Jump to content

Talk:Socialized medicine/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Unsourced personal opinions

I'm bothered that this article contains too much personal opinion, not supported by wp:rs. Wikipedia has rules, and we should follow them. I would invite people to add {{Fact}} tags to statements of personal opinion that aren't supported by verifiable sources, and delete them in a week or so if their supporters can't come up with a good source. I don't care if the source is the Cato Institute or Physicians for a National Health Program, and I think we should have a balance of viewpoints. But we should not have unsourced opinions. Agreed? Nbauman (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur example needing citations: They are almost the main points of it being good, and they use the word most giving no reason to believe that is true.

  • In most socialized systems, pre-existing conditions do not affect a person's access to medical services.

I find sources, but I'm not expert so thus unqualified to edit this page and can't state my sources validity, say the exact opposite of this statement. Name one then prove it's most.UoLMephesto (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

In Canada, UK, and Finland, three countries I know most about, plus Germany, Netherlands and Ireland that have levelling of risk between funds, pre-existing conditions do not affect the financing or provision of healthcare. I think you should not be shy to reveal your sources which argue the opposite. If you cannot be sure of them, bring them to this page and someone here will investigate it further.--Tom (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)a
  • In most socialized systems, changing employer does not have health care consequences.

Is this serious? Changing employers definitely has health care consequences. Example one employer has the socialize medicine plan, another has a private plan that ad to the socialized plan, thus both use the socialized plan but one provides more, it's better. Some job are just more dangerous lets not forget that. Name one then prove it's most.UoLMephesto (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is serious! I'll name you three for a start... UK, Canada, and Finland. People have access to the state plan by legislative right and the care is not provided by or for the employers. Therefore changing employers has no consequence to the care that is received. That's 2 systems using the classic socialized medicine model and one using single-payer (which some people also tag as socialized, though it does not meet the original definition). In the example you give where there is a consequence, you have introduced a private plan into the equation. That then is a mixed model and not socialized medicine. --Tom (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Why does it seem possible? In fact the contra argument about centralized planning being MORE EFFICIENT is made in the section on benefits and uses the MRI example to counter the argument. I am not sure why the editor that added his thinks that centralized planning is inefficient. I think all successful organizations plan their operations centrally otherwise it risks different parts of the organization duplicating effort and making false assumptions about what the other parts of the organization are doing. Nor why socialized medicine should unwilling to invest in new technology, especially if it is cost effective and better than the old technology. The evidence of overcapacity and higher average costs in the USA is a signal that the UK has invested wisely and gets a more cost effective outcome. It may be why the UK spends half the US level on health and yet manages to cover the needs of the whole population on broadly the same basis. --Tom (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I too think this is a doubtful claim too because evidence from the US implies that it is simply not true (i.e. the high incidence of dietary led diseases). But I have not challenged it.--Tom (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

These four examples are of definite need of citations, two from the benefits and two from the criticisms I wanted to be fair...

  • Centralized planning can maximize investment returns to reduce average costs when provider and payer are the same entity.

The source quotes throughput as saving cost. Basically it says more people use it and it's cost is put through all the patients the cost per person is less, then cited the UK and USA as examples, however it ignores the comparison it uses. UK has less MRI machines so people have to go and look for them so of course more people use each unit, the USA made more and so each machine was used less because there was more of them. It almost implies that you should have less MRI machines instead of more. The explanation needs to be better. UoLMephesto (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You write "so people have to go and look for them" but this is wrong. MRI units in the UK are planned to be in places where they are available to most people, just as they are in most countries. Also you say "it ignores the comparison it uses". I am not sure what you mean by this. There is evidence that there is over capacity in USA. There is an optimum level of usage for these scanners and in the UK they are mostly running at the optimal level whereas in the US they are not. Hence centralized planning has produced optimal efficiency. You will find more information about this in the archived discussions and in the section on benefits.--Tom (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

See also http://www.gao.gov/cghome/hccrisis/img0.html and the slides therefrom. The comptroller general of the US reports that overall, investment in the US is not significantly different from that in other countries; that the presence of insurance blunts sensitivity to price (the centralized UK system by contrast looks very carefully at value for money when assessing whether drugs/procedures/technology are effective medically and also cost effective); and also reports that the practitioners in the US do more unnecessary procedures. --Tom (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Be aware also that things you read in certain elements of the press. They often do not tell the full story. Like this about the NHS in the UK If you end up with an exotic disease that requires a lot of care, you're screwed. For example, the waiting list for any kind of major surgery is long, and for things like knee replacements you can wait for three years. Alzheimer's drugs aren't available on the National Health Service because they're too expensive.http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56327 But it is complete nonsense. The NHS absolutely does not "screw you" if you need a lot of care due to an exotic disease. Why should it? The waiting lists are not long (see the referenes in this Wikipedia article) and certainly not 3 years for a knee replacement. And regards the Alzheimers drugs, the reason was the NHS tested them for five years (!!) and found them to be ineffective. In fact the only way one could tell which group was on the drug and which on the placebo was the drug group had side effects. The matter went to court and the court upheld the decision of the NHS not to waste money on these drugs. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1246900,00.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/aug/10/health.medicineandhealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) 08:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Compulsion on insurance companies

FreedomWarrior added text that insists that the government compels private medical practices (to provide medical services in support of socialized health care) and cited the Massachussetts scheme as evidence. GregAlton has since reverted it because the scheme relates to insurers not providers.

However, even as far as insurance is concerned, I thought it worth checking out the extent of compulsion. As far as I can see the State has laid down minimum standards for health care plans which enable those plans to attract tax deductible status and to enable residents or employers who buy or hold such plans to avoid fines for non-purchase of adequate health care. Also, only qualifiying plans can get on the connector web site run by the state which hooks up buyers and sellers. In effect, its a system of sticks and carrots. And when the state buys health care for low income families, it ensures the same minimum standards applies. Insurance companies can still sell sub-standard insurance to residents and residents are still free to buy them, but there will be negative financial consequences as well as potential negative health consequences. Rather than this being Big Brother government telling people what to do, it is democratically elected government incentivizing people and companies to do the right things. --Tom (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Some vs all"

First, stop revert warring on this. Both of you.
Second, I don't have a strong opinion on this (as noted, I think the term is misused, and none save perhaps the British system would even qualify). Both of you should attempt to provide references rather than just continuing with this. BUT: Freedomwarrior, it is a bit unreasonable to demand that documentation be provided for ALL (proving a negative is impossible), particularly when there is no fixed definition of what a socialized medical system is. Tom, you should at least provide references for specific systems.
As for that, for every one of the so-called systems actually listed in this article, the conditions on which you are edit warring are true. Tom, it should be possible to show that, for example, in the UK, Canadian, Finnish(?), Israeli and US (e.g. VA and other), employment is not a condition, and the govt foots most of the bills.
Therefore, a reasonable compromise would be to note that the conditions mentioned apply to all of the systems described. Freedomwarrior, if you can find a 'socialized' system where these don't hold, we can then discuss the applicability or appropriateness of generalizations.--Gregalton (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I am being unreasonable at all. If FreedomWarrior is able to give one example where the statement is false I will yield on the issue of the implied ALL, but even then the word to be inserted would be MOST and not SOME. And I agree that proving a negative is totally unreasonable. Freedomwarrior added the word SOME in the first place. I think FreedomWarrior should justify adding that. It seems to me that FreedomWarrior has but one objective in this and that is to add negativity and doubt where none is justified. Entitlement in the UK and Finland is indeed based on legal residency, so employment status or location does not affect entitlement to NHS and neither do pre-existing conditions, and the state pays the majority of care costs at the time of need. But it would be inpossible to provide a simple authoritative reference that explicitly states all this. The pre-existing conditions is a good example because people in the UK would never even think about that a pre-existing condition could cause later denial of health care. Why would the NHS even put out a statement that you can get treated for glaucoma say even if you have previously had diabetes? Or you can get treated even if you change jobs. It would be absurd! I know people in the US might find that strange, but it really is like that. That's why I think FreedomWarrior must provide a reasonable range of proof that the statements only apply in SOME socialized health care systems. I don't want to war over this, but neither am I going to give way unless FW can provide some evidence at least that the stated claims are not true. The article as it stands with the word SOME in place makes it seem as though less than half the systems are like that and that is totally misleading. --Tom (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


To begin with, the statements that "pre-existing conditions do not affect a person's access to medical services," "changing employer does not have health care consequences" or "the state assumes the major costs of medical treatment and medicines at the time of need." are all unsourced. I have not objected to their inclusion because they represent the claims made by the advocates of socialized medicine on behalf of that proposition. I, however, have objected to saying that all socialized systems provide those benefits in the absence of a source, because Wikipedia is not a place for conjectures and original research.

Given that there is no fixed definition of what constitutes socialized medicine, it would be ludicrous to say that "the state assumes the major costs of medical treatment and medicines at the time of need" in all countries with socialized medicine or that "pre-existing conditions do not affect a person's access to medical services" because we can't say with any exact level of precision what countries have socialized medicine. Some countries with socialized medicine will meet all of the conditions that Tom claims, however, some will not.

I don't disagree that most of the conditions are to some degree true for the countries in this article, but it doesn't follow that it's true in all countries with socialized medicine.

If you want to say that this is true of the countries listed in this article (which are only some of the countries with socialized medicine), I don't have an objection. You can either list the countries or retain the wording some. I will, however, continue to object to any categorical statements that lack proof (and cannot be made given the multiplicity of definitions of what constitutes socialized medicine).

Finally, I define socialized medicine differently from how you define it. For me to start listing what I believe to be the exceptions, will only draw us back to a pointless definitional argument, which I am unwilling to engage in. Freedomwarrior (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As a first step, I would suggest Tom add references relating to these claims for the countries mentioned in the article. We can figure out what to do after that.
Freedomwarrior, I do grant your point that definitions may not be universally agreed, but you should be able to name at least one system that some consider socialized (not just you), and you should be willing to provide a reference that some consider it a socialized system. If we then have to add in text about "depending on definition" we can do so.
Of course, I would still advocate trimming this article down to state that it is a pejorative term, and provide links to definitions with actual content, but I'm in the minority on that.--Gregalton (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The first section should discuss the history of the term

I see that Kborer is trying to demote the history of the term below the history of socialized medicine per se. The article established early on that the term is used only in limited environs by a limited set of users. The article is pimarily about a perjorative term. Therefore the history and usage of that term is what is of prime importance, not the history od socialized medicine. --Tom (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The history section conveys information clearly and provides great context for the rest of the article. It is normal for the first section to be the history of a topic. For both of these reasons, the history section should be first, as it was not too long ago.
The article used to be primarily about the origins of the term, but that is no longer true. Kborer (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the origins of the term are what is key and should remain so. Where else could the content about the general subject of publicly operated medicine go? I still think the term "public medicine" describes the operation of health care just as public libraries and public schools describes the operation of libraries and schools by the government on behalf of the poeple. I certainly do not think WP should be used to propagate lies and falsehoods about the important subject of public medicine which is what this article once did.--Tom (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It is true that the article should not propagate falsehoods. One way to do this is to make the pro/con sections small and leave the politics to another article. Kborer (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

pro/con sections

the pro/con sections should be written as paragraphs, not lists. Kborer (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? I disagree. Lists are easier to read.--Tom (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
A list would be easier to read, but there is too much information for a list. If there is going to be a paragraph of information or more for each point, then it should be written as paragraphs. It also encourages people to throw in lots points of information rather than righting a good summary of the topic. Kborer (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

sweet new image

A combination of the socialism image and the medicine image.

I thought the article could use an image so I made this from the image on socialism and the image in the medicine portal. What do you guys think? Kborer (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


Red rag to a bull. Well at least you have a sense humor. But No! It definitely is not appropriate.--Tom (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Fantastic! Perhaps a mallet and a scalpel somewhere? (Now I'm trying to figure which Soviet propaganda posters could be modified to the topic)...--Gregalton (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

health and productivity

Re Revision 00:10, 26 December 2007 By Fedomwarrior "You've not established a relationship between health and productivity...Additionally, there are people with a negative social value. Treating all people does not guarantee higher "

Are you serious? A nation of mostly unhealthy people would not more productive if its population were in full health? And what on earth does "people with negative social value mean"? This sounds like the a term the Nazis would have used! Are you seriously saying that only people capable of producing deserve to be treated if they are sick? I think that is way off the mark. Such people are especially deserving of care because they cannot generate the income to care for themselves. That's off the topic of productivity as these people would get care in any civilized society so productivity does not come into it.--Tom (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

First, stop with the name calling. I am not insane. Second, you shouldn't be throwing stones, as the Nazis were some of the biggest supporters of "rational" guidelines aimed at ensuring that the population was at its "healthiest"

I have not made the claim that "only people capable of producing deserve to be treated if they are sick." I have nowhere linked treatment to a person's productivity, because unlike you, I have not taken such a dim view of human nature that I think that people need to be coerced into helping others in need. Similarly, I have not made the claim that all people deserve to be treated (i.e. that someone is obligated to provide other people with treatment). My real point is this: treating all people does not necessarily lead to greater productivity. In the abstract (because you can never seem to bring yourself to debate on the basis of real, concrete examples), there are people who could be treated without contributing to increased aggregate wealth (i.e. the invalid or the disabled). Accordingly, your claim that it tends to increase national productivity is nothing but the product of bunk, obscurantist logic.Freedomwarrior (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of other editors trying to follow this thread the text that was removed was "A healthy nation is more productive and it is often cheaper to prevent disease than to deal with it later". This was in the contect of a paragraph expressing a government objective to keep the nation healthy. The edit summary Freedomwarrior gave for its removal was You've not established a relationship between health and productivity...Additionally, there are people with a negative social value. Treating all people does not guarantee higher.... I did not give a citation for this claim which Freedomwarrior removed but I recall it was one of the reasons for the introduction of socialized medicine in the UK.
I'll leave other people to judge whether my inserted text was "bunk, obscurantist logic". I think the reply I have received fits the bill quite well.
The issue is whether the sick generally would be more productive if they were not sick. According to Freedomwarrior
  • taxation ('coercion') is not necessary to get help to those in need
  • treating all people does not necessarily lead to greater productivity (because) there are people who could be treated without contributing to increased aggregate wealth (i.e. the invalid or the disabled)
I accept the second point but I had already indicated that this was off the topic of productivity unless one wants to take the argument that its not worth treating those who will never be productive (but then it was FW who mentioned this subset in the deletion summary). The first point is the key. I assume that FW is saying that the sick who cannot afford insurance or meet the costs of their care, must get their treatment as a form of charity. But do they get it?
Historical note: Charitable health care was what did happen in the old days in England. Hospitals were mostly run by charities. But there was also a form of unoffical taxation/coercion but run by general practioners who charged their wealthy clients more than they might otherwise do in order that they could give their services free or at low cost to those who otherwise could not afford it. This was well documented in the Beveridge report. The problem was that is was not enough and doctors did not like fleecing their rich patients any more than they enjoyed sometimes not being able to help all that needed their skills. When war started many men were unfit to fight and this came as something of a shock to the ruling classes. The war mobilized men and women themselves could see a huge mobilization of effort to kill Germans and asked themselves why after the war there could not be a similar mobilization to rid the country of poverty and bad housing and improve the health of the nation AND its productivity. This indeed is what did happen and it is why Winston Churchill lost the 1945 general election by the biggest margin in election history (until Blair's 1997 win, which was also fought in part on the issue of public investment in health care). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) 20:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Free market fundamental disconnect with the interests of patients

It has been widely reported that one of the reasons why costs are so high in the USA is that there really is a disconnect. For example for-profit hospitals are shown to give poorer advice to heart patients leaving hospital than not-for-profit hospitals... the kind of advice that will help prevent re-admission. Hospitals are scared of doing too little and therefore tend to do too mcuh investigation. The issue of prostrate investigations in the USA is a case in point. There is more info about this in the archived discussions. Similarly, hosptials are not incentivised to do less if the insurance company pays, and if the insurance company does not pay then the patient will have to. And patients do not have the specialist knowledge to question the treatments or costs he or she is faced with having to pay for. In publicly funded and provided care, hospitals do not do excessive work as that costs money that is better spent elsewhere. And its no good saying that public hospitals can pass on extra costs at will to taxpayers because they cannot. They have to work within budgets like the rest of us and politicians would be thrown out of office if there were high taxes and visible public waste of money in hospitals. The evidence is quite clear that public medicine is cheaper than private medicine and controls on costs and public accountabilty probably has a lot to do with it. --Tom (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning to Kborer

Please take your changes a bit at a time and explain what you are doing. There is no hurry. And try not to bring back old texts that we have worked on before and rejected. The first one that struck me was that you started calling socialized medicine "a system" . It is not "a system". It is a political slogan for a range of different systems, but I'll settle for the more neutral "term". It certainly is not a system. It will save a lot of effort if pay heed tp the discussions in the archive before bringing back rejected texts such as this. Regulation was another one that took a lot of argument and I don't want us to be going round in circles over that old chestnut again.--Tom (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully these references from the article will clear things up for you:
  • "Socialized medicine: A system of health care in which all health personnel and health facilities, including doctors and hospitals, work for the government and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the US Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. And the Veterans and US military hospitals are also supported this way. Examples also exist in Great Britain and Spain." - MedTerms medical dictionary.
  • "a system of medical care regulated and controlled by the government, in which the government assumes responsibility for providing for the health needs and hospital care of the entire population, at no direct cost or at a nominal fee to the individual, by means of subsidies obtained by taxation. Called also state m." - Dorland's Medical Dictionary
  • "single payer is different from socialized medicine and universal health care. Socialized medicine refers to a system like the National Health Service of the U.K., in which the mechanisms of delivery of health care are owned by the government." - Single Payer article from AMSA.
  • "A government-regulated system for providing health care for all by means of subsidies derived from taxation." - The American Heritage® Dictionary
Kborer (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't "clear anything up." These definitions contradict each other. That is why the "broad" vs "strict" distinction is useful.--Gregalton (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: I was referring to the strict/broad discussion. For the moment, I lean towards agreeing with Tom on this - given that the term (as defined by you) refers to several different types of systems, which tend to contradict each other, I think calling it a system is probably incorrect. If it were used to refer only to systems under the "strict" definition, I might agree, but you've insisted on keeping the broad definition.--Gregalton (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems that you disagree on what type of system socialized medicine refers to, not whether it refers to a system. If this is true then we are not in disagreement on the point that I was trying to make by listing the definitions: each reference that we are using says that socialized medicine is a system, not a slogan. Kborer (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Please stop removing the strict vs broad until something like consensus. If you want a reference that shows it is used as a slogan, I will find it (in fact, have already done so, but you keep moving them). Frankly, you are the one that has insisted in past on retaining an absurdly broad definition: if you want to use a restrictive one exclusively, that will be fine by me.
Given that we have demonstrated that the term is used to mean different systems, is used pejoratively, is used politically, and is used as a propaganda device, specifying that it is a "term" used to refer to different sytems is entirely justified. We do disagree how the term should be "properly" used, but I have not attempted to limit to just that - at your insistence.
Your point about single payer is also ridiculous: the AMSA clearly uses a more strict definition; we also have numerous sources that refer to single payer as socialized; we have other sources that say this is "ignorant." So: single payer under a strict definition is NOT socialized medicine, under some other definitions IS socialized medicine. When used in latter case, it is also frequently politicized and used pejoratively.--Gregalton (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Please stop removing the strict/broad distinction until some consensus is reached.--Gregalton (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I could probably find a similar number of opposing references. But we have been here before and this is becoming very tedious. Those countries that have such a system do not describe it as such. In the UK and Canada and Finland and I am sure in many other countries it is called the public health care system to distinguish it from the private health care system. Just as we call use the word public to describe certain schools, roads and libraries etc,. and not socialized schools, socialized roads and socialized libraries. Even the VA system is not tagged with this epithet. The term socialized was added to give it a whiff of negativity to the concept of public health care in political debate. Therefore it is a politically charged term which is sometimes used in the US to describe a public health care system. As such it is a political charged term for something else. And I really don't care how many references you find which do not mention this. A fact is a fact. --Tom (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You are wasting your time trying to re-write the article back to an earlier state. I did ask that you take this slowly because I can see that I am not going to agree with the changes you are making. And you have again been messing with the defintion in a way which is clearly not acceptable to other editors here. I fear that I will be reverting the changes you have made. I wish you would please read the discussions that are in the archive. The changes you are making are putting the article back to an earlier state and I see that as regressive and not progressive. --Tom (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Kborer: You have again added "In either case, it (a system where the government sets rules for how private practices can provide treatment for reimbursement by the state) ..... is different than single payer health insurance, where the government finances health care but is uninvolved in delivery." How exactly? Cato, which you are fond of quoting, refers to Canada's medicare system as "socialized medicine" and that IS a single payer system. I really must insist that you tell us WHY you are making this claim over and over again in spite of other editors' objections.--Tom (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

OK you have not heeded the warning not to make too many changes too quicky and have completely ignored the objections to your changing the dual nature of the defintion in the header para and brought in inconsistency as I have described above. I feel that I have no choice but to revert the article back to the state of play we were in yesterday. You have made many objectionable changes that simply cannot be undone.--Tom (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You have done it again. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialized_medicine&diff=180688175&oldid=180687138 . You have no support for this big re-write. Hence of you make such big changes they will be reverted. This is a contraversial article and it is best that we try to keep it fair and balanced and referenced and changes made which result from discussions. I can see no logic in the changes you are making other than to begin loading with POV and bringing up the scale things you want to say and demoting or removing things you don't agree with. Please work co-operatively and use this page.--Tom (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It was requested that I make the several edits to the introduction individually so that they could be scrutinized by the other editors more easily. I spent the time to do this, so please spend the time to scrutinize the changes individually rather than reverting them all at once. Kborer (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I repeat the note before: you are violating the spirit of 3RR. Doing it bit by bit is just trying to get around that. There is an ongoing discussion of this issue and yet you keep removing an important distinction that you simply disagree with.--Gregalton (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What an absurd accusation. I made small, incremental changes by request so that editors could contest individual ones. I did this, and now I request that my edits be contested individually, and not rejected indiscriminately with vague reasons. Kborer (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It it is not absurd. You have made many such reverts today despite pleas that you should not do so. I have lodged a formal complaint about your reverts and found there that you have already had another user complain about your behaviour in other articles. Please stop this nonsense. You have today been systematically changing the article for no good reason and by quite a considerable degree. Many of the changes have not been agreed here and have even been opposed.--Tom (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems hypocritical for you to ask me to make small changes with explanations for each and then for you revert all of them without explaining your reason for each change. When you did this, I objected and asked that you to provide the same courtesy to me that I provided to you. Is that unreasonable? Kborer (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How many cites do you want for "most"?

