Which sucks more: Private health insurance or socialized medicine? [Archive]

AntiochusIII

11-10-2007, 10:01

I think the Thai model seems pretty solid for us (although I still need to learn more about it). Public medicine with private practices legal and competitive; private hospitals capable of turning all non-payers but for imminent emergencies away to public health.I think the hatters above America might have something to teach us about that. ~;)

I always thought the Canadian model is a rather excellent compromise. If adopted in America, it could be weighted slightly more to the business side of things of course to accommodate our more "rightist" outlook, but still.

The Thai system has the slogan "30-baht [~1$, not counting lower living costs] to treat all illnesses." The framework is simply your average socialized medicine, with the patient paying a nominal fee at each treatment while the real money comes from the taxes; but it has a lot of holes and does accommodate private healthcare to a large degree. Private healthcare is more business-oriented and of generally much higher quality (though it depends on the type of establishment), especially the "elite" hospitals which are relatively comparable to Western standards, but they are also much more expensive.

The current American model, if there is such a thing, is a complete mess. It's a complex, fragile arrangement that heavily relies on both a haphazard government subsidy (Medicare & co.), the insurance system, and the pharmaceutical industries to sustain itself. And I think your link quite clearly demonstrates to us how well insurance works for the truly needy...

Papewaio

11-10-2007, 12:46

Might want to go holistic. Start with looking at other Western nations with similar mixes of population of the different groups within the US... compare there life expectancies and then figure out which system(s) are working.

Medical, Food, Family, Fitness... all account towards health. It might be cheaper to give every kid a sportsball and every community a sportsfield to raise health levels then expensive after the fact medical treatments. Western lifestyle is a source of diseases much like lack of potable water is. Ours shows up in poor attention spans, expanding waist lines and coronaries... the distance between cause and effect is larger then in the 3rd world... but as always for the majority of us its our lifestyles that get us not some random act of violence or bad luck.

HoreTore

11-10-2007, 13:31

Divinus Arma

11-10-2007, 15:27

That's what you called "socialized medicine". It's what we have here in europe.

Right. I know. I just mean that a government-only system would be undesirable here.

I've come to view quality health care as integral to the basic functions of civilization as infrastructure. We have freeways paid by the public, but we also have private toll roads for those who desire to spend the money to get a higher quality drive in terms of distance and time saved.

Similarly, government-run health care will provide society with the essentials of care. And like toll roads, for those who are unwilling to wait for a procedure (a major flaw in public health IMHO) or desire more personal attention from a private family physician, the patient may choose to pay out-of-pocket or through an insurance provider for private medicine.

The only way for this to work is that private institutions MUST be able to turn away those who can't or won't pay. Forcing a private company to give services away for free is a major flaw in the current system. Only in immediately life-threatening instances should a private ER be forced to take a patient, and even then the government would be required to compensate the facility.

EDIT: One last thought. This dual-system will benefit the U.S. by retaining the competitive capitalist motivation that stimulates innovation while also meeting the basic needs of the public.

lars573

11-10-2007, 16:31

The only way for this to work is that private institutions MUST be able to turn away those who can't or won't pay. Forcing a private company to give services away for free is a major flaw in the current system. Only in immediately life-threatening instances should a private ER be forced to take a patient, and even then the government would be required to compensate the facility.
That's the thing though a private hospital shouldn't have an ER at all, if that's the case.

Also Canada's system is an insurance scheme. That is the provincial governments provide an insurance plan. That is paid for via the federal government and provincial government taxes. And that they are the only ones* who can provide such a service for the medical services it covers.

*Except Alberta whos government set up a public/private two tiered system. And in fact keeps trying to scale back the public one in near violation of the Canada health act.

Geoffrey S

11-10-2007, 16:49

Similarly, government-run health care will provide society with the essentials of care. And like toll roads, for those who are unwilling to wait for a procedure (a major flaw in public health IMHO) or desire more personal attention from a private family physician, the patient may choose to pay out-of-pocket or through an insurance provider for private medicine.
Tempted to agree, but the problem is where to draw the line of 'essential'. It's an easy thing to say, but far more difficult in practise to implement.

