Clinton calls for socialized health care

I can't believe that "if you get sick, it's your own fault" is actually being used as an argument here. I'll try not to get emotional about that, although it is difficult in the face of a "if you're poor and don't have an insurance, you deserve to die" mentality.

Like RABicle said, people fall ill for a variety of reasons. Their lifestyle can increase the probability of it significantly with a certain class of diseases, but other reasons include genetic defects, accidents, exposure to a bad virus that they couldn't have predicted, spontaneous genetic mutation, or just plain bad luck. It can hit ANYONE at any stage in their lives (who's saying that the guy with the $250,000 will be spared?). And if your family can help you pay for the care you need, that's great, but for many people, this is not the case.

It's not about taking everything they have from some people to pay for the medical treatment of others, it's about making medical treatment equally ACCESSIBLE to everyone. If the bloke with the $50 develops a severe illness, then yes, the public will pay for it. If it hits the guy with the $250,000, then the public will pay for it as well. True, at this point in time, he has contributed more to this public pool of money, but who says that his treatment won't cost more than $250,000, if he's really unlucky?

The point is that everyone should be able to get the medical attention they need, even if this means that taxes have to be raised. How can it be a waste of your money if your money may have helped save lives, or reduce pain?

I have substantial doubts that the richest country in the world is too poor to afford medical treatment for its population.

Quote:

It's not about taking everything they have from some people to pay for the medical treatment of others, it's about making medical treatment equally ACCESSIBLE to everyone.

So when are you going to put in your patent for the replicator?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Ditto. Maybe a good solution would be to setup non-profit entities instead of relying on for-profit insurance agencies which treat clients as investments.

I think that's definitely a good one. What I've basically been seeing with Insurance Companies is that they're too good at creating profit (with cut-throat antics) and not good enough at actually providing the consumer with the promised goods.

Of course it is never going to be exactly the same for everyone, but socialisation could make chances more equal. I love how people go on about choice and a lack of choice as its defining feature, when in many current medical systems, a large group of people simply don't have a choice.

My experience of insurance companies is very much what Razgriz states above. For example, my sister had full coverage of an insurance when she went to the U.S., which included surgeries which were judged by the doctors to be essential. When she was there, she had a bad accident which resulted in three of her ankle bones being pretty much shattered to pieces. They couldn't perform surgery right away, because the swelling had to be reduced first, so they waited for two days. The insurance refused to pay as a consequece, because their argument went "if it wasn't performed on the same day, it wasn't necessary". Sure, who needs feet, anyway? Through the pressure of the exchange organisation, who fortunately threatened to discontinue all dealings with them (which would have resulted in the loss of hundreds of contracts for the insurance company), we did get the money from the company later, but only because they were afraid to lose profit. I don't know what we would have done otherwise, since we simply didn't have that money.

It was the same for my dad's brain surgery, which the German state insurance only paid reluctantly. Companies, in general, will always see their own interest first, and will therefore try to screw you over where they can.

The same applies to the government, of course, with the difference that the government is more dependent on the voters, , all of whom will come into contact with the medical system sooner or later.

Originally Posted by Traveller87

Of course it is never going to be exactly the same for everyone, but socialisation could make chances more equal. I love how people go on about choice and a lack of choice as its defining feature, when in many current medical systems, a large group of people simply don't have a choice.

That's true. In the current situation, some people will suffer while others won't, but if we socialized medicine the end result would be that everybody (who can't opt out of the system) suffers equally due to rationing. If medicine and medical services weren't scarce, then socialized medicine would be the panacea, but neither is true and we're then left with a logistical problem.

We should be attempting to reform the market situation before settling on socialization.

Well, from my point of view, everyone suffering to some extent seems preferable than some people not suffering, while others suffer terribly. Of course every medical system has its downsides, but so far, the British NHS is the medical service that I have seen work best.

Ok, Midna, I thought we came to an understanding. Just because I now understand exactly how much it sucks to have to pay hospital bills out of your own pocket when you don't exactly have that much cash on hand doesn't mean I'm just gonna 180 on what I believe.

I still think it's wrong for the government to seize the income from others in order to subsidize people's health care.

