Anyone consistently argue against universal healthcare during interviews?

[bozz]

---

Members do not see this ad.

And do fine? Even in liberal states?

Will what side you support be a big deal during interviews, especially with elections coming up? It seems like the default position to be in as a premed during interviews is pro-universal healthcare... policy-wise. Which is BS. I feel like you should stick to whatever you believe in.

Thoughts?

 

[MilkmanAl]

There's no way I would support universal health care unless it came with some sort of meaningful co-payment. Go chill in an inner-city ER on a Friday night if you wonder why free for everyone isn't the way to go. Had I been asked about my views, I would've given them and substantiated them. I consider myself pretty liberal, by the way.

 

[ANF1986]

Just state your side respectfully. Thats a really partisan question to be asking at interviews. Have you had this question posed to you or is this hypothetical? I mean, I hope this thread doesn't turn into a huge debate, but as long as you're able to articulate how the patient loses out when beureaucrats get involved in healthcare decisions then you should be fine.

 

[veaselhaufen]

There's no way I would support universal health care unless it came with some sort of meaningful co-payment. Go chill in an inner-city ER on a Friday night if you wonder why free for everyone isn't the way to go. Had I been asked about my views, I would've given them and substantiated them. I consider myself pretty liberal, by the way.

This is horribly naive. the whole point of getting people insured is so that they DON'T pile up in emergency rooms.

Universal Health Care does not equal single-payer national health system.
You're going to get your 150k+ a year. Worry less about your pay and more about the health of people in america

 

[veaselhaufen]

I guess I get an F grade in representing my side respectfully.

Oh well

 

[jult24er]

Just state your side respectfully. Thats a really partisan question to be asking at interviews. Have you had this question posed to you or is this hypothetical? I mean, I hope this thread doesn't turn into a huge debate, but as long as you're able to articulate how the patient loses out when beureaucrats get involved in healthcare decisions then you should be fine.

got asked this in 2 inerviews. one of them was pro-universal, one of them was belligerently against it, neither of them hid their views ...

 

[cheasus]

I think this is a good question and I've wondered the same thing. I always feel like I should hold my tounge around health care professionals but I've been suprised at how understanding most of them are even if they dont agree with me. Then again, I've also met professors and doctors that would outright reject anyone's comments that don't agree with socialized medicine.

 

[cheasus]

got asked this in 2 inerviews. one of them was pro-universal, one of them was belligerently against it, neither of them hid their views ...

Could you state which one was for and which one was against? I am so curious.

 

[jult24er]

Could you state which one was for and which one was against? I am so curious.

sorry, no comprende your question ...

 

[MilkmanAl]

This is horribly naive. the whole point of getting people insured is so that they DON'T pile up in emergency rooms.

That's the idea. That is not, however, the way it works in practice. When people with Medicaid or low-income Medicare can't go to their PCP - after hours and on weekends, mostly - or they just don't feel like making an appointment, they show up to the ER. (I use those insurances as examples because all medical services are free or extremely cheap under them.) It was not uncommon for the giant inner-city hospital in Kansas City to have wait times in the teens of hours during nights and weekends. The vast majority of those patients are either homeless and looking for somewhere to stay for awhile or looking to get themseles or their kids checked out for minor infections or scrapes or something. If you had any idea how many emergency room prescriptions for OTC-strength ibuprofen and Z-Paks I've filled, you'd plainly see that I'm not the naive one.

Universal Health Care does not equal single-payer national health system. You're going to get your 150k+ a year. Worry less about your pay and more about the health of people in america

That's a damn fine straw man, there. Great stuff.

 

[cheasus]

sorry, no comprende your question ...

Sorry, Which school favored universal health care and which school was against universal health care?

 

[ANF1986]

This is horribly naive. the whole point of getting people insured is so that they DON'T pile up in emergency rooms.

Universal Health Care does not equal single-payer national health system.
You're going to get your 150k+ a year. Worry less about your pay and more about the health of people in america

The DMV cannot even efficiently issue people a litle card that says you have permission to drive, and you'd like 300+ million people to entrust their lives to those same beauraucrats to design a system of healthcare which they would alledgedly benefit from?

When government takes over anything from the private sector, invariably costs go up and quality goes down. The government in essence creates a monopoly, and in a monopoly the free market system does not apply, therefore customer service is not a priority as you have no legitimate recourse against inefficiency and bad service. The service you get is the service you get and you have no options to go elsewhere at that point. If you're treated poorly at the DMV, can you goto a privatized DMV down the street? No. In addition, it is the free market which encourages innovation and efficiency, not government programs.

