Democrat Contenders Agree On One Thing....

[tke711]

Socialized Health Care (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=amLzUM5OQbpE&refer=home). It would seem that all of the major candidates for the Democratic nomination agree that we need to have socialized medicine. Oh, they can call it "universal" or any other word, but at the end of the day let's please call it what it is. Even if "socialist", or any derivative of that word is considered a four letter word by the Democratic party.

So, unfortunately it looks like I'll have to start paying attention to who the Republicans and Independents are putting forward, because socialized medicine is just not something I will support and/or vote for.

Man....why do I get the feeling that the 2008 election will be the same old same old? Just voting for the lesser of two evils, once again. :(

[Copzilla]

I can't either... I want to vote for a more moderate candidate, and will vote Democrat if the candidate has those tendencies. But socialized medicine is a killer topic. A candidate can be nearly perfect except for this, and I can't pull the lever for him/her.

[Stiofán]

Right now the Democrats are appealing to the far left fringe in order to get elected. Most of them (the fringe) are socialists, and government takeover of industry is what they want. I'd be more concerned with them continuing the press for big government after the primaries.

[tke711]

I can't either... I want to vote for a more moderate candidate, and will vote Democrat if the candidate has those tendencies. But socialized medicine is a killer topic. A candidate can be nearly perfect except for this, and I can't pull the lever for him/her.
Completely agree. I too am looking for that more middle of the road candidate, and don't really care which party they are claiming to be a member of. But, socialized medicine is anything but middle of the road.

Right now the Democrats are appealing to the far left fringe in order to get elected. Most of them (the fringe) are socialists, and government takeover of industry is what they want. I'd be more concerned with them continuing the press for big government after the primaries.
That's a good point, but with Hillary at least, we KNOW that it's not just getting the nomination rhetoric. She's been wanting socialized medicine for over 15 years now.

[Biker]

The unions are beginning to make noises about socialized medicine as well. I'm afraid this is going to be a HUGE issue for the 2008 election. These nutjobs just don't get it. It doesn't work. Never has, never will.

[ShinyTop]

I totally agree socialized medicine is not working real well as implemented. But either is our system. We need to be exploring ways to provide good, timely care to all of our citizens. I am not supporting any nameless plan but I will try to look at any REAL plan with an open mind in hopes of finding something that will work better than what we have now.

[ethics]

I totally agree socialized medicine is not working real well as implemented. But either is our system.

Not to nitpick but which aspect of our medicine is not working? The coverage? The Medicine itself?

[ethics]

I doubt you folks can compete with the masses:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/opinion_health_care.html

[tke711]

All I can say is that there are far too many people who haven't had to suffer through socialized medicine.

[joseftu]

Or there are far too many people who have had to suffer through the current system.

If socialized medicine has not been implemented well in other places at other times, that does not necessarily mean that it can not be implemented well.

I'm with Shiny--show me a real plan, and I'll be glad to look at it with an open mind, instead of assuming that it simply can't be done.

[tke711]

I really do wish I could be as open minded as you and ST. I really do.

However, given our governments track record of running any program efficiently, I'm not at all confident they can tackle health care without REALLY screwing it up.

I can just see the Mayo's and Sloan Kettering's of this country going bye-bye if they are forced to survive on "acceptable charges" based on what our government considers "acceptable". Not to mention the economic impact of this HUGE spending and collapse (or dramatic downsizing) of our current insurance companies.

Again, I hope I'm wrong.

[Stiofán]

Socialized anything is rarely good. Instead of it's proponents argument that it will bring everyone up to the same level, it's proven time and time again to only bring everyone down to the same level.

Notice I didn't mention healthcare above. That's because I believe socialized anything never works as well as capitalism, when it is properly regulated (no monopolies or abuses, etc.). The oil refiners have mini monopolies, we can see how that works.

