How would you feel about socialized medicine?

[nonquixote]

Another argument in NASA's favor: I see space exploitation as being crucial for the long term viability of our species. Unless we can institute Zero Population Growth, switch all consumption to renewable resources, and eliminate pollution, our quality of life is going to decline, and probably at a rapidly accelerating pace, until it will be unsustainable. Space exploitation can bring new resources and clean energy to our planet to allow time for technological development to possibly solve the above issues.

Also there is the fact that humankind currently has all it's eggs in a single basket, which can be destroyed at any time via a calamity either astronomical in origin or man made. And while it may seem unlikely to happen in the next year, or the next millenium, eventually it will happen. It would be good to have at least some eggs in another basket when that happens.

As a person who leans libertarian, I do feel that space exploration/exploitation could probably be better managed by private industry, but so far no one has been willing to step up to the plate, because the initial investment is enormous, and direct profits might be far down the line. As with the military and certain other programs, I feel that the space program belongs in the public domain, at least for now, and needs to be properly funded. The fact that without the space program our nation's economy/infrastructure would be a shadow of what it is now is a nice side benefit.

Nonq

 

[cracked butt]

The problem here is that actually MANUFACTURING ans supplying the drugs isnt the expensive part, its develping them

A bit off on the first half, but dead on on the second.

Manufacturing is very expensive and mainly due to government policies and oversight.

In order for even an existing drug to be manufactured at a company, the company has to have all of their systems validated before they can even start. This means there has to be careful document control, carefully documented and scheduled maintenance, every parameter of the reactors and process equipment has to be qualified within limits. Intruments have to be calibrated against NIST (national institute of standards and technology) traceable standards, employees have to be documented as trained to carry our any and every procedure, There has to be a quality assurance system in place to catch and remedy any errors, Quality control has to have all of their analytical equipment calibrated and needs to validate and prove that their analytical methods are correct and stabile. All of this before you even start to make a drug.

Once you make a drug, you need to do a series of at least 3 batches in a row that turn out more or less perfectly for the FDA to validate the company to sell the drug. The initial validation batches may take months, but the FDA's approval may take a year or more. So its very possible that you have a very good drug that you want to produce, but it will take you 10s of millions of dollars just to get the equipment, the people, the paperpwork, and the first couple of batches run (btw raw materials for a large batch of active ingredients might cost in the $millions themselves) then you have to sit and wait for up to a year or more before you can sell any of the material and possibly make a profit. This is why big pharmaceutical companies rule the industry- not to many people have $100 million lying around that they are willing to spend building a pharmaceutical company that might take 7 or 8 years to start to turn a profit.

 

[GT]

Here's a radical idea...

There's nothing "wrong" with the healthcare system we have in the US.

There are absolutely areas that could be improved:
The system could be moved to a more market based system and away from the quasi-welfare system we have now.
Health insurance should no longer be anything to do with your employer, and thereby tax credits should be given for buying your own health insurance (sucks to be self-employed right now).
The sheeple should be encouraged to purchase catastrophic health care and not expect to have every aspirin pill "for free".

But basically the system isn't broken.

Any attempt by govt to "fix" it is simply a power grab.

The English system does function, albeit at a lower level of efficiency, but, under "New Labour" is slowly sapping the life out of the UK.
Americans often don't appreciate how big the UK is for being so small; it takes a surprisingly long time to see the results of bad policy. Just wait a few more years.

What's the "realistic alternative" to making people pay?

Well, there are a lot of charities. These worked fine until the govt got into the charity business and many still do. Seems to be a stigma to receiving charity but none attached to getting Social Security (ie: welfare for old folks). And don't give me the "I paid my money in and I want it back" argument it just doesn't wash. FDR simply taxed everyone, scammed them and put a huge number of people on welfare - pretty smooth operator.

I know Americans are very generous people, and would be more so if their tax dollars weren't being spent on endorsing the lifestyles of the lazy, the stupid and the relentlessly poor (there are no poor people in the US except those that insist on being poor - poor people are those that live in shanty towns with open sewers, not those that only have 3 color TV's instead of 4 - and bear in mind, "seniors" spend more on beer and cigarettes than they do on prescription drugs).

Additionally, "poor" people already get free service for emergencies.
Show up at the emergency room with a gunshot wound and you will be treated. Then you just don't pay. Works every time.

Don't fix it or radically change it... just tweak it. And keep the govt out of it as much as possible. Their responsibility is just to regulate and oversee, not to provide freebies on other people's dime.


