is socialized medicine REALLY a good choice? ALSO, is it REALLY the choice we're being presented?

Question

i am 100% AGAINST socializing medicine, and it took me a LONG time getting here. i used to think it was a good idea. i see canadian leaders coming down to california to get procedures done (close personal friends of the clintons, actually. hehehe...that of "politics" is a funny world.) i see people pulling their own teeth in england for lack of quality care publicly avialable. (see that report last week?)

THEN, i wonder, "is this a false debate?" are we REALLY debating between private and public here, or are we simply really talking about a ratio here? ....and subsequently, how to adjust it to better serve the public. i think one of the most toxic things in american politics (and democratic politics in general) is the inability to get the real 'face' of the issue as a result of political maneuvering on both sides of it. (no, i'm NOT a socialist...i'm definitely a fan of democracy, but it's not without its problems)

i'd love any thoughts you have on this.

and let's see if this discussion can be done WITHOUT attacking political lines.

lilliput, you really don't understand the distinction i'm making between the two statements?

ZardoZ - because quality is drastically comprimised. that's the truth. some of the most progressive medicine in the world is coming from the US. and the amount of influx of people from other countries coming her on medical visas is a testament to that. THE US SYSTEM needs tweaking, but to complete socialization? other countries who have it don't seem to have the same quality.

ALSO, our goverment can't get voting right. the social security system is a joke...the education system caters to the rich......the infrastructure needs attention.....these are all governmentally-administered programs.... do we really want to hand them HEALTH CARE?

again, we need a change, but WHAT?

crazyJ - what a great answer. except for that obesity example. that's an individual issue. that's health awareness...NOT care. you're totally right about it being a scar on the face of american health, but it's more about education than treatment. (AND the low quality of food that gets through the FDA's checks....ANOTHER inept federal agency)

jesus christ, what great answers.

i'm so glad this didn't turn into another Y!A 'wit[less]-fest' that skates the issue. (the first answer i got made me think it was going to go that way)

i have to say, so many have given me so much to think about....on both sides. and i very, very much appreciate your input.....more than you know.

joe s. i didn't even THINK of that.

bert - so, why don't we start legislation to control the insurance machine? wouldn't that take care of alot of what you just said?

great answer, btw.

Answer 1

You first said:

"i think one of the most toxic things in american politics (and democratic politics in general).."

And then said:

"and let's see if this discussion can be done WITHOUT attacking political lines."

Huh?

Answer 2

Nobody except maybe Kucinich has even talked about socialized medicine as its commonly understood. The other plans involve possible methods to insure that everyone can afford health insurance, which is different.

Interestly, the British when they found faults with their medical system are now looking at solutions in France, where they have more competition between hospitals and thus much better care.

I think there are several issues at stake here. On one hand you have the insurance companies whose motive is pure profit and will always shortchange care to whatever extent they can get away with.

The second is that if we have socialized medicine, there needs to be some sort of choice to select away from bad hospitals and thus insure that hospitals get paid more if they do a good job. Bureaucracy without competition and oversight breeds inefficiency that can give results almost as bad as profit driven insurance companies.

I think the best answer is a single payer system, but it has to be one where medical institutions can compete and one where there is good oversight concerning distribution of funds.

Regardless of the fact that the very rich can get the best care, I think its important that the 47 million uninsured americans get good care and we all have a overall better quality of healtch care because of it. If US health care is so good, why is obesity such an epidemic in the US. You may think that is unrelated, but good medicines starts with very basic preventive medicine and a healthy lifestyle, both of which aren't profitable and thus not encouraged.

Part of the reason government is failing is that we keep electing conservatives that are purposefully trying to make it fail. Then they come back and say that socialism doesn't work after all we should be screwed by free market capitalism that somehow still managed to provide corporate welfare to the very rich. For all of governments screwups, consider that it was still the government that got a man on the moon, created the first nuclear bomb and had a working social security system until Reagan starting grabbing money from the general funds.

Answer 3

The leader who did come down to California was Belinda Stronach, who was seeking a specialized form of treatment for cancer that was only available south of the boarder, and guess what, if an accepted treatment isn't available in Canada Heath Care will pay for you to get it.

It is estimated that 18% of Americans do not have heath care of any kind whether it is MEdicare or priovate covereage trhough an HMO. Those who do have private coverage are expereinceing constant rate increases, with the coverage decreasing. The current system is broken. You cannot chose your docotor, you cannot chose your treatment, you cannot choose your medications. How is that system patiant focussed, how is it even health care when you have no choice or even worse limitations in your care?

I am Canadian, I will not hide that, I wear the maple leaf with Pride. I have spent a number of years living in Duluth Minnisota for reasons I too am a little unclear of. I had great difficultly even obatining covereage being an asthmatic and when I finally did, my premiums were obscene, that and I could not find any covereage that actually included the medictations and treatments I has become accustomed to.

