Stop Calling it Socialized Medicine!

[KartMan 58]

Who’s getting tired of all the ads that are calling the proposals for Health Care reform “Socialized Medicine”? Even the most liberal approach to the reforms “Single Payer” is not at all socialized medicine. At most, it might me considered “socialized payment” or “socialized administration”. None of the plans call for socialized medicine, if you are one that falls for this misinformation then the Insurance Companies are getting just what they want from you.

A more realistic example of socialized medicine would be the British System, in which the hospitals are run by the government and the doctors are on the payroll of the government. Another example closer to home would be the VA in which the government provides the hospitals and the doctors to vets. What is being proposed here “Single Payer or a Government Option” is a system in which the federal program only takes the place of the insurance company and pays the bills to the doctors or the hospitals. This program is more analogous to the Canadian and French systems. The beauty of this program is that it takes away the insanity that doctors have to go thru in dealing with hundreds of separate carriers and it provides coverage for everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Do you really have a personal relationship with your insurance provider today? Do you even have a choice in which carrier you get? Most people don’t, they have to take whatever carrier their company provides for them. And then, once they take the carrier that is provided, they usually have to pick a doctor that is on the plan that the company offers. I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound like a lot of free choice to me. You are being lied to by Insurance Companies. Single Payer will provide more choice and more cost savings to the average household. The only group that will suffer form this are the Insurance Carriers, and they will tell you every lie they can to stop it from being implemented. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for these companies. The way I see it, they are a big reason costs have escalated and quality of care has decreased over the last 30 years.

[willowcat 93]

You are being lied to by Insurance Companies. Single Payer will provide more choice and more cost savings to the average household. The only group that will suffer form this are the Insurance Carriers, and they will tell you every lie they can to stop it from being implemented. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for these companies.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for these companies either. Our health care system in America sucks.

I was so happy to get my first real teaching job, because it came with insurance benefits! BUT, I didn't get to pick which insurer our school district went with. And in my 16 years with the same school district, we've changed carriers 4 times--because of rising costs. This last time, I had to drop the doctor that I had had for 15 years--our new insurer was not able to come to a financial agreement with the doctor's group that he worked in. I didn't have a say in any of this.

This new insurer covers 50% of the cost of my lapband (in some ways I'm grateful that they cover lapband at all, but then I also feel a little jeolous of people who don't have to pay any out-of-pocket for their lapband). My hospital estimated my costs to be $9,000 for the surgery only. I'll still need to pay the surgeon and the anesthesiologist their 50%.

For the longest time, my husband didn't want to be on my insurance because he didn't want to spend the money on the higher monthy premium. I was terrified that he would get in a car accident or develop a serious illness--THEN what would we do?! Finally, he agreed to let me add him. I can't tell you what an enormous relief that was for me.

My father had a small business for several years that was not a big money maker. My parents went without insurance for years, but still needed medications. They got them from Canada. Neither of my parents had a physical or any screenings done during that entire time. One should not have to play Insurance Russian Roulette with one's health--daring Fate to spare you a tragedy while you're uninsured.

Also, there are people who have posted on this board that they CAN'T AFFORD to get a fill/unfill because they don't have insurance or insurance doesn't cover it, or something along those lines. I remember reading a post of Jachut's (who lives in Australia) where she said that her fills and unfills are free for the rest of her life. My "free" fills and unfills run out after the first year of my surgery date. After that I'll have to pay for them, too.

When I was in Europe 20 years ago, I remember meeting some Germans on the train who told me that they couldn't believe that our "great" country allows people to go without proper medical care. They couldn't see how that could be possible. Doesn't a great country look after its own people?! Twenty years later and I still couldn't agree more.

Something in this country has definitely got to change!

Edited July 4, 2009 by willowcat

[wootsie73 0]

So, what do you want us to call medical care that is provided by the government? It's definitely not just "single payer". It is my belief that you are being lied to by your government much more so than your insurance company. How long do you think it will take for all of the doctors are working for the government? How long do you think it will take for all of the hospitals to be run by the government? The medical plan that is being pushed down our throats is something doctors, hospitals, nurses, and all other healthcare workers are fighting. I as a nurse, can tell you that I don't have 1 colleague who wants the government to take over our medical care. So, I think you are the ones who are misinformed, not the people who are calling it what it is. SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!

Joan

[KartMan 58]

I guess you didn’t read what I wrote. I described Single Payer, not socialized medicine. You have morphed it into socialized medicine by what you are afraid it “might” become. I don’t want what you described either and I don’t know anyone else that does. It puzzles me though that one would be so afraid of what “might” happen that they won’t even entertain the idea of changing what clearly “is” a flawed design.

