Why does socialized medicine suck again?

[Twotonsteak]

Sounds like to me he should be in prison for fraud.

I said the exact same thing. Funny you should mention that. Exact legal issues aside, however, his character is what I am referencing.

It's simple, even for all the bleeding-heart Liberals in this thread. Is someone else's health worth so much as to take my own care out of my financial reach? At what point does this new system become an anchor?

Has anyone gave thought to the idea that Obama-care might, just might, end up being another entitlement drain on our economy? We have a President that's reluctant to cut spending, happy to increase it, and a deficit that keeps going up. Each baby that's born enters the world owing fifty thousand dollars. How is that acceptable?

I wonder if anyone has done a study comparing how many people can afford health-care with the number of people that would be on the state-run system. I wonder if, just maybe, the numbers are a little titled towards people on the state-system. Have they done any sort of real cost-estimates? Do they know how Obama-care will be funded? More taxes? And if so how is it OK to raise the health-insurance AND the taxes of some people to pay for others? What is the incentive to pay for your own insurance?

[Lilfrier]

All the while, people who genuinely need welfare and that really need the safety net often fall through it and have a lot of trouble getting the help they need, because the majority things that a few bad apples has spoiled the bunch.

The generalizing that is done about people on welfare is disgusting and dangerous. And the money that may be undeserved for some there, is nothing compared to how much money is wasted and misshandled by those that control your country and have most of the money. But they aren't easy to attack. They aren't easy to slander and bully, because they have all the power. It's much easier to target the people who already have nothing, because no-one fights for them and they have no power.

I agree with that. People want to call the corporations evil, but never truly challenge them. When I determined that I didn't like the direction EA was taking, I completely cut myself off from buying from them. I want to play several of their games, but I don't because I do not like the stance they take with their Online Pass system (punish the consumers for the actions of GameStop). I do the same to Apple, whom I dislike for their willingness to charge excessive prices for branding while offer what I feel is inferior products with little-to-no innovation or improvements to what they sell.

No, the phones and computers and games I buy are not the biggest problems in the world I can solve. However, if those who felt that way about things took real stands against corporations, this never would have happened in the first place. That goes for both private businesses and the horrendous joke of a government we have now. If the government wasn't run by lifelong politicians more concerned with benefitting themselves and their party (and even the opposing party, at times) than doing right by the people who gave them their power, we'd be much better-off in the long run. We let politicians sweet-talk us into the problems we are in, saying they will fix them, rather than simply telling them to get out and letting common sense and simple logic run the country.

However, I still do not support the social welfare of this country. I firmly believe that such things should function on the kindness of people. If you want to fix the problems of the world, make a donation to a non-profit organization. I'd bet such organizations would make a LOT more money to help the homeless, the abused, and the generally helpless if so much of our money wasn't funneled into the "safety net" programs that are so poorly-run by big government. There is the risk that personal greed can cause major problems in that system, but that is where you start to raise a morally-conscious society, not one obsessed with TV and the Internet.

That's sort of the main issue I have with the left--they think that the concept of a utopian society comes from government, not the people. Instead of saying tax corporations (and note: those taxes on the rich WILL make it back to the little people, they always do), say screw corporations and work with other people to get places. I've read enough posts and blogs and general things on the Internet to know that America has plenty of smart, capable people that it doesn't need AT&T or Congress to function properly if it wants. Instead, people want to coast and let these crazy things like smartphones and welfare rule our lives, and it's pretty sad to think about.

[Deleted]

Ya like the production of our food, oh wait thats already been privatized and we have no control over it whats so ever

There is so much processed junk these days, im thinking about going freaking vegetarian

You know it's just as easy to buy clean meat as it is to buy clean vegs right?

[geewhiz80]

In socialized medicine the government bullies pharmaceutical companies into keep their prices lower. This both inhibits the companies from staying afloat and continuing research.

yep we really need more medications like Lunesta. A pharmaceutical that in it's companies first ad, admitted that they were unsure how it worked, and that in some cases caused death. Many times some of these new medications cause side effects that I would consider worse than the affliction they treat.

[Annapolis]

And my point would stand even on that measure; you're paying almost twice as much as anyone else in the world for health care, and you're ranking 15th? That's grossly inefficient; you aren't getting what you pay for.