I was relieved to come back to the Canadian system.

THere is a common myth that we will wait years and years for treatment or serivces. I now live in the most populous city in Canada. i have never expereinced wait time close to what I have heard described in American Media. I have also lived in the most rapidly expanding city in Canada (coincidentaly the one with the fewest hospitals percapita) and still not expereinced wait times similar to what I have heard in the American Media. I am actually starting to think that these one year wait times only exsist on the furthest reaches of Baffin Island where any diagnosis and treatment requires a 4 hour plane ride back to the mainland.

America is being lied to, your system is broken. Socialized Medicine may not be the way to go given such a huge population, and bloated spending patterns. However there needs to be some legistlative intervention, making it manditory for employers to provide a heath option for all full time staff. Perhaps their needs to be caps put on what an insurance company can chrage. Finally a state run insurance agency that offers low cost or income adjusted insurance making health coverage a right, not a privilidge.

Answer 4

Everyone having access to affordable health care sounds like a good idea to me, and the rest of the world is on my side. Why is the US the only industrialized country without health care for all it's citizens?

We have the best health care only if you can afford it, that's why over 40 million people have no health care. (and illegal aliens aren't counted as not having health care)
No, not everyone without health care can just run down to the hospital emergency room. Most people without health care work 40 hours a week and own their home, which they could lose with the first hospital bill of $200,000. This is not an unusual bill in the United States. Many people can't afford the $800 - $1,000 per month insurance cost, while the "average" worker makes $30,000 per year. I know several people who haven't retired because they are too young for medicare and can't afford retiree health care. Even with health care, you're likely to pay for your treatment because deductables are so high. Last spring I had pain in my shoulder and my doctor sent me to a sports medicine place where I got physical therapy but no medicne. I just did exercises once a week for some time and had to pay $1000 out of my pocket. This is on top of the monthly insurance charges. I should have just stayed home and done the exercises on my own. This is the first time I've been to the doctor for years.

According to the Texas Department of Insurance, about one-quarter of state residents, or 5.4 million people, in 2003 lacked health coverage. And, this is just one state. It doesn't matter how "progressive" your health care is if people can't afford to take advantage of it.

Other than anecdotes, what proof do you have that quality of care is compromised? If it's so bad, why don't other countries simply give it up?

Answer 5

well, first of all you are under the mistaken impression that socialization ='s a lack of quality. That is simply not the case. A socialization of medicine does not bring about a lack of advancement in the medical field... and it is how ADVANCED our PROCEDURES are that brings people down here... there are nations with socialized medicine that are nearly, if not as advanced as us and there are those with socialized medicine that have crappy technology and service... so there must be other factors at play. Also, one very important fact you have overlooked is prevention. Socialized medicine DOES lead to better prevention of serious disease, and prevention is more important than a cure... because if people don't become obese, or diabetic, or have a stroke or heart attack they don't need the advanced treatment. So how much money are we LOSING by NOT covering all Americans and supporting regular check-ups instead of emergency room visits? As far as are we talking about true socialization or not? It seems to me that most likely we'll get some sort of Chimera for a plan... something with bits and pieces of both private and social medicine. There is too much money and people with power tied to private care for that to be done away with in the US... the idea is just to bring healthcare to anyone who wants/needs it.

Answer 6

I wish to answer this by making several points.

1. No one thinks the American Healthcare system needs to be completely re-vamped. However, you cannot defend a hospital's practice of charging a patient $45.00 for a pair of aspirin, can you?
2. People bleed to death in American ERs, simply for a lack of insurance. It has happened and it will happen again.
3. Insurance Providers are to the Healthcare Industry what Pimps are to the Prostitution Industry, they take a HUGE percentage of the profits and contribute nothing to the healing or repairing of damaged or sick Americans. How much less expensive would healthcare BE in the US without Health Insurance taking massive amounts of money out of the system and adding almost nothing? They use that money to ensure they do not have to be subjected to Government oversight, but that is EXACTLY what I believe is needed here, oversight by a panel of actual doctors to rein in the ridiculous costs of getting sick in the US.
4. If I were in charge, drug companies would no longer be able to patent medicines which only treat symptoms, maybe by doing this, they will decide it's better (i.e., more profitable) to develop CURES rather than TREATMENTS for their customers.
5. Healthcare should be a non-profit industry. Especially in the US, when its a toss-up between health and profits, the Healthcare Industry (and the Insurance Industry) will choose "Profit" everytime, whether it kills people or not.
6. Insurance adjustors who have never taken the "Hyppocratic Oath" make medical decisions for which they are unqualified to render an opinion, denying someone a necessary or life-saving operation because it's "bad for the corporate bottom line".
7. If your "claims history" is too high, you are cut off from your insurance provider, and if you have a pre-existing condition, good luck finding insurance which you can afford to keep up.
8. Hospitals are required by LAW to help someone in need, whether they can pay for that treatment or not. When someone cannot pay, those costs are passed on to those who ARE able to pay. In a 'everyone qualifies" healthcare system, EVERYBODY pays, no one gets over, so overall costs HAVE to come down. Would you be willing to pay $200 a month for Healthcare, rather than $1,500.00 a month?

