1
   

Do you support Nationalized Healthcare?

 
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2003 06:05 pm
No way. Social programs work fairly well for small nations, but America is large and has a huge central government. A lot of the money would be lost by the middle men and policies it had to go through. Plus, I don't support national-government social programs of any kind because it's not their place to take our money and redistribute it for social help reasons, that's the responsibility of the individual, groups, and if necessary, the state & local authorities.

Lastly, having automatically funded health care ends competition, and competition spurs new research and growth. Competition is necessary to have a healthy business system.
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2004 11:17 am
I'm not advocating a socialized form of healthcare. I'm advocating government funded privatized healthcare like what they have in germany. I described such a system, where employer set aside some of the wages into insurance groups and the groups negotiate with private insurance companies to get the best rates possible.

I remember when Dean was popular, he had a plan to essentially expand medicare and medicaid to cover all middle income and below adults under 25, all at 150% of the poverty line, and all recently unemployed for three months till they get a new job.

I wish Kerry would propose something like that.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2004 12:42 pm
BBB
I have been working for a SINGLE PAYER HEALTH SYSTEM since the 1960s, both professionally and as a volunteer advocate. The system will not improve in terms of access, quality and cost until the insurance and HMO industries are excluded from control.

A SINGLE PAYER HEALTH SYSTEM is not socialized medicine. It simply takes the profit motive conflict of interest out of the equation. It will restore medical decision making to qualified professional health care practitioners. It will benefit everyone except those who have used the current corrupt system to suck money from the sick to line their own pockets.

BBB
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2004 01:06 pm
BBB, You have it right! Medical decisions should be made by doctors, not by somebody sitting in an office approving and disapproving what needs to be done for the patient. Medical insurance company execs still get paid too much, and they do not help the medical field in any way; they're the middle-men. This country already spends the most for medical care in the world; but we don't get the benefits, because of what BBB said. That needs to change, but it will take our government to do the right thing.
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2004 07:24 pm
As posted by Billy Falcon:

Myths & Facts About Single-Payer Universal Health Care
Copyright ©2004 American Medical Student Association
(800) 767-2266 • [email protected]

MYTH: It would cost too much money.
FACT: A single-payer universal system would cost no more than we're already spending on health care, according to studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Lewin Group, and the Boston University School of Public Health. The GAO estimates if the United States changed to a universal single-payer system, it would save in the short run: $34 billion in insurance overhead and $33 billion in hospital and physician administrative costs. This savings would come from providing timely care to those who would otherwise delay care, thereby becoming sicker and more expensive to treat.
The cost of serving the newly insured would be about $18 billion. The cost of providing additional services to the currently insured-due to elimination of co-pays and deductibles-would be about $46 billion.


MYTH: It is socialized medicine.
FACT: A single-payer universal health plan is not socialized medicine. Under socialized medicine, the government owns the hospitals and clinics. Doctors and nurses are government employees. A single-payer universal health plan preserves private ownership and employment. It has no more in common with socialized medicine than does Medicare. What's unique about a single-payer universal health plan is that all health-care risks are placed in a universal risk pool covering everyone.


MYTH: Americans would pay more.
FACT: Several studies show costs for middle-class Americans would not increase. All but the poorest Americans would pay more income tax, but in most cases the tax would be equal to or less than what they currently pay for health insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles, which would largely be eliminated. Money to take care of the currently uninsured would come from money saved by eliminating private insurance overhead costs and by spending less on high-tech equipment that duplicates or exceeds what's needed in any geographic region.


MYTH: It would create a huge bureaucracy.
FACT: Experts say the employer-based managed-care system is already a huge bureaucracy. It consumes 9 to 15 cents of every health-care dollar. Medicare, a single-payer plan for seniors, spends only 2 to 3 cents of every dollar on bureaucracy.


MYTH: It would cost employers more, make them less competitive and force them to fire employees.
FACT: Experts say the employer tax would equal but not exceed what employers currently pay for health-care premiums and paperwork/billing overhead created by the current multipayer system.


MYTH: Medicine would be rationed.
FACT: Managed care already rations medicine. A single-payer universal health plan would ration services based on medical necessity. Managed care rations services based on profit. Under single-payer universal health care, no one would be denied care due to pre-existing conditions.


MYTH: Americans would have trouble getting in to see a doctor.
FACT: Canadians, who live in a single-payer system, see their primary care physicians more often than Americans do now. There are more doctors per capita in Canada than there are in the United States. Yet the cost of physician services in Canada is one-third less than it is in the United States. About half the cost savings in Canada comes not from offering less care but by reducing insurance overhead and paperwork. The rest of the savings comes from allocating money to pay for expensive equipment so there is less excess capacity and duplication. Ninety-six percent of Canadians prefer their health-care system to the U.S. model.


MYTH: Patients wouldn't be able to choose their own physician.
FACT: According to experts, a single-payer plan would give patients more choice than they currently have in most cases. The United States is the only developed country heading in the direction of less choice. Other countries are building more choice into their systems.