Yet, I've always agreed that we do need to reform the insurance game and put the work to these fuck niggas who renege on their coverage.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

I'll still object even if the situation affects me personally. I have what are called principles, that I refuse to change just because I'm put in a tight spot. If you've read my latest journal, you'd even understand that I was at a point very recently where I would've benefited greatly for having the government simply seize wealth from someone else to pay for my medical situation. Even still, I'm not going to waiver on my convictions.

There was a man in the news a few years ago who died from a very basic car crash. A seatbelt would have kept him from getting so much as a scratch. Naturally, he was against seat belt laws.

I think that your principles are stupid and short-sighted, and I think that there is honestly not a bit of difference in the quality of people in the United States (politicians or otherwise) versus other first-world countries with national health care - that is to say, there is no good god damn reason why national health care would bankrupt the states and kill thousands of people for want of urgent medical care, when it has not done the same to those other countries.

But I do have to say I admire your subborn insistence to suffer for your beliefs. Well, I admire it to the point where there is nothing you can do to magically give yourself national health care coverage. I guess that's a bit like admiring the principled virgin who couldn't get laid even if he wanted to. Sorry buddy.

But you feel WIC is unfair. What the hell is wrong with you. Don't even bother replying to me unless you have a plan that will ensure poor mothers and their children will not necessarily starve in the richest nation on Earth without the government at least doing something to protect their lives, and is by your crazy definition, "fair".

Quote:

I have substantial doubts that the richest country in the world is too poor to afford medical treatment for its population.

It's not an issue of being able to afford medical treatment for the population rather being unable to afford medical treatment in its current form and on top of that continue to pay into world leading research and development programs. Maybe most people just don't realize just how much better US medical treatment is compared to the rest of the world and how much it would really cost to continue to offer this level of treatment as well as provide medical coverage for everyone in the nation. Taxes probably couldn't be raised enough to cover it so the only way to meet the demand would be to lower the medical treatment quality of the nation.

Quote:

I think that your principles are stupid and short-sighted, and I think that there is honestly not a bit of difference in the quality of people in the United States (politicians or otherwise) versus other first-world countries with national health care - that is to say, there is no good god damn reason why national health care would bankrupt the states and kill thousands of people for want of urgent medical care, when it has not done the same to those other countries.

As I said above, the better medical treatment found in the United States costs more money. We pay top dollar for the newest equipment, the best doctors in the world and put more money into medical research and development than the next ten best countries combined.

Could you please cite your sources for these statements?

Originally Posted by Traveller87

Could you please cite your sources for these statements?

Here is one:

Political Calculations: Redefining the Health Care Debate - Part 1


A few other sources are from medical journal prints that can't be accessed online which basically have more up to date numbers, but this should give the general idea.

Quote:

I have substantial doubts that the richest country in the world is too poor to afford medical treatment for its population.

Considering the U.S currently borrows large sums daily from China to wage war as opposed to providing medical care, I disagree.

Originally Posted by Cetra

Here is one:

Political Calculations: Redefining the Health Care Debate - Part 1

Oh wow! Ironman from blogspot, world renowned health expert and economist.

Dartmouth Medicine Magazine :: The State of the Nation's Health

Originally Posted by Dartmouth

In Minnesota, HealthPartners Medical Director George Isham agrees that physicians must take the lead. "The care system needs to be redesigned, but I'm increasingly of the view that it doesn't need to be managed from outside by private insurers or the government." Instead, believes Isham, "the incentives need to be realigned so that physicians themselves reshape care."

Yet as presidential candidates and other politicians float plans for national health-care reform, few appear to recognize that

achieving high-quality universal care requires first wringing the waste out of the system.

Most tend to look at only one part of the elephant, Schroeder observes: "Some want to cover the uninsured. Some worry about cost. Some focus on quality. They don't understand how each issue is linked to the other." Yet the Dartmouth research demonstrates that "cost-containment and quality go hand in hand."

"High-quality providers automatically contain costs by reducing errors, avoiding redundancy and unnecessary procedures," Schroeder explains. At the Mayo Clinic in low-spending Rochester, Minn., for example, patients are less likely to develop complications or infections following surgery—so they spend fewer days as inpatients and see fewer subspecialists. "Health-care organizations [in low-cost regions] are not rationing care," observed Dartmouth's 2006 paper on chronic care. "Rather, they are relatively more efficient, achieving equal and possibly better outcomes with fewer resources."

