Why does socialized medicine suck again?

[Dedweight]

So tell me, why does socialized medicine suck again? This procedure would've cost around 6000 dollars if I had funded it privately....

Because Taxes. Personally, as an American, I'd be fine with paying a little extra in taxes if it meant I didn't have to worry about going into debt over a major surgery.

Someone had to pay for it.. Free stuff is only awesome for the one getting it. Isn't it obvious that those who had to paid for it complain and don't want it..

Wouldn't we all pay for it and who wouldn't use it? Since it would be payed for through Taxes anyone that's working would fund it and anyone that visits a Doctor or takes Prescription Medication would make use of it. Rich, Poor, or Unemployed we would all make use of it.

[Dakia]

Wouldn't we all pay for it and who wouldn't use it?

Yes, we would all pay for it.

People who wouldn't need it wouldn't use it. Hell, I still have clients who come in and refuse to claim EIC because they don't want to take the government dime and want to work for themselves.

[LeginNoslen]

I dont want my lazy earned money to help improve my fellow mans quality of life.

[yurano]

Except that wouldnt happen in a Single Payer System. There would be only 1 insurer...the government. If a hospital or clinic decided not to accept that insurance "Assuming they would even be allowed to, they would likely legally have to", then they would have no customers and would go out of business.

The main advantage of a Single Payer System is leverage.

Having such a system run by the government is not such a great idea. Government run organizations are brutally inefficient and slow, cough USPS.

The single payer system has been implemented in other countries and the results are less than impressive. Its all about implementation. In Taiwan, medical residency programs for OB/GYN and general physician have spots left un-filled because medical students are unwilling to enter into a specialty where they barely get paid (due to government budget cuts).

Wouldn't we all pay for it and who wouldn't use it? Since it would be payed for through Taxes anyone that's working would fund it and anyone that visits a Doctor or takes Prescription Medication would make use of it. Rich, Poor, or Unemployed we would all make use of it.

Not true. As with all welfare, in socialized medicine, the rich pay more in than they get out. Moreover, socialized medicine is going to have very basic coverage, significantly worse than what the current working middle class expects to get as a job perk. If you want more, either you or your employer is going to pay out of pocket, all the while paying increased taxes for a greater implementation of current 'Medicare/Medicaid'.

If I need surgery to keep me alive... I'm not going to give a damn who does it, so long as he's trained well and knows what they're doing.

Yeah... no.

Different surgeons have different outcomes. Different level of training, different level of expertise determines whether or not they can charge more for their service. This is no different from any other industry.

[Annapolis]

Yeah... no.

Different surgeons have different outcomes. Different level of training, different level of expertise determines whether or not they can charge more for their service. This is no different from any other industry.

A good place where this is evident is state-run teaching hospitals as compared to private practice. At a teaching hospital a resident may be doing the surgery one of his first times under supervision. At a private practice you might be having your surgery done by a practitioner who has been doing your routine surgery for 40-50 years. Obviously residents need to be trained, but they are being trained largely at public hospitals and not in private practice.

[Catta]

Because with social medicine certain TV series cant run

[yurano]

A good place where this is evident is state-run teaching hospitals as compared to private practice. At a teaching hospital a resident may be doing the surgery one of his first times under supervision. At a private practice you might be having your surgery done by a practitioner who has been doing your routine surgery for 40-50 years. Obviously residents need to be trained, but they are being trained largely at public hospitals and not in private practice.

Whats worse is that there may be differences in skill between attendings (non-students).

I had the opportunity to observe several procedures practiced by different doctors, one fellow and two attendings. While the fellows (students) weren't as good, the teaching attending was significantly inferior to the other attending who didn't teach; a shame because the non-teaching attending completed procedures much faster with higher level of success.

[Spectral]

Because with social medicine certain TV series cant run

While I giggled, the United States has the best outcomes with regard to cancer, it's one of the things our system handles quite well, even though the cost is extremely high. So, really, the Breaking Bad Canada might go that way or it might go like, "I recommend an extra mortgage on your house and a trip to MD Anderson".

