Socialized Healthcare

justin22g

WAR EAGLE!
Forum Member
Sep 8, 2005
1,809
1
0
Birmingham, AL
Give me your beliefs/views of socialized health care in America. I have a political science paper due in the next couple of weeks, and i'm thinking about listing the good and the bad.

I believe I am for a socialized medical system in the US. We are pretty much the only privatized healthcare system in the world. I have asked some of my friends, and all they say is, "i'm not paying healthcare for a bum out on the street, its his own fault he can't pay for it."
 

escarzamd

...abides.
Forum Member
Dec 26, 2003
1,266
1
0
56
5ft, pin high......
Well, justin......

I don't have the words for how difficult the list will be to compile. Always makes sense to start at the beginning I suppose:shrug:

Here's your basic list of "against" socialized medicine.

1) The patient can't choose the doctor
2) The doctor can't choose the patient
3) The doctor gets paid at the end of the month regardless of how well he did
4) The patient doesnt get consoled
5) The patient doesn't get well

Oversimplified, but thats the gist of it. I like to leave some things open to discussion.

The argument could always be started with the philosphies behind why somebody is for or against "socialized" (saying "single-payer" would make it more palatable) medicine.

The fight starts with the Declaration of Independence and language, and you will find this referred to over and over in this forum. How many avg Americans realize the document reads "....and the pursuit of happiness?" Boatloads screw up the concept right there and jump straight to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There you have your friends "Why should I pay for a bum on the street?" statement.

OK.......there's where it starts, but where it ends is obviously far more difficult. Here's some history. Socialized medicine finds its roots in 19th Century Germany.......swear to god. It was the Kaiser's idea..............mandated health insurance, so to speak. In reality, it came about as a convoluted scheme to keep the masses at bay and keep a monarch in power. Get the peasants to buy in to their socialist tendencies by taking the money you were taking from them anyway and give them health care, workman's comp coverage, retirement benefits, unemployment coverage.......welfare. In essence, it was paid for with payroll taxes from certain industries and services, and eventually all industries of any value to the state by 1928. There were limits on coverage in the event of illness I wont go into here, but it was adequate to maintain the overall health of populace.........

The end result was costs went through the roof.....the cost to the government basically quadrupled by the time it ran its course, employers costs to cover their people more than doubled, sick days went up from "malingering," access to doctors went down as did patient "satisfaction," and in the end, it was taken over by Hitler his own bad self as a central hub in his National Socialism wheel...........just another carrot on the end of a big-ass stick to keep the people satisfied and, ultimately, subservient to whatever boooolshit the gov't wanted to pull.

Obviously, this was the first try and an extreme example of how the concept can fail, but you get the gist of it. What's lost in all the sturm-n-drang of the current debate is the fact that socialized medicine already exists in this country. Medicare and Medicaid cover around 60% of the populace right now, and this is a growing number. Health care accounts for 20% of the GDP largely due to LBJ. Health-care is already an entitlement, and that sound you just heard was Jefferson rolling over in his grave.

The issue is cost.......it costs money and time to train to be a health professional due to strict licensing requirements, drugs cost way too much money, insurance companies charge more and more to keep themselves in black, hospitals charge more and more to remain solvent due to payments from the gov't and insurers going down plus having to eat the cost of caring for non-payers.......forget the lawyers and tort-reform for now.

Finally, the real problem in our country is changing culture. You can talk all you like about mandates and the greater good, but the patient population in this country just won't respond well to the basic concepts that allow socialized medicine to work. No body wants to wait in line, even when its free. No body gives a hoot about your problem and whether its more or less serious, because it has nothing to do with their problem. No body is willing to accept responsibility for cause and effect when it comes to health. No body wants to pay someone elses way, when they can goddam, sure as shit get off their asses and pay for it themselves. So many forces pull in different directions, preventing a perfect, or any, solution. The real trick is getting everyone to pull in the same direction.

