On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 9:07 PM, hari kumar <[email protected]> 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, as it ignores: - access being 'free' at point > of entry (Well - not "free" - funded by more 'progressive' tax bases) than > pertaining in the USA now; provides much lower 'administrative costs' (eg > Himmelstein DU et al: 'A comparison of Hospital Admin. costs in 8 nations: > US costs exceed all other by Far'; Health Affairs; Sep 2014; 33:); effects > on reduction of inequitable distribution of services. > (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). > I am afraid I am finding it difficult to understand what you are trying to say here. If you are saying that "universal health care" is a good short hand term for "state-funded health care", I must ask why? Why not just say "state-funded health care" instead? That said, any difference between "universal" and "state-funded" seems academic. Does there exist a universal health care system anywhere in the world that is not state-funded? Did anyone argue that it is possible to have universal health-care without it being state-funded? I am sorry but it seems to me that you are arguing with a strawman. Or maybe I misunderstood what you said. -raghu.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
