Why the ' Invisble Hand ' does not always work..

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

It has been said that if Socialism ever came to the USA, there would be starvation, rioting in the streets, and the whole fabric of society would collapse. People would literally die as a result of policies.

Well, lets be honest, Americans have been dying of US government policies for a long time now.

Americans died as a result of the wars in Vietnam , Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Americans are dying as a result of the fact that many US citizens are tried for murder and end up on Death Row. Americans die, on average, at a significantly younger ge than people do in Sweden. Oh, and more babies per 1,000 die in America than in 31 other countries.
Fact: a baby has a better chance of reaching the age of 1, and the age of 5 in many European countries than a baby born in the USA. So much for the 'Free Market' saving lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

Now, why is this, you may ask? I mean, the USA is the one nation in the developed world where there is no National Health programme. Is this a good thing or not? Let me explain something to you that you might have missed...

Currently, in the UK, there are around 2 deaths a week on average due to women being attacked by their partners or ex partners. So, you may think that there is a real need for hostels, refuges, where women can go seeking shelter and safety. Although volunteers have opened up refuges, there are few places. there are even fewer places for boys between the ages of 14 and 17. None at all for young men aged 17 and over.Now why?

Is it because these people lack the purchasing power?

I think this one question lays bare the impotence of the Free Market in tackling social problems. Sure, if you happen to be a celebrity, a place like The Priory Clinic will take you in and detox you and help you cure your alcoholism. But if you are GI Joe, just come back from a tour of duty in 'Nam or Iraq, and you are having recurring nightmares due to having seen your buddies literally blown to bits right in front of you - well, there is not much help for you and ~your~ drinking problem.

See , when I was young , I read this book by a guy named Adam Smith, who was talking about how governments didn't need to legislate so much, because if people wanted something, the market would supply it - the market, if allowed to operate freely, was like an 'invisible hand', that would solve all people's problems.

And to ~some~ extent this is true. If you have money, and can buy what you want, someone out there will try to meet that need to make a profit. But suppose you are dirt poor? I veture to suggest that , far from falling over themselves to develop a solution to your problems , the free market will not give a damn.

Let's be honest, in the USA , men of a certain age caan get Viagra, no trouble.
But a woman who wants the pill - sometimes on prescription b/coz her physician has prescribed it to cure a hormonal imbalance that causes heavy and painful periods for instance - well, some self appointed guardian of public morals can refuse to let her have her medication because he is a pharmacist who opposes contraception on religious grounds. And, if he happens to be the only Pharmacist in a small , one horse town , what use is this 'invisble hand then?

JK Rowling is the world famous Author of the Harry Potter books.A self made millionairess. yet, she says, she will never vote Conservative or become a tax Exile.
She says that it was the safety net of Social Security that enabled her to survive when times were hard, and now that she can afford to, she has no problem with paying taxes to help women who are struggling now.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7096786.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

This, to me, is the reason we need socialist policies in some areas.i dunno about the government buying up businesses like the phone system , or steel production - that sort of thing is best done by the private sector, I believe. but education, housing, healthcare - the government has a role here, and governments that can find a way to deliver these services well are doing a great job.

Americans ought to get real, there are lots of counties where the State is handling a lot of stuff, and people are having better outcomes than US citizens as a result. so, to any and all who suggest the Free market as a cure all, I suggest they stick the 'Invisble Hand' of Adam Smith somewhere that the sun don't shine.

Comments

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

I don't see how this effects my point in the slightest. All you are saying is that the US has more effective and pervasive screening for cancers. Hardly a stinging indictment of the system.

[omnot.livejournal.com]

No, not a condemnation, but the fact that the disparity in rates can be explained by a difference that contributes little to recovery rates of people who are actually ailing means that the the data does not support the assertion that the USA is better at curing cancer than are places with socialised health care systems.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Is early detection and treatment an important part of treating cancer, or not?

[omnot.livejournal.com]

It is. And Australia has early detection programs, too. And please feel free to provide evidence that we are not better at it.

If I did get prostate cancer (though I am certain I never will), I'd rather be in the Australian healthcare system, thanks.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the information that you brought to this discussion.

I am sorry to hear that some Americans " don't buy it" when confronted with the facts.
Sorry, but not the least bit suprised.

I am sure I came across a link on Wiki, supplied by someone else, that showed the USA , and the UK, and some other countries like Germany all use the same system to measure IMRs.
but no - the Americans still cite the ' fact ' that only they count prematures as live births, and that explains their failure to match the Brits and the Aussies.

if you can turn up this link as weel, i would be most grateful.

But good on you, cobbber, for coming up with this!

Erm... this?

[omnot.livejournal.com]

Infant Mortality in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality#United_States) has the following passage:

"...in 2009, the US CDC issued a report which stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries and which outlines the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation.[6][9][10] However, the report also concludes that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking.[10]"

I did not follow the cited links as it's late and I'm tired. Good luck, though. I believe the information you are looking for is there somewhere.

Re: Erm... this?

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Thanks.
i will check this out and put it on my latest Op, already up.
good night and thanks for the stuff you mentioned earlier.

Re: Erm... this?

[omnot.livejournal.com]

No worries, mate.

And thanks for the thread.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Why don't you provide evidence you are better at it? What are the five year survival rates for prostate cancer in Australia? In the US it is nearly 100%, in the EU, 73%.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

I thiink someone has said its about 70% in Sweden and in the US.
"nearly 100%" is ok if u want to use a very loose definition of 'nearly'.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

nearly a hundred percent?

I don't think so...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

For prostate cancer?

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_are_the_key_statistics_for_prostate_cancer_36.asp

The Money Quote:

According to the most recent data, for all men with prostate cancer, the relative 5-year survival rate is nearly100% and the relative 10-year survival rate is 91%. The 15-year relative survival rate is 76%.

That is the ACS, which has no interest in inflating survival rates.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Did you mention what sort when you put the claim up?
Even so, for all types the Us has a slight lead over Australia, which is also very high.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Gosh, is it that hard to read my comments before your knee jerks?

[omnot.livejournal.com]

Australia's rate is 87%. And testing and treatment are free to any who cannot reasonably afford it.

I've said it before and I will say it again: the reason that the percentage survival rate is so high in countries that routinely screen for prostate cancer in the vulnerable population is because they identify such a large number of sub-clinical cases which do not require treatment, and would never have become symptomatic within the life span of the guy who has it, so would not have been noticed sans screening.

In places where such screening is not carried out, those cases do not artificially inflate the statistics.

Far more salient to the argument are questions about the number of cases of prostate cancer which require treatment compared with countries which do not routinely screen, and the success of actual treated cases.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

The US does much more cancer screening in general, routine screens are catching many more cancers at very early, treatable stages. Just so we're clear: More routine screenings for cancer is no indication of quality health care, it is just a statistical glitch we can safely ignore when judging a country's health care system. Just so we're double clear: Lower survival rates for some cancers is really a indication of a better cancer treatment system.

OK. If you say so.