American Socialism

[PBI]

What is socialist about 'all men being created equal?'

Well, equality is one of the central ideas of socialism.

But I didn't mean it as a serious comparison. I was just giving a silly counterexample to the usual silly "well Stalin was a socialist, so all socialists are like Stalin" argument.

[Lemur]

Its helpful to look hard at individual areas and ask, honestly, "Will the market work here?" The benefits of the market are too numerous to go into, but obviously if a field can be served by a functioning market, that's the best solution.

However, there are conditions that must be met for a market to function properly

• Bonding contracts
• Equality of information
• Property rights
• Competition

... etcetera. Lots of elements need to be in place for a market to work.

Americans, as a whole, agree that some things are not appropriate for a market. Policing our communities is not farmed out to the lowest bidder. Fire protection is not shopped between competing firms. Road building, by and large, is not financed by universal toll roads.

There are good reasons for all of these. Take roads, for instance. If I control the road between Huntsville and Janesburg, I have a de facto monopoly, and the only way to create market conditions would be to build alternate roads between the two towns, or to build a tramway, or a dirigible service. This would be insanely wasteful, as well as resulting in, at best, a duopoly rather than a monopoly.

Health care is a bit of a puzzler to this Lemur. It lacks many of the characteristics that allow a market to function. Equality of information? Are you kidding me? What are you gonna do, shop around for a cardiologist with your extensive knowledge of cardiology? How can there ever be a level playing field between a doctor and a patient? Between normal people and drug companies? How you gonna weight the relative value of provaxilcom and lipolizor? Heck, most practicing MDs find it impossible to keep up with the deluge of me-too drugs ...

So on the one hand, health care doesn't lend itself to market functions, as we see every day in the U.S.A.

On the other hand, treating health care as a public service has costs and dangers, as anyone looking at European budgets can attest. There's an innovation cost as well: without the profit motive, medical and drug development slows to a crawl. This is why people with bucks come from other countries to get cutting-edge treatment in the U.S.A. No market, no R&D budgets, no race for cures, no advanced treatment.

So like I said, it's a puzzler. I can see very valid arguments for socialized medicine. And I can see good reasons to embrace free-market medicine. Anything, frankly, would be an improvement on the half-fish half-goat system we have now.

[Xiahou]

Its helpful to look hard at individual areas and ask, honestly, "Will the market work here?" The benefits of the market are too numerous to go into, but obviously if a field can be served by a functioning market, that's the best solution.

However, there are conditions that must be met for a market to function properly

• Bonding contracts
• Equality of information
• Property rights
• Competition

... etcetera. Lots of elements need to be in place for a market to work.

Americans, as a whole, agree that some things are not appropriate for a market. Policing our communities is not farmed out to the lowest bidder. Fire protection is not shopped between competing firms. Road building, by and large, is not financed by universal toll roads.

There are good reasons for all of these. Take roads, for instance. If I control the road between Huntsville and Janesburg, I have a de facto monopoly, and the only way to create market conditions would be to build alternate roads between the two towns, or to build a tramway, or a dirigible service. This would be insanely wasteful, as well as resulting in, at best, a duopoly rather than a monopoly.

All good up to this point. An additional metric I like here is "Can an individual reasonably opt out?" For example, a national defense benefits everyone and an individual can hardly decide to go and buy the services of another army to protect their house. The same with roads ect.

Health care is a bit of a puzzler to this Lemur. It lacks many of the characteristics that allow a market to function. Equality of information? Are you kidding me? What are you gonna do, shop around for a cardiologist with your extensive knowledge of cardiology? How can there ever be a level playing field between a doctor and a patient? Between normal people and drug companies? How you gonna weight the relative value of provaxilcom and lipolizor? Heck, most practicing MDs find it impossible to keep up with the deluge of me-too drugs ...

So on the one hand, health care doesn't lend itself to market functions, as we see every day in the U.S.A.

By that reasoning neither do auto mechanics.... or IT professionals or any of a number of fields. If a consumer knew everything about a service that he was hiring another to do, why would he need to hire a professional? He'd be one. I think the problem here is more of a customer service one. From my experience, the medical field is more about being vague and obfuscating than being open and candid. I think wrong-headed government policies are at least partially to blame for this.

Socializing medicine creates a government run healthcare monopoly. Monopolies are almost always inefficient, wasteful, and unresponsive to customer needs. (see roads) Is this what we want for ourselves? We can see shades of it already in our current mess of a system- I don't care for it.

[HoreTore]

By that reasoning neither do auto mechanics.... or IT professionals or any of a number of fields. If a consumer knew everything about a service that he was hiring another to do, why would he need to hire a professional? He'd be one.

