The horror of socialised medicine..

Next: Public water utilities down the Toilet

Author

Message

Gezzer

Joined: Oct 19, 2008
Posts: 666

Location: Buckinghamshire England

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

xavierx wrote:

Gezzer wrote:

we in the UK can manage a health service for all
they in France can manage a health service for all
in Australia they can manage a health service for all

in many other parts of the world they can manage a health service for all

but a country the size and strength of the US can not manage a health service for all
the only conclusion i can reach is you do not want a health service for all

you should be deeply ashamed of yourselves, but, i have doubt of that …

nice flame bait, there.
Rolling Eyes

I would say that I eagerly await your apology for your insult, but I know better than to expect civility.

Perhaps you're just not thinking clearly about it, but you do realize that it is much harder to manage a large program than to manage a small one, right?
United States — Population: 301,139,947
United Kingdom — Population: 60,776,238
France — Population: 64,057,792
Australia — Population: 20,434,176

Or do you really expect it to be the same to provide government run health care for 1/15 to 1/5 of the population as the US?

but you have how many states within your nation ? …

CowpokeBob

Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501

Location: South Carolina, USA

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:23 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

Quote:

but a country the size and strength of the US can not manage a health service for all
the only conclusion i can reach is you do not want a health service for all

you should be deeply ashamed of yourselves, but, i have doubt of that …

Good point xavierx!
If it means I have to give up my freedom to choose for myself what is best for myself. If it means I have to give the government a great deal of control over me including handing over my most private health information? If you mean allowing the same government that has consistantly proven itself unable to handle or run any of the social programs it has deemed it necessary to involve itself in run it? If you mean any or all of this then your conclusion is right on the money I'm not ashamed at all to say.
Ken's original post was interesting. I had heard all that before though. There have been many polls published about universal health care and while they have shown that European style health care consistently ranks above the US for its costs to individuals it also consistently ranks below the US for its overall level of satisfaction. I am well aware of the long wait times and other problems that arise when you have more than just the common ailments or need specialized care. Just pointing out that, socialism aspect aside, tthere is a down side to universal health care.

Gezzer

Joined: Oct 19, 2008
Posts: 666

Location: Buckinghamshire England

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

CowpokeBob wrote:

Quote:

but you would have a very good degree of choice
that being able to expand on your health choice by insurance, if you so wished …

xavierx

Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5425

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 6:20 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

Gezzer wrote:

...
but you have how many states within your nation ? …

That's a different story. You're talking about State run health care, NOT Federal Government run health care. That would be legal under the Constitution if the individual states decided to do so. And, most people I know trust their state a lot more than the Federal government (which isn't really saying that they trust them much ...).

CowpokeBob

Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501

Location: South Carolina, USA

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:02 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

xavierx wrote:

Gezzer wrote:

...
but you have how many states within your nation ? …

That would also result in a wide disparity amongst different states in the type of policy offered. I can't help but notice Gezzer that if thats what you mean it sounds alot like what McCain proposed if you mean being able to shop around from any states policy and choose the one we liked instead of having a one plan fits all policy rammed down our throats.

xavierx

Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5425

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

CowpokeBob wrote:

...
That would also result in a wide disparity amongst different states in the type of policy offered. I can't help but notice Gezzer that if thats what you mean it sounds alot like what McCain proposed if you mean being able to shop around from any states policy and choose the one we liked instead of having a one plan fits all policy rammed down our throats.

I had the same thought.

ejward

Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:38 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

CowpokeBob wrote:

Quote:

Good point xavierx!
If it means I have to give up my freedom to choose for myself what is best for myself. .

Do you have that choice now? Do you have a health plan that doesn't make choices for you? Good for you. Not everybody does. My health plan overrides what my doctor can prescribe. They used to prescribe Prevacid for acid reflux. It worked great. It also helped heal scarring do to years of not having Prevacid. Now that Prilosec is over the counter, my plan has overridden the doctor and said that I have to take Prevacid instead. Even though I have to take twice the normal dosage.

Quote:

If it means I have to give the government a great deal of control over me including handing over my most private health information?

Wouldn't having a single source for health history be a good thing? If you see multiple doctors, you are manually filling out medical histories from memory. What if you forget something with one doctor? My Mother seems to get new doctors every so often. I have a hard time filling in her history each time. I used to work in the pharmacy industry. One thing that would put patients lives in danger was going to several different pharmacies and doctors. There would be drug interactions because some history was at one pharmacy and some at another. Another thing that caused issues were samples that doctors handed out. There's NO record of that. Doctor A would give a patient a prescription not knowing that doctor B gave the same patient samples of something that interacts with what doctor A gave them. I understand privacy issues but, I think centralized records would help far more than hurt.

