9
907914
As it currently stands nothing would change. As previously mentioned, we spend more per Capita on healthcare than any other country yet we have some of the worst healthcare outcomes in the developed world.
Survey of intergenerational opinions on socialized medicine/single payer/'medicare for all'
- Status
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2018
- Messages
- 192
- Reaction score
- 453
I completely understand the hesitation and the logistical issues that come with a healthcare revamp, however I just do not believe that the best action is no action at all.
9
907914
Pumping more money into a broken system will do no good. That is probably why so many don’t want tax increases. We want social welfare programs but also recognize that it will likely be mismanaged.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2017
- Messages
- 2,718
- Reaction score
- 5,304
Yes, but I do have to say
More money in my pocket with same health outcomes > less money in my pocket with the same health outcomes
I’m not sure what the solution is. I’d be interested to see if we could pull off a 2 tier system in this country
9
907914
I am confident a two-tier system would be efficient once implemented, but I am completely unsure how we would make that transition. There would need to be a transition period of a few years where people are still paying both their private health insurance and taxes while the insurances are downsized and the tax-based system is upsized....but by the time we will have started that transition people will be upset with having to pay more now not thinking of the pay-less later and we would reactionary change political parties in power and the whole thing would be repealed anyway....
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2019
- Messages
- 816
- Reaction score
- 1,979
I just wanna say that this is a quality thread and it is super impressive that 3 pages in, there is no flame war or anything, despite the divisive topic.
Well done, SDN. You're growing up.
Well done, SDN. You're growing up.
9
907914
@MemeLord may come off as arrogant and patronizing, but his threads are level headed and mostly on topic and productive.
It is nice to have non-flaming arguments. I would love to hear the opinions of any of the people who checked they do not want to see socialized medicine take effect? Or were we all mostly assuming “forced Medicare for all” as opposed to things like two tier?
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2017
- Messages
- 1,034
- Reaction score
- 2,398
Debatable. Your current 518+ mcat thread is just wtf and I’m still trying to figure out what the Monday umich thread is about.
9
907914
I am still trying to convince people that a mid GPA high MCAT thread is necessary and the mich Monday thread is because of hype.
But the actual productive threads are productive. So, what is your opinion on benefits of the current system over everyone having coverage some kind?
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2019
- Messages
- 816
- Reaction score
- 1,979
There he goes again
9
907914
So...current topic of socialized medicine...There he goes again
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Messages
- 411
- Reaction score
- 805
Most of my dislike is my deep mistrust of the government itself and it’s inability to run anything properly since they aren’t held accountable to basic economics like a free market company is.
My experience comes from working in a prison where incompetence was at every single level, and it was rewarded. No electronic medical records, we were running windows 2000 for computers, And a people who were grandfathered into jobs they had no business doing. The bathrooms for employees didn’t have soap, and inmates didn’t even have toilet paper. When I suggested a way to use the computer to do intake screenings so my hand didn’t feel like falling off after screening 50 people, I was laughed at for trying to improve the system.
Someone linked an administration costs inflation chart, but replace that with government run pension and it’ll be about the same in the long run.
I’m not advocating for our current system, it’s deeply flawed, I don’t think many people would disagree with that. But accountability matters, and the government on both sides of the isle see us as blank checks with little consequence to spending deficits and debt. At LEAST in the private sector, the basics of income must exceed outcome to survive is understood. We can’t continue to print money and lower rates forever.
My experience comes from working in a prison where incompetence was at every single level, and it was rewarded. No electronic medical records, we were running windows 2000 for computers, And a people who were grandfathered into jobs they had no business doing. The bathrooms for employees didn’t have soap, and inmates didn’t even have toilet paper. When I suggested a way to use the computer to do intake screenings so my hand didn’t feel like falling off after screening 50 people, I was laughed at for trying to improve the system.
Someone linked an administration costs inflation chart, but replace that with government run pension and it’ll be about the same in the long run.
I’m not advocating for our current system, it’s deeply flawed, I don’t think many people would disagree with that. But accountability matters, and the government on both sides of the isle see us as blank checks with little consequence to spending deficits and debt. At LEAST in the private sector, the basics of income must exceed outcome to survive is understood. We can’t continue to print money and lower rates forever.