Sorry about the ramble........damn coffee again:mj16: Hope this gives you some direction. There are great resources at your fingertips on both sides of the aisle.

Good luck with your paper......doc.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
171
63
Bowling Green Ky
Was going to comment--but doc covered my bases and then some and MUCH more eloquently.

Quite a powerful piece there Doc :hail

Have one thing to add from insurance industry standpoint--and it applies to those outside the poverty level--who are aleady covered under medicaid as Doc mention.
Have been writing group benefits for over 20 years
and here is interesting fact. If group pays only portion of premium on employee (75% or 50%)
the # of employees that apply drop about 30%.
Granted small portion of these are legitamate waivers as they are already covered under spouses plan--why pay for double coverage--however biggest portion are those that will only take it if it's free and even a $50 contibution required by them will keep them from applying. The bulk of these come from single young males.

another observation--cost to cover child in Ky on decent individual plan with Dr co-pays and ** benefits is about $75 a month Max--you'd be surprised how many have no prob paying for mulitiple cell phones/cable in a household but can't aford to cover child.

--and when universal health care advocates tell you the census bureau projects 47 million uninsured in America--you need to bear in mind who is included in these #s.


"The Census Bureau data is misleading. The Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS) is a misleading measure of those who lack health insurance in America and an imprecise tool for analyzing the dimensions of the problem. Analysis of data from earlier Census Bureau and other government reports shows that roughly 7 million are illegal immigrants; roughly 9 million are persons on Medicaid; 3.5 million are persons already eligible for government health programs; and approximately 20 million have, or live, in families with incomes greater than twice the federal poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four."
 

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
Wow, escarzamd. That was a great post.

I am against socialized health care. SMALLER government, people!!!

I really see this as a huge shift in our history if this passes. Social programs are becoming too heavy of a burden for our population.

As DTB stated, people don't have a problem paying Aaron's $50 per month for a plasma tv or $100 per month to Verizon, but ask them to contribute to their own family's health and all of a sudden, the federal government is responsible for providing this.

Atlas Shrugged... read it. If you've read it and still are a proponent of socialized health care, read it again!

My main fear is that going to the doctor or hospital will be more like a trip to the DMV. That, to me, is a very scary proposition. And why would anyone think that socialized health care would be run any better than any government organization we have now?
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
Feb 26, 2008

By 2017, total health care spending will double to more than $4 trillion a year, accounting for one of every $5 the nation spends, the federal government projects.






1. Why doesn?t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.

2. Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.

* Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990

* Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

* Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.

* Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana

* Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.

* Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation

3. Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive

* Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care

* Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.

* Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits

* Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada?s.

* Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money

4. Myth Three: Universal Health Care Would Deprive Citizens of Needed Services

* Fact One: Studies reveal that citizens in universal health care systems have more doctor visits and more hospital days than in the US

* Fact Two: Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of our population is without health insurance. About 75% of ill uninsured people have trouble accessing/paying for health care.

* Fact Three: Comparisons of Difficulties Accessing Care Are Shown To Be Greater In The US Than Canada (see graph)

* Fact Four: Access to health care is directly related to income and race in the United States. As a result the poor and minorities have poorer health than the wealthy and the whites.

* Fact Five: There would be no lines under a universal health care system in the United States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons, whereas demand would increase about 15%

* Conclusion: The US denies access to health care based on the ability to pay. Under a universal health care system all would access care. There would be no lines as in other industrialized countries due to the oversupply in our providers and infrastructure, and the willingness/ability of the United States to spend more on health care than other industrialized nations.

5. Myth Four: Universal Health Care Would Result In Government Control And Intrusion Into Health Care Resulting In Loss Of Freedom Of Choice

* Fact One: There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurer?s panel to obtain medical benefits

* Fact Two: There would be no management of care under a single payer, universal health care system unlike the current managed care system which mandates insurer preapproval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer

* Fact Three: Although health care providers fees would be set as they are currently in 90% of cases, providers would have a means of negotiating fees unlike the current managed care system in which they are set in corporate board rooms with profits, not patient care, in mind

* Fact Four: Taxes, fees and benefits would be decided by the insurer which would be under the control of a diverse board representing consumers, providers, business and government. It would not be a government controlled system, although the government would have to approve the taxes. The system would be run by a public trust, not the government.

* Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care administered by a state public health system would be much more democratic and much less intrusive than our current system. Consumers and providers would have a voice in determining benefits, rates and taxes. Problems with free choice, confidentiality and medical decision making would be resolved

6. Myth Five: Universal Health Care Is Socialized Medicine And Would Be Unacceptable To The Public

* Fact One: Single payer universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense.

* Fact Two: Repeated national and state polls have shown that between 60 and 75% of Americans would like a universal health care system (see The Harris Poll #78, October 20, 2005)

* Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care is not socialized medicine and would be preferred by the majority of the citizens of this country

7. Myth Six: The Problems With The US Health Care System Are Being Solved and Are Best Solved By Private Corporate Managed Care Medicine because they are the most efficient

* Fact One: Private for profit corporation are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration.

* Fact Two: The same procedure in the same hospital the year after conversion from not-for profit to for-profit costs in between 20 to 35% more

* Fact Three: Health care costs in the United States grew more in the United States under managed care in 1990 to 1996 than any other industrialized nation with single payer universal health care

* Fact Four: The quality of health care in the US has deteriorated under managed care. Access problems have increased. The number of uninsured has dramatically increased (increase of 10 million to 43.4 million from 1989 to 1996, increase of 2.4% from 1989 to 1996- 16% in 1996 and increasing each year).

* Fact Five: The level of satisfaction with the US health care system is the lowest of any industrialized nation.

* Fact Six: 80% of citizens and 71% of doctors believe that managed care has caused quality of care to be compromised

* Conclusion: For profit, managed care can not solve the US health care problems because health care is not a commodity that people shop for, and quality of care must always be compromised when the motivating factor for corporations is to save money through denial of care and decreasing provider costs. In addition managed care has introduced problems of patient confidentiality and disrupted the continuity of care through having limited provider networks.

8. Overall Answer to the questions Why doesn?t the US have single payer universal health care when single payer universal health care is the most efficient, most democratic and most equitable means to deliver health care? Why does the United States remain wedded to an inefficient, autocratic and immoral system that makes health care accessible to the wealthy and not the poor when a vast majority of citizens want it to be a right of citizenship?

Conclusion: Corporations are able to buy politicians through our campaign finance system and control the media to convince people that corporate health care is democratic, represents freedom, and is the most efficient system for delivering health care

9. What you can do about this through your state Green Party

* Work to pass a single payer, universal health care bill or referendum in your state. State level bills and referenda will be most effective because a federal health care system might in fact be too bureaucratic, and because it is not politically realistic at this time.

* Bills or referendum must be written by and supported by health care providers for the legislature to take them seriously. It is thus imperative to form an alliance with provider groups. The most effective provider group to go through is Physicians For A National Health Program which has chapters in every state (see hand out for partial listing of contact people). A number of states already have organized single payer efforts: Massachusetts, California, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, and Maryland. Join with them.

* A first step is to contact state representatives from PNHP and offer to join with them to write and support a bill bringing single payer, universal health care to your state if this has not already been done. The Connecticut and Massachusetts Bills can be used as models to make this task easier (email us at riverbnd@javanet.com and we will send you copies of the bills). A referendum is another way to go, in which case the California referendum can be used as a model.

* A second step is to contact state legislators and find a group who are willing to sponsor such a bill.

