LOL. Spot-on.

Next up:

Socialized book-lending

Socialized education

Socialized postal service

including the military is socialism as we pay for it with our taxes.

Lind thinks he's being clever, but he just shows his ignorance. Policing, military protection, and the like are legitimate responsibilities of the government, something only a government can do. The legitimacy of the state (or lack thereof) lends itself to the force sometimes necessary to protect the public and enforce the law. (That's why vigilantes are outside the law.)

Health care is not something only the government can do. It is something legitimately done by private entities. (Never mind that it's often done better by private entities, too. Compare the survival rates for cancer and heart disease in Canada and the U.S.)

Lind confuses the duties of the government vs. the rights of private citizens (which would include private companies and organizations).

I'd think a Salon editor would have been smart enough to save Lind from embarassing himself here. Apparently not.

Patriotism at work!

I served a month short of 17 years, 5 years of it in schools (OTS, SOS, MS, PhD), and retired early because of the Clinton drawdown. (Remember the peace dividend??) Now I've been retired 14 years at 37% of active duty pay (inflation protected), with the best socialized medicine in the world. On or off duty, taxpayers take care of us chow hall to grave, and all we have to do in return is...

...EVERYTHING WE'RE TOLD.

Gotta love it.

Is enabled to a great extent through Medicare. You know, socialized medicine.

On the other hand, we're 46th in the world in terms of infant mortality. USA! USA!

He raised the prospect that a government-run healthcare would drive private companies out of business.

I replied that of course it would, that's why because there are police, there are no such things as security guards.

He was amused, but not convinced.

Mike F: An American living "down under" in a country with public and private health care options. Socialized medicine, it works.

In this case, because the history of the development of socialized police forces has been as fraught and political as health care.

Arguments were made in the 1800's that government control of police was a sign of increasing totalitarianism, and loss of freedom. Arguments that are not unlike the arguments against socialized medicine that are being made today.

Just because something seems like a no-brainer now does not mean it was not a subject of heated debate when it was first introduced. Someday our decendants may look back on this debate and wonder why we were all so completely insane as to let healthcare be managed for profit, the way you assume law-enforcement is naturally the provenance of government.

Anesthesia during surgery, for instance, was once decried as immoral because it unnaturally aleviated (god-intended) pain.

Except many things. I never got that argument. Ever read the tales from when fire departments where private companies? Scary.

Hilarious!

But I bet theres a lot more people who oppose "socilaized" police then we think! Talk radio and FOX News have brainwashed so many people into thinking that the government can't do anything (except the pentagon) they might acutally beleive it can't even keep us safe anymore. We keep letting the right control the debate in this country, and we may be looking at this very debate going on in real life!

Others have pointed out that both the fire service and policing used to be run by for-profit companies. The military were the same back in that bastion of socialism - Europe.

It is now accepted that these things are the responsibility of a government to carryout on behalf of their citizens. Why should health care be any different?

There are 100's of reasons why cure rates for certain cancers might or might not be better in one country or the next. But as has been pointed out elsewhere infant mortality rates (often used as a proxy for poverty) in the US are higher than in any other Western country.

The US is the only 'civilized' country in which it seems to be perfectly acceptable for a boy to die from a toothache....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html

The relationship between government and the people is kind of like the relationship between parents and teenagers, isn't it?

"As long as you live under MY roof, you will follow MY rules!"

Socialized programs are the government's roof, and the consequence of accepting them is following their rules: i.e. the act of giving up our freedom to run our lives as we see fit.

How much freedom do you want to give up in exchange for security?

I realize I'm playing with fire, responding to a troll - here's hoping the three billy goats gruff are reading this thread too.

Look Chagos, your tired wanking about the relative benefits of US care versus Canadian care are charming in their vintage authenticity - it's almost as if you're accurately recreating the lies and obfuscations of the early 90s on purpose. I can almost hear a crummy Pearl Jam song in the background, and I have a weird urge to put on a flannel shirt.

Unfortunately, much like grunge eventually devolved into shite like Creed, your argument has aged badly. It took me about 5 seconds to find something I'd like to encourage you to read:

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/CAN_Comparison_Sheet.pdf

Cancer Survival

Gorey, K. et al, “An International Comparison of Cancer Survival: Toronto, Ontario and Detroit Metro

Areas,” American Journal of Public Health 87(7):1156-1163 (07/1997)

Contact: Kevin M. Gorey, PhD (gorey@uwindsor.ca)

Major Findings:

• Low-income Americans (residing in census tracts with a median income of less than $17,800 at the

time of diagnosis) had significantly lower survival rates than higher-income Americans (median

census tract income of $51,500 or more) for 12 of 15 kinds of cancer studied. Canadians had no

such association for any cancer. 1

• Compared with their American counterparts, low-income Canadians had a significant survival

advantage for 13 of the 15 kinds of cancer studied.

• Authors’ conclusion: the advantage that low-income Canadians enjoy in cancer survival is due to

their equitable health system. A single-payer system in the U.S. would likely a comparably equitable

system.

OOH OOH! And also this:

Cardiac Care

Tu, J. et al, “Use of Cardiac Procedures and Outcomes in Elderly Patients with Myocardial Infarction in

the United States and Canada,” NEJM, 336(21)1500-1505 (05/22/97)

Contact: Jack V. Tu, MD, PhD (tu@ices.on.ca)

Major Findings:

• One-year mortality rates following myocardial infarction were virtually identical for both countries

(34.3% U.S. vs. 34.4% Canada).

• U.S. patients were far more likely to undergo expensive and invasive treatments such as coronary

angiography (34.9% U.S. vs. 6.7% Canada); percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty

(11.7% U.S. vs. 1.5% Canada); and coronary-artery bypass surgery (10.6% U.S. vs. 1.4% Canada).

Eisenberg, M. et al, “Outcomes and the Cost of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery in the United

States and Canada,” Arch. Int. Med. 165:1506-1513 (07/11/05)

Contact: Mark J. Eisenberg, MD, MPH (meisenberg@epid.jgh.mcgill.ca)

Major Findings:

• Canadians had lower rates of unadjusted in-hospital mortality (1.4% Canada vs. 2.2% U.S.). There

was no difference between the countries after controlling for demographic and clinical differences.

• The average length of a hospital stay in Canada was 16.8% longer

• Adjusted costs of CABG in the U.S. were 82% higher than in Canada

• Average in-hospital treatment costs were nearly twice as much in the U.S. ($20,673 U.S. vs. $10,373

Canada / Median: $16,036 U.S. vs. $7,880 Canada).

• Administrative costs consumed more of the total cost of treatment in the U.S. (38.2% of total

costs in the U.S. vs. 31.7% in Canada).