KrooK

11-10-2007, 17:10

Definitely socialised medicine sucks more. We have it into Poland and its awful system.

IrishArmenian

11-10-2007, 22:21

Definitely socialised medicine sucks more. We have it into Poland and its awful system.
Coming from someone who obviously is financially comfortable enough to afford a computer and time to spend on a forum.
I believe the Canadians have it right! They have socialized medicine but the financially secure can choose a private clinic. This is good for a number of reasons: the tax-supported hospitals aren't as full, giving many patients the attention they need and the private clinics give the monetarily gifted the attention they need. One takes the load off of the other! Genius!
If Hayastan were to do this, we'd need a whole lot more money, many more educated people and then I'd be oh-so-happy!

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-10-2007, 22:33

I view healthcare like policing, the essential service should be provided by the government and paid for through taxes.

Papewaio

11-11-2007, 01:32

I can't recall any ER's in private hospitals in Aus. There might be, but not on the scale of the public health system.

I do know that the private health system is for those who don't want to wait, want their own private room while recovering or want elective surgery.

Also I do know that with giving birth that if there is a complication the patients are sent to the public system as it is generally better at handling problem cases (that and the private hospitals want to keep their stats high).

Ice

11-11-2007, 01:43

I wouldn't mind a more public system of health care, but implementation is the key.

I'd like to see it phased in over say 10 or even 20 years. Less and less private and more and more public.

Although, I do agree some or many aspects of the current private system should be kept in place.

JAG

11-11-2007, 08:20

Pft! Public health care is rubbish! You can't make any profit!

Ice

11-11-2007, 09:02

Pft! Public health care is rubbish! You can't make any profit!

That or many worry the quality/long waiting times is increased when you switch from a private to a public system.

Yeah, must all be about the profit. :dizzy2:

Kagemusha

11-11-2007, 12:38

combination of both sucks, less.:smash:

Shahed

11-11-2007, 14:06

Socialised is more moral IMO, it is in Europe anyway. they don't turn people away, and only ask about payments once the patient is in a condition to talk about it (emergencies). Thai public hospitals are not that great. The private Bangkok (Chang Mai, Phuket etc) line, specially developed to cater to the tourists is pretty good. I've spent the night in one myself (bad gastrointestinal issues). It was acceptable but extremely expensive and I always felt like I'm in a department store, they treat you like a customer, rich foreign customer. Customer service was fanstastic though, they even bring you a food menu and a choice of rooms with the price boldy printed on the page pictures and all, while you are lying dehydrating in the emergency ward. Funniest part was when the doctor said, "Sir, take this room, also have balcony for smoker, only 14,000 Baht per night" (can't remember the exact price but it was expensive, specially the medication. I asked him do you really think I can eat Spicy Chicken Soup as starter, Steamed Jasmine Rice , Fried Chicken with Garlic and Chillies as main course, and ice cream for dessert or should I go for the complete American Meal to be safe? That was on the menu for that night and you could choose between a couple of dishes. I was on a drip and LOL even looking at food made me sick. He did'nt get the joke at first !

But like a lot of things in Thailand, the Thai people make it great. I even felt great being in the hospital for the night, looking out at the palm trees and smoking on the balcony, the first thing I did once I got out of bed (HA!!! HA !!!).

Thailand is a great country, and the Thai are some of the warmest and most sincere people anywhere.

I posted a thread couple of weeks back in the Frontroom about a GREAT Thai movie "Last Life in the Universe". You might wanna have a look if your interest in that part of the world extends beyond the medical system.

Mikeus Caesar

11-11-2007, 16:52

Ice

11-11-2007, 19:07

When you've got a choice between everyone having free healthcare that isn't of the highest quality, and everyone having to pay for high quality healthcare resulting in many poorer people not being able to afford it, i know i pick the first option.

After all, rich people who are dissatisfied with the quality of public healthcare can always fork out for private healthcare.

