National Healthcare Question

[maat55]

I found this posted on another site and was wondering if anyone with knowledge on the subject had an opinion of this post?


FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine: Socialized Medicine in Colorado - An Open Letter to Colorado Physicians

[jIM_Ohio]

I completely oppose any form of socialized medicine, regardless of whether it is called "single payer", "mandatory universal coverage", or anything else, because I believe it would be bad for both patients and doctors. Years of experience in the US and other countries have shown that these programs will hurt patients and even cause their deaths. As costs inevitably spiral upward, bureaucrats will ration medical services. Eventually, physicians will be forced to practice against their best medical judgment. This is a violation of the fundamental rights of both doctors and patients.
As a result, in states like Tennessee (which in 1994 implemented its own version of mandatory universal coverage called TennCare), many doctors find the practice climate intolerable and are either leaving the state or quitting medicine entirely. I do not want that to happen in Colorado. States like Massachusetts and California, which are also attempting to guarantee universal health care for their residents, will soon face similar problems. Although I agree that there are genuine problems with the current system, more government interference in medicine can only make things worse. One basic principle we all learned in medical school was, "First, do no harm". This applies as well to politics as it does to clinical practice. Most of the problems of the current system have been the result of bad government policies. Adding more government bureaucrats to the mix will only make things worse.

The author did not use statistics, yet politicians would not be swayed by even 500,000 letters with a similar tone.


Health care in the US is flawed based on some fundamental free market principles which are prevented from occuring.

The most fundamental problem is people want good health care, but do NOT want to PAY for the good health care.

Government health care is NOT a solution to the most direct root cause of the health care crises we have (IMO).

The forces at play:
1) patient
2) doctors
3) insurance companies
4) medicare
5) pharmacutical manufactures
6) pharmacies
7) FDA/government oversight

you could start drawing graphs...
patient deals with doctors, insurance companies, medicare and pharmacies... but can only influence the doctor (the others they interact with because of the system, not necessity)
doctors deal with patients, insurance companies, medicare, pharma manufactures and possibly FDA.
insurance companies deal with patients, doctors, pharma manufactures, pharmacies and possibly FDA or goverment regulators.
medicare deals with patients (indirectly), doctors, pharma manufactures, pharmacies and government oversight.
and so on...

if you look at the list there are two observations

insurance companies deal with patients, doctors, pharma manufactures, pharmacies and possibly FDA or goverment regulators.

if government oversight is put on insurance companies reform might happen because this was the only piece which interacted with every other player except medicare.

medicare deals with patients (indirectly), doctors, pharma manufactures, pharmacies and government oversight.

it is often stated that medicare is most efficient medical provider (most of money goes to service, not paperpushing) and it interacts with all entities listed.

The way to fix this from a free market point of view is either
a) remove insurance companies and medicare all together- true free market, people pay what the market will bear.
or
b) add the layer which allows people to choose medicare over an insurance company (take money away from the inefficiencies and put money where it works the best).

The best way to see system work is make sure the health insurance companies are COMPETING for your business and mine. I have often said if I had to get health insurance the way I get house or car or life insurance, and my premiums were paid the same way (based on prior 3-5 year claims), the industry would get fixed quickly (that would mean there is competition for my insurance dollar).

This could be done in numerous ways (IMO) some of which are touched on above. But even if insurance is the "solution" of policiticians, the author is correct in that people might not get good health care because the insurance companies are in the way of the doctor treating the patient.

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

The best way to see system work is make sure the health insurance companies are COMPETING for your business and mine. I have often said if I had to get health insurance the way I get house or car or life insurance, and my premiums were paid the same way (based on prior 3-5 year claims), the industry would get fixed quickly (that would mean there is competition for my insurance dollar).

My only worry has been how those who have turned in a claim will find it difficult to get reasonable priced insurance. I don't see how insurance could be abolished considering the high cost of one visit to a hospital.

The insurance industry at the same time is offering teaser rates to the healthy, then raise their rates quickly. Once you have a claim, you are generally locked into that company and at there premium will.

[jIM_Ohio]

Eliminate insurance and my best guess is 30 percent of the cost goes away (that is the administrative burden put on-including the people doing the billing, lawyers, as well as the cost of the procedures). Steve has often said if billing was consistent (one cost for a procedure regardless of insurance or location) then another variable is simplified.

If the hospital is allowed to refuse treatment to people which cannot pay that would also reduce cost beyond the 30 percent.

[Goldy1]

Me and dh are relatively healthy but heathcare is literally my biggest fear in life. I fear all the frugality and working and wise choices I make could be lost from one medical emergency in between jobs. What good is my home equity, emergency fund, and retirement fund if it is just one step away from POOF you broke your foot or need an organ taken out etc. Oh but if I just crossed the border into here, I think I could get free emergency care. I have refused to watch the movie Sicko b/c I know it will be horrible.
I have no answers and no control over it. Move to Canada? lol

[southerndoc]

The best system would be to have NON-profit hospitals and insurance companies and require them not to stash all their profits but instead refund them to consumers. Healthcare settings where hospitals and insurers are geared to satisfy investors is fatally flawed.

People who say there will be long waits and poor care in socialized medicine are afraid of becoming a commoner. Right now the poor do not get adequate care because hospitals cater to the paying consumers. By everyone being paying consumers, those that are currently paying become less of an elite and more of a standard consumer. Therefore, their preferential treatment will not occur and they will find themselves sitting in a waiting room beside a homeless guy who gets the same level of care. Many people will not take this very well.

The poor never complain about socialized medicine because for them it's an increase in care.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

I'd love a socialized system where you aren't worried about losing everything over an illness.

Have cancer? Make sure you have insurance. Then make sure you have a job that provides it because no private insurance company will insure you solo. Pre-existing condition!

If we don't move to a universal system we should go totally free market healthcare. Pay for what you want. I wonder how many people would diet, watch what they eat, care about their health then? How many people would actually be conscious about going to the doctor and preventative care?

The reason socialized medicine works is there is more preventative care. Unlike now, where people without insurance wait unti the last minute then run up bills in the ER.