MisterMo

Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jan 20, 2005
61
0
Status
so, at one of my interviews I was asked what my opinion was of socialist healthcare systems. Unfortunately, I did not have a clue as to what a socialist healthcare system was like. I was wondering then if any of you guys could shed some light on the matter and perhaps provide some definitions of a socialist healthcare system?
 

synapse lapse

tokyo robotic
15+ Year Member
Mar 14, 2003
1,671
3
future
Status
Attending Physician
Free healthcare for everyone paid for by the government. Every industrialized nation besides America has it.
 

Code Brown

Low man on the totem pole
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Jun 21, 2004
1,111
0
Florida
Status
Attending Physician
Alexander Pink said:
Free healthcare for everyone paid for by the government. Every industrialized nation besides America has it.
Not quite.

Socialist healthcare means you get a paycheck from the government (i.e. you are an employee, just like the people at the DMV). They own the office and they own the hospital. You just show up and punch the clock.

However, having National Health Insurance means the government will pick up the tab for what you bill the patients. As in, everyone is covered by health insurance (no more uninsured people). You still have autonomy and run your practice as you so choose. There would still be private insurance to cover elective services that are not normally covered by the national health insurance.

To the patients, there is no real difference, but to the physician, there is a huge difference. IMHO, socialist healthcare is bad, but national health insurance is good.

Most countries that you speak of have national health insurance, not socialist healthcare.
 

Sancho

7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
May 8, 2003
68
0
Status
I don't know what it is but let me just tell you,
The only Engals you can read in this country is Laura Engals damnit!!!
 

freaker

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
Apr 17, 2004
853
22
Status
Doomed to extinction if demographic trends continue.

If the birthrates in Canada, Europe, and Japan stay at the rate they presently are or continue to decline, socialized medicine will collapse.

Aging and ailing populations and a shrinking tax base do not make a good combination.
 

eralza

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jun 2, 2004
355
3
51
Virginia
Status
Medical Student
U.S. military medicine is socialist. The physicians are either contractors or military members. They do their work and receive a set salary. Their patients (military members and their families) receive free medical care at the military facilities. If the specialty isn't available, then it is contracted to outside hospitals.
Overall, it is a good system, and it is rather easy to obtain an appointment (if you know the system). However, on the downside, patients can tend to abuse the system (i.e. clogging the ER just to get free Motrin, etc.). Some of the physicians are disgruntled, as their pay is generally lower than the civilian segment (with the exception of pediatrics). However, malpractice really isn't an issue and the retirement is good.
 

dancinjenn

I'm ready for my close up
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Feb 10, 2004
673
2
MI
Visit site
Status
Medical Student
Most of the above points I agree with. However many who would have become doctors in those nations choose not to because you do not have the $ incentives and often go into business fields. Also specialization does not allways mean that the monetary rewards will increase, therefore, you have less of the higher specialties, and patients with active disease often have to wait longer to see who they need to. Elective surgeries are very hard to schedule because those with the greatest need get to go first and all others are placed on long waiting lists. Even those with medical need often get placed on waiting lists unless, as posted above, you know how to work the system.

The system is not as most people seem to believe, "free." Most of the citizens in these countries have money taken from paychecks as an extra tax to help pay for the healthcare. Sometimes, or with the first, there are higher taxes placed on the purchase of goods and that money goes to pay for the healthcare system. The "free" statement is one of the most crazy statements made by proponents of socialized health care, nothing is ever completely "free" to consumers, if it was the government would soon go under due to debt.

There are upsides to the system, however there are the downs as well. I would suggest that you get ahold of some newspapers/articles and look at the stats yourself. You really cannot get an accurate picture of the complexities of socialized health care from this forum.
 

Fed Meat

Fed Metal
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Aug 5, 2004
529
1
41
Steamboat Springs, CO
Status
dancinjenn said:
The system is not as most people seem to believe, "free." Most of the citizens in these countries have money taken from paychecks as an extra tax to help pay for the healthcare.
The Netherlands

Lowest tax bracket: 36%

Highest tax bracket: 60%

VAT/Sales tax: 17.5%

Translation: As a doctor, close to 80% of the money you make and spend is going to the government. Nice, huh?

Little wonder that economic growth is so stagnant in Europe.
 

mshheaddoc

Howdy
Moderator Emeritus
15+ Year Member
Apr 24, 2002
43,161
84
Wild west of Mistytown
Status
Fed Meat said:
The Netherlands

Lowest tax bracket: 36%

Highest tax bracket: 60%

VAT/Sales tax: 17.5%

Translation: As a doctor, close to 80% of the money you make and spend is going to the government. Nice, huh?

Little wonder that economic growth is so stagnant in Europe.
BUT you aren't putting that into context. The government offers ALOT more over there than what we have here. You have to mention that. And economic growth is stagnant overall in the EU I do agree, BUT, for the major key players things are looking up ...Bloomberg Article Additionally the US has been in a recession so not everything in the world is perfect. We are all global and international now, therefore all connected.


A good source of articles for health and the financial and physical state of different nation's health is ...OECD
 

45408

aw buddy
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Jun 14, 2004
16,976
47
Status
Resident [Any Field]
mshheaddoc said:
BUT you aren't putting that into context. The government offers ALOT more over there than what we have here.
Here's all the context I need: if I make $200K and I walk away with about $30K, there's a raw deal going on somewhere.
 

mshheaddoc

Howdy
Moderator Emeritus
15+ Year Member
Apr 24, 2002
43,161
84
Wild west of Mistytown
Status
TheProwler said:
Here's all the context I need: if I make $200K and I walk away with about $30K, there's a raw deal going on somewhere.
its not THAT bad, depends on where you are ... yeah some of the nords are like that but most of them you don't make that much anyways.
 

Fed Meat

Fed Metal
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Aug 5, 2004
529
1
41
Steamboat Springs, CO
Status
mshheaddoc said:
Additionally the US has been in a recession so not everything in the world is perfect.
How many years ago was this and for how many quarters? Come on, be honest. The US has been growing for several years now, last year at over 4%.

Unemployment is now at 9.9% in France and 10.8% in Germany, and growth forecasts are pretty dismal. I guess they are better than the .5% growth rates most of Europe has been seeing during the past few years of US economic expansion.

Take a look for yourself:

http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_03/b3916029_mz010.htm

http://www.ing.com.au/public/pdfs/ma_House_View.pdf


I personally am opposed to tying our economy to massive government run programs, especially ones that limit choice.
 

mshheaddoc

Howdy
Moderator Emeritus
15+ Year Member
Apr 24, 2002
43,161
84
Wild west of Mistytown
Status
Fed Meat said:
How many years ago was this and for how many quarters? Come on, be honest. The US has been growing for several years now, last year at over 4%.

Unemployment is now at 9.9% in France and 10.8% in Germany, and growth forecasts are pretty dismal. I guess they are better than the .5% growth rates most of Europe has been seeing during the past few years of US economic expansion.

Take a look for yourself:

http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_03/b3916029_mz010.htm

http://www.ing.com.au/public/pdfs/ma_House_View.pdf


I personally am opposed to tying our economy to massive government run programs, especially ones that limit choice.
They are better than the other countries but their economic system is finally "trying" to stable itself out based on the Euro. Additionally there are gov't programs for unemployment in some of those countries as well. I'm not stating my personal opinion, I am only reiterating the facts. Out there oecd has alot of information on how these countries are trying to turn it around. And as I stated previously stated alot is tied to the US. Oh and what country is trading the largest deficit? :D
 

jdovez

Senior Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Dec 2, 2003
470
0
NYC
Visit site
Status
Medical Student
Fed Meat said:
The Netherlands

Lowest tax bracket: 36%

Highest tax bracket: 60%

VAT/Sales tax: 17.5%

Translation: As a doctor, close to 80% of the money you make and spend is going to the government. Nice, huh?

Little wonder that economic growth is so stagnant in Europe.
Of course that $0 in educational debt would be pretty nice coming out. Not to mention the fact that the social programs enable most segments of the population to live without the level of fear and stress that at least 2/3s of the workers in our nation do (living check to check). But....as doctors we would not get as large a slice of the pie. Hmm...a trade off I for one am willing to make. After all, aren't physicians by definition supposed to care about the health of everyone?
 

scrappysurfer

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Jan 13, 2005
264
0
39
San Diego, CA
Status
I've been buried in engineering books for too long and have only recently begun looking into this topic myself. I would suggest reading up on it and making a decision yourself.

1) Search pubmed for comparative articles on healthcare. I have one on my desk at home comparing medicine in New Zealand, Australia, and the UK.

2) There are books out about the subject. I read a very interesting one recently by Bartlett and Someone Else (?) called Critical Condition. It is a very fast read. This was an eye opener for me, especially since it covered a Southern California managed care collapse that my physician mother found herself caught in. Also, should you be lucky enough to know a couple of foreign physicians, try speaking with them about how medicine is run in their country.
 

dmoney41

Senior Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Sep 6, 2003
153
0
Visit site
Status
Hmm...a trade off I for one am willing to make. After all, aren't physicians by definition supposed to care about the health of everyone?
Then donate 80% of your salary to a charity and refrain from offering to donate 80% of everyone elses
 

synapse lapse

tokyo robotic
15+ Year Member
Mar 14, 2003
1,671
3
future
Status
Attending Physician
Code Brown said:
Not quite.

Socialist healthcare means you get a paycheck from the government (i.e. you are an employee, just like the people at the DMV). They own the office and they own the hospital. You just show up and punch the clock.

However, having National Health Insurance means the government will pick up the tab for what you bill the patients. As in, everyone is covered by health insurance (no more uninsured people). You still have autonomy and run your practice as you so choose. There would still be private insurance to cover elective services that are not normally covered by the national health insurance.

To the patients, there is no real difference, but to the physician, there is a huge difference. IMHO, socialist healthcare is bad, but national health insurance is good.

Most countries that you speak of have national health insurance, not socialist healthcare.
As a matter of fact, I was completely correct, all citizens are given free healthcare paid for the government. Implicit in this statement is the requirement that the citizens pay more taxes, as that is the major source of income for the government. I further made no value judgement about what it means to practice in such a country as a physician. And it makes a huge difference to patients, with 45 uninsured Americans here and no uninsured people in any otehr industrialized nation. Oh, and did you know it is cheaper for an uninsured American to get an apendectomy in Canada than it is in for an insured American to get on in Detroit, just accros the water. Oh, and as to who owns the hospitals/runs the medical services, this can vary. Techinically speaking in a socialist system the government assumes this role, but many people will argue the equivilance of a single payer system (the government) to socialized medicine (I am one of these people). An example of the latter would be Canada.
 

45408

aw buddy
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Jun 14, 2004
16,976
47
Status
Resident [Any Field]
dmoney41 said:
Then donate 80% of your salary to a charity and refrain from offering to donate 80% of everyone elses
I wait in eager anticipation of being let down. :D
 

winstonm

Senior Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
May 2, 2003
127
0
Visit site
Status
Alexander Pink said:
As a matter of fact, I was completely correct, all citizens are given free healthcare paid for the government. Implicit in this statement is the requirement that the citizens pay more taxes, as that is the major source of income for the government. I further made no value judgement about what it means to practice in such a country as a physician. And it makes a huge difference to patients, with 45 uninsured Americans here and no uninsured people in any otehr industrialized nation. Oh, and did you know it is cheaper for an uninsured American to get an apendectomy in Canada than it is in for an insured American to get on in Detroit, just accros the water. Oh, and as to who owns the hospitals/runs the medical services, this can vary. Techinically speaking in a socialist system the government assumes this role, but many people will argue the equivilance of a single payer system (the government) to socialized medicine (I am one of these people). An example of the latter would be Canada.
Canada is not a socialized system, it is a single-payer system. Most care is delivered privately, but publicly funded through taxes. The government doesn't own or operate the hospitals, and nearly all physicians are independent, private practitioners who simply bill the government for services provided to patients. The big distinction in Canada is private-non-profit, which includes all hospitals, and private-for-profit centres, which (except in Alberta) are not permitted to provide services that are insured. The latter are permitted to provide services that aren't insured, such as cosmetic dermatology procedures, laser eye surgery etc.

Physicians can opt out of the insurance plan and bill patients directly if they choose in most if not all provinces, though in most places there are procedures in place to make this pointless.

One result of the absence of managed care here is the ability of any patient in Canada to choose any physician for any procedure, and a much greater freedom enjoyed by physicians to practice as they wish without economic reviews etc. The downside is that incomes are a bit lower than the in the US (nowhere near as low as people on this board claim though), but Canadian physicians don't pay anywhere near the amount of malpractice insurance as US docs. The increasing size of managed care organizations in the US, arising through the aquisition of smaller firms by larger ones, will probably result in decreased incomes for many US physicians since the number of payers will be reduced and those that remain will have greater purchasing power...this purchasing power is one of the reasons drugs are so cheap in Canada. Another problem is the potential mismanagement by government officials which I believe is partially responsible for some of the waitlist issues here (though an examination of the bypass waitlist in Ontario showed a mortality rate of less than 0.5% of those on the list).

A good book for understanding the Canadian system which covers both pros and cons is "First do no harm: making sense of Canadian health reform" by Terrence Sullivan and Patricia Baranek. It's cheap, short, to the point and on Amazon.

I would suggest that you do not read US newspaper reports on the Canadian system as they tend to present a biased, sensationalized and often inaccurate picture of the system here. Consult journals or books.
 

