It's not a matter of OK or not but of various levels of suck. When you go through the industrial revolution, you're not going to get everything right on the first iteration. Heck, a century from now, our current "enlightened" work practices will likely horrify the great grandkids. So you look to improve but you look to do it in a sustainable way. Socialism isn't sustainable.
If you run a factory and a finger gets mashed, you lose production, you lose money. Factory workers aren't productive on day 1. It can take a year of work before you really start making money on them so they have incentives to get things safer because they want to maximize profit. Those that do not do that eventually fall behind those that do. It's an education process all around and it took some time to get it right (work is ongoing). Unionism was one response and, in the private sector, has largely done its job. Companies work hard so their workers don't need an adversarial union to get a safe workplace with decent compensation because unions come with long-term costs that never go away (rigidity in work rules for instance). Socialism, unlike unionism, was never a sustainable response because it fails at job #1 of any economic system which is to set prices. If you can't do that, you'll wreck the economy.
To the extent that soft socialism allows a parallel private economy to exist, socialism can blindly imitate the private price setters and get away with it for a time. Eventually the system breaks down though, no matter how soft the socialism, because of the distortions introduced by the government portion of the economy and the constant temptation to turn more over to the government for political reasons.
It'd be nice if it worked that way, and sometimes it does, but sometimes it dosn't. The reason those policies were persued is because, for most factories back then, it took next to no training to make a factory workers. So if one gets injured, their out the door.
So what your saying, in essense, is you do not have a moral problem with
the idea of a job where you will regularly be abused, taken advantage of, and subjected to extreme physical danger, and should you be injured and rendered incapable of working, your only kickback will be your kick out the door?
Assuming (for the moment) that this is actually happening and we're not getting a bunch of sour grapes, here are the systems that are being overridden to achieve this situation:
1. The primary care physician who is supposed to be riding herd on the gaggle of specialists and preventing this sort of behavior is falling down on the job.
2. Neurosurgery is not being led properly and needs a management high colonic to flush out the stupid.
3. Neuroradiology is not standing up for itself appropriately, letting it get railroaded. A management colonic is appropriate here too.
4. The Mortality and Morbidity (M&M) team which is specifically constituted to catch this sort of thing is falling down on the job.
5. The Hospital board has its head up its tail and isn't appropriately managing legal liability via its legal team.
6. The state regulators are asleep at the switch.
That makes it, by my count, six separate screwups that have to happen for this situation to be a real one in the current US system. That isn't to say that it's just made up, just that I don't particularly understand how socialism would improve on the current system.
In socialism, you just wouldn't have a neuroradiology department. Problem solved, no? Oh, the patients would have a higher M&M rate but we could be socially proud of our results!
Wrong on all counts. You don't get an MD by being stupid. They just really, really don't care about their patiants. They take the minimum level of training required to be state certified (which can range from semi-reasonable training to a 5min breifing video), and call that enough. The hospitals ass is covered, so they, in turn, don't care.
Neuroradiology, as a specialist department, dosn't have control over patiants.
How do you come to the conclusion a socialist medical system would have no such department?
Labor is only disposable where labor is plentiful in relation to the jobs available. Huge shifts (like the industrial revolution) that create masses of labor that need to go "elsewhere" create those conditions but those conditions are temporary. Jobs are created that sucks up the cheap labor and then employers have to compete with each other for labor, raising working conditions and salaries in the process.
We're moving into an era where labor is becoming scarce. Even the PRC is starting to have wage inflation. We're right at the peak of labor availability and we just need to let those greeedy capitalists keep making those jobs and things will improve on the labor compensation front.
As for the US medical system, you do realize it's half socialized already, right? I get 4 CDs a year from Medicare telling me what prices they'll pay for various CPT codes and private insurance companies just key off Medicare's government set price list. That's not a free market.
No, the current US system is regulated
, there's a difference. Regulation without some sort of kickback just kneecaps buisnesses. Like utilites, utilites are held to very high standards, but are basicly given a legal monopoly so they can stay afloat. That's socialism desinged to give a power grid that can stand up to everything and a nuclear strike (exaggeration, I know). Not letting the medical industry negotiate like any other buisness would, that's regulation. They get a swift kick in the crotch and a "Good luck."
For the record, I would not entrust any medical procedure to an English-speaking professional who consistently misspelled "patient."
For the record, your a....forum rules. Right. In any event, I am not a doctor, I am an intern.