9
907914
I am sorry you have seen that. I saw the same thing (obvi not as bad, but same concepts) when I worked at a military hospital and with veterans at the VA. A EMR that hadn’t been updated in 20 years because the cost of transferring 20 years of data was too great (this has thankfully changed in the last 6 years), people grandfathered in to positions they held for 40 years with little to no continuing education, patients falling through the cracks of beuracracy....We definitely need structural changes across the spectrum of government oversight.
Specifically as it applies to health care, what changes would you like to see happen or how do you think it could be approached?
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2019
- Messages
- 816
- Reaction score
- 1,979
There I go derailing after lauding the focus of the thread.
Anyways, I feel that, just like with patient interactions, there is no one size fits all; in general, I am for socialized healthcare and education, for that matter. I think it is an investment in one's own society and will pay dividends in the long run IN THEORY. But the USA as it is now, just isn't built for that. We need a complete rehaul of all the components involved in health delivery, including the government. Including the structure of pharmaceutical industries and insurance companies. When the main determiners of health delivery (pharma and insurance) have conflicting views with providers (health as a business vs health as a humanistic endeavor), there will always be a disconnect. Doctors aren't (generally) businessman and businessmen aren't (generally) concerned with welfare. Thus, with the political landscape as it is now, I think that the most reasonable and impactful changes we can make are the two tiered system like you were mentioning as well as more focus on SDH.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Messages
- 411
- Reaction score
- 805
I should preface this with the fact that I grew up in Crook County and the only thing Chicago is reliably #1 in the country in is corruption so my view on government is probably far more jaded than many here lol.
Ideally I’d like to see the good parts of capitalism used to motivate the free market and government stepping in as little as possible. Some ideas off the top of my head is allowing consumers to tailor plans to what they need. Currently, I pay 600 bucks a month, without a job until literally last week on the affordable health care plan as a healthy person. Why I have to pay for prenatal care when I never plan on having kids is beyond me, or addiction treatment when I’ve never smoked anything in my life and I don’t drink.
Places where government can step in include a board for price capping on procedures run state by state, cracking down on insurance companies and doctors ordering unnecessary tests to jack up prices.
A HUGE sinkhole that no one has even touched is liability cost. I’m sure SOMETHING can be done by government to provide better shields for doctors. Every major medical/pharma/hospital spends millions on massive teams of lawyers, not even counting what doctors themselves pay for in liability insurance. This whole concept of sue as a nuisance case simply to get a small payout in go away money is a huge waste of time for everyone involved. Having doctors fill out 12 page forms for a single patient with every page specifically tailored to say don’t sue me is a giant waste of time that lowers quality of care overall. It also is a driving force for many of these tests ordered that aren’t really needed to COA just in case.
A
AnatomyGrey12
This has been thoroughly addressed in other parts of SDN so I won't copy and paste entire discussions here but would encourage you to go find them to read. The US does not have some of the worst healthcare outcomes in the developed world, this is a story line based on manipulation of data to fit a specific narrative.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2019
- Messages
- 816
- Reaction score
- 1,979
Whar makes Chicago corrupt? Not disagreeing, you just seem well-informed so looking for the inside scoop
9
907914
As a potential resident of Chicago, I agree - please do go on.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Messages
- 411
- Reaction score
- 805
Illinois pension crisis - Wikipedia
Corruption in Illinois - Wikipedia
Redirect Notice
www.google.com
I believe 4 of our last 7 (?) governors have spent time in prison or currently spending time in prison.
Political history of Chicago - Wikipedia
But hey we do have fantastic pizza and hotdogs so that’s a plus
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2019
- Messages
- 816
- Reaction score
- 1,979
Deep dish does not get enough credIllinois pension crisis - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Corruption in Illinois - Wikipedia
Redirect Notice
www.google.com
I believe 4 of our last 7 (?) governors have spent time in prison or currently spending time in prison.
Political history of Chicago - Wikipedia
But hey we do have fantastic pizza and hotdogs so that’s a plus
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 8,177
- Reaction score
- 11,612
That’s because NY style is better
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2017
- Messages
- 2,718
- Reaction score
- 5,304
Illinois pension crisis - Wikipedia
Corruption in Illinois - Wikipedia
Redirect Notice
www.google.com
I believe 4 of our last 7 (?) governors have spent time in prison or currently spending time in prison.
