Socialized Medicine: Lower Cost. Better Outcomes.

[Joe Steel]

Socialized medicine means lower cost and better outcomes.

Michael Moore's latest move, Sicko, has scared the health care industry and they've organized an attack on the truth. Despite what you're going to hear in the next few weeks from industry hacks and stooges, keep one thing in mind: socialized medicine means lower cost and better outcomes.

Free market health care is a medicine show. It's snake oil. It's quackery.

The U. S. spends more than any other country in the world on health care but is ranked no better than 37th in outcomes. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/06/20/world/main207853.shtml)

The rest of the world's industrialized countries, all of which have socialized medicine, do better.

Socialized medicine. Lower cost. Better outcomes.

[diuretic]

Can't positive rep you, sorry.

[5stringJeff]

Does socialized health care mean lower costs to the consumers? Yes. By definition, socialized health care lowers end-user costs to nothing (or almost nothing).

However, this does not equate to better quality health care. Anyone who paid attention in Econ 101 can tell you that a price ceiling (which is what socialized health care is) increases demand for a good, while lowering the amount that firms are willing to provide. This is called a shortage. Health care shortages lead to things like waiting lists, which can lead to lower quality care in order to 'speed through' the lists.

Socialized health care also doesn't lead to cheaper health care in the long run. While the end user doesn't pay for health care at the time, all of us pay for higher health care through increased taxes. And, regardless of where taxes are levied, they decrease the incentive to engage in the activity which they tax. In other words, if you tax high earners, people have less of an incentive to earn more money (or report the income), leading to increased usage of tax shelters, etc. Not to mention the enormous government bureaucracy that would have to be created so that Uncle Sam could give you permission to go see a specialist, get an operation, etc.

Socialized medicine would be a disaster. It would lead to less available, lower quality health care at higher costs.

[diuretic]

If you see health care as a commodity to be bought and sold, you'll disagree with "socialised" health care. If you see health care as a basic human right then you'll see it a bit differently. If it's the latter pov you have then you will be focused on effectiveness and efficiency in delivery of health care. If you believe it's a commodity then you'll be focused on whether or not the business is making a profit.

[5stringJeff]

If you see health care as a commodity to be bought and sold, you'll disagree with "socialised" health care. If you see health care as a basic human right then you'll see it a bit differently. If it's the latter pov you have then you will be focused on effectiveness and efficiency in delivery of health care. If you believe it's a commodity then you'll be focused on whether or not the business is making a profit.

Not necessarily. For example, food is an even more basic human need than health care, but it's bought and sold just like anything. The market for water, which is even more basic, has exploded over the last 10-15 years. So basic human needs can be bought and sold without ill effects (no pun intended).

As far as effectiveness and efficiency are concerned, private companies have every incentive to remove inefficiencies and sell a product as effective as possible. The government, in a country with socialized medicine, has no such incentive. They are a legally enforced monopoly, and monopolies have only one incentive to be either effective or efficient: to minimize costs. The government doesn't even have this incentive, because they can always raise taxes or print more money to cover costs.

[diuretic]

Not necessarily. For example, food is an even more basic human need than health care, but it's bought and sold just like anything. The market for water, which is even more basic, has exploded over the last 10-15 years. So basic human needs can be bought and sold without ill effects (no pun intended).

But should a society allow people to starve to death because they can't afford food?



As far as effectiveness and efficiency are concerned, private companies have every incentive to remove inefficiencies and sell a product as effective as possible. The government, in a country with socialized medicine, has no such incentive. They are a legally enforced monopoly, and monopolies have only one incentive to be either effective or efficient: to minimize costs. The government doesn't even have this incentive, because they can always raise taxes or print more money to cover costs.

A private company has one incentive - to make a profit. They will reduce costs or increase prices to make a profit. The activity they engage in is seen as profit-making or loss-making, the first must be maximised, the second must be minimised. A socialised health system should deliver effective and efficient health care to its society. The performance of the system should naturally be monitored by government, it shouldn't be regulated by the profit motive.

[Said1]

If you see health care as a commodity to be bought and sold, you'll disagree with "socialised" health care. If you see health care as a basic human right then you'll see it a bit differently. If it's the latter pov you have then you will be focused on effectiveness and efficiency in delivery of health care. If you believe it's a commodity then you'll be focused on whether or not the business is making a profit.

When people are prevented from making profit, they often go elsewhere. Doctors like to make money and capping their ability to do this through legislation does lead to problems.

Let's say a specialist would like to maintain a small practice in order to finance resesarch. Let's also assume that since they are one of the best in the chosen specialty and under normal circumstances would be able to set their rates accordingly. Under which system do you see the above scenario playing out, under a socialized system or a relativley unregulated private system? Which system would more than likely find the doctor persuing research elsewhere, less dependent on government financing needed to make advanced in their feild through research>

That is just one instance. When freedom is limited, people often go elsewhere in order to persue their visions.

[Mr. P]

Socialized medicine means lower cost and better outcomes.

Michael Moore's latest move, Sicko, has scared the health care industry and they've organized an attack on the truth. Despite what you're going to hear in the next few weeks from industry hacks and stooges, keep one thing in mind: socialized medicine means lower cost and better outcomes.

Free market health care is a medicine show. It's snake oil. It's quackery.

The U. S. spends more than any other country in the world on health care but is ranked no better than 37th in outcomes. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/06/20/world/main207853.shtml)

The rest of the world's industrialized countries, all of which have socialized medicine, do better.

Socialized medicine. Lower cost. Better outcomes.

Bullshit! Medicaid is socialized government run healthcare. Yes it's cheap, so cheap many doctors will not accept patients on Medicaid. Now that's sure a better deal!

[diuretic]

I didn't mention capping their ability to make money. Here in Australia the rates are worked out between the various medical unions (the AMA and the various colleges) and the government. It's just collective bargaining but they don't use the phrase. Because we have a dual system - private as well as single-payer (ours is federal unlike Canada which I believe in Province-based) - those doctors who want to make a huge quid aren't restricted from doing so.

My endocrinologist has a very busy and one would assume, profitable, private practice. He is also a head researcher for one of our government-funded hospitals and lectures at university. He can make a very nice living out of both his private practice and his government-funded work. We can keep him here because not only is he on a nice earner from his private work but he is doing work in research (and being paid for it of course) and he obviously enjoys what he's doing.

I remember some years ago listening to a Radio Canada programme here that dealt with doctors from PEI being lured across to the States with the promise of big money. I can understand your concerns from your pov but here, in the big, isolated island, it sort of works.

[Joe Steel]

Does socialized health care mean lower costs to the consumers? Yes. By definition, socialized health care lowers end-user costs to nothing (or almost nothing).

However, this does not equate to better quality health care. Anyone who paid attention in Econ 101 can tell you that a price ceiling (which is what socialized health care is) increases demand for a good, while lowering the amount that firms are willing to provide. This is called a shortage. Health care shortages lead to things like waiting lists, which can lead to lower quality care in order to 'speed through' the lists.

Socialized health care also doesn't lead to cheaper health care in the long run. While the end user doesn't pay for health care at the time, all of us pay for higher health care through increased taxes. And, regardless of where taxes are levied, they decrease the incentive to engage in the activity which they tax. In other words, if you tax high earners, people have less of an incentive to earn more money (or report the income), leading to increased usage of tax shelters, etc. Not to mention the enormous government bureaucracy that would have to be created so that Uncle Sam could give you permission to go see a specialist, get an operation, etc.

Socialized medicine would be a disaster. It would lead to less available, lower quality health care at higher costs.


Absolutely, totally and completely wrong.

Utter nonsense.

Socialized medicine removes administrative burden from health care; no marketing, no executive bonuses, no cost containment, no network development, etc., etc. It reduces the total cost of delivered services regardless of the source of financing (taxes or user fees.)

