Socialized Medicine

[boppaid]

You’ve got a point. however, you seemed quite sure that the people he talked to were NOT a significant part of the population. I’m wondering if you could provide the source where you got that information? Or is it an opinion?

I thought you were trying to tell him that he was factually wrong when you said “Gus, with respect, everyone you talk to is not a significant number in the big picture.” I see, now, that it was your opinion, which holds the same factual value as his. I was just asking you to clarify if you were trying to pass your opinion off as “fact”. (I don’t mean that as derogatory as it sounds. We all hold opinions, and I’m not saying anyone’s is more valid than yours. I hope you don’t take that the wrong way. “Tone” is so difficult to “read” on the internet, don’t you think?)

 

[vern_humphrey]

But your experience in Canada is not everyone’s experience. My father, an American citizen, living in the US, had eye surgery at the Wilmer Eye Institute. While there, he met a man that was paying for his eye surgery out of his own pocket. This man was from Canada. He was on the wait list for surgery, in Canada, but would be blind before it happened. What is worse is that he was blind in the other eye, because of a long wait list. Being blind in one eye did not move this man to the front of the list.

We spoke to him and his family. They were so upset with the Canadian system and the wait times that they wanted to move to the US and get private insurance. There was no option for private insurance in Canada.

With my health plan, I can choose any doctor. I can go to a clinic that is open 7 days a week for urgent care, if I want. I can go to a specialist without seeing my regular doctor or asking his permission. I never need a referral.

My health care is in my hands. Not in the government. I once heard someone say “Public Health, just like Public Housing.” Public housing is not normally something someone would choose. It is a last resort, why would we want Public Health?

Socialized medicine is like the lottery. We hear all kinds of stories about the handful of people who win the lottery – but somehow we never hear about the guy who spends half his paycheck on lottery tickets and his kids go to school in ragged clothes.

 

[OFlaherty]

I live in Canada. My brother does not have a family doctor and has been searching for one for years.

Michael Moore really should research better for his movies. Wait times here in emergency wards are ridiculous, as is his movie.

 

[sadie2723]

I live in Canada. My brother does not have a family doctor and has been searching for one for years.

Michael Moore really should research better for his movies. Wait times here in emergency wards are ridiculous, as is his movie.

God bless you! I was hoping that some of our friends from the north would comment on this thread. I have quite a few friends in Canada, and I have yet to meet one that thinks Moore’s plan is the answer. Thank you so much for commenting!!!

Cheers!

 

[johnstown_johnn]

You can be sure ABORTION and Transgender surgery will be part of Socialized medicine. Very probably cloning and sperm banks will be financed as well.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You can be sure ABORTION and Transgender surgery will be part of Socialized medicine. Very probably cloning and sperm banks will be financed as well.

Of course!

I posted this earlier. Abortion is a right (so sayth the courts). When socialized medicine is the only way to get medical care, then women will have a right to have the taxpayer (that’s you and me) pay for abortions. And transgender surgery will not be far behind.

 

[giagustine]

If socialized medicine is not the answer (and I am not saying that it is) what is?

The fact of the matter is that the fees that doctors and hospitals charge are outrageous.

I have a medical condition and am unable to get private health insurance. We make to much to be on government (taxpayer) paid insurance. And I refuse to go to the doctor and not pay my bills. So, I don’t go.

The truth is that it costs me (as a self pay patient) WAY more to go to the doctor than it does anyone else. Those that have insurance have their bills greatly reduced by the insuring company before they are paid, And everyone knows that Medicare/Medicaid recipients bills are paid by the government at amazingly low rates - pennies on the dollar.

There has to be some reform. But what is the answer? The private insurance companies are a problem too. They drive up the cost of medical care as well.

I don’t know the answer. I only know that it is an incredibly frustrating situation and I see no end in sight.

 

[sadie2723]

If socialized medicine is not the answer (and I am not saying that it is) what is?

The fact of the matter is that the fees that doctors and hospitals charge are outrageous.

I could not agree with you more on this. But, thanks be to God, we can look at why the costs are so darned high. The answer, lucky for us, is a simple one…regulation. The system has way to much government control at this point. This is evident in the stupid rules surrounding Medicare and Medicaid. Both programs have significant levels of government control including telling Doctors that they can only collect specific amounts from the two programs which in many cases is less than the doctor has to pay for equipment used in the treatment. So who pays when that happens?..you and I do. The costs are redistributed to our insurance companies and our premiums rise.

