Help me understand "Socialized Medicine"

[ChooseLiberty]

All the conservatard talk show hosts must have gotten "socialized medicine" as their talking point from conservatard HQ this week.

They never define "socialized medicine", but are dead set against it, whatever it is.

From listening to them I get the impression that if there's medicine is socialized all the private practice doctors would go away. Somehow I don't think this is true.

What happens in England and Canada which they always hold up as examples of people dying in the streets because of socialized medicine. Are private doctors outlawed? Why?

I'm not totally against socialized medicine because the AMA or some prestigious group did a study a few years ago and found socialized medicine would actually be cheaper and more efficient overall since the insurance industry bureaucracy is huge and add little value and people that have insurance are paying for the uninsured anyway. Besides are who is going pass a law that says emergency rooms don't have to treat matters of life and death insurance or not? No one.

What say you?

 

[fsk]

The reason medical care is expensive is that the AMA artificially restricts the supply of doctors. The number of slots in medical schools is kept carefully restricted.

Government licensing requirements for doctors drive up the cost of medical care.

Unless you stop restricting the supply of doctors, addressing price or demand is pointless.

 

[Omnis]

There's the mandatory socialized medicine that John Edwards wants, and then there is "voluntary" socialized medicine. I think the words voluntary and socialism don't belong together, lol.

Socialized medicine might be cheaper than our current corporatist medicine, but I think the quality of service will decline. Treatment will turn into a run-around show much like how crap public schools operate (we don't handle that, you have to go here... we don't do that, you have to go there... ).

What the politicians don't want to put on the table (because they want to protect either the special interests or the bureaucrats) is the free-market system, which I think will be most beneficial, financially and qualitatively, to all.

 

[angelatc]

I have a few issues with socialized medicine. Nothing the government gets involved with ever makes it cheaper. If the AMA said making health care public would reduce the cost, they're lying because they stand to gain. It's that simple. Any economics 101 class will tell you that if you have a single supplier, there's no incentive to cut costs. The US used to lead the world in medical advances, but once the government started paying via Medicare and MedicAid, that stopped. Those arguments are not really inclusive of the point I want to make though.

The thoughts that really makes me anti- government are the same thoughts that make me anti-government health care. Right now, our health care is allegedly rationed based on who can afford it. When the government takes it over, it will be rationed according to who the government thinks deserves it. These opinions are based on statements regarding allocations I've heard from proponents of national health care.

For example, every year or so, a random long term coma patient will awaken. Head trauma doctors love to study these cases, for obvious reasons. If these patients were on the public dime, how many resources do you think the givernment would devote to them?

Look at treatments of terminal diseases in the elderly. Talk long enough to a proponent of national health care, and you'll find that they think that some diseases shouldn't be treated in the elderly. Why waste resources on old people, when young people *need* those resources more? If you're not a worker bee, then your value in a socialist society is nil.

Right now health care is allegedly allocated based on an ability to pay. At least I get some choice in that. I can choose to accept jobs that offer insurance, or I can choose to earn enough money to afford my own treatments. When the government takes over, my choices disappear.

I also worry about the FDA involvement. Suppose I have a chronic condition, and a drug company develops a drug that will relieve (but not cure) my symproms, but it will be a very expensive drug. In the provate market, I can sue my insurance company to require them to pay for the drug after the FDA approves it. If the government takes over, they'll simply prohibit the FDA from approving it, and my suffering will continue.

Will other people get better treatment because they have better genes? With a national health database, social engineering is very probable.

It breaks my heart to see my freedoms disappearing one by one.

 

[AnotherAmerican]

By definition, "socialized" health care would involve state-owned hospitals paying state-employee doctors. At the municipal level, this exists already in many places: County hospitals and Fire Dep't. EMTs are a few popular examples. Any state or locality in the country is already free to provide medical services, and to administer their programs as they determine. The Federal government is already free to "subsidize" state and local efforts by lowering taxes if it wants to "help."

What's really being bandied about is insurance subsidies, either in the form of a government-administered plan that eliminates private insurers in favor of a to-be-determined social-welfare program ("socialized" insurance), or by having government mandate the purchase of a for-profit private plan, subsidized by a to-be-determined social-welfare program ("fascistized" insurance?).

