The Duke of Dumb

[BrockthePaine]

As opposed to our hospital system, where patiants are routly operated on by generalist who have had a 5min breifing on this procedure instead of a specialist, because the general doctor dosn't want to split the profits?

Oh really? Source citation please?

[TMLutas]

And the "safe dose" of socialism, you cretin, is the minimum amount needed to promote the economy. Too little, or none, and the society quickly devlops a huge rich-poor gap, becomes unstable, and leads to general misery and eventual revolution. Too much, and you get, well, France.

Since I was the one that asked about the "safe dose" of socialism, I'll assume that the 'cretin' charge is aimed at me. Turnabout being fair play, shall we get the ball rolling you bloody handed, sclerotic wanker?

There is no, zero, nada, evidence of socialism reliably promoting the economy at any level. Dead cats do bounce, stopped clocks are right twice a day, and the occasional advance has come out of a socialist system despite the handicaps but "promote the economy" isn't something that socialism does. Serious people haven't said this sort of thing for decades.

You're either mislabeling something else productive as socialism or living in an idealized past where people actually thought that socialism might work as an improvement in economic productivity/efficiency.

Your comments on industrial-revolution britain are so ignorant as to beggar belief. People flocked to those miserable, dangerous factory jobs because the alternative wasn't some idyllic country estate, it was grinding rural poverty that chewed up people even faster with less hope of escape. They still do in countries just industrializing. That's why those "sweatshop" jobs keep moving around. Countries "graduate" from Nike et al and so the firms move on to the next country that's just emerging from bad governance.

There are certain business models that work at certain stages of development (see: Nike) and then cease to work. Then there's socialism which never works. The only variable is how long until failure.

[Lazerus]

As opposed to our hospital system, where patiants are routly operated on by generalist who have had a 5min breifing on this procedure instead of a specialist, because the general doctor dosn't want to split the profits?

Oh really? Source citation please?

I work in a hospital, Neuroradiology department. Neurosurgery (the most general branch of brain surgery) routinly gets patiants who need specialized care. And what they invariably do, rather then split the profits, is simply say "We arn't giving you a cut of what we get for this patiant. You can either do nothing, and they'll die, or you can operate on them for free. I don't care either way."

Sometimes Neuroradiology operates, and sometimes the patiant dies.

[Lazerus]

Since I was the one that asked about the "safe dose" of socialism, I'll assume that the 'cretin' charge is aimed at me. Turnabout being fair play, shall we get the ball rolling you bloody handed, sclerotic wanker?

That's the spirit you soulless brain dead ignoramus.

There is no, zero, nada, evidence of socialism reliably promoting the economy at any level. Dead cats do bounce, stopped clocks are right twice a day, and the occasional advance has come out of a socialist system despite the handicaps but "promote the economy" isn't something that socialism does. Serious people haven't said this sort of thing for decades.

FDR and the new deal.

Your comments on industrial-revolution britain are so ignorant as to beggar belief. People flocked to those miserable, dangerous factory jobs because the alternative wasn't some idyllic country estate, it was grinding rural poverty that chewed up people even faster with less hope of escape. They still do in countries just industrializing. That's why those "sweatshop" jobs keep moving around. Countries "graduate" from Nike et al and so the firms move on to the next country that's just emerging from bad governance.

So because the alternative for the workers is worse in that one system, factory owners effectivly murdering kids in their plants is okay in general?

[The JAM]

And if anyone else still thinks that socialism works, take a little trip to Cuba. They need your money badly, but bring your own toilet paper.
A friend of the family visited Cuba a few years back, and she said that there is no toilet paper there, not even at the Havana Airport.
Want a luxury drink? Try to buy milk there.

[Canis_lupus]

It's a hard lesson from Confusius, but it's true.

"No matter where you are in life, you are exactly where you want to be."

Sometimes I like what Confucius says. Other times I get a headache from trying to figure out how he could possibly believe what he said.

Am I where I want to be? I seem to be getting there, but no, I am not exactly there. And Confucius must never have envisioned racial slavery or even the Hindu caste system.

I think its trying to say that if you didnt work to change something bad you didnt want it bad enough, or something along those line. But thats just my interpretation.

[Lazerus]

And if anyone else still thinks that socialism works, take a little trip to Cuba. They need your money badly, but bring your own toilet paper.
A friend of the family visited Cuba a few years back, and she said that there is no toilet paper there, not even at the Havana Airport.
Want a luxury drink? Try to buy milk there.

That's communist. Then again, you might want to spend more time there. Only with socialized medicine could you afford to have your head surgicly removed from your ass.

[Madmoonie]

Lazerus, stop trolling. You could argue your postion with respect for others but instead you refuse, instead realying of profanity and insulting the other forum members. You are deliberitly trying to infuriate people and cause flaming. Stop it.