Once again though, that's not exactly the private health care we are discussing here.

The extremely poor are covered by Medicare and Medicaid. It's the lower middle class that usually have a hard time funding health care.

Kralizec

11-14-2007, 01:53

They never heard of "poverty trap" in Washington?

Xiahou

11-14-2007, 04:59

I'd prefer a system of pay-as-you-go general healthcare supported by charities for the poorest and then sensible insurance for emergency and long-term care.

I'd rather see government mandated HSAs before socialized medicine. The way to better healthcare is to get patients to care about service and cost, not to further remove them from them.

Everyone agrees that far too many Americans lack health insurance. But covering the uninsured comes about as a byproduct of getting other things right. The real danger is that our national obsession with universal coverage will lead us to neglect reforms — such as enacting a standard health insurance deduction, expanding health savings accounts and deregulating insurance markets — that could truly expand coverage, improve quality and make care more affordable.

As H. L. Mencken said: "For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong." Universal healthcare is a textbook case.link (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8172)

Papewaio

11-14-2007, 05:52

Where do vaccines go?

User pays or the broad population? After all who is the beneficiary of vaccines... just the user or having enough to create moats of immunity.

The economic benefit of having a healthy working age population is fairly obvious . What is often missed is the economic benefits of having a healthy elderly population... so who should pay then?

Shahed

11-14-2007, 06:01

Kommodus

11-14-2007, 18:10

Smoking, drinking, fast foods, processed foods, etc. All this contributes to an unhealthy elderly population. To take care of them the state pays i.e taxpayer pays. I'm not saying we should'nt do it, I'm saying more could be done to ensure a healthier elderly population.

I'm sure this isn't exactly a new idea, but perhaps we should impose large sales taxes on fast food like we do on tobacco? I mean, fast food is popular in part because it is quick and cheap. If people had to pay as much for fast food as they did for healthier food, maybe the healthier options could better compete! :idea2:

Now I'm off to Wendy's...

Divinus Arma

11-15-2007, 03:18

A danger in the public health care system is that the government could then justify passing laws that limit our liberty in order to "keep us safe and healthy". Kind of like motorcycle helmet laws, but worse.

No fatty foods! No smoking of any kind anywhere ever! These are the entry level possibilities, but imagine how far the tyrants of congress could take it. After all, we don't really elect anyone in this country. We elect from the pool of crap that they give us.

HoreTore

11-15-2007, 10:14

How about.... Private clinics, but the state pays?

Peasant Phill

11-15-2007, 11:10

The key to to a good social or socialized health care system is IMO the quality of the hospitals and medical staff. The problem most people have with social (public) health care is the poor quality it provides in comparison to private health care. Long waiting time, less competent medical staff, worse equipment, ... This is, however, not inherent to a social health care system itself. Belgium for example is a benchmark on the matter of health care and is a social health care system.

The biggest problem IMO is the capitalism in health care. Private hospitals have more resources than public hospitals due to low governmental funding (in comparison to other countries). Private hospitals can then 'buy' the best medical staff. Doing so lowers the quality of public hospitals.
One should lower the average wages of medical staff to the point that public hospitals can afford to rival or at least approach private hospitals. I'm aware that this is unimaginable in the USA but I think that is the best (cost/effectiev) way to improve health care in general: the price will drop, comfort will rise and more people will have access to better health care.

Papewaio

11-16-2007, 00:44

Peasant Phill

11-16-2007, 11:40

You cannot just lower the prices locally you would have to do it throughout the world.

Drs and Nurses quite readily move cities, states, countries to get a better lifestyle. If you decide to pay them less they will move somewhere else, its the upside of capitalism... when you are in an in demand profession that is low on supply... you get to play the piper not the bean counters.

Although I partly agree with you, your statement only works in theory. In real life a workforce isn't as mobile as you make it out to be. Doctors earn more in the US than they do in Belgium for example while the the quality is equal. Why isn't the majority of Belgium doctors moving to the US?
As long as the wage difference isn't that big, most people will stay in there familiar suroundings.