Quote:

Ken's original post was interesting. I had heard all that before though. There have been many polls published about universal health care and while they have shown that European style health care consistently ranks above the US for its costs to individuals it also consistently ranks below the US for its overall level of satisfaction.

Show me ANY health care system that polls high for satisfaction. The UK has universal health and the people rate it low. We don't have universal health and we rate it low.

Quote:

I am well aware of the long wait times and other problems that arise when you have more than just the common ailments or need specialized care. Just pointing out that, socialism aspect aside, there is a down side to universal health care

How could that happen here? We already have the infrastructure in place. Do you think doctors are going to flee the country if we get universal health? Do you think hospitals are going to close? Sure, we'd be adding millions into the system but, they'd be getting preventative care rather than clogging up the system with emergency care like they do now.

CowpokeBob

Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501

Location: South Carolina, USA

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

ejward wrote:

CowpokeBob wrote:

Quote:

Good point xavierx!
If it means I have to give up my freedom to choose for myself what is best for myself. .

Quote:

If it means I have to give the government a great deal of control over me including handing over my most private health information?

Quote:

Show me ANY health care system that polls high for satisfaction. The UK has universal health and the people rate it low. We don't have universal health and we rate it low.

Quote:

Let me take them one at a time.

1) Yes I have that kind of choice now in my policy? Yes I do. Don't like yours, find another one.

2) Wouldn't having a single source for health history be a good thing? Yes it would. In fact I have that now since I have copies of all my health records on hand at home. Anyone canget copies of thier health records simply by asking for them. They are your records. Of course its not necessarily gonna be free to get them copied.

3) I'll look around to try and find that poll and some of the others. I've seen them so I know there out there. Until then we'll leave this one be.

4) How could that happen here? It is extremely expensive to become a doctor, both in time and money. Since it goes without saying that a doctor in a government clinic is going to make less than a doctor in private practice do you think doctors are going to line up to join the government program? Or are we going to make them all an offer they can't refuse.Are we going to subsidize the training expense of doctors? Most likely those that can will migrate to specialty fields keep lucrative private practices while the rest will be co-opted into the government program. Justtry finding a doctor now that will take medicaid. Most hospitals and clinics are privately owned right now. Are we going to compensate them in order to make them public or simply pull a Chavez and seize them under imminent domain. And since we have been talking about cost what about that preventative care for all. If it cosr but a single dollar per year per person to administer we are talking about 300+ million. Substitute the cost of a copay under my policy (15.00) and the cost jumps up to 4.5 billion per year. Wanna bet the average cost per capita will be more than 15 bucks a person? The only realistic way to pull this off is to raise taxes considerably and give up a great deal of our freedom in order to force the necessary changes. How do you spell Socialism?

ejward

Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054

Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:12 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

Quote:

Let me take them one at a time.

1) Yes I have that kind of choice now in my policy? Yes I do. Don't like yours, find another one.

So with your policy your doctor can prescribe any medication they choose and your plan pays for it? You can get any procedure and the plan pays for it? Does your employer pay for a portion of it? How much would it cost if you had to pay the whole thing? Good for you. Unfortunately, not everybody has a plan like that. I only have a choice of 2 plans with my employer. Neither plan allows the doctor to have the final say. I could try to find a private plan that does cover everything however, the cost would be more money than I make. I've got a question for you. Why don't you think everyone deserves the great plan you have ?

Let me take them one at a time.

Quote:

2) Wouldn't having a single source for health history be a good thing? Yes it would. In fact I have that now since I have copies of all my health records on hand at home. Anyone can get copies of their health records simply by asking for them. They are your records. Of course its not necessarily gonna be free to get them copied.

My doctor doesn't even have copies of my complete history. One example, I went to the emergency room last May. I got about 5 different bills from 5 different agencies. Buried in there was a diagnosis and treatment however, there were so many medical abbreviations that I didn't know what it meant. My wife is a nurse, there was some stuff on there that she didn't understand. When I recently went for a physical, I almost forgot to tell my PCP so they could update their records. Not that a central repository would have helped with the abbreviations but, my PCP would have already known I went to the emergency room. And, what if I lived alone and was brought to the emergency room? How would they get my history from records sitting at home?

Quote:

And since we have been talking about cost what about that preventative care for all. If it cost but a single dollar per year per person to administer we are talking about 300+ million.