Allowing government controlled healthcare to take hold in this country additionally equals less freedom. What government agencies would then have access to your healthcare information? There are a million hypothetical situations one could imagine where other government agencies accessing your private healthcare information could prove to be of consequence to that person. By allowing government healthcare you are simply acquiescing more of your rights to big brother and you become less free in the process.

I'm going to cut myself off because I dont want to hijack this thread and turn it into a debate. To the OP, after reading some responses I definately think that you should state your case either for or against with conviction, and if you are not admitted because one ADCOM member doesn't agree with your politcs then so be it, but at least you can walk away with your integrity in tact and speak genuinely about a position that you believe in.

P.S.- we are in the situation we are in today with healthcare BECAUSE of government interfearence. The HMO act and various other pieces of legislation, coupled with a highly inefficient universal healthcare system(MCAID&MCARE) have created this problem in our country. It is counterintuitive to believe that MORE GOVERNMENT is the answer when it is the government itself which has created the crisis. Less government, a return to free market capitolist principals is the solution, IMHO.

 

[THX]

For what it's worth, I'm Canadian and have a few things to say about Universal Healthcare.

Universal Healthcare should work if its implemented correctly - we just did it wrong in Canada. You see, hospitals receive a fixed budget based upon the size of the hospital/population it serves. Our system is broken because there is no incentive to treat people, instead they just ration out the money to those they see fit and waste money on programs that create jobs, but don't treat patients.

Our system is broken, but it doesn't mean universal healthcare cannot work in the United States. All you have to do is introduce competition into universal healthcare and voila, now you have something that works. As it is now, in Canada every patient is an expense - there is no incentive to treat them well or even at all. On the other hand, if you increase the hospital's budgets if they reach certain benchmarks, say reduce wait times, less post-infection surgery, more patients treated etc then all of the sudden patients are a source of income as they are in the US. It would also introduce competition among hospitals, which does exist in the US but is absent in Canada. Only then would universal healthcare work.

Btw, the whole idea of HMOs is silly - how in the world could anyone ever trust private corporations to act in the interest of the patient? They are based upon producing profit and in their business the only way to increase profits is to squeeze the customers when they need proceedures/healthcare.

 

[cheasus]

The DMV cannot even efficiently issue people a litle card that says you have permission to drive, and you'd like 300+ million people to entrust their lives to those same beauraucrats to design a system of healthcare which they would alledgedly benefit from?

When government takes over anything from the private sector, invariably costs go up and quality goes down. The government in essence creates a monopoly, and in a monopoly the free market system does not apply, therefore customer service is not a priority as you have no legitimate recourse against inefficiency and bad service. The service you get is the service you get and you have no options to go elsewhere at that point. If you're treated poorly at the DMV, can you goto a privatized DMV down the street? No. In addition, it is the free market which encourages innovation and efficiency, not government programs.

Allowing government controlled healthcare to take hold in this country additionally equals less freedom. What government agencies would then have access to your healthcare information? There are a million hypothetical situations one could imagine where other government agencies accessing your private healthcare information could prove to be of consequence to that person. By allowing government healthcare you are simply acquiescing more of your rights to big brother and you become less free in the process.

I'm going to cut myself off because I dont want to hijack this thread and turn it into a debate. To the OP, after reading some responses I definately think that you should state your case either for or against with conviction, and if you are not admitted because one ADCOM member doesn't agree with your politcs then so be it, but at least you can walk away with your integrity in tact and speak genuinely about a position that you believe in.

P.S.- we are in the situation we are in today with healthcare BECAUSE of government interfearence. The HMO act and various other pieces of legislation, coupled with a highly inefficient universal healthcare system(MCAID&MCARE) have created this problem in our country. It is counterintuitive to believe that MORE GOVERNMENT is the answer when it is the government itself which has created the crisis. Less government, a return to free market capitolist principals is the solution, IMHO.

Well said. How do people feel about HSA accounts? It is a free market solution to a half socialized medical system.

 

[cheasus]

For what it's worth, I'm Canadian and have a few things to say about Universal Healthcare.

Universal Healthcare should work if its implemented correctly - we just did it wrong in Canada. You see, hospitals receive a fixed budget based upon the size of the hospital/population it serves. Our system is broken because there is no incentive to treat people, instead they just ration out the money to those they see fit and waste money on programs that create jobs, but don't treat patients.

Our system is broken, but it doesn't mean universal healthcare cannot work in the United States. All you have to do is introduce competition into universal healthcare and voila, now you have something that works. As it is now, in Canada every patient is an expense - there is no incentive to treat them well or even at all. On the other hand, if you increase the hospital's budgets if they reach certain benchmarks, say reduce wait times, less post-infection surgery, more patients treated etc then all of the sudden patients are a source of income as they are in the US. It would also introduce competition among hospitals, which does exist in the US but is absent in Canada. Only then would universal healthcare work.