Papewaio

11-19-2007, 02:41

Goofball

11-20-2007, 00:22

Coming from someone who obviously is financially comfortable enough to afford a computer and time to spend on a forum.
I believe the Canadians have it right! They have socialized medicine but the financially secure can choose a private clinic. This is good for a number of reasons: the tax-supported hospitals aren't as full, giving many patients the attention they need and the private clinics give the monetarily gifted the attention they need. One takes the load off of the other! Genius!

If only that's what we were actually doing in Canada. Unfortunately, we're not.

No matter how rich you are, you can not go to a private clinic and pay for any medical service that would otherwise have been paid for by the government. That means evereybody has to stand in line for non-elective surgeries, MRIs, etc...

Based on some of the studies I've seen that compare the quality of health care in countries that offer some form of socialized medicine, the only catagory Canada was ranked first in was amount of $$ spent per capita. And the reason is that out of all of those countries, we are the only one that doesn't allow a blend of private and public health care.

Japan was actually very well ranked. They had shorter wait times, higher life expectancy, higher "survivability," and lower overall cost per citizen.

That is not to say that Canada was dead last among the ranked countries, but we're certainly not getting the bang for our buck that we should be.

Peasant Phill

11-20-2007, 10:00

As long as the wage difference isn't that much... so if you artificially lower wages you will get more and more leaving. Not a hundred percent, but with highly skilled professionals they can more easily move then others. Halve the wage of a factory worker and they don't have much choice... even then you can see such workers from South-East Asian working in the middle east.

I agree that the wage difference can't be so substantial that the better part of a workforce relocates. We see this in Poland where there is a shortage of capable workmen due to relocation to the Western European countries.

BUT

I'm quite sure that the wages of US based medical staff is bigger than those of other countries in the region (maybe only a slight difference to the Canadian wages). Which means that there is some margin before other countries become 'more interesting'.
Add to that, the patriotism of most Americans and difference in culture between the US and its surrounding countries (again this may be less of a factor when Canada is concerned).

I'm not talking about a huge cut in wages, only about a legal maximum for the biggest earners while making sure this doesn't cause a too big difference with the surrounding countries. Keep in mind that this maximum should only make sure that public hospitals can somewhat compete with private hospitals what staff is concerned.

The goal is making public hospitals become a real alternative for the average American. In turn private hospitals will lower their prices or better their services for the same price.

ShaiHulud

11-24-2007, 02:17

It's a misconception that public hospitals in the US can turn away a patient. A great many such hospitals in states like Texas and Cal., bordering Mexico, are near bankruptcy because they CANNOT refuse service- to illegal aliens. I won't dabble in the details, but, the services they provide to illegals, over 1/3 of their patient loads in many cases, is THE cause of their insolvency.

Can a private institution in the US decline a service? I really don't know. One would expect to hear many apocryphal stories of such events. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that they can.

In what great sense would that differ from, say, hospitals in England where doctors were told by their government to stop taking new patients until the next fiscal year came around? Or, both Canada and England in which you can be diagnosed and then put on a waiting list that extends for years before proper treatment MAY be received? Even the diagnosis can be delayed for months, waiting in queue for sparingly provided test equipment like a MRI.

Fairly recently the Montreal Supreme Court determined that the Canadian system was unconstitutional because it prevented people from seeking, from private institutions, treatment that they were unable to receive from the mandated social medical system. The 'moral superiority' of such a system wanes when it fails to provide.

In the end, anything run by government is run poorly and wastefully. The moral aspect is good cover when the government, predictably, fails and the system declines.When governments actually make it ILLEGAL to attain better service by going outside the mandated system, one should understand that the impetus for such restrictions do not result from humane impulses.

Lemur

11-24-2007, 04:07

In the end, anything run by government is run poorly and wastefully.
By this line of reasoning, we should privatize the armed forces and the police. Blackwater must be more effective and efficient than the Navy Seals, right?

Peasant Phill

11-24-2007, 10:29

It's a misconception that public hospitals in the US can turn away a patient. ... THE cause of their insolvency.

