Help me understand "Socialized Medicine"

[constituent]

my issue w/ gov't run healthcare is what would happen in the case of the ministry of health developing, testing, and distributing the next thalidamide. do you think we'd be able to sue the gov't? probably not. and if so, you wouldn't win.

people would be warning for years and years and the media would ignore the reports. you would complain to your doctor but they would say it was perfectly safe... you'd give it to your children.

this can happen w/ the system we have now and does (vioxx, etc.), but there is some degree of recourse. the big thing is that government needs to get the hell out of people's business. what one person wants to use as a remedy or treatment is their business. now, if they want to fund a non-profit entity that researches the efficacy of treatments and their safety that people could turn to for advice...

but otherwise, the gov't and insurance companies are the problem. more of either will solve nothing [.]

 

[noxagol]

No there is no 1st world country with free-market health care, not even us. IT IS NOT FREE MARKET. It is regulated by the government in some really bad ways, I do not know which.

Competition is best and government ruins competition.

 

[synapz]

I would argue that Canada's medical system does more for the average and poor joe than the American system. I would argue that the early stages of socialized systems are better for the average and poor joe than corporatism (current American Medical System).

I would also argue that a true free market system would beat the hell out of both of them.

 

[sickmint79]

please critique the following blog i wrote...

http://www.timeofdeceit.com/?p=8

 

[save the constitution]

See the movie Sicko to get an idea of what it's like.
Those oponents you see on tv are just lobbyists for the health care and insurance industries cause they never guve you real resons just crap.

 

[Broadlighter]

No current examples exist

for free-market health care because there are no true free-market economies in the first world. If we can look to the past, the U.S. had more of a free-market health-care system that worked quite well. That happened before medicare and medicaid. The truth about Michael Moore's Sicko portrayal of free-market health care is that Michael Moore wouldn't know a free-market if it walked up and bit him in the ass.

If you are looking for a pragmatic solution, the problem with pragmatism is that it is always practical for someone, but not always everyone. It's a confusion of semantics because for many the word 'pragmatism' means how things actually get done, but more often than not, it only benefits a few and maybe enough people for that pragmatic solution to perpetuate itself. The Federal Reserve has given us a 'pragmatic' monetary system. Adjusting the inflation rate to accelerate or slow down the economy is a a very practical thing to do. Does that make it right? Try asking someone who lived through the Great Depression.

Socialized anything is a principal problem, although it can be a practical way to help people get health care. Over time, principals will win out over pragmatism. People will do whatever they need to do to survive and that usually means reverting to free-market activity. An example of this would be a person going to a specialist or alternative health practitioner and paying him under the table instead of filling out forms and waiting for weeks to see his government issued physician just to treat a cold. The free-market in principal is the most practical (read pragmatic) way to do things. Dependence on government tends to obscure that fact of life because people get lulled into believing that that is the way things get done.

 

[fsk]

If we can look to the past, the U.S. had more of a free-market health-care system that worked quite well. That happened before medicare and medicaid.

Correction: The US had a free market health-care system that worked before the government got involved in licensing doctors and restricting the supply of doctors.

 

[sickmint79]

i was wondering how good it was in the past before; ie. wasn't there some issue going on that caused the creation of HMOs to try and help in the fist place?

 

[angelatc]

http://www.afcm.org/historyofhmos.html - sums it up nicely. HMOs were a bipartisian solution.

 

[DocGrimes]

I have to say that socialized medicine is not the answer. In the original post the point was raised about becoming socialized med being more efficient over our current system.

What this really points out is just how messed up our current heavily regulated system has become. We do not have a free market for healthcare by any means. As pointed out by others you have professions that have lobbied for laws that limit competition.

Then we have the added complications of insurance companies (and their regulatory efforts) and even government subsidies.

As a doctor myself I find that there are many factors that have went into the very overpriced nature of 'health care' in our country. Not the least of which is that when clients are not paying the bills then doctors are able to raise (pad) prices. Since it isn't coming directly out of their pockets most patients don't care. Then insurance companies which are in the money making industry and not really in the business of helping folks stay healthy must make policy changes to cut costs ie cut benifits, raise premiums, raise deductibles and copays, ect. So we end up with a system of doctors and insurance companies working around pricing to take advantage of the other, not to mention all the administrative costs associated with this finagling on both sides.

Sorry, bit of a ramble there but it is to illustrate that the problem we are facing now is that we are given the option to continue with this heavily regulated and failing system we currently have or to start a form of socialized care. Both are loosing propositions.

What we really need is to deregulate care. If we doctor's had more competition, even non-licensed, it would go a long way to cut costs. Market forces can fix this though it would not be painless, but then none of our choices are painless.

We are already steadily and strongly stepping towards a nationalized healthcare, especially with the HIPPA laws (which actually hurt your privacy and complicate the ability to give care).

Throwing money at this issue will not fix it. Throwing competition into the mix and deregulating would apply some serious market forces.

 

[fletcher]

Have I stepped into bizarro world? People arguing for much more government control and more taxes. Calling people that believe in the Constitution conservatards and telling others ta watch socialist propaganda like Sicko. What is going on here?

 

[ChooseLiberty]

It's called a discussion. It's what happens with free speech. Maybe you're not familiar with it.

