GreyWolf

It is a basic fundamental issue - like having food to eat and air to breath in any civilized society. It is not about money or any opinions (other than those of a medical practioner) when an individual is suffering, has a serious health condition or has limbs hanging off which need urgent surgical procedures.

At the same time, it is an obligation and common sense for any individual to look after their own health issues to avoid the need for medical intervention. This can include using preventative medicine to reduce the need for more serious action in the future. Preventative medicine has a serious postive impact at both an individual level, but also in the overall economy of every business/country.

The key phrase in health is "accessable healthcare" and there is no reason on earth why any civilized society should not have this - if they don't, it is a fundamental failure. Accessible healthcare means "instant" action regardless of cost considerations.

Whatever is it labelled - socialized medicine or whatever term, - it is a reflection of any region/nation when it cannot, or has not made provision to aid it's own taxpayers/citizens who may need medical attention and who may fall between the cracks. Again... the keyphrase is "socially responsible". Whether any government has the aptitude to mange this efficiently is another matter - unfortunately most governments are useless in many areas and bogged down in bureaucracy.

Almost all industrialized countries have a government monitored healthcare system in place, but - there are also options for the private sector within most of these situations. An individual can elect to have private healthcare if they wish and accomodated within private clinics at a cost.

There is no evidence that healthcare can be left to private enterprise and delivered at an acceptable cost (forgetting everyone will complain about any cost). The responsibity of any private enterprise is to produce profits for their shareholders and this can fall into conflict with medical recommendations on healthcare. In the US this is further complicated by HMO's/insurance companies and the pharamceutical industry who have been given a blank check to charge whatever they like for supplying pills to the public - and to hospital groups. (On the pharma companies - no other nation on earth would permit the advertising of medical products in the media to the extent allowed in the US. The person who is paying for that level of excessive advertising is the public and at a rip off price.)

On any government operated system there are plenty grounds for having doubts. At the same time, the acid test is what the governments of all industrialized countries (excluding the US) have achieved so far on healthcare. This has been relatively successful, tho may have regional variations, but doubtful many people would elect to change their nation's universal healthcare system - it is clearly more cost-effective and delivers an acceptable standard of quality than a private sector alternative.


Depends what you mean by socialized. There appears to be a conflict between "socialized" and for profit. At an individual level, ie... doctors and nursing staff - they, at least in the majority, are excellent and elected to enter their professions not because of salaries, but thru a genuine interest and being socially responsible.

The other angle to that are the private sector managers and hospital groups owners who have a totally different agenda - namely to produce a profit for shareholders. By it's nature, any corporation is predatory and they have nothing to do with being socialized - although they may produce advertising to portray how "caring" they are. But.... the sole object is to create customers, sell to these customers at the highest price possible and show a healthy profit/loss statement (classic description of pharmaceutical companies).

Would suspect the only "socialized" element of the US system remains with the actual medical staff - docs and nurses and very few others.