Political history of Chicago - Wikipedia
But hey we do have fantastic pizza and hotdogs so that’s a plus
There are other contenders for pizza, but nothing even comes close to Chicago dogs. I am tempted to move to Chicago just for those
9
907914
My entire view of food in Chicago will be my one beer I had at a local brewery, some deep dish pizza, and a kebab at a local Mediterranean restaurant. Seems dope.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2019
- Messages
- 816
- Reaction score
- 1,979
This thread didn't become uncivil during the incredibly polarized topic of insurance reform but regional cuisines....that is holy ground.
9
907914
I’ll be the plebeian that suggests the best pizza is Dominos or little ceasers.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 8,177
- Reaction score
- 11,612
Dude. Expand your horizons and stay away from chain pizza places lol
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2019
- Messages
- 816
- Reaction score
- 1,979
Yeeeessssss finally someone who agrees. Dominos' garlicky crust. That's a game changer!
9
907914
You are going to deny a crust that has been scientifically engineered to yield the highest dopamine response it can? I will agree, the pizza tastes disgusting, like most junk food, and home made/scratch/restaurant pizza is 100X better tasting, but I will pick dominos every time because the perfectly designed crust and seasoning makes me happy.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 8,177
- Reaction score
- 11,612
I hate Dominoes lol
I’ve been spoiled by the delicacy that is pizza in Italy. I order from multiple local places to figure out what I like best lol
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Messages
- 411
- Reaction score
- 805
Deep dish Lou’s and Portillo’s hot dogs . See I brought it back to topic! LOOK AT THAT UNHEALTHY DELICIOUS FAST FOOD THAT MAKES US happily PAY MORE FOR HEALTH INSURANCE!
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2018
- Messages
- 192
- Reaction score
- 453
While I agree it's frustrating having to pay for the care you will never use, it is a necessary evil for private or public health coverage to operate. You paying into prenatal care and not using it covers the cost for those who are, while the people who aren't utilizing the part of the plan you use are paying for your care.
Granted my experience is in primary care, I believe a multi-tier system could work with price capping of procedures and pharmaceuticals. The lowest tier could receive 2 physicals per year with a PA / NP as well as an annual walk-in allowance. This walk-in allowance would ensure people could be seen for real medical issues while deterring people from abusing the system and coming in every time a new ache appears. With the lowest tier, you can receive basic lab work and x-rays, while more expensive diagnostic exams would have to be authorized based on the diagnosis just like it is under the current system. Higher tiers would pay a premium for physicals by physicians as well as an expansion of their walk-in allowance and pre-authorized diagnostics.
Like I stated all of my experience is in primary care so I can't give an educated proposal for how this would extend to specialists, but I would think that something similar could be accomplished across the board. While I don't wish to continue to expand the role of PAs / NPs in this manner, I believe at the time it is the only way to provide access to some form of care to all. Plus many primary care facilities already operate this way.
9
907914
I could totally dig this (again, would prefer physician expansion in to primary care, but otherwise yah).
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2012
- Messages
- 7,691
- Reaction score
- 13,035
Moving to TIH
It's funny how things have change in a short period of time. 5-7 years ago, corporate politicians, right-wing economists, HMOs, Wall Street, Big Pharma, etc, would laugh at your face about universal healthcare being implemented or being mention in politics. Now, it's being talked unstop and seem inevitable all thanks to an elderly Jewish Brooklyn-accented New Yorker with no charisma and no money.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2017
- Messages
- 1,034
- Reaction score
- 2,398
It’s a loud and annoying minority.
electropartyogram
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2019
- Messages
- 253
- Reaction score
- 375
Don't forget he is quite rich.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2018
- Messages
- 3,499
- Reaction score
- 8,776
You are too young to remember Hillary Care back in the 90s when she tried to be Co President. It got lots of discussion and no traction.Bernie was there also babbling about socialism and now has lots of money. I think the failure of Obamacare has people looking at alternatives. Right now.
Minority? If Medicare-4-All had a minority following, then the establishment's candidates would not be in favor of it publicly. Overwhelmingly, the Democratic voters are in favor of it. Especially those under 45 and working-class. The majority of independent voters are in favor of it, and over 50% of Republican voters are in favor of it.
The Democratic Party is facing a challenge within their voter base: a growing number of voters(millennials and so on) that are more aware, more informed about the political 3D chess game and as well being less loyalist to the party. Bernie Sanders pretty much reformed the party back to its FDR roots.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2017
- Messages
- 1,034
- Reaction score
- 2,398
Fine. So it’s not a minority but just because everyone wants it doesn’t mean it’s a good or even decent idea. Also it appears no one knows what it actually means.