I don't think that there is a misconception about this. At least I didn't notice it in this thread.
I agree with you on the cause of the problem with the American system, however, my solution still stands. Wheel in the middle class with better staff and service and your solvability will increase meaning even better service can be provided.
The other solution is to leave all those that can't afford health care to die.

Can a private institution in the US decline a service? I really don't know. One would expect to hear many apocryphal stories of such events. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that they can.

In what great sense would that differ from, say, hospitals in England where doctors were told by their government to stop taking new patients until the next fiscal year came around? Or, both Canada and England in which you can be diagnosed and then put on a waiting list that extends for years before proper treatment MAY be received? Even the diagnosis can be delayed for months, waiting in queue for sparingly provided test equipment like a MRI.

Great:2thumbsup: ! Yes, the world only exists of an Anglo-Saxon system :inquisitive: .
I understand that you are only familiar with this one system and this one sphere of countries but there is a whole world out there that have different values and different solutions. You just compared three very similar systems to each other.

In the end, anything run by government is run poorly and wastefully. The moral aspect is good cover when the government, predictably, fails and the system declines.When governments actually make it ILLEGAL to attain better service by going outside the mandated system, one should understand that the impetus for such restrictions do not result from humane impulses.

:dizzy2: You actually support a 'Laissez-faire'-policy? :help:
Do you realise that that theory has been gathering dust since the beginning of the previous century? No public hospitals would mean no health care for a few million people in America

P.S. Your post is quite inconsistent. First you seem to come down on situations where people are left out of health care and then you promote a system where only profit is important.

Ironside

11-24-2007, 10:30

It's a misconception that public hospitals in the US can turn away a patient. A great many such hospitals in states like Texas and Cal., bordering Mexico, are near bankruptcy because they CANNOT refuse service- to illegal aliens. I won't dabble in the details, but, the services they provide to illegals, over 1/3 of their patient loads in many cases, is THE cause of their insolvency.

Can a private institution in the US decline a service? I really don't know. One would expect to hear many apocryphal stories of such events. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that they can.

It's only the emergency care that has a legal demand on accepting all patients (and without that law almost none would get emergency care).

In the end, anything run by government is run poorly and wastefully.

Depends, like all systems, it needs something to control it. The goverment got waste and corruption as issues (like all big organisations actually) and the companies got greed as another issue.

The moral aspect is good cover when the government, predictably, fails and the system declines.When governments actually make it ILLEGAL to attain better service by going outside the mandated system, one should understand that the impetus for such restrictions do not result from humane impulses.

So what are you suggesting to solve the crumbling American system that cost almost twice as much as the OECD average, still got people uninsured and where the company insurence starts to be something that's only working when you don't need it. A the medical costs are still rapidly increasing.

ShaiHulud

11-24-2007, 21:17

Phill-

"Great ! Yes, the world only exists of an Anglo-Saxon system .
I understand that you are only familiar with this one system and this one sphere of countries but there is a whole world out there that have different values and different solutions. You just compared three very similar systems to each other."

Thank you! I got a chuckle from that first line. If, indeed, social medicine has great variances outside my Anglo-centric view then you are wise to correct me and I will be edified by your enlightenment. Yet, I will disagree that all three are similar in great degree. The greatest complaint of the American system is, supposedly, the strongest feature of the other two, that they provide their service regardless of personal wealth. Demonstrably, none of them provides well for everyone.

I certainly do not advocate laissez faire, but, neither do I believe that any government has ever demonstrated the capability to devise an equitable system that does not, in the end, suffer from mismanagement. It is not that they don't properly fund their designs. Indeed, they spend enormous amounts. So, why have they consistently delivered less and less service for more and more lucre?

I think Divinus Arma is on point when he says some combination of government and private enterprise is the better design. Private enterprise succeeds or fails by its efficiencies. Government invariably introduces inefficiencies in all its efforts. Otoh, private enterprise, left to its own devices, invariably seeks the greatest profit without regard to the general weal. Clearly, neither is independently to be relied upon to deliver what is best for the whole. Both have a vested interest in their own advancement and neither has shown itself, unchecked, to serve other than its own interest for very long.