There are only about 48 million that don't currently have some form of insurance so, the 300+ million argument is not accurate. if you want to make that argument then, how much would 300+ million people going to the emergency room once a year cost? My single visit cost my insurance company about $4,000. that's what's happening now with the uninsured.

Quote:

The only realistic way to pull this off is to raise taxes considerably and give up a great deal of our freedom in order to force the necessary changes. How do you spell Socialism?

Of course taxes will go up to pay for it. On the other side, you won't be paying for health care insurance. Your employer won't be paying either. Wages have flat lined over the past 10 years or so because health insurance premiums have gone up 400%. No matter how you slice it, you're paying for it already. As far as freedom goes, I don't have any. Unless I just pay for everything out of my pocket. I'd also be willing to bet that there are things your health plan doesn't cover too.

Quote:

Just Try finding a doctor now that will take medicaid.

There wouldn't be a need for medicaid. Medicaid is a government handout to the poor. A national health system would be paid for like Social Security. It would be more like Medicare. There are plenty of doctors that take Medicare.

Quote:

Most hospitals and clinics are privately owned right now. Are we going to compensate them in order to make them public or simply pull a Chavez and seize them under imminent domain.

I don't think anybody has spelled out exactly how it would work at this point. There are a lot of different plans. Hospitals could still be privately owned. Just like they are now when they take Medicare patients.

CowpokeBob

Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501

Location: South Carolina, USA

Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:52 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

[quote="ejward"].

Quote:

Wow, thats a lot of questions! Ok here's the answers. Yes, Most of it, yes, Yes, they do, I have no idea but once had a similar policy thoough not as good that ran 150 a month, and last but not least I think everyone should have the great coverage congress has. I'm paying for that too. Also I believe I mentioned before that I don't believe health care is a "right". I've been wiithout it before and had to make the hard choices no insurance brings.

Quote:

Gathering your medical records can be a pain but it is do-able. You should question anything on a medical statement you don't understand that would include abbreviations. While a central repository might help with memory lapses it would be of dubious aid in an emergency when time is of the essence. Aside from any allergies or other alerts that can be kept on a medic alert bracelet I see no need tohave your history in an emergency. Do you really want the medics to be reading about your last prostrate exam while you are in an emergency situation? A database wouldn't absolve you from checking for clerical errors etc. in your records either. Considering there is no such repository at present I imagine it would add yet another cost to the system.

Quote:

So you think I should pay higher taxes so those 48 million can have my great coverage AND pay for my own insurance on top of that? I can promise you that a whole lot of people possibly including me would drop our expensive private coverage and enroll in the universal coverage before that happens. And then we're right back at that 300 million figure now aren't we. Don't think so? Ask yourself this simple question. Given the choice of paying $4000+ a year in insurance plus copays, etc. or signing up for government coverage which may not cover as much but is paid for with tax dollars which you are going to pay regardless which would you take?

Quote:

So medicaid is a government handout to the poor but universal healthcare isn't? Wasn't the whole idea of universal health care to provide health care to those that couldn't afford insurance, ie: the poor. Social Security is on the ropes and Medicare is going broke, you know, I think your right about a national health care system being run like those two.

Quote:

Most hospitals and clinics are privately owned right now. Are we going to compensate them in order to make them public or simply pull a Chavez and seize them under imminent domain.

Quote:

Nobody is spelling out how it would work because it involves ultimately nationalizing our hospitals and care givers. In essence making them government agencies and employees and the rest of us subjects of a socialist society.

ejward

Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054

Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

Quote:

Do you really want the medics to be reading about your last prostrate exam while you are in an emergency situation?

Yes, I would. If they knew that I had just had a complete physical with all blood work and the results, they would save a fortune by not running the same test again.

Quote:

A database wouldn't absolve you from checking for clerical errors etc. in your records either. Considering there is no such repository at present I imagine it would add yet another cost to the system.

Just like your credit report. you check it every once in a while. If there were central records, there would be no need for every single doctor's office and clinic to higher staff just to manage records. It would save money.

Quote:

So you think I should pay higher taxes so those 48 million can have my great coverage AND pay for my own insurance on top of that?

No. Nobody is proposing that. Everyone would pay one tax. You would no longer pay your own insurance.

Quote:

I can promise you that a whole lot of people possibly including me would drop our expensive private coverage and enroll in the universal coverage before that happens

That's the point. The more people that participate in a plan, the lower the cost. The lower the premiums. The lower the overhead. the cost of all services are spread out across more people.

Quote:

Ask yourself this simple question. Given the choice of paying $4000+ a year in insurance plus co pays, etc. or signing up for government coverage which may not cover as much but is paid for with tax dollars which you are going to pay regardless which would you take?

I'm paying more than that now, plus co-pays, plus deductibles and, it only covers 90% of most services. So, I'd be happy to pay a tax of $4,000 a year plus co pays to get just 90% covered. At least my money wouldn't go to pay for the emergency room visits for the uninsured like it is now.

Quote:

So medicaid is a government handout to the poor but universal health care isn't?

No it's not. It's health care for everyone. Everyone pays into it with taxes.

Quote:

Wasn't the whole idea of universal health care to provide health care to those that couldn't afford insurance, ie: the poor.

I don't think so. I think it's so everyone gets the same care regardless of income.

Quote:

Social Security is on the ropes and Medicare is going broke, you know, I think your right about a national health care system being run like those two.

Social Security is not broke. There is enough cash to cut everyone who's supposed to get a check until at least 2060. The problem is that by 2059, 100% of every one's Social Security check is going to be spent on health care. Medicare is only broken because of soaring health care costs.

Quote:

And who is saying that? How would it be any different than it is now? Instead of hospitals sending bills to Blue Cross of Michigan, Blue Cross of Mass, Care New England, united Health, Cigna health, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, they'd just send the bills to the US health plan or whatever they decide to call it. That alone would save a ton of money in paperwork alone. Hospitals in Canada and the UK are not all owned by the government.

When the UK and Canada developed their programs, they didn't have much to go on. We have most of the rest of the industrialized world to see the good and the bad. Implementing universal health would be much less than the cost of the Iraq war or even the recent bail-outs. Look at GM going under. Half their problem is because they have to pay medical benefits for retirees.

kenmabmcc

Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179

Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.

Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 4:13 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

xavierx wrote:

Perhaps you're just not thinking clearly about it, but you do realize that it is much harder to manage a large program than to manage a small one, right?
United States — Population: 301,139,947
United Kingdom — Population: 60,776,238
France — Population: 64,057,792
Australia — Population: 20,434,176

Or do you really expect it to be the same to provide government run health care for 1/15 to 1/5 of the population as the US?

A large population should led to less costs due to the economies of scale.

Michigan is about the same land area as New Zealand,
but has about two and a half times the population.
It should be far cheaper should provide universal healthcare in Michigan,
than to the far more spread out population in New Zealand.

Wink

CowpokeBob

Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501

Location: South Carolina, USA

Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 7:18 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

kenmabmcc wrote:

xavierx wrote:

Economy of scale is it? Health care must play by different rules than most anything else if thats the case. Greater demand usually results in higher cost for most everything else. Hence as our population increases and ages the cost of healthcare increases. Economy of scale would however apply toward paying for the system. Now since not everybody can afford to pay for the insurance the government (ie: the taxpayer) will have to pick up the tab for them. Unless it is forced on everyone else, the rich and those that can will continue to keep thier private insurance, thus not contributing to the system. So unless we have a system of forced health care (where I'm forced to pay my full share and part of someone else's that isn't going to pay in) the list of folks who'll actually be paying the cost gets pretty small. And if we force folks to join the system we have, you guessed it...a socialistic system.

xavierx

Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5425

Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:38 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

Ken - Economy of Scale doesn't apply to government. In fact, at least in the US, we seem to have the opposite effect!

xavierx

Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5425

Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:45 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

ejward wrote:

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I have to ask, why don't you favor McCain's plan? It would giver you everything you asked for - the freedom to choose from many plans (not just the two your employer offers), the ability to afford it (via the tax credit), and it would be open to everyone. Best of all, the Government wouldn't be deciding for you what medicine and procedures they'll pay for. If we give the health care to the government, they'll just be a monopoly, will make the same decisions that you complain about with your plan about medicine, and you won't have any choice (except to pay your taxes AND pay for private insurance like Ken said years ago that he does). Competition, under McCain's plan, would solve that problem - at a minimum, you could find a plan that offers what you want.

ejward

Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054

Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:09 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

Quote:

Economy of scale is it? Health care must play by different rules than most anything else if thats the case. Greater demand usually results in higher cost for most everything else.

Based on what? If there are more people getting checkups, the cost of those checkups will go down. The cost of CT, MRI, and X-Ray equipment would go down with more people using them.

Quote:

So unless we have a system of forced health care (where I'm forced to pay my full share and part of someone else's that isn't going to pay in) the list of folks who'll actually be paying the cost gets pretty small. And if we force folks to join the system we have, you guessed it...a socialistic system.

Everybody should pay. If a rich person wants to get some policy on the side, that's fine. Just like multi-millionairs still get a social security checks. Everyone is forced to pay taxes. The taxes pay for mail service. It doesn't matter if you use it or not. i can't remember the last time I mailed something. It pays for defense whether we're at war or not. I certinly don't have a choice in which wars we fight. We are forced to pay taxes to give a welfare check to somebody who's just too lazy to work. We pay taxes to support libraries. Until very recently (With kids), I couldn't tell you the last time I set foot in a liberary. I've been paying into my local school system for 14 years without using ANY of it's services. We're forced to pay taxes for things that we will never use all the time. If that is your only measure of a socialistic system ...... welcome to socialism .... we're already there. At least health care will benifit every single American. Unless there is someone that has never gotten sick or visited a doctor .... or been born ..... everyone will use it. Name me a single tax that I pay that benifits every single American. Except maybe defense and security type stuff, I doubt there are many.

ejward

Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054

Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

Quote:

I don't know if Obama's plan is any better. I like the idea of choosing many plans. But McCain wanted to let you go to other states. It may sound like a Democratic talking point but, it would end up like the banking industry. All the plans would incorporate in the same state that gives them the best advantage. The only way to prevent it would be to have some sort of federal regulation that essentially does the same thing as the laws that prevent you from going across state lines. That being said, my employer has dumped my local plan and has gone with an out of state plan. I'm not sure how they're getting away with that but, it leads me to believe that getting a plan from another state is not as restrictive as McCain would have us believe.

Quote:

the ability to afford it (via the tax credit),

When Hilary Clinton proposed universal health care years ago, it was shot down because it was going to cost $300 billion. McCain's $5,000 heath care tax credit would cost several trillion dollars .... with no mechanism to pay for it. All you heard durning the campaign was how Obama came up $200 billion short on his new spending. McCain got a big pass on this one.

Quote:

Best of all, the Government wouldn't be deciding for you what medicine and procedures they'll pay for.

Yes, it would be the same private health insurance companies that are denying coverage now. The same companies rejecting people for a pre-existing condition.

Quote:

If we give the health care to the government, they'll just be a monopoly, will make the same decisions that you complain about with your plan about medicine, and you won't have any choice (except to pay your taxes AND pay for private insurance like Ken said years ago that he does).

Why would i pay for private insurance too? If the universal health plan is done right, there would be no need for supplemental insurance. People are just assuming that it will be done wrong. Medicare has covered everything my Mother has ever needed. She's never been rejected for anything. They even pay for brand name drugs when the doctor says it's needed. I'm forced to use generics no matter what my doctor says.

Quote:

Competition, under McCain's plan, would solve that problem - at a minimum, you could find a plan that offers what you want.

We have competing plans in our state and it hasn't solved anything.

Don't get me wrong, my vote wasn't based on heath care. If anything, I didn't think either candidate had a good plan. McCain's plan might have directly benefited me in some small way. I don't think Obama's plan will benefit me at all. I believe his plan will just get insurance for those without it. I viewed is as McCain ..... very expensive and it could do more harm than good from my perspective. Obama .... same old, same old. Unless a candidate was going to have a really radical plan, it wasn't even on my radar.

kenmabmcc

Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179

Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 3:32 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

xavierx wrote:

(except to pay your taxes AND pay for private insurance like Ken said years ago that he does).

As my wife and I run a small business we had a private insurance surgery plan,
so that if we needed any non acute surgery we could have it done
at a time of our choosing,
and not wait until we could have it done in the public system.
It was a matter of convenience, not one of necessity.

Any unwanted, but needed, acute surgery would have been done immediately
in the public hospital system.

In our small country, with a small population,
major surgery is done in the public system,
as NZ private hospitals do not have intensive care facilities.

We do not now have any private insurance.

Wink

tony7914

Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965

Location: Peru Indiana

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:32 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

@ej

Quote:

Ask a Canadian about their health care program especially if they live close to the states.

People know the government here well enough to know that Washington can screw up a wet dream and not even be involved in it so why would anyone in their right mind trust congress to manage anything right? Washington will screw it up.

Most insurance will pay for name brands if the doctor can show they are needed. If there is a generic available for the same drug your better off getting it as it will be cheaper and is the same thing.

xavierx

Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5425

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 2:41 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

tony7914 wrote:

People know the government here well enough to know that Washington can screw up a wet dream and not even be involved in it so why would anyone in their right mind trust congress to manage anything right? Washington will screw it up.

That's the bottom line for me. I'm all for "change" when it comes to heath care, but not if Congress runs it.

Display posts from previous: