• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Spain and Ireland Nationalize Their Hospital Systems in Response to COVID-19

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It's a little like charter schools. When you get to hand-pick who you'll serve and who you won't, hey, what do you know, you look great in comparison to institutions serving, you know, the public.

It's not already being done. We don't
need private hospitals' charity of excess supply donations. We need them to serve the general public.

Where exactly has the government sector out-performed a privatized sector either in the product, the efficiency of resource use or whatever other metric you'd like to use? Governments are historically bad at doing anything but pushing the money around... They should leave the problems to the pros... The pros, BTW, aren't working in public facilities because of the lower pay... So, in the USA at least, the best doctors are in the privatized systems. In fact, our system is so rewarding for them that people from all the other countries with the nationalized/socialized healthcare LEAVE and work here. :D
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
It means bringing private hospitals under the same regulation and administration as public hospitals, which includes the patients they accept and the amounts they charge for care provided. It would create capacity in the public hospital system which can become quickly overloaded by the poor and uninsured who can't afford to go elsewhere for care.

Sooo...this crisis, to you, is just another opportunity to inflict a Socialist agenda on those you disagree with?
 

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Sooo...this crisis, to you, is just another opportunity to inflict a Socialist agenda on those you disagree with?

Always, while simultaneously ignoring all of the aspects of socialism that exacerbate the problems and that are well documented. The places that are facing the most trouble in the USA are basically all of the liberal hell-holes.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Where exactly has the government sector out-performed a privatized sector either in the product, the efficiency of resource use or whatever other metric you'd like to use?

Literally in healthcare, specifically health insurance. See the comparison between US and other countries' healthcare costs and outcomes.

Governments are historically bad at doing anything but pushing the money around... They should leave the problems to the pros... The pros, BTW, aren't working in public facilities because of the lower pay... So, in the USA at least, the best doctors are in the privatized systems. In fact, our system is so rewarding for them that people from all the other countries with the nationalized/socialized healthcare LEAVE and work here. :D

Yes, greed is a powerful motivator. Not one that helps society broadly, but it helps them personally. Tell me more about how greed is good, Ms. Rand.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Sooo...this crisis, to you, is just another opportunity to inflict a Socialist agenda on those you disagree with?

Sooo...this thread, to you, is just another opportunity to troll without actually engaging in substantive discussion of the merits of the idea?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Why would you want the government taking over any hospitals? I didn't think you like the federal government these days.

Sure, then Trump can insist on his portrait being hung in every hospital admittance area so folks will know whom to thank for their health care. :D
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Spain and Ireland have both made all private hospitals in their countries public for the duration of the coronavirus crisis.

Spain has nationalized all of its private hospitals as the country goes into coronavirus lockdown

Private hospitals will be made public for duration of coronavirus pandemic

Other countries, my own included, would be wise to follow suit. Sadly, my federal government's denialist, profit-driven approach makes it unlikely we will.

During Monday’s White House briefing, the president offered another reason for not activating the DPA, suggesting that doing so would be socialist. :eek:

White House officials push back on calls to activate DPA for critical medical supplies
 

Shad

Veteran Member
If you want to discuss this with me, first become informed. Otherwise, you're just wasting my time.

POTUS does not have the authority to seize private businesses. If you disagree provide evidence POTUS can. Congress can.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
He can per executive order.

No he can't.

He even has experience with Eminent Domain seizing land for his wall.

Which is land nor private business. There is a compensation clause too.

And his powers go even further during a state of emergency.

None of which can nationalize private business.

And if he doesn't do it, governors have similar power in their states.

POTUS does not have that power.
 

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Yes, greed is a powerful motivator. Not one that helps society broadly, but it helps them personally. Tell me more about how greed is good, Ms. Rand.

It's not just greed that drives that situation, but also opportunity. If you work at a high end medical facility you're getting better pay, but you're also getting better tech to use for treatment, access to better drugs, and so on. The best doctors are making the best money, but they're doing it for the right reasons -- namely, they're worth it.

