Socialized Medicine in America

[haydengray2]

Can someone who is pro ObamaCare please try to explain to me what is so great about socialized medicine for America? For one, there are thousands of failed examples of socialistic countries with single payer healthcare that are just laughable. Since the ACA was passed, premiums have risen (Delaware saw an increase by 100%/California 53%) and coverage has gone down. We've also seen several regimes try to nationalize food and crop industries with utter failure. If making bread can't be planned out by a national government, then how can something as complex and important as healthcare be nationalized?

Also remember the quote by Thomas Jefferson, "If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." The ACA also has congressional exemption...if it's so great, then why doesn't congress have to buy into their own legislation? Sounds tyrannical to me.

I'm not looking for confrontation, just good dialogue from an opposing viewpoint.

 

[Carjosse]

Well almost every developed country in the world has a successful system of "socialized medicine." Obamacare is not socialized medicine, it is an ineffective bureaucratic attempt at controlling the insurance industry. Single-payer is also only one way to do it and is what Canada has. I do not have to pay healthcare premiums at all, it is funded through normal taxes, I can choose to pay for extra coverage like dental or vision care but I can also choose not to. What single-payer does is make the either the federal government or state/provincial governments bargain prices for people just like insurance companies do except governments have much more bargaining since they represent more people and have more power, making companies compete for the best price. That is only one system of many, with differing degrees of both effectiveness and public/private balance.

The benefit of a system like this is that people do not have to worry about healthcare coverage, you do not have to fear leaving school or changing jobs because of a loss of health coverage and it can eliminate bankruptcy due to medical expenses which is rather prevalent in the US.

 

[Moderate Right]

I'm not pro Obamacare but your facts seem a little loose to say the least. First, Obamacare is not technically socialized medicine. I seriously doubt there are "thousands" of failed examples of socialistic countries with single payer healthcare. I'm not a fan of single payer myself and don't want it here but there are several larger, mostly European countries, Canada, and Australia who do have it and most who have it are more or less satisfied with it and certain statistics, which I don't necessarily agree with, show that their healthcare systems are at least as good as the US while spending much less to do it, not to mention that individuals aren't saddled with high medical costs. US healthcare premiums were experiencing constant rate hikes before Obamacare. While you could argue that Obamacare hasn't been much better it isn't a foregone conclusion that things would have been better if we had never passed Obamacare. I have many misgivings about Obamacare myself but, respectfully, you sound more like someone who is partisan over the matter and not fully informed.

 

[Helix]

Well almost every developed country in the world has a successful system of "socialized medicine." Obamacare is not socialized medicine, it is an ineffective bureaucratic attempt at controlling the insurance industry. Single-payer is also only one way to do it and is what Canada has. I do not have to pay healthcare premiums at all, it is funded through normal taxes, I can choose to pay for extra coverage like dental or vision care but I can also choose not to. What single-payer does is make the either the federal government or state/provincial governments bargain prices for people just like insurance companies do except governments have much more bargaining since they represent more people and have more power, making companies compete for the best price. That is only one system of many, with differing degrees of both effectiveness and public/private balance.

The benefit of a system like this is that people do not have to worry about healthcare coverage, you do not have to fear leaving school or changing jobs because of a loss of health coverage and it can eliminate bankruptcy due to medical expenses which is rather prevalent in the US.

yep.

/thread.

 

[brothern]

For one, there are thousands of failed examples of socialistic countries with single payer healthcare that are just laughable.

"... thousands of failed examples ..."

Just for a second, let's break that down.

"Thousands"? ... That's a wee exaggeration. Depending on who you ask, there are only 196 countries in the world plus or minus a few. Of those 196 that are considered "wealthy," all of them have universal health care except for the United States, and they are almost all exclusively single-payer health care systems. So I think you're a few 800 or so short of the word 'thousand'.

"of failed examples" Where are you getting that from? Universal health care policies and single-payer health care systems are the far-favorite, majority choice of the world's nations. The United States is the only country that hasn't chosen this route.

... how can something as complex and important as healthcare be nationalized?

That's the reason that all other nations nationalized their healthcare. It's complex and it's important.

