Is there an alternative to socialized health care to fix our broken system?

Question

Greed is the problem....so how do we fix the problem, without socializing it? This is a conversation that we need to be having if we are going to avoid socialized health care.

Answer 1

I'm gonna be honest here, I think you have a good question. I have been for socialized health care, What do you suppose would be a good alternative for someone like me to do?

Single mom, not on welfare, working and going to school. I need some temporary health benefits until I can get a job with benefits. I can pay for doctor visits sometimes, but other times I have many other bills to keep up with. why not a sliding scale and only for a few years until people can get ahead? Would that be an alternative that stingy conservatives can live with? I pay taxes, and when I'm done with school, my hunka taxes will pay back for what I used.

ya or na?

***I do think that major corporations are the ones who should foot this bill though, either that or stop funding Israel and use that money here. Why do people abroad get funded and cons don't care, but people here in the US of A are not worth it? Tell me how we explain that to our children while they sit hours at a clinic to see a doctor, and little israeli kids have FREE health care??

Answer 2

I don't exactly have a "plan", but I figure getting rid of all the insurance companies would have to be a good start. It's a simple fact that the cost of drugs and medical procedures didn't skyrocket until those middlemen got in on the action. If everybody has to pay out of pocket (or if the government provides the coverage and sets strict payment limits), drug companies and doctors would have no choice but to lower their prices. Conservatives and Libertarians are typically afraid of socialized health care (and with perhaps some good reason, considering some of the horror stories that came out of the old Soviet Union), but they don't seem to realize that HMOs are already the worst form of socialized medicine there is - you're being made to pay for other people's medical problems (as well as the big salaries of the company executives who do nothing more than move other people's money around), and yet when YOU need a doctor they look for every possible B.S. excuse they can fabricate not to pay for your own care (and sometimes they even cancel your policy outright without even at least refunding you the money you already paid into their company). How many legitimate businesses do you know of that actually look for reasons NOT to serve their customers, and refuse to give any refunds if they are unable to provide you a service?? It's just legalized fraud, and no real capitalists would ever tolerate such inefficient and unproductive parasites. Either allow the free market to truly take over the matter, or let the government handle it entirely. HMOs are an unholy half-assed mixture of both socialism and capitalism, and are a worse solution than either one or the other.

Answer 3

It depends on what you mean by socialized. The correct term probably should be federalized, but in either case the answer is no. Besides, what do you call the current system that subsidizes the insurance companies – socialized free enterprise?

Like it or not, the path to improving America’s healthcare system will be similar to the one Hillary Clinton put forth in the 1990s. The fact that she did not administer its presentation well is not a reflection of the merits of the program.

-------------------
Mike C

You can add all the MDs you want, but unless you want to tell them they cannot practice in any of the major metropolitan areas it will not change anything.

Pharmaceuticals, despite common perception, represent only 8% of total health costs. Even if you could reduce that to 0%, it would not matter and inflation would eat up the savings in no time, anyway.

Canadians have longer life expectancies and lower infant mortality than Americans, so their system seems to be doing a better job than America’s.

The problem is administrative costs. The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. It is almost twice as expensive as every other developed nation. This is largely due to administrative costs which account for 19-25% of healthcare costs, and up to 34% at for-profit hospitals.

Answer 4

hmmm
greed on who's part? People who are sick are very greedy, they want treatment NOW, whether they can pay or not

Our system is only broken in few ways and these can be fixes
problem 1: not enough doctors, solution force the AMA (who regulates the amount of people who can enter med school) this could add 25% more doctors to the system in a decade. If the AMA stills wants to impose limits, let them limit the number of plastic surgeons and other 'luxury' medicine specialist
problem 2: high cost of pharmacueticals, solution: there have been recent advances but globalization of the supply base should decrease the cost of medications more, but will these be safe??
In general we have a shortage of health providers, nurses, lab techs, etc because oor education system SUCKS. We cannot teach our own children enough good science to enable them to enter the health proffesions if they chose to.

Here in the US, any US CITIZEN can be eligible for FREE medical care, this system is called MEDICAID and its buddy MEDICARE. However to be eligible, a person has to be near completely broke, no house , no retirement fund, no spouse, no nothing .
Our collective fears about social medicine are generally well known and well grounded. We fear that if the US adopted a universal system similar to Canada's this new system would actually be WORSE. The hopsital and clinics would be stuffed with illegal aliens and hypochondriacs. Too many Americans choose unhealthly life styles like smoking and over-eating and being lethargic that a unvisersal system would bog down. When Canada luanched its system, it took nearly 10 years to stabilize and even though the base level of treatment is provided many of my Candaian friends are buying supplemental health insurance to cover of the medical beyond the routine like pre-natal or proactive cancer screenings

Answer 5

Of course. The number of alternatives is limited only by imagination, and what is feasible. Socialized medicine has the advantage of providing visible examples in other countries, from which we can learn, but that isn't the only possible solution. Most of the others I've heard proposed, though, are a hybrid of public/private systems, with the big disadvantage of being complicated, and subject to endless revisions, many of which would be promoted by special interests. Think of our tax laws - income tax could be as simple as a flat tax, but instead, we have zillions of forms, exceptions to every rule, people and corporations who pay nothing, and other folks unhappy with how much they have to pay. Why? Because once you open the door for exceptions, everybody wants one, and every year (or however long it takes) the tax code is amended, usually at the behest of special interests that want to pay less. That's what a hybridized health care system would produce, and corporate greed would continue to drive prices up. The Canadian and various European systems all have their problems, but we're moving downward in relation to them, every time I see comparative ratings. If we could invent a better way, fine, but if not, imitating the best aspects of their socialized systems should be enough to move us back up in the ratings.

