Socialized Health Care?

[thelonius]

I'm really curious to see what my peers think of this idea. Personally, I think that healthcare should be a privilege and not a right, with some exceptions (inhereted disorders, children, mentally ill/challenged, etc). I mean, someone born with cystic fibrosis obviously did not make that choice unlike the morbidly obese chronic smoker with the sedentary lifestyle, who exercises his/her free will. Agree? Disagree? Offended? Chime in. I'll reserve the rest of my thoughts for the moment.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Caverject]

I'm really curious to see what my peers think of this idea. Personally, I think that healthcare should be a privilege and not a right, with some exceptions (inhereted disorders, children, mentally ill/challenged, etc). I mean, someone born with cystic fibrosis obviously did not make that choice unlike the morbidly obese chronic smoker with the sedentary lifestyle, who exercises his/her free will. Agree? Disagree? Offended? Chime in. I'll reserve the rest of my thoughts for the moment.

Is major reform needed for access to healthcare? Overwhelmingly, the answer is yes.

However, I do not believe that socialized medicine/healthcare for everyone/the Clinton-Obama-name your democrat here is good for America or it's citizens. This would place an incredible tax burden on Americans, whom in my opinion are taxed enough. I know there will be people that will say, "well if we didn't spend 20 trillion dollars in Iraq..." whatever. Fact is, its done and you can't change it. Move forward. Take a look at some of the socialized systems in other countries. For example, everyone talks about how wonderful Sweeden's healthcare is. People miss the fact it can take up to 9 months (average about 5 months) to see a specialist- including oncology! In America, we can see a specialist tomorrow if we so choose. We may have to pay out of pocket or some money for it, but we have the ability to do it.

I think the entire medical system, as it is, is antiquated and broken. There needs to be some sort of mesh between private and public healthcare. More specifically, the incentive of the "bottom line" of money needs to be some how taken out of the equation. Private healthcare insurance companies are in the business to make money but there has to be another viable way to make money. I don't have any simple solutions on how to accomplish this. As like any other armchair quarterback, I can point out the problem, but I got no idea how to fix it.

 

[alma23]

A person with cystic fibrosis or chronic smoker are both in need of medical care. For me, it is just as hard to turn away from the latter as it is from the former. It also raises the question of where to draw the line.

That being said, I would say that I adamantly do not support universal healthcare. I used to live in the United Kingdom, where all of healthcare is free. I have witnessed the tolls on its citizens, which include higher cost of living, lower income, and lower quality of life. I would love to help the poor, but not if it means we all become poor in doing so. The United States is one of the greatest supporters of a free market (whether we believe it or not) and therefore becomes one of the richest countries.

So my plan? Cut Medicare, cut Medicaid, dramatically lower taxes. *gasp* but then millions will not have access to medical care? Not so. I'll make an analogy, and it feels like I'm digressing, but I'm not and I'll tie it back later. My family is from the working class, but my sister went to a private school where tuition/fees was 40k/year. The school met all of her financial needs and gave her a huge grant. This is not atypical. Private schools, in my opinion, are run much more effectively than public institutions because they have an incentive, which the gov't doesn't. With incentive comes innovation, and that is how humankind progresses.

Back to healthcare, I believe that if we can cut taxes in a way that we are paying a minimal amount, the average income with dramatically increase while the cost of living will be lowered, and improve our quality of life. When people have "excess" money, they will donate to charitable organizations (ie alumni donating to their alma mater) which will then go to the people who need it in a very efficient way. That means my theory is based on the goodness of our hearts, and yes, I believe that it is out there and can change the world if we ever gave it a try. I don't think this will exist in the near future due to the public consensus out there (liberals ).

I'm really curious to see what my peers think of this idea. Personally, I think that healthcare should be a privilege and not a right, with some exceptions (inhereted disorders, children, mentally ill/challenged, etc). I mean, someone born with cystic fibrosis obviously did not make that choice unlike the morbidly obese chronic smoker with the sedentary lifestyle, who exercises his/her free will. Agree? Disagree? Offended? Chime in. I'll reserve the rest of my thoughts for the moment.

 

[SELDANE]

I'll have to disagree. Healthcare is a right not a privledge. The groups of people that you considered worthy of free or subsidized healthcare (ie., children, those with inherited disorders, mentally ill etc..) are usually those that are most marginalized by our present healthcare system. There really is no way to discern who is deserving of free healthcare and who isn't. I compare our present healthcare situation to that of a sinking ship, only those passengers that can afford to get on a lifeboat will.
The rest will just have to fend for themselves. Looking at demographics, there is no way we are going to be able to care for those over 65 without some form of socialized medicine.

 

[pharmacistUH]

I have a question on topic. If the United States does become socialized with regards to Health Care, what does that mean for the wages of Pharmacists? I have actually been researching this, and I am concerned about the future of my profession. Any thoughts?

 

[Caverject]

I have a question on topic. If the United States does become socialized with regards to Health Care, what does that mean for the wages of Pharmacists? I have actually been researching this, and I am concerned about the future of my profession. Any thoughts?

