The *Problem* with socialized healthcare.

[guywithashovel]

If we ever adopt a nationized healthcare system here in the US, here are my conditions as of late:

1. I want to pay significantly less in the necessary taxes than I would pay in insurance premiums.

2. If I need to see a doctor for whatever reason, I want to get in within a reasonable amount of time. You can use your own good judgment to determine the definition of the word "reasonable."

3. I do not want to be told which doctor I have to go to.

4. I do not want to be required to go to the doctor on a periodic basis.

If we can implement a universal healthcare system that meets all these conditions, then I might be for it.

Also, to say that such a sytem would "put us on the road to socialism" is not accurate. We use quite a few other things that are "government provided" (e.g. roads, social security, libraries), and we have still retained capitalism There's no need to be overly dramatic about this.

[Boozy]

We should not even beging to think about socialized healthcare until we fix the fact that our economy is tanking. We cannot afford it.

You cannot afford not to. You have the most expensive healthcare system in the world, no matter how you measure it; by per capita spending, government per capita spending, and as a percentage of GDP. On average, Americans pay 50% more per capita on health care than Canadians - and that includes the icnreased taxes we pay to fund our universal system.

Despite popular belief, the US doesn't have a free market-based health care system. HMO's are heavily subsidized by the government and pharmaceutical companies are patent-protected far beyond what the market would dictate. Special interest groups - not free market forces - have driven health care costs through the roof.

It's time to accept the fact that America has and will always have some hybrid of national and private health care. Finding the right combination of the two will save Americans hundreds of billions of dollars without sacrificing quality.

[IDrinkaRum]

Again, as taxpaying Americans, we have to remember, we're paying $2.50 per paycheck approximately for an already Government provided healthcare system. Again, let me present two words: Medicare and Medicaid. Yes, they are tanking, but we already have this in place. If it's broke, fix it. DO NOT start over with a system that does have ridiculous amounts of wait time.

I was listening to Chris Plante on WMAL yesterday morning on my drive to my doctor's office. He and his wife were in Ireland to spread his wife's mother's ashes in front of the house the woman had grown up in before moving to America. His wife's Uncle (the dead mother's brother) couldn't be there for the ceremony. He had made an appointment 6 months previously because of some major health issues and his number had come up. He had tried to re-schedule the appointment as this was a family emergency of sorts, but he was told if he canceled now, he'd have to wait 6 to 8 months before getting another one.

This is what we want for America?

If this had happened in America, the Uncle could have said goodbye to his sister, helped with the spreading of her ashes, and had the appointment re-scheduled for later in the week.

How about the gentleman in England, who was told to make an appointment with a Cancer specialist so he could start his cancer treatments. There was ONE specialist he could see, and the person kept pushing the appointment back. (Not the patient, but the DOCTOR). By the time the patient saw the specialist, it was too late, and the guy died one month later.

In America, the gentleman could have found another specialist to see about his cancer treatments.

Call me an enlitist snob, but I prefer what we have now over anything else.

[Fashion Lad!]

Now I remember why I shouldn't type anything so close to bedtime. I get two important documents mixed up about our nation's history. Anyway!

I think it's time just to bring in the facts. Just the facts. And yes, not having socialized health-care is for the greater good. Because if they can't afford the health-insurance to get an MRI, they probably can't afford the taxes it would take to have socialized healthcare. And when there's a long wait to get that MRI, that they probably can't afford in anyway shape or form, they probably can't afford to go to another city, state or country that *doesn't* have a waiting list.

And yes, I bring up affordibility. Why? Because *EVERYONE* has access to some sort of health insurance.

Ontario Keeps Sending Patients South--- I mentioned previously that a lot come to Minnesota for the Mayo Clinic to get their MRIs.

Doctors from all over the world come to work at Mayo Clinic because they know socialized healthcare is a bad idea. We have your doctors, they are paid better for what they do, and have better working conditions.

Americans have better access to advanced medical care that Canadians do. (And we pay less in taxes.)

