Is Socialist Medicine Really that bad?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

NinerNiner999

Senior Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
1,516
Reaction score
233
SO I was thinking about how we bill for our services, the percentage of uninsured patients we care for, and the EMTALA guidelines that dictate the we are required to see everyone who enters our doors. I was also thinking about our reimbursement for our services based on collections, of which 50% of our patients will never pay. Looking at the current model of reimbursement for EM, how "bad" would a socialist medicine model really be for us as EP's?

It seems to me that we are already practicing socialized medicine of sorts, and that a nationwide healthcare plan might actually increase our revenue. Given our patient population, I would think that our field is the execption rather than the rule for healthcare. Sure, orthopedic surgeons would lose a TON of money when they are required to do extensive spinal surgery on an uninsured homeless patient who will never pay private insurance level of reimbursement. They would lose more because they would likely be required to treat this patient under federal law. From an EM perspective, what would we have to lose? We are essentially treating these patients every day. If the government adopted a plan that 1) offered government-subsidized insurance to the uninsured, 2) allowed those with private insurance to keep it, and 3) required that ALL fields of medicine see everyone under a provision similar to EMTALA, it seems that our jobs would get easier (from a disposition standpoint) and pay us more (because those who don't have insurance now will have it). Of course this is under the assumption that CMS rates stay the same.

Thoughts?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Ok, First - AUUUGGGGG!!!!! NOOOOOOOO!!!! Not a socialized medicine thread on the EM forum. AAAAAAAA!!!!:eek: Now, with that out of the way...

I agree that our dispos would likely become easier since there would be no more arguing about who has to deal with the uninsured.

I suspect our med mal position would get better as well. My thoughts there are that med mal represents a HUGE drain on the system. Eliminate that drain and the politicians can increase the entitlement with fewer tax increases. Politicians hate being on record voting for higher taxes even more than they love the trial lawyers.

Our pay would go down. Reimbursements would go down as the government tries to make universal care out of nothing. Private insurers would follow suit and/or go out of business as people and employers position themselves to take advantage of the new entitlement. If you're an employer why would you pay for healthcare for your employees when you can let them go into the new expanded Medicaid. Many people don't view EM as a "real" specialty and it would be harder to fight for better reimbursement in the court of public opinion.

As for EMTALA it would only get more onerous. If there's universal healthcare and the reimbursements are low, as they would have to be, hospitals will continue to try to dump. Of note EMTALA already does apply to all specialists who practice at a given hospital. We will still be unlikely to get a full specialist panel at all hospitals. In recent years EMTALA has relaxed its standards on who has to appear on the call list and how much. Would socialized healthcare reverse this trend? Hard to say.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
in theory I agree with Niner, in practice I would have to agree with DocB.

Both valid viewpoints, and reasonable assumptions. While I cant say for sure what the consequences/benefits of long-term socialized healthcare in the U.S. might be, I would vote against if I had to make a decison today.

Just my $0.02 as a medical student which should be really worth about a $0.01.

I do think it is an interesting topic though, and would love to here more on the issue.

CJ
 
See my post in that other thread about EP salaries in Canada being up to 300k/year. Are you sure reimbursement would drop? Wouldn't it be nice to not have to worry about whether each patient has insurance, EMTALA violations, whether a certain procedure is covered under their plan, whether you're going to have to chase after companies for your money, etc. Not to mention, that everyone in your country has access to healthcare (but I don't want to get into a socialized vs. private medicine debate here, so let's just stick to the salary issue).
 
I would rather get paid less if it meant that every patient I saw had a PMD and insurance. We would also likely see the number of visits (especially for bull****) drop considerably as everyone would be able to see a PMD. There would no longer be 'I can't get in to see my PMD because I can't afford it'. I would love to work a shift where every patient I saw actually may have an emergency.
 
in theory I agree with Niner, in practice I would have to agree with DocB.

Both valid viewpoints, and reasonable assumptions. While I cant say for sure what the consequences/benefits of long-term socialized healthcare in the U.S. might be, I would vote against if I had to make a decison today.

Just my $0.02 as a medical student which should be really worth about a $0.01.

I do think it is an interesting topic though, and would love to here more on the issue.

CJ

Not trying to start a vitriolic war here but...

you wrote:

"While I cant say for sure what the consequences/benefits of long-term socialized healthcare in the U.S. might be, I would vote against if I had to make a decison today".

Okay, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in that if you knew in advance you would have to vote, you would educate yourself in advance. The trouble is, many feel the same way as your quote but can't be arsed to actually read about it.

Here's the skinny:

Leviathan is right... and not right. Physician salaries aren't lower in Canada. In fact, with the way current exchange rates are, they actually pull in more. Gross. The trouble is, to pay for all that beautiful health care your tax rake is crazy. So you actually do make more net here in the U.S. Plus, on a historical level, the currency is likely to become a little more favorable for the Greenback in the long term.

Remember, socialized medicine isn't socialist! :laugh:

We tend to have a negative connotation with the whole term. Truth is, it is better from the standpoint of not having to hound bill payers. But the trade offs, at least for the consumer, is wait times for non emergent procedures (like elective surgery). In an emergency dept, though, practicing there is almost identical to here. Really. Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax, Calgary, Montreal... they all got Level I trauma centres. They all got CT scanners at their disposal just like us. They can all call in the MRI tech in the middle of the night if they fear an epidural abscess.

I do take issue with those who support socialized medicine becasue they think it will improve the medicolegal climate. It won't. The only thing that will is malpractice reform. Things are less litigious in Canada vs. U.S. ... but it's got anything to do with the health system. It's the freaking culture we have here where it's never our fault, it's always someone elses, and a cash windfall is just a phone call away if you listen to the lawyers as you see another advert about mesothelioma at 3am in the morning.
 
