What exactly is wrong with having Socialized Medicine?

[Hepburn]

Why are people opposed to this? Is it brain washing by the insurance corporations, a fear of the word "socialized", or both?

From what I have seen ~~ particularly referencing MM's movie SICKO ~~ I think this is a great idea. In fact, I have always favored getting rid of the private medical insurers and having government provided health care that just took care of whatever needed to be taken care of. This would include dental problems, psychological counseling, etc.

I truthfully believe that a healthy society can only benefit our nation. So why in the hell would anyone be against this. The only answer I can find is there has been total brainwashing by the bastard insurance companies.

Here is a great example of this foolish kind of thinking: I have a friend who many, many years ago was in the US Navy and for many, many years thereafter carried private medical insurance until I showed him the benefits he was entitled to through the VA. Now, for about 8 years, he has used the VA facilities in West Los Angeles. He has received GREAT treatment and I should note he has had some major medical problems, including a leg that was broken in an accident in four places, required an open reduction and the use of a titanium rod. Never has had a problem with this. When I noted to this Reagan Republican pal of mine that the VA was basically "socialized medicine," he came un-fucking glued and literally screamed at me that he had "earned" the right to use the VA facilities by serving his country. But, no "freeloader" should have access to things they had not earned. Sheesh!

So why isn't it just because of a right as a human being and the humanity with which others should be treated doesn't everyone have a right to health care? Isn't this "earned" and "paid for" by being a living breathing person? Why do some feel that there is a need to "earn" or "pay for" this and it is OK if someone is unable to pay the necessary $$$, to allow him or her to suffer or die?

What's the difference with public schools, freeways, etc? Why to the neocons is is OK to provide those things with equal access to all...but health insurance is so fucking different? The disabled, the poor, etc., can use a public school or freeway without someone noting that it is some form of "socialization" for which they are NOT paying....but the right to be free of pain and healthy is a lesser priority?

I just do not get it. <sigh>

[DJ13]

1. Profits before People

Thats the only real reason the elites in this country dont want it.

[Hepburn]

4. You know I step back and think about this....

...and I wonder how and when our nation came to accept the stupid idea that healthcare should be done for a fucking profit? It is so accepted right now that to go the opposite way about this gets the reaction I got from my neocon pal.

But rationally...why in the hell should any form of healthcare be based on PROFIT???? Which means that essential to a systme like this functioning, it is NECESSARY to deny treatment.

What a fucking bass-ackwards way to look at a basic necessity of life!

[verges]

95. The argument I've encountered..

is a distrust of government. They feel that Socialized medicine would require a huge, inefficient bureaucracy and be run inefficiently and reduce the quality of the care. They feel that the free-market is the best way to deal with health care.

I point out that health care should be a right. Not a privilige for the wealthy. And I also point out that with 60 million currently uninsured, the private sector has made a mosh of the system. Could the government possibly be worse?

They also ask (and rightly so) How is it to be paid for? And, that is an excellent question. Taxes may have to go up. Yet I would think would be somewhat off-set by the fact that insurance and out of pocket medical expenses would go away. (If anyone would like to expand or correct--PLEASE DO)

And people are frightened of the term "Socialized" This smacks of Communism! Which is silly, I know. But still, people do think that.

It's also been mentioned to me (and I doubt, yet don't know for certain) that countries that have it, are trying to get away from it (again, please refute!)

[PaDem]

97. to expand upon what you said........

taxes would go up, your insurance premiums and out of pocket expenses would disappear, and your employer would be able to pay you more. Presently, I pay $4,100 per year in healthcare premiums for myself and my family, and my employer pays the other 80 %. Imagine how much more they could pay me if they weren't on the hook for the salary and benefits of some health insurance company CEO.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

210. worked well in the UK so what if taxes go up this is health

why don't we just borrow from the Chinese as for the Iraq 'war'

[defendandprotect]

122. Hospitals were "not profit" until ... when? .... I guess they accomplished the swtch

during the 90's . . . ?

[JTFrog]

141. Nixon had been trying to work out a plan since 1947 (when he was rep of California) to

come up with a health care program that was uniquely republican. He wanted to encourage competition in the health care market. When he was Pres he was told they could make a bundle while cutting medicare and medicaid. HMO's were then born over the objection of the AMA who was thought to have a conflict of interest in wanting to preserve private practices.

The rest as they say, is history.

(that's just kinda a general how and when)

[endarkenment]

2. But what about the CEOs?

How will they manage without their millions in bonuses? What about their kittens? Who will feed their kittens?

[jtrockville]

3. Some people would rather...

pay astronomical rates for poor care just so long as not one thin dime of their contribution goes towards helping someone less fortunate.

[Hepburn]

6. Amen....

...and it just seems to apply to health care! WHY????

I don't see these same assholes out protesting that someone with a 20 year old, beat-up Chevy is using the same freeway that their new Rolls Royce is also using.

Is is some weird Social Darwinism idea on health insurance.....like survival of the fittest means that money counts???

[jtrockville]

14. I wish I knew why. It's not rational. :(

[pitohui]

88. i agree, i left post 82 before reading the other answers, but i've seen what you see

i've observed exactly what you have -- that "some people would rather pay astronomical rates for poor care just so long as not one thin dime of their contribution goes towards helping someone less fortunate."

what's wrong with people, i'll never understand this

[eridani]

132. Yep--at least half of the American population would cheerfully pay someone to saw off--

--their dominant hand, as long as part of the deal was that someone they couldn't stand got both hands sawn off.

[texastoast]

5. Here is one argument against it for you

Hypochondriacs. They are real. I know because I have some in my family. They will literally go to the doctor for a hangnail.

The right to be free from pain does not apply to them most of the time.:evilgrin:

I have another argument. Lots of visits to the doctor can be eliminated if people will learn how to take care of their health on their own--e.g., eating right, exercising and using home treatments for many ailments. Of course, that would take away from the medical industry's bottom line.

[endarkenment]

7. yes indeed Hypochondriacs are what is driving health care costs

in those dead end european states with their socialist healthcare systems. That is why they routinely suffer with lower costs and better results.

But seriously, who will feed their kittens if the healthco ceos can't bring in the million dollar bonuses?

[texastoast]

58. Lower costs, better results

Much higher taxation, which is where the trouble will be getting the idea through Congress.

But, if we can get the service to those with legitimate needs, I personally don't mind a bit. But there are many who are not like you and I.

[yardwork]

73. Taxes might be somewhat higher, but we would realize huge savings overall.

It's appalling how much money our current healthcare system wastes. If that money were redistributed, we could afford to provide every man, woman, and child in the U.S. with excellent healthcare without raising taxes.

Since I know that some of that money won't get redistributed (corporate CEOs gotta have their multi-million dollar bonuses), I'm willing to concede that some waste will remain. Still, we're looking at massive cost savings in the paper work alone. Imagine if all those insurance claims to zillions of different providers didn't have to be filed, and refiled, and refiled...

[endarkenment]

158. lower costs per capita for healthcare service

and better results. For example, Canada:

Government and private health and public policy analysts have compared the health care systems of Canada and the United States.<1><2><3><4> In 2004, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was more than double that in Canada: in the U.S., it totaled US$6,096; in Canada, US$3,038.<5> Studies have come to different conclusions about the result of this disparity in spending. A 2007 review of all studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the U.S., in a Canadian peer-reviewed medical journal, found that "health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent."<6> Life expectancy is longer in Canada, and its infant mortality rate is lower than that of the U.S., but there is debate about the underlying causes of these differences. The World Health Organization's ratings of health care system performance among 191 member nations, published in 2000, ranked Canada 30th and the U.S. 37th, and the overall health of Canadians 35th and Americans 72nd.<7>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared


We pay tons of taxes, we pay for healthcare as well, just not directly through the tax system (except of course we do for medicare and medicaid). instead we pay indirectly through for profit insurance systems, through uninsured emergency treatment costs rolled into our bills, through higher labor costs that include our ad hoc healthcare system costs. The net result is that we pay more per capita, far more, and get at best mediocre service.

[Hepburn]

10. Well, I have seen a few of those....

...considering in the late 1960s in under-grad school I worked ER in a 99-bed hospital in So Calif. But, IMO, there are ways to deal with people like that and not a reason to deny medical coverage as a basic human right to everyone.

And I do agree with the latter statement by you ~~ and having socialized medicine would allow for referrals to programs that taught people how to do this and to bring up their level of health and well being.

JMHO

[Kansas Wyatt]

12. And I'm sure pharmaceuticals and the health industry would NEVER

Look at the $$$ to be gained by "treating" hypochondriacs.

Seems to me, if profit were take away from the equation, than it would be easier to deal with hypochondriacs. After all, how many commericals do you see a day advertising "treatment" for stupid shit, that allegedly is a very real health problem?

[Hepburn]

16. Stay up late some time and watch the info-mericals!

OMG....acne has been elevated to the level of mobidity!

[raccoon]

17. I have a relatives like that. For that reason, I think a national health plan

should require the patient to pay a SMALL co-pay every time s/he goes to the doctor. With an exemption for the indigent.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

211. healthcare workers can spot a hypo a mile off

I don't think it will be a problem.

[Warpy]

28. Man, are you in for a shock!

We don't choose to get ill, how ill to get , or when to time it so it doesn't inconvenience us too much. All the exercising and dieting in the world won't compensate for genetics that predispose us to heart disease, cancer, or a dozen other disease profiles, nor will it make us immune to pathogens or accidents.

Since illness is not a consumer decision, health care doesn't belong in the consumer marketplace.

If you don't think doctors and nurses don't recommend lifestyle changes, you're very ignorant of what goes on in the medical profession. Unfortunately the responsibility lies with the person in question. Some people live the way they want to live, even though they know it will make their lives shorter.

Smug posts like that one display a need for education. Sadly, that education generally happens.

[texastoast]

51. So you go for hangnails?

No, you are ignorant if you think all doctors recommend lifestyle changes. My doc had a doctorate from MIT in chemical engineering before he went to med school and he recommends pills to keep your cholesterol down. He has learned to tolerate my quaint ideas of whole body thinking.

Smug, indeed. Just because I'm from Texas and from the location of the best medical center in the world (not my words), don't think for a moment I feel smug.

[yardwork]

29. The U.S. system actually rewards hypochondriacs.

Anyone with private insurance in the U.S. can always find doctors willing to order more tests and prescribe more meds. Since pharmaceutical companies are now allowed to advertise their drugs, you can imagine the impact on hypochondriacs every time they open a copy of Newsweek and see the ads.

If we had universal healthcare for everyone, the hypochondriacs would have more trouble finding doctors willing to put up with their nonsense, since the profit incentive to order more and more tests and prescribe more and more meds would be gone.

Meanwhile, millions of truly sick people would get the healthcare they need. They'd get health education and counseling, too - encouraging those good habits that you reference as essential to good health care.

Even in the instance of hypochondriacs, we'd be better off with universal healthcare.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

212. profit = lots of unecessary healthcare

[defendandprotect]

123. There's no "industry bottom line" in socialized medicine ---

If run correctly --- and not starved as has been happening in many countries when the r-w gets in the play -- the American public and doctors would force issues like cancer into investigations of environment, etal ---

and, alternative medicines and preventive medicine ---

It should also be combined with dental care ---

Our problems are not with hypochondriacs but with people who need care and aren't getting it ---

[opiate69]

127. Hypochondriasis is itself an illness..

So, if we were to have "socialized" medicine here, doctors who suspected a patient of suffering from it could refer them to a mental health specialist for appropriate treatment.

[cushla_machree]

161. and who is feeding these hypochrondriacs?

Wouldn't be the ads in every magazine and on tv telling them they may have restless leg syndrome???

How about that fact that your doctor can just order you a useless test and charge it to the insurance company? My eye doctor did just that, when i saw the bill i freaked and asked why they ordered a certain test when all i wanted was an eyeglass presciption. Answer? Insurance paid for it, so it didn't cost you anything! At least medicare lists right off what they will cover and what they won't, so if you want that extra test, your paying for it!

[Two Americas]

177. good God, your own family??

We too have a hypochondriac in our family - the most extreme case imaginable. But she is still family, and I would never consider using that as an excuse to not be charitable and compassionate to millions of people nor to speak the way you are speaking here.

Did it ever occur to you that hypochondria is an exaggerated response to the brutality and lack of compassion in modern society? I think it is very obvious that it is. Some can cope with the stress and insanity of modern society, but many cannot.

The right wing model is "personal responsibility" and punishment. Whatever happens to people is their own fault, and the solution is always to punish them. The more we punish and blame, the worse the problem gets, so the more we punish and blame. This is the road to Hell.

We are better than this.

[Cleita]

8. Of course it's disinformation spread by the insurance companies

and HMOs. In fact national health care works quite well in the countries that have it, even those countries, like England who don't have the best plans. I have collected so many lies over the years that have been published by even reputable magazines and periodicals that makes them seem authoritive. When you track down the authors then you find out who they are operatives for and it all leads to health care lobbyists in Washington.

[CANDO]

9. "SOCIALISM"

Run for your lives!

[Hepburn]

13. Yep.....

...it just kind of sits there like a turd in the punch bowl.

Great country we have here....propaganda allowing insurance companies to rape the public and, further, allowing the government to NOT do the right thing!

JMHO....<sigh>

[Tracer]

11. Fear.

Some people are genuinely afraid that they will receive poorer care under such a system -- i.e. longer waits, lousier doctors etc.

There's no talking to them, even when you attempt to explain that they would have their same doctor, same hospital etc. The only difference would be that the middleman (insurance companies) gets cut out.

