Hari Kumar wrote: > However on the issue of private vs profit motives in provision of health > care under capitalist societies: Sorry, but I found the comments made by > some, somewhat superficial. > (1) Universal health care - as a short hand term for systems of health care > funded by a state - were disparaged by some. This is short sighted for > socialists, in my view, .... > (2) As Ragu tries to make - but the connection is unclear - an equation of > non-profit with 'universal' health care systems. Systematic reviews have > shown clearly the benefits in real health outcomes (eg dialysis services > availability).
It seems to me that Hari Kumar makes an important point about the difference between the various reforms of health care: among the plans that are better than solely private medicine, there are major differences. Back in 2007 I made a chart about the similarities and differences between the then-existing US system; the Calif. and Mass. plans to extend private insurance to more and more people (predecessors, in a general sense, of the Affordable Care Act, which didn't exist then); national health care (including both single-payer as in Canada, and the National Health Service, as then in the UK); and socialist medecine. See http://communistvoice.org/40cChart.html for the shart and see http://communistvoice.org/40cCompare.html "What would socialist health care be like?" for an explanation of the chart. It isn't sufficient that various reforms are better than unrestrained private medicine for them to be the same as socialist. The points of comparison between the various plans included not just universality and preventive care, but also whether steps to protect health were taken at the workplace, the relationship to pollution, the issue of elitism in the provision of medical care, the issue of overmedication, etc. -- Joseph Green _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
