Socialized Health Care in the USA

[kandrathe]

Because government inevitably screws it all up. Government usually has only the best intentions in mind when it thinks of new sweeping programs. Unfortunately, beurocrats do not ever consider the consequences to their actions. While it is regrettable in the first case, and irrelevant in the second, in the case of medicine, it is literally deadly.

From the studies I've seen, wherever it is implemented, NHI has no positive impact on health. It's main aim seems to be to contain costs by government dictum. I believe it reveals the err in socialism, which is to stamp out innovation and competition in attempting to provide a quality good or service at a competitive price.

[Ashock]

From the studies I've seen, wherever it is implemented, NHI has no positive impact on health. It's main aim seems to be to contain costs by government dictum. I believe it reveals the err in socialism, which is to stamp out innovation and competition in attempting to provide a quality good or service at a competitive price.

It's not just that. It is also long lines for service. It is also downsized hospital and office staff, inevitably resulting in a significant slowdown in service. Finally, it is also cost containment as to what conditions and which people get treated. Look up how long it takes to get medical help in countries like England. Personally, I prefer to get treated according to my doctor's recommendation, as opposed to some government beurocrap's idea of which procedure is cost efficient. Oh, it won't happen overnight..... but it is inevitable under socialized medicine. There will naturally be ways to go around it. Knowing the right people and bribing the right people. Oh but wait.... that's more money spent on top of the money that will be spent by families to pay for this plan in the first place. A plan that only accounts for 25% of the currently uninsured.

[Concillian]

I don't think any of this is a convincing argument against insurance being priced at a market rate, perhaps slightly adjusted for transaction costs. Insurers, providers, employers, unions and individuals, if they are rational, are all bargaining against one another, and none has an incentive to take less than they can get, or offer more than they can get away with.

I dunno, if I go to the dentist and tell them I'm out of insurance coverage for the year and will need to pay out of pocket, they'll right away, without asking whack anywhere from 20-50% off the price of whatever I'm having done. How that doesn't count as insurance fraud is beyond me, but it's pretty common.

There's no doubt in my mind that the way the healthcare system works in the US is pretty messy due to the hidden nature of the pricing structure from both employers and end consumers.

Anyway, it sounds like what Obama is wanting to do is to have an insurance option where the deal between the insurance company and the end consumer is negotiated by the government rather than an employer. It doesn't sound like it will be government subsidized insurance, but basically the same thing people get now, just negotiated by different people. Potentially there is a larger "group benefit" due to the size, but there's potentially additional middlemen. The only way I see this being very beneficial is if they are somehow able to negotiate better than existing companies, which is probably pretty realistic in the case of small business offerings where they would have virtually no negotiating power at all as a company of <100 people, and must take whatever is offered.

I admit I haven't studied his proposal in detail, but from what I've seen there is no proposal for complete government run healthcare. In fact the proposal sounds more like what kandrathe was talking about for his garbage or schools than socialized health care.

[kandrathe]

I admit I haven't studied his proposal in detail, but from what I've seen there is no proposal for complete government run healthcare. In fact the proposal sounds more like what kandrathe was talking about for his garbage or schools than socialized health care.

Yes, although the government will also offer its own "insurance" for those who fall between the cracks in the current system (the unemployed who are between jobs, people with pre-existing conditions who need catastrophic care, and possibly non-citizens).

In our state we have "Minnesota Care" which serves that role, although there are plenty of single adults (without children) also on the federally funded SChip (State Childrens Health Insurance Program). This is part of the reason that Minnesota has a budget crisis. There are more people riding in the wagon than people pulling the the load. In other words, I already live in a socialist utopia. At least until we run out of money and people that are willing to be over taxed.

[kandrathe]

It's not just that. It is also long lines for service. It is also downsized hospital and office staff, inevitably resulting in a significant slowdown in service. Finally, it is also cost containment as to what conditions and which people get treated. Look up how long it takes to get medical help in countries like England. Personally, I prefer to get treated according to my doctor's recommendation, as opposed to some government beurocrap's idea of which procedure is cost efficient. Oh, it won't happen overnight... but it is inevitable under socialized medicine. There will naturally be ways to go around it. Knowing the right people and bribing the right people. Oh but wait.... that's more money spent on top of the money that will be spent by families to pay for this plan in the first place. A plan that only accounts for 25% of the currently uninsured.

There will always be the black market for services in the Caribbean. Many people along the southern border have their medical and dental work done inexpensively south of the border. I already know people who barter for expensive services.

[Lissa]

From the studies I've seen, wherever it is implemented, NHI has no positive impact on health. It's main aim seems to be to contain costs by government dictum. I believe it reveals the err in socialism, which is to stamp out innovation and competition in attempting to provide a quality good or service at a competitive price.

Really? Have you honestly looked at what NIH does? I think it's time that you look at some of their programs like DAIDS, CTEP, and a few others which are about finding the most effective ways to treat and cure various health conditions for the public, not just in the US, but also around the wold (NIH works with WHO and numerous other countries' agencies for health care of their populations).

[Jester]

I dunno, if I go to the dentist and tell them I'm out of insurance coverage for the year and will need to pay out of pocket, they'll right away, without asking whack anywhere from 20-50% off the price of whatever I'm having done. How that doesn't count as insurance fraud is beyond me, but it's pretty common.

Well, insurance is a business. They provide services, in this case distributing the risks of needing incredibly expensive medical treatment over a broad swath of people and a long time. In doing so, they add the overhead of running their business, plus the extra transaction costs, plus profit. They can't increase the last category more than the market will bear (hence, why this is market priced), but so long as all their competitors are labouring under the same inefficiencies, they can add a very large chunk onto the costs of medical care. 50% sounds like a lot, but I'd certainly believe 20% extra cost, maybe more.