Under the "single payer" plans, private insurance middlemen are allegedly eliminated, so private hospitals compete to see how much they can overcharge for how little service, by hiding profit in inflated administration and supply costs until they've consumed 100% of available tax revenue. Private insurers will sell "better" private policies to upcharge those who can afford to pay, leaving the underfunded-by-design public system to provide crappy baseline service to the net money-losers, always in need of more tax money.

The competing "Massachusetts Plan" is to requires everyone to buy a private, for-profit, "minimum-coverage" policy, with the state subsidizing those who cannot afford to. This will allow insurance to compete to see how much they can overcharge for how little service, by hiding profit in inflated administration and supply costs, until they've consumed 100% of available tax revenue. Private insurers will sell "better" private policies to upcharge those who can afford to pay, leaving the underfunded-by-design "minimum policy" system to provide crappy baseline service to the net money-losers, always in need of more tax money.

Any national plan currently proposed is one of the above two, and are designed to do the same thing: Socialize the losses, privatize the profits, and - most importantly - confiscate the profits from citizens before they can spend it on anything else.

 

[cjhowe]

Here is Ronald Reagan's reply to why socialized medicine is bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

Ron Paul is spot on in regards to health care in America. We've been presented with a false choice (as we often are) between corporate medicine and socialized medicine. The solution to healthcare in America, as it is to most issues, is the free market. Remove the barriers that the government puts on the healthcare market and you will have a better informed customer able to decide what medical services he wants for himself at MUCH lower costs and MUCH higher quality. There is no innovation in patient services any more because every step of healthcare has a formulary to follow. It is too costly and there is no opportunity for greater returns by blazing a new trail.

Remove the prescription requirement for drugs and prices will plummet. Remove accreditation requirements and prices will plummet. Get the AMA out of the occupation code and prices will plummet. All of the letters by someone's name or on someone's door should be marketing tools, not tickets to play the game.

 

[ChooseLiberty]

I don't have a problem with a perfect free market for medicine where the number of doctors increase and the prices stabilize at lower prices, but I don't think it's ever going to happen IRL.

Will people in a life and death situation be turned away from emergency rooms under free market medicine? Personally, I don't want to see poor people dying on the sidewalk because somebody robbed and stabbed them and they get turned away from medical care. Does anyone really want to see that?

BTW - there are plenty of smart doctors all over the world waiting to get into the US to practice medicine. I know some. A lot of them are better than the ones we have already. Maybe there's a bottleneck somewhere - are the Medical professions lobbying against immigration (legal)? (Luckily we have plenty of illegal leaf blowers and have all the leaves quickly blown from the sidewalk into the street.)

 

[noxagol]

I don't have a problem with a perfect free market for medicine where the number of doctors increase and the prices stabilize at lower prices, but I don't think it's ever going to happen IRL.

Will people in a life and death situation be turned away from emergency rooms under free market medicine? Personally, I don't want to see poor people dying on the sidewalk because somebody robbed and stabbed them and they get turned away from medical care. Does anyone really want to see that?

BTW - there are plenty of smart doctors all over the world waiting to get into the US to practice medicine. I know some. A lot of them are better than the ones we have already. Maybe there's a bottleneck somewhere - are the Medical professions lobbying against immigration (legal)? (Luckily we have plenty of illegal leaf blowers and have all the leaves quickly blown from the sidewalk into the street.)

Just ask Ron Paul. He worked as an ER doctor in Texas for a bit. He says NO ONE was EVER turned away because of their inability to pay. He would do it at reduced prices or for free if necessary.

 

[Kregener]

Look no further than Canada for your answer.

Why would an American want "socialized" anything?

 

[noxagol]

Look no further than Canada for your answer.

Why would an American want "socialized" anything?

Please extrapolate your explanation there if you don't mind. How does Canadian medicine suck?

 

[MsDoodahs]

From listening to them I get the impression that if there's medicine is socialized all the private practice doctors would go away. Somehow I don't think this is true.

If my understanding is correct, in Canada, it was illegal for a doctor to operate a private practice up until the lawsuit a few years ago which changed their law. It was a suit filed by a gentleman who needed joint replacement surgery and his wait time was (iirc) in excess of two years. I can't recall if it was a hip or a knee, it was one of the two. He won his lawsuit and as a result, there are now SOME practices which are operating outside the Canadian socialized system.

I have a friend who recently told me about an influx of Canadian doctors and nurses into her facility here in the States. They are fed up with the conditions in Canada's system. It is my understanding that Canada has a cap on the amount a physician may earn each year.

