Socialized Medicine, bad idea?

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:40 pm

A friend of mine was arguing heavily against socialized medicine, mentioning the many tales of people from Canada who wouldn't get treatment for up to 7 months and instead flying down to the States to up and get it themselves, and similar opinions on Britain's system, they then throw in stories of gov't run health care within America (such as Veterans' something-or-other) and the near universal hatred of its poor service.

Is America's current system one of the better ones?

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:18 pm

As one of those who was under privatized medical healthcare systems in America and got heavily boned. I would say no. But I have a severe bias by that.

So that could be a discountable opinion.

edit: clarifying

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:23 pm

Well, they're full of shit.

None of those procedures were emergency medicine. And in the US, we already have rationing - it's called thousands of people die because they don't have access to preventive care. Let alone the probably ten times the amount that are maimed. The US has worse rates of care and results on any measure you may care to create. More people die, more infants die, people die sooner, more people are crippled, people are denied care, etc.

Socialized medicine is better than any of the current options.

Vets (not in-the-military-currently) get better and cheaper care than the average American by any measure. Medicare is worse than that but better than the average care an American gets, and 10x cheaper.

Yeah, what does your friend smoke?

-Crissa

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:28 pm

The correct response to such nonsense is "Fuck your anecdotal propaganda and go read some actual statistics."

Because for every anecdote about some nebulous person in Canada I can probably counter with an actual tale of a real person I know personally who either:

Cannot get needed care
Is still heavily burdened by medical debt
Has to wait stupidly long for their private coverage to cover relatively simple medical care (we're talking 12 months for eyeglasses and fillings here)
Works a second job just to afford needed prescriptions.
Was fired from a job because they could not see a doctor to get the needed doctor's excuse for taking time off due to medical conditions.
Lost their entire inheritance due to the care-costs of their parents.

or similar tales from our supposedly "great" for-profit system.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:53 pm

What kind of statistics/arguments could I use?

Meikle641 · Post by **Meikle641** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:39 am

Well, technically there *are* people who have to go down to the US for tests and the occasional procedure. But for most of the population, shit gets done.

A contributing factor to the wait times and that is a shortage of doctors and related technicians. Between majorly high acceptance standards and higher-paying jobs in the US, it's not a huge surprise things sometimes get a bit much.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:30 am

virgileso wrote:Is America's current system one of the better ones?

On a more serious note, of the Canadians I know, one lives in the US and has no medical insurance (she pays for what she can afford out of pocket). The other moved back to Canada and his massive heavy metal poisoning is being treated for free courtesy of the government. Of course, that's purely anecdotal...

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 2:16 am

The use hospitals for veterans used to be shit, and was rightly condemned for being shit. Like, terribad. Massively crap.

Now it is excellent - possibly world leading - however the damning audit reports from the 70s/80s and early 90s have not been completely shed.

Anyway people who believe public healthcare is bad are immune to reason. I'll find a paper later that says the NHS provides the same standard of care as KP - and KP still comes in 10% more expensive after you assign them at 50% discount on the cost of drugs and medical technicians - despite the fact of course that the NHS is the reason that drugs and medical workers are cheaper in the UK.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 4:01 am

The number of Americans who go to Canada to get medical treatment exceeds the number of Canadians who go to the United States for medical treatment. By a lot. More hilariously, the number of Americans who go to Mexico for medical treatment exceeds the number of Canadians who go to the United States for medical treatment.

Seriously.

-Username17

Meikle641 · Post by **Meikle641** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:35 am

Huh. Usually hear the opposite in our media. Good to know.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:56 am

Meikle641 wrote:Huh. Usually hear the opposite in our media. Good to know.

That's because the media is controlled by rich white people that profit from our broken health care system. So of course they aren't going to tell you the truth.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:56 am

So. What's your opinion on the HELP Bill that's been drawn up?

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:57 am

It sucks, but if it has the public plan option and can cover everyone who wants in... I don't care how much it costs. It can't really cost more than we have now.

-Crissa

Absentminded_Wizard · Fri Jul 03, 2009 11:06 am

Nice little cartoon on the subject

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:42 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:The number of Americans who go to Canada to get medical treatment exceeds the number of Canadians who go to the United States for medical treatment. By a lot. More hilariously, the number of Americans who go to Mexico for medical treatment exceeds the number of Canadians who go to the United States for medical treatment.

Seriously.

-Username17

The population of Canada is 30 million. The population of the United States is 300 million. I wouldn't be surprised if more US citizens went to Canada than vice-versa, and I wouldn't read too much into it unless I had the actual numbers of both.

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:58 pm

As a proponent of what's been said already here and discussed statistically.

I'd like to see if some could provide a statistical devil's advocatry?

Anyone, Anyone, stale paraphrasing of too-quoted film dialogue.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:31 pm

Health Affairs Study wrote:If we extrapolate these findings (assuming that nonrespondents show a pattern similar to that of respondents), these facilities in the three large metropolitan areas combined saw approximately 640 Canadian patients for diagnostic radiology services such as computed tomography (CT) scans or MRI and 270 patients for eye procedures such as cataract surgery over a one-year period.

