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

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Got any stats to back that statement up, please?

to be honest, prostate cancer hits people who are already old.
i would rather be in a country that looks after children if i am gonna be born anywhere. that way , i might live to an age where I can actually get prostsate cancer and take my chances...

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Here you go: Cancer survival rates by country (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596).

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

well, you take the USa against the european average, I notice.
but never mind. you also do better than Canada - but only for cancer.
Just lets hope that if you get born in the USa, that you live long enough to be at rsik - because the USA is way down the league when it comes to surviving the first few years as a child.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Just lets hope that if you get born in the USa, that you live long enough to be at rsik - because the USA is way down the league when it comes to surviving the first few years as a child.

Not really. The US would do fine if it measured the same way many Euro countries do. Instead, we say that a child under 30oz is born alive, for instance.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

but the UK and Us both use exactly the same system ,and we still beat you. wanna take a look at our NHS a bit closer?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I've looked closely. The UK would be wise to move to our system.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Yes, spend two and half times more than they do now and lose a couple years of life expectancy. Maybe if Thatcher came back from the grave ...

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2005/anderson_healthspending.html

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

but the UK and Us both use exactly the same system ,and we still beat you.

Big problem with Data collection I feel (though I'm yet to look at the figures) When you have people (Governments and big biz/agys in particular) there's little point in looking at the figures as they stand, it's rare all sides collect uninhibited data, and even when they do, unless it's in mathematical form, we're screwed when it comes to Billions, hell even the ONS in the UK have been guilty of using the word Billion then using it to represent the American Billion (10⁹) no good having math unless we all use the same procedures and seems even in Blighty, many are lost when it comes to the le Système international d'unités (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units), hell the only standards we seem to have (and agree on) these days are whitworths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Standard_Whitworth) and we very rarely use them either... ;)

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

er, britons like me have been using American Billions for decades.
1 billion = 1,000 million.
I do realise that we used to have a different system , but the press does not use tha these days.

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

er, britons like me have been using American Billions for decades.

Precisely, unless we all agree on the math, we're screwed.

British (seing as you are British) should be using the 10¹² Billion, NOT 10⁹ the americans use because otherwise they'd run out of fingers whilst writing the 0's :)

Remind me never to work from any measurements you give in word form :)

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

You're right that there's some fuzziness in terms of how infant mortality rates are counted. But I'd be interested in seeing data showing that the diffs. in US infant mortality rates disappear if they use the same counting methods many Euro countries do.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

At least according to this (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html), the lowball answer is that it would at least be put from the bottom to the middle, but I've seen it all over the place. The reality is that the information is too flawed to be able to tell for sure.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

the reality is that germany has the same system - the exact same system as the USA - but better outcomes in terms of IMRs.
But lets for get them, lets focus on the guys who do things different, then claim that "we in the UShave counted our premature births", and that skews the figures.

Er, germany counts it's prematures too.
it seems your argument is invalide, but if you want to cling to your preconceptions it's your choice.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

well, Germany uses the same method - exactly the same method , as the US. Al Live births, including prematures. Now go look at the difference in the fist link on my OP.

Not so fast...

[omnot.livejournal.com]

"...survival rates in Canada, Japan, Australia and Cuba were all comparable to or higher than U.S. survival rates on all types of cancer that the Lancet study examined, except for prostate cancer. Those countries all have some form of government-provided health care coverage. Prostate cancer often doesn’t require treatment, so the aggressive screening common in the U.S. turns up both early cases and cases that would never need intervention. This leads to an inflated survival rate in the U.S., where asymptomatic patients are more likely to be diagnosed."

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/cancer-rates-and-unjustified-conclusions/

Check your facts. Australia does far, far better at providing health care to its citizens than the USA.

Re: Not so fast...

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Check your facts. Australia does far, far better at providing health care to its citizens than the USA.

I'm not buying it.

Re: Not so fast...

[omnot.livejournal.com]

You don't have to buy it, but if you don't, you nullify your own arguments.

If you want to use the data from a report to support your argument that the USA is tops, you cannot dismiss that same data when it shows that Australia is doing at least as well.

Australia offers better care than the US. And it's free to any citizen who cannot afford to pay for it.

Check your facts. At the most basic level, Wikipedia isn't hard to find:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system#Cross-country_comparisons

Re: Not so fast...

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If you want to use the data from a report to support your argument that the USA is tops, you cannot dismiss that same data when it shows that Australia is doing at least as well.

I'm not dismissing it, I'm saying that I'm not convinced the data truly shows that on a whole as you're asserting.

Re: Not so fast...

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

weel , we are seeing that the USA spends far more and achieves less.

you may also want to answer the second link on my latest post that shows the UK doing better than the USA , iusing the same yardstick on IMR...

personally, I think this is brilliant, and will be adding it to my ETA on the latest OP.

However, could you do me the links on cancer cure rates - the USA leads in this field, mainly due to a policy of rigourous early screening. Every country ought to b e doing this too, and we would certainly do well to emulate American practice in this area.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

For the record: Europe has dozens of countries, many of them (like mine, Bulgaria) being the crappy shitholes that they are. I think you need to provide other sort of data.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716/cancer_statistics_080716/20080716/

The Money Quote:The U.S. has a five-year survival rate in all the cancers studied of 91.9 per cent, while Europe's is much lower at 57.1 per cent. However, survival rates within the U.S. can vary.

And from what I understand, the UK is behind even the EU.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

this is the 'apples for apples' trick.

one link wanted to compare the USA ( I country) to Europe ( a vast collection of countries, some good , some crappy when it comes to healthcare.

The fact is that some euro countries are more socialist than we are, and are doing a better job than britain in terms of healthcare.

the fact is that most developed countries have some form of Universal health Coverage - but the USA isn't one. in fact its the only one and is behind Australia, the UK, Germany and all the others in IMRs.

It does well in early detection of Prostate cancer though , but disabled war veterans and anyone being born in the Land of the Free is getting a raw deal,it seems.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Yeah, unfortunately the disparity continues even if you factor out the poorer parts of Europe. Even if you factor out the UK. France is a wash, some rates are better, some worse. Sweden is at parity in most cases. Other EU states? Not so much.

And by the way, what country could possibly have a more socialist health care system than the UK? While the UK isn't the most socialist country in Europe, but it does have the most socialized system of health care.

You keep focusing on lack of universal care, despite the fact that the actual outcomes for US citizens are often better, often pretty shockingly better.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

I think that Sweden is a much more 'Socialist' country than the UK.
And in Sweden , theere are things like Creches for workers, Parental leave - meaning that dad can opt out to help raise a child.
Seriously, they do alot of things that the Uk would scream "We can't afford to do that" , when in fact we just afforded one helluvah bailout for the banks.

In terms of reducing the appaling waste that goes on in the NHS, we could allow generic drugs,instead of brand names, we could make heroin addiction a health issue , not a criminal offence- but that's another OP - tommorrow , maybe.