We have two: one saying "most" precisely, the other stating that using the term in the non-narrow sense is "ignorant." Is there any citation that could meet your requirement, save a meta-analysis of the linguistic choices of professonial sub-groups. This behaviour is essentially wikilawyering. I am happy to put in direct quotes, such as the "ignoramus" quote.--Gregalton (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this? "In the opinion of two noted health policy experts, most health policy experts do not use the term." I mean, that's the type of wikilawyering you're implying one should resort to. Your approach is absurd.--Gregalton (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, do you think I'm stupid? I know that there's a significant difference between using "most" and "some." Words have meanings. (In light of your insistence on using "most" in lieu of "some," you certainly seem to recognize that, too).

You and your cohort are trying to give readers the impression that those who use the broader definition are a bunch of nutcases, because few supposed self-respecting academics would deign to use the term "socialized medicine." In so doing, you were stealthily inserting your point of view not this article. When I objected to your efforts, you turned to an article with the opinions of two "noted health policy experts" to make the claim that "most" professionals would not use the term. I again objected, because that simply doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that some professionals object to using the term. If you want to claim that "most" (a majority, as I understand it) health professionals are opposed to using the term, then find some evidence (statistics) that defends that claim. Otherwise, stop trying to make broad generalizations that are aimed at discrediting socialized medicine's opponents. Freedomwarrior (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming that there is no difference. I am saying that it is entirely unreasonable to ask for statistical data of this sort. The "opinion" of two notable experts in the field is a very solid reference and verifiable. If you have some data to claim otherwise, please provide. When the noted health policy experts say "most", when our claim is precisely that "most" object to using the term, that meets quite high standards.--Gregalton (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


When you are saying that the majority of health professionals object to using that term, you are making a very significant claim that can color how readers interpret the information on this page. Accordingly, I don't believe that it is entirely unreasonable on my part to ask you to back that claim with statistical evidence.

While the opinions of two "notable" policy experts could forward a policy discussion, you are using their opinions in an area that is outside of their field of expertise. That most of their friends in the field might be adverse to socialized medicine does not necessarily mean that most health care experts are adverse to using it.Freedomwarrior (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it is entirely within the field of knowledge of professionals to know what "most" of their colleagues think and write.--Gregalton (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with Gregalton. FW is just talking nonsense and obfuscating to try to cover his/her unreasonableness. We can't have the opinion of experts being overridden by one opinioionated editor. --Tom (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom, of course you'd agree with Gregalton. The two of you are grasping at straws to come up with new ways of smearing the opponents of socialized medicine. Very simply, the opinions of your two so-called experts can only shed light on the opinions of a small cross-section of the health policy community, because we do not know the extent of their interactions with other colleagues or to what extent they are acquainted with the existing literature.

You can rely, foolishly, on arguments of authority if you wish. I will not. Find some real, substantive evidence which proves that the field is mostly opposed to using the term, or just drop this whole worthless line. Freedomwarrior (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

exclusions, premium loadings, caps and co-pays and the general objectives of insurance

FreedomWarrior. You removed this

This practise (in context, the loading premiums and making cover exclusions or cover limits etc) is logical behaviour by insurers but it goes against the general principle of insurance from the users' point of view which is to pool their risk with others. Socialized medicine requires that everyone contributes (through taxes rather than insurance) but coverage is given to all on the same basis. The sick and the elderly are not penalised financially for being sick and old.

with the edit summary "This is not your personal blog. That's nothing but your silly opinion. Take it elsewhere".

First of all it is not my opinion and I am not blogging. I've heard that opinion or opinions like it in the Sicko movie and in many places elsewhere. But as a piece of logical argument it seems faultless to me. It fundamentally describes the problem with the health care system in the US today as I hear it being expressed (which I suspect is why you want it deleted from the article). Insurance is all about pooling risk. As soon as someone's knowledge of a risk is changed there can begin a game of upmanship between insurer and insured with one party trying to gain at the expense of the other. Now I accept that this game works both ways, as insured can try to hoodwink and gain financial advantage over the insurer (by not declaring known facts) just as much as the insurer can play safe (by adding exclusions and loading premiums to maximise the chance of not making a loss). But the end result is as I expressed it.... the sick don't benefit from this game and the objective of pooling risk is defeated. But with a nation as the pool and compulsory insurance with a single fund there is no incentive to play this destructive game. Your labeling this as "nothing but your silly opinion" is nonsense. If a person moves from one state to another in the US he often has to change insurer, right? He carries with him/her his health history which could have become poor. He/she has to declare it and will surely be penalised under the new contract. His/her former risk pool status is changed. In national health systems, the insurer does not even have to worry about this, but a single private insurer worries about it very much. Your reasoning in more detail please for deleting the claim. Simply categorizing it as blogging is not good enough. --Tom (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you insist on turning this article into your personal blog, I am going to respond to your posts as I would on one. Here are a couple of points in response to your non-nonsensical claim:

1) Coverage exclusions keep costs low for those who are already in the risk pool. Therefore, it makes sense from the perspective of existing users. Potential users don't count, since the insurance company doesn't have any obligation towards them (it only has an obligation to its existing customers).

2) Insurance companies charge individuals on the basis of their impact on the risk premium. Those who are expected to use more of the monies in the pool are liable to get charged more. As such, the elderly are generally charged more because they, for obvious reasons, are liable to use more of the monies in the risk pool.

3) Coverage is given to all on the basis of what their sickness' priority in those "rational" guidelines that you so love. Accordingly, some are liable to get treatment more rapidly than others, and not on the same basis.

4) The young and the healthy are penalized under socialized systems. Freedomwarrior (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you repeated the personal blog slur. I know why insurers do 1)-2) above and it was the statement you deleted... i.e. that it is logical for them to do so. But 2) means the sick pay more... but the issue in National Health systems is that you join the pool soon after conception and you stay in the pool until you die. So becoming sick per se NEVER changes cost contributions as it does woth private insurance if you change insurers for example. I don't think that is silly. Why do you? It is a clear benefit to the person who is insured. You have added another side swipe at me in point 3) but I'll ignore it. The point you make is wrong though ..these are the rules about priorities so "the same basis" is still correct. As to point 4) that is crazy. The whole point of insurance is that we pay to cover costs when we are healthy because sickness is something unpredicable and its costs are unpredictable. We pay our insurance and pray never to have claim on it (nobody wants to be sick). Thats the same under both kinds of systems (except insurance is paid from taxes). Getting old is more predictable but the key factor remains health. It seems to me odd that the old should be expected to pay more (as they would do in the US I presume if there were no medicare) at a time when they are probably no longer earning. We don't know if we will live a long life or a short life so planning for private insurance must have been a nightmare for the elderly in the US (and I guess to some extent it still is). In the UK the elderly do not have to pay for prescription drugs, let alone medical bills. The statement you deleted included "The sick and the elderly are not penalised financially for being sick and old". I think that is a fair comment and deserves to be in the article. It is not IMHO "silly opinion" which only belongs in a blog ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) 01:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are the sick and elderly being penalized financially? They obviously require more care and resources. Why shouldn't they pay their fair share like everyone else in the risk pool? Why shouldn't someone who's been in the workforce for forty and fifty years and presumably made investments and saved in preparation for their retirement be expected to have enough money to pay for their premiums? Freedomwarrior (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

POV Pushing

Tom, you need to stop treating this page as if it were your personal blog. If you have a sourced, factual claim that you'd like to add, then do so. You are not entitled, however, to ram your opinion on here, especially without any sources.Freedomwarrior (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What in particluar are you referring to? Let's examine them one by one. I think you are POV pushing too. And when we have finished discussing your objections to my edits we can start discussing yours. --Tom (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am POV pushing. I dont' mind admitting it, because you are too. The difference between us, however, is that I'm not arrogant enough to think myself an authority on health care policy. Usually, I cite my changes. You reversed my edits without even dealing with the requests that I made for additional sources. First, your contention that the term is "used principally in United States politics" is nothing but conjecture. An opinion piece from the left-leaning New York Times does not make it a factual statement. Find a real, academic source if you want to add it to the top of the page, or move it down to the criticism section (as an opinion). Secondly, you reversed an edit that eliminated your claim that "health professionals tend not to use the term at all," despite not having effectively dealt with my criticism of that claim on the talk page (my post is the last). Deal with the criticism on the talk page or just drop the issue. Furthermore, I didn't notice the claim about "The narrow definition permits a clear distinction from single payer health insurance systems where the government finances health care but is not involved in care delivery." I don't care about this. I'm fine with keeping it. I just prefer the wording on "It can describe a system where the government funds and manages health care by directly employing health care providers or, broadly, a government-regulated system for providing health care by all by means of subsidies and taxation." Finally, it's kind of rude to reverse an editors changes before going to the talk page.Freedomwarrior (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well at least you have admitted to POV pushing. Actually before I comment on the points you raise I want to say something at the outset. I see that you often highlight "trigger" words as interwiki links. What is a trigger word? A trigger word is one that is designed to trigger an emotion in the American public. Something which has been inculcated over many years. People in Europe for example do not share these emotions to anywhere near the same extent. The ones you choose to trigger are those which the US public have been trained to think as negative and bad like socialism, communism taxation government control regulation Soviet Union Cuba. I am surprised you haven't yet managed to add the word liberal to the text. And if someone adds a positive word (with or without a link) like democratic or elected then you do your utmost to delete it or demote it in the pecking order. The link to health care systems is a case in point because your alter ego has posted there a graphic which depicts heathcare systems along two axes designed to trigger along the same lines. Government finance (bad) versus private finance (good), and government control (bad) versus private control (good). And guess what, if you've been triggered in the way you have been trained to, you will come to the conclusion that free market health care must be very good... it has the best of both worlds! And socialized medicine must be very bad... it is bad in two ways!! Well, I think this kind of relatively subtle POV pushing is quite dangerous because it is mostly subliminal. When I have replaced that with a meaningful link with real information in it such as to publicly funded health care is gets deleted (well it did several times yesterday. And NOT ONCE did either you or your alter ego explain why you were making those changes. Not once. --Tom (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Honestly, I don't care whether I have credibility in your eyes or not. I am quite tired of your puerile efforts to turn this article into a blog on behalf of socialized medicine. I am not going to allow you to flagrantly violate Wikipedia's rules regarding citations. I do not have to disprove anything to remove it from this encyclopedia. You are the one who has to prove a claim to add it on here. If you have no interest in searching for a source, then the claim shall be removed. If you insist on adding it without a source, I will remove it and complain to the proper authorities. Frankly, I don't know how my asking you to provide sources for claims that very clearly bias the article in favor of socialized medicine makes me "crazy" (I guess it's just the stalinesque name calling that you and your yolk engage in when you can't rationally argue something).Freedomwarrior (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I had not finished. Re your final point "Is it rude to delete texts without discussing first"? Well yes it is, but its a bit rich because I am only following yours and Kborer's precedents. Your (you and Kborer's) return(s) from your WIKI editing vacation(s) began a sudden spate of editing aimed to put the article back to the way you had it previously (trigger word links and all,including pushing up the order of references that Cato article which did not support the defintion but did bring the Cato article up the pecking order of reference which is one of your POV tactics). Not a whiff of discussion about this before it was done. You just went ahead and did it. So I (and Gregalton too) had little choice but to revert as they were often very big changes designed to push POV.

As for providing references or sources for statements, that is an old tactic of yours and now I am afraid it won't wash. I'll give some eamples of the crazy demands you make.

  1. Prove that health care under socialized medicine is on the basis of need and not on the ability to pay in most countries
  2. Prove that most health care professionals do not use the term socialized medicne
  3. Prove that the term is mostly used in US politics
  4. Prove that changing employer does not have health care coverage consequences (in tax funded systems)
  5. Prove the Guilliani cancer statistics conclusions were flawed (despite there being already a reference with quotes from cancer experts and statistitians!)
  6. ... well I could go on but In have hardly gone very far back and I am too bored to list them all.

Well I am not engaging any more in this. You have lost all credibility in my eyes. I am not going to provide sources for obvious claims. You can prove them wrong if you like, so its over to you.

As you specifically asked about point 2. above I will answer it this way. Firstly, the observation came initially not from me but some months back by User:Nbauman when discussing pejoratives I think. He said that medical journals do not allow the term to be used, and checking back on numerous articles where there are comparisons between the US and other countries, he is right. Nor is the term used by the WHO. The term is simply not used. Except I have seen it in some medical journal items but only in the context of US political debate. Is there really an editorial ban by such journals? I have no idea but I will ask User:Nbauman. Is it likely to be true? I suspect so because it is so politially charged. Am I going to dig any further to prove the point. No. Will that stop me from reinserting the claim without proof? No. If you can prove it otherwise, please go ahead and get the proof. Its so not in doubt (except in your mind perhaps)

I have no interest in this subject other than when I came across the article I recognized that it immediately was designed in part to paint an unflattering picture of health care in my home country. I have investigated some of the claims by Cato and the CPA which are lnked to in the article and they have (amazingly) so far, each been shown to my own satisfaction to be false. The stuff about waiting lists and MRI were just astoundingly wrong. So I have been slowly been adding factual information and I sense that you are frustrated that I have done this. Well, I am sorry about that. But it is not POV pushing. Its telling the truth. And the fact is, you (and Kborer) have been rumbled! Time to give up your hopeless quest. Your dedication to this task is so great though that I suspect you are being paid to do it. Nobody is THIS dedicated to pushing against a subject that they can have had very little direct experience of. I have lots of personal experience of two systems outside the US and both have worked fine for me and my family. I have one indirect experience of US health care. My cousin collapsed at the aiport on his arrival due to low blood sugar (he is diabetic). He was fine having sucked on some candy. But the airport insisted on him being transfered to the hospital. An ambulance was called and they checked him over, did some tests and released him later in the day with no medication administered. Fine. Except the hospital and ambulance bill came to over 15,000 dollars! UNBELIEVABLE!!! They hardly did a thing!

(Your tourism industry needs to know that many people from abroad cannot afford to take holidays in the US because the medical insurance component for a holiday is so expensive. A person over 65 years old in the UK going on holiday to continental Europe for 30 days pays £100. The same cover to the USA is £229 (over $500).http://www.thomson.co.uk/editorial/legal/insurance-gold.html#Summary_Benefits (see table at the end) Many people these days will actually go to Europe and not pay for travel insurance. They just get a free European Health Insurance Card because then they get the benefit of adopting temporarily the same rights to free or low cost access to health care as the locals have in that country and forget about the other risks. --Tom (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom, this article and the talk page is not your blog. The last post on the talk page is an example of what I mean. I could care less whether a person traveling in the US is insured or not. That's not something that keeps me up at night. If you find yourself in need of talking about the so-called injustices of free medicine, then go to a Marxist website where your rants will be appreciated. This is not the place to argue those issues. Moreover, this is not the place for you to try and push your opinion in an unsubstantiated way. If you want to add something on this article, then find a source and stop violating Wikipedia's rules regarding citations. Finally, I resent your accusation that I am somehow paid. This is simply an issue that I am interested in. My sole goal is to keep people like you (who rely on democratic arguments to strip people of their right to property) from distorting reality to gather enough support to ram a policy with which I vehemently disagree down my throat. Freedomwarrior (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Freedomwarrior: As to blogging, the point I am making is that I have no direct interest in the US political debate. It makes no difference to me whether you keep the system you have or change it (though it might affect me as a tourist). In have no reason to push a POV. My changes to this article have all been aimed at removing bias and telling the truth about the subject. Your edits are, most of the time, subtle or not so subtle POV pushing. I reverted your last 3 blatant attempts for POV pushing. For all the reasons given above. You have admitted POV pushing. I suggest we go to one of the WP arbitration routes to resolve this impasse. If you want to report my behaviour elsewhere please go ahead and try. I don't think many will think that you are being reasonable. --Tom (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether I am POV pushing. I am doing it within the rules. I am using Wikipedia's rules to block you from turning this article into a blog on behalf of socialized medicine.

In one of your previous posts on this page, you complained about my supposedly purposefully highlighting certain "code words," yet you have had ample opportunity to highlight the words that you think somehow make your position more attractive. For instance, you object that I eliminated all references to the word "elected" (because you seem to think that vox populi, vox dei). If you remember, I objected to your making a nonsensical generalization which suggests that all countries with socialized medicine somehow have elected governments. I did not object to your including reference to some countries having elected governments. As usual, however, you did not narrow your statement into one that's actually true. It is not my fault that you are not sufficiently capable of making nuanced, but correct points.

You claim that " My changes to this article have all been aimed at removing bias and telling the truth about the subject," yet all that you are doing is adding unsourced information, which adds an implicit bias on behalf of socialized medicine. If you can find a source for your claims, in line with Wikipedia Rules (I invite you to read them) then feel free to add it. Otherwise, stop violating the rules.Freedomwarrior (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I remind you that NPOV also affects the structure of articles and you blatantly change the structure to push POV. Also you have admitted to POV pushing which is a clear breach of WP policy. I make no such admission. So I invite you to follow the rules too. It is amazing that so many citations which are negative come from just 3 sources. CPA, Manhattan Institute and Cato, all of which have declared bias on the issue. As these institutions regularly put out falsehoods and misleading statements I do not think they really qualify as valid citations for factual information. I just deleted two such references at Publicly-funded health care. I look forward to examining the truth of statements made in those articles with other editors there. It has been most enlightening doing it here.--Tom (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

One would have to be blind to not realize that you and I are POV pushing. However, your claim that I am somehow purposefully changing the "structure of the article" to favor my POV is nothing but sheer and utter nonsense. We both have strong opinions on this matter. There is one difference between us: I do not come to this page and insist that my opinions be treated as a matter of fact. Most of my changes on this article have been aimed at ensuring that you do not transform this article into a blog, because I do not have the requisite time to research information to add on this page. If you look at the record, few of my changes have been additions.