* A third step is to create a coalition of groups to work together to support and publicize this work, or to try to bring together existing groups to work together on this project. Labor unions, progressive democratic groups, Medicare/Senior Advocacy groups, the Labor Party, the Reform Party, UHCAN, existing health care advocacy groups, and state health care provider groups are all imporatnt to work with and get to join such a coalition. The state medical society and state hospital association are critical to work with in order to get any legislation passed. Try to get them to work with you to design a new model for health care delivery. They will be particularly concerned about who will control the system, and be very mistrustful of government. A public trust model with participation by providers, hospitals, business, the public and government is like to be much more acceptable to them than a pure government system. Emphasize doing away with managed care, and get them to try and work with you to find other ways to control costs (necessary to convince politicians) such as quality assurance standards, which will also protect them from malpractice

* A fourth step is to give talks in support of your bill or referendum where ever possible. Senior groups, medical staffs, church groups, high school assemblies, and labor unions are particularly good sources. Excellent materials including slides, a chart book and videos are available through PNHP.

* A fifth step is to raise money through fund raisers, contributions and benefits held by entertainers. Benefits are particularly useful in bringing out people who you can inform about single payer, universal health care and your efforts.

* A sixth step is to develop media access. The creation of videos that can be shown on local cable access TV stations is very effective. Newspaper articles, letters to the editor, and articles by the press are critical. Radio interviews and radio talk shows are important.

* Getting the public to write and call their state representatives in support of a proposed bill is critical, as is coordinating testimony at a public hearing.

* Because the data about single payer universal health care are so revealing of the problems with corporate America, and because the US citizenry is so concerned and dissatisfied with our health care system these efforts may yield surprisingly positive results and be helpful in establishing the Green Party in the US as a party of the people, by the people and for the people.
 

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
* Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

* Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.

Just to address two of these.

Do you think this has anything to do with all of the FAT ASSES that wolf down McDonald's and bitch about other people having more than them? Prosperous nations become lazy. This has a direct effect on life expectancy.

Preventive health care, at this point, is a personal choice and as a whole we choose to have none of it.

Why would anyone want the federal government to have more control than they do now? It makes us more subserviant to them.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

If you are for even bigger federal government than we have now, then you are in direct contrast to the men and women who founded this country and all of their beliefs.
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
One reason that alot of people in the USA are fat is because of the damn food we eat. Processed foods, loaded with salt and sugar and chemicals, no real government oversight. Diabetes is on the rise, our food is killing us.
 

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
One reason that alot of people in the USA are fat is because of the damn food we eat. Processed foods, loaded with salt and sugar and chemicals, no real government oversight. Diabetes is on the rise, our food is killing us.


Agree about that, for sure, that it is due to our diets.

But what does the government have to do with controlling that? Are you saying they should?

It appears that we are on very different pages as to what the government is/is not intended to be used for.
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
Bush Claims ?We Have Fabulous Health Care? Compared To ?Other Systems Around The World?

During a Q & A following his speech on the economy in Fredericksburg, VA today, President Bush declared that ?we have fabulous health care in America?:

I?m going to tell you something ? we have fabulous health care in America, just so you know. I think it?s very important ? before people start griping about the health care system here ? and of course there?s always grounds for complaint ? just to compare it with other systems around the world.

Bush may not be aware, but U.S. health care has already been systematically compared to other systems around the world. In many cases, the results are not good for Americans.

In 2002, the U.S. spent more on health care per person than other industrial countries like Britain, Canada, France, and Germany. But unlike those countries, which have universal health care systems, there are roughly 47 million Americans who lack health coverage.

In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) did a comparative assessment of the health systems of 191 countries. The WHO found that in terms of the five measured performance indicators, the U.S. ranked 37th:

The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on health services, ranks 18th . Several small countries ? San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.

Alot of people have said record keeping chews up alot of the cost. Why not speed up the internet from 5 mbps to 100 mbps like countries like Korea and Japan and have our medical hospitals and centers wire together so they can share and store that medical information. Seems like a small thing to do, just for starters.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
Well, justin......

I don't have the words for how difficult the list will be to compile. Always makes sense to start at the beginning I suppose:shrug:

Here's your basic list of "against" socialized medicine.