Health care in this country is great, the best in the world. The problem is paying for that greatness. It's so expensive, that access for all is compromised. Socialized medicine will not reduce the costs if the care is kept at the same level. It will only shift those costs to someone else. The problem lies in the fact that no one wants to pay those costs, so what you end up with is a severely compromised system where funds are not available to pay for the best care for everyone, so it has to be rationed! Innovation is stunted as there is no benefit to innovate. And you end up with eveyone being brought down to a lower level, socialism in it's classic and time proven form. In the case of healthcare, that means 6-10 week waits for treatments, no 15 cancer fighting drugs in the pipeline every year, shortages of doctors, nurses, etc.

It's very easy to say the present system is not working well, so let's switch to socialism. The problem is it does work very well for a certain percentage of the population, those who can afford it. For those who can't, yes they want socialism because poorer medicine for everyone is better than the crappy non-existant medicine they get now. I don't blame them. This is life or death in many cases.

There has to be more price competition in medicine. We have to drive down the cost somehow. You can't put price controls on it, they don't work. When the pharmaceutical industry spends 40% of their revenue on advertising (that's billions with a "b"), when those who pay for health insurance are forced to pay higher premiums to cover millions of people not supposed to be in this country, things are really screwed up. The cost of a single asprin in a hospital is $6. Why do most private practice doctors work with thre or four other doctors? Because when some of their equiptment costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars they can't even get a loan to buy it unless they team up. Why does it have to be so expensive?

We want the same type of care, but at a lower cost for all. I think the solution is in not changing the way we pay for healthcare, but in changing how much we pay for healthcare. Changing the way we pay does nothing bu tlead to the pitfalls I outlined. Even if some people in our society could not pay anything, a lower cost would allow them to be subsidized much, much easier by the rest of us.

The Dems are pandering to the lower income crowd and those who feel government is the answer to every problem. Be careful what you wish for, for you may get it. When you have no choice in which hospital you must go to, when someone you care about needs treatment but has to wait, or when you get treated with the same medicine your parents received because no one is looking for a better pill, you'll rue the day.

Note this above is a general statement, not intended for anyone person here.

[Copzilla]

Health care in this country is great, the best in the world.

(snip)

It's very easy to say the present system is not working well, so let's switch to socialism.

And here's the crux of socialism...

You can say the above about anything in our society. Our job system isn't working well for some people. Our housing system isn't working well for some people. Our monetary system isn't working well for some people, and neither is our tax system. Our welfare system isn't working well for some people. Medicine, food distribution, clothing, transportation... EVERYTHING isn't working well for SOMEONE or other.

And so we should socialize those things? Even though it hasn't worked elsewhere, we would do it better, Joe? Come on...

Our country is the greatest in the world BECAUSE it's capitalist. We reward effort. As soon as we stop, we deteriorate. Whether it's medicine, or anything else that can be socialized.

In our capitalist society, we are in fact managing to take care of our poor and disadvantaged certainly better than other countries in the world.

[BigDeputyDog]

Show me a socialized health care plan that members of congress will be forced to participate in also, and I might consider it...

BDD...

[joseftu]

It hasn't worked elsewhere--at least that's the claim--and maybe that claim is true. But I don't think it's true that it's never worked anywhere--and even less true that it can't work anywhere.

I do know that I'm very, very, glad that my wife and I have excellent health coverage. We've known that in the past, but recently had it demonstrated quite effectively. And it's our union--not capitalism--which made that available to us.

But it's far from my field of expertise--so it's probably best for me to just listen.

[Stiofán]

I do know that I'm very, very, glad that my wife and I have excellent health coverage. We've known that in the past, but recently had it demonstrated quite effectively. And it's our union--not capitalism--which made that available to us.


It's not your union Joe, it's your union's money, being able to allow you to participate in a plan rich in benefits. Your union's money would mean squat if the only health care available was a rationed second rate system, where you weren't allowed to go for a second opinion at what you perceived a better hospital or with better doctors. Your union, with their money collected from members, is paying for some of the best care available in a capitalist health system. Heck, I don't know the answer, but I do know there is a big push for the government to take over healthcare. Can anyone say "Walter Reed"?