I'm not trying to claim US health care is terrible, just that it's not a premium product that's worth what you're paying for it, relative to other nations.

I agree with you that we pay too much but we ranked 15th using a scale that mostly looks at how well we distribute healthcare. We don't do that well. That's all I'm saying. If they solely looked at quality of care and responsiveness overall and excluded the distribution weights I'd imagine we'd do quite well.

[Linkedblade]

I am one of those "conservative" types, not fundamentalist, far right by any stretch, but I definitely lean more right than left on most issues unless it involves individual liberties (gay marriage being the key example). It is not that I oppose socialized healthcare, its that I see what all the idiots on both sides of the aisle in D.C. do and the mess they constantly make out of everything and it terrifies me to think that they could have a hand in my health care.

Bipartisanship is a plague. When both sides "compromise," they don't make a great law, they make a terrible one.

[geewhiz80]

Bipartisanship is a plague. When both sides "compromise," they don't make a great law, they make a terrible one.

They make terrible laws without compromise as well. Get the corporate money out of politics, and then maybe just maybe we'll see something get done for the good of actual people, not corporations that count as people.

[Noomz]

1. People pay in and others do not. How is that fair?
2. Certain groups do not believe in in certain treaments. Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for something that they do not believe?
3. Government should abstain from being involved in economic activities.
4. Taxes should go to more important things. Perhaps the government should pay their bills?
5. It costs a lot in the US for two reasons
   • Malpractice insurance is ridiculous.
   • Due to government's hand in medicine already prices have risen.
6. In socialized medicine the government bullies pharmaceutical companies into keep their prices lower. This both inhibits the companies from staying afloat and continuing research.

Who isn't paying in and to what aren't they paying in?

Such groups are wrong in their "beliefs". Because you are a country and you do things as a country. Right?

What? Who should do economics then?

What's more important than keeping people alive?

No, that is not even remotely true. That pharmaceutical companies have a hard time afloat is a funny thing to say. You'd have to prove to me that they have such problems.
Government is involved in medical research and grants for such research.

[Endus]

Sorry, I might be misreading, but from what you posted in this section, you made it seem like...1) people with better insurance get priority, and 2) ER's in the States won't see you.

First, as a healthcare working in the states, I can assure you that you will always be seen in the ER.

I didn't mean to give that impression; US health care workers abide by the same professional oaths as Canadian ones, and they WILL treat you in the ER. ERs mostly run the same way. It's outpatient care where you'll get bumped around and not get an appointment for months if your insurance isn't willing to push for better treatment. It's worse in the US for people who're wealthy enough to get BAD insurance, than people who are uninsured, from what I've read; they have enough insurance to not qualify for government support, but not enough money to afford the fees; these are the people who get hit with a $50,000 bill their insurance company won't pay and who lose their house as a result. These aren't the people on welfare, they're the people struggling with a lower-middle-class job.

Secondly, the "people with better insurance get priority treatment" is a mostly false statement. Most facilities work on appointment times alone. Nurses and MD's most often have no idea what your insurance is, because that's not information they need. HIPAA privacy practices more or less dictate who needs to see what information on patients. Registration, billing, scheduling will have knowledge of a patient's insurance, but they won't be able to see a medical history. MDs and Nurses can see medical history, but insurance information is not typically information they see. Again, in the ER, they see them as they come in and what triage level they are given.

I was under the impression that a better insurance package would get you generally faster appointment times, however, which was what I was referencing. Not in a bribery sense, just a "we're willing to pay a premium if you can fit us in sooner" way.

I'm not trying to take a directly opposite position and claim the US is all crap and such. It's a bad system at its heart, and the issues are in the insurance companies and the hospital admin staff/boards, not the doctors and medical staff. My issue is mostly that it's an inefficient system, and purposely so, as insurance companies and hospitals both profit if prices are kept high, at the cost of the consumer through inflated tax burdens and insurance premiums, which you can see reflected in the higher costs Americans pay for health care. And that the quality of health care on average isn't any better for that increased cost.

