Socialist healthcare being demonised in the US?

The question for me is not so much whether national health care is needed (it is)but how it is
likely to be implemented. Take a look at the recent reform in Medicare part D coverage. The government in its wisdom has decided to privatize big parts of it and the drug companies and the insurance companies are making huge profits while the average person on Medicare, though he or she does have some coverage for drug costs, benefits only a little. The Medicare recipient must buy private insurance. Most of the insurance plans have "doughnut holes," which means they will only cover costs up to a certain amount (usually about 75% up to $2,000). Keep in mind that drug costs for many senior citizens are higher than they are for younger segments of the population. Meanwhile the drug companies have no incentive to lower drug costs, which are already higher here than in Canada and other parts of the world. A single payer plan like the ones in Canada and Sweden would be the most efficient way to go, but I'm not optimistic that will happen. It's too much like socialism for Americans. Congress will have to privatize parts or all of it in order to satisfy the capitalists.

As a doctor in the US I can tell you that the last thing I would want is a system similar to Sweden or Canada. Right now, insurance companies have SOME pull in the decision making process, but it's easy to get around considering they have no authority, they can't MAKE me do something. I don't want the government making patient care decisions for me.
The best way to think of it is like a canadian physician colleague of mine said, if you need an MRI but it's not urgent, there's nothing wrong with Canada. If you need an MRI today, then you need to be in the US.
Also, something to think about with these statistics of the "best" medical systems in the world, that is all self-report data, there's no way I trust all these world governments to give accurate figures...no chance.

reply to post by White Chapel

---

As a doctor, do you accept medicare and/or medicaid? These two government programs are already based on a single-payer system, and could be called "socialist." An ideal way to go would be for the U.S. to simply expand medicaid and medicare to include everyone, or at least everyone who now is uninsured. How much do medicare and medicaid interfere in your practice of medicine?

Yeah, you pay for it.

White Chapel....

Ya know, as I see it, the medical profession invited the interferance from the insurance companies and the government, when they started charging fees that were out of the bounds of reality for the majority of americans.

yes, we have the best healthcare in the world, maybe, but, it does me no good if I can't pay for it. the person, business, or government, has a say when they are picking up the tab. it's their money, they should be able to say, regulate just what can or can't be done with. just like if you go into any charity and give them a poor me story asking for money.....they might take care of some of your needs, but I bet they just ain't gonna write ya a check and let you go out and feed your coke habit with it..

I got better healthcare when I was a child, my doctor lived in the same neighborhood as me, in a not much better financial state as me, and well, we could afford his fees ourselves, without insurance.

sorry to put it so bluntly, but the businesses, the doctors, the landlords, ect. they invited government dictation when they chose to charge more than their typical customer could afford, refused to increase the wages to keep in line with the cost of living ect.
the person paying the tab, will always have the greatest say.

on a side note, read today.

you can add vets to that list of the uninsured, mostly uninsured vets with middle incomes. I think it was 1 in 8 or maybe one in 10 vets are uninsured according to what I was reading...

the va has income guidelines....middle income vets are not eligible for free healthcare...according to the article.

for those who havent seen it you should watch michael moores 'sicko'. what we have here in the u.k is what the american politicians are keeping from you.

Yeah, a Moore movie is certainly an example of accurate reporting.

This has been a very interesting debate up to this point with both sides having had a good go at the pros and cons of both systems.

While I make no claim to understand the UK's system, I do have some insight into the Canadian system based on discussions with MD's and Nurses that have come here along with some relatives that reside in the country.

A couple of things however before I wade in here.

One factor to consider in comparing the merits and costs of a health care system is the legal environment in which the system exists. Here in the US it is out of control. As a Registered Nurse Transport Specialist (RNTS) my liability inurance along costs my employer around 10k a year. For MD's it can be anywhere from 20 to as high as 70-80k a year depending on specialty. That is assuming no claims etc. While its a mess of our own making, the litigeous environment we live in drives costs up to an astronomical level. The legal environment also breeds inefficiencey as well. For a 1 hour transport, I have about 3 hours of paperwork to complete and thats if I work fast. about 3/4 of that are directly related to the hospital trying to cover its own butt in the even of a suit.

Population size. Most socialized systems are not trying to take care of 350 million plus people. While there is economy in scale there are other problems as well. The size of the goernment agency that would be needed to cover it would be staggering.

---

Both systems, the US and the Goverment run (Ie Canada, France, UK) all have thier own issues.

We have seen the issues of lack of coverage and staggering cost mention as US problems and these are true, the "Socialized" systems also have thier own issues.

