The title says it all; I somehow think the words have much different meanings depending upon whom one asks.
If it can be avoided, I don’t wanna debate it, I just want opinions on it.
I personally do not think that Universal Health Care in the USA would be Socialized Medicine but I’ve had several disagreements with my sister’s republican friends on that point.
As a sub-point, what the hell is so damned wrong about Socialized Medicine, whatever is meant by those words?
Socialized: Having the tenants of socialism.
Socialism: Group ownership (in its simplest definitions), which means that profits would either be distributed or losses distributed amongst the citizenry.
Medicine: The system in which medical care is delivered to those needing it.
So, you have Group ownership (Profits or losses) of the system which pays for the delivery of health care.
Universal health care must, by some measures, be socialized. There is no way around it. You will always have people who cannot afford health care and those that cannot afford health care will still have to have their bills payed, unless their losses are absorbed into the bottom line. In which case… they’re still being payed for by those who actually do pay.
Your subpoint is actually a much larger point than the topic of the thread, and I don’t want to touch it with a 10 foot stick.
You already have socialized medicine for seniors, people on welfare, and the military. The question then is should the general wage earning public be included, or should they have to pay their own way while their taxes pay for socialized medicine for these other segments of society.
Uhiversal health care and socialized medicine are one and the same, for both require a single insured base, and both require government control. Since so many Americans are allergic to anything or any word related to socialism/communism, the term socialized medicine is used as a red flag.
So·cial·ized Med·i·cine
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌlīz-d\ \ˈme-də-sən\
1: a universal welfare system set up to enable chronic hypochondriacs to demand an MRI and complete blood transfusion after every scrape or sniffle.
2: a system that transfers the cost of health care from the people who use it to the people who are too weak or disorganized to fight back.
3: a system that enables legions of unqualified petty bureacrats to judge what health care we shall be allowed to receive, with no recourse or appeal.
2: the millstone around our collective necks that will sink any remnant of American prosperity straight to the bottom of the sea.
As opposed to legions of insurance company-employed doctors whose sole function is to deny needed care to patients, with no recourse or appeal? :dubious:
Playing devils advocate…
(1 and 3 are contradictory…)
1: a universal welfare system set up to enable chronic hypochondriacs to demand an MRI and complete blood transfusion after every scrape or sniffle.
Not if there were adequate safeguards in place. Like there are currently.
2: a system that transfers the cost of health care from the people who use it to the people who are too weak or disorganized to fight back.
I don’t understand, wouldn’t it transfer the cost from those who can’t afford it to the general population?
As in “Everyone minus six currently pays for health care, because Six people can’t afford it,” to, “everyone minus six pays for health care, but six people still get health care.”
3: a system that enables legions of unqualified petty bureacrats to judge what health care we shall be allowed to receive, with no recourse or appeal.
A flaw in a specific system, not in the idea itself.
Would you stop driving cars entirely because of the Ford Pinto?
4: the millstone around our collective necks that will sink any remnant of American prosperity straight to the bottom of the sea.
Conjecture.
The key is for there to be one pot of insured people – everyone. It really does not matter if the health care providers are govenment employees or private corporations, provided that everyone gets the same level of care being paid for out of the single pot.
Presently, the healthcare in the USA that is not already socialized for the most part comes out of numerous insurance companies pots, rather than one single huge pot. A move to socialized or universal health care would have the government handle what the numerous insurance companies are doing now. It is also possible that the government could simply regulate the insurance companies to the same end of having a single pot for everyone, but that would not be very efficient.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/BBC_documentary_takes_on_Obamas_plans_0125.html Heres an English take on our system.
Those who think it’s horrible are having a knee-jerk reaction to the word, “socialized.” Of course, we have plenty of state-sponsored stuff that helps people (the Weather Service, the schools, the FDA, the CDC, the Navy, etc.) but still they think the government is a threat, somehow. Since Reagan came along, it’s considered socially acceptable & somehow not hypocritical to say this even if you don’t fear the police nor want to live in the woods with your own arsenal—even if your living is entirely from the government. :dubious: [sub]duckthink[/sub]
I know of about three different kinds of UHC/socialized medicine, but there are shadings between them:
Mandatory health insurance: You can buy private insurance. In fact, you have to. Everyone does. The government will set rules & augment funding for the poor, then competition is supposed to do its free market magic or something.
Medicare for all: Aka Canadian Medicare. There is one insurer—the state. Doctors still have private hospitals & offices & are still paid for the services they provide, as in a privatized system, but they all bill the state. Efficiencies supposedly come from monopoly.
State hospitals/National Health Service: Medicine is treated as a public health/civil service issue, as utterly funded by the state as the state police (or FBI if federal). Doctors treat according to medical ethical criteria like diagnosis, prognosis, & triage. They may be on salary with no commission for procedure done. No more need to soak rich patients with spurious billing or unnecessary procedures to cover the care for poor ones (which private hospitals are sometimes forced to do).
Of course, there are also non-universal socialized medicine systems. (NUSM?) Think of a country where the government pays for an elite class’s care but not for everyone.
And here’s a British take on the British system: Top up payment row intensifies Coming soon to a socialized medicine plan near you.
I’m not saying that an equitable system of public health isn’t theoretically possible. I’m just saying that it won’t happen in America. Not the real America, the one we live in, where influence for hire is the way of life.
Even now, 30 years after the getting spanked for it, the AMA is still effectively restricting the supply of doctors. But that doesn’t matter so much, because more doctors wouldn’t reduce the patient’s bill thanks to squads of attack lawyers waiting to pounce on the next excuse for a malpractice lawsuit. So to cover their asses doctors order up arrays of unneccessary lab tests for everyone who checks in. And to pay for all the malpractice insurance (not to mention ridiculously huge student loans) they churn the patients through just as fast as they can.
The obvious solution is to reel in the malpractice suits and perhaps increase the supply of doctors. But who am I kidding, the AMA and the bar association are the very definition of well connected. So instead of workable solutions we get yet another conscription plan that looks good at first but completely fails to solve the underlying problems.
And yet again I will be forced to pay into it all my life with a thick slab of my take home pay but never get any benefit. Because 30 years from now when I’m old enough to need it, it’ll be bankrupt just like Social Insecurity and Medicare.
But all that won’t matter because any money that I and my kids and possibly my grandkids have remaining will be scalped off to pay for this bullshit bank bailout scam that we’re currently being bent over for.
We’re going down thanks to our whore leaders and our own blind soulless greed. And there isn’t a stinking thing I can do about it.
:: pant, pant ::
Thanks, I feel better now…
I’d define it simply as the government owning all or most of the hospitals, and doctors working for the government, not for themselves. VA hospitals would be examples of socialized medicine.
In the US it is often used as a boogey man to scare anyone who might doubt that we have the very best system in the world, never mind the data.
You also have the system we have here in Israel - similar, but not identical to your no.1 - where medical services are provided by private insurance companies, while the government sets the rules, pays the basic premiums (you can upgrade them from your own pocket) and subsidizes certain medicines and treatments. Most hospitals are state owned, but some are private, and the insurance companies run their own clinics.
‘Socialise’ is what you do when you go round your friend’s place with a pack of beers. We never hear ‘socialized medicine’ here.
Your point about the military is well taken; the republicans I argue with are friends of my sister. My sister’s late husband was a career military officer and nearly all her friends are retired military officers and their wives. I have asked several of these people to tell me why their guaranteed health care cannot be duplicated for the general public and after a lot of stumbling, spitting, and near heart attacks, they fall back on the argument that their health care was a benefit of their jobs-----even though the health care, in the form of the VA is available to them for life. It seems there is something illogical about their argument but they refuse to see it.
Incidentally, I’m a senior citizen for what its worth and I haven’t received any kind of Socialized Medicine. I haven’t signed up for Medicare since I am still covered under my wife’s BC & BS federal employee policy. Since her retirement I have to say the benefits are greatly reduced.
Cost is the reason.
It’s one thing to provide comprehensive health care to a small segment of the population but it’s another thing to scale it up to 300 million USA citizens (of if we truly want to be globally progressive — to 6 billion world inhabitants.)
Nobody has figured out how to provide VA levels of health care to all citizens. Even Britain, Germany, Sweden, Canada hasn’t accomplished that. Providing something as expensive as health care to all citizens inevitably leads to tradeoffs. Level of care (coverage) + availability of care (waits) + population (membership) are 3 factors in the tradeoff. You cannot have all 3 in perfect harmony regardless of any fancy rhetoric from the politicians.
As was pointed out upthread, the USA is squandering surreal amounts of money fighting a totally unnecessary war in Iraq, to the detriment of both the USA and Iraq; that money could be far better spent inside this country and health care could benefit greatly. I totally deny that I intended to supply health care to the entire world; I can’t imagine why you think that course was ever considered.
I deny that cost is the one and only reason.
Sure, some of that Iraq money could’ve been redirected towards health care. But it’s still not enough.
USA spent $2.26 trillion in 2007 on health care. Keep in mind that the $2.26 trillion still leaves out the ~40-45 million uninsured citizens.
In the 6 years since 2003, the Iraq War has cost an estimated $550 billion. Yes, it’s a “surreal” amount of money, but not enough to pay for universal health care.
Clearly, that $550 billion isn’t going to make up the shortfall to insure 300 million USA citizens.
Also, some of that $550 billion only “exists” because there is a war in Iraq. It’s a logical fallacy to assume that all of it would’ve been theoretically “transferrable” to domestic health care.
I know you didn’t intend to provide worldwide healthcare. I volunteered that scenario to see if the thinking process can be reasoned backwards from that all-inclusive global picture.
I agree, nothing politically complicated as “health care” will have just one and only reason.
Except that in many (most?) countries with UHC, almost all doctors are private practitioners.
Socialized medicine means sick people getting care when they haven’t earned the money to pay for it.
Socialized medicine also means unemployed (because they’re sick) sick people getting care so they can get back to being employed and work without a sickness.