Quote:

Although politicians don't like to talk about geographic variations in health-care spending, Med-PAC, to its credit, addresses the issue head-on in its March 1 report to Congress.

Citing the Dartmouth research more than 50 times in the 236-page document, MedPAC notes that "fee-for-service

reinforces a general style of medical practice beyond the financial means of an increasing number of Americans. We fear that fee-for-service, left unchanged from its current design, . . . may contribute to more Americans joining the ranks of the uninsured."

Acknowledging that the sustainable growth rate (SGR) plan has not contained health-care inflation, the report lays out two alternatives:

Congress could repeal the SGR. Instead of paying the nation's doctors according to whether or not they exceed a national target, Medicare might adopt a pay-for-performance system that rewards providers for quality and efficient use of resources.

Alternatively, if Congress wants to continue to use annual targets for growth, the report suggests that those targets apply to all providers—hospitals and nursing homes, as well as physicians. Moreover, "the target, and any resulting payment adjustments, [should] be applied on a geographic basis," with "the greatest pressure . . . applied to those areas of the country where per-beneficiary costs are highest and the contribution to growth in expenditures is greatest" (emphasis added).

"This will be very controversial," acknowledges MedPAC Chair Glenn Hackbarth. "People will argue that a geographically-based reimbursement system is unduly harsh on Miami. But we don't have an equal cost problem in all parts of the country."

The Dartmouth research is very interesting. It turns out that areas which spend more in healthcare on average experience negative returns (higher mortality) while areas which cut costs and increase efficiency offer higher quality care. The way the current system is set up, doctors are given incentives to perform more services instead of rendering higher quality of care. The potential savings from reforming the system would be enough to cover everybody in America.

Originally Posted by RABicle

Oh wow! Ironman from blogspot, world renowned health expert and economist.

Got anything besides baseless decrediting on the article? Sources for data in the article are cited and the analysis of the data is justified. But I guess it's always easier simply to attack the source rather than the content, eh? I'm all for debating the content though

Quote:

The Dartmouth research is very interesting. It turns out that areas which spend more in healthcare on average experience negative returns (higher mortality) while areas which cut costs and increase efficiency offer higher quality care. The way the current system is set up, doctors are given incentives to perform more services instead of rendering higher quality of care. The potential savings from reforming the system would be enough to cover everybody in America.

Now this is interesting. But you have to ask yourself, is this a realistic goal? It's probably not and simply saying we can increase efficiency and cut costs and actually coming up with a workable plan to do it are two entirely different things. Second, what order do we take this? Set up a social health care system then demand efficiency? I doubt that will go anywhere. Maybe lobbyist should start coming up with workable plans to lay the foundation for a social health care system first rather than demand it under our current healthcare state?

And let me say I'm not entirely against a social health care system. But I don't believe in simply implementing one just to have one. The US is not ready for a social health care program but that doesn't mean it can't be made to support one eventually. But hastily crafted social programs will end up like Social Security in the end. I think debate would be better spent on how to better prepare the US for the possibility of a social health care system at this point rather than debating on needing one or not.

Thank you for posting it, Cetra. Although whoever posted this may not be an expert, the article does sound well researched and makes some interesting points. The problem with this issue is that there isn't just factually right and factually wrong, since there are many aspects to be taken into consideration.

It is true that the U.S. provides high quality medical services - but to those who can afford to access them. A couple of our acquaintances/colleagues, etc., the ones who sold their house and everything for it, did manage to go to the U.S. for cancer treatment. Why? Because there were newer treatment opportunities there.

On the other hand, it's an overgeneralisation to say that countries with a different health care system have no good medical equipment and no good doctors. Germany, among the Western European countries and compared to the U.S., pays its assistant doctors the smallest amount of money, and yet the university hospital of Erlangen-Nuremberg has the best equipment for hundreds of miles around. Nevertheless, the fact that they've got the best medical equipment can't make up for the fact that they are reluctant to use it on those with a public, rather than a private insurance, and that the care they provide for the patient was not experienced as very good by us. So what did the best equipment, the best facilities, and an allegedly renowned neurosurgeon help us in the end? Nothing.

I didn't want to get into this here initially, but to me, a country that can spend money on killing others in other countries should be able to provide for its own people and maintain a high standard at the same time.

The question is how useful you find an excellent standard, if it is only accessible to the priviledged.