Socialized Healthcare Medicine: Pros And Cons

[Mark F. Barnes]

Since I am so tired of all the Politics over who's going to be President, and baiting, name calling, I wanted to start a topic, that does involve politics, because it will have to be voted in through Congress. The President cannot just wave a magic wand and make it happen. However this is something I want discussed seriously, because there is a possibility of it being approached by the next possible administration. Even though we've had Democratic Presidents before, it still hasn't happened yet, and I honestly don't think it ever will, but it's always used as a way to sway electoral votes, ad it's never delivered.

But for arguments sake want ear your Pros and Cons of a Socialized Medical System as the Democrats are always claiming they will deliver.

I personally see no upside to it. I personally believe you get what you pay for. You want top quality mechanic work, you hire the best money can buy. You want the best heart surgeon, up until a few months ago you hired DeBakey. NOW whoever the top gun is, you hire him or her.

There have been several HAIF members, call for a system like Canada has. Some have called for others. I personally think it will bring the quality of care down. Stump speeches are always bringing up other countries and how good it is. Well I can tell you from traveling all over the world, and socialized health care has a severe downside when it comes to quality of care. The only reason you see someone go outside the US for health-care, is because they are getting treatments for something that the treatments aren't legal here in the US for whatever reason. I can tell you right now if Emir Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, has to have a specialized heart surgery, he will be flown to Houston, and it will be done there. Why, because it is known around the world as the foremost center for heart surgery, period. I will ask him Monday when I speak with him if you like, but I already know the answer to the question, because when his father had to have work done, DeBakey himself performed the surgery. Think about my point before you answer, what do you think will happen to highly specialized medicine, if the government takes over the system and sets their own rates and regulations? It will move elsewhere, where they can practice without the regulations, that's what. If you think not then explain what will keep them from it. I just think if it was ever put in place the way Obama wants it, we would lose quality of care. That's my main concern.

I don't want to talk about taxes, or Marxism, or anything but Socialized Medicine. Anything else take it to another thread.

Thanks

[memebag]

I thought we already did a thread on this. I recommend the Frontline episode "Sick Around the World". They used to have it online, but now there's a page error.

The nut is that other countries have figured out how to pay less for better care for more people. We need to steal their ideas and make the US healthier. It will lower the amount of our GDP that goes for healthcare and reduce the cost of doing business in the US. My favorites are Italy, Germany, Australia and Japan.

[wernicke]

Well you claim to want to exclude partisan politics, then make a patently false statement about what the Democrats have proposed regarding healthcare... "Pros and Cons of a Socialized Medical System as the Democrats are always claiming they will deliver."

I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about. Obama wants to expand employer-based coverage (private insurance), and utilize government-based coverage if a citizen cannot get health insurance through a provider.

No one ever talks about implementing socialized medicine (certainly not Obama or mainstream Democrats)... which would involve the US government dissolving the entire private health insurance industry in favor of a single-payor system. This simply would never happen in the US, so you are essentially building up a Straw Man to beat down on this issue.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Okay Mem answer me this, if the Socialized medicine is so great everywhere else and ours is so bad, why when it comes to highly specialized surgeries, and treatment, do they flock from all over the world to come here and get it?

Remember like I said, before you answer, my question is quality of care in the highly specialized medicine, we are not talking flu shots and basic wellness. If you try and regulate highly specialized medicine, they will go elsewhere to practice, where they can command top dollar for what they do. And if for some reason they cardio specialists and vascular surgeons that do stick around, are not going to be the A-Team players, you are then setting for second best. Is this what you want? Because that's the way I see it playing out. What is the incentive for these top of the line specialists to stick around? Not their Hippocratic oath I can tell you that. The almighty dollar is the only thing that will keep them around, and their free ability to charge it and collect it.

So address that directly and not generalize it with some obscure article about how good it is in Canada and England, yet people from all over the world come here for the top end treatments.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Well you claim to want to exclude partisan politics, then make a patently false statement about what the Democrats have proposed regarding healthcare... "Pros and Cons of a Socialized Medical System as the Democrats are always claiming they will deliver."

