it works well in france. and germany. and canada. and ….

a socilaized system would fix that problem too. it would basically hire only about as many specialists as were needed [or wanted].

The problem of socialized medicine is one of management – it would add several layers to the process that are not necessary. …. People and med schools tend to over look the fact that most doctors have to become small business owners and they aren’t trained for it. This results in a lot of waste in the system.

doctors who have an aptitude for running a business could well decide at some point to just go run businesses instead of doctoring.

if it frees up doctors from the worries and hassles of running a business and allows them to spend more time with me-the-patient, i’d gladly accept, and pay for, another layer or two. very likely i’m going to anyway, since doctors often hire office managers and staff, or office managment consultants, already.

i don’t mind coming up with something new to call it, but i don’t want to mislead people either, so i tend to stick with the already-in-use labels. i’m not wedded to this viewpoint though.

agree absolutely on the co-existence of cooperation and competition. in fact, i’d argue that both are necessary, as well as good.

Higher skilled professions may deserve higher compensation to encourage continued investment in one’s education beyond some minimum.

socialized medicine does not necessarily mean every doctor would be paid exactly the same. it just means that the doctors would be employees of the government. the government would be free to value some specialties more than others [it already does now]. also, many government-employed physicians can get either their medical school training, or specialist training paid for by their employer.

We are not for equality of outcome but equality of opportunity, I think. The fact is we don’t have equality of opportunity now. This applies both to those seeking a way to produce social values and those needing access to them.

i don’t feel like we even need to guarantee equality of opportunity. we can easily [and relativelyinexpensively] redress the current monstously unfair inequality we’re supporting now. we’re a rich enough people to provide excellent health care to every single person living in this country, whether they’re here legally or illegally, and we can do so without even raising taxes, if we ditch the for-profit insurance industry.

The idea of social competition is based in social currency of some kind, a way of increasing one’s respect by providing socially desirable services.

agree. wholeheatedly. 100%.

Perhaps we cannot enumerate it yet but some sense of karma exists throughout blogtopia.

i’m content to just enumerate the bad karma of our present system.

Higher skilled professions may deserve higher compensation to encourage continued investment in one’s education beyond some minimum.

We are not for equality of outcome but equality of opportunity, I think. The fact is we don’t have equality of opportunity now. This applies both to those seeking a way to produce social values and those needing access to them. The idea of social competition is based in social currency of some kind, a way of increasing one’s respect by providing socially desirable services. Perhaps we cannot enumerate it yet but some sense of karma exists throughout blogtopia.

People and med schools tend to over look the fact that most doctors have to become small business owners and they aren’t trained for it. This results in a lot of waste in the system.

both inner city and rural areas here in the united states are hurting for doctors, and the lucre to be had in some of the specialties is one of the reasons that we don’t have enough general practitioner types. i think the fully socialized model would go further towards alleviating both of situations than would medicare-for-all.

i do think it would be easier to convince americans to go with social insurance, like canada, than to take their chances with socialized medicine.

Conversely, true communism requires small scale operations like the Kibutz or communes. It doesn’t scale worth a damn because it is a true democracy which tends to be a major mess if you try it beyond a few thousand people.

Third world countries actually have the bulk of the resources, what they lack is the ability to turn them into products rather than raw materials. That is intentional part of the colonial system.

One of the probable benefits I see from a single-payer system is more availability of healthcare in rural areas. If everyone has the same coverage, healthcare providers will receive the same payments, no matter where they locate, and the less expensive rural areas will become more attractive.

there are an awful lot of people out there who are now willing and able to pay for healthcare, and think they are paying for it now, but until they actually try to use that “insurance” they’re paying for, they don’t know that their part of the discussion extends beyond paying for it.

yep. got it. i’ve done some homework, and i’d be happy to have either one, single-payer social insurance or socialized medicine. i spent my [extended] coffee break this morning listening to [and coveting] the litany of excellent care and “excess” services that a friend of mine is getting from the va system.