why are people against socialized medicine?

[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]

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]

"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]

"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]

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.

[blankcheck]

It's lengthy debates like this that help me understand the common trend of recent residency grads at my program:

1-find a job with a hospital affiliated clinic, or a hospital itself

2-build a small private fee-for service practice on the side

3-do whatever else you can on a salary basis to cover initial overhead

4-adjust your practice for whatever balance of insurance/no insurance that you are ethically comfortable with, officially leave the salaried position, and deal with fewer headaches.

So many of the doctors around my age (I'm 27) are incredibly disillusioned about healthcare that they are willing to go into major debt and run at a loss just to get to step 4 sooner.

Whoever said on page 1 or 2 that this situation comes down to personality had it pegged properly. You're not going to convince someone who hates government that we should have the government run something. You're not going to convince someone who hates private corporations that we should continue to have private insurance only.

This, I think, is such a bad stalemate that the only way to get anything done is to continue with revisions to the split system. So conservatives, suck it up; you'll pay taxes. Liberals, suck it up; there will always be a difference in level of care.

[blankcheck]

I posted this in a similar thread, and I think it applies here as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/health/07essa.html

I'm sure not all doctors are as disillusioned as this one is, but I'm also sure they're not all as sincere in their motives for getting into medicine.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Because the number one reason? EVERYONE thinks they are "healthy" and don't need health insurance which spreads around the risk to everyone.

That is until they need insurance and care and then suddenly they BEG the government or insurance for help.

Everyone says they aren't overweight or have any issues when 35% are obese. So where are all these people?

It's like why people don't want to pay taxes and complain. Then if there is a fire they are grateful for the fire department. Or borrowing books from the library.

People in the US keep thinking they are independent islands and don't need to help anyone else or will ever need a hand. Smaller government, less taxes, no health insurance by employers. Capitalism at it's finest.

Honestly? All we'll see is the rich can afford care, the poor will get care and the middle class will cease to exist.

[Seeker]

Because the number one reason? EVERYONE thinks they are "healthy" and don't need health insurance which spreads around the risk to everyone.

That is until they need insurance and care and then suddenly they BEG the government or insurance for help.

Everyone says they aren't overweight or have any issues when 35% are obese. So where are all these people?

It's like why people don't want to pay taxes and complain. Then if there is a fire they are grateful for the fire department. Or borrowing books from the library.

People in the US keep thinking they are independent islands and don't need to help anyone else or will ever need a hand. Smaller government, less taxes, no health insurance by employers. Capitalism at it's finest.

Honestly? All we'll see is the rich can afford care, the poor will get care and the middle class will cease to exist.

100% truth here.

When you're young healthly working and growing, you don't always need the vast majority of the needs that are happening to elder folks today. But you still depend on the things they've done and put into the whole in the past.

When age starts to get ahold of each individual person, we truely come to realize how fragile we are. If an accident or injury occurs, the damage done to a person of age takes a whole lot longer to heal, than a young person. Medical needs grow with time (and DS is also 100% correct -- America needs to become better at preventative care -- do you all know how long it takes to make an appointment for such a simple thing as a mamogram -- last time for me 7 months; and I have insurance).

The medical situation in this country is handled/controlled, if you will, by Insurance companies. If they not only deny coverage to individuals (whom are working and do have coverage), they also take from hospitals/doctors in the form of malpractice premiums. I honesty do not know if they play any part of the manufacturing process of drugs... but if they do, that would also explain the steadily rising costs of medicine.

Ultimately much needs to change.

I think what many countries are headed toward (US included) is a combination of medical formats. I think, there does indeed need to be some form of healthcare for all, and for those people not willing to wait and/or willing to pay more for "better" care, that there'd be an option there as well. Yes, the rich whom choose better care for themselves, may end up paying through taxes for everyone else.

Someone posted earlier -- why should we (the American tax payer) pay for an 80-year old person whom needs heart surgery or whatever? Why? Because it's the right thing to do. In all probabity that 80 year old contributed as much to society as anyone else. Why in a person's time of need, do we fail to help? What goes around, comes around. One day, we'll be in that other person's shoes; then I think we'll understand better.

None of us will live forever, stop being greedy folks.

[swanson719]

I'm not suggesting that the elderly don't deserve care. Rather, if you read my comment, with socialist health care the government will be forced to decide who gets treatment. Today, the younger you are, the higher priority you have when it comes to transplants and other life saving surgeries. This is dictated by hospitals and the groups that administer the transplants and surgeries.

Common sense would dictate the gov't would continue this system. So when an 80 yr old and a 20 yr old both need a life saving heart surgery, who is the gov't going to give the surgery to? The 20 yr old. And who are we going to blame when our grandparents die because they didn't get the care they need? The gov't, who we endorsed to administer this plan to begin with.

The gov't will perform a triage system based on finances as much as health care needs. Why should the gov't give care to the elderly or retirees? They are financially a drain on a socialist system afterall. They get social security, medicare, and don't pay taxes. For a gov't and nation that are going deeply in debt, these will be concerns. It's not to say that the elderly and retirees aren't deserving, but compare the glorification of Michael Jackson and his alleged crimes to the blatant disregard for our men and women dying to protect our country. Who is more deserving? Who have we been forced to watch incessant media coverage of for the last 2 weeks? It's nonsensical.

The point is, that while we may need to reform health care and find ways to make it cheaper, these things can be accomplished without giving carte blanche control of health care to government.

Malpractice does happen, people do make errors. But malpractice suits are way out of hand, and force defensive medicine, which raises costs. Hospitals and companies aren't going to absorb these costs - they are passed onto the consumer. Insurance, settlements, all of the overhead to protect against lawsuits gets passed on the same as in business. Americans in general have too many frivolous lawsuits. Coffee is hot. Snickers bars do have nuts in them. If their is no immediate, lasting personal harm, then why file a suit? These things raise costs, and not much more. The woman who lost her hands and feet and went legally blind from the wrong diagnosis, that's a need for a malpractice suit, but she filed suit for $100 Million. That's a rather large sum of money even if she had died. I understand suing for enough money to get the best prosthetics available and having enough to cover care for the rest of her life, and then some, but that can be done for less than half of the amount filed.

So if we want to lower health care costs that are related to greed, let's go about reforming malpractice laws and stop the frivolous lawsuits in general.