[ethics]

I've seen it at work. Had five teeth pulled out at age 7 in one shot. No Novocaine. I've seen clinics, dirty, smelly, and doctors scrounging drugs and equipment.

Here's the problem Joe. Who will oversee this Universal Health Plan? The government? The same Government that neither Liberals nor Conservatives trust but throw out Socialized medicine and you people drool. Why, man? Do you think this time they will treat it and manage it better than they have with our tax money? Our military? NASA? Look at the money sink they have, look how many TRILLIONS of dollars they squander? Why would you trust these fuckers who are the TOP 1% of earners in representing us and making sure we get our tax money worth?

JHC, people, wake up and smell the damn politics in this. This is a fucking bone they are throwing out and you are like starving dogs.

I don't want to get personal, Joe, I am truly not trying to offend, but your wife would NEVER EVER see the kind of care you've been fortunate to experience with Socialized medicine. I wouldn't just bet my pay check on this I would bet the rest of my life on it.

[Arc]

Socialized medicine as traditionally thought of or implemented is not a good idea for this country and if it was attempted to be implemented would be overall a giant step backward financially and health care wise for all but a few of the citizens and legal residents of the United States.

But a limited or very specific narrow socialized medical program such as one that provides flu shots, pneumonia shots and certain other vaccinations, and insures the availability of CERTAIN necessary drugs like (hypothetically), statins for those identified at risk for heart disease--that would potentially be a good idea.

When I was a child, just the word polio struck fear into the hearts of all Americans, especially those with children. When a vaccine was invented a massive national program was implemented to see that everyone starting with the children got vaccinated. First with the shots and soon thereafter with oral version of the vaccine. Schools were as I recall one of the most common places of "clinics" where everyone got their vaccine.

[Biker]

I've lived in two countries that have "socialized" health care. On the surface, it looks wonderful. Until you start paying the bill.

You aren't paying any less, you're paying far more in the form of taxes. Who the hell do you think is going to pay for all this? It sure as hell isn't the government. You will pay for it, I will pay for it, and the end result is less take home pay because you're paying healthcare for everyone.

No thank you. I don't want the 2 year wait lists, I don't want the taxes, and I don't want the government telling me where I have to go in order to receive treatment.

[damonlab]

I will go against the crowd and state that I am for socialized health care.

Let me start by explaining my situation. In the past, I have has my health care insurance premiums covered fully by my job. Work decided the cost of the insurance premiums was going up more than they wanted to pay for. I have had to pay an increasing amount out of pocket to retain the same level of service. So OK, I'm still covered.

After an emergency visit, the insurance company showed me what they paid for the visit. They also showed that since I was one of their members, the hospital charge was 50% less total than it would be for somebody without insurance. I could not believe that a hospital would charge twice as much to somebody without insurance as they would to an insurance company for somebody that did have insurance.

There was another thread in this forum where somebody stated an average cost of child birth was 10,000. They said their insurance paid for that. I can assume that the same hospital would try to charge somebody twice that amount, 20,000, for somebody without insurance.

I had a friend that has over 100,000 in medical bills. He is planning on declaring bankruptcy, but that does not mean the same thing as it used to with the change in bankruptcy laws.

With increasing health insurance premiums, many unions are allowing concessions in their bargaining.

I could go on, but many of you seem so dead against socialized healthcare that you wont listen anyhow. My question to all of you is... What is the point of having the greatest medical system in the world if the majority of the populace cannot afford it?

[ethics]

What is the point of having the greatest medical system in the world if the majority of the populace cannot afford it?

There are 300 Million Americans. Less than 40m are uninsured. How is that a majority?

