Why I disagree with socialized medicine

Great question - and of course the answer is nowhere. The world loses a choice. There is a reason that many of the world elite come to the US for operations and procedures, and many of the poster child cases are handled here as well - Choices.

And with one source of care, those choices disappear.

In my opinion, people who live on reasonable salaries have zero choice. It isn't choice when you have 1000 options on paper, but can't afford any of them as they are all well beyond your means. Why is it impossible for alternative treatments to be available in an environment of state-run healthcare?

Yeah I mean, socialized medicine only works with more quality, efficiency, and effectiveness in every other modernized country, why would it work for us?

But hey, personally I love the spot we're in right now, right in front of Slovenia! WooHoo you better watch out Costa Rica we're coming after you!

Maybe we can use our sick who cant pay their medical bills as a replacement for oil and gas? Talk about the perfect renewable resource!

...Universal Healthcare is not the enemy, greedy insurance/pharmaceutical companies are. Vote with your heart instead of your short-term pocket books for once, and I'd bet my life on it working out in the long run...

But hey if not, I'm sure we can have as much fun competing with Iran for most executions...

TitansFan. If it works so well in every other country then why are people coming to America for treatments. Why can't Estee find a music or play therapist anywhere in Canada. Why do they insist on forcing people to take ABA even though it is proven not to work on many higher functioning autistics and even some lower functioning autistics (ABA is basically the equivalent of training a dog to do tricks... nice to know what Canada thinks of its autistic population). Its not my pocketbook I am thinking about, but rather my (future) childs ability to live on his own. that might not mean much to you, but it sure as hell means something to me.

You are aware that in those ratings they count life expectancy as it pertands to health care. That is just find and good, but we have a lot of people die of unnatural causes in America, a lot more then most other countries. You don't die of a gun shot wound too often in a country thats all but banned guns. You don't die in a car accident too often if you can't afford to drive. Thats just to name a few. I heard if you take life expectancy off the list we move up several dozen places on the list.

You do know the last time Hillary proposed a state of nationalized healthcare it was designed so that the biggest 5 insurance companies would benefit. If they are the enemy how about we not sign a bill into law that favors them and gives them billions upon billions of dollars.

Also in America you get executed for killing someone. In Iran you get executed for having sex with someone. Slightly different crimes if you ask me, course then again, thats just if you ask me.

And to Timothy, I don't know if there really is an answer to your question. I suppose they like knowing what kindof therapy their kids are receiving. I have no problem with giving people with severe special needs the ability to go threat themselves or their kids. In fact that saves us money in the long run. But that is not the same as nationalized health care.

I don't think you understand how most models of socialised medicine work. Sure, there's a taxpayer funded general system, but in most countries there are also privately-funded - as in user-pays - alternatives for most non-hospital treatments. In some countries there are even private hospitals working in addition to the public system.

Assuming you pay for your non-ABA treatment at the moment, there's nothing to suggest you'd end up paying more for that treatment under a socialised system that chose to use ABA exclusively, nor that you would be denied the ability to give a different treatment to your child if ABA proved ineffective or your general practitioner/child psychologist/psychiatrist recommended differently.

If you don't pay - if your treatment is supplied by a charity or the like - what makes you think it's going to cost you in the future? Socialised healthcare isn't a ban on private or community-run healthcare, it's simply the introduction of a taxpayer-funded baseline model for everyone.

EDIT: I just realised you wrote aspie. Do you mean to say you've been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, or is there a variant of autism called Aspie?

Cactoblasta, theoritically you are right. There should be no difference between socialized medicine and private insurance when it comes to providing alternative therapies. But in practice there is. For example look at the article I posted orginally, it talks about a mother who I have talked to before who has to drive huge distances (to America) to get her son play and mustic therapies.