Btw, the whole idea of HMOs is silly - how in the world could anyone ever trust private corporations to act in the interest of the patient? They are based upon producing profit and in their business the only way to increase profits is to squeeze the customers when they need proceedures/healthcare.

The idea of competition just doesnt work in government. In fact, most government agencies are allocated more money if they FAIL. For example, schools! They will always say that they dont do well because they dont have enough money. This will never end, you spend $20,000 (instead of the $10,000 in so many places) per student for public schools and they will still say that they need more. Most government organizations find ways to fail so that they can expand their program and get more money. If they do too well, their budgets are cut. Its the excat opposite of privite companies where the incentive is to succeed.

 

[lrkoehle]

The DMV cannot even efficiently issue people a litle card that says you have permission to drive, and you'd like 300+ million people to entrust their lives to those same beauraucrats to design a system of healthcare which they would alledgedly benefit from?

When government takes over anything from the private sector, invariably costs go up and quality goes down. The government in essence creates a monopoly, and in a monopoly the free market system does not apply, therefore customer service is not a priority as you have no legitimate recourse against inefficiency and bad service. The service you get is the service you get and you have no options to go elsewhere at that point. If you're treated poorly at the DMV, can you goto a privatized DMV down the street? No. In addition, it is the free market which encourages innovation and efficiency, not government programs.

Allowing government controlled healthcare to take hold in this country additionally equals less freedom. What government agencies would then have access to your healthcare information? There are a million hypothetical situations one could imagine where other government agencies accessing your private healthcare information could prove to be of consequence to that person. By allowing government healthcare you are simply acquiescing more of your rights to big brother and you become less free in the process.

I'm going to cut myself off because I dont want to hijack this thread and turn it into a debate. To the OP, after reading some responses I definately think that you should state your case either for or against with conviction, and if you are not admitted because one ADCOM member doesn't agree with your politcs then so be it, but at least you can walk away with your integrity in tact and speak genuinely about a position that you believe in.

P.S.- we are in the situation we are in today with healthcare BECAUSE of government interfearence. The HMO act and various other pieces of legislation, coupled with a highly inefficient universal healthcare system(MCAID&MCARE) have created this problem in our country. It is counterintuitive to believe that MORE GOVERNMENT is the answer when it is the government itself which has created the crisis. Less government, a return to free market capitolist principals is the solution, IMHO.

I totally agree, and probably couldn't have said it any better myself. You don't have to look far to see how terribly inefficient anything the government tries to do is. The problem is people think if they sign their lives away to the government everything will be easy and stress free for them.

As to the original question, honesty is always the best approach to any situation, especially an interview at medical school. If you oppose universal health care, don't lie to try to please the interviewer, they will likely be able to see through you. If you have an oppinion about something you should have good reason for believing one way or another. As with any question your are asked, if you do not know/have an answer, then tell them, don't try to feed them a load of BS they have seen enough of it. Plus, if the school is pushing a certain philosophy that you disagree with then why the heck would you want to go there anyways?

 

[Nevadanteater]

This is horribly naive. the whole point of getting people insured is so that they DON'T pile up in emergency rooms.

Universal Health Care does not equal single-payer national health system.
You're going to get your 150k+ a year. Worry less about your pay and more about the health of people in america

The copay isn't about getting paid. It is about ensuring people use their health resources when necessary. The copay acts as a small barrier to care, (theoretically) lowering the burden on providers for less important things and (theoretically) raising usage of primary care.

The sliding scale format used in Healthy San Francisco is an example: http://www.healthysanfrancisco.org/employees/Program_Costs.aspx

 

[ANF1986]

The copay isn't about getting paid. It is about ensuring people use their health resources when necessary. The copay acts as a small barrier to care, (theoretically) lowering the burden on providers for less important things and (theoretically) raising usage of primary care.

The sliding scale format used in Healthy San Francisco is an example: http://www.healthysanfrancisco.org/employees/Program_Costs.aspx

Thats neither your decision or the governments. It almost sounds like you are advocating compulsory care. Also you said seek health resources when necessary, well unfortunately if government gets involved in healthcare THEY DECIDE when it is "necessary" for you to utilize THEIR healthcare resources.

A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away.

 

[T12]

The DMV cannot even efficiently issue people a litle card that says you have permission to drive, and you'd like 300+ million people to entrust their lives to those same beauraucrats to design a system of healthcare which they would alledgedly benefit from?

