think tobacco smoke enemas were used as a treatment back then. Idiotic argument from someone who is supposed to be educated. More propaganda from the conservative right is all this is.
It needs to be changed, unless you want pharmaceutical companies to run your medical system like you have now in the US. I would venture a guess the biggest increase in health-care in the last 30 years has been the cost of the drugs or “pills”. They invent medical syndromes to make drugs for. Anyone heard of restless leg syndrome? Give me a break, go for a walk.
I’d like to know, in your world what is a government for?
If it’s not to protect and serve the people of that country and not bow to corporate interests at the expense of it’s citizens, then what is it for? Not protect them against the greed and misleading pharmaceutical companies I suppose.
You might think the US has the best medical system in the world, but ONLY if you can afford it. Let the rest die, is effectively what you are saying. Or is it get off their collective lazy asses? and get to work so they can afford the most expensive medical system in the world.
really anybody can believe that???
Not so far…. in Cuba, medical system is better than the US one.
What a joke! There is no health care system in Cuba! No medicines, no hospitals, no ambulances, just a hoax! Go and have a look yourself! Starving prison island, that’s what you would see. Sorry for these people.
Next Comments →
Comments on this entry are closed.