Article on Socialized Medicine (Forbes)

[Cleverness]

What Socialized Medicine Looks Like

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoo...ne-looks-like/

What do you guys think? Will spending be diverted from the sick toward the healthy?

I know there's already been a lot of discussion about this topic on this forum, but I thought the article points out some factors that may have been overlooked.


From what I've seen, the system is currently great for many on Medicaid. I personally know several people who have gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars (perhaps $1M+?) of healthcare via social services paid for by taxpayers. ER visits on demand, hospital stays on demand, ambulance rides on demand, really expensive drugs, etc. Also, even OTC drugs are covered, so you get all your meds for $0 out the door. And... note that Medicaid patients are (usually) using the same hospital/doctor/pharmacy services as someone who pays out of pocket.

[warriorfan]

Jason Terry

[DukeDelonte13]

If our system was so great you'd being seeing it emulated in other countries but you don't because it's garbage.

In a socialized healthcare system the mentality is obviously to use as little services as possible versus our for profit system where healthcare providers urge and push people to the doctor for every little thing because they make money off of it.

My sister in law moved to canada and just had a baby there. Compared to my wife here in the US it's pretty different. Over there you don't see a OB-GYN every time you go for a pregnancy checkup, like you do in the states. You see like an RN who checks the baby and make sure things are progressing normally, and they tell you everything looks good and healthy, and that's it.

Here, your wife goes to the gyno every single time, they come in and say everything looks good and healthy, and that's it.

Over here you get admitted to the hospital when you are 3cm dilated. Over there its 5cm dilated.

So you do get "less care" but its less unnecessary care. Despite that, their infant mortality rate is lower than the US's.

If i had a choice between getting less unnecessary care versus spending the small f*cking fortune I spend every month on stupid expensive health insurance, i'm choosing the less unnecessary care option.

[Jasper]

interesting article , but anyone can put a twist on something that is a trillion dollar industry.

[I]No Exit. The worst features of the U.S. health care system are the way in which impersonal bureaucracies interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Those are also the worst features of Canadian medical care. In Canada, when patients see a doctor the visit is free. In the U.S., the visit is almost free

[DukeDelonte13]

[QUOTE=Jasper]interesting article , but anyone can put a twist on something that is a trillion dollar industry.

[I]No Exit. The worst features of the U.S. health care system are the way in which impersonal bureaucracies interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Those are also the worst features of Canadian medical care. In Canada, when patients see a doctor the visit is free. In the U.S., the visit is almost free

[tpols]

Dumb fear mongering.

The only gripe against this deals with immigration and pharma price control. Its unsustainable if you don't reign those two things in first but don't expect shitty USA management to be able to run something correctly how north central European countries do. Just keep voting in your GOP and well have Alabama style third world healthcare.

[ScalsFan21]

There are right-wing arguments where I can truly see how people can buy into the premise. Abortion for example. Virtually unfettered free trade is another. I may disagree, but I get it.

But tacitly defending our healthcare system? That's about as absurd as it gets.

[tontoz]

The big problem here is provider costs. Drugs cost far more here. You can buy the same drugs far cheaper in other countries. Basically we are subsidizing the drug industry for the cost of research and development of new drugs.

Also Insurance companies are weak when it comes to negotiating with providers to join their network. I actually work for a insurance company (which I can't name) and I have seen situations where we actually pay more than the billed charges under certain circumstances.

The members get confused when they get billed for the coinsurance because they can't figure out the math. Ex: 'if the charges were $100 and my coins is 10% then why am I being billed for $15?'

[bladefd]

I understand the issues with waiting and certain tests like mammogram & colonoscopy being done less under universal healthcare. I also understand the issue with involved bureaucrats making too many decisions.

What we have now though is not ideal either.. It's expensive as hell with co-pays, outrageous premiums and deductibles & that's not even including employers spending on their end.. What we had before Obamacare was not ideal either to anyone not in top 10% of population. Expenses were spiraling up out of control at insane rates.

There has to be a better way than what we have now. Perhaps add a public option for those who want to be in it. Something out there will work better.

[Cleverness]

In a socialized healthcare system the mentality is obviously to use as little services as possible versus our for profit system where healthcare providers urge and push people to the doctor for every little thing because they make money off of it.

Who's mentality is obviously to use as little services as possible?

In a for-profit system, the insurance company would fight back because they don't want to pay for "every little thing" because they lose money. However, if *someone else* is paying for it, then the mentality wouldn't be "use as little as possible."

IMO Canada as well as Brit's are less healthy as us , because of where they live.
But Canada's waiting line , is solely based on Doctors not getting paid equal to USA doctors , so there are fewer doctors.

Our issues in USA are insurance and drug companies.

Insurance and drug companies seem to be issues because of gov't laws that protect and fund them, no?

Remember: a good healthcare system doesn't always mean healthy people. If your people don't exercise, sleep, or diet well, then the health of your people will be poor -- and if these unhealthy people are in a affluent country, the healthcare costs will be high.

There are right-wing arguments where I can truly see how people can buy into the premise. Abortion for example. Virtually unfettered free trade is another. I may disagree, but I get it.

But tacitly defending our healthcare system? That's about as absurd as it gets.

Pointing out some of the flaws of socialized medicine isn't the same as defending our system. I'm sure the author has plenty of negative things to say about our current system and ideas on how to fix it.

The article pointed out 50% of costs are for 5% of population (probably end-of-life-care and babies w/ complications). Do you think spending would be diverted from the 5% toward the 95%?

[Hawker]

The only people that should be using socialized medicine are the truly poor and needy. I live in a country like that and if I don’t want to wait months on end for something, I have to have private health insurance as well to get seen quicker. I go to the front of the line. Also, have to have private for dental, vision physical therapy etc.

This go for seeing any specialist. Can take several months before seeing one.

I just had a GP/physician consultation the other day and it cost me $65 - which is already subsidized. That cost is on me but I also can get that claimed on private.

[bladefd]

Who's mentality is obviously to use as little services as possible?

In a for-profit system, the insurance company would fight back because they don't want to pay for "every little thing" because they lose money. However, if *someone else* is paying for it, then the mentality wouldn't be "use as little as possible."

Insurance companies make money through the premiums so they make that up amount the following year by raising premium couple bucks. Spread it across millions of people, and they make up every penny.

Why would they bother fighting when they can just do that? A for-profit system allows them to do so. They ultimately lose nothing at all.

The article pointed out 50% of costs are for 5% of population (probably end-of-life-care and babies w/ complications). Do you think spending would be diverted from the 5% toward the 95%?

If 95% of your population is healthy, why would you divert funds to them? For what?

Insurances of any kind afaik take the premiums, co-pays, deductibles and throw them into a pot, and funds are diverted as needed. Insurances work due to the healthy not needing funds diverted to them or as little as possible. As spending goes up, premiums go up for everyone to make back the money spent. And of course, profit margin and administrative fees/etc are all taken into consideration into the premiums. Medicare-for-all or even another universal healthcare system would minimize profit margins by eliminating or minimizing that insurance middleman and significantly minimizing the administrative fees. Ultimately, that brings down costs for everyone.

I would personally prefer universal healthcare other than medicare-for-all. I would rather have an independent healthcare agency that is separate from 'politicians as decision-makers'.. Think of the Federal Reserve Bank. President appoints Federal reserve chairman, but that's where it ends. They are an independent private non-profit organization designed to serve the public. Politicians can't be on their board because they are independently run from the government. They don't answer to executive or legislative branches -- only the judicial branch (courts). They are also non-profit, which is big in keeping costs down.

Perhaps an universal healthcare system like that would be ideal.. Funding can come directly from income taxes like a tax, but Congress/government is not involved. No middlemen and non-profit. Of course, there would still be some private insurance companies, but that would be for those who can afford it.

[Norcaliblunt]

I would personally prefer universal healthcare other than medicare-for-all. I would rather have an independent healthcare agency that is separate from 'politicians as decision-makers'.. Think of the Federal Reserve Bank. President appoints Federal reserve chairman, but that's where it ends. They are an independent private non-profit organization designed to serve the public. Politicians can't be on their board because they are independently run from the government. They don't answer to executive or legislative branches -- only the judicial branch (courts). They are also non-profit, which is big in keeping costs down.

Perhaps an universal healthcare system like that would be ideal.. Funding can come directly from income taxes like a tax, but Congress/government is not involved. No middlemen and non-profit. Of course, there would still be some private insurance companies, but that would be for those who can afford it.

Lol. That sounds hella tuff. Modeling healthcare after the bunk ass federal reserve system. Lmao.

[tpols]

Trumpy boy just took another swing at obamacare and all the GOP is in shock & disbelief that they have to come up with another plan.

GOP will be, as he put it, "the party of healthcare".





this oughta be good.

[Hawker]

Insurance companies make money through the premiums so they make that up amount the following year by raising premium couple bucks. Spread it across millions of people, and they make up every penny.

Why would they bother fighting when they can just do that? A for-profit system allows them to do so. They ultimately lose nothing at all.



If 95% of your population is healthy, why would you divert funds to them? For what?

Insurances of any kind afaik take the premiums, co-pays, deductibles and throw them into a pot, and funds are diverted as needed. Insurances work due to the healthy not needing funds diverted to them or as little as possible. As spending goes up, premiums go up for everyone to make back the money spent. And of course, profit margin and administrative fees/etc are all taken into consideration into the premiums. Medicare-for-all or even another universal healthcare system would minimize profit margins by eliminating or minimizing that insurance middleman and significantly minimizing the administrative fees. Ultimately, that brings down costs for everyone.

I would personally prefer universal healthcare other than medicare-for-all. I would rather have an independent healthcare agency that is separate from 'politicians as decision-makers'.. Think of the Federal Reserve Bank. President appoints Federal reserve chairman, but that's where it ends. They are an independent private non-profit organization designed to serve the public. Politicians can't be on their board because they are independently run from the government. They don't answer to executive or legislative branches -- only the judicial branch (courts). They are also non-profit, which is big in keeping costs down.

Perhaps an universal healthcare system like that would be ideal.. Funding can come directly from income taxes like a tax, but Congress/government is not involved. No middlemen and non-profit. Of course, there would still be some private insurance companies, but that would be for those who can afford it.

Dumbest shit I've ever heard. Let's give up all power on healthcare to a board that is not held accountable whatsoever. Completely anti-american bullshit.

No surprise it's coming from you.

"Independently" run from the government? Isn't the Federal reserve chairman appointed by the president? You live in a fantasy world where human nature doesn't exist and bureaucrats aren't corrupt. You're taking away all power from the individual.