Answer 6

Exactly. The 'system' was just fine about what 30 years ago or so. HMO's and similar insurance companies killed it, along with government regulation. And let's not forget the pharmacuetical industry and the FDA. Of course there's also all the doctor's and other 'medical professionals' that are more interested in money than the well being of their patients.
Get rid of all of those factors, or at least put a real short leash on them, which is where most of the greed is located and there might be a real free market health care system again.

Answer 7

why do you say the system is broken?

news flash ... researchers found that the average life expectancy of Americans, excluding deaths due to violence and drugs, is higher than the similar life expectancy of any other nation.

***
there are lots of things that we might do which could help the situation ... here's some ideas:

1. cap 'pain and suffering' med mal damages at 250k per person. Nevada won't do this and now has serious problems with a shortage of OB/GYNs. They need an estimated 30% more doctors in that field. As you'd guess, poor women are the ones who are most underserved.

2. pay for a uniform data system which tracks and reports to physicians all prior tests, visits, prescriptions, and procedures. My now 84 year old father has Alzheimer Disease. He literally can't remember what tests or medications doctor D had him on last fall, or why doctor E took him off medication Q eight years ago [he can't remember doctor E at all]. So his current doctor has to order new tests and try medication Q all over again -- which is wasteful.

the same system might be used for billing to all financial intermediaries. one system, one set of data input, no idiot phonecalls from insurance company to doctor's office because the forms weren't filed their way.

3. why do all the tens of thousands of prescription drugs require an Rx from a physician in the US? Mexico seems to get by just fine limiting the number that require a physician's instructions to under 500.

4. [very big question] ... why do insurance companies get off the hook for continuing care costs of an illness that was discovered on their watch if the insured changes jobs or drops coverage? [this is the source of the pre-existing conditions exclusions in most policies]. seems to me it should be like auto insurance ... all future costs due to covered illnesses up to the limit of the policy no matter when those costs occur -- even if the insured is no longer a policy holder.

5. why don't self-employed people or people who buy own insurance get the same tax break as the big corporations get when they buy insurance for their employees?

6. Why do we permit providers to charge some patients more than other patients? Seems to me that if you're seen for a non-voluntary reason [cosmetic surgery can be voluntary] you should pay the same fee as everyone else. Why is his bronchitius cheaper than mine?

{PS: last i heard, Maryland does not permit this and is the only state that does not.}

***
I'm not a professional in the area. I'm a business person.

So if I can think of this many possibly good ideas, why can't Hillary and her ilk think of any of these at all?

Methinks they've predetermined the outcome they want -- government taking over healthcare -- and are simply trying to stampede us into approving their power grab.

Answer 8

Yes and no. If by "national health care" you mean socialized medicine--absoluely their alternatives.

If, however, you get away from the right-wing hysteria about any attempt to fix the problems, and defie "national health care" as being a system that makes health care accessible to all, then no. Because we have to have MAJOR reforms--as you said, the system is broken.

Here's some alternatives:
>fix the legal system re malpractice (tort reform)
>allow Medicare/medicaid to pay for independant living instead of nursing homes (estimates: that will improve quality of services--and save $50-100 billion PER YEaR).
>institute low cost health clinics in low income areas that provide basic services (that gets the poor out of expensive energency rooms) and also teaches the poor preventative health care, nutrition, etc.

There's lots more ideas out there--a lot of them very good ideas.

But--as things are going, the kind of reforms we need aren't happening. The situation is, in fact, getting worse. And--people are NOT going to accept that. So--we either get serious about fixing the system we have--or we can expect to see socialized medicine in the United States--simply because, with all its drawbacks, its better than this mess.

Answer 9

*
The issues suggest the insurance company executives are extremely powerful and well situated with respect to government representation. Perhaps they are even more powerful than the gun lobby.
In any case the current system proves you cannot trust privatised health insurance to work in unison. You can have both. Australia has a two tiered health insurance system and it works well to keep each system in check. Healthcare is very expensive and is does need to be subsidised by public/shared systems.
I don't know why America is so frightened of public health care and all the current system is producing is alot of very wealthy health insurance execs ... those fatcats have made sure they will get their heart surgery if they need it.
Why do people make this a republican versus democrat debate when it is really about the right to ready access to good health services in a modern country.
*

Answer 10

Why so much antagonism towards a universal (public, socialised, whatever) health care sytem? A private system not only has to provide a health service to those who can afford it but has to provide profits to shareholders and huge payouts to CEO,s whilst leaving the not so well off with little or no real care. A universal system is based on taxes paid by all according to what they earn.( I'll bet taxes paid by poorer people go toward subsidising the private sector). And the benefit is that all receive the best health care according to their needs.It just needs a government committed to it's success and not to proving that it is a failure so they can go back to a private system.
BTW in Australia we have a system that works pretty well in spite of having to withstand the efforts of a conservative government to wreck it over the last 10 years. We should be getting rid of them in the next few months so maybe it can be improved.