Venezuela Could Nationalize Hospitals

[cal04]

Source: FABIOLA SANCHEZ

President Hugo Chavez warned Monday that his government could take over private hospitals if they continue raising prices for health care.

``Any private hospital that doesn't comply with the regulations that are made, if necessary, will have to be nationalized,'' Chavez said during a speech at the presidential palace. ``We cannot allow there to be a shameless looting using such important services as health.''

A state takeover of some private hospitals would expand Chavez's nationalization effort, which already includes electrical companies, Venezuela's largest telecom and lucrative oil projects in the Orinoco River basin. Chavez called on Cabinet ministers to study possible price controls for medical services, the same way his government set price controls on beef.

Venezuela has a two-tiered health system under which wealthier, insured patients generally can afford prompter, better treatment at private hospitals. Patients at public hospitals often must wait weeks - or sometimes months - for surgeries.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6528451,00.html

[BayCityProgressive]

1. hm

Sweden and Norway have nationalized hospitals. I wonder if by "nationalize" they mean gov. owned and run by the local community. Ideally, I think hospitals should be owned and run by the local community with an elected board by the people along with management and professionals.

[BayCityProgressive]

2. The services at Walter Reed

could sure stand to be re-nationalized..

[gorbal]

12. But they are white and Scandinavian

It's OK if they do it, just not those crazy Latin Americans (sarcasm) If THEY do it it's WRONG.

Seriously, did anyone notice the big fuss the media is making over the Latin American countries doing basically what other countries have done before? They need to stop freaking out and do some research. Going over the news on Latin America it appalls me the facts that are left out. Even John Stewart seems to have bought into it.

[Judi Lynn]

3. Operating hospitals with healing first and formost, rather than profits seems heavenly,

compared to what we've seen here.

[BayCityProgressive]

4. agreed.

That is why I am a socialist. I don't mind people having money or having private business such as nice clothing stores, hotels, and other things for your enjoyment and to spend your hard earned money on...but I think that things essential to society as a whole- healthcare, education, food, energy, basic communication ect should be nonprofit.

[redqueen]

11. Hear, hear!

It seems so logical to me... so intuitive. I wish more people would support this kind of system here.

[gorbal]

15. I haven't gone that far yet.

I think there should be different regulated democratic systems out there so people can compare and contrast what works and what doesn't and continue to improve and evolve, and I have not been completely convinced of what the definitions of socialism or capitalism are yet or whether or not they are mutually exclusive.

I keep thinking of Daniel Quinn and the fact that "There is no one way to live".

As it is I am extremely interested in what is going on in Latin America, but deem it dangerous to put all our idealistic eggs in Chavez's socialist basket, as it were. Of course, I like him so far but if he goes to far down the line of copying Castro I will be disappointed in him.

[hogwyld]

48. We need socialism here!

We absolutely need national health care, and to nationalize energy, food, and transportation. We also need to aggressivly tax those corporation and individuals with excess wealth to help the less fortunate. We need an American Chavez to save this country.

[roamer65]

5. I sense socialized medicine in Venezuela's future.

GOOD!

[RapidCreek]

6. Gosh...how horrible...a leader with a set of balls

I'd considered moving to Venezuela right around the time of President Chavez's election. I think it was while the CIA and oil companies were attempting a coup...or very shortly before. It was then and I imagine is still considered something of a paradise. Probably the most well developed country in South America....Since then Ive suffered an injury that precludes me from moving any time soon....

Venezuela has a two tiered health system...uh, so what....it's like Canada's I imagine....You can certainly patronize a private physician if you want to, no one is stopping you....There is no test to see if you qualify....as this article infers....and you don't need to be insured....you just have to have the dough. The same as the one tiered system we have in this country....were there is a test....if you don't have the money or insurance you can go to hell...and if you do have the money, you get screwed. In Venezuela you at least are given the chance of seeing a doctor even if you live on the street. One has to wonder why a patient in the federalized system would have to wait weeks for surgery. Is it because, like Canada, people who need surgery are actually getting it? I find it odd that the author didn't mention whether emergency surgery was also put on the same waiting list as ingrown toenail surgery...of course it isn't but it's strange that fact isn't mentioned.

We wouldn't want to upset the apple cart in "free" enterprise society. Funny don't you think that the authors paper is a UK publication....were they also have a "federalized" medical system. I wonder how Venezuela's waiting lists stack up to the UK's.



Peace and Inner Harmony,

RC

[Bacchus39]

8. it is not the most well developed country in S.A.

Argentina, Chile, Uruguay more so. I bet you'd prefer a private hospital in Venezuela to a public hospital too.

[Mika]

9. Check this related DU thread: Hospitals calling 911 -- to save their patients.

In the USofA..

Hospitals calling 911 -- to save their patients.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=556995&mesg_id=556995

[Bacchus39]

10. now there is a misleading statement

those aren't even "hospitals", they are specialized clinics for certain procedures.

nonetheless, there are certainly some PUBLIC hospitals that I would not want to go to in the States. and in latin america I would DEMAND to go to a private hospital.

from the original article posted:

Venezuela has a two-tiered health system under which wealthier, insured patients generally can afford prompter, better treatment at private hospitals. Patients at public hospitals often must wait weeks - or sometimes months - for surgeries.

[MAGICBULLET]

14. the cost of private healthcare in VEN

<http://www.latinnews.com/ldb/LDB13570.asp?instance=3>

an interesting snip - (hopefully you can open it)


The cost of private healthcare in Venezuela has risen sharply since Chavez came to power, mainly due to a lack of investment in secondary care. While primary health care has benefited from government largess, as demonstrated by the Barrio Adentro mission which provides walk-in clinics (staffed mainly by Cuban doctors) to the poorest neighbourhoods, investment in public hospitals has declined. One consequence of this has been the middle classes moving to the private sector for treatment, thereby driving up the price of private care.

"Any private hospital that doesn't comply with the regulations that are made, if necessary, will have to be nationalized," Chavez said. "We cannot allow there to be a shameless looting using such important services as health. During his speech, Chavez called on cabinet ministers to study possible price controls for medical services. "It may bother them, but it's our responsibility," Chavez said. "That's called governing."

[Bacchus39]

18. quite interesting, the public hospitals are poor quality

(what a surprise) so people are moving to private care.

[rman]

13. What are your criteria to determine how developed a nation is?

If Venezuela is underdeveloped compared to Argentina, why is Venezuela helping Argentina to pay off its IMF debts? This after IMF policies had totally wrecked the economy of Argentina, while the economy of Venezuela is growing faster than any country being 'helped' by the IMF

again:
What are your criteria to determine how developed a nation is?

[Bacchus39]

17. infrastructure and living conditions

are you saying the amount of money in the treasury at anyone moment is the best indicator?

I've been to both and Argentina without a doubt is more developed. They had an economic crash several years back but the entire society didn't go down with it. there is more poverty in Ven and the country's infrastructure is without a doubt less developed.

[rman]

19. Do the poor in Argentina

have all of food, housing, education, and healthcare as the poor in Chavez' Venezuela do (much unlike the poor in pre-Chavez Venezuela)?

[Bacchus39]

20. uhhh, yes

and Argentina has less poverty and is more developed. you call slums in Caracas housing???

Its apparent you have not visited either country. read a little more about "all the housing" in Caracas. http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2006/01/23venezuela.html

Also, Ven imports much of its food because of the overreliance on the oil industry, the agricultural industry isn't as developed as say Colombia and Brazil.

[rman]

21. Can you backup your claims about poverty in Argentina

versus poverty in Venezuela with some sources?

[Bacchus39]

22. yes, you can look yourself too

http://www.fao.org/FOCUS/E/SOFI/malV-e.htm

http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/english/regions/americas/ven/index.htm

Ven about 50%



http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/spanish/regions/americas/arg/index.htm

Spanish but Argentina is about 26%

[rman]

23. What's your view about poverty in pre-Chavez Venezuela,

and poverty in Venezuela now?