[Hepburn]

15. Yeah, I have heard that argument a lot!

That the would basically lose contol and have the worst of the worst treatment.

That is why when I talked my Vet pal who I got to go to the VA that I was so surprised by his response that this was NOT socialized medicine in any form because in some manner he earned it. And, the treatment I have seen from that particular VA Hosptial ~~ Wilshire and the 405 Frwy in West LA ~~ has for the most part been outstanding. No long waits, no shoddy MDs, no denial of coverage and no denial of referrals to specialists. As far as I can see, that place is miles ahead of most HMOs.

[poisonivy]

57. Not to discredit your claim

but, not all VA hospitals are the same. I used the VA for a while after I got out of the military, I refuse to return now. I have a service connected disability for my knee, one afternoon after my wife got home from work (overtime on saturday) I went to stand up and my knee blew out again. She said that she would take me to the VA hosptial, I told her not to waste the gas, we went (cant argue with my wife LOL), to make a long story short I was told that since I am not bleeding out, or having a heart attack there is nothing they will do for me in the er. It took me 3 months but I finally got in to see the ortho, he ordered a mri, got that done, went back to get the results he said "nothing wrong with your knee" I asked for something for the pain his reply was "I am a surgeon, I dont do pain management" needless to say I have not been back. I went to a civilian ortho doc, ended up having surgery because I tore it up again.

The VA system is overwhelmed, takes months to get in and when you do, you MAY get the care you need.

[Hepburn]

74. Yep, I agree.....

...there is a hell of a difference between different VA hospitals. The one in West LA on Wilshire by the 405 Freeway is by far the best one I have seen. But....then there is the old Long Beach VA Hospital and it could rightfully be called a pit.

BTW: Hope the knee is doing better. :hi:

[poisonivy]

98. Thanks

but the knee is shot, it needs replaced but I am too young. When I lived in Nashville, the VA hospital there was awesome, it was attached to Vanderbilt University Hospital and if the VA could not do what was needed, they simply sent you to Vandy.

My biggest thing with single payer/universal health care IS the chance it could turn out like the VA.

[demo dutch]

19. The've been spoonfed with that misinformation for years. Problem is Americans

don't travel and are not exposed enough to learn the difference.

[Hepburn]

18. So, what are the good arguments to open the eyes of those...

...who think that having govt provided health insurance is totally evil.

What in the hell is the response when you get something like I got from my neocon pal....about earning the right to insurance? Trust me, when I tried the two arguments of just because someone is a human being and it is best for our nation to have a healthy population, I might as well have said nothing.

Got any ideas on how to combat this BS...cuz let's face it...there are gonna be independents come this November who may well be concerned about any of the Dems who talk about govt sponsored health care.

[demo dutch]

22. Watch Sicko and spend a week in Canada or Europe and find for themselves. On a serious note

the day will come where the costs will be even more astronomical and people will finally get it. There are scores of Americans that live and retire abroad that know better.

[demo dutch]

20. Do not know! Works very well where I come from! Definately the insurance lobby is to blame

[pinto]

21. Nice post, on an issue I, too, consider vitally important, as do most

Americans of all political stripes. As you note, it's the framing of the debate and the misconceptions that remain a big barrier to greater public support for a total socialization of health care or it's cousin, a government funded, single payer system, such as Medicare.

The bugaboo about "socialism" remains entrenched in the public's mind, I think. From the days of the Wobblies, through FDR's New Deal and on into the McCarthy era, socialism with an American face was likened to Communism/totalitarianism and the specter of a Big Brother government involvement in the basics of our lives. (Oh, the irony...)

I think that battle for perception is best not fought, in favor of the specifics, on a less visceral scale, in the discussion with opponents. (There will always be a fringe that refuses to accept any other point of view. They ought to ignored, imho.)

Some concrete concerns people seem to have:

Government will make your health care decisions, not you and your doctors.

Largely a red herring. Even in the VA, which is the closest we have to socialized medicine, in that the payer and the providers work for the federal government, day to day medical decisions are made by doctors and patients. In the instances where federal bureaucracies hamper delivery of adequate and timely care - as we've seen recently - it's the oversight that needs adjusting, not the basic system.

In the single payer Medicare, doctors and patients make health care decisions. The federal government, as payer, sets reimbursement rates and basic coverage guidelines. When these are out of whack - as reimbursement is today, it's the oversight that needs to be tweaked, and updated, not the system.

It's more expensive and wasteful.

Wrong. Medicare overhead is cheaper across the system than private insurance company systems, the multiplicity of billing systems adds another layer to health care providers workload, and costs are inflated to incorporate a profit for the private insurer.

Again, where a Medicare or a VA system is too top heavy for efficiency, oversight is the solution, not dismantling the basic structure.

There's long wait time.

I have no knowledge how it goes in the VA, but as a Medicare beneficiary, I've had no problems, even when needing to see a specialist. I have heard of delays due to the availability of providers in some areas, mainly due to reimbursement rates. (see above)

Someone will get something for nothing, or I'll pay for someone else's health care.

Well, I hate to hear this, but in answer I'll say, Yep, you're right. Just as all taxpayers fund national defense, the national highway system, local law and fire protection, schools, etc. etc. We can *all* fund national health care as an accepted, basic standard.

Thanks for your post.

[Hepburn]

32. Thanks for the compliment....and your points are EXCELLENT!

I have saved and printed them and put them in my arsenal to use when the BS comes up about universal health care.

:hi:

[pinto]

42. Cool. This is one worth fighting for, and has some unlikely allies,

politically. Medicare-for-all - when linked to spiraling private funding costs, decreased access to private insurance programs, business costs for insurance programs *and* the basic assumption of a Social Security safety net, another government program - brings a lot of people to the table.

imho.

[Hepburn]

43. OK....

...It makes a lot of sense and a good approach to go along the lines of "...if we can provide medical care for seniors..." to explain WHY the hell medical care coverage for everyone is NOT an evil idea.

This medical coverage issue is of VITAL importance to me and not because I have any personal horse in the race. I am covered and covered like crazy for anything you can think of because of my late husband's former employment with the US Government. However, I am seeing soooooo many people who are older, but not old enough for Medicare or poor enough for Medi-Cal, who are middle class and have to made some really ugly decisions about health and dental treatments or new RX eyeglasses versus rent and food or car repairs needed to get them back and forth to work. That mega sucks in my book and it really, really bothers the hell out of me. We are the fucking richest country in the fucking world...and we cannot see that someone who cannot afford it, for example. gets a decent set of dentures when they need them??? That is must WRONG!

[LSK]

23. brainwashing n/t

[trudyco]

24. Well I am against pure government run health services...

From my limited experiences England's system is not that great. Anything "elective" can take YEARS to have happen. There is bullshit about if you can get it or not. Canada is better but there are also longer wait times for follow up care like my brother's care after a heart attack. You have to trust the government that they can figure out what is "elective" or "follow up" or "maintenance" versus actually serious. France has a very good system from what I've heard. Not long wait times even for "elective" surgery. Australia is much like Canada in how good it is. There are fewer places that have "specialized" facilities so that may prove a problem or inconvenience at the least.

My concern is that I just don't believe in my government. I believe that the system will run more like England than France, and that the system will get short-changed every time we have a Republican in power.

I'd rather see a consumer based health care system, where you pick a plan and it goes with you whether you are employed or not, and the quality/quantity of services and costs are carefully regulated by the government. Or alternatively the government expands medicaid/medicare to everybody who wants it, with a premium based on income. Then the private insurers have to compete with the government. Consumers get to pick. Even then, though, things need to be regulated.

You should read "Free Lunch". It talks some about going from decent private health care, to HMOs, to giant rip-off health care. Fascinating book.

[yardwork]

31. England's system is not the only one. England is a poor country.

With all the wealth in the US., we could have a beautiful healthcare system that included everyone.

We're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a war and the cost is still rising. All my life I've heard that "we can't afford national healthcare." Yet there was money for a war.

[14thColony]

52. England is hardly poor

Your point is valid about the wealth of the US, and I agree 100%. But the United Kingdom is the 6th largest economy in the world, and England's economy is by far the largest of the four Union nations. I don't think that rates as poor by any measure.

[yardwork]

71. That's true. I meant that in context, England has more difficulty affording healthcare than the U.S

I didn't mean to disrespect England!

[14thColony]

81. Not to worry

I live there/here and I disrespect them all the time. But mostly due to their shocking inability to speak proper English.

As for the National Health System, like any large bureaocracy it has its problems but on the 2 or 3 occasions I've had to use it I've found it to be very good. At least it provides a minimum baseline of medical care, and therefore human dignity. In general I'm a fan and like you can only wonder what the much wealthier US would be capable of.

[defendandprotect]

125. The right-wing politicians have simply been STARVING their health care

system --- and that's been going on a long, long time ---

Also serves to make the public angry with the system ---

When properly funded -- and when taxpayer dollars aren't diverted to guns --- they give efficient care.

[demobrit]

175. England's system is not the only one. England is a poor country.

Our income per capita is a little higher over here now especially with the dollar sinking like a stone.
As for conributions to our healthcare system we pay 11% of income and this also goes toward our state pension.
When taken out before net pay it is never missed and I know that myself and my wife,who happens to be American,will always be able to rely on healthcare no matter how our general health is or age.
We still pay the same amount.
Yes ,there are waiting lists for some operations but emergency care is immediate and I always have the option to go private if I wished.
Yes,there will always be some problems but the vast majority of British would still keep the system.
After all,it is in the states interest to get one well and back to work paying taxes.

[Djinn]

85. clearly your experience it limited

because as a citizen of the UK and Australia I do not recognise your experience at all. The government does not decide what is serious - medical staff do.

[cushla_machree]

162. Here is my problem with those plans

Any consumer based health care system relies on high deductible plans and health savings accounts. High deductible plans discourage preventative treatment and require high out of pocket costs. I have a plan like this (Its a cobra plan, still waiting for that mythical employee base health care option!), I avoid going to the doctor unless i have to. Its been three years since i have had a physical. The only doctor i have seen is my eye doctor because they won't give me more contacts (granted i did wear m 3 week contacts for 2 months each to stretch it out).

If everyone has a high deductible plan....then people will avoid going to the doctor, poor people will just not sign up for plans, and health insurance companies will still make their millions. Why? Because they have discovered that they can make the most amount of money by offering high deductible plans that have reduced quality of care.

Health savings accounts, don't count on them making any real difference. Most people won't beenfit for them because they don't make enough to benefit from the tax savings in them.

The pooled risk model is still the best and only real insurance out there.

[Expat Sue]

203. expanding medicare

An optional buy-in to medicare is one of the foundations of Edward's health care platform. Health insurance is mandated (to achieve the benefits of a large risk pool with, I believe, community risk ratings as opposed to the complicated system currently used by health insurance individual risk ratings). Consumers are able to 1) buy health insurance from the usual providers, or 2) buy into the medicare system. This forces the for-profit insurance companies to compete with the very efficient medicare system.

I currently live in Australia and have been covered by the Australian single-payer system for the past year (coincidentally also called Medicare). I wouldn't trade this for the world to go back to a US style for-profit system. Unfortunately, Johnnie Howard altered the system in the early '90's due to his free market mantra that competition drives down prices. Not so with a necessary commodity like health. Basically, Australia now has a 2 tiered system and individuals can opt into the private system with huge gov't subsidies in place to prop up this system. Depending on income, Australian's pay 1.5-2.5% of your income as a Medicare levy to pay for the single-payer gov't insurance. If you opt into private cover, you can reduce this levy (which effectively pulls funds out of the public system and has led to the underfunding of Medicare in the last 10 years) and other tax benefits. I'm fine with consumers opting for more insurance, however, I strongly object to the direct subsidy of the private system by depleting Medicare funding. Further, this 2 tiered system has led to private doc able to charge significantly more than the Medicare reimbursement, and led to increasing out-of-pocket expenses for consumers across the board (so much so that there is now another rebate on your taxes if your out-of-pocket expenses are over a set amount per year). I can see whatever doctor I chose, as they all accept Medicare (although the problem with increasing fees above the medicare reimbursement has created a differential in charge vs reimbursement that some people can't afford, particularly in the ob/gyn specialty). The gov't doesn't decide what procedures/tests are given, that is solely up to the doc and the patient.

Yes, there are lines in getting appts and some specialties can take time (e.g 3 mo for an audiology test). However, if your condition merits it, your doc can have you advanced in the queue. Patients that are not in pain or have a less severe manifestation of a condition will wait longer than individuals with more immediate health consequences. It is a basic and efficient triage system managed by the doc and based on their experience in treating individuals. Basically, one of the perks of the private system in Australia is getting around the waiting times. I think this is one of the barriers in getting universal single payer health care in the US, basically, that less critical patients will be expected to wait for treatment in order that the most severe cases get seen in first. However, waiting times in general can be reduced with full funding of the Medicare system (with waiting times having increased with the reduced Medicare funding due to the prop up of the private system).

Again, wouldn't go back to a for-profit system and have full faith in a universal single payer system.

[Spangle]

25. His Children

will not recieve those 'freebies' that he earned. Instead, they will have to pay through the nose.

Instead, his children will be paying for his healthcare out of their tax dollars, while paying for their own as well.

[The2ndWheel]

26. How many countries close to our population size have that type of healthcare?

And obviously our public schools and freeways are falling apart too.

There just isn't a system for 300,000,000 people. We all talk about Canada's wonderful healthcare system. Canada also has 30,000,000 people. We have 10x the population. If you could harness the money from 300,000,000 people, you could pay for a lot. However, the tax system for that many people, and it's not just senior citizens with Medicare, or just children, it's everybody, will get very complicated. There will be even more loopholes for the wealthy to find their way out of.