OSUdoc08

Membership Revoked
Removed
15+ Year Member
Sep 30, 2003
7,698
6
Status
Medical Student
MisterMo said:
so, at one of my interviews I was asked what my opinion was of socialist healthcare systems. Unfortunately, I did not have a clue as to what a socialist healthcare system was like. I was wondering then if any of you guys could shed some light on the matter and perhaps provide some definitions of a socialist healthcare system?
Ever heard of Karl Marx? Marxism, Socialism, etc.:

We decided to toss it, because people who sit around on their lazy behind get the same benefits as someone who works hard and gets an education. Doesn't seem right.

Now if there was some way to just make healthcare the benefit, and no other part of the economy, I'd be all for it. But that would be just impossible, it would have already been done.
 

Code Brown

Low man on the totem pole
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Jun 21, 2004
1,111
0
Florida
Status
Attending Physician
As a matter of fact, I was completely correct, all citizens are given free healthcare paid for the government.
Actually, you weren't. What you were referring to that is offered in Canada is called "National Health Insurance". Big difference (btw, I grew up in Canada so I do know what I'm talking about here).

Implicit in this statement is the requirement that the citizens pay more taxes, as that is the major source of income for the government.
True.

I further made no value judgement about what it means to practice in such a country as a physician. And it makes a huge difference to patients, with 45 uninsured Americans here and no uninsured people in any otehr industrialized nation.
That's why I was all for the National Health Insurance program.

Oh, and did you know it is cheaper for an uninsured American to get an apendectomy in Canada than it is in for an insured American to get on in Detroit, just accros the water.
Before you make any cross-border comparisons, make sure you take into account relative incomes and quality of service. Prices in other countires are in line with what the "market" (for lack of a better term) will bear, not what cross-border shoppers will pay.

Oh, and as to who owns the hospitals/runs the medical services, this can vary.
Someone else covered this.

Techinically speaking in a socialist system the government assumes this role, but many people will argue the equivilance of a single payer system (the government) to socialized medicine (I am one of these people). An example of the latter would be Canada.
No it wouldn't. Canada's system is an example of national health insurance. An example of a country with socialized medicine would be Cuba (unless they recently changed this).
 

internet

Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jan 31, 2005
53
0
Status
socialist healthcare is when the government steals money from one person and gives it to another. this is also the same practice at the heart of income tax. how this is justified i have no idea. but people seem to accept it as social custom. bah humbug
 

akanene

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Feb 6, 2005
107
0
Status
i really hope some of you are kidding... not everyone in this country was born with the resources to be able to afford insurance and this doesnt mean that they are "lazy" or not-hardworking, this means they choose to spend the money they do have on other things (like food and rent or their childs education)... you could consider the person who payed for their own eduaction, started their own small business and simply doesnt have the means to pay for insurance (doesnt receive any from their job), id bet someone like this is a lot more "hardworking" than a trust fund baby who has had everything paid for (including insurance and an education, which will enable them to go make the big bucks).. in no way am i saying that every well off person is lazy, but you shouldnt assume that every poor person is lazy either, this is just ignorance. there is a reason that are level of healthcare is extremely poor compared to other industralized nations (Im not referring to technology, but overall level... yeah if you have money you are set, but if not, your f*cked, which is a large portion of our soceity)... id recommend to anyone that before you start med school spend some time volunteering at a medical clinic for the un-insured (not for your resume, but to help others and hopefully help yourself), i think it will truly open your eyes to the poor state of our healthcare system and make you think twice before making ridiculous statements.
 

Perrin

sittin in the morning sun
15+ Year Member
Apr 6, 2004
3,370
1,558
40
The Porch
Visit site
Status
Attending Physician
I wonder if social darwinism could play into any of this.

The chief complaint seems to be that life isn't fair, but it is the governments job to try to make it fair. The government already has many programs in place to try to "level the playing field". How many more "social programs" do we need. Eventually, one begins to wonder what the heck is going on. Maybe something isn't working.

Life sucks, quit complaining, do the best with what you have, and don't drag everyone else down into your ****. -DAD
 

OSUdoc08

Membership Revoked
Removed
15+ Year Member
Sep 30, 2003
7,698
6
Status
Medical Student
internet said:
socialist healthcare is when the government steals money from one person and gives it to another. this is also the same practice at the heart of income tax. how this is justified i have no idea. but people seem to accept it as social custom. bah humbug
Agreed. If people can't afford healthcare, perhaps attending college and getting a good job will help.

I always hear the comment about "not being able to afford to go to college." Funny enough, people with a zero income get school completely paid for with a simple FAFSA being completed. The loans are even enough to cover living expenses.

We should not give money to people who are to lazy to get an education.
 

wanker

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Oct 19, 2004
13
0
Bum****, Idaho
Status
Perrin said:
I wonder if social darwinism could play into any of this.