G

 

[Khornet]

Dmf,

you obviously never received NAVY medical care, or you wouldn't have such a low opinion of military medicine. There ain't nothing harder-working than a Navy doctor, corpsman, or nurse. Yes, even twigs and dental too.

In any case, I'm not sure that it's correct to characterize military medicine as socialist. Military medical care is not given because it's a human right (it's not), or as a benefit to attract employees, or even out of kindness, though there is plenty of kindness in military medicine. Military medicine exists for the same reason navies have shipyards and armies have ordnance units:to make sure the equipment or warrior who uses it is in optimal operating shape to deilver the highest possible yield for the investment.

 

[nico]

Extra tests and procedures ordered, sometimes unnecessary, because the MORE you do, the MORE you make. (I, myself, would rather err on the side of caution and have a very thorough workup done than not enough; but there is a limit).

I'll add to that in a lot of HMO contracts, which are signed between the doctor and the HMO, the doctor isn't allowed to offer services which aren't covered under the HMO's policy. ie: if a person needs a denture, and the HMO doesn't cover dental implants (most insurance doesn't), it would be a breech of contract for my dad to tell the patient that an implant is an option (as opposed to a denture).

Also, it's unethical for a doctor (physician or dentist) to give a different standard of care for HMO patients and non-HMO patients (unfortunately, it still happens sometimes), so at a mostly-HMO practice everybody gets the same crappy standard of care. Luckily for me (and my dad), HMOs haven't gotten their hands into dentistry in the same way they have with medicine, and the ADA is working very hard to make sure they don't.

Any attempt by govt to "fix" it is simply a power grab.

I completely agree. It'd just be another case of screwing one segment of the population (the evil rich doctors) to get votes from another. The thing is, the "other" segment of the population would be getting screwed (even more than usual) in a socialized medicine scheme too.

 

[gc70]

What is your realistic alternative?

People get sick and die. Or individuals can freely contribute to charities that can fund medical care.

I simply do not comprehend the concept that every single individual has some sort of God-given right to reach into the collective pocket of society and extract unlimited amounts of money to fund the most extravagent possible medical efforts.

 

[Waitone]

You're right, but government sees healthcare as a way of wielding tremendous power. And for that reason we will see socialized healthcare in the USoA. Since US based corporation compete globally with foreign based corporations who do not pay for private healthcare systems, the change will come sooner rather than later. We live in a time where government thinking supports whatever corporations want.

 

[Iain]

People get sick and die. Or individuals can freely contribute to charities that can fund medical care.

I simply do not comprehend the concept that every single individual has some sort of God-given right to reach into the collective pocket of society and extract unlimited amounts of money to fund the most extravagent possible medical efforts.

I have to fundamentally disagree.

I've edited this post

In my estimation that is not a realistic alternative - it isn't because people will not accept it.

That isn't because everyone wants something off everyone else (although that may be true) it will be because people will not accept getting sick and dying of quite treatable diseases purely because they lack the money.

I'll admit - on this issue I have socialist tendencies.

 

[CarlS]

I want socialized medicine about as much as I want a repeal of the Second Amemdment. There is no Constitutional guarantee of medical care, retirement, minimum wage, housing, etc. The Constitutions protects our right to persue these things for ourselves. The governemnt has no business being involved. It is vote buying, plain and simple.

I resent funding medical care for people who chose to waste their money on pleasures of the hear and now, elected not get an education or aquire vocational skills and then want me to finanace their health care. They had the same opportunities and options as I had. If one makes poor choices, one should take the consequences of those choices. That said, I do not object to my tax money helping the truly disabled.

 

[Iain]

That said, I do not object to my tax money helping the truly disabled.

Ok, I think you're going to need to define this.

Wheelchair, paraplegic... etc.

 

[CarlS]

Ok, I think you're going to need to define this.

Wheelchair, paraplegic... etc.

A physical condition that truly prohibits a person from earning a living and thus being unable to pay for health insurance.

 

[Art Eatman]

saltydog, I'm almost 71. You've seen my views on this subject.

Before I got old enough for Medicare, I had a health insurance plan. It was a bare-bones deal: Major stuff only. No coverage for sniffles, stubbed toes or cosmetic surgery. It increased in premium cost with age, but it cost me $160/month at age 64...

But most people seem to think The Company or The Gummint oughta provide an MD for every ouchie known to homo sapiens. TANSTAAFL.