My guess is that we will get that type of healthcare at some point, simply because the infrastructure of the country starts to fall apart if people can't pump their energy into the engine. It would have to be done to just keep all that tax money coming into the government. That would just be self preservation on the part of the state. But again, there isn't a system in place for the amount of people we have. That needs to be figured out first. You can't just promise that kind of healthcare.

[yardwork]

33. Larger countries are more efficient, not less.

If a tiny country like Cuba can manage decent healthcare for its people despite an embargo by the U.S., what's our excuse?

Are you saying that a country that put people on the moon can't figure out how to provide decent healthcare to its citizens? I don't buy it.

[The2ndWheel]

108. I see it the opposite way

Larger countries are less efficient. Larger countries have more things to pay for, like going to the moon. More roads, more schools, more everything. Larger countries have the money to pay for those things, but because we have all that money, and so many people, and so many different interests coming from so many different angles, that you can't stay on track unless you're eternally vigilant...all the time...forever. Can we do that? We did get diverted into a space race with another large and inefficient entity. We technically wasted a lot of energy on that one. We didn't have to go to the moon. The Soviet Union didn't have to do what it did. That's why larger countries, to my eye, are less efficient.

I'm not saying we can't figure out how to provide decent healthcare. I'm just saying it's much more complicated(possibly needlessly) than just saying we need to provide decent healthcare.

[Solon]

110. Uhm, you do realize that the larger the risk pool the cheaper individual costs are, right?

I mean, that's how insurance companies themselves work, the difference is that we would have a government managed monopoly on health insurance, that's all Single Payer is, after all. So the US system, while it won't be 10 times more efficient than Canada's system, would at least lower individual costs to around Canadian levels.

[The2ndWheel]

118. Absolutely

But there are consequences for that. The more people you put into a single system, the less each individual has to pay. However, you have to "waste" energy to keep a single, growing system together. That's where the insurance companies go wrong. There are multiple insurance companies. That's also inefficient. They compete against each other, and against themselves. Very wasteful.

That's also the reason we end up with Wal-Mart everywhere. That's why we have a single government. If we had two or three, the US wouldn't exist, because it would compete against itself. That's why monopoly will be the end result of all of our wants and desires. It lowers the cost for everyone within that system, but we will use/waste a lot of energy simply keeping it going. Give and take.

[Solon]

121. Where does the waste come from?

I'm truly puzzled by this, in the Canadian system for example, 95 cents of every dollar goes into medical care. Using insurance companies, here in the United States, about 60-70- cents of every dollar goes into medical care. It seems to me that the Canadian system, and public systems in general, are less wasteful than private systems. Isn't that all that matters?

[The2ndWheel]

135. From strictly a human perspective, yes, that's all that matters

If you look at it differently though, our public systems could be considered private systems since we isolate ourselves from the rest of life, extracting more for ourselves. Isn't that what a corporation does? If that makes any sense. I've never been very good at describing what's in my head. Never sure if it comes out right or not.

I'm not saying I'm for insurance companies. They can all disappear tomorrow. A lot of things could, if it were up to me. We will get everyone into that single system. I'm not arguing against it. If that many people want it, that's how it works. That's thousands of years of momentum and history working in that direction. You can't stop that. As long as the energy is there to do it.

Like I said in another response, Canada better spend 95 cents for every dollar on medical care. They have 30 million people. If they don't keep everyone alive, they won't have many people left. We have many more cogs to plug in. Norway, with a population smaller than NY City, has no choice but to have great healthcare. We have 300,000,000 people. We're interchangeable, and replaceable. I use these words because we live in an economic system, not in a habitat. We're not life, we're numbers. If we were talking about something different, I might call us humans. We're talking about systems though, and cost effectiveness, etc, etc.

To your origin question, at least in my mind, the waste comes from having to constantly and increasingly distance ourselves from life. The waste comes from giving more control over to corporations and governments. That's the price we pay for cheap energy though. It allows us to live in our world while the rest burns. It's like a gated community.

[AdHocSolver]

45. You are ignoring the BILLIONS of dollars going to insurance and drug companies for profits and...

administrative costs that would be shifted to medical treatment under a not-for-profit single payer system.

Let us not ignore the waste and fraud perpetrated by the for-profit hospitals and HMO's. A single payer system could police that kind of activity much better.

Having worked in hospitals, I have seen first hand that "health care" is NOT as superior in the U.S. as most people believe. The iatrogenic (doctor induced) disease rate thirty years ago averaged 25 percent. One out of every four patients who entered the hospital suffered a medical condition that was caused from entering that hospital. Often it was a staph infection, but not limited to that kind of problem. I don't know what the current statistics are, but they are probably no better, and I would guess they are worse.

The hospitals I worked in were run, not by people with a medical background, but by "bean counters", people who had business degrees. Their concerns were marketing, cutting costs, and increasing revenues. These were so-called "nonprofit" hospitals. They had their own pharmacies, and I don't doubt pushed the most expensive drugs, rather than generics. I know they pushed surgery over more conservative treatment. They had to keep those operating rooms in use.

[The2ndWheel]

112. "cutting costs, and increasing revenues"

"You are ignoring the BILLIONS of dollars going to insurance and drug companies for profits and administrative costs that would be shifted to medical treatment under a not-for-profit single payer system."

"Let us not ignore the waste and fraud perpetrated by the for-profit hospitals and HMO's. A single payer system could police that kind of activity much better."

Well I think cutting costs is the whole point of a single payer system too.

You're right though, there would be billions of extra dollars floating around.

[endarkenment]

55. the tax system will get very complicated?

no it won't, the tax system for 300 million people is already in place. If we just extend the FICA payroll tax to cover medicare for everyone (not my first choice but simple) it could literally be done within a few weeks.

Japan: 127 million people - they seem to manage.
Germany: 82 million people - healthcare doing fine.
Canada: 30 million and doing just fine.

Where exactly does this scale problem kick in?

[yardwork]

72. Apparently it kicks in when U.S. health insurance companies stand to lose big bucks!

[The2ndWheel]

126. Yeah, if everything happened without anyone objecting, a lot of things could get done in a few weeks

It's not even your first choice to do it that way. You're basically objecting to your own idea, but for the sake of simplifying an argument with only yourself, you're going with that. Now throw in millions of other opinions.

It's also not just scale. It's culture, it's history, it's geography, it's a lot of things.

Again, I'm not saying we won't get national healthcare. The problem is that economically we're a developed country, but we have the population of a developing country. We're 3rd on the list, behind two countries that make up 1/3 of humanity, and we're in front of a relatively distant 4th.

We'll get there, it's just not going to happen in a few weeks. It could happen that quickly, but then it took a total market crash to do something like this before. It wasn't until the 60's before other things happened. We live in a much faster world, but, still...

[endarkenment]

146. You made a specific argument about scale.

That argument has no evidence to substantiate it. Now you intend to change the subject. No thanks. Your argument about scale is simply wrong.

[Djinn]

87. so you have more people CONTRIBUTING

it is utter logical nonsense to claim a large nation can't have a national health system.

[The2ndWheel]

120. Not saying we can't

I said we will have it eventually. It has to happen, since the system doesn't exist if people die.

In my mind, I'm seeing the US as a throwaway society, because of our population size. If someone dies, there is another cog to take its place on the job. If someone dies in Sweden, or Canada, the impact is much larger, since they have a far smaller population. So they have to keep everyone alive for as long as they can.

We'll get to that point as well, because if the US starts losing cogs, the whole thing starts to fall apart, as we can see even today. We'll have more people contributing to a single system, but the means of everyone won't be the same. That's where the complication comes in. That's where things get tied up. We'll get there, but it would help if we all weren't so damn replaceable(economically speaking).

[haele]

183. True, the US is a throwaway society -

That's why many corporations in the US salivate thinking of either an "independent contractor" or immigrant workforce; they don't want to treat the workforce as a member of the family, but as tools that can be exchanged or discarded at the needs of the corporations. There are no longer citizens, there are consumers. Consumers are also easily replaced.
Likewise, your premise is looking at health care provision as a business model.
Consider this - Sweden and Canada still have as large - or larger - a ratio of elderly and other non-producers as does the US, if not more due to the amount of social services they provide for their population in comparison to the social services provided to the population in the US.
The US may have a larger population, but they also have a larger tax base that does not use government services, so that is tax money that is coming in, going to other programs that do not benefit the general population.
A shift in priorities, by allowing the higher tax brackets to pull more of their share of the infrastructure load than they do now (they pay less than the average mid range tax bracket does for the same services tax dollars pay for, and to some degree, they're paying as much as the lowest tax levels do - the burden is on the 20 - 80% bracket of wage earners). That will increase some of the revenue required to pay for a single-payer type insurance for everyone.


Look, between deductible and monthly cost, I'm paying some insurance company at least twice what I would pay in taxes to get similar coverage with lower co-pays in a single payer system, and is actually three times what I pay for Social Security and Medicare right now - SSI/Medicare taxes I am paying that are covering any number of disabled, senior, and dependent people right now.

Here's how I would do it - 1) lift the cap on SS/Medicare/FICA taxes so that everyone that has an income will pay a percentage and/or 2) tack on at most an extra 1% to SS/Medicare/FICA won't fund single payer health insurance coverage that will cover most medical/dental situations other than purely cosmetic (no solid gold grills, size EEE jugs, or cat'seye contacts) for every citizen and emergency medical/dental for everyone.

Those who are lower income levels would see their medical care increase and costs decrease, covering any current or future medical/dental costs they will have, and those in the upper income levels will be able to elect if they want to pay more for a brand name and some Insurance Co's BoD's and VP's golden parachutes or less for the same coverage and availability with less overhead costs.

There are too many people in the US that are paying way too much for very little coverage. There are also way too many people who don't have access to any coverage other than the emergency room, and frankly, you and I are already paying for them through our insurance and medical costs.

Haele

[NewJeffCT]

144. Prior to Bush, the US postal system was arguably the world's best and most efficient

mail was delivered quickly and cheaply to all parts of the country. Sure there were occasional mistakes, but our country generally did a great job with the mail.

[NewJeffCT]

145. Japan has 130 million people and has national health care

The EU has a greater combined population than the US as well.

[Tyler Durden]

27. IT... IS... NOT... SOCIALIZED... MEDICINE.

It is single payer, non-profit based Health Care.

You see, every time someone says the "S" word, you could strap electrical generators to the spinning heads and solve the energy crisis.

There is NOTHING wrong and EVERYTHING right with single payer, non-profit based Health Care. In fact, if you do the math, eliminate Medicaid/Medicare and fold them into the system, STOP THE FUCKING WAR, and quit letting the rich pay less taxes per person than any other country on earth, we could pay for the whole thing with money left over.

[Hepburn]

30. I agree....

...and you and I and a lot of us are smart and well informed, but what in the hell does one say when there is a hysterical reaction to medical insurance which is provided by the government and the "S" word comes out of the mouth of the other person???

I am totally in favor of universal health care at no or very low cost to EVERYONE....but the fucking propaganda is soooooooooooo heavy against any discussion of this with a ton of the electorate.

[yardwork]

34. I don't have a problem with socialized medicine, either.

In fact, I don't have a problem with socialism. Sounds good to me. Put it right here.

[Hepburn]

36. I agree...what I don't understand is....

...medical care for PROFIT?????

What the hell gives with that? :shrug:

[yardwork]

47. It's the 'murkin way, I guess.

[warren pease]

91. That's exactly the point, Mr. Tyler...

You've probably seen some of my stuff on the subject of single payer, universal access health care for all. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with socialized medicine, except in the twisted minds of the last cold warriors and the PR creeps who front for the scare merchants who make obscene fortunes off for-profit medicine and have no intention of letting an honest debate on the pluses and minuses of single-payer vs. privatized medicine take place in this country.

This is an excerpt from a recent article I did for Online Journal on the nature of single-payer:

So what exactly is single-payer and why is it better than what we have now?
Well, surprise surprise, it's not socialized medicine. The federal government won't set up shop in every doctors office and medical facility. Unlike the current system, in which privatized pests occupy a permanent position overlooking every doc's shoulder, governmental bureaucrats won't be making harassing calls to doctors offices every five minutes to second-guess whether a patient actually needs that procedure, or that test, or that prescription.

Let's say your doc has his own small family practice, which he runs as an LLC. He probably accepts payment from a couple of dozen different insurance carriers. Does that mean he works for, say, Blue Cross or Cigna or Aetna? Of course not.

Under single-payer, he would no more work for the government than he now works for an insurance company. He gets paid by the feds, but runs his own business exactly as he has for many years.

So docs and hospitals continue to operate as they always have, although for-profit facilities must convert to non-profits. The truly revolutionary change is that now the feds foot the bill via a progressive tax that hits the rich hardest and the poor not at all.

In fact, if a patient just looks at the outward signs, things are very much as they've always been. You see the same doctors and support staff. You have blood drawn at the same labs. If you're seriously injured or suddenly become ill, you end up at the same ER. You see the same specialists. If surgery is required, the same group of medical professionals handles the entire process – from pre-op to rehab. You find that service is about as fast, or as slow, as ever. And if you want a tummy tuck or nose job, you're still going to have to pay for it out of your own pocket.

The payer changes – from any of hundreds of private insurance companies to a single entity – but the process of providing and receiving medical care remains the same. Actually, it improves because single-payer eliminates the armies of bureaucrats the insurance industry employs in an effort to squeeze the last mil out of every penny by denying coverage or illegally reducing benefits.

Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I've done a lot of research and a lot of writing on various aspects of this topic. If anyone's curious and has some time to kill, you might have a look at these four:


http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2802.shtml (that's the one excerpted from above)

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2165.shtml

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2190.shtml

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2294.shtml


If these bore you beyond tolerance, please spare me the gory details. ;-)


wp

[Tyler Durden]

138. Keep up the good work, Warren.

As usual. This sort of thing should be required reading in school government courses.

[warren pease]

148. And another thing...

...as my father used to say when reciting the latest laundry list of my offenses against reason, common sense and the collective consciousness. Which is kind of what the current for-profit model is: uniquely nonsensical, unreasonable and insulting to anyone with a functional brain and the willingness to use it. Anyway...


Instead of calling it single-payer, universal-access health care and HR 676, why not go the shameless route and try to get something passed on raw emotion for a change? Nothing else seems to be working.

Most people don't have a clue about single-payer this or HR 676 that, which makes it easy for TV hucksters to convince them that it's a radical and scary scheme and might even be some pinko plot and therefore it's unamerican and we don't want that kind of socialist thinking undermining this great country... and blah, blah, blah.

So let's call HR 676 "Nataline's Law" after the teenage girl that Cigna killed about a month ago by denial-of-coverage and which even made waves in lamestream media. Then, not only does single-payer have a face and the messages are so much easier to convey, but every time some privatization apologist tries to ridicule or lie about it, they're stuck invoking Nataline's name again and again. It's a tragedy that's also a gigantic PR gift. We really shouldn't waste it. And it's not like we're all so pure and holy on this kind of thing.

We have things like "Amber Alerts" and "Megan's Law" and "The Ryan White CARE Act" because people respond more readily to emotional issues than to the straight story. Suppose Amber Alerts were known as "kidnapped kid phone trees." Think they'd get the attention they get now?

That's how the GOP has been selling its pathological legislative agenda for years: "Healthy Forests Initiative" "Clear Skies Act" "No Child Left Behind" All total shuck and jive, of course, and the effects are always about 180 degrees out from what the name would lead you to expect.

But that really doesn't matter. The public attention span is measured in minutes anyway, and nobody ever calls bullshit on some lie that was told a month ago. We've got so many new ones to process in the meantime.

The GOP understands this. It also understands marketing and the importance of using the big lie as a sales tool. It knows that if the idea won't fit on a bumper sticker, it's not going to fit between the ears of the average myopic American. So they keep it simple. And the public's so used to being conned and lied to by everyday people in all walks of life that they're not going to suddenly rise up and demand truth in advertising from their political leaders.

Democrats, on the other hand, demonstrating that their "strategic advisers" are about as strategic as a buggy whip, wouldn't understand marketing and branding if it bit them in their collective fat, overpaid asses. So they try to sell acronyms like SCHIP. Sheer genius. Sounds like a computer component. No wonder nobody in the great world beyond the beltway really gave a shit when it got vetoed.

The GOP would have called it "The Keep Kids Healthy Act" or named it after some kid who's a cancer survivor. Something catchy, emotional and personal. And then they would have rammed it through the house and senate, daring any democrat to go on record as opposing kids' health care.

But democrats do things differently. After the veto, you'd think that a very unpopular president denying health care coverage for needy kids would have been the exact kind of opportunity democrat have been looking for; one that generates universal sympathy for the kids and deepens the public's loathing for this bastard who's always looking for money to kill people half a world away but can't find any to keep our own kids healthy right here at home.

You'd really think a credible and well-known House or Senate democrat with a little fire and a well-honed sense of outrage -- and the oratorical ability to communicate that fury -- would have set up shop on the capitol steps and held informal press interviews all day and, if need be, well into the night.

But no... We see more hand-wringing from our tormented leaders, more whining about how "unfortunate" this veto was, another strongly worded letter or ten, and more snickering and giggling from the white house, where they're so familiar with how this all plays out that they've created their own drinking game called "cave in."

Every time Reid says "disappointing," "unfortunate" or "deplorable," it's double-shots all around. Every time Pelosi says "bipartisan," work closely together" or "cooperate," another double-shot. Next morning, Georgie looks like he went a few rounds with a pretzel but the discreet white house press corpse looks the other way for the zillionth time.

How in hell did I get onto that tangent?

Anyway, Nataline's Law. Seize the opportunity. Practice a little marketing. Use imagery and video. Get a few peoples' fucking attention for a change.


wp

[Yavapai]

179. warren pease for President!

Sir, you have an unique ability to cut through the bullshit.

Maybe, if you don't want the presidency, you should write a thesaurus defining weasel words. I commend you! :toast:

[warren pease]

182. Thanks, but...

I'm hoping my sister, Sharon Apartment, is ready to make a presidential run in 2012. Last thing we need is two aspiring megalomaniacs with ridiculous names in the same family.

Meanwhile, let us both drink ourselves into insensibility waiting for our long national nightmare to sputter to an end.


:toast:



wp

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

195. or socialized highways, socialized fire departments socialized water systems, socialized schools,

it goes on and on and on.

The word "social" as a dirty word.

When more people die who have health care and are denied treatment, or who lose their
insurance and need treatment, it will change.

[TahitiNut]

35. Money has no "value" unless poor people are deprived of the essentials.

It's about EXCLUSION! It's about being "BETTER" off. It's not about the COMMONwealth ... to them. No matter how well off they are, it's no good unless others suffer. ... and die!

:shrug:

[conspirator]

140. That is the mathematical accurate answer

People don't like to think that the laws passed by their overlords, have the only purpose of perpetuating the class gap.
They dismiss that reality as conspiracy crazyness.

[geardaddy]

37. Fifth rec.

I don't understand why people are so against it. I think it's the whole "goverment bad" thing.

[AdHocSolver]

38. It is a method of instilling fear using Pavlovian conditioning.

It works best on authoritarian personalities who will accept whatever "authority figures" tell them over any evidence or their own senses.

Medicare is "socialized" medicine also. However, the old folks don't look upon it that way because they depend on it so much.

Under Medicare type plans, you actually get to pick your own doctor. Under most HMO (so-called private insurance) plans, you are assigned to whatever doctor the plan chooses for you. The reality is the opposite of the propaganda, but many Americans have been conditioned through advertising to disbelieve reality.

I went to a lecture a few months ago given by a Canadian who explained the Canadian health care system. It is funded by the federal government and administered by the provinces.

He pulls out a driver's license sized card, and says that this card is the connection between any Canadian and their health care system. With this card, he has access to any doctor and any hospital anywhere in Canada. He relates how he sustained an injury awhile ago while visiting another province. He went to the local hospital, presented his card and was treated. He did not have to fill out any paper work. He paid no co-pays and no deductibles. He received no bills.

All expenses were covered by his tax dollars. The portion of his tax dollars that pay for the system is far less than what Americans have to pay, not even considering deductibles and co-pays.

All Canadian citizens are covered. As he put it, "Whether you live in a mansion or under a bridge, you are covered."

Doctors and hospitals in Canada like the system. They are independent of the government, and they know they don't have to do battle with a bunch of insurance companies to collect their fees. Fees are negotiated each year between the government and the medical association, essentially a doctors' union, so that they can adjust revenue and expenses accordingly. The doctors also know that they will be paid in a timely manner. Overhead costs are much less in Canada so that doctors can spend more time and money treating patients.

It seems that only Americans can be bamboozled into sustaining a system that cheats them and overcharges them for an inferior quality product.

[Hepburn]

44. Wow....if ONLY we had a system like this!

Boy, oh boy....I pray something like this become reality in the US. And this is something that some see as a BAD thing??? Unbelievable.

[kdpeters]

39. Did you hear that he's Muslim and went to a Madrassa?

Or was that going to be your next post?

[antigop]

40. Well, now, doncha know...socialized medicine is wrong because...

..it's <ahem> socialistic.

:sarcasm:

[Nickster]

41. First, I think we need to stop using the term Socialized Medicine because it's not. We are talking

about socialized health insurance. Using Socialized Medicine connotates that the government will run everything and you have no choices, period. That's why Republicans use that framing.

[Hepburn]

46. OK....

...good place to start and let's figure it starts with us cuz no matter who we are endorsing for top of the ticket this coming November...all of us on here seem to be in favor of some sort of free/low cost universal health care.

So...what is the best name to use to make people NOT get that ICKY reaction that we have all seen when the subject comes up?

Anyone have a good term? Frankly I don't think there is a damn thing wrong with socialism ... so I am not bothered by the term Socialized Medicine, but we all know the knee-jerk reactions to the term.

[leftstreet]

54. "Medicare for all" works for some

Not everyone of course, but many react with "well, I hadn't thought of it that way before..."

[Hepburn]

62. OK...and thanks!

Good idea. I will try when I discuss this with so-called "compassionate" conservatives to use a term like that.

I swear...the reaction I get from some for being in favor of universal health care is like I am promoting child rape. I just do NOT get whey there is so much ugliness about giving the sick and injured free or affordable medical care and, further, for providing to all of us sources were we can go and get preventative medical procedures done.

Another <sigh>....it is so disheartening to see opposition to people getting medical treatment!

[Nickster]

76. See that's really the heart of the issue. Some people just don't think that some people deserve

healthcare unless they can pay for it. It's not polite to say in public, but deep down, they just don't want anyone to get something for nothing. As a nation, we have to decide if it's a moral imperative to provide basic healthcare to every citizen. I believe that a majority of Americans do support that basic idea, it's just a matter of us figuring out how to get it passed through the political minefield and the "liberal" media. People don't understand regular health insurance and we want them to support universal health care, but we aren't putting it in simple enough terms for them to understand what the real impact will be. For example, France has a plan that resembles Medicare, but they have private hospitals and private doctors. The government provides a basic health plan and if you want more coverage or more care, you are free to buy it from a private insurance company. So you still have choices. That could be one plan to model after. Another point to bring up is the burden on companies. How much money is industry losing to the insurance companies because of exploding rates?

I just happened to finish the chapter on Universal Healthcare in Krugman's new book and it really opened my eyes to a few things. In particular that the plans that Obama and Edwards propose are the way to make it happen and diffuse some of the complaints from the people that don't support the idea. Take a look at Krugman's book if you get a chance, he addresses the complaints that stopped President Clinton's plan and how those roadblocks can be passed by.

[cushla_machree]

156. I have a friend who believes that

Doesn't think healthcare should be 'free' because people should have to go out and get jobs and 'earn' the right to healthcare, meaning she shouldn't have to pay for other people. The best thing of all, she is a school teacher, and the twaxpayers all pay for her cushy health care plan. She has no perspective. I was insulted because 3 years out of college, i have yet to have a job offer me health insurance, and i work very hard. She still did not get it even when i told her that most of the nations 46 million uninsured...have JOBS.

But what i don't get about this argument, is single payer insurance means, that EVERYONE pays into the insurance pool. For those who's incomes are too low to pay into this pool, they would very easily be covered just by the savings alone seen in moving to a universal system via reducations in overhead costs (see the harvard study). There is absolutely no excuse why everyone in this nation cannot have at minimum, basic coverage. We just have to be willing to give up obscene corporate profits of the insurance companies...which doesn't seem like a bad deal to me.

[Nickster]

70. Excellent idea. I loved when I first heard that idea on the TV show West Wing. I did the exact same

thing, "wow, never thought of it that way" "that's a great idea".

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

196. "Cheney Care" is another term n/t

[dkofos]

48. Only doctors and nurses (workers) will profit.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Sadie4629]

49. Why ask that question here??

You know that everyone here doesn't think there is anything wrong with socialized medicine/universal healthcare. If you really want to educate yourself, go to a republican board, or a mixed board. They believe that there are good reasons to oppose it. But that's only if you actually want to learn about the arguments against it; if you just want affirmation of your own opinion, you're in the right place.

[Hepburn]

64. Other than the Freak Republic....

...are there any conservative/Republican discussion boards where issues are actually discussed?

All I have ever seen with any attmept to discuss health care issues is that conservatives absolutely freak out...like the govt paying for/being involved with something like that is downright evil and a tool of the devil.

I am not trying to affirm anything...I know what I want. What I am trying to find is some way to make some points with those who have totally closed minds.

The up-coming November election IMO is vital to the issue of health care becoming available and affordable to EVERYONE. How do we get them to take a look at what the Dem side of the ticket has to offer?

Got any ideas on how to approach those to make them see that it is NOT the evil they think it is? I assume those Repubbie boards have closed minds and are spewing the same arguments that we are seeing on this thread. How do we overcome the prejudice against this to get people to listen.

Got any ideas???

[Sadie4629]

77. They are out there

I used to post on the MSNBC Boards. The people there represented a pretty good cross-section. The discussions got heated at times, but were overall pretty good. Haven't found a place since that has that kind of representation of political opinions.

I do talk to a lot of people, and I know what their arguments are. (And for what it's worth, I think there are valid considerations that will have to be dealt with before universal healthcare is implemented here.)

1. Cost. People are very concerned that their taxes will increase phenomenally. Social Security has ended up taking a lot larger chunk of our paychecks than people in the '30's and '40's anticipated. Government programs do tend to do that. Whatever they tell you it will cost, bet it will cost more eventually.

2. Long waits for necessary medical procedures. Lots of people from Canada come here for procedures, if they can afford to. There is a reason. (And wasn't there a set of Canadian quadruplets that was born in this country, specifically because Canada didn't have the facilities? I'm a bit fuzzy on the details.)

3. Healthcare rationing. There was an article posted on here within the last day or so saying that in Great Britain they are recommending that the elderly and ailing be allowed to die.

4. Government inefficiency/fraud. Not saying that doesn't happen in our present system, but Medicare fraud is a HUGE problem. Expect it to increase when everyone is covered.

