British Health Care: 4 Dentists per 10,000 Patients, Ten-Year Waiting List, but Hey -- It's Free!

Phaedrus · Jun 23, 2004

Ten Year Wait to See NHS Dentist

A mother-of-three says she has waited 10 years for an appointment with an NHS dentist.

(BBC News Online)

Jane Goodacre is now due to see a dentist in December after spending almost a decade seeking treatment.

Ms Goodacre, from Cheltenham, is writing to Tony Blair to tell him of her disappointment at the state of the UK's health service.

She said: "I am not crusading through the streets about this but I want better provision."

Her Liberal Democrat MP Nigel Jones, said: "It is dire. People's teeth are suffering and they need to be checked regularly."

Cotswold and Vale Primary Care Trust, which oversees the provision of dentistry in Cheltenham, welcomed Mrs Goodacre's comments and said they helped to highlight problems.

Ms Goodacre said: "We need to be treating people's teeth at an early age or we will be storing up problems for the future."

A survey in May showed that 198 of the 304 primary care trusts had less than four NHS dentists per 10,000 people.

A spokeswoman from the Department of Health said there were plans to improve dental services and an announcement was expected in the next few weeks.

Oceans11 · Jun 23, 2004

Ahem.
Where that woman lives will have plenty of PRIVATE dentists.

Theres lots of PRIVATE dentists trying to rake in the cash in the UK.
(Non NHS dentists)
But the cost of a country house, three holidays a year, a BMW, a golf subscription and running the practice itself, is really high.

So the charges are beyond many people.
Most people avoid them if they can, and their oral hygiene suffers as a consequence.

So it falls to the state system to keep societies teethies sorted.

Thank God for socialism, or millions wouldn't go to the dentist at all.

If the private dentist sector wasn't so desperate to rape the public, it would probaly do ok. Its because they fleece people, that they don't get customers.

Oh, and its not free anymore, there are various charges now for dental work on the NHS.

The state system is also useful for differentiating between those dentists that give a shit about society, and those that are blinded by $$ signs.
(Like you

)

[This message was edited by eek on June 23, 2004 at 07:03 AM.]

Oceans11 · Jun 23, 2004

And don't forget how much more efficient the socialist system is at providing healthcare.

10% of GDP give us 100% coverage for our society.
(with glitches like dentists)

The US system is 15% of GDP and covers...who the heck knows.
(with glitches like 40 million people having no cover)

Phaedrus · Jun 23, 2004

Don't forget eek, I myself have repeatedly characterised the U.S. healthcare system as about the worst in the world.

Interesting to see you criticise it though, since it seems exemplary of the end result of the sort of "middle of the road" economic policies you claim are the key to social prosperity.

The Brit system, on the other hand, is a well-seasoned socialist failure. For you to claim 100% health coverage for British citizens is, if you'll pardon the pun, sick, given the many shortcomings of the system. As far as your high-priced dentists go, I can assure you that a) they are not charging one cent more than their paying clients are willing to pay, and b) the reason why there is no pressure on them to reduce prices is that there is no incentive for the general public in Britain to put price pressure on them. In any given economic context, if a consumer is given the choice of resonably similar products or services, with one for free and the other for a cost -- any cost -- in the vast majority of cases the consumer is going to go for the free choice, no matter what the tradeoff is in convenience, quality etc. And in Britain, where one must work until the end of May just to pay the tax bill, one needs to cut corners wherever possible, right?

Phaedrus

Oceans11 · Jun 23, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Interesting to see you criticise it though, since it seems exemplary of the end result of the sort of "middle of the road" economic policies you claim are the key to social prosperity.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny that.

Cos I see it as the inevitable end result of a private healthcare system.

Millions with no cover.

A massive GDP overspend.

One of the biggest reasons for personal bankruptcy filing in the US is healthcare costs, something that is totally unthinkable over here btw.
With a public system, people don't go personally bankrupt from medical costs when they're ill. Only the insane private health system does that to people.
Its public. Like a road. You use it when you need it.

And once you factor in the 15% of citizens with no cover, and remove the corporate employee discounts(a perk that won't last forever anyway), the USA is looking at 20% of GDP

with the private healthcare system.

xpanda · Jun 23, 2004

I don't generally disagree with Phaedrus on his economic and taxation views, but I have to draw the line at public health care (and education.) The marginal loss in efficiency that the public system brings to the table is, in my view, more than made up for by the sense of security derived by the citizens who have the luxury to take it for granted. I simply cannot imagine a society which would even think to profit from the sick and dying.

