FACTOID # 3: South Carolina has the highest rate of violent crimes and aggravated assaults per capita among US states.
 
 Home   Encyclopedia   Statistics   States A-Z   Flags   Maps   FAQ   About 
   
 
WHAT'S NEW
 

SEARCH ALL

FACTS & STATISTICS    Advanced view

Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 

 

(* = Graphable)

 

 


Encyclopedia > Socialized medicine

Socialized medicine is a term used primarily in the United States to refer to certain kinds of publicly-funded health care.[1] The term is used most frequently, and often pejoratively, in the U.S. political debate concerning health care.[2][3][4][5][6] Definitions vary, and usage is inconsistent. The term can refer to any system of medical care that is publicly financed, government administered, or both. Publicly-funded health care is a health care system that is financed entirely or in majority part by citizens tax payments instead of through private payments made to insurance companies or directly to health care providers (health insurance premiums, copayments or deductibles)[citation needed]. // Publicly-funded health care systems are... It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with pejoration. ... A physician visiting the sick in a hospital. ...


Some say the literal meaning is confined to systems in which the government operates health care facilities and employs health care professionals.[7][8][9] This narrower usage would apply to the British National Health Service hospital trusts and health systems that operate in other countries as diverse as Finland, Spain, Israel and Cuba. The United States' Veterans Health Administration, and the medical departments of the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force would also fall under this narrow definition. When used in this way, the narrow definition permits a clear distinction from single payer health insurance systems, in which the government finances health care but is not involved in care delivery.[10][11] NHS redirects here. ... Veterans Health Administration is the component of the Department of Veterans Affairs that implements the medical assistance program of the VA through the administration and operation of numerous VA Outpatient clinics, hospitals, medical Centers and longterm healthcare facilities (i. ... The Army Medical Department (AMEDD) of the U.S. Army comprises the six medical Special Branches of the Army. ... Seal of the Air Force Medical Service The United States Air Force Medical Service (AFMS) consists of the five distinct medical corps of the Air Force and enlisted medical technicians. ... Single-payer health care is a system of paying for health care, in which a single government entity pays for all health care costs, usually from taxes. ...


Others apply the term more broadly to any publicly funded system. Canada's Medicare system, most of the UK's NHS general practitioner and dental services, which are all systems where health care is delivered by private business with partial or total government funding, fit this broader definition, as do the health care systems of most of Western Europe. In the United States, Medicare, Medicaid, and the U.S. military's TRICARE fall under this definition. The term medicare (in lowercase) (French: assurance maladie) is the unofficial name for Canadas universal public health insurance system. ... A general practitioner (GP), family physician or family practitioner (FP) is a medical doctor who provides primary care. ... This article is about the dental profession. ... President Johnson signing the Medicare amendment. ... Medicaid is the US health insurance program for individuals and families with low incomes and resources. ... The United States Armed Forces are the overall unified military forces of the United States. ... TRICARE is the United States militarys health plan for military personnel and their dependents. ...


Most industrialized countries, and many developing countries, operate some form of publicly-funded health care with universal coverage as the goal. According to some sources, the United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care.[12][13] Publicly-funded health care is a health care system that is financed entirely or in majority part by citizens tax payments instead of through private payments made to insurance companies or directly to health care providers (health insurance premiums, copayments or deductibles)[citation needed]. // Publicly-funded health care systems are... Universal health care, or universal healthcare, is health care coverage which is extended to all citizens, and sometimes permanent residents, of a governmental region. ...


The term is often used in the U.S. to evoke negative sentiment toward public control of the health care system by associating it with socialism, which has negative connotations in American political culture. As such its usage is controversial.[14][15][16][17] Some argue that the disadvantages of socialism and communism apply to socialized medicine.[18] A 2008 poll indicates that Americans are sharply divided in their views on socialized medicine, with a large percentage of Democrats holding favorable views, while a large percentage of Republicans hold unfavorable views. Independents tend to somewhat favor it.[19] Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. ... Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. ... This article is about the form of society and political movement. ...

Contents

Terminology

Origin

When the term "socialized medicine" first appeared in the U.S. in the early 1900s, it bore no negative connotations. Otto P. Geier, chairman of the Preventive Medicine Section of the American Medical Association (AMA), was quoted in The New York Times in 1917, praising socialized medicine as a way to "discover disease in its incipiency," help end "venereal diseases, alcoholism, tuberculosis," and "make a fundamental contribution to social welfare."[20] However, by the 1930s, the term socialized medicine was routinely used negatively by conservative opponents of publicly operated health care.[20][21] Publicly operated health care was first proposed by U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt.[22][23] President Franklin D. Roosevelt later championed it, as did Harry S. Truman as part of his Fair Deal[24] and many others, but it was ardently opposed by the AMA (which distributed posters to doctors with slogans such as "Socialized medicine ... will undermine the democratic form of government."[25] The American Medical Association (AMA) is the largest association of medical doctors in the United States. ... Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favor tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. ... Publicly-funded health care is a health care system that is financed entirely or in majority part by citizens tax payments instead of through private payments made to insurance companies or directly to health care providers (health insurance premiums, copayments or deductibles)[citation needed]. // Publicly-funded health care systems are... For other persons named Theodore Roosevelt, see Theodore Roosevelt (disambiguation). ... FDR redirects here. ... For other persons named Harry Truman, see Harry Truman (disambiguation). ... In United States history, the Fair Deal was U.S. President Harry S Trumans policy of social improvement, outlined in his 1949 State of the Union Address to Congress on January 5, 1949. ...


Current usage

Hostility to socialism remains a common basis of objection to universal health care by those generally opposed to expansion of government, social services and other redistributory policies.[26][27] Milton Friedman argued in 2005 that the health care system in the US was already partly socialist, and that suggestions for improving the medical system by expanding the role of government would move health care to a completely socialist system.[28] In 2006, Friedman argued that the third-party payment system used for health care in the United States is "a communist system and it has a communist result".[29] Milton Friedman (July 31, 1912 – November 16, 2006) was an American Nobel Laureate economist and public intellectual. ...


According to others, the term is a scare tactic or may be used as a pejorative ("name-calling") so that the idea may be rejected without examining the evidence.[30][31] This rhetorical usage has been pointed out in popular movies such Sicko, in which Michael Moore notes that Americans do not refer to their fire departments, police or public library services as socialized,[32] and by popular media personalities such as Oprah Winfrey.[33] For other uses, see Sicko (disambiguation). ... Michael Francis Moore (born April 23, 1954) is an American political-activist, a film director, author, social commentator, and political humorist. ... Oprah Winfrey, (born January 29, 1954) is a multiple-Emmy Award winning host of The Oprah Winfrey Show, the highest rated talk show in television history. ...


Some health care professionals prefer to avoid the term because of its pejorative nature, but if they do use it, they will use it according to the strict definition.[34] [3][35] Opponents of state involvement in health care tend to use the looser definition.[36]


The term is sometimes used in the U.S. to describe health care systems that have large amounts of public financing. As such, the term is often applied to other single-payer health insurance systems, such as national health insurance, where the government contracts with private medical practices to provide the service under rules and regulations for payment. Examples include Medicare systems in Canada, Australia and the US, Germany's health care system,[37] and Britain's NHS general practitioner service.[38][39]


The term is widely used by the American media and pressure groups. Some have even stretched use of the term to cover any regulation of health care, whether publicly financed or not.[40] The term is often used to criticize socialized health care outside the U.S., but rarely to describe socialized health care programs in the U.S., such as the Veterans Administration clinics and hospitals, military health care,[41] nor the single payer programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. The term is almost always used to evoke negative sentiment toward health care reform that would involve increasing government involvement in the U.S. health care system.[42] The United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is a Cabinet department of the United States government responsible for administering programs of veterans benefits for veterans, their families, and survivors. ... Medicaid is the US health insurance program for individuals and families with low incomes and resources. ... President Johnson signing the Medicare amendment. ...


Medical staff, academics and most professionals in the field and international bodies such as the WHO tend to avoid use of the term.[citation needed] Outside the U.S., the terms most commonly used are universal health care or public health care.[citation needed] According to health economist Uwe Reinhardt, "strictly speaking, the term 'socialized medicine' should be reserved for health systems in which the government operates the production of health care and provides its financing".[43] Still others say the term has no meaning at all.[36] Look up who in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. ... Universal health care, or universal healthcare, is health care coverage which is extended to all citizens, and sometimes permanent residents, of a governmental region. ... Publicly funded medicine is a level of medical service that is paid wholly or in majority part by public funds (taxes or quasi-taxes). ...