Personally, I don't know enough about the subject to counter these arguments; I just know that the Republican/conservatives I know are very concerned about these issues, and unless we can assure them that we will be prepared to deal with them, you're not going to get a lot of converts.

As far as "freaking out," I think both sides are guilty of that. How many posts appear on DU on a daily basis saying "All Republicans are NAZIS!!!!!!!!!!!" "I HATE Repugnicons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" "I have cut myself off from my right-wing lunatic Repuke family!"

Unfortunately, civility (on both sides) went the way of the dinosaur about the time Clinton was impeached.

[Zavulon]

50. I'll give you two reasons.

1.) The first is my opinion only, but given the fact that the government has never demonstrated an ability to handle health care for the military in an even remotely competent fashion (even in peacetime, and even given that the number of active duty and reserves is mandated and no secret), I simply don't trust the federal government to handle it for the entire country.

2.) Suppose that we get socialized medicine set up and then the Repugs manage to steal power again. Do you really want to be dependent on a nationwide system when the same assholes who kneecapped SCHIP are in charge? I sure as hell don't.

My take: let's do whatever we can to get everyone insured, but I don't want to be part of any single-payer government-run program unless I can get a rock-solid guarantee that Democrats will control the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives until the end of time. Since nobody can give me such a guarantee, I'd rather just increase aid to the poor.

Once you go socialized medicine you're not going back, and if I were forced to be in such a system and Republicans ever "won" (by way of SCOTUS or other means of deception) big in another election, my resultant stroke would kill me long before the next Oath of Office was administered. If the same assholes who decided that ketchup is a vegetable were in charge and had the ability to divert health care funds into defense pork, we'd be getting nothing but aspirin for any malady and each tablet would cost us $75.

Socialized medicine: a great idea in theory, but too risky as long as corporations rule and Repugs are still a threat. As soon as the GOP becomes a non-factor I'd consider socialized medicine - but not a second before.

[endarkenment]

59. Oh no I hadn't thought about that!

"Socialized medicine: a great idea in theory, but too risky as long as corporations rule and Repugs are still a threat."

Suppose corporations got to decide what my healthcare plan was! Holy shit! Half of them wouldn't have any plan at all, the other half would be introducing a new more expensive and less useful plan every year!

Oh wait, that is what we already have.

[14thColony]

67. Perhaps you've had a bad experience with military medicine

But as someone who has been on continuous active military duty for over 18 years, I think the military medical system is a shining example that everything the other side says is so impossible is not only possible, but a daily reality for millions and millions of military members and their families.

In 18 years I've had major hip surgery, been treated for a tropical disease and a neurological condition, not to mention scores of visits for flus and minor injuries and so on. I was provided unlimited psychological counseling with a private psychologist in London when I was having some problems a few years back...heck they even paid for my train tickets there and back once a week for months on end. Both my children were delivered via military medicine, my ex-wife had major maxillofacial reconstructive surgery, wisdom teeth removed, and so on. I once had to pay a $15 administrative fee when she had to spend a few nights in the hospital following the surgery. That's it. In 18 years. $15.

When my invariably Republican co-workers rail or fear-monger about 'socialized medicine' and how it can never ever work anywhere ever regardless of facts or statistics to the contrary, I just point out to them that they've been reaping the benefits of exactly that demonic system they so revile for as long as they've been in the service, and to deny it to the very people they've sworn to protect is selfish, mean-spirited, and contrary to the very founding principles of our society. Not that they change their minds or anything.

[yardwork]

75. This is a fundamental misunderstanding.

We're not talking about replacing all the doctors and healthcare workers in the U.S. with the government. We're talking about our health insurance being provided to all people in the U.S. by one provider - the government, instead of a zillion different private health insurers, all currently regulated by the federal government in a massively inefficient, unfair system.

The other benefit is that universal healthcare will encourage many more Americans to open and maintain small businesses and entrepreneurships. Currently, we can't do that because we can't afford health insurance. That forces people to work for huge corporations, which in turn get enormous tax breaks from the government to provide health insurance to their employees, tax breaks that small businesses don't get. In effect, we currently have socialized medicine - for those who agree to work for corporations.

The experience of the rest of the world has been that once universal health care is in place, people never give it up. You see that Medicare is still alive and kicking. In fact, the Republicans expanded it greatly under bushco. Democrats love it too. Medicare is not going anywhere for the simple reason that people on Medicare like having Medicare and they vote.

Once it exists, it's safe forever.

[Djinn]

89. you think Canada, UK and Australia

don't have right wing razor gangs?

The thing is much as the tories would LOVE to kill national health they can't because it's politically impossible.

Once Americans start paying a third of the what they currently pay and actually get medical care (when you need a blood test you just go and get one - no repeated phone calls to ionsurance companies not run around) they will throw out any government that fucks with it.

Why do Americans think they're so different fromt he rest of the world, and that they have to reinvent the wheel all the time because they can't possibly loko to other nations for ideas, what makes the American psyche so self obsessed?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

167. You're confusing single payer (the Canadian system) with the British model

The British NHS is government-run medicine, like the VA. It is vulnerable to conservative cost cutters like Margaret Thatcher.

If you actually read the posts above, you'd see that the Canadian system is quite different.

Also, whatever the truth of stories about Canadians seeking health care elsewhere, the fact remains that more people will develop mid-life diabetes than will ever give birth to quadruplets. Having a few people needing to go abroad for unusual situations is FAR PREFERABLE, both from a humanitarian and a financial viewpoint, than having vast numbers of poor people struggling with the complications of untreated diabetes.

I hate-hate-hate the current system, because I'm a middle-aged self-employed person. I'm pretty healthy for my age, but I cannot buy any affordable insurance that doesn't have a high deductible. If I were actually to get sick, I'd be uninsurable, period. The much-vaunted "competition" among insurance companies is a crock, because none of them want customers over the age of 50. They all charge within about $20 per month of one another.

Health insurance executives are bloodsuckers and hypocrites. Read how they're going after people's accident settlements to "recoup" medical expenses that the patient supposedly paid insurance premiums to have covered.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2784019&mesg_id=2784019

The CEO of the company that is soaking me (and they require automatic bank account deductions to make sure that I stayed soaked) writes articles in the local paper about the importance of preventive medicine. Yeah, right, and then they don't pay the $300 for a mammogram or the $1100 for a colonoscopy. Hypocrites and bloodsuckers.

When I was in the UK last summer, I made a point of asking people about their health coverage. By and large, they seemed satisfied, although concerned about cutbacks.

From what they said, it didn't sound any worse, in fact, a lot better, than what I have to deal with.

[Zavulon]

174. I used to live in Canada.

The Canadian system is best described as a basic national guideline with provinces able to make certain decisions for themselves. When a province runs out of money, the health care system is often the first place they look to cut corners. Ask BC residents, for example, who just watched the province exempt itself from covering autism in kids a couple years ago.

When a province gets the short end of the stick on equalization payments, it can get even worse.

I know quite a few people who had to come down here waving cash to get treated because they couldn't handle the waiting times - 12 weeks for an MRI in Alberta, 19 months for a hip replacement in Quebec, and the list goes on a lot longer than that. You can dismiss the stories about Canadians seeking care elsewhere if you want, but all that suggests to me is that you don't know how bad the problem is or how many more Canadians would follow suit if they weren't living paycheck-to-paycheck and could afford a stateside hotel / doctor's bill / missed time from work.

No proposal I know of for a U.S. health care system allows for states to make individual decisions, which means that if Republicans grab power and want to make slashes into the system, we could be seriously screwed in all 50 states. One poster above said something like "once it's in place, it's safe forever." I'm not buying it and have never seen anything which comes close to supporting such a statement to my satisfaction (Social Security was supposed to be "safe forever," too, but now that Bush has spent us into oblivion I assume a lot of people are seriously hosed). My parents finally moved to the States specifically because of the Canadian system. What exists in the States needs a massive overhaul, but I will never trust any U.S. government entity enough to support socialized medicine here. I pay more here than I did in Canada, but I'm much better off right now. I'm not sure I'd still be alive if I would have had to rely on the Canadian system a few years back, because I didn't have the spare change to come here and get an operation back then.

People can tell me I'm wrong all day, but I've seen too much to trust socialized medicine here. Increase aid to those who can't afford health care, but keep me the hell out of one system that everyone has to participate in.

[Rex]

53. The word Socialism is far too liberal for corporate assholes that like

to make money off of other peoples suffering. Not that they could just do it for pure philanthropical reasons - no we have to make money, honey.

Moneymoneymoney.

Socialism means you cannot make a buck do to the stigmata for the word, 'socialism'. I know it makes about as much sense as a 3rd graders temper tantrum, but we are talking about REPUKES that hate society and nature.

It is a good question, one Repukes would react to with attacks on words. Ludicrousnesses.

[loser_user]

56. One thing I've heard...

Is that while people would like it they are afraid that the government would start screwing the system over. I wouldn't be necessarily dissmissive of these complaints, especially if some Repuke came in and starting making cuts to it.

[14thColony]

60. Myriad reasons

Stigma of the world "socialized."

Legislation propogated by politicians bought and owned by the healthcare industry.

Scare tactics employed by the healthcare industry that are long on insinuation but short on facts.

And the clincher of this and virtually every other problem: a populace so uneducated as to be incapable of even knowing how to research the facts, should they ever be inclined to tear themselves away from American Idol long enough to do so.

IMHO, lack of education is the root of all evils; there is no incentive to fund and maintain a proper, rigorous secondary education system because an educated populace would not only begin to ask questions but would have the wherewithal to find the answers. Like most of our ills, I think the path to salvation is through vastly increased general education levels. And surprise surprise, education is grossly underfunded and of a lower quality than in virtually any major industrialized nation. Go figure.

[Vinca]

61. Single payer, universal healthcare is not socialized medicine,

it's a method of paying the bills. The government wouldn't employ the doctors or own the hospitals. Your healthcare (if you have it) would be about the same except you wouldn't have to worry about an insurance company denying coverage after the fact and going bankrupt. Rather than 90 million different claim forms for all those for profit insurance companies, there would be 1 form, 1 submission, 1 place to send for payment and it could probably be done electronically. It would, of course, be paid for by an increase in taxes somewhere, but since the profit motive would be removed, the increase in taxes would be a fraction of what an insurance premium would be. I've estimated, after considering the insurance company profits, that our family would probably be on the hook for $3,000 in taxes as opposed to $12,000 in premiums (if we could afford it). And that's not counting the $5,000 deductible that goes with the $12,000, the co-pays, denials, etc., etc. If the Republicans sat down and did the math, they'd realize they would have money in their greedy hands at the end of the month with universal, single payer.

[PaDem]

94. I did some number crunching today on this........

If my federal income taxes were tripled, I'd come out even if we had a single payer healthcare system. This just based on what I pay in premiums and co-pays on an annual basis. It's mind boggling really.

[Solon]

117. I did some cost analysis and number crunching some months ago...

assuming we have a FLAT TAX, that replaces Medicare/Medicaid taxes, it would cost, drum roll please...97 dollars a month to pay for a single payer system in the United States. Of course, this is assuming a flat income tax, if we had a progressive tax structure for payments, that still balances, then it would cost a lot less for the average American. I also reduced the overall cost of our health care system by almost 50%, balanced the budget, and cut the military budget. All without sacrificing health care itself.

[anakie]

63. 'socialised' medicine in Australia

is funded through a 1.5% levy on our taxable incomes. The money comes out of our tax returns so you don't see or miss the money. For those who earn over $50k annually must have health insurance or pay an extra 1% of our taxable income. This compulsory insurance is subsidised by the government to the tune of 30%.

There is a problem with elective surgery on medicare with long waiting lists and a chronic shortage of hospital beds and health care professionals. One of Rudd's election promises is to reduce this list and to that end they have just injected $100 million into the system. But with elective surgery you probably wont die; you may be in pain and have to wait though.

No one is turned away from health care due to no insurance or inability to pay.

We also have a scheme where pharmacuetical drugs are subsidised and no one pays more than $31 per prescription - as long as that drug in on the Benefits Scheme list; which reverts to approx $5 per script after spending $1100 on medications.

Peace

[jody]

65. OK if we socialize all other private businesses; e.g. fast-food shops, bars, theaters, sports. n/t

[Djinn]

90. you equate access to healthcare

with access to beer and junk food?

Most people view education, housing, health care as essentials :eyes:

The US already "socialises" plenty - it's just that you privatise profit - losses are borne by the taxpayers.

[jody]

93. I equate all providers of service as equal. Socialization means demand is predicted and then

supply is managed by government through a central planning mechanism and prices controlled.

Government already manages supply of some medical services, e.g. "The North Carolina Certificate of Need Law prohibits health care providers from acquiring, replacing, or adding to their facilities and equipment, except in specified circumstances, without the prior approval of the Department of Health and Human Services."

Why should medicine be socialized and not other economic entities?

Where do you draw the line?

[Djinn]

96. essentials versus non essentials

Not all providers of services are equal at all.

It is bizarre that someone who identifies with the left leaning side of politics (which presumably you do by dint of posting here) would beleive all services are equal. That a manicure is on the same level as a heart bypass.

You're asking the wrong person however, I'm an anarcho-syndicalist and think services should profit those who produce them not those who own them.

[jody]

103. What is essential? Is a heart bypass for a 72 year old man essential? What about a kidney transplant

for a 67 year old woman?

What is essential to an individual and his/her loved ones may not be essential to society when making decisions about allocating taxes to competing programs.

[Djinn]

104. of course they're consensus decisions

but some calls are much easier than others.