And, as a bonus, it puts control back in the hands of physicians. No more will they have to check with an insurance company before ordering procedures.

Lower cost. Better outcomes.

[Joe Steel]

Bullshit! Medicaid is socialized government run healthcare. Yes it's cheap, so cheap many doctors will not accept patients on Medicaid. Now that's sure a better deal!

Some doctors don't accept Medicaid patients because of low fees. What does that prove? Others do.

Besides, however much care the poor receive from Medicaid is more than they would receive from free-market health care.

[Joe Steel]

When people are prevented from making profit, they often go elsewhere. Doctors like to make money and capping their ability to do this through legislation does lead to problems.

Let's say a specialist would like to maintain a small practice in order to finance resesarch. Let's also assume that since they are one of the best in the chosen specialty and under normal circumstances would be able to set their rates accordingly. Under which system do you see the above scenario playing out, under a socialized system or a relativley unregulated private system? Which system would more than likely find the doctor persuing research elsewhere, less dependent on government financing needed to make advanced in their feild through research>

That is just one instance. When freedom is limited, people often go elsewhere in order to persue their visions.

Nonsense.

Most research is government-funded. Private capital funds very little.

[Said1]

y
Nonsense.

Most research is government-funded. Private capital funds very little.Link stating most? And, let's define most by saying that "most" has to be is over 70% to acurately desicribe what you mean. .Which country are you referring to anyway, presumbably one with a socialized system, right?

[Said1]

Absolutely, totally and completely wrong.

Utter nonsense.

Socialized medicine removes administrative burden from health care; no marketing, no executive bonuses, no cost containment, no network development, etc., etc. It reduces the total cost of delivered services regardless of the source of financing (taxes or user fees.)

And, as a bonus, it puts control back in the hands of physicians. No more will they have to check with an insurance company before ordering procedures.

Lower cost. Better outcomes.

Hahaha. The biggest pile of crap and propaganda I've ever seen. Come to Canada, you'll see. :laugh2:

[Joe Steel]

yLink stating most? And, let's define most by saying that "most" has to be is over 70% to acurately desicribe what you mean. .Which country are you referring to anyway, presumbably one with a socialized system, right?

USA.

I have no link. My assertion is based on recollection of what I've read, mostly in conjunction with observation of the pharmaceutical industry's attempts to block importation of drugs. PhRMA says they need high prices to fund research. I happened upon a few papers which say it just isn't so; most of the basic research is funded by the government and then given to the drug companies.

Feel free to prove me wrong. I'd like to know.

[Joe Steel]

Hahaha. The biggest pile of crap and propaganda I've ever seen. Come to Canada, you'll see. :laugh2:

From what I've read, Canadians are happy with their system. Do you have another opinion?

[Kathianne]

USA.

I have no link. My assertion is based on recollection of what I've read, mostly in conjunction with observation of the pharmaceutical industry's attempts to block importation of drugs. PhRMA says they need high prices to fund research. I happened upon a few papers which say it just isn't so; most of the basic research is funded by the government and then given to the drug companies.

Feel free to prove me wrong. I'd like to know.

Just doing a quick google, seems most likely less than 50%:

General R & D:

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


Research funding is a term generally covering any funding for scientific research, in the areas of both "hard" science and technology and social science. The term often connotes funding obtained through a competitive process, in which potential research projects are evaluated and only the most promising receive funding. Such processes, which are run by government, corporations or foundations, allocate scarce funds. Total research funding in most developed countries is between 1.5% and 3% of GDP; Sweden is the only country to exceed 4%. [1]

Most research funding comes from two major sources, corporations (through research and development departments) and government (primarily carried out through universities and specialised government agencies). Some small amounts of scientific research are carried out (or funded) by charitable foundations, especially in relation to developing cures for diseases such as cancer, malaria and AIDS.

In the OECD, around two-thirds of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industry, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government, although in poorer countries such as Portugal and Mexico the industry contribution is significantly less. The US government spends more than other countries on military R&D, although the proportion has fallen from around 30% in the 1980s to under 20%. [2] Government funding for medical research amounts to approximately 36% in the U.S. The government funding proportion in certain industries is higher, and it dominates research in social science and humanities. Similarly, with some exceptions (e.g. biotechnology) government provides the bulk of the funds for basic scientific research. In commercial research and development, all but the most research-oriented corporations focus more heavily on near-term commercialisation possibilities than "blue-sky" ideas or technologies (such as nuclear fusion). One of the most famous exceptions is the innovation-favouring environment of the 1970s at Xerox Parc, where various ideas including the computer mouse were developed. Similarly, IBM's research into quantum computing has been going on for some years, and it will likely be some years more before it yields commercialisable technology...

More specific:

http://www.aans.org/research/


Welcome to the Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation (NREF) Home Page

In 1981, in response to the alarming rate at which federal and private funding for medical research was being slashed, the Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation (NREF) was established. Originally named the Research Foundation of the AANS, this foundation was the AANS leadership's response to severe government research funding cutbacks, and as a way to ensure for the future of the Specialty through research.

Both public and private entities actively fund scientific research. However, the most prominent public supporter, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), does not have a funding category for technical or surgical innovations, which is how most neurosurgical research is classified. Therefore, this type of research is conducted almost solely in the private sector...

[Said1]

I didn't mention capping their ability to make money. Here in Australia the rates are worked out between the various medical unions (the AMA and the various colleges) and the government. It's just collective bargaining but they don't use the phrase. Because we have a dual system - private as well as single-payer (ours is federal unlike Canada which I believe in Province-based) - those doctors who want to make a huge quid aren't restricted from doing so.

My endocrinologist has a very busy and one would assume, profitable, private practice. He is also a head researcher for one of our government-funded hospitals and lectures at university. He can make a very nice living out of both his private practice and his government-funded work. We can keep him here because not only is he on a nice earner from his private work but he is doing work in research (and being paid for it of course) and he obviously enjoys what he's doing.

I remember some years ago listening to a Radio Canada programme here that dealt with doctors from PEI being lured across to the States with the promise of big money. I can understand your concerns from your pov but here, in the big, isolated island, it sort of works.

That's just it, it worked well here too. The health care system has n't been in place for all that long and yet it's not working well anymore.

Here is a copy of the Romanow report, one of the most comrehensive studies, (more like recommendations) outlining how to make our system sustainable. Some of the recommendations have been implemented, but it's too soon to rate their viability. One recommendtion is more walk-in clinics. They've been popping up everywhere. This has been done to lighten the load in ER's and GPs. I think it's a good idea, but they have crappy hours - with walk-ins only on certain days.


http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/care/romanow/hcc0023.html

[Joe Steel]

Just doing a quick google, seems most likely less than 50%:

Your citation seems to bear-out my assertion:


Similarly, with some exceptions (e.g. biotechnology) government provides the bulk of the funds for basic scientific research. In commercial research and development, all but the most research-oriented corporations focus more heavily on near-term commercialisation possibilities than "blue-sky" ideas or technologies (such as nuclear fusion). One of the most famous exceptions is the innovation-favouring environment of the 1970s at Xerox Parc, where various ideas including the computer mouse were developed. Similarly, IBM's research into quantum computing has been going on for some years, and it will likely be some years more before it yields commercialisable technology...

[Said1]

USA.

I have no link. My assertion is based on recollection of what I've read, mostly in conjunction with observation of the pharmaceutical industry's attempts to block importation of drugs. PhRMA says they need high prices to fund research. I happened upon a few papers which say it just isn't so; most of the basic research is funded by the government and then given to the drug companies.

Feel free to prove me wrong. I'd like to know.

I'm not talking about pharmaceutals, specifically. Anyway, I think you missed my point, which was about price capping and independent reserach. Not all of it is government funded or else we wouldn't need fund raisers for things such as breast cancer.