The chief complaint seems to be that life isn't fair, but it is the governments job to try to make it fair. The government already has many programs in place to try to "level the playing field". How many more "social programs" do we need. Eventually, one begins to wonder what the heck is going on. Maybe something isn't working.

Life sucks, quit complaining, do the best with what you have, and don't drag everyone else down into your ****. -DAD
Firstly, social darwinism is a very slippery slope to start walking down. (remember a guy named Hitler?)
I was reading a book on this issue, (sorry, i can't remember who wrote it), and he said something to this effect, which i agree with.
"I study evolution, and I don' t deny that it exists, in fact my whole profession is based around it (he was a biological researcher). That doesn't mean that i agree with it. I study cancer and know how it works, but that doesn't mean i embrace it; i'm trying to defeat it"

I'm not saying that we should try to equalize everything here - i know that competition is what drives an economy, and it makes up the social fabric of this country. All I'm saying is that at some point we need to show some compassion for other people. I think a two tiered system is what is needed,
where you have a basic, no frills, single payer health insurance system run by the government. Hey, if you make more money and want better care, buy some private insurance. Tort reform is also very neccessary to drive down malpractice insurance.
i don't think everything should be run by the government, but the something has to be done about health insurance.
 

synapse lapse

tokyo robotic
15+ Year Member
Mar 14, 2003
1,671
3
future
Status
Attending Physician
Since many of you are obviously incompetent at reading my post, I specifically said that Canada was a single payer system. "Oh, and as to who owns the hospitals/runs the medical services, this can vary. Techinically speaking in a socialist system the government assumes this role, but many people will argue the equivilance of a single payer system (the government) to socialized medicine (I am one of these people). An example of the latter would be Canada." The latter being a single payer system. And yes, some would argue that a single payer system is socialist healthcare, though it is technicaly only nationalized healthcare (single payer system) with privately run hospitals. This is exactly what i said in the first place. Nice try though.
 

akanene

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Feb 6, 2005
107
0
Status
OSUdoc08 said:
Agreed. If people can't afford healthcare, perhaps attending college and getting a good job will help.

I always hear the comment about "not being able to afford to go to college." Funny enough, people with a zero income get school completely paid for with a simple FAFSA being completed. The loans are even enough to cover living expenses.

We should not give money to people who are to lazy to get an education.

wow... so i guess the whole "doctors want to help people" was a huge misconception of mine.. if you really believe this maybe you should reconsider your reasons for going into medicine, because if youre in it for the challenge, prestige, etc. and haven't really considered that you will be giving up a lot to simply help those in need, i think youre in line for some major burn out. im not trying to assume anything about your situation (because that would be stupid considering i know nothing about you.. something you might want to consider before you make broad generalizations about the "lazy poor"), but really think about what your saying means in terms of what you want to do with the rest of your life. oh and just some food for thought, why is it that the US is the only industralized nation without subsidized health care, do you really think EVERYONE else has it wrong?

and with that im going to happy hour.. cheers!
 

Siggy

10+ Year Member
Oct 27, 2004
3,602
1,458
34
Status
Fellow [Any Field]
Not all poor are lazy. Some are poor because they have too many children. I do not feel sorry for poor parents. They choose to have kids. I feel sorry for poor children. They did not choose the situation. There are lazy poor too, and I feel that society should not be there to fully support people who are lazy, or can't keep their legs closed/wear a rubber.
 

45408

aw buddy
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Jun 14, 2004
16,976
47
Status
Resident [Any Field]
Trust me though, there are plenty of lazy poor people without a job or the desire for one - and they call 911 when they get a cold, because they know it'll be a free ride. :rolleyes:
 

DrHuang

SDN Donor
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jan 9, 2003
772
1
Status
Resident [Any Field]
wait, can someone explain to me the difference between single payer system, socialized medicine and national health insurance? I thought they were all the same thing!
 

Cherebourg

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Feb 4, 2005
55
0
Huckel
Status
MisterMo said:
so, at one of my interviews I was asked what my opinion was of socialist healthcare systems. Unfortunately, I did not have a clue as to what a socialist healthcare system was like. I was wondering then if any of you guys could shed some light on the matter and perhaps provide some definitions of a socialist healthcare system?

Socialist Healthcare is a term coined by Republicans to scare people into not believing that all people have a right to health care and that a society does not have a moral obligation that all its citizens have access to health care.
 

synapse lapse

tokyo robotic
15+ Year Member
Mar 14, 2003
1,671
3
future
Status
Attending Physician
Cherebourg said:
Socialist Healthcare is a term coined by Republicans to scare people into not believing that all people have a right to health care and that a society does not have a moral obligation that all its citizens have access to health care.
No, it's not. Socialism is by definition "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." This is the exact definition used as applied to healthcare, not an arbitrarily coined term. And no, I am not republican. I don't see healthcare as a right of state, and all citizens do have access to healthcare in America, though perhaps not the best and not freely.
 

Cherebourg

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Feb 4, 2005
55
0
Huckel
Status
Alexander Pink said:
No, it's not. And no, I am not republican. I don't see healthcare as a right of state, and all citizens do have access to healthcare in America, though perhaps not the best and not freely.

Dr. Pink,

That is where we disagree. I do see access to health care as a right similar to Social Security (althought Bush is trying to destroy this). We can argue all night, but let us say we disagree.

However, it is naive or erroneous to state that all Americans have access to affordable health care. All Americans have access to the Emergency Room, but by then it is often too late and the care is inadequate; simply put, this is not what I consider access to health care.
 

Fantasy Sports

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Oct 28, 2004
414
0
Status
Cherebourg said:
However, it is naive or erroneous to state that all Americans have access to affordable health care. All Americans have access to the Emergency Room, but by then it is often too late and the care is inadequate; simply put, this is not what I consider access to health care.
If you think its hard enough to get access to doctors now, wait til you change to a socialized health system where:

1) you are going to bankrupt current young doctors who paid for medical school
2) prevent doctors from specializing since its not cost-effective
3) are ASSIGNED to an overworked doctor who has no incentive to work hard

Oh yeah, and then try to tell patients that they:
1) Dont have a choice in doctors
2) Dont get to go straight to a specialist
3) Have rationed care
4) Can't sue
5) Dont have access to the latest technologies
 

Childe

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jul 25, 2003
297
0
37
AR
Visit site
Status
Medical Student
TheProwler said:
Trust me though, there are plenty of lazy poor people without a job or the desire for one - and they call 911 when they get a cold, because they know it'll be a free ride. :rolleyes:
Exactly why we should look at NHI. We are already paying for healthcare for these 45 million people, albeit usually too late. If the fact that 45 million people have no access to healthcare doesnt sway conservatives, the strict financial argument should. Looked at from a public health standpoint, the current system is terribly expensive. Much cost could be prevented by simple primary / preventative medicine..

(the naivete of some of the people on these boards honestly scares me)
 

Childe

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jul 25, 2003
297
0
37
AR
Visit site
Status
Medical Student
Fantasy Sports said:
1) you are going to bankrupt current young doctors who paid for medical school
2) prevent doctors from specializing since its not cost-effective
3) are ASSIGNED to an overworked doctor who has no incentive to work hard

Oh yeah, and then try to tell patients that they:
1) Dont have a choice in doctors
2) Dont get to go straight to a specialist
3) Have rationed care
4) Can't sue
5) Dont have access to the latest technologies
I think literally all of these statements are false or wouldnt necessarily be true under NHI.

FOURTY FIVE MILLION PEOPLE

Look, I know us middle class people love our consumer driven healthcare, but DO YOU REALIZE HOW MANY PEOPLE THAT IS?
 

PCAndrew

Junior Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Mar 5, 2004
31
0
Pittsburgh, PA
www.uwm.edu
Status
--1st-- Single payer systems exist already here in the states. Both the interstate highways and the defense industry are based on contracts awarded by a single payer. Competition is maintained between missile makers and road pavers. I think it could be maintained between healthcare providers.

--2nd-- It wont be enough. I just saw the guy (Dr. Walter Tsou president-elect of the American Public Health Association) who is pushing the cause with more energy and muscle than just about anyone. We probably would save money with a national health care system. But so what if we're paying $16,000 per person per year instead of $21,000? Both are pretty unmanageable. I'm behind a single payer system, but it's not a cure-all. Something in our culture has to change.

--3rd-- [Beware Impending Editorializing] I'd like get a little un-biased for a moment and say that medicine really is for healers. If you're doing this because you want to get paid, I PROMISE you can do better things with the four years you invest in school. Economic models don’t apply particularly well to medicine for several reasons. Example #1: Consumers (especially those with mental health issues) frequently fail to make decisions that maximize utility. Example #2: Suppliers (especially screw-the-system physicians-to-be like myself) do not seek to maximize their profits. Such irrational behaviors preclude development of a classically Smithian system.
 

SMRT

Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jan 25, 2005
62
0
Status
Fantasy Sports said:
If you think its hard enough to get access to doctors now, wait til you change to a socialized health system where:

1) you are going to bankrupt current young doctors who paid for medical school
2) prevent doctors from specializing since its not cost-effective
3) are ASSIGNED to an overworked doctor who has no incentive to work hard

Oh yeah, and then try to tell patients that they:
1) Dont have a choice in doctors
2) Dont get to go straight to a specialist
3) Have rationed care
4) Can't sue
5) Dont have access to the latest technologies
Hi, can you please give me an example of a country where this occurs? Lest people get confused, I would just like to point out that the majority of what you have listed here does not occur in Canada. It may occur under other systems, I don't know.
 

internet

Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jan 31, 2005
53
0
Status
Cherebourg said:
Socialist Healthcare is a term coined by Republicans to scare people into not believing that all people have a right to health care and that a society does not have a moral obligation that all its citizens have access to health care.
rights are the limits of what other people are allowed to do to you. the "right to life", for example, gives a person moral protection from others. if I shot and killed you, it would be morally impermissible (all else being equal) because I would have broken that limit your right to life establishes. however, if you were drowning in a lake, say, and I let you drown and die, I would be at no moral fault because I did not violate any of your rights. so there really is no such thing as a "right" to health care, since it would be impossible to violate it. what you mean is "entitlement". and entitlements are simply whatever the government chooses to grant its citizens. they are not set in stone. they are awarded and repealed by lawmakers. the moral problem (in addition to the logistical problems) with government-funded healthcare (and confiscatory taxation in general) is that the state forces money from its citizens without their consent. this is the government's real crime, because it violates the right to property. and let me give an analogy to demonstrate why: say you were walking down the street and I demanded money from you, at the threat of violence. reluctantly you give me the cash. regardless of what I do with the money - spend it on myself, give it to the poor, whatever - it is still theft. and unjustifed. this is exactly what the government does to you every april 15. the fact that they use our money to improve living conditions is incidental to the violation of the right.
 

Fantasy Sports

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Oct 28, 2004
414
0
Status
SMRT said:
Hi, can you please give me an example of a country where this occurs? Lest people get confused, I would just like to point out that the majority of what you have listed here does not occur in Canada. It may occur under other systems, I don't know.
This is the way things are/will be done in Europe. Some countries tried to give everyone basic coverage and let people add on with their own coverage afterwards (France), but the EU wants none of that anymore as it was completely uneffective.

And in terms of Canada, you guys do have rationed care in many specialties. I am very familiar with a particular prominent Vancouver hospital that only has X units of BMT procedures allocated for the entire year (ie limiting reagent wasn't bone marrow, but supplies related to the transfer). Unfortunately they run out by summer, and can't do any more BMT until the next year. They end up turning away a ton of patients who have to try to find care in other provinces, which is fairly difficult when you are talking about a procedure as complicated, intense, and long-term as BMT.
 

trinitrotoluene

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Dec 20, 2004
249
2
Status
Rights are the limits of what other people are allowed to do to you. There really is no such thing as a "right" to health care.... What you mean is "entitlement".
This statement is only half true and conservatism's central flaw. You assume that all liberty is negative (something that keeps you from doing something to me) and no liberties are positive (something that allows me to live, function, and be a productive member of society). Now, the right to life is a very broad claim to make. To live, one must have breathable air, drinkable water, editable food, and freedom from disease. Restricting access to those basics is a violation of the right to life. Therefore, if there is a right to life, then there must also be a positive liberty right to basics needed to live. Without those rights, the right to life becomes meaningless.

The moral problem...with government-funded healthcare (and confiscatory taxation in general) is that the state forces money from its citizens without their consent. This is the government's real crime, because it violates the right to property.
All rights have limits. You have a freedom to speek, but you cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded hall. You have a right to assemble, but you cannot form a lynch mob. You have the right to privacy, but the state can get a warrent to search your home if you kill someone. Simply put, if you do something that shockes the public consciencious, the state must intervine and do right. If someone has enough money to "live-it-up" with abandon while another works 2000 / year and cannot afford health insurance, that shockes the consciencious.

The other problem is that government provides many services that only it can provide (military, police, fire, water, lights, roads, etc.) that you must pay for. If you drive on the roads, you have to pay the gas tax.

Agreed. If people can't afford healthcare, perhaps attending college and getting a good job will help.
Not everyone can get these jobs. We have to have people who do "menial labor" to clean surgical suites, deliver hospital meals, type up dictation, etc. They work hard; maybe harder than you do. They have as much right to life as you do. They have a right to life even if they never have a job because life is a right.

I always hear the comment about "not being able to afford to go to college." Funny enough, people with a zero income get school completely paid for with a simple FAFSA being completed. The loans are even enough to cover living expenses.
Too bad your GOP friends in Congress are going to gut Pell Grants and programs that help inner city kids get into college.

We should not give money to people who are to lazy to get an education.
I graduated from Vanderbilt University, got a job, and then got downsized. That arguement doesn't work with me...at least until the current GOP president can scare up some jobs. Currently, since Jan 2001, he is 1/2 million in the hole.

Socialist Healthcare is a term coined by Republicans to scare people into not believing that all people have a right to health care and that a society does not have a moral obligation that all its citizens have access to health care.
Yes and no. However, conservatives do use that term to scare people. The simple fact is, people want more government spending more than they want tax cuts. Witness what happened in 96 and 98 after Gingrich cut taxes and spending in 94 and 95. Bush won big in 02 and 04, but Bush is no fiscal conservative.

If you think its hard enough to get access to doctors now, wait til you change to a socialized health system where:

1) you are going to bankrupt current young doctors who paid for medical school
2) prevent doctors from specializing since its not cost-effective
3) are ASSIGNED to an overworked doctor who has no incentive to work hard

Oh yeah, and then try to tell patients that they:
1) Dont have a choice in doctors
2) Dont get to go straight to a specialist
3) Have rationed care
4) Can't sue
5) Dont have access to the latest technologies
There is another big problem with most of the conservative arguements on this thread: They are all claim and no warrent. Where is the evidence? Anyway, who cares? No US politician will ever suggest socializing health-care (like what we do with the military and highway maintainence). Even Clinton's plan was not socialist.

FYI for those only worried about their paychecks: The administrative costs of private insurance are higher than with Medicare because of strict public accounability that private plans do not have. The savings could be spread among many people including doctors.
 

trinitrotoluene

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Dec 20, 2004
249
2
Status
Alright, let's get down to it. The main reason I distrust conservatives on health care is that they just do not have a solution to the problem. And this is your problem. You believe that there is a right to life, but you cannot provide the basics needed to fulfill that right. So here is my challenge to you:

Come up with a plan that provides affordable haelth-insurance to 1/2 of those currently uninsured without violating your lofty principles. Type up an outline of you plan, and then we can all evaluate it together.
 

fotolilith

It's for a good cause
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Oct 14, 2004
1,012
1
Mittelschmerz, USA
Status
trinitrotoluene said:
Alright, let's get down to it. The main reason I distrust conservatives on health care is that they just do not have a solution to the problem. And this is your problem. You believe that there is a right to life, but you cannot provide the basics needed to fulfill that right. So here is my challenge to you:

Come up with a plan that provides affordable haelth-insurance to 1/2 of those currently uninsured without violating your lofty principles. Type up an outline of you plan, and then we can all evaluate it together.
:thumbup: Gotta agree. I am sick of politicians (on both sides) harping about "right to life/ family values," "promoting democracy and freedom abroad," and "universal healthcare" and yet not doing a damn thing about it.

But it's not entirely their fault: the public is not holding them accountable. Everyone is caught up in the *ideals* and ideas of conservatism and liberalism and no one catches the fact that the politicians are only giving lip service.

All in all, I think Einstein was right: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
 

synapse lapse

tokyo robotic
15+ Year Member
Mar 14, 2003
1,671
3
future
Status
Attending Physician
fotolilith said:
:thumbup: Gotta agree. I am sick of politicians (on both sides) harping about "right to life/ family values," "promoting democracy and freedom abroad," and "universal healthcare" and yet not doing a damn thing about it.
Amen sister, that's why I am pro-death, anti-family value, and for completely capitalistic medicine :laugh: :smuggrin:
 

fotolilith

It's for a good cause
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Oct 14, 2004
1,012
1
Mittelschmerz, USA
Status
Alexander Pink said:
Amen sister, that's why I am pro-death, anti-family value, and for completely capitalistic medicine :laugh: :smuggrin:
Ah damn, not another Libertarian. They're crazier than the rest put together. :laugh:
 

trinitrotoluene

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Dec 20, 2004
249
2
Status
fotolilith said:
:thumbup: Gotta agree. I am sick of politicians (on both sides) harping about "right to life/ family values," "promoting democracy and freedom abroad," and "universal healthcare" and yet not doing a damn thing about it.

But it's not entirely their fault: the public is not holding them accountable. Everyone is caught up in the *ideals* and ideas of conservatism and liberalism and no one catches the fact that the politicians are only giving lip service.
Well, the DEMS have been laying it all out on health-care for a long time now. Clinton proposed a plan in 93 that no one wanted. Dean had a lot of success with health-care in VT, but he was repulsed. The GOP doesn't even try.