If it is essential to remain alive for a 72 year old to have a bypass then yes it is essential.

Can you think of a single instance in which it would be essential to go to the theatre or a bar?

[jody]

105. What is the value to society of a 72 year old man? Why should society deny a taxpayer a visit to a

theater or bar to pay for a medical procedure for someone they'll never know?

It's one thing if a person pays for her/his medical care from their own work but another thing if society takes money away from a citizen via taxes to pay for health care of another.

I'm confident that there is at least one government funded program that you oppose meaning that some part of your personal taxes goes toward a program that you oppose. Through that action, government denies you a visit to a theater or bar.

IMO in the greater scheme of things, nothing is really essential and in a few billion years no one will remember whether a 72 year old man died with a heart attack or had his life extended a short time with bypass surgery.

[Djinn]

107. of course there are programs

I'd prefer my taxes weren't spent on.

No the government does not deny me a trip to a bar because I pay tax.

Were I forced to pay the full cost of my education and health care then I'd be homeless and drinking would most certainly NOT be an option.

By TAXING my fellow citizens and subsidising the health care for ALL they're actually HELPING me to buy a beer.

You might like to think of yourself as a libertarian but I'm afraid you've not thought about it too deeply.

Shared resposnibilities give me the freedom to live my life free of the ill health that plagued my forebears.

It gives me the freedom to not work 3 jobs in order to pay for my medicine.

The only freedom YOUR system provides is the freedom to pay 4 times the cost of your actual care in order for some (who produce NOTHING) to make inordinate profits.

I do not for one minute beleive that is freedom.

[jody]

109. I've thought about the issue more than you because I've had a heart attack and lost a wife to kidney

failure after being unable to find a donor.

I've enjoyed the exchange with you.

Have a great evening and may good fortune be yours all your life.

Goodnight :hi:

[Djinn]

124. you might have thought about healthcare

more than I - in fact I'm sure of it given I never have to think about it. If I get sick I get treated regardless of my income/ability to afford insurance.

I very rarely think about healthcare at all.

My comments about not thinking through the issue related to the relative "freedoms" of completely "free" markets.

I dispute the notion that I'd be more free if my fellow citizens trashed national health.

[jody]

129. Please visit the link in #115 for a discussion of the problem with UK's socialized health care.

I also am completely covered for all my health care needs as well as unlimited long term care.

Not all Americans are so fortunate.

[Djinn]

134. I'm a UK citizen

The NHS is NOT a "socialised" service for a start, but I'll base my opinions on it's "problems" on my actual experience using the service rather than a sensationalised story from a right wing vom rag.

That the US has the worst health outcomes of any western nation is NOT disputable. That you spend more than twice the funds on health as the rest of the world is not debatable.

Of course there are problems with other systems just not anywhere NEAR the problems inherent in the US system.

Thelink provided in your post # 115 is (a) from the Tele a right wing shit sheet dedicated to trying to convince Tories to do away with it (b) not suggesting anything that doctors in the US don't REGULARLY tell patients who have paid through the nose for years for private health insurance.

So the only "fault" you've managed to come up with is a highly dubious one that is equally applicable to your for profit system.

[jody]

142. I agree with you the issues raised in the article are applicable to all system. How can that be true

given we know that the Tele is dedicated to trying to convince Tories to do away with UK's health care system.

:shrug:

[Djinn]

181. huh?

Not sure of the confusion - Tele constantly runs stories about the "faults" of the NHS, it is generally ignored by Tories because gutting it would be electoral suicide.

[endarkenment]

160. Ironically we have had socialized kidney transplant healthcare for decades

Sorry for your loss. The problem there is lack of organ donars and not enough funding on research for alterntatives. Too bad we couldn't focus our vast resources on saving lifes instead of killing people.

[jody]

180. Not many people know that regardless of age, anyone diagnosed with end stage renal disease

immediately qualifies for Medicare, one of a few such health care needs that government covers for everyone.

ON EDIT ADD:

If you want to see truly needy, helpless people, go to a Hemodialysis center serving the poorer parts of a city and see patients with multiple amputations and other medical problems completely at the mercy of society for every day of life.

I have vivid memories of a lady who had kidney failure after a heart and liver transplant and one lady with both legs amputated. We treat Vick's pit bulls better than those patients.

My heart cries out in anguish over the suffering I've seen.

You say "focus our vast resources on saving lifes instead of killing people".

Absolutely! I have numerous family members and close friends who are physicians or nurses and the overwhelming majority agree with you and I.

IMO it's physicians and nurses who are the most knowledgeable about the weaknesses in our health care system. Physicians because they direct treatment and nurses because they are responsible for a patient 24/7.

It baffles me that with all the political clout that physicians and nurses have, they are not effective in lobbying congress for major improvements in our health care system.

It appears that most physicians want to appear bipartisan regarding politics and that's OK but health care is a bipartisan issue because it affects every middle/low income voter regardless of whether they are Dem, Rep, or other.

I know that society cannot afford every expensive medical procedure for every patient but by golly we can do a lot better than we currently do.
Sorry about the rant, perhaps it's my martini? :toast:

[verges]

106. You're kidding,

right?

[jody]

111. Not kidding, such decisions are made directly and indirectly all the time. n/t

[verges]

149. So...

"If their going to die, they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population." That is a very cold outlook you have there. What I'm getting from your posts, is that health care is a privilige for wealthy; and that the dirty masses should just east it up and die. Is that right?

All human beings have the right to life (ask Jefferson). Your advocating that the unhealthy deserve to be so, unless they can afford to get healthy (something that is getting progressively harder for the poor and middle classes.)

[jody]

153. Please give a link to a Jefferson statement that government should take money from one person and

use it to provide health care for another other than such special cases as taxes to support health care for military or similar forces.

In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Constitution says in the preamble "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I see nothing in those statements supporting socialized health care as discussed in this thread.

Note also that SCOTUS says government is not obligated to protect an individual unless she or he is in custody, i.e. self-defense is a personal responsibility.

See DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO “A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.”

If SCOTUS is consistent in its rulings, it will say that government is not obligated to provide health care to an individual unless she or he is in custody, i.e. health care is a personal responsibility.

[verges]

155. I said...

that Jefferson wrote that we had a right to life. You yourself, of course provided the quote I was referring to. And I think General welfare could be construed as a healthy populace. I might also point out that in 1826 (the year Jefferson died) crippling medical bills for the poor weren't an issue. Your advocating death for people who can't afford to see a doctor (so you can get a beer or see a movie!)!

Have you no compassion for your fellow man? I've seen people die because of a lack of funds to pay for medical care. Young people. Do you honestly feel that is right?

BTW. SCOTUS also put W in office. Their infallibility is questionable at best.

[jody]

157. You miss my point entirely. Society has a limited budget and must choose whether health care is

provided to someone expecting that the procedure will only yield a modest increase in remaining life.

For example, would you authorize a heart transplant for a patient who is 100 years old knowing that the money for the procedure could be spent to save several young children increasing their remaining lives by several decades?

Similar scenarios have been used to illustrate how society must make tough decisions.

Bottom line is that society is not obligated to provide health care to an individual unless she or he is in custody.

When society does provide limited health care, recipients enjoy a privilege not a right.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

170. I'm trying to figure out what makes you a Democrat

A Libertarian, perhaps, but not a Democrat.

[jody]

178. Don't worry about me, worry about yourself. Are you sure you support the Dem party platform?

Democratic Party Platform

[Solon]

114. That's easy, the market can't handle health care...

especially on the insurance end of the equation. The problem is the supply, healthy humans are needed to pay into insurance companies to LOWER the costs for insurance premiums and increase coverage. The problem is the more insurance companies that exist, the less of these humans they have to pay into their insurance coverage for each competitor. This actually INCREASES costs for all individuals, healthy and unhealthy, insured and uninsured, nationwide.

There are two basic ways an insurance company can reduce costs to cover medical care, one is to increase their own risk pool, the problem is that humans are not assembled on an assembly line, and you cannot "ramp up production" when demand increases. The other solution is to simply reduce coverage and increase premiums, in other words, offering more while increasing the costs to the patient.

This system isn't a "free market" that is simply impossible, the most efficient way to cover everyone in the nation is to have an insurance monopoly, and it is much more preferable to have such a system run by the government than some private entity.

[jody]

116. So you have the answer to "Why should medicine be socialized and not other economic entities?"

Where do you draw the line?

[Solon]

119. Basically any industry that requires direct support from the government to be able to stay afloat...

or becomes a de facto monopoly due to practical reasons. There are numerous examples, local utilities come to mind, you can't have multiple power companies, gas companies, or water and sewage companies competing in the same area, imagine the amount of wires and pipes would have to go under your house just to have a choice. This would be extremely dangerous for the average home owner, imagine having 10 different gas lines running underneath the street, all from different companies, uhm, I wouldn't want that, and it would be damned near impossible to maintain for such companies.

The Airline industry is actually another excellent example, generally speaking, worldwide, most airlines are at least partially owned and/or operated by governmental organizations. In the United States, this doesn't happen, instead these companies are subsidized, heavily, just to stay in the black, I find that to not be the most efficient way to run an airline.

There is a big push lately, to privatize utilities and other government operations, and the results have been the same, reduced service at increased cost. Why isn't healthcare the same?

[jody]

128. "any industry that requires direct support from the government to be able to stay afloat" but what

proof do you have that the health care requires direct support from the government?

One can argue that government got involved in health care to provide it to those unable to pay themselves or pay for insurance.

A counter example is the National Flood Insurance Program that benefits wealthy owners of prime property that is completely un affordable for most Americans.

What about Farm Subsidies that benefit wealthy landowners but not small farmers? See the link I provided to see who benefits in your state.

What about social security payments that multi millionaires receive even though it's not needed?

What about millionaires who served only a year or two in service and are not disabled but obtain prescription medicines from VA hospitals?

I agree there are some economic entities that can be performed more effectively and efficiently by government, the Hoover Dam comes to mind, but I believe government can be less efficient than private businesses in many cases.

Even though health care is socialized, it's unlikely that society can pay for every possible medical procedure. If that's true, then some patients must do without but who?

[Solon]

130. Ah, but you hit on something key here...

Health Insurance companies are one of those entities that can be performed more effectively and efficiently by the government over any private entity. Remember the second thing I said, an industry that cannot be an effective market for practical reasons. There is no health insurance "market", hell, unlike in most private industries, where competition drives DOWN price, in health insurance, competition actually drives UP the price. This isn't a free market, and it isn't sustainable in the long term. That's simply a fact.

Why do you think almost every Democratic candidates' health care plan allows for subsidies for insurance companies? Simply put, that entire industry will collapse, they are pricing themselves out of their own market, but they also can't run at a loss, so they are stuck.

[jody]

131. If health can be performed more efficiently by government, then why is DoD contracting out more of

its health care services at military installations?

The answer is because it saves money and that's been well documented. :shrug:

[Solon]

133. Who finances it?

The government, that's who, I don't CARE who the DOCTORS work for, I care about who the beancounters work for. I'm not saying the ENTIRE healthcare system should be run by the government, I'm saying they should finance it, NOT private insurance companies. Did the military stop funding its own health care all of the sudden?

[jody]

143. Perhaps posts in this thread have different views of what socialized health care means.

Our government finances Medicare and Medicaid and both programs routinely deny medical procedures.

[Solon]

165. Are either of those systems Universal?

No, they are not. I'm frankly losing patience with your idiotic questions and deflections, have you finally reached a point here, or not?

[jody]

166. Have a good day and good bye. n/t

[Thothmes]

147. The Military does not fund its own health care system

The American tax payers fund the military system, just like they fund Medicare and the VA systems. Some how a lot of folks on the site seem to equate government health plans, single payer plans, socialized medicine, etc. with being "free". Nothing is further from the truth. Every red cent of cost of these systems is or will be paid for in full from taxes collected from the American people and American businesses. The health services provided may be at no direct (out of pocket) expense to the user, but they are not free by a long shot.

[Solon]

164. No shit sherlock, and it seems like you are the one who misconstrues what we all mean...

Government=People here, OK, do you want me to make it any plainer, like writing it in crayon, for instance?

[haele]

184. No, they are contracting out their health care because there are not

enough military doctors, nurses, corpsmen, administrative types available to man those services. Not only are there not as many billets available, everyone is being deployed. Also, BRAC has closed many medical facilities on bases.

Frankly, working as a DoD contractor and having run the numbers comparing cost of contractors compared to cost of enlisted and commissioned (as well as GS) employees, the government actually pays less to have their own people do the same work (due to duty rotations, no OT, internal training, licensing, and certification) than they do to have a contractor provide a service on a OEM or Cost and Materials contract. You also get consistent service, which is something most contractors can't provide, because after two/three years, the contract comes back up for bid and they have to come up with ways to cut costs to keep their contracts or risk losing them to potentially unscrupulous competitors such as Wilkes (just sent to prison for 60 years), KBR, or other more skeevy contract companies that are in it for max profits.

Yeah, my company can sometimes be skeevy for max profits and sometimes we do work that it would be cheaper for the government to do if they had the manpower, but we usually get slapped hard with fines when we do the nasty crap, and we certainly don't make enough of a profit to be considered more than in the "middle tier" at Wall Street of the large government contractors.

Majority of the DoD budget goes to contractors, not to the soldiers and sailors, or government employees. And that doesn't mean that it's done for "fiscally prudent" measures. Lotta Pork in that barrel.

Haele

[jody]

185. "not enough military doctors" etc.! No way, contracting out is purely cost -effective IAW Fed law.