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=11ABA0F4D8B750F8&p_docnum=5

Is universal health care worth waiting for?

Published on July 29, 2007
Author: Henry L. Davis - NEWS MEDICAL REPORTER
© The Buffalo News Inc.
After battling brain cancer, Lindsay McCreith is ready for his next fight: He's taking on the Canadian health care system.
His case has potential repercussions on both sides of the border as pressure grows for health reform.

It started when the 66-year-old retired auto body shop owner suffered a seizure last year, and he was told he would have to wait more than four months in Canada for an MRI to rule out a malignant tumor.

Rather than wait, McCreith quickly arranged a trip to Buffalo for a scan. The MRI confirmed his worst fears -- a cancerous growth that a Buffalo neurosurgeon removed a few weeks later. "If I had been patient, I'd probably be disabled or dead today," McCreith said.

Now, McCreith is suing the Ontario government in a closely watched constitutional challenge that could reshape universal health coverage in the province by striking down the prohibition against patients buying private insurance.

On this side of the border, advocates of universal health insurance champion Canada's popular public program as a fairer system that the United States should emulate, as seen in Michael Moore film, "Sicko." Yet critics see the long waits for some services in Canada -- mainly for non-emergency surgery -- as an argument against an increased role for government in health care.

In Canada, McCreith's story reflects a debate, intensified by the long waiting times, between those who want more for-profit, private care and those who fear the rise of two-tier medicine that undermines the public system.

McCreith offers little doubt about where he stands. "We have universal health coverage," he said. "But it failed me when I needed it the most."

McCreith of Newmarket, north of Toronto, experienced seizures on Jan. 2, 2006, and was diagnosed with a benign tumor based on a CT scan. A physician at a Canadian hospital declined to order an MRI to rule out a malignancy. McCreith's family doctor agreed to request the more-definitive scan, but McCreith was told he would have to wait over four months for the appointment.

Concerned that the tumor could progress, McCreith on Feb. 2 arranged through Timely Medical Alternatives Inc., a Vancouver, B.C., company that helps patients obtain services outside of Canada's public health care system, to get an MRI in Buffalo the next day. The scan suggested the tumor was malignant, although slow-growing.

A neurologist then referred McCreith to a Canadian neurosurgeon for consideration of a biopsy, which is the only way doctors could definitively determine just how dangerous the tumor was.

This time, the Canadian health system told him the first available appointment for a biopsy was May 9. McCreith viewed his situation with more urgency, especially with the fresh memory of a good friend who died last year while waiting for heart surgery.
So in early March, he stepped outside the Canadian system again and got a biopsy at Millard Fillmore Hospital. During the procedure, the surgeon identified and immediately removed a brain tumor known as a low-grade astrocytoma.

Dr. Elad Levy, the Buffalo neurosurgeon who cared for McCreith, declined to comment specifically on the case, but said that earlier detection and treatment can increase chances of survival and quality of a patient's life.

McCreith said he has spent $45,000, including $28,000 to remove the tumor, for care in the United States that Ontario's Health Insurance Plan refuses to reimburse because he failed to seek pre-approval.

"It can take months to get pre-approval, and why should I need it anyway?" McCreith said.

In Canada, the provinces and federal government pay about 70 percent of medical costs, including most hospital and physician care. Patients and private insurance companies pay the remaining 30 percent for such expenses as prescription drugs, and dental and vision care.

Canada bans private insurance for essential health needs, but it is not a socialized system. Doctors and hospitals are private.

The Canadian system is unofficially called Medicare, the same name as the U.S. government health plan for seniors, but it's actually 10 separate provincial programs regulated by the federal government.

The social program, known for its fairness and value, remains intricately woven into the fabric of Canadian society.

In 2005, health care spending per capita in Canada was $3,326, nearly half of what the United States spends. Yet Canada fares as well as or better than the United States on comparisons such as life expectancy and infant mortality.

But like any national health system, Canada's has shortcomings that have come under attack, especially long waiting times and related shortages of physicians and high-tech devices like MRIs.

For instance, patients in Ontario wait an average of 22 weeks for cataract surgery and 34 weeks for a hip replacement, according to statistics from the Ontario Ministry of Health.
"Canada is not a medical utopia, as some would have you believe, or a disaster, as others claim," said Jack Tu, a senior scientist at the Toronto-based Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and co-author of a recent study on waiting times.

"Most people get care in a reasonable amount of time. What you hear about are the horror stories," said Tu, whose study in the journal Health Affairs showed that Canada is not doing as good a job of reducing waiting times as other countries with universal coverage.
Those horror stories are turning into court cases.

In 2005, a legal challenge similar to McCreith's paved the way for private insurance in Quebec.

The lawsuit by Dr. Jacques Chaoulli and Georges Zeliotis, a Montreal man who waited a year for a hip replacement, led to a landmark but divided decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. The gist of the ruling is that there must be reasonable waiting times for patients without finances to get care elsewhere if the government insists on making patients stay within a single-payer system.

McCreith's case will test that decision in Ontario by claiming that the province's ban on private health insurance and private billing by physicians infringed on his constitutional right to life, liberty and security.

"In Canada, we have a monopoly health system, and you don't have the right to seek alternatives. That can be a huge financial and emotional burden for patients," said Avril Allen, McCreith's attorney.

A recent statement from the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which is helping to sponsor the lawsuit, said that it was intolerable that residents could buy medical insurance for their pets but not for themselves.

"The question is this: Should Canadians have to stay on waiting lists against their will?" Allen said.

Some people say the cases will undo Canada's cherished system of providing health insurance to everyone, a turn of events desired by proponents of privatization.
Others say they will force the government -- and taxpayers -- to invest more money to fill in the gaps in the health system.

"If we give up single-payer and allow private care, our health costs will go up and patients in the public system will wait even longer," said Raisa Deber, a health policy expert at the University of Toronto.