But when you need repairs on your car, you have the time to check around, hear other peoples experiences etc.

If your finger is chopped off, you have no choice other than the closest hospital. You can't drive to another city 50 miles away...

[Ironside]

On the other hand, treating health care as a public service has costs and dangers, as anyone looking at European budgets can attest. There's an innovation cost as well: without the profit motive, medical and drug development slows to a crawl. This is why people with bucks come from other countries to get cutting-edge treatment in the U.S.A. No market, no R&D budgets, no race for cures, no advanced treatment.

So like I said, it's a puzzler. I can see very valid arguments for socialized medicine. And I can see good reasons to embrace free-market medicine. Anything, frankly, would be an improvement on the half-fish half-goat system we have now.

The problems with the R&D is why you should develop a cheap medicine, considering how expensive it is to develop new products and also the expansion issue. AKA you cannot expand the market by making people sick, but then you claim that they're sick and would feel much better with this medicines.
How much have the pill market expanded in the US for the last 5 years?

BTW if I've understood the medical market correctly, the socialised markets are huge buyers and not suppliers of the medicines. That part is left on the market. Ever heard of the company Astra-Zenica? Well, Astra was a Swedish company and it's still considered to be a Swedish company (in Sweden atleast).

The point being that having the medical departments as buyers compared to private persons will affect on what is developed.

[Ice]

Its helpful to look hard at individual areas and ask, honestly, "Will the market work here?" The benefits of the market are too numerous to go into, but obviously if a field can be served by a functioning market, that's the best solution.

However, there are conditions that must be met for a market to function properly

• Bonding contracts
• Equality of information
• Property rights
• Competition

... etcetera. Lots of elements need to be in place for a market to work.

Americans, as a whole, agree that some things are not appropriate for a market. Policing our communities is not farmed out to the lowest bidder. Fire protection is not shopped between competing firms. Road building, by and large, is not financed by universal toll roads.

There are good reasons for all of these. Take roads, for instance. If I control the road between Huntsville and Janesburg, I have a de facto monopoly, and the only way to create market conditions would be to build alternate roads between the two towns, or to build a tramway, or a dirigible service. This would be insanely wasteful, as well as resulting in, at best, a duopoly rather than a monopoly.

Health care is a bit of a puzzler to this Lemur. It lacks many of the characteristics that allow a market to function. Equality of information? Are you kidding me? What are you gonna do, shop around for a cardiologist with your extensive knowledge of cardiology? How can there ever be a level playing field between a doctor and a patient? Between normal people and drug companies? How you gonna weight the relative value of provaxilcom and lipolizor? Heck, most practicing MDs find it impossible to keep up with the deluge of me-too drugs ...

So on the one hand, health care doesn't lend itself to market functions, as we see every day in the U.S.A.

On the other hand, treating health care as a public service has costs and dangers, as anyone looking at European budgets can attest. There's an innovation cost as well: without the profit motive, medical and drug development slows to a crawl. This is why people with bucks come from other countries to get cutting-edge treatment in the U.S.A. No market, no R&D budgets, no race for cures, no advanced treatment.

So like I said, it's a puzzler. I can see very valid arguments for socialized medicine. And I can see good reasons to embrace free-market medicine. Anything, frankly, would be an improvement on the half-fish half-goat system we have now.

Great post, Lemur

I was thinking this the other day. My father hurt his knee while outside. He had to see a specialized doctor, get an MRI, and most likely get his knee cut open by a specialized surgeon.

All of this is going to cost in the thousands of dollars. Luckily for our family we have good health insurance and we pay a small deductible and the insurance company covers 80% of the costs.

Although 80% is covered, we are still on the hook for a couple grand. Now my family inst fabulously wealthy, but we are fairly well off. If this is a pain in the ass for us, I'm wondering how the average American gets this done without such good health insurance.

Health care really is a tricky business. On one hand I really don't want government run medicine, but on the other hand the current situation is absurd.

[Proletariat]

Well, equality is one of the central ideas of socialism.

But I didn't mean it as a serious comparison. I was just giving a silly counterexample to the usual silly "well Stalin was a socialist, so all socialists are like Stalin" argument.

Aha. I just never thought of it as any endorsement of socialism, more likely the opposite. Since all men are created equal, they should all have equal opportunities.

[anelious phyros]

Aha. I just never thought of it as any endorsement of socialism, more likely the opposite. Since all men are created equal, they should all have equal opportunities.

Tell that to are govt.! I wonder what they would argue?