 

[Carjosse]

I'm not pro Obamacare but your facts seem a little loose to say the least. First, Obamacare is not technically socialized medicine. I seriously doubt there are "thousands" of failed examples of socialistic countries with single payer healthcare. I'm not a fan of single payer myself and don't want it here but there are several larger, mostly European countries, Canada, and Australia who do have it and most who have it are more or less satisfied with it and certain statistics, which I don't necessarily agree with, show that their healthcare systems are at least as good as the US while spending much less to do it, not to mention that individuals aren't saddled with high medical costs. US healthcare premiums were experiencing constant rate hikes before Obamacare. While you could argue that Obamacare hasn't been much better it isn't a foregone conclusion that things would have been better if we had never passed Obamacare. I have many misgivings about Obamacare myself but, respectfully, you sound more like someone who is partisan over the matter and not fully informed.

Like I mentioned above single-payer is not the only "socialized medicine" system in the world, there are other models which you may find work better. Take the Netherlands for example where people are required to have health insurance for everyday medical care but long-term care and more serious treatment is paid for by the state. They force all companies to offer a basic insurance package for a certain price that is subsidized for people who make less and may not be able to afford it. In that system private insurance plays a much bigger role and may be better suited to your ideas, it is also apparently the best in Europe. Every country does it differently.

 

[haydengray2]

Well almost every developed country in the world has a successful system of "socialized medicine." Obamacare is not socialized medicine, it is an ineffective bureaucratic attempt at controlling the insurance industry. Single-payer is also only one way to do it and is what Canada has. I do not have to pay healthcare premiums at all, it is funded through normal taxes, I can choose to pay for extra coverage like dental or vision care but I can also choose not to. What single-payer does is make the either the federal government or state/provincial governments bargain prices for people just like insurance companies do except governments have much more bargaining since they represent more people and have more power, making companies compete for the best price. That is only one system of many, with differing degrees of both effectiveness and public/private balance.

The benefit of a system like this is that people do not have to worry about healthcare coverage, you do not have to fear leaving school or changing jobs because of a loss of health coverage and it can eliminate bankruptcy due to medical expenses which is rather prevalent in the US.

The United States government cannot run a single payer healthcare system. Just look at the Veterans Administration and the shambles it's in.

Out of curiosity, what percent of your income do you pay in taxes? I have Canadian teachers who have become uber conservative because they have said verbatim that Canadian healthcare is a joke. One of them is pretty wealthy, so maybe that has something to do with it.

 

[Riveroaks]

Can someone who is pro ObamaCare please try to explain to me what is so great about socialized medicine for America? For one, there are thousands of failed examples of socialistic countries with single payer healthcare that are just laughable. Since the ACA was passed, premiums have risen (Delaware saw an increase by 100%/California 53%) and coverage has gone down. We've also seen several regimes try to nationalize food and crop industries with utter failure. If making bread can't be planned out by a national government, then how can something as complex and important as healthcare be nationalized?

Also remember the quote by Thomas Jefferson, "If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." The ACA also has congressional exemption...if it's so great, then why doesn't congress have to buy into their own legislation? Sounds tyrannical to me.

I'm not looking for confrontation, just good dialogue from an opposing viewpoint.

You and I agree on gun rights.

You however don't seem to understand that the business of medicine has been regulated since Hammurabi's Law Code in 2000 BCE.

 

[Riveroaks]

The United States government cannot run a single payer healthcare system. Just look at the Veterans Administration and the shambles it's in.

Out of curiosity, what percent of your income do you pay in taxes? I have Canadian teachers who have become uber conservative because they have said verbatim that Canadian healthcare is a joke. One of them is pretty wealthy, so maybe that has something to do with it.

The counter to your argument is that the US Armed Forces have government controlled health care and it works extremely well.

Put that into your soap bubble pipe and smoke it.

 

[haydengray2]

"... thousands of failed examples ..."

Just for a second, let's break that down.

"Thousands"? ... That's a wee exaggeration. Depending on who you ask, there are only 196 countries in the world plus or minus a few. Of those 196 that are considered "wealthy," all of them have universal health care except for the United States, and they are almost all exclusively single-payer health care systems. So I think you're a few 800 or so short of the word 'thousand'.

"of failed examples" Where are you getting that from? Universal health care policies and single-payer health care systems are the far-favorite, majority choice of the world's nations. The United States is the only country that hasn't chosen this route.


That's the reason that all other nations nationalized their healthcare. It's complex and it's important.

"Thousands" was a figure of speech. There are many examples of failed national healthcare....is that better? What countries that are our size in population have great government run healthcare?

 

[Riveroaks]

Can someone who is pro ObamaCare please try to explain to me what is so great about socialized medicine for America? For one, there are thousands of failed examples of socialistic countries with single payer healthcare that are just laughable. Since the ACA was passed, premiums have risen (Delaware saw an increase by 100%/California 53%) and coverage has gone down. We've also seen several regimes try to nationalize food and crop industries with utter failure. If making bread can't be planned out by a national government, then how can something as complex and important as healthcare be nationalized?

