why are people against socialized medicine?

[maat55]

National healthcare will rely on massive taxation and be poorly ran by a government that cannot tie its shoe laces.

If the post office, SS, medicare and medicaid, department of education are not ebough proof that national healthcare would be a major disaster, I'm at a loss for how to explain that grass is green.

This would be a major step into socialism. It is the wrong step and our children will suffer for it.

[rc1078]

I am not

[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?

[disneysteve]

Currently you have an insurance clerk decide which procedures you deserve and which shall be denied.

This is really an oversimplification of the current system.

Yes, a non-clinical person answers the phone or receives the fax requesting authorization for a test, procedure or medication. But that person evaluates the request based on a set of criteria established by a group including medical personnel. If a request is denied, the requesting physician can appeal and have the case reviewed or can pick up the phone and call the medical director, a physician working for the insurance company, and explain why the test/drug is needed. I've done that many times and only on a handful of occasions in my 17 years of practice has my request ever been denied.

The problem is that doctors shouldn't have to jump through hoops like that in order to get their patients the care they need.

How do things work in the countries you mentioned (England, Australia, Sweden and Canada)? There must be some system in place to certify care. Otherwise, costs couldn't be controlled. Does anyone know how authorizations, drug formularies and such are handled in any of those places?

[Inkstain82]

If the post office, SS, medicare and medicaid, department of education are not ebough proof that national healthcare would be a major disaster, I'm at a loss for how to explain that grass is green.

Your final sentence is telling. Some people have accepted it as an article of faith that government is inefficient and all market-based solutions are inherently superior. I see little to no empiric evidence of this as a universal truth (although it's certainly true a lot of the time). But I guess that's just one of the basic differences between a conservative and a liberal that cannot be overcome.

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.

[Inkstain82]

Actually, I think higher education is a fantastic example. It's an example of the government running public institutions while private options still remain, it's generally considered to be the best in the world (although India and China are gunning for us), and it is a major reason why the U.S. is prosperous.

[disneysteve]

I think the fact that I can drop a letter in a mailbox at the corner of my street and have it hand-delivered to someone 3,000 miles away within 48-72 hours for less than 50 cents is absolutely incredible.

[EEinNJ]

I think anyone who is against health care insurance reform is either ignorant, selfish, or a right-wing idealogue. I could list numerous examples of the collusion between insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, and drug companies, and ways they screw consumers- patients, people at their most vulnerable. Price fixing, gouging, upcharges are all routine.

The government doesn't have to run care itself, they just have to open up the pool of insured to all of us, and regulate pricing.

Those that say this is socialism, who have an "every man for himself" attitude, are ignoring that we ARE a society, and we will all one day get sick, old and die. Think it won't happen to you?

[disneysteve]

I think anyone who is against health care insurance reform is either ignorant, selfish, or a right-wing idealogue.

I'm not sure anyone is arguing against reform, but reform can take many different shapes. It does not have to mean switching to a single-payer, government-run national plan. There are numerous examples right now, operating very successfully today, of system reform. I've mentioned the Mayo Clinic. There is also excellent work being done in one area in Colorado (sorry, I don't remember what town). The methods and technology to cut costs dramatically already exist. They just aren't being widely used.

Under these systems, doctors still earn just as much if not more, hospitals make more more by reducing waste and write-off charges, and most importantly, patients get a higher quality of care with better outcomes at a lower cost. We just need to figure out how to implement these paradigm-shifting methods on a larger scale.

[snafu]

dsteve: Everyone has medical insurance which covers everything from a sliver to body part transplant whether in an office, clinic, ER centre, hospital or a long term care facility...an some are covered for all private nursing home care [private care has income barriers].

Doctors are paid per person seen or per procedure. Both the Board of the Medical Assoc. and the Gov't hire professional negotiators to hammer out the fee schedule and length of time it will be in effect. That schedule may seem lower to American physicians but it takes into account that there is no pro bono, no default, no time lapse and one clerk in most large clinics can easily manage all the billing to a single insurer. Drs. in individual practice use an agency.

Since the Canadian system was devised there have been gia-normous changes in medical treatment and care. The costs have hugely increased due to new technologies, constant replacing of equipment, and transplants. EMS education has them keeping people alive during transport. People who are much sicker can recover, and people living longer have more body parts break-down.

I am guessing if a physician plans a procedure that is not in the schedule, s/he would likely need his Board's approval. The government does not decide who shall have and who shall be denied.

We liken universal medical care to universal education. We feel or have been brainwashed to believe that every child [including those that are challenged] is entitled to a reasonable Education K-12. Teachers must meet required credentials; both principals and parents have the power [with cause] to turf non performing teachers. There is a good system of scholarship, grants and loans that gets people through public college, trade/technical school or university. I agree we lack the prestige of your top ten but they accept Canadian students without problem so long as they can pay the double or triple costs required for foreign students.

[GREENBACK]

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]

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]

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]

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?