******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
In New Zealand we have a national health-care scheme that has its origins mainly in a deal between the private medical sector (GPs etc, but excluding dentists, who refused to buy in) and the 1st Labour government in the 1930s. t was a classic part of Labour's 'rescue capitalism from itself' plan in the depression, but it did at least give us access to a hospital. It demonstrates all the inadequacies suggested by the two previous posters but still seems vastly better than a fully private (or Obamacare type) model. My wife has had ten operations (plus numerous scans etc) in the last ten years, one operation was private because her rich brother in law paid for it. This resulted mainly in avoiding a six-month wait. One was carried out in a private hospital because the specialist doctors tend to work in private practice for part of their time and do some hours in the state system, so the state sector farms some procedures out to the private hospitals. On at least one occasion she's had the same surgeon operate in both the private and public system. the public system is always struggling but I will say that once you are in (the system has accepted your GP's referral), you are in and we've found the staff to be really good. I'd take this system any day over the kind of abomination that passes for a hospital system in the States but it's still far from socialism. The alternative, largely insurance funded private system that runs parallel to the public hospitals doesn't cover accident and emergency and other high risk, low margin work, provides hotel style facilities with cable TV and blah blah blah, but increasingly we're seeing the same problems that the US faces with staff in the insurance companies being employed to find the loopholes (like "was this a pre-existing condition?" etc) to avoid paying out. Cheers, John On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 7:06 AM jgreen--- via Marxism < [email protected]> wrote: > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > > On 24 Oct 2018 at 19:23, Ralph Johansen via Marxism wrote: > > >>> Thoughts on single payer which, no less than Medicare, is at best a > > way > > station to what everyone deserves as birthright: adequate preventive > > and > > curative health assistance, at commensurate costs which do not > > obscenely > > enrich a few. In other words, it's an arrangement which if > > implemented > > still masks serious shortcomings. Present single payer schemes from > > what > > I see would not at all disturb the over all regime of the > > pharmaceutical/medical complex in this country. ... > > Indeed! I strongly agree that the issue isn't simply financing the health > care, and > that single-payer would be simply one step forward, albeit a very > important one. > > Back in 2007 I prepared a chart comparing four different things, > * the present US system > * Calif. and Mass. plans > * national health care > * socialist medicine. > > See. > http://www.communistvoice.org/40cChart.html > > Being prepared before the ACA (Obamacare), it didn't include that. But it > provided > a framework that could deal with that as well. > > I prefaced it as follows: > > "A single-payer system of national health insurance would be a tremendous > advance on the present system, but it still will not be socialist care. It > will be > subject to cost containment and budget-cutting, as all social benefits > have been in > the period of neo-liberal economic restructuring of the last few decades, > and it will > be important for the working class to insist that national health > insurance is truly > universal and covers all residents of this country, including the > undocumented > immigrants. Meanwhile the California and Massachusetts plans would funnel > yet > more money to private insurers, have a hard time finding the money to do > so, > continue the privatization of social services, and despite their promises, > will not > solve the problem of universal coverage." > > And I elaborted on this in such articles such as "What would socialist > health care > be like?" I contrasted a truly socialist system with capitalist medicine > on such > topics as > > -Universal coverage vs. private insurance > -The limits of single-payer plans and national health care > -It's still connected to profit > -What is socialism? > -Universality > -Preventive care > -Two-tier care > -At the work place > -Pollution > -Elitism > -Overmedicated. > -Poverty > -Workers must put their stamp on the health system > > See http://www.communistvoice.org/40cCompare.html > > -- Joseph Green > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: > http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/johnedmundson4%40gmail.com > -- The law locks up the man or woman Who steals the goose from off the common But leaves the greater villain loose Who steals the common from the goose _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