Also remember the quote by Thomas Jefferson, "If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." The ACA also has congressional exemption...if it's so great, then why doesn't congress have to buy into their own legislation? Sounds tyrannical to me.

I'm not looking for confrontation, just good dialogue from an opposing viewpoint.

You begin your statements with fallacies.

Then you expect to be taken seriously ??

Graduate from high school first.

 

[Carjosse]

The United States government cannot run a single payer healthcare system. Just look at the Veterans Administration and the shambles it's in.

Out of curiosity, what percent of your income do you pay in taxes? I have Canadian teachers who have become uber conservative because they have said verbatim that Canadian healthcare is a joke. One of them is pretty wealthy, so maybe that has something to do with it.

Well it would probably state-run, like how ours is run provincially not nationally. Income tax really depends on the province and how you make since we have a progressive tax system and quite drastic differentiation in income tax though it is higher than the US, but generally you get what you pay for, the provinces with the highest taxes have the best healthcare and the provinces with the lowest generally have worse. You also have to remember we also have better social services like education in general for the higher tax rate as well. If you really want to know follow this link for Ontario.

 

[jpn]

The United States government cannot run a single payer healthcare system. Just look at the Veterans Administration and the shambles it's in.
Out of curiosity, what percent of your income do you pay in taxes? I have Canadian teachers who have become uber conservative because they have said verbatim that Canadian healthcare is a joke. One of them is pretty wealthy, so maybe that has something to do with it.

So you're saying that the United States is just incapable of doing what all other developed nations in the world do--provide health care to all its citizens as a right of citizenship? Wow. Why would that be, do you think? Something in the water over here? Or do you just think Americans are just more stupid or ignorant than our friends in Europe and Australia and Japan and New Zealand and on and on? Gee, do you hate Americans or something?

We can't administer large programs? Gee, as I recall, the US government supervised the only human moon landings. And won WWII. And gosh, look at Social Security. Look at Medicare. If you have any doubt as to how effective and how popular they are, look what happens when any conservative politician tries to kill either program. They die a quick political death.
Despite a continued onslaught by conservatives and constant attacks on SS and Medicare and dire and ignorant claims that they are "bankrupt", they continue on, and will do for the rest of our lives. Thank god (and Democrats).

(oh, and by the way, most Canadians like their health care system and look upon ours with a certain amount of horror. Here's a hint: Canada is a democracy just like America. If they didn't like it, they'd change it. But they do. So they don't.)

 

[brothern]

The United States government cannot run a single payer healthcare system. Just look at the Veterans Administration and the shambles it's in. Out of curiosity, what percent of your income do you pay in taxes? I have Canadian teachers who have become uber conservative because they have said verbatim that Canadian healthcare is a joke. One of them is pretty wealthy, so maybe that has something to do with it.

The VA gets a bad rap. For good reasons though. It takes care of our veterans.
People are generally fanatics for quality when it comes to taking care of our veterans.

Regardless here's a report prepared for the DOD back in 2010,

"Overall, the available literature suggests that the care provided in the VA compares favorably to non-VA care systems, albeit with some caveats. Studies that used accepted process of care measures and intermediate outcome measures, such as control of blood pressure or hemoglobin A1c, for quality measurements almost always found VA performed better than non-VA comparison groups. Studies looking at risk-adjusted outcomes generally have found no differences between VA and non-VA care, with some reports of better outcomes in VA and a few reports of worse outcomes in VA, compared to non-VA care. The studies of processes of care are mostly those about medical conditions, while the studies of outcomes are mostly about surgical conditions."

Comparison of Quality of Care in VA and Non-VA Settings: A Systematic Review
http://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/quality.pdf

 

[haydengray2]

So you're saying that the United States is just incapable of doing what all other developed nations in the world do--provide health care to all its citizens as a right of citizenship? Wow. Why would that be, do you think? Something in the water over here? Or do you just think Americans are just more stupid or ignorant than our friends in Europe and Australia and Japan and New Zealand and on and on? Gee, do you hate Americans or something?

We can't administer large programs? Gee, as I recall, the US government supervised the only human moon landings. And won WWII. And gosh, look at Social Security. Look at Medicare. If you have any doubt as to how effective and how popular they are, look what happens when any conservative politician tries to kill either program. They die a quick political death.
Despite a continued onslaught by conservatives and constant attacks on SS and Medicare and dire and ignorant claims that they are "bankrupt", they continue on, and will do for the rest of our lives. Thank god (and Democrats).