, Art

 

[Iain]

Well then, we agree in part.

I'd have to add that there are people who do work that would never be able to meet the full costs of healthcare that is on-going. I won't be able to in a few years time, I'll still be working, but I'll never have a chance to be able to pay for my medical expenses. I doubt I could ever pay back the costs I have already incurred. The future may well hold a double heart-lung transplant.

 

[Waitone]

One of the problems we face in the USoA is because of the historical development of health coverage and tax law we tend to confuse insurance with pre-paid medical expense. The equivelent would be for auto owners to pay for auto insurance such as radiator flush, oil change, paint touchup, battery change, serpentine belt change, etc. Stuff that you know is going need fixing is covered by "insurance." Let's face it, the human bod needs periodic maintenance. Do those items really need "insurance?" Or should we be concerned about a catastrophe and insure it to the hilt.

Once again, I think the mess we are in is a direct result of the government "helpin" us.

 

[gc70]

That isn't because everyone wants something off everyone else (although that may be true) it will be because people will not accept getting sick and dying of quite treatable diseases purely because they lack the money.

I have charitable tendencies, but I also have serious concerns about where the government would draw the line on universal healthcare.

If someone shows up at the hospital with a broken leg, then certainly fix it.
If someone shows up at the hospital with alcohol-induced cirrhosis of the liver, don't even think about whining for a liver transplant.

Drawing the line between the extremes is difficult, even more so because government programs are subject to political campaigning and hounding by the media. Of course, the horrendously expensive treatments and the statistically futile cases are just the extreme types that are the perfect grist for media sob-stories.

Unfortunately, medial progress is complicating the problem. If "people will not accept getting sick and dying of quite treatable diseases" what happens as more and more diseases become treatable at some (astronomical) cost?

 

[Waitone]

Drawing the line between the extremes is difficult, even more so because government programs are subject to political campaigning and hounding by the media. Of course, the horrendously expensive treatments and the statistically futile cases are just the extreme types that are the perfect grist for media sob-stories.

Just wait until we drop the pretense of private insurance and adopt socialist health rationing just about the time Baby Boomers hit the skids. We spend time talking about the disaster called social security and ignore a real calamity brewing. If government pays for healthcare of boomers and there are too many boomers to afford and government can only ration healthcare, then the stage is set for our society to begin making decisions like those of Nazi Chermany. Where you gonna draw the line. 75 years of age and 15,000 healthcare points? Then 10,000 healthcare points? Or do you move it to 72 years and 20,000 points.

Years ago I worked for a large corporation that was self insured to a point then a stop loss policy kicked in. Great insurance right up until you posed a danger of piercing the limit, then strangely enough you became a bad employee and had several reprimands. You went from "leaping tall buildings in a single bound" to "tripping on the curb outside the building." You were "moved" out of the company because your performance deteroriated over time. . . . .which just by coincidence tracked you or your family's medical expenses. Seems my performance deteriorated about the time my wife approached $50,000 in expenses because of her 2nd case of cancer. Strangely enough other employees had similar experiences following bypass surgery or mastectomies and chemo. Imagine the probabilities.

 

[Art Eatman]

Leave government-caused cost increases and reduced power of the dollar out of the argument for the moment:

"Used to be", certain diseases and certain operations were beyond the cure-capability of medical knowledge. So, health insurance costs could be lower, back before transplants and brain-cancer surgery. And back then we took it for granted that for some problems, all that could be done was to make the dying as painless as possible.

Today's insurance premium--regardless whether it's Gummint paid or privately paid or whatever--has to cover such things as CT Scan equipment and all the other high-tech stuff. And, of course, the costs of the educations of those on the doctor/nurse end of things. But, we're saving folks who would once have died.

I guess one question--which isn't new, actually--is about how far do we go to save everybody from anything? Seems to me that folks who want "socialized medicine" don't want any limits to the spending. My question is the usual: What happens when you run out of money? I'm not sure I'm ready to believe an answer along the lines of, "Oh, that can't happen."

Art

 

[Deavis]

Funny story, I was talking to this cousin of my girlfriend, the last time we went over for a family gathering, about socialized medicine. She was all in favor of it because she said then everyone would get great medical service. I told her that was very interesting. I asked her what she thought of the current system. Get ready...