1) The patient can't choose the doctor
2) The doctor can't choose the patient
3) The doctor gets paid at the end of the month regardless of how well he did
4) The patient doesnt get consoled
5) The patient doesn't get well

Oversimplified, but thats the gist of it. I like to leave some things open to discussion.

The argument could always be started with the philosphies behind why somebody is for or against "socialized" (saying "single-payer" would make it more palatable) medicine.

The fight starts with the Declaration of Independence and language, and you will find this referred to over and over in this forum. How many avg Americans realize the document reads "....and the pursuit of happiness?" Boatloads screw up the concept right there and jump straight to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There you have your friends "Why should I pay for a bum on the street?" statement.

OK.......there's where it starts, but where it ends is obviously far more difficult. Here's some history. Socialized medicine finds its roots in 19th Century Germany.......swear to god. It was the Kaiser's idea..............mandated health insurance, so to speak. In reality, it came about as a convoluted scheme to keep the masses at bay and keep a monarch in power. Get the peasants to buy in to their socialist tendencies by taking the money you were taking from them anyway and give them health care, workman's comp coverage, retirement benefits, unemployment coverage.......welfare. In essence, it was paid for with payroll taxes from certain industries and services, and eventually all industries of any value to the state by 1928. There were limits on coverage in the event of illness I wont go into here, but it was adequate to maintain the overall health of populace.........

The end result was costs went through the roof.....the cost to the government basically quadrupled by the time it ran its course, employers costs to cover their people more than doubled, sick days went up from "malingering," access to doctors went down as did patient "satisfaction," and in the end, it was taken over by Hitler his own bad self as a central hub in his National Socialism wheel...........just another carrot on the end of a big-ass stick to keep the people satisfied and, ultimately, subservient to whatever boooolshit the gov't wanted to pull.

Obviously, this was the first try and an extreme example of how the concept can fail, but you get the gist of it. What's lost in all the sturm-n-drang of the current debate is the fact that socialized medicine already exists in this country. Medicare and Medicaid cover around 60% of the populace right now, and this is a growing number. Health care accounts for 20% of the GDP largely due to LBJ. Health-care is already an entitlement, and that sound you just heard was Jefferson rolling over in his grave.

The issue is cost.......it costs money and time to train to be a health professional due to strict licensing requirements, drugs cost way too much money, insurance companies charge more and more to keep themselves in black, hospitals charge more and more to remain solvent due to payments from the gov't and insurers going down plus having to eat the cost of caring for non-payers.......forget the lawyers and tort-reform for now.

Finally, the real problem in our country is changing culture. You can talk all you like about mandates and the greater good, but the patient population in this country just won't respond well to the basic concepts that allow socialized medicine to work. No body wants to wait in line, even when its free. No body gives a hoot about your problem and whether its more or less serious, because it has nothing to do with their problem. No body is willing to accept responsibility for cause and effect when it comes to health. No body wants to pay someone elses way, when they can goddam, sure as shit get off their asses and pay for it themselves. So many forces pull in different directions, preventing a perfect, or any, solution. The real trick is getting everyone to pull in the same direction.

Sorry about the ramble........damn coffee again:mj16: Hope this gives you some direction. There are great resources at your fingertips on both sides of the aisle.

Good luck with your paper......doc.

very good post doc....

i heard from people in canada that doctors there are salary capped....that once they reach the capped $$ figure, they stop working for the year.

do you know if that's true ?
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
Agree about that, for sure, that it is due to our diets.

But what does the government have to do with controlling that? Are you saying they should?

It appears that we are on very different pages as to what the government is/is not intended to be used for.

I rather have a government employee, who is secure in their job with benefits in charge of health management program, than a big business employee who's driving force is profit, and the company is put ahead of the people being served.

Diet is part of it, but accidents, disease and early detections. I need a checkup, hey guess what they found something, they found it early, fixed it at little cost and now i'am fine. This is what it's about.