(oh, and by the way, most Canadians like their health care system and look upon ours with a certain amount of horror. Here's a hint: Canada is a democracy just like America. If they didn't like it, they'd change it. But they do. So they don't.)

Medicare and Social Security...are you kidding me? Both are running out of money, and by the time it's the younger generation is eligible for SS there will be nothing there. You can laugh about it all you want but when you're kids and grandkids pay into a failing system, you'll soon understand. To answer your question about hating America, I in fact don't. I actually serve to protect your right to say ignorant things over the internet, such as that.

There is on main thing going against America regarding nationalized healthcare that other countries don't have to worry about. The sheer size of our populace differentiates us greatly from countries with nationalize healthcare. America isn't stupid. Government is more of the problem, not the answer.

 

[Chomsky]

The United States government cannot run a single payer healthcare system. Just look at the Veterans Administration and the shambles it's in.

Out of curiosity, what percent of your income do you pay in taxes? I have Canadian teachers who have become uber conservative because they have said verbatim that Canadian healthcare is a joke. One of them is pretty wealthy, so maybe that has something to do with it.

What?

Medicare & Disability are doing just fine, and Medicaid is acceptable enough. It's better by far than most low to mid tier private insurance, and has next to no co-pays & deductibles. Medicaid would be even better if mainstream, rather than it's current position of being thought of by many as a placating leaching hand-out for those taking advantage, and subsequently being treated it as such. Put Congress & their families on Medicaid rather than public provided Cadillac plans like few have or can afford these days, and you'll see Medicaid improve by leaps & bounds!

The VA has some issues, but isn't the disaster it's often portrayed to be. The VA's problem is it's single-payer/public provider, vs Medicare & Medicaid being single-payer/private provider, which I believe is the better model. I also believe vets should have the option to use non-VA providers reimbursed by the VA.

So your statement is inaccurate: nearly half the country (43%) is already single-payer, it's working reasonably, but could be better.

There's no reason for nearly half the country to be given a benefit at the expense of the other half.

 

[Moderate Right]

So you're saying that the United States is just incapable of doing what all other developed nations in the world do--provide health care to all its citizens as a right of citizenship? Wow. Why would that be, do you think? Something in the water over here? Or do you just think Americans are just more stupid or ignorant than our friends in Europe and Australia and Japan and New Zealand and on and on? Gee, do you hate Americans or something?

We can't administer large programs? Gee, as I recall, the US government supervised the only human moon landings. And won WWII. And gosh, look at Social Security. Look at Medicare. If you have any doubt as to how effective and how popular they are, look what happens when any conservative politician tries to kill either program. They die a quick political death.
Despite a continued onslaught by conservatives and constant attacks on SS and Medicare and dire and ignorant claims that they are "bankrupt", they continue on, and will do for the rest of our lives. Thank god (and Democrats).

(oh, and by the way, most Canadians like their health care system and look upon ours with a certain amount of horror. Here's a hint: Canada is a democracy just like America. If they didn't like it, they'd change it. But they do. So they don't.)

That's the difference between a liberal and others. The VA is a total disaster. Both social security and medicare are running out of money and need fixing badly. Everything the government does has large amounts of waste. They are totally incompetent. That's why we owe almost 20 trillion dollars but liberals don't think that ever has to be paid back and, in fact, we can just keep on adding more to it all the time.

 

[brothern]

I'm not looking for confrontation, just good dialogue from an opposing viewpoint.

You also have to remember that health care is what you can call a 'credence good'. A credence good or service is a product that you don't know you need or not, cannot know the quality of before you purchase it, or even after you've consumed it, still will not have any strong grasp of the good's actual quality.

Think of it this way. You know when you need a new washing machine. You can go down to Sears, look at washing machines and be able to recognize a quality, well-built machine on inspection with only minimal research. Then once you buy the machine, it's very easy to judge its performance.

Health care is the quite opposite. If you have a symptom ... well, it could be any number of issues. Lots of people get sick and no one understands why that person is sick or how to fix it. Even if you do get a diagnosis, it's rare that we then have a reliable cure. This $10 drug might work, but this $10,000 drug might work too. Which one is better ... no idea. If worse comes to worse the doctor will have you try one and then the other. Or know that chesty cough you had? Did the expensive steroid inhaler actually fix it, or did the cough just go away by itself. In the end who really knows?

