DH: I understand where you're coming from logically, but I don't think it applies to the more complex real world.

The US health care is the most de-regulated among the top 19 nations. Yet it gets the worst results among those countries AND costs the most. France has completely socialised healthcare and gets the best results.

That's a huge contradiction to what you're saying. Now, the very very best medical treatment in the US *might* be better than the very very best treatment in France (I don't know if that is the case but it may be possible), but that does not have a very big impact since that treatment is available to so few. Basically the average patient would be better of going to a hospital in any social-democratic western european country than one in the US.

In a comparison of the math, science and reading skills (for 15 year olds) among the 41 industrialised nations the follwing European countries came ahead of the US:

Finland, Netherlands, Liechtenstein, Belgium, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Iceland, Denmark, France, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Ireland, Slovak Republic, Norway, Luxembourg, Poland, Hungary, Spain, Latvia.

The following were behind the US:

Russia, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Turkey.

So out of 25 European countries, 80% were better than the US.



So why do I bring up schools and health care? Well, I agree that the capitalistic system is better at producing efficient businesses. Basically, better at making money. However, the two biggest sectors in society, health and education, are not well suited for it. Here's the reason as I see it:

A business is obliged by law to produce as high of a profit as it can. Maximisinbg profits is the number one priority. That, however, does not equal efficiency for its customers. The "best" hospital is the one that generates the most profit. Now how does a hospital generate maximum profits? Here's how:

- Maximise amount of patients
- Charge them, the insurance companies and the government as much as possible
- Keep them sick

That seems cynical, but it is true. If someone comes in with symptom X you should try to perform as many and expensive tests as can be justified, or surgery, and when you prescribe medication you should make sure to use the one with highest profit AND make sure they keep taking it.

The worst hospital would be the one that fixes the patient cheaply, effectively and permanently. That would be an absolutely awful hospital. Like a car salesman handing out free bus tickets.

That's my simplified explanation of why health care needs to be socialised to be both more equal AND more effective. And there's an overwhelming amount of emprirical evidenc to support this. Society as a whole wants hospitals to make people as healthy as possible, but that is not what gives profits for the hospitals. Society as a whole wants students to learn as much as possible, but that is not what maximises profits for schools. So these institutions need to be run in a non-profit oriented manner.

But I am not a socialist. I don't think socialising restaurants, clothes stores or factories would be a good idea. Those work better as privately owned enterprises motivated by profits. But the government needs to regulate them to make sure that the interests of the people and other businesses don't get too damaged by them (by restricting pollution and monopolies for example).

Actually, last time I debated health care with a right wing politician, she was suggesting a smaller privatization. I just said "They've tried it [privatization] in the US, it didn't work, why should we repeat their mistakes?". One of the easiest debates I ever won.