why are people against socialized medicine?

[Brad VanGuard]

Here is another reason: If you have a problem and you've waited a long time to get into the doctor to get your help and then someone younger than you shows up farther back in the line with the same problem, then they will take the younger person regardless of how long you've waited. Also doctors are all paid the same so why take the time to go to school for 12 years if you are only gunna make what everyone else makes?

[cameraeye]

You don't hear the congressmen and congresswomen complain about the socialized medicine they get. Seems to me if they aren't complaining about it, it wouldn't be all that bad for the rest of us as well.

The other thing is that everyone hear is saying that it will be so bad - but the reason all the insurance companies are worried is because it will be too good and they won't be able to compete. If it is really bad, then there are plenty of opportunities for the insurance companies to fill the void.

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by cameraeye

You don't hear the congressmen and congresswomen complain about the socialized medicine they get. Seems to me if they aren't complaining about it, it wouldn't be all that bad for the rest of us as well.

In what way does everyone getting this type of healthcare make things cheaper for anybody? These are mostly wealthy people that can and do go wherever they want for healthcare and they can pretty much pay for the care they get. They pay a lot into this "free" healthcare unlike a lot of people would if it applied to everyone. Guess who gets to pay for the rest of America that contributes nothing to the system under national healthcare? That would be you and me.

[Homebody]

As my Russian born sister-in-law says, "Just because it is free does not mean it is good". She had her teeth worked on as a child with no anesthetics.

And as I learned the first day of my college economics class, "there is no such thing as a free lunch".

There is so much beaucracy that you have to appeal "noncovered" items, can you imagine how bad it would be when the government gets to decide what is covered.

We already have socialized medicine, it's called Medicaid.

[cameraeye]

Originally Posted by GREENBACK

In what way does everyone getting this type of healthcare make things cheaper for anybody? These are mostly wealthy people that can and do go wherever they want for healthcare and they can pretty much pay for the care they get. They pay a lot into this "free" healthcare unlike a lot of people would if it applied to everyone. Guess who gets to pay for the rest of America that contributes nothing to the system under national healthcare? That would be you and me.

Congress men and women get their healthcare free from the government. They don't pay a thing for it. There salary is all paid by taxpayers. If anyone is freeloading off of the taxpayers, the congress is the first place to look.

[cameraeye]

Originally Posted by Homebody

As my Russian born sister-in-law says, "Just because it is free does not mean it is good". She had her teeth worked on as a child with no anesthetics.

And as I learned the first day of my college economics class, "there is no such thing as a free lunch".

There is so much beaucracy that you have to appeal "noncovered" items, can you imagine how bad it would be when the government gets to decide what is covered.

We already have socialized medicine, it's called Medicaid.

Medicare has it's problems, but almost everyone agrees that it is much less expensive than the open market. Ask any person over 65 and they have absolutely no desire to have their medicare taken away.

Again, the insurnace companies aren't worried that government health care will be bad - if it were then they would have plenty of opportunity to make money. They know it will be so much better that they worry they will go out of business. That should say something.

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by cameraeye

Congress men and women get their healthcare free from the government. They don't pay a thing for it. There salary is all paid by taxpayers. If anyone is freeloading off of the taxpayers, the congress is the first place to look.

You say that as though these folks don't pay taxes. Am I missing something here? I am a goverment employee but I pay taxes like everyone else including congressional people. There is no special personal tax excemption because you work for the gov't that I'm aware of. The only "freeloaders" are those who contribute nothing to the system but reap huge benefits that would make a congressman blush. Guess who gets more free prenatal/postnatal care from the goverment: A pregnant congress woman or a pregnant welfare recipient? I think you know that answer. There are many other examples of those kinds of freebies out there.

Where is this big pile of money that gives these congressional people everything "free"? It doesn't exist unless you look at the money they put into the system in the first place. How are we paying for Ted Kennedy's enormous bills for his brain cancer surgery? It comes largely out of their(Kennedy's) pockets because they can afford it. What happens to Joe Average with brain cancer under nationalized care?....who knows but he'll never be able to pay the amount someone like a Kennedy can. The biggest "freeloaders" are those who pay nothing into the system and still get treatment not the US congress or any other working person.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Originally Posted by Homebody

As my Russian born sister-in-law says, "Just because it is free does not mean it is good". She had her teeth worked on as a child with no anaesthetics.