What Willow describes above about not having any control of who provides her coverage and being forced to switch doctors only because hers was not on the plan is only one of the many problems with the current system. A Single Payer system would allow her to keep that doctor, it would also allow her to leave her job and not worry about where her next coverage would come from. If in the current system during that transition, she developed an illness, her next insurance would not cover that illness. That problem would be addressed by Single Payer.

While I do agree that Single Payer like any other government program will need a whole set of rules for it to be well run, we should be smart enough to figure out the details. We have models to work from (France, Canada, and our own Medicare). Aren’t we smart enough to draft legislation that takes the best of those plans to move forward with? Since nobody wants Socialized Medicare (like the British model), aren’t we smart enough to legislate that out?

Your arguments sound like the same fear mongering we have been hearing on this topic for the past 20 years. Ignoring the problem has only made it worse. I for one will not stay quite while the Insurance Companies try to stop this again. Health Care is a right that every American should have, just like access to schools, roads, police and fire service, and national security.

[KartMan 58]

What did grandpa do when his barn burned down or he broke his leg? The 'single payer' in that era was the family itself.

While there may be many among us that could pay for the costs to repair a broken leg, for many Americans even that relatively small malady would be a major dent in their savings. If that broken leg was addressed in the ER, the bill could easily be $5k or more. What about when grandpa gets cancer? Do you really think he could pay for that himself? Of course not. The bills associated with cancer would likely bankrupt most people. Even if under some miracle the cancer bills did get paid for by some method, he could never get insurance again because of that pre-existing condition.

[KartMan 58]

Re: "right to health care"

Personally I believe the need for food and shelter is at a higher level of daily need for most folks; given that point, why does 'health care' occupy a larger amount of public debate?....so too with 'right to move about the realm' on those public roads without the fear of highway men or potholes...why is there no outcry for basic vehicles provided wide scale to solve all those nagging problems?

KartMan, I do agree with you about national security. That at least IS mentioned as a governmental responsibility.

cheers for the Fourth!!!

I don’t think you will find it directly in original Constitution, but there are some relevant indicators in the Amendments and in the earlier Declaration of Independence. In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson writes …certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

- the Ninth Amendment states that rights are not restricted because they are not specifically covered in the Constitution

- The Equal Protection Clause states that everyone is to be treated equally. The problem here is that the current medical system is completely broken. Wealthy people or those with adequate insurance are able to get treatment for their medical conditions, while the poor, the working poor, and even people with substandard insurance can be wiped out by exorbitant medical bills. Theses are fundamental inequalities that are in direct conflict with the design of equality granted by the 14th Amendment.

There is a common thread throughout the Bill of Rights – it is that the people have a right to pursue their lives without hindrance. The basic concept of the Bill of Rights is that everybody should be allowed to pursue their own lives in peace and security. Yet today, with the health care system so dramatically unequal, people are being deprived of the right to live their own lives in peace and comfort as set forth in the Bill of Rights.

I think it is a right, but even if I didn’t, I would at least think it is a moral and fiscal imperative. The system that we have today is broken and will surly bankrupt us if it is allowed to continue. Even before it bankrupts society, it is already bankrupting and killing individuals. When uninsured people today face a catastrophic illness they have to go into irreversible debt. Many people die way too soon because they lack even the most basic of medical coverage.

And a happy fourth to you as well Jack:thumbup:

[pattygreen 5]

That's what it will START out as. But eeventually it will be a takeover of ALL insurance companys. The gov. will be the only option left for people and we will HAVE to have them as our coverage. They know what they are doing. You don't change things, when it's a drastic change, immediately. You do it gradually. This is what the gov. will do.

[KartMan 58]

KartMan:

It looks like there are some basic differences in how we regard the Bill of Rights.

IMHO "Pursuit of happiness" refers to the right of the individual to not be impaired by governmental regulation in the expression of their daily routine. I don't see how that infers a 'Single Payer' model.

I don’t think I referred to “Pursuit of Happiness”, I highlights the word “life” in that sentence.

If that cancer treatment will bankrupt grandpa, what will millions of otherwise underfunded treatment regimes do to the whichever system is in place? Who pays for all that treatment? And why should my neighbor pay for me?

We are already paying for it in some way today. If we clean up the system and have a Single Payer system, most experts agree that the costs of delivering that care could be dramatically less. I’m sure you don’t believe it, but it’s quite possible we could actually save money this way.