[BrockthePaine]

As opposed to our hospital system, where patiants are routly operated on by generalist who have had a 5min breifing on this procedure instead of a specialist, because the general doctor dosn't want to split the profits?

Oh really? Source citation please?

I work in a hospital, Neuroradiology department. Neurosurgery (the most general branch of brain surgery) routinly gets patiants who need specialized care. And what they invariably do, rather then split the profits, is simply say "We arn't giving you a cut of what we get for this patiant. You can either do nothing, and they'll die, or you can operate on them for free. I don't care either way."

Sometimes Neuroradiology operates, and sometimes the patiant dies.

Okay... so I don't see where socialized medicine fits into this picture.

What hospital is this? Shouldn't it be reported?

[Canis_lupus]

That's communist. Then again, you might want to spend more time there. Only with socialized medicine could you afford to have your head surgicly removed from your ass.

Ahh trolls, Ive missed you since i stoped going on the World of Warcraft forums. Not to worry, mommy will make them go to bed soon enough.

[Lazerus]

Lazerus, stop trolling. You could argue your postion with respect for others but instead you refuse, instead realying of profanity and insulting the other forum members. You are deliberitly trying to infuriate people and cause flaming. Stop it.

But....I don't respect them. But very well, I'll stop going out of my way to flame.

Okay... so I don't see where socialized medicine fits into this picture.

What hospital is this? Shouldn't it be reported?

No, what their doing isn't illegal.

[Axelgear]

Lazerus, whether you respect people or not, you must treat them with such because:

A. It's in the forum's rules.
B. If you don't, it degrades to childish name-calling.
C. It destroys your point. If your point leads to close-mindedness then people won't listen to it.

It should be noted that Cuba is a bit of an irrational communist country, as is any nation that adopts Communism. Communism requires all people have a say, but to regulate itself, a nation must have a large centralized government body that has total control, which is contrary to Communism, and is in fact a Dictatorship.

And as to why Cuba has no milk or toilet paper, it could be that nasty little trade embargo that's been on them for the better part of a few decades.

It should also be noted that Socialism is, in fact, the only way to raise the workers to a middle class. Not entire socialism, mind you, just Unions are necessary. If you will recall, workers were generally controlled and dominated by corporations because they were the only large source of income. Unions changed that, and it was only through the unity of people, and not the single-minded self perseverence so many say is the ultimate form of existance. While Unions allow all, lazy and hard working, to get the same end result, when mixed with the system we have today, people who're hard working can still advance. The fact is, however, without the socialist unions, there would be no chance for even the best workers to advance without management consent. Now, fairness and equality are the rules of the day thanks to socialist guidance. You can probably only trace the true democracy we even have today to socialist ideals.

So, Lazerus, please, respond to this in a dignified way to disprove this, I'm willing to listen.

[Lazerus]

Lazerus, whether you respect people or not, you must treat them with such because:

A. It's in the forum's rules.
B. If you don't, it degrades to childish name-calling.
C. It destroys your point. If your point leads to close-mindedness then people won't listen to it.

It should be noted that Cuba is a bit of an irrational communist country, as is any nation that adopts Communism. Communism requires all people have a say, but to regulate itself, a nation must have a large centralized government body that has total control, which is contrary to Communism, and is in fact a Dictatorship.

And as to why Cuba has no milk or toilet paper, it could be that nasty little trade embargo that's been on them for the better part of a few decades.

It should also be noted that Socialism is, in fact, the only way to raise the workers to a middle class. Not entire socialism, mind you, just Unions are necessary. If you will recall, workers were generally controlled and dominated by corporations because they were the only large source of income. Unions changed that, and it was only through the unity of people, and not the single-minded self perseverence so many say is the ultimate form of existance. While Unions allow all, lazy and hard working, to get the same end result, when mixed with the system we have today, people who're hard working can still advance. The fact is, however, without the socialist unions, there would be no chance for even the best workers to advance without management consent. Now, fairness and equality are the rules of the day thanks to socialist guidance. You can probably only trace the true democracy we even have today to socialist ideals.

So, Lazerus, please, respond to this in a dignified way to disprove this, I'm willing to listen.

My apologies, I'm more used to forums where such name calling is common place and pretty much ignored. (If I respected your opinion, I woudln't be disagreeing with it, now would I?)

And to a large extent, that's true. Many of our problems in the medical industry, to use the example I have the most experiance with, origionate from the fact that hospitals are not allowed to unionize. It is illegal for hospitals to band together a collectivly negotiate with the drug producers. A union would go far towards helping this industry and the workers in it, as is the case for most buisnesses.

The problem comes in two places.

First, Unions can cause inefficency just as much, or worse, then socialism can. For example, during the Ship&Dockworker strikes a few decades ago, there were cases where docks kept full manual-load teams on hand despite the fact that they loaded approximitly zero ships manually. Now, I admit that socialism can have it's own share of such stupidities, I hate beurocrats as much as anyone else, but as long as the system is structured to avoid that (the government must do as little as possible), socialism seems to be the lesser or two evils.

Second, Unions can't form in industries where the labor is essentialy disposable. There are a fair number of industries where the managemnts responce to a Union would be "Okay, your all fired." And that gets ugly, few things are worse for the economy then union violence. These industries workers need some very basic level of protection (minimum wage), and their kids need a bit of a leg up so they have a chance to work their way out of the lower classes (public schooling).

[TMLutas]

There is no, zero, nada, evidence of socialism reliably promoting the economy at any level. Dead cats do bounce, stopped clocks are right twice a day, and the occasional advance has come out of a socialist system despite the handicaps but "promote the economy" isn't something that socialism does. Serious people haven't said this sort of thing for decades.

FDR and the new deal.

And there we go. FDR's interventions very likely lengthened the depression. This is consensus economics nowadays. The current liberal line isn't that FDR's New Deal ended the depression (WW II did that) but that "he got us through" it. It's as I thought, you just have no clue and are stuck in the 1970s at best.

We have to unwind all of the New Deal and replace it with systems that solve the same problems but are lifetime sustainable. If we don't we're going to go broke because of those New Deal programs. That soft socialism takes longer to bankrupt the nation than the hard varieties is no news flash.

Your comments on industrial-revolution britain are so ignorant as to beggar belief. People flocked to those miserable, dangerous factory jobs because the alternative wasn't some idyllic country estate, it was grinding rural poverty that chewed up people even faster with less hope of escape. They still do in countries just industrializing. That's why those "sweatshop" jobs keep moving around. Countries "graduate" from Nike et al and so the firms move on to the next country that's just emerging from bad governance.

So because the alternative for the workers is worse in that one system, factory owners effectivly murdering kids in their plants is okay in general?

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.

[TMLutas]

As opposed to our hospital system, where patiants are routly operated on by generalist who have had a 5min breifing on this procedure instead of a specialist, because the general doctor dosn't want to split the profits?

Oh really? Source citation please?

I work in a hospital, Neuroradiology department. Neurosurgery (the most general branch of brain surgery) routinly gets patiants who need specialized care. And what they invariably do, rather then split the profits, is simply say "We arn't giving you a cut of what we get for this patiant. You can either do nothing, and they'll die, or you can operate on them for free. I don't care either way."

Sometimes Neuroradiology operates, and sometimes the patiant dies.

Okay... so I don't see where socialized medicine fits into this picture.

What hospital is this? Shouldn't it be reported?

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!

[TMLutas]

And to a large extent, that's true. Many of our problems in the medical industry, to use the example I have the most experiance with, origionate from the fact that hospitals are not allowed to unionize. It is illegal for hospitals to band together a collectivly negotiate with the drug producers. A union would go far towards helping this industry and the workers in it, as is the case for most buisnesses.

The problem comes in two places.

First, Unions can cause inefficency just as much, or worse, then socialism can. For example, during the Ship&Dockworker strikes a few decades ago, there were cases where docks kept full manual-load teams on hand despite the fact that they loaded approximitly zero ships manually. Now, I admit that socialism can have it's own share of such stupidities, I hate beurocrats as much as anyone else, but as long as the system is structured to avoid that (the government must do as little as possible), socialism seems to be the lesser or two evils.

Second, Unions can't form in industries where the labor is essentialy disposable. There are a fair number of industries where the managemnts responce to a Union would be "Okay, your all fired." And that gets ugly, few things are worse for the economy then union violence. These industries workers need some very basic level of protection (minimum wage), and their kids need a bit of a leg up so they have a chance to work their way out of the lower classes (public schooling).

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.

[Deckard Canine]

For the record, I would not entrust any medical procedure to an English-speaking professional who consistently misspelled "patient."

[Lazerus]

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.

[Canis_lupus]

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.

This was true many years, and can be seen if you have ever read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. If these types of working enviorments still exist today is beyond my knowledge but would not be too suprising.

[Kerry Skydancer]

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.

This is a variation of the Genius Syndrome fallacy. No, docs are not stupid about medical matters. This does not translate to any requirement to have the slightest clue about management/standing up to bureaucrats/greedy shareholders/HMO's.

The world is full of people who are brilliant in their own field and utterly clueless anywhere outside it. Even moderately bright generalists are far rarer than one-horse geniuses.