Im going to focus on the Canadian system as its the one Im more familiar with but, alot fo this applies to all of the systems, and its by no means an attempt to target Canada.

Access to care: While you can walk into a hospital anytime as see a doctor and not pay, what about the treatment options? I saw a poster mention some one waiting 9 months for an MRI before a knee replacement. Thats along time. Or if a threshold number of bypass operations have been reached, then a heart patient may be managed medicaly as opposed to surgicaly. (This comes directly from a pediatric cardiac surgeon who came from Toronto's Sick Childrens Hospital, who left becuase he was frustrated by his inability to operate on all the kids he saw that needed surgery).

I myself was almost part of an investment group that was going to buy an MRI and CT scanner, and set it up across the border from Canada and accept cash paying Canadian citizens who wanted to get thier scans done sooner than later etc. (the deal fell apart but thats another story)

I do realize that it could be argued that access or lack there of exists int eh US's systems as well for those without insurance, but many get caught in the Federal and State safety nets, and we need to work on those that don't

Some of the savings of this system come from the delaying or denial of care. According to the cardiac surgeon I knew, certain types of operations that are routine here in the US are simply not done. EVER. particular heart defects in newborns etc. Now Im a big proponent of stopping futile care here in the US and some of this is done automaticaly under the Canadian system, but again its an acess to care thing.

Cost: As I mentioned above there is an inherent savings if the system denies care or delays it etc. By limiting the number of operations etc, you keep costs down. However, even with that it is still expensive. In Europe and Canada the programs are paid by taxes. Pretty high taxes too. Like on Gas, food, VAT etc etc are many of the programs that cover the costs of the national healthcare system. In the US, the burden of MOST heath care is on the employers and is part of the benifits package. I said, alot of people work where they do not have work insurance (Because theya re part time, or they work in a small business etc.). In those cases, they can either buy insurance or if they do not make enough money, governemtn assistance will amke up the difference. The people who make too much to qualify but not enough on thier own are the ones we need to help IMHO.

The US system is fixable, but only if you find a way to get those people who for whatever reason do not or cannot afford insurance, and reduce costs, hence premiums by reducing the legal load that the system must carry.

Socialism...... what a disgusting ideology

I needed an operation and was too poor to afford it, so I was completely covered under medicaid. If you make decent money and have to buy health insurance, it's very expensive, and the companies are always trying to deny coverage to save money. Hospitals charge a ridiculous sum of money. Just the room, with no other health care, costs around $1000 a day. If I had to pay for the surgery bill, it would cost more than I make in 2 years salary.

reply to post by Copernicus

---

Its not that us Americans feel that with socialized medicine we're "less free" or that we are communist. we simply cant afford it. we're going to get taxed alot more if medicine is socialized and the quality will drop dramatically. our economy cant sustain it.

reply to post by logictruth

---

the people can't afford the healthcare system now, the governments and the employers can't. we can't sustain the present system!! so what's the difference? at least with a socialized system, there isn't anyone paying out all these outrageous taxes (with the local governments pointing to the healthcare costs as an excuse) and being left in the cold when they get sick!

our system is socialized enough already to suffer the bad effects of socialization.

I'm poor. What programs are those? I was told that they didn't care if I was dieing. No help for me.

I saw plenty on non citizens getting help, but I sure didn't get any.

So I'm my own doctor.. I had the fun experience of stitching my lip back together with a needle and thread after I split it up to my noes..

There is no heath care system in America, not because it wouldn't make financial sense, but because it would help people.

Even though early childhood education pays off 9 to 1 and we don't do it. The only explanation why we don't do it is because it helps children.

It's the same as health care. We will spend more as long as it creates suffering.

reply to post by abram730

---

you must not be "poor" enough.....
it might also be helpful if you were to get married and have a kid or two, they seem to be more friendly towards families and less friendly with single males....
don't ask me, they have devised their own little system as to who is worthy, and who isn't to recieve their assistance when it comes to healthcare...
don't feel too badly about it, I wasn't found worthy either. I just look at the bright side.....the people I work with are constantly running to the doctor, they don't seem sick, but still the appointments are made, they run around to the doctor, to the lab, ect. ect....get their $100 or more perscriptions that they will be taking for the rest of their lives, which if you read the side effects of that crap, well.....it might be a rather short life for them...
I have insurance now, and will go to the doctor if I have to...(wouldn't be stitching myself up, or setting any of my own bones), but well, once I get a diagnosis, I am gone....I'll treat myself....it's safer.