why are people against socialized medicine?

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by EEinNJ

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.

I am familiar with gov't bureacracy. I guarantee the mess we have will be tripled with their intervention. Insurance companies need to be reigned in but that needs to be the extent of it. It's somewhat dangerous to look at other systems and say that we could just plug that in here and everything will be fine. Lot's of dynamics to consider.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by EEinNJ

Snafu, your last example is the kind of thing insurance companies are getting away with, financially screwing sick people.

Another thing insurance companies do:

I send in a request for authorization of a given procedure, let's say an MRI, for a patient. I give all the clinical info and the insurer faxes back an authorization, allowing the patient to have the test done. HOWEVER, in the fine print of that authorization it says that, "This authorization is not a guarantee of payment." Well then what the hell is it? If they can authorize the procedure and at some later date still refuse to pay for it, what was the point of the authorization?

[feh]

Originally Posted by GREENBACK

I am familiar with gov't bureacracy. I guarantee the mess we have will be tripled with their intervention.

Generalizations of specific experiences usually don't advance the discussion. Health care/insurance provided or subsidized by the government can be well run. We have many examples around the world.

We even have one example right here in the US (at least from the perspective of customer satisfaction):

Meeting Enrollees' Needs: How Do Medicare and Employer Coverage Stack Up? - The Commonwealth Fund

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by feh

Generalizations of specific experiences usually don't advance the discussion. Health care/insurance provided or subsidized by the government can be well run. We have many examples around the world.

We even have one example right here in the US (at least from the perspective of customer satisfaction):

Meeting Enrollees' Needs: How Do Medicare and Employer Coverage Stack Up? - The Commonwealth Fund

If it can be done where I have full choice of who I go to, My taxes don't skyrocket, The quality of care stays the same and the gov't has zero say so in anything I do medically related then I'm for it. What are the chances of that? Sorry, I've been a gov't employee most of my working career which is about 25 years. I've seen how it works and I don't believe for a second in putting them in charge of things that can be handled privately.

Maybe we need two systems; one for those who like the gov't pulling the strings and one for those who want nothing to do with gov't healthcare.

[geojen]

I've worked for both the government and a large company. Beaucratically speaking, I don't see much difference. All beaucracies are inefficient by their very nature. I think setting up the government as inefficient and private industry as efficient is a logical fallacy.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by geojen

All beaucracies are inefficient by their very nature. I think setting up the government as inefficient and private industry as efficient is a logical fallacy.

I agree. Private health insurance companies are horribly inefficient. The amount of waste that occurs is phenomenal and is responsible for a great deal of unnecessary spending of healthcare dollars. I have no reason to think that the government would be any worse than what we've got now. Of course, I'm not sure it would be any better either.

[maat55]

Originally Posted by feh

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.

We have the finest hospitals and research facilities around. Our problem is the socialistic government regulations. Medicare and medicaid are a massive failure adding to the costs. If the system were truly free, the responsible and the truly needy would have it at a reasonable cost.

IMO, getting rid of the government and insurance companies will lead to huge cost reductions. But liberals are too worried about the irresposible. It would take a little time, but society would get with the program.

The world has survived just fine before modern medicine, those who want it can prioritize it.


Flat-fee medical clinics come to rural America - Health care- msnbc.com

NY regulators frown on doctor's flat-fee system - Crain's New York Business

[geojen]

[quote=maat55;225657]We have the finest hospitals and research facilities around. Our problem is the socialistic government regulations. Medicare and medicaid are a massive failure adding to the costs. If the system were truly free, the responsible and the truly needy would have it at a reasonable cost.

IMO, getting rid of the government and insurance companies will lead to huge cost reductions. But liberals are too worried about the irresposible. It would take a little time, but society would get with the program.

The world has survived just fine before modern medicine, those who want it can prioritize it.


This statement is beyond absurd.

Who is protecting the insurance companies--it is by and large not "liberals", but people (who have been bought by the insurance and pharma companies) who want to prevent the massive shift of power and money that the insurance and pharma companies represent.

I find it very interesting that conservative politicians, who have the finest socialist health care around don't think average Americans should have the same. Hypocritical.

[maat55]

[quote=geojen;225680]

Originally Posted by maat55

We have the finest hospitals and research facilities around. Our problem is the socialistic government regulations. Medicare and medicaid are a massive failure adding to the costs. If the system were truly free, the responsible and the truly needy would have it at a reasonable cost.

IMO, getting rid of the government and insurance companies will lead to huge cost reductions. But liberals are too worried about the irresposible. It would take a little time, but society would get with the program.

The world has survived just fine before modern medicine, those who want it can prioritize it.


This statement is beyond absurd.

Who is protecting the insurance companies--it is by and large not "liberals", but people (who have been bought by the insurance and pharma companies) who want to prevent the massive shift of power and money that the insurance and pharma companies represent.