MYTH: The United States has the best health care in the world.
FACT: The United States has higher infant mortality, higher surgical mortality and lower life expectancy than Canada. The United States has a much lower rate of access to primary care doctors than Canada. Canada has the same acute care bed-to-population ratio as the United States. Patient satisfaction, quality of care and outcome of care in Canada equal or exceed that in the United States, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office. For this lower quality, Americans pay 40 percent per capita more than Canadians do on health care.


MYTH: There would be waiting lists for surgeries and high-tech procedures, which is why Canadians come to the United States to get health services.
FACT: The United States has waiting lists for specialty care, too. Canadians rarely come to the United States for health care. Less than 1 percent of Canada's health budget goes to paying for care Canadians get in the United States. Canada's waiting-list problem stems largely from underfunding, which is being corrected now. Waiting times would likely be no longer in the United States than they are now, because we would still spend much more than other countries do on health care and still have many more specialists and capacity.


MYTH: Physician salaries would be lowered, as would standards for physician training. It would discourage the best and brightest from going into medicine.
FACT: Primary care doctors would see little or no change in their salaries. Some specialists would see a decline. All physicians would be paid more if they work in remote or underserved areas. Education, training and licensing policies are so similar for U.S. and Canadian physicians that their credentials are virtually interchangeable.


MYTH: Canadian physicians are unhappy with their system.
FACT: Nearly two-thirds are either "satisfied" or "very satisfied." About 500 Canadian doctors emigrate to the United States each year-representing about 1 percent of all Canadian doctors. Some return to Canada.


MYTH: U.S. physicians don't want a single-payer universal health plan.
FACT: Despite pervasive negative spin, 57.1 percent of U.S. physicians believe a single-payer system with universal coverage would be the best option for the United States, according to a 1999 New England Journal of Medicine survey.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2004 08:13 pm
Centroles, Good to see some down-to-earth MYTH vs FACT info on singe-payer universal health care. We've had this information for more than a decade, but our government is too dumb and/or owes their allegiance to the big insurance groups.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2004 11:15 pm
Centroles
Centroles, the fact-myth info you posted is accurate.

The insurance and hospital industry lobbyists have prevailed for decades in preventing a single payer medical system for decades. They would lose billions in corrupt profit if it ever happens.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2004 11:59 pm
Suzette wrote:
I'm the first to admit I don't know the details, however, I do know that in a country such as the US, one with such an incredible disparity in levels of income, this should not be a hard thing to work out. Cut the corporate welfare; reinstate higher levels of income tax to the wealthiest 10%; cut the pentagon budget...etc. Please don't rip me to shreds for not knowing exactly how to solve it; that's what the bureaucrats get paid to do. I just intuitively believe in my heart it can be done.

I will probably floor some of my friends on A2K with this, but I too believe that health care should be a right in our country and not an option which depends upon income.

Having said this, I don't believe there are millions or even thousands of people being deprived of health care - insurance notwithstanding.

What is true is that the poor and the uninsured receive substandard (for America) care at ridiculously high costs that we, the taxpayers, are forced to shoulder.

Something needs to change, but, unfortunately, the devil is in the details, and its not enough to believe in one's heart that there is a better way. This is not an issue that is going to be solved by technocrats alone. There are no shortage of ideas about how to solve the problem and so the electorate has to make some effort towards discerning what the proper solution might be.

Casting Insurance Companies in the role of the sole bogey man is foolish. There is plenty of blame to pass around to health care providers and patients alike.

The thing to keep in mind is that Insurance Companies are not social institutions. They are in the business of providing insurance for profit.
If you think they are making obscene levels of profit, ask a broker if he or she recommends that you invest in Cigna or Blue Cross.

It's also important to keep in mind that the socialist nations of Europe are about to face a crisis born of their social largess. If you think we have a deficit problem take a look at the Euro books.

There are a variety of elements to a reasonable solution. The problem is that special interests have been able to isolate their elements from the solution.

Freemarketeers have to accept that there needs to be some level control of the cost of drugs. Liberals need to accept that there needs to be some level of control over medical malpractice litigation, everyone needs to accept that our health care system cannot sustain heroic, costly, and overwhelmingly futile efforts to preserve the lives of the terminally ill and the very old. When it comes to health care, we can't have it all.

Frankly, I'm not sanguine about the chances of all of the various special interests coming to agreement on a mutual level of sacrifice.


It's a matter of priorities: to 'sell' it to those who believe it must be paid for, one needs to get them to understand how it negatively affects them. If they have no empathy, let them bring it about because they do care about keeping their own little worlds safe, secure and w/o contagious new strains and viruses, etc.

This sort of derisive attitude will get us no where near a solution.

My own thoughts on this subject are not fully formed, but I lean in the direction of a governmentally funded non-profit insurance company which provides coverage to those who cannot obtain private insurance. This doesn't mean a social program in the sense of socialized medicine. The governmental entity must be charged with breaking even. Profit is not intended, but loss is not acceptible. Those who avail themselves of this public insurance will need to accept that they are not going to be presented with the degree of healthcare options available to those who pay more for private insurance.

