Socialized Medicine: The Argument to Support Moving Forward

Many people have a misunderstanding that if the government funds health care then THEY control our health care - a concept which in all reality is impossible. What they do provide is funding for hospitals and any facility that delivers health care. It's up to the facilities to decide how to spend the funds allocated to them. Nurses Announcements Archive Article

You are reading page 7 of Socialized Medicine: The Argument to Support Moving Forward
Specializes in Critical Care.
No my personal belief less government is better, military and an infastructure is a necessary evil. And yes many communities do outsource road building which is good since private industry usually does it better and less expensive.

A ha!

"Necessary evil".

You what that is, right? That's a logical fallacy called special pleading. In my opinion, providing adequate (and not just emergent) healthcare to the everyone is a necessary evil-- that and it's cheaper, too. Outpatient drug and diet management for diabetes is cheaper than the cost of an ER->ICU stay for DKA, for instance.

As for roads-- all government outsources to private industry. Healthcare in many "socialized" countries is no different. You realize in many (most?) of the first-world countries that healthcare providers and hospitals aren't government employees but instead are private industry, right?

However, in your roads example: while governments seek out bids for road improvements and maintenance, they still manage it all. Roads aren't wholly owned by private companies. You say it's a necessary evil. I will specially plead my own necessary evils.

A ha!

"Necessary evil".

You what that is, right? That's a logical fallacy called special pleading. In my opinion, providing adequate (and not just emergent) healthcare to the everyone is a necessary evil-- that and it's cheaper, too. Outpatient drug and diet management for diabetes is cheaper than the cost of an ER->ICU stay for DKA, for instance.

As for roads-- all government outsources to private industry. Healthcare in many "socialized" countries is no different. You realize in many (most?) of the first-world countries that healthcare providers and hospitals aren't government employees but instead are private industry, right?

However, in your roads example: while governments seek out bids for road improvements and maintenance, they still manage it all. Roads aren't wholly owned by private companies. You say it's a necessary evil. I will specially plead my own necessary evils.

And I agree to respectfully disagree, today I spent most of the day preparing records for a Medicaid Audit, the charts have already been reviewed and validated through CMS. Now the hospital has to send the records to be re reviewd by the state for quality. We have to hire a programmer to send the information electronically to the state and pay a vendor to submit the data. It is really really sad when the paper work reviewing a case is much longer then the operation. We had to reprogram so we could collect information, to identify patients not only by color of their skin, but nation, so we now can capture not only is someone black, but their ancestors came from Kenya. I don't know how this makes good quality care or efficient. I know if socialized medicine becomes law I have job security, but I don't know if I can say this true for my bedside colleagues.

No my personal belief less government is better, military and an infastructure is a necessary evil. And yes many communities do outsource road building which is good since private industry usually does it better and less expensive.

Yes, the government hires a private company to do the actual construction of the road. If "private industry" and the free market actually built roads on their own, private companies would each decide individually where they felt like putting roads and all roads would be toll roads (and rural communities like mine, with smaller populations, would still have dirt roads because it wouldn't be profitable for private companies to build there).

However, I question your "better and less expensive" statement, unless you have a source to back it up beyond your personal opinion.

We had to pay for water connection, the town initially would not give us a price, it would be one price $18K for the town to make the connection.....or $10K if they had to bid it out, since the town could not do the work, we saved $8K. The town had total control over the project.

I know from local politics my health plan is double the price for town employees, the reason is the union won't allow the town to buy a county health plan (which is cheaper).

They say all politics is local.

Specializes in Critical Care.
And I agree to respectfully disagree, today I spent most of the day preparing records for a Medicaid Audit, the charts have already been reviewed and validated through CMS. Now the hospital has to send the records to be re reviewd by the state for quality. We have to hire a programmer to send the information electronically to the state and pay a vendor to submit the data. It is really really sad when the paper work reviewing a case is much longer then the operation. We had to reprogram so we could collect information, to identify patients not only by color of their skin, but nation, so we now can capture not only is someone black, but their ancestors came from Kenya. I don't know how this makes good quality care or efficient. I know if socialized medicine becomes law I have job security, but I don't know if I can say this true for my bedside colleagues.

Let me get your argument straight:

The current government system is paperwork-laden and cumbersome...

...therefore there should be no obligation to provide adequate healthcare to all people?

That's essentially the argument you just made.

Let me get your argument straight:

The current government system is paperwork-laden and cumbersome...

...therefore there should be no obligation to provide adequate healthcare to all people?

That's essentially the argument you just made.

No, I don't think it is government's job to provide healthcare. I don't think it is government's job to provide food, I don't think it is government's job to provide housing.

There is nothing in the Constitution to provide healthcare. I don't want to pay taxes to support other people health care and I don't want other people making decisions for me.

The government in my opinion does a lousy job adminstrating any program.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/26/taking_liberties/entry5268079.shtml

Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."

Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."

Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.

So with this government health care plan, you have money in your account that you are using to support your family and you have a large medical bill, the government will decide if you can afford it. If you say you can't they will look at your tax return.

Specializes in ICU, MICU, SICU+openheart.

There are so many problems with this and I don't know where to start!

Many of you speak of having paid nothing or very little for care but do not know of the actual cost paid. The "low cost" of doctor visits and meds can spiral the costs higher for all of the tax payers involved. The low cost promotes abuse of frequent users. I know this relative that would take her kids to the doctor for hiccups, etc. the first day of symptoms every time because she did not have to pay a co-pay(medicaid). Now she has to pay a $20 co-pay and only takes her kids when necessary. The doctor still collects the $60 for the visit in both scenarios paid by all the tax payers.

An earlier thread gave a great example of government run programs: post office, VA, medicaid, etc.

Need I say more? Any government run program has run a muck in inefficiency, poor service, and high costs! The post office used to receive complaints on long waits. The post office remedied this by removing the clocks in the lobbies- great solutions eh? Look at Social Security- see it under FICA on your checks- that's federal income contribution act, a "tax you pay and cannot get back or write off.

Specializes in Critical Care.
No, I don't think it is government's job to provide healthcare. I don't think it is government's job to provide food, I don't think it is government's job to provide housing.

There is nothing in the Constitution to provide healthcare. I don't want to pay taxes to support other people health care and I don't want other people making decisions for me.

The government in my opinion does a lousy job adminstrating any program.

You just sidestepped the argument entirely.

The Constitution is not a perfect and timeless document. It was made by men and as such, will be flawed. It does say the government was established to "promote the general welfare"; however, Constitution or not, it comes down to this: Do you believe that humans deserve adequate healthcare?

If you don't, that's your right. It's a horribly unethical position, in my opinion, but at least you would be logically consistent.

If, however, you believe that humans do deserve adequate healthcare, it is logically inconsistent to deny it to them in all but EMTALA required cases.

And if you believe the goverment does a lousy job administrating any program, certainly you would be better off with with anarchy, I take it?

I believe in keeping government as small as possible and putting government in the business of health care for me would be an intrusion. We have the best health care in my opinion.

In a perfect world every human being would get health care. Every person would be fed. Diseases would be eliminated.

Right now I am paying for people who never worked a day in the United States to get health care. I was in the pharmacy the other day and a customer was complaining about the dollar co - pay they had to pay ( Medicaid), yet they were buying cigarettes and expensive cosmetics. They drove away in an expensive car. I am paying for this.

For anyone who is not a US citizen. Please (respectfully) - mind your own business as you don't have a dog in this fight. Our forefathers left tyrannical rule many years ago so that their descendants could live FREE. You may not be able to understand how much we cherish that freedom.

Especially considering that all the foreign voices I've seen here are from those correcting misconceptions and erroneous statements about how their healthcare system works.

They may not have a "dog in the fight" but they do have the right to correct misinformation.

Can you name the third largest employer in the WORLD? Wal-mart? - No, the US government? - NO.... it is the British National Health Care System. THIRD LARGEST EMPLOYER IN THE WORLD!!! Are you kidding me??? With that fine distinction, you'd think everyone on the planet would be breaking down doors to access this ... must be..... best service in the world!!! People are doing that - aren't they?

........... oh, but if the US ends up stuck with our current leaders plans for our future,.... I'm sure We will make it to #1.

(God forbid...........)

I fail to see why a well-staffed healthcare network is a bad thing.