I find it very interesting that conservative politicians, who have the finest socialist health care around don't think average Americans should have the same. Hypocritical.

I do not look at politics from an republican or democrat position any longer. I view both parties as a detriment to american freedom and prosperity.

Americans should have what they can afford and nothing else. Politicians should be limited in terms and buy their own insurance.

You get the government and insurance companies out of healthcare and the lobbies will loose their power.

The only way you will have fairness and pay as you go is through less government involvment.

The only right that people will not stand up for any more is the right to decide for myself and live with the consequences. This country has no idea what real freedom is and the responsibility that it comes with.

We should just rename this country to: The United States of a European want a be.

[ea1776]

Originally Posted by disneysteve

The other issue is that there needs to be far greater emphasis on prevention. What we do in this country is disease management, not health care. We wait until someone is sick and then spend boatloads of money to treat them when it would be phenomenally cheaper to prevent the illness in the first place. I've read that 75% of health care spending is to treat chronic, preventable disease and 40% of premature deaths are due to lifestyle choices and preventable diseases.

Agree 100%. And on that note, I feel very uncomfortable with the idea of my tax dollars going to a triple bypass surgery or treating lung cancer for someones who made concious adult decisions to smoke and/or eat McDonald's Triple Cheeseburgers everyday. A little harsh, but if there's a compromise to be made between the political left and right, that's the first compromise I would support, just after prevention education, as Steve mentioned.

[feh]

Originally Posted by ea1776

Agree 100%. And on that note, I feel very uncomfortable with the idea of my tax dollars going to a triple bypass surgery or treating lung cancer for someones who made concious adult decisions to smoke and/or eat McDonald's Triple Cheeseburgers everyday. A little harsh, but if there's a compromise to be made between the political left and right, that's the first compromise I would support, just after prevention education, as Steve mentioned.

You're already paying for these procedures. You're just paying the insurance company instead of the government.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by feh

You're already paying for these procedures. You're just paying the insurance company instead of the government.

And your tax dollars are already paying for those procedures for Medicare and Medicaid recipients and for those with no insurance.

Self-induced disease makes up a tremendous portion of my practice, easily the vast majority of what I do every day. That's why it would represent a total paradigm shift to switch from a disease management model to a prevention-based model.

[feh]

Originally Posted by disneysteve

And your tax dollars are already paying for those procedures for Medicare and Medicaid recipients and for those with no insurance.

Exactly. People get too hung up on the "not out of my taxes" rhetoric. You're paying for it one way or the other. It doesn't matter if the middle man is the government or the insurance company. Given a choice between the two, I'd rather have the government - they aren't openly trying to screw people.

Self-induced disease makes up a tremendous portion of my practice, easily the vast majority of what I do every day. That's why it would represent a total paradigm shift to switch from a disease management model to a prevention-based model.

Yes, and such a shift would go a long way toward reducing costs.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by feh

Yes, and such a shift would go a long way toward reducing costs.

Absolutely, and it could be done with or without a single-payer system.

Right now, I'm involved in a local coalition that got a major grant from one of the pharma companies to improve diabetes care in our city. Last week, we started what was to be a 2-session diabetes education class. 12 of my patients attended last week. The 2nd session was today. All 12 came back, which was amazing because these are people who are chronically non-compliant. They want to learn. They want to know how to take better care of themselves. It was so successful that it was decided to add 2 more sessions.

Stuff like this can and does work. It just needs to be better funded and done on a larger scale. It would reduce costs and improve outcomes.

[ea1776]

Originally Posted by feh

I'd rather have the government - they aren't openly trying to screw people.

True, they don't do it openly, but there are examples of them screwing people.

[ea1776]

Originally Posted by feh

You're already paying for these procedures. You're just paying the insurance company instead of the government.

True, but there are differences I would think?:

a) Don't many insurance companies screen applicants who have existing conditions and/or bad habits? This makes their premiums go up I would expect, which lessens the burden on more healthy insurance holders. This is probably not true for some insurance-through-work plans, like mine, where we're not screened. But I know screens happen for some private insurance applications.

b) Not all people are insured today. Since, as Steve pointed out, most people seeking care tend to have behaviorial issues, a government plan would cost ME, the healthy-living inexpensive-to-insure-person, MORE.

Disclaimer: I am pretty ignorant about how insurance works, just throwing out some arguments there.

[ea1776]

Originally Posted by disneysteve

Absolutely, and it could be done with or without a single-payer system.

Right now, I'm involved in a local coalition that got a major grant from one of the pharma companies to improve diabetes care in our city. Last week, we started what was to be a 2-session diabetes education class. 12 of my patients attended last week. The 2nd session was today. All 12 came back, which was amazing because these are people who are chronically non-compliant. They want to learn. They want to know how to take better care of themselves. It was so successful that it was decided to add 2 more sessions.