Notice how the republicans actually seem to know more than the democrats?
A
AnatomyGrey12
Now now, let's not be intellectually dishonest. People love free stuff. Unfortunately that "overwhelming support" you are claiming M4A has completely dissipates when you include qualifiers like "Increase in taxes" and "longer wait times.".....
So yeah. It has overwhelming support when it's a fantasy idea where taxes don't increase and it doesn't have an impact on the delivery of everyday healthcare but when reality comes into the picture people are much more hesitant.
No it's definitely a minority.
Before Hillary Clinton became a Senator, she had beliefs as First Lady that was pro-regular people during a time where the Democratic Party had transformed to a neoliberal-centrist party: socially liberal, but fiscal conservative, in other words, a conservative party that doesn't hate gays and blacks.
Of course, she proposed a single-payer policy during the first year in office and drove the media mad and then mysteriously quiet down then came up with a compromised lesser individual-mandate system that was blasted by ultra-conservative Newt Gringrich as "socialism" but somewhat fully supported Bob Dole's healthcare reform which is another individual-mandate reform.
My main criticism of Bernie Sanders is: Why it took him so long to run for president or switch over to the Democratic Party? Same goes with my "mentor," Ralph Nader. If those two stopped being arrogant and switched over to the Democratic Party in the 1990's or 2000's, they'll immediately become the defacto leaders of the Democratic Party overnight. Though, the only problem is the lesser role of the Internet during those times that is now a great distributor for independent media that benefits Bernie Sanders' campaign as more and more people get their news from YouTube and other sources.
Obamacare wasn't a failure. Just that it's a right-wing healthcare reform that people were initially apathetic about, still is, and were certainly enthusiastic about the public option that was intentionally killed by Democrats and give us Obamacare as a message of "shut up! we got you a healthcare reform! stop bugging us!" that led to us to a political football game of Republicans wanting to dismantle Obamacare while the Democrats wanting to preserve it (conservatism) during Obama years and Trump years as Democrats keep teasing the public with "public option" over and over again. In reality, both parties wanted these type of things to keep going as long as possible until Bernie Sanders started to run for president.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2018
- Messages
- 3,499
- Reaction score
- 8,776
So if Obamacare wasnt a failure, I guess in your opinion it was a success? Yeah we're done here. Btw, Nader is a nut. A highly principled nut, I might add. He walks the walk he preaches.
And yet, the current system hasn't solve the problem of uninsured and underinsured Americans, rising healthcare premiums, rising healthcare cost, the mafia-like state of the private health insurance companies. Yet, there's people out there and here wanting to go back to the laissez-faire model that was a complete disaster and thinking it will work again. Come on, get real.
People are aware of the universal healthcare system in other countries and think it's really nice to have in our nation. They'll be shock that poorer countries, like Honduras, have a somewhat public health sector.
Wait, what? It's neither a failure or a success. Obamacare support always hovers around 50%. Some do care but the majority are just apathetic about about the milquetoast policy.
If you think about it, Bernie Sanders is pretty much Ralph Nader of 2019. They got the same platform: anti-estalishment, anti-corporation, protectionism, socio-economic policies. If Nader ran for office as a Democrat, the man would be the de-facto leader of the Democratic Party overnight. Same goes with Sanders. Like I said before, times were different in the 1990's and 2000's as the Internet hasn't develop like how it is now.
A
AnatomyGrey12
Delusional on what? On a milquetoast conservative healthcare reform that the public have a malaise sentiment towards? Look, we needed a healthcare reform badly after decades of the laissez-faire model we had prior to Obamacare. The solution was universal healthcare but we ended up with the Romneycare rip-off. Took us in the right direction, supposedly, but didn't solve much of the problem.
Yet you throw out a one-liner saying I'm delusional.
You know what's delusional? Still thinking universal healthcare doesn't work, doesn't exist.
Delusional to still think right-wing conservative economics works. Look at it, we're heading for a crash next year because of it.
A
AnatomyGrey12
Delusional about ALL of it. I almost have to wonder if you’re trolling with how little true understanding you display in your posts.
D
deleted927028
Obamacare was as much failure/success as any other private insurance plan. Because it is another private insurance plan. Even the infamous Obamacare website was built by private contractors. The premiums, copays and deductibles have become ridiculous and unaffordable across the board, not just Obamacare. The premiums under Obamacare are set by private insurance companies, Government has no role in it. So it is unfair to blame the government. Just because Obama had a hand in constituting the Obamacare, it has become a target of republicans and conservatives from day one.