With regards to CPA, Manhattan Institute and Cato, I could care less what you think. I would warn you, however, to be mindful of deleting sourced material from those sources, because your attempts to silence your opposition will only further demonstrate how weak and desperate your position happens to be. .Freedomwarrior (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Freedomwarrior. Your attempts to use internal wikilinks are blatant attempts subliminal POV pushing. Do you really think that people do not know what government and control means? What possible reason do you have for wikifying these words????--Tom (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom, you have to be kidding me. Your latest accusations are about as absurd as the ones that you made of me and Kborer being the same editor.

If I seriously wanted to engage in POV pushing, I would do what you do: make up stuff and try and force it into this article. As a general rule, I tend to add wikilinks whenever I edit something (you can look at some of the other articles I've edited, if you want confirmation). I wikified those words because I-- unlike you--believe in subtleties and recognize that those words have multiple meanings/usages. Take the term "government," for instance, which can mean "the ruling power in a political society" (i.e. the Brown government or the Blair government) or "the apparatus through which a governing body functions and exercises authority" (the state itself). Given the debates that we've had on the different forms of control and the different kinds of government out there, I don't think that there's a reason to exclude terms that can edify this article's readers. If you have a good reason for removing those terms, other than some paranoid, then let's hear it. Freedomwarrior (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We are a long way from April 1. And I was not born yesterday. And neither am I paranoid. If you persist I will just revert your isiosynchorisies (if that's how you prefer it,...tho' I still call it sublimiinal POV pushing) unless you can find substantial support for your actions from other regular editors here. If needs be I will take this to arbitration. --Tom (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You may not have been born yesterday, but you'd certainly fool me. Your contention that I have somehow been altering the article to include subliminal messages is laughable. Let me remind you once again that this is not a democracy. Vox populi is not vox dei on Wikiedpia, and your continued attempts to transform an intellectual discussion into a straw poll are contrary to its policies. (Moreover, they show how intellectually lacking your positions happen to be). If you want to take this to arbitration, then by all means. I'm sure that the arbitrators would enjoy a good laugh.Freedomwarrior (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You have already admitted to POV pushing. That is unacceptable with or without references. The internal wiki links cannot be THAT important that you insist that they are left in... and in fact I still contend that this is subtle POV pushing (as is your moving the defintion link away from publicly-funded health care towards health care systems which has similar bias. I have called for 3rd party help to help resolve this current spate of fractious warring. I am content to wait and see what happens.--Tom (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

use of the term by professionals

Freedomwarrior: You seem insistent on your contention that the term is used neutrally to describe public medicine by medical professionals. It is impossible to prove non-use so therefore I an going to ask you to demonstrate common usage. Please therefore give an example of 3 articles from 3 different medical journals (not pamphlets or similar from biased sources) where public medicine is referred to as "socialized medicine" other than in the context of its use in political debate. If you do this I will seriously reconsider my position about the use of this term. Not before then. If you are right (that it is commonly used in a professional context to describe public medicine in a neutral manner) this should not be difficult for you.--Tom (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to engage in these puerile efforts, and I am tiring of having to spend the time that I've been spending on this article to stave off your silly edits. I am not your lapdog. I do not respond to your commands. I am not going to go looking for information in journals that suit your definition of what constitutes a valid source, because I am not the one who is trying to add any information on this article. If you want to add something on this encyclopedia, the burden of proof falls on you to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt. Quite simply, I do not have to convince you about the usage of the term and you do not have to convince me about its usage. You have to prove that it is used as you are claiming that it is used. Otherwise, it will be an unauthoritative he said, she said argument.Freedomwarrior (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would restate the issue: you have asked for references, references have been provided, you dispute whether those references are sufficient. We have a difference of opinion about what constitutes reasonable proof. We do not have to convince "you", we have to convince "editors in general."--Gregalton (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You have provided a single academic's opinion about his colleague's views. How does that constitute reasonable proof? Freedomwarrior (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Will get back to this in detail, likely only after several days. More sources have been provided, however, than one academic.--Gregalton (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

POV Disputes and Cleanup Suggestions

I realize this is a very contentious subject, but the back and forth edits aren't contributing anything to the quality of the article.

In the short term, I'll go through the article now and try to clean up the language and remove any obvious POV issues that exist. Considering how rapid the back and forth has been with the edits, I might suggest taking a day or two to before making further edits. Also, keep in mind the Three-revert rule WP:3RR, which states that the same editor can not make more than 3 whole or partial reverts on the same article within a 24 hour period.

The article is in need of significant cleanup. The length is simply too long for the subject. The sections on Criticism and Support are not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. For the most part, the content of those two sections can be eliminated without affecting the article quality, and important information from those sections can be incorporated into the rest of the text.

In the long term, the goal should be merger with Publicly-funded health care. Instead of working on small edits for this article, it would be best to incorporate its unique content in the Publicly-funded health care article. Most of the content doesn't need to be merged, and if there is any debate on whether or not a section of text has NPOV, it's probably best not to move it.

I hope this helps. In the mean time I'll go through the article now and remove any obviously POV problems, and perhaps most importantly, keep in mind the Three revert rule. Dgf32 (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request

A request on POV issues was noted on the Wikipedia:Third_opinion page. I'm reviewing the article and discussion page now and will post further comments shortly. Dgf32 (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Tom, in one of your recent edits, you modified to introduction to link socialized medicine with publicly-funded health care because you claim that they are basically the same thing. Would it surprise you that I think otherwise? For those of us who subscribe to the broader definition of socializded medicine, it is more than publicly-funded health care. Therefore, I will be reversing that change, because there is no reason why your views on the matter should trump those of other editors.Freedomwarrior (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We are in agreement that socialized medicine is publicly-funded, in part or in whole. The question is over the word "controlled". In any health care system that is financed by a government, that government obviously has some degree of control over the administration of the system, even if it is largely limited. A good example of this would be Medicare in the United States, in which there is governmental control through management of finances. The concepts of "control" and "finance" in socialized medicine are essentially one in the same. I don't think it is necessary to include the word "control" in the opening sentence. Dgf32 (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that governments do not release funds without controls (well usually, though one notable recent exception -not connected to health care- springs immediately to mind). The point has been made here before.

As for definitions I think we came close to a sensible defintition before Christmas, but then the edit warring began as two editors tried to change it all back. I suspect Freedomwarrior is now alluding to a claim he/she makes that regulation of privately funded medicine is also socialized, even though this is not a mainstream definition. This is not under the umbrella of "publicly funded health care". We also have the views of certain respected health profesionals and some dictionaries and editors here that the term does have a specific meaning, which is where the health care delivery system is publicly managed as in Britain, Spain or Finland. But usage by certain pressure groups (and the media therefrom) has extended the defintion way beyond that. As a result some even say that it is now so abused it has no meaning at all.

I have mostly confined my contribution here to extending the Wikipedia content about publicly managed health care delivery systems. In England we just call this Public Health Care if we are not talking specifically about the Britsh NHS. But I am told that Public Health Care can mean something different in the US. Therefore I have been adding this information to the socialized medicine article (even though the term socialized medicine sounds laughable to the British ear). If we can get a consensus from a wide range of editors where information about such systems should be collated I'd be happy to move it there. --Tom (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Origins with Bismarck

Gregalton, you may disagree that the origins of socialized medicine are in Bismarck's health care system, but that's what M. Gregg Bloche said in the New England Journal of Medicine article I cited, so it's not absurd. Nbauman (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; unfortunately, I don't have access to that article. I would love to see the actual text. Calling it socialized medicine is a stretch. At any rate, the history section clearly fits better with the "implementation" bits.--Gregalton (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

28 week waiting time includes time for diagnostic tests and first appointment booking

Freedomwarrior. Welcome back after your 2 week break. You deleted my statement that time taken to get a first appointment with a specialist and time for the specialist to make any diagnostic tests would not be regarded by most people as waiting time for treatment. Clearly the UK government now includes this time in the waiting time figure (which it was not before), but most people regard true "waiting time" as the "the time taken for my turn in the line" to come around, i.e. "dead time" because nothing is happening. Normal time to get a first appointment (say a week) and the time to do blood tests, or in hospital observations prior to making a diagnostic and treatment decision is not really "time waiting in line" and this is why I think it is reasonable to have this in the article, and why most people would not regard this as "waiting time". I do not think international comparisons on waiting times would include such time as "waiting" as they are all normal and neccessary activities.--Tom (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Page protection (24 hours)

This page has been temporarily protected due to edit-warring. Please use this talkpage to discuss your dispute, and if that fails, use the Dispute Resolution system on Wikipedia.

Page protection is not an endorsement of the current version of this page. To unprotect, either wait the 24 hour period, or file a request at Requests for Page Protection. Please do not place requests for page protection on my talk page: Such requests will go unfulfilled. Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Medicaid/Medicare

These programs are not really socialized medicine as the article discusses. Instead (unlike the veterans' health care), they are single-payer systems which utilize private doctors and hospitals with the government paying. This distinction should be made more clear. Papercrab (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled. The article already says "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, nor the single payer programs such as Medicaid and Medicare." Which part of the article are you referring to?--Tom (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

KBORER /FREEDOMWARRIOR -

I have been troubled for some time that these two user accounts may be the same person or directed by the same person, even if from a different ISP address (which is very easy to do). My suspicions began many months ago when in a mild dispute with Kborer, FreedomWarrior took up the same argument but using much stronger and much more opinionated views. Since then Kborer has been reasoned but generally one directional whereas FreedomWarrior has been one directional but very unreasoned or to be generous, opinionated at one extreme. Then recently Kborer started supporting some of the (in my view extreme) opinions held by FreedomWarrior which, in my opinion has been out of character for Kborer. What's more, after a spate of edit warring FreedomWarrior said something to the effect that "we can go on arguing this using shell accounts"..... which raised my suspicions even further. I therefore undertook a review of the edit history of these users. One account is older and the other and most accounts make several edits on most days. But each editor has had least 4 significant periods when he/she has been away from editing for at least 5 days, but I noticed that 2 of these periods have been the same for both FreedomWarrior and Kborer. And the recent disappearance of Kborer and Freedom Warrior and their re-emergence from silence in the last day after another break from editing by both editors has , if anything, just strengthened this view. One of the accounts was created on 1 January which may be happenchance, but then maybe not.

I am not a statistician but as there are 365 different 5 day consecutive periods in any year I think that the chances of two editors choosing the same 5 day period to be absent on two separate occassions out of 4 each is quite small.

Inserted update - I think the recent weeks pattern of edit breaks makes it now more like 4 out of 6 occasions! --Tom (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not inclined to raise an offical complaint and the evidence gathered above was done on the back of an envelope which has now been discarded and may even contain some minor inaccuracies. But it does make me think that I am less inclined to take seriously the edits made by these editors who mostly seem bent on giving the article content a negative gloss. I also suspect that we may see new editors emerging to take on the task of ensuring that the article keeps pushing negativity around the concept. Time will tell..

I mention these things for the benefit of other editors here. Yes I expect that Kbrorer and FreedomWarrior will express outrage at what I have suggested. But there you are. I am one for plain speaking and I have merely reported what I believe.--Tom (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not outraged, I'm just amused...Freedomwarrior (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a silly accusation, Tom.--Gregalton (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure? This(These) editor(s) is (are) back at their desk(s) and at work again bashing bias into the article. It is so plain to see.--Tom (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense

Tom and Gregalton, since both of you are so keen on insisting that an objective definitions for terms like "wealthy" and "industrialized" exist, perhaps you can provide them. At what point is a country objectively "wealthy"? Additionally, at what point is a country objectively "industrialized"? Finally, explain why some "industrialized" countries with significant GDPs that don't have universal health care, like China or India, shouldn't be counted alongside the US.Freedomwarrior (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you dispute a citation, please do it here first - don't remove the relevant text for a fairly nuanced question. I will look for definitions - world bank, IMF, UN, OECD, etc are all good sources, terminology differs at each to some degree.
For the specific cite in question, I can live with a variation on "The United States is said to be" or "by some definitions" or other compromises, but not removing the relevant bit entirely.--Gregalton (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't live with a variation of that statement, because there's not a single reason to define wealth in such a way that you only mention the United States. By some definitions (i.e mine), China is a wealthy industrialized country (after all, it has one of the biggest GDPs in the world). Why are you glossing over the fact that China doesn't have universal health care? Is there a reason? Why should your opinion that the United States is the only country without universal health care get to trump mine, which is that there are countless other industrialized and affluent countries without universal health care?Freedomwarrior (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Find a citation that supports your definition then. Note this is not my opinion, but the opinion of two citations.--Gregalton (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Examples of sources: first, even a cursory search for wealthy industrialized nations or wealthy industrialized economies will find many uses of this phrase, including developed countries in Wikipedia with extensive references. It is used consistently (but with some variation over time and preference for this phrase over others): broadly speaking, corresponding with OECD membership or "developed economies" / developed countries. See here for example. Other sources include [1], [2], CIA world factbook has variations on this usage, [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. So the usage of the term is broadly consistent and quite common. Given that the statement is sourced and the term is widely used, I see no reasonable basis for objection.--Gregalton (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Gregalton and I challenged Freedomwarrior to find a wealthier industrialized country and the only one he came up with was China. I would say that China is still largely a rural economy though it is industralizing rapidly. Although China and India are populous countries that are changing rapidly, they still have a long way to go before they catch up with the US in terms of total GDP let alone GDP per capita. Freedomwarrior: Perhaps you can draw up a list countries by order of highest GDP per capita and whether you think the country has UHC according the WHO and is industrialized or not. We can then see how far down the list we have to go before we come to a country without Universal health care. I think it would be too long a list for the article but you can bring it here and lets see what we think. I'm prepared to be proven wrong. The claim is made though in other WP articles on health and I think you have a tough time if you try to challenge the claim there too. Universal health care and Health care in the United States are examples. --Tom (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
There are common definitions of this term, as documented, and the use of the phrase is cited. It would be pointless to come up with one's own list or definition, as that would just be original research.--Gregalton (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You're right of course. Sorry. --Tom (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom, stop trying to modify the terms of debate, I don't need to find a country that is "wealthier" than the United States since the blurb was discussing "wealthy" countries. I also don't see why I need to agree with your measuring a country's wealth based on their GDP per capita, mostly because I don't see why individual wealth would be a consideration in a system that is built upon wealth redistribution.

Gregalton, I have not disputed your claim that the United States is an industrialized and wealthy country. I have limited myself to disputing your claim that it is the only "wealthy" and "industrialized" country without some form of so-called universal health care. Why not China? You did not answer the question when I first posed it. You have simply gone on to make a rather hollow argument by authority as to why the United States is a wealthy country, etc. What is the cut off point? What is the GDP per capita or the aggregate GDP that lets one say that a country is wealthy? What is the approrpiation level of industrialization? Freedomwarrior (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a consistent understanding of which countries are wealthy and industrialized, and a citation supporting the statement in the text. My argument is entirely by authority. If you want to question the definition or authority, please do so with citations.--Gregalton (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. There's no way that I can effectively "question the definition" put forth by any of your sources, because that's their opinion That would be asking me to go and convince Marx that capitalism's demise is not predestined. That's non-sense.

If there is such a "consistent understanding," then perhaps you could give me a figure that determines whether a country is "wealthy" and "industrialized" or not. Again, why is China, with one of the largest aggregate GDPs in the world, not a wealthy and industrialized country? What's the cut off point. Stop evading the question. Give me a number. Don't tell me that there's a consensus, because I don't see one. Freedomwarrior (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You asked for sources, I've given you some. Please see OECD figures and others for specifics.--Gregalton (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't tell me anything. Different sources use different figures. Again, why should China be excluded?Freedomwarrior (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be better if Freedomwarrior takes this argument to Talk: Universal health care ... there are many more editors there and, who knows, maybe he will find someone there who can provide the references needed to support the assertion that the US is not dissimilar to China in industrialization and absolute wealth terms. The paragraph objected to in socialized medicine does seem to have been copied straighy from Universal health care and is on the topic of UHC rather than socialized medicine. If you do that I'll settle for whatever comes out of that. --Tom (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if they teach common sense in schools anymore. You don't quite seem to realize that there is no scientific, objective way of ascertaining whether a country is "wealthy" and "industrialized" In other words, the questions that one would ask to determine whether a country is either of those two things is open to individual interpretation. For instance, you might say that measuring GDP per capita is a more effective approach to determine whether a country is wealthy, while I might argue that looking at the aggregate GDP is better. Who's right? Well, that's a question of opinion. Another example, what's the appropriate level of "industrialization" for a country to be considered "industrialized?" Indeed, what does it mean for a country to be "industrialized"? Is it possible for a country to be "un-industrialzied"? Again, those are all matters of opinion. Taking it to another page not going to solve the problem, it's just going to protract a rather pointless and mindless disagreement that is based on our unique opinions. Freedomwarrior (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's a matter of your opinion, and apparently your opinion only. We have provided citations, please stop removing text because you don't like it and don't wish to recognize a point that is expressed validly, with citations.--Gregalton (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton , I do not need to go out and find a source, because I am not trying to insert my opinion on this page. If there's such a broad, factual consensus that doesn't hinge on someone's rather insignificant opinion, why don't you try to answer the questions that I've posed?

Earlier in this thread you conceded that you are simply trying to sneak an opinion on here when you said "Note this is not my opinion, but the opinion of two citations." Your narrow definition of what constitutes a "wealthy" and "industrialized" is a matter of opinion. It does not belong on this page. It is a violation of POV, simple. It is a normative claim, not a positive claim. Is the distinction not clear to you? Freedomwarrior (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please go debate theories elsewhere. As per sources of wealthy and industrialized, definition is not narrow, but widely used in media and relevant circles. I'm not attempting to answer your questions because they are not serious questions (any trivial attempt at research would provide lots of info). You have stated clearly above that "you won't live with" a statement that defines it in that way because your opinion should matter as much. Well, that's not the way it works. Published statements carry more weight than your opinion. Go get published somewhere or start a blog, but stop trying to suppress terms you don't like that the rest of the world uses.--Gregalton (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If "any trivial attempt at research would provide lots of info" and you are as knowledgeable as you seem to believe, then answering the questions that I've posed shouldn't present a problem. Why not end the controversy and do so? I'll tell you why: you are not going to answer my questions, because doing so would undermine your preposterous and absurd claim that there exists an "objective" standard for determining whether a country happens to be "industrialized" and "wealthy."

In response to my objections, you have said that "Well, that's not the way it works." Perhaps you should read the rules, since your edits are a violation of WP:ASF

You can cite as many citations as you want, however, that does not give you the right to violate the rules and peddle your own particular views as fact. A socialist is not allowed to come on wikipedia and state, as a factual claim, that the proletariat revolution is inevitable. Even if he cites Marx and other writers who've held this belief, it is clear that his claim is nothing but an opinion, which must be treated as such. It is not an objective claim. Just like the claim that you've been trying to push on here.

I am going to suppress terms that "I don't like," because you don't have a right to impose your opinion on this page. I refuse to permit an obviously spiteful attacks upon the United States by people intent on pushing socialized medicine. There are many other wealthy countries that do not have socialized medicine, which you are giving a free pass to. Why? Why do you insist on attacking the United States and not those countries? Freedomwarrior (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are fundamentally opposed to so-called socialized medicine and believe that all systems that have resulted in universal health care are socialist, I don't know why you would think such a statement a spiteful attack - it clearly demonstrates the US is not socialist. (Of course, I think the labels are spiteful and foolish and would still advocate reducing this article to the basics: socialized medicine is a pejorative term tout court).
As for other "wealthy, industrialized nations" providing universal health care, please provide a source.
If you would like to discuss compromises, they may be possible. But removing what a source says because you disagree with it is not acceptable, and you are just editwarring.--Gregalton (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement itself is not spiteful, but the spirit that motivates it. It is another attempt to bash the United States, for what socialists perceive to be its faults (and I believe to be its virtues). Sadly, the United States has socialized medicine. It just does not have so-called universal health care.

I have no problem with stating that the United States does not have universal health care (the statement that I have been advocating reflects that--an objective truth). I object to passing off the claim that it is the only "wealthy" and "industrialized" country that does not have so-called universal health care as a matter of fact, because I don't know what those two terms mean. Again, how are you judging whether a country is wealthy or not? Are you doing it by per capita GDP or by aggregate GDP? What is the objective standard that you are using to determine whether a country is either of those two? You keep pointing to sources, but that doesn't solve the fundamental problem that your claim is an OPINION.