[Twotonsteak]

A true socialized healthcare system, although having some government oversight to verify they aren't being scammed, wouldn't and shouldn't be run by the government. It would be run by medical professionals doing the best they can for their patients. The government would be the checkbook that pays for the procedures and treatment that the doctors with knowledge feel you need.

Of course I'm not going to suggest that the lovely US Congress couldn't find a way to fuck it up, but hey, that is why humans are so damn entertaining.

---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 12:41 AM ----------



Ironically if this is a real situation and not made-up crap that some people like to use, Twotonsteak is party to fraud since he knows about it and has not reported it to the authorities.

Yup. He went through almost the entire process in Germany, on base, while working a desk job. I didn't find out about it until over three years later and even then I don't know what his physical issue is.

Accept that it happens. It's reality. And saying "he is the problem" doesn't change that there are a lot of people like him, gaming the system every way they can. And now they have a new system to game and I'm stuck holding the bill.

Remind me again what my incentive is to keep paying when I can just live off the state?

[Lilfrier]

Protip: You can't force someone to learn, to throw away their prejudices. You can only challenge their assumptions and let them make up their own mind.

Yes, you challenged mine. I said I was willing to accept those challenges with the presentation of information. You chose to say I wasn't and insult my intelligence and willingness to learn. So, that's where the problem lies: You assumed I had a prejudice that prevented my ability and willingness to learn. You were wrong, and now you've put me in a mindset where I don't want to learn because you've made this a sour subject for me.

To see the counter to the route you took, go to page #7, post #125. I made a similar statement (though in a better tone because I was presented with a better tone) asking for information form Endus. Endus provided that information, and I will now look it over and see how it changes my thinking. Endus did a good job in deciding that I truly wanted to actually improve myself intellectually on the subject and helped me (hopefully; we'll see where the information leads me). You made a semi-inflammatory post to me when I asked you to provide sources and information, claiming I had "prejudices." You did not help me, and instead gave me something worse than the prejudice you assumed I had--actual evidence to people such as yourself, which turns me off from learning about these things.

That's the problem, whether you like it or not. I might have been wrong in my initial statements. As I mentioned, this isn't a topic I study much. I was willing to accept that and read as to why, but you decided it was better to insult me than help me. Well done.

[Masark]

1. People pay in and others do not. How is that fair?
2. Certain groups do not believe in in certain treaments. Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for something that they do not believe?
3. Government should abstain from being involved in economic activities.
4. Taxes should go to more important things. Perhaps the government should pay their bills?
5. It costs a lot in the US for two reasons
   • Malpractice insurance is ridiculous.
   • Due to government's hand in medicine already prices have risen.
6. In socialized medicine the government bullies pharmaceutical companies into keep their prices lower. This both inhibits the companies from staying afloat and continuing research.

1. Do you consider that the "others" lack the means to pay in?

2. Should jehovah's witnesses be allowed to kill their children by withholding necessary blood transfusions? I say they can take their obsolete beliefs and fuck off.

3. Why?

4. Good idea. A single-payer healthcare system would be a good way to free up taxes to go to those important things.

5.1. Care to explain how Texas' tort reform has been a resounding failure at reducing medical costs, despite sending malpractice premiums down substantially?

6. Yeah, how will they ever keep afloat without at least a 20% profit margin and marketing budgets that are multiples of their R&D budgets?

[yurano]

If you've got a chance of recovery, you'll get the life support you need. That's how triage systems work. Anyone claiming anything else is peddling a lie.

I don't think you understand what triage means.

Triage is the process of determining the priority of patients' treatments based on the severity of their condition. This rations patient treatment efficiently when resources are insufficient for all to be treated immediately.

Whether insufficient resources means lack of personnel at a mass casualty incident or lack of funds, triage aims to do the most good with limited resources. If socialized medicine worked according to 'triage', they would prioritize the most effective options first. Expensive life support for a 1% chance of survival would be lowest priority in a 'triage' system.

[obdigore]

Yup. He went through almost the entire process in Germany, on base, while working a desk job. I didn't find out about it until over three years later and even then I don't know what his physical issue is.

Accept that it happens. It's reality. And saying "he is the problem" doesn't change that there are a lot of people like him, gaming the system every way they can. And now they have a new system to game and I'm stuck holding the bill.