She said the United States also rations care but in a less-equitable way: There are 44 million uninsured people who lack access to specialists, and others with insurance who face mounting payments to get care.

In 2004, Canada set up a 10-year, $5.5 billion plan to establish benchmarks and reduce waiting times in such key areas as cancer care, heart procedures and diagnostic imaging. The effort, however, is seemingly at a standstill. The provinces, for instance, have not created waiting time guarantees or common ways to measure waiting times.
"The challenge in Canada is to get anything done on a national level," Tu said.
For McCreith, whose case could go to trial next month, the debate boils down to what he knows from experience.

"I was in the auto body shop business," he said. "If I gave you an appointment four months away, you would go somewhere else. Why should health care be any different?"
e-mail: [email protected]
***
Lindsay McCreith timely cancer treatment

Twice faced with delays in Canada, he quickly gets MRI scan and tumor removal in Buffalo
*Jan. 2, 2006: Seizures begin; told it would take more than four months to get an MRI in Canada
*Feb. 2, 2006: MRI in Buffalo arranged.
*Feb. 3, 2006: Gets MRI in Buffalo.
*Feb. 8, 2006: Referred to Canadian neurosurgeon for biopsy but first available appointment not until May 9.
*Feb. 13, 2006: Sees Buffalo neurosurgeon. Early March: Tumor biopsied and removed in Buffalo.
 
Initial salary increase followed by a slow painful decline. Canadian salaries stay up to a degree because they have to compete with the US. Also, all of the private practice non-hospital guys will have no escape from all of the crap that the EPs currently deal with. I assure you that it will be like a universal EMTALA, and I promise that malpractice problems will NOT go away.
 
Concerning the Canadian system:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE-I0ombIEY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fonthefencefilms%2Ecom%2Fvideo%2Fdeadmeat%2Fdeadmeat%2Ehtml[/YOUTUBE]

I believe an official from Timely Medical Alternatives was interviewed in the movie.
 
I would rather get paid less if it meant that every patient I saw had a PMD and insurance. We would also likely see the number of visits (especially for bull****) drop considerably as everyone would be able to see a PMD. There would no longer be 'I can't get in to see my PMD because I can't afford it'. I would love to work a shift where every patient I saw actually may have an emergency.

I'm not so sure. How many medicaid folks come in, who can get a PMD for basically no cost, with trivial problems?

Honest question here... I'm just hoping the answer proves me point :)
 
The mistake some people make is thinking that we have a private medical system. Like the rest of our economy it's already a hybrid of private/public (i.e. socialist). For those that don't already know this, the government in its various forms already spends 40% of all the health care dollars in this country. That's already a pretty socialized system, and it's only going to keep going up as the population continues to age.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Leviathan is right... and not right. Physician salaries aren't lower in Canada. In fact, with the way current exchange rates are, they actually pull in more. Gross. The trouble is, to pay for all that beautiful health care your tax rake is crazy. So you actually do make more net here in the U.S. Plus, on a historical level, the currency is likely to become a little more favorable for the Greenback in the long term.
I've heard that the malpractice insurance you guys pay offsets the amount of extra tax that we pay, so it's about equal. Although it would be nice if a Canadian attending could confirm this, but there don't seem to be any on SDN.


Remember, socialized medicine isn't socialist! :laugh:
Very important. Our family docs still run private for-profit clinics, and although the average salary is low ($120k?), I personally know of 2 family physicians who pull in 300k AFTER overhead.

We tend to have a negative connotation with the whole term. Truth is, it is better from the standpoint of not having to hound bill payers. But the trade offs, at least for the consumer, is wait times for non emergent procedures (like elective surgery).
No argument here. Our system sucks for elective procedures, and even some mandatory procedures.

In an emergency dept, though, practicing there is almost identical to here. Really. Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax, Calgary, Montreal... they all got Level I trauma centres. They all got CT scanners at their disposal just like us. They can all call in the MRI tech in the middle of the night if they fear an epidural abscess.
Our ER wait times seem to be even less than our US counterparts. It seems on this board the average is 3-5 hours. At the ED where I work, it's more like 1-3 for minor complaints. The longer waits come in for some med/surg patients waiting for beds to free up. The difference here is that you guys seem to have CT scanners in every hospital. If you're not in a major metropolitan city in Canada, (ie., if you're out in the boonies), there are some hospitals that don't have CT scanners, that don't even have any labs more than a CBC + lytes. I have a paramedic friend out in a rural city who has to transfer patients on a 1 hour trip to the closest hospital with a CT scanner.

To respond to the comment that less patients come in with BS problems, that is not true. We still have an absurd number of people coming in who shouldn't, but that stems more from a lack of public awareness of what the ER is to be used for.
 
Hey guys, if you poo-poo healthcare reform, can you stop using the term "socialist/socialized healthcare"? It's getting a little tiresome. Last I checked, the Berlin Wall fell about 20 years ago and Canadians weren't carrying Mao's little red book in their back pockets. :sleep:

There are plenty of more accurate terms, including "universal healthcare." And even though Cuba does have a pretty good healthcare system, most of us bleeding-heart, tree-hugging liberals would just like something approaching the efficiency and coverage of Europe or our northern neighbors. I wrote off a handful of presidential candidates a long time ago because they use the word "socialized" to stimulate Cold War fears that half the country still has in the recesses of their memories.
 
I'm not so sure. How many medicaid folks come in, who can get a PMD for basically no cost, with trivial problems?

Honest question here... I'm just hoping the answer proves me point :)

I'll play. It's a trick question. The answer is they can't see PMDs in the first place. All PMDs cap the number of Medicaid patients they will take because of low reimbursement, and most of the time when I try to refer Medicaid or uninsured pts from the ER, the on-call doc or the scheduler will flatly tell me no.
 