Secondly, there is entirely too much regulation via the FDA when it comes to getting a drug on the market. Millions of dollars are spent getting through all the red tape with most of the money being paid out not in testing but to lawyers who have to be hired to deal with the government.

If you significantly eliminate these regulations and the **** that government is sending down, things run more efficiently, and that translates to cheaper health care for you and me. Basic economics.

I stress that the answer is not more government involvement…but less.

Cheers!

 

[vern_humphrey]

If socialized medicine is not the answer (and I am not saying that it is) what is?

I don’t know the answer. I only know that it is an incredibly frustrating situation and I see no end in sight.

Let’s start with Medical Savings Accounts.

The fundamental principle behind Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) is that it allows people to pay for medical care with tax-free dollars, and to roll any unused dollars over at the end of each year into their IRAs. The institution holding the MSA would issue a credit card, and this card would be used to pay for health care. This would have several important impacts:

1. Paperwork makes up from one-third (in private health plans) to two-thirds (in government programs) of the total cost of health care. The use of this credit card approach would dramatically reduce the paperwork and result in lower costs.
2. The current systems of paying for health care have long delays built in. The pay-on-the-spot approach would allow care providers to further lower costs.
3. MSAs provide an incentive for people to bargain for health care – when people spend their own money (and know they can keep all they save), they have an incentive to bargain for better rates.
4. MSAs provide an incentive to avoid over-consumption of medical care.

Next, businesses have an obligation to provide health insurance for their employees, and the taxpayer shouldn’t be forced to assume this burden. But unaffiliated small businesses are prohibited by law from bsanding together to bargain for health insurance for their employees. We have to change that.

People should be allowed to shop for the lowest prices in health insurance – which means shopping across state lines. Believe it or not, that’s against the law! We need legislation to enable people to buy the lowest cost medical insurance policies they can find, regardless of where the company is located.

We need to control junk lawsuits. The high price of medical malpractice insurance is passed on to the consumer, driving up medical costs, and this is due to uncontrolled and frivolous lawsuits. The purpose of lawsuits is not to make lawyers rich, but to obtain fair compensation for people who have been injured due to real negligence or malpractice. We need things like a preliminary process where a lawyer must show he has good reason to sue before filing suit. We need the English Rule – where the loser pays the winner’s costs (and where in contingency cases the loser’s lawyer pays his share.) We need to abolish “class action” lawsuits – where the lawyers get billions and the people actually injured get virtually nothing.

We need to control the cost of drugs in an economically sound manner – through open competition.

Drugs are cheaper in Europe and Canada because the American consumer is forced to bear the whole burden of drug Research and Development, while other nations get a free ride.

These cost controls destroy the ability of companies to recoup their costs in R&D. In 1990, before introducing cost controls, Europe as a whole outspent the US by 60% in R&D. By 2000, though, they had thrown away their lead and were spending 40% less than the US.

Cost controls in Canada killed competition in their drug industry. As a result, generic drugs are more expensive in Canada than in the US. Twenty-one of the top 27 best selling generic drugs cost more in Canada than in the US. And the combined price for all 27 was 37% higher in Canada than in the US!

The way to get drug costs down for Americans is to make Canada and the European nations bear their fair share of R&D costs, and take the burden off the American consumer. He will introduce legislation to make this a major issue in trade negotiations.

We should also expand on the successful drug discount card. It would work like this – when you apply for a card, you list your prescriptions. The system searches for the discount cards that would be best for you. The supplier guarentees your prices for the next year. When that year ends, you get a printout telling you which card is best for you at the new prices – and a 1-800 number to call, and a website so you can change cards if you want to.

 

[boppaid]

Vern, your plan sounds good. But what happens with the unemployed? that’s the only part I’m unclear on.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, your plan sounds good. But what happens with the unemployed? that’s the only part I’m unclear on.

Unfortunately, there is character limit on posts – which keeps people from writing a book.

Several things happen with the poor – not just the unemployed. First, they have MSAs (if they want them) based on a double sliding scale. The first scale tells how much the individual must save – and we guarentee the rest.

The second scale tells how much of the individual’s savings go to each medical expenditure – so he always has some of his own money left, and always has an incentive to bargain and to not over-consume.

Next, we attack unemployment with education – we get a strangle hold on the public educationi system and make it work (how is a subject for a different thread.) In other words, we make it possible for the now unemployed to get jobs.

Third, we foster a growing economy – lower taxes, less pointless regulation, more control over lawsuits and so on – so people can get the jobs they are qualified for.

