The Experts below are selected from a list of 222 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Soren Holm - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Miguel A. Faria - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • obamacare another step toward corporate Socialized Medicine in the us
    Surgical Neurology International, 2012
    Co-Authors: Miguel A. Faria
    Abstract:

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010), more commonly referred to as ObamaCare, has become one of the most controversial pieces of legislation passed by the Democrat-controlled, 111th U.S. Congress during President Obama's administration. Despite significant political opposition and poll-after-poll evincing the American people's strong dissatisfaction with a health care plan that was correctly seen as further socializing American Medicine, ObamaCare [Figure 1] was passed by the two houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by the president on March 23, 2010. Figure 1 U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House, flanked by activist physicians, expounding on ObamaCare (expansion of corporate Socialized Medicine in the U.S.) One stated goal of the plan is ostensibly to “expand access to insurance for nearly 30 million Americans.” And to accomplish this “reform,” the Obama administration has introduced the elements of compulsion — and more ominously, unconstitutional powers. To increase access to insurance for 30 million uninsured Americans, ObamaCare forces insurance companies and managed care plans to extend coverage to people with pre-existing conditions; in effect, converting conventional rules of indemnity coverage (i.e., coverage for unforeseen medical illnesses and injuries) into prepayment for chronic medical care. But perhaps the most egregious section of ObamaCare is to force uninsured Americans to purchase medical insurance. Noncompliance with this “reform” will trigger heavy fines imposed by the federal government as a penalty. This is referred to as the health insurance mandate, and it is quite different from National Health Insurance as in Canada,[2,3,11] National Health Service as in Great Britain,[6] or Socialized Medicine in France, Germany, and Japan.[12,16] Thus, I make a relative distinction between the Obama administration's plan for health care as corporate Socialized Medicine (i.e., public-private, corporativist partnerships) and the fully Socialized Medicine as in most European countries.[7–10] The price of Socialized Medicine in every country in which it has been implemented is the usurpation of liberty, the erosion of individual autonomy, the gradual loss of the freedom to choose – working in parallel with the rationing of medical services and technology because the raison d’etre of socialism is to control the population by depriving the people of freedom and keeping them subservient and dependent on the State. The free enterprise system in the United States has traditionally relied on free choice in a free market place, whether we are talking about buying a home, an automobile, computers – or medical care. Government compulsion and social engineering are not well received by free marketeers and individualists in our society. Small steps, incremental “reforms,” have taken place in American Medicine via increased rules and regulations regarding utilization and rationing of services, coverage, payments to physicians, etc. But further large-scale attempts to socialize American Medicine have been repeatedly defeated since 1965, when Medicare (i.e., health care for the elderly) and Medicaid (i.e., health care for the indigent) were instituted.[4,5,9] A good example of this rejection of Socialized Medicine was the failed attempt by President Bill Clinton to revamp the U.S. health care system in 1993–1994. The Health Security Act of 1993 was a grandiose effort to further Socialized American Medicine in a corporativist direction,[8–10] and was dubbed “HillaryCare” because the effort was led by former First Lady Hillary Clinton [Figure 2], who serves today as President Barack Obama's Secretary of State. Figure 2 Hillary Rodham Clinton during the health care debate of 1993

  • Free Medicine or Socialized Medicine?
    Hacidena Publishing, 2011
    Co-Authors: Miguel A. Faria
    Abstract:

    In a recent column, Jack Bernard, a self-described “Republican” retired health care executive, was “disconcerted by the ideological free market rigidity” of Republican presidential candidates as it regards health care. The retired “Republican” executive, among other things, decried Rep. Michele Bachmann’s alleged tarring of ObamaCare as a “Socialized Medicine plot.” His solution is simply “to copy the health care of other developed (Socialized) nations” and use more “regulatory authority to cover everyone and hold down costs.” He attributes the problems of health care to the free market. He should know better. Today’s medical care is largely under managed care, already highly regulated under a collectivist ethic, whose raison d’etre is to contain costs, enlarge the coffers of the managed care entities — and the individual patient be damned. And as far as Medicare, we were forced to contribute; as to the VA, the veterans also prepaid with their service, blood and lives. If we had a truly free market in medical care, unfettered economics would have decreased cost via competition as well as increased access, either privately or through charity, as it had done prior to World War II. Beginning with the exemption of insurance companies from anti-trust laws and the tying of health care to place of employment; the inception of Medicare and Medicaid, which like it or not are (and will) remain in place; the Nixon-Kennedy cooperation (1973) in establishing HMOs as state policy with tax breaks (that did not reach fruition until the 1990s) -- all attest to the fact that we only have a partially free market in medical care. Nevertheless, it is still the best system in the world. ObamaCare (2011), another attempt at HillaryCare (1993), is one more giant step toward the implementation of even greater government involvement in the medical marketplace and magnification of government regulatory authority — all at the expense of sacrificing individual patient care and what remains of the patient-doctor relationship. This new version, ObamaCare, prominently includes compulsion and fines to make all Americans submit to a public-private system, managed care in cahoots with government — in which health care executives make a good living, while having a captive population with less and less freedom to choose. Once in place, rationing then would become more and more commonplace, as in the other “developed countries,” such as Canada and the United Kingdom. The managed care executives in cahoots with government bureaucrats both win because rationed care means more profits in the coffers of the managed care entities and in the pockets of the managed care CEOs. The government wins because it can then claim it has reduced costs and achieved universal coverage. The doctor and the patients lose because of the loss of the autonomy of the former and the loss of choice in the latter. ObamaCare, like HillaryCare, creates another unholy partnership of corporate entities with government bureaucrats setting compulsory public policy at the expense of the captive patient population. Ludwig von Mises, the Austrian economist, referred to this relationship as corporatism. I call it Corporate Socialized Medicine. The direction in which we are headed is leading us relentlessly toward the destruction of still the best medical care system in the world for the higher purpose of the state forging another keystone in the arch of compulsory socialism, ObamaCare. Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D. is a retired Mercer professor and neurosurgeon living in Macon. This commentary was published in The Macon Telegraph on September 22, 2011. Copyright ©2011 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.

Dov Chernichovsky - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • not Socialized Medicine an israeli view of health care reform
    The New England Journal of Medicine, 2009
    Co-Authors: Dov Chernichovsky
    Abstract:

    In 2007, the United States spent about 15% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care, whereas Israel's health care spending was about 8% of its GDP (see graph, Panel A). In other words, on average, Americans work almost 2 months a year to pay their medical bills — nearly twice as long as the average Israeli does. Reflecting higher U.S. earnings and incomes, as well as the U.S. population's older average age, these figures translate into per capita U.S. spending (standardized for age) amounting to more than three times that of Israel — over $6,000 versus nearly $2,000 . . .

  • Not “Socialized Medicine” — An Israeli View of Health Care Reform
    The New England Journal of Medicine, 2009
    Co-Authors: Dov Chernichovsky
    Abstract:

    In 2007, the United States spent about 15% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care, whereas Israel's health care spending was about 8% of its GDP (see graph, Panel A). In other words, on average, Americans work almost 2 months a year to pay their medical bills — nearly twice as long as the average Israeli does. Reflecting higher U.S. earnings and incomes, as well as the U.S. population's older average age, these figures translate into per capita U.S. spending (standardized for age) amounting to more than three times that of Israel — over $6,000 versus nearly $2,000 . . .

Kate Schecter - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Politics of Health Care in Russia: The Feminization of Medicine and Other Obstacles to Professionalism
    Russia’s Torn Safety Nets, 2020
    Co-Authors: Kate Schecter
    Abstract:

    In the current economic turmoil embroiling Russia, the health care system is in a particularly precarious position. Physicians have not been able to improve their financial or professional standing. This chapter will examine the underlying causes of the professional predicament that Russian physicians face. Numerous forces are holding physicians back from developing an autonomous political voice to advocate for their profession.1 The legacy of Soviet Socialized Medicine and the feminization of the medical field are important contributing factors. More recent impediments to professionalism such as lack of institutional capacity and economic resources to support reforms are also contributing to the problem.

  • soviet Socialized Medicine and the right to health care in a changing soviet union
    Human Rights Quarterly, 1992
    Co-Authors: Kate Schecter
    Abstract:

    The perception of health care as a basic human right is a relatively recent development, and the concept of the state providing free comprehensive health care to all its citizens is new to this century. In fact, in the West, and in the United States in particular, while trends towards egalitarianism, social mobility, equity in health and education, and numerous other rights for individuals developed in the twentieth century, the profession of Medicine remained strongly rooted in the traditional hierarchical structure of the nineteenth century. Part of the reason that Medicine did not easily change to accommodate the new welfare ethics of the twentieth century is connected to the nature of the profession.2 Medicine was and to a large extent remains an inegalitarian, prestigious field in the West, and especially in the United States. Not only was it difficult to become a doctor3 and to be accepted into the exclusive male upper class domain of nineteenth century Medicine, but doctors usually treated only a wealthy clientele. The profession of Medicine was an anachronism in the Western movement towards democracy. Even though, by nature, Medicine is a healing profession with a code of ethics, it was slow to adopt the ideology

Jonathan Oberlander - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.