Your insistence on trying to push the claim that United States is the only wealthy country without so-called universal health care as a factual statement is nothing but blatant POV pushing. No source can turn an opinion into a fact. An opinion is an opinion is an opinion. Cite as many sources as you want, the revolution isn't coming...

If you want to include those statements as reference in the bottom, then feel free to. I don't object to letting readers see them and coming to conclusions. I just object to your efforts at foisting your opinion into this article.

How does your statement not violate WP:ASF rules? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomwarrior (talk • contribs) 06:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You are attributing spite without evidence. If you want to strictly adhere, I am willing to consider a compromise ("it is often said that" or "by some measures"), but you keep removing the sense of the statement. You are also attributing this opinion to me, but it is also not a statement that I made, nor one that I put in the text.
As for wealth, I have provided sources and you have made no attempt to understand them. The simple breakdown is this: countries are grouped in wealth buckets (high income, middle income, etc) according to GDP per capita. "Industrialized" is used to separate out countries that may have high income but non-industrial economies, like for example Nauru before the guano ran out. This definition is commonly used in combination to refer to OECD countries, although some might exclude a few OECD countries or include non-OECD countries for various reasons. Often also called developed countries. THIS INFO IS IN THE SOURCES I PROVIDED AT YOUR REQUEST.
Now, you might dispute this characterization but the definition is commonly understood. You might dispute how precisely it has been used in the sources quoted. But to remove it is just vandalism based on your own POV.
As for ASF, again, compromises are possible but you have not demonstrated any willingness to do so, preferring editwarring and removing the sense of the given quote. Because, as above, you want to use your own definitions, including for example of socialism. (You may think the US has socialized medicine and China to be wealthy, but these are according to your own definitions.)--Gregalton (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I see Freedomwarrior has again removed the text. I am saddened to see this. I have added it back. The arguments made that this is POV and an attack on the US is frankly nonsense. Although Universal health care is not quite the same thing as socialized medicine, most socialized systems do create universal care for their target populations. I am not against a reference to China somewhere in the article but it is not yet in the same league as the U.S. The reason for having the U.S. referenced in the header (to my mind at least) is because the term "socialized medicine" was coined in the U.S. deliberately to engender hostility, but virtually all wealthy industrialized countries now have UHC. The U.S. is notable by being an exception. So on balance I think it should stay in the header here worded in the same way as in other related articles.--Tom (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton, why should GDP per capita be the measure of a country's wealth? Why is per capita wealth at all a consideration when discussing a socialist scheme for redistribution? At what level of GDP per capita?

"This definition is commonly used in combination to refer to OECD countries, although some might exclude a few OECD countries or include non-OECD countries for various reasons." On what basis are countries included or excluded? Is there an objective cut-off point? Or is is the arbitrary whims of some bureaucrats? Why is China not a developed country?

I am not vandalizing this article by asking that you provide an objective standard for a term. The same question was asked in the United States of the Democratic candidates running for president. They all gave three different answers. Your pretension at a consensus on this position is absurd. You are foisting a value judgment in this article. This is not a blog for you and your fellow socialists to attack the United States. Take your envy elsewhere. I am removing your obviously biased and subjective claim based on the rules of this encyclopedia. It does not constitute vandalism.

Finally, you say "You may think the US has socialized medicine and China to be wealthy, but these are according to your own definitions." Why does it matter that you go off and find your kindred spirit (also America haters, probably because of a nice degree of socialist xenophobia and envy) to defend what is an obviously arbitrary definition of wealth and industrialization.

If your so willing to compromise, then what's your idea? I am not going to let you ram your opinion point on here, simply because you have sources. It would be akin to the example of the Marxist citing Marx to defend his absurd position that I mentioned beforehand.

Tom, it doesn't matter that China is on the same level as the United States. The quote isn't that there aren't countries as "wealthy" or as "industrialized" as the United States without socialized medicine. Rather, the quote is that the United States is the only "wealthy" and "industrialized" country without socialized medicine. You have not established what a "wealthy" and "industrialized" country is. You say that "virtually all wealthy industrialized countries now have UHC." What are they? Who are they? How do you determine that?

Also Tom, that the claim is often made doesn't make it true. The Marxists have been proclaiming the proletariat Revolution for the past 160 years now, and yet that hasn't made it true. It is absurd to make an argument on the ground of tradition, which is what you are doing.

Finally, it doesn't matter that you think that "on balance" the comment should stay in the header. You have provided no valid argument for why it should stay. Tell me what criteria you are using to determine whether a country is wealthy and industrialized. Why does no one give me numbers? I don't care about little fluffy statements. I want cold hard numbers. The readers deserve to know what objective standard we are using to determine why China and a whole host of other countries with significant levels of aggregate wealth are given a free pass.Freedomwarrior (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so this argument is going no-where. If I may observe on a few points. Freedomwarrior; the edit is cited. You may not agree, and the cites may not be of the highest possible quality, but they are valid and so is the addition. If you feel that the point it is making is weak, it's pointless starting some debate on imprecise definitions. That way lies only POV, original research and original synthesis. What you need is a source to balance what is being said, otherwise all we have is your opinion that the point is questionable. And that doesn't count.
However, is it not possible that a simple re-phrasing can solve this impasse? Can we not say that "While most industrialized and developing countries operate some form of publicly-funded health care, the United States, China and India are among the nations that do not.". Simple, factual and not singling any country out. Anything that the reader wants to draw from that is up to them. Let the facts speak for themselves. They are unlikely to need to be told that the United States is foremost in that list when it comes to wealth & development. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Tom on this one. I'll give you a criteria and a valid argument. Every medical journal distinguishes between healh care in the industrialized world and health care in the developing world. The diseases are completely different, the resources are completely different, and the strategies for dealing with them are completely different. For example, many public health people in Africa aren't that concerned about polio and don't want to put money into polio vaccination programs -- they have bigger problems (like malaria) to put their resources into, it presents differently, and they regard it as a disease of industrialized countries. The important distinction would be between countries in which most of the deaths are from infectious diseases, and countries in which most of the deaths are from heart attacks.
The reason that nobody can give you numbers is that the distinction isn't made on the basis of numbers. I'll ask you: At what income level does heart disease cause more deaths than infectious disease? I don't think you can answer, because there is no answer. You don't rank the public health environments of countries by dollar figures. A country can have a bad public health environment with a high per capita GDP (for example, a country that produces diamonds or oil), and vice versa (for example Cuba with low GNP but high health care quality indicators). You can't quantify everything.
There may be some agencies that have drawn dollar boundaries between industrial and developed countries, but I don't know if they make sense.
China is an industrial country on the coast and a developing country in the rural regions. The per capita GDP wouldn't say anything about their health care system. Some people have worse health care than they did before privatization. Nbauman (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Since Freedomwarrior has descended into invective and personal attacks, I'll not bother with that "discussion" anymore.
For anyone interested, however, IMF and World Bank do group countries into high income, middle income and low income, according to GDP per capita (usually corrected for purchasing power, or PPP). Those do use dollar cut-offs, although not only, to capture other data along the lines of what NBauman is noting. These can be found easily on the web by anyone slightly interested in actually reading, not ranting. UN Human Development Index is another that uses a complex weighting of indicators. All of these measures give roughly the same 25-odd countries, and correspond well to the phrasing wealthy, industrialized countries, which is essentially OECD members (some adjustments occasionally made). These are collectively neither arbitrary nor perfectly consistent, but as for the statement about universal health care still hold. For example, the UN HDI top 30 countries, except, Brunei (not industrialized), Hong Kong (not a country, not certain about health care) and the US have UHC (although I'm not 100% informed about each one). This list (Israel being a bit of an outlier, nobody knows how to classify it, partly for political reasons) are also those that are called wealthy industrialized, and core members of the OECD. And yes, these measures are probably compiled by bureaucrats (as opposed to what?).
Escape orbit: thanks for your suggestion, but that's not what the citation says, nor would it make much sense: no-one considers China or India wealthy, industrialized countries, except those trying to rationalize some perceived slight. The facts are what they are, and should speak for themselves: wealthy industrialized nations is a commonly understood term, and two citations say what the article says.--Gregalton (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, anyone with a source can add anything on here (except me, of course, since Tom has repeatedly deleted cited statements that I've added on this page).

Nbauman, you should take a statistics course, because there is an objective means of ascertaining the income level at which heart disease cause more deaths than infectious disease. It's quite simple: you find out the number of deaths in each group, and then compare the numbers. While I don't know if the numbers to do that are available to perform such a comparison, I do know that there is an objective "scientific" method for dealing with the issue. There may be outliers as you've pointed out, but the number afforded through the statistical method is still a firm cut off point (and one supported by conventional social science techniques).

As you yourself have claimed, "there may be some agencies that have drawn dollar boundaries between industrial and developed countries, but I don't know if they make sense." They don't make sense because the cut off is arbitrary. What is "poverty?" What is "wealth?" These are all normative concepts with no rigid definitions. Using a malleable definition to harangue a definition is just crass beyond belief. Pick a number and defend it. Don't take me for a ride.

Escape Orbit, your suggestion gives me pause but it's acceptable, because I have no desire of going on and on with editors who are intent on foisting opinions on this article. It does have some issues, namely, the United States does have publicly-funded health care. It does not have so-called universal health care. If that's corrected though, I'll accept it. Freedomwarrior (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton, the problem with the sources that you are using is that their determinations are based on political considerations and their own prejudices. As you yourself point out, "Israel being a bit of an outlier, nobody knows how to classify it, partly for political reasons" It is irresponsible to foist a statement on here on the basis of an incoherent standard which leads to "roughly the same 25-odd countries" being labeled as developed. There should be a consistent standard, which leads to the same 25-odd countries being labeled in the same vain. My preference would be that we drop all pretense of arbitrarily labeling countries on this page, rather than use the preferences of bureaucrats to make (un)authoritative claims about subjects.Freedomwarrior (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion/exclusion of Israel in this case changes nothing. Your comment about bureaucrats is just silly; data had to be collected by someone. The problem you have is that virtually any of the various terminologies - which differ only very slightly in membership - for wealthy, industrialized countries gives the same result. And your attempt to include China is not credible.--Gregalton (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I should have noted that the grouping into wealthy, industrialized countries is echoed in academic literature on the subject, as in the sources provided at your request.--Gregalton (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, data needs to be collected by someone. I don't object to that. I just object to their spin on the data.Freedomwarrior (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems that you object primarily to the results. This grouping is used for many purposes, few of which have to do with this issue.--Gregalton (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. They're used to guilt the "developed" countries into fleecing their citizens for those of "developing" countries. It's usage doesn't change the fact that it's based on arbitrary determinations.Freedomwarrior (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, okay; at least your POV is clear, even if fringe. I suggest you resolve this issue on the pages related to the classification, rather than here. Perhaps complain to the UN, but watch out for the black helicopters. Anyone else could just actually read the criteria, which are far from arbitrary.--Gregalton (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why haven't you even attempted to list the criteria? What is the "objective" standard that you and the UN are using? Freedomwarrior (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I would actually not bothered if that whole sentence was deleted but I suspect that others here would as a matter of principle.

As regards sources Freedomwarrior has said that I have repeatedly deleted cited statements that he has added on this page. If he added a citation from a source that is academic in nature (peer reviewed) I think I would be unlikely to delete it unless it actually did not actually support the statement in the article. From memory alone I would say that I usually delete material from you that is POV pushing. Unfortunately many citations that were in the article many months ago came from non-academic bodies that are blatently biased and demonstrably false. Personally I feel that citation sourced from Cato, The Center for Policy Analysis, The Manhattan Institute and other bodies do not fit well with WP policy on sources which says that "articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I have been able to demonstrate over and over over again that the material these bodies put out are neither accurate or reliable. They consistently use data selectively (and often out of date), they treat exceptional news stories as the rule, and often misrepresent data in other ways. They even to lead the users of their sources to make their own false conclusions whilst being careful not to draw the conclusions themselves which is very clever but totally decitful. I know that Nbauman feels that these sources are widely quoted and therefore allowable in WP, so the only other alternative is to add other factual data up against it (which makes the article messy and difficult to read) or to remove the original claim and the source (because it is contentious and not demonstrably true).

Other non-cited edits you make that I delete are subtle POV pushing. WP policy states that it is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe..." as is common in political debates. A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. In addition, this source should be written by named authors who are considered reliable. But on many many occassions you add words like "some people say" or "many would argue" to imply that a particlar statement has low or high support. I regard those additions as POV pushing and may delete them. As I have come to see how you work here and have grown weary of your POV pushing I may even have applied the same tactic myself against your own edits (but hopefully they are no longer in the article.

I am rather hurt by accusations that somehow I am anti-American and attacking America. I have great admiration for America in many many ways and most Americans I meet are very humane, loving and caring people with a great spirit of community. I do sense that Americans are distrustful of government but that I think has more to do with corruption in politics. The UK and Finland have low levels of political corruption (there are exceptions of course!) and people do trust their government on the whole. Americans admire self-sufficiency over dependency (which is not a bad thing at all) and that may be one reason why there is hostility to socialized medicine. But it has become so clear that the American health system is itself corrupt in many ways that people are now looking for radical solutions. I have no personal interest in the U.S. other than as an occassional visitor and I have no illusions that the U.S. political system will reform their health care along the lines adopted in Europe. I think politics itself would need to be cleaned up first and the profit motive taken out of health care. And there is no chance of that happening.

As for those sourced deletions you referred to, if there are any you'd like me to consider again, I'd be glad to do so.--Tom (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Medical screening

The issue of screening for certain conditions has been discussed in this article in the "Usage of Term" section discussing Rudy Giulliani. The issue of population screening in the UK has come to the fore since the prime minister is supporting a proposal for the NHS to offer free medical screening. For those interested, the pros and cons of screening in Britain were also discussed in a radio program which can be heard by following this link which will be available for the next 6 days (You should click the +15 minutes button to get to the right section of the program.) The program discusses the PSA test for prostate cancer, the differences between UK and the US on general philosophy on screening in general, as well as the views of experts in the studio and a vox pop from phone-in callers). If any WP editor thinks that the topic of screening should be added to the article, please feel free to do so.... (I may not have the time to do so). I have a feeling that I have read a claim somewhere that socialized systems do not screen. This is actually not true. In the UK, doctors are encouraged to screen certain types of patients for certain conditions but blanket screening programs are relatively few (Breast cancer and cervical cancer screening are the obvious ones that spring to mind that are done)- --Tom (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Discredited Manhattan Institute data

Although the use by Giuliani of the discredited Manhattan Institute data is a very good example of the mis-use of data by opponents of socialized medicine, it does seem to me that the section is now rather long. I see that Gratzer has defended his use of the data and has been allowed to use an official organ of the Manhattan Institute to do so. Would it not be better to summarise the dispute here and put the detail in the article about the institute or the author? I think that those articles are quite short, whereas the current article is already quite long.--Tom (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No. This is one of the best-documented debates over socialized medicine since the rise of the Internet. The Manhattan Institute is one of the most prominent think tanks (or propaganda outfits, if you will) advocating free-market health care in the U.S. If someone from the U.S., or anywhere else, came to Wikipedia for a quick explanation of what socialized medicine meant, and what the arguments were, this debate is the best thing they could read. Nbauman (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Subsidies are incentives for unhealthy behavior

I presume this is something along the lines that people say to themselves "I can hang the consequences of overeating/smoking/drinking/having unsafe sex/driving without a seat belt/playing with firearms because if I get ill or injured the government will pay my health care bill". Is there any evidence for this? It seems to be an extraordinary claim to make.--Tom (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The wording is extraordinary but the point it raises is very legitimate. People who abuse their health can make society pay for it. Thus, society would have to start cracking down on certain activities. Where do the lines get drawn? If someone eats at a fast food restaurant for lunch every day, will they be disqualified? How would such activity be regulated and at what expense to personal freedom? Sure it's controversial, and this place probably isn't the place for the discussion... So, anyway, to answer your question, in the UK, for instance, smokers are not barred from NHS treatment. But doctors are asking for them to be. They are also asking that obese, people who drink, and even the elderly be withheld from NHS treatment. So "incentives" is extreme (so I feel it should be removed or edited), but the point of unhealthy habits having an impact on such a system is very valid. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/27/nhs127.xml 68.79.97.96 (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting the Telegraph article. It doesn't support your argument. British doctors are not saying that smokers should be denied heart bypasses as an incentive to good behavior. They're saying that smokers should not be given bypasses because it won't do any good -- if they continue to smoke after the bypass, the bypass will become blocked again, and they'll have gone through a dangerous operation which might kill them with no benefit to the patient. I talk to British doctors all the time, and read British medical journals. If a patient has an aneurysm, they will perform surgery, which is as expensive as bypass surgery, because the benefit is greater than the risk to the patient.
Your argument about incentives for health care is legitimate. People have been making it since the Nixon Presidency. Doctors have tried to create systems of payment that would give patients incentives for good health care, and tested them. They overwhelmingly failed. RAND Health Insurance Experiment.
Public health doctors almost unanimously agree that the way to improve habits is on a population level, not an individual level. Robert Kuttner had an article in the 7 February New England Journal of Medicine, "Market-based failure," which made that point again. Doctors (in the U.S., U.K. and every other developed country) say that we should change habits as New York Mayor Bloomberg is doing it, by banning smoking in restaurants for example (as Ireland is doing). No doctor who has examined the facts argues for raising the costs of health care as an incentive for healthy behavior (although some economists who have not examined the facts do make that argument).
Under Wikipedia rules, if you're going to make these statements, you have to cite a reliable source. I think the best way to improve this article at this point is to start deleting all the statements that aren't supported by reliable sources. If you can find some foolish economist to quote, that's fine with me. I'll find a well-supported source to show he's wrong. Nbauman (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible 3RR violation

Hauskalainen might have violated 3RR in this article (Diffs [7], [8], [9], [10]). WP:3RR recommends a self-revert. --Doopdoop (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Guilty as charged! Yes, I was already aware. But the matter was settled before you started challenging it. I'll take my chances. I have no intention of reverting. We have been down this route before umpteen times before so the issue is already settled. See the archive. One cannot in logic prove a negative but one can call for proof positive in the other direction. See the section preceeding this one. So far nobody has attempted to give proof positive that it is used in other countries. Hence I'll not revert it. Indeed I'm sticking to my guns. If you can prove that the Brits, the Spanish, and the Finns for example refer to their systems as socialized medicine I'll quit editing here. I'm so confident that you cannot do so that I'll stick by that challenge.--Tom (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And just so there is no doubt, I have also accused Doopdoop of being a sockpuppet of Freedomwarrior and have several months ago accused Freedomwarrior of being a sockpuppet of Kborer. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doopdoop#DoopDoop.2FFreedomwarrior.2FKborer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socialized_medicine#KBORER_.2FFREEDOMWARRIOR_- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What this article is about

In response to BigK HeX in the section above, this article is about "socialized medicine" as the users of term define it and make claims about it. The history of the term, the current day usage and the claims made about the topic are all examined here in some detail. That material should not be merged into publicly-funded health care. That suggestion has already been made and there was no consensus for it. If you read publicly-funded health care you will find it is already quite ocomprehensive. But if you think that there is useful material here that should be in that article, by all means COPY it there. Do not MOVE it there if its contextualized here to the claims made about socialized medicine. It is perfectly right and proper to report the claims made about socialized medicine in the current article and report the factual information that supports those claims (and of course any contra information that may refute them if that is the case).--Tom (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • "Do not MOVE it there if its contextualized here to the claims made about socialized medicine."
See... that's the thing. The 3 sections I indicated (Socialized_medicine#History, Socialized_medicine#History, and Socialized_medicine#Criticisms) have no relation to the debate on the terminology. Even the other section (Socialized_medicine#Support) is fairly weak in relevance -- having only the following statement that ties it in:

Filmaker Michael Moore, promoting Sicko says it should be re-labelled as "Christianized medicine" because it is what Jesus would do.[73]

Cynics 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.