The argument will be that such patients will be provided substandard care, and this is true in relation to today's standards. This approach requires a national debate and, ultimate acceptance, of a change in standards as respects the terminal and very old.

It also contemplates controling the cause of defensive medicine being the standard - lawsuits.

Compromises have to be made at all levels
.

A gated community will turn into a prison sooner or later...

Nonsense. This is a perfect example of glibness. How is it inevitable that a gated community will become a prison?

0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 04:43 am
The fact/myth information Centroles posted is put out by a student political action committee. The AMA on the other hand strenuously objects to a single payer system.

I was working for a small Texas Panhandle hospital when Medicare first went into effect in the 1960's. There was rampant fraud from Day #1 and there still is. The foxes guarding the henhouse aren't doing a very good job of it.

Single payer will probably work at the state level if enough citizens want it to. And while there are very legitimate functions for the federal government and I support those 100%, there is no instance of the enormous U.S. federal government ever doing any social program more cheaply or efficiently than can be done by a sufficiently motivated private sector. Witness welfare alone in which only about 1/3 of every welfare dollar actually gets to anybody who needs it. The rest is swallowed up in the massive bureaucracy.

If you want to dismantle the best health care system in the world and reduce it to something less efficient and mediocre, just initiate a mandatory single payer system. Won't take any time at all.

My 2 cents worth and is expressed as my opinion and observation only.

However here are some links that are instructive in case anybody cares:

http://www.amsa.org/about/

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/1617-7952.html

The AMA health insurance proposal is available at:
www.ama-assn.org/go/insurance-reform.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 06:20 am
Managed systems of all kinds, whether "single payer" or HMO, etc. all achieve their cost containment goals by rationing the services and care provided. In the current system there are multiple HMOs which are at least subject to some element of competition with one another.

A "single payer' system will simply give the government a monopoly in doing the rationing. We will have bureaucrats making these decisions for us. Contemplate the future behavior of a Federal bureaucracy, subject to the political pressures of the menagerie of single issue political pressure groups and the fiscal "responsibility" of the Congress, and ask yourself if you wish to turn over your present freedom to buy needed medical care(if you are able and make the choice to forego other things to do so) to such a monster. Remember that the dark underside of single payer systems is that they generally make it illegal for anyone to buy or sell medical care outside the "universal system".

Others here have attempted to put forward the absurd notion that a single payer system does not constitute 'socialized medicine', because private investors will still own the hospitals and provide the capital for the service operators. Nonsense! With government fixing the rates the capital will quickly flee to more lucrative and reliable investments. The power to set the rate of return on capital itself amounts to ownership.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 11:01 am
georgeob's quote, "A "single payer' system will simply give the government a monopoly in doing the rationing." What do you think Medicare-Medical is? I have Medicare, and I have not one complaint. Maybe those without health insurance will get the same benefits through a one payer system. I'm sure you won't hear many complain.
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 02:06 pm
No.

1. You loose more money when it has to be filtered through middle men (like the government)

2. The goverment has no competition so it does not have to compete in businesses which it monopolizes - this makes innovation stagnant.

3. We will be the ones paying for our health care. It won't be free healthcare, they will raise the tax burden to make us pay for our own and other people's health.

4. If you don't take strangers to the hospital and foot the bill now, why would you want the government to force you to do it when you don't even know who you're helping?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 02:09 pm
Quote:
2. The goverment has no competition so it does not have to compete in businesses which it monopolizes - this makes innovation stagnant.


This is true, if the only reason for innovation is money, the only reason anyone would do research is money, the only motivating factor is money. Personally, I believe that we should, I dunno, research things that would help people simply because they help people. It's a reward unto itself.


Quote:
4. If you don't take strangers to the hospital and foot the bill now, why would you want to do it when you don't even know who you're helping?


Because people's lives are more important than money is.

I know this is a difficult concept to wrap your head around....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 02:26 pm
Cyclop writes:
Quote:
This is true, if the only reason for innovation is money, the only reason anyone would do research is money, the only motivating factor is money. Personally, I believe that we should, I dunno, research things that would help people simply because they help people. It's a reward unto itself.


I believe even a cursory search will show that the enormous lions share of important medical research is being done in the world is being done in the United States. Why? Profit motive. If 'goodness of heart' was sufficient incentive, we would be seeing comparable levels of research everywhere.

The best hospitals and medical personnel in the world, on average, are found in the United States. Why? Profit motive. If 'goodness of heart' was sufficient incentive, we would see comparable excellence in the countries with single payer systems. It just isn't there.

If you want kill a lot of important research and if you wish to reduce U.S. health care to a mediocre bureaucratic 'lets just get by' status, just initiate a mandatory universal single payer system. But then where would the people of the world come for health care they can't easily get anywhere else now?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 06:12 pm
I hven't seen R&D or medical research disappear in the UK, Japan, Canada, or Germany just because they have universal health care.
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2004 06:38 am
America already gives nationalized health care to illigal immigrants.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/22/2025 at 01:54:34