When government takes over anything from the private sector, invariably costs go up and quality goes down. The government in essence creates a monopoly, and in a monopoly the free market system does not apply, therefore customer service is not a priority as you have no legitimate recourse against inefficiency and bad service. The service you get is the service you get and you have no options to go elsewhere at that point. If you're treated poorly at the DMV, can you goto a privatized DMV down the street? No. In addition, it is the free market which encourages innovation and efficiency, not government programs.

Allowing government controlled healthcare to take hold in this country additionally equals less freedom. What government agencies would then have access to your healthcare information? There are a million hypothetical situations one could imagine where other government agencies accessing your private healthcare information could prove to be of consequence to that person. By allowing government healthcare you are simply acquiescing more of your rights to big brother and you become less free in the process.

I'm going to cut myself off because I dont want to hijack this thread and turn it into a debate. To the OP, after reading some responses I definately think that you should state your case either for or against with conviction, and if you are not admitted because one ADCOM member doesn't agree with your politcs then so be it, but at least you can walk away with your integrity in tact and speak genuinely about a position that you believe in.

P.S.- we are in the situation we are in today with healthcare BECAUSE of government interfearence. The HMO act and various other pieces of legislation, coupled with a highly inefficient universal healthcare system(MCAID&MCARE) have created this problem in our country. It is counterintuitive to believe that MORE GOVERNMENT is the answer when it is the government itself which has created the crisis. Less government, a return to free market capitolist principals is the solution, IMHO.

👍👍👍 And a messenger was sent to speak THE TRUTH!

 

[veaselhaufen]

The DMV cannot even efficiently issue people a litle card that says you have permission to drive, and you'd like 300+ million people to entrust their lives to those same beauraucrats to design a system of healthcare which they would alledgedly benefit from?

When government takes over anything from the private sector, invariably costs go up and quality goes down. The government in essence creates a monopoly, and in a monopoly the free market system does not apply, therefore customer service is not a priority as you have no legitimate recourse against inefficiency and bad service. The service you get is the service you get and you have no options to go elsewhere at that point. If you're treated poorly at the DMV, can you goto a privatized DMV down the street? No. In addition, it is the free market which encourages innovation and efficiency, not government programs.

Allowing government controlled healthcare to take hold in this country additionally equals less freedom. What government agencies would then have access to your healthcare information? There are a million hypothetical situations one could imagine where other government agencies accessing your private healthcare information could prove to be of consequence to that person. By allowing government healthcare you are simply acquiescing more of your rights to big brother and you become less free in the process.

I'm going to cut myself off because I dont want to hijack this thread and turn it into a debate. To the OP, after reading some responses I definately think that you should state your case either for or against with conviction, and if you are not admitted because one ADCOM member doesn't agree with your politcs then so be it, but at least you can walk away with your integrity in tact and speak genuinely about a position that you believe in.

P.S.- we are in the situation we are in today with healthcare BECAUSE of government interfearence. The HMO act and various other pieces of legislation, coupled with a highly inefficient universal healthcare system(MCAID&MCARE) have created this problem in our country. It is counterintuitive to believe that MORE GOVERNMENT is the answer when it is the government itself which has created the crisis. Less government, a return to free market capitolist principals is the solution, IMHO.

👎thumbdown👎 Read the obama health care plan. NOBODY is proposing a plan even remotely similar to what you're describing

America spends the most on health care (per GDP) in the world and yet it is the only industrialized nation in which all citizens don't have access to basic health care👎thumbdown👎

This isn't some small group of americans, its 45 MILLION people

I don't know why this doesnt trouble every aspiring doctor.

(shrugs and wishes to be a European)

 

[veaselhaufen]

.

 

[DarknightX]

(shrugs and wishes to be a European)

Then go to move Europe!

 

[rebelsim]

Am I the only one bothered by my lack of knowledge. Everyone else seems so opinionated about one side or the other, but this is an immensely complicated problem with so many shades of gray. To me an intelligent answer would require advanced degrees in so many fields (MD, MPH, MBA, MPP) that for a pre-med let alone a full-fledged MD to answer would just be spouting off vague opinions that present only one or two sides of the issue. I know we all love to weigh in on every issue presented to us, but at some point we have to acknowledge and accept our inadequacies.

 

[jult24er]

Sorry, Which school favored universal health care and which school was against universal health care?

Well, im not sure they represented the school, but at UMD an interviewer was clearly very anti, and at Gtown very pro. Even the lady who ran the interview day at Gtown talked to us about taking time to give care to the uninsured and how Jesuits were on the liberal end of catholicism ...

 

[veaselhaufen]

Then go to move Europe!