Oceans11 · Jun 23, 2004

I would go a bit further than X on the public provision side.
Public utilities like electricy, gas and water should be state controlled, like healthcare and education. Some public housing isn't a bad idea either.

Probaly the railways too because of infrastructure implications, they're too important to leave to the private muppets with their addiction to dividend returns.

That still leaves the capitalists plenty of areas to rape the public with.

But some people want it all

And then they blame someone else when it falls on its arse.

Phaedrus · Jun 23, 2004

posted by eek:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
posted by Phaedrus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Interesting to see you criticise it though, since it seems exemplary of the end result of the sort of "middle of the road" economic policies you claim are the key to social prosperity.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny that.

Cos I see it as the inevitable end result of a private healthcare system.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What on earth makes you think we have a private healthcare system in the U.S.?

We used to, until the socialists moved in on it decades ago Now what we have is a private system that has been bloated by a combination of bizarre insurance regulations, a massively inefficient socialised pay structure for the elderly and the poor, a morbid dance between medical and insurance industry corporate giants and the government, etc.

All of that subsidising and lobbying makes the net cost to the very poor and the very old approximately -0- for anything, and an endless litigation environment means that anyone can opt for any service regardless of whether or not they can afford it, and regardless of whether or not they even need it. This creates the economic phenomenon of seperating cost from consumption for a large part of the American population, which in turn drives the cost of any given service subjected to this phenomenon through the roof -- hence you have people like myself who have no insurance who pay through the nose for every little thing, while people like Mrs. Phaedrus can have tens of thousands of dollars worth of joint surgery and pay something like $1,400.00 for the whole thing, including post-op painkillers and physical therapy and all that because she opted to go along with the system.

You're living in a dream world if you think that what we have in the U.S. is a private medical system.

posted by xpanda:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I don't generally disagree with Phaedrus on his economic and taxation views, but I have to draw the line at public health care (and education.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not possible to agree with my economic and taxation views, and disagree with my views on socialism, while remaining honest.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
The marginal loss in efficiency that the public system brings to the table is, in my view, more than made up for by the sense of security derived by the citizens who have the luxury to take it for granted.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A marginal loss in efficiency? Are you serious? Have you analysed the state of the Canadian health care system lately, the one that the U.N. calls best in the world or #2 or somewhere very far up there?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I simply cannot imagine a society which would even think to profit from the sick and dying.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The sick and the dying are not the only consumers of medication and medical services. However, why should the sick and the dying not be subject to the exact same economic laws as everybody else? Its's not like they have a choice -- they are subject to those laws even if the nanny state tries to circumvent them. It's like trying to set up a state subsidy to save everyone from gravity; just a little less improbable.

posted by eek:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I would go a bit further than X on the public provision side.

Public utilities like electricy, gas and water should be state controlled, like healthcare and education. Some public housing isn't a bad idea either.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, so that it can be just as fúcked up as health care and education ... make sense in a sort of twisted egalitarian way.

(BTW, "equal" does not have to be "we're all equally miserable with this system," you know.)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Probaly the railways too because of infrastructure implications, they're too important to leave to the private muppets with their addiction to dividend returns.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please take some time out soon to study the history of Amtrak.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
That still leaves the capitalists plenty of areas to rape the public with.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right. Cite a single example of capitalists raping the public please -- I can bet 97% you will not, opting instead for fascist collusion or even socialism masquerading as the market.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
But some people want it all

And then they blame someone else when it falls on its arse.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cite one example of a free market falling on its ass. Please don't cite the Great Depression, as that just makes you look even more idiotic than normal when you do, given that it shows that you either know fúck-all about American history or that you choose to leave it out of discussions of the Depression.

Phaedrus

Oceans11 · Jun 23, 2004

Its not MY fault that you deny the blatantly obvious from the 20's & 30's.
Its because you're a one party extremist.
Anything that upsets the one-party-drivel applecart has to be shouted down.
I just stick the key up your ass, give it a couple of turns, and away you go.
--------------------------------------
Anyway. Lets try and stay on-topic.
I'll quote a bit you 'missed' in your quoting.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> One of the biggest reasons for personal bankruptcy filing in the US is healthcare costs, something that is totally unthinkable over here btw.
With a public system, people don't go personally bankrupt from medical costs when they're ill. Only the insane private health system does that to people.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If your healthcare system is not private.