Just a tiny point, but the specific practices are not necessarily a reflection of whether or not a government is the provider of the service. I, too, as a child had dental work with no anaesthesia, when at the time (and looking back) I thought I could have used it. The drilling to fill a child's "shallow" cavity was considered not painful enough to require anaesthesia. I assure you my mother, not a government, paid for the service, and in the US.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Originally Posted by GREENBACK

. Guess who gets more free prenatal/postnatal care from the goverment: A pregnant congress woman or a pregnant welfare recipient? I think you know that answer.

Actually, if I were to guess there is a difference, I would think it is the Congressperson who would get better and more timely prenatal and postnatal care. Do you have evidence otherwise?

A pregnant welfare/Medicaid recipient who finds herself ill in -say- the sixth month of pregnancy probably has to go to an emergency room to get seen. She may wait for hours, coming in only feeling generally horrible and having fever. The Congressperson can probably call her private doctor and be squeezed in right way. The Medicaid recipient does NOT have the same insurance as the Congresswoman. So, maybe the government had to shell out $800 for the Congresswoman's doctor visit, but maybe shelled out $20,000 for the Medicaid recipients' ER visit because ER is expensive (no office visit was offered the woman) and she waited hours, allowing an intrauterine infection to progress dangerously so that she had to be admitted for two days. In this hypothetical example, let us consider the taxpayers lucky that the infection did not cause a premature delivery and subsequent month's stay in neonatal intensive care for the baby....all for want of seeing a doctor quickly.

If on average, more money is spent by the public for a Medicaid recipient's pregnancy and follow-up, rather than on a Congresswoman's, I think it is very likely to be because the system has been "pennywise and pound foolish," not spending money in the efficient and preventative ways.

Where is this big pile of money that gives these congressional people everything "free"? It doesn't exist unless you look at the money they put into the system in the first place. How are we paying for Ted Kennedy's enormous bills for his brain cancer surgery? It comes largely out of their(Kennedy's) pockets because they can afford it. What happens to Joe Average with brain cancer under nationalized care?....who knows but he'll never be able to pay the amount someone like a Kennedy can. The biggest "freeloaders" are those who pay nothing into the system and still get treatment not the US congress or any other working person.

No one is talking about a big pile of money, exactly. They are talking about the health insurance that the Senators and Representatives get. It is one of their perks....And how in the world do you know that the Kennedys are paying for the Senator's medical care care just now? I would assume that any savvy person who has health insurance, as the Senator does because he is a senator, would use that insurance for all that it will cover. My understanding is that their insurance is a benefit of the employment and that it is totally covered by the employer ---us. The insurance our national legislators get is not the same as what "any other working person gets." My family's insurance for the coming year costs $1300+ per month.


PS Greenback, are you in the military and have government provided medical care when you need it? I would love to hear from someone in the military, especially someone with a family, to hear how well that works or not.

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by Joan.of.the.Arch

Actually, if I were to guess there is a difference, I would think it is the Congressperson who would get better and more timely prenatal and postnatal care. Do you have evidence otherwise?

A pregnant welfare/Medicaid recipient who finds herself ill in -say- the sixth month of pregnancy probably has to go to an emergency room to get seen. She may wait for hours, coming in only feeling generally horrible and having fever. The Congressperson can probably call her private doctor and be squeezed in right way. The Medicaid recipient does NOT have the same insurance as the Congresswoman. So, maybe the government had to shell out $800 for the Congresswoman's doctor visit, but maybe shelled out $20,000 for the Medicaid recipients' ER visit because ER is expensive (no office visit was offered the woman) and she waited hours, allowing an intrauterine infection to progress dangerously so that she had to be admitted for two days. In this hypothetical example, let us consider the taxpayers lucky that the infection did not cause a premature delivery and subsequent month's stay in neonatal intensive care for the baby....all for want of seeing a doctor quickly.

If on average, more money is spent by the public for a Medicaid recipient's pregnancy and follow-up, rather than on a Congresswoman's, I think it is very likely to be because the system has been "pennywise and pound foolish," not spending money in the efficient and preventative ways.



No one is talking about a big pile of money, exactly. They are talking about the health insurance that the Senators and Representatives get. It is one of their perks....And how in the world do you know that the Kennedys are paying for the Senator's medical care care just now? I would assume that any savvy person who has health insurance, as the Senator does because he is a senator, would use that insurance for all that it will cover. My understanding is that their insurance is a benefit of the employment and that it is totally covered by the employer ---us. The insurance our national legislators get is not the same as what "any other working person gets." My family's insurance for the coming year costs $1300+ per month.


PS Greenback, are you in the military and have government provided medical care when you need it? I would love to hear from someone in the military, especially someone with a family, to hear how well that works or not.