I had a professor who left his practice to teach and work on his research. I really have no idea where his funding came from outside of the university, but he couldn't get funding directly from the government while practicing medicine. He claimed he was too overworked and couldn't finance his research had he cut his practice in half. His specialty is related to infectious diseases, his resarch is realted to the same specialty, only specfic to geography and outbreaks.....if I remember that correctly. He taught medical geography, interesting class.

[diuretic]

That's just it, it worked well here too. The health care system has n't been in place for all that long and yet it's not working well anymore.

Here is a copy of the Romanow report, one of the most comrehensive studies, (more like recommendations) outlining how to make our system sustainable. Some of the recommendations have been implemented, but it's too soon to rate their viability. One recommendtion is more walk-in clinics. They've been popping up everywhere. This has been done to lighten the load in ER's and GPs. I think it's a good idea, but they have crappy hours - with walk-ins only on certain days.


http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/care/romanow/hcc0023.html

Thanks Said, good resource, I printed out the Exec Summary to read in hard copy (I hate long documents on screen) but I'll read the rest as well.

[Said1]

Thanks Said, good resource, I printed out the Exec Summary to read in hard copy (I hate long documents on screen) but I'll read the rest as well.

It really is interesting because it highlights our systems biggest shortcomings. The amount spent on health care in Ontario alone is staggering and the numbers keep increasing while servinces are taken away with each new provincial government. Health care is a federal matter, but it's up to the province to spend he money wisely. Then there's the matter or equaliztion payments......WTF is that money going? Everyone is suppose to have the same access to the same quality of health care. Clearly, it's better to be sick in a 'have ' province.

[diuretic]

Isn't Ontario your most populous province? I mean in the Golden Horseshoe the population must be several million alone. It follows that health care costs will be huge. On funding, does the federal govt supply the funding while the provinces spend it? I'm pretty sure I saw provincial health cards when I was there last and people I think who move from province to province have to register in the new province. But I suppose those are details.

Do you have any privatisation in the Canadian system at all?

[Said1]

Isn't Ontario your most populous province? I mean in the Golden Horseshoe the population must be several million alone. It follows that health care costs will be huge.

Of course health care costs are bigger in more populous areas. The point is that costs are rising while services are declining. Cut backs are not generating the savings they were intended to create. More money is being thrown at the system, with very little being 'fixed' date. This means that the system, as it stands now is not sustainable the way it is being implemented and managed. Romanow has some great recommendations, hopefully they resolve some serious issues.


On funding, does the federal govt supply the funding while the provinces spend it? I'm pretty sure I saw provincial health cards when I was there last and people I think who move from province to province have to register in the new province. But I suppose those are details.

Here is exactly how our system works:


http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/medi-assur/index_e.html

Canada's national health insurance program, often referred to as "Medicare", is designed to ensure that all residents have reasonable access to medically necessary hospital and physician services, on a prepaid basis. Instead of having a single national plan, we have a national program that is composed of 13 interlocking provincial and territorial health insurance plans, all of which share certain common features and basic standards of coverage. Framed by the Canada Health Act, the principles governing our health care system are symbols of the underlying Canadian values of equity and solidarity.

Roles and responsibilities for Canada's health care system are shared between the federal and provincial-territorial governments. Under the Canada Health Act (CHA), our federal health insurance legislation, criteria and conditions are specified that must be satisfied by the provincial and territorial health care insurance plans in order for them to qualify for their full share of the federal cash contribution, available under the Canada Health Transfer (CHT). Provincial and territorial governments are responsible for the management, organization and delivery of health services for their residents.
What Information is Available

Not all provinces being equal, we have the Canada Health Transfer, Social Transfer and Equalization transfers.


http://www.fin.gc.ca/gloss/gloss-c_e.html#cht

Canada Health Transfer (CHT) (Transfert canadien en matière de santé (TCS)).

Federal transfer provided to each province and territory in support of provincial health care. CHT funding is provided through cash payments and tax transfers and is subject to the five principles of the Canada Health Act and the prohibition of minimum residency requirements for social assistance. For more information, visit the Department of Finance Federal Transfers to Provinces and Territories Web page.

Along with Equalization and The Canadian Social Transfer:



http://www.fin.gc.ca/gloss/gloss-c_e.html#cst

Canada Social Transfer (CST) (Transfert canadien en matière de programmes sociaux (TCPS)).

Federal transfer provided to each province and territory in support of post-secondary education, social assistance and social services, including early childhood development and early learning and childcare. CST funding is provided through cash payments and tax transfers and supports the Government of Canada’s commitment to maintain the five principles of the Canada Health Act and to prohibit minimum residency requirements for social assistance. For more information, visit the Department of Finance Federal Transfers to Provinces and Territories Web page.




http://www.fin.gc.ca/gloss/gloss-e_e.html#equal

equalization (péréquation).

Federal transfer program that allows all provinces, regardless of their ability to raise revenue, to provide roughly comparable levels of services at roughly comparable levels of taxation. Eligibility to receive equalization funding is determined by a formula measuring each province's revenue-raising capacity against a five-province standard. Currently, eight provinces receive equalization: Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. See Federal Transfers to Provinces and Territories for more information.

You need to establish residency in any province to receive their provincial benefits. This wasn't always the case, but has become the norm in many provices over the last decade or so.


Do have any privatization in the Canadian system at all?

There is some privatization in Canada, but it varies from province to province. There are heavy restrictions on private clinics, and are not allowed to provide services covered through provincial plans. I think Quebec poo-pooed this in some cases, but Quebec is Quebec.

Here's an overview of the Canadian health care act, revised fairly recently, enjoy! :laugh2:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/944-e.htm

[diuretic]

Currently, eight provinces receive equalization: Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

Newfoundland I understand, PEI also, maybe NS and NB but Quebec? Manitoba and Sask I suppose because of their rural economies but also I was a bit surprised to see BC there.

Anyway thanks for that, it was extremely informative and very much appreciated.

[avatar4321]

Socialized medicine means lower cost and better outcomes.

Michael Moore's latest move, Sicko, has scared the health care industry and they've organized an attack on the truth. Despite what you're going to hear in the next few weeks from industry hacks and stooges, keep one thing in mind: socialized medicine means lower cost and better outcomes.

Free market health care is a medicine show. It's snake oil. It's quackery.

The U. S. spends more than any other country in the world on health care but is ranked no better than 37th in outcomes. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/06/20/world/main207853.shtml)

The rest of the world's industrialized countries, all of which have socialized medicine, do better.

Socialized medicine. Lower cost. Better outcomes.

Simply repeating it over and over doesnt make it true. Although considering thats all you liberals have done in the past 6 years im not surprised you think it does.

and the fact that you are actually looking to Michael Moore for accurate information just shows you how you care more about reinforcing your biases than actual facts. The man couldnt hit the ocean if he flew over it and tried to jump in. and considering his size that is saying something.

If your position is so strong why do you have to rely on lies to prove your points?

[avatar4321]

If you see health care as a commodity to be bought and sold, you'll disagree with "socialised" health care. If you see health care as a basic human right then you'll see it a bit differently. If it's the latter pov you have then you will be focused on effectiveness and efficiency in delivery of health care. If you believe it's a commodity then you'll be focused on whether or not the business is making a profit.

Thats the difference between you and I. You believe in slavery. I dont.

You keep making it a "right" to take what other people produce to give it to others who don't produce. That is slavery.

No man has the right to take what others produce with their work.

[avatar4321]

Absolutely, totally and completely wrong.

Utter nonsense.

Socialized medicine removes administrative burden from health care; no marketing, no executive bonuses, no cost containment, no network development, etc., etc. It reduces the total cost of delivered services regardless of the source of financing (taxes or user fees.)

And, as a bonus, it puts control back in the hands of physicians. No more will they have to check with an insurance company before ordering procedures.

