Socialized Medicine: The Argument to Support moving forward - page 5

They will run things as they do now except they would have a lot more input and would not be controlled by the insurance companies as they are today. There would be a department within the... Read More

  1. by   tewdles
    How is it that people lose their freedom of choice with a reform in healthcare? Today a 25 year old has little choice about healthcare....find a job that offers full benefits or try to get medicaid. There is not much in between. Any attempt to obtain good health insurance individually will be frustrated by high premiums for restrictive access with considerable out of pocket expense.
    Does the constitution "allow" for a governmental role in healthcare accessibility? It very much depends upon the interpretation ... what does it mean to promote the general "welfare" of the population?
  2. by   Ginger's Mom
    Quote from hypocaffeinemia

    There are several links with the citations noted. Like you cartoon though.
  3. by   tewdles
    "the government will end up pushing private insurance coverage out by making private insurance coverage so expensive that the average person can't afford it.the insurance companies have already accomplished that without the help of the government and as the system is over loaded, decisions will have to be made regarding allocations of services. i'd rather fight with my insurance company. have you ever actually had to do that?... cuz they will drag it out until you no longer have the finances to pay for the fight and they will still not pay.if they **** me off, i still have the freedom to get a different carrier." you will find then that you have a pre-existing condition and it is not easy and not cheap to find an insurance company that will take your money every month so that they can limit your access to healthcare. or perhaps you think they don't limit your access? you must not have a formulary for your prescriptions, or perhaps you have never had a test ordered that the insurance company does not agree is the appropriate test to follow up your cancer treatment. maybe your insurance company doesn't care which md you see or which hospital or lab you use.
    the bottom line is this...our present process for accessing and paying for healthcare in this country is in trouble. it costs too much money, is too restrictive, and does not cover enough of the people. in spite of the state of the art technology, training, and facilities we have an unhealthy population with health outcomes that are embarrassing. capitalism is a good thing, it is just not the answer for everything and this is simply one of those things that capitalism cannot improve. the delivery of healthcare for profit is not going to solve any problems with access, availability, and cost. if we want to preserve the small business in america, give them a public insurance option for their employees. if we want to impact the cost of manufacturing in america, reduce the cost of health insurance for those companies.
    i have a friend whose 26yr old son, who had no insurance through his work, suffered a case of appendicitis and ruptured his appendix. after an ambulance ride, surgery, icu stay, etc he did the best he could to stay on top of the huge bills with monthly payments, until he got ill with some common thing about a year later (don't remember if it was flu) that kept him out of work for about a week. he ended up filing bankrupcy. thank goodness he did not have a wife or children at the time. i ask myself, what choices did this young man have? how did our current system of healthcare delivery benefit him? it certainly preserved his life at the same time that it devastated him financially. my question is....don't you agree that we can do better?
  4. by   nurse2009
    Quote from madwife2002
    I am not a sheep but somebody who has experienced 1st hand both socialised medicine and private insurance. I dont follow and believe anything I have experience and knowledge which comes from those experiences.
    BTW I am perfectly serious. What personnal experiences have you got to share to back up your theories?
    I believe I can speak with experience that this will not work!!!!! My husband is active duty military and our health care comes from the government (Tricare). You do not get seen when you need to be seen: For example yesterday I called to have my daughter be seen for an ear infection it was 8/26, They can not see her for a simple ear infection till 9/1. Im sorry that is not good health care system. If socialized health care comes to the US there will be waiting lists for simple care and the ones who need something like hip, knee or joint replacements will be waiting for years.
    Socialized medicine does not work!!!!!!
  5. by   hypocaffeinemia
    Quote from MedSurg32RN
    There are several links with the citations noted. Like you cartoon though.
    Did a google search and found a cite of 1.3 million NHS employees.

    1.3 million NHS employees :: 61.1 million population UK (

    14 million U.S. healthcare employees ( :: 307.2 million population (

    The amount of employees means nothing to the argument when the entire system is one company-- the U.S. has twice as many healthcare workers to population and yet we trail the UK in many areas.
  6. by   Ginger's Mom
    The US Healthcare employees are not employed by the US Government, but mostly private industry.
  7. by   hypocaffeinemia
    Quote from MedSurg32RN
    The US Healthcare employees are not employed by the US Government, but mostly private industry.
    Thank you for this insightful fact.

    My point was that the amount of healthcare workers for the NHS means nothing. The fact it's the third largest employer has little merit on whether or not socialized health care is good or bad. Simply irrelevent. All systems require healthcare workers no matter who writes the check.
  8. by   Ginger's Mom
    My point is that the government controls the money, the workforce and the policies. Personally I feel less government is better, yes we need government to build roads and maintain an army. Having government manage health care is not the intrusion I personally want.

    But the NHS is Europe's largest employer, I personally don't want to give the US Government control of my healthcare. But that is a personal choice, and the democratic process will decide which is the route America should choose.

    One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released today.
  9. by   hypocaffeinemia
    Quote from MedSurg32RN
    yes we need government to build roads and maintain an army.
    Why do you favor socialized roads and military? Wouldn't less government intervention lead to better roads and militaries as companies could compete in the free market?

    Isn't your support of socialism for roads and militaries but not healthcare a bit of a double standard?
  10. by   TakeBack
    Quote from NickB
    I wouldn't check if the Anesthetist was in network just as he was about to put me under. I would check that weeks in advance. Most hospitals contract with a specific anesthesia group or do it in house. It is a simple phone call.

    You see, the problem with healthcare now is it causes Americans to be responsible. First, you have to make sure you have health insurance. If you can't afford it, you need to find better work so that you may do so. Then, if you have a high deductible, you need to make sure you are saving money every month, just in case you may need to use your plan. Or, you can use the money you would be saving to cover your deductible and pay more each month for a plan with a lower deductible. Either way, it's your choice. But the problem is America is filled with a bunch of lazy people who think they are entitled to everything. Even people who come here from other countries are falling into this entitlement mentallity. This country used to be filled with hard workers who were too proud to take a handout and who would do whatever it takes to keep their family safe and fed. Now, they walk around with their hands out complaining about how it's just to hard and how the working class can't make it. I sincerely feel bad for people who may do everything right and something terrible happens and they lose their insurance. If the total strain on the healthcare system was just from people in that situation, then we wouldn't have the problems that we have now. But it's not, it because of a large amount of people who don't have health insurance because it isn't important to them. Because they would rather have a nice car and fancy clothes. Because by now, society has taught them that it will be taken care of by someone else.

    Government run healthcare may supply the whole country with healthcare, but it will have to be rationed compared to what we are used to now. The economics of this country cannot support healthcare for the entire nation without rationing, or cost analyzing, or whatever you want to call it. And it will, with no doubt, teach the American people how to be less responsible and more dependent on the government. This tactic has been described in many books written over many decades, and is the first main step towards Socialism, Facism, and Communism. Those government styles may work in France and Norway and wherever else, but I'm quite sure that the American people will lose their minds when they realize all of the other things that come with those governmental systems besides Universal Healthcare.
    The problem with this thinking:

    The economic structure dictates that there will ALWAYS be a segment of ther workforce that makes LESS than what is necessary for premiums and out of pocket costs. For every worker who "finds better work", another will replace them. We never lose that steady supply of low income workers who cannot afford premiums or are underinsured. These folks who can barely afford the premiums, by definition, will hardly afford the deductible.

    To paint them all as lazy and unmotivated is a judgment call on your part, and a terribly uneducated one at that.

    Second, "rationing" occurs now on the basis of who can pay and who can't. So swaths of americans go without basic preventive care, immunizations, meds etc b/c they can't afford it. And news flash- it's not becuase they're all buying iphones instead.

    I am required to buy auto insurance to drive; going without health insurance places a burden on fellow americans by way of increased taxes and premiums. There is direct and indirect harm in both cases.
  11. by   TakeBack
    Quote from The Hated Consultant
    My litmus test is the copy of the Constitution I carry with me at all times. If it's not in there, the Federal goobement has no legal authority to act.

    I can't find anywhere in there where it says the goobs can step in and do what they're proposing and what you're supporting--and believe me, I've looked. I'd be willing to bet our Congresscritters would see that too--if they'd ever bothered to read that document. Healthcare is NOT a right, contrary to what bleeding hearts would have us believe. People who push for crap like this use psychological bombs like this to yank at heartstrings and try to guilt trip people into following along.

    I can't find anywhere in there where it says we can bail out banks or car dealers, and many of the other bits that have been shoved up our asses lately.

    This isn't new with Obama--we've allowed the Fed goobs to incrementally impose crap like this on us far too long. We've gotten what we deserve. Now it's time to wake up and put the engine in reverse.

    So spout your opinions and your what-ifs all you want. If socialized medicine is so good, move to a country that offers it. What the Federal gooberment is purporting is illegal under the Constitution. Period. The argument ends there.

    Molon Labe!
    There's a reason the constitution was written with the intent of it being a dynamic document; a reason for the ammendment process.

    Strict constructionism is long the limit to progress.
  12. by   TakeBack
    Quote from 1776patriot
    I am against the gov't providing healthcare simply for the simple fact that the US Gov't isn't well known for handling it's money well. When I read the constitution I can't find the amendment that gives us the right to free healthcare. I'm not saying it doesn't work in other countries but people here in America people get crazy over free stuff. Remember the long lines when Denny's was giving out a free meal? It is human nature to be wasteful when you don't have to pay for something.

    Who is saying it's "free" (besides SP detractors)? Cost goes somewhere. Cost for the uninsured under a private health insurance system goes to policy holders and tax payers......

    Private insurers have a pretty good track record for handling money poorly as well. AND they get to deny payment on top of that. What a sweet scam!
  13. by   TakeBack
    Quote from NMiller1
    I suppose that some of those promoting a Nationalized style of health care are from countries that are already on that system. It is unfortunate if you have not experienced the personal freedom of CHOICE.

    Who has more choice- a medicare pt or a privately insured pt under an employer policy, who is chained to a network or providers AND a job lest they lose their (limited) coverage?