I never said that it was the right way to assess whether something is right or not. All I said is that I think it’s a good idea because I know that members of my family would benefit from socialized health care. The way I see it is that if it works in Canada and other nations, it’d work here too.
I, too, would benefit from socialized healthcare. I pay about $1400/month for my wife and myself, and I have not had any bills for the insurance company to pay for years. I tried to get a big deductible for catastrophic illness, and risk the rest myself, in order to reduce cost. But I couldn’t do it because of state and federal regulations. My premium is based on my age and my wife’s age. Nothing more to base it on, because there’s nothing else to look at.
But is socialized healthcare really the answer for that? In a sense, my healthcare is already “socialized” in that I, who have no medical bills, am paying $1400/month to pay someone else’s bills. My coverage cost goes up at least 10%/year.
But, of course, there are others who have no coverage at all. If they get sick, they’re going to pay two or three times as much for the very same care as my insurer would pay for it. At such time as I am eligible for Medicare, the uninsured are going to pay nearly double what the government pays. Of course, my work is office work, and so the premiums are higher for office workers than for factory workers, by and large. Why? Because a sick office worker can usually stay employed (and covered) longer than a sick factory worker can.
Does this all make good sense to you? If the government (Medicare) is paying more for the same thing than my insurer will, and if the providers are happy enough to work with my insurer, why should one conclude that government paid healthcare is a good answer?
Medical costs are determined by what the government is willing to pay. Nothing more. And, of course, the government is paying a big part of those magnificent buildings you see going up all the time for clinics and hospital complexes. In my town, the local hospital (branch of a giant) is going to abandon its entire complex of buildings and build all new. Why? Because there are inconveniences in the present complex, but mostly because it can, and can get it all paid for, mostly by the government. Multi millions of dollars to eliminate minor inconveniences. Well, too, its big rival in the area just bought a tract of land to build a magnificent new complex too, despite the fact that it already has a rather nice facility. Got to keep up with the Joneses. And both have their own ambulance services and there is also a publicly-supported ambulance service. Most of the time none of them are in use. But they all have full crews, 911 systems, computer billing systems, nice new vehicles with the latest stuff in them. 20 minutes south of here, the whole thing is duplicated again. And, 15 minues east of here, it’s all duplicated yet again. Well, then too, there are four complete helicopter ambulance services within just a few minutes flight time, to take people to the absolutely staggering facilities of the giant corporations, if needed. Most of the time they, too, are not in use.
Why this duplication in ambulance services? Well, he who controls the ride controls the destination most of the time. And the bills for an ambulance ride (let alone a helicopter ride) are staggering. They all have their own services because they can.
Part of the problem is that government is overly generous, for the most part (and I realize there are exceptions) and encourage bloated healthcare systems and provider greed. Look at your television. There are very expensive ads all the time for this hospital or that clinic or this medication or that. Those ads cost a lot, and, as we have seen, a lot of those medications aren’t any good. Why are they on there? So people who have coverage can go demand the stuff from their doctors, whether they really need them or not and whether they really work or not. And the doctors will prescribe them, whether they would have otherwise done it or not. If you’ll notice, most of those ads are really directed at older people. Medicare will pay for the trip to the doctor to get the medication, and it will pay for the medication, and why? Because the ad persuaded the individual that it would do him some good and make him/her as active and smiley as the people on the ad. And those ads are for brand name medications that are still under patent. Did you ever see an ad for a generic drug? No. Does this really seem to you to be a sign of a good system?
There are those, some of whom have spoken on here, who say the Canadian system isn’t very good at all. I don’t know, myself, but I’m inclined to believe the testimony.
It’s possible, just possible, that if these politicians who are so interested in government medical coverage spent their time investigated pricing, duplication and overutilization, you would find that you could afford coverage. Maybe not. But since drug companies and healthcare associations pour a lot of money into campaign coffers, I’m not expecting to see it anytime soon.
Like that’s going to work. Chemotherapy is ongoing treatment, it’s costs a lot of money, then there are drugs that cancer patients have to take for years afterwards, possibly for the rest of their lives.