The care system has enough money in it. It's not being used the right way. The people who are making an crazy profit from the system won't give it up without a fight. People are dying, but their lives against a dollar don't stand a chance. What kind of country would do this to their people?
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
January 30, 2008
It can happen to you
Posted: 11:21 AM ET

The Number 1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States is unpaid medical bills. As we found, it is not just the uninsured, but also the underinsured. It is also people who think they have excellent health insurance, but it is simply not enough.


Dawn and William Zeigler were living the American dream with a nice house, cars and plenty of money. When their daughter Brooke was born too early and required multiple surgeries, they never considered the cost because they thought they were covered. And, they were, at least for a while. They were amazed at how quickly the bills piled up, though. Tens of thousands of dollars a day, and soon their policy no longer provided any money.

Brooke Zeigler died when she was 18 months old. Her father told me that he had to tell the doctors to stop working on her. It was the hardest thing he ever had to do in his life. The bills that arrived for nearly a million dollars may pale in comparison to losing one?s child, but the Zeiglers are now at real risk of losing their dreams.

The health care debate is complicated. Again, the Zeiglers were covered, but not enough to cover little Brooke?s millions of dollars of expenses. This is the reality of our broken health-care system and continues to be one of the biggest domestic issues on the minds of voters. Any thoughts on how to address this specific issue within of our health-care system?
 

escarzamd

...abides.
Forum Member
Dec 26, 2003
1,266
1
0
56
5ft, pin high......
very good post doc....

i heard from people in canada that doctors there are salary capped....that once they reach the capped $$ figure, they stop working for the year.

do you know if that's true ?

I've heard that cap rules vary from province to province based on demand, but I've read about MDs freezing the number of patients they'll manage due to the caps.


There's a saying I'll paraphrase......"Don't get get sick in Canada after August".........which I guess speaks to that. Just like any other physician should, you take care of the patient in front of you. That doesn't apply if you're not accepting new ones as a family physician, hence they've been running into some of the same problems we've been experiencing with regards to access. This is an assumption based on the steady rise over the last 8 or so years in the ED physician salaries. That's where everyone goes when there's nowhere else to go; demand goes up, and to maintain the supply of caretakers, the money goes up as well.

Sh!t, that happens here......try and find a primary care physician accepting new Public Aid patients.....it'll take awhile, and thats b/c of states being up to 4 yrs behind on payments (IL is at least 3 yrs behind and they pay about 30cents/dollar. Combine this with our culture of ME!,ME!,ME! and you get a run on EDs.

Here's a quote I found off a physician's blog....

I am a Canadian family physician. What do doctors in Canada make? In my case, about $160-180K/year, but I work much less than I could, because I value my family time more than I value increased income. If your landscaper is doing better, I think you're overpaying them.
There was one province (quirky old Quebec), which suggested forcing doctors to work in underserviced areas. It didn't fly. If the mounties are at my door, it's probably by buddy Constable T. coming over for a beer.


A couple of years ago there was noise about some provinces (Ontario I think) waiving caps b/c the supply of doctors was low across several specialties......then the ensuing gripe about some 1000+ MDs making way more than the original cap. Likely procedure driven specialties such as surgery or cardiology, but the more they performed, the more they got paid. I would presume the bump in salaries was a function of patient demand for services, and that those services would not have been provided unless the cap had been waived.

I rather have a government employee, who is secure in their job with benefits in charge of health management program, than a big business employee who's driving force is profit, and the company is put ahead of the people being served.