[haele]

204. It's only cost effective because they've shifted the cost to the community -

Have you seen Walter Reed lately? Almost all of the care those active duty soldiers are getting are contracted out, and Walter Reed has been bleeding money and lives at an increasing rate ever since they got rid of the military doctors and caretakers.
Contractors are cost effective only in that you get the lowest bidder to do your work. If they don't work out, then you contract out to the next lowest bidder, and so on and so on and so on.

Military bases CONUS used to have base clinics that would support both the active duty personnel, their dependents, and emergency services for the government workers. No longer; most bases just have a triage station and the local communities have to take care of the dependents and anything major, including required lab work and pharmacy, that happened to the active duty members on base - because of BRAC, starting in 1986 under the auspices of then Secretary of Defense Darth Cheney. Who happened to go from his job to a position in KBR (an at that time failing business that suddenly received an amazing shot in the arm either updating base facilities or preparing bases to be closed and sold off to the public...)

Right now, your "cost cutting contracting" consists of Tricare, which is basically an jumped up supplemental insurance provider similar to Secure Horizons, and the local community doctors. Doctors and clinics that don't stay open after hours, many of which are already overstressed by the cuts and problems with commercial healthcare, and now they have to deal with an extra couple thousand people that the military health care system used to care for.
Oh, and these doctors don't get deployed. Which means, they're sitting in billets that used to be the "home rotation" or shore base for the active duty doctors, nurses and corpsmen who are needed when the DoD is doing it's actual work...in places like Afghanistan or Iraq, or with Marines, etc...
Gee, it's no longer cost effective to have home base or shore base active duty personnel, so let's cut the numbers of them so that there's no time off from deployments, because that's just not productive.
And you wonder why military personnel are just not willing to make the military a career any more, officers just staying in long enough to "pay off" their med school requirements and enlisted staying in just long enough to get their schooling done and then get out. The ones that stay in nowadays are either very traumatized (they "have to stay in to take care of their buddies") or can't get a job on the outside. (Crazy or Lazy is the term we used to use for that type when I was in...)

Which is why the DoD has recalled so many veteran doctors and nurses who used to be trained to deal with real world situations - because with "cost effectiveness", there are no longer enough active duty medical personnel to do the job the DoD is supposed to be doing - the job they are required by congress, law, et all to be doing with our taxpayer money.

Think of this, too. Blackwater hires their own medical personnel for certain operational divisions and when they're deployed to an area where there's not a US military facility around, have their own medical infrastructure in place. Most big "security contractors" that are deployable do, because they can't depend on the local medical infrastructure or contractors.

Look, in the military, it's not a matter of cost cutting, but a matter of competency and availability at a moment's notice. In times of conflict, we're killing our own troops with "cost cutting" contractor services.

Sometimes, you need to have that "non-productive" soldier or sailor hanging around doing nothing but seeing dependents for two or three years to make sure that when you actually need him (or her), that medical professional will be there to do his duty. A civilian Doctor would want to be paid all sorts of overtime, and insurance, etc - probably to the tune of over a hundred thousand dollars a year, to do the same thing a Medical Corps Lieutenant does for a mere $45K a year (including all combat pay, bennies, et all) - with the same overhead costs no matter if it's a civilian or a military member. Actually, your civilian doctor has a higher overhead - his or her company has to get a profit out of providing for the services. A government employee, be it GS or military, is supposed to "break even".

Some cost effectiveness, eh? BRAC did as much to kill the military as anything resembling actual National Defense as the drawdown after WWI did.

Sorry, but I do feel passionate about this. I've seen so many good people leave the military because of "cost cutting", leaving too many of the clueless or politically protected, and I've known too many military and recalled former military who have been adversely affected during deployments to believe the cuts in military medical is cost effective for anything but political purposes.


Haele
(CPO, USN - Retired, 1978 - 1999)

[Two Americas]

176. health

People's health, as well as many other things including water, air, public safety, and education, are not properly seen as free market commodities by compassionate people.

We "draw the line" the same place that every other humane society has drawn the line - when the needs of the many are placed at risk by the desires of the few.

[jody]

186. Thanks for your opinion but socialized medicine is not in the Dem Party Platform. n/t

[Two Americas]

193. huh?

What does that have to do with the price of beans?

[jody]

200. OP asked "What exactly is wrong with having Socialized Medicine?" Dem Party platform does not tout

socialized medicine, IMO.

That has everything to do with the "price of beans" when it comes to socialized medicine.

This is after all, the Democratic Underground that says:

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

It's my experience that many/most DUers claim to be members of the Democratic Party and as such one might expect they support most of the Dem Party platform.

For others, I like to know what party if any they support when they espouse positions not consistent with the Dem Party platform.

It really doesn't make any difference to me to what party a DUer belongs but it seems useful to know whether a position is a Democratic Party position or not.

[Two Americas]

202. I thought I had seen everything

This is a new variation on the various attempts to move the party to the right. Loyalty tests on the party platform???

The platform evolves, it reflects the ongoing discussion within the party. By your logic we should all still be loyal to the party platform from Andrew Jackson's time, since if we can't speak about anything else without being accused by you of disloyalty, the platform could never change. I know - you didn't overtly do that. But the way you are doing it is worse.

"I like to know what party if any they support when they espouse positions not consistent with the Dem Party platform."

As I said, I thought I had seen everything. Your post is extremely authoritarian and as such, more out of line with the Democratic party's principles and ideals than almost anything I have ever read at DU. Talk about the spirit of the law being at odds with the letter of the law!

[jody]

205. What's authoritarian about asking someone claiming to be a Democrat if they support the platform?

[Two Americas]

206. gee, gosh

I dunno. What do you think?

"claiming to be a Democrat"... "if they support the platform"

Bullshit, and I believe that you know it is.

[jody]

207. After reading your posts, I conclude you do not support the Dem Party and that's OK. n/t

[Two Americas]

209. please...

Please tell me that this is a joke.

[jody]

213. Have a good day and good bye. n/t

[Two Americas]

214. n/t

...

[baby_mouse]

189. Well, like most civilised countries..

You probably draw the line at things like the police, fire and public health.

[jody]

191. Yes, Where do you draw the line? n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

168. What are you doing arguing like a Republican?

:eyes:

[jody]

187. No, I support the 2004 Dem Party Platform that does not tout socialized health care. What party

platform do you support?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

188. Then the Democratic Party is wrong on this issue

There, I said it.

[jody]

190. IMO the 2004 Democratic Party Platform does not support socialized health care.

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

REFORMING HEALTH CARE We believe not just that a strong America begins at home, but that a strong America begins in the home. And just as government's first responsibility is the health and safety of its people, parents' first responsibility is the health and safety of their children. We believe that health care is a right and not a privilege. Today, a family's ability to ensure that all its members get the quality health care they deserve is challenged like never before. For the most fortunate, America offers the best health care in the world. But tens of millions of Americans pay too much and get too little from our health care system, and tens of millions more have no health insurance at all. Skyrocketing health care costs not only hurt our families; they hurt our economy. American businesses pay more than their competitors for health care, reducing their competitiveness. American incomes suffer because raises are stifled by rising insurance premiums. We will attack the health care crisis with a comprehensive approach. Our goal is straightforward: quality, affordable health coverage for all Americans to keep our families healthy, our businesses competitive, and our country strong. In President George Bush's America, drug company and HMO profits count for more than family and small business health costs. Health care costs increased four times as fast as wages in the last year alone. Prescription drug spending has more than doubled during the past five years. Nearly 82 million Americans went without health care coverage at some point in the last two years. And the President has done nothing to bring costs down or lift these burdens. The few small proposals he has offered would further divide our health system between one that is affordable for the healthy and wealthy, and one that is unaffordable for the elderly, the sick, and increasingly, for America's broad middle class. John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democratic Party believe in a better, stronger, healthier America. Our resolve to fix the health crisis is stronger than ever. In the wealthiest country in the world, every expectant mother should get quality prenatal care; every child should get regular check-ups; every senior should be able to get safe, affordable prescription drugs; and no hard-working family should ever lose everything because illness strikes a loved one.

Ensuring health care for children. The job begins with our children. It is a disgrace that nearly 8.5 million children still lack health insurance. We will strengthen Medicaid for our families and expand the children's health program created under President Clinton so no child goes without medical care.

Expanding coverage. Under the leadership of John Kerry and John Edwards, we will offer individuals and businesses tax credits to make quality, reliable health coverage more affordable. We will provide tax credits to Americans who are approaching retirement age and those who are between jobs so they can afford quality, reliable coverage. We will expand coverage for low income adults through existing federal-state health care programs. And we will provide all Americans with access to the same coverage that members of Congress give themselves.

Cutting health care costs. At the center of our efforts will be a plan to reduce health costs. We will lift a financial burden on families, businesses, and the self-employed by picking up the tab for the highest-cost medical cases. That will save America's families up to $1,000 on their premiums. We will improve the quality of care and the efficiency of the medical system by using American technological know-how to cut billions of dollars wasted in administrative processing and paperwork. Today, about a quarter of all health-related spending is not even medical. We can do better. We will ensure that all Americans have secure, private electronic medical records by 2008, and we will give medical providers incentives and resources to simplify their paperwork so patients spend more time with doctors and less time filling out forms. We recognize that our health care system is substantially strengthened by the daily efforts of the men and women in a variety of health professions and we support fair treatment for all health professionals. We will enact a real Patient's Bill of Rights to put doctors and nurses back in charge of making medical decisions with their patients – instead of allowing HMO bureaucrats to decide what a patient needs.

Helping seniors by protecting Medicare and cutting prescription costs. We oppose privatizing Medicare. We will not allow Republicans to destroy a commitment that has done so much good for so many seniors and people with disabilities over the past 39 years. Instead, we want to strengthen Medicare and make it more efficient. We will ensure that seniors across the country, particularly in small-town and rural America, no longer suffer from geographic discrimination. We will end the disgrace of seniors being forced to choose between meals and medication. Today, our seniors are paying too much for prescription drugs, while options abroad are far cheaper and just as safe. We will allow the safe reimportation of drugs from other countries. The current Medicare drug program serves drug companies more than seniors. It allows these companies to change the price of prescriptions more frequently than seniors can change their plans. It does virtually nothing to bring down prescription drug costs. It forces seniors into HMOs. Elderly Americans deserve a real prescription drug benefit – one that uses the government's purchasing power to lower costs and ensures access to new therapies for their illnesses. We will cut the waste and abuse that cost Medicare billions each year, using competitive bidding to lower the costs of buying medical equipment, educating providers to file claims more efficiently, and increasing penalties for those who bilk the system.

Dignity for all. We will ensure that elderly Americans and people with disabilities can live in dignity, with quality options for long-term care. We need to expand alternative care options and provide better assistance for those who give care. No one should be kept in a nursing home or institution if they prefer living in dignity elsewhere and can do so. And we will ensure that no person with a disability has to choose between quality health care and the dignity of work. We will also work to ensure that people with HIV and AIDS have the care they need, and we will support the community-based prevention programs, built on experience with real life, that President Bush has cut. We are committed to passing the Wellstone mental health parity legislation, ending discrimination against Americans with mental illnesses, and ensuring equal treatment for mental illness in our health system.

Eliminating health disparities. Millions of African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, and American Indians continue to live sicker and die younger in America. Cultural and language barriers remain a particular problem for immigrant communities. We will fight racial and ethnic health care disparities by increasing research and training in the medical profession, breaking down language barriers, and ensuring good health care for all Americans. We will encourage and support enabling more minority students to enter the sciences. We will also work to ensure that women have access to the best medicines and state-of-the-art prevention and detection techniques to stop diseases early. We will also support prevention of illness through better nutrition and exercise.

Investing in science to battle disease. We will push the boundaries of science in search of new medical therapies and cures. The Bush Administration has put ideology over science, skewing information about everything from women's health to scientific research. Americans deserve access to the best evidence available about illnesses, therapies, and cures. From new therapies to prolong life for people with AIDS, to new openings in the battle to cure cancer, the possibilities of medical research fill us with hope. We will secure more funding for aggressive biomedical research seeking affordable and effective therapies based on real science. President Bush has rejected the calls from Nancy Reagan, Christopher Reeve and Americans across the land for assistance with embryonic stem cell research. We will reverse his wrongheaded policy. Stem cell therapy offers hope to more than 100 million Americans who have serious illnesses – from Alzheimer's to heart disease to juvenile diabetes to Parkinson's. We will pursue this research under the strictest ethical guidelines, but we will not walk away from the chance to save lives and reduce human suffering.

Honoring our veterans. Finally, we will never forget the debt America owes our veterans. Patriotism means keeping faith with those who have worn the uniform of the United States. This Administration has broken its promises to our veterans – raising their health costs and reducing their access to care. John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats will keep faith with our veterans. We will continue the fight for mandatory funding for veterans' health care and we will make sure that disabled veterans and military retirees are not penalized with reductions in their pension benefits. And we will aggressively address the inexcusable backlogs in veterans' compensation and pension claims. We believe in an America where health care is available and affordable. Where every family looks to the future with hope and excitement, without worry that the cost of health care is becoming too great to bear. Where strong, healthy families build a stronger America.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

194. Tax credits (YAWN)

I'm self-employed, so I already get tax preferences for my health insurance. It's not nearly enough to compensate for the fact that I have a $5,000 deductible.

[jody]

198. What's your point. I said IMO Dem party does not tout socialized health care. Do you agree? n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

199. Of course it doesn't, as I admitted in a post above, but

I don't march lockstep with the Dem party platform or indeed, the Dem party.

In this particular case, it's personal. I don't give a flying fuck what the Democratic Party or any other party platform says.

Do you work for an insurance company, or are you a Libertarian? I'm asking because you argue as if you were one of those.

[jody]

201. No, I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat, have been all my life and I'm not an insurance rep.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

66. I don't get it either

Particularly because the people voting against universal health care programs appear to be getting what I understand is pretty generous government-provided ("socialized" if you will) health coverage. For all of their bluster about "socialized medicine", it is beyond my powers of comprehension to understand exactly how they don't realize the seemingly obvious hypocrisy of standing up for the so-called "free market" health insurance programs while ferociously opposing any kind of proposals for government managed health care programs for everybody else while they themselves reap the benefits of their government-managed health care programs. If they really think that the so-called "free market" can do a better job of providing health coverage, then they should set an example and drop their "socialized" health care plans and seek coverage through any of the number of major corporations currently providing health care coverage. I'm sure that any of the insurance companies would appreciate their patronage. Frankly, I don't really care whether or not people get covered through the government or, if they wish, a private company. I just think that people should have a choice between a host of companies, some of whom won't even cover them or will only cover them for an outrageous price or a government managed program that guarantees universal, reasonably priced, and efficient coverage. After all, aren't right wingers always preaching the value of competition as a means of improving services and lowering prices? Why wouldn't this work in the health care arena? WHAT are they afraid of?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

68. Ironically, one of the closest equivalents to socialized medicine available in the U.S. is

the Yale Health Plan. It may not be as generous as it was in the 1970s, but when I was a grad student there, payment of tuition or employment at Yale entitled one to:

1. Care by a primary physician
2. Care by specialists upon referral
3. Emergency care
4. Reproductive care, including pregnancy, childbirth, birth control, and abortions
5. Mental health care, including ten weeks of private sessions with a counselor and ten weeks of group therapy, with hospitalization as an option in severe cases

During my years of graduate school, I availed myself of each of these items at least once, and I was never charged a dime.

It's ironic that so many Republicans have come out of Yale raving against "socialized medicine" when they may have had their appendix out without ever being billed for it.

[Thothmes]

83. Actually

The Armed forces of the United States are a completely socialized system. Govt doctors, Dentists, nurses, staff, hospitals, clinics, labs etc. In 24 years of using that system my only cash outlay was the cost of food while I was in the Hospitas. The VA system is also a completely socialized medical system.

[citizen snips]

69. because its communist

:sarcasm:

[Echo In Light]

78. What's "wrong" with it? Wealthy economic sectors detest profit reduction over humane efforts

[JanMichael]

79. Because most Americans and DU'ers have been brainfucked.

Socialized medicine tops the charts in just about every category. When it doesn't it's because capitalist loving fucknuts like Thatcher fuck with decent systems (NHS).

Plus our dumbfuck media keeps the myths alive by NOT doing true journalist investigation into effectiveness of differing systems.

That's what's "wrong", idiot reichwingers and mindfucked liberals, with socialized medicine.

[Canuckistanian]

80. The US is virtually alone in not providing health care as a 'public service'

While ALL developed countries have taxpayer-funded roads, policing, armed forces, food and drug regulation, social services, foreign aid, land management and transport management, the US stands out like a sore thumb by excluding health care, one of the biggest per-capita household expenses.

That "health-management" decision made by Richard Nixon oh-so-many years ago has turned into a monster, devouring the savings of SO MANY and robbing them of the enjoyment of their golden years.

It baffles me that the anti-'single payer' viewpoint gets any credibility at all.

The data are there.

[Echo In Light]

84. Its citizenry is alone in failing to have the collective spine to take a stand

[pitohui]

82. a black man might get good medical care (yes, sorry to say people really think like this)

i've thought about it a long time, and i have to conclude that, at the end of the day, the reason america is so opposed to things like fair wages, medical care, these days even funding for the public schools is because the average person is so damn racist

look at all the fools who voted reagan/bush and picked their own pockets, they'd rather be bankrupt than see a black man have an equal chance

i'm not kidding, the reagan voters and the david duke voters were the same people in louisiana anyway

get somebody one on one, and do you ever hear that person say that health care should NOT be socialized and the insurance industries taken out of the business of interfering with health care? not too damn often, but get the fools all in a room together and they start egging on each other's stupidity

50% of the people have IQs of 100 or less, this is a basic problem we have to contend with, not just in getting fair health care but on all the progressive issues, being progressive usually requires more brains than average and being able to think things thru at least semi-independently (because the media by definition is going to be for the status quo not the progressive) but the majority of people have fewer brains than average or are just average and are not capable of much in the way of independent thought

no clue what to do about this except education, which takes too long to work, people are sick, hurting, and dying right now

[ashling]

86. As a son of a Dr. who was for socialized medicine

until he died, I'll tell you what is wrong with socialized medicine: NOT ONE DAMN THING!

[Forrest Greene]

92. Sweden

It's Sweden. Everybody knows Sweden has Socialized Medicine, & the suicide rate in Sweden is the highest in the world. Everybody knows that. It's because the Swedes are so dispirited by not having to stay in degrading, dead-end jobs just for the health insurance, that they kill themselves in Droves. Droves are small Swedish sports cars, kind of a poor man's Saab, & the Swedes kill themselves in them with spectacular single-car head-ons into trees & such. Everybody knows this. Not having to struggle to pay outrageous sums & not having to choose between food & medicine just burns their natural Swedish optimism & entreprenuerial spirit right on down to nothing, & they kill themselves. Everybody knows about that.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

171. And Sweden doesn't even have that high a suicide rate, and Norway,

which has the same system of benefits, has one of the LOWEST suicide rates in the world.

It's all those Ingmar Bergman movies that persuade the Swedes to off themselves. :evilgrin:

[ileus]

99. we need socialized insurance.

[I work for workers]

100. Every system has problems:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2772772

[lakeguy]

101. there is a lady at work that just had breast cancer...

luckily she made it through (so far so good) but she is rabidly right wing. she can't stand the idea of socialism either. too bad she doesn't realize that if she didn't have the rest of us at our company now each paying a higher premium for her (and other "high risk" people), she would not have insurance. if she quits, she would have a hard time getting insurance at all.

still, she hates "socialism" so would never go for anything but a "free market" system. it is very hard for me to be sympathetic with people like this.

[librechik]

102. Democrats invented it. They must be destroyed.

[Norrin Radd]

113. It won't do to have healthy slaves

[jody]

115. A related DU thread "Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors"

Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors

"Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.

Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone."

[Djinn]

136. smokers and the obese

regularly refused treatment under the American FOR PROFIT system. ie even though you've paid through the nose for your insurance you discover that they will not cover you for an operation because you are a risky patient.

Bzzzt close but no cigar

[Jack Rabbit]

137. There is nothing wrong with socilized medicine . . .

. . . at least not when compared to privatized medicine.

[and-justice-for-all]

139. maybe we should ask Germany, UK, and France....

about whats wrong with socialized health care...But I bet there answer would be "not a thing".
The only thing keeping socialized heath care back is Big Pharma and Insurance Companies, you thank Nixon for our fucked up health care system.

[Tracer]

150. On Jim Lehrer last night ...

...Judy Woodward was discussing health care with a diverse group of people. Every single person there (from both left and right) wanted some sort of improved health care delivery system.

I was a boggled by one young guy's idea of "improved". He was married with a baby, his wife left her job to care for the child and he was complaining that he was paying $13,000 per year for health insurance.

Unbelievably, his "solution" for health care was to "leave it up to the markets".

I see that's working out so well for him.

[ItNerd4life]

151. Why not have socialized food? Socialized housing?

Food & housing are also requirements to keep people healthy. Instead, what the U.S. has found is having a regulated marketplace creates a more cost efficient and varied solution.

The problem with the current healthcare system is two-fold.
1) There isn't a marketplace driven environment. If the marketplace was allowed the flexibility of voluntary procedures, you would see costs going down. Look at Lasik eye surgery.
2) There isn't a solid safety net. Healthcare is different of food and housing in that in an emergency you may only have minutes. Without food or shelter you can survive for days or weeks, with your health minutes matter. There must be a way to allow anybody to get that immediate service when required. It exists right now in most hospitals, but it is a weak system.

I don't like socialized healthcare because I figure the government will do as good a job as it does with driver's license facilities. What should only take a few minutes, takes hours waiting in line just to renew a drivers license.

I don't believe the government is the answer to these types of problems. I believe it should be used to create the framework/infrastructure that allows the marketplace to compete and keep people/society safe. It does this currently by having pollution laws, food safety laws, etc.

But, I'm a believer in both the marketplace and the government having their places in society. Maybe, that's because I was a JFK Democrat.

I would like to say more, but lunch is almost over and I have to go back to work. Can't the government do something about me having to work? :P

[Lydia Leftcoast]

172. Libertarian, right?

:eyes:

Or insurance company employee.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

197. socialized roads, socialized fire depts, socialized schools

lets do away with society, its too socialized.

[WernhamHogg]

152. Successful brainwashing by the insurance companies

I think the idea of having to sit in an ER waiting room for a couple
of hours with a sprained ankle while the doctor attempts to stabilize a
heart attack patient who might be jobless or (even worse) homeless is
just too much for some Americans.

There might not be a TV in the waiting room and they might not be home
from the ER in time for the American Idol results show if something
that horrible and unfortunate were to happen to them.

[Hidden Stillness]

154. Public/Government Controlled, is the Only Real Medicine

Obviously, "socialized" medicine--even with the name--is the answer, as anyone who has had either bitter and tragic experience with the capitalist medical industry, or good experiences that they will always be grateful for, from the public service of medicine, will tell you. The problem with making things profit-driven, (as is obvious), is that everything then will become only that. All medical services, prescriptions, etc., will become like the housing industry--hugely expensive, a market that now has no available low-income housing, very little Section 8 housing for the disabled, a glut of condos for millionaires, and scandal after scandal as profiteers figure one scam after another to get fees and penalty payments out of homes no one even lives in.

One specific point about making everything capitalist-driven, and no Government protections, is that you then end up with situations like, for example, the current, (and increasingly dire) situation where people are not going into geriatric medicine, because it is mainly long-term, relationship-based general care, and not the quick-big-bucks of plastic surgery, an advertising-hyped fraud perpetrated on women and girls, to make them feel ugly and rejected, then capitalizing on it (obviously, I am not talking about reconstructive surgery, after cancer, vehicle accidents, violent attack, or etc.). Whole fields of needed practice, based more on a general-practioner type relationship with patients, are getting harder and harder to even find, because it does not get the big-bucks and "prestige" of the market-driven overcharges of plastic surgery and other non-lifesaving advertising-created markets. It takes away the very field of medicine, if there are no Government controls.

Along with that, a medical industry that had real Government regulations, could give free medical training, higher pay, other benefits, etc., to people who will set up a General practice in a very remote, rural area, poor urban area, or etc., as part of a larger (yes, this is actually what it is) affirmative action program. This helps the needs that are actually there; if it is all "market/profit," then nobody gives a rat's ass who suffers, and how.

When profiteering, evil capitalists have no logical argument of their own, and when no one would ever support them or their behavior when presented with the ordinary facts, then sometimes the corporate advertising media trumps it up as a pseudo-"moral" or pseudo-"threat" issue. This is what they have always done here. The majority of the American people love Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and want universal health care. They have never really been fooled on this, only censored and thwarted.

[cushla_machree]

159. Its the word socialized

I don't think this debate will ever be won if it is called socialized care. Thats how the right wins this year after year, preying on peoples mistrust of the way government would manage such a system. SO much so, that they cannot see that how the insurance companies manage health care is 10x worse.

I think people need to be educated on the difference between universal health care vs socialized care. Socialized care means that the government pays the salaries of doctors and runs the hospitals. Single payer just means that the government is only involved on the insurance side.

I got into an argument at work with someone, and it started because i was reading an article in mother jones which said that 60% or so of people under the age of 29 support some form of universal health care ( I suspect this is due to the fact that we know full well what if feels like to be dumped by our parents insurance after college and find that obtaining health coverage is a very real challenge). So i made a joke that the older population doesn't care because they all got medicare, and my co-workers was like not all of us have medicare (she must be 40) and was like we just know that private insurance is more realistic. she then went on to tell me about how people don't like their heath care in england, and canada has long lines. I was like, who are these people? WHO doesn't like it? Is that what the media tells you? I then asked her how many of these countries, while realizing their systems are not perfect, would trade theirs for ours? I think i stumped her on that one. My other coworker then poo-pooed universal coverage by saying that her HMO plan is great. I told her my COBRA plan was awful, but was told, well once the company offers you health insurance, you will be ok.

I see, as long as i am ok, who cares about the rest of the problem?
Who cares that the insurance companies cherry pick only the healthy and deny coverage to the sick?

Don't these peopel understand insurance works best when you utilized the pooled risk model, the larger the pool, the better?

[coalition_unwilling]

163. What exactly is wrong with having nationalized energy? -n/t

[killbotfactory]

169. It prevents the freedom of businessmen to gouge people when they are at their most vulnerable,

when they are sick. People will pay anything not to be sick.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

173. Two pleas to the participants on this thread

1. Please read the previous posts to learn the difference between the various types of "socialized medicine." Don't use the British system to criticize the Canadian system or vice versa.

2. Let's have some truth in posting. If you're an insurance company employee or a Libertarian, have the courage to admit it.

[JVS]

192. I like the idea, but remember that this is a country where towns come together to lower property...

taxes by shafting school budgets. If this is what they do to all their kids, imagine how little trouble they'd have creating a system that thinks that little maggie's leukemia is not worth treating. Although the current system is just as bad.

[Tektonik]

208. because caring about are society's health is wrong!

:sarcasm: