Socialized Health Care Thoughts

[SCFinfan]

Please cite your sources for the "horrible wait times" in the Canadian or British systems.  I would like to see how they compare to the wait times that we have in America right now.

This article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118394504633260585.html) shows some of the differences between the two systems. It does mention that complaints about long wait times are significantly more frequent in Canada than in the United States.

As for me, my mind tilts towards socialized medical care because letting all people have access (however slow or inefficient) to necessary health care is better than barring some from said access purely on the basis of random economic status. There's something about a poor person having to drink lemon juice to get rid of a kidney stone (rather than getting surgery, because he doesn't have the money or insurance) that seems awful to me. (See this video, at :55-:58, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVjLdBwTVjM)

However, I also agree that a federal government is not the best option for providing universal "free" (i.e. insurance has been paid) access to health care. Instead, I think, some sort of gigantic, dedicated, international, charitable organization which runs completely off of voluntary charitable donations (and the proper investment thereof) should do this kind of work. Perhaps a large church (or group of churches) could pull this off, if such an organization agreed not to discriminate who they treated based on religion. That, I think, would be optimal.

[Spider-Dan]

Why?  We all know Moore will put his spin on it to make it sound all wonderful & Spider Dan has already pointed out Moore ignored the tax cost.

I also pointed out that since cost has been eliminated as a factor for this discussion, Moore's proposal becomes extremely attractive.

As I see it, the primary objection to make is cost.  If you are asking, "other than the cost, what don't you like about a single-payer healthcare system?", the answer is, I don't really dislike it at all.

I would think research outside of "Sicko " would be the better choice.

I would strongly suggest that you take the opportunity to watch the movie, even if only to see the points that you are trying to refute.

In a system where people who volunteered with the rescue efforts after 9/11 come down with serious respiratory problems, and are denied medical coverage because they were not official gov't employees, something is terribly wrong.

P.S. I think that it should be noted that (in the U.S.) we are not talking about socialized health care, where doctors and other medical professionals are all government employees.  We are talking about a single-payer system, where doctors still maintain their own private practices, but the multitude of insurance companies are replaced by a single government "insurance company."  There is a significant difference between the two.

[Dphins4me]

Is there ANYTHING that did not because bloated, inefficient and significantly more expensive when the government took over?

I can understand that we need a better system but I can't understand looking to the government for that. 

If you just want a different system regardless of effectiveness and cost then the government is the way to go.

I also tend to think that health insurance a big part of the problem.  If more people paid cash for non-emergency services then perhaps more people could afford basic healthcare.  Those with insurance often have no idea how much they're being charged.  One allergy specialist I know of charges $312 just to have his assistant administer an injection (a simple shot).  That's not including the cost of the medicine which is billed separately by the pharmacy.  The shot takes less than 5 minutes and there's zero contact with the doctor - it's all done by his assistant.  If you happen to consult with the doctor for another 5 minutes it's $151 more.   With the shot that works out to over $2500 per hour.

Don't forger that one of the biggest drivers in HC is malpractice insurance.  Pharmaceuticals are the largest cost.

[Dphins4me]

Because your "My opinion is far more superior because I have looked at EVERY angle and obviously did not make a snap judgment" is working out real well.  

Its not my fault you think the best form of education is to watch a Micheal Moore film.     Cause we all know Moore has no agenda going on.

  The way you take me giving my opinion is something I cannot control.  My superior opinion is pretty sure most here believe their opinion has some validity.   I started this thread with the intent of trying to educate myself on how others thought the system would/should/wouldn't work & is why I took the tax cost out of it, since I felt that would be the way it would head.    I gave mine & get attacked.  Never said while giving mine that I hitting the nail right on the head.  I ask question like this to allow me to see a different side.  It was simply how I think it should work.  Take some F-in interest in your own health & if you will not then either the Gov should force you to or not cover your cost.

However, some of you cannot express your opinion ( Heck you haven't even given it) on it but would rather insult the person asking for their opinion.   

Arguing with you is like running a race in the special Olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded.

  Do you feel better, now that you got to throw out an insult?  Hope you slept good knowing what great impact you had. 

[Dphins4me]

The theory behind socialized medicine is that you have better bargaining power in large numbers, and having government pay for it takes the pressure off of business to pay for it.

Its not bargaining power that is lacking.  Its the Gov being in bed with Pharm. companies that is the driving cost.  Drugs from other countries cannot cross our borders.( Legally )

Some of the stuff I'm reading here is scare-mongering, like saying that the government will tell you what you're allowed to eat, but there are some legitimate concerns with overuse of medicine. 

  Not saying the Gov will.  I'm saying IMO the Gov. should.  BTW have you ever known the Gov to not want a say in things when they are supporting it?

Same as they are doing with bailouts.  You take money from them then they have a right to get envolved in your life or business.

I do not invest in a business without getting a say.  Do you?

Perhaps, using it like insurance, where it's free (or practically free) at first, but the more and more you use it, the more you're liable for.  There are solutions.

That is what I was looking for.  Just some thoughts.

[Dphins4me]

As I see it, the primary objection to make is cost.  If you are asking, "other than the cost, what don't you like about a single-payer healthcare system?", the answer is, I don't really dislike it at all.
I would strongly suggest that you take the opportunity to watch the movie, even if only to see the points that you are trying to refute..

I tried to watch the 9/11 thing he did & I had to roll my eyes at all the facts he left out.  I'm not sure I could stomach anything else from him.  Don't really think I could watch anything from a man who believes our Gov was in bed with what went down that day.  I would not be able to view it with an open mind because I know how is spins thing to make them sound different than they truly are.

In a system where people who volunteered with the rescue efforts after 9/11 come down with serious respiratory problems, and are denied medical coverage because they were not official gov't employees, something is terribly wrong..

That is the Gov. some are wanting to run this plan.  If they had wanted to take care of these people then they would have.  They are the Gov. they pretty much can do anything they choose & they chose to allow these people to help & then turned their back on them because of the cost of covering them.  Do you believe it would be different under their rule & that cost of a care verus return on getting you back to health will not be something they consider?

P.S. I think that it should be noted that (in the U.S.) we are not talking about socialized health care, where doctors and other medical professionals are all government employees.  We are talking about a single-payer system, where doctors still maintain their own private practices, but the multitude of insurance companies are replaced by a single government "insurance company."  There is a significant difference between the two.

What about Obama's plan that just came out where they get to determine that doctors are treating you with only Gov. approved & cost effective care?

I'm not suggesting the Gov should be able to tell doctors how to treat you.  I'm just wondering if you go & get told you have cancer that people will have to wait several months while the Gov paper work gets pushed around before they can start their treatment.  Is that not something of a consideration to some?  We all know Gov paper work moves slowly.

[landlocked]

Anyone that has faith in any government program when it comes to their health,just go apply for food stamps sometime.When you see all the b.s. red tape that one has to endure because a small percentage of the population chooses to cheat the system,when people that actually need a little help can't get it,then just imagine that instead of some help with your grocery bill you need a life saving operation.....

[Fau Teixeira]

you can't compare universal health care and food stamps simply because they don't equate .. only a select number of people are elegable for food stamps .. with universal health care there is no limitation about who is elegable for it .. so the red tape is meaningless.

The problem with socialized or universal or nationalized healthcare is really that everyone is thinking in half-steps .. whereas if you take the british or canadian approach and say that everyone is entitled to health care as a basic right. and approach the problem from that perspective, then you have a starting point.

take control of the nations health-care away from the politicians and put it in the hands of the doctors. make it so a doctor determines the best coarse of action .. not with an emphasis on profits .. but with an emphasis on making people healthy .. reward doctors that have healthier patients, reward doctors that see the least healthy people and make them healthy. . pay for performance is a concept i'm sure all republicans are fond of.

if that means nationalizing every single hospital in the country, putting every doctor on the government payroll, and abolishing any sort of patent protection for drugs to be used in-country then so be it .. If that's the system that works .. then why don't we as a people clamor for it ?

and if that impacts the tax rates everyone pays .. lets say by 5 or 10% universally .. then so be it .. i would pay 5% more in income tax if the end result is that no matter what happens to me and what condition i may have, i would have healthcare free of cost.

why should insurance companies dictate care .. they're in it for profits as well .. the problem with our current health system is that too many parties with profits in mind are involved.. HMOs, hospitals, health care conglomerates, pharmaceutical companies, .. do you think we're unable as civilization to cure the common cold ? .. i think we are .. i think there's no motivation to do this as long as people keep buying nyquil.. it's more profitable to treat symptoms chronically than it is to cure a disease .. that's what a profit based healthcare system has gotten us.

[Dphins4me]

you can't compare universal health care and food stamps simply because they don't equate .. only a select number of people are elegable for food stamps .. with universal health care there is no limitation about who is elegable for it .. so the red tape is meaningless.

Maybe not in a 1 to 1 but it will give you some idea as to how Gov run programs work.

The problem with socialized or universal or nationalized healthcare is really that everyone is thinking in half-steps .. whereas if you take the british or canadian approach and say that everyone is entitled to health care as a basic right. and approach the problem from that perspective, then you have a starting point..

Its that approach I was looking at.

take control of the nations health-care away from the politicians and put it in the hands of the doctors. make it so a doctor determines the best coarse of action .. not with an emphasis on profits .. but with an emphasis on making people healthy .. reward doctors that have healthier patients, reward doctors that see the least healthy people and make them healthy. . pay for performance is a concept i'm sure all republicans are fond of.

if that means nationalizing every single hospital in the country, putting every doctor on the government payroll, and abolishing any sort of patent protection for drugs to be used in-country then so be it .. If that's the system that works .. then why don't we as a people clamor for it ? ..

Contradict yourself.  You say take it out of the hands of the politicians & put in the hands of the doctors, then go on to say even if that means putting all doctors on Gov. payroll, which puts it right back into the hands of politicans.

Think of it this way.  Trainers/doctors in the NFL are paid by each team.  They are suppose to make the best decision based on the players health.  However, you have the team then able to tell them if they want to remain the team doctor to get the player back out on the field.

Also, if you force doctors onto a payroll so they cannot earn their investment that they paid for schooling.  Do you believe we would still have people wanting to invest their time & energy to becoming doctors?

and if that impacts the tax rates everyone pays .. lets say by 5 or 10% universally .. then so be it .. i would pay 5% more in income tax if the end result is that no matter what happens to me and what condition i may have, i would have healthcare free of cost.

Just curious.   Lets say you hurt your knee & your doctor wants you to get a MRI.  Do you think he will be able to schedule it right then ( as it is now ) or wait for the Gov. to tell you that a MRI is allowed.   Then if the MRI deterimines you have a torn menicus & you need surgery will you be able to schedule that right then ( as it is now ) or will you have to wait yet again for the approval for the surgery.

why should insurance companies dictate care .. they're in it for profits as well .. the problem with our current health system is that too many parties with profits in mind are involved.. HMOs, hospitals, health care conglomerates, pharmaceutical companies, .. do you think we're unable as civilization to cure the common cold ? .. i think we are .. i think there's no motivation to do this as long as people keep buying nyquil.. it's more profitable to treat symptoms chronically than it is to cure a disease .. that's what a profit based healthcare system has gotten us.

Profit based healthcare system got us where we are, but the price is so high because our politicans screwed us over by taking payoffs.

The best health care in the world is to first take care of yourself.

[Spider-Dan]

I tried to watch the 9/11 thing he did & I had to roll my eyes at all the facts he left out.  I'm not sure I could stomach anything else from him.

I understand your point; I also felt Fahrenheit 9/11 was a bit ridiculous.  Similarly, in Sicko, there is a section where Moore takes the aforemention 9/11 volunteers to Cuba to get medical care (which they do), which I think is a little over the top.

But you should really watch the movie, if only to get a better idea of how the Canadian/British/French systems actually work.

That is the Gov. some are wanting to run this plan.  If they had wanted to take care of these people then they would have.  They are the Gov. they pretty much can do anything they choose & they chose to allow these people to help & then turned their back on them because of the cost of covering them.  Do you believe it would be different under their rule & that cost of a care verus return on getting you back to health will not be something they consider?

As Fau said, there's a major difference when you move to a single-payer system where everyone is covered.  That immediately bypasses all the "you're not eligible for coverage because you spent less than 100 hours volunteering at ground zero"-type garbage.  The question is simply this:  Are you a U.S. citizen?  If so, then you're covered.

There are no more arguments about pre-existing conditions and coverage caps.  You will not see families going bankrupt because a family member has cancer, or families having to choose whether to put their kids through college or pay for a hip replacement.

What about Obama's plan that just came out where they get to determine that doctors are treating you with only Gov. approved & cost effective care?

This is a thoroughly disproved and discredited right-wing smear.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/185643

Conservative politicians have claimed that the stimulus bill requires that doctors follow government orders on what medical treatments can and can't be prescribed. But the bill doesn't say that.

Rep. Tom Price of Georgia says the measure creates "a national health care rationing board." Not true. What it creates is a council to coordinate research into which treatments work best, and are most effective for the money. And in fact, the new law states quite specifically that the council has no power to "mandate coverage" and that its recommendations are not to be construed as "clinical guidelines for ... treatment."

I'm just wondering if you go & get told you have cancer that people will have to wait several months while the Gov paper work gets pushed around before they can start their treatment.  Is that not something of a consideration to some?  We all know Gov paper work moves slowly.

See, here's the thing:  one of the primary reasons for the relative quickness of the current system is that you don't have to wait for final, confirmed approval from your insurance company before you get treatment.  You get your treatment, the doctor sends the ins.co. a bill.

The downside of this system is when the ins.co. starts finding reasons not to pay, and you find out (after the fact) that you are on the hook for a bill for tens of thousands of dollars.  I would submit, then, that if you prefer this type of system (where you get "speedy service" but are potentially left on the hook for large amounts of money because the ins.co. decided to kick you to the curb), why not just go to your preferred doctor and pay cash up front, avoiding the gov't entirely?  This will certainly be an option in any U.S. healthcare system.

Furthermore, when we talk about how quickly Americans get medical service, I am always reminded of when my niece had a severe asthma attack, and we were told that we couldn't go to the local emergency room because she wasn't actually unconscious.  We had to drive 30 more miles to an in-network hospital.

You can make the argument that maybe the wait at my local hospital (under a gov't healthcare system) would have been longer than the drive.  My response is, if my niece's condition worsened, I'd rather be waiting at a hospital (specifically: a hospital where they don't have to worry about if we are "covered") than stuck on the highway.

[BoSoxGrl]

  The way you take me giving my opinion is something I cannot control.  My superior opinion is pretty sure most here believe their opinion has some validity.   I started this thread with the intent of trying to educate myself on how others thought the system would/should/wouldn't work & is why I took the tax cost out of it, since I felt that would be the way it would head. 
However, some of you cannot express your opinion ( Heck you haven't even given it) on it but would rather insult the person asking for their opinion.   

First of all, your opinion is no more superior than anyone else's.  Second, If your so "educated," I merely pointed out an alternate opinion. It isn't my fault that you're far too superior to respect Mr. Moore's.  And for the record, nowhere did I say it was the only research I had ever done on the subject.

Do you feel better, now that you got to throw out an insult?  Hope you slept good knowing what great impact you had. 

I slept well, thank you for asking.

[Dphins4me]

First of all, your opinion is no more superior than anyone else's. 

Thanks for telling that.  I thought that is what I basically posted & you quoted.

Second, If your so "educated," I merely pointed out an alternate opinion.

His opinion is no more valid than any of ours.  He is nothing but Propaganda.

It isn't my fault that you're far too superior to respect Mr. Moore's.  And for the record, nowhere did I say it was the only research I had ever done on the subject.

I have no respect for Moore, nor should I.

[Buddhagirl]

The downside of this system is when the ins.co. starts finding reasons not to pay, and you find out (after the fact) that you are on the hook for a bill for tens of thousands of dollars.  I would submit, then, that if you prefer this type of system (where you get "speedy service" but are potentially left on the hook for large amounts of money because the ins.co. decided to kick you to the curb), why not just go to your preferred doctor and pay cash up front, avoiding the gov't entirely?  This will certainly be an option in any U.S. healthcare system.

This is the problem that I have. Even with insurance, they still give you the run around, don't want to pay, and have you kicked out of the hospital early. This is exactly what happened to me. I was supposed to stay in for a week, but was booted out after a couple of days and sent home trying to figure out how to give myself the injections I needed in my stomach. To make matters worse, when I go to pick up the prescription, I was told that my insurance wasn't going to cover it. It was $295 for 5 days worth. I needed 10 days. Fortunately, my mom's attorney friend got it all straightened out. However, the insurance company tried to stick me with a $22,000 bill. It's 6 months later and we fifnally have come to some sort of agreement. I'm still paying though the nose, though.

I think we need universal healthcare. Healthcare is not a privilege. It is a right. Period. No one should die or be turned away from healthcare because they don't have enough money.  Families shouldn't have to go bankrupt to get cancer treatment for their kids.

[SCFinfan]

I think we need universal healthcare. Healthcare is not a privilege. It is a right. Period. No one should die or be turned away from healthcare because they don't have enough money.  Families shouldn't have to go bankrupt to get cancer treatment for their kids.

Hear, hear!

[Dphins4me]

This is the problem that I have. Even with insurance, they still give you the run around, don't want to pay, and have you kicked out of the hospital early. This is exactly what happened to me. I was supposed to stay in for a week, but was booted out after a couple of days and sent home trying to figure out how to give myself the injections I needed in my stomach. To make matters worse, when I go to pick up the prescription, I was told that my insurance wasn't going to cover it. It was $295 for 5 days worth. I needed 10 days. Fortunately, my mom's attorney friend got it all straightened out. However, the insurance company tried to stick me with a $22,000 bill. It's 6 months later and we fifnally have come to some sort of agreement. I'm still paying though the nose, though.

Who is your insurance carrier?

I think we need universal healthcare. Healthcare is not a privilege. It is a right. Period. No one should die or be turned away from healthcare because they don't have enough money.  Families shouldn't have to go bankrupt to get cancer treatment for their kids.

  Sorry, but cannot agree that HC is a right.   It may be a necessity but not a right.  I do agree with the rest of the above quote, but does that mean universal health care is the answer?

However, the point of this thread is to kick around some ideas on how each of us think it will / should work.