why are people against socialized medicine?

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by Inkstain82

I'm a pretty big fan of the post office, the army, the higher education system, NASA and the highway system, off the top of my head. And while the overall education system could be better, it's light-years ahead of what we'd have under a purely private system.

The agencies you're describing would be virtually impossible to run privately. The sheer volume of people and the money neccesary to run any of these things is mostly beyond the scope of the private sector. This is when you need a gov't. I've been a federal, state,local and private employee. From everything I've seen private is way more efficient. I think a lot of that comes from the fact that the private sector looks far more closely at costs than do most gov't agencies who know their income doesn't really depend on their output.

The goverment is neccesary for certain things but (trust me) being efficient is not their strongpoint.

[Inkstain82]

Originally Posted by GREENBACK

The agencies you're describing would be virtually impossible to run privately. The sheer volume of people and the money neccesary to run any of these things is mostly beyond the scope of the private sector. This is when you need a gov't. I've been a federal, state,local and private employee. From everything I've seen private is way more efficient. I think a lot of that comes from the fact that the private sector looks far more closely at costs than do most gov't agencies who know their income doesn't really depend on their output.

The goverment is neccesary for certain things but (trust me) being efficient is not their strongpoint.

Agreed, and that's the point. I consider health care to be too large and too important to be run privately.

[GREENBACK]

I understand what you're saying and agree with the importance of the health care system. I think it's apples and oranges to compare it to NASA or the highway sytem. I'm ok if Both of these have a few or even several substandard employees because they're gov't run.....I'm not comfortable with this thought in the medical field.

[Inkstain82]

Originally Posted by GREENBACK

I understand what you're saying and agree with the importance of the health care system. I think it's apples and oranges to compare it to NASA or the highway sytem. I'm ok if Both of these have a few or even several substandard employees because they're gov't run.....I'm not comfortable with this thought in the medical field.

I think it's a mistake to blame mistakes and substandard employees on the fact that the organization is run by the government. Corporate America hardly has a better track record.

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by Inkstain82

I think it's a mistake to blame mistakes and substandard employees on the fact that the organization is run by the government. Corporate America hardly has a better track record.

I'm just going on my past experiences. I have worked in all sectors mentioned and of all of them the most incompetence and inefficiecency has come from the gov't. Not saying it's always true but seems to be more often than not.


We attract brillant minds from all over the world to work in the medical field in th US because of a private, and yes, well paying system. I get the argument that some or even many aren't getting treatment but that appears to be the case for many nations with national healthcare. The price is that no one benefits. The doctors aren't as good and they run people along assembly line style when you actually get in to see them. I don't think it's accidental that many of the great meds and procedures that are created here are a product of our private system that other countries benefit from.

The system needs to be reformed but I think natinalization is a poor step backwards. I've asked before about nationalizing banks, healthcare, anything. Where on this earth does it actually work?

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Hmmm..if we had free medical we'd all be lazy? I wonder how we ended up with the idea of star trek and no money?

Anyway though, I am tree hugging liberal. BUT I'm willing to listen to reform as a free market healthcare.

I just want REFORM period. Costs are out of control. Services suck. Waiting times.

Can someone explain to me HOW the AMA, can JUSTIFY graduating almost the same number of doctors in 2009 as 1959? Did our population not grow? Are we not living longer?

Funny thing.

Also funny that we are specializing more and more, yet less doctors are forced into primary care. I've got a summer student, 1st year medical student actually, telling me residencies are not 100% full. And only certain ones are even competitive. For family doctors/internal medicine it's like 80%!

Umm...Could this be a possible area of reform and area that it MIGHT help to graduate more doctors? It might also help to have more doctors go into areas like primary care?

[maat55]

Originally Posted by snafu

maat55 if they follow a model similar to England, Australia, Sweden, or Canada, it will be run by the medical profession. It could be paid with a Value Added Tax [VAT] charged to every purchased item and service. It's very efficient and everyone contributes, even those who pay no income tax or get tax free income.