Lower cost. Better outcomes.

the decisions are already in the hands of the doctors you freaking moron. What you want to do is hand the deicsions over to Hillary and thats just freaking stupid.

[avatar4321]

From what I've read, Canadians are happy with their system. Do you have another opinion?

Thats the dumbest question Ive ever seen. of course she has another opinion. Why the heck do you think she said it?!

[avatar4321]

That's just it, it worked well here too. The health care system has n't been in place for all that long and yet it's not working well anymore.

Here is a copy of the Romanow report, one of the most comrehensive studies, (more like recommendations) outlining how to make our system sustainable. Some of the recommendations have been implemented, but it's too soon to rate their viability. One recommendtion is more walk-in clinics. They've been popping up everywhere. This has been done to lighten the load in ER's and GPs. I think it's a good idea, but they have crappy hours - with walk-ins only on certain days.


http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/care/romanow/hcc0023.html

I think you are really thinking positive if you expect him to read anything but his socialist propaganda.

[diuretic]

Thats the difference between you and I. You believe in slavery. I dont.

You keep making it a "right" to take what other people produce to give it to others who don't produce. That is slavery.

No man has the right to take what others produce with their work.

Ah, I see what the problem is, you don't understand what "slavery" means.

As for
No man has the right to take what others produce with their work. try that if you work for someone.

[diuretic]

the decisions are already in the hands of the doctors you freaking moron. What you want to do is hand the deicsions over to Hillary and thats just freaking stupid.

I'm sure that one person isn't going to want to want every medical decision forwarded to them.

Joe Steel wasn't advocating that at all. In fact he was arguing for the wicked bureaucracy to be lifted off the shoulders of the medical practitioners so they can do their real work.

[Said1]

Newfoundland I understand, PEI also, maybe NS and NB but Quebec? Manitoba and Sask I suppose because of their rural economies but also I was a bit surprised to see BC there.

Anyway thanks for that, it was extremely informative and very much appreciated.

This is what Ontario got in health federal tranfers this year
Ontario's federal transfers jumped by $1.1 billion, from $11.65 billion in 2006-07 to $12.76 billion in 2007-08. Next fiscal year, transfers from Ottawa will increase by another $1.23 billion.transfers over the last yr
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20070320/ont_budget_folo_070320?hub=TorontoHome

[Yurt]

From what I've read, Canadians are happy with their system. Do you have another opinion?

You've "read". While I KNOW canadians and married to one and you sir, are wrong.

Heck, even my gung ho canadian business professor in undergrad admits the canadian HC system is screwed. Fact is, in the US you can find some of the best treatment/doctors in the world. When you say it is not "good" you are probably talking about the socialized about. Look solely at the private part and you will find the best medical care.

[diuretic]

That's McGinty showing off - but given the expansion in TO I'm not surprised. It's turning into a megacity.

[diuretic]

You've "read". While I KNOW canadians and married to one and you sir, are wrong.

Heck, even my gung ho canadian business professor in undergrad admits the canadian HC system is screwed. Fact is, in the US you can find some of the best treatment/doctors in the world. When you say it is not "good" you are probably talking about the socialized about. Look solely at the private part and you will find the best medical care.

If you can't afford health care it's moot. That's the point. Do you understand that? Fine if you're Tom Cruise but if you're Tamas Cruiz and a labourer the boast about the greatest medical attention on Earth is a bit empty. Do you see my point?

[Yurt]

If you can't afford health care it's moot. That's the point. Do you understand that? Fine if you're Tom Cruise but if you're Tamas Cruiz and a labourer the boast about the greatest medical attention on Earth is a bit empty. Do you see my point?

No.

A mercedes has great safety features, drives better than a $10K car and most likely will save its occupants from greater harm or even death than some cheap ass car.

Should the government require every car manufacturer to build their cars just like mercedes?

[diuretic]

No.

A mercedes has great safety features, drives better than a $10K car and most likely will save its occupants from greater harm or even death than some cheap ass car.

Should the government require every car manufacturer to build their cars just like mercedes?

Does everyone in society need a car?

[Said1]

That's McGinty showing off - but given the expansion in TO I'm not surprised. It's turning into a megacity.

It was a mega city before McGinty's government. He's a liberal anyway, spend now, fix later. Typical.

[5stringJeff]

Absolutely, totally and completely wrong.

Utter nonsense.

I can see that you're in denial. Feast your eyes on a very basic graph of a price ceiling, and see the excess demand and deadweight loss for yourself.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Binding-price-ceiling.svg/300px-Binding-price-ceiling.svg.png


Socialized medicine removes administrative burden from health care; no marketing, no executive bonuses, no cost containment, no network development, etc., etc. It reduces the total cost of delivered services regardless of the source of financing (taxes or user fees.)

Have you ever worked in a government organization? There is more administrative waste than you can shake a stick at. And that stems from the fact that the government is a monopoly in most of the services they provide, and have no incentives to remain efficient. Monopolies are always less efficient - but don't take my word for it. Read about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Monopoly_and_efficiency).

Using your argument, the US Post Office would be running efficiency circles around its direct competitors UPS and Federal Express.


And, as a bonus, it puts control back in the hands of physicians. No more will they have to check with an insurance company before ordering procedures.

:lol: :lmao: :laugh2:

Physicians currently have control over the treatments they recommend. Under socialized medicine, the "evil insurance companies" would only be replaced by an inefficient government bureaucracy, which, as was previously shown, will never operate as efficiently as a free market.


Lower cost. Better outcomes.

Again, I've shown, using actual data and facts, that socialized medicine provides lower-quality health care at higher overall costs.

[Mr. P]

Some doctors don't accept Medicaid patients because of low fees. What does that prove? Others do.

Besides, however much care the poor receive from Medicaid is more than they would receive from free-market health care.

It proves that with government run health care we'll lose many good doctors that can't afford to pay the bills for their practice.

[glockmail]

I can see that you're in denial. Feast your eyes on a very basic graph of a price ceiling, and see the excess demand and deadweight loss for yourself....... Socialists are incapable of understanding econ 101.

[5stringJeff]

Socialists are incapable of understanding econ 101.

When the crux of their argument boils down to "Nuh-uh," then you know they've lost it.

[MtnBiker]

Here is a great elimante of socilized medicine;


from the UK
Smokers told to quit or surgery will be refused
By DAN NEWLING

Smokers are to be denied operations on the NHS unless they give up cigarettes for at least four weeks beforehand.

Doctors will police the rule by ordering patients to take a blood test to prove they have not been smoking.

The ruling, authorised by Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, comes after medical research conclusively showed smokers take longer to recover from surgery.

It is thought that 500,000 smokers a year will be affected.

However patients' groups argue that the move is about the NHS saving money rather than improving patient care

Full article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=459574&in_page_id=1770#StartComments)

How long will it be before this logic will be applied to overweight people?

[5stringJeff]

Another victory for liberty! :rolleyes:

[Said1]

Here is a great elimante of socilized medicine;



Full article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=459574&in_page_id=1770#StartComments)

How long will it be before this logic will be applied to overweight people?

I know a few people who have had this happen ie: doctors saying quite smoking or get lost. One case was lung cancer another had nerve problems in one of his legs. While they didn't perform blood tests, both did quite smoking.

[MtnBiker]

Socialized medicine means lower cost and better outcomes.

Not for this guy.

A short film about timely brain surgery in Canada;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U


and the lawsuit that follows;

http://www.onthefencefilms.com/video/McCreithLawsuit.htm

[Trigg]

If you can't afford health care it's moot. That's the point. Do you understand that? Fine if you're Tom Cruise but if you're Tamas Cruiz and a labourer the boast about the greatest medical attention on Earth is a bit empty. Do you see my point?

This may have been addressed, but I didn't see it so here goes.

MANY hospitals throughout the US are NOT for profit which means they write off the bills of people who are unable to pay.