Remind me again what my incentive is to keep paying when I can just live off the state?

Depends entirely on what your definition of 'living off the state' is. Minimum Wage should be better than living off the state, and if that isn't currently the case, clearly Minimum Wage needs an increase.

The crux of the matter is that some people are going to spend more energy scamming the system than it would take them to work with it and be a productive member of society. I think we can agree on that? What we don't agree on is if we should spend time, money, and a huge effort to punish those people to the detriment of everyone else in society, or if we should remove those we can cost-effectively and accept that some will scam, meanwhile we try to make life better for everyone in society.

I think I wrote that in a very convoluted way so I hope people understand what I'm trying to say.

---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 12:54 AM ----------

Yes, you challenged mine. I said I was willing to accept those challenges with the presentation of information. You chose to say I wasn't and insult my intelligence and willingness to learn. So, that's where the problem lies: You assumed I had a prejudice that prevented my ability and willingness to learn. You were wrong, and now you've put me in a mindset where I don't want to learn because you've made this a sour subject for me.

To see the counter to the route you took, go to page #7, post #125. I made a similar statement (though in a better tone because I was presented with a better tone) asking for information form Endus. Endus provided that information, and I will now look it over and see how it changes my thinking. Endus did a good job in deciding that I truly wanted to actually improve myself intellectually on the subject and helped me (hopefully; we'll see where the information leads me). You made a semi-inflammatory post to me when I asked you to provide sources and information, claiming I had "prejudices." You did not help me, and instead gave me something worse than the prejudice you assumed I had--actual evidence to people such as yourself, which turns me off from learning about these things.

That's the problem, whether you like it or not. I might have been wrong in my initial statements. As I mentioned, this isn't a topic I study much. I was willing to accept that and read as to why, but you decided it was better to insult me than help me. Well done.

You straight up claimed you can't be bothered to google and do your own research because it might be biased. I suggested you look at this website called Wikipedia. They have these things called sources for everything they claim, which you can evaluate on your own.

I'm not going to spend even fifteen minutes putting together a less than exhaustive reading list for you to learn about socialized medicine, its benefits, and its issues. Your opinion honestly isn't that important to me. You are free to do all the research yourself, I gave you a starting point.

[Twotonsteak]

Who isn't paying in and to what aren't they paying in?

Such groups are wrong in their "beliefs". Because you are a country and you do things as a country. Right?

What? Who should do economics then?

What's more important than keeping people alive?

No, that is not even remotely true. That pharmaceutical companies have a hard time afloat is a funny thing to say. You'd have to prove to me that they have such problems.
Government is involved in medical research and grants for such research.

New philosophy here. It's called "free will."

1. Instead of creating a socialist-style healthcare system why not create jobs so people can buy their own health insurance?
2. No ONE person, or even a group of people, has the right to tell someone else their belief's are wrong. We're supposed to be a country of tolerance and FREEDOM.
3. The market should be a FREE one. Why? Well other than the fact that I like the concept of FREEDOM there is that little part where the Federal Government screws up everything it gets involved in.

People who want a big, centralized, Government controlling every aspect of their life don't believe in life. They don't want to LIVE. They want to exist and nothing more. They don't want to think for themselves or do things for themselves. They want someone else to do it for them, and for everyone else.

I'm sorry but this whole concept, socialized medicine, falls under "personal responsibility." And it is not my responsibility to pay for someone else's healthcare. Would it be nice if I did? Yes. But it's not a responsibility and it shouldn't be legislated as such.

[Endus]

I don't think you understand what triage means.

Triage is the process of determining the priority of patients' treatments based on the severity of their condition. This rations patient treatment efficiently when resources are insufficient for all to be treated immediately.

Whether insufficient resources means lack of personnel at a mass casualty incident or lack of funds, triage aims to do the most good with limited resources. If socialized medicine worked according to 'triage', they would prioritize the most effective options first. Expensive life support for a 1% chance of survival would be lowest priority in a 'triage' system.

If you need life support, you'll get it. That means you're at a high priority, because without treatment, you die.

You completely misunderstand the entire point and concept of triage systems, as a whole. Your own quote directly contradicts your later claim. Someone on life support has a very high severity to their condition; that's why they need life support.