[Bacchus39]

25. it was worse before the oil demand increase

BOTH under Chavez and his predecessor. He's made some overtures to LOOOOONG neglected people in Venezuela, the poor. (a wise political move since the poor are the majority throughout all of Latin America). but his heavyhandedness and power grabbing (ruling by decree) are WAY overboard for my taste.

this thread is interesting because the articles posted say the public hospitals are bad and inefficient compared to private,and Chavez hasn't invested in the public hospitals yet people are cheerleading this move. What?? to make private hospitals inefficient too????

I'm all for universal care as long as it comes with quality. I would do the exact same thing if I lived in Venezuela without a doubt, use private health care until and unless there were substancial improvements in the quality of the public sector.

[rman]

27. Rule by decree is only heavy handed if you ignore the fact

that many other nations have been ruled by decree at one time or another (including Ven before Chavez), and if you ignore the fact that Chavez' rule by decree is limited in time and scope (only economic measures).

Another fact is that before Chavez the poor could not afford healthcare (nor education, not could they provide enough food). As to the housing you referred to earlier: it's a lot better than living in your car or living in the street as many of the poor in the US do.

[Bacchus39]

33. I have NOT ingnored the fact of rule by decree

I am totally against it as a matter of fact.

there is homelessness in Venezuela. Sorry, but not having been there limits or perhaps exaggerates your perception of Ven.

[rman]

38. there is homelessness everywhere

To say "there's homelessness" is such a broad unspecific statement it's useless.

[MAGICBULLET]

24. here are some

pretty good links about Nestor Kirchner. Since everyone is so keen on praising Hugo, I figure maybe we could give some credit to the Argentine President for the way he dealt with corruption and the IMF.

<http://www.coha.org/2006/01/27/argentinas-nestor-kirchner-peronism-without-the-tears/>

Also a good link regarding poverty in ARG

<http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/LACEXT/ARGENTINAEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20187088~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:316024,00.html>

[Bacchus39]

26. Argentina is starting to take off again, better get there quick

to enjoy the low prices while they last. Sure, Argentina and Chile have progressive leaders too without all the dictatorial power grabbing, impetuousness, and general distastefulness of Chavez.

[rman]

28. Right, and don't mention Chavez's role in how Argentina dealth with the IMF

Nor mention that according to the World Bank Chavez is doing good in reducing poverty.

[MAGICBULLET]

29. sure he is

I never said he isn't providing helpful programs for the poor however I wouldn't attribute all of Argentina's successes to just aid from Venezuela. My point is that other South American leaders like Kirchner aren't in the limelight because perhaps they don't make us laugh as much when they go off on chimpy.

-snip

Currently, Kirchner’s Argentina is following Chávez and his brethren movement leftward, away from Bush’s free-market economics, and towards Chávez’s populism. Kirchner has given the public every reason to believe in him. Unemployment and poverty have fallen, and economic growth has ensued. Kirchner sees a role for Argentina in the movement, with the long term goal of creating a South American union and confronting Washington and the IMF, if need be. Together, Kirchner and Chávez are working on a southern development fund, a component of which represents Venezuela’s financial aid to Argentina, which has included Caracas’ purchases of about $2 billion in Argentine securities overall . Also, Chávez has made plans with Kirchner and Lula to build a $4 billion pipeline through Peru and Brazil to supply Argentina’s hefty gas demands. The gesture was reciprocated through Kirchner’s stalwart backing of Venezuela’s entrance into MERCOSUR.

<http://www.coha.org/2006/01/27/argentinas-nestor-kirchner-peronism-without-the-tears>

[rman]

31. i agree.

I'm not so sure Bacchus will like it though.

[MAGICBULLET]

35. I'm sure that I can't speak for

Bacchus, but I do agree that many regard Chavez as the modern day savior who will rescue Venezuela's poor. Sure he has been doing good things compared to his predecessors, but there is still a serious problem with poverty in Venezuela. I would suggest going there and seeing.

[rman]

37. I know there's poverty in Venezuela

I also know Chavez already has saved many of the poor from hunger and disease.
For the time being the poor in Venezuela have it better than many of the poor in the US.

Eradicating illiteracy in Venezuela took only a few years, eradicating poverty - especially when there are so many poor - takes a bit longer. Proponents of globalization think they will eradicate poverty "eventually". Why hold Venezuela to a much higher standard?

[rman]

36. Following those criteria

(which i think do have some validity), the US is less developed than Western Europe.

The point being that a country being less developed does not mean it's a bad country or that one would better not move to that country, or whatever reason it was why you made your argument about Venezuela being less developed than some other L.A. countries.

[Bacchus39]

39. I never said its a bad country, i like Venezuela

I could live there. I don't know if I'd want to buy property there though, never know what the government might decide to do with it.

I like Ven, not Chavez.

I don't know if I agree that the US is "less developed than Western Europe". Housing, transportation, telecommunications, air transportation, commercial facilities, recreational facilities, medical facilites, sewer, electric, gas, and of course industry and agriculture in the US is likely as at LEAST developed as most of Europe. However, much of Western Europe and the US would be fairly equivalent.

The difference between Argentina and Venezuela is discernable. Venezuela isn't Haiti but it isn't Western Europe either.

[rman]

41. Road and bridge maintenance, public transport,

and (greatest common denominator) living conditions are worse in the US than in Europe. Europe has better social services and less poverty. Quite discernibly so.
It's just that the rich in the US are richer than the rich in Europe. Which just means the income gap is greater in the US - which is generally considered to be a bad sign by those who think that in the end it's about the well-being of the people.

[Selatius]

42. The difference between Western Europe and the US is we privatized more

In the US, we adopt a more pro-corporate approach to things such as health care and infrastructure. We even privatized the utilities. And the US generally lacks sophisticated mass transit, but that's more a function of the "road lobby" and the auto manufacturers donating money to politicians on Capitol Hill to not develop high-speed rail and invest more money in interstates.

[ProudDad]

43. U.S. has a 4 tiered system

a Rolls-Royce system for the rich

a privatized, almost competent 2nd tier system for most insured folks

(A pretty lame) Socialized system for the military (that nearly killed me when I was about 6 years old)

and SHIT for the 49 million of us who have no insurance and no money.




I'd take ANY OTHER system in the rest of the industrialized world (or the brilliant Cuban system) over the piece of shit we have here in the good ole' U.S. of A.

[w4rma]

7. Very good. (nt)

[Vidar]

16. Would that we would have the wisdom to do the same.

[rinsd]

30. All must be equal in misery!

"Venezuela has a two-tiered health system under which wealthier, insured patients generally can afford prompter, better treatment at private hospitals. Patients at public hospitals often must wait weeks - or sometimes months - for surgeries."

[twiceshy]

32. Does this mean Doctors at these privatized hospitals will...

be paid as government employees? At a public service wage? I doubt they went to school and busted their A$$es for twelve years for that. I expect a huge influx of top flight physicians in Miami real soon.

[ProudDad]

45. Fuck 'em (the few who would leave)

And those docs will be really happy cleaning out the offices of the Miami Cuban Mafia...cause that's all the good ole' AMA is gonna let them do here...

[Bacchus39]

34. there you go, exactly correct

it seems that is what I have been reading here.

[rinsd]

40. I have no issue with Chavez making huge investments in public healthcare

He has done so and should be commended for it but to nationalize health care as a means of evening out inequities is just stupid.

[ProudDad]

46. That's funny

it works in most of the rest of the world...

Pull your head out of the sand and take a look around... :shrug:

[rinsd]

47. Last I checked, it was the system of payment was nationalized

Not the delivery system.

Except for places like Cuba.

[ProudDad]

44. See my post #43

The rest of the industrialized world and Cuba all have BETTER outcomes than the U.S. system. What misery?