I'll play. It's a trick question. The answer is they can't see PMDs in the first place. All PMDs cap the number of Medicaid patients they will take because of low reimbursement, and most of the time when I try to refer Medicaid or uninsured pts from the ER, the on-call doc or the scheduler will flatly tell me no.

Guess it varies by location - my FP back home (and both of his partners) doesn't have caps on medicaid patients. In fact, the only folks I know of that do are the dentists (only 1 guy in town will see medicaid children, and then only 1 day a week).
 
See my post in that other thread about EP salaries in Canada being up to 300k/year. Are you sure reimbursement would drop? Wouldn't it be nice to not have to worry about whether each patient has insurance, EMTALA violations, whether a certain procedure is covered under their plan, whether you're going to have to chase after companies for your money, etc. Not to mention, that everyone in your country has access to healthcare (but I don't want to get into a socialized vs. private medicine debate here, so let's just stick to the salary issue).

Is that in Canadian or US dollars? Not too much of a difference at the current moment....It is like 1 US to 1.06 Canadian I think.
 
Hey guys, if you poo-poo healthcare reform, can you stop using the term "socialist/socialized healthcare"? It's getting a little tiresome. Last I checked, the Berlin Wall fell about 20 years ago and Canadians weren't carrying Mao's little red book in their back pockets. :sleep:

There are plenty of more accurate terms, including "universal healthcare." And even though Cuba does have a pretty good healthcare system, most of us bleeding-heart, tree-hugging liberals would just like something approaching the efficiency and coverage of Europe or our northern neighbors. I wrote off a handful of presidential candidates a long time ago because they use the word "socialized" to stimulate Cold War fears that half the country still has in the recesses of their memories.

I enjoyed the european coverage until I had to go through my personal hell just to get something checked out and then get some medicine for it. ;)

Cold war fears are coming back, and with very legit reasons lately. Russia is no longer considered truly democratic, and they are starting to threaten a lot of their neighbors. If you check out the Russian newspapers it is straight anti-usa propaganda WAY beyond the standard "screw the usa" kind of stuff. That is all beside the point though. ;)
 
I do take issue with those who support socialized medicine becasue they think it will improve the medicolegal climate. It won't. The only thing that will is malpractice reform. Things are less litigious in Canada vs. U.S. ... but it's got anything to do with the health system. It's the freaking culture we have here where it's never our fault, it's always someone elses, and a cash windfall is just a phone call away if you listen to the lawyers as you see another advert about mesothelioma at 3am in the morning.

Amen to that. All the talk about modeling our system after Canada or European countries or Australia or whatever ignores the whole malpractice issue. And it's not just in the field of medicine. We have a culture over here where your addiction is not your fault and you should be entitled to free methadone the rest of your life. Being unemployed and homeless is not your fault and you should be entitled to free welfare and housing for you and your family the rest of your life. Being ignorant enough not to realize coffee is hot is not your fault and you should be entitled to $10 million for burning yourself after spilling it on yourself.

Modeling our system after Canada's system would be a disaster, first to us as physicians when our salaries would drop. And no one would feel particularly sorry for us with us still making 6 figures, since the general public doesnt appreciate the long hard training we went through to get there. Then slowly it would be a disaster to the public as fewer and fewer qualified people would enter the field of medicine.
 
The lottery mentality -

Your typical American hopes something bad (but not too bad) will happen and that the doctors miss it, so that they can claim their prize and not do anything for the rest of their life.
 
Hey guys, if you poo-poo healthcare reform, can you stop using the term "socialist/socialized healthcare"? It's getting a little tiresome. Last I checked, the Berlin Wall fell about 20 years ago and Canadians weren't carrying Mao's little red book in their back pockets. :sleep:

There are plenty of more accurate terms, including "universal healthcare." And even though Cuba does have a pretty good healthcare system, most of us bleeding-heart, tree-hugging liberals would just like something approaching the efficiency and coverage of Europe or our northern neighbors. I wrote off a handful of presidential candidates a long time ago because they use the word "socialized" to stimulate Cold War fears that half the country still has in the recesses of their memories.
If you're for this at least have the guts to call it what it is. Just because the idea of socialism doesn't sit well with so many people doesnt' mean your focus should be on coming up with new euphamisims for it. "Universal healthcare" paid for by redistributing wealth is socialist. In fact, since it really represents the take over of an industry by the government with central control, it's closer to a communist program than a socialist one. Maybe they'll seal the deal by working in five year plans. Anyway, you guys would do better to make the actual system more attractive than just renaming it. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
 
I do take issue with those who support socialized medicine becasue they think it will improve the medicolegal climate. It won't. The only thing that will is malpractice reform. Things are less litigious in Canada vs. U.S. ... but it's got anything to do with the health system. It's the freaking culture we have here where it's never our fault, it's always someone elses, and a cash windfall is just a phone call away if you listen to the lawyers as you see another advert about mesothelioma at 3am in the morning.
I disagree although this is certainly a debate about who can tell the future better ;). My thinking is that politicans love to give stuff to people to buy votes. They lose votes by taking stuff away, particularly by raising taxes. Even though the lawyers have power and access with the legislators they can't compete with the desire to redirect all the resources lost to med mal and defensive medicine back into the entitlement of free healthcare. Economically we'll still do worse. Even if we're not under the med mal gun I suspect our pay would be cut about 60% under a socialized system.
 
I disagree although this is certainly a debate about who can tell the future better ;). My thinking is that politicans love to give stuff to people to buy votes. They lose votes by taking stuff away, particularly by raising taxes. Even though the lawyers have power and access with the legislators they can't compete with the desire to redirect all the resources lost to med mal and defensive medicine back into the entitlement of free healthcare. Economically we'll still do worse. Even if we're not under the med mal gun I suspect our pay would be cut about 60% under a socialized system.

