- This topic has 54 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 3 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Why do you think that the Libs are pushing it?
I remember when we didn’t have any of those things.
Do you think that it’s good?Well look at other Countries that have Socialized Medicine.
It used to be e/o would run to the US for Medical care & they still do.
This will change because of Socialized Medicine!The Libs/DemonCrats are all for it.
You know why?
Because it makes them look good for a lot of people that didn’t have insurance.
They get More votes.
In other Countries they hate Socialized Medicine.
The level of care ain’t Great!
This will happen here.And what could go wrong – if e/o has insurance?
The reality is No country can Afford it.
Not only will medical care be like other Countries that have Socialized Medicine, with Poor Care, but there’s something else.
If the US can’t afford it, how do they do it?
You people have been Conned by the Libs!
What they do is – they give e/o insurance, but they Don’t cover All procedures, tests, imaging.
So you people that vote for the Lib, Leftists – do you really think it’s better than Before?!?Here’s why government healthcare is being pushed so hard. Try to think if these agendas sound familiar. [Eight] Rules for radicals (by Saul Alinsky) that will lead to socialism:
Control Healthcare
Increase Poverty
Increase national debt/taxes, which will create more poverty
Gun Control
Welfare (control all aspects of people’s lives – food, housing, income)
Education
Religion (remove religion from schools)
Create Class warfareSocialized medicine in the U.S.? Try the Veterans Administration. All of the facilities are owned by the government and all of the health care workers are government employees. Medicine doesn’t get any more socialized than that. as a Vet, I’ve used the VA health care system and here are some of my observations. N.B. I’m pretty sure that they would apply to all iterations of socialized medicine.
1. I have found that there is significant variability in the quality of care from facility to facility around the country. Some are pretty good and some are pretty poor. In some, the staff is helpful and friendly, in others the staff is surly and rude.
2. Almost all of the facilities have very long wait times for appointments. Even emergencies can have a significant waiting period.
3. Triage is extensively practiced both in chronic care and emergencies and, generally, young acute cases take precedence over older, chronic cases. If you’re in your 70s and need treatment, you’ll wait for the 40 year-olds to get treated first. This is a characteristic of all of the Government health services I’ve encountered, the ones who need the most care generally have to wait the longest for service.
4. You won’t find the latest treatment techniques and equipment in VA hospitals. For instance, if you have prostate cancer, you’ll get standard surgery with all the usual negative after-effects instead of the latest robotic and radiological systems that minimize them.
The underlying problem with the VA and other socialized health care systems in underfunding and lack of accountability. The system is run by bureaucrats that have no direct responsibility for the quality of the service. Their performance is rated on the economy and efficiency of the system, not on the quality and expediency of the care. You can’t sue a bureaucrat for malpractice. For that matter, you can’t sue a VA doctor either, any more than you can sue a specific policeman or any individual government functionary. For all the expense and nonuniformity of the current Fee for Service medical system in this country, each doctor and facility is, and can be held, personally responsible for the care delivered.
The down side of government run or mandated systems (e.g. Canada’s single payer system) may not be so obvious when the population is relatively young and the demand for care is low, but as the population ages and require more and even more care, the cost rises and the flaws in the system become painfully obvious (figuratively and literally).It is pushed because people can’t afford health care but you, who calls himself health, could not care less.
Reb E – i don’t know why you and CTL keep saying that. The obamacare is so expensive, is unreliable, and has ruined my daughter in laws credit when one of their “providers” shut down without paying up. Even after losing the class action suit. The marketplace plans have 14,000 out of pocket. Do you have any idea how much that is? Im so confused about how it has been helpful.
Syag, why do people like it if it is so expensive?
Redleg, I don’t have personal experience, but research indeed shows that VAs in big cities is superior to the ones in rural areas.
also, note that VA serves reasonably homogenous population used to discipline. So, VA experience is probably better than a similar system applied to the whole country would be.
Government is necessary when there is no effective market solution. Otherwise, it is generally inferior. Most of us do not buy food and clothes from government stores for some reason … So, before calling the government payer, did we exhaust all market approaches? Trump enabled regulations that force hospitals to publish their prices. Not sure whether that had any effect so far. You can allow insurance compete across states; make it easier to take your medical data from one provider to another, etc.
RebE, you can’t provide charity by constraining whole population and antagonizing half of the country. There should be better options.
That’s what I was asking you
Universal healthcare (really universal health insurance) was the announced policy of the Heritage Foundation in 1993 in response to “Hillarycare.”
Without hyperbole, why are you against it?