Usage in 2008 U.S. Presidential election

The issue of health care in the 2008 U.S. presidential election has caused a resurgence in use of the term by Republicans. [44] For example, in a July 2007 campaign speech, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani made a direct connection between socialized medicine and socialism.[45] Giuliani also quoted statistics from his health care advisor, Canadian psychiatrist David Gratzer,[46] to support his claim that he had a better chance of surviving prostate cancer in the U.S. than he would have had in England. According to cancer experts cited in fact check articles by the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org, the St. Petersburg Times and its PolitiFact.com, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Times, Giuliani's statistics were "false" and very "misleading" and his conclusions were complete "nonsense".[47][48][49][50][51][52][53]
The United States presidential election of 2008, scheduled to be held on November 4, 2008, will be the 55th consecutive quadrennial president and vice president of the United States. ... GOP redirects here. ... This article lists officially declared Republican candidates for the President of the United States in the 2008 election. ... Rudolph William Louis Rudy Giuliani (pronounced ;[1] born May 28, 1944) is an American lawyer, businessman, and politician from the state of New York who was Mayor of New York City from 1994 to 2001. ... Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. ... For other uses, see Psychiatrist (disambiguation). ... David Gratzer is a practising psychiatrist and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute where he specializes in medical topics such as medical reform, prescription drug policy, and insuring the medically uninsured. ... HRPC redirects here. ... For other uses, see England (disambiguation). ... A fact checker is a person whose job consists of checking factual assertions made in news copy to determine whether they are correct. ... The Annenberg School for Communication is the communications school at the University of Pennsylvania. ... FactCheck home page. ... Logo of the St. ... The New York Times is a daily newspaper published in New York City and distributed internationally. ... The Washington Post is the largest newspaper in Washington, D.C.. It is also one of the citys oldest papers, having been founded in 1877. ... For other uses, see Times. ... This article is about untruthfulness. ... This article or section includes a list of works cited but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations. ... For other uses, see Nonsense (disambiguation). ...


In response, Canadian psychiatrist and Giuliani health care advisor David Gratzer said: "The mayor is right."

Krugman and others have compared statistical apples to oranges. My 44% figure, replicated by economist John Goodman and others, looks at a snapshot in time, based on decade-old OECD data; Krugman's 74% is a five-year relative survival rate from government sources today.[54] For the Pink Floyd song, see Apples and Oranges (song). ... Alan Greenspan, former chairman, United States Federal Reserve. ... John C. Goodman is founder and President of the Dallas based think-tank the National Center for Policy Analysis. ... The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a non-partisan, non-profit think tank that develops and promotes private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. ... The snapshot is a concept in photography introduced by Eastman Kodak with their Brownie box camera in 1900: A casual photograph taken without any particular pre-arrangement, often of every day events. ... The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), (in French: Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques; OCDE) is an international organisation of thirty countries that accept the principles of representative democracy and a free market economy. ... Main entrance The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM or the London School) is a leading postgraduate institution in Europe for public health and tropical medicine, and is associated with the World Health Organization (WHO). ...

Annenberg's FactCheck.org found no merit in Gratzer's response:

Marie Diener-West, professor of biostatistics at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said Gratzer's attempts to calculate cancer survival rates were “inappropriate” and “very misleading."
Peter Albertsen, professor and chief of urology at the University of Connecticut Health Center, called Gratzer's calculations a “very dangerous thing to do” and “complete nonsense.”[48] Biostatistics or biometry is the application of statistics to a wide range of topics in biology. ... The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is part of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, U.S. It was the first institution of its kind in the world. ... This article or section includes a list of works cited but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations. ... This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. ... the University of Connecticut Health Center is located on the site of the old OMeara farms in the Farmington Heights section of Farmington, Connecticut. ... For other uses, see Nonsense (disambiguation). ...

Nor did The Washington Post, which awarded Giuliani and Gratzer's response the same "Four Pinocchios" rating (reserved for "whoppers")[55] it awarded Giuliani and Gratzer's original claim.[56]

History

The first system of socialized medicine based on compulsory insurance with state subsidy was created by Otto von Bismarck after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.[57] Socialized health care was implemented by the Soviet Union in the 1920s.[58] New Zealand was the first country with a mixed economy to provide the direct provision of health care by the state when, in 1939, it provided mental health services free of cost to the recipient following the passing of the Social Security Act of 1938.[59] After World War II in the 1940s the United Kingdom established its National Health Service which was built from the outset as a comprehensive service. A socialized model was used in China in from the 1950s to the 1970s during the first two decades of communist rule.[60] Cuba adopted socialized medicine in the 1960s under the leadership of Fidel Castro.[61] Also in the 1960s, the United States initiated its Medicaid program to help poor mothers and their children.[62] Bismarck redirects here. ... Combatants Second French Empire North German Confederation allied with South German states (later German Empire) Commanders Napoleon III François Achille Bazaine Patrice de Mac-Mahon, duc de Magenta Otto von Bismarck Helmuth von Moltke the Elder Strength 400,000 at wars beginning 1,200,000 Casualties 150,000... 1870 (MDCCCLXX) was a common year starting on Saturday (link will display the full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar (or a common year starting on Monday of the 12-day slower Julian calendar). ... The 1920s is sometimes referred to as the Jazz Age or the Roaring Twenties, usually when speaking about the United States. ... A mixed economy is an economic system that incorporates aspects of more than one economic system. ... The 1940s decade ran from 1940 to 1949. ... NHS redirects here. ... The 1950s decade refers to the years of 1950 to 1959 inclusive. ... The 1970s decade refers to the years from 1970 to 1979, also called The Seventies. ... The 1960s decade refers to the years from the beginning of 1960 to the end of 1969. ... Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz (born on August 13, 1926) is the current President of Cuba but on indefinite medical hiatus. ... Medicaid is the US health insurance program for individuals and families with low incomes and resources. ...


Examples

Cuba

Main article: Healthcare in Cuba

The Cuban government operates a national health system and assumes fiscal and administrative responsibility for the health care of its citizens. ...

Finland

Finland has a highly decentralized three level socialized system of health care and alongside these, a much smaller private health care system. Responsibility for health care is devolved to the municipalities (local government), Primary health care is obtained from district health centers employing general practitioners and nurses that provide most day-to-day medical services. The general practitioners are also gatekeepers to more the more specialized services in the secondary and tertiary care sectors. Secondary care is provided by the municipalities through district hospitals where more specialist care is available. Finland also has a network of five university teaching hospitals which makes up the tertiary level. These contain the most advanced medical facilities in the country and they are where Finnish doctors learn their profession. These are funded by the municipalities, but national government meets the cost of medical training. These hospitals are located in the major cities of Helsinki, Turku, Tampere, Kuopio, and Oulu.


There is a high level of co-operation between the various sectors with almost all having access to computerised patient data based on open source software originally developed for the U.S. Veterans Health Administration and compliant with CDA subset of HL7 interoperability standards [63] [64]. Since the 1980s, the planning system for basic health care has been extended and now plans not just health care services but also care homes for the elderly and day care for children creating a fairly seamless cradle to grave system. CDA stands for: .cda is a filename extension for a CD Audio Track Shortcut. ... Health Level 7 (HL7) is the leading international standard for data exchange between computer systems in healthcare. ...


The separate private health care system is very small. Between 3 and 4 per cent of hospital in-patient care is provided by the private health care system and the remainder by the public or socialized system. Physiotherapy, dentistry and occupational health services are the main areas where the private sector is most used, although the municipalities by law also have to provide basic dental services. Employers are obliged by law to provide occupational health care services for their employees, as are educational establishments for their students as well as their staff. Only about 10 per cent of the income of private sector income comes from private insurance. Most is paid for out of pocket, but a significant share of the cost is reclaimable from the National Insurance system KELA. Spectacles, however, are not publicly subsidized. Occupational safety and health is a cross-disciplinary area concerned with protecting the safety, health and welfare of people engaged in work or employment. ... KELA, or Kansaneläkelaitos (in Finnish), also FPA or Folkpensionsanstalten (in Swedish), is a Finnish government agency in charge of payment for the national social security programs. ...


A Patient’s Injury Law gives patients the right to compensation for unforeseeable injury that occurred as a result of treatment or diagnosis. Health care personnel need not be shown to be legally responsible for the injury thus avoiding the development of a litigious blame culture and the development of defensive medical practices. To receive compensation, it is sufficient that unforeseeable injury as defined by law occurred. A law on patients’ status and rights, the first such law in Europe, ensures a patient’s right to information, to informed consent to treatment, the right to see any relevant medical documents,and the right to autonomy. Legislation also lays down the time frame in which a person must be ensured access to necessary medical care and defines the small percentage of treatments that are to be considered as non-urgent. Doctors comply with care guidelines set by medical experts, but these are just guidelines and doctors are free to decide independently how to treat patients. The government does not dictate how doctors may treat their patients.


Finland's health care services are more highly socialized than the European average. The quality of service in Finnish health care is considered to be good and according to a survey published by the European Commission in 2000, Finland has one of the highest ratings of patient satisfacton with their hospital care system in the EU: 88% of Finnish respondents were satisfied compared with the EU average of 41.3%. [65] Finnish health care expenditures are below the European average.


Overall, the municipalities (funded by taxation, local and national) meet about two thirds of all medical care costs and the remaining one third by the national insurance system (nationally funded), and private finance (either employer funded or met by patients themselves). There are caps on total medical expenses that are met out of pocket for drugs and hospital treatments. All necessary costs over these caps are paid for by the National Insurance system. Public spending on health care in 2006 was 13.6 billion euros, equivalent to 2,586 euros (US$ 4,031) per person annually. The increase over 2005 at 8.2 per cent was below the OECD average of 9 percent. Household budgets directly met 18.7 per cent of all health care costs. [66]


Main sources: Finland report on Health Care Systems in Transition (WHO) and Health care in Finland (Ministry of Social Affairs and Health publication)


Israel

Israel has maintained a system of socialized health care since its establishment in 1948, although the National Health Insurance law was passed only on January 1, 1995. The state is responsible for providing health services to all residents of the country, who can register with one of the four health service funds. To be eligible, a citizen must pay a health insurance tax. Coverage includes medical diagnosis and treatment, preventive medicine, hospitalization (general, maternity, psychiatric and chronic), surgery and transplants, preventive dental care for children, first aid and transportation to a hospital or clinic, medical services at the workplace, treatment for drug abuse and alcoholism, medical equipment and appliances, obstetrics and fertility treatment, medication, treatment of chronic diseases and paramedical services such as physiotherapy and occupational therapy.[67]


Soviet Union

In the Soviet Union, the preferred term was "socialist medicine"; the Russian language has no term to distinguish between "socialist" and "socialized" (other than "public", Rus: obshchestvenniy/общественный, sometimes "collectivized" or "nationalized", Rus: obobshchestvlenniy/обобществленный).[68][69]Pre 1990s, soviet Russia had a totally socialist model of health care with a centralised, integrated, hierarchically organised with the government providing free health care to all citizens. All health personnel were state employees. Control of communicable diseases had priority over non-communicable ones. There was over provision of hospital beds, which contributed over time to an imbalance in the overall structure of the health care system. On the whole, the Soviet system tended to neglect primary care, and placed too much emphasis on specialist and hospital care. Despite weaknesses, the integrated model achieved considerable success in dealing with infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, typhoid fever and typhus. The effectiveness of the socialized model declined with underinvestment. Despite a doubling in the number of hospital beds and doctors per capita between 1950 and 1980, the quality of care began to decline by the early 1980s and medical care and health outcomes were below western standards. The lack of money that had been going into health was patently obvious. Many small district hospitals had no more than 4–5 m2 per bed, and some of the smallest hospitals had no radiology services, and inadequate heating or water. A 1989 survey found that 20% of Russian hospitals did not have piped hot water and 3% did not even have piped cold water. 17% lacked adequate sanitation facilities. Every seventh hospital and polyclinic needed basic reconstruction. Five years after the reforms described below per capital spending on health care was still a meagre US$158 per year (about 8 times less than the average European social models in Spain, the UK and Finland, and 26 times that of the U.S. which spent US$4,187 at that time). [70]


The new Russia has switched to a mixed model of health care with private financing and provision running alongside state financing and provision. Article 41 of the 1993 constitution confirmed a citizen's right to healthcare and medical assistance free of charge.[citation needed] This is achieved through compulsory medical insurance (OMS) rather than just tax funding. This and the introduction of new free market providers was intended to promote both efficiency and patient choice. A purchaser-provider split was also expected to help facilitate the restructuring of care, as resources would migrate to where there was greatest demand, reduce the excess capacity in the hospital sector and stimulate the development of primary care. Finally, it was intended that insurance contributions would supplement budget revenues and thus help to maintain adequate levels of healthcare funding.


The OECD reported [71] that unfortunately, none of this has worked out as planned and the reforms have in many respects made the system worse. The population’s health has deteriorated on virtually every measure. Though this is by no means all due to the changes in health care structures, the reforms have proven to be woefully indequate at meeting the needs of the nation. Private health care delivery has not managed to make much inroads and public provision of health care still predominates. The resulting system is overly complex and very inefficient. It has little in common with the model envisaged by the reformers. Although there are more than 300 private insurers and numerous public ones in the market, real competition for patients is rare leaving most patients with little or no effective choice of insurer, and in many places, no choice of health care provider either. The insurance companies have failed to develop as active, informed purchasers of health care services. Most are passive intermediaries, making money by simply channelling funds from regional OMS funds to healthcare providers.


Main source: OECD: Health care reforms in Russia


United Kingdom

See Healthcare in the United Kingdom for a description of the services from the user perspective. The vast majority of health care in the United Kingdom (UK) is provided by the four National Health Services (commonly referred to in the singular as the NHS) which are funded by the taxpayer and are not insurance based systems. ...


The National Insurance Act 1911 granted all workers of 16 years or over free medical coverage as well as unemployemnt benefits. [72] In 1948 the system was extended to the entire population and a new service, The National Health Service or NHS was established. Today it is the world's largest publicly funded health service. [73] It was set up on July 5 1948 to "provide healthcare for all citizens, based on need, not the ability to pay." It is funded by the taxpayer and managed by a government department, the Department of Health, which sets overall policy on health issues. [74] There are four separate health services for each of the three constituent nations (England, Scotland, and Wales) and one for Northern Ireland. In practice, they work closely together and provide a seamless service based on the same core principles. The National Insurance Act 1911 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, passed in 1911. ... NHS redirects here. ...

"The NHS is committed to providing quality care that meets the needs of everyone, is free at the point of need, and is based on a patient's clinical need, not their ability to pay." (Source: NHS website) [75]

The core of the service are the General Practitioners (GPs or family doctors) who are responsible for the care of patients registered with them. GPs are mostly private doctors that choose to contract with the NHS to provide services to patients paid for by the government and not the patient. They are paid a capitation fee and certain other payments according to work they do and their performance. Patients are free to register with any GP of their choice in their locality. GPs can prescribe medicines for collection at a local pharmacy. Patients in England of working age pay a fixed price (presently £7.10 or about US$14 - Northern Ireland and Scotland charge less and in Wales prescriptions are free) for each drug prescribed regardless of the amount of drug prescribed or the cost to the pharmacy. The pharmacy invoices the cost of the drugs (less the fixed price patient contribution) to the NHS. GPs can refer their patients to a hospital for more specialized services and for surgery. GP referrals are needed to see any hospital specialist. Most patients choose to be treated in NHS run hospitals. The quality is comparable to private hospitals and the services obtained (medicines, surgeons and other care workers, and even meals) are free of charge to the patient, whereas private hospitals bill for these. Ambulance services, mental health, and ancillary services such as physical and occupational therapy, in-home and in-clinic nursing, and certain care for the sick elderly in nursing homes are met from the NHS budget. The estimated cost of the English NHS in 2008 is £98.6 billion[76] or about £162 per person per month. Funding for the NHS is met from tax and National Insurance contributions paid by all persons over the age of 18 and employers in the UK. There is no direct correlation between National Insurance payments and health care costs because UK National insurance is part of much wider plan for social insurance, funding health care, retirement pensions and other social security benefits such as Jobseeker’s Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Bereavement Benefits, and Maternity Allowance. Unlike other benefits paid from National Insurance, health care entitlement is not dependent on a person's National Insurance contribution history but is instead dependent on a person's right to be permanently resident. Temporary residents such as tourists are only entitled to free emergency care. The symbol £ represents the pound currency which Britain uses. ... For other uses, see England (disambiguation). ... Taxes redirects here. ... Tax rates around the world Tax revenue as % of GDP Part of the Taxation series        UK Income Tax and National Insurance (2005–2006) UK Income Tax and National Insurance as a % of Salary (2005–2006) National Insurance (NI) is a system of taxes and related social security benefits in the... For specific national programs, see Social Security (United States), National insurance (UK), Social Security (Sweden) Social security refers to a variety of government programs providing for social welfare and social protection and the alleviation of poverty among senior citizens and the disabled. ...


There is popular support for the NHS in the UK. In opinion polls carried out regularly, IPSOS-MORI asks people which of the following two statements best reflects their thinking about the NHS. "The NHS is crucial to British society and we must do everything to maintain it" (chosen by 78%) and "The NHS was a great project but we cannot maintain it in its current form" (chosen by 20%) [77]. None of the main political parties or even the fringe parties propose adopting a different health care system. The UK's centre-right Conservative party says its policies are aimed at "Protecting and improving our health service by putting patients back at the heart of the NHS, and trusting the professionals to ensure that they are able to use their skills to make the fullest possible contribution to patient care."[78]. Even the ultra-right-wing British National Party supports socialized medicine and rails against free markets in health care. [79] The new logo of the Conservative Party The Conservative Party is the largest right wing political party in the United Kingdom. ... The British National Party (BNP) is a white nationalist political party in the United Kingdom. ...


A member of Margaret Thatcher's government, Nigel Lawson, described the NHS in his memoirs as "the closest thing the English have to a religion." [80]The Thatcher administration made only minor changes to the system, and although many state industries were privatized, the state health sector was not one of them. [81] Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS (née Roberts; born 13 October 1925) served as British Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990 and leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 until 1990, being the first and only woman to hold either post. ... Nigel Lawson, Baron Lawson of Blaby, PC (born March 11, 1932), was a British politician, Chancellor of the Exchequer between June 1983 and October 1989. ...


The Health Care Commission undertakes regular surveys of patients' opinions of the NHS. In its most recent survey (2006), experience of hospitals in England was rated by those who responded to the surveys as follows: “excellent” (41%), “very good (36%)”, “good”(15%), “fair” (6%) and “poor” (2%). [82]


United States

See also: Health care in the United States, Health insurance in the United States, and Health care reform in the United States

The Veterans Health Administration, the military health care system,[31] and the Indian Health Service are examples of socialized medicine in the stricter sense of government administered care, although for limited populations. Medicare and Medicaid are forms of publicly-funded health care which fits the looser definition of socialized medicine. Health care in the United States is provided by many separate legal entities. ... Veterans Health Administration is the component of the Department of Veterans Affairs that implements the medical assistance program of the VA through the administration and operation of numerous VA Outpatient clinics, hospitals, medical Centers and longterm healthcare facilities (i. ... Wikipedia does not yet have an article with this exact name. ... The Indian Health Service (IHS), an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is responsible for providing federal health services to American Indians and Alaska Natives. ... President Johnson signing the Medicare amendment. ... Medicaid is the US health insurance program for individuals and families with low incomes and resources. ... Publicly-funded health care is a health care system that is financed entirely or in majority part by citizens tax payments instead of through private payments made to insurance companies or directly to health care providers (health insurance premiums, copayments or deductibles)[citation needed]. // Publicly-funded health care systems are...


A poll released in February 2008, conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health and Harris Interactive, indicated that Americans are currently divided in their opinions of socialized medicine, and this split correlates strongly with their political party affiliation.[83] Two-thirds of those polled said they understood the term "socialized medicine" very well or somewhat well. When offered descriptions of what such a system could mean, strong majorities believed that it means "the government makes sure everyone has health insurance" (79%) and "the government pays most of the cost of health care" (73%). One-third (32%) felt that socialized medicine is a system where "the government tells doctors what to do". The poll showed "striking differences" by party affiliation. Among Republicans polled, 70% said that socialized medicine would be worse than the current system. The same percentage of Democrats (70%) said that a socialized medical system would be better than the current system. Independents were more evenly split, with 43% saying socialized medicine would be better and 38% worse. According to Robert J. Blendon, Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health, "The phrase ‘socialized medicine' really resonates as a pejorative with Republicans. However, that so many Democrats believe that socialized medicine would be an improvement is an indication of their dissatisfaction with our current system." According to Humphrey Taylor, chairman of The Harris Polls, "Only just over one third of adults think that socialized medicine would be worse than what we have now, and majorities associate the words with popular policies such as Medicare and a government guarantee that everyone has health insurance. Clearly socialized medicine is not the scary bogeyman it used to be." Harvard School of Public Health The Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) is Harvard Universitys School of Public Health. ... Harris Interactive is a company. ...


Physicians' opinions on "socialized medicine" have evolved. A 2008 survey of doctors, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, shows that physicians support universal health care and national health insurance by almost 2 to 1.[84]


Controversies

See also: Health care economics

Supporters of government involvement in health care argue that government involvement ensures access, quality, and addresses market failures[85] specific to the health care markets. When the government covers the cost of health care, there is no need for individuals or their employers to pay for private insurance. Opponents point out that socialized medicine would require higher taxes. They also claim that it would reduce health care quality, and also claim that the absence of a market mechanism may slow innovation in treatment and research. Some opponents argue that socialized medicine would lead to rationing of care through waiting lists instead of the price mechanism. Supporters on the other hand argue that waiting lists do not deny care but just prioritize it to those who need it first. Health economics is a branch of economics concerned with issues related to scarcity in the allocation of health and health care. ... Market failure is a term used by economists to describe the condition where the allocation of goods and services by a market is not efficient. ...


Both sides have also looked to more philosophical arguments, debating whether people have a fundamental right to have health care provided to them by their government. This article is about the moral/legal concept. ...


Cost of care

Consumers want unfettered access to medical services; they also prefer to pay through insurance or tax rather than out of pocket. These two needs create cost-efficiency challenges for healthcare.[86] Some studies have found no consistent and systematic relationship between the type of financing of health care and cost containment; the efficiency of operation of the health care system itself appears to depend much more on how providers are paid and how the delivery of care is organized than on the method used to raise these funds.[87]


Some supporters argue that government involvement in health care reduces costs because it eliminates profit margins and administrative overhead, and can make use of economies of scale in administration. Government-run health care may also make use of purchasing power to reduce costs, particularly for products benefitting from intellectual property rights (in economic terms, producers have a government-protected monopoly, and a large purchaser or monopsony may have more ability to reduce prices by bargaining).[88] In certain circumstances, a volume purchaser may be able to guarantee sufficient volume to reduce overall prices while providing greater profitability to the seller, such as in so-called 'purchase commitment' programs.[89][dubious ] The increase in output from Q to Q2 causes a decrease in the average cost of each unit from C to C1. ... For the 2006 film, see Intellectual Property (film). ... This article is about the economic term. ... In economics, a monopsony (from Ancient Greek μόνος (monos) single + ὀψωνία (opsōnia) purchase) is a market form with only one buyer, called monopsonist, facing many sellers. ...


Some opponents argue that the government bureaucracy created in socialized systems is less efficient than private providers in a free market[citation needed], thereby increasing costs; they also argue that government has weak incentives to reduce costs (Milton Friedman said that "nobody spends somebody else’s money as wisely or as frugally as he spends his own").[90] They argue that while competing healthcare providers would gradually lower costs and improve efficiency, some government regulations make coverage more expensive and increase the ranks of uninsured by denying an option to decline some types of coverage (such as coverage for dieticians and marriage therapists).[91]


The United States, which has a partly free-market health care system, spends a higher portion of its GDP on health care than any other country in the world. Some claim that this is because of the inefficiency of free-market health care. Others argue that high labor costs, high use of specialists and advanced medical equipment explain the high rate of health care spending in the United States. There are risk factors specific to the US population, such as a relatively high prevalence of obesity, that also increase costs. Economist Arnold Kling argues that extra spending in the US is cost-effective if expected life span increases by only about half a year as a result of this spending.[86] Kling attributes the "present cost crisis mainly to the practice of what he calls "premium medicine," which overuses expensive forms of technology that is of marginal or no proven benefit."[92] This page is a candidate for speedy deletion. ...


Paul Krugman and Robin Wells state that all of the evidence indicates that public insurance of the kind available in several European countries achieves equal or better results at much lower cost, a conclusion that also applies within the United States. In terms of actual administrative costs, Medicare spent less than 2 percent of its resources on administration, while private insurance companies spent more than 13 percent.[93] The Cato Institute argues that the 2 percent Medicare cost figure ignores all costs shifted to doctors and hospitals, and that Medicare is not very efficient at all when those costs are incorporated.[94] Some studies have found that the US wastes more on bureaucracy (compared to the Canadian level), and that this excess administrative cost would be sufficient to provide health care to the uninsured population in the US.[95] Paul Krugman Paul Robin Krugman (born February 28, 1953) is an American economist. ...


Supporters say that there is in fact less bureaucracy in socialized systems than in insurance- based reimbursement systems and that doctors rather than patients are probably the better judges of value-for-money and effectiveness in the special case of health care.[citation needed]


Innovation

The United States has partially free-market health care, and according to economist Tyler Cowen, is the world leader in medical innovation.[96] According to Cowen, the United States spends more on research and development than the European Union, even though the US has a smaller population. Cowen also argues that the American system leads in converting new foreign ideas into workable commercial technologies, and that the research environment in the United States, compared with Europe, is richer, more competitive, more meritocratic and more tolerant of waste. Cowen says the American government could use its size to bargain down health care prices, but in the longer run it would cost lives because of reduced innovation. Economist Arnold Kling says that America's role in medical innovation is crucial not just for Americans, but for the entire world.[97] The libertarian Cato Institute argues that government-controlled health care system would stifle lifesaving research and innovation.[98] Tyler Cowen (COW-en) (b. ... The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Institutes stated mission is to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace by striving to achieve greater involvement...


Paul Krugman and Robin Wells say that in response to new medical technology, the American health care system spends more on state-of-the-art treatment for people who have good insurance, and spending is reduced on those lacking it.[99] Uwe Reinhardt and others have questioned the costs and benefits of some medical innovation, noting, for example, that "rising spending on new medical technologies designed to address heart disease has not meant that more patients have survived." [100] A similar argument is made by Sherie Glied. Paul Krugman Paul Robin Krugman (born February 28, 1953) is an American economist. ...


Access and rationing

One of the goals of socialized medicine systems is ensuring universal access to health care. Opponents of socialized medicine say that access for low-income individuals can be achieved by means other than socialized medicine, for example, income-related subsidies can function without public provision of either insurance or medical services.[101] Economist Milton Friedman said the role of the government in health care should be restricted to financing hard cases.[102] Universal coverage can also be achieved by making purchase of insurance compulsory. For example, European countries with socialized medicine in the broader sense, such as Germany and Holland, operate in this way. A legal obligation to purchase health insurance is akin to a mandated health tax, and the use of public subsidies is a form of directed income redistribution via the tax system. Such systems maintain the advantage of giving the consumer a choice of insurer whilst attempting to ensure universality. Milton Friedman (July 31, 1912 – November 16, 2006) was an American Nobel Laureate economist and public intellectual. ... Income redistribution, or the redistribution of wealth, is a political policy usually promoted by members of the political left, and opposed, or less strongly supported, by members of the political right. ...


Compulsory health insurance or savings are not limited to so-called socialized medicine, however. Singapore's health care system, which is often referred to as a free-market or mixed system, makes use of a combination of compulsory participation and state price controls to achieve the same goals.[103]


Opponents of socialized medicine say that socialized medicine rations healthcare by bureaucracy, denying care through waiting lists.[104]


Opponents of socialized medicine say that healthcare is rationed in non-socialized systems through individual choice.[105] Supporters of socialized systems argue that rationing in a market-based system occurs through denial of services for those who can't pay for them, and through managed care initiatives.[106]


Political interference and targeting

People working in the UK health service often claim that target-setting by politicians distorts clinical priorities and leads to unwarranted actions merely to meet a target. The veracity and significance of such claims is often hard to judge.


