after seeing another post about the movie Sicko, I was hoping we cound discuss some problems with socialized medicine. Apparently it can do no wrong according to Moore and his movie and all of his followers. I would like some honest answers about some problems that occur with government run medicine, from opponents and supporters. I admit our health care system isnt perferct, and in fact staight up sucks a lot of the time, but the idea of letting a bunch of polticians take over, that is not sounding so hot either.

Your choice is between a bureaucrat who only cares about making money, not your health (what we have now) or a public servant who is not in it for the money.

I will take the public servant any day where my health care is concerned.

:thumbs:

Your choice is between buerocrat who only cares about making money, not your health (what we have now) or a public servant who is not in it for the money.
Bureaucrat*

And suddenly our health care system is "only" about making money? What?

Your choice is between a bureaucrat who only cares about making money, not your health (what we have now) or a public servant who is not in it for the money.

I will take the public servant any day where my health care is concerned.

:thumbs:

so is this your way of saying there are no problems with socialized medicine?

What's the tax rate in Canada these days? Still in the 50-60% range?

I'd say that's my 1st problem with socialized medicine.

What's unbelievable to me is that all these mighty thinkers can't come up with a healthcare plan someplace between having patients sleeping on dirt floors (like in some 'emerging' countries) and giving Uncle Sam half of everything we make just so Aunt Ethel can have her gallbladder removed in style.

SMW

P.S. to Trav... I'm sure you've been around here long enough to KNOW none of the libs are going to go looking for problems with something they recommend. They just don't know how to open their minds that far.

I hear you SMW. I admit our health care system blows as it is. I would like to improve it somehow, but we cant have an honest discussion if we cant hear all sides of the story. I would just like to hear someone who is all for socisalized medicne address a few of the concerns they have with it. No system is perfect.

so is this your way of saying there are no problems with socialized medicine?

First you have to be specific about what you are asking. I believe what you really mean is National Health Care, which is not the same as "socialized" health care.
National Health care, which is what most serious people are proposing, is essentially a system of national insurance that allows bulk bargining in order to reduce prices.
There are problems with every system, but when talking about this, since so many other countries have them and they can vary even from province to province in places, it becomes hard to talk in generalizations about national health care systems.

"Socialized" health care is where the state actually employs all the doctors instead of merely acting as an insurance agency.

That is not something I have heard anyone seriously propose.

:thumbs:

What's the tax rate in Canada these days? Still in the 50-60% range?

If it means never having to worry about going broke and losing my life savings because of medical bills when I get older then I would call that a terrific bargain.

:thumbs:

Income Stable, Poverty Up, Numbers of Americans With and Without Health Insurance Rise, Census Bureau Reports

Real median household income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 at $43,318, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. At the same time, the nation’s official poverty rate rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent in 2003. The number of people with health insurance increased by 1.0 million to 243.3 million between 2002 and 2003, and the number without such coverage rose by 1.4 million to 45.0 million. The percentage of the nation’s population without coverage grew from 15.2 percent in 2002 to 15.6 percent in 2003.

*********************************************

Yeah, let's throw out the old plan that works for 243 million of us, instead of worrying about how to cover that 15.6% it doesn't work for.

Gotta love those Libs and their 'new age' ideas.

SMW

P.S. to Dharma... this is for you, dear (pucker up!)

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/thkissass.gif

First you have to be specific about what you are asking. I believe what you really mean is National Health Care, which is not the same as "socialized" health care.
National Health care, which is what most serious people are proposing, is essentially a system of national insurance that allows bulk bargining in order to reduce prices.
There are problems with every system, but when talking about this, since so many other countries have them and they can vary even from province to province in places, it becomes hard to talk in generalizations about national health care systems.

"Socialized" health care is where the state actually employs all the doctors instead of merely acting as an insurance agency.

That is not something I have heard anyone seriously propose.

:thumbs:

OK, I guess if I don't ask exactly how you want you won't answer.

So, what are some problems we may encounter with "National Health Care"?

I am not talking about "obstructions" from the right wing corperations, i mean logistical problems, unpopular tax increases, and such things.

National Healthcare -- PROS

1. The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 40 million.

2. Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals.

3. We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc.

4. We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors.

5. Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc.

6. Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs.

National Healthcare -- CONS

1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?

2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.

3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.

4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.

5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.

6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.

7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.

8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.

9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.

10. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.

11. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.

Here's my take:

A) The system as it is in bad shape. My main reason for saying that is that more people work in healthcare administration than directly providing healthcare. When an industry's administration exceeds the size of any administrated industry, it seems obvious to me that there is a tremendous inefficiency introduced into the industry by overadministration.

This inefficiency seems to be the partially, if not primarily, the result of having to sort out who is responsible for what health care costs. How many people do we have working for health insurance agencies and government health agencies (e.g. medicare and medicaid) and how much of that manpower could actually be redirected into directly helping sick people? Simply put, a hell of a lot.

B) "National Health Care" as dharma describes it does nothing to fix this problem. It leaves administration in place while spreading the costs to taxpayers. Therefore, this is not a solution to what I view as the real problem; the inefficiency of the system.

C) Socialized health care is a potential solution. As much as I hate socialized practices, I would have to support fully socialized health care at this point. It removes the need for health insurance workers and a large portion of government health administration.

Such a plan would probably need some tweaking, because a lot of healthcare resources are spent on non-life-threatening "illnesses." Nevertheless, I support socialized health care because it addresses my concern with the inefficiency of the system.

D) I would also support fully privatizing health care and health care charity, because capitalism evolves efficient practices. Yes, poor people wouldn't do as well as rich people, but that's part of the reward for making money....rewarding people who make money drives our society to success, so I don't view this as a bad thing.

However, I fully recognize that this viewpoint is unacceptably unpopular in our society today, so I don't think that this is a realistic possibility. e.g. No politician could support this position and keep his office, no matter how correct it is.

P.S. to Dharma... this is for you, dear (pucker up!)

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/thkissass.gif

Classy as usual SMW... :rolleyes:

You don't have to kiss my ass, but showing some common courtesy would make a nice change.