My example of the pregnant woman was just meant to show that the welfare recipient won't pay a dime for the care receieved even if it isn't the best care. The congress person will certainly get better care but will pay a fair amount out of pocket. Yes they have great health benefits but the idea that they get a free ride is wrong. It would be great to see both get equal care but that's not reality under the best of systems.

When Kennedy was admitted there was talk ( I don't remember the details) of how much it would cost and as I recall the Kennedy's paid huge out of pocket costs for his treatment. I don't know what care he's currently receiv ing or who's paying for what but I'm sure they are paying a large amount for the treatment he's getting. Multi millionaires will always get better care same as they live in bigger houses and drive more expensive vehicles. That he's a U.S. senator means he'll get the benefits from that job but it doesn't mean he gets a free ride. That have great insurance benefits but not free medical care. Is it practical to say that everyone should get the same benefits? I don't think so. I'm not saying the system doesn't need to be fixed but I don't see how we can create a system where everyone gets equal healthcare.

I work for state gov't and I have very good health benefits but I too pay taxes and pay into medicare. I sought out this job for the pay and benefits provided. Should everyone be entitled to these benefits? I don't see how it's possible. Maybe some genious has a great plan to make this happen but I haven't heard it.

I am from a military family. The military is somewhat of a case study in socialized medicine.yesTheir medical care is free. Problem is that most military people are young, fit and healthy to begin with so they aren't much of a burden on the system to begin with. Family members are very quick to go to the doctor for the slightest ailment. The horror stories you hear about the V.A. and particularly Walter Reed are very true. In all too many cases the treatment is sub-par and that's unfortunate. I'm all for making the system better so that everyone benefits but I not sure if it's really possible.

Your insurance cost are high. Do you have an idea how that might be changed? If it would change would you be confident in recieving the same level of healthcare should you need it? Difficult questions to answer.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

It is a myth that Medicaid recipients do not pay a dime. Medicaid is administered by the individual states and co-pays are partly up to the states. Co-pays for some Medicaid folks can be up to 20% of the service or product given.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by Joan.of.the.Arch

It is a myth that Medicaid recipients do not pay a dime. Medicaid is administered by the individual states and co-pays are partly up to the states. Co-pays for some Medicaid folks can be up to 20% of the service or product given.

I can tell you that it isn't a myth here in NJ. Medicaid folks pay zero for their care. No office copays. No prescription copays. No procedure copays. Nada. Plus, they can get many things covered, like OTC meds, that folks with "good" private insurance can't.

[swanson719]

How can people say that free medical is so great? Congress doesn't have to pay a tab for medical, the same as the military, but they still have to have referralls, authorizations, etc. etc. They still wait to see the doctor. There is no calling a private doctor and getting squeezed in and having the taxpayers pay for it. It just doesn't work like that. They go through the same hoops as everyone else, just don't have to pay the bill with it. There are a few exceptions for cabinet members, the president, the party leaders, but by and large, it works the same as normal insurance.

Socialized medicine would put this system in place for everyone. And there is no benefit of it socially. From a debt load viewpoint, it would be the equivalent of having the entire nation on one provider in a group rate. Rather than having that rate judged as an actual, active bill, it will be judged passively as a federal tax. That line on your pay stub that says "Federal Taxes/Medicare/Social Security" - now just take out the medicare, make it higher by $100 a month, and add it to federal taxes. That's what socialized medicine does. It's not free. We just change the names to protect the innocent. Taxes go up. It's the Democratic way - Tax and Spend. Democrats think they can spend money better than the people they tax to get it from. You and I can spend our money better than government, so why pay government to tell you what health care you can use? It doesn't make sense. You lose your choice, and pay for it to be taken away, all in the name of helping the poor. Why are the majority of poor people poor? Because they make bad decisions with their money. So now we're going to make a bad decision not just with our money but our healthcare for ourselves and our family to help people who don't know or don't want to help themselves. Are we stupid people?

The only way to do this without raising taxes is to go further in national debt. To who? At what cost? The interest on the national debt is over a billion dollars a day. A Billion. A thousand million. Can you comprehend how much money that is? That's just interest. We all are smart enough here to understand you don't get out of debt by going further in the red. So why are we advocating this? It makes no sense financially to reduce the care of the many to help the few, and either finance the cost at huge interest rates or tax those who we are reducing their care. Wake up people. How do you think that socialized medicine benefits anyone but those who don't have care and don't pay taxes because they are so poor? The only ones that benefit from this are people who make less than $18,500 a year and don't have insurance. If you want to help those people make a donation to charity. Don't hurt everyone elses health care so you can feel good about yourself.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

"Normal insurance." Right, I agree. And with normal insurance one does not have to go to the emergency room for a fever plus generally feeling sick in pregnancy. One calls one's private doctor and gets squeezed in to the schedule. The insurance pays for it, because that is part of what insurance is for. This is what Congressional Reps would do (and their insurance pays), but it is not what many Medicaid recipients even have a choice to do.