And, who isn't greedy? That's like saying you're bad because you breathe. Let's face it when there is a limited set of resources and people are competing for them it's never equal access -- some are more talented or clever and get a lead on the plebs. :D

Anyway, I can basically tell someone's income by how they view money. If they think the government should give people more things they're bums or nearly broke, if they don't want the government to give the handouts it's because they have no need of them. I'm guessing if we add $100k to your paycheck your religion would change too -- would you be greedy that you kept that extra money, or just more skilled and thus worth the extra reward that society decided you were worth? :D I love this pandering for donations and freebies when you have nothing to give yourself, but certainly everyone else should pony up for your rent-free ideas. That's the irony of the whole thing... The only people who want socialism are broke.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Shad was suggesting nationalizing hospitals would take lawmaking powers the President doesn't have, but from a temporary perspective the Act should enable him to do what is best for the country.

No as the Act does not provide change of ownership. Congress could by making private insurance illegal or restricted while rolling out a single-payer plan. This renders the private industry unable to function within a legal scope. The Act can force business into business deals, fulfill orders for defense, control of hoarding and gouging, funding, loans, and direct priorities. It does not enable government to seize ownership of any business at will
 
Last edited:

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
No as the Act does not provide change of ownership. Congress could by making private insurance illegal or restricted while rolling out a single-payer plan. The Act can force business into business deals, fulfill orders for defense, control of hoarding and gouging and direct priorities. It does not enable government to seize ownership of any business at will

Yes, but it does direct the President to be able to temporarily control the business, amounting to a nationalization of the industry for a short period.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
He can per executive order. He even has experience with Eminent Domain seizing land for his wall. And his powers go even further during a state of emergency.
And if he doesn't do it, governors have similar power in their states.


Executive orders only pertain to the areas of the government controlled by the Executive Branch.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Yes, but it does direct the President to be able to temporarily control the business, amounting to a nationalization of the industry for a short period.

Nope as it provides no direct control over the business. More so forced contracts are the extreme measure in the Act. Voluntary action is primary. The Act just enables POTUS to bypass Congress in part regarding government contracts and funding.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
It's not just greed that drives that situation, but also opportunity. If you work at a high end medical facility you're getting better pay, but you're also getting better tech to use for treatment, access to better drugs, and so on. The best doctors are making the best money, but they're doing it for the right reasons -- namely, they're worth it.

That is, I'm sorry, a painfully naive assessment. Many physicians work in communities and for facilities that pay less because they believe in the mission of those agencies, which is to serve the public rather than only those who can afford it. Different specialities also make more than others. But you're not going to convince me, or anyone who actually knows what they're talking about, that primary care is less valuable to patients than specialty care.

And, who isn't greedy? That's like saying you're bad because you breathe. Let's face it when there is a limited set of resources and people are competing for them it's never equal access -- some are more talented or clever and get a lead on the plebs. :D

Which is exactly why resources should be shared equitably. You are blindly equating wealth with moral value, as though the wealthy are wealthy purely as a function of the sweat of their brow and because they deserve it. That completely ignores the reality of how income inequality actually happens.

Anyway, I can basically tell someone's income by how they view money. If they think the government should give people more things they're bums or nearly broke, if they don't want the government to give the handouts it's because they have no need of them.

Fascinating. I'm constantly hearing right-wingers whine about rich liberal elitists, so the next time I see someone on RF doing that I'll have you explain to your compatriot that only poor people are lefties.

I'm guessing if we add $100k to your paycheck your religion would change too

Really? I think richer people tend to be more secular, not less. But you're on a roll, keep up the fact-free analysis!

-- would you be greedy that you kept that extra money, or just more skilled and thus worth the extra reward that society decided you were worth? :D I love this pandering for donations and freebies when you have nothing to give yourself, but certainly everyone else should pony up for your rent-free ideas. That's the irony of the whole thing... The only people who want socialism are broke.

If I made $100K more than I do now, I'd expect to pay plenty more in taxes, and would be fine with that. And I'd still be no where near the top 1% of income earners.

I'm not broke, honestly never have been, but keep telling yourself that.

You now need to make more than $500,000 a year to be in the 1% in America, new study shows — and that's the highest it's ever been
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
I don't know how things work elsewhere, but in my country there is no "government sector" running hospitals, it's medical and administrative staff who have been trained to do their jobs in their respective schools and universities.

I've been to, and have visited loved ones, both in public and private healthcare facilities, and in my experience really isn't much of a difference between the two.

What's definitely nice about a functioning public healthcare system, however, is to not have to pay for insuline if you're a diabetic, even moreso when you're unemployed and already struggling financially, which I was for a time.
 
Top