It would help if you even bothered to read the stuff you're citing, since it proves you wrong.

The ONLY time you'd get into a case of determining whether to cut life support due to triage, is if you have a sudden influx of patients and cannot sustain them all with the available equipment, and are forced to pick those with the best chance of recovery. Short of a massive epidemic or such, that's simply not going to happen, and if it does, it has nothing to do with whether the health care system is socialized or not.

[Noomz]

I agree with that. People want to call the corporations evil, but never truly challenge them. When I determined that I didn't like the direction EA was taking, I completely cut myself off from buying from them. I want to play several of their games, but I don't because I do not like the stance they take with their Online Pass system (punish the consumers for the actions of GameStop). I do the same to Apple, whom I dislike for their willingness to charge excessive prices for branding while offer what I feel is inferior products with little-to-no innovation or improvements to what they sell.

No, the phones and computers and games I buy are not the biggest problems in the world I can solve. However, if those who felt that way about things took real stands against corporations, this never would have happened in the first place. That goes for both private businesses and the horrendous joke of a government we have now. If the government wasn't run by lifelong politicians more concerned with benefitting themselves and their party (and even the opposing party, at times) than doing right by the people who gave them their power, we'd be much better-off in the long run. We let politicians sweet-talk us into the problems we are in, saying they will fix them, rather than simply telling them to get out and letting common sense and simple logic run the country.

However, I still do not support the social welfare of this country. I firmly believe that such things should function on the kindness of people. If you want to fix the problems of the world, make a donation to a non-profit organization. I'd bet such organizations would make a LOT more money to help the homeless, the abused, and the generally helpless if so much of our money wasn't funneled into the "safety net" programs that are so poorly-run by big government. There is the risk that personal greed can cause major problems in that system, but that is where you start to raise a morally-conscious society, not one obsessed with TV and the Internet.

That's sort of the main issue I have with the left--they think that the concept of a utopian society comes from government, not the people. Instead of saying tax corporations (and note: those taxes on the rich WILL make it back to the little people, they always do), say screw corporations and work with other people to get places. I've read enough posts and blogs and general things on the Internet to know that America has plenty of smart, capable people that it doesn't need AT&T or Congress to function properly if it wants. Instead, people want to coast and let these crazy things like smartphones and welfare rule our lives, and it's pretty sad to think about.

Then I think we can agree that things aren't all black and white.


It is hard for those without power or money to organize, especially when the nation is turned against them and they are constantly shown in the news and in politics as "leeches" and "lazy".

Which country is "this country"? I'm not from the US.

But socialized healtchare -is- the kindness of the people, that's my entire point. Equal contribution, equal chances. Those are the ideals.

Ofcourse, an ineffective government will always waste money. I think there are many hospitals in the US that function on donation, no?
Though that would mean that treatment is uneven. If one region has more people that can donate more money, their hospital will work better than the region that has less people with lower income. That's why socialized healthcare tries to distribute the money evenly. That's done with different effectiveness ofcourse.

The idea is that the government should be the people. With Socialisticly inspired politics (not real socialism) you have a lot of that.

[zorkuus]

Accept that it happens. It's reality. And saying "he is the problem" doesn't change that there are a lot of people like him, gaming the system every way they can. And now they have a new system to game and I'm stuck holding the bill.

Unless people like him are a majority (they aren't) then it isn't an issue anymore than people getting paid in the dark (I don't know what the actual phrase is in english but it's avoiding taxes on paycheck). They are doing something illegal and you are complaining that the system is at fault. Might aswell close down the judicial system for good because we can't catch absolutely 100% of criminals.

[Deleted]

Insurance and health care is each others opposites. Insurance companies will make a profit as it's primary and only goal and it will be at the expense of your health.

The concept about health insuance is utterly retarded and proved not to work.

[PhoenixC13]

My friend smashed his hand at 3am in Italy, they took him to a doctor that saw him in about 10 mins, the doctor called the pharmacy after he was done giving him a cast, they drove to the pharmacy that was opened just to get him his pain meds. (the pharmacist has to live near the pharmacy and be on call) He gave them all his billing info he had to pay just under $25 for this and he was a tourist.