[swanson719]

Originally Posted by Joan.of.the.Arch

"Normal insurance." Right, I agree. And with normal insurance one does not have to go to the emergency room for a fever plus generally feeling sick in pregnancy. One calls one's private doctor and gets squeezed in to the schedule. The insurance pays for it, because that is part of what insurance is for. This is what Congressional Reps would do (and their insurance pays), but it is not what many Medicaid recipients even have a choice to do.

And you think that socialized medicine will be any different than an expanded version of Medicaid? Gov't employees and their families fall under FEHB, which covers primary care doctor, but the wait is often up to 6 weeks. It's not much different than a benefits package at work. The government just has a better benefits package. So go work for the gov't, or realize that socialized medicine will just be a huge version of the current medicair.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by Joan.of.the.Arch

"Normal insurance." Right, I agree. And with normal insurance one does not have to go to the emergency room for a fever plus generally feeling sick in pregnancy. One calls one's private doctor and gets squeezed in to the schedule. The insurance pays for it, because that is part of what insurance is for. This is what Congressional Reps would do (and their insurance pays), but it is not what many Medicaid recipients even have a choice to do.

Keep in mind that Medicaid is a state-run program and the terms, conditions and treatment vary from place to place. My practice is about 25% Medicaid patients. They get treated no differently than my patients with private insurance, military insurance, Medicare or no insurance at all. If a patient calls who is sick, they get squeezed in regardless of what kind of insurance they have.

There may be places where Medicaid patients have the type of trouble you describe but I can tell you that it doesn't work that way here.

[Goldy1]

In Michigan, if you are on Medicaid and pregnant, you get prenatal care the same as private insuance and no more of a wait, and you go to the maternity ward when it labor and get the same treatment in the ward as a person with private insurance. None of this settling for er only.

Soem of the commnets on the board seem ill informed generalizations. (not that I know much myself)

I guess it pays to be rich or poor in this country when it comes to healthcare.
Any middle class person without a trust fund should have concerns about insurance. It just seems unfair the middle class is left out in the cold it seems.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Is it not true that doctors have a choice whether to accept Medicaid as the payor? So that if it is too cumbersome, too slow, or too unreliable to wait for Medicaid pays, a doctor may decide simply not to take Medicaid patients? That was my impression for why Medicaid patients can end up with longer waits and in different places-- besides their own ignorance at times.

And by the way, I am not making a case for "socialized medicine." I think it would be fine for both profit and non-profit non-government hospitals, doctors, labs, diagnostic centers, treatment and therapy centers, manufacturers of drugs and medical devices, home health care businesses, nursing homes, rehab facilities, etc to remain in business.

And private insurance doesn't guarantee being seen right away for everything now either. Partly it depends on how many doctors there are who provide the service you need in the area where you are. Partly it depends on the urgency of your situation as portrayed by a referring doctor or even by your own description of the situation when you call to make an appointment.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by Joan.of.the.Arch

Is it not true that doctors have a choice whether to accept Medicaid as the payor? So that if it is too cumbersome, too slow, or too unreliable to wait for Medicaid pays, a doctor may decide simply not to take Medicaid patients? That was my impression for why Medicaid patients can end up with longer waits and in different places

Yes, doctors in private practice get to choose which insurance companies they wish to participate with. That applies to Medicaid but also to Medicare, Aetna, Cigna, Blue Cross, AmeriChoice, Oxford and any other one you can name. Any insurance plan has a list of participating providers and you need to pick from that list or else you pay a lot more for your care. A Medicaid patient can't see any doctor anymore than an Aetna patient can see any doctor.

[Goldy1]

No it never took someone long to get into any dr. office I worked for on Medicaid. If you have that insurance, you just find a dr. who does accept it. Sure many don't . Many do. It's not like he won't be taking Blue Cross pt's right next to that pt. If you are pregnant, you find an ob gyn taking it around here(many do) and get all your appointments in a timely manner. They can even call for a van to take them to and fro free of charge also. They also get gift cards mailed to them as a reward for going to preventative appointments here.

Middle Class? Buy your own and have fun dealing with the no pre existing clause when you get sick and there might be a REMOTE chance it's related and not paid for. (can anyone say, have fun dealing with miles of red tape?)
Don't have a job? Never saved a dime? Sign up for free healtcare.