Maybe I have been missing something in the debate, but I havent heard any proposals for socializing health care that addressed the issue of malpractice. As far as I can tell, you would basically have the same system as in Canada and other countries, but with the same problem of jackpot justice we have now. How would putting medicine under government control stop people from suing?
 
The enticement of "increased reimbursement" was what made Canadian doctors sign up for medicare back in the 60's. The logic being that they were only collecting 30% of their billing, and that the government would guarantee them more than that. The promises just didn't materialize.

The solution to the problem may be a managed care program like in Oregon, where the government lists 700 things that they will pay for, and anything beyond that will have to be out of pocket, or through private insurance.
 
If you're for this at least have the guts to call it what it is. Just because the idea of socialism doesn't sit well with so many people doesnt' mean your focus should be on coming up with new euphamisims for it. "Universal healthcare" paid for by redistributing wealth is socialist. In fact, since it really represents the take over of an industry by the government with central control, it's closer to a communist program than a socialist one. Maybe they'll seal the deal by working in five year plans. Anyway, you guys would do better to make the actual system more attractive than just renaming it. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

docB, I understand your point. But let's be clear -- we're not talking about "socialism" - this intones an overarching, societal philosophy to government. The reason why the distinction is important is because we're talking socialism (or communism :laugh:) only with regard to the healthcare system.

I completely agree -- terms like "universal healthcare" is just a euphemism and an attempt to obfuscate. Let's call it what it is. But in so doing, it's necessary for many of the docs to get their head around the term "socialism" as it applies to medicine and not have some ill-defined notion at least partially springing from paranoia that it's a throwback to the gulag.
 
Maybe I have been missing something in the debate, but I havent heard any proposals for socializing health care that addressed the issue of malpractice. As far as I can tell, you would basically have the same system as in Canada and other countries, but with the same problem of jackpot justice we have now. How would putting medicine under government control stop people from suing?
And you won't. The Democrats are the only ones pushing a socialized healthcare agenda and they are firmly in bed with the lawyers, even those who are not actually med mal lawyers themselves. What I'm saying is that I think the politicians will notice that there is a huge pool of resources being wasted on med mal and its dirty secret partner defensive medicine. So when it comes down to making the choice between raising taxes enough to cover the staggering costs of a socialized program AND the med mal nonsense or just the staggering costs alone they will get rid of the med mal industry via some kind of immunity for docs, nurses, hospitals working under the system.
 
I've heard that the malpractice insurance you guys pay offsets the amount of extra tax that we pay, so it's about equal. Although it would be nice if a Canadian attending could confirm this, but there don't seem to be any on SDN.



Very important. Our family docs still run private for-profit clinics, and although the average salary is low ($120k?), I personally know of 2 family physicians who pull in 300k AFTER overhead.


No argument here. Our system sucks for elective procedures, and even some mandatory procedures.


Our ER wait times seem to be even less than our US counterparts. It seems on this board the average is 3-5 hours. At the ED where I work, it's more like 1-3 for minor complaints. The longer waits come in for some med/surg patients waiting for beds to free up. The difference here is that you guys seem to have CT scanners in every hospital. If you're not in a major metropolitan city in Canada, (ie., if you're out in the boonies), there are some hospitals that don't have CT scanners, that don't even have any labs more than a CBC + lytes. I have a paramedic friend out in a rural city who has to transfer patients on a 1 hour trip to the closest hospital with a CT scanner.

To respond to the comment that less patients come in with BS problems, that is not true. We still have an absurd number of people coming in who shouldn't, but that stems more from a lack of public awareness of what the ER is to be used for.


The malpractice deifnately doesn't equate to the taxes. The salary numbers that people banter about here are after malpractice is already figured into things (most groups and hospitals, when presenting the compensation package that includes salary, bonus/profit sharing, CME, retirement, etc. have already accounted for i.e. discounted your final package based on things like your own health insurance, malpractice, etc.).

And, regarding the lack of CT scanners in Canadian hospital. Some of this is a funciton of the spread out, low density population. That is, it is necessary to have even low-level, minimal capability hospitals. It shouldn't be a knock against the system that there is no scanner -- it should be a positive that there is even some sort of hospital in these relatively low-density popularion areas. In truth, they might better be termed clinics.

To give the impression that large swaths of population don't have ready access to CT scanners is a little bit of a misleading viewpoint... it's more of a function to the rather isolated location that these people choose to live. Many people in the U.S. that are equally isolated would find that they have similar problems. The thing is, not as many Americans, proportionally, live as rurally as Canadians do.

Of course, the downside is that those who are so rural still have a large tax base.

I feel like I'm becoming a little bit of a defender here on the boards for socialist medicine, and this would be false. In truth, I think the tax burden on society isn't justified in the face of a litigious and poorly educated (with regard to personal, preventative medicine) society. It's just that a lot of the times so many of my colleagues are so vehemently against it for reasons that I think are related to emotion when the phrases "government-controlled" and "socialism" get bandied about.
 
docB, I understand your point. But let's be clear -- we're not talking about "socialism" - this intones an overarching, societal philosophy to government. The reason why the distinction is important is because we're talking socialism (or communism :laugh:) only with regard to the healthcare system.

I completely agree -- terms like "universal healthcare" is just a euphemism and an attempt to obfuscate. Let's call it what it is. But in so doing, it's necessary for many of the docs to get their head around the term "socialism" as it applies to medicine and not have some ill-defined notion in at least partially springing from paranoia that it's a throwback to the gulag.
I don't know. I think the reason we are so suspicious of the attempts to socialize healthcare is that it is advocated by politicians who are socialists. They want to increase taxes, increase entitlements and redistribute wealth throughout society. They target healthcare because it's a huge chunk of GDP, people seem amenable to socializing it and it's already halfway there thanks to CMS. The way to get us to a socialist society is to incrementally take industries. It's attractive for the general public until they get to your industry. One day the guy at the car dealership will be thinking that although he loves his socialized healthcare, food and housing it's crazy that the Department of Transportation wants to absorb the auto industry to ensure equality and access to transportation.
 