This one will have to get qualified spy....I feel you on cost, but you'll hve a real tough time with me on this one if you believe the profit mongering is coming from my profession. I don't think thats the intention here, but keep in mind that the cost of school, post-grad training,continuous certification processes, and malpractice insurance in our country is higher. Factor in the time (lost earning potential) with the cost in dollars and skin, and I don't think the service is particularly expensive. Now all the other costs involved.......Im on the record. I'll accept single-payer or universal or socialized or whatever-you-want-to-call it health-care on the philsophical level, but be very careful what you wish for...........doc
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
171
63
Bowling Green Ky
I certainly sympathize with physicians on cost of malpractice insurance--and from the insurance standpoint few companies want to write it at any price--St Pauls used to be largest underwriter and got out of market for all practical purposes.

The basic reason for high cost of healthcare here compared to other countries can be summed up in one word--litigation.

--and Spy once again I see you are purusing the liberal blogs--

Came right back with that 47 mill tag even after it was debunked-

On your bankrupty/medical tearjerker--been in this business 25 + years and have yet tohave client remotely come close to limits--of course most coverage written is unlimited --some how your story does not mention what type of coverage--wonder why-:shrug:

The key to your bankruptcy/medical is in most cases those that opt to roll the dice without insurance-- have nothing to lose (negative net worth) much cheaper to file bankruptcy than pay insurance if there are no assests at risk.
 
Last edited:

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
I wish I had the ability to sound as intelligent as escarzamd. Very impressive.

I guess that would be dependent upon actually BEING as intelligent as him, though. :00hour
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Guess who's paying for that so called low life livinging on the street, Many are Vet's. And the 45 million with out it. We Are. Thats one of the reason our health cost have gone so high. You think Doc's and Hospitals don't pass on cost.
 

redsfann

ale connoisseur
Forum Member
Aug 3, 1999
9,211
373
83
60
Somewhere in Corn Country
Im on the record. I'll accept single-payer or universal or socialized or whatever-you-want-to-call it health-care on the philsophical level, but be very careful what you wish for...........doc

In regards to "socialized medicine"--

does the fact that 1 of every 2 dollars spent in the US on health care is spent by the US government mean we are already a "socialized medicine" country?
 

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
Yes. We have a semi-socialized health care system now, and I think it is one of the major problems that is not talked about as much.

Let's say all (or at least most) money that is spent on insurance currently by employer and employee was paid out as income to the workers. And instead of paying your co-pay ($0, $20, $40), you paid the full amount of a doctor's visit. I believe this is usually around $110 for non-specialty.

How many less times would certain people go to the doctor per year? I would say demand would be down quite substantially.

Now make it completely free "out of pocket" to go to the doctor. How much more demand is there going to be on the already overloaded system?

If insurance went back to the original roots of acting like "insurance" against a major medical occurrence, I think it would clear up many of our current issues. But we are wanting to continue the other way which I feel will make it worse.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
171
63
Bowling Green Ky
Yes. We have a semi-socialized health care system now, and I think it is one of the major problems that is not talked about as much.

Let's say all (or at least most) money that is spent on insurance currently by employer and employee was paid out as income to the workers. And instead of paying your co-pay ($0, $20, $40), you paid the full amount of a doctor's visit. I believe this is usually around $110 for non-specialty.

How many less times would certain people go to the doctor per year? I would say demand would be down quite substantially.

Now make it completely free "out of pocket" to go to the doctor. How much more demand is there going to be on the already overloaded system?

If insurance went back to the original roots of acting like "insurance" against a major medical occurrence, I think it would clear up many of our current issues. But we are wanting to continue the other way which I feel will make it worse.

Was taking some actuarial classes and topic came up of rising cost when they got away from standard deductibles and went to co-pays.
People were much more hesitant to take child to Dr for runny nose when they were footing tab till deductible met vs only out $10 to $15 co-pay.


Looked at it every which way and best bang for buck for IMO on ind coverage and plan I had on myself for 20 years was $2,500 deductible --got sweeter when they came out with medical savings account. I went on wifes group ins for $36 a month couple years ago--but had I been in my 40's would have not done so and paid about double that for $2,500 then 100% medical savings account--could have recouped quite a bit on tax deduction but clincher would have been being able to sock away money to accumulate tax free--
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top