She had a problem with her leg and went to the regular orthopedic. He took some x-rays and said it was probably muscle and gave her some pills and told her to come back in a few weeks if it wasn't better. She then decided that wasn't good enough and went to her family doctor. He gave her some exercises to perform and told her the same thing, more tests if it didn't go away. So she decided to go to a alternative medicine practioner. Apparently he worked miracles with his mumbo jumbo or whatever he does. It helps if you realize it was 2 weeks later and the pain was gone as guessed by the first two doctors.

So, what was her view of the situation? She said doctors are lazy and just want to hand out pills. The insurance companies forced her to go to doctors that wouldn't take a personal interest in her. She thinks that everyone deserved the same sort of personal attention and healing that the alternative medicine doctor gave her. Without socialized medicine people would just be wheeled in and out like she was at the first two "real" doctors by their evil insurance companies.

I asked her if she realized that socialized medicine would actually involve much less time at the doctor, less tests, and more pills. Not to mention that alternative medicine would not be covered and multiple doctor visits would be disallowed. The response was, of course, was predicatble.

"That wouldn't be the way it worked, people in charge wouldn't allow that to happen because they weren't money hungry insurance companies."

Yes... people in Canada don't come here for healthcare and Britain has the best medical care in the world. I said, there isn't a soul in this country who works hard and pays for insurance that would give it up for socialized medicine. Funny, all the people there with jobs and that were older just nodded in agreement. Socialism, no matter what it is applied to, is about making everyone equally miserable.

 

[Deavis]

Art:

I guess one question--which isn't new, actually--is about how far do we go to save everybody from anything? Seems to me that folks who want "socialized medicine" don't want any limits to the spending

Some people just aren't willing to accept the fact that their life is actually worth a finite amount of money and that amount is FAR less than they think it should be. If you want to know how much you are worth, just go ask your insurance company, they'll tell you how much each piece of you is worth. If you don't have insurance, well...

That "If it saves one life" speech is hollow. Some lives aren't worth saving, especially the ones that won't even try to save themselves by getting insurance.

 

[444]

I didn't read the whole thread: I hope I am not just repeating what has already been said.
A lot of our legal system runs on the idea of lawsuits, fines, or some method of taking your assets. If you have any assets, you are at risk. On the other hand, if you don't have any assets, you can laugh at a whole lot of the "system". Medical care is no different. We have, what I would call socialized medicine right now. If you have no money, you still get the same medical care, at the same medical facilities, in the same timely fashion as anyone else. THe only difference is that you don't have to pay for it. AND, there is nothing society can do about it. They can send you a bill and you don't pay. They can put it on your credit score and you don't care. They can't keep you from coming back either. And, since it is free, why drive there or bother you family and friends ? Call an ambulance to take you to an emergency room for a headache. You might even be seen faster because of it. The ambulance bill ? I can't pay it, I don't have any money. And you can't do anything about it.
One key point that many people miss is that they want to blame the rich: they have access to all the best of everything because of their money. That is true, but the poor have access to it also. The only people missing out are the middle class who are also paying for it out of their pocket as well as providing these medical services to the poor themselves since they are the nurses, the lab techs, the ortho techs, the OR techs, the paramedics, the ER techs etc. And if at any time the poor don't think they are being treated up to their high standards, they sue you for your assets. They just don't realize this is a mistake because they can now be held accountable for their actions since they have something worth suing for (what used to be someone elses assets that they sued for).

 

[TimH]

I'll bet that if the US ever does have socialized medicine, none of the government officials like congress will have to live with it. It will just be the commoners like us.

 

[R.H. Lee]

I don't see much difference between .gov and insurance companies providing medical care to tell you the truth. Each of them charges whatever they feel like and provide as little service in the form of benefits as they can. Now, I'm sure you 'free market' types are gonna say you can always shop around for medical insurance. Yeah, right. They all operate the same. It's like one big cartel.

 

[nico]

Riley, the difference is private companies can't tell ever doctor that they have to accept their brand of insurance. As it is now, doctors have some choice as to which insurance plans they are willing to put up with.

 

[cracked butt]

I'll bet that if the US ever does have socialized medicine, none of the government officials like congress will have to live with it. It will just be the commoners like us.

Darn toot'n

I really really really reaaaaally doubt that Ted Kennedy uses a HMO for his health care even though he was the author of the original bill to allow HMOs. :banghead:

 

[nico]

I really really really reaaaaally doubt that Ted Kennedy uses a HMO for his health care even though he was the author of the original bill to allow HMOs.

I never knew that. If that's true, where the hell do the Dems get off blaming the Republicans for the problems caused by HMOs?