Regarding other reasons for bankruptcy, such as housing etc: Just because I somehow came up with a mortgage I had no means to pay, or just because I grabbed what seemed like too-good a deal at 'interest only' payment scheme, why should I expect -you- to pay for -my- 'right to own a house'?

Considering the odd legislation of Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that voided the normal risk-investment balance, what evidence do we have 'Single Source' regulation of such as housing actually works?

I am not an advocate for forgiving people’s mortgages, that is an entirely different topic.

While there are many causes for various maladies, regulation of how individuals fund their treatment options is not in the same category as, say, regulation of bus brake function or control of contagious diseases in public restaurants.

How is Single Payer any different than the rules placed on you today by private insurance in this regard?

The infortuitous concatenation of circumstance result in unexpected catastrophic expenses. Does your notion of health insurance have some marker whereby *some* expense is 'normal' borne by the individual yet past that some excessive costs are covered?

This is a good question, and one that brings up the old adage “the devil is in the details”. Yes, I think there would have to be some regulation around what is allowed and disallowed. In my “utopian” model, Single Payer would cover wellness visits, true illnesses, life threatening conditions, etc. I think if elective procedures were to be covered under Single Payer (and I’m not suggesting they should) there should be some sort of different co-pay or increased deductable. Let’s take our favorite procedure for example, the Lapband. While there are plenty of people that really “need” this or some other WLS, some are choosing it before it is medically necessary. The ones that need it have a BMI over 40, comorbidities, etc. – Single Payer should pay for that just as it would any other illness. In my case however, I probably should not be covered or should have a much higher deductible because my BMI was under 40 and I had no comorbidities (yet).

When those 'equal rights' include 'equal effort' and 'equal application' I'd be more interested in seeing the discussion about why some of us have to get out of bed and go to work whether we want to or not, while others unequally manage to avoid that noisome detail.

This is a real slippery slope. Are you sure you want to go there with this discussion? Are you somehow implying that some people are more worthy than others? What would be your rational for determining such a thing?

Agreed that too many of us fall into the maw of crippling expense from health care. Still, the application of the rules of economic reality is "income must exceed expense" for our system to work.....and Government whatever else it does in our national history, continues to spend more than it collects.

See the argument above on costs.

I hadn't seriously considered the various Bill of Rights as indicator of how private society must conduct itself; rather as a guide to how Government must treat its citizens. I'll have to ponder how application of the BofR might affect my own daily activities. Thanks for the idea.

There are some interesting arguments out there on how providing Universal Health care is compatible with the contents of the Constitution and the BofR. There are also some really compelling pieces that say it is not only a “legal” right but a moral imperative. One has to make their own determination on that. I know one thing for certain though. The opponents of Universal Health care are not really individual thinkers like yourself – it is the Health Care Lobby that is currently spending $1.4 million a day http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502770.html to see that “reform” gets done in such a way that it reflects their interest (which are not necessarily yours or mine).

[KartMan 58]

I’m certainly not an expert, so let me see if I can get this right. Single Payer would be a program in which the Government is the Insurer for those that qualify and are enrolled in the program. It is analogous to Medicare. Universal Health Care would be a system in which everyone qualifies for with no questions asked and no cost to the patient (again the Government is the Insurer). Universal Health care is sort of analogous to the Public School system.

By the sounds of those definitions, I think I prefer the Single Payer System. I like to think that it could be developed in such a way that there could still be personal accountability built in. Let me explain that… Those that have health insurance today usually get it from their employer. The employer usually pays a big percentage of the premium (say 80%), the employee pays a smaller portion (say 20%). The employee pays some sort of annual deductible and is given a framework that they can get treatment in. For example, the insurer may put a dollar cap on certain procedures. If the employee wants a procedure that is under funded by the policy, they have to make up the difference (this difference does not always go to the deductible). I can envision a system in which the government takes the place of the insurer, yet the other rules still apply. The employer would still pay a percentage of the premium, the employee would cover the rest plus co-pays.

A few key differences between single payer and the current private system are:

- the premium costs should be less (to the employee and employer) because the insured population would be so large

- administrative costs would be driven down because the overhead to support Single Payer would be less than multiple private insurances

- the Single Payer program would not be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions

- employees would have essentially the same coverage when switching from one job to another (or even if they become self employed)

- there would have to be some premium cost allocation structure for the unemployed and for low income workers

- premium costs would be determined by ability to pay

- everyone gets the same level of care

Some similarities to the current system:

- you get to keep your doctor (n fact your company won’t be switching your plan every year so you don’t have to worry about your doc going off-net)

- you still have to qualify for certain procedures (elective or medically unnecessary procedures would need special approval)

- individuals still have to pay something into the program (this is not a free lunch)

[Headhunter 6]

Off topic, but relevant: My hat is off to both Jack and Kartman for the cordial and civilized manner in which they are discussing what is a very, very hot topic.

I'm not used to seeing such civility....particularly where I am present....

HH

[KartMan 58]

Thanks HH – I try to keep it civil, but it’s not always easy:wink2:. A few threads back I let myself get carried away and allowed the tone of my conversation get personal. I didn’t intend it that way when I wrote it, but it came across that way. It’s really hard on here because the topics are emotionally charged, we are a bit anonymous, and we are writing rather than speaking (or reading rather than hearing). In person, I have a sarcastic sense of humor and I constantly have to watch that on here, because in writing sarcasm often presents itself as bashing.

I consider myself politically independent, although I have come from the right’s point of view in my past life (my first presidential vote was for Regan in 1984) and tend to lean left now (my last presidential vote was for Obama). This topic is very interesting to me because I see it as more of a moral imperative than a constitutional rights issue (if that even makes sense). I’m afraid though that while folks like Jack and I would both agree that the current system is full of flaws, interests with more money than us will likely shape the final result and it probably won’t be a pill either of us wants to swallow:frown:.

[plain 12]

I’m certainly not an expert, so let me see if I can get this right. Single Payer would be a program in which the Government is the Insurer for those that qualify and are enrolled in the program. It is analogous to Medicare. Universal Health Care would be a system in which everyone qualifies for with no questions asked and no cost to the patient (again the Government is the Insurer). Universal Health care is sort of analogous to the Public School system.

By the sounds of those definitions, I think I prefer the Single Payer System.

Ok, I can see your point (though I don't agree) on this. However, by that set of criteria, there will still be people not covered. Many politicians are saying this new overhaul should cover EVERYbody.

I like to think that it could be developed in such a way that there could still be personal accountability built in. Let me explain that… Those that have health insurance today usually get it from their employer. The employer usually pays a big percentage of the premium (say 80%), the employee pays a smaller portion (say 20%). The employee pays some sort of annual deductible and is given a framework that they can get treatment in. For example, the insurer may put a dollar cap on certain procedures. If the employee wants a procedure that is under funded by the policy, they have to make up the difference (this difference does not always go to the deductible).

But single payer will be funded largely from taxes. In other words, employers will be paying for two premiums on people. When this inevitably starts to cut in on profits (especially with small business), employers will opt to drop their costly (in your example, paying 80% of the premium) private insurance. As more and more employers follow this model, private insurances will have to raise premium prices to stay solvent. As premiums rise, more businesses will be unable to offer private insurance and people will be driven to the government plan.

A few key differences between single payer and the current private system are:

- the premium costs should be less (to the employee and employer) because the insured population would be so large

- administrative costs would be driven down because the overhead to support Single Payer would be less than multiple private insurances

- the Single Payer program would not be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions

- employees would have essentially the same coverage when switching from one job to another (or even if they become self employed)

- there would have to be some premium cost allocation structure for the unemployed and for low income workers

- premium costs would be determined by ability to pay

This is what I was referring to earlier. Even with a tiered premium payment system, there will eventually be people that will be recieving medical care for free. Even if "streamlining" the system saves the amount of money that President Obama says it will (personally, I think that idea is folly), the costs will be overwhelming. And we're not even taking into account the sheer number of people that will flood the system until we secure the border.

- everyone gets the same level of care

Some similarities to the current system:

- you get to keep your doctor (n fact your company won’t be switching your plan every year so you don’t have to worry about your doc going off-net)

- you still have to qualify for certain procedures (elective or medically unnecessary procedures would need special approval)

- individuals still have to pay something into the program (this is not a free lunch)

My hat is off to both Jack and Kartman for the cordial and civilized manner in which they are discussing what is a very, very hot topic.

Totally agree. Intelligent discussion, without insane political propaganda and name calling is refreshing.

[BJean 16]

Sounds like you peeps miss me. :cursing:

[HappyHomeCC 2]

I am curious as to how many of you all posting here have relatives that live in a what the majority refer to as "socialized medicine" ??? Or a relative that is a citizen of another country and is retired?

[KartMan 58]

Not a relative, but a friend that lives in England. She was offered a great opportunity a few years ago to come to the US and work for a major company. She had to turn it down because her husband has a lot of medical problems and is pretty well taken care of there. If she came here she would have had to leave him there or bring him here with no coverage because the company’s insurance would not have covered his preexisting condition.