For example, some ambulance crews have complained that the turnaround time for ambulance crews at Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments in hospitals is sometimes too long. They are themselves targetted with a 15-minute turnaround time but occasionally find themselves at the hospital for an hour or more, which can then deplete the capacity of the ambulance service. Ambulance trade union officials suspected that another politically inspired target on A&E departments (for the A&E department to either treat and discharge a patient or admit the patient to the hospital within 4 hours) is to blame. The key allegation was that hospitals were deliberately leaving patients with ambulance crews to prevent the A&E target time from starting to run. The Department of Health vehemently denied the claim, because the A&E time begins when the ambulance arrives at the hospital and not after the handover. It defended the 4-hour target by pointing out that the percentage of people waiting 4 hours or more in A&E had dropped from just under 25 percent in 2004 to less that 2 percent in 2008. [107] The original Observer article [108] reported that in London, 14,700 ambulance turnarounds were longer than an hour and 332 were more than 2 hours. In the context of the total number of emergency ambulance attendances by the London Ambulance Service each year however,(approximately 865,000[109]) these represent 1.6% and 0.03% of all incidents.


At least one junior doctor has complained that the 4-hour A&E target is too high and leads to unwarranted actions which are not in the best interests of patients. [110] Academics have also pointed out that the claims of success of the targetting are statistically flawed.[111]


Support

The benefits of socialized medicine (according to the narrow definition) include the following.

  • Avoids over-production that can occur in free market health care
In most free-market situations, the consumer of health care is entirely in the hands of a third party who has a direct personal interest in persuading the consumer to spend money on health care in his or her practice. The consumer is not able to make value judgements about the services judged to be necessary because he or she may not have sufficient expertise to do so.[112] This, it is claimed, leads to a tendency to over produce. In socialized medicine, hospitals are not run for profit and doctors work directly for the community and are assured of their salary. They have no direct financial interest in whether the patient is treated or not, so there is no incentive to over provide. When insurance interests are involved this furthers the disconnect between consumption and utility and the ability to make value judgements. [113] Others argue that the reason for over production is less cynically driven but that the end result is much the same.[114]
  • No for-profit insurance companies are involved. This removes the incentive to deny or restrict care
A criticism leveled at insurance based systems, especially when insurance is done for profit, is that insurance companies make more money when they deny or restrict the care they to their policyholders. Socialized medicine is essentially insured by the community and so there is no profit motive present. If the socialized system under provides, the community applies political pressure to get additional provisions. In democracies, the normal political process achieves this.
  • The system is better geared to keep the nation healthy
It is usually cheaper and easier to deal with disease in the early stages than to deal with it once it has advanced too far. Britain's NHS, for example, rewards doctors through a Quality and Outcomes Framework to actively take steps that will improve the quality of health of the nation. Finland's nurses can grant discounted access to fitness facilities run by the municipalities (which also run the hospitals) for those patients for whom improved fitness will improve their health.
Supporters of socialized medicine would contend that there is a fundamental disconnect with the interests of patients in a free market with employer funded health insurance and private hospitals. For profit hospitals mostly make profits by treating the unhealthy. Investigating and treating illness is what generates profits. For profit insurance companies tend not to fund preventative care because this costs the company money but the savings are likely to be achieved by another insurer because of the tendency to switch insurers over time.[115][116] Critics of socialized medicine would contend that the government has no reason to reduce the costs since it can always transfer them onto someone else by raising taxes.[citation needed]
  • Making health care affordable to all raises national productivity and the reduces the level of human misery
  • Centralized planning can maximize investment returns to reduce average costs when provider and payer are the same entity
For example, medical imaging technology, which has a high capital cost, is used most efficiently if there is a high throughput of patients.[117] The average cost of an exam will be lower at higher throughput rates as high fixed capital costs are recouped across a high number of patients. A centrally planned health care system can guarantee a high throughput rate at a Magnetic Imaging Resolution (MRI) unit because it has an almost perfect knowledge of demand and supply conditions it can acquire new units and/or retire old units to meet anticipated demand in order to ensure a high rate of use.
For example the UK's NHS has increased MRI throughput rates over the past 10 years and are now handling about 4000 exams per unit per year, an increase of about 26% since 2001.[118] There is evidence of oversupply in the US. For example, in the US, between the years 1985 and 2000 investors had installed MRI units at a much faster rate than the demand for scans such that average throughput rates actually fell, from 3,143 per year to an estimated 2,361 per year. Based on US data at 2001 prices, the average cost of a scan of unit running at 2,000 scans per year was 440 dollars per scan compared to 281 dollars per scan at a rate of 4,000 exams per year.[119]
  • Countries where health care is provided mostly by government tend to spend less on health care overall than similar countries with a more mixed health care system.
This may be due to a number of factors such as regulations, marketing, underwriting, profits, which are not present or present to a lesser extent in government delivered care. There may also be other centralizing efficiencies such as bulk purchasing, IT, payroll, lower spend on defensive medicine and fewer potentially expensive litigations for malpractice. Spending on administration in Finland is 2.1% of all health care costs, and in the UK the figure is 3.3%. The US spends 7.3% of all expenditures on administration.[120] Some socialized systems also take a balanced view of cost against benefit. For example, the UK's NHS generally places a value of about £30,000 (about 45,000€ or 60,000 US dollars) on the benefit of an additional year of life [121] and therefore treatments which do not deliver a cost benefit higher than this threshold are simply not funded and patients must fund the treatment themselves if they wish to receive it. By contrast, in the U.S., doctors and the health care industry have little reason to keep costs in check, because insurers rarely deny coverage for new treatments on the basis of price and the Federal Drug Administration is prohibited by law from considering price when it approves a drug. [122] Even some government programs in the U.S. such as Medicare Part D do not attempt to weigh up cost and benefit when deciding which drugs the government will help fund.
  • Socialized systems that provide universal health care give expression to a collectivist view that health care is a right for everyone and that there is also a moral duty on the well to care for the sick. Filmaker Michael Moore, promoting Sicko says it should be re-labelled as "Christianized medicine" because it is what Jesus would do.[123]
Critics have countered that if it was relabelled as such then the US could not introduce it because it would then violate the rule of separation between Church and State.
  • Where there is a large common risk pool, such as where the state delivers health care to large national or regional populations (such as those in Britain, Spain and Finland for example) pre-existing conditions do not affect a person's access to medical services.[124] The same is true of Canada's health care system.
In free market health care with multiple insurers, insurers employ actuaries and load premiums against insured persons with pre-existing conditions or limit the cost available. In practice this means that the healthiest and youngest people are offered low rates and are more likely to afford wide coverage. On the other hand, sicker, older people end to have to pay higher premiums, and may have their coverage restricted or denied, especially in areas related to pre-existing conditions.
  • In narrowly defined socialized systems, where the state delivers health care to the national population (such as those in Britain, Spain and Finland for example,) changing employer does not have health care consequences. The same is true of Canada's health care system.
People are free to change employer, move to a new location, without ever leaving the risk pool and in the knowledge that a pre-existing condition will not affect the ability to get treatment and will not affect their future medical expenses.
  • In National Health Care schemes, coverage is usually well understood by the population as a whole because there is one scheme. The coverage rules are often mentioned in the press and are therefore become known to many people.
  • Low cost to the patients which can lead to earlier detections.
In some countries with a socialized health service, the state assumes the major costs of medical treatment and medicines at the time of need. Patients may be required to pay a capped contribution before the state begins to assumes the remaining costs of their treatment. For example in Finland the cost of a hospital visit is €22 (€11 in a smaller clinic), and in the UK all hospital and GP services are free. There is evidence that the cost of even a basic consultation in the United States deters some people from seeking medical advice.[citation needed] This can have serious consequences if the condition is discovered late where early diagnosis could save later costs and discomfort in the long run or even save a life.
  • Socialized systems have long term patient relationships and can make investments on the back of this assumption.
This happens because there is a long term relationship with the patient and the preservation of records has long term benefits. Investment in IT is one often cited example where health care providers in socialized systems have access to electronic records of patients tests online and where computer systems can check for example incompatible drug combinations and that drugs are administered to the right patient. Some for profit systems find this investment hard to justify because the provider-patient relationship is not guaranteed to last long enough to justify the investment.[citation needed] Patients in the US are more likely to report that doctors are unable to trace the results of test than patients in other countries and inappropriate drug administration is much less likely to happen in VA hospitals and clinics than happens in private sector care.[citation needed]
  • Coverage is set in order to maximise the health benefit under the funding arrangements
The government sets the framework for determining how the health care system delivers treatments to patients. Health care professionals work within the framework to determine what treatments are offered and on what basis and to whom. Typically criteria are established to maximize the health benefit that is delivered within the allocated funding. For highly expensive interventions, measurements of quality adjusted life years QALY are sometimes taken to calculate the cost/benefit ratio of a particular interventions in particular circumstances to formulate simple rules of guidance for clinicians. Doctors make decisions about the care of individual patients within the guidance of these rules in much the same way as an insurance company applies rules evenly to health insurance policyholders.
Patients for whom certain treatments are determined to be not effective or cost effective in their circumstances may be denied public funding for those treatments but will usually be free to pay for them themselves from their own pocket.

The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) is a system for payment of GPs in the UK National Health Service. ... Medicare Part D is a federal program to subsidize the costs of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries in the United States. ... For other uses, see Sicko (disambiguation). ... Quality-adjusted life years, or QALYs, are a measure of the benefit of a medical intervention. ...

