why are people against socialized medicine?

[ea1776]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

. 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]

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.