On account of all of that health care just doesn't work like other market goods. Our normal reliance on things like consumer choice, competition, the invisible hand and other good-old fashion mechanisms inherent to market economies becomes questionable and shows greater inefficiencies. Thus the reason why most governments choose to have single-payer systems instead of private-only health care systems.

 

[Chomsky]

Well it would probably state-run, like how ours is run provincially not nationally. Income tax really depends on the province and how you make since we have a progressive tax system and quite drastic differentiation in income tax though it is higher than the US, but generally you get what you pay for, the provinces with the highest taxes have the best healthcare and the provinces with the lowest generally have worse. You also have to remember we also have better social services like education in general for the higher tax rate as well. If you really want to know follow this link for Ontario.

Actually, I think nationally would be the best way to implement an American single-payer system.

A simple Medicaid or Medicaid expansion would do it, and it could be easily phased-in over a period of time (ex: decrease Medicare eligibility annually, raise Medicaid eligibility annually, etc).

This would keep the current private providers (which are actually quite good, if one can afford them) intact.

It would really be a simple & undisruptive implementation, I believe.

And of course like all health & social programs, it would be optional, not mandatory. Individuals desiring to remain with private insurers could remain so, if desired.

If the free-market is so much better as is often claimed, we will see and nothing will be lost.

But I'm betting against it!

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Medicare and Social Security...are you kidding me? .

Both false.... But even if it were true, I wonder what kind of money we could raise by raising taxes, cutting defense spending, and adding new taxation on wallstreet?

 

[Carjosse]

And of course like all health & social programs, it would be optional, not mandatory. Individuals desiring to remain with private insurers could remain so, if desired.

There is one problem with that, the reason single-payer is effective is because governments can represent large amounts of the population and if you make enrollment optional it decreases the effectiveness of having a single-payer in the first place.

 

[Carjosse]

There is on main thing going against America regarding nationalized healthcare that other countries don't have to worry about. The sheer size of our populace differentiates us greatly from countries with nationalize healthcare. America isn't stupid. Government is more of the problem, not the answer.

Countries all the way from little Liechtenstein to Japan have nationalized healthcare, population size is not a factor, in fact the larger population you have the more effective single payer is.

 

[haydengray2]

Countries all the way from little Liechtenstein to Japan have nationalized healthcare, population size is not a factor, in fact the larger population you have the more effective single payer is.

But consider how much more the US spends on military compared to other nations. The argument for cutting down on military spending right now is completely absurd with the rise of radical Islamic terrorism in the Middle East and within our own borders.

 

[Carjosse]

But consider how much more the US spends on military compared to other nations. The argument for cutting down on military spending right now is completely absurd with the rise of radical Islamic terrorism in the Middle East and within our own borders.

I am 100% sure you do not need to outspend the next 10 largest countries combined, you can give a little maybe go done to the next 9 largest countries. There is also such a thing as raising taxes to pay for it, which will save people money in the long run as it will reduce healthcare costs, increase innovation, and increase job mobility. There is also the added benefit of every American having affordable access to healthcare.

 

[Saucey]

Well almost every developed country in the world has a successful system of "socialized medicine." Obamacare is not socialized medicine, it is an ineffective bureaucratic attempt at controlling the insurance industry. Single-payer is also only one way to do it and is what Canada has. I do not have to pay healthcare premiums at all, it is funded through normal taxes, I can choose to pay for extra coverage like dental or vision care but I can also choose not to. What single-payer does is make the either the federal government or state/provincial governments bargain prices for people just like insurance companies do except governments have much more bargaining since they represent more people and have more power, making companies compete for the best price. That is only one system of many, with differing degrees of both effectiveness and public/private balance.

The benefit of a system like this is that people do not have to worry about healthcare coverage, you do not have to fear leaving school or changing jobs because of a loss of health coverage and it can eliminate bankruptcy due to medical expenses which is rather prevalent in the US.

We do not need this crap the call Obama Care, nor do we need a single payer socialized health care system thats run by a bunch of pencil neck bureaucrats. If our country had a true free market on insurance companies, there would be more than 2 or 3 insurance companies, prices would lower, and we'd still be better than any other country with a swollen bureaucratic government that runs its citizen's health care for them.
But no.. They (as in the despots who run government) say we cannot entrust such a thing with the market and free citizens. They are too stupid, and companies will only take advantage of the weak and powerless ( and that's something a government has never done to people :roll: