Socialized Health Care - Good or Bad?

And everyone knows charities are better suited to treated those genuinely disadvantaged than the government. Take a look at my country: people fraudulently claiming disability and unemployment welfare is a huge problem.

 

Charities are great for minor illnesses or for helping people get medications. No charity will pick up a hospital bill of thousands of dollars.

 

How can we distinguish between people with legitimate disabilities from dirty poor people who are irresponsible and lazy? Who is going to have the power to decide these categories?
What if a person is all of the above?

 

No, I do not live in Britian, I'm in the US.

If we had local control of health care it would be a mismatched patchwork of coverage, encouraging people to move to locations with better coverage, disadvantaging people who are unable to determine where the best coverage would be, or people who are unable to relocate. What about people who are traveling, do they get their home coverage if they are in a community with lesser benefits when accident or illness strikes? Sounds like a nightmare to me.

 

Please keep your posts together in one, it's easier to read, remember and reply to.

Charities may not be able to pick up a bill worth thousands of dollars, but you left out something vital in your reasoning: why the bills are so expensive. It is because your country does not have a truly private health-care system, as the government and other organisations have intervened.

Therefore, charities may full well be able to afford the prices if this case was changed.

However I never actually said that privatisation should be forced. I said we should have choices. How many times do I have to repeat that -_-

Well, the welfare department is actually supposed to do that, but since bureaucracy and socialism have put a spanner in the works, this cannot be done effectively, because the government basically has no spending limit. Look, if a charity has to spend its money wisely, it will make sure it's certain that someone is genuinely disadvantaged, before giving them money or support. Finally, being lazy and disabled is irrelevant. If you simply cannot earn, you cannot earn - it should be up to the local populace how this is dealt with. Strict libertarians would wish those to be cared for by their families and charities, instead of the state. Seriously all you have to do is think about this and it's very obvious.

The way you seem to be justifying your argument is by implying that we as people are powerless and cannot think. How do you think someone finds out where the best coverage is? And why are you asking me about local policies? They're left to the citizens. I don't think you're quite grasping the concept of local or regional democracy. I also think you're incredibly down playing the power and resources each of your states have. A lot of them are bigger than the British island, so I think it would be daft to claim that health-care would be patchy.

I'm sure your fellow countrymen can elaborate on that.

 

If I have several posts to respond to, and they are from different people, it makes more sense to respond separately. But then, do I have to justify my style to you? You're not a moderator, right? I didn't break any rules, right?

I wholeheartedly disagree. It is precisely because our health care system is privately run that it is so expensive. The insurance companies make loads of money by shuffling papers around and by denying coverage, but never actually provide any care. There is hardly any government intervemntion into our system, the insurance companies run this show. I just don't know where you get these ideas from.

You can repeat yourself all you like. I heard you the first time. Your point is not made better by simple repetition.

How many times do I need to ask the question, "What if someone chooses not to be covered, do we let them die, or do we somehow cover the cost regardless?" This is a relevant question, and I haven't seen an answer yet. I did see a response earlier that it would be their fault. Well, yes, I agree, it would be, but the question remains, DO WE THEN LET THEM DIE, or what???

How little you know about our welfare system. Where I live, the welfare program periodically stops accepting applications. Poor people in need of health care are simply told, "The program is closed".

And your assertion that bureaucracy and socialism are in the way of the welfare office is absurd, that's the essence of a government welfare office.

Seriously, all you need to do is think of the people who have no family, or who have no adequately funded charity to help them to see how unworkable your propositions are.

You completely misunderstand my posts, they are not arguments, they are raising questions and situations for discussion, I have not argued for anything in this current string of posts.

And stop trying to talk down to me, I can grasp your concepts easily.

As for the power of our states, are you familiar with the differences in how Texas or Florida or Michigan handle health care? I am, and suggesting that level of differences is a good thing and should be expanded on is not a well informed opinion on your part.

I wouldn't mind discussing it with someone who is actually familiar with our system.

 

Our system is too privatized? So you're saying I can open up my own medical practice?

 

Sure you can. Rent office space, put up a sign, if you're not a doctor, just hire one, hire a receptionist, etc.

What are you saying anyway? Doctors shouldn't need a license? Is that what you're saying?