[Wells]

While I giggled, the United States has the best outcomes with regard to cancer, it's one of the things our system handles quite well, even though the cost is extremely high. So, really, the Breaking Bad Canada might go that way or it might go like, "I recommend an extra mortgage on your house and a trip to MD Anderson".

I'm inclined to suspect that that has more to do with our wealth than with our system itself. I mean private health care or public health care isn't going to get you anywhere if you're trying to get chemo in the Yukon.

[Catta]

While I giggled, the United States has the best outcomes with regard to cancer, it's one of the things our system handles quite well, even though the cost is extremely high. So, really, the Breaking Bad Canada might go that way or it might go like, "I recommend an extra mortgage on your house and a trip to MD Anderson".

I gotta see dem statistics about that first! :P

But still - as you say - only if you can pay the bills.

---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 03:28 AM ----------

I'm inclined to suspect that that has more to do with our wealth than with our system itself. I mean private health care or public health care isn't going to get you anywhere if you're trying to get chemo in the Yukon.

I feel like im missing a reference...

Yukon is something about the gold rush isnt it?

[Spectral]

I'm inclined to suspect that that has more to do with our wealth than with our system itself. I mean private health care or public health care isn't going to get you anywhere if you're trying to get chemo in the Yukon.

Yeah, our sheer spending on cancer treatments is surely the (well, I think it's sure anyway) the primary reason for the difference. We have some very expensive things available for treatments that simply aren't available everywhere, yet.

This remains one of the few good arguments that the American system isn't as bad as it looks on paper - a lot of innovation is done here that allows other nations to eventually reap benefits at lower costs. I'm not buying this as justification for the profit margins or medical salaries, but it is a thing.

[Wells]

I don't understand how our insurance model relates to our level of technology though. Its not like its insurance companies developing that stuff.

[Spectral]

I gotta see dem statistics about that first! :P

But still - as you say - only if you can pay the bills.

This is a tick older than I'd like (2009) and from an economics blog, but I'm too lazy to hunt down a better source at the moment: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/...nd-cancer.html

This isn't something that too many folks generally dispute though. We have other failings, but our cancer outcomes are very good.

[yurano]

I gotta see dem statistics about that first! :P

But still - as you say - only if you can pay the bills.

Whats to say such an expensive procedure will be covered under socialized medicine?

[Spectral]

I don't understand how our insurance model relates to our level of technology though. Its not like its insurance companies developing that stuff.

The argument is that consumers with deep pockets drive innovation.

I'm inclined to suggest that the world market nature of medicine makes this unlikely and lean towards our high public funding of medical research, relative to other countries as the primary driver.

[Wells]

The argument is that consumers with deep pockets drive innovation.

I'm inclined to suggest that the world market nature of medicine makes this unlikely and lean towards our high public funding of medical research, relative to other countries as the primary driver.

I would think that increased demand for high end medical technologies would drive demand for them far more than a few rich consumers.

[Catta]

Whats to say such an expensive procedure will be covered under socialized medicine?

I dunno, the law?

[Chirri]

Having such a system run by the government is not such a great idea. Government run organizations are brutally inefficient and slow, cough USPS.

USPS hasn't been funded by taxes since around 1970. I believe postage is all that funds it right now.

EDIT: which isn't quite what you said, but while it is an Agency, it's been run as a business.

[Wells]

USPS hasn't been funded by taxes since around 1970. I believe postage is all that funds it right now.

Not to mention the USPS ran phenomenally until the GOP broke it.

[geewhiz80]

I know anecdotal evidence is just that, but, I think socialized medicine, if done right, would greatly benefit the U.S. My mother has an almost $100,000 dollar hospital bill for when my father was on life support for 6 1/2 days. The insurance company they had paid around $15,000 I think, leaving her an adjusted bill of about $80-85,000 dollars. She is on a fixed income of approximately 1100/month. When she dies that bill will still not be paid and we will have to sell her house/property to cover it.

Plain ludicrous that something as important as health care is governed as a for profit business.