I think the article is interesting, but IMO, it's far too long for an article that summarizes debate of connotation.
Also, if this is true: "If you read publicly-funded health care you will find it is already quite ocomprehensive" then that's not some justification against merger. The information still doesn't need to be here, if it is not relevant. If the indicated sections ARE relevant, then great, but I just don't happen to particularly see the relevance of those sections to the topic of the connotations of 'socialized medicine.' I, personally, don't care how much *repeated* material is in Wikipedia, but non-relevant material that has a better home elsewhere, might best be moved. Or, if those sections can be made more relevant, then that too is a great alternative. BigK HeX (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Socialized medicine is not the same as publicly funded health care. It is a type of publicly funded health care. This article is, and I use the term lightly, about socialized medicine including its history, current implementations, and other encyclopedic information. Kborer (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The flow of the article does not support its current content. It seems highly focused on the debate about semantics. If there is, indeed, a difference between socialized medicine and publicly funded healthcare, then history and implementation need to become the main focus of the article, while the discussion of the connotation and loaded jargon should be a less prominent part of the article.... in my opinion. Also, some explanation of the difference would be helpful. BigK HeX (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I've assumed that Kborer's assertion directly above is correct and decided to Be Bold in rearranging the text to present the fundamental material more prominently. BigK HeX (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

If there are any objections, kindly log them at Talk:Publicly-funded_health_care#Merge_proposals. Thanks, all. BigK HeX (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my merger proposal based on Kborer's assertion that the terms "Socialized medicine" and "Publicly-funded health care" are not synonymous. Feel free to discuss it further though. I am only withdrawing my support for it, but it may still be a valid dispute that others want hashed out. BigK HeX (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Strict" vs broad definition - please use talk page here first before removing

The strict definition was a quote, directly referencing an impeccable source - please use talk page before removing.--Gregalton (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We can both find citations for any of our respective points of view, so let's not play this game. You added that quote in such a way as to bias the reader of this article into thinking that the "stricter" definition is the more correct definition to use, and that the other definition is of minor relevance. I'm not going to allow that. Accordingly, I've gone ahead and modified the quote so that neither definition is given precedence over the other. Freedomwarrior (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a very common distinction, if you want more references that is one thing, but this is a useful and important definition. I dispute, however, that the other definition is of minor relevance - that statement is highly POV.--Gregalton (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It is good to have detailed information about the definition and usage of the term but please try to keep the introduction succinct. The article will become difficult to read if information keeps floating up to the introduction. Thanks. Kborer (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It is an absolutely essential component of the definition, as demonstrated with citations. The "broad" definition is currently there, the "narrow" one is not. I will put it back. Frankly, I see no reason the broad one should remain, since it is inaccurate. But the more accurate, very specific definition should not be removed without discussing here and providing some reason.--Gregalton (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The "narrow" definition is a special case of the actual definition, and thus it is less correct, not more. Kborer (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Not true at all, as documented.--Gregalton (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Gregalton. The main definition is the original one.
The recent edits of today are making the problem worse with the scrambling up of the concept of National Health Insurance with the claim that this is not socialized medicine. Britain's National Insurance was the foundation tax for the National Health Service and was deliberately written up as an insurance contribution towards the cost of health care - based on paying now when healthy as an insurance against future illness.
That has nothing to do with the argument. Socialized medicine is single payer, national health insurance is single payer. Socialized medicine has government control, national health insurance does not. When people claim that Canada's system is socialized medicine, they are not demagoguing it. They are stating that they believe it is more government controlled than not and therefor more accurately described as socialized medicine than national insurance. The difference between the two is clear. The only thing that is not is where any particular implementation lies, because no system is purely one or the other. Kborer (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Why are you ignoring what I say? In Britain we HAVE national health insurance and in that case the medical services ARE government controlled. Your argument may hold in the US not necessarily elsewhere. --Tom (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
If the government controls it then it is socialized medicine. Kborer (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
All I am saying is that National Health Insurance in English can mean different things to different people. There is no one definition. But if you think that the US will allow medical practitioners to operate, charge what they like and then get the government to pay their bills without any controls or strictures then I think you are very sadly mistaken. Canadian legislators have at least got that right! --Tom (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
(PS You sound more like Freedomwarrior at every turn. Also I would not say the people in general claim that Canada's health care is socialized. As far as I can see it comes mostly from a number of small well funded groups with access to the press that call the Canadian system that. I think in Canada they call it public health care as we do in the UK and Finland and I suspect most peopl in the US just call it "the Canadian health system". )--Tom (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Kborer, I don't know how you can support your definition that "socialized medicine is single payer." The term "single payer" seems to be reserved for systems that are not socialized medicine. I know what you're trying to do in terms of boolean algebra, but socialized medicine is not one type of single-payer system.
My authority for the definition is Uwe Reinhardt, who says, "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", in the link that I gave. Reinhardt is as authoritative an expert on health policy as you can get. Paul Krugman has also stated that single-payer is not socialized medicine.
What's your authority for your definition? Nbauman (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It is correct that single payer is not socialized medicine. Is is also correct that socialized medicine is single payer. Single payer simply means that there is one main source of financing. In socialized medicine there is one main source of financing. Single payer is not a health care system, it is a method of financing a health care system. Kborer (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct, it is a method of financing. And it is true that ONE element of (properly defined) socialized medicine is government financing. The other element, as specifically outlined in the Reinhardt quote (and others) is government ownership/operation of the production of health care. As in the quote from yet another health policy expert, Oberlander of UNC Chapel Hill, the term socialized medicine "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." As in the 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." So I reiterate - if you agree with these points, as you seem to above, what possible objection can you have with having this made explicit in the intro?--Gregalton (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


Depending on context, when someone says "single payer" the implication can be that they mean a system that has a public financial component but not a public control component, ie single payer health insurance. That is why the intro should distinguish between single payer health insurance and socialized medicine. Kborer (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see that you can say that with any certainty. Cato CPA and the Manhattan Institute that put put out all the propaganda againt changing the staus quo all refer to Canada's system as Socialized Medicine even though it is, by the original definition of the word, not so. Because they have used it that way it is defacto now both meanings. Which is why so many people say the term is junk because it no longer means anything in particular. Although it's hard on us, I think that this is now unavoidable. We must therefre write the article to reflect that there are both defintions out there in the real world. And I agree with Gregalton that they should be in header paragraph(s). But I believe it is there already -see below.

Kborer- What's the difference between "systems where the government sets rules for private practices to provide treatment for re-imbursement by the state" and "single payer"?--Tom (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

In a single payer health insurance system the government has little to no hand treatment, they just pay the bills. Kborer (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Without rules for which treatments are covered??? Or how much compensation is payable?? Where in the world is there such a system? I doubt that you will find one anywhere and I don't think the US would adopt such a system. Medical expenses are high enough and giving medical practices the right to treat and bill at will would make that worse. I think that "systems where the government sets rules for private practices to provide treatment for re-imbursement by the state" is effectively the same thing as "single payer". There have to be rules as to what's covered and how much can be paid for each type of treatment.--Tom (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the Canadian system, it is sort of how they started out. Then things needed to change to control costs. So the system slowly moved to having more government control of how and which people were treated. As control increased some people said that they had changed from a single payer system to socialized medicine, but that is debatable. Kborer (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Now you are being silly. The labelling as socialized had nothing to do with government control but a fear by pressure groups for the medical insurance industry that their business would go the same way as Canada's. Face the fact. Nobody will allow a single payer system to be a licence to print and bank government cheques (checks?). The fact is this. Single payer is about financing. One pot of money and one risk pool. Socialized medicine was originally about government provision and achieving Universal Health Care. But the US medical lobbyist wonks extended it to cover Canada's single payer system do now there is a horrible overlap and nobody knows anymore about what we are talking about except that is must be bad (because its red, like that flag you made). I recall we had this argument a long time ago with the 4 quadrant graphic which had to be withdrawn for much the same reasons. They just do not divide out that nicely.--Tom (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
On this, the point about "changing things to control costs" is inherent to any collective/insurance scheme, such as HMOs. Whether it's a single payer or not does not make much difference - costs will still need to be controlled. In theory, in a private system you "choose" how much you want; in theory, in a government-run insurance scheme, you "choose" at the ballot box and by purchasing additional insurance if you so desire. But any insurance scheme (health, car, property, you name it) will limit expenditures and/or risks that it will take on for a given premium; those that are 'retail' will standardize those limits to a significant degree. For government, it will still be "money spent on health" for a given level of taxation (or acceptable premiums). (Note: when the participation is universal or randomized, it changes the math in another very significant way, elimination of adverse selection, i.e. no longer any need to evaluate the "risk" of a given applicant, which is both very expensive and impossibly imprecise).
You see the same thing happen with, for example, hurricane and flood insurance, or even theft control systems on new cars. At some point they start to refuse to cover certain risks, limit them, or make changes to the prevention/response system. Another (I believe documented) example is how insurance companies have played a role in some countries in school sports - they noticed high incidences of very expensive and debilitating injuries, and started agitating for changes in equipment, rules, coaching. But the case of requiring certain anti-theft devices on cars is a similar and well-known case.
I still believe the intro can be edited to meet both points: a) the "strict" definition (which, in my opinion, the references strongly support is also the "correct" one); and b) the "broad" definition, which as Tom notes has been used so frequently and inaccurately that it has gained frequency (and it should be noted that, as demonstrated, the use of the term in this way is often pejorative and propagandistic).--Gregalton (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are some examples of people talking about socialized medicine.

Kborer (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm unclear: what's your point?--Gregalton (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted an attempt (twice now) by Kborer to change the header paragraphs to say that "a system where the government sets rules for private practices to provide treatment for re-imbursement by the state.... is different than (sic) single payer health insurance. You cannot tell a lie in the header and then attempt to clear it up later in the article. Canada has just such a system and that IS definitely single payer. --Tom (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The reference says that socialized medicine and single payer are different, so it is unacceptable for your version to be in the article with the current reference as its support. Furthermore, it is very confusing to say that single payer can be described as socialized medicine. That is simply false. Lastly, I ask once again that editors actually take a moment to read what they are reverting so that they do not reintroduce errors that were fixed. Kborer (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I see Gregalton tried to clarify the difference. I noticed that it was still a little confusing because it said that a government-regulated system is different than (sic) single payer health insurance" which is only true of the strict definition. I also noticed that there many references in the first para that were repeated in the second and some of the text in the second para also repeated text in the first. I have now rectified this and clarified absolutely the relationship with single payer. I have used the term "looser" to describe the wider defintion to distinguish it from the "strict" definition label used by Gregalton. We could re-label this as "narrow" and "broad" if anyone thinks that the existing labels are in any way expressing "right" and "wrong". I also added examples of systems that fit the looser defintion and made it clear that the original set of examples given fit the strict definition rather than the looser one.--Tom (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Still curious what your point was with "people talking about socialized medicine."--Gregalton (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I was just showing that some people support socialized medicine. Kborer (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
True, some people support, no matter what it is called. But in this case the links have a little more to them:
  1. The youtube grab from ABC was put up under the title ABC's Three Nights of Socialized Medicine; the original title was "Critical Condition"; the title by the youtube poster is designed to use the term as propaganda. If you look at the originals, the only reference to socialized medicine is specifically with respect to the VA system. Other than that, I didn't hear the term once - ABC used it only in a narrow sense. Only comment on youtube from an anti-big 'gummint' Ron Paul supporter. (Note the piece was also edited...). My interpretation is that this underlines how the term is thrown around for polemical purposes. ABC's segment on the VA had the tone of "how interesting: some people have 'socialized medicine' and think it is good, and it gets better results! How surprising!" In other words, the piece was of interest precisely because it defied the stereotypes of socialism that get thrown about. (That said, it was a far more analytic and in-depth piece than one usually sees on TV; bravo ABC).
  2. Ezra Klein's piece is entitled "in defence of socialized medicine," and authored specifically to respond to a CATO piece. Common journalistic approach: defend the (supposedly) indefensible (the phrase "in defence of..." is almost a cliche). Makes a good title, but most of the time Klein is talking about single-payer. He uses the term three times: once in the title, once in a direct quote from Cato, and once in the para refuting the line quoted from Cato that "Ultimately, socialized medicine achieves the cost savings they do largely by letting people die."
  3. The TOCH blog starts by saying "Recently returning from a trip to Europe, specifically the UK and a formally eastern bloc communist country, I was educated, to say the very least, on the effects of some flavors of socialized medicine. " Leaving aside the "formally eastern bloc" (presumably means former), it's not what I would call supportive. Primarily appears to say "I have this better way of doing stuff, and if we apply that first (available directly from us), we won't need socialized medicine."
So, in all three cases there is a direct relation to a pejorative sense of the term being used.--Gregalton (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Follow up: just so it doesn't seem that I'm straying too far into literary criticism, Ezra Klein responds in the comments (regarding inaccurate use of the term "socialized medicine"): "Yeah yeah, but it's my blog, read by a few thousand polinerds, and I was making a counterfactual title (after all, who defends "socialized medicine" these days?)--Gregalton (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more:

  • "Conditions over in England over there, they have socialized medicine, they have

corrected it a few times. [And] I personally believe that we should have it." The Rank-and-file Leader By Sidney Morris Peck

  • "Socialized medicine will eliminate the need for individuals to purchase health

insurance... socialized medicine has worked well in Great Britain." Socialism for Survival By Allan H. Keith

  • "As new discoveries and advancement in science cause improvement

and change in custom so rapidly that measures objected to 10 years ago are now realities, so it will be with socialized medicine; and we may predict now its successful and general application in the very near future." Proceedings of the Conference on Social Insurance

  • "This type of socialized medicine will be intensively preventive, and entirely democratic; it will discover disease in its incipiency; it will prevent loss from illness instead of merely paying, through compulsory sickness insurance, a certain fraction of that loss; it will attack directly such problems as bad housing, venereal diseases, alcoholism and tuberculosis, and thereby make a fundamental contribution to social welfare." Transactions of the Section on Preventive Medicine and Public Health By Royal Meeker

Kborer (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


The strict / narrow discussion should appear in the usage section, not in the introduction. Kborer (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree completely - this distinction is incredibly important and at the heart of the matter. Please explain why you think it should appear further down.
Although I think the quotes are interesting, as I've noted I don't disagree that some support socialized medicine in a very strict sense, and that some support it in the broader sense, and that some will support it under any name at all (while noting that significant polling data suggests that in majorities will support e.g. single-payer if described to them, but not if called socialized medicine, hence the issue is not the system, but the term).
None of these quotes seem to contradict the well-documented sources that a) the term is used in both a strict sense and a broader sense (hence important to point out that different uses may contradict or not correspond), and b) the term is often used pejoratively. These are the points I believe essential to have further up. I will up-front admit that I believe the term to be completely illegitimate, with its origin and currency entirely propaganda-based, and that one should avoid using it; but that is prescriptive, and I have not tried to state that this is the only use or to have that judgment in the opening.
Do you have a preference for how we term it? Strict/narrow broad/whatever? Or do you object to having this in the opening?--Gregalton (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I want to now why Kborer thinks its not important enough to have in the header para! The dual definition is, like the pejorative use, so key to understanding the term that it just has to be said up front. Its a kind of "heads up" for the reader.
As for the additional quotes, it repeats what many believed at the beginning of the welfare state... that the elimination of bad housing, improved wages and salaries, and the establishment of the health service which would reuly in the elimination of the causes of ill-health and that the budgets would reduce. In part of course that did happen. Things did get better. Housing did improve, employment improved and the nation was better off. But it is also an illusion. Ill health has not been elminated, and of course, we don't live for ever. But the budget always gets bigger. What has definitely happened is that there are many things that are now possible than were not possible before. I made acquaintance last year with a British man living near Helsinki who has an internally fitted heart pump (with internal battery) that works alongside his own (I'm not sure if that was fitted here or there). A second cousin of mine in the UK made medical history when an early form of such a pump (powered by large external batteries) was switched off and left in place when it was discovered after several years in place that it had helped his own heart to recover to the point where it was no longer needed. My best friend here in Finland has 2 children that were conceived "in vitro". So we just keep finding more things that our taxes can be used for to make lives more tolerable. It certainly did not eliminate ill-health, but we are on the whole a much healthier generation than our parents and grandparents. Not sure that any of this could be used in the article though. --Tom (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The strict / narrow discussion is important and should be in the usage section, but not in the introduction. The introduction should allow the reader to understand what socialized medicine is in a clear and succinct way -- and that is all. Discussing, in the introduction, how the term is misused or even misusing it ourselves is inefficient and confusing. Kborer (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree: I do not agree that it is possible to use the broad definition alone in the intro in a neutral way. If you want to avoid misusing, please stick then to the strict definition. Relegating it to the usage section (although it should be covered there) is extremely biased, as documented. If the essence of your argument is that it's confusing, by all means let's stick to the strict definition which is straightforward and precise.--Gregalton (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you are also violating the spirit of the three revert rule. It's clear you do not have consensus, and have made essentially the same edit three times, when it is clear you do not have consensus. (Note I'm not stating that you have formally violated the rule - I don't want to take it up to that level and you could argue it's not three of the exact same reverts).--Gregalton (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "restricted definition"? Kborer (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Where "socialized medicine" means government ownership of the means of production. See the sources.--Gregalton (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not see how that cannot be used in a neutral way. Kborer (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Apologies: I meant to say that I do not agree that it is possible to use the "broad" definition in a neutral way, i.e. excluding the strict definition from the intro is biased. (Edited above to make this clear).--Gregalton (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartledly with Gregalton on this. It is fundamental to understanding the term and the dual nature has to be in the opening paragraphs and not in a later section. I think the argument that is being used by Kborer is wholly unfounded. The definition should indeed be clear and distinct in the header but as the article stands now it does not become clear until you read the later section on usage. The usage section is not a place for a definition (albeit an ambivalent one). The difference in the two defintions was quite concisely explained previously. There are many WP articles with much longer intros.