"Despite government promises and the billions of dollars funnelled into the Canadian health-care system, the average patient waited more than 18 weeks in 2007 between seeing their family doctor and receiving the surgery or treatment they required," said Nadeem Esmail, director of Health System Performance Studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the report, in a release.

I can't make this up. I cannot make this up. This is kind of stuff happens more frequently in countries with socialized health-care. And before ANY of you nit-pick at that, read what I said very closely. I should be saying, I'm sorry some people are going to die because they have to wait so long to get healthcare. And for that, I am really sorry. It's sad.

The UK isn't immune to this either.

5,000 elderly 'killed each year' by lack of care beds

Come to the U.S. for your health-care needs. Yes, you'll pay, but you're more likely to live.

So far, it seems like Canada is the biggest failure for socialized healthcare. How much do Canadians pay in taxes? All I need are percents.

There have to be other countries that are seeing a decline in healthcare due to the government running it...

Oh, there is... Australia... although, Australia may be doing pretty well. I can't seem to find a whole lot of dirt on them. Hmm... and the dirt I did find is pretty old. I'm going to have to look into their healthcare a little later. And don't worry, I will.

Oh, and wow... here's something for you. Because of the new tax plan that our new President has come up with. Raising taxes on couples earning $250,000 a year or more, more people will be without healthcare. Why? Because nearly 80% of all workers work for small business. Hey, couples making over $250,000... when do you want that project done? They are our bosses. They own the companies we work for. So now, they are going to get taxed more.

We'll put this into numbers...

250,000 at 35% under Bush's tax plan came out to them paying $87,500. This is just the simple math. And with Obama repealing their tax breaks, that comes out to $99,000 a year. So... we're going to raise taxes, put money into the healthcare system. Probably effectively boot more people off of healthcare because we're raising the taxes on the people who give us jobs and help us gain access to healthcare through corporate discounts... BRILLIANT!

I want everyone to have access to healthcare, that is why I don't want socialized heathcare. No, I don't have a solution to our healthcare, but neither does our government if they come up with socialized healthcare.

[Dreamstalker]

If he doesn't have the medicine, he dies. So...too fucking bad, sorry you were born with asthma? The whole system is broken and needs to be fixed so that everyone has access to affordable coverage - especially in preventive/general medicine.

I never understood the "pre-existing condition" reasons for denying coverage....oh wait, it's so the multi-billion-profit companies don't have to lay out any more money than they want to.

CSI had a good episode that touched on the shady health insurance industry...I can't recall the title offhand, but an elderly woman decides to plow her car into the insurance offices because the company refused to cover needed cancer treatment.

[Rapscallion]

This is what we want for America?

If it's done right, that's not what you'll have. I see you're quoting anecdotes, and I'll admit that there are failings in the system, but overall the NHS in the UK does a very good job, and that's one of the problems.

See, the NHS deals with a lot of problems. This means that we get a population with an increased life span, which statistically means there are more problems with people/more people with problems. If the NHS saves someone who would have otherwise died as a result of a disease, yet requires care for the rest of their life, they get the care and that's more resources used.

Rapscallion

[Seshat]

I was listening to Chris Plante on WMAL yesterday morning on my drive to my doctor's office. He and his wife were in Ireland to spread his wife's mother's ashes in front of the house the woman had grown up in before moving to America. His wife's Uncle (the dead mother's brother) couldn't be there for the ceremony. He had made an appointment 6 months previously because of some major health issues and his number had come up. He had tried to re-schedule the appointment as this was a family emergency of sorts, but he was told if he canceled now, he'd have to wait 6 to 8 months before getting another one.

That's a sign of a faulty system, not a necessary aspect of a publically funded system.

I want everyone to have access to healthcare, that is why I don't want socialized heathcare. No, I don't have a solution to our healthcare, but neither does our government if they come up with socialized healthcare.

I know many, many Americans - yes, anecdotal evidence - who cannot afford health care in the current US system. They make too much or are unqualified in some other way for the 'safety net' systems of Medicare and Medicaid, but they aren't in jobs which supply medical insurance, and the 'Cobra' or whatever the system is for non-employer-based insurance is far too expensive.