Is this the America YOU grew up in? Because it ISN'T the country I joined the Army to defend. It used to be we cared about our neighbors, now we just want them to shut up and go away.

Why is sending trillions to Iraq (money we will NEVER see again) acceptable, but helping an actual AMERICAN citizen who needs it considered "Socialism"?

"Socialized" healthcare? Exactly what does that mean? Is that the same as a "socialized" police force? Is there some organization out there, taking your money and giving nothing back, but promising to "promote a crime-free system"?

Answer 7

It's good to see that you have open eyes to realize the dangers in socialized medicine. I don't want it purely because I don't think it benefits the people, and the people that live where it exists are my proof. Pulling your own teeth? You'd think it sounds like a 3rd world country...

That being said, something needs to be done to extend care to people. Yes, you can go to the ER anytime, but if you're relatively poor and don't have insurance, you can't go to the ER for a cold. You have to wait until it passes, or manifests itself as something severe enough to warrant a trip to the ER. Then there's the matter of cost: some people I know that weren't well off and had to go to the ER ended up filing for bankruptcy several years down the line, due to high medical costs.

"THEN, i wonder, "is this a false debate?" are we REALLY debating between private and public here, or are we simply really talking about a ratio here?"

It is pretty false in several senses. First off, the Democratic proposal is the only one on the table (some form of socialized care) so in the absence of something to compare it to, we give it a thumbs up or down, and typically along party lines. Second, the Democrats pretend like their solution is the only one and it will just work. They don't acknowledge the dangers, the cost, or the examples where its failed when discussing it.

I guess Republicans could try to subsidize the health care market, as they typically do, but I'd imagine the cost for that would be very high too, and not so much unlike socialized medicine in the end.

Answer 8

I am actually all for Health Care for All but only if the package or program will in fact will be inclusive. (Don't like the term "socialized." I am not a socialist.)

My reason is this: Many of us are in income brackets in which we make too much money to qualify for gov't assistance and too little money to afford quality health insurance plans. So we wind up spending out of pocket or accumulating more debt (and who needs that) when health care situations arise.

I was called on to speak out as a citizen at a Health Care Now rally in NYC a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, I discovered there that the gov't at this point does not intend to include alternative or natural healing options in the Universal Health Care package--at least not yet. So it is not in fact "universal." This is a big, short-sighted problem. Now even I am wondering if the gov't can be trusted to come up with a Universal Health Care package that would be helpful to us all. It's a dilemma. The only other option might (I said "might") be for the gov't to step in and convince all the major health insurance companies to create more affordable, and yet viable, insurance plans for those of us in the middle income bracket.

Not sure why my answer got a thumbs-down, but to each his or her own, right? It might help some of us to know out there that there are people such as myself whose lives have been saved by alternative healing protocols, but that the costs are astronomical. Not as much, in the long run, as monthly health insurance premiums, but enough to put a serious dent in a person's budget. In my opinion, we need a national health care plan that will cover things like chiropractic, nutritional healing, accupuncture, Chinese medicine, herbal remedies, etc., right along with traditional or allopathic medical care. I don't need you to agree with me, but just try to take it into consideration.

Answer 9

The underlying issue with health care is cost. Health Care costs are rising, it doesn't matter if it is government supported or private. Either way, health care is rationed. It's either done by the state or by the market.

What people don't realize is that over 50% of their lifetime health care dollars are spent in the last 6 months of their lives. Nobody want's to touch the real issue.

No politician is going to get elected on the platform of no chemo for grandma and no bypass for grandpa.

50 years ago their was no chemo, no MRI's, no heart transplants, etc. Health care was affordable then.

The solution isn't an easy one.

Answer 10

The health care system we have is devouring itself from either end because of lawyers and insurance companies.

The door has been open for anyone who leaves the hospital with a pain to sue.

Until that gets squared away, there will always be some group yelling that it can be solved by giving the system over to the government that is immune from law suits. It's just not true.

There are people who are denied claims because they chose to buy cheap insurance and they are covered for very little and don't realize it until they need it. Then they want the government to sue the insurance companies.

What we need is the introduction of web based technologies that allow people to shop for health care. Travelocity like sites that instantly give people a list of choices.
The prices for care and insurance will drop like a rock and the henny-penny sky-is-falling crowd will have to find something else to cry about.

Check the source: It's the only way to get this done without becoming a communist country.

Answer 11

As someone who lives in the UK, the problem with the system is that it's not socialised *enough*. Over the last 30 years, governments have introduced more and more market mechanisms into public health provision. It has never been perfect, but it goes to show that if you want to put people first, profits always have to come second.