Will socialized medicine even be possible?

[bluesTank]

So Hillary Clinton is always talking about it in her policy, but I keep asking myself, is it even possible in the US?

Even if she, and her cabinet are for it, don't you all think that there are so many people that are rooted in the current system, and so many "big wigs" making money from the current system that it would never pass?

All my friends keep bugging me that I don't want a democrat to win because they have some idea that it absolutely means I am not going to make any money in my career because medicine is going to be socialized. I just think its a bunch of bull that clinton is dishing out...what do yall think?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Kaustikos]

How many threads have there been about this? I applaud Hillary's - wait no I don't, I don't like her at all.

Socialized medicine is a far-fetched idea that would need to be gradualized into our society to even have a shot. And it would require the cooperation of everyone, including business. And when's the last time Business has cooperated with government? It took the actions of an amazing man by the name of Teddy Roosevelt to get that accomplished. No offense, Hillary, but you're sure as hell no Teddy.

And I'm not going to elaborate any further because this is just flame-bait.

 

[Jolie South]

from a simpleton's POV, getting republicans to agree to something so bureaucratic and left-leaning is going to be difficult, not to mention all democrats.

*shrug*

 

[172858]

not going to happen. period.

there's just too many people with massive amounts of money, countless lobbyists, and a number of politicians in their pocket who won't let it happen. at least not anytime soon.

i figure the best dems may get is an expansion of current programs, but that's about it...

 

[Doublecortin]

So Hillary Clinton is always talking about it in her policy, but I keep asking myself, is it even possible in the US?

Even if she, and her cabinet are for it, don't you all think that there are so many people that are rooted in the current system, and so many "big wigs" making money from the current system that it would never pass?

All my friends keep bugging me that I don't want a democrat to win because they have some idea that it absolutely means I am not going to make any money in my career because medicine is going to be socialized. I just think its a bunch of bull that clinton is dishing out...what do yall think?

never, not in this country without making our healthcare system worse than it is now. Just look at DMV, do you want doctors to be turned into DMV workers?

Just look at democratic primaries, with their freakin' insane system of caucases, delegates, superdelegates, I mean, why not just have everyone vote, one man=one vote, and whoever gets the majority, wins? If democrats can't do something as simple as that, how do you think they'll be able to administer something as insanely complicated and beurocratic as medicare?

 

[Drogba]

never, not in this country without making our healthcare system worse than it is now. Just look at DMV, do you want doctors to be turned into DMV workers?

Just look at democratic primaries, with their freakin' insane system of caucases, delegates, superdelegates, I mean, why not just have everyone vote, one man=one vote, and whoever gets the majority, wins? If democrats can't do something as simple as that, how do you think they'll be able to administer something as insanely complicated and beurocratic as medicare?

You mean like the Electoral College! Oh wait...

I think universal health care will be instituted in one for or another in the next few years. Those saying it won't happen anytime soon forget how many decades old this debate is. I agree that it will be a slow and gradual process and I have no idea exactly what form it iwll end up taking.

 

[xiaoyi666]

Yes, totally working form of socialized medicine is possible when the fourth stage of communism (the stage after the dictators) happens - which pretty much is impossible.

 

[uncmd]

So I see many of you have not educated yourselves on what Hillary Clinton (and Barack Obama for that matter) are planning on doing with healthcare. So let me break all the major candidates down for you guys.

All the major candidates support the current medical system. They only differ in how they want to provide medical care to those who do not have insurance. So if you have insurance and a regular doctor...nothing will change for you.

Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama want to offer "reduced cost" private insurance or government sponsored insurance to all people. Both candidates plan to reduce costs of insurance to the extremely sick by grouping healthy and sick individuals together and forcing insurance companies to provide care for that entire group at a constant cost per person. This way poor individuals with poor health cannot get kicked out of the system. Additionally both are proposing a government sponsored insurance program as well. The only difference between the two is that Hilary would require individuals to buy some form of insurance (public or private), while Barack would only require parents to buy insurance for their children. Thus, Hilary's plan is the only one that will truly provide "universal healthcare" while Barack's plan provides "responsible healthcare". Both plans are estimated to cost American taxpayers around 100 billion dollars per year.

Another point I want to make is that Universal healthcare does not mean that doctors will become government employees working at fixed locations for fixed wages and fixed hours. On the contrary, doctors will still have the freedom to work when they want, where they want, and charge whatever rate they like. In all honesty as a medical student, I think Hilary would be great for doctors because she is essentially dumping 100 billion dollars a year on the the current system without changing it. That money has to go somewhere and I hope that will be me

The democratic plans would also be a hit for rural doctors whose primary patients have no insurance. It would go a long way in getting good doctors out of the cities and spread more evenly across the country.

Oh and John McCain wants to provide easier access to healthcare by giving everyone a $5000 dollar tax cut. While I do like tax breaks I'm pretty sure most uninsured people will not use it to buy insurance.

The real questions you should be worried about is how the country is going to pay for these healthcare programs. Also how is the already overburdened healthcare system going to handle tens of millions of newly insured people?

 

[Katatonic]

I mostly agree with the points already made. True socialized medicine will not happen in the U.S. with so many people against it. However, I don't think doctors would be turned into "DMV workers" if it did eventually happen. Either way, we'll never know.

 

[Drogba]

...
Both plans are estimated to cost American taxpayers around 100 billion dollars per year.
...

Source?

 

[uncmd]

Its been reported quite frequently, but here is just one mention in the New York Times.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/us/politics/18clinton.html

 

[bobdogsam43]

socialized medicine IS NOT necessarily universal health care....

 

[uncmd]

Well put bobdogsam43...thats what I was trying to say

 

[mfrizzo3]

Also how is the already burdened healthcare system going to handle tens of thousands newly insured people.

 

[JazzDoc]

Implementing any large scale reform of the current, widely-disliked but deeply-entrenched system, whether its "socialized medicine" or something else, is a fraught enterprise, as Hillary discovered in '94. One thing that would help the process is if doctors - which will soon mean "us" - could reach some kind of a consensus about what kind of a system we'd like to see, and if that consensus weren't transparently self-serving. And, I guess, if we developed somehow the will and the mean to push for it.

Another potential source of political capital is businesses. My impression is they're getting pretty sick of paying through the nose for their bloated health plans.

 

[spilledmilk]

All my friends keep bugging me that I don't want a democrat to win because they have some idea that it absolutely means I am not going to make any money in my career because medicine is going to be socialized.

Changing the system does not necessarily mean less money for doctors. The aim is less money in the pockets of sheisty insurance companies. No?

 

[ChristianJames1]

socialized medicine is the same as a single payer system run by the government. no candidate except kucinich (i think) has proposed this.

neither hillary's plan, nor obama's plan is socialized medicine.

i think you watch too much Fox News.

 

[Boblazar]

Any expansion in government run health care programs whether it's Hilary's or Obama's or any other candidate's goal is going to be detrimental on US economy as a whole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs
A general overview of what was predicted few years ago and what is happening today and what will happen in the future.

 

[Terpskins99]

Comparing socialized to privatized medicine.

Part 1 of 6
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf3MtjMBWx4[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Gut Shot]

socialized medicine is the same as a single payer system run by the government.

Not a very good comparison. Socialized medicine is better defined as a system where the public (government) owns the healthcare apparatus (hospitals, clinics, etc.) and directly employs the providers. The majority of funding comes from tax revenue. Employees are typically salaried.

In single payer the public funds private healthcare providers (physicians, clinics, hospitals), most often on a fee-for-service system. Providers are not salaried; work harder, do more procedures, see more patients, earn more.

There are, of course, exceptions and nuances, but I'm not writing a book here. I hope you can now better appreciate the distinction. If there truly were none, there would be little difference between checking into a private hospital versus a VA.

 

[Boblazar]

The biggest Federal spending in US is health care, and they continue to over promise and under deliver. The bottom line is that expansion in any government run health care program will create bigger national deficit, which forces Federal Reserve to print more money out of thin air. This act leads to the perpetual increase in inflation, and thus, wipes out middle class because the prices of goods are increasing faster than income, causing many of the real estate and stock market bubbles we see today when they are set against other currencies and also set against the rate of inflation and gold.

Top accounts of US and economists all agree on this particular issue, but the policy makers tend to look the other way.

 

[Boblazar]

Good video Terpskin99!

 

[jro1985]

The governments have to provide insurance to the 45 million people without it, but the socialized system is too expensive and will deteriorate the whole healthcare system including the doctors wages. US have the most advanced healthcare system in the world and we have to keep it .as well, we have to make it accessible to all people. Massachusets is an example, the state made mandatory the healthinsurance, those people that can afford one and neither qualify to medicare or medicaid, can apply for a state subsidized insurance. The policymakers should oversee this process.Moreover, we must encouraged the prevention and stop overusing the system in order to save money. To conclude, we have to provide healthinsurance to all people (access!!), but keeping the US healthcare system advancing.

 

[Gut Shot]

but the socialized system is too expensive

Actually our system is already the most expensive in the world. By far.

 

[Law2Doc]

Both candidates plan to reduce costs of insurance to the extremely sick by grouping healthy and sick individuals together and forcing insurance companies to provide care for that entire group at a constant cost per person.

Gee, I wonder to whom insurance companies are going to pass along their losses under this program, by slashing reimbursements? I don't know where your 100 billion figure comes from but can tell you that at least at some med schools folks are conservatively estimating that physician incomes will drop about 10% under such proposed systems, not be augmented. It's sure not the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies who are going to take a bath under any new system -- they are the ones with the real lobbyist power and politicians in their pockets. Physicians by contrast are an easy and weak target -- poorly organized, high profile "villains" the public already thinks are overpaid.

 

[jro1985]

Actually our system is already the most expensive in the world. By far.

indeed, actually excluding more than 45 millions people without access (insurance), if we cover all, and administrate the whole system, it will be, by far, more expensive . (look at the medicare, medicaid, social security problems)

 

[seraph524]

With the massive infrastructure of insurance companies, I don't think socialized medicine will ever be possible.

 

[Doublecortin]

socialized medicine IS NOT necessarily universal health care....

no, you got it backwards: socialized medicine IS universal healthcare,
healthcare doesn't have to be socialized medicine

 

[Law2Doc]

if we cover all, and administrate the whole system, it will be, by far, more expensive . (look at the medicare, medicaid, social security problems)

We actually do cover all -- most EDs are filled with people with no insurance who will never pay a dime. The theory behind universal healthcare is it will over time prove cheaper because folks won't wait until they have serious problems to seek emergency care (which is already doled out for free) -- they will get primary care earlier in the disease process when it's cheaper and won't wait until they need a CT, intubation and long courses of expensive meds. The dude that gets a cheap course of penicillin early on at an office visit valued at $100 may never end up in the ED needing a $5000 meningitis work-up and hospital admission. So it will be much cheaper. Hard not to buy that -- it's just good business.

But the issues doctors really should have with these plans are the role of insurance companies in dictating care, because the more patients insurance companies can speak for, the better a stranglehold they have. Which is why doctors are really going to lose out if the government approach is to subsidize insurance.

 

[Twiigg]

So Hillary Clinton is always talking about it in her policy, but I keep asking myself, is it even possible in the US?

No.

 

[jro1985]

We actually do cover all -- most EDs are filled with people with no insurance who will never pay a dime. The theory behind universal healthcare is it will over time prove cheaper because folks won't wait until they have serious problems to seek emergency care (which is already doled out for free) -- they will get primary care earlier in the disease process when it's cheaper and won't wait until they need a CT, intubation and long courses of expensive meds. The dude that gets a cheap course of penicillin early on at an office visit valued at $100 may never end up in the ED needing a $5000 meningitis work-up and hospital admission. So it will be much cheaper. Hard not to buy that -- it's just good business.

But the issues doctors really should have with these plans are the role of insurance companies in dictating care, because the more patients insurance companies can speak for, the better a stranglehold they have. Which is why doctors are really going to lose out if the government approach is to subsidize insurance.

exactly, the prevention medicine is the key, we have to avoid the overused of the expensive treatments for acute and chronic diseases.

 

[Drogba]

exactly, the prevention medicine is the key, we have to avoid the overused of the expensive treatments for acute and chronic diseases.

Thats not exactly in medicine's best interest now is it...

 

[ufgrad00]

exactly, the prevention medicine is the key, we have to avoid the overused of the expensive treatments for acute and chronic diseases.

This is just my theory, but for preventive medicine to work at maximum monetary efficiency, wouldn't there have to be a federal ban on cigarettes and alcohol.

Think about all the super-expensive cancer and chronic disease related treatments which are primarily due to decades smoking and heavy drinking. And treating all the drunk driving accidents and stupid college/highschool stunts as well, which could be totally avoided by prohibition.

*I don't advocate prohibition, it is just something I remember hearing from a class lecture a few years ago.

 

[Drogba]

This is just my theory, but for preventive medicine to work at maximum monetary efficiency, wouldn't there have to be a federal ban on cigarettes and alcohol.

Think about all the super-expensive cancer and chronic disease related treatments which are primarily due to decades smoking and heavy drinking. And treating all the drunk driving accidents and stupid college/highschool stunts as well, which could be totally avoided by prohibition.

*I don't advocate prohibition, it is just something I remember hearing from a class lecture a few years ago.

Oh god... We tried that, remember? All we accomplished was helping establish organized crime. What makes you think a ban would cause these problems to disappear? However, I'm all for raising excise taxes even if they are already pretty high.

 

[ufgrad00]

Oh god... We tried that, remember? All we accomplished was helping establish organized crime. What makes you think a ban would cause these problems to disappear? However, I'm all for raising excise taxes even if they are already pretty high.

I don't advocate it, but I do regularly see through my job that some chemo injections are 1,000 -5,000 dollars each. I am sure actuaries of medicare and insurance companies have already ran projections about how much is approximately spent every year and how much is being lost due to treating cancer and chronic diseases primarily caused bby alcohol and tobacco, when in theory they could be avoided by limiting tobacco and alcohol consumption. I remember as a joke that my economics professor brought this up when talking about minimizing expenses and efficiency with preventive medicine.

Excise taxes, reminds me about the old Dave Attell joke. (paraphrased)
"Sh**, for an extra two dollars I could be smoking crack"

 

[medfool24]

Feasible under the current reimbursement system? No.

 

[Drogba]

I don't advocate it, but I do regularly see through my job that some chemo injections are 1,000 -5,000 dollars each. I am sure actuaries of medicare and insurance companies have already ran projections about how much is approximately spent every year and how much is being lost due to treating cancer and chronic diseases primarily caused bby alcohol and tobacco, when in theory they could be avoided by limiting tobacco and alcohol consumption. I remember as a joke that my economics professor brought this up when talking about minimizing expenses and efficiency with preventive medicine.

I'm ALL for reducing smoking and excessive drinking. Banning is simply not the way to do this.

Excise taxes, reminds me about the old Dave Attell joke. (paraphrased)
"Sh**, for an extra two dollars I could be smoking crack"

Thats funny. There has actually been some research that indicates that marijuana might function as a substitute for cigarettes though I've not reviewed this closely. So substituting one drug for another is a reasonable concern, although it is unlikely someone will jump to crack if cigarettes get too expensive. I'm fairly convinced that marijuana should be legalized in any case.

 

[emttim]

Ironically, banning something like alcohol (and this has been done with Prohibition in the 20s if I remember the era right) is just going to increase the demand for it. And the same principle as gun control applies...whether you have access to the banned item or not, the criminals will, so if it's something the public wants then it will simply be sold to them at a higher price than it otherwise would have.

I guarantee you if we legalized all synthetic drugs, the results would be dramatic. Do you think people would smoke weed, do cocaine, etc. as much if it wasn't illegal and there wasn't that extra thrill from doing it? Maybe, but probably not. The government will never do this, however, because the amount of money they collect from fines, tickets, their own drug sales under the table, etc. is enormous.

I think the best way to go about that, if you're trying to limit how many health conditions result from drug abuse, alcohol abuse, etc. is to focus on preventative medicine. Stress the results that will happen if the individual continues to smoke, do drugs, drink excessively, etc.

Either that or they could just enact it as law that anyone with a health condition that's caused by their own doing either has to pay cash for their treatment, it can't be written off and they be treated for free, or they just don't get care. Hell, you could add obesity to the list if we're talking about conditions the patient caused themselves. I bet hospitals would have a lot less of a problem with those kinds of patients if hospitals simply weren't required by law to treat those patients without payment up front. Heaven forbid someone has to be responsible for themselves.

 

[Chemist0157]

Will socialized medicine even be possible?

The answer is "no." Even if a democrat wins the Presidency, he/she won't have a chance with the republicans, and even a few from the democratic party. Too many people have too much influence on and too much investments in health to just "let it happen." Personally, I want our present system to be reformed, not thrown in the trash completely, but that's just me.

It's like how Huckabee wants a fair tax system. I like the idea, but let's not even talk about implementation!

 

[ryandote]

.

 

[bobdogsam43]

no, you got it backwards: socialized medicine IS universal healthcare,
healthcare doesn't have to be socialized medicine

I guess I just don't see how that could be.

If you pick the definition of socialized medicine in which docs are government employees, hospitals are owned by the government, etc etc.....you basically are looking at a healthcare system that is owned,operated, and executed by the government.

IMO, there is a fundamental distinction here because if you look at universal healthcare....it's a system, through the implmentation of a single-payer system for example, in which everyone is eligible to receive medical care . People who pay health insurance and taxes are already footing the bill for the really poor guy that goes to the ER as his primary means of health care. The way i see it, it wouldn't change in UHC, only the payment structure changes. BUT b/c of a UHC, THAT really poor guy can actually go to a regular doctor for a checkup. You still foot the cost at some level.

As I see it, the distinction is that you never begin talking about government owned hospitals, doctors who are government employees, etc. You are talking about a UHC system in which all the money you are already spending is being re-structured and funneled to a single-place (i.e the government) who then reimburses private practice docs (among others) for their services. The docs still do their own thing just as they were before...


There's ALOT more that can be said but I'm just summarizing and being (super) brief.....

 

[135892]

We already live in a socialist country, so we might as well have socialized medicine...

 

[LikesScience]

Changing the system does not necessarily mean less money for doctors. The aim is less money in the pockets of sheisty insurance companies. No?

In another thread someone posted an article that stated the chief of UnitedHealthcare received 50+million in compensation PLUS about 1.5 billion in stock options. billion

Do you think that company squeezes doctors out of compensation every chance they get? You bet. Do you think that company denies care to covered customers to eek out a few bucks profits? You bet.

Every year millions of insured Americans are declare bankruptcy as a result of medical debt. Think it can't happen to you? Then you're a fool. You are literally one medical emergency away from financial ruin. We are the greatest country in the world, and we can do better than that. If universal health care isn't the answer to that, then what is? There has got to be some way we can improve on what we have now, right?

 

[lord_jeebus]

I don't think that government is perfect at running things, but the current state of affairs is terrible for us and patients alike.

At the most basic level, money must be transferred from patients (the public) to providers of care, equipment, medicine, and infrastructure.

When Medicare handles this transfer of funds, less than 10% of that money is lost along the way (ie. spent on government administrators and other bureaucracy).

When Aetna handles this transfer of funds, over 20% is wasted between patient and provider on advertising, executive salaries, and people paid to find creative ways to deny legitimate claims. Their incentive for existing is to suck off as much money as they can from the process, so no degree of competition is going to make them better than a government system that has much less incentive to deny the public proper medical care, or to deny providers proper compensation for their work.

 

[AllAboutUCSF]

We should make the VA the nationwide system of administering healthcare. I shadow in the VA and they give excellent, efficient, lower-cost care in a completely fair manner.

 

[ryandote]

.

 

[Law2Doc]

This is just my theory, but for preventive medicine to work at maximum monetary efficiency, wouldn't there have to be a federal ban on cigarettes and alcohol.

The goal isn't preventive medicine "at maximum monetary efficiency", it's to reduce the costs of our current system by getting more people inside the system instead of outside. There are lots of things that could be done to prevent injuries and improve health (banning firearms, motorcycles could be added to this list), but the public demand for it is not there, so it's missing the point of universal health. Heck, the UK has a cheaper and socialized healthcare system and they allow folks to legally use heroin. The goal with these plans isn't to improve health by restricting public behavior, the goal is to improve healthcare COSTS by addressing things earlier.

 

[Lokhtar]

Yes, its possible, and it'll likely be better than this crap.

 

[dangersmama]

The point that bothers me most that seem to be being missed is that everyone without insurance will be REQUIRED to get it. Doesn't that give anyone else the willies, that the government is controlling even that choice for you. Also, how many companies do you think are going to take medical insurance out of their benefits package because it's cheaper for them, and their employees will just have to buy the government insurance if they don't provide it so why provide it. Last point: If you force the required debt of this "low cost" insurance onto low income families they will just rely more heavily on other government funding programs in order to still have enough money to eat and stay in their housing. Okay, I will now get off of my soap box for the time being.

 

[riverwoman1040]

The point that bothers me most that seem to be being missed is that everyone without insurance will be REQUIRED to get it. Doesn't that give anyone else the willies, that the government is controlling even that choice for you. Also, how many companies do you think are going to take medical insurance out of their benefits package because it's cheaper for them, and their employees will just have to buy the government insurance if they don't provide it so why provide it. Last point: If you force the required debt of this "low cost" insurance onto low income families they will just rely more heavily on other government funding programs in order to still have enough money to eat and stay in their housing. Okay, I will now get off of my soap box for the time being.

Doesn't give me "the willies" any more than being forced to pay for the treatment of someones emergency because they didn't feel like getting health insurance. It certainly doesn't give me "the willies" any more than being forced to pay for someones preventable illness because they couldn't afford the prevention. We're paying for it one way or another. I don't mind helping to cover those who truely can't afford their own healthcare, but I do have a problem with people who were just to irresponsible to get insurance.