Have I stepped into bizarro world? People arguing for much more government control and more taxes. Calling people that believe in the Constitution conservatards and telling others ta watch socialist propaganda like Sicko. What is going on here?

 

[Colleen]

First off, I think the term Universal Healthcare is deceptive. What it represents to me is the ultimate marriage between government and the pharmaceutical cartels. I have a very different philosophy of health which came as a result of curing myself of cancer with absolutely no help - other than diagnostic testing - from the allopathic healthcare system in America. This was my CHOICE. What I am concerned about is the overwhelming lack of information regarding varied options for acheiving and maintaining health in America.

I am concerned that a government contract biologist, Dr Hulda Clark, had her cheap clinic shut down - having found effective remedies in nature and bioelectric medicine - having a 98% cure-rate in the treatment of cancer and AIDS. She suddenly became a quack, in the eyes of the government from whose health establishment she had retired with honors. I am concerned that we are told by the selfsame government talking heads that it is for our own good that these brilliant researchers cannot provide care for the needy and the uninsured, using tecniques which cost pennies a day, because the treatments have not been approved by the FDA and the AMA. 'Oh really? You mean to tell me they have a problem with someone who chooses, either by default or necessity, an alternative treatment modality? But I thought saving money was part of the goal here?? '

I only have accident insurance. It is a wise investment for me. I do not use drugs because I have known the medicinal uses of herbs and optimal dietary rules for health as outlined in 6X Nobel Prize nominated researcher, Dr Johanna Budwig's interferon diet. The body can cure itself of anything if given the proper tools. Why do we not hear about these alternative inexpensive methods? It is a simple matter of not being told. And why are we not being told? Because big pharma has a monopoly on health information.

Michael Moore is completely missing the whole point regarding health and what it means. To me, a universal healthcare system would encompass freedom of choice of all healing modalities; not just the ones the politicians have decided are right for me. But one cannot have freedom of choice without accurate info as to what the choices are. This is what is seriously lacking in the discourse in the MSM & political realms, not to mention the medical schools which receive grant monies and kickbacks to tow the party line of big pharmas stranglehold on the whole system.

I want to see access to information on all available treatments for a disease process. The pros, cons and expenses of each one, and allow me to make an informed decision as to the one which works best for me. I would ask each one of you who truly cares about health for all to take a look at what is in store for us all in the very near future via the UN sponsored global mandate known as Codex Alimentarius.

Unless we wake up and elect someone like Ron Paul - who is very much against UN agendas which seek to classify vitamins and herbs as drugs to be licensed and controlled as any other pharmaceutical, then the whole ideal of 'universal healthcare' is well on the way of becoming just one more Orwellian universal nightmare

 

[Ozwest]

We have "scialised medicine" in Australia and for the most part, it works well. All consultations and medical procedures are fully covered. Costs for these services is negotiated directly between providers and the government. No middle men. The government uses its purchasing power as leverage against the drug companies to ensure favourable price outcomes. Point of sale purchases are generously subsidised by the government. Is this system perfect? No. Like anything, this system is tax payer funded. Australia has a population of 20 million probably making it easier for us to watch the money trail. Would Ron Pauls health care stategies work? Yes. Consumer driven medicine forces competition in the market place. Medical and Insurance providers would lower prices to meet the expectations of consumers. Eliminate the "cosy" relationship between government and drug companies whilst eliminating trade barriers on Pharmecuticals and prescription costs would plummet. Either system has got to be better than the one going now. My 2 cents.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

It's called a discussion. It's what happens with free speech. Maybe you're not familiar with it.

Yeah but conservatards was a bit much. Discussion does not mean disparaging. If you want your discussion to be taken seriously, you approach your opponents with a certain level of respect, at least enough respect to not call them some perjorative name. Sure, you have the right to do that, but it invalidates any of the validity of your discussion for most people simply by your show of immaturity. (this is in reference to the OP)

 

[Colleen]

Codex Alimentarius

Ozzwest,

Codex Alimentarius is a globalist agenda. Without regard for borders. Here are just a few examples of how it is operating there in the beautiful land down under:

Alternative Medicine Reforms in Australia, the Codex, and Pan

Dr Mercola: The Codex Conundrum and How it Affects Supplements in America

Tim Bolen: Codex Alimentarius: Big Pharma's Attempt to Subjugate Planet Earth...

The NHF: Codex Breaks its Own Rules!

The Vitamin Police Are Suiting Up
The bureaucrats know that if it were ever to come to a vote, voters in most nations will affirm their right to be left alone when it comes to vitamins. The war has therefore moved from politics to bureaucratic agreements. The war is about to escalate.

News with Views: KISS YOUR VITAMINS GOODBYE!

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sep...limentarius_and_transtasman_harmonization.htm

 

[Ozwest]

Colleen, Yes there is disscussion happening now. We are not immune from the forces of big Pharma. Eternal vigilance is always required.

 

[Colleen]

Ozwest,

Eternal vigilance Let us ever remain so. We need to inform ourselves because the big dogs are not doing the job to our advantage.

 

[Ozwest]

Colleen, Its not the dog in the fight.. it's the fight in the dog. Ron Paul supporters are tough little puppies.

 

[Colleen]

Ozwest,

We're just mad as hell & not gonna take it anymore!

So glad to see so many abroad taking an interest in his campaign! This is a very good thing and we appreciate all of our friends down underand elsewhere!