[Stiofán]

The insurers get charged less, because they have negotiated contracts with the hospitals and doctors. Their leverage is that if they don't get the lower fees they won't send their insureds to that hospital. Since hospitals get the majority of their money from either insurers or the government, they can not piss either one off.

Money from people without insurance is usually written off eventually, after they declare bankruptcy. The hospitals therefore have a very big incentive to give the insurers a break, which in turn keeps them from increasing their premiums even more than they already do.

Your post is a perfect example of how many in America think. You're more upset with insurers than you are with the outrageous amounts of money it costs for medical care. You seem to be perfectly happy with the tens of thousands it costs, as long as someone else would pay it for you. I'm sorry, but I can't buy that attitude. Lower the cost, stop the lawsuits, allow more competition and everyone could afford it a bit more.

[damonlab]

There are 300 Million Americans. Less than 40m are uninsured. How is that a majority?
Please cite your figures. Even if those figures are correct, how many are under insured for a catastrophic event?

[damonlab]

You're more upset with insurers than you are with the outrageous amounts of money it costs for medical care.
You are wrong. I am equally upset with the outrageous amounts of money it costs for medical care.

[ShinyTop]

It does not have to be socialized medicine and I think that one word creates a gut level reaction. How about improvments in the system so that more are covered? How about allowing groups of small companies to leverage insurance costs like employers of hundreds or thousands of people? To include treatment for pre existing conditions and drug costs.

There are many ideas out there but if memory serves they have been defeated time after time. We all bemoan the advantage that big companies have with legislation, the same thing is going on with insurance. If the people who have to buy insurance with giant deductables could band together they could spend hundreds less a month and get better care, because they could afford to seek it sooner. I am not even speaking only of the poor, I am speaking of people who have worked their whole lives only to be downsized or worse, have their company they retired from welch on the agreements of lifetime insurance.

My son is in Canada and he tells me that his whole province, Alberta, has fewer MRI machines than I can visit in 5 different imaging labs in Pensacola. There has to be some middle ground. Something short of socialized but that is better than one completely controlled by profit. Yes, I recognize the profit motive brings about advances in medicine.

To some degree a society is judged by how it cares for those who cannot, notice I said cannot, not will not, care for themselves. I just think we could and should do better.

[ethics]

Please cite your figures. Even if those figures are correct, how many are under insured for a catastrophic event?

Here ya go. (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showpost.php?p=462771&postcount=1)

[Stiofán]

It does not have to be socialized medicine and I think that one word creates a gut level reaction. How about improvments in the system so that more are covered? How about allowing groups of small companies to leverage insurance costs like employers of hundreds or thousands of people? To include treatment for pre existing conditions and drug costs.

There are many ideas out there but if memory serves they have been defeated time after time. We all bemoan the advantage that big companies have with legislation, the same thing is going on with insurance. If the people who have to buy insurance with giant deductables could band together they could spend hundreds less a month and get better care, because they could afford to seek it sooner. I am not even speaking only of the poor, I am speaking of people who have worked their whole lives only to be downsized or worse, have their company they retired from welch on the agreements of lifetime insurance.

My son is in Canada and he tells me that his whole province, Alberta, has fewer MRI machines than I can visit in 5 different imaging labs in Pensacola. There has to be some middle ground. Something short of socialized but that is better than one completely controlled by profit. Yes, I recognize the profit motive brings about advances in medicine.

To some degree a society is judged by how it cares for those who cannot, notice I said cannot, not will not, care for themselves. I just think we could and should do better.

I can't argue with anything you've said. I just don't have any ideas how to get the bottom line costs down.

[damonlab]

Here ya go. (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showpost.php?p=462771&postcount=1)

Your link contradicts yourself. You stated that less than 40 million are uninsured... the link states that 44.8 million are uninsured. As for the rest, insurance only pays so much. There are many cases where people are not fully insured for the events that happen to them.