I too am annoyed that we have asked that this be discussed here and the reversion has been made 3 times with hardly a whiff of an attempt to achieve common ground or even an understanding of the motive for the change. I am going to ask Kborer to revert it back. If not, I will do it myself tomorrow.--Tom (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As requested, I have remade my improvements to the article in small steps so that it would be easier for other editors to follow. Kborer (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

2008

Sadly, as a doctor and a public policy person, kborer is IMO the only one who is correct. In socialized medicine, the government no only pays for the services, but *provides* the services. The VA is a good example of socialized medicine in the US. The doctors who attend there are typically government employees. The government pays for and provides the services. Canada, as rightly pointed out does *not* have socialized medicine, they have a single payer national health insurance. The government is the payer, they get billed and pay the bills, but the services are provided by private, by and large, practitioners. You all exemplify why this debate has been so difficult in the US, there is so much misunderstanding/misinformation. If this article is going to be called "Socialized Medicine" we better define it correctly. IMO :)
Sadly, I wish I could agree with you. The problem is that the big big users of this term, orgsnizations such as The Center for Policy Analysis just do not agree with you. And in English dictionaries, usage is what drives meaning, not expertise. We have dictionaries that just do not agree with this single interpretation. --Tom (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The NCPA? Seriously? "NCPA is a non-profit public policy research institute seeking innovative private sector solutions to public policy problems." Wouldn't it be in their best interest to continue to confuse the two? Come on, consider the source. Also the Oxford English is quite vague on the topic, "socialized medicine-noun-the provision of medical and hospital care for all by means of public funds." I would offer these definitions-

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=25521 http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_dorlands.jspzQzpgzEzzSzppdocszSzuszSzcommonzSzdorlandszSzdorlandzSzdmd_m_06zPzhtm Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at NIH also notes "“ ‘socialized medicine’ is when the doctors are state employees; when the hospitals, drugstores, home health agencies and other facilities are owned and controlled by the government…” (http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2007/10/the-real-danger.html) http://www.joepaduda.com/archives/001037.html Again, I don't mean to offend, but a 'popular' definition is not necessarily a correct one. This is the point we are trying to make, the popular definition is used intentionally used to obsfuscate the difference between socialized medicine and single payer. Especially by organizations like NCPA. Is socialized medicine single payer? yes. Is single payer socialized medicine? It doesn't have to be. JSteuernagle (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Map

I removed the map from the article because it refers specifically to UHC countries, which s not the same thing. It would be nice to have a map of countries which have socialized medicine according to the two definitions bit it would have to colour the countries with different shades to show the degree to which the first or the second defintions apply. I doubt that anyone has researched this in enough depth for us to pblish such a map.--Tom (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Rockwell cite is POV nonsense and will be reverted

This POV version is absurd. "Socialized medicine is any health care system that embodies the fundamental principle of socialism"? Puh-lease. This is tendentious nonsense and is not worth responding to.--Gregalton (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no argument against my edits above, I will take this as your consent to revert to my last version of the introduction. Kborer (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The same goes for the Ludwig Van Mises Institute reference. It says socialized medicine..leads to building up a state apparatus that has life-and-death control over the population. Well, if you can't trust government to look after something as potentially lethal as medicine then perhaps the US ought to hand over the reigns of the U.S. Strategic Command (nuclear forces) to the CEOs of Northrop and Boeing forthwith! Really Kborer, you are becoming crankier by the day. I cannot take you seriously any more. If we have sources here they must be meet WP standards. The people in Canada, the UK, Finland, and Spain all live in democracies and can rid their themselves of socialized medicine at any time. In fact (in the UK at least) not ONE political party advocates the abolishment of "socialized medicine" as you would call it. Why do you think that is? Are the people all stupid? In fact, Spain is a country that has in recent years switched from a more pluralistic model to the state run one it has today. Why do you think they did that? --Tom (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with me. My version had sources, the previous one did not. We can debate the quality of those sources, but reverting from my version to the previous one is nonsense. Kborer (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't feed the troll. I used to be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but this round was beyond nonsense. You'll note that (as in the previous N-ish rounds) I've provided cites on each of the nit-picks he chose to focus on this time.--Gregalton (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the recent edits. Kborer (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Formal complaint re POV pushing

I really feel as though we must do something about the persistent POV pushing by editors such as Kborer, Freedomwarrior (if indeed they are two editors). They clearly have an agenda to use Wikipedia to present a one sided story and use it as a feed to deliver readers to certain brand of web sites that tell a one-sided story on this topic. I am not sure however what can be done to prevent their antics other than constant vigilance of the kind we have been engaging in.--Tom (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there has been persistent POV pushing by editors. That is why Wikipedia has a policy of requiring sources for article content. Kborer (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Most sensible editors here refer to quality newspapers, official web sites, peer reviewed journals, and so forth which are all in line with WP policy regarding sources. You on the other hand are referring to web sites that offer blatant propoganda, most of which contains false or misleading statements and which are therefore not reliable. Your edits today have been along these lines. Do not expect them to survive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) 22:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I imagine that if one of the references is bad, someone will challenge it. Kborer (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Article scope

I think all the discussions on the concept of publicly-funded health care should go to the proper article. Socialized medicine should just be an article on linguistics, since that is just an expression to frame the debate on publicly-funded health care to a particular pov. --SummerWithMorons (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Socialized medicine is not the same as publicly funded health care, so it would not make sense to move discussions of socialized medicine to that article. Kborer (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Destructive edits - Freedomwarrior

If you proceed to remove more citations and sources (that you requested), I'll simply wait until you've finished your destructo-fest and revert the entire thing.--Gregalton (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Gregalton, perhaps I missed something. What sources and citations am I removing? Freedomwarrior (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, it appears you did not remove them. Your reformulation as "This same group of individuals" is biased and ridiculous, given the "individuals" involved, but I will address this below.--Gregalton (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

single payer health insurance is not socialized medicine

With single payer health insurance the government does not have the majority of control over delivery of health care, ergo it is not socialized medicine. Kborer (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

But Canada's system is single payer and it IS labeled in the US by users of the broad definition as a socialized system. So your analysis is plain wrong. --Tom (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree completely that single payer is not socialized medicine. The term is used in this way, however. For this to make sense, we would have to remove the broad definitions that you have inserted. If this is the step you want the editors to take, please say so.--Gregalton (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom:

  • Some believe that the Canadian system is socialized medicine because they think it has lots of government control over delivery. Others mislabel it.

Gregalton:

  • There is no contradiction in categorizing publicly financed and regulated private medical services as socialized medicine and not categorizing national health insurance as socialized medicine. Kborer (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Not the way the sources separate it, however. If you want a "clean" definition, stick with the strict one; if you want to consider regulated, you have to include national health insurance (which is by definition heavily regulated).--Gregalton (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

National health insurance does not include heavy regulation of delivery by definition. Kborer (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is there are multiple definitions and some people will include Canada under this label and others do not. It is inconsistent to say that payment to private practices for agreed services is not single payer when it fits one of the definitions and is actually used by some people that way. That's why the article heading was right that it explained the relationship to Single payer that way.

Kborer said above "There is no contradiction in categorizing publicly financed and regulated private medical services as socialized medicine and not categorizing national health insurance as socialized medicine" and "National health insurance does not include heavy regulation of delivery by definition" But that's not the issue. We are talking about single payer. The issue was you have stated quite plainly that payment by the government to private health care providers is not the same as single payer. Clearly it is the same. Answer the point. I have raised it THREE TIMES now and you have failed to answer it. --Tom (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There is only one correct definition of socialized medicine. Single payer health insurance is not included in that definition. Kborer (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

FOUR TIMES now. How can all those 'respected' think tanks and policy institutes such as Cato, CPA and the Manhattan Institute say that Canada's single payer system is socialized medicine??? It may not agree with your definition or that of Gregalton or perhaps even mine but even The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have talked about socialized medicine in the context of Canada's single payer system. Answer the question! They are just wrong and you are right??--[[--Tom (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)User:Hauskalainen|Tom]] (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Some people believe that Canada's system is socialized medicine. It is not a question of the definition of socialized medicine, it is a question of whether that health care system fits the definition. Kborer (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is a question of the definition because you have made a assertion which directly contradicts one of the definitions used by oft quoted institutes and even the press. Your assertion does not fit the broad definitition as used by the press and not with a lot of those on-line dictionaries you are fond of quoting (but not all of them of course because as we established a very long time ago there are at least 2 ways in which the term is defined and used). You cannot have it both ways. Use one definition when it suits you and another when it does not. And the place to have both definitions declared is in the header paragraph, not buried below.--Tom (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not Canada has a socialized system is irrelevant to the definition of socialized medicine. Some people are of the opinion that Canada's system fits the definition and some are of the opinion that it fits the definition of single payer health insurance. I am not going to make any claims about who is correct. However, it is simply wrong to assume that Canada has single payer health insurance and then extrapolate that single payer health insurance is socialized medicine because some people say that Canada has socialized medicine. They are saying that Canada has socialized medicine, not that single payer health insurance is socialized medicine. Kborer (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
But the conclusion has to follow. I know full well that you understand this. All I am saying is that the term socialized medicine is so loose that even Canada'a single payer system falls into the term... in other words, the definitions are not so tight that they fit that little graphic you tried to insert at various places in WP. The fact is, it is only distinguishabe if you only permit the strict definition. I'd be happy to accept the strict definition and then we can rid this wretched article of references to Canada and all the articles that refer to Canada as having socialized medicine. But then we would not be telling the sordid truth about the motives of people like you and your shadow who are doing all they can to associate taxpayer funded health care with 'negative' words like socialist, socialism, Cuba, government, regulation, control, soviet union, dictatorship etc., and remove any association with positive terms like democratic, the people, insurance, protection, and promote up in the sequence of links all those articles that link to negativity. It is SO OBVIOUS what you are trying to do. I would not mind, but I guess you personally have never experienced socialized medicine. So how you can claim to discuss it so authoritatively defeats me. Exactly whát IS your connection to this subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You are assuming that the Canadian system is single payer health insurance and then saying that when people call Canada's system socialized medicine they are in effect saying that single payer health insurance is socialized medicine. This is not the case. Not everyone believes that Canada's system fits the definition of single payer health insurance. So it is not a matter of fitting single payer health insurance into the definition of socialized medicine, it is a matter of personal opinion as to whether Canada's system is single payer or socialized medicine. This has no bearing on the definition of socialized medicine. On the other note, I would be happy to work with you to remove words that cast socialized medicine in a positive or negative light. Kborer (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
OK I still think you are obfuscating but I'll stick with you. "Not everyone believes that Canada's system fits the definition of single payer health insurance". OK we now risk discussing another subject, but how can this be? What element of the Canada's Medicare system disqualifies it from being called single payer? Can you substantiate that claim with a reference?--Tom (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The Canadian system apparently started out as single payer health insurance, and as far as I have seen the official Canadian position is that it still is. Some people believe that increased regulations have led it to become more of a socialized system than a national health insurance system. I am not trying to give my personal opinion about that, but it seems appropriate to maintain that the Canadian system is national health insurance. In either case it is single payer, since both national health insurance and socialized medicine are single payer. Kborer (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused - is it duck season or rabbit season?--Gregalton (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cato and regulation

KBORER: Why has Cato blabbing on about regulation in the Free Market got anything to do with Socialized medicine? I know it uses the term but it is just another use unrelated to the 2 main definitions. Why have you placed it at the top of the article? If it belongs anywhere (add I have doubts that it does) it would be in usage. DO YOU HAVE A CONNECTION WITH CATO BY ANY CHANCE? (OR the Center for Policy Analysis?) --Tom (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It clarifies something important about the definition of socialized medicine: "How can America's health care system be socialized when we rely on the private sector more than any advanced nation? Because it doesn't matter whether the dollars and the hospitals are owned publicly or privately. What matters is who controls how they are used." Kborer (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. You are saying (as the Cato article you quote does and FreedomWarrior one time did but you didn't) that regulation in America means that even private health care paid for by insurance or directly constitutes socialized medicine. That means that Socialized medicine has no meaning at all!! It means Canada, USA and Britain for example all have socialized medicine. It distinguised none of them. It cannot be thus. This is confusing for readers of Wikipedia. We have to explain in simple terms what the 2 main definitions are. If you absolutely must introduce a third one then it has to be in the usage section not here. I do not think that the view that you are trying to express here is a mainstream one.--Tom (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I have now moved this into usage and out of the header paragraph.--Tom (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing nonsensical about it. The article says that if the government is deciding how public money is spent on an individual's health care, then that control constitutes socialized medicine. It is the same as saying that socialized medicine is when the government controls and finances health care. This view agrees with the majority of definitions that have been referenced. It does not mean that Canada necessarily has socialized medicine. Kborer (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the article. It is saying that due to regulation (of any kind) this constitutes socialized medicine. So it is using control not necessariy finance as the trigger for labelling it as socialized. It is not the same as when government controls and finances health care. Government controls the use of public finance of course; one expects that. But it regulates when it does not finance also, but that is usually for consumer protection purposes. Most people do not call that socialized medicine, but that Cato artice does. Which is why it exceptional and not an illustration of the defintion. You still fail to acknowledge the Cato et. al. use socialized medicine to talk about Canada. Canada's is socialized medicine accrding to these groups. --Tom (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The article is clear that it is a combination of government financing and government control that constitute socialized medicine. As I discussed above, whether or not people think that Canada's system is socialized medicine does not affect the definition of socialized medicine. Kborer (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are avoiding the issue. Your claim was that payment by government for private delivery of care is NOT the same as single payer. It absolutely is the same. And there is no dividing line between the term socialized medicine and single payer if you read Cato, Gratzer, etc..--Tom (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that when the government is the primary source of funding for health care that is single payer. There is no dividing line between single payer and socialized medicine because socialized medicine is single payer by definition. Kborer (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I happen to agree with you on the first statement (from a logical point of view) but actually that is not how the rest of the world sees it and it was not the point I made in any case. My point is that your claimed was that payment by government for private delivery of care is NOT the same as single payer. I deleted this because it absolutely is the same, and I cannot for the life of me see why it is the opposite.--Tom (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Single payer just means one person paying the bills, ie, the government. This is what happens with socialized medicine and single payer health insurance. So both are single payer. Kborer (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

clean up

I was asked to explain some of my recent edits. My main focus was to improve the presentation of the article, though some content needed to be removed as well, such as useless references, unsourced statements, and excessive discussion of certain topics. As I mentioned before, the introduction must be succinct. Quotes, detailed discussions of minor points, and secondary points of information that are not essential to the definition need to be moved out of the introduction and into separate sections. Sections need to contain the information surrounding one topic, not a dialog discussing the pros and cons of socialized medicine or other such nonsense. Also some urls were longer than the page width so they had to be encapsulated in cite web templates. Kborer (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

One editor's clean up could mean wrecking another's edits. I want that we make only small changes to the article as and when necessary. If a re-write with a lot of changes are necessaey then then lets discuss them here first. It saves a lot of hassle. Clearly we have some strong headed editors here but it should be possible to find some consensus. If not them we may have to find ways of settling them by seeking the views of others.--Tom (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to put "of socialized medicine" in the section titles. It is implied. Kborer (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the clean-up banner. The article is very well referenced and as far as I can tell tries to tell as much as it possible to say about the subject representing both sides of the political argument (given that this is very much a political term, rather than a medical one). It conveys the political objections to socialized medicine and examines the claims using factual data. I am not sure what else can be done. Therefore I am inclined to remove the clean-up banner. It has stood in place for a month now and I have not seen much positive change in that time. It might have helped if the person that placed the banner had put an explanation note on the clean-up page request page at Wikipedia:Cleanup or on this talk page. --Tom (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a terrible article though. The style of writing is just ridiculous and unprofessional. What's more, the two sides of criticism and support are both support, since every point of the criticism one is refuted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Kborer, Freedomwarrior, and Doopdoop appear to be sockpuppets of each other

I agree with Tom that Kborer, Freedomwarrior, and Doopdoop appear to be sockpuppets of each other. They all three have the same editing patterns and no respect for consensus. --Historian 1000 (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they just all listen to Rush Limbaugh. Nbauman (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I feel inclined to add BigK HeX to the list. Its another account that was created recently as I predicted would happen back in December in a predictable attempt to make it seem that the relatively extreme views they hold are actually mainstream. Both these new user accounts are supporting the recent attempts to de-neutralize the article. I see that Doopdoop and BigK HeX have been making contrary edits at [Monetary policy of the United States] probably in a vain attempt to appear to hold contrary views. But it seems odd to me that two supposed different people would even be editing such disparate topics as socialized medicine and Monetary policy of the United States as some of their first edits as new editors. It beggars belief. They also seem to be rather skilled at making edits.--Tom (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It feels like Tom is going to create a new category called sockpuppets belonging to a vast right-wing conspiracy. --Doopdoop (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why legitimate editors even try to engage these disruptive editors/trolls/sock puppets in discussion. Doopdoop has been removing See also wikilinks I put up to the Kaiser Family Foundation. This is a nonprofit organization that is regularly cited by health care professionals, politicians, and the media. As a result of my reverting him (he engaged in counter reverts) he stalked me over to an article that I regularly edit, List of haunted locations (I study and write on folklore). Doopdoop's edits are often a nuisance and he obviously thrives on the attention he receives with his disruptive POV edits. I see no reason whatsoever to continue to engage this editor in discussion, other than to issue him warnings about his malcontent behavior so it is documented. --Historian 1000 (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tom - I resemble that remark!(About editing two widely different articles). And here I thought it was a sign that I'm a renaissance man;).
I repeat a point I made earlier: I don't think this is a fruitful line of accusation. There are certain patterns of non-productive reverts and other disruptive editing; deal with each issue separately.--Gregalton (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with editing two widely different articles, but two supposedly different editors making serious edits in the same two articles? An earlier example was I think DoopDoop and Freedomwarrior both editing articles on health care and Cuba in the same direction. In the case of DoopDoop, this editor account is recent and has contributed to very few articles. As for the comment Historian 1000 makes about stalking I think you too have experienced that from one or two of this same group of editors. The whole thing reeks of sockpuppetry.--Tom (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Gregalton, I do believe the sock puppet charge is relevant, especially on issues involving consensus. --Historian 1000 (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry charge is irrelevant because it is obviously false. --Doopdoop (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
How so? --Tom (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Definition

Socialized medicine or state medicine is a term used primarily in the United States to describe various types of publicly funded health care systems.

has been replaced with

Socialized medicine or state medicine is a health care system that is controlled and financed by the government.

Lets take the 3 various elements in turn.

1. Is it the "proper" name for something or is it "a term for something else"?

It clearly is not the proper name because it tends to be used by one set of people (mostly those who try to swing opinion against the concept) and is studiously avoided by others (neutrally minded people and professionals, as witnessed that most medical journals reporting research do not use it). It is not just one person who avoids using it and not just me claiming it. Uwe Reinhardt says its a term to be avoided also, and if you go back and check the record of discussions here you will see Nbauman made the point about professional and scientific journals. Its mainly the nay-sayers and certain politicians that use the term.

Therefore it must have a proper name, and that name is either "publicly funded medicine" or just "public medicine". Therefore it is a term that is used to describe something else.Hauskalainen (talk contribs) 21:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your first point is wrong. Socialized medicine is not a synonym for publicly funded health care because there are types of publicly funded health care that are not socialized medicine. For example, single payer health insurance.Kborer (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you are wrong. Single-payer health insurance along the lines suggested for the US would be publicly funded just as it is in Canada. We have to accept that the term has two different shades of meaning and this has, since December, been properly explained in the opening paragraphs. The difference is about who runs the delivery of care and is not connected with whether it is or is not publicly funded. There are systems that ARE publicly funded that are NOT usually labelled as socialized but this is has been explained in the heading since December and has improved the lead enormously. The reason why the NHS is labelled socialized and the US armed forces/Veterans Administration system are not is probably political. It certainly is not semantically different.
Socialized medicine is more specific than publicly funded health care, and thus does not encompass all forms of publicly funded health care. It is publicly funded health care that is also under centralized control. Single payer health insurance is not a centrally controlled system, but it is also publicly funded. Unless single payer health insurance is socialized medicine, which it is not, then socialized medicine cannot be a synonym for publicly funded health care. Kborer (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


2. Is a term used primarly in The United States or is it widely used in other countries?

I think this is not in dispute. I am sure you may find bloggers claiming to be in Australia or England but they are not valid sources. I am 52 years old and until recently I had never heard public medicine labeled this way, and if you read the archived talk page you will see many people from outside the US have been similarly surprised by it. Is it important to state this up front? I would argue yes because it is definitively so. It is not normal usage outside the US.Hauskalainen (talk contribs) 21:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

While you are correct that the term is primarily used in the United States, you are wrong about how this information should be handled. Perhaps some people use the term because they wanted to imply that it is bad. Perhaps other people call it universal health care to imply that it is good. It is an interesting point to discuss, but it is far from the most important thing about socialized medicine.Kborer (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I am glad that you have finally acceped that it is a term use principally in the U.S. and not outside. The main issue though is WHY the term has emerged in the U.S. and again the answer is given in the lead paragraphs and the article gives some time to discussing this. It is clear that you sit on one side of the "public funding" debate and would probably prefer not to have the political aspects of this term discussed at all in the lead (i.e. inconsistent use and deliberate coinage as a pejorative). However, I think most people would disagree with you. This is absolutely key to undertanding the term and deserves to be in the opening paragraphs and explained in more detail in the article body. I do not think people think that socialized medicine is the same as universal health care. There are many routes to UHC which includes a lot of private funding. This is why I deleted the map.--Tom (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
While there are many things to talk about regarding socialized medicine, certain information should take priority. The first thing to explain is what socialized medicine is. Everything other than a definition is secondary. You do not need to know about different implementations, the history of the term, or where it is primarily used to understand what it is. Kborer (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


3. Is health care systems the best link to have in the first sentence or publicly funded health care?

I think know why these two (?) editors are favouring the first rather than the second link. But I will let them say why for themselves before I give my opinion on that. To me, the latter is the more natural because both the narrow and the broad definitions are encompassed within it. --Tom (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC) .

Your third question is a very minor concern, as adequate opening sentences could be created using either link. Kborer (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually it is not minor, but we seem to have stopped that particular argement so I will leave that one to rest.--Tom (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationale

Just to be clear on this. Suppose that I inserted a claim to an article on Wikipedia that the Aztecs did NOT land a man on the moon in the 14th century with the aid of an alien culture. You on the other had wish too delete the claim because you claim that they did. You would actually be hard pressed to come up with a good reference to prove me wrong. Because the burden of proof rests with the person making the positive claim.... that the Aztecs DID land a man on the moon. Same here. If you believe that the term socialized medicine is in widespread use outside of the USA then please give us some examples of usage (government, academic, press) which does. I have seen just one blog by a man claiming to be in Australia but that is about it. Bring them hear and lets see if other editors like me will change their mind. Until you do I'm sticking to my guns. This IS a term that IS PRIMARILY USED IN THE UNITED STATES. Perhaps someone else would like to add back the reference that I see yet again has been deleted (by a user register in 2005 that has only ever made one substantial edit)... this rather negative one. It is so clear that there is a concerted effort going on to push POV again into this article. --Tom (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your faulty line of argument is that there wouldn't be a claim regarding the usage of the term in other countries if the current statement on the term socialized medicine being used "particularly in the US" were deleted. That is, the article wouldn't be saying that "the Aztecs did NOT land a man on the moon in the 14th century with the aid of an alien culture," because it wouldn't contain a reference to that claim.Freedomwarrior (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The issue is that "particularly in the US" is a relevant fact. It should not be deleted because otherwise the article would be losing valuable information. We wish to inform WP readers surely, not conceal information from them.--Tom (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
As for Tom's "aztec" astronaut article, I doubt there is any way to pass WP:V. Further, it's quite easy to find sources that pass WP:RS that would claim that Neil Armstrong was the first lunar visitor, whether it's true or not --- it is the prevailing view. BigK HeX (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to be, primarily, a discussion of the term "socialized medicine" itself, as opposed to the details of the topic. Things unrelated to the terminlogy need to be merged into publicly-funded health care.