D
deleted927028
This article sums up pretty much what I have been saying in the other threads.
Even though I fully support “Medicare for All”, I understand that it may never happen in USA.
The next best thing would be, to let people who don’t like private insurance (like me) buy into Medicare by paying predetermined premiums until they become 65. The politicians should give the government authorities all the power and freedom to negotiate physician, hospital fees, drug prices and to import drugs from wherever they want. If the corrupt politicians stay away from Medicare, I believe they will do just fine. Also they should abolish all kinds of lobbying.
In parallel, the government should begin to build their own hospitals all over the country and recruit their own doctors (by offering them free tuition, competitive pay and retirement benefits). This way they can reduce the premiums to those subscribers who are willing to use government hospitals and physicians.
This way , the private industry can continue to exist (like fedex and ups along with usps) but without taking advantage of vulnerable people by charging as much as they want for each and everything. The cost will be under control even for those who prefer private corporations and hospitals.
Even though I fully support “Medicare for All”, I understand that it may never happen in USA.
The next best thing would be, to let people who don’t like private insurance (like me) buy into Medicare by paying predetermined premiums until they become 65. The politicians should give the government authorities all the power and freedom to negotiate physician, hospital fees, drug prices and to import drugs from wherever they want. If the corrupt politicians stay away from Medicare, I believe they will do just fine. Also they should abolish all kinds of lobbying.
In parallel, the government should begin to build their own hospitals all over the country and recruit their own doctors (by offering them free tuition, competitive pay and retirement benefits). This way they can reduce the premiums to those subscribers who are willing to use government hospitals and physicians.
This way , the private industry can continue to exist (like fedex and ups along with usps) but without taking advantage of vulnerable people by charging as much as they want for each and everything. The cost will be under control even for those who prefer private corporations and hospitals.
So I know that this thread is a bit old, but I've recently been getting into this subject. More specifically, I've been getting into economics, it's one of the things I like to read when I don't spend all day doing MCAT prep.
Before I continue, I'd just like to say that I do believe healthcare should be considered a right and that it still amazes me that the US doesn't guarantee better access to care, like most other big boy nations.
A lot of people support single payer, but the US currently has a debt of 30 trillion dollars. Some people say that single payer would help us save money, but doesn't that depend on the amount of money the government would be willing to spend on salaries and other aspects of running a healthcare system? I mean, if the prices and salaries all stay the same, isn't it just a government 'takeover' without any reforms, which would basically cost taxpayers about 17% of our GDP? Also, if more people will be using the healthcare system with single payer, wouldn't costs explode and get us into unimaginable levels of debt?
So I guess my questions are as follows:
- Do people who claim that single payer will be cheaper assume that the government will cap prices for all treatments/visits/operations at rates much lower than private insurance?
- Do people who claim that single payer will be cheaper assume the government will negotiate lower prices for drugs?
- Do you guys believe you can still have a universal system by heavily regulating private insurance more on a federal level and capping prices on a federal level without enacting government single payer?
- Are there any systems that you guys think the US should look to in order to reform the current system or avoid looking into?
Before I continue, I'd just like to say that I do believe healthcare should be considered a right and that it still amazes me that the US doesn't guarantee better access to care, like most other big boy nations.
A lot of people support single payer, but the US currently has a debt of 30 trillion dollars. Some people say that single payer would help us save money, but doesn't that depend on the amount of money the government would be willing to spend on salaries and other aspects of running a healthcare system? I mean, if the prices and salaries all stay the same, isn't it just a government 'takeover' without any reforms, which would basically cost taxpayers about 17% of our GDP? Also, if more people will be using the healthcare system with single payer, wouldn't costs explode and get us into unimaginable levels of debt?
So I guess my questions are as follows:
- Do people who claim that single payer will be cheaper assume that the government will cap prices for all treatments/visits/operations at rates much lower than private insurance?
- Do people who claim that single payer will be cheaper assume the government will negotiate lower prices for drugs?
- Do you guys believe you can still have a universal system by heavily regulating private insurance more on a federal level and capping prices on a federal level without enacting government single payer?
- Are there any systems that you guys think the US should look to in order to reform the current system or avoid looking into?
- Status