I know many, many Americans who tell me that their pre-existing conditions can't be covered.

I have refused to move to America for no reason other than healthcare. I and my husband both have pre-existing conditions, and he's been flatly told he would not be covered. (He has a rare cardiac condition. Apparently the words 'rare' and 'cardiac' are both red-flags to the insurance companies.)

If you had a mental health care system which was affordable to the unemployed and unemployable, a lot of your homeless mentally ill would be able to be medicated to a point where they could look after themselves - and some to the point where they could hold down work.
One of my best friends would be homeless and mentally ill in the States simply because she'd be unable to afford adequate medical care, and -definitely- be unable to afford her meds, unless she was qualified for medicare/medicaid and those systems covered her treatment.


All that aside, let's look at this:

Government-managed universal healthcare:
Everyone chips in according to how much they can afford to pay.
Everyone gets healthcare.

Insurance company-managed universal healthcare, with government-funded assistance for the poor:
Everyone who can afford to pay chips in.
Everyone chips in for the rest according to how much they can afford to pay.
Everyone gets healthcare.

.... now, tell me, because I'm confused. Doesn't that mean both systems are going to be funded pretty much the same way, only the insurance-company one has additional administrative costs and is controlled by people whose objective is to maximise shareholder value?

..... cause, you know, I prefer the one where there are mechanisms in place for journalists, lobbyists, and Joe Average to stick their nose in and critique the administration of the system (provided privacy of personal information is maintained); and where the objective of the ultimate administrators is to keep the populace happy enough to re-elect them.

[Fashion Lad!]

All that aside, let's look at this:

Government-managed universal healthcare:
Everyone chips in according to how much they can afford to pay.
Everyone gets healthcare.

Insurance company-managed universal healthcare, with government-funded assistance for the poor:
Everyone who can afford to pay chips in.
Everyone chips in for the rest according to how much they can afford to pay.
Everyone gets healthcare.

.... now, tell me, because I'm confused. Doesn't that mean both systems are going to be funded pretty much the same way, only the insurance-company one has additional administrative costs and is controlled by people whose objective is to maximise shareholder value?

..... cause, you know, I prefer the one where there are mechanisms in place for journalists, lobbyists, and Joe Average to stick their nose in and critique the administration of the system (provided privacy of personal information is maintained); and where the objective of the ultimate administrators is to keep the populace happy enough to re-elect them.

To touch one of the things that you mentioned earlier, there are some health insurers that will cover pre-existing conditions, you have to search for them.

KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF HOSPITALS! *blood shooting out of my eyes* The only time the government should be allowed in a hospital is to insure that the hospital is operating safely and properly. Otherwise, I don't want hospitals funding doctors and making choices for hospitals. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

You prefer when we have a chance to stick our nose in and critique the administration.................................... .................................................. .......................................... we basically have that through our election system. We write our sentors, our representatives and even the President. People hate earmarks... don't like them. Wasteful spending when we need to stimulate the economy...

Taxpayers for Common Sense says the bill contains 8,570 earmarks at a cost of $7.7 billion. An estimated 60% of the earmarks are from Democrats, while Republicans requested the remaining 40%.

Yeah, they listened well. They followed through with what we wanted.

Polls show that earmarks -- the pork-barrel projects members of Congress "airdrop" into bills with little review -- are phenomenally unpopular with the public. But on Capitol Hill legislators continue to party with earmarks like it's still the Great Society.

The government is pretty much a failure when it comes to really looking out for us. I don't want the government to grow. I want it to shrink. People need to be responsible for their own lives. It's getting to be rather disturbing for me. More and more people are open to socialism and communism. Why, because no one fails and no one succeeds. No one wants to try anymore.

We are taxed too much as it is. Our taxes would not go up by a percent or two if introduced to socialized medicine. We would have portions of our tax payers paying over 50% to the government. Middle class would be paying probably in the 30s... everyone needs to pay for this.