Fourth, we regard those on welfare as public employees. They go to school – some to learn, some to help their children learn, some to babysit for the younger children of others learning and helping children.

Fifth, we require people to earn their way – we don’t shower them with charity and destroy their incentive to work. We follow Saint Paul here – help only those who need help, and don’t let those who can work become a permanent charge on the community.

Sixth, we regard those who truly cannot work as a general responsibility.

Seventh, we push Social Justice (fixing the problems) programs – a couple of good examples were recently discussed on these forums – Alcoholics Anonymous and Habitat for Humanity. We create other programs – mostly through the Church or private institutions.

 

[emily47017]

Let’s start with Medical Savings Accounts.

okay: this is from the commonwealth fund for a high performance health system:

Many Americans Are Already Burdened by High Health Care Costs

* Americans already pay far more out-of-pocket for their health care than residents of other industrialized countries, and real per capita out-of-pocket spending has been steadily rising since the late 1990s.
* The Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey found that in 2005, 60 percent of working-age adults with private insurance with annual household incomes of under $40,000 spent 5 percent or more of their income on out-of-pocket expenses and premiums, and 40 percent spent 10 percent or more.
* There is considerable evidence that high out-of-pocket costs lead patients to decide against getting the health care they need. The Commonwealth Fund Biennial Survey found that 44 percent of privately insured adults with deductibles of $1,000 or more avoided getting necessary health care or prescriptions because of the cost, compared with 25 percent of adults with deductibles under $500.
* There is also evidence that rising cost exposure leads people to accumulate medical debt, take on credit card debt, and reduce their savings. ...

** Early Experience with HSA-Eligible HDHPs Reveals Low Satisfaction**…

* The EBRI/Commonwealth Fund Consumerism in Health Care Survey found in 2005 that people enrolled in HSA-eligible HDHPs were much less satisfied with many aspects of their health care than adults in more comprehensive plans....
* Adults in HDHPs are far more likely to delay or avoid getting needed care, or to skip medications, because of the cost. Problems are particularly pronounced among those with poorer health or lower incomes.
* Few Americans in any health plan have the information they need to make decisions. Just 12 to 16 percent of insured adults have information from their health plan about the quality or cost of care provided by their doctors and hospitals.

and this is from PNHP:

Why HSAs won’t work:

• Health care doesn’t work as a “market.” Economists have concluded that medical care does not and cannot work like a market; it works like a public good. Patients don’t decide what to “buy,” they rely on doctors and nurses to guide treatment decisions, and hospitals to have all necessary personnel, equipment, and supplies at the ready. The information to compare prices and quality (such as when car shopping) does not exist and would be extremely unreliable anyway, since the easiest way for a provider to improve quality and lower price would be to shun the sickest patients. Finally, patients are poorly equipped to “shop around” for health care at the time in their life they are most vulnerable and in need of guidance and compassionate care (3).
• Health savings accounts will not control costs. Each year, ten percent of the population accounts for 69 percent of health spending. HSAs do nothing to control costs for these patients, they merely shift costs from the insurers to the patient (4,5).
• Financial disincentives lead to rationing, discourage prevention, and result in worsened health outcomes. Exposing patients to high out-of-pocket costs leads to rationing based on ability to pay. … (6,7,8).
• HSAs will do nothing to reduce the number of uninsured. Since the primary difference between an HSA and a regular savings account is that the HSA income isn’t taxed, the only attraction of an HSA is its tax-deductibility. More than half of the uninsured have no income tax liability. In addition, skimpy HSA-compatible plans still have high premiums. … (9).
• HSA plans increase administrative costs. Administrative bloat and bureaucracy already consumes 31 percent of our health spending, hundreds of billions of dollars in waste each year. HSA plans, which require the tracking of all out-of-pocket spending by each patient, their HSA corporate manager, and their insurer will only increase these costs (10).
• Patients are left exposed to massive debt. … (11).
• HSAs deplete funds from the insurance risk pool. While the poor and sick quickly deplete their HSA funds each year, the rich and healthy retain their unspent money which would have previously gone to subsidize care for the sick. These health dollars are effectively removed from the system and will need to be replaced by cutting costs or raising premiums. … (12).
• Patients with experience with HSA plans are dissatisfied with them. … In some companies, as many as 75 percent said they were dissatisfied with their HSA-compatible plan (13).