Criticisms

Some criticisms of socialized medicine are

  • Higher Taxes:
A country which adopts a totally tax funded socialized form of health care will have to increase the average tax rate by an amount equivalent to the cost of providing health care and administering the system. Offsetting this in whole or in part will be savings equivalent to the entire revenues of the health insurance industry, which will cease to exist all together, and all other direct medical fees paid to medical providers such as non-insured treatment, co-payments and deductibles, and prescription drug costs.
In England, a survey for the British Medical Association of the general public showed overwhelming support for the tax funding of health care. Nine out of ten people agreed or strongly agreed with a statement that the NHS should be funded from taxation with care being free at the point of use. [125]
Some countries use a payroll tax in whole or in part to fund health care which may be levied on both employers and employees. Other countries (e.g. Switzerland) use a compulsory national insurance funding model with a flatter rate contribution system less related to income. Contributions for such programs can be considered as a form of taxation even if the funds do not pass through government hands.
  • Waiting times: Critics often contend that socialized medicine is characterized by long waiting times for treatment.
For example, the National Health Service reports that the median admission wait time for elective inpatient treatment (non-urgent hospital treatment) in England at the end of August 2007, was just under 6 weeks, and 87.5 per cent of patients were admitted within 13 weeks. 0.04% of those waiting were waiting more than 26 weeks. The median wait time has reduced slowly over a 3 year period from about 10 weeks in 2004 to its present level of about 6 weeks. Similarly, the median wait time for a first GP referral to a specialist was just over 3 weeks. 92% of patients were seen within 13 weeks. [126] According to some supporters of socialized medicine, more recent UK statistics on waiting can also be misleading and overstate true waiting times. This is because under the new 18 week maximum target, the clock starts ticking much sooner, when the patient has been referred to a specialist by the GP. It only stops when the medical procedure is completed or the patient has been fixed on some regime to cure or mitigate the problem. The waiting period thus includes all the times taken for the patient to attend the first appointment with the specialist, any tests called for by the specialist to determine precisely the root of the patient's problem and determining the best way to treat it. It may also include any intervening steps deemed necessary prior to treatment, such as recovery from some other illness or the losing of excessive weight. Some transient medical conditions are not at all easy to diagnose. Therefore the so-called wait time may contain certain absolutely necessary and unavoidable activities which most people would not regard as "wait time" at all. [127]
Supporters of socialized medicine say there is also waiting in free market medicine because of normal scheduling or because the price mechanism can force some to wait. Those that cannot afford their treatment at the price level determined by the free market (or by a combination of the free market and state regulations that are common in most countries) because they cannot afford insurance premiums, are denied coverage by their insurer, or cannot afford to take out loans to cover their medical costs, or cannot obtain private charity, have to wait until they can afford their treatment. The numbers of people waiting in the free market is only known to hospitals and the insurance companies and is not recorded in governmental statistics. In socialized medicine, it is not the price mechanism but the relative need of the patient as determined by medical professionals that determines waiting times. In a socialized system, the numbers waiting are recorded in governmental statistics which informs the public debate about how much national funding should be provided for health care. [128] [129] [130]
Surveys on waiting times for certain elective procedures suggest that whereas such respondents are intolerant of long waits, exceeding three to six months, they can be quite sanguine about short and moderate waits, depending on the severity of the symptoms.[131] [132]
Critics say the patient's "need" as defined by a doctor constitutes an arbitrary criterion for the distribution of health care[citation needed].
  • Health care rationing
Critics of socialized medicine argue that medical resources are rationed in socialized systems so that some people are either denied care or have to wait for it.
Supporters would argue that rationing also happens in free market health care with the market price determining on the demand side who can afford health care and who cannot, and on the supply how much care is available.
In a democracy, the people through the democratic process are free to determine how much of their money as taxpayers should be spent on health and what services are covered and which are excluded. They also determine how much should be paid by users at the time of consumption and how much is paid as a form of insurance by way of tax. Both the allocation of overall funding to health and the allocation between areas and within an area to individual patients can become a topic of ending political debate. Within the medical profession, professional bodies may established bodies (such as NICE in the UK) which examine the cost effectiveness of treatments and set 'rational' guidelines as to how allocations should be made.
If a person is "rationed out" of the public health care service (perhaps because the treatment is not considered effective or cost effective enough to warrant intervention) they will be able seek alternative treatment in the private sector. If they cannot afford private care, they may have to go without.
Some have argued that government regulations impose extra costs in free market health care that distort the price mechanism and make health care too expensive.
  • Cancellations: Critics of socialized systems say that cancellations are a feature of the system.
As an incentive to reduce cancellations in UK NHS hospitals, regulations were introduced to force the NHS trust to perform a cancelled operation with the following 28 days or else give the patient the opportunity to have the surgery done at a private hospital of his own choice at the trust's own expense. As a result, the percentage of operations carried out on time has risen to almost 99%.[133].
  • Bureaucracy: Critics in the United States often claim that "socialized" or public medicine would introduce additional government control over the provision of health care and increase costs.
However, administrative costs in US private sector health care are in fact higher than those in the public sector health care system [134]. One often-cited study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information put the total administrative costs at 31 percent of U.S. health care spending.[135]
Supporters of the free market medicine would contend that these costs arise out of the substantial level of government regulation that exists in the United States's health care sector.[136] According to a Cato Institute study, this regulation provides benefits in the amount of $170 billion but costs the public up to $340 billion.[136]
  • Choice: Critics sometimes argue that choice is restricted in socialized systems because individuals are not allowed a public sector alternative or are required to pay twice when one is available--once to subsidize the socialized system and a second time for their private care.
In some countries with socialized medicine, such as the UK, patients are offered a choice of general practitioner, all of whom are self-employed or work in private partnerships employing all practice nurses, doctors and clerical staff. In addition, some hospital services are sub-contracted to the private sector, so that patients can choose from a range of providers [137] International comparisons of quality of care and health outcomes generally rank the UK above the U.S.[138][139]
The degree to which waiting in a socialized system affects choice varies from country to country. In the UK for example, a person is free at any time to seek treatment faster in the parallel free market medical system, but they will have to pay the full cost of their private treatment on top of their contribution to the national health care service. In Finland, it is possible to get some funding from the Social Insurance System for private sector delivered care. [140] In Canada the right to jump the queue in this fashion has been discouraged in some provincial legislation and outlawed in others.[citation needed].
  • Capacity: Critics argue that central planning is inefficient and under investment leads to capacity shortages and that a lack of willingness to invest in expensive technology leads to shortages in areas such as MRI scanning. Some would argue that only the price mechanism in free market health care can allocate resources efficiently and that political pressure often leads to shortages in socialized systems.
Supporters might argue that analysis of the facts reveals that it rather depends on how the system is supported financially and managed. Soviet era Russia was clearly starved the health care system of basic facilities, and made this worse by making bad investment decisions. Freeing up markets and introducing insurance has not made things better or delivered extra choice. Cuba demonstrates that remarkably good outcomes are possible for very little investment, even if some facilities are rather basic.
Critics would respond that there's no guarantee that current day systems won't make "bad investment decisions" like the Soviet Union. Additionally, they would point to the fact that health outcomes under Cuba's socialized system have declined relative to those of the pre-revolutionary period. [3]
  • A right to health care
Opponents of socialized medicine contend that no one has a right to health care. [4] According to this view, the individual and not the government or doctors should get the choice to determine what amount of health care coverage, if any, is appropriate for his or her needs.
Supporters would argue that everybody has a right to health care and it is therefore logical for the government to set down minimum standards of care available to all and to determine how the cost burden should be shared.
  • Subsidies are incentives for unhealthy behavior
Critics[citation needed] argue that subsidizing health care costs creates incentives for individuals to engage in unhealthy behaviors (smoking, overeating, engaging in unsafe sex) because individuals do not have to bear the costs of their own actions. As such, individuals who do take care of themselves are, in effect, paying for the carelessness of others.
Supporters would argue that the issue of health care costs is not a significant behavioral driver. If it were, then Europeans would be expected to be more overweight and have a worse HIV rate than Americans. But this is simply not the case.[141][142]

NHS redirects here. ... This article is about the French city. ... A free market is an idealized market, where all economic decisions and actions by individuals regarding transfer of money, goods, and services are voluntary, and are therefore devoid of coercion and theft (some definitions of coercion are inclusive of theft). Colloquially and loosely, a free market economy is an economy... The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Institutes stated mission is to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace by striving to achieve greater involvement...

See also

Publicly-funded health care Publicly-funded health care is a health care system that is financed entirely or in majority part by citizens tax payments instead of through private payments made to insurance companies or directly to health care providers (health insurance premiums, copayments or deductibles)[citation needed]. // Publicly-funded health care systems are...


