So how many people are currently covered by the VA health care system, and how much does it cost?
Right, and I distinguish socialized medicine from UHC. I don’t consider a system where the government regulates private health care and pays for it (directly or indirectly) as socialized, any more than I consider government sponsored academic research as socialized.
One of the problems of the debate is that people are scared into thinking UHC implies the government takeover of all medical care. Whether or not you consider that to be a good thing or not, it is not a part of any realistic proposal I’ve seen.
Socialized medicine should mean better health for more years for less cost to both individuals and the country. For the stats: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10373981&postcount=452
Would it be more palatable to refer to it as Universal Health Care rather than Socialized Medicine?
The best medical coverage I’ve ever had was as a member of the Kaiser-Permamente system while working as a VW mechanic for two VW dealers in California. As I understood the system then, the Doctors were employees of Kaiser-Permamente and were paid salaries. As such, they had no cash motive to rush a patient through the office in order to rush another patient through and so on. I seldom saw the same doctor twice and I sometimes had quite a wait, but I did receive thorough and complete medical care. My records were carefully maintained and were available from one doctor to the next; there was never any question as to what had been done before or why it had been done. I’ve never been so satisfied with a medical system before or since. I see no reason why that type of system could not be put into place on a national basis. It would require dedication, time, and money; it would also require a lot of re-education and it might result in fewer multimillionaire doctors. Then again, it might not; I suppose there would always be a need for specialist consultants who practiced outside the formal system. There is no reason why that could not be so.
I’m largely in favor of this kind of thing because I’m in a medical jam right now; the BC & BS federal employee people are refusing to pay certain charges because they insist that I have Medicare Part B coverage while the fact is that I don’t and never have had Part B. In my view, my problem should be non existent because the providers in question queried the insurance company before providing their services and were assured that I was covered under BC & BS. If I had only one source to deal with, I wouldn’t be out the time and trouble I foresee coming my way.
I have talked to serveral people who have lived in the UK, Aussie and NZ and they all agree, in terms of most things the socialized medicine is better there for all routine things. Office visits, routine surgery, drugs. But when it comes to complex things like transplants, advanced cancer or surgeries, the United States totally comes out ahead.
So I think it’d be a matter of pluses and minuses depending on where you stand on your overall health
Petty snipes like that will prevent people from taking your comments seriously. Most doctors are not millionaires let alone multi-millionaires.
So who would be the “single” employer the doctors work for in your proposed “ideal” system? The government?
I’m not sure which system you’re basing this on, but there is no evidence, to my knowledge, that this obtains in Canada.
If by “too weak or disorganized to fight back” you mean “the entire tax base,” then yes.
If by “judge what health care we shall be allowed to receive” you mean “determine what is covered, for everyone, and what isn’t,” then yes, although this can obviously be modified at any time by legislative action. If by “judge what treatment an individual shall receive,” then no. Your doctor does that. The doctor you freely choose.
Rather than the difficulty in counting to four, I will just mention that I could not maintain my current employment if Canada did not have socialized medicine (I am a freelance translator and am considering returning to school to start a sideline in graphic design).
It’s when your doctors office has a bar in it.
Oh wait…that would be social medicine.
Thank you gonzomax for the link to the documentary. Well worth watching and interesting to see from the UK point of view.
Your first comment contributes very little and your second comment belabors the obvious; of course the government would be the single employer. That still does not prohibit private practitioners and if one prefers to patronize those private practitioners, one if free to do so.
To those who are against “socialized medicine”, are you also against “socialized education?” You know, the public school system?
I’m not against broader health care coverage but I do have major doubts about the benefits of public education. Even if one were to deliberately design an evil schooling system to churn out stupid citizens, he couldn’t do a better job than what the public school system has evolved to.
Little Johnny graduates from high school knowing that the 1st president is George Washington and has memorized the Pledge of Allegiance, but has no idea how to read & comprehend a credit-card terms-of-agreement? So who’s going to teach him the really important things?! His parents? They’re as ignorant as their kids! Public schools and its K-12 curriculum foster a perpetual cycle of cluelessness.
It’s the “public” in “public education” that causes many of these problems.
Government does have some success stories but the public education system is not one of them.
People in the US covered by private insurance could do this just as easily. I’ve never seen any evidence that it happens to any great extent. I believe that there is a class of little old bored ladies who feel special when they go to the doctor and invent reasons to go all the time, but that is hardly cause to not support UHC.
Your description only holds true in parts of–as in specific neighborhoods of–the USA.
In Germany, everyone sends their kids to public school, they’re invested in the public schools on a national level, & a parent who sent children to private school would be thought mad. The public schools are the best schools there.
American public schools suffer because too many Americans hold public schools (& in fact persons in general as well) outside their neighborhood in contempt, or hold all public schools in contempt. This causes a lack of interest in making a functional public school infrastructure. The contempt breeds the failure & incompetence, not the other way around. And the contempt is bred by exaggerating the failures–selection bias.
The Left here holds a similar view; “public education will continue to be crap until we make private education illegal - then the wealthy who can buy their way around it will be forced to take an interest in making it function”.
There is no definition. It is a well-poisoning ideological term that has no place in any sensible discussion.