The political rhetoric of "socialized medicine"

[RedEarth]

The political rhetoric of "socialized medicine"

By Don McCanne, MD

For political reasons efforts often are made to obfuscate the definition of “socialized medicine,” but it is important to understand the meaning of the term. A socialized medicine system is one in which the government is the owner of the health care delivery system, and professionals providing the health care are employees of the government.

In contrast, social insurance is a government insurance program which pays for health care provided by the private health care delivery system. Social insurance programs may be government-administered programs, such as the single payer model, or they may be contracted through private insurers. Do not confuse these private, non-profit insurers in social insurance programs with the model of for-profit private insurance in the United States. The private insurers in social insurance programs serve primarily as administrators, but the tightly-regulated financing system functions basically like the single payer model.

The Veterans Administration health system is government owned, and the professionals within the system are employees of the government. Thus it is a system of socialized medicine. Medicare is a government insurance program that pays for services in the private health care delivery system. Thus it is a program of social insurance.

Even Americans who believe they understand the term “socialized medicine” are often confused. In the Harvard/Harris poll, only 47 percent believe that the veterans health care system is a system of socialized medicine (it is). In contrast, 60 percent believe that Medicare is a system of socialized medicine (it is not).

Stan Dorn and John Holahan from the Urban Institute warn us that “rhetoric about socialized medicine and government-run health care is a distraction.” Yet they state that the single payer proposal of HR 676 “would be the functional equivalent of socialized medicine.” Well, they do have an agenda. They state that policies yielding the best consequences for the American public would include “consumers’ ability to make choices about their health care and health coverage.” Throughout their report are many other comments that make it clear that they support the Clinton/Obama model of choice of private insurance plans while rejecting the single payer model. It’s clear that they want to insulate the Democrats’ proposal against the inevitable “socialized medicine” attack of the Republicans. (It should be noted that the Republicans’ claim of private market solutions rings hollow when they propose expanding government subsidies to a population in which 95 percent of the insured are already receiving some form of public subsidies.)

We must continue to stand up against those who obfuscate the issues by abusing the political rhetoric over socialized medicine, especially so when they come from our own camp. They are correct when they say that it is the policies that count, but they are wrong when they reject policies, for political reasons, that would provide the greatest benefit for the patients.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/april/the_political_rhetor.php

Single-Payer National Health Insurance
EMAIL PAGE

PRINT PAGE
EN ESPAÑOL Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private.

Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 46 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.

The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.

Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.

Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, long-term care, mental health, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php

[Clear Blue Sky]

1. Makes good sense...n/t

[Lefergus70]

2. Aa Euro view of "socialized medicine"

(I had mistakently sent this message to another "Health" thread and am repeating it here, where it truly seems to belong.)

What American conservatives sneeringly refer to as "socialized medicine" is simply "medicine" in the European Union. Of course, many Euro conservatives favor private clinics and hospitals over public ones (here in Madrid, a conservative bastion, regional privatization is relentless), but they remain bound to the national health systems. Nowhere in the EU of some 400,000 people does any political leader question the right to 100 per cent medical coverage for Social Security card holders and all their dependents. And that right is matched by private health insurers which are competive and very profitable.

A further comment on trans-Atlantic lexicon differences: On a Spanish political TV talk show yesterday, it was asked, "What is a liberal?" The consensus was that it is someone who favors laissez faire over a regulating government. In other words, liberals over here (indeed in the entire EU) are what Americans consider conservatives. So who won the Spanish general election last month? By American definition it was the "liberals"; over here, the winning PSOE party is socialist, in the line of social democrats; it is progressive, leftist - anything but "liberal".