I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about. Obama wants to expand employer-based coverage (private insurance), and utilize government-based coverage if a citizen cannot get health insurance through a provider.

No one ever talks about implementing socialized medicine (certainly not Obama or mainstream Democrats)... which would involve the US government dissolving the entire private health insurance industry in favor of a single-payor system. This simply would never happen in the US, so you are essentially building up a Straw Man to beat down on this issue.

Then explain this:

Obama (as quoted by the Wall Street Journal, Aug. 19): If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system. ... [M]y attitude is let

[N Judah]

So address that directly and not generalize it with some obscure article about how good it is in Canada and England, yet people from all over the world come here for the top end treatments.

I think they just come here for really specialized stuff they can't find anywhere else.

For the stuff you can get anywhere, even people in this country will go to other countries to get treated.

It's all about specialization, division of labor, etc. I would *hope* we have stuff that can't be found anywhere else -- after all, we spend a greater percentage of our GDP on health care than anyone!

[editor]

There are certain things in life that make sense to have as a capitalistic, competitive enterprise -- canned tomatoes, or television networks, or coffee shops for example.

There are other things that work best with one entity in charge -- residential tap water delivery, national defense, toll roads.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that maybe healthcare would work better in the second category for a couple of reasons.

• First, with a single entity in charge (whether the government or a private company that bid highest for a limited-term government contract) it reduces the points of failure, and makes it simpler for the end users to know what the policies are. It (should) also contribute cost reductions through the sheer size of the entity (bargaining for cheaper drug costs, etc...), and provides a single villain for congress, the public, and regulators to go after if they're dissatisfied.
  
• Second, competition as it exists today isn't working. For the average American there is no true competition because the average American cannot afford to purchase his own health insurance. Instead, he has to choose from the one or two options offered by his employer. And even when there's more than one choice offered the employee can be forced to wait a year or more for "open enrollment" to make a change. Competition only works when changes can be made swiftly or immediately.
  

As for the political angle -- part of the reason I'm still undecided between Obama and McCain is that neither has given me a viable health care option.

I watched the last debate very closely specifically for information on this issue because my wife and I are part of the nation's 40+million uninsured people. Here's what I got from watching the candidates:

• Obama: Every time health care came up the first thing he said was that he would let me keep my employer health care. Well, that's great, but my employer doesn't offer health care. Neither does my wife's employer. In fact, of our five geographically closest friends, only one has an employer who offers health care. Obama only talks about expanding employer-provided health care, I guess to combat the notion that he might force everyone into government health care. But while he's playing defense doing that he completely failed to address people without any healthcare. So, no points for Obama there from me.
  
• McCain: Promised a $5,000(/year?) tax credit to purchase health care coverage. This is a start... sort of. From the shopping around I've done, $5,000 is enough to buy reasonable health care coverage for myself, or a reduced level of health insurance for myself and my wife. But the problem with the McCain plan is that it's a tax credit. I don't need a tax credit. What I need is a check or a voucher or something up front that I can use to buy the health care on the front end, not something that I can use to deduct the expense from my taxes on the back end. If people had $5,000 to spend up front on health insurance... then they'd have health insurance already! So, though McCain seems to be on the right track, still no points awarded.
  

I'm sure that both candidates have plans for the uninsured outlined somewhere deep in a policy paper on their web sites. But you know what -- I don't believe it if it's just on some web site. You can write anything on the internet and then just erase it later. What I want is for both candidates to go on national television and tell me and the other 40 million uninsured people what they're going to do. Make a public pledge. I don't have to agree with it, but at least say something. And say it in plain language, and don't hedge your pledges with phrases like "we're going to look at" or "we'll try to provide." Do something, or don't do something. Make a choice.

[musicman]

What I want is for both candidates to go on national television and tell me and the other 40 million uninsured people what they're going to do. Make a public pledge. I don't have to agree with it, but at least say something. And say it in plain language, and don't hedge your pledges with phrases like "we're going to look at" or "we'll try to provide." Do something, or don't do something. Make a choice.

what they're going to do is easy. how to pay for it is a different beast.

if you have insurance, the doctors already bill the company more than if you pay cash....at least the ones i've been to. i know when i didn't have insurance, my doctor was very open to lowering the price considerably and also giving you free meds. that for $48/visit. all i had to do was explain the situation and that was his offer. i think that is very reasonable and more people should at least ask.

of course i'm only talking common ailments.