And you won't. The Democrats are the only ones pushing a socialized healthcare agenda and they are firmly in bed with the lawyers, even those who are not actually med mal lawyers themselves. What I'm saying is that I think the politicians will notice that there is a huge pool of resources being wasted on med mal and its dirty secret partner defensive medicine. So when it comes down to making the choice between raising taxes enough to cover the staggering costs of a socialized program AND the med mal nonsense or just the staggering costs alone they will get rid of the med mal industry via some kind of immunity for docs, nurses, hospitals working under the system.

Or they'll cut doctor's salaries, blame doctors for the subsequent shortage of service, continue to sleep with the med mal lawyers, and then print more money to cover the shortfall. One or the other.
 
The malpractice deifnately doesn't equate to the taxes. The salary numbers that people banter about here are after malpractice is already figured into things (most groups and hospitals, when presenting the compensation package that includes salary, bonus/profit sharing, CME, retirement, etc. have already accounted for i.e. discounted your final package based on things like your own health insurance, malpractice, etc.).
Ah, I see. Did not know this.

And, regarding the lack of CT scanners in Canadian hospital. Some of this is a funciton of the spread out, low density population. That is, it is necessary to have even low-level, minimal capability hospitals. It shouldn't be a knock against the system that there is no scanner -- it should be a positive that there is even some sort of hospital in these relatively low-density popularion areas. In truth, they might better be termed clinics.
Well from what I was told, a rural US city of similar population density to a rural Canadian city will much more often have access to CT scanners and other expensive medical equipment.

To give the impression that large swaths of population don't have ready access to CT scanners is a little bit of a misleading viewpoint... it's more of a function to the rather isolated location that these people choose to live. Many people in the U.S. that are equally isolated would find that they have similar problems. The thing is, not as many Americans, proportionally, live as rurally as Canadians do.
I don't want to give the impression that many Canadians don't have access to high-quality health care because the population is spread out. The majority of us live within 100 miles of the US border. In fact, I thought Canada had a higher urban population than the US? All I was saying is that those who choose to live out in the less populated areas are usually short-changed and I was under the impression that this rural disadvantage is less pronounced in the United States.
 
We already have socialized medicine it's called medicaid. Look how wonderful that idea has worked out. I don't believe I should take a pay cut to insure someone who does not care about their health in the first place. What is the AMA/AOA stance on this issue? Are we lobbying for our concerns?
 
If you're for this at least have the guts to call it what it is. Just because the idea of socialism doesn't sit well with so many people doesnt' mean your focus should be on coming up with new euphamisims for it. "Universal healthcare" paid for by redistributing wealth is socialist. In fact, since it really represents the take over of an industry by the government with central control, it's closer to a communist program than a socialist one. Maybe they'll seal the deal by working in five year plans. Anyway, you guys would do better to make the actual system more attractive than just renaming it. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Hmm, I see your point about the semantics, but I'm not convinced. For example, unless I'm wrong, the Massachuesetts plan for nearly-universal healthcare coverage wouldn't be accurately characterized as purely "socialist." I don't think Germany's plan is socialist, either (requiring all businesses to provide healthcare insurance for their employees). South Africa isn't--you can buy your own and go to the fancy hospitals or take the public insurance where the hospitals aren't so fancy.

Second, lack of consumer/citizen input doesn't have to the be rule in a "socialist" healthcare system. When Oregon reformed its Medicaid plan (rationing certain services to extend coverage), they used tons of scholarly, administrative, and community focus groups to figure out what people really wanted and needed. Too bad they ran out of money a couple years ago... great idea that worked for a while.

... and, you're right, advertising is important, no argument there... the vast majority of voters don't think about evidence-based medicine, public health statistics, and economics, they respond to values and principles--exactly why my aforementioned disliked politicians throw around "socialism" like Fidel's discarded bowel is gonna self-regenerate like gecko tails... or the Terminator 1000.
 
One issue with single-payer system is the cost to provide care.

Until the mentality of people change ... people still want the best, high-tech, newest gadgets and treatments, and they want it NOW ... and they don't want to pay for it.

The cost of healthcare will continue to rise, even with a single payer system. People will still want MRI, CT Scan, ultrasound, etc. The cost to utilize these gadgets will continue to go up. People will still feel that anything but absolute perfect health is someone's fault and will sue so defensive medicine will still be an issue.

So with a single-payer system, the cost continues to go up ... so there are three options. Option 1 - increase revenue (aka taxes) to pay for the cost increase. Option 2 - reduce utlization rate. Option 3 - decrease expenditure (aka payments).

Option 3 is the easiest to implement. And good luck getting the public to support physicians when whatever agency propose a 30% cut in physician fee payment. Option 2 will also be implemented, and is already being implemented by HMO/PPO in this country, and in other countries that provide universal health insurance (Canada, England, Germany, Spain, etc). Option 1 will be near impossible given our tax-adverse environment.

The cost to run a practice will continue to increase ... utilities, rental space, equipment, salaries for office staff, etc.


Now private companies may form to compete against a single-payer government run system. But what's the incentive to pay physicians MUCH more than what the government is paying (besides getting preferential treatment for their clients by paying physicians more). Private insurance will be for-profit so their motives will also be to decrease their healthcare expenditure ... and they can do this by utilizing option 2 and 3 (and to some extend, option 1 by raising their premiums).
 
