Raghu wrote: > ... 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, as it ignores: - access being 'free' at point > > of entry .....
> [Raghu wrote:]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? > The state may spend huge amounts on health care without the system being universal. Conversely, some plans envision universal compulsion to take part in private insurance (although the state may still have to spend huge amounts on health care) and self-insurance. It's important to distinguish between the various "universal" plans. It's make a big difference to the outcome whether one is trying to rely on private insurance, private health research, private health supplies, etc. or has a single-payer system, or a national health service, or some other type of health care. It affects whether the system really is universal, what type of treatments are given, whether there is a two-tier system, and much more, including the type and accuracy of medical research. Whether health care - or various parts of it - are done for profit or not, affects whether there is overmedication, whether certain treatments are neglected, etc. (However, it should be noted that by now capitalists have been able to hide medicine for profit behind many "non-profit" veneers.) So I agree with Hari Kumar that it doesn't make sense for socialists to hide the type of "universal" plan being talked out. As I mentioned previously, I outlined some of the differences in a some articles in 2007. I think if you examined them, you might see some of the issues involved. See http://communistvoice.org/40cChart.html for a chart comparing different types of supposedly universal plans, and see the article at http://communistvoice.org/40cCompare.html "What would socialist health care be like?" for an explanation of the chart. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