What happens in England and Canada which they always hold up as examples of people dying in the streets because of socialized medicine. Are private doctors outlawed? Why?

Not dying in the streets but certainly suffering from dramatically long wait times for various procedures. Yes, up until that lawsuit a few years ago, private physicians were outlawed.

If you are asking WHY private docs were outlawed, this is my understanding of the basic idea behind it: the Canadians want a system where no one gets better care than anyone else - all people must be equal in the care they receive. By outlawing private docs and forcing all docs to work within the socialized system, they sought to eliminate the ability of those individuals with means (aka rich SOBs)from being able to buy better care than the individual without means (aka poor SOBs). In practice, those with means to pay a higher rate and get better care from a private physician but without the means to leave the country for better care were at the mercy of the socialized system. Those with the means to leave the country to obtain better care continued to do so. So even though their goal was "equal care for all," their system did not provide any such thing. Just as gov't education for all results in the dumbing down of all students, gov't healthcare for all results in lesser quality care for everyone.

I'm not totally against socialized medicine because the AMA or some prestigious group did a study a few years ago and found socialized medicine would actually be cheaper and more efficient overall since the insurance industry bureaucracy is huge and add little value and people that have insurance are paying for the uninsured anyway. Besides are who is going pass a law that says emergency rooms don't have to treat matters of life and death insurance or not? No one.

What say you?

There was a recent report - within the last six months - that revealed the horrible debt France is suffering because of their socialized healthcare system. I believe it exceeds 3 billion. The report detailed several other nations - all with the same problem - huge deficits because of their socialized medicine systems. In fact, it's my understanding that the nations which have had socialized systems are beginning to consider changing to a free(r) market system because they simply cannot afford to continue their current socialized systemts. I think I saw that report on Bloomberg News.

The claims that socialized systems are cheaper and more efficient are completely invalid.

 

[LibertyBelle]

I'm a physical therapist, don't listen to the AMA. They are not to be trusted. Do not look to them as the 'authority'. In fact, don't look to doctors as the 'authority' on your health either. Been there, done that.....big mistake.

A couple of people have already brought up good descriptions of the horrible aspects of socialized medicine. Medicare is socialized medicine, people forget about this. One big reason for the increase in health care costs has to do with Medicare (gov't involvement and control). The restrictions on the number of doctors admitted to medical schools is another. The expense of malpractice insurance another, thanks to way too many sue happy people and lawyers. The intertwining of Big Pharma with medical schools, the gov't, and the insurance companies another.

I could write a book about our current health care system and how it would get worse with universal health care. In Toronto, tons of hospitals have had to close. Doctors and nurses and coming over the border to work. Their salaries are set, excellency is not rewarded. Because the gov't controls health care, they control your treatment when it should be decided by you and your doctor. People have to wait for months on end to start cancer treatments. The fact that the Canadian gov't had outlawed private practices shows they do not like competition.

Gov't control of health care always causes dependency, lowers standards, rewards mediocracy, lowers salaries, and taxes and bankrupts a country. Health care in America in general is good for acute illnesses and emergency surgeries, but for chronic problems overall it stinks! However, the answer is NOT socialized medicine. The answer is reversing Medicare, reversing the fascist Big Pharma influence and money dumping on our gov't/med schools/insurance companies, revamping the corrupt FDA, getting rid of the stranglehold the AMA has on many things, bringing true competition back to the health care industry....AMA comes into this again, getting back to teaching doctors to think for themselves instead of being cattle out of the medical school chutes, etc. Lots more to get where we need to be.

The free market creates true competition, rewards excellency, and lowers costs because of the competition! Gov't control does the opposite. With socialized medicine, with set salaries and all that effin' red tape and bureacracy, we will lose the best of the best. This is already happening because of Medicare. No thanks! Small gov't and the free market is the answer. Also, we are already paying around 50% of our wages to taxes, guess what would happen with universal health care! It is not my responsibility to pay for someone else's health care, nor is it their responsibility to pay for my shelter and clothing. If I want to volunteer to help somebody with their health bills, I can do that, but should not be forced to do so. The last thing I want to do also is be forced to pay for health care for individuals who don't take care of themselves. I have to pay for their poor health habits with socialized medicine. No thanks!

 

[noxagol]

Socialism is bad for two reasons.

1) It creates a government monopoly. Monopolies are bad, government monopolies are even worse. Just look at public schools.

2) When everyone is set in pay it creates no incentive to do a good job. If I am going to get 100k a year no matter what, why bust my ass?

 

[Kregener]

Ask all the Canadian nurses working in America why socialized medicine is bad.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

guys theres absolutely nothing wrong with socialized medicine. We should have to pay for the bad health decisions poor people make (highest obesity rate among American demographics) because we are wealthier and the poor therefore are more important from a morally self-righteous standpoint. Take acre of the poor first, who cares about the rest of society amirite? It hurts the feelings of the poor people when the rich greedy money hoarding bastards get better care, so we need to bring them down tot he level of the poor. Forget about economic mobility and the principles America was founded upn of everyone man having the freedom to move up, no, lets just create a system that brings everyone down the the level of the poor. But at the same time lets not address the real problems afflicting the poor such as inflation and the income tax and corporate welfare/fascism and stuff, because then there would not be as many poor people and thus we would not have as large a voter base to draw from. Same with the black peopl we need to keep them in the mentality that the state owes them and they need the states help and that they as black people who were enslaved 140 years ago are entitiled to it etc just like the poor people. And the gay people need their rights as well btu anyways we need to make sure society is tailored to the poor, btu we need to keep it that way, we have no need for a system that is utilitarian and fair for all, only a system that is "fair" and for the "common man" cuse liek i said we need votes amirite?

Signed,
~A democrat

 

[jb4ronpaul]

Individual charity always increases under freedom and decreases under socialism. I have seen a study that shows this, but it is common sense. Under socialism you grow the "that's someone elses job to take care of him" attitude. Individual free Americans do a much better job of taking care of lesser fortunate people than a socialist welfare state. The ultimate motivation of a government welfare state is not to actually help people, but to make them more dependent, to need you more. Individual charitable Americans want to actually help people, and that is why Dr. Paul says nobody was ever turned away from a hospital until the government go involved. Healthcare used to be affordable. More freedom always works no matter what issue you are dealing with, more corporatism or socialism always hurts no matter what issue you are dealing with.

 

[constituent]

Medicine has to turn its back from chemistry, and move toward biology, so does mankind.

 

[ChooseLiberty]

(I should probably add at this point that IMO the socialized medicine issue, like gay marriage and all the other bizarre issues is a canard meant to distract the sheeple from the real issues like preemptive war, the encroaching police state and invasion.)


3 Billion, eh? Iraq War under George "the retarded" Bush - $500 Billion and counting (that we know of, probably will end up being more like $1 Trillion). Not counting increase military subsidies to Israel.

Do you have any idea how much illegal aliens cost hospitals across the Southwest (the ones that are still open that is)? IIRC it's at least $1 billion/year in Texas alone.

There was a recent report - within the last six months - that revealed the horrible debt France is suffering because of their socialized healthcare system. I believe it exceeds 3 billion.

 

[ChooseLiberty]

Hundreds of hospitals across the US have closed due to illegal aliens. Somehow Toronto's situation doesn't seem so bad.

I could write a book about our current health care system and how it would get worse with universal health care. In Toronto, tons of hospitals have had to close. Doctors and nurses and coming over the border to work. Their salaries are set, excellency is not rewarded. Because the gov't controls health care, they control your treatment when it should be decided by you and your doctor. People have to wait for months on end to start cancer treatments. The fact that the Canadian gov't had outlawed private practices shows they do not like competition.

 

[ChooseLiberty]

Ok I see there's a lot of theoretical free market dogmaticism about socialized medicine out there. I'm going for pragmatism. Are there any current examples of a free market medical system working in a first world country (the US still qualifies for now at least)?

So we have some anecdotal evidence about the bad bad socialized medicine. People seem to have some complaints about Canada's system, but they seem to be maybe upper middle class that could afford private doctors but couldn't afford to drive to the US. Or maybe they had to wait for months to get a hangnail removed. Is that right?

On the other hand we have the current system with no prices disclosed, administered by third parties, where the hospitals are closing, the doctors are quitting practice, etc. etc.

The conservatards always use Canada as an example, but they never use, say, Switzerland or Sweden or Germany or Japan or Australia or New Zealand, etc. etc. In fact, I'd much rather go to a Swiss hospital under their system than even an American hospital with all it's crap load off bureaucrats and constant stream of mistakes by nurses and doctors.

Ever wonder why? I know people in Australia are very healthy except for vegemite. LOL.