The biggest problem I have with all of this is I do what I can to maintain a healthy lifestyle. I don't smoke, I rarely drink. I workout. When I'm injured, I try to do home treatment before resorting to a doctor. So, I'm hardly ever at the doctor. Then, Joe-blow next door, he smokes, I don't if he drinks, he doesn't work out. He eats McDonald's 3-5 times a week. And I'm going to take care of that when he goes to the hospital for a heartattack?

I am not responsible for you. You are not responsible for me. Let's be responsible for our own lives.

Socialized healthcare = fail.

[Seshat]

KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF HOSPITALS! *blood shooting out of my eyes*

I feel much the same way about 'keep corporations out of our hospitals'.

The only time the government should be allowed in a hospital is to insure that the hospital is operating safely and properly. Otherwise, I don't want hospitals funding doctors and making choices for hospitals. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

Our government lets medical people (doctors, specialists, medical administrators) actually run the hospitals, and make decisions about what's needed and so forth.
With an exception: census data might indicate that town X is growing so it needs additional health services, but town Y is shrinking so instead of a clinic going to town Y, it goes to town X; but even that is done by statisticians working with medical people, not by some bureaucrat who doesn't know a thing about health care.

So I'm not advocating letting non-medical people run the medical system: in fact, I think that a corporation-funded health care system is more likely (than a gov-funded system) to have non-medical people making key decisions. So to me, making it government-funded is making it MORE medically-run.


Of course, my culture (Australia) has a very different form of government to yours, and very different attitudes.

. People hate earmarks... don't like them. Wasteful spending when we need to stimulate the economy...

From here down, you seem to using jargon I don't know. (Earmark?)

People need to be responsible for their own lives.

A common argument US folk use against government-funded healthcare is the 'Nanny State' argument. In Australia, that's a paper tiger - our government and culture just doesn't go that way.

We are taxed too much as it is. Our taxes would not go up by a percent or two if introduced to socialized medicine.

What you need to do is check what people are paying in tax+medical costs. I think you'll be surprised at how much that is. Don't compare tax-with-universal-healthcare to current tax alone, but to current tax + health insurance + all the copays that would be reduced or removed.

The biggest problem I have with all of this is I do what I can to maintain a healthy lifestyle. I don't smoke, I rarely drink. I workout. When I'm injured, I try to do home treatment before resorting to a doctor. So, I'm hardly ever at the doctor. Then, Joe-blow next door, he smokes, I don't if he drinks, he doesn't work out. He eats McDonald's 3-5 times a week. And I'm going to take care of that when he goes to the hospital for a heartattack?

I am not responsible for you. You are not responsible for me. Let's be responsible for our own lives.

But you're already paying for Joe Blow's heart attack treatment, it's called health insurance premiums.

And there's the other issue. Bad luck. What if you, who eats well and so forth, suddenly keels over with all the symptoms of a heart attack. But it's not a heart attack. You get rushed to hospital. The cardiologist is confused. It seems to be some sort of syncope episode, but which sort?

Happened to my husband. It took him wearing a Holta(?) monitor while an episode occurred to figure it out.

Or you get fibromyalgia. Or multiple sclerosis. Or you have a kid who turns out to have early-onset (non-lifestyle) diabetes. Or any of a million other problems that are not 'lifestyle diseases'.

Do you want you (or your child, or your friends, or so forth) to have to choose whether to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for treatment, or end up alive (most of these don't kill you outright), but non-functional and unable to work, homeless in the street begging for change?

That's what a no-insurance, no-government-funded health care system offers.

A 'look after everyone' health care system, on the other hand, cleans up the streets of most of the homeless-due-to-treatable-illness people. It can catch problems early, when they're cheap to treat. It can increase the pool of available healthy workers for the whole society. It reduces the risk of communicable disease by reducing the pool of weakened hosts. It reduces the incidence of crimes of desperation ("I was only stealing the DVDs to pay for my daughter's medicines, officer").