Lemur- 'Boutique' organizations like Blackwater may well be argued to be more efficient in their 'niche' operations. The Seals, themselves, are but a niche organization within a larger body. The latter, however, are not restrained by budgetary restrictions imposed by the need to show a profit. Were organizations like the police or firemen required to turn a profit we could expect the nature of the services they provide to be markedly different. So, no, privatizing the armed forces or the police does not appear advisable. We must contemplate their waste with resignation. Otoh, economies by privatization are used to reduce their redundancies and waste. The use of Blackwater in Iraq by government agencies is one such economy which lessens the call for otherwise employed soldiers.

Ironside- One, I don't suggest anything. I merely point to the unproven argument that government is capable of providing health care. And, two, it's certainly not clear, at all, that the American system is crumbling. It is clear, however, that, where malpractice insurance is exorbitant in the US, doctors are removing themselves and declining to provide services there. It is also clear that policies that require admission to anyone who skips over the border
are beggaring the system. If you deem me to be hard-hearted about the latter, you can hardly be less critical of the countries whose failure to provide medical help to their own create these problems in the US.

Lemur

11-25-2007, 07:15

I think Divinus Arma is on point when he says some combination of government and private enterprise is the better design.
DA is also convinced that anyone who isn't a Republican is planning to create and sustain a parasitic underclass. No, really. But he has a way cool mustache.

Were organizations like the police or firemen required to turn a profit we could expect the nature of the services they provide to be markedly different.
"Markedly different"? Um, yeah, you could say that. OmniCorp has plans ... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0kWgcIlWn0)

So, no, privatizing the armed forces or the police does not appear advisable. We must contemplate their waste with resignation. [...] The use of Blackwater in Iraq by government agencies is one such economy which lessens the call for otherwise employed soldiers.
Do you have any friends or relatives who are serving as police? I mean, this "contemplate their waste" line sounds kinda ... elitist. Shall we contemplate whilst sipping Earl Grey tea? And to hold Blackwater as as an "economy" shows willful blindness to the controversies and problems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_USA#Controversy_and_criticism) that have arisen from outsourcing combat roles. One overview (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/02/blackwater_bush/?source=whitelist) that might be relevant.

Listen, ShaiHulud, I like reading Cato Institute reports as much as the next guy, but the privatization = good bus left the station seven years ago, and the trip has been extremely bumpy. As we can see from Russia's example, crash-privatization without controls or oversight turns into nationwide looting. We've had a small taste of that under Bush 43.

ShaiHulud

11-25-2007, 10:48

Lemur-

Re: Omnicorps, precisely. A privatized police force would be subject to stockholders, etc, not necessarily the public at large. As we seem to agree here your question on privatizing armed forces and police seems to be moot.

Re: Blackwater- Actually, you brought up Blackwater. And, in fact, their use in Iraq was initiated as an economy, controversy notwithstanding, but not to the military. Blackwater is not under contract to the military, as far as I know. They provide services to the State Dept and such, and other private contractors, as, essentially, bodyguards.

"Willful blindness"? I pointed out the reason they are even useful as a force (economy of force) in response to your suggestion that they could be the equivalent of the SEALs (which I would not dare to suggest to a SEAL). If they are less successful or more controversial than other, like, forces that does not negate the original reason for their employment. And, what I was more considering was economies like the private contract builders, cooks, transporters, etc, that the military uses. The military employs these types successfully and keeps a leaner force more oriented to their basic mission thereby.

Re: Waste- Again, I was thinking more about the military than cosmopolitan forces. I spent 20 years in the armed forces and am quite sure I'm not inclined to argue that procurement, duplication, and such are not sources of excess and waste.