[Kangaroo]

Your link contradicts yourself. You stated that less than 40 million are uninsured... the link states that 44.8 million are uninsured. As for the rest, insurance only pays so much. There are many cases where people are not fully insured for the events that happen to them.

So what? Save up some money in an EMERGENCY fund. Or, here's a thought, pay for the extra insurance out of pocket. Health insurance is not a right. Health care, maybe.

Here's a few laws to help lower the cost of medical care so more folks can afford it.


Stop friggin going to the emergency room or doctors office when you get a cold.
Stop friggin going to the emergency room or doctors office when you get a cold.
Stop friggin going to the emergency room or doctors office when you get a cold.

[Copzilla]

But a limited or very specific narrow socialized medical program such as one that provides flu shots, pneumonia shots and certain other vaccinations, and insures the availability of CERTAIN necessary drugs like (hypothetically), statins for those identified at risk for heart disease--that would potentially be a good idea.

We already have those things.

[Biker]

I could go on, but many of you seem so dead against socialized healthcare that you wont listen anyhow. My question to all of you is... What is the point of having the greatest medical system in the world if the majority of the populace cannot afford it?

Can YOU afford socialized health care? Do you want your taxes to equal 40 percent of your existing pay? I used to make 15 bucks an hour in Toronto. The company I worked for used to give us all the overtime we wanted. Then I sat down and figured things out. If I worked a 60 hour work week, the taxes reduced my take home pay by 40 percent. I actually made LESS money by working overtime than I did if I worked a 40 hour week.

Oh sure, everyone thinks it would be nice to have "free" health care. But it isn't free. The money has to come from somewhere, and guess where that somewhere is?

I remember in the UK, some hospitals had to close in the fall because they ran out of money. I'm sure that thrilled the patients who were scheduled for surgery at those places. Of course, how could their doctor foresee that far in advance as their appointment for the surgery was made 18 months ago.

No thank you. I've seen it in action, and it doesn't work. You actually pay more for the health care in more ways than one.

[Arc]

We already have those things.

Not exactly. Are they available in many areas as far as shots. Yes. Everywhere and easily obtained. No. Free. Maybe yes, maybe no.

Drugs--can you get free or affordable drugs that you have to take on a regular or long term basis that are necessary to your health and in some cases your survival. Technically, yes in that there are programs that permit folks to get certain drugs at an affordable rate after you jump through hoops and apply for them and I believe those are at the discretion of the drug companies.

All of the above could be made more accessible to all and ensure that money was not an issue. Routine, accessible, no cost factor in determining access. We need to improve on that.

[Steve]

How about improvments in the system so that more are covered? -snip- I am not even speaking only of the poor, I am speaking of people who have worked their whole lives only to be downsized or worse, have their company they retired from welch on the agreements of lifetime insurance.This deserves more consideration. There is plenty of evidence that health education and preventive measures are far more effective for the patient and cost-effective for the service delivery system. I think it's a reasonable cost for the government to bear to provide free clinics that educate people on health care issues, provide free screenings, free or reduced-cost vaccinations and, for a variety of diseases, free or reduced-cost maintenance medications.

That doesn't mean everyone gets free open-heart surgery but it does mean that everyone is at least given the opportunity to learn how to live and eat healthier and given the opportunity to receive the necessary screenings to detect problems earlier, when they're cheaper and easier to treat.

[ethics]

Your link contradicts yourself. You stated that less than 40 million are uninsured... the link states that 44.8 million are uninsured.

Damon, can we not play the games other forums play? Please?

You: What is the point of having the greatest medical system in the world if the majority of the populace cannot afford it?

300 million in America right?
Even if it's 50 million Americans it's still not a majority (needs to be over 150 million) not even close.

[Copzilla]

It's 20%.

Here's the thing about capitalism...

We PERMIT FAILURE. We allow people to be as rich or as destitute as they wish to be. We only provide the opportunity to succeed, not the guarantee.