How is it that healthcare costs can bankrupt individuals who are ill?

Oceans11 · Jun 23, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> The sick and the dying are not the only consumers of medication and medical services. However, why should the sick and the dying not be subject to the exact same economic laws as everybody else? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you not see the craziness in stuff like that?

Heck, why don't we all just get guns and rob each other.

Phaedrus · Jun 23, 2004

posted by eek:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Its not MY fault that you deny the blatantly obvious from the 20's & 30's.

Its because you're a one party extremist.

Anything that upsets the one-party-drivel applecart has to be shouted down.

I just stick the key up your ass, give it a couple of turns, and away you go.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NO eek, you are an idiot and/or liar. (I hope that my personal detstation of you has not been missed btw.)

To say that the Great Depression was caused by "greedy capitalists" is as vacuous as saying that the Civil War was "about slavery." Did a rampant and non-transparent speculation market play a part in the stock market crash of '29? Absolutely; beyond a shadow of a doubt. Was the schism between the Union and Confederacy viz. slavery a major part of the tension that led to war? Absolutely. But to chalk either of these major events up to the cause celébre is to just abandon all adult thought.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Anyway. Lets try and stay on-topic.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, run from the challenges as always, you subhuman piece of shit. I hope your free doctor finds a lump in your testicles at your next checkup.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I'll quote a bit you 'missed' in your quoting.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
One of the biggest reasons for personal bankruptcy filing in the US is healthcare costs, something that is totally unthinkable over here btw.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With a public system, people don't go personally bankrupt from medical costs when they're ill. Only the insane private health system does that to people.

If your healthcare system is not private.

How is it that healthcare costs can bankrupt individuals who are ill?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

People go bankrupt from tax bills. Does this mean that we have a private system of taxation?

Additionally, in case you did not know this (and I know -0- about bankruptcy in the UK) bankruptcy in the U.S. seldom has anything to do with insolvency. Like most other forms of litigation, it is easy as pie for the average person to walk away from his debts by filing for bankruptcy "protection" in the U.S. All he has to do is allow himself to get over his head in debt for whatever reason, and the court will basically hand him a clean slate. Lovely system -- reward the slothful and slovenly at the expense of the industrious and austere.

(like socialism)

It is against the law in the U.S. for any person to be denied emegency medical treatment, regardless of whether or not they can pay for it, even if they say so coming in the front door of the hospital. It is also against the law for any medical services company to attach liens or file for garnishments of any person making a regular payment on a medical bill. Last time I checked (admittedly at least ten years ago) this was $ 35.00 per month. In other words, when my father had a brain anuerysm a couple of years ago, and his total hospital and surgery and outpatient and other bills were just over $ 100,000.00 he could have paid $ 35.00 per month to the provider and there would be fúck-all they could do about it if they didn't like it.

Nobody in the U.S. is bankrupted on medical bills alone; associated costs with loss of income or prescriptions outside of insurance or Medicaid or factors such as that would have to be coming into play. And this would have to be a small number of people you are talking about, to fall between the cracks of a) insurance, b) income, c) savings, d) family who would take care of them, e) charitable organisations, and f) government aid -- maybe, maybe 100,000 people a year out of 280 million (0.35%) And the courts give most of them a clean slate as a last resort.

Surely you will concede that a proportionate number of people in the UK "fall through the cracks" in the same manner as this, such as the above-mentioned Ms. Goodacre.

Phaedrus

xpanda · Jun 23, 2004

First off, I am going to assume that you have not been a consumer of the Canadian health care system and are accepting the widely touted media reports on its condition. The principle issue, as Angus once pointed out in this forum, is regulation by the Physician's Association, blatantly interfering with supply and demand, placing restrictions on the number of doctors who graduate each year. In the end, we have a serious shortage of doctors which of course leads to extended wait times, lack of family physicians, etc. However, I need to point out that the bulk of what people have to wait for is not dire medical attention -- it is those very services that are not attributed to the sick and the dying that you point to. (More importantly, it is untrue that ALL available health care services are covered by the system, if that is the impression you are under. There are many which we must pay out of pocket for, or resort to extended health benefits provided by employers or private insurers. Pharmaceuticals, for one. Dental coverage for another.)

