This will be a pretty short one. First, health care reform proposals that offer a “public option” alternative do not provide “socialized medicine.” That is, all medical care in such proposed systems would be provided by private sector Doctors, hospitals, and other other health care institutions. Government in such a plan doesn’t do any medicine. The only thing it does is give people an opportunity to buy insurance from a public agency. Charges from the right that this is “socialized medicine” are just attempts to use “scary” labels to prevent efforts to bring insurance companies under control. The worst you can say about them is that they provide a “socialized” insurance option, but not that they provide “socialized medicine.” It’s time everyone recognized the distinction between the two. Most of the health care systems in the world that work better than ours are “socialized insurance systems,” not “socialized medicine systems.”
Now, why would one want to have “socialized insurance”? Simply because the market system in the insurance industry is broken. It works to ration health care, to deny the insured services based on technicalities, and it is monopolistic so that competition doesn’t work to reduce prices and control costs. In other words, there is no market in the classical sense of a supply and demand system. There is only a group of very large companies that administer prices and extract profits from consumers. A “socialized insurance” system can stop the profit extraction and administer prices in such a way as to bring health care costs under control. Provided that the system is adequately funded, it can greatly reduce the rationing that exists in the system now, and would serve people better, as we can already see from the way systems like this have worked in other nations. In short, “socialized insurance” is a fix for a broken insurance market that for reasons made clear by Paul Krugman, can never be fixed.
Second, the distinction between “socialized insurance” and “socialized medicine,” applies just as well to single payer plans, the systems that Republicans have been attacking as “socialized medicine” since the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Single payer systems are not “socialized medicine.” To call them that is to lie about them. They involve no Government medicine, only Government funding of health care services. The are “socialized insurance,” not “socialized medicine.” So, in closing, let me quote the GOPs favorite current oracle. “How ’bout ya quit making things up.”



7 Comments







Health care:
– I pay to an insurance company: bad.
– I pay in the form of taxes: depends.
Hi Art,
The cross-national track record is that it works better and it’s also cheaper when you pay the taxes and not the Company whose purpose is to extract as much profit as possible from you. The key point here is that the profit motive is fine when there’s a market to constrain it. But when the market is broken, or when it can’t work well, because of the nature of the service being provided, then all the profit motive will do is to get the businesses rich and to impoverish the consumers. That’s not what Adam Smith meant by capitalism.
Thanks, LGID; this is one of those points that just can’t be hammered home enough. Bizarrely, even Howard Dean garbled the distinction in last week’s interview on Democracy Now. He referred to both Medicare and the VA as socialized medicine, when the term only applies to the VA. That was the same interview where he referred to the public option as virtually the same as Medicare and dishonestly indicated that the public option would be available to all comers.
Great piece. This distinction is lost on too many. And it’s not just the people that don’t care if they’re wrong (Republicans). Everyone gets this one mixed up.
Thanks ralpbon and Jason. I’ve been enjoying your posts too.
I concur. Let us draw the appropriate conclusion.
Obama favors universal payments to HMO–and Medicare/Medicaid budget cuts–not universal medical care.
This is consistent with this president’s continuation of the bottomless Bush Wall St. bailout.
Any congressional Dem loyal to the “Obama plan” is loyal to Goldman Sachs–a major share-holder in all of the major HMOs. And the primary recipient of federal bailout $–under both Bush and the, ahem, progressive Obama.
Take a guess which investment bank’s employees were the biggest single corporate donors to Barack Obama’s campaign.
Change?
Not exactly change we can believe it is it?