WaPo Opinion on "Socialized Medicine"

[lizerdbits]

Let's Try a Dose. We're Bound to Feel Better.

By Jacob S. Hacker
Sunday, March 23, 2008; Page B01

"Socialized medicine" is the bogeyman that just won't die. The epithet has been hurled at every national health plan since the New Deal -- even Medicare, which critics warned would strip Americans of their freedom.

And now it's back. Republicans from President Bush on down have invoked the specter of socialism in denouncing Democrats' attempts to expand publicly funded health insurance for children. Erstwhile GOP presidential contenders Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney lambasted the health plans of the leading Democratic candidates for mimicking "the socialist solution they have in Europe" (Giuliani) and trying to impose "a European-style socialized medicine plan" (Romney). The presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, hasn't used the S-word yet, but after sewing up the nomination in early March, he criticized Democrats for intending "to return to the failed, big-government mandates of the '60s and '70s to address problems such as the lack of health-care insurance for some Americans."

snip

But the critics have it backward. The best American medical care is indeed extremely good, but much of our system falls short -- especially when you consider how costly it is, how heavy a burden it places on employers and families, and how many it excludes. And far from being a threat, getting the government more involved in health care would actually reduce costs, improve quality and bolster the U.S. economy -- which helps explain why public insurance is the secret weapon in both of the leading Democratic candidates' plans. If socialized medicine means doing what our public-insurance programs and other nations' health systems do to control costs, expand coverage and improve the quality of care, it's high time for a little socialization.

snip

Consider some basic measures of health-care infrastructure, such as those surveyed in a series of analyses by a team led by Gerard Anderson of Johns Hopkins University. The United States has fewer doctors, hospital beds and nurses per person than the norm among rich nations: 2.4 doctors per 1,000 people in 2004, for example, compared with 3.4 in France, which spends just over half what we do per person. Moreover, Americans visit doctors and hospitals less frequently and have shorter hospital stays than citizens in other affluent countries: The oft-maligned French see their doctors enough to rack up an average of 6.4 visits per person in 2004, but the American number was just under four visits. And we lag far behind other rich nations in the use of information technology, such as electronic prescription systems, to improve quality and lower costs.


More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102743.html

[gateley]

1. I think many Americans

would be shocked to learn how we measure up against other countries. We assume (I suppose because we're told) that we have the best health care in the world. In reality, it's shameful.

We need to get over the fear of the word "socialized". People equate it with Soviet Communism.

[prairierose]

2. gateley, that is because the US has been...

brainwashed to equate socialism with the communism of the USSR.

Americans do not know the real meaning of the word, nor do they know the meaning of the word fascism or where is comes from. These are two political terms that would be very useful if used correctly. They have instead been used to frighten people for more than 50 years now.

[gateley]

3. Totally agree, prairierose. nt