Because of that, a universal healthcare system is of enough broad social benefit, in my opinion (and yes, YMMV) to be worth being funded by society as a whole.
It's rather similar to society as a whole funding a police force, an army, sewerage systems, clean water systems, mass literacy and numeracy...... other 'broad social benefit' things.

[Fashion Lad!]

But you're already paying for Joe Blow's heart attack treatment, it's called health insurance premiums.

And there's the other issue. Bad luck. What if you, who eats well and so forth, suddenly keels over with all the symptoms of a heart attack. But it's not a heart attack. You get rushed to hospital. The cardiologist is confused. It seems to be some sort of syncope episode, but which sort?

Happened to my husband. It took him wearing a Holta(?) monitor while an episode occurred to figure it out.

Or you get fibromyalgia. Or multiple sclerosis. Or you have a kid who turns out to have early-onset (non-lifestyle) diabetes. Or any of a million other problems that are not 'lifestyle diseases'.

Do you want you (or your child, or your friends, or so forth) to have to choose whether to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for treatment, or end up alive (most of these don't kill you outright), but non-functional and unable to work, homeless in the street begging for change?

That's what a no-insurance, no-government-funded health care system offers.

A 'look after everyone' health care system, on the other hand, cleans up the streets of most of the homeless-due-to-treatable-illness people. It can catch problems early, when they're cheap to treat. It can increase the pool of available healthy workers for the whole society. It reduces the risk of communicable disease by reducing the pool of weakened hosts. It reduces the incidence of crimes of desperation ("I was only stealing the DVDs to pay for my daughter's medicines, officer").

Because of that, a universal healthcare system is of enough broad social benefit, in my opinion (and yes, YMMV) to be worth being funded by society as a whole.
It's rather similar to society as a whole funding a police force, an army, sewerage systems, clean water systems, mass literacy and numeracy...... other 'broad social benefit' things.

I understand that. But insurance companies also tend to give healthy people discounts while unhealthy people pay more.

I agree that everyone should have access to health care. There should be programs for that. The majority of Americans have health-care coverage. To change the rules to help the minority, may hurt the majority. I hate government. I want it to shrink. I do believe there should be more corporate responsibility for this kind of stuff, but this is capitalism.

**an earmark is basically funding for something silly, like tattoo removal. Tattoo removal is acutally in Obama's "earmark-free" stimulus bill."

[BroomJockey]

FL, I read two basic arguments in your posts. I hope I've got these right.

1. Government = bad.

2. I don't care about other people, and don't want them to care about me.

I know I stated those fairly bluntly, but that's how it reads to me. The second one first.

The redeeming concept of socialized health care, to me, is that if someone, through no fault of their own, is in dire need of high level care, even with insurance, you can still be required to pay tens of thousands of dollars for your care. I'd rather pay a bit of money each year not just against the fact that it may be me in that position someday, but that it may be someone I know, or someone I'd like to know. And since the cost is distributed across the entire population, it's not prohibitively priced. It's a simple matter of world perspective. You seem to be saying "My money is more important than your life." I say "Life is more important, no matter whose." As for wait times, my grandparents never had to wait when they needed life saving surgery, I didn't need to wait when I needed leg surgery. Transplants and such have waiting lists due to not enough donors, and some procedures have waiting lists just because we don't have the population to support more doctors, thus there's simply not enough personnel. From what I've heard of the US, if you take out the population factor, your system's no better.

The first argument about "government = bad" is purely your opinion, and strictly based on your limited (as in only your own) interaction with government. As Seshat pointed out, it's not like politicians go in and say "Sorry, you can't run that MRI, because you've exceeded your allotment of tracer for this month." In Canada, everything's done by regional health boards, which are comprised of people who are actually trained in medical care for the most part, and then bureaucrats from the government are a minority, and mostly act as the representatives to the politicians when it comes time to assign budgets.

[Pedersen]

I understand that. But insurance companies also tend to give healthy people discounts while unhealthy people pay more.