 

[emily47017]

We need to control junk lawsuits.

again from PNHP:

Limits on awards are not the solution. Numerous
studies show that excessive awards are not the
cause of the problem:
• Only two states with caps have experienced
flat or declining premiums; 19 states that have
implemented these limits have seen premium increases
from 1991 to 2002 averaging 48.2%; 32
states without caps saw premium increases of only
35.9% over the same period (Weiss Ratings, Inc. in
Crain’s Health Pulse, June 9, 2003).
• In New Jersey, where doctors and insurers
have been vociferous in blaming rising malpractice
premiums on skyrocketing payouts, data on settlements,
awards, and other payout for 2001-2003
Medical Malpractice, Health Care Quality
And Health Care Reform
shows that “the total payout declined [by 24%]
even as doctors saw steep increases in their
malpractice premiums.” (Newark Star-Ledger,
June 9, 2004)
• In Texas, where caps on non-economic damages
have just been passed, one of the nation’s
largest medical-malpractice insurance companies
told regulators they would save only 1% in total
payouts. (Wall Street Journal, October 28, 2004)

and:

1. Single payer NHI will reduce malpractice
   costs, because the costs of any medical care
   needed as a result of an injury will be covered
   within the NHI system.
2. Single payer NHI will foster a single data system,
   which has the potential to improve patient safety by
   enabling the disclosure and tracking of systems
   problems and thereby reducing medical errors.
3. Single payer NHI will eliminate financial
   barriers to access as well as any incentives for
   providers to avoid seeing complicated and sick
   patients or to withhold care. This will lead to
   increased trust between doctor and patient.

 

[vern_humphrey]

First of all, MSAs are not HSAs. Different concept, different dynamics.

Secondly, I didn’t propose “caps” on lawsuits. I proposed:

• A process where a lawyer must show he has good reason to sue before filing suit.
• Applying the English Rule – where the loser pays the winner’s costs (and where in contingency cases the loser’s lawyer pays his share.)
• Abolishing “class action” lawsuits – where the lawyers get billions and the people actually injured get virtually nothing.

 

[emily47017]

We need to control the cost of drugs in an economically sound manner – through open competition.

in actual fact, market driven ways to controlling costs are hindered by our “open competition”:

pricing pills by the results

And the approach would probably be most feasible in countries, like Britain, where the government is the primary payer.

 

[emily47017]

Secondly, I didn’t propose “caps” on lawsuits. I proposed:

the message of that article is that lawsuits are not necessarily driving the cost of malpractice premiums. seems counter-intuitive, i know, but try reading the whole article.

 

[mark_a]

My father lived in Canada for years and had great care…free. I have more hassles and less choice with my Health Plan here in the US than I ever did in Canada. In Canada I could choose any doctor in the city (no referrals) and usually get seen the same day (there was a 7 day a week clinic just block from where I lived).

As one commentator on Fox News pointed out in the US we pay more for health care than anywhere else and fail in most of the leading indicators (such as infant mortality, longevity and so on). While socializing medicene may not be the cure all it is beating the pants off of us.

Rev North

You tell 'em!

This whole debate is another case of the haves vs the have-nots. The haves will need to sacrifice a little in order for the have-nots to get a little.

 

[emily47017]

First of all, MSAs are not HSAs. Different concept, different dynamics.

please read the fact sheet i linked and explain to me how that is not exactly what you have been proposing all along.

 

[vern_humphrey]

in actual fact, market driven ways to controlling costs are hindered by our “open competition”:

pricing pills by the results

For some reason, that article doesn’t say the marketplace can’t work with drugs – just the opposite. While it focuses on Britain, you could throw in things happening in the US – like a website where you can search to determine if there is a generic for your prescribed drugs, and then search for the lowest price for either the generic or the name brand.

But note that in Canada, generic drugs are more expensive than the US – and that was before Wal-Mart started offering generics at $4.00 a pop! (A move attacked by Senator Schuemer (D-NY) as being somehow “unfair.”)

The idea that the laws of economics are suspended in medical matters is simply false – although I will agree that government intervention in medicine and drugs has skew the market dramatically.

 

[vern_humphrey]

please read the fact sheet i linked and explain to me how that is not exactly what you have been proposing all along.

The fundamental difference is that HSAs are a use-it-or-lose-it proposition. MSAs allow you to roll over savings into your IRA.

Therefore HSAs do not either encourage you to bargain for health care, nor to discourage you from over-consumption. They are the exact opposite of MSAs.

You keep using things like this – and pretending that this is what I’m recommending. You did that when you said that “caps” on lawsuit awads wouldn’t affect costs – ignoring the fact that I never proposed “caps.”