why are people against socialized medicine?

[GREENBACK]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.