Tom, if the article is silent on an unsubstantiated claim, then nothing will be lost (because the claim shouldn't be there to begin with). I have not deleted the claim, and I won't as long as their is some substance to it (and there might be--I'm agnostic on the point). If you assert the claim as a fact, then you should be able to find a reputable article that substantiates that claim. Honestly, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to go to one of your socialist blogs and pull something from there.Freedomwarrior (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Freedomwarrior is right. Another way to put it is that the burden of proof lies with the editor who wishes to include a claim. Kborer (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
But Kborer, you yourself expressed the same notion that this term IS indeed principally used in the U.S.! If you think this is true, on what basis do YOU believe this to be so? Personally I don't need an external source to tell me something that is so clearly true, but you seem to think that is. So what source do you have for thinking the way you do?--Tom (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As for the statement "if the article is silent on an unsubstantiated claim, then nothing will be lost" I cannot disagree more. I repeat what I said earlier, if the term IS widely used outside the U.S. then you merely have to give good reason for me and the other editors here to think otherwise and we would have to back down. It cannot be that difficult if you are right. That you have not done so is a good indication to me that you cannot substantiate the alternative claim. Which is why, as soon as the block has been lifted, I will reinstate the fact that this term is used principally in the United States. If you insist I will consult the Oxford English Dictionary as well as Websters which, between them, I feel sure will give a more complete definition and not just a few lines as most of these on-line dictionaries do.
Your notion -- that I would have to provide sources if I wanted to include a claim that the term is primarily used in the US in the article -- is correct. The same principle applies to any claims that you or any other editor would like to include in the article. However, I do not need references to prevent you from including a claim that is not referenced. If that were true I could just add many lies and watch as editors wasted countless hours trying to find references to debunk them. Kborer (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
A source has been provided on this particular point. So unless I'm missing something, we can drop this line of discussion, unless someone provoides a source to the contrary.--Gregalton (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I would like to remind editors that is it not sufficient to simply have references for claims made in an article. The references must correspond to and support the claims that they are associated with. The reason that I point this out is that this article has been reverted several times to a version where claims are not only unsupported by sources, but references that had been used to support the opposing viewpoint in early versions were left in the text, giving the appearance that they supported the new claims. Obviously, such carelessness is completely unacceptable. Kborer (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

They were reverted because you were POV pushing. Your implied claim that you were merely deleting unreferenced claims with referenced ones will not impress anyone. If you wish to raise a new matter about references please do so here. If its your old claim about the term being used outside the U.S. I invited you to deliver clear evidence to the contrary and you failed to do so. Gregalton has given us one reference which supports the case and if you really inist I will get you another, but I really think you are having us on a wild goose chase. --Tom (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate your sentiment, you need to understand that to some editors it seems that those who advocate defining socialized medicine as a slur are the ones pushing a point of view. I do not mind debating facts, but I do mind when editors refuse to defend their positions. It is not productive to merely say that an edit is POV and then revert referenced claims. It is especially counterproductive when flaws in the old version are reintroduced. Kborer (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem you seem to be having, per the John Stewart formulation, is that "the facts themselves are biased." I have extensively documented that the term originated as a slur, continued to be used as a pejorative, and is still used as a slur. Various editors, including yourself, have documented that there are various incompatible definitions, particularly among those attempting to use it as a slur. In addition, I've also documented that those in the field either do not use it, use it specifically in the context of the political debate (and use of the term), and/or tend to use it with "quotes" to underline that the term itself is a problem. Now there is a cite that supports that it is primarily an American term. So what lack of references are you referring to? Note that most of these quotes are from mainstream media or academic sources - i.e., reliable sources.
Your most recent citation fails because it is a fringe source that is talking about socialism, and is massively POV. If you can't recognize that, you may have difficulty with the whole concept of NPOV. There may be a place for it - perhaps in ghost-written newsletters that can be denied - but certainly not in the first sentence.
In addition, your most recent edits have been highly disruptive and clearly against the consensus of a number of other editors.--Gregalton (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You need to be a little more specific about which edits and references you are referring to. In any case, the only incompatible definitions I have seen are the referenced definitions supporting that socialized medicine is a system of health care and the claim of some editors that it is a synonym for publicly funded health care. Kborer (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
One set of definitions says it is a "government-regulated system" (very broad), another says "the term is used to describe programs that range from govt operation of facilities to national health-insurance plans", another says "Single-payer health care is distinct and different from socialized medicine in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government", another says "One of the terms to denigrate and attack any system under which complete medical aid would be provided to every citizen through public funding," another says "a system of medical care regulated and controlled by the government, in which the government assumes responsibility for providing for the health needs and hospital care of the entire population, at no direct cost or at a nominal fee to the individual, by means of subsidies obtained by taxation," "A somewhat loose term applied to...," etc. So it either means almost any govt-regulated system, used to describe various types of programs, means a very specific type of program/system, or is simply a political term used to attack universal health care.
These definitions contradict each other. Since the term is used so inconsistently, and often for political ends, it does not make sense to say it is "a system." It is not 'a' system, it is a term used variously to describe very different systems, and often used pejoratively in a political context (as documented).--Gregalton (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Socialized medicine is not a single implementation of a health care system. Any system that meets certain criteria is socialized medicine. So the idea that it describes different implementations is correct, because if various implementations all have centralized control, then they are all socialized medicine regardless of how that control is maintained. Kborer (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not argued it is a single implementation (I differ from Tom's point on this). I have said that the criteria under the various definitions are entirely different: a) systems where provision of medical services is provided directly by government; b) systems where provision is "controlled" indirectly. One is quite narrow, one is quite broad. You believe these are identical (that direct provision and "control" are identical), sources disagree.--Gregalton (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see more consistency from Kborer.. He adds an edit that says "Single-payer health care is distinct and different from socialized medicine in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government" but on this talk page he says ""socialized medicine is single payer by definition." --Tom (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I know ad hominem is easy, but it is not very productive. In any case, this is probably confusion between single payer and single payer health insurance. Single payer just means that funds are coming from one place, such as a government. Single payer health insurance is a national health insurance plan, such as those proposed by PNHP. Socialized medicine is not health insurance, but it is single payer. Kborer (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

trim down Giuliani controversy?

A question...now that Giuliani is out of the race, the lengthy section about his ill-advised remarks seems less notable and an example of recentism. I think the section can stand, but should be much shorter. No doubt the term may come up again in other campaign discourse. Any objection to some judicious pruning? -- --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But I think it is a good example of the way that statistics and so called facts are abused (in my judgment, deliberately so) by the likes of the Manhattan Institute, Cato, and the Centre for Policy Analysis. They aim to deceive rather inform and its rather worrying that these institutes attempt to influence policy on the basis of very dubious evidence. Maybe that issue needs to be handled in another section or even in other articles. For once though the matter did get exposed by proper investigative journalism which was nice to see.--Tom (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have edited it down somewhat, removing a couple of the blockquotes, which can still be found in the references, but leaving the point-counterpoint nature of the statements and debunking of same intact. --Sfmammamia (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Harvard study

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2008/02.21/08-socialized.html


MaynardClark (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)MaynardClark

Thanks for the alert! Pertinent and up-to-the-minute. Paragraph added. --Sfmammamia (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A population insuring itself....

FreedomWarrior: You have deleted this statement about socialized medicine.

"In practice, the population through its elected government insures itself against the incursion of health care costs at time of need through taxation or a compulsory health insurance system."

Now I know that you will probably say Cuba is a dictorship and not a democracy, but the fact is that most of the nations that have socialized medicine are democracies and not dictatorships. So what is so objectionable about this statement? It sums up socialized medicine rather succinctly. --Tom (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it because it is another one of your gross generalizations. As you seem to recognize, not all countries with socialized medicine are democracies. Only "most of the nations that have socialized medicine are democracies and not dictatorships." As such, it is inappropriate to include the statement that the "population through its elected government..." because not all populations have chosen to "insure itself against the incursion of health care" through their government. That is why I have changed the text to: "the government sets the framework for determining how the health care system delivers treatments to patients." This is a more inclusive text which applies to both democracies and dictatorships with socialized medicine.Freedomwarrior (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops.... I see now that you didn't delete it... Kborer did. Isn't it funny how you seem to think that YOU did it!? I see you are diverting from the argument. --Tom (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This statement is false. Socialized medicine is not an insurance system, it is prepaid health care. Kborer (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. There is no relationship between cost in and cost out at the individual level and there is no fund held in the British system or the Finnish system (and I suspect the VA system and Canada, Cuba etc).. ... its all from current revenues. The British system was explicity stated to be insurance at inception and stated to be a right born from contributions and not from charity.
There is no definition of insures that agrees with your statement. Socialized medicine may resemble certain managed care arrangements, but it is not insurance in the usual sense. It is misleading to characterize socialized medicine as insurance. Kborer (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you read what I said? Do you dispute that there is such a thing as social insurance? The term insurance was used when the NHS was founded. It is a form of social insurance. Guaranteeing to meet costs in time of need even if you have not paid in what you may need to take out. It absolutely is insurance in the same was as car insurance. Its just that the risk pool is a large pool and contributions are based on your tax rate not your health care status. The term insurance is used widely in Europe to describe so called socialized medicine. --Tom (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You cannot insure against events that are predictable for individuals. What some people call health insurance is actually prepaid health care. Socialized medicine is not insurance against unpredictable illness but rather a system of delivering most of a population's health care needs. Kborer (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
On what basis do you say this? If your assumption is that health insurance is to pay for the exact same services for all (death services?), perhaps, but as with other forms of insurance the costs are not assumed to be identical throughout the population. There are lots of unpredictable health events for individuals.--Gregalton (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"Insurance properly applies to risks of future calamity that are not readily subject to the control of the individual beneficiary, and where the incidence can be predicted accurately in advance. Insurable risks are those where we can predict an incidence of calamities in large numbers, but not in individual cases: that is, we know nothing of the individual case except that he or it is a member of a certain class. Thus, we may be able to predict accurately how many people aged 65 will die within the next year. In that case, individuals aged 65 can pool annual premiums, with the pool of premiums being granted as benefits to the survivors of the unlucky deceased.
The more, however, that may be known about individual cases, the more these cases need to be segregated into separate classes. Thus, if men and women aged 65 have different average death rates, or those with different health conditions have varying death rates, they must be divided into separate classes. For if they are not, and say, the healthy and the diseased are forced into paying the same premiums in the name of egalitarianism, then what we have is no longer genuine life insurance but rather a coerced redistribution of income and wealth.
Similarly, to be insurable the calamity has to be outside the control of the individual beneficiary; otherwise, we encounter the fatal flaw of moral hazard, which again takes the plan out of genuine insurance. Thus, if there is fire insurance in a certain city, based on the average incidence of fire in different kinds of buildings, but the insured are allowed to set the fires to collect the insurance without discovery or penalty, then again genuine insurance has given away to a redistributive racket. Similarly, in medicine, specific diseases such as appendicitis may be predictable in large classes and therefore genuinely insurable, but simply going to the doctor for a checkup or for vague ills is not insurable, since this action is totally under the control of the insured, and therefore cannot be predicted by insurance firms." - Murray N. Rothbard Kborer (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Rothbard is such a bad source it boggles the mind. But if you insist:
  1. Insurance does allow for inter-temporal shifts. For example, all participants agree at point "A" (when their risks are unknown) to participate for a fixed period of time (no right of withdrawal). Throughout this period, they are all insured, despite the fact that (as risk elements become clear) they "should" (according to Rothbard's logic) pay more. In this respect, universal mandatory insurance is best depicted as a lifetime insurance contract - you pay level premiums despite the fact that your risk at different times may be higher. Some insurance programs do work like this.
  2. This is exactly what private health programs do by charging the same for groups of workers, despite demographic differences within the group - the key is the entrance to the group must be (somewhat) randomized. By providing insurance to the entire population, the randomization is achieved easily. Since these insurance programs exist, to say they "are not insurance" is nonsense (or, as may be likely, he's just making his definitions up).
  3. Calling it "coerced redistribution of income and wealth" is a nice soundbite, but utterly meaningless; so are taxes. Yes, it is to some degree redistributive - so what? Arguably all insurance contracts are redistributive.
  4. Moral hazard is a well known problem but does not make the contract "not insurance." That's just stupid, frankly: most types of insurance have some degree of moral hazard problem, and they're not automatically reclassified as "redistributive rackets." They simply use various tools, rules, regulations, penalties to attempt to minimize the problem. (As documented by another editor here, it's also considered to be not much of a problem in health insurance for reasons related to incentives, behavioural economics, etc).
  5. The parallel to arson is absurd. The benefit for arson is that the value of my contract may be higher than the value of my building, creating an incentive to collect by destroying it (particularly if I have a mortgage). I'm sure someone could come up with a parallel for health insurance (it is a well known problem for life insurance, and easily controlled), but it would be quite a stretch ("I'll stab myself in the leg, and collect by getting free hospital food for a week!"). It also doesn't invalidate the existence of property insurance.
  6. Contrary to his final claim ("going to the doctor for a checkup for vague ills is not insurable"), private firms and health programs do provide precisely this insurance - which seems to mean Rothbard is using some strange definition specific to his own world. Sometimes there are co-pay requirements, but that does not mean it's not insurance. (The economics literature even suggests that providing this service at a low cost may even be more efficient: while there are some hypochondriacs who arguably "over-consume", this cost may be swamped by the benefits of catching treatable conditions early - this point is not settled empirically however).
In sum, his approach is so bizarre that he's almost literally got it backwards: he essentially argues that the existence of well-known problems in the economics of insurance (broadly moral hazard and information asymmetry) means that insurance can't exist, and therefore doesn't, and apparently what does exist is also not insurance, because it can't exist.
Usually I'd go to the effort of getting sources, but not worth it here. Read any modern economics textbook to find the subjects addressed in a meaningful way.--Gregalton (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
1) However, mandatory universal insurance is not socialized medicine. 2) Just because prepaid health care systems use ideas from real insurance to mitigate costs does not mean they are really insurance. 3) The point is that such a system does not insure against specific problems, but rather ensures that everyone gets whatever health care they need. 4) But if socialized medicine was insurance, then the moral hazard is going to the doctor. Since this is what you are supposed to do, the contradiction leads one to believe that it is not a system of insurance at all. 5) The point is that if you have control of when you reap the benefits of the system, then it is not insurance. It has nothing to do with hurting yourself. 6) The whole point of the passage is that what you are calling insurance is not insurance. Kborer (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Kborer: You say "... mandatory universal insurance is not socialized medicine". But surely it is. Mandatory insurance is no different from taxation, which means it meets the definition. If there are private insurers (as in the Dutch system) then the government can be considered to have devolved tax collection and revenue distribution to those private companies. --Tom (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
1) Reinhardt for one classifies socialized medicine as a form of government-financed insurance, see here. In this categorization, mandatory universal insurance is not socialized medicine, but socialized medicine is a form of mandatory universal insurance. 2) Your use of "prepaid health care systems" is not known to me to be used elsewhere. 3) That doesn't contradict the idea of insurance. 4) What? The moral hazard is the risky behaviour an insured individual can undertake that he might otherwise avoid. Going to the doctor is not moral hazard. 5) Honestly have no idea what you think this means. You reap the benefits of the system when you have an insured event. If the insurer chooses to approve preventive care (because it reduces costs, for example), that doesn't make it "not insurance." Alternatively, anyone can crash their car at any time and make an insurance claim - they have some control. At any rate, see Reinhardt above.
Having looked at Rothbard a little more, I've perhaps been unfair: a different interpretation (more charitable) would be that he says that government-controlled insurance is not free-market insurance. Which in this context is a truism and banal, but doesn't contradict that it is insurance.--Gregalton (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.. Who's feeding the trolls now?--Tom (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I for once think Kborer may be on to something. He says "Socialized medicine is not insurance against unpredictable illness but rather a system of delivering most of a population's health care needs". I don't really find anything wrong with that, if you assume that insurance is something that begins after birth. Perhaps we can adopt is as definition  :=) Insurance in the sense that Kborer uses it in health matters does not really meet what most people would think is a civilized response to person misfortune. If a person is born with sickle cell anemia his insurance is going to be sky high. But its not his or her fault that he has this disease, so why should his/her parents and ultimately he or she or pay for that? And as we discover more about the connection between genetics and disease susceptibility the insurance sector in those countries such as the US where health insurance is discriminatory, this issue will cover more and more people. Nobody in their right mind wants to be ill, and if we are, then we want to be cured or at least have our symptoms mitigated and if we cannot work because of that disease, then we should not be penalised for it. In a socialized system, society collectively ensures that this is the case. It IS a form of insurance if one can think that it is a conception to death matter with premiums based on wealth rather than health risk status. But I sense that some people here cannot think like that. It is something that normal commercial insurance cannot do. Maybe we should add this to the benefits section.... --Tom (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

For me it is obvious that socialized medicine has an insurance element and economic analysis of insurance can be applied to it. However the phrase "population is insuring itself" is just a left-wing POV, and should be either removed or counter-balanced by some right-wing POV phrase. --Doopdoop (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer to remove it. Kborer (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If the issue is the use of the term "population insuring itself" (which I don't find objectionable), we can certainly rephrase. Reinhardt's classification would support simply saying that "socialized medicine is a form of government-financed insurance." (Since that money comes from taxes, the population is insuring itself, but rephrasing is fine).Gregalton (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
There is one big difference between private and public insurance of course. Private insurance systems (in the U.S. at least) do not seem to encourage preventative care because it means more expenditure now for less expenditure in future and today's insurer is not necessarily tomorrow's insurer. Its short termism which is not in the best interest of the insured or the payer (the premiums payer). As the government is always the insurer in socialized systems then there is every incentive for socialized systems to engage in preventative medicine; i.e. long termism in the best interest of both the taxpayer and the patient. Subsidized nicotine patches are available on the NHS in the UK and discounted sports facilities in Finland. I doubt that many US insurers would meet the cost of nicotine patches or fund gym memberships! I don't think that this means that socialized medicine is not a form of insurance. It is just a very far sighted form of whole population insurance.--Tom (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
What Tom is describing is not insurance, it is an investment. Rephrasing would be fine, as long as it is not misleading. Kborer (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Term Socialized medicine used (fairly exclusively) only in the U.S.