Your post was really not a constructive addition to the topic.

 

Don't talk down to me.

That's pretty much what I'm saying. Read here and feel free to propose a counterargument to Milton Friedman.

 

Calm down woman, it was a polite request, nothing more.

I've seen many, many Americans claim the opposite, this is why I believed this to be the case. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see some evidence and sources, if you wouldn't mind.

YES! Jesus Christ. It's obvious. I said it would be their fault if they died, I didn't think I need spell it out. If some tool wants to kill himself, of course he should have the right to. It's starting to become very clear now that you're one of those socialist whom believes everyone should be nannied from birth to death.

If I didn't want to have coverage, but couldn't afford private bills, I think it would be my own fault if I perished and rightly so. You can't govern by looking after stupid people, it's ridiculous.

Tell me why these people are poor. If they're lazy, then it's tough. If they simply can do nothing about being poor, then I concur it is wrong. But again, if free-markets were allowed to operate, the prices would be much, much more affordable - THAT is why it's not absurd to claim bureaucracy and socialism are in the way.

I believe that the government should offer health-care, but as a competitor to the other private companies. That way prices can be forced down massively by the market forces.

You're looking at the charity suggestion incorrectly. You simply cannot look at how they operate in this given climate, and then use that as logical basis, when the proposals I'm giving would act completely differently if they existed in a world or country alongside my other suggestions.

Ask yourself why only a few countries have universal health-care.

I may not understand your homeland as well as yourself, but I'm well educated in business and somewhat economics, and, don't you forget this, I live in England which has the NHS - one of the most socialist health-care systems in the world. I have experience with "free health-care" much more than yourself and I can tell you it does not work! My mother works for the NHS and I know a lot of things other citizens of this country do not.

You see, when the NHS makes a decision at the top, from the 'Department of Health', it affects every single unit of the NHS. Therefore, if the decision is a bad one, it's amplified massively. This, I'm afraid, is to be expected when power is concentrated at the top, centrally.

I'll give you an example: Until recently, doctors worked over 48 hours, usually between 56 and 72 (including call out), when the government decided that they can no longer do this and must not exceed 48 hours. This has put all staff, especially trainee members, under immense pressure. Many doctors cannot complete training adequately because they do not have the time and therefore put patients in danger. Some hospitals aren't complying with this rule and news of further strict regulations are on their way.

We also have a vast shortage of doctors. If there were less regulation and debt caused by the authorities, it would greatly alleviate this.

Erm.. 'argument' is a point someone raises in a discussion dear, you have been doing that for quite some time. By opposing others, you form opposition. It's clear you have contrasting views anyway.

Well, I'm still waiting for the reasons. Do you live in Michigan, Florida or Texas? If not, and the people there are happy with their health-care, what you think is irrelevant - and that's how it should be.

Right, right, if I'm unfamiliar with a private health-care system, you're unfamiliar with a public health-care system. It's not a fantastic fairy-tale model that runs perfectly. There is a reason why in 1948 most people opposed the founding of the NHS.

 

On my way to work, so don't have time to say much.

But I will say this, people in Michigan, Florida or Texas, and the rest of the country are NOT happy with the system we have now. If you're lucky enough to have a job, you might have health care, if you are disabled according to the gov, you probably have health care, except in Texas and a few other states even then it's not a sure thing, if you aren't working and you aren't disabled, then you don't have health care. That leaves millions without health care currently. People avoid going to the doctor because they have no way to pay for it, some of those people die.

 

I guess I'd like to provide a bit of personal experience, in the hope it throws some light on the subject.

I've got a blown back, with permanent spinal nerve damage and radiculopathy spreading into both legs, left arm, and left neck and head, from nerve roots C6, T2, L2, L3, L5/S1, as confirmed by a battery of imaging and electronic diagnostics providing objective evidence of significant pathology - MRI, EMG, SSEP, CT/Myelogram all confirm nerve impingement and "significant conduction delay," meaning nerves are not properly firing, because they are screwed. I live in constant pain, do not sleep more than a few hours at a time, wake in severe pain, nightly, around 2-2:30 in the morning. I cannot walk more than a few minutes, cannot sit very long, can't stand in place, without a battery of meds to deal with what is taking place; the meds themselves screw things up, so it's always a balancing act between dealing with constant, severe pain, and the meds to handle what's going on. Can't play with my son, can't do much of anything, actually, that was a part of my life prior to being injured. Nate, you might appreciate what some of that life included.

The insurance carrier involved, Gallagher-Bassett, has played every tactic in the book to avoid paying for care. The last was to engage an "IME" - an "independent medical examiner" - to render an opinion in Gallagher's favor. In actuality, this physician simply committed fraud. Literally, he falsified his report, lying as to what took place during the "exam," which consisted of about 8 minutes of nothing, except his checking for "inorganic symptoms" - in other words, what are known as Waddell's signs, or his attempt to prove I am a liar. When these tests did not yield fruit, he simply lied in his report. He also simply ignored the objective data mentioned above entirely.

The end result? I am in litigation to recover care, but it's a protracted, hellish struggle, and my condition continues to decline. That's the reality, nothing grounded in theory - just one example, with many folks undergoing far worse than me.

The system as it stands now, means this fraud is untouchable, virtually, because he wasn't a "treating physician." He merely "made an opinion." The system in place, now, also means this guy's word is enough to halt care. Now, this guy is the head of spinal surgery at a major hospital system. He is also widely known to widely render these bullshit IME's, because he gets paid at the rate of $20,000 per hour to do them (i.e., for his few minutes of time with me, he was paid $1000's). A cool $10,000 weekly for a lunch-time 5-10 minutes. Nice haul, not bad.

Insurers do it more and more routinely, now, because they are unregulated from the practice, and the doctor involved is shielded from legal recourse, for the reason mentioned above. They do it because it's cheaper to pay an asshole like this "doctor" than pay for needed care. They do it because it's profitable.

From my perspective, I cannot see how a market solution will resolve this utter pandemic, when it is the market that has allowed this travesty to become de rigeur.

 

I cannot agree to a system that would let people just die without treatment because they opted out. No, it wasn't completely obvious to me that you believe that's acceptable, I needed to hear it.

And no, I'm not a socialist that wants nannying, you jump to conclusions. But I do think we have evolved enough to figure out a way to help everyone.

Why people are poor is a whole nother debate. And in the current economic conditions, for you to assert it's laziness, well, you won't get much support for that position.

We have market forces now, ain't helping none.

Oh, I see. Your charity suggestions would work, if only we all agree to your libertariian free market ideas. But we don't have a society that believes those are the right ideas to run our systems. So your charity suggestions are just dreaming.

Because it's difficult to implement. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Well if you don't care for the way your system works, you should try to improve it.

We in the US are about to try something new. Don't assume because your NHS doesn't work as well as you'd like that we will just go and copy your system and do as poorly.

I assume we will come up with a new system in the US that's better than yours.

Yeah, we have a shortage of doctors too, what does that mean then? I guess Cuba is the only place that doesn't have a shortage.

Don't call me dear and I wont call you honey, OK?

 

This is the same as "What if someone chooses to not work, do we have to give them our money for food and shelter?"

It's called freedom... we are free to make choices that can greatly affect our lives.

There are free clinics and the fact that hospitals can't deny treatment to help in most of these cases but ultimately, you are responsible for yourself. If you have a caring family and good friends they may help as well, or if a charity or giving person wants to come along and help you, then that's their choice as well to help.

It may sound awful to you in your thoughts of what a perfect world is, but it's life. In most every case people have many chances to make choices but the fact that there's still things to fall back on if they make irresponsible choices makes our country better than most, if not all in this area.

So, if they CHOSE to die, then yes they WILL die. Don't force others to have to sacrifice to pay the money to try and force these people into taking care of themselves. This will only create more freeloaders and not encourage anyone to be responsible.

I don't trust most charities... I don't trust beggers. However, it's very easy to give back and here are a few examples: big brother/big sister, doing tutoring, better yet, you can adopt a local family in need and not just hand them money, but become friends and help them as a friend with things they need. Help them work on their resumes, advancing in their careers, get on health insurance, give them rides, throw them b-day parties, help out with clothes and food... These are things I enjoy doing to help and I CHOOSE to do. Don't FORCE me to give my money to a bloated, mismanaged government to redistribute and end up in the hands of crackheads.

If you want to help out too, then great, do it. But don't look over at another person who you don't think is helping enough and demand their money be taken from them to give to others who need it. Set an example and let them make their own choices.

 

Someone on this forum has recently suffered something unspeakably tragic. What makes us human is our capacity for love and understanding, compassion, stepping outside the limitations of our skin and bone to feel another's plight.

Not everything boils down to theory, and sometimes theories break down in the real world where people, despite their best abilities, and best choices, find themselves in dire need. Please, all of us, love another today.

Paul

 

Actually, it is based quite heavily off of the UK's system, do some research. And you do appear to be a socialist with your views on this issue.

The joy of being human is you have the ability to make choices. If the government offers health insurance to you, and you opt out of it, then you don't obtain your own insurance, then yes, you should be left for dead. Because you made the choice not to have insurance. Unless of course, you just want to pay the bills outright. But, it is your choice. Something you don't seem too fond of people doing, making their own choices.

The US was built on a free market concept. People like you are destroying the US.

 

I don't know if a bodyworker can help at all with the injuries you have, but I know one from around here that apparently deals with those kinds of problems (he's done allll kinds of stuff). As far as permanent nerve damage, I don't know enough to comment on.

The one I'm fortunate enough to know is a great guy (met him at a Ron Paul rally ). Although the service he offers is very high value, he didn't charge that much the first few times, because we were all scraping by - he's not worried about the money, he just likes helping people. It was because of that that I paid him handsomely the last time (when I got a job again) and gave out his number to others who could use it.

This is my idea of a free-market, not a system based on money, but a system based on freedom. Where people can come together and help each other as they please, not because you have to, but because you want to. When you're forced to do something you lose the passion for it, and in time forget it's original purpose.

Sorry to hear the pain you're in, I agree with your other sentiments. We are all human, theories can only go so far, we should help each other no matter what.



And Kaethy, I'm still waiting on that counterargument

 

I read NPT's story. Its horrendous. We have a private system in which care is set aside against costs to a third party. Care loses. human's lose.

Over the decades two parts of the American system have seen costs go out of whack relative to inflation and the capacity of average families w/ average incomes (call it the middle class).....health care and the cost of a college education.

Both systems have been essentially immune to the market. Big ass private colleges don't compete on cost of education. Similarly hospitals and care doesn't compete on cost.

The costs have skyrocketed. health care just eats voluminous dollars out of the american economy.

Bogart referenced earlier how the costs of medicare and medicaid have skyrocketed. True.

But the costs of private medical care have similarly skyrocketed. Its astonishing. Run a business and pay for (part of) insurance. It is unbelievable and only skyrockets. Get your own insurance. Pay for some things out of pocket it is absurdly expensive.

Med costs should go down.

Frankly I like the way the Aussi system was described. I could give a rats ass if health care is "socialized or not". I want costs to go down.

The volume of examples like NPT's are enormous. Before the financial meltdown we have experienced one of the largest causes of personal bankruptcy was through health costs. Meanwhile I'm pretty sure the US spends in total (that is private and public expenditures) a larger percentage of GNP on health care than any other nation. And its by a lot.

The whole system is out of whack. It is an enormous drag on personal income and on govt expenditures. Change that equation into something less complex and less costly and everyone has more money in their pockets.

Again, why debate socialized versus unsocialized medicine. Start debating the entire cost structure.

 

This section from wikipedia references w/ citations what I was speaking of above

I personally think the arguments about socialized medicine versus private systems are pure bogus. When the overall costs are rising at such an alarming rate....and they hit every part of the economy, private and public, then the costs should be hit.

It is very complex...but again I could give a rats ass about socialized versus private....just cut the damn costs and help people get care. That is all that should be discussed.

 

You people concerned with the high prices need to have a talk with the sue happy Americans causing the healthcare industry to pay INSANE amounts of money every year in malpractice insurance. One doctor I met said he alone pays over $100K/year right now yet he's never been sued and isn't high risk or anything.

Ask a doctor about it, the one I know said it's the biggest killer for doctors making some even think again about their profession.