There's no doubt in my mind that the way the healthcare system works in the US is pretty messy due to the hidden nature of the pricing structure from both employers and end consumers.

It certainly isn't efficient. If it was, you'd either have far cheaper care, given how mediocre the US' health stats are, or far better outcomes, given how ludicrously much you spend on health care.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

:lol::lol::lol:

*hands kandrathe a prize for fun sentence structure*

*looks around in vain for evidence of the equality in poverty, suffering and tyranny caused by the socialism evident in her homeland*

*goes back to lurk mode*

You have not fully swallowed that pill yet. At least not to the extent that say, Cuba has embraced socialism. Let me know how things are if and when the International Socialists (Canada), the New Socialist Group, or the Communist League (Canada) are fully in power.

The NDP are barely socialists. In the US, their platform is equal to the Progressive Democrats.

[LochnarITB]

I dunno, if I go to the dentist and tell them I'm out of insurance coverage for the year and will need to pay out of pocket, they'll right away, without asking whack anywhere from 20-50% off the price of whatever I'm having done. How that doesn't count as insurance fraud is beyond me, but it's pretty common.

What is really happening is that you are paying what they would have been paid by the insurance company. Insurance companies not only negotiate what the pricing will be, they also negotiate the portion of that amount that will be written off. Look at an EoB (explanation of benefits). You will see the price that the coded service or procedure bills at. You will then see the contracted write off and what was paid by the insurance company. This should then yield zero balance, or the copay amount, which is the patient responsibility. This makes the insurance company look like they are doing more for you than they are.

Problems for uninsured come when the provider does not do what your dentist does. They are billed at the initial price generated by the code and there is no write off and no insurance portion. They are stuck with the inflated price to be paid in full.

[kandrathe]

... come away concluding that socialization is the problem.

Which I did not. Escalating prices are a problem, which are partly fueled by the unchecked payout of Medicare and Medicaid programs. The price of a product will rise to the level that people are willing to pay for it. When the government pays, they don't care so much about the price and instead ration the number of payouts.

Another problem is that we in the US pay a premium price for medication, while people outside the US pay less and in some places pay much less. Which is why our governor runs a Rx Express bus load of seniors up to Canada every month to get prescriptions filled.

The problem of creeping socialism is that first we payed for the elderly, then the children, then the uninsured. Then we give everyone the "choice" to belong or not belong to the government system, until the insurance companies decide to get out of the business since they are competing against the government. Then, when the government dictates the price of medicine and medical procedures the health care systems will become nationalized since hospitals and clinics will be hard pressed to earn a living either. This is the plan, and its not a sweeping change. Its a planned, gradual erosion, where commerce is forced out and government steps in.

[Jester]

You have not fully swallowed that pill yet. At least not to the extent that say, Cuba has embraced socialism. Let me know how things are if and when the International Socialists (Canada), the New Socialist Group, or the Communist League (Canada) are fully in power.

They've got a long way to go, but if they pooled their fourteen votes, they might be able to get enough donations to buy a hot dog. If they allied with the Marxist-Leninists, they might literally have enough money to pay off a smallish traffic ticket.

By the by, what's with the (Canada) at the end of their party names? Just reading the names off the Wiki articles? Or is this some far-left naming convention I'm not aware of?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Well, insurance is a business. They provide services, in this case distributing the risks of needing incredibly expensive medical treatment over a broad swath of people and a long time.

The implication then is that they not only get to charge us huge premiums from payroll deductions (which the employer usually pays the bigger portion), but the insurance company gets a portion of every transaction as well.

[Jester]

This is the plan, and its not a sweeping change. Its a planned, gradual erosion, where commerce is forced out and government steps in.

Thankfully, this erosion can be halted by a sufficiently thick layer of tinfoil.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Or is this some far-left naming convention I'm not aware of?

It must be. I like to check for accuracy before I spout off, so I just Googled up the names to be sure I got the names right. The ISO, and the CL(or CWP) are worldwide organizations, so adding the (Canada) seems an appropriate way of making them a subset.

[kandrathe]

Really? Have you honestly looked at what NIH does? I think it's time that you look at some of their programs like DAIDS, CTEP, and a few others which are about finding the most effective ways to treat and cure various health conditions for the public, not just in the US, but also around the wold (NIH works with WHO and numerous other countries' agencies for health care of their populations).

National Health Insurance <> National Institute of Health. :)

[kandrathe]

Thankfully, this erosion can be halted by a sufficiently thick layer of tinfoil.

Yeah? Tell that to GM. :)

[Jester]

Yeah? Tell that to GM. :)

That the government had a secret plot to make them unviable and drive them out of business?

Okay, but I don't think they'll believe me. Heck, I don't think I'd believe me.

-Jester

[Swiss Mercenary]

It's not just that. It is also long lines for service. It is also downsized hospital and office staff, inevitably resulting in a significant slowdown in service.

Aging demographics, funding cuts (In Canada) have as much to do with that as anything else. And the average case (Here) is nowhere near as bad as the horror story anecdotes may claim.

[Jester]

Aging demographics, funding cuts (In Canada) have as much to do with that as anything else.

Ageing demographics are the story everywhere. Unfortunately, unless Ponce de Leon gets back to us, there's not really any way around that problem.

-Jester

[Zenda]

Wonderful, a whole thread devoted to a textbook 'strawman' case :w00t:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

A universal healthcare debate:
Person A: We should have universal healthcare.
Person B: No, because only communists believe in universal healthcare and communist countries are typically poor, which we don't want to become.
(B has falsely identified A as a communist and then refuted communism).

...Oh wait, this is about socialism and not communism <_<