If I can challenge while your theory might be wrong, though it is hard to say. The government supports ABA and publically and even more important montaterally (sp?, I am dyslexic too lol) shows that support. Everyone goes to ABA their kids and demand for others plummets (or more likely never gets off the ground considering the timing) and there are less and less of them in business. The fact of the matter being that they just can't get enough money to support themselves, so would be play therapists go into ABA where there is great deal of money (provided by the Canadian government), go into something else a third option if you will, or go to America where insurance companies and charities pay for the alternative therapies more. Basically, what this all adds up to, is that interference in the market creates a monopoly for ABA type therapists

Once there is no more ABA people looking for alternative treatments have a harder time finding in in the monopolized (not sure if that is a real word, is now) region. High functioning autistics and aspies (yes aspie means asperger's, common easier shortning) need less therapy then anothers (I am a fairly normal functioning 22 year old college grauduate now, barely got any) and are the ones most likely to fail with ABA. This means its hard to make a market just for them in a country like Canada. Meanwhile low-moderate functioning autistics could use the other therapy and do so in countries like the US where there is no advantage between one or another, but in a country like Canada where you can get unlimited ABA, well you can figure that one out. Once again we are getting interference in the market getting rid of a type of alternative therapy. I could go on but I think you get the gist. The important but is what happened (which can be clearly seen in that article and other like it) not why it happened.

Rubbish. Australia has tonnes of different clinics for autistic kids, and we have socialised healthcare. Not all are taxpayer funded though, and you have to live in a city to have access to them, but that's hardly unexpected.



Why is important. The dominance of ABA in Canada seems to be the result of medical trends rather than a specific decision. You're going to find that anywhere there's an establishment in medicine. The US isn't immune even now - the woman doesn't suggest the treatment she prefers is banned, merely that there's a two-year waiting list because hardly anyone else is interested in it.

In a public system the option to pay extra and travel for treatment is always still there. You just have a whole bunch of taxpayer-funded treatments as well.

Australia also has some of the leading researchers in Asperger's Syndrome and HFA. Most consider it to the be leaders of the world is that area, with people like Tony Attwood leading the way. Hardly a good model for what would happen in America which has very few leading researchers in to treating asperger's (loooking for the causes yes, looking for treatments no). I would think Canada would be a lot closer to what would happen in America then Australia, but thats just me.

As for the dominance of ABA in Canada being the result of medical trends, well I suppose if you totally ignore how meddling in the market can mess it up, then yeah. I also never said that it was banned, just that it didn't exist while the government sponsored therapy does exist in plenty. I am sure you can say that it is just considence all day, but it seems like a pretty big coincidence to me. Especcially considering your own quote, "Because hardly anyone is interested in it." If I had to pay much more for a slightly more effective therapy I wouldn't be interested in it either.

So you think it's better to make everyone pay for everything as they use it rather than just some people who are unhappy with what's good enough for the vast majority paying for what they use? I guess it's a fair criticism of socialised medicine, but coming from your viewpoint that medical treatments should be many and affordable it sounds a little odd.

Anyway, I can see I'm not going to convince you. Fortunately it's something you're likely to never find out anyway, so I don't suppose it's that important. In any case, welcome to the JU forums.

The lie of Socialized medicine. It is ALL privately funded. The difference is in who makes the decision, not who pays for it.

There are two ways you could have come to that decision. Let's look at them.

First of all, you might mean that in a private system everyone contributes to pay every other person's hospital bills, in which case -

No... In a private-only system all healthcare is paid for by those who need it. In a public-only system all healthcare is paid by everyone through taxes, whether through a flat tax or through proportional taxes. In a mixed system everyone pays for most things, those who want something unusual pay for it themselves on top of their general public contribution.

The second possibility is that you think money paid through taxes is private funding, in which case I imagine you consider all roads, armies and bureaucrat wages are paid through private funding, making your position utterly unworkable for any examination of private-public spheres.

So which is it?

Cactoblasta you ignore me once again. Thats a very dangerous thing to do :-p. I have said that I would not oppose government providing funds to get therapy (even many of the Republican candidates were for this and with the child insurance system we have in America it is already readily avaible). What I am opposed to is government controlling what kinds of therapy are avaible to get with that money. Whats good enough for the vast majority can really suck with some people who desperately need therapy to better their lot in life. Do we just tell those people sorry your SOL. Do we just tell those people that they can get the kindof therapy they want if they are just willing to drive 15 hours (though in reality, if these therapies leave America these people are screwed). Neither sounds like a very good option to me. Maybe, just maybe, the government shouldn't interfere in the private market?

There is only one way to look at it - where the money comes from. Governments do not "make" money. They take your money and spend it the way they see fit. IN the end, all the money comes from the same place, the only difference is in who decides how and where it is spent.