The problem with privatised medicine is that, eventually, people begin to realise that the health of the poor and elderly is deemed expendible. While it may be easy for you to view every human being in terms of dollar signs, most people are uncomfortable with that view. Socialised medicine in bed with privatised (for profit) medicine is a worse condition than 100% of the former, as your bloated health care system would indicate.

Social Darwinism is all fine and dandy when limited to Porsche vs. Mitsubishi or two-star vs. five-star travel. But on the issue of health care, you have to be a major league asshole to not extend the same right to life as everyone else.

[This message was edited by xpanda on June 23, 2004 at 11:50 AM.]

Phaedrus · Jun 23, 2004

posted by xpanda:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
First off, I am going to assume that you have not been a consumer of the Canadian health care system and are accepting the widely touted media reports on its condition.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be fair, I am basing it largely on Canadian media reports, some industry and government reports, and anecdotal evidence from Canadian acquaintances of mine (some of which is positive and some of which is negative.) But no, I have never personally been a consumer of the Canadian healthcare system.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
The principle issue, as Angus once pointed out in this forum, is regulation by the Physician's Association, blatantly interfering with supply and demand, placing restrictions on the number of doctors who graduate each year.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have that here too with the AMA, the old guild mentality that is evident in many professions, and which almost always contributes to the detriment of the consumer/client/patient while enhancing the benefit of the professionals in question.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
However, I need to point out that the bulk of what people have to wait for is not dire medical attention -- it is those very services that are not attributed to the sick and the dying that you point to.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, as I have said numerous times here, there are laws in place that protect people from being rejected for dire medical attention in the States, but nobody seems to think this makes the US eligible for any brownie points.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
(More importantly, it is untrue that ALL available health care services are covered by the system, if that is the impression you are under. There are many which we must pay out of pocket for, or resort to extended health benefits provided by employers or private insurers. Pharmaceuticals, for one.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This part I did know.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
The problem with privatised medicine is that, eventually, people begin to realise that the health of the poor and elderly is deemed expendible.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't follow what you are saying. I am fairly certain that there is a vanishingly small number of physicians in the US who view the poor and elderly as "expendable."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
While it may be easy for you to view every human being in terms of dollar signs, most people are uncomfortable with that view.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While it might be easy for you to view all capitalists as money-grubbing freaks, most of the ones with which I am acquainted are quite uncomfortable with that view. I donate more money to charity every year than most people will ever make, but I refuse to pay a nickel more in taxes than I can avoid without having to flee the country. It's about choice, and self-direction. (BTW, it may shock you to know that I do not donate money to charities out of any sense of civic duty or collectivism, and not for tax breaks [haven't filed since 1995] but because it genuinely makes me feel good to go to bed at night feeling like I have done some good in the world. That, from a capitalist!)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Socialised medicine in bed with privatised (for profit) medicine is a worse condition than 100% of the former, as your bloated health care system would indicate.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, its worse than the former and the latter. That's not a matter of theory -- it's working right now as we speak here in the U.S., where we have more money than any other country on earth, the best-trained doctors, the most advanced medical technology, and an hospital infrastructue so over-developed that there are hospitals trying to put one another out of business because market share is precious -- yet we have, as eek is fond of pointing out, about the worst expenditure:coverage ratio in the world.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Social Darwinism is all fine and dandy when limited to Porsche vs. Mitsubishi or two-star vs. five-star travel. But on the issue of health care, you have to be a major league asshole to not extend the same right to life as everyone else.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea what the first part of this means, but I can tell you something about the second part: a "right to life" is not a "right to not die." You have a right to life inasmuch as you have the right to not have your life taken away by others. You do not have a right to not get run over by a car if you walk out into a busy street, or to not catch cancer, or to not get struck by lightning. Confusing a right to life with an automatic claim on anything which could be construed as a necessity to life is the gateway to socialist totalitarianism -- because surely you also need food to live, and housing, and clothing, and to live in any meaningful way you need a job, and transportation, and and and and and gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme. There is a huge difference.

Phaedrus

xpanda · Jun 23, 2004

Let's clarify on your last point since it is obviously ideology which separates our views. I will first state that I understand that food and shelter and clothing are essentials to living, and will add that I support a welfare system. I concede that it is not without its share of problems, although our respective systems are likely different enough to have different problems.

