Socialized Health Care in the USA

[DeeBye]

Some products lend themselves very well to being publicly provided, and some do not. Each should be judged on its own merits.

And socialized healthcare has proven itself to be a great success.

[--Pete]

Hi,

And socialized healthcare has proven itself to be a great success.

Well, possibly not always so 'great'. Sometimes it seems to work better, sometimes not as well. But almost always it seems to be better than the system we use here in the USA. Perhaps, to paraphrase Churchill, socialized medicine is the worst system other than all the others we've tried.

--Pete

[DeeBye]

Sometimes it seems to work better, sometimes not as well. But almost always it seems to be better than the system we use here in the USA.

You worded it better than I did. Thanks.

[kandrathe]

Doctor is being forced by New York to charge his poor patients more money.

"The state is trying to shut down a New York City doctor's ambitious plan to treat uninsured patients for around $1,000 a year."

Here is a doctor, who owns a number of inner city clinics who is trying to serve his patients in a very free market, low cost way. It's got to be stopped! Next thing you know, they'll be selling prescription drugs for a slight mark up over cost. Apparently the State recently informed Dr. Muney that he could continue to offer fixed fee medical care only for preventative health but if anyone came in complaining of an illness or injury, he would have to charge them at least $33 for that visit.

Here are some doctors in Seattle that are also opting to skip Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance and work directly with patients.

[Skandranon]

Doctor is being forced by New York to charge his poor patients more money.

Because of the insurance companies! Do you read more than one line of anything?

[kandrathe]

Because of the insurance companies! Do you read more than one line of anything?

I'm sorry. What power do insurance companies have? They went screaming to the State's designated bureaucrats, who pulled out their law books and threatened to revoke his license to practice medicine. I guess if that didn't stop him from treating the sick at too low a price, then jail time might do the trick.

[Jester]

I'm sorry. What power do insurance companies have? They went screaming to the State's designated bureaucrats, who pulled out their law books and threatened to revoke his license to practice medicine. I guess if that didn't stop him from treating the sick at too low a price, then jail time might do the trick.

It doesn't surprise me that, for run of the mill medical services, someone who goes around insurance regulations and just provides basic care directly would come out with far better costs than ordinary health insurance. This is for two reasons.

1) The American system is a bloated, rent-generating mess that combines many of the worst features of a market system and a single-payer one.

2) This doctor is only providing the care he has available, and not the expensive diagnostic, catastrophic, or palliative treatments that drive insurance prices up (and also constitute the major reason for insurance in the first place.) If you wanted to be covered for that, you'd have to go somewhere else for both treatment and insurance.

I am tickled, however, by the Seattle doctor's claim:

He rejected the idea that unrestricted access causes overuse, calling that "nonsense promoted by insurance companies .... There's nobody I've ever met who gets their pleasure by seeing doctors."

It isn't like buying beer. ;) *

-Jester

* unless you have Münchhausen Syndrome, of course.

[kandrathe]

It isn't like buying beer.

It isn't like free beer. :) Free beer is fun. Free mammograms and prostate exams are... well... not fun.

[--Pete]

Hi,

It isn't like free beer. :) Free beer is fun. Free mammograms and prostate exams are... well... not fun.

And paying for them changes that how?

--Pete

[Skandranon]

I'm sorry. What power do insurance companies have? They went screaming to the State's designated bureaucrats, who pulled out their law books and threatened to revoke his license to practice medicine. I guess if that didn't stop him from treating the sick at too low a price, then jail time might do the trick.

It is this system that you seem so hellbent on protecting, where insurance companies are the only providers of health care, that caused this. This is your free market, protected, as it is, by the government. I can't see how any fair minded individual can look at that article and conclude that if there was no government, things would be okay, but we shouldn't dare touch the companies. I look at that and conclude that the insurance companies are the root cause.

[kandrathe]

It is this system that you seem so hellbent on protecting, where insurance companies are the only providers of health care, that caused this.

First, let me establish what I think we can agree upon. The insurance companies offer a complicated contract which requires careful government oversight to prevent fraud. Most of the horror stories you hear about health care relate to fighting with insurance companies to honor their side of the contract, or with care givers who are more worried about how they will be paid, than they are about how they are delivering excellent service. The insurance industry has become wealthy enough to form a powerful lobbying group, and has influenced the government to "protect their interests".

This is your free market, protected, as it is, by the government.

I've been calling for the review of special laws that favor the insurance industry, such as restricting portability, and tying your policy to your employment. COBRA is a joke, because the last thing anyone needs when they lose their job is an additional $1200 bill every month. But, there are also laws that force insurance companies to cover procedures that are optional behavior, as we've discussed. I would also get the government out of business of telling insurance companies what their products should look like.

I can't see how any fair minded individual can look at that article and conclude that if there was no government, things would be okay, but we shouldn't dare touch the companies. I look at that and conclude that the insurance companies are the root cause.

I'm not defending insurance companies. If they are to continue to exist, they need to offer a fair service with government oversight laws to prevent fraud. But, I don't believe the answer is to elevate the federal government into the insurance company of last resort to compete against them. This is what Medicare and Medicaid already are, and for 50% of the mess the government is contributing to the problem. The other 50% is a mess of regulations and protections that probably favor no one, but if anyone, the insurance companies.

Chiropractics is another field of care that due to skepticism has existed outside the insurance umbrella, and they have also moved into the retainer model (monthly subscription whether you use it or not, plus a per visit charge). I would think that from the doctors perspective, they would find the most valuable patients to be those with pre-existing conditions. It is only the insurance industry that shuns the unhealthy. Rather than focus on trying to make insurance affordable for that morbidly obese 65 year old, chain smoking, alcoholic with emphysema and type II diabetes, we should focus on making health care and health care access more affordable so this poor soul can afford to pay for his own care.

The bottom line is that I would like to see health providers being able to freely negotiate care with those who need care. A person may have a separate relationship with a health insurance policy, but then that relationship should exist only between the contractual parties. I want to make life harder for insurance companies by changing the existing laws to give the people better, cheaper choices for their policies. If they don't want you as a customer, then that is their freedom for how they do business.

As a compassionate society, we need to consider what to do with people who are sick but cannot afford to pay for their own care. But, that is hardly the mess we are in now.

[DeeBye]

As a compassionate society, we need to consider what to do with people who are sick but cannot afford to pay for their own care.

Maybe you can ask the rest of the developed nations what their solution to this problem might be.

It's just a thought:)

[Chesspiece_face]

I'm sorry. What power do insurance companies have? They went screaming to the State's designated bureaucrats, who pulled out their law books and threatened to revoke his license to practice medicine. I guess if that didn't stop him from treating the sick at too low a price, then jail time might do the trick.

First, let me establish what I think we can agree upon. The insurance companies offer a complicated contract which requires careful government oversight to prevent fraud. Most of the horror stories you hear about health care relate to fighting with insurance companies to honor their side of the contract, or with care givers who are more worried about how they will be paid, than they are about how they are delivering excellent service. The insurance industry has become wealthy enough to form a powerful lobbying group, and has influenced the government to "protect their interests".

That sounds like a good bit of power to me.

[kandrathe]

Maybe you can ask the rest of the developed nations what their solution to this problem might be.

It's just a thought:)

We are supposed to have this Medicaid program, but it obviously has flaws. "It is estimated that approximately 60 percent of poor Americans are not covered by Medicaid."

[kandrathe]

That sounds like a good bit of power to me.

The whispering Wormtongue behind our Théoden. Like all special interest influence in politics, if it is exposed to the "sunlight" of scrutiny by the democratic majority it should wither and die. There are some things which hinder that, such as; 1) representatives who mask their own agenda over serving the people, 2) an apathetic electorate who don't keep their representatives accountable, and 3) failure of the media to expose the perversions in the system.

[DeeBye]

We are supposed to have this Medicaid program, but it obviously has flaws. "It is estimated that approximately 60 percent of poor Americans are not covered by Medicaid."

100% of everyone in Canada is covered by our health care system.

[--Pete]

Hi,

We are supposed to have this Medicaid program, but it obviously has flaws. "It is estimated that approximately 60 percent of poor Americans are not covered by Medicaid."

One major flaw is that it is an 'opt-in' program. An eligible person would have to fill out an application to join. Considering the mental state, intelligence, and educational level of many who are eligible, I doubt that many of them could fill out that application. Many probably do not even know that they are eligible, that Medicare even exists or what it is, or where to go to get it.

A national program that covers everybody would at least solve that problem.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

One major flaw is that it is an 'opt-in' program. An eligible person would have to fill out an application to join. Considering the mental state, intelligence, and educational level of many who are eligible, I doubt that many of them could fill out that application. Many probably do not even know that they are eligible, that Medicare even exists or what it is, or where to go to get it.

A national program that covers everybody would at least solve that problem.

A misperception perhaps is that these people do not get health care. They do, but just not through the red tape of Medicaid. Instead, they walk into a city clinic or hospital emergency room, wait in line, get treated and leave. How they negotiate the payment or lack of payment is extremely variable. I heard that many are young adults who have left their parents plans, but have not bothered to get a plan or probably even care about a plan.

[Delc]

A misperception perhaps is that these people do not get health care. They do, but just not through the red tape of Medicaid. Instead, they walk into a city clinic or hospital emergency room, wait in line, get treated and leave. How they negotiate the payment or lack of payment is extremely variable. I heard that many are young adults who have left their parents plans, but have not bothered to get a plan or probably even care about a plan.

Right, so they skip all of the preventative care, and cheaper solutions, and go right for the single most expensive way to administer health care, and then stick the hospital with the bill, because there is no way they can afford to pay it. So the hospital raises everyone else's rates to cover the ones that never get paid. So you still end up paying for it, and its about as inefficient as possible.

[kandrathe]

Right, so they skip all of the preventative care, and cheaper solutions, and go right for the single most expensive way to administer health care, and then stick the hospital with the bill, because there is no way they can afford to pay it. So the hospital raises everyone else's rates to cover the ones that never get paid. So you still end up paying for it, and its about as inefficient as possible.

I'm not saying it makes any sense.

http://www.simplecare.com/ Almost everyone can afford $1000/year. If not, let the hospital sign them up for Medicaid at admit time.

Hospitals should just open a 24 hour clinic adjacent to the emergency room, and when a non-critical illness or injury arrives defer them to the clinic.