This is true when the individual buys their own insurance policy. But I have never seen it happen when an employee buys their insurance through their employer. In fact, Ive heard (though never confirmed) that it is illegal for an employer to provide discounts based on the health of an employee or a dependent.

I have also seen insurance companies take a census of a workplace before issuing a rate quote to an employer.

Taken as a whole, these factors translate as follows: It is always in the employee's benefit to work for a company full of younger, healthier people. The employer pays less in premiums, which means the employee pays less as well, and gets a better health policy.

On the flip side, if you're a 25 year old working for a company where the average age is over 50, and the workers have regular health issues that require extended hospital visits, you're gonna get boned on the premiums.

Quite contrary to the claim of "insurance companies also tend to give healthy people discounts while unhealthy people pay more". Change the word "people" to "groups", and you're closer. Just make sure that you being the statistical outlier in the group works to your benefit. And hope like hell that your retirement comes way before the rest of the company's.

I like that plan. It's a good one.

Really. I mean it. Honest.

Aw hell, there goes my straight face.

[AFPheonix]

To touch one of the things that you mentioned earlier, there are some health insurers that will cover pre-existing conditions, you have to search for them.

KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF HOSPITALS! *blood shooting out of my eyes* The only time the government should be allowed in a hospital is to insure that the hospital is operating safely and properly. Otherwise, I don't want hospitals funding doctors and making choices for hospitals. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

There are insurers that will, but guess what, you'll be paying an arm and a leg for poorer coverage with high deductibles.

And ha ha ha, you'd rather a company that is making money based on your care sticking their nose in your hospital? Would you like to know what happens then? You have to jump through a ton of "step therapy" hoops to get to the therapy that actually does something for you. You end up spending more and wasting time just because some insurance company pinches their pennies like nobody's business.
The pre-authorization system takes flippin' forever, too. It's rare that I can get a claim to go through in a week. At best it's several weeks, sometimes even for important shit like Procrit.

This is after they've cut nursing hours down low enough that it's borderline dangerous just so they save money for bonuses.
I invite all of you who think everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps to volunteer at a free or low cost health clinic. I can guarantee you'll change your mind in a hurry. I'd recommend doing it now, because you'll be sure to meet a helluva lot of people who've lost their coverage through no fault of their own, and they face the choice of food on the table for themselves and their kids or health care. I know, I've met them both at my volunteer position and in my job.

As for Medicare and Medicaid, Medicare actually works quite well, as long as Congress isn't cutting doctor's reimbursements. I have a few beefs with Medicare Part D but overall, it's a good program. Same with Tricare.
Medicaid also has its moments of pretty darn good, but the offices in my area are overwhelmed at the moment so they've been slow getting people plugged in.

[Rapscallion]

I understand that. But insurance companies also tend to give healthy people discounts while unhealthy people pay more.

Older people tend to require the most care. Corporations run on numbers. Deciding not to fully treat people as they start to cost the company so they stop costing the company is a sound fiscal policy in the actuarists' line of work.

Think about that when you start getting your first grey hair. Panic about it when you get your first grey pube.

If you need to borrow some to get the experience, I've got plenty of grey.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Think about that when you start getting your first grey hair. Panic about it when you get your first grey pube.

If you need to borrow some to get the experience, I've got plenty of grey.

And here's me eating dinner as I read.....

2 other points FL. Firstly, what happens in towns where there is low economics? In the non-socialised system, someone will eventually make the decision that having medical treatment there is too expensive, so you won't have any medics there any more. Under the socialised system, even in areas people usually don't want to go, the government can offer up payouts, subsidies etc to incite medics to go there (we've got that for various places up in the Northern Territory in the middle of nowhere...).

Secondly, if you can't afford basic health care, what the hell is the government doing spending billions on a couple of wars? Is that more beneficial to the country than the health of it's citizens back home??

How about what we've got down under... you get a taxbreak for paying for private health insurance. (after all, our health system isn't the best either, given some waiting times, elective surgeries, apparently low pay for nursing staff, while doctors still seem to be loaded...)