NO HOSPITAL ANYWHERE in the US can refuse to treat a patient who does not have insurance. They are required by law to treat the patient, now if that patient requires long term care or surgery they can be shipped to a NOT for profit in the area.

The hosp. I now work for is a not for profit and is a level 3 trama center, helicopters the whole shebang.

Others have pointed out here that, unlike the person who started this thread we are not READING about socialized healthcare. We have family members who have to deal with it. NOTHING that I have heard from my sisters makes me think socialized medicine is a good idea. Add to that the many Canadians I know who can't stand the system up there.

[Joe Steel]

Simply repeating it over and over doesnt make it true. Although considering thats all you liberals have done in the past 6 years im not surprised you think it does.

and the fact that you are actually looking to Michael Moore for accurate information just shows you how you care more about reinforcing your biases than actual facts. The man couldnt hit the ocean if he flew over it and tried to jump in. and considering his size that is saying something.

If your position is so strong why do you have to rely on lies to prove your points?

Nothing but truth.

No lie.

Repetition is one of the best ways to make a simple truth crystal clear: socialized medicine gives better outcomes at lower cost.

Plain and simple.

[Trigg]

Absolutely, totally and completely wrong.

Utter nonsense.

Socialized medicine removes administrative burden from health care; no marketing, no executive bonuses, no cost containment, no network development, etc., etc. It reduces the total cost of delivered services regardless of the source of financing (taxes or user fees.)

And, as a bonus, it puts control back in the hands of physicians. No more will they have to check with an insurance company before ordering procedures.

Lower cost. Better outcomes.


EVERY VA hospital I have ever been to is crap. The gov. does a horrible job of running them and often hires foreign Dr.'s who are from questionable medical schools.

http://appollonius.com/Va_hospitals_skirt_the_lawW1.htm

At this time I know of a VA that is paying big bonuses for x-ray techs and the new grad I talked to wouldn't even consider it. These are not the people I want in charge of my health care.

Here is an interresting article. http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jun2007/gb20070613_921562_page_2.htm

Despite this, rising costs and an aging population make it a struggle for France to finance its system. On May 29, the government warned that health-care inflation this year is running ahead of projections, threatening to deepen an already worrisome $5.2 billion deficit. In Britain, the National Health Service presents a much grimmer picture. It has provided universal coverage for nearly 60 years and boasts benefits such as drug prescriptions that cost no more than $13 for a month's supply.

Fewer Drugs Covered
Yet despite the government pouring $81 billion into the NHS over the last six years, access to treatment is spotty, and long waiting lists are the norm. In 2005, 41% of British patients waited four months or longer for elective surgery, compared with less than 10% in the U.S., according to London-based think tank Civitas. Limited resources also mean medical care varies widely depending on where you live. Access to life-extending new cancer drugs is especially constrained. As a result, Britain has one of the lowest five-year survival rates for cancer overall: 43% for men and 53% for women, vs. 53% and 71%, respectively, in France

[Joe Steel]

the decisions are already in the hands of the doctors you freaking moron. What you want to do is hand the deicsions over to Hillary and thats just freaking stupid.

You're complete idiot of you believe doctors control health care.

Insurance companies control health care. They decide which doctor users will see and what care the doctor will provide.

[Joe Steel]

You've "read". While I KNOW canadians and married to one and you sir, are wrong.

Heck, even my gung ho canadian business professor in undergrad admits the canadian HC system is screwed. Fact is, in the US you can find some of the best treatment/doctors in the world. When you say it is not "good" you are probably talking about the socialized about. Look solely at the private part and you will find the best medical care.

OK. You've got two or a few more opinions. So what? That's just anecdotal evidence. Have you any hard evidence? A study? A poll?

[Joe Steel]

I can see that you're in denial. Feast your eyes on a very basic graph of a price ceiling, and see the excess demand and deadweight loss for yourself.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Binding-price-ceiling.svg/300px-Binding-price-ceiling.svg.png



Have you ever worked in a government organization? There is more administrative waste than you can shake a stick at. And that stems from the fact that the government is a monopoly in most of the services they provide, and have no incentives to remain efficient. Monopolies are always less efficient - but don't take my word for it. Read about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Monopoly_and_efficiency).

Using your argument, the US Post Office would be running efficiency circles around its direct competitors UPS and Federal Express.



:lol: :lmao: :laugh2:

Physicians currently have control over the treatments they recommend. Under socialized medicine, the "evil insurance companies" would only be replaced by an inefficient government bureaucracy, which, as was previously shown, will never operate as efficiently as a free market.



Again, I've shown, using actual data and facts, that socialized medicine provides lower-quality health care at higher overall costs.

Totally, absolutely and completely wrong.

Medicare operates at with less than half the administrative burden of similar plans.

And, as the WHO report has proven beyond any shadow of doubt, the U. S. spends twice as much as the next most expensive system and has far worse results. "Socialized" medicine is more efficient and more effective than free-market alternatives.

[Joe Steel]

It proves that with government run health care we'll lose many good doctors that can't afford to pay the bills for their practice.

So what? We'll make more.

If they quit, others will enter the profession. That's the way free enterprise works.

[nevadamedic]

Michael Moore is an idiot. His movies that he makes are nothing more them propaganda like what the Nazi's produced about the Jewish people. Michael Moore has attacked our Government, our Country and even our troops. If he has such a problem with everything here then he should move, maybe to Cuba. If not he should be charged with teason and put in prison. He is a fat disgusting pig and wouldn't know the truth or reality if it hit him in the face. Anyone that buys into his ideas or beliefs I would really like to talk to because I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you.

[Joe Steel]

EVERY VA hospital I have ever been to is crap. The gov. does a horrible job of running them and often hires foreign Dr.'s who are from questionable medical schools.

It must have been a while ago because the VA now is among the best in the nation.

VA Health System is "Best in the Nation," Says IOM (http://www1.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=532)

[nevadamedic]

It must have been a while ago because the VA now is among the best in the nation.

VA Health System is "Best in the Nation," Says IOM (http://www1.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=532)

Walter Reed must be on your list of great hospitals too. :laugh2:

[nevadamedic]

A review of Michael Moore's Shticko

http://www.reason.com/news/show/120998.html

Another good site..........
http://www.moorewatch.com/

Should a 400 lb man advise us on the evils of over-consumption?
Should the resident of a million-dollar apartment claim to be a poster boy of the working class?
Should a person who thought that Enron was a great investment, that Ralph Nader, Wesley Clark and John Kerry would win, and that North Korea's Kim Jong was changing for the better, advise us on ANYTHING?

The New York Post reported on a tantrum he threw in London: "Then, on his second-to-last night, [Michael Moore] raged against everyone connected with the Roundhouse and complained that he was being paid a measly $750 a night. 'He completely lost the plot,' a member of the stage crew told the London Evening Standard. 'He stormed around all day screaming at everyone, even the 5 pound-an-hour bar staff, telling them how we were all con men and useless. Then he went on stage and did it in public.' At his last appearance, staffers refused to work or even open the theater's doors." NY Post, Jan. 8, 2003.

He supplements his meager income with speaking tours. No more $750 gigs; on his 2004 pre-election tour he charged Utah Valley State College $40,000, Xavier $25,000, and University of New Mexico $35,000. Not bad for an hour or two's work.
Ah, the joys of capitalism....
One of his former associates summed him up: " You would think that he's the ultimate common man. But he's money-obsessed."
look at Bowling for Columbine (my main analysis to date). In producing his Oscar-winner, Moore altered history, misled his viewers, and edited the footage and audio in such a way as to reverse the meaning. In one case, he took a speech of a person he desired to target; the problem was that the speech was in fact conciliatory and mild. So he spliced in footage from another speech, cut out paragraphs, and spliced the beginning of one sentence to the ending of another. In another, when he wanted to criticize a political advertisement, but it wasn't as pointed as he wanted, he spliced together two different political ads, then added titling which was in neither.
This website really sums him up, more here..........
http://www.mooreexposed.com/

[nevadamedic]

A review of Michael Moore's Shticko

http://www.reason.com/news/show/120998.html

Another good site..........
http://www.moorewatch.com/

Should a 400 lb man advise us on the evils of over-consumption?
Should the resident of a million-dollar apartment claim to be a poster boy of the working class?
Should a person who thought that Enron was a great investment, that Ralph Nader, Wesley Clark and John Kerry would win, and that North Korea's Kim Jong was changing for the better, advise us on ANYTHING?