[editor]

what they're going to do is easy. how to pay for it is a different beast.

if you have insurance, the doctors already bill the company more than if you pay cash....at least the ones i've been to. i know when i didn't have insurance, my doctor was very open to lowering the price considerably and also giving you free meds. that for $48/visit. all i had to do was explain the situation and that was his offer. i think that is very reasonable and more people should at least ask.

of course i'm only talking common ailments.

I think that gets to the crux of the problem -- the cost. I'd like basic healthcare to be affordable so that people wouldn't need insurance to cover things like checkups and colds and other basic procedures. Sure, have health insurance to pay for catastrophic events like cancer or a car crash. But basic healthcare should be something that you can pay for out of your pocket.

I don't mind paying $30 or $40 or maybe even $50 for the annual physical. But my last few annual physicals were all well over $200. Or at least that's what the doctor billed the insurance companies. It's ridiculous. The last time I went to a doctor was for a sinus infection. The visit was something like $85 just to walk in the room, plus "diagnostic fees."

Interestingly, the free market seems to feel my pain. Several of the CVSes and Walgreen's and even the grocery stores in my area have opened cheap-o health clinics inside the store, and you can see the price list so you know what your treatment is ahead of time, so you don't have to worry and wonder and delay.

My wife got her flu shot at her doctor's office when she had insurance last month. It cost her $32 out of pocket, plus $40 billed to the insurance company. I got my flu shot a week later at Dominick's (sister supermarket to Randall's) for $25 flat.

[sevfiv]

The other recent topic was about ending for-profit health insurance:

http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...c=17447&hl=

I think that for most non-elective procedures, a national/non-profit system is the most humane answer. For profit health insurance, imo, is just...wrong. I think it's going to take a looong time for most people to warm up to ideas like this though. Most people don't know what non-profit means as a method of conducting business, and the government doesn't have the greatest track record of responsibilty (so why would we trust it to give us a corrupt-free product).

It's simple, though. Privatization of certain things is just gross.

[musicman]

But basic healthcare should be something that you can pay for out of your pocket.

i have a feeling that a majority who support a govt backed plan wouldn't like your statement.

[memebag]

Okay Mem answer me this, if the Socialized medicine is so great everywhere else and ours is so bad, why when it comes to highly specialized surgeries, and treatment, do they flock from all over the world to come here and get it?

People are flocking here from Germany, Italy, Australia and Japan? I haven't seen it. Sources?

Likewise, if you have evidence that the US is draining top medical specialists from those countries with the lure of the almighty dollar, I'd love to see it.

[memebag]

There are certain things in life that make sense to have as a capitalistic, competitive enterprise -- canned tomatoes, or television networks, or coffee shops for example.

There are other things that work best with one entity in charge -- residential tap water delivery, national defense, toll roads.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that maybe healthcare would work better in the second category for a couple of reasons.

I've come to the same conclusion. When I was young I believed the free market could solve any problem. Now I see that it is great at finding local maxima, but often fails for problems with larger scope. I've also come to realize that keeping the profit motive away from the foundations of society protects them, lowering risk, which in turn fuels innovation and development. If you're constantly worrying about how much melamine is in your milk, how long your bank will remain solvent or what that bump on your nads might be, it's hard to devote your attention to producing the next must-have widget.

The problem with this position is it's complicated. It's easy to say the free market solves everything, or that government control solves everything. It's much harder to say that we have to think about each issue and weigh the potential cost and benefit. Ideologues will always have an upper hand at swaying supporters because of the simplicity of their message. Most people don't want to hear that life and government are complicated.

[editor]

People are flocking here from Germany, Italy, Australia and Japan? I haven't seen it. Sources?

Not average people, but people who can afford to pay for their own healthcare and want the best care. The only reason the crappy airport in Rochester, Minnesota is an "international" airport is because of all the jets belonging to rich people from the Middle East, Europe, and Asia who fly in to be treated at the Mayo Clinic. And not just life-saving treatments; there are more than a few sheiks who go there for their regular checkups.

s o u r c e s . .

The same is true to Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, the Cleveland Clinic in... Cleveland, and Memorial Sloan-Kettering and several other hospitals in New York

s o u r c e s . . .

[editor]

Likewise, if you have evidence that the US is draining top medical specialists from those countries with the lure of the almighty dollar, I'd love to see it.

Germany

Italy

Australia

South Africa

Austria

I even found a graphic.

Google is your friend.

[memebag]

Not average people, but people who can afford to pay for their own healthcare and want the best care. The only reason the crappy airport in Rochester, Minnesota is an "international" airport is because of all the jets belonging to rich people from the Middle East, Europe, and Asia who fly in to be treated at the Mayo Clinic. And not just life-saving treatments; there are more than a few sheiks who go there for their regular checkups.

s o u r c e s . .

The same is true to Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, the Cleveland Clinic in... Cleveland, and Memorial Sloan-Kettering and several other hospitals in New York

s o u r c e s . . .

I'm OK with the US providing worse health care for Sheiks and foreign millionaires in exchange for providing better health care for the majority of US citizens. That's a trade off I can live with.

Germany

Italy

Australia

South Africa

Austria

I even found a graphic.

Google is your friend.

And yet these nations continue to train and employ doctors who provide their citizens with cheaper health care and help them live longer lives. I'm also OK with US doctors taking a pay cut to bring them in line with the rest of the world. Looks like the citizens of Germany, Spain and Denmark might benefit from that, too.

[Mark F. Barnes]

I strongly sugget you read the Bio of Michael DeBakey, he not only cared for Duke of Windsor, the Shah of Iran, King Hussein of Jordan, President Turgut Ozal of Turkey, a Nicaraguan leader, Violetta Chamorro, Boris Yeltsin, Aristotle Onassis.

"Dr. DeBakey's reputation brought many people into this institution, and he treated them all: heads of state, entertainers, businessmen and presidents, as well as people with no titles and no means," said Ron Girotto, president of The Methodist Hospital System.

He performed more than 60,000 heart surgeries during his 70 year career, His patients ranged from penniless peasants from the Third World to such famous figures as the Duke of Windsor, the Shah of Iran, King Hussein of Jordan, Turkish President Turgut Ozal, Nicaraguan Leader Violetta Chamorro and Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. But he said celebrities don't get special treatment on the operating table: "Once you incise the skin, you find that they are all very similar.''

I'm betting that out of those 60K plus surgeries, they weren't all heads of states and celebrates. He did tireless Pro Bo-no work. And that's just his work, what about all the other high end specialists in the US? It's those high paying clients that offset the charity cases that can't pay.

[ricco67]

People are flocking here from Germany, Italy, Australia and Japan? I haven't seen it. Sources?

Likewise, if you have evidence that the US is draining top medical specialists from those countries with the lure of the almighty dollar, I'd love to see it.

Then you need to go to MD Anderson and do a quickie poll for yourself. I have met people from several countries that are in Houston JUST to get Medical care.

If that isn't enough for you, why do you think Debakey operated on the (then) Russian President Boris Yeltzin? Before you outright dismiss information, you should be prepared to give a counter list.

Personally, I'm all good about paying for the day to day ailments, but I am like Ed, I'd like some of the more expensive procedures and annual exams to be covered, but with a reasonable deduction. I think paying $500 or so for a procedure that would cost $10k is quite reasonable.

[westguy]

I even found a graphic.

Google is your friend.

Lawsuit abuse. It's driving all US doctors into the poor house.

[Heights2Bastrop]

I disagree with the contention that Socialized Medicine won’t work in the US. Not only can it, it does work. I can attest to that.

I go to the VA clinic in Austin, and I have never had better care in my life. When I have an appointment, I am usually out the door within 30 minutes of my appointment time. In some cases, I get called early and I am gone even before my appointment time.

However, the services I receive are limited. They will do a coloscan test where you submit fecal samples, but they won’t do a colonoscopy. I have had kidney surgery twice to have large stones cut out, and I had my shattered wrist and torn rotator cuff repaired after a fall. Yet they won’t remove a planter’s wart from my toe.

I am relatively healthy, and I have had few special needs outside of the mentioned surgeries, so I don’t know what the limits of available care are.

But that’s the way I see Socialized Medicine – it should cover the basic care and emergencies, and focus mainly on preventive care. Things like organ transplants would have to be covered under private insurance.

The medical profession is out of control. Costs are prohibitive, and thus insurance premiums are outrageous. If the government is going to supplement insurance costs, then all they are doing is supporting high medical costs.

Instead of providing the insurance, why not provide the care instead. It would be a hellova lot more cost effective that way.

Edited October 19, 2008 by Heights2Bastrop

[TexasVines]

the problem with anything the US government gets involved in is that there is zero incentive to control cost....so I just simply 100% do not believe it will lower cost especially for those who actually work and produce

second once the government is involved there is ZERO chance that someone will be told no.....because no matter how many people tell them there is 99.99999999% the procedure will not help them they will still demand it because they are not going to pay for it and then vilify the government if they don't get it

third giving the US public something for nothing means that a large % of them will just abuse the hell out of it....if all you have to do is go to doctor after doctor at no cost to you who knows how many "disabled" people the US will end up with.....we already have enough of this abuse with private insurers that investigate these things.....just like in example #2 do you really trust the US government to go out and catch people that have a broken back yet work construction for cash or any number of other abuses

fourth if you were in the car business would you consider giving your customers long term free maintenance and repairs at no cost to them and with no accountability for what is damaged or broken....hell no because you would be broke in a week because 65%+ of the buyers would drive their cars like a rented mule and then drag it in for a rebuild.....same thing with health care......a lot of people in the USA wear things down to hell and then either toss it out or pay all at one time to get it totally rebuilt......they will do the same with their health.....do you really think people will go to the doctor regularly for ANYTHING if they know all they have to do is fight through it and then go in when when it has knocked them off of their feet....people in the USA will not go for a teeth cleaning every 6 months they will walk in one day crying with a mouth full of rotten teeth and expect a whole brand new grill when they leave....if told no they will cry endlessly

fifth there is a large part of the US population that already pays nothing to live in the greatest country on earth in the form of income taxes.....because they believe that the government is paid for from thin air or the government owes them or they just plain hate the USA and abuse it every chance they get......these are the people that are already killing this country with 4-5 kids when they were on welfare and section 8 after the first kid.....you think it is bad now wait until even more is "free".....as it is now it is too bad for their kids, but at least all that is provided is the BARE minimum........if the government 100% takes over they will still wait until their kids brains are running out their ears before they rush them in for a "check up" and then they will demand the same treatment as everyone else and demand to be first......"because they live here too and they ain't gonna be told no by no one".....seriously in a country full to the brim of dead beat dads and crack moms having second through 12th kids while already on welfare does anyone but a total fool think these parents will suddenly care about their kids health when everything is free.....hell everything is already free for them now and they don't care....just wait until the government tells them they can expect and demand the same as everyone else.....hell huge portions of parent(s) can't even find a way to send their kids to school having been grazed so we have school breakfast and only chumps and suckas send their kids to school with a lunch or lunch money and now we even feed them in the summer.....where the hell do the food stamps go.....they get those too, but the kids still come to school hungry...of course the kids and parent(s) are often fat as a cow.....but we keep feeding them and we do ZERO to restrict them from buying anything, but total crap

I worked in a convenience store while in college right at the time that the LoneStarCard was coming out.....I remember hearing dumbass politicians talk about taking away the "dignity" of allowing people to have a little change in their pocket.....this as I WORKED at a convenience store and cut lawns with a friend (basically to help him out after he wrecked his truck) and most of my college was covered because my parents saved for me to go to school.....and all the while in that C store daily people would come in with 2-4 kids and give each two one dollar food stamps to buy a nickel piece of candy with and then the parent did the same and then took all those 95 cents and bought beer and cigarettes.....the two per day limit was a policy that OUR STORE IMPLEMENTED because the government had NO RULES for that.....another store down the road that had an owner that did not give a damn would let people spend all they had as long as they bought 50 cents worth of stuff with each.....so "families" of 3-4 kids would eat 25 cent bags of chips for dinner so their parents could buy beer and cigarettes.....and then I have to hear some liberal dirt bag talk about the "dignity" of these poor people having their pocket change taken away.....I should have gone to Austin and beat the hag that said that with a bat.....the LoneStarCard still gets abused, but now it is much harder to do...and these are the people you want to give free health care to with the idea they will be "equal" to everyone else in their level of care......HELL NO!!!!!

it might suck for the kids, but life ain't fair and that is what happens with deadbeat parents.....how about health care for everyone that shows up 6 hours a day and picks up trash to a certain amount and scrubs graffiti and mows ROW areas and does the other crap that we need to make this country look better again.....I bet it would cut down on the number of fun babies as well

I am basically tired of waiting to have kids until I can afford them and be a PROPER parent to them while our country rushes to further reward people that have not and never will give a damn......how about we start free health care with a free vasectomy and a free tubal ligation for people that have a second child while presently on any type of government support....oh wait no we can't abuse their rights.....but we think nothing of taking from the responsible to reward the irresponsible in society and it is dragging this country to hell

we have to draw the line somewhere and health care is it with me.....the BARE minimum with long waits while in pain for only what will barely keep them alive to commit more abuse against society is all I can tolerate now I will sure as hell don't want them put on equal footing with those that are responsible and produce especially with the government in charge.....if we start with the forced vasectomies and tubal ligations and work from there once the dead beat population is in check.....along with FORCED government service......then MAYBE.....but until we FORCE and DEMAND people to produce for society then hell no the free ride ends where it is now and we should actively pull back on what we already give along with actively FORCING people to pick up trash and scrub graffiti and shovel ____ and anything else that even the most basic idiot can perform....until then NO MORE!

and we need to chop the lil johnny edwards trial lawyers off at the knees....it has already attracted a FLOOD of doctors into Texas......there is no way in hell I would allow anyone on government care to sue for ANYTHING....PERIOD....no matter what happened or how bad it was.....you want to sue participate in the free market....you want the government to hand it to you then LIVE WITH THE RESULTS PERIOD.....no matter what happened period

Edited October 19, 2008 by TexasVines

[RedScare]

That post was....AWESOME!!!!

[Heights2Bastrop]

the problem with anything the US government gets involved in is that there is zero incentive to control cost....so I just simply 100% do not believe it will lower cost especially for those who actually work and produce

I saw a report years ago (possibly 60 Minutes) where they compared what the VA charged versus what Medicare/Medicaid (not sure which) charged. Of the examples given, one was for the same bandage. The VA charged something like 17

[N Judah]

and most of my college was covered because my parents saved for me to go to school

I stopped reading after this part.

[RedScare]

I stopped reading after this part.

It does seem to contradict his message, doesn't it?

[editor]

I agree that if the government is given total control over the system that it is ripe for abuse. But then again, so is our current system where health care CEOs make $50 million a year while their companies fight to pass laws so they don't have to cover $10 life-saving pap smears.

The difference between the two is that one system is abused by the patients while the other is abused by the providers.

Maybe if the GAO had some teeth or the FDA was funded at an appropriate level then the watchdogs could do their jobs.

[Heights2Bastrop]

I don

[memebag]

I don't see a contradiction at all. His entire post was about people who abuse the system, and why people like that would make Socialized Medicine unworkable.

I don't read TV's posts, so I'll respond to your summation.

If we can't make socialized medicine work, why can other countries do it? Is it something wrong with our ability to govern, or something about our citizens that makes them ungovernable?

[houstonmacbro]

No one ever talks about implementing socialized medicine (certainly not Obama or mainstream Democrats)... which would involve the US government dissolving the entire private health insurance industry in favor of a single-payor system. This simply would never happen in the US, so you are essentially building up a Straw Man to beat down on this issue.

And I think this is key. There are a lot of doctors, hospitals, and drug companies that would go berserk if that ever came to pass.

[Heights2Bastrop]

I agree that if the government is given total control over the system that it is ripe for abuse.

But, that