Now I realize there are exceptions, and there are people who are in that position through no fault of their own. It's a tough world out there.

But there are a great deal of less advantaged people who simply have less because of their choices. That's right... they chose, and still choose, to not have more. If you offer them more for nothing, then they will gleefully take it. But they haven't earned it, and capitalism is all about earning what you get.

This 20% of people who are uninsured simply represents the choice of the population to not have it. Despite what anecdotes you may hear, despite what hand-wringing you may see out of the baby-kissers, there is a functionality to wealth and poverty.

Even our poorest receive adequate health care - better than they could receive anywhere else - if they CHOOSE to seek it out.

[tke711]

Well said Copz.

Socialized medicine is just another entitlement program, which seems to fit in well with ethics Age of Entitlement (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?t=51561&highlight=entitlement) thread.

[Steve]

It should be pointed out, as well, that having no health insurance in the U.S. does not automatically equate to having health problems. Comparing our water and food supplies and overall level of safety of life, in general, any random person in the U.S. without healthcare coverage is probably far better off than the best-covered person in any Third World or former Second World country.

[Copzilla]

any random person in the U.S. without healthcare coverage is probably far better off than the best-covered person in any Third World or former Second World country.

Or even in any country with socialized medicine.

We have a facility here that is a fine hospital, John Sealy Hospital in Galveston. It is specifically governmentally funded for destitute.

Back in the day, before Copz met Sam and Kidzilla was newborn (she's my stepdaughter), Kidzilla developed meningitis.

Kidzilla received the best health care imaginable, at John Sealy Hospital. Sam was destitute at the time, without health care insurance.

A few years later, Sam and I had met and married, but still not making any money, had no health care insurance. Kidzilla received a really bad dog bite, requiring stitches and a hospital stay. Her health care was excellent! She received it at John Sealy Hospital.

Now I have health care insurance, and I recently had surgery. I had surgery that mirrors surgery a friend of ours had recently. He has no health care insurance. He's up and walking around just like I am. He had his surgery at John Sealy Hospital, I had mine at St. John's Hospital. My stay was probably more luxurious, and my room was likely more spacious. My aftercare was probably faster, less waiting room time. He likely had a general surgeon, I had a specialist. But here's the point - His health care was excellent. He's doing very well; he's recovered as I have.

There is nothing that socializing all of medicine will bring him that he didn't already receive.

You know what people complain about at John Sealy Hospital? Waiting room times for non-emergency services. That's it.

[MemphisMark]

One thing I would like to add to the discussion is even that 40 million is overstated. I remember a while back that they count those who can't afford it, and those who opt out because they are young, or they have enough money to pay cash for anything. Plus, you are counted if you even had a 1 day lapse in health care, such as going from one job to another.

I don't know how many those numbers constitute, but it has got to be a fair share of that 40 million.

Cpoz said it right when he said we permit failure. I like to call it the freedom to starve. It is this very motivation that inspires us to do better every day.

Most of the people who have no health care are there because of bad life choices. They had a kid too young, they dropped out of high school, etc. Even then, their health care is more than what the rich could afford in a Third World country.

Our poor own houses, cars, air conditioners and color TV's. Outside of hell holes like Compton and Cabrini, they would be considered rich anywhere else. Think about that.

As far as doctors go, if you are going to socialize medicine, you are going to have to cut costs. Why not start with the doctors? After all, they are getting paid $100k+ a year. What gives them the right to make so much money? So lets pay them as much as a plumber. Well, the problem is the plumber didn't have to go to college for 10 years to learn his trade. He didn't have to rack up $100k in student loans to pay for his education. So if the money isn't there, why should anyone what to be a doctor?

That's whay drives the system. The cost of research and development to make new equipment and drugs. Better diagnostic equipment and stuff like that. Our system is the most expensive in the world, simply because it is the greatest.

You can't have great health care at bargan basement prices. It doesn't work that way. No one would make any money and they would go on to other things.