Like capitalist, like communist, like lots of things you've heard about

[vovat]

I have to wonder how some people can love capitalism. I don't mean thinking it's the less evil of multiple bad economic systems, which I can sort of see. I mean actually thinking it's GOOD. I suppose some of my aversion to capitalism and business is based more on my own perceptions than on reality. Not ALL businesses are cutthroat organizations concerned with nothing but the bottom line. You hear a lot about this sort of business, though, and I think that, coupled with the god-awful business lingo, gives business in general a bad name. Similar things could be said about capitalism.

I think I would consider myself socialistic to a certain degree. I wouldn't say I'm a communist, but I would say that it's a good idea for a society to adopt SOME socialistic policies. For instance, I think it's ridiculous that we don't have universal health care in the United States, and it's even MORE ridiculous that so many people seem not to want it. I'm sure you all remember how Bush was yakking about how the American health care system is the best in the world, which is untrue anyway, but even if it WERE true that we technically have the best doctors, medicine, etc., how is that benefitting those of us who can't afford these things? I guess that's part of the general Republican philosophy that only rich people should be entitled to anything. That leaves open the question as to why people in poor states voted for the guy, but I think that's a question that will never be sufficiently answered. But, getting back to the subject at hand, didn't the Declaration of Independence identify Life as an inalienable right? How can people who think it's perfectly all right to deny life-saving health care to the poor say they're in favor of life? I guess, when you get right down to it, our country has always been somewhat of an oligarchy. I have to wonder whether those who oppose universal health care realize how cruel and hypocritical they're being, though.

So, yeah, I think people should be guaranteed health care, food, and shelter. I guess I'm somewhat undecided on luxury items. While it would be nice for everyone who wants one to get a free GameCube and high-definition TV, would the logistics really work out? I don't know. As with world peace and international cooperation, though, I think this is an ideal that we probably won't be able to achieve anytime in the near future. We should be working toward it, though, and it seems like the modern United States is trying to stay as far away from it as possible.

The main problem, as I see it, is that our society and government have the apparent tendency to view businesses are more important than people. It doesn't matter how many people lose their jobs, or whether prices are outrageous, as long as companies are making money. Of course, the companies will also fight each other. You hear about how competition keeps prices down, and sometimes it does, but when a company takes competition to its logical extreme, and eliminates its opponents, that's no longer true. It's kind of a paradox, really. In order to keep competition alive, there need to be limits to it. That's not even mentioning that laissez-faire capitalism puts too much trust in entities that have proven themselves to be remarkably untrustworthy. It's the same way with trickle-down economics. If the government gives tax breaks to huge corporations, will it result in job creation and lower prices? Well, it technically could, but only if those who run the corporations decide to use their extra money that way. And I have a sneaking suspicion that quite a few of them won't.

Comments

[colleenanne.livejournal.com]

In my classes of late, we've had a lot of discussion on the topic of universal healthcare. In theory, it's absolutely great. However, in reality, it often stinks. One of my instructors is from northern Ireland, where they have universal healthcare. Her stepmom had to wait about two years to have her gallbladder removed, because it was "non emergent" (and as insignificant as the gallbladder might sound, I hear it can cause severe pain if it's not working right.) One of my grandma's friends in Canada died while waiting to have heart surgery.

My brother and my sister both solidly qualify as lower-class poor. However, they always have the healthcare they need. If they're in pain, they go to the ER. This seems to be pattern for most of the lower-class uninsured. The ER becomes their primary care, which is not what they intended. With this, however, you lack the preventative care that you might get from having a primary care physician. I think very few people are denied truly life-saving healthcare. If you have end stage renal failure, you're eligible for Medicaid, which pays for treatment. But I think it's the quality-of-life issues that fall through the healthcare cracks.

So basically, I'm not saying anything conclusive. I think universal healthcare would be great if they had an effective means of delivery. It just doesn't seem that that means has been developed yet.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Well, ideally, you wouldn't have to pay OR wait, but I guess that would require better organization than a lot of the systems in the world today. The thing is, the United States is presumably richer than a lot of these other countries, so it seems like they would be able to afford to put more money into health care, thereby avoiding a lot of these problems. It really doesn't seem to be a priority for the government, though.

I have to wonder about going to the hospital without insurance. Are there situations in which they will waive the fees entirely, or will you just end up paying for it for the rest of your life? I have heard that there are some situations in which you'll actually pay less if you DON'T have insurance, but I don't know how common that is. From what I've heard, doctors tend to take advantage of insurance companies.

[k1cup.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I have to weigh in on this as my first posting in your LJ.

From what I've heard, doctors tend to take advantage of insurance companies.

Whoah, Nelly! Where have you heard that? Perhaps from the same people who brought you this?

If anything, the insurance companies are taking advantage of us, the doctors. In return for the highly specialized services we provide, we get paid shit by the insurance companies. Not only that, we'll often be denied being paid shit and then have to go through appeals that require more paperwork, that in turn requires extra staff. I repaired some patient's hernia because he really had one and was symptomatic from it. Medicaid denied my reimbursement! So, I did an operation for free and opened myself up to the possibility of litigation for the rest of my life by this patient should he choose to sue at any time.

There are no opportunities to "take advantage" of insurance companies. Once you get health insurance, you'll realize that your doctor is jumping through hoops to get you the tests you need.

I think it's ridiculous that we don't have universal health care in the United States, and it's even MORE ridiculous that so many people seem not to want it.

Like colleenanne explained, universal healthcare looks good in Utopia. But Utopia is a figment of imagination. 'Tis true that UK-ers wait longer than any American would find tolerable for elective stuff. I doubt that preventive medicine is even feasible and the result is that diseases usually are detected in an advanced state that are deemed terminal and therefore untreatable. At least in the US, even people without insurance get treated for Stage IV cancers.

So many people may not want universal healthcare because, practically, it would probably translate into less available care. Try telling a woman she'll have to wait six months to a year for her mammogram. Or even that she doesn't qualify for one based on recommended guidelines. Try telling a parent that their child can't get any antibiotics for their cold because it's a virus and therefore not indicated. Those are only some of the scenarios I could envision confronting angry, entitled Americans.

the United States is presumably richer than a lot of these other countries, so it seems like they would be able to afford to put more money into health care

Where do you think the money will come from?

How can people who think it's perfectly all right to deny life-saving health care to the poor say they're in favor of life?

Life-saving healthcare cannot be denied to anyone who goes to an emergency room.

I have to wonder about going to the hospital without insurance. Are there situations in which they will waive the fees entirely, or will you just end up paying for it for the rest of your life?

There are programs that can be applied for called "charity care". That will take care of the hospital fees.

So, would you begrudge TMBG their monetary success in our capitalistic society? (or any other successful band you admire).

[vovat.livejournal.com]

From what I've heard, doctors tend to take advantage of insurance companies.

Whoah, Nelly! Where have you heard that? Perhaps from the same people who brought you this?

I'm not sure I've actually heard it at all, really. I think I was mostly thinking of how some doctors will reduce rates for patients who DON'T have insurance. I suppose there are other possibilities for why this would be so, though. Also, I hope it's obvious that I'm not siding with the insurance companies here. If I've made a mistake (which is quite possible), I apologize.

So, I did an operation for free and opened myself up to the possibility of litigation for the rest of my life by this patient should he choose to sue at any time.

Well, the lawsuit thing is a different issue entirely. While I'm opposed to frivolous lawsuits, I think there should be room for legitimate ones, and it might be complicated to create legislation that would stop one kind and not the other. In this particular case, however, it seems unlikely that this guy would have a reasonable civil suit, considering that the operation didn't cost him anything (well, unless you somehow made it worse, but that doesn't strike me as being too likely). What's reasonable doesn't always seem to matter to our court system, however.

At least in the US, even people without insurance get treated for Stage IV cancers.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but why wouldn't this be the case under a universal health care system?

Try telling a woman she'll have to wait six months to a year for her mammogram. Or even that she doesn't qualify for one based on recommended guidelines. Try telling a parent that their child can't get any antibiotics for their cold because it's a virus and therefore not indicated.

For a lot of people, wouldn't it come down to either not being able to afford treatment at all (under indivdually paid health care) or having to wait for it (under univeral health care)?

the United States is presumably richer than a lot of these other countries, so it seems like they would be able to afford to put more money into health care

Where do you think the money will come from?

Well, I could give an answer like, "Bush started a war in Iraq when the country was in debt. Where did THAT money come from?" I realize how poorly organized (or perhaps brilliantly organized, on the part of those who can take advantage of it) the federal budget is, and that, even if the government DOES have the dollars and cents required to give everyone free health care, it would be hard work to implement it. Still, shouldn't it be an ideal to work toward, even if it's never actually achieved?

Life-saving healthcare cannot be denied to anyone who goes to an emergency room.

But will they and their heirs end up paying for it for time immemorial? I'm sure not everyone is covered by the "charity care" programs.

So, would you begrudge TMBG their monetary success in our capitalistic society? (or any other successful band you admire).

Well, no, but perhaps some entertainers are overpaid. I'm not sure TMBG would fit into this category, although apparently Flans CAN afford rent on two Brooklyn apartments. I guess I'm not quite as down on artists because, while I'm sure there's plenty of cutthroat competition at the higher levels of the entertainment industry, there really isn't much at the individual level. TMBG doesn't seem to be in direct competition with anyone else. Granted, there's INDIRECT competition, in that buying other stuff means less money to spend on TMBG albums, and vice versa. But I haven't seen a move by TMBG to bankrupt other bands in order to benefit themselves.

It could also be argued that more equal distribution of wealth would be beneficial to musicians. After all, wouldn't 100 people with $20 each be more likely to buy one copy each of The Spine than one person with $2000 would be to buy 100 copies? There's no guarantee, obviously, but I think it seems logical.

[k1cup.livejournal.com]

If I've made a mistake (which is quite possible), I apologize.

Well, I apologize for coming out swinging. Um, it's a sensitive subject with me. Especially in the environment where it seems like there's an incredible backlash against doctors.

At least in the US, even people without insurance get treated for Stage IV cancers.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but why wouldn't this be the case under a universal health care system?

Patients with advanced cancers are usually considered terminal, such that chemotherapy/radiotherapy does little to increase survival or improve quality of life. In the USA, if patients want to try the chemo or RT in the hopes of being the one lucky person who might live to see another few months, the therapy will be offered. I've even seen people with no insurance get it (usually because by that time, they qualify for Medicaid or Medicare). Howver, from what I understand in the UK, terminal patients aren't treated. They're made comfortable until they die, and I don't think that chemo is offered. However, that information is from older doctors who used to practice in England but have been away for many years. It may have changed. But, it seems like in a universal healthcare system, the treatment has to be worth it to be offered. If it's not going to make a difference, there's no point in wasting the government's money when it can be used elsewhere in patients who will actually benefit.

For a lot of people, wouldn't it come down to either not being able to afford treatment at all (under indivdually paid health care) or having to wait for it (under univeral health care)?

Well, yes. But, I guess the point is that a lot of people wouldn't want to wait either. So, it may come down to universal health care for all, and more expedient health care for those who can afford to pay out of pocket.

Still, shouldn't it be an ideal to work toward, even if it's never actually achieved?

Yes, it would be ideal. It may actually help curb the rampantness of frivolous lawsuits and rising malpractice premiums.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I wasn't trying to come out against doctors as such, but more against health care as big business. I'm not even sure why that ended up being such a large part of my original post, when my main point was more that money-over-people systems annoy me.

So, it may come down to universal health care for all, and more expedient health care for those who can afford to pay out of pocket.

That might not be a bad idea. It would still give some preferential treatment to the rich, but not quite as much. A step in the right direction, I suppose.