Stuff like this can and does work. It just needs to be better funded and done on a larger scale. It would reduce costs and improve outcomes.

Very great news. See. If only a fraction of those trillions they're planning to spend on socializing medicine were spent on educational programs such as this.... Obviously, things wouldn't be fixed overnight, but it sure sounds like the best LONG-TERM positive contributor for fixing healthcare, not to mention the most favorable LONG-TERM contributor for America's debt.

Education works. Ignorance doesn't. It didn't work for sex (how did preaching abstinence work out for teen pregancy), or drugs (remember how drug use increased after the "just say no" campaign). Teach people and they help themselves.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by ea1776

Don't many insurance companies screen applicants who have existing conditions and/or bad habits?

I don't have stats, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of those with health insurance have it through their employer. No screening occurs typically. Rates are usually based solely on gender and age.

[Goldy1]

I don't really strongly assocaite myself as a democrat or a Republican. I am for healtcare reform.
"Nothing against illegal immirants as I know they just want the best for thier familes too(immigration is not the issue at hand here)" but there is freaking problem when my grandfathers and dh's father fought in wars for this country, and we have all been paying taxes since old enough to get a high school job, and we have to pay for our own insurance and get confused about it due to a layoff, when people who just arrive here or who maybe were born here but never work or bother to save any money get free no cost care.
It's like "sorry, you were middle class and lived frugally and managed to save some money, sorry we won't even HELP make health insurance less confusing for you, but go broke and come back and get signed up for free gov. healthcare"

[swanson719]

No one takes better care of you than you. Look at how well the government runs things now - ever sat in line at the DMV? Now imagine a sole provider of health insurance. Sure, Obama says we can keep the health care we have now if we want it. What he doesn't say is that in his health care bill, private companies have to pay an additional tax for not using the gov't plan, and furthermore, if they do use the gov't plan, they get tax breaks. Therefore, not only is a business being given an incentive to use gov't healthcare, it is penalized if it does not. The gov't doesn't mandate business to use the gov't health care, but it makes it so expensive not to that the business is forced to financially. So no, we don't reasonably have the choice to keep our own healthcare.

Furthermore, as inefficient as private insurance companies may be, what happens when we give the gov't the ability to run things? There is no longer competition. Don't we have anti-monopoly laws for a reason? Compare it to Microsoft about 10 years ago when they were brought to court for making Windows incompatible with anything not microsoft manufactured. The gov't has rule making capability with this system. They choose who we see, when we see them, and how much it costs. And no one can tell them no.

Now imagine that your an 80 year old with a pace maker, diabetic, and all of a sudden have kidney failure. You need to go on dialysis, which runs an average of $35,000+ a month. Sure, Medicare covers it now. But let's put the whole nation in Medicare, which is essentially what we're doing here. How efficient is medicare? Not very. Who pays for it? The Chinese pay for most everything here, look at the national debt after all. So we end up with a choice: Either rob our kids to pay for an extra 5 years of life, or the gov't, being the heartless machine it is, says look 80 yr old, you're a drain on the system. You get Social Security, Medicare, and don't pay taxes. Gov't isn't going to cover you. Good luck. What average joe can cover that? Sure, we did alright before we had big gov't. That person would have died, and no one have been the wiser, because the technology wasn't there to support the medicine. People used to die of the common cold and influenza in WWI too.

Financially, medical care is a huge burden. But we have two options: Either keep it privatized and do the best we can to spread out the burden via group rates and justified medicine, or give it to the gov't who dictates care, and essentially has the right to play God by denying a person care. Maybe a little extreme as an example, but watch it happen. True, letting people die will lower health care costs, but is your Grandma dying worth having a little bit lower tax bill? That's how the gov't is going to justify it - either taxes will be through the roof - which they will be anyway after cap and trade passes - or people will be told, sorry, can't afford you, go out back and die.

We're slowly moving to a gov't that will have cradle to grave socialism. It has never worked in practice, but sounds great in theory. This is the same president who said that with the stimulus bill unemployment would never pass 8%. Where is it now? 9.4% and climbing? Oh yeah, we just forgot about that little tid bit. And what about the trillion dollars? Did they solve anything? Is the economy a bit better? Not noticeably. Now we're just sitting back and waiting for double digit inflation to kick in.

Why should we trust the gov't? What have they done for you? What incentive do you have to use a gov't program? What happened to free enterprise, personal responsibility, and "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"? This attitude that the gov't owes us anything is lie. Gov't exists to protect our sovereignty, protect the state, and keep order. Not to provide every nickel dime and penny to the people by borrowing it from other countries.

Common sense tells us that we can't get out of debt by going further in debt. But what are we doing? And how much further in debt are we going with nationalized health care? If for no other reason than that, we need to keep it with private insurance. At least with them we aren't asking China and Japan to cover our bills.