... but it's heavy man 😕

I really am looking for a swedish wife though... Man that country works well.. Man swedish women are hot..

 

[T12]

Am I the only one bothered by my lack of knowledge. Everyone else seems so opinionated about one side or the other, but this is an immensely complicated problem with so many shades of gray. To me an intelligent answer would require advanced degrees in so many fields (MD, MPH, MBA, MPP) that for a pre-med let alone a full-fledged MD to answer would just be spouting off vague opinions that present only one or two sides of the issue. I know we all love to weigh in on every issue presented to us, but at some point we have to acknowledge and accept our inadequacies.

You're completely correct. It is important to note, however, that even the most degree-laden individuals are still really only "spouting off vague opinions". The difference is that everyone listens intently to these individuals because of the acronyms that follow their names'. We're really saying the same things, we just heard it from them before saying it ourselves. Alas, we lack the acronyms, so we're reduced to arguing about it on the internet for an audience of fellow pre-med students.

 

[rebelsim]

You're completely correct. It is important to note, however, that even the most degree-laden individuals are still really only "spouting off vague opinions". The difference is that everyone listens intently to these individuals because of the acronyms that follow their names'. We're really saying the same things, we just heard it from them before saying it ourselves. Alas, we lack the acronyms, so we're reduced to arguing about it on the internet for an audience of fellow pre-med students.

You called me out on the most apprehensive part of my post where I assume degrees=knowledge. The most important part I was trying to drive home was that no one will ever know everything about all aspects.

 

[T12]

You called me out on the most apprehensive part of my post where I assume degrees=knowledge. The most important part I was trying to drive home was that no one will ever know everything about all aspects.

I agreed. I was just digging a little deeper. The idea-generating should be left to the professionals. But in the end, what they come up with is not all that different than what ignorant web-surfers like myself come up with.

 

[mushok103]

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/299/9/1057

I hope you have access to this. It may clear up some misconceptions people may have. Contrary to what some of you believe, a system in which different groups with varying degrees of competency are responsible for regulating health care expenses is not the most efficient one. (Seems intuitive to me???)

 

[mushok103]

well...you have to have access to JAMA... if you don't then just ignore the link

 

[Narmerguy]

You're completely correct. It is important to note, however, that even the most degree-laden individuals are still really only "spouting off vague opinions". The difference is that everyone listens intently to these individuals because of the acronyms that follow their names'. We're really saying the same things, we just heard it from them before saying it ourselves. Alas, we lack the acronyms, so we're reduced to arguing about it on the internet for an audience of fellow pre-med students.

Well said. Very little that will be said here is anything more than regurgitation of what was seen/read somewhere else. Just read a couple of articles on the issue and you'll appear a well versed healthcare intellectual in no time 👍

 

[PremedIowa]

Hell no. I won't argue with my interviewer about anything. I might discuss something with them. Even so, keep emotion out of it.

Don't try to score points in a high-pressure situation. Just appear thoughtful and consider both sides.

 

[nogolfinsnow]

The DMV cannot even efficiently issue people a litle card that says you have permission to drive, and you'd like 300+ million people to entrust their lives to those same beauraucrats to design a system of healthcare which they would alledgedly benefit from?

Do you have data showing the inefficiency of the DMV, or are you just using anecdotal evidence? I've been to DMVs in 2 different very large states several times and never had a problem

When government takes over anything from the private sector, invariably costs go up and quality goes down. The government in essence creates a monopoly, and in a monopoly the free market system does not apply, therefore customer service is not a priority as you have no legitimate recourse against inefficiency and bad service. The service you get is the service you get and you have no options to go elsewhere at that point. If you're treated poorly at the DMV, can you goto a privatized DMV down the street? No. In addition, it is the free market which encourages innovation and efficiency, not government programs.

I assume you're referring to the same free market that has crushed the housing markets and the economy causing inflation to rise faster than wages, thus the average American is now making less money than they were several years ago because many of these "free marketers" were just out to get rich and F-over whoever they had to to get there. The free market isn't the perfect little utopian wolrd you're making it out to be. [/quote]

Allowing government controlled healthcare to take hold in this country additionally equals less freedom. What government agencies would then have access to your healthcare information? There are a million hypothetical situations one could imagine where other government agencies accessing your private healthcare information could prove to be of consequence to that person. By allowing government healthcare you are simply acquiescing more of your rights to big brother and you become less free in the process.