If I can contend that the Aztecs landed on the moon before Neil Armstrong did, can you disprove that? Of course not! Its impossible to prove a negative. But you could challenge me to provide proof positive that they did. So neither is it possible to prove that the the term socialized medicine is NOT used outside the US. But you could prove the other editors here that we are wrong by demonstrating that official bodies (governments perhaps) or academics DO use the term in countries outside the US. Until you do I think it perfectly reasonable to suppose what I sense to be reality, i.e. that the term was invented in the U.S. and is not generly adopted outside the U.S.--Tom (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

But why should usage be the focus of the first sentence? Imagine an Elevator article that begins "Elevator is a term used by some, primarily in the United States, to describe lift, a vertical transport device". Please move usage information to an appropriate section. --Doopdoop (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you looked at the elevator article? It is not worded like that, but it does include the usage question in the lead. I think it is a critical part of the definition of the term that it is mostly used in the United States and almost never elsewhere. I had never heard the term until it was used to me (read spat at me) in the United States. Rachel Pearce (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Most of us understand that it's a term used almost exclusively in the U.S. What we need is a WP:RS to say so. I'm pretty sure I've already linked to articles in which somebody started it, but somebody deleted it. Now I have to find one again. But it's an important point, and it should be included in the article. Nbauman (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Doopdoop: Here's why. It is a an example of guilt by association and it is only used in the U.S. because media and politicians conspired to make it so there. No other country English speaking country has adopted the term. It is therefore highly relevent, especially to a U.S. audience that may think their usage is normative when in fact it isn't. It just isn't an example of usage, it's its whole raison d'etre. --Tom (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Your reasons given are just a POV (plus a conspiracy theory and a questionable assertion that American English is somehow not normative). --Doopdoop (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The point about "usage in the US" here seems valid. Even if the term is used in other countries, it does not carry the connotation that it does in the US. Also, it looks like the assertion is backed with citations, so the argument seems to be notable, and verifiable. In my opinion, ignoring the debate would seem to be the act that would violate NPOV. BigK HeX (talk)

Doopdoop. Well, consipiracy or no, the truth is that the term is almost exclusively couched in terms of US political debate and it is not used outside the U.S. I did not say American English is not normative, just this one small example. Because of this, it is not POV, it is pretty much accepted fact. Because of this, it is right that the statement should be in the lead paragraph. I have therefore reinstated it.--Tom (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Doopdoop: Good grief you have already reverted it again! Please explain why you think it is POV to say that the term is primarily used in the U.S. or why it is wrong to refer to this at this point. Your elevator argument does not hold water because it is not called elevator with an intent to associate it with a political issue. It is referred to in other sections of the article. All I am doing is putting it up the top where it belongs. The first sentence of any article should prepare the reader for what is to follow in as succinct a manner as is possible. I think this is a highly relevent fact and needs to be said at the outset, and other editors seem to agree with this. It explains how the term was created and with what intent. I have suggested that if it were possible to find another country where the usage is commonplace then you should provide examples here for us to consider. I know of none, but you may know differently. --Tom (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Tell me what's wrong with this compromise version: "Socialized medicine or state medicine is any system of medical care that is publicly financed, government administered, or both.[1][2][3] The term is used almost exclusively in the United States, where it often has a negative connotation by association with socialism." It seems you are debating older version --Doopdoop (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


OK. Let's compare the reverts at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialized_medicine&diff=191015977&oldid=191014712

  1. You state at the outset that it is not a system of health care. But it is not. There are many varieties of health care systems that get that attribute. It is therefore a loose TERM for a whole collection of possible systems.
  2. U.S. usage is entirely relevant to the term as is the perjorative and therefore should be in the lead in accordance with WP policies. The term is not normative in other countries, English speaking or otherwise. I suspect it is not even normative within the U.S. though everyone knows (or thinks they know) what it means
  3. The loose nature of the term is explained in my version. Your version seems to imply it is one thing.
  4. Your version implies that the socialized medicine HAS a true association with socialism. But socialism is about the control of the means of production, distribution and wealth. This is about health care. If you are right, then people in the UK, or Canada, or Finland, would think that their systems are edifices of socialism. But why then, when the Brits, Canadians or Finns have elected right wing, anti-socialist governments don't those governments break up their health care systems into something more capitalistic? The more true statement is in my version because this association only exists in the minds of Americans because it has been seeded there by word association with socialism (and constant bombardment of propaganda, though that is not in my version). Outside the U.S., we don't think that this is socialism any more than the public roads or schools or fire service are edifices of socialism. Community, yes, but not socialism.
  5. The last reference "continues to be used to evoke negative sentiment towards public control..." is a lead into the later discussions about Giuliani.

According to WP policies the first sentence is a simple explanation of the article subject and the intital paragraphs are a heads up for what is to come later in the article. My version does that better than yours and does not attempt to mislead in the way your does.--Tom (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

An answer:

  1. sources say it is a system
  2. US usage is in the second sentence of the lead in my version. It is not pejorative for some Americans (for example marxist professors of literature hold socialism in high esteem and also many Cuban immigrants have a positive opinion about socialism)
  3. The word "any" implies loose usage in both versions
  4. socialized medicine has a true association with socialism (good example is healthcare in socialist Cuba). NHS in the UK was created by socialist (labour) Attlee govt.
  5. The last reference is POV and unsourced

--Doopdoop (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Multiple sources with multiple definitions. They can't all be right. Marxist professors of literature and cuban immigrants are not the norm. Yes, a Labour govt did introduce it in the UK, but the conservative Churchill government that followed did not dismantle it. Nor Eden, Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Heath, Thatcher, or Major. But even so it still does not meet the standard definition of socialism. Finns do not regard their health care system as being socialism and neither do the Brits. Socialism has not always been a happy term in Spain either but the people of Spain have adopted such a system with great ease. And as for unsourced, I told you that the Guiliani usage during the election is a very recent example, tagging it socialist and not American. The references are further down.

I am now going to revert your change a second time today. You do not have consensus for this. If you revert it once more I will make a formal complaint.--Tom (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Doopdoop's version is better. One important reason is that the referenced definitions do not say that socialized medicine is just a 'term' or synonym for something. Rather, they say that it is a system. Kborer (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Its POV pushing and you know it. You and Doopdoop do not have consensus for this and I still accuse you and Doopdoop of working together on this, either as cabal or as sockpuppets. I threatened to raise an official complaint about this behaviour. Unfortunately I now have to be away for a few days from editing. But if when I return I see that this POV pushing has continued I will raise this immediately on my return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) 00:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you agree that your version has a left-wing perspective? --Doopdoop (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Kborer. If you have evidence of significant usage outside the U.S. then I think you should deliver it to us here. Its not the first time I have said this. So far you have not done so. Therefore I reverted your edit.
Where the term is used is not the point of contention. The argument is that socialized medicine is a system, not a synonym for publicly funded health care. Kborer (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If its not a point of contention then it should be included and early on because it is significant. If there are many systems with very different characteristics that meet the various definitions then we cannot describe it as A system. Therefore it is a term that can describe a VARIETY of different health care systems which include public funding and which may or may not imply government control, depending on your preferred definition. --Tom (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to provide a source to remove a normative claim (i.e. to keep this article silent on whether there is or isn't significant use of the term inside or outside the US), because that's now how the rules work. Notwithstanding, since you finally provided some sources which reflect that opinion, I have modified the text to reflect that it is an opinion shared by some editors. Freedomwarrior (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but its not unreasonable to ask you to disprove the point. That you have still refused to do so tells me that you are wrong in your implied position that this is a term used in the wider English speaking world. So irrespective of WP rules I will support the addition of a reference to this in the lead.--Tom (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is good that you are passionate, but it would be helpful if you tried to follow the guidelines. Self righteously defending your violations of 3RR and RS is not going to improve the community around this article nor around wikipedia. Kborer (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

term or system

Socialized medicine is a system of health care, not just a term that people apply to health care systems that they do not like. This is what the references supporting the opening sentence say. It makes no sense to use them to support the opposing viewpoint. Please do not remove the supported definition nor reinstate the claim that it is a term without major justification, including references. Kborer (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is tendentious to claim it is "a" system when the various references contradict each other. I have previously provided citations that clearly document these contradictions, directly supporting the use of "it is a term" rather than "it is a system". In addition, I have now added sources that specifically support using "term" instead of "a system". I trust you will now desist.--Gregalton (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not see any implied point of view in asserting that socialized medicine is a system of health care. The referenced definitions in the introduction define it as a system, not a synonym for publicly funded health care. Kborer (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Your choice of references is selective. Different sources define it differently: different types of systems. So to say it is 'a' system is incorrect. Other sources explicitly say it is a "term" used variously, often politically.--Gregalton (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Please present these sources so that we can discuss them against these different references. Until then, I would just like to point out that the existence of references that support an opposing viewpoint does not invalidate the established set of references. Kborer (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It cannot be a term for a system because the definitions (both of them) allows it to be applied to many different kinds of systems. For instance the UK's system is run by national government and is fairly monolithic whereas in Finland each municipality runs its own system and can arrange it as it likes. Neither are insurance based. Single payer systems which are insurance based are also classified this way. Freedomwarrior/Kborer (they seem now to be taking views at slight variance from each other to prevent accusations of sock-puppetry) are trying to make this sound like a legitimate term for something specific which it is not. It is a pejorative term used in the US for something that in other countries would go by the name of either public health care or publicly funded health care.--Tom (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This is illogical. Socialized medicine is a system that can be implemented in many different ways. Though these implementations may be different, they would all be systems that work is a socialized manner. As I have said before, most of the references that I have seen define socialized medicine as a system, not as a synonym for publicly funded health care. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Kborer (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
See the sources I've already provided (numerous times) that say the term only applies to systems where doctors, etc,, are directly employed by the government. The sources you've provided above allow for far broader interpretations (as per another editor, "control" is so broad that it can be applied to almost any system. Sources contradict each other.--Gregalton (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not denying that some sources define socialized medicine in the sense of government employment. What I am saying is that those sources are not in the majority and do not encompass how the term is used. Government control is not broad enough to be applied to any system. Government involvement would be broad enough to encompass most current implementations, but government control is a stronger statement. Kborer (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the article due to edit warring from multiple editors. Please consider resolving your disputes here instead of engaging in edit wars. --slakr\ talk / 00:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

While I understand and respect the decision to protect, you have frozen it in a version with a bizarre POV casting of the issue:
"According to some, the term was coined in the U.S. as a pejorative[4] by word association with socialism and continues to be used to evoke negative sentiment towards public control of the health care system in that country. This same group of individuals also claims that the term is primarily used in the United States to refer to certain kinds of publicly-funded health care"
The "some" in the first sentence refers to a professor of public policy quoted on NPR. This same issue (coining as a pejorative) is backed up in other sources below. Calling it "some" here is an attempt to make it sound like a fringe theory, where it is documented in a variety of sources which would meet the test for reliable sources. No counterposing claim has been shown, so it is not like "some claim 'a', some claim 'b'", as implied in the current phrasing.
The "same group of individuals" is a ridiculous misrepresentation: the "individuals" in question (note, directly quoted here, not including others who say the same thing in other citations below) include Dorland's Medical Dictionary, a history of public health by a professor at UCSF (Dorothy Porter), two professors of Information Studies (U of Maryland) (Wasserman and Hausrath), and a New Dictionary of American Politics (from 1949). Apart from the fact that any one of these alone should meet the test for reliable sources, to categorize them as "a group of individuals" is just absurd.
I would hope that despite the protection this can be unfrozen to fix this.--Gregalton (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Gregalton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) 09:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. --Historian 1000 (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
... I'm fairly new here, and even I know about The Wrong Version. IMO, the article has a bit of an identity crisis. It just doesn't read well ... there seems to a dispute regarding whether "Socialized medicine" is functionally distinct from "publicly funded health care." Then there seems to be an unnecessarily deep focus on the connotation of the term "socialized medicine" which is given too much prominence, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
A reasonable point about the Wrong Version - and why I said I understand and respect the decision. That does not change the fact that painting disparate credible sources as "the same group of individuals" is nonsense.
I also agree the article has an identity crisis. I personally support stripping out everything except the history and political usage of the term, with a small nod to the narrow definition as at least having some validity. All the rest is covered by other articles.--Gregalton (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Gregalton -- the focus needs to be on the history and political usage of the term. --Sfmammamia (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Gregalton and Sfmammamia are correct. --Historian 1000 (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

BigK HeX wins. As far as the proposal to get rid of all the content in the article and replace it with a biased stub telling people not to use the dirty words 'socialized medicine', I dissent. Kborer (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton, the sources in question reflect nothing more than the opinions of various individuals or groups. There are no objective (i.e. empirical) grounds for asserting that "the term is primarily used in the United States to refer to certain kinds of publicly-funded health care." Any such claim, in the absence of evidence, is idle conjecture on the part of those individuals and using them to make that claim in a matter of fact fashion is POV pushing. Freedomwarrior (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This shows a deep misunderstanding of the meaning of reliable sources and verifiability. The sources are clearly reliable, the bias attributed to them is without substance, and to call it idle conjecture or POV pushing is nonsense. This is simply an attempt to come up with tests for inclusion with respect to sources or claims that you don't like - which is not neutral. At any rate, hardly worth engaging with an editor with no ability to distinguish credible sources from "groups of individuals idly conjecturing."--Gregalton (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Clearly" reliable on what basis? How is the bias attributed to them without substance? And why is it not idle conjecture? And what is a "neutral" approach? Freedomwarrior (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See above: if you have any basis to question these sources, please do so rather than simply grouping them as "individuals." You can find general info on what constitutes reliable sources at wp:rs.--Gregalton (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Gregalton is right, there does seem to be a misunderstanding. Mediocre sources are better than no sources, and is better to have no sources than to have misleading sources. Kborer (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The "dark side" of socialized medicine

The dark side of socialized medicine concerns the larger population pools of possible surveillance that affects ill and injured individuals -- possibly the same horde(s) or special interest groups, brandishing licences or college degrees, who caused the physical disorders. The question becomes less of 'insurance' as a way to continue time alloted for healing than what 'insulation' must be ramped up or increased under the watchful eyes of government, private/public health practitioners and all those program hangers-on hoping to write up a medical journal article or improve their own professional career standings. Especially counter-effective in terms of medical science or healing are those who are contacted by syndicate networks and agree to directly 'encounter' a 'patient' in various social settings, most commonly stores where friction is always a possibility anyway, and is an especial hazard under direct surveillance. Marcia L. Neil/beadtot 66.239.212.82 (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It was one pink one and three white ones Marcia. I think you may have got them confused.--Tom (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Current edits back and forth

Kborer asked for reasons for change back: you have again relegated strict/broad distinction further down without discussing. In addition, as before, your note in there that "in any case is different from single payer" is NOT true (as documented) IF the article retains the broad definition. I remain ready to remove the broad definition and retain only the strict (correct) one, but you have nixed that change in the past. Please be consistent in explaining this; you can't say it does not fit the definition at any rate, but at the same time insist on retaining a definition that it clearly does fit, and at the same time claim that the strict/broad definition is too complex for an intro (if so, the direct contradiction with the references would presumably be too complex).--Gregalton (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I did not move the strict/broad distinction, I merely changed how it was phrased.
  • I addressed single payer in the section below.

Kborer (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You also removed the more precise explanation of "is a term for a system.." to "..is a system". You also made sweeping changes that were not always explained. You made numerous inter-threaded changes that could not easily be undone, mixing controversial and less objectional changes. You made changes in spite of them having been objected to and reverted by Gregalton and myself. You added back "It can refer to any system of medical care that is largely both publicly financed and government administered or regulated" but we know that the VA system is not tagged in this way. You also introduced a Cato article which talked about control in the context of regulation. We had a long debate about this earlier. Control in the main definition refers either to management of the system or controls regarding rules for payment. I know Cato has used the epithet socialized in this context but I do not think use by one (polarized) user of the term enables us to stretch the definition of socialized medicine to cover general regulation of free market care which is not subsidized by the government. Though I suspect FreedomWarrior will say it does. You seem to be getting ever close to the view of this 'other' editor,

If you think the article header needs a major re-write please say so here and why. It will save a lot of time if we discuss changes here first--Tom (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC).--Tom (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your phrasing, Kborer, also had the effect of relegating the strict definition further down, despite the fact that it was well sourced. And I'm quite convinced you know this well. At any rate, we disagree strongly with your re-phrasing, so please discuss what objections you actually have here before changing again.--Gregalton (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom:

  • It is unnecessary to say "is a term for". That is like saying "Mammal is a term for warm blooded animals with hair" instead of "Mammals are warm blooded animals with hair".
  • As requested, I went back and remade the changes one at a time.
  • All of the claims that I added were referenced, unlike some of the claims that they were replaced with.
  • The CATO reference is in addition to the reference that was already supporting the claim, not a substitute.

Gregalton:

I disagree on both your points. When the term is used extremely imprecisely and variously, it may be useful to say "it is a term for." For example, "vegetable is a term for certain fruits, tubers, and other edible plants." In fact, if you look at vegetable, they do this (say "a term for") for precisely this reason: it's meaning is imprecise (arbitrary and subjective, they say). We have demonstrated in quite detailed fashion that the term is not precise (unless, of course, you want to get rid of the broad, meaningless definition). It's not arbitrary (there is a reason some groups use one, some the other, often political and propaganda-oriented), but one could say there is a degree of subjectivity.
On the latter, your phrasing had the effect of relegating the strict definition further down, as if of lower importance. It's not. (Is this the phrasing you refer to)?--Gregalton (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My analogy is more accurate, however, because socialized medicine is well defined.
  • The inclusive definition is more correct, so it should be phrased the way I phrased it. Kborer (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
That's an opinion that is not supported by the citations and references.--Gregalton (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The inclusive definition is how the term is used, and the article has multiple references that use define socialized medicine inclusively. Please explain why you think that the exclusive definition is more correct. Kborer (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Several citations that say exactly that. Are you kidding?--Gregalton (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Apples are a round fruit. Apples are a red, round fruit. Which definition is correct? They both are. Which one is more correct? The inclusive one. It is the same way for socialized medicine. One definition says that you need government control. One says that you need government control by employment. Kborer (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
An interesting linguistic theory, but not definitive and certainly not sufficient. To use your over-simplification above, the first definition is not incorrect, but it is incomplete: it does not allow one to distinguish an orange from an apple, two very different fruits. Whether you agree with this parallel or not, it does support precisely what I am saying: there are definitions which explicitly say that the broad definition is wrong. I don't see any logical basis to claim that the broader definition is more inclusive and therefore "more correct" - particularly when sources say otherwise. Inclusive definitions can and are frequently wrong. (Leaving aside green apples and red tomatoes).--Gregalton (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I was just trying to illustrate how certain definitions are more precise, but most of them are accurate and agree. The more general definition is not always more accurate, but in this case it is because it is specific enough not to include other health care systems and also cover all systems that are socialized medicine. Kborer (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ummm...kind of circular logic. So, the definition is precise enough to define what it is? You haven't addressed the point of fact, that different definitions disagree. There is no basis for your contention that the broader one is more correct, particularly since some sources specifically say the broader one is wrong.--Gregalton (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please present the sources you mentioned above. In any case, the basic question here is: does the government need to directly employ health care workers and own health care facilities to constitute socialized medicine? From what I have seen, the answer is no. Socialism means centralized control, and there are other ways to centrally control the health care system besides owning facilities and employing workers. For example, the American Heritage dictionary says that regulating the industry is sufficient. This makes sense because if the government puts enough regulations on the industry, by telling doctors how to do their jobs and perhaps how much they are going to be paid, then they are effectively the employer. That's what Rockwell and the Columbia Encyclopedia are talking about. That's why Dorland's Medical Dictionary specifically says "controlled by the government". That's why some people look at a health care system that is nominally national health insurance and call it socialized medicine. If it is centrally controlled, it is a socialist system. Kborer (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm tired of presenting sources to you again and again, when clearly you do not read or check them. There are other sources in this same talk thread provided by others.
While your summary of what control means & c. is ever so fascinating, it is not conclusive and effectively original research. I am allowing for the existence of imprecise, overly broad definitions that I disagree with (as long as the distinction between these different definitions and the fact that many experts believe the broader definition is wrong is identified). Your claim that your definition is "better", however, is clearly not worth addressing anymore.--Gregalton (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not see any other references in the section, and quoting a definition is about as far from original research as one can get. In any case, if nobody wants to contest the point then we can move on to other areas of contention. Kborer (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of references in the article now: for example, "single-payer health care is distinct and different from socialized medicine in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government." This is quite unambiguous and also from a definition. So consider the point contested.--Gregalton (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
As I explained above, just because some people use the term more narrowly does not mean that is the correct definition. Kborer (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent logic. Let me see if I can try to respond. Ummm. Let's see: "just because some people use the term more broadly does not mean that is the correct definition."--Gregalton (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, but that was not the argument I made. The fact that some people use the more specific definition was assumed in my explanation above. There are ways to centrally control a health care system other than through direct employment and ownership, so there are other ways to implement socialized medicine. Kborer (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ "FIRM info page".
  2. ^ "Socialized Medicine in a Wealthy Country by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr".
  3. ^ "FIRM: Health care is not a right".
  4. ^ "history of health care costs" (PDF).
  5. ^ "Lives at Risk pg 193-4".
  6. ^ "Britannica Entry on Socialism".
  7. ^ "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition".
  8. ^ "The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition".
  9. ^ "Dorland's Medical Dictionary".
  10. ^ "MedTerms medical dictionary".
  11. ^ "Single Payer article from AMSA" (PDF).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialized_medicine/Archive_2&oldid=1085540013"