And you won't. The Democrats are the only ones pushing a socialized healthcare agenda and they are firmly in bed with the lawyers, even those who are not actually med mal lawyers themselves. What I'm saying is that I think the politicians will notice that there is a huge pool of resources being wasted on med mal and its dirty secret partner defensive medicine. So when it comes down to making the choice between raising taxes enough to cover the staggering costs of a socialized program AND the med mal nonsense or just the staggering costs alone they will get rid of the med mal industry via some kind of immunity for docs, nurses, hospitals working under the system.

I just really dont think it would happen this way. Maybe I am a bit ignorant on the economics of all this, but are the proposals being bandied about for the government to cover both health insurance for all americans AND cover doctors' malpractice insurance? My understanding is the patients' healthcare costs would be covered by the government, sort of like if Blue Cross covered all 500 million of us under the same plan. But I didnt realize the government would cover malpractice insurance also, something now covered by my employer. If they arent responsible for med mal insurance, there's no incentive for the government to implement malpractice reform except for the understanding that the system will eventually collapse since many doctors will leave the profession and fewer will want to go into it. And I just dont think most of our politicians have the foresight to realize this.

I am not an expert on economics or the various health care plans, but I do know the more the government controls, the more they find ways to screw it up. I also know how much more litiginous our society is than others and I know people dont generally put doctors salaries in the context of how much we go through to get here. I think this is heading down a road to disaster.
 
And you won't. The Democrats are the only ones pushing a socialized healthcare agenda and they are firmly in bed with the lawyers, even those who are not actually med mal lawyers themselves. What I'm saying is that I think the politicians will notice that there is a huge pool of resources being wasted on med mal and its dirty secret partner defensive medicine. So when it comes down to making the choice between raising taxes enough to cover the staggering costs of a socialized program AND the med mal nonsense or just the staggering costs alone they will get rid of the med mal industry via some kind of immunity for docs, nurses, hospitals working under the system.

Unless you just mean that politicians will realize we as doctors are going to drive up costs with defensive medicine. I think their answer will be to not pay us for "unnecessary" tests or procedures, or reduce re-imbursements. Or, again, they just dont have the foresight to realize what they are doing.
 
I always become annoyed when the general population expresses their wishes for the US to adopt a socialistic health system because "free" healthcare is a right.

Nothing in life is free. Ask any Canadian, Brit, or any other citizen of a country where there is socialized healthcare. They pay a significant portion of their income in taxes.

I don't foresee Americans allowing such a large increase in taxes to fund a socialized health system. Therefore, I doubt we will see socialized healthcare in the US for many, many years to come.
 
We already have socialized medicine it's called medicaid. Look how wonderful that idea has worked out. I don't believe I should take a pay cut to insure someone who does not care about their health in the first place. What is the AMA/AOA stance on this issue? Are we lobbying for our concerns?

I just wanted to state that this comment is unfair and an overgeneralization.

No doubt allendo has seen many patients on medicaid who do not take care of themselves but I would argue that we all have probably seen the same thing with patients on employer paid plans.

Maybe it is different for patients on individual plans (if they can get them) and they are more apt to take care of themselves but I would like to see the data on this one. When I had to pay out-of-pocket before medical school, it was $425/month. Most people are hard-pressed to pay that if they are generally in good health.

We should keep in mind that there are a number of people and children who could not afford health insurance without a medicaid option. I think we need to crack down on people who are abusing the system and getting coverage through Medicaid who are not deserving of the coverage.

I do not support the idea of socialized medicine or for expanding Medicaid/Medicare to the general population. As a non-practicing attorney, I absolutely agree that malpractice reform is badly needed and without such reform, the system is going to crumble.
 
I We should keep in mind that there are a number of people and children who could not afford health insurance without a medicaid option. I think we need to crack down on people who are abusing the system and getting coverage through Medicaid who are not deserving of the coverage.
An entitlement is an entitlement. How do you define someone who doesn't "deserve" their Medicaid.
 
Or they'll cut doctor's salaries, blame doctors for the subsequent shortage of service, continue to sleep with the med mal lawyers, and then print more money to cover the shortfall. One or the other.
Not one or the other. They'll do both. They'll cut docs pay and blame us for everything.
 
Hmm, I see your point about the semantics, but I'm not convinced. For example, unless I'm wrong, the Massachuesetts plan for nearly-universal healthcare coverage wouldn't be accurately characterized as purely "socialist." I don't think Germany's plan is socialist, either (requiring all businesses to provide healthcare insurance for their employees). South Africa isn't--you can buy your own and go to the fancy hospitals or take the public insurance where the hospitals aren't so fancy.

Second, lack of consumer/citizen input doesn't have to the be rule in a "socialist" healthcare system. When Oregon reformed its Medicaid plan (rationing certain services to extend coverage), they used tons of scholarly, administrative, and community focus groups to figure out what people really wanted and needed. Too bad they ran out of money a couple years ago... great idea that worked for a while.

... and, you're right, advertising is important, no argument there... the vast majority of voters don't think about evidence-based medicine, public health statistics, and economics, they respond to values and principles--exactly why my aforementioned disliked politicians throw around "socialism" like Fidel's discarded bowel is gonna self-regenerate like gecko tails... or the Terminator 1000.
Everyone is setting the bar a little low on what constitutes socialism. I view socialism as when the government intercedes in the marketplace to try to achieve some higher goal. The fact that citizens have input doesn't make it less socialist. It might make it less communist. In my view a socialist system is one where the government regulates or manipulates (eg. is the only or majority consumer of) an industry. A communist system is where the government takes over and nationalizes an industry and manages it from within the government.

Of note a system where everyone is required to have "insurance" creates a system that is not insurance. Insurance is a product that you elect to buy to protect you from some event. You buy it based on a personal risk assessment and decide if the cost is worth the risk or not. If everyone is required to have "insurance" like with auto insurance then everyone is just sharing the cost of everyone's accidents. It's more like a tax supported bailout fund than real insurance.
 