UCLA Study wrote:Driven by rising health care costs at home, nearly 1 million Californians cross the border each year to seek medical care in Mexico, according a new paper by UCLA researchers and colleagues published today in the journal Medical Care.

California is a single state which has approximately the population of Canada. It sends roughly a thousand times more people to Mexico than Canada sends people to the US for medical treatment.

-Username17

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:04 pm

Thanks Frank.

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:23 am

Meikle641 wrote:Huh. Usually hear the opposite in our media. Good to know.

The mainstream media lies. A lot.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:47 pm

You know, I'm surprised that it took certain people so long to go 'abortion, yo!' in an attempt to torpedo health care reform.

This may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Stay tuned.

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 5:22 am

Here's a good article

Lich-Loved · Post by **Lich-Loved** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:02 pm

So after reading some things on the WHO, I can see the US needs to improve a number of things related to healthcare and I grok that healthcare is better elsewhere. I also hear that healthcare could be much cheaper under a new system and is currently cheaper elsewhere.

Ok. Now I am kinda of a simple reasoner; my definition of cheaper means "costs me less", so, if I start supporting national healthcare, can someone explain to me how my personal expenditure for healthcare goes down under a national plan? I honestly don't see it. I often hear about tax increases related to healthcare on this or that segment of the tax base, taxing health care benefits, increased taxes on businesses and the like, but I haven't heard anyone say if you are in X tax bracket, you will see a savings of Y dollars per year through this plan.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:03 pm

The amount of money that is being paid for health care is a total amount, and it has to come from somewhere. Proximally, it comes from your employer. Some of that money is paid by your employer to health insurance companies so that you are covered. Under a nationalized plan of any kind, the taxes your employer would pay to cover the health plan would be less than what they are paying now. They are paying it to Peter instead of Paul, but they are still paying an amount of money, you're getting health coverage, and the amount of money your employer has left over is larger. Some of the money is being paid by you directly, either to a health insurance provider or directly to pay the costs of healthcare administered to you. You're going to be paying taxes again, but under a nationalized plan of any kind, you're going to be paying less in taxes than you are paying now.

Now it's actually entirely possible if you have a good job that you'll be stuck paying money under a nationalized plan where it is currently all being paid by your employer. That puts you in a sticky situation. See, the total money that your employer is paying in taxes to fund a health service plus the money you are paying in taxes to fund the health service (which of course comes out of your paycheck that is all originally your employer's money anyhow) is less than what your employer is paying to get you full coverage now. But procedurally, some of that money is coming out of your pocket. At that point there's a situation where your employer is having their costs cut by 3 apples but both you and your employer have to send an apple to the federal government. Which means that your employer is 2 apples ahead and you're 1 apple behind. Now it falls to you to renegotiate your employer to take at least one apple from their windfall and reassign it to you to offset the taxes that you are now paying to cover the program you were already getting. It's still a net savings to the company, and you ought to be able to swing that. But hey, this is capitalism, and The Man will take any opportunity to shell game you out of dough. And yeah, any time the rules on financing change in any way it's an opportunity for The Man to trick you, I don't think there's been a really good method to keep that from happening anywhere ever.

-Username17

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:17 pm

[url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/the-early-word-consumer-care/ wrote:Pres. Obama[/url]'s explanation]
No Denials for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurers would be banned from refusing coverage based on medical history.

No Huge Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurers would be bound by annual caps on charges for out-of-pocket expenses.

Preventive Care: Insurers would be required to cover checkups and tests like mammograms or diabetes screenings.

No Drops in Coverage for Major Illnesses: Companies would be barred dropping or diluting coverage for those who become seriously ill.

No Gender Disparities: Companies could not charge differently based on gender.

No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage:

Expanded Coverage for Young Adults: Family plans would cover people through age 26.

Renewal Guarantees: If premiums are paid, policies have to be renewed even if new illnesses emerge.

So, for LL, points 2, 6, and 8 are the most important. Also included in his proposal is community pools; which means that insurance policies cannot charge more for one member of a geographical location than another (for the same policy). This is very important, as it shouldn't be okay to lump extra costs on individuals for their genetic background, accidents they have had, what profession they're in... All sorts of things which currently deny people medical coverage via cost rationing.

-Crissa

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:42 am

#6+#4 is the biggest deal IMO. HUGE.

You can now buy insurance, get sick, and then not lose coverage or max out or be recissioned out.

Also, insurance is going to be a hell of a lot more expensive. Their margins have been shrinking and this is going to probably kill it for most.

They make money, but its the health care expense that's the major driver of total health care expenditures. Just hoisting it onto the insurance companies addresses their margin as it relates to costs, but not the underlying fundamental reasons for that increase.

The Gaming Den

Socialized Medicine, bad idea?

Socialized Medicine, bad idea?

Re: Socialized Medicine, bad idea?