Which model India should adopt: social democracy like in Western Europe or free market capitalism like in US?

[buckeyesid]

Social democracy would be like that adopted in much of western Europe after WWII. In it some major industries of nation are controlled by the Government. A lot of major industries like healthcare etc are provided by government. An example of that would be like that of National Health Service in UK or the system in France, which is considered as the best in world ( yes it is better than that of US ). In free market capitalism, there is free market economy and everything is decided by supply and demand. Market controls everything and private companies play a huge part. Downsides of this can be that some of the important systems like healthcare get quite expensive, cant be afforded by everyone and people suffer because of that. While in social-democratic system, government finances everything, therefore there are not many funds available to invest a lot in research and development as is possible in free market capitalism. Please answer thoughtfully supported with reasons. Thanks.

[modest]

I would like to answer this question based only on the facts stated in your question.
The model of social democracy is essentially one of governance, though it encompasses economy as well. The UK and France are basically capitalist countries, where certain political parties have adopted the social democratic ideology and put it into practice whenever they have come to power.
Government sponsored healthcare systems of the UK and France serve one very important and primary purpose. In these countries, expensive medical treatments are affordable to the poor because of government subsidy. And there is no compromise in quality.
But, there is a problem as well. When a person requires an emergency heart surgery or for that matter any emergency treatment in the UK and decides to avail of the government facility, he or she has to literally stand in que after thousands of similar patients awaiting his / her turn which in some instances might come after one year. Private treatment is marginally or excessively more expensive, but there is hardly any waiting period. You can see the difference yourself if you happen to be an Indian citizen. You must agree that a patient needs quality and timely healthcare at an affordable price. But as is evident, even a developed nation can't afford to provide both under a social democratic system.
The US on the other hand leaves healthcare to the private sector, but it has a very organised health insurance system, whereby the costs of expensive medical treatments are offset by a wide range of insurance plans. Further, the US government, while not involved in healthcare directly, does provide social security funds for the benefit of its citizens.
Interestingly, Cuba, a totalitarian communist country, provides quality and timely healthcare to its citizens free or at very negligible charges.
So, where does that leave India? India is constitutionally a socialist democratic nation, unlike the UK, the USA or France. India isn't a communist country like Cuba either.
But India offers healthcare free or at subsidized costs. The facility is availed of by a major chunk of Indian citizens who are downright poor or don't have the money for expensive private treatments.
Yet government healthcare in India is mostly deplorable. The lack of cleanliness, good doctors, modern instruments, essential medicines are just too prominent to be overlooked. More importantly, the system is just too small to look after the needs of patients whose numbers are overwhelmingly large in comparison. Those who can afford, never step inside a government hospital. And the government, already strained for financial resources in other vital sectors as well can't afford to invest more in this area.
Some sort of medical insurance exists which has grown over the years, but it has still not shaped up on the lines of advanced countries like the US.
The Indian government must discharge its social responsibility by providing quality healthcare to the poor. This can be done by maintaining the treatment facilities it has, but restricting them for the use of the really poor people.
The next strata in society must be encouraged to invest in health insurance plans and for that purpose, such plans must be made more attractive, effective and useful. That way, medical expenses will cease to be a burden to people who are not so well off.
Finally, the government should try to restrict its role as a policy formulator, a facilitator and a co-ordinator. It should ensure that formulated policies are strictly adhered to and that nobody is left uncared. Thus there must be some machinery to constantly check that guidelines are being strictly followed.
It is not necessary to copy a defined model. It is far better to tailor one according to one's needs. The same outlook is welcome in areas, other than healthcare as well.

[Chanakya]

Health care in France, UK and Canada run with huge donations by few richest persons of that country. If donations stop they have to change the system.
In India we may not find rich people to donate huge amount which India needs for its billions of population. Next important thing is corruption or bribe. If its government only few people who are related to politician or gang leader will get benefited. The aim of providing health for poor will be just a dream.
In Western Europe and Canada govt has strict control over medical system with no bribe. Everything is just transparent. Because of govt. and is free lot of diagnosis are done which are not necessary. This is waste of money. This may happen more in India.
If it’s private, it can run very well. So far in India only privatization stories are proven successful.
In developed countries govt controls properly all systems with full transparency. But in India if its govt controlled then it’s all mess.
China concerned is purely progressing and booming because of only govt. But India is booming only because of public
India started 15 public sector companies around 1960s. May be only one like ONGC is running well all other were under loss or stopped because of loss. On the other hand Tata, Bilra, Ambani, Mittal so may private companies run and grow very well.
Chemical giants like Hindustan Antibiotics are no where as like Ranbaxy are booming.
After independence Government focused on converting railway in Unigauge, but it’s still not completed. Indian railway not put any new lines yet. Instead Konkan railway with so many tunnels and bridges which is owned privately is a success story.
In banking Because of so many procedures nationalized banks never came up. Because of politics more co-operative banks are going for bankrupt. Only private banks like ICICI, HSBC, Amro American, City banks are doing very well.
In real if we say India is booming is because of public and private people only.
Telephone was all mess, OYT , pay 8000 Rs. in 1985 to get phone connection which was owned by govt. Now because of privatization everyone has got a cell phone in their pocket.
Construction and running of so many bridges, dams, fly overs; express high ways are running very well which ware constructed with BOT system ( Build Operate Transfer)
In last decade few Indians studied, came to America work for software, and take software companies to India. Because the skill shown by these guys USA pans to offshore its call centers to India. Instead Indian government created hurdles in opening new industries, sending money to India, Investing in India. Lengthy and corruptive procedures in govt. owned systems like electricity, licensing, Revenue dept. Politics like in Enron in Maharashtra. All hurts when one think of govt. in India.
Even now govt. runs some hospitals. One can notice the deference in treatment in private and govt hospitals.
Privatization is the only solution in India to grow in any field. Middle class or poor people can go for insurance schemes which may provide them unaffordable treatments for cheap

[SB]

I think the present system of Democracy which incorporates the benefits of both the types that is Social democracy as well as limited free market capitalism is the best choice. 100 % tilt towards any of these may prove to be counter productive for the masses in general.

[Priya]

mix of socialism & capatalism