Notes and references

  1. ^ Dorland's Medical Dictionary.
  2. ^ Paul Burleigh Horton, Gerald R. Leslie, The Sociology of Social Problems, 1965, page 59 (cited as an example of a standard propaganda device).
  3. ^ a b Rushefsky, Mark E.; Patel, Kant. Health Care Politics And Policy in America. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe, 47. ISBN 0-7656-1478-2. “....socialized medicine, a pejorative term used to help polarize debate” 
  4. ^ Dorothy Porter, Health, Civilization, and the State, Routledge, p. 252: "...what the Americans liked to call 'socialized medicine'..."
  5. ^ Paul Wasserman, Don Hausrath, Weasel Words: The Dictionary of American Doublespeak, p. 60: "One of the terms to denigrate and attack any system under which complete medical aid would be provided to every citizen through public funding."
  6. ^ Edward Conrad Smith, New Dictionary of American Politics, p. 350: "A somewhat loose term applied to..."
  7. ^ The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.
  8. ^ The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.
  9. ^ Jacob S. Hacker, "Socialized Medicine: Let's Try a Dose, We're Bound to Feel Better", Washington Post, March 23, 2008.
  10. ^ Single Payer article from AMSA.
  11. ^ MedTerms medical dictionary.
  12. ^ Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations, Institute of Medicine at the National Academies of Science, 2004-01-14, accessed 2007-10-22
  13. ^ The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States
  14. ^ Paul Wasserman, Don Hausrath, Weasel Words: The Dictionary of American Doublespeak, p. 60: "One of the terms to denigrate and attack any system under which complete medical aid would be provided to every citizen through public funding."
  15. ^ Edward Conrad Smith, New Dictionary of American Politics, p. 350: "A somewhat loose term applied to..."
  16. ^ Dorothy Porter, Health, Civilization, and the State, Routledge, p. 252: "...what the Americans liked to call 'socialized medicine'..."
  17. ^ Socialized Medicine Belittled on Campaign Trail, NPR
  18. ^ Free to Choose: A Conversation with Milton Friedman. Retrieved on 2008-04-14.
  19. ^ Harvard study on usage.
  20. ^ a b Greenberg, David (2007-10-08). Who's Afraid of Socialized Medicine? Two dangerous words that kill health-care reform. Slate. Retrieved on 2008-02-27.
  21. ^ Winston-Salem Journal, December 14, 2007.
  22. ^ National Health Care, HealthInsurance.info
  23. ^ Chris Farrell, It's Time to Cure Health Care, BusinessWeek
  24. ^ President Truman Addresses Congress on Proposed Health Program, Washington, D.C., Harry S. Truman Library and Museum
  25. ^ Olivier Garceau, "Organized Medicine Enforces its 'Party Line'", Public Opinion Quarterly, September 1940, p. 416.
  26. ^ Michael Tanner (September, 1996). A Hard Lesson About Socialized Medicine. Cato Institute.
  27. ^ John Goodman (Winter, 2005). Five Myths of Socialized Medicine. Cato Institute.
  28. ^ Milton Friedman. Gammon's Law Points to Health-Care Solution. Retrieved on 2008-04-14.
  29. ^ Free to Choose: A Conversation with Milton Friedman. Retrieved on 2008-04-14.
  30. ^ Paul Burleigh Horton, Gerald R. Leslie, The Sociology of Social Problems, 1965, page 59 (cited as an example of a standard propaganda device).
  31. ^ a b Phillip Boffey, The Socialists Are Coming! The Socialists Are Coming! Editorial on U.S. "socialized medicine" in the military, the Veterans Health Administration, and Medicare, The New York Times, September 28, 2007
  32. ^ Michael Moore's factual back-up for Sicko
  33. ^ Oprah Winfrey: Sick in America
  34. ^ http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=25520 Webster's New World Medical Dictionary, "Single-payer health care is distinct and different from socialized medicine in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government."
  35. ^ http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/june/kevin_drum_and_uwe_r.php Uwe Reinhardt, quoted in The Washington Monthly: " 'Socialism' is an arrangement under which the means of production are owned by the state. Government-run health insurance is not 'socialism,' and only an ignoramus would call it that. Rather, government-run health insurance is a form of 'social insurance,' that can be coupled with privately owned for-profit or not-for-profit health care delivery systems."
  36. ^ a b "Dirty Words", Winston-Salem Journal, December 14, 2007, "Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy at UNC Chapel Hill, explained that the term itself has no meaning. There is no definition of socialized medicine. It originated with an American Medical Association campaign against government-provided health care a century ago and has been used recently to describe even private-sector initiatives such as HMOs." See also Socialized Medicine Belittled on Campaign Trail, National Public Radio, Morning Edition, December 6, 2007: "The term socialized medicine, technically, to most health policy analysts, actually doesn't mean anything at all," says Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy at the University of North Carolina."
  37. ^ Uwe Reinhardt, "Germany's Health Care and Health Insurance System, p. 164.".
  38. ^ SYWTBGP Booklet.indd
  39. ^ National Public Radio, Morning Edition, December 6, 2007. Socialized medicine ... "It can be used to make the distinction between a so-called single-payer health care system — where the government pays all the health care bills — and a truly government-operated health system."
  40. ^ Socialized Medicine is Already Here.
  41. ^ Timothy Noah (March 8, 2005). The Triumph of Socialized Medicine. Slate.
  42. ^ Socialized Medicine Belittled on Campaign Trail, NPR
  43. ^ Uwe Reinhardt, Germany's Health Care and Health Insurance System, p 163.
  44. ^ "Tempering health-care goals; Democrats' proposals build on current system, reject single-payer", Laura Meckler, Wall Street Journal, 25 January 2008. "Say something too kind about single-payer and there's a Republican around the corner ready to brand you a socialist"..."Say something too harsh and you will alienate many on the left wing of the party."
  45. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/31/giuliani.democrats/index.html CNN, "Giuliani attacks Democratic health plans as 'socialist'", July 31, 2007. "The American way is not single-payer, government-controlled anything. That's a European way of doing something; that's frankly a socialist way of doing something. That's why when you hear Democrats in particular talk about single-mandated health care, universal health care, what they're talking about is socialized medicine."
  46. ^ IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily - Rudy Is Right In Data Duel About Cancer
  47. ^ A Bogus Cancer Statistic. FactCheck.org (2007-10-30).
  48. ^ a b Bogus Cancer Stats, Again. FactCheck.org (2007-11-08).
  49. ^ Giuliani's dose of fear. St. Petersburg Times (2007-11-03).
  50. ^ A cancer ad gone wrong for Rudy. PolitiFact.com (2007-10-31).
  51. ^ The Public Editor. Fact and Fiction on the Campaign Trail. The New York Times (2007-12-02).
  52. ^ The 2007 Pinocchio Awards. The top ten fibs of the past year. The Washington Post (2007-12-31).
  53. ^ The worst junk stats of 2007. The Times (2007-12-22).
  54. ^ IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily - Rudy Is Right In Data Duel About Cancer
  55. ^ The Pinocchio Test. The Washington Post (2007-09-01).
  56. ^ Rudy Wrong On Cancer Survival Chances. The Washington Post (2007-10-30).
  57. ^ New England Journal of Medicine, 20 Sep 2007, 357(12):1173, Perspective: Health care for all? M. Gregg Bloche.
  58. ^ Noble purpose, grand design, flawed execution, mixed results: Soviet socialized medicine after seventy years
  59. ^ The history of medicine in New Zealand
  60. ^ Wealth Grows, but Health Care Withers in China - New York Times
  61. ^ Socialized Medicine in Cuba (2002) – Part I: A Poor State of Health!
  62. ^ Social Security Online - History
  63. ^ http://b2cpro.vtt.fi/documents/usa/2007-03-mayo-vesa.pdf Implementation of electronic health records and data portability in Finland
  64. ^ http://www.stakes.fi/verkkojulkaisut/raportit/R1-2007-VERKKO.pdf eHealth in Finland: 2006 STAKES Report on health care infomatics in Finland
  65. ^ http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_283_en.pdf European Commission: Health and long-term care in the European Union
  66. ^ http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/oikea/id88679.html News item on healthcare costs in 2006 (in Finnish)
  67. ^ history of Israel health care.
  68. ^ Zhuraleva et al, Teaching History of Medicine in Russia.
  69. ^ Yandex Lingvo, [1]
  70. ^ http://www.who.int/entity/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf WHO: World Health Report 2000
  71. ^ Microsoft Word - WP 538.doc
  72. ^ http://www.rcgp.org.uk/services__contacts/history_heritage__archives/history__chronology/history_essay.aspx Royal College of General Practioners
  73. ^ About the NHS
  74. ^ http://www.nhs.uk/aboutnhs/nhshistory/Pages/NHSHistorySummary.aspx
  75. ^ NHS Core Principles
  76. ^ HM Treasury (2008-03-24). Budget 2008, Chapter C 23. Retrieved on 2008-03-24.
  77. ^ Microsoft Word - Public perceptions Winter 2004.doc
  78. ^ Stand Up Speak Up - The Conservative Party
  79. ^ bnp article.
  80. ^ The Scotsman
  81. ^ It's enough to make you sick | Daniel Finkelstein - Times Online
  82. ^ http://www.healthcarecommission.org.uk/_db/_downloads/Section_9_-_Overall.xls
  83. ^ Harvard School of Public Health (2007-02-14). "Poll Finds Americans Split by Political Party Over Whether Socialized Medicine Better or Worse Than Current System". Press release. Retrieved on 2008-02-27.
  84. ^ Doctors support universal health care: survey, Reuters, March 31, 2008 (first reported in Annals of Internal Medicine).
  85. ^ Office of Health Economics (UK), The Economics of Health Care, Section 3.i, "Market Failure: an Overview", p. 38
  86. ^ a b Kling, Arnold (2006). Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We Pay for Health Care. Cato Institute. ISBN 978-1930865891. 
  87. ^ Sherry A. Glied, "Health Care Financing, Efficiency, and Equity," National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 13881, March 2008
  88. ^ Single-Payer FAQ | Physicians for a National Health Program
  89. ^ ARPA: Purchase commitments: Big business bias or solution to the ‘neglected diseases’ dilemma?
  90. ^ Milton Friedman, How to Cure Health Care
  91. ^ Michael F. Cannon, Choice & Security
  92. ^ Arnold S. Relman, M.D., New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 355:1073-1074 September 7, 2006 (Review of "Crisis of Abundance").
  93. ^ Paul Krugman and Robin Wells, "The Health Care Crisis and What to Do About It", The New York Review of Books, Volume 53, Number 5, March 23, 2006
  94. ^ John Goodman (Winter, 2005). Five Myths of Socialized Medicine. Cato Institute.
  95. ^ Summary of New England Journal of Medicine Study, USA wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all of the uninsured, Medical News Today, 28 May 2004.
  96. ^ Tyler Cowen, "Poor U.S. Scores in Health Care Don’t Measure Nobels and Innovation", The New York Times, October 5, 2006.
  97. ^ Kling, Arnold (June 30, 2007), “Two heath-care documentaries”, The Washington Times 
  98. ^ Julie Chan, "We're Number 37 in Health Care!"