We already have less freedom, and it ain't because of health care. Our current government promotes spying and torture. In terms of health care, insurance companies already have access to your private health info and make decisions of whether or not to cover you based on that. Just realize that if John McCain's plan is implemented, he wouldn't be coverable due to his pre-existing cancer. I've never once heard him complain about his government funded health care [/quote]

P.S.- we are in the situation we are in today with healthcare BECAUSE of government interfearence. The HMO act and various other pieces of legislation, coupled with a highly inefficient universal healthcare system(MCAID&MCARE) have created this problem in our country. It is counterintuitive to believe that MORE GOVERNMENT is the answer when it is the government itself which has created the crisis. Less government, a return to free market capitolist principals is the solution, IMHO.

Studies have shown that Medicare's overhead is 3%, compared to ~15% (I don't remember the exact numbers) for private insurance companies, so saying medicare is inefficient compared to private insurance doesn't make much sense. And also realize that the republican party will not return anyone to free market capitalist principals. Traditional conservative ideals champion smaller gov't, but the current republican party has dramatically increased gov't intervention in many parts of society. McCain won't get you what you want.

 

[drizzt3117]

Do yourself a favor and ask a local physician what the payout per procedure from a HMO is relative to the payout per procedure for Medicare... I think the answer may surprise you.

 

[ayushman80]

The DMV cannot even efficiently issue people a litle card that says you have permission to drive, and you'd like 300+ million people to entrust their lives to those same beauraucrats to design a system of healthcare which they would alledgedly benefit from?

When government takes over anything from the private sector, invariably costs go up and quality goes down. The government in essence creates a monopoly, and in a monopoly the free market system does not apply, therefore customer service is not a priority as you have no legitimate recourse against inefficiency and bad service. The service you get is the service you get and you have no options to go elsewhere at that point. If you're treated poorly at the DMV, can you goto a privatized DMV down the street? No. In addition, it is the free market which encourages innovation and efficiency, not government programs.

Allowing government controlled healthcare to take hold in this country additionally equals less freedom. What government agencies would then have access to your healthcare information? There are a million hypothetical situations one could imagine where other government agencies accessing your private healthcare information could prove to be of consequence to that person. By allowing government healthcare you are simply acquiescing more of your rights to big brother and you become less free in the process.

I'm going to cut myself off because I dont want to hijack this thread and turn it into a debate. To the OP, after reading some responses I definately think that you should state your case either for or against with conviction, and if you are not admitted because one ADCOM member doesn't agree with your politcs then so be it, but at least you can walk away with your integrity in tact and speak genuinely about a position that you believe in.

P.S.- we are in the situation we are in today with healthcare BECAUSE of government interfearence. The HMO act and various other pieces of legislation, coupled with a highly inefficient universal healthcare system(MCAID&MCARE) have created this problem in our country. It is counterintuitive to believe that MORE GOVERNMENT is the answer when it is the government itself which has created the crisis. Less government, a return to free market capitolist principals is the solution, IMHO.

I couldn't have said this better myself. The military is a single payer system (essentially). I think recent reports have shown us how well that system works. Yes, high quality universal healthcare can be achieved in this country. The answer is a consumer/market driven healthcare system, not a single player or HMO controlled one.

 

[DocH]

"I assume you're referring to the same free market that has crushed the housing markets and the economy causing inflation to rise faster than wages, thus the average American is now making less money than they were several years ago because many of these "free marketers" were just out to get rich and F-over whoever they had to to get there."

You are conveniently forgetting that the government got involved here and required banks to lower their standards for home mortgage lending. Once again, it was government interference that eventually hurt people.


Another thing nobody has mentioned is that lack of health insurance does NOT equal lack of access. Some (albeit the minority) people choose not to have health insurance rather than pay the premiums. As a future physician, I would love to see everyone in America healthy, but there are a few things that stand in the way: personal choice, poor genetics, and the inevitability of declining health and death, among other things. The proponents of one payer and universal health care just encourage people to take no responsibility for themselves and the choices they make.

Anyway, I do not want the government to dictate to me in healthcare - as a patient or a physician. I'm becoming more Libertarian the older I get - less government intrusion is the only feasible way.

 

[bozz]

Do yourself a favor and ask a local physician what the payout per procedure from a HMO is relative to the payout per procedure for Medicare... I think the answer may surprise you.

answer?

 

[rightfooted]

When I did urban EMS, people would call the ambulance in the mid-evening because their hospital-run free clinic is closed for the day and they've been feeling sick for a week. They know Medicare will pay for the ambulance, but not a taxi.

Some of them are smarter than you might think. They know how to work the system. Instead of telling the dispatcher they're not feeling well because they wasted their welfare check on alcohol and drugs, which we find out when we get there, they say they have chest pain and/or difficulty breathing. This way, they get a paramedic, a scarce resource in cash-strapped urban areas, whose IV will help with their hangover. Then, when they get to the hospital, they'll be seen immediately.

I'm pro-universal healthcare in that I think everyone should get the care they need, but I'm skeptical with some of the ways that good intentions get abused.

 

[zigzager]

For what it's worth, I'm Canadian and have a few things to say about Universal Healthcare.

Universal Healthcare should work if its implemented correctly - we just did it wrong in Canada. You see, hospitals receive a fixed budget based upon the size of the hospital/population it serves. Our system is broken because there is no incentive to treat people, instead they just ration out the money to those they see fit and waste money on programs that create jobs, but don't treat patients.

Our system is broken, but it doesn't mean universal healthcare cannot work in the United States. All you have to do is introduce competition into universal healthcare and voila, now you have something that works. As it is now, in Canada every patient is an expense - there is no incentive to treat them well or even at all. On the other hand, if you increase the hospital's budgets if they reach certain benchmarks, say reduce wait times, less post-infection surgery, more patients treated etc then all of the sudden patients are a source of income as they are in the US. It would also introduce competition among hospitals, which does exist in the US but is absent in Canada. Only then would universal healthcare work.

Btw, the whole idea of HMOs is silly - how in the world could anyone ever trust private corporations to act in the interest of the patient? They are based upon producing profit and in their business the only way to increase profits is to squeeze the customers when they need proceedures/healthcare.

While I agree with many of your statements, and am agaist universal health care as a whole, I am for universal health insurance. While it appears many times when the goverment takes over a private sector, costs go up, it is impossible to run health care without the government due to its inability to fit economic supply and demand due to its differences such as:

•Uncertainty
•Insurance
•Information
•Nonprofit firms
•Restricted entry
•Need and equity
Role of government
already the government pays for 45% of all healthcare




There are even statistics showing that the private sector insurance has 30% more overhead than the governmental insurance such as tricare.

 

[zigzager]

I couldn't have said this better myself. The military is a single payer system (essentially). I think recent reports have shown us how well that system works. Yes, high quality universal healthcare can be achieved in this country. The answer is a consumer/market driven healthcare system, not a single player or HMO controlled one.

I actaully love the military healthcare system and have used the system since birth.

 

[TarHeelEMT]

No, I didn't. One, it was never asked (I think it's inappropriate as an interview question, anyway). Two, I don't care; I've got considerable experience in emergency medicine and know that people will get treated regardless of what label we put on the system. It's just a question of how much we pay per patient.

 

[ANF1986]

Do you have data showing the inefficiency of the DMV, or are you just using anecdotal evidence? I've been to DMVs in 2 different very large states several times and never had a problem


Well you did catch me there, I dont have the statistical evidence that shows the inefficiency of the DMV. But I can, and will (if I get time) dig up the numbers that shows the budget of the Department of Education has been DOUBLED over the past couple years; while simultaneously students scores remain the same or drop.



I assume you're referring to the same free market that has crushed the housing markets and the economy causing inflation to rise faster than wages, thus the average American is now making less money than they were several years ago because many of these "free marketers" were just out to get rich and F-over whoever they had to to get there. The free market isn't the perfect little utopian wolrd you're making it out to be.

When I referred to a free market capitolist system, did I make ANY reference what so ever to the current system in place? No, because the current system in place in the United States is far from a free market. The 'Federal Reserve' bank, a privately owned institution, artificially determines interest rates. These interest rates determine one; the value of the dollar, and two; the lowest rates at which people can attain loans on certain items(homes,cars,etc...). The Fed are essentially "price fixers." They work outside the realm of the free market. It is the MARKET itself which should determine interest rates through COMPETITION. So in trying to refute my point you actually made it for me. What you illustrated is yet ANOTHER example of how government interfearence into capitolist markets creates DISASTERS. If the free market was left to determine interest rates, they would not have been artifically lower then what the market could truely handle, and in turn there would have never been a 'bubble' to burst. In the free market of course there are slight booms and busts, but nothing as severe as the meddling that the Fed creates.



We already have less freedom, and it ain't because of health care. Our current government promotes spying and torture. In terms of health care, insurance companies already have access to your private health info and make decisions of whether or not to cover you based on that. Just realize that if John McCain's plan is implemented, he wouldn't be coverable due to his pre-existing cancer. I've never once heard him complain about his government funded health care [/quote]

When did I say I supported John McCain? I support neither John McCain or Barack Obama, I will be voting for Bob Barr the Libertarian candidate for President. My point was rather that, yes under our current administration we have less freedoms, and if we allow healthcare to fall under the sphere of government, that is yet another area of our lives which we have acquiesced to big brother.




Studies have shown that Medicare's overhead is 3%, compared to ~15% (I don't remember the exact numbers) for private insurance companies, so saying medicare is inefficient compared to private insurance doesn't make much sense. And also realize that the republican party will not return anyone to free market capitalist principals. Traditional conservative ideals champion smaller gov't, but the current republican party has dramatically increased gov't intervention in many parts of society. McCain won't get you what you want.[/quote]


Traditional conservative Republican ideals are the ideals that I was advocating in my posts. I dont believe the majority of Republicans in office today are the solution either. Both parties are responsible for the situation in our government today. The Republicans who consistently vote for legislation which violates the Constitution, and the Democrats who are complacent in performing their duty as a check&balance to the Executive branch of government. Really if you want to point fingers, we could do this all day long; Barack Obama voted 'YES' for FISA&Immunity to the Telecom companies who committed CRIMES. Why else would you need immunity from something if you were innocent? The point of my post was not to argue partisan politics however.

 

[ANF1986]

👎thumbdown👎 Read the obama health care plan. NOBODY is proposing a plan even remotely similar to what you're describing

America spends the most on health care (per GDP) in the world and yet it is the only industrialized nation in which all citizens don't have access to basic health care👎thumbdown👎

This isn't some small group of americans, its 45 MILLION people

I don't know why this doesnt trouble every aspiring doctor.

(shrugs and wishes to be a European)

Who told you that, Hillary?

45 million people are uninsured in America, 1/3 of which will have access to health insurance within 90 days because they are between jobs and waiting for benefits to kick in. Hillary conveniently forgot to mention that didn't she?

 

[203712]

Who told you that, Hillary?

45 million people are uninsured in America, 1/3 of which will have access to health insurance within 90 days because they are between jobs and waiting for benefits to kick in. Hillary conveniently forgot to mention that didn't she?

i love you

 

[drizzt3117]

answer?

HMO payouts are actually lower than medicare in many cases, in some cases, significantly so. There are a number of reasons for this, but if you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. In many HMO environments physicians in private practice would actually make significantly more if there was a single payer system that paid exactly the same as medicare does.

 

[grassisgreener]

For what it's worth, I'm Canadian and have a few things to say about Universal Healthcare.

Universal Health care should work if its implemented correctly - we just did it wrong in Canada. You see, hospitals receive a fixed budget based upon the size of the hospital/population it serves. Our system is broken because there is no incentive to treat people, instead they just ration out the money to those they see fit and waste money on programs that create jobs, but don't treat patients.

Our system is broken, but it doesn't mean universal health care cannot work in the United States. All you have to do is introduce competition into universal health care and voila, now you have something that works. As it is now, in Canada every patient is an expense - there is no incentive to treat them well or even at all. On the other hand, if you increase the hospital's budgets if they reach certain benchmarks, say reduce wait times, less post-infection surgery, more patients treated etc then all of the sudden patients are a source of income as they are in the US. It would also introduce competition among hospitals, which does exist in the US but is absent in Canada. Only then would universal healthcare work.

Btw, the whole idea of HMOs is silly - how in the world could anyone ever trust private corporations to act in the interest of the patient? They are based upon producing profit and in their business the only way to increase profits is to squeeze the customers when they need proceedures/healthcare.

I really enjoyed reading this. I think it was well said.

Speaking from a person who has held an HMO most of her life -- it sucks on certain levels. One good thing is that I can pick from a list of Doctors that Blue Cross provides me. I can change the Dr. as many times as I like, I just have to call and get it approved before I change. I pay independently 250 a month (which includes no deductible, 25 copay PCP, 10 Rx and 75 ER and I have maternity care under my umbrella). I am lucky enough to be able to afford it because I work full time, but it still hurts when they withdraw that much out of my account every 1st of the month.

Here is where it gets squirrely ~ 3 years ago I thought I had breast cancer. I have a 3 inch fibroid tumor in my left breast. It took them 6 fing months to tell me I didn't have cancer because every test that I had to get done (MRI, ultrasound, mammogram and needle biopsy) had to be refereed, approved and then I waited sometimes up to 2 months to see the specialist (that took 4 weeks to get approved). PPO's are 3 times as expensive and you have a 5,000 deductible. The only difference I saw in my plan against the PPO was that I could go to any Dr. I wanted, but I still have to get referred to specialists.👎 It would hurt me more to have to pay 90 dollars out of nowhere, plus tests to see a Dr. than 250 a month and the off chance that I may get sick once a year and only pay 25 + Rx.

I am really grateful for this thread. I've been racking my brain lately how to answer questions like this. I know that together we can discuss where there are holes and be the leaders of the next generation in health care.