In countries with universal healthcare, it is unheard of for a person to go bankrupt because of illness. 60% of bankruptcies in the US are because of health care costs. And who bears the burden of the loss? The rest of the country.
Israel is a great example (you love Israel, right?). Every single citizen automatically has some minimal health insurance and, thereby, healthcare. Is it perfect? Of course not. Are there some delays? Sometimes. But for a middle class person, this is not a problem because supplemental insurance is cheap enough.
Are England, France, Israel, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Norway bastions of radical communism? Not by any rational measure. Are their taxes higher… sure. But put their higher taxes against the cost of private insurance premiums and the increased taxes come out lower because of distribution of risk.
Countries with universal healthcare and some form of socialized medicine have longer life expectancy, higher quality of life, lower instances of chronic illness, lower fatal and maternal mortality (pro-life, good Christians!), and fewer bankruptcies than the US.
Reality-based decisions. Evidence-based decisions. These WERE Republican principles. The US is bigger than England, France, and Israel, and creates different challenges because of its size. But there is no reason we can’t have an American form of universal healthcare.
Rant and rave with your ideology right to the grave (after 120 years).
If is so bad. let us fix it but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. It is better than having nothing. When the Republicans eliminated the mandate, they killed the parents abd complained that they became an orphan. What happened with repeal and reolace?
Just see the situation in England, where a young girl is being held hostage due to “health decisions” by a court who determined she <i>must</i> die. Her parents want to take her to Israel at their own expense, but are not allowed to. The judge ignored the fact that they are Jewish, and pulling the plug on her would be a violation of faith, because ‘the girl is too young and has never practiced religion’. The same thing happened with Charlie Gard in 2017. They are literally holding a child hostage because they can.
Stop giving the government more power. The only reason why insurance has skyrocketed since 0bama, is because he mandated coverage for insane procedures and coverage for “children” (up to 26, and now 29 years old I believe). Insurance has now become unaffordable for most middle-class people who aren’t on all the government programs. It’s absurd!
“Why do you think that the Libs are pushing it?”
To help people.
“I remember when we didn’t have any of those things.”
Me too, though to an extent. My entire life those over 65 and dialysis patients have had “universal health care” it worked quite well and most polls showed they were happy with their care.
“Do you think that it’s good?”
Yes“Well look at other Countries that have Socialized Medicine.
It used to be e/o would run to the US for Medical care & they still do.
This will change because of Socialized Medicine!”It doesn’t have to change.
Almost no body proposes a system where it would be illegal to charge for “more personalized ” (better?) Care. In sone countries that is the case, I don’t think that will happen here.“The Libs/DemonCrats are all for it.
You know why?”Yes
“In other Countries they hate Socialized Medicine.”
Can you provide a source?“The level of care ain’t Great!”
What benchmark are you using? For this claim??Also see orechdin’s Excellent comment
The bottom line is quite simple in my mind.
It is a question of the role of government
Do you think the government should take care of people by making sure they have and can afford healthcare then we need to figure out a,way to make it work.
The rest is just fluff.
Meaning let’s say the government COULD do it better. Let’s say I provide an example of a country that has universal Healthcare and has better health outcomes, say longer life expectancy.
Would that change your view?
Some argue no it isn’t the governments role, keep government limited and out if healthcare., and that’s fair but be clear on your view.
If it is the government s role. Then the question becomes how can we make it work. It is hard for me to believe that it can’t be doneAaq
“Government is necessary when there is no effective market solution”
Very well put.
Basic laws of market economics don’t really apply to healthcare.
If say cancer treatment goes up in price its not like demand will go down.
It’s not like price hunting for a better deal for treatment of heart attack is possible.This is exactly why the government MUST step in.
How exactly should it be structured? Fair question. But that is fluff thst I find distracts from the main question. SHOULD the government be involvedSyag
I’m sorry about the difficulty your daughter went through.
Though a few points /questions1) Her difficulty highlights how bad private health insurance is, and is MORE of a reason to support a government run system (like Medicare or the VA). I am assuming The “provider” was a private company albeit one contracted by the government. (Please correct me if I’m wrong) In a Government run system this would not happen. Unless of course the Government shut down.
2) While her credit score going down is bad, many Americans go bankrupt from medical expensses. This is not a thing in most Western countries (Whether it should be or not is debatable, AND the main point of contention in my opinion, as pointed out before). Financial ruin due to medical costs is exactly the problem. Saying she still faces difficulty means we haven’t gone far enough in overhauling the system, it does not mean the old system was better
3) 14,000 out of pocket; does that include premiums and deductibles/copays? if so that is quite reasonable if it is for a family it is a bargain
Kollelman, futile care laws are in place through out the US. They were championed by the Republican party and the first legislation of it’s kind was signed by Gov. Geo Bush of Texas at the time. They have nothing to do with the PPACA (Obamacare).
Yisro did not just complain but gave advice how to fix it. Health stop complaining and advise how to fix it.
Health
“What they do is – they give e/o insurance, but they Don’t cover All procedures, tests, imaging.””
no insurance covers “All procedures, tests, imaging.”” nor should they, I didnt think that point needed addressing
“I didn’t Rant against Medicare.
This is one thing that the DemonCrats did good.”So why can’t we just have supermedicare. It is the same as medciare but instead of covering those over 65 it covers everyone?
“I know what you’ll post next – just like Lying Fauci, I need a Double-Blind Study.”
No you are wrong (whats the word for a prediction that is wrong, or even if true kidding I know you were exaggerating its not a lie even though its false)
No need for double blind study. A simple poll showing that “In other Countries they hate Socialized Medicine.” Two countries please .I’m fuzzy on what Fauci has to do with this.
Lets try to keep name calling to a minimum.
You made a few interesting contentions. Back them up please specifically “In other Countries they hate Socialized Medicine.”Reb elizer, Health doesn’t seem to have any interest in contributing to solutions, IMHO.
And Health no most of Europe doesn’t have siestas. Heck Spain outlawed them in the ’40s.
I agree of having a healthy diet, but how do you enforce it? Sugar, salt and fats.
Point of information:
There seems to be some confusion here. Medicaid is for individuals who have limited financial resources but are under the age of 65 and are unable to afford medical care. It is a means tested program that provides coverage for those earning less than 130% of the federal poverty line.
Medicare is a federal program for those that are 65 or older, but in some circumstances will cover minors under certain circumstances or individuals experienced end stage renal failure. Medicare is not means tested for retirees. Retirees pay for medicare out of their Social Security benefits (and prior payroll deductions). Retirees will often purchase supplemental ins for additional coverage.
There is an updated drug formulary for Medicaid online if you or your physician are having difficulty determining if a certain drug is covered. FWIW if your physician is prescribing the off label use of a drug it won’t be covered by medicaid.
It’s not just medicaid. My office has an employee whose full time job is to try to get insurance companies to pay for tests I (and my oartners) think they need.
And forgive me you are on medicaid and you think democrats made it hard? You want the Republicans to decide the fate of your medicaid?
“Why don’t you call your DemonCrat friends to ,do it?!?”
I have.
My friend Obama said he would do it but the right went crazy so he backed downPersonal stories aren’t useful I have a closer friend who says he loves Canadaisn healthcare as does his wife. So there I win!
The awful UK story has nothing to do with government run health care as has been pointed out
Ubiq, I made the clarification as a general purpose. I have through my working life, had gold standard health ins. provided by my employer at no cost to me. I’m now well over 65 and have medicare, and the necessary advantage plan.
I live in an area where a medical monopoly serves 3 counties through a regional medical center and hundreds of satellite offices. I’ve watched the monopoly buy out small and solo practices and replace them with an incredibly efficient system. They are poised for single payer, they had foresight. But for now they do one heck of a job delivering care and services.
Personally I’d like a single payer system, private health insurance is a legal racket. Who pays for a single payer? I’m a tax and spend lefty, far left of Mary Jones, I say tax the billionaires. Do I need to name names?
“Heck Spain outlawed them in the ’40s”
I don’t know what laws are on the books but when I was there a few years back it was very common for businesses to be closed for a few hours in the early afternoon.My biggest issue with the current system is the total lack of price transparency. 3 different patients with 3 different insurance providers can have the exact same tests/treatment/surgery and the doctor will be reimbursed wildly different amounts.
It’s no secret that Medicaid reimbursement rates are by far the worst. Arguably, they don’t pay doctors enough to pay the rent and keep the lights on. Hospitals in low income areas, (with a high percentage of their patient population on Medicaid) often struggle and risk closure, simply due to the lack of funds. The one thing I’ve never heard from a proponent of single payer healthcare is that reimbursement rates will be increased because doing so will cost billions of dollars more than anyone cares to admit.@Syag
“Reb E – i don’t know why you and CTL keep saying that. ”
I haven’t said anything in this thread and it has been quite a while since I posted an opinion about the ACA.
For Mrs, CTL and Myself the ACA was wonderful (now we both are Medicare age and donlt use it). At age 60 she had a $2million medical expense and our prior commercial policy with the c=same carrier as our exchange issued policy capped at $1 Million. She also had preexisting conditions which would have disqualified her from renewing our prior policy (we got a letter informing us of it).
And yes the ACA policy bought through the CT Healthcare Exchange saved us lots of money.BUT>>>>>>>>>>>the exchange and policies are not the same in all states, nor are costs or out of pockets. The last year we had an exchange issued plan the maximum family out of pocket was $6700 per year, not the $14,000 a CR reader posted. Different policy, different state and different year (Mrs. CTL went off Exchange policy in early 2021).
All of that said, I am disappointed in the ACA, the courts gutted its teeth when they did away with the financial penalty for not buying insurance. We need all the healthy young people in the pool to lower overall costs.
We had an exchange policy from the year they started until Mrs, CTL turned 65 in 2021. We didn’t have a single one of our doctors, hospitals, pharmacies or other providers who were not in the plan, so we didn’t have to change any providers. CT is a small state, no city has more than two hospitals so they all take all insurance written in the state. In big cities with dozens of hospitals there may be some who don’t take exchange plans and can still survive financially.I can only speak from my experience, I can’t offer an opinion on current plans in the various states. That said, I would love to see a single payer national health plan to cover all Americans. I am willing to pay higher taxes to make it happen. I am a capitalist who believes in social programs for the greater good.
>> Basic laws of market economics don’t really apply to healthcare.
this is not true. There are ways to make difficult industries more market friendly. Making price transparent would be one. Not covering basic care for those who can afford it would be another. Increasing competition between insurances would be third. International competition on buying drugs, 4th. I am sure there is a Cato report on market policies in healthcare somewhere there. Trump tried some. Bush II tried some with Medicare supplements, After all of that, you can consider how government could plug the market deficiencies.
A good example of competition introduced in a difficult industry was Navy building, I think, fighter engines during Reagan times. Navy ordered design from one prime contractor and then disclosed designs to the competitor [legal according to fine print, but contrary to prevailing practice of honoring designers with no-bid contracts] and invited both to bid for production, awarding contracts to both for several years, resulting in huge decrease in pricing.
@Health
A couple of observations based on your comments.
You have had Medicaid for years. I am sorry you earn so little to qualify for Medicaid.It is important to note that Medicaid is a state system paid for with Federal funds. 50 states have 50 different systems and they cover different things in each state.
Here in CT, Medicaid recipients have NO co-pays. The doctor, hospital and pharmacy is paid in full at the agreed rate.
I had an MRI last week, my co-pay was $175, the patient checking in at the next desk had Medicaid and had no co-pay. B”H I can afford it. I see no reason for the person who can’t afford it to be denied the MRI.I’ve yet to come across someone from a first world country with socialized medicine that would prefer the US system.
Care is never worse in these countries. There is always the option of private medical insurance(and seemingly for far cheaper than it would cost in the US). But with socialized medicine, it ensures everyone has at least basic medical coverage.
AAQ
sure we can make it more market friendly. I never said or menat to imply otherwise That in no way changes what I said. Yo umention “Making price transparent would be one. ” I agree it would help. but it wouldnt eliminate the issue. It is hard to imagine a patient in the throes of a heart attack looking up prices of local hospitals (one example I mentioned)
Furthermore, if prices are “too high” it would have little to no bearing on demand. Demand for cancer treatment is hardly driven by price (ifd at all) undermining the foundation of market economics. (the other example I mentioned) .
sure there are instances where free market might help. child birth is a great one. It is one of the most common reasons for admission to hospital, it is generally pretty straightforward and have 9 months or so to plan it . The problem is even there, your choice of hospital might be limited, not by your decision, but by your employers in a very bizzare setup that is almost unique to this country .
There is a great video on youtube done by vox where the fellow tries to find out how much the bill would be for a standard non-complicated birth, and he could not get an answer . (This was before Trumps’ price transperancy rule wnet into effect)
No one objects to universal access to health care. If you mean a system where there is one national health care and everyone is required to use it, including the politically well connected, that never existed anywhere, even in totally socialist systems such as the Soviet Union (somehow the rich and powerful get better care).
Obamacare is just an expensive set of options towards getting access to health care for those without (which was never a very significant number in the US). For political reasons, they banned many “deplorables” from using inexpensive health insurance (the “deplorables” answered back by electing Donald Trump).
Managed care is a type of health insurance that offers (in theory) lower prices in return for the insurer taking control of what care you are offered (one can negotiate the price and standards).
@Quay, “I’ve yet to come across someone from a first world country with socialized medicine that would prefer the US system.
Care is never worse in these countries. There is always the option of private medical insurance(and seemingly for far cheaper than it would cost in the US). But with socialized medicine, it ensures everyone has at least basic medical coverage.”
I dont know who you have been talking to but I have a brother in the Uk and a son and nephew in Canada and they all say the system there really really really stinks, like waiting for 10 days to see someone for a broken bone, things are so bad in Canada they have a a tip bucket for the RNs“The structure of our healthcare industry is confusing and expensive at every level, and there’s no simple solution… I’m a conservative on most issues, but liberal on this one… The goal should be clear: We must have universal healthcare… We should have a Canadian-style single-payer system were all expenses are paid to a single agency.”
Donald J. Trump, 2000
What happened to Trump? He changes as the wind blows.
@yserbius, do you know anyone who lives in Canada and deals the Social Medicine?
Ubiq, so if we agree on some reasonable market measures, then why they are not implemented. What politicians are interested in not doing reasonable things that do not cost gov money, and only focus on how they can take control of things? After markets take care of routine things, then you can consider how to spend public money to help solve remaining problems. If you do not define market solution l’hathila, then public sector will take over the whole industry, like it happened with education.
Why the name calling?
why cant you have a normal conversation?
Especially when we agree “I agreed with you before – we Need a Universal Paying System,”
Great so we agree!
alll the bestAAQ
“If you do not define market solution l’hathila, then public sector will take over the whole industry, like it happened with education.”
That is what I think should happen.
Because as I mentioned most health care expenditures (and almost all of the procey ones) are not governed by the free market as I mentioned a few times.As to why they aren’t implemented I dont know. Trump passed regulations requiring prices be available, are people now choosing different hospials? Are prices coming down? It may be too soon to tell. I just dont believe this will have a major impact . Though I do think its a good idea
> most health care expenditures (and almost all of the procey ones) are not governed by the free market
> As to why they aren’t implemented I dont know.Well, if we continue voting for people who do not want or do not attempt, then you will continue seeing all expenditures not governed by the market… You can only see what is possible after you try. There are a number of industries that were presumed to be non-market that were successfully deregulated – air, phone, some of mail and utilities.
As an example of how corruption and self-dealing prevents easy solutions: at the beginning of the pandemic, I asked my local politician to immediately increase enrollment into existing online schools, while they were struggling re-inventing the wheel via Zoom. He first agreed that this is a good idea but later replied that the effort stalled “because of local opposition”. I presume same reason market solutions for medicine are not done.
Health, now I’m genuinely curious. You are a medical professional who has been on Medicaid for years, how can you be so poorly paid to be qualified for Medicaid? That seems to be an indictment of the medical profession if they cannot pay you what you are worth and you have to be dependent on means tested programs. It’s kinda like those folks who work for Walmart but don’t make enough and depend on SNAP and Medicaid. Folks like you are just one of the reasons Im a tax and spend liberal. I don’t mind my tax dollars supporting you or anyone who qualify for a means tested program.
Managed care was the first step towards the universal health care goal. It placed a barrier between the patient/subscriber and the insurer. It meant that with few exceptions like emergency care, any medical service would require authorization. The people placed into the positions of making decisions to approve services were frequently untrained, non-professionals. These systems were intended to maximize the premiums, that were all raised significantly, and to minimize the expenses. The insurance companies and their investors walked away with fortunes. Hospitals, health care professionals, etc. were left holding the bag. So prices went up for anyone not covered, and the payments to doctors went down. Hospitals negotiated to become member providers, and the insurers only accepted them when the prices for services were reduced.
Here’s the beef. Accessing medical care became tougher, and the out of pocket costs went way up. Doctors watched their incomes drop, and medical schools eventually saw applications and admissions drop. The medical field, once a target of aspiration, lost its lustre. The researchers also lost out, and the quality of medical care in America began to dip. Have we noticed people coming to America for medical care, special surgeries, etc.? They cannot develop such services elsewhere because there is no incentive for it.
That was just managed care. Once the government entered the business, it spiraled downward. No one says that there was no health care crisis. But the Obamacare and similar ideas that were full of socialist goals is not the answer. We have sunk closer to third world countries, and need to do much to restore American medicine to its former shine.
I have Medicaid next to Medicare but I don’t have Medicaid. My Social Security is too much to be eligible. I have to pay the surplus to be able to receive the sevices, so it is only economical on a big medical expense.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.