In this article, let’s consider healthcare in America.  So many people are against socialized medicine being started in this country that it seems unlikely that we will ever see it.  Yet we should not confuse socialized medicine with socialism that we see in other countries.  Although some are democratic nations, I think that many see socialism and think of communism.  I would be against that method of government.

At the internet link, ‘www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/ socialism-vs-communism/’ this organization gives us the following information.  “Both socialism and communism place value on creating a more equal society and removal of class privilege. The main difference is that socialism is compatible with democracy and liberty, whereas Communism involves creating an “equal society” through an authoritarian state, which denies basic liberties.

Democratic socialism in the west involves participating in democracy to seek an incremental reduction in inequality.  It implies a mixture of public sector intervention and private enterprise.

Communism is a political and economic ideology – closely associated with the state Communism of the Soviet Union and China. It aimed at state control of the economy to attain greater equality – often at the expense of individual liberty.

When we think of socialized medicine as bad, we may be thinking of communism which is corrupt.  When we discuss communism, yes, it is trying to make an equal society for its citizens, but the top government officials, and I am sure other leaders, are not affected in the same way.  Everyone is equal no matter how hard or little they work, except those at the top.  As this type of government is implemented, or any other authoritarian type of leadership, the people’s liberty is eroded.  Their voice no longer exists as it does in this country.

Why am I mentioning this currently?  I recently heard of someone who went into a hospital with two critical problems.  Both required a lengthy stay to make sure the problems they had were healed or managed by the facility.  As many of us have experienced, hospitals are not places you go to rest and relax.  These visits are trying on both our health and psyche.  Taking care of these complications is number one on the list of necessary requirements, but getting the patient home to heal is the next step.

So, are any of these institutions really acting on these requirements?  The first step should be corrected as quickly as possible.  This is part of the Hippocratic oath.  But what about the second item on the list?  How quickly are they working to get the patient out of the hospital?  Released, headed home, to where they can actually complete their healing?  Are the institutions trying their best with this?

Let us remember that our country is a capitalist society.  So, most institutions, such as hospitals and others, are for-profit organizations.  Why?  When we invest in them, we need to see a return on that investment.  Some of you might be thinking that the patients that visit the hospitals and/or their insurance companies, by paying for services, provide the necessary profits to keep them running.  Yes, in part, you are correct.  There are, however, many more factors involved.

The initial construction, equipment and installation, staffing, etc., all require money up front.  New equipment, more staff, additional wings, etc. require additional funds.  Patients and their insurance companies will not cover all the bills.  This up-front money, and additional investment must be found somewhere.  When it is a large facility, large investors are needed.  These investors, unlike you and I, require large returns on their investments or they do not invest.

Patients, insurance companies, facility organizations, and the federal, state, and local governments all contribute in numerous ways.  All these ways, however, involve us as citizens.  When it comes to the patient and what they are charged, what do you think might be a method to bill more for the services?  Let us get back to that someone I talked about before having the two problems and being one of these patients.

One of this person’s problems had been corrected and was going to be followed up on after they were discharged.  The other had been managed but by an unlucky break, mostly due to the lack of communication with staff at the hospital, may not have been properly dealt with if the patient were discharged.  The hospital was going to keep this patient another two days, after already being hospitalized 10 days, to make sure the ball would not be dropped following discharge.  The hospital would be able to charge for those two days without anything needing to be done during that time.

To make investors happy, companies and institutions must, at times, cut costs.  Employees, service, bookwork, whatever they have to.  In this scenario, it was service.  With no communication, the patient is left wondering what is going on.  Now they must take over their own advocacy.  Although the work must be done by the staff at the hospital, the patient must make sure the proper avenues are taken to ensure they are not kept as a guest for an additional two days.  With socialized medicine, this would not happen.  Instead of trying to make enough to ensure investors, and others, are happy, they would be required to go the extra mile to release the patient when the time arose, so the charges were minimized.

The someone I have referred to did take what should have been an unnecessary step to steer the staff towards the appropriate conclusion.  The facility finally and properly dealt with the management of the second problem and the patient was discharged as required.  Should this have been necessary?