Currently you have an insurance clerk decide which procedures you deserve and which shall be denied. Added to that is your co-pay. Those without insurance give up all or do without treatment for life threatening illness. But caring about others is the slippery slope to 'socialism.' What is your definition?

I would like to see a system that eliminates the insurance company and the government. People deal directly with the doctor and hospital. This eliminates the over costs associated with poor government beaurocracy and insurance profits.

You should be priced by your health risks, if you smoke, are obiest etc. you pay more. You might think twice about what you consume when you are held accountable.

Any system that involves lacked responsibility and spreads the burden, will not be efficient.

We have the best healthcare system around because it is of the free market. Its downfall is to many hands in the pie. It lacks competition between hospitals and doctors.


Healthcare, food, housing, clothing are all the same to me. You make choices and priorities, if you want healthcare, prioritze it. If you truly can't do for yourself, there are charities and churches to help.

People need to toughen up and be responsible, or suffer the concequences.

[disneysteve]

OT, but for the record, the US Postal Service is NOT a government agency. It has federal oversight and the Postmaster General is a political appointee, but the agency is self-sustaining. No taxpayer dollars go to support the USPS. It pays for its operation through postage fees and sale of products.

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by LivingAlmostLarge

Can someone explain to me HOW the AMA, can JUSTIFY graduating almost the same number of doctors in 2009 as 1959? Did our population not grow? Are we not living longer?

Funny thing.

Also funny that we are specializing more and more, yet less doctors are forced into primary care. I've got a summer student, 1st year medical student actually, telling me residencies are not 100% full. And only certain ones are even competitive. For family doctors/internal medicine it's like 80%!

As those here in the medical field might say; it's a little challenging to get a medical degree! For the same amount of time/expenses/schooling there are other fields that will pay better with far less liability and stress. Would you as a primary care physician be willing to go through all this to earn less than a lot of assembly line workers at a factory and definitely less than equally educated folks in other fields. That's pretty much what nat'l health care promises.

Under a fed run system I don't see improvement in this area and since we're not socialists(yet!) I don't see how you can force people to go this route. All the good minds that could be doctors will now be working in other more profitable areas. I think the AMA graduates fewer today because of the above mentioned issues. This is a personal observation but there seems to be far more doctors of a foreign origin here these days than ever which I don't have a problem with and many do a fine job. I think the reason is that we don't have students willing to devote the time and money to make less than they could in other areas. Nationalized healthcare will exacerbate this problem of finding good doctors exponentially...just my opinion . Everyone may get treated but no one will get treated well.

[feh]

Originally Posted by maat55

We have the best healthcare system around because it is of the free market.

What makes you think we have the "best healthcare system around"? By any measure I've seen, we get mediocre results for exorbitant costs (compared to the rest of the world).

One of the reasons our healthcare system stinks is because of the free market. Insurance companies are profit driven, which doesn't result in better care. It results in more doctor visits and more procedures, because that's how they make their money.

[geojen]

Greenback-
Industrialized countries all over the world have nationalized health care systems that work quite well. On a previous thread I posted a link to a Frontline episode that detailed the plans for these countries.

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by geojen

Greenback-
Industrialized countries all over the world have nationalized health care systems that work quite well. On a previous thread I posted a link to a Frontline episode that detailed the plans for these countries.

I looked at a frontline article titled "sick in america" if that was your link. I still think a major problem here will be getting quality young people to go to school for years and to possibly take out many thousands in loans to earn far less as a doctor than their skills would dictate. There are many problems with either system but I think it's a much better idea to reform our system than to nationalize it IMO

[Inkstain82]

Originally Posted by disneysteve

OT, but for the record, the US Postal Service is NOT a government agency. It has federal oversight and the Postmaster General is a political appointee, but the agency is self-sustaining. No taxpayer dollars go to support the USPS. It pays for its operation through postage fees and sale of products.

Sort of. It's pretty complicated. It is a government agency that is mandated to be revenue neutral and granted by statute many of the powers and rights of a private organization.

[Inkstain82]

Originally Posted by GREENBACK

I looked at a frontline article titled "sick in america" if that was your link. I still think a major problem here will be getting quality young people to go to school for years and to possibly take out many thousands in loans to earn far less as a doctor than their skills would dictate.