Under all circumstances, I prefer to live in a society that says, yes, you do have the right to life's fundamentals. Having access to health care, food, etc., is not quite the same thing as being guaranteed the right to not get hit by a car. One is presumably an accident, the other is an organised form of communal living which extends consideration and access to life's necessities. I am glad to hear you are charitable, although I am not surprised by this (I seem to recall you once saying that charities do better to help the poor than do gov't programmes.) It is good to see that a capitalist understands the shortcomings of the marketplace when it comes to filling in certain gaps.

I wonder, and this will confuse me forever, why you would agree that the gov't should play a role in establishing a military and law enforcement and not deem those organisations socialist, yet other forms of protection, such as health care, make your head spin? Why do I have the right to be protected from foreign enemies or rapists, but not be treated for illness? Are both not a covert attempt to preserve lives? Or, would you prefer that the military and law enforcement be privatised?

Phaedrus · Jun 23, 2004

posted by xpanda:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Under all circumstances, I prefer to live in a society that says, yes, you do have the right to life's fundamentals.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does not matter if 100% of society says you have a right to these things, you do not. The Lockean principles of life, liberty and estate (not the "pursuit of happiness," which is anti-market bunk which infected the Founding Fathers ... apparently no politicians are immune to psychopoliticosis) are not just arbitrarily-drawn lofty notions as most people misunderstand them; they are carefully-reasoned and exhuastively researched means to an end -- the freedom of the individual -- which Locke spent a lifetime studying and codifying, and which are as empirically testable and valid as any axiom of Euclid or Pythagoras.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Having access to health care, food, etc., is not quite the same thing as being guaranteed the right to not get hit by a car. One is presumably an accident, the other is an organised form of communal living which extends consideration and access to life's necessities.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The key word there is "communal." These needs would be far better met in a communistic system than a socialist one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I am glad to hear you are charitable, although I am not surprised by this (I seem to recall you once saying that charities do better to help the poor than do gov't programmes.) It is good to see that a capitalist understands the shortcomings of the marketplace when it comes to filling in certain gaps.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not a "shortcoming of the marketplace" that some people are poor. The free market has advanced the standard of living worldwide on a breathtaking scale in the last century, and has done so despite the best efforts of socialists and fascists around the world. However, unlike all the other -isms capitalism does not make idiotic and unfilfillable promises to put a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage, because it is not possible to provide something gratis when there is a means of production required for that something to "get there." This, again, has nothing to do with philosophy or opinon -- it is a matter of economic law, no different from gravity as a law of physics. There is literally no such thing as something for nothing -- even in a society without money there are raw materials, labour, distribution, etc. which must be acheived somehow.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I wonder, and this will confuse me forever, why you would agree that the gov't should play a role in establishing a military and law enforcement and not deem those organisations socialist, yet other forms of protection, such as health care, make your head spin?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that. I think that all politicians, most judges, many political lobbyists, a small percentage of law enforcement officers, and a sprinkling of media and religious/social iconoclasts are legitimate targets for assassination. In the meantime, in the real world, this isn't likely to happen without the entire planet turning into a free-for-all bloodbath -- a situation which I would undoubtedly survive and from which I would very likely profit enormously, and yet which I view with utmost dread (a capitalist dreading a profitable scenario, oh my!) So, the only other option is to just wait it out, and given my current age, general health, net worth and distribution of same, and contact network I will almost certainly outlive the current political scenario in the world today. That'll do. Maybe if pirate cloning technology evolves in time I'll be able to enjoy it without being so wrinkly and dried up that the hookers mistake me for an elephant-skin rug.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Why do I have the right to be protected from foreign enemies or rapists, but not be treated for illness? Are both not a covert attempt to preserve lives?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The principles are vastly different. Your rights are rights against human action. You have those rights regardless of whether or not any government or individual or corporation or Boy Scout troop chooses to acknowledge them. If I rape and kill you, you had a right to life and freedom of choice (liberty) viz. your sexual partners right up to the end -- and I willfully and deliberately violated them. It is therefore incumbent that justice be served in some manner, not as an issue of revenge and certainly not because it will bring you back, but because my willful and deliberate violation of another's rights must be analysed, evaluated and subjected to whatever steps are necessary to ensure that it will not happen again (alternatively, if I do not kill you, there will of course be the matter of somehow leveling back out the scales for my violation of your rights. Obviously I can't un-rape you, but some system of recompense without resorting to mere retribution would be in order.)

As you can see (and as you of course already knew) justice is a very complex issue linked to human interaction. We could fill up fifty threads on the topic and never cover every point, but the bottom line is that justice exists, ostensibly, to protect your rights and generally (theoretically) encourage others to respect those rights.

This is an infinitely removed paradigm from you having a baby born with, say, multiple sclerosis. While undeniably a tragedy, there is simply no system of government which can adequately ameliorate or even address this problem without involving the involuntary coercion of others to offset your loss.

In other words, all any socialist system does -- whether medical, educational, general welfare, whatever -- is attempt to ease one person's pain and suffering by spreading it around to as many other people as possible; it is a form of egalitarian ideal acheived by making everyone equally miserable.

As I said above and have mentioned elsewhere, many of the ills which socialism attempts to fix and fails could be quite easily solved in a communistic environment. But because communism by its nature has a strong element of anarchism, it can never support a political class -- which is why Marx and Engels and Proudhon and most other socialist "thinkers" always stated communism as the ideal, and socialism as the means to the end, knowing fully well that this was an outrageous lie that any thinking person could get around.

I digress. The point is, there is a difference between the several threats to your well-being that are out there, which can generally be divided up into bad guys, falling helicopters, and birth defects. The differences are enormous, even if the outcome is often the same. To attempt to apply the same solution to these scenarios based on the outcome is like trying to treat the symptom rather than the sickness -- which is why it will never work, and will require (and demonstrably has required) constant tweaking, increasing costs, decreasing satisfaction, and eventually (as in the exemplary case of the pseudo-communist socialist empire that was the U.S.S.R.) collapse and chaos.

Phaedrus

Phaedrus · Dec 16, 2004

posted by eek:

I would go a bit further than X on the public provision side.
Public utilities like electricy, gas and water should be state controlled, like healthcare and education. Some public housing isn't a bad idea either.

Probaly the railways too because of infrastructure implications, they're too important to leave to the private muppets with their addiction to dividend returns.

(emphasis added)

Viva l'etat!

Pittsburgh Rrail Transit Fares Become Nation's Most Costly

by Mark Scolforo
(Associated Press)

HARRISBURG, Pa. - Pennsylvania's public-transportation funding crisis reached a new stage Thursday as Pittsburgh's transit agency raised fares to the highest level of any rail system in the nation and approved deep cuts in service.
The Port Authority of Allegheny County boosted its base fare by 43 percent to $2.50 and cut service by 27 percent to address a $30 million budget gap.

Fares for buses, rails, and other services will increase by 25 cents on Feb. 1, then by 50 cents next summer. Service will be reduced by 12 percent in early March and 15 percent about four months later, with dozens of routes to be shut down or limited.

The distinction of having the country's highest rail fares may not last long, as the board of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority was expected to increase cash fares for Philadelphia-area bus and subway riders from $2 to $3 at an afternoon meeting Thursday.

SEPTA, which has a $62 million operating deficit of its own, also was poised to raise the cost of tokens from $1.30 to $2. The proposed changes would be phased in.

The new policies demonstrate that public transportation is in "a death spiral," said Stephen Donahue, co-founder of Save Our Transit, a Pittsburgh rider-advocacy group.

"Given the situation the state put public transit in, I guess today was really about the best we could expect," he said. "But it's still a disaster, and we're still angry."

Transit officials said they hoped for action by the state Legislature to bring an infusion of cash that would forestall more drastic cutbacks.

Paul P. Skoutelas, the Pittsburgh authority's chief executive, said if that happens, his agency will reconsider the scope of the fare increases and service reductions.

"It all depends on the timing, and it all depends, obviously on how much money they would appropriate," he said.

<TABLE class=adwrap cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=left><TBODY><TR><TD><SCRIPT language=JavaScript>DisplayAds ('Middle');</SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript1.1 src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N3016.phillyburbs.com/B1401540.7;sz=300x250;ord=%5Btimestamp%5D?"></SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT><AHREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N3016.phillyburbs.com/B1401540.7;sz=300x250;ord=[timestamp]?"><IMGSRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N3016.phillyburbs.com/B1401540.7;sz=300x250;ord=[timestamp]?"BORDER=0 WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 ALT="Click Here"></NOSCRIPT><NOSCRIPT><ATARGET="_top"HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v3|31e3|3|0|%2a|b%3B9566165%3B0-0%3B0%3B10542723%3B4307-300|250%3B7662937|7680833|1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://www.delawarevalleyvolvodealers.com"><IMGSRC="http://m3.doubleclick.net/690332/300x250_04holidayAWD.gif"BORDER=0></NOSCRIPT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
About 500 jobs in the 3,100-employee Port Authority of Allegheny County will eventually be eliminated under its plan, which will balance the books by the end of the next fiscal year. Ridership is expected to fall as a result.

Also Thursday, state Transportation Secretary Allen D. Biehler was meeting with Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration officials in Washington to seek clarification about the rules for applying federal highway money to cover transit costs.

Since the early 1990s, Pennsylvania has transferred - or "flexed" - nearly $586 million into public transportation infrastructure, equipment and maintenance, but the current budget problems involve operating costs that have not been considered eligible for such transfers, said Pennsylvania Department of Transportation spokesman Rich Kirkpatrick.

"We're there to make sure we have a clear understanding of the flexing mechanism," he said.

Pennsylvania's 41 public-transit agencies, which receive $533 million annually in state subsidies, currently have operating deficits that total about $190 million for this year and next year combined.

An option currently under consideration to plug the gap would be for the highway department to delay $57 million in projects and combine that money with $133 million in new revenues from an increase in the state's oil franchise tax that is expected to take effect in January.

Gov. Ed Rendell vetoed a bill on Dec. 8 that would have provided $6 million to rural mass-transit agencies after previously saying he intended to sign it. Rendell called the measure "stopgap funding" that did not provide a permanent solution, and cited opposition by a public-transportation advocacy group.

DarrylParsons · Dec 16, 2004

eek said:
I just stick the key up your ass, give it a couple of turns, and away you go.

Phaedrus said:
I hope your free doctor finds a lump in your testicles at your next checkup.

I've really missed these Phaedrus-Eek bouts. Good to see you guys back at it!

charleslanger · Dec 16, 2004

Quote Phaedrus:

anyone can opt for any service regardless of whether or not they can afford it, and regardless of whether or not they even need it

Exactly!!!

The waste is absolutely horrendous:

folks feel that because they paid a few tax dollars and worked so many years, they're now entitled to everything..BUT worse......

they don't take care of the funds the government(rest of us!) have to dole out, because it's not coming out of their pocket:

they do not fix underlying causes(like changing their diet, cutting down on booze, cigs, tv--doing some exercise), instead going for expensive drugs & therapies that superficially treat symptoms & keep them alive, though in often poor condition. If you've ever overheard a conversation among such a group of people: a contest of who gets the most expensive medications & personal home assistants for free-- free transportation to get their hair done, etc.-- it's disgusting. If i ever become like that, someone please shoot me & relieve my misery.

JDeuce · Dec 17, 2004

I can't believe the major problem with socialized health care isn't screamingly obvious to anyone who endorses it.

These Brit dentists are probably on salary and have no incentive to handle volume. Why bother staying late and treating extra patients if you'll make the same amount of money either way?

10,000/4 = 2500. If there are 2500 patients to a dentist and he sees 30 a day for cleanings and check ups (I'm guessing my dentist sees one every 15 minutes, with the help of 4 technicians that do the actual cleaning)...he could then handle 150 per week, 600 per month, or 2400 every 4 months (not even counting weekends). That means he could see everybody in just over 4 months.

Despite all that, my dentist still has time to do crowns and other work. The reason he works this hard because he owns the business; the more people he treats, the more money he makes. His quality is excellent; he's 30 minutes from my home and work, but I still go to him.

2500 patients per dentist is put up like it is a ridiculous number, but the average (at least here in the States) is probably much better. By last count (1991) there were 1650 people per dentist in the US:

http://www.washingtonfreepress.org/23/Working.html

This is your problem with socialized medicine. If these Brits were working any where near as hard as US dentists, it shouldn't take any more than a year for a visit.

Socialized medicine sucks.

eek. · Dec 18, 2004

Dude
7 out of 10 yanks dont even have a dental plan. :>Grin>

A quick look on the net at US dental stuff exposes a minefield of plans with 20-80% off 'fees'....subject to blah de blah blah.

Over here:
You go to the fúcking dentist.
Then you go home.

BTW. NHS dentists only have a contract with a quota of patients.
They can do as much private stuff as they want outside that contract.

As far as "waste of resources" is concerned, learn some basic arithmetic.
We cover 100% of the population with 10% GDP.
You have your private pig-in-a-poke system and it costs you 15% of GDP.