  99. ^ Paul Krugman, Robin Wells, "The Health Care Crisis and What to Do About It"
  100. ^ Maggie Mahar, The Mythology of Boomers Bankrupting Our Healthcare System, Health Beat, April 10, 2008.
  101. ^ Patricia M. Danzon, "Health Care Industry", (The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics)
  102. ^ Milton Friedman, How to Cure Health Care
  103. ^ John Tucci, "The Singapore health system – achieving positive health outcomes with low expenditure", Watson Wyatt Healthcare Market Review, October 2004.
  104. ^ National Center for Policy Analysis - Health Care Rationing
  105. ^ National Center for Policy Analysis - Health Care Rationing
  106. ^ John P. Geyman (2003). Myths as Barriers to Health Care Reform in the United States (pdf). International Journal of Health Services. Retrieved on 2008-06-12.
  107. ^ BBC News:Anger at 'patient stacking' claim
  108. ^ copy of original Observer story from Guardian website
  109. ^ [2]
  110. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4631793.stm
  111. ^ Cass Business School: Academics challenge A&E waiting times
  112. ^ http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/09/21/information-asymmetry-insurance-and-the-decision-to-hospitalize/ Blomqvist, Åke; Léger, Pierre Thomas (2005) “Information asymmetry, insurance and the decision to hospitalize” Journal of Health Economics, Vol 24(4), pp. 775-793.
  113. ^ British National Party - Chairman Nick Griffin - Working to secure a future for British children
  114. ^ http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15233303 NPR discussion with author Shannon Brownlee who argues that the system overly rewards doing stuff
  115. ^ "The Best Care Anywhere" by Phillip Longman
  116. ^ Report Says Profit-Making Health Plans Damage Care - New York Times
  117. ^ MRI Utilization Mystery | May/June 2001 | Imaging Economics
  118. ^ http://www.healthcarecommission.org.uk/_db/_documents/Imaging_AHP_report_tag.pdf.
  119. ^ MRI Utilization Mystery | May/June 2001 | Imaging Economics
  120. ^ http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/Collins_universal_hlt_insurance_testimony_06-26-2007_figures.ppt?section=4039#320,14,Figure 14. Percentage of National Health Expenditures Spent on Health Administration and Insurance, 2003
  121. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5271032.stm BBC news on how NHS values lives
  122. ^ http://www.slate.com/id/2102844 Strange Medicine Why are the new cancer drugs so expensive? /
  123. ^ Film Review: Is SiCKO about Christianized Medicine? | Spectrum
  124. ^ NHS Core Principles
  125. ^ http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/PDFnhssystreform2007/$FILE/48751Surveynhsreform.pdf Survey of the general public’s views on NHS system reform in England: BMA June 2007
  126. ^ http://www.gnn.gov.uk/imagelibrary/downloadMedia.asp?MediaDetailsID=216856
  127. ^ http://www.18weeks.nhs.uk/public/default.aspx NHS web site on 18 week initiative.
  128. ^ What does the Department of Health do? - Health Questions - NHS Direct
  129. ^ Health Indicators
  130. ^ http://www.18weeks.nhs.uk/cms/ArticleFiles/c5z3pg454hhf1f45eexvkmnl27112007174722/Files/EWCL_patientleaflet_141207.pdf Setting new standards for your care: 2007 NHS patient leaflet on the 18 week maximum wait time promise for Dec 2008.
  131. ^ Dunn, E., et al., 1997, “Patients acceptance of waiting for cataract surgery: what makes a wait too long?”, Soc. Sci. Med., 44, 11, 1603-1610
  132. ^ Derrett, S., et al., 1999, “Waiting for elective surgery: effects on health related quality of life”, International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 11, 47-57.
  133. ^ Cancelled operations down this winter : Department of Health - Publications
  134. ^ http://www.pnrec.org/2001papers/DaigneaultLajoie.pdf
  135. ^ Costs of Health Administration in the United States and Canada Woolhandler, et al, NEJM 349(8) Sept. 21, 2003
  136. ^ a b Christopher J. Conover (4-10-2004). "Health Care Regulation: A $169 Billion Hidden Tax". Cato Policy Analysis 527: 1–32. 
  137. ^ http://www.nhs.uk/aboutnhs/nhshistory/Pages/TheNHSfrom1998tothepresent.aspx
  138. ^ Health system attainment and performance in all Member States, ranked by eight measures, estimates for 1997
  139. ^ Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care. Report by the Commonwealth Fund (2007-05015). Retrieved on 2007-05-22.
  140. ^ http://www.kela.fi/in/internet/english.nsf/NET/081101134011EH?openDocument KELA_(Finnish Social Insurance System): partial reimbursement of private sector medical costs in Finland
  141. ^ Body Mass Index and Overweight in Adolescents in 13 European Countries, Israel, and the United States
  142. ^ AIDS-incidence rates in Europe and the United States
2008 (MMVIII) is the current year, a leap year that started on Tuesday of the Common Era (or Anno Domini), in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. ... is the 104th day of the year (105th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 2007 (MMVII) was a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar in the 21st century. ... is the 281st day of the year (282nd in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... 2008 (MMVIII) is the current year, a leap year that started on Tuesday of the Common Era (or Anno Domini), in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. ... is the 58th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. ... 2008 (MMVIII) is the current year, a leap year that started on Tuesday of the Common Era (or Anno Domini), in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. ... is the 104th day of the year (105th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... 2008 (MMVIII) is the current year, a leap year that started on Tuesday of the Common Era (or Anno Domini), in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. ... is the 104th day of the year (105th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... FactCheck home page. ... Year 2007 (MMVII) was a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar in the 21st century. ... is the 303rd day of the year (304th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... FactCheck home page. ... Year 2007 (MMVII) was a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar in the 21st century. ... is the 312th day of the year (313th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Logo of the St. ... Year 2007 (MMVII) was a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar in the 21st century. ... is the 307th day of the year (308th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 2007 (MMVII) was a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar in the 21st century. ... is the 304th day of the year (305th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... The New York Times is a daily newspaper published in New York City and distributed internationally. ... Year 2007 (MMVII) was a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar in the 21st century. ... is the 336th day of the year (337th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... The Washington Post is the largest newspaper in Washington, D.C.. It is also one of the citys oldest papers, having been founded in 1877. ... Year 2007 (MMVII) was a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar in the 21st century. ... is the 365th day of the year (366th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... For other uses, see Times. ... Year 2007 (MMVII) was a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar in the 21st century. ... is the 356th day of the year (357th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... The Washington Post is the largest newspaper in Washington, D.C.. It is also one of the citys oldest papers, having been founded in 1877. ... Year 2007 (MMVII) was a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar in the 21st century. ... is the 244th day of the year (245th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... The Washington Post is the largest newspaper in Washington, D.C.. It is also one of the citys oldest papers, having been founded in 1877. ... Year 2007 (MMVII) was a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar in the 21st century. ... is the 303rd day of the year (304th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... 2008 (MMVIII) is the current year, a leap year that started on Tuesday of the Common Era (or Anno Domini), in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. ... is the 83rd day of the year (84th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... 2008 (MMVIII) is the current year, a leap year that started on Tuesday of the Common Era (or Anno Domini), in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. ... is the 83rd day of the year (84th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 2007 (MMVII) was a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar in the 21st century. ... is the 45th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. ... For information on Wikipedia press releases, see Wikipedia:Press releases. ... 2008 (MMVIII) is the current year, a leap year that started on Tuesday of the Common Era (or Anno Domini), in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. ... is the 58th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. ... This page is a candidate for speedy deletion. ... The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Institutes stated mission is to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace by striving to achieve greater involvement... The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to studying the science and empirics of economics, especially the American economy. ... The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Institutes stated mission is to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace by striving to achieve greater involvement... This page is a candidate for speedy deletion. ... 2008 (MMVIII) is the current year, a leap year that started on Tuesday of the Common Era (or Anno Domini), in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. ... is the 163rd day of the year (164th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 2007 (MMVII) was a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar in the 21st century. ... is the 142nd day of the year (143rd in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ...

  Results from FactBites:
 
Socialized Medicine in a Wealthy Country by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. (3642 words)
The second view of socialized medicine sees the problems with socialism, that it leads to building up a state apparatus that has life-and-death control over the population.
But the opponents of health-care socialism also have in their minds a vision of what life would be like under socialism.
And yet socialism itself had been systematically driving these countries back to feudal-era forms of health care that were increasingly deprived of modern technology.
  More results at FactBites »

 
 

COMMENTARY     


Share your thoughts, questions and commentary here
Your name
Your comments

Want to know more?
Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 


Press Releases |  Feeds | Contact
The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL.
Images may be subject to relevant owners' copyright.
All other elements are (c) copyright NationMaster.com 2003-5. All Rights Reserved.
Usage implies agreement with terms, 1022, m