The New York Post reported on a tantrum he threw in London: "Then, on his second-to-last night, [Michael Moore] raged against everyone connected with the Roundhouse and complained that he was being paid a measly $750 a night. 'He completely lost the plot,' a member of the stage crew told the London Evening Standard. 'He stormed around all day screaming at everyone, even the 5 pound-an-hour bar staff, telling them how we were all con men and useless. Then he went on stage and did it in public.' At his last appearance, staffers refused to work or even open the theater's doors." NY Post, Jan. 8, 2003.

He supplements his meager income with speaking tours. No more $750 gigs; on his 2004 pre-election tour he charged Utah Valley State College $40,000, Xavier $25,000, and University of New Mexico $35,000. Not bad for an hour or two's work.
Ah, the joys of capitalism....
One of his former associates summed him up: " You would think that he's the ultimate common man. But he's money-obsessed."
look at Bowling for Columbine (my main analysis to date). In producing his Oscar-winner, Moore altered history, misled his viewers, and edited the footage and audio in such a way as to reverse the meaning. In one case, he took a speech of a person he desired to target; the problem was that the speech was in fact conciliatory and mild. So he spliced in footage from another speech, cut out paragraphs, and spliced the beginning of one sentence to the ending of another. In another, when he wanted to criticize a political advertisement, but it wasn't as pointed as he wanted, he spliced together two different political ads, then added titling which was in neither.
This website really sums him up, more here..........
http://www.mooreexposed.com/

Another excerpt from mooreexposed.com

short review of his perhaps autobiographical Stupid White Men. Here we learn such shocking things as -- 200,000 Americans are dying of Mad Cow Disease and no one knows it; Bush secretly stole the election by having Florida bar convicted felons (which Moore maintains were great Gore supporters) from voting; Nader did the Demos a big favor by running in 2000; Enron is a great investment. Okay, Mike.

[avatar4321]

You've "read". While I KNOW canadians and married to one and you sir, are wrong.

Heck, even my gung ho canadian business professor in undergrad admits the canadian HC system is screwed. Fact is, in the US you can find some of the best treatment/doctors in the world. When you say it is not "good" you are probably talking about the socialized about. Look solely at the private part and you will find the best medical care.

Thats the dirty little trick of socialism. They pass legislation, screw everything over, and then demand more legislation to fix what they screwed up.

Eliminate the socialism in the system and you will minimize the problems.

[avatar4321]

If you can't afford health care it's moot. That's the point. Do you understand that? Fine if you're Tom Cruise but if you're Tamas Cruiz and a labourer the boast about the greatest medical attention on Earth is a bit empty. Do you see my point?

So why on earth should Tamas Cruiz be paying for Tom Cruises health care?

[glockmail]

Thats the dirty little trick of socialism. They pass legislation, screw everything over, and then demand more legislation to fix what they screwed up.

Eliminate the socialism in the system and you will minimize the problems.

Excellent summation. :clap:

[avatar4321]

Nothing but truth.

No lie.

Repetition is one of the best ways to make a simple truth crystal clear: socialized medicine gives better outcomes at lower cost.

Plain and simple.

But you are outright lying and dozens of people have demonstrated it conclusively. Yet all you do is continue your mantra. but thats typical liberalism.

[avatar4321]

OK. You've got two or a few more opinions. So what? That's just anecdotal evidence. Have you any hard evidence? A study? A poll?

Its a hell of alot more than youve provided. Oh yeah i forgot. Just repeat it enough times and its true.

[Said1]

Its a hell of alot more than youve provided. Oh yeah i forgot. Just repeat it enough times and its true.


I did provide links to a comprehensive study. Here's some more: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/health/index.asp?snav=he

Think he'll look at them?

[avatar4321]

I did provide links to a comprehensive study. Here's some more: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/health/index.asp?snav=he

Think he'll look at them?

Maybe but i can guarentee he will be reciting his Socialized medicine chant the entire time to tune out the information.

[5stringJeff]

Totally, absolutely and completely wrong.

Medicare operates at with less than half the administrative burden of similar plans.

And, as the WHO report has proven beyond any shadow of doubt, the U. S. spends twice as much as the next most expensive system and has far worse results. "Socialized" medicine is more efficient and more effective than free-market alternatives.

It's useless to argue with you when you don't rebut anything. All you say is "nuh-uh." Talk about closed-minded.

How about some facts? Proof of your allegation that Medicare is so efficient? A link to your WHO report?

[glockmail]

It's useless to argue with you when you don't rebut anything. All you say is "nuh-uh." Talk about closed-minded.

How about some facts? Proof of your allegation that Medicare is so efficient? A link to your WHO report?

Joe Steel is a troll. I rarely pay attention to anything he has written. :pee:

[diuretic]

So why on earth should Tamas Cruiz be paying for Tom Cruises health care?

He isn't. He can't pay for his own.

[diuretic]

It was a mega city before McGinty's government. He's a liberal anyway, spend now, fix later. Typical.

I'm not keen on the Mayor, he's a dill.

[diuretic]

This may have been addressed, but I didn't see it so here goes.

MANY hospitals throughout the US are NOT for profit which means they write off the bills of people who are unable to pay.

NO HOSPITAL ANYWHERE in the US can refuse to treat a patient who does not have insurance. They are required by law to treat the patient, now if that patient requires long term care or surgery they can be shipped to a NOT for profit in the area.

The hosp. I now work for is a not for profit and is a level 3 trama center, helicopters the whole shebang.

Others have pointed out here that, unlike the person who started this thread we are not READING about socialized healthcare. We have family members who have to deal with it. NOTHING that I have heard from my sisters makes me think socialized medicine is a good idea. Add to that the many Canadians I know who can't stand the system up there.

Okay points taken. But why do I read about people who die because they can't afford health care? Is it just a beat-up or the odd case where something has gone terriblye wrong? And yes, there are odd cases where things can go wrong.

Just on a tiny tangent. I don't know what it's like in North America but here we have as part of our health system the Prescription Benefits System (PBS). The federal government, through taxes, subsidises medicines. I had to renew my Crestor prescription today. It cost me $30, full price is $133.

[Trigg]

Okay points taken. But why do I read about people who die because they can't afford health care? Is it just a beat-up or the odd case where something has gone terriblye wrong? And yes, there are odd cases where things can go wrong.

Just on a tiny tangent. I don't know what it's like in North America but here we have as part of our health system the Prescription Benefits System (PBS). The federal government, through taxes, subsidises medicines. I had to renew my Crestor prescription today. It cost me $30, full price is $133.

There are many gov. programs for people who can't afford prescription meds, medicade and the WIC (women infant and children) programs. There are clinics that provide free immunizations. All the Dr's I've worked for have had medicade days where those are the only pt's they see that day.

Again people cannot be denied healthcare because of lack of ins. Organ transplants, I'd have to look into. Many people can go into debt because of the bills accrued, but if they get to bad, again there is medicade. Hospitals wright off charges all the time, as long as someone makes an effort to pay the hospitals (I've worked for) are understanding.

As for people dying??????? There was a woman in Cali who died in the emergency room, what the reason was I don't know I think she was ignored for some reason. She shouldn't have died and it wasn't because the hosp. refused to treat her it was the people on duty that night.