Unless you just mean that politicians will realize we as doctors are going to drive up costs with defensive medicine. I think their answer will be to not pay us for "unnecessary" tests or procedures, or reduce re-imbursements. Or, again, they just dont have the foresight to realize what they are doing.
True but you can't just endlessly make docs working conditions worse. If you cut our pay and tell me I can't order anything you deem "unnecessary" AND I'm still personally liable they'll have trouble getting enough docs to see anybody. It's not that they wouldn't love to crap on us. It's that they caon only crap on us so much before the system implodes. Look at how tort reform has happened. In places where the premiums drove docs out of the area (like with OB/GYN) the system collapsed and reform, reform opposed by the trial lawyers, prevailed.
 
Nothing in life is free. Ask any Canadian, Brit, or any other citizen of a country where there is socialized healthcare. They pay a significant portion of their income in taxes.
But I have a feeling that the extra amount I pay in my income tax compared to you is still less than the amount of money you fork out for monthly insurance premiums, deductibles, copays, and services that you discover aren't covered by your plan. OK, since you are working in health care I bet you have pretty good medical benefits, but let me compare my situation to the average American instead...

The nice thing about the single payer system is I *NEVER* have to worry about what will or won't be covered, or how much something is going to cost me to see a doc. I just go. When people start ignoring signs or symptoms because they are worried about how much it's going to cost them, it's not a good thing, IMHO.
 
The nice thing about the single payer system is I *NEVER* have to worry about what will or won't be covered, or how much something is going to cost me to see a doc. I just go. When people start ignoring signs or symptoms because they are worried about how much it's going to cost them, it's not a good thing, IMHO.
I disagree with those assertions. The Oregon plan does cover some things and doesn't cover others. Other systems ration and make certain people, based on age or other criteria, ineligible for certain procedures. As for your point about how people should be able to consume without any regard to cost I see how people abuse that in the ED every day. No system will ever be able to survive allowing people to consume at will without any limits.
 
I disagree with those assertions. The Oregon plan does cover some things and doesn't cover others. Other systems ration and make certain people, based on age or other criteria, ineligible for certain procedures. As for your point about how people should be able to consume without any regard to cost I see how people abuse that in the ED every day. No system will ever be able to survive allowing people to consume at will without any limits.
You're right docB, they do abuse it. But would you rather have people ignoring that substernal chest pain, or going for every little ache and pain? It's a bad situation in both our system and the US system for different reasons. :(
 
Everyone is setting the bar a little low on what constitutes socialism. I view socialism as when the government intercedes in the marketplace to try to achieve some higher goal. The fact that citizens have input doesn't make it less socialist. It might make it less communist. In my view a socialist system is one where the government regulates or manipulates (eg. is the only or majority consumer of) an industry. A communist system is where the government takes over and nationalizes an industry and manages it from within the government.

Of note a system where everyone is required to have "insurance" creates a system that is not insurance. Insurance is a product that you elect to buy to protect you from some event. You buy it based on a personal risk assessment and decide if the cost is worth the risk or not. If everyone is required to have "insurance" like with auto insurance then everyone is just sharing the cost of everyone's accidents. It's more like a tax supported bailout fund than real insurance.

okay, well you win the semantic discussion if you have such a broad definition. I can't argue with a libertarian.

I can't think of any industries in the United States that aren't socialist, then.... healthcare, agriculture, energy, transportation... our socialist US government intercedes in every industry....
 
okay, well you win the semantic discussion if you have such a broad definition. I can't argue with a libertarian.

I can't think of any industries in the United States that aren't socialist, then.... healthcare, agriculture, energy, transportation... our socialist US government intercedes in every industry....
But not to the degree that those industries are obligated to provide their products to everyone, free if necessary.
 
But I have a feeling that the extra amount I pay in my income tax compared to you is still less than the amount of money you fork out for monthly insurance premiums, deductibles, copays, and services that you discover aren't covered by your plan. OK, since you are working in health care I bet you have pretty good medical benefits, but let me compare my situation to the average American instead...

The nice thing about the single payer system is I *NEVER* have to worry about what will or won't be covered, or how much something is going to cost me to see a doc. I just go. When people start ignoring signs or symptoms because they are worried about how much it's going to cost them, it's not a good thing, IMHO.

Lev - No way. This only works out if you are low income in Canada where the benefits of the free health care outweigh the tax costs. Do the math. I get taxed at less than 35% (total state, local, federal) on a six figure salary in the U.S. In Canada, as soon as you're over (last I checked) about 65K CAD, you're in the top tax bracket. When you add up the federal and provinical income tax, the GST, etc... your tax liability is around 55%.

There is not way that I can't get great insurance in the U.S. for a fraction of the cost that I would otherwise be paying to Harper
 
Lev - No way. This only works out if you are low income in Canada where the benefits of the free health care outweigh the tax costs. Do the math. I get taxed at less than 35% (total state, local, federal) on a six figure salary in the U.S. In Canada, as soon as you're over (last I checked) about 65K CAD, you're in the top tax bracket. When you add up the federal and provinical income tax, the GST, etc... your tax liability is around 55%.

There is not way that I can't get great insurance in the U.S. for a fraction of the cost that I would otherwise be paying to Harper

But that's the whole point of socialism. The argument is that the wealthy have benefited from the system, and thus "owe" the system. Therefore it's justified to have a tax system, and a system of entitlements whereby the wealthy pay entirely for the poor. In Canada they call it "social justice".
 
I get taxed at less than 35% (total state, local, federal) on a six figure salary in the U.S....your tax liability is around 55%.

No, that's not true. Based on a $200,000 income, my taxes would be $70,780.11, which is an averaged tax rate of 35.39%. This is not including any deductions for CPP, RRSPs, GICs, or other investment benefits which with a good accountant can probably get you down to 30% or less.

See for yourself:
http://www.walterharder.ca/T1.html
 
Top