Re: Russia- What we can see is that a kleptocratic socialist nation may change its spots but not its nature. It wasn't overthrown by capitalists, it simply imploded because it was a failure. Now its run by the former head of the KGB, not a strong indicator of his democratic nature. The collapse of socialism there did not free a horde of entrepreneurs. There were none outside of the black marketeers. Harken back farther and all you find is Czarist Russia, again, no oasis of the free market. The population there was indoctrinated, from birth, to expect the government to provide for them. These were not individualists, but, drones. If you expected better than has resulted there, you are more the optimist than I am. How their decline is related to George Bush.....?

Lastly, if privatization is passe', as you imply, it does not seem so to countries like Viet Nam, China, India, who are all profiting their nations by it and reaching out for more of it.

AntiochusIII

11-25-2007, 12:00

Lastly, if privatization is passe', as you imply, it does not seem so to countries like Viet Nam, China, India, who are all profiting their nations by it and reaching out for more of it.No offense, but what's going on in these countries is not so much a direct privatization - public control issue as much as foreign involvement. It is not privatization that is energizing these economies, it is the investment input from foreign -- that is to say multinational -- companies that is expanding said countries' economic output.

The more activity, the more prosperity. These countries are "breaking new grounds" economy-wise, with their governments in firm control of the direction nonetheless. The Russian Anarchy of the 1990's is not altogether too different except for one factor being nonexistent: a strong central government to prevent the activity from becoming anarchy. Your point about "indoctrination" being the cause of that failure is debunked by your own reference to China, India, and Vietnam -- the first, for example, has one billion indoctrinated people who grew up in a closed totalitarian society to call its own.

The situation in an "industrialized" country such as the U.S.A. is altogether different. Our growth rates are far more stable, less spectacular as it were, but also less heinous when fails, and our society does not go through as quick and dramatic a change as in these countries you named.

The assumption that privatization brings efficiency can be easily denounced by one simple look at the Office on a "busy day of work." :beam: The only true difference between them lies on the fact that the motive changes from public service to profit, and the authority changes from the government (and theoretically the People) to the stockholders. Neither are particularly smarter than another; just one look at the incredible chaos underlying the stock market is enough confirmation.

ShaiHulud

11-25-2007, 19:33

AntiochusIII- No offense taken, friend. You're right! It's a great deal more than just privatization.

China, for instance, has benefitted immensely from foreign capitalization. But this is true of many nations who, yet, have failed see many gains from such. China, though, has some singular advantages, some intrinsic, some designed. Cultural unity and philosophical exchange between more westernized areas like Hong Kong and Singapore made possible the Chinese experimentation with looser controls in the coastal industrial areas. Some exercised much autonomy but there was no fear of a breakaway republic as might have resulted in the fragmented USSR. The select industries still managed directly by the Chinese government are the ones now most likely to fail from corruption and mismanagement. China is long past the 'germination' stage in privatization, which began decades ago, but, they acheived that position by design.

The USSR, when it fell, was attempting the same steps overnight, with no plan or design prepared. Their comparable westernized areas were lost to them when the former Warsaw pact nations seized their independence and stampeded to the West. The differences in progress between those former client states and what is now Russia is unremarkable because the former had been cast in the role of the USSR's window to the West. Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, the Baltics, had long exercised their greater access to the West and were better prepared psychologically and more unified culturally.

A few decades back the Chinese denounced the upheavals of the 'Little Red Book' era while absolving Mao of his responsibility for them. Their designs since that point have been ever more to privatization and they have significant progress to show for it. The USSR, however, while casting off Stalinism, was still hamstrung by their polyglot empirism and threatened status as a world power. They spent themselves controlling that empire and competing, militarily, with a more prosperous and agile West.

Deny, as you will, the effects of indoctrination, but, the effects are there to be seen. A Japanese saying goes, "The nail that stands up gets hammered down". In the USSR the hammer was applied to great effect. With the Gulag system that very effectively isolated and eliminated the individualists and the 'anti-social', with the incarceration in mental institutions of those with too dangerous ideas, with the cradle-to-grave indoctrination in Socialist dogma, there results a very pliable and quiescent populace.

Re: The Office- I confess, I've never watched it, but, my daughter loves it!

Regards....