I don't know anything about the Australian system. Why don't you give some info on the amount of taxes you pay for your system. Then some here can compair that to the payroll insurance they pay. We can compaire that way.

[Joe Steel]

Walter Reed must be on your list of great hospitals too. :laugh2:

Walter Reed is an Army hospital.

[Joe Steel]

It's useless to argue with you when you don't rebut anything. All you say is "nuh-uh." Talk about closed-minded.

How about some facts? Proof of your allegation that Medicare is so efficient? A link to your WHO report?

Feel free to make an argument. Just don't pout when it's shown to be falacious.


I recently spent a half-day in a meeting discussing a number of issues regarding Medicare. Most of us on the provider side of the street view Medicare as this multiheaded bureaucracy with more pages of regulations than the Internal Revenue Service's tax code. However, I came away from the meeting with some (to me at least) shocking revelations:

Medicare beneficiaries are overwhelmingly satisfied with their Medicare coverage, except for the absence of prescription drug benefits;

The administrative costs of Medicare are lower than any other large health plan.

Is Medicare Cost Effective? (http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/about/Crossroads/06_13_03.html)

William R. Brody, M.D., Ph.D.
President, The Johns Hopkins University

[Trigg]

Walter Reed is an Army hospital.

"It must have been a while ago because the VA now is among the best in the nation."


Navadamedic mentioned Walter Reed because of what you said regarding the VA hospitals being the best. Yes, Walter Reed is an Army hospital but it's still run by the gov. Your really not this dense are you.........tell me your pretending.

[Joe Steel]

"It must have been a while ago because the VA now is among the best in the nation."


Navadamedic mentioned Walter Reed because of what you said regarding the VA hospitals being the best. Yes, Walter Reed is an Army hospital but it's still run by the gov. Your really not this dense are you.........tell me your pretending.

Why?

Because I know the difference between the VA and the Army?

Please tell me you're not so stupid that you don't.

[MtnBiker]

Hey JoeSteel, any thoughts on these posts?;

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=81267&postcount=44

or

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=81280&postcount=47

[Mr. P]

So what? We'll make more.

If they quit, others will enter the profession. That's the way free enterprise works.

And you'll get what you pay for. Here's clue, if fees are controlled by government like Medicaid is now, no intelligent person will incur the cost of becoming a doctor when they know they could never pay for it. Like I said we'll lose many good doctors.

Socialized medicine is a recipe for substandard incompetent care.

[Mr. P]

Thats the dirty little trick of socialism. They pass legislation, screw everything over, and then demand more legislation to fix what they screwed up.

Eliminate the socialism in the system and you will minimize the problems.

Exactly what will happen if we socialize medicine. To attract quality people the gov will have to subsidize the cost of education and training. I doubt that would even guaranty the best people would seek the profession. Another downside is with subsidy's the gov would have their finger in the education and training arena, we know how well they've done with that.

[diuretic]

There are many gov. programs for people who can't afford prescription meds, medicade and the WIC (women infant and children) programs. There are clinics that provide free immunizations. All the Dr's I've worked for have had medicade days where those are the only pt's they see that day.

Again people cannot be denied healthcare because of lack of ins. Organ transplants, I'd have to look into. Many people can go into debt because of the bills accrued, but if they get to bad, again there is medicade. Hospitals wright off charges all the time, as long as someone makes an effort to pay the hospitals (I've worked for) are understanding.

As for people dying??????? There was a woman in Cali who died in the emergency room, what the reason was I don't know I think she was ignored for some reason. She shouldn't have died and it wasn't because the hosp. refused to treat her it was the people on duty that night.

I don't know anything about the Australian system. Why don't you give some info on the amount of taxes you pay for your system. Then some here can compair that to the payroll insurance they pay. We can compaire that way.

I was really thinking about systems rather than amounts paid. We (in Australia) have a dual system. I pay extra for private insurance, for example, which means I'm better off than someone who has to rely on the public system. But the public system is still good.

But the PBS covers all meds, I don't need private insurance for that. I might pay a subsidised amount but others, those on welfare or pensioners, pay less than I do for meds, j

But fair point, the US system won't see someone denied medical care, that's good.

[Nukeman]

Why?

Because I know the difference between the VA and the Army?

Please tell me you're not so stupid that you don't.Why do you think the VA hospitals are exempt from the overseeing agency's that look at all private hospital. They dont want to be looked at that closely as others. They are subpar over a number of private hospitals..

You can throw out as many reports for the VA as we can throw out against the VA.

Have you ever been to a VA and been treated???? Have you ever worked at a VA?? If not you only have what you have read and no first hand knowledge of what you are talking about. Have you ever seen the old style equipment they use in the VA?? You can slap a can of paont on anything and make it appear new but when you have such a faulty system nothing will make it work appropiatly..

I for one will never be comfortable with the Governmant running any kind of health care. You do realize the only reason we have advances in medicine is because it is profitable. If yo take that profit away you will loose the invester. No investments no advances. Ohh I'm sure you will continue to have a few at the university level but not like the US has right now...

[Joe Steel]

Hey JoeSteel, any thoughts on these posts?;

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=81267&postcount=44

or

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=81280&postcount=47

As for smoking and weight, many health insurance companies already are penalizing benificaries for their habits. They charge them higher premiums than beneficiaries who don't smoke and aren't overweight. They also penalize beneficiaries with high cholesterol.

That's the beauty of free-market health care. The insurance company can charge anything it wants to charge.

I wonder how far they will take the idea. Traffic accidents, for instance, create huge medical claims. Will insurance companies charge premium reflecting their risk? Shouldn't beneficiaries who drive more be charged more because they are riskier than beneficiaries who drive less or not at all?

[Hagbard Celine]

Does socialized health care mean lower costs to the consumers? Yes. By definition, socialized health care lowers end-user costs to nothing (or almost nothing).

However, this does not equate to better quality health care. Anyone who paid attention in Econ 101 can tell you that a price ceiling (which is what socialized health care is) increases demand for a good, while lowering the amount that firms are willing to provide. This is called a shortage. Health care shortages lead to things like waiting lists, which can lead to lower quality care in order to 'speed through' the lists.

Socialized health care also doesn't lead to cheaper health care in the long run. While the end user doesn't pay for health care at the time, all of us pay for higher health care through increased taxes. And, regardless of where taxes are levied, they decrease the incentive to engage in the activity which they tax. In other words, if you tax high earners, people have less of an incentive to earn more money (or report the income), leading to increased usage of tax shelters, etc. Not to mention the enormous government bureaucracy that would have to be created so that Uncle Sam could give you permission to go see a specialist, get an operation, etc.

Socialized medicine would be a disaster. It would lead to less available, lower quality health care at higher costs.
It would be just as successful here as it is in EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION ON EARTH.

[MtnBiker]

As for smoking and weight, many health insurance companies already are penalizing benificaries for their habits. They charge them higher premiums than beneficiaries who don't smoke and aren't overweight. They also penalize beneficiaries with high cholesterol.

That's the beauty of free-market health care. The insurance company can charge anything it wants to charge.

I wonder how far they will take the idea. Traffic accidents, for instance, create huge medical claims. Will insurance companies charge premium reflecting their risk? Shouldn't beneficiaries who drive more be charged more because they are riskier than beneficiaries who drive less or not at all?

Smoking and paying more for insurance is a consumer choice. Having the government deny an operation removes any choice leaving the government with sole control.

BTW, do we (US citizens) have a right to health care?

[Joe Steel]

And you'll get what you pay for. Here's clue, if fees are controlled by government like Medicaid is now, no intelligent person will incur the cost of becoming a doctor when they know they could never pay for it. Like I said we'll lose many good doctors.

Utter nonsense.

Middle class Americans wouldn't tolerate a lack of health care. They'd demand legislative action necessary to ensure enough physicians to fill the need.


Socialized medicine is a recipe for substandard incompetent care.

Nonsense.

The WHO report mentioned in the initial posting proves you wrong.

[Joe Steel]

Why do you think the VA hospitals are exempt from the overseeing agency's that look at all private hospital. They dont want to be looked at that closely as others. They are subpar over a number of private hospitals..

Totally, utterly and completely wrong.


Pushed by large employers who are eager to know what they are buying when they purchase health care for their employees, an outfit called the National Committee for Quality Assurance today ranks health-care plans on 17 different performance measures. These include how well the plans manage high blood pressure or how precisely they adhere to standard protocols of evidence-based medicine such as prescribing beta blockers for patients recovering from a heart attack. Winning NCQA's seal of approval is the gold standard in the health-care industry. And who do you suppose this year's winner is: Johns Hopkins? Mayo Clinic? Massachusetts General? Nope. In every single category, the VHA system outperforms the highest rated non-VHA hospitals.

The Best Care Anywhere (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html)

[Joe Steel]

Smoking and paying more for insurance is a consumer choice. Having the government deny an operation removes any choice leaving the government with sole control.

So? That's far, far less troublesome than leaving capitalists in control.


BTW, do we (US citizens) have a right to health care?

That depends on the definition of "right." Properly understood, some Americans have a right and most don't.

Socialized medicine would create a right to health care in the U. S. as has been declared everywhere else in the industrialized world.

[Joe Steel]

It would be just as successful here as it is in EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION ON EARTH.

As the WHO report proved.

[MtnBiker]

So? That's far, far less troublesome than leaving capitalists in control.

Ok, you are comfortable with the government making choices for you. I'm not comfortable with that.



That depends on the definition of "right." Properly understood, some Americans have a right and most don't.

Socialized medicine would create a right to health care in the U. S. as has been declared everywhere else in the industrialized world.

Does the Constitution guarantee US citizens health coverage?

We are not governed by other industrialized nations.

Basically you are advocating the forceable seizure of one person's property to give to another person.

[Trigg]

Why?

Because I know the difference between the VA and the Army?

Please tell me you're not so stupid that you don't.

NO, because you acted as if the VA and Walter Reed aren't both run by the gov.

You have yet to answer anyone who has asked if you work in healthcare or know anyone directly who does. Why won't you answer them??? There is a world of difference between working for and reading about our system. You've also ignored that you are being talked to by people who haved worked in VA's. For the record, I work at a non-profit, my husband works at a for-profit, my sister is a nurse ditto my aunt and a number of friends.

I KNOW WHAT I"M TALKING ABOUT.

[Trigg]

I was really thinking about systems rather than amounts paid. We (in Australia) have a dual system. I pay extra for private insurance, for example, which means I'm better off than someone who has to rely on the public system. But the public system is still good.

But the PBS covers all meds, I don't need private insurance for that. I might pay a subsidised amount but others, those on welfare or pensioners, pay less than I do for meds, j

But fair point, the US system won't see someone denied medical care, that's good.

Our system is not perfect, I'm comletely admitting that.

My problem and the problem most people have with the gov. taking over is we already know how they run their hospitals.

Contrary to what Joe Steel is reading, I know VA's that are offering positions to new x-ray grads and the grads don't want anything to do with them. They have old equipment and the Dr's they have working for them are mostly foreign and they've had problems with the Dr's not passing the exams.

I also looked into the "people dying who are denied healthcare" story. The article I read was about people who died because they didn't seek preventative medicine, in other words by the time they presented at the ER things had progressed to far. They'd ignored the signs of heart attack or whatever. That is a problem I admit. People who don't have money will put off getting a procedure done. The hospital will do it however if they make an appointment.

[Trigg]

Middle class Americans wouldn't tolerate a lack of health care. They'd demand legislative action necessary to ensure enough physicians to fill the need.


REALLY??????????????? What legislative action can they take. I'm sure putting a gun to someones head will work wonderfully.

In the real world there is already a shortage in some states for some specialtise.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-05-06-obstetricians.htm

Obstetricians dwindle amid high malpractice costs

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/16892.html

Response to physician shortage

[Nukeman]

Totally, utterly and completely wrong.

Hey numbnuts... Let me point something out to you.

1. The VA does not answer to the NRC

2. The VA does not answer to the EPA

3. The Va does not have to adhere to JCHAO rules

4. The VA does not have to HIRE physicians that have a VALID US MEDICAL LISCENSE.

The list could go on and on but I think even someone as dense as you might get the idea..

Ohh by the way all other profit and not for profit hospitals have to adhere to everything up there....

[Mr. P]

Utter nonsense.

Middle class Americans wouldn't tolerate a lack of health care. They'd demand legislative action necessary to ensure enough physicians to fill the need.



Nonsense.

The WHO report mentioned in the initial posting proves you wrong.


WHO is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends.

So much for your beloved authority. BTW the report is on money spend vs overall health not socialized medicine vs free market medicine.

[Joe Steel]

Does the Constitution guarantee US citizens health coverage?

We are not governed by other industrialized nations.

Basically you are advocating the forceable seizure of one person's property to give to another person.

The Constitution declares a power of taxation for the general welfare. Should Congress decide to use that power to provide health care to everyone, then, yes, the Constitution would guarantee health coverage. As it is now, however, only some citizens have that guarntee.

[Joe Steel]

REALLY??????????????? What legislative action can they take. I'm sure putting a gun to someones head will work wonderfully.

If the government ran the health care system and failed to provide sufficient care, the voters would elect representatives who would change the system. That's the way government works. Politicians have to please the voters or they'll be replaced by politicians who will.

[Joe Steel]

The list could go on and on but I think even someone as dense as you might get the idea..

Dense?

Can you read?

NCQA.

[Joe Steel]

So much for your beloved authority. BTW the report is on money spend vs overall health not socialized medicine vs free market medicine.

The WHO report compared health care systems worldwide. The U. S. system, a free market system, fails miserably when compared with the socialized systems of the rest of the industrialized world.

[glockmail]

The WHO report compared health care systems worldwide. The U. S. system, a free market system, fails miserably when compared with the socialized systems of the rest of the industrialized world.
Yet you repeat yourself. :pee:

[5stringJeff]

If the government ran the health care system and failed to provide sufficient care, the voters would elect representatives who would change the system. That's the way government works. Politicians have to please the voters or they'll be replaced by politicians who will.

Because that's how it works currently, for Social Security, right? :rolleyes:

[MtnBiker]

The Constitution declares a power of taxation for the general welfare. Should Congress decide to use that power to provide health care to everyone, then, yes, the Constitution would guarantee health coverage. As it is now, however, only some citizens have that guarntee.

A much debated topic over the centuries.

WELFARE, General vs Specific
(http://users.mstar2.net/brucewrites/Constitution/welfare.htm)

As of now who excatly is guaranteed health care coverage and who gurantees it?

[diuretic]

Our system is not perfect, I'm comletely admitting that.

My problem and the problem most people have with the gov. taking over is we already know how they run their hospitals.

Contrary to what Joe Steel is reading, I know VA's that are offering positions to new x-ray grads and the grads don't want anything to do with them. They have old equipment and the Dr's they have working for them are mostly foreign and they've had problems with the Dr's not passing the exams.

I also looked into the "people dying who are denied healthcare" story. The article I read was about people who died because they didn't seek preventative medicine, in other words by the time they presented at the ER things had progressed to far. They'd ignored the signs of heart attack or whatever. That is a problem I admit. People who don't have money will put off getting a procedure done. The hospital will do it however if they make an appointment.

Thanks for those points. And I need to make it clear that I'm not arguing that the system in my country is perfect either, it can be improved for sure (I won't go on about the issues but the divide between a conservative federal government - the funder - and the non-conservative state/federal governments - the service providers - is a problem). But the underlying philosophy concerning health care is what's important to me.