Probably means the government would want us to pay to work meaning give drugs out for free. That's Bush's reform plan for medicaid/medicare anyway...

 

[Trancelucent1]

I've spoken with a few people in Canada who are less than thrilled with their healthcare. If you get cancer...sorry about your luck, you still have to wait to see the physician that's ASSIGNED to you. You don't like your doc? Sorry about your luck. I just don't see socialized medicine happening over here, and I hope it doesn't! I do think the government should try and work with drug companies a little more. Some of the meds are expensive and yes I know it costs a lot and yada yada but it still should be affordable..especially when the execs are raking in the dough!

 

[twester]

For people to go without healthcare in the richest nation in the world is shameful. I think some form of basic healthcare services should be available to everyone as a "right" (immunizations, screenings, nutrition counseling). It doesn't necessarily have to be free but it should be affordable- there's nothing wrong with the sliding fee schedule. I want Bill Gates to pay for his preventative healthcare. I don't necessarily think the psychotic guy who occassionally bunks in my dumpster should have to.

The way things are set up now is just plain stupid. We let someone walk around for years with dyslipidemia or HTN, then when they have a stroke we pay millions to take care of them for the rest of their lives. Why not pay out a hundred thousand to make sure that they never have the stroke in the first place? (Thanks, Dr. McCollum, for that lesson.)

I've noticed that the people who are most vehement that underserved populations should not have access to affordable healthcare are from privileged backgrounds and have never had to worry about it. However, no American has to go very far to see the devastation that making the system available only to the economically worthy causes. Everybody agrees that the current system is broken, but nobody wants to pay to fix it. Until that thinking changes, there will be no movement towards a solution.

 

[eelo]

Part of the problem here in the US is access to free or affordable, adequate, basic care. People who are uninsured (all 44 million of them) tend to access the health care system via the most expensive route possible- the ER. Then when they are there for their MI, they hit up the doctor for all the 'other little things' that have been bothering them since their last visit to the ER.

It is a HECK of a lot cheaper to provide free (or close to free) basic, preventive care (such as PAP smears, birth control, dental work, physicals/checkups, childhood immunizations, etc) than it is to treat an indigent population for cervical cancer, unplanned pregnancy (often high-risk), and other health issues that are the direct result of inability to access care.

We already have a model for socialized medicine/universal health care here in the US: the military medical system. It's not without its flaws, but overall it's a good, solid medical system for its beneficiaries.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I hate politics. It's quite possibly the dumbest thing on Earth.

With that said, as per the norm, both sides of the debate exaggerate to the extreme and facts become kinda hazy.

Socialized medicine would definitely put new strains on the system, more than the liberals think, but certainly not the horrible strains conservatives think, either. I don't understand why everyone loves the comparisons to Canada. There are more physicians per capita in the US than Canada, so the horror stories you hear about lack of access would not extrapolate as well to the US as many assume. Plus, I'm not so sure if said horror stories are the norm or just isolated incidents. When I was in Canada last summer, I actually asked around and nobody was too negative about the system, but, again, they likely know little about the US system to compare with. I used to think the arcade in my local mall in Parkersburg, WV was awesome until I went to a Dave & Busters in a major city.

The access thing worries me, anyway. If it's true that you can't be seen by a physician because of too many other sick people, what would private payer healthcare really solve? You'd still have the same number of sick, it's just that the order in which they are seen would be different, or, maybe, only a subset would be seen and others would be not be seen at all. Healthcare professionals don't grow on trees and Laissez-faire capitalism isn't going provide fertilizer to the physician tree that doesn't exist in the first place.

So richer people get the best healthcare in the world, poor people get **** for healthcare; or, everyone gets equal access opportunity, but the quality may (and probably would) take a hit.

So what do I think should be done? Hell if I know, that's what. It's stupid to debate about anyway because nobody has a clue as to how well it would turn out. If it happens, it happens, if not, it doesn't. It may be a brilliant success, it may not be.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

The United States is one of the greatest supporters of a free market (whether we believe it or not) and therefore becomes one of the richest countries.

See, this is what I mean by people on both sides of the debate exaggerating.

The US didn't become rich because of utilizing a free market system. It became rich because of being a military force and coming up with a great money scam where it's currency is intrinsically worth nothing, yet becomes worth something because people want it for stability and to buy oil and other cool **** with. (look up the word petrodollar...)

I can give examples of free markets that are successful and that have failed along with successful and unsuccessful socialist setups. For every US, there is a Somalia (the income tax there is 0%!). To think that the magical economy fairy will come to a country in their sleep and bless them with a high GDP under their pillow if their income tax rates are under a certain percentage is silly.

If the US starting rolling out a 90% income tax rate, the US would still be highly successful because of how it is positioned in international economics. China will continue to be our collective serfs in our game of macrofeudalism and send us cheap crap for sale at Wal*Mart no matter what our idiot gov't does.