Agreed. It won't work without the government fully subsidizing all medical training, which I think would be a good idea under any system.

[Inkstain82]

Originally Posted by maat55

We have the best healthcare system around because it is of the free market.

Nobody says we have the best healthcare system around. Nobody. We rank middle of the pack among industrialized countries by most standards and rankings, lower in some.

We have the best advanced medical care system in the world, but our day-to-day general practice care is well below par. Sort of like having a $25 million/year baseball star on your team with no one else who is any good.

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by Inkstain82

Sort of like having a $25 million/year baseball star on your team with no one else who is any good.

That's not a bad analogy. The thing is we need those stars to keep coming along to hit homeruns in the future. How do we make sure we can do that vs. losing them to higher paying professions.

[Inkstain82]

Originally Posted by GREENBACK

That's not a bad analogy. The thing is we need those stars to keep coming along to hit homeruns in the future. How do we make sure we can do that vs. losing them to higher paying professions.

Single-payer system with government incentives toward general practice.

But if it's an either/or, I'll take the balanced team.

[snafu]

After a study of 191 nations, the World Health Organization, ranked France and Italy as the top two medical care providers; inspite of being the most expensive, the USA ranked # 37.

When compared to Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zeland & UK, the USA comes last.

I learned about rescission [the act of rescinding] in the CNN lead story yesterday. Insurance company's staff seek reasons to rescind approval after expensive treatment ends. The woman who spoke to Congress explained that problem after a double masectomy, radiation and chemo left her at her weakest. When most in need of insurance, private insurance pays staff a bonus to find a reason to withdraw coverage.

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by snafu

After a study of 191 nations, the World Health Organization, ranked France and Italy as the top two medical care providers; inspite of being the most expensive, the USA ranked # 37.

When compared to Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zeland & UK, the USA comes last.

I learned about rescission [the act of rescinding] in the CNN lead story yesterday. Insurance company's staff seek reasons to rescind approval after expensive treatment ends. The woman who spoke to Congress explained that problem after a double masectomy, radiation and chemo left her at her weakest. When most in need of insurance, they seek to withdraw coverage.

We're expensive but the places you mention have extraordinary taxes to pay for this "low"cost health care. It's paid for one way or the other. We need to improve the way ins. co.'s do buisness instead of handing our health to the gov't.

[EEinNJ]

Originally Posted by snafu

After a study of 191 nations, the World Health Organization, ranked France and Italy as the top two medical care providers; inspite of being the most expensive, the USA ranked # 37.

When compared to Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zeland & UK, the USA comes last.

I learned about rescission [the act of rescinding] in the CNN lead story yesterday. Insurance company's staff seek reasons to rescind approval after expensive treatment ends. The woman who spoke to Congress explained that problem after a double masectomy, radiation and chemo left her at her weakest. When most in need of insurance, they seek to withdraw coverage.

Snafu, your last example is the kind of thing insurance companies are getting away with, financially screwing sick people. Yet so many people are blind to this and argue against anything being done about it because they've been frightened into believing that it would be "Socialism" or "Nationalized HealthCare"

I work for a very small company with Cigna health insurance. My boss was treated for prostate cancer last year. He obtained the necessary precertifications and was told the codes to list, etc. After his surgery, they refused to cover $9000 in charges. Eventually the doctor settled for a lower amount, and he ended up paying $3000. Then, even though it is illegal in NJ, our group rate went up 40%. I ended up with a lesser plan because the company could not afford it.

My first wife had breast cancer, at the time I worked for J & J and had very good insurance. Generally everything was handled ok, but I learned a little bit about how hospital billing works. Hospitals bundle claims together, submit to insurance company, they kick out some, settle for lesser amounts, then they come after the patient. The patient has to fight to get the coverage they are paying for. I spent several months getting claims covered, and a year after she died, a collections agency was still trying to get payment on an MRI bill that was incorrectly denied.

Knowing government bureaucracy, I don't know if they can do any better, but the insurance system must be fixed. To me it's not a health care issue, it's a consumer issue.