Socialized Medicine

[ParanoiA]

Socialized medicine is one of the few things I tend to be quite liberal about. It seems natural for the government to handle medicine. Police, fire, medical - all fall under the same basic category in my opinion. There is a place for private industry within all of these things, however.

 

Which leads me to this thread. There are a number of negatives associated with socialized health care that are unacceptable. Government efficiency, or lack thereof is a biggie. Lack of appeal for doctors and researchers is another biggie, as I've heard the capitalist approach to medicine does seem to attract leading talent from all over the world. I've heard nothing but horror stories about the lack of quality care and talent in countries that have socialized health care.

 

So, what kind of tweaking needs to happen to maintain the talent pool of doctors and researchers and still have socialized medicine? And what about efficiency? How do we adjust the system so we're not waiting 2 months to see the doctor for 5 minutes after sitting in the waiting room for 5 hours?

[GutZ]

You mean like "enchancers"?

[ParanoiA]

You mean like "enchancers"?

 

Well I mean if you take the current European model or canadian model...what needs to happen to these models to maintain the talent pool and efficiency? That is what they lack. So, if the US was to adopt a socialized health care system, what would be the best way to do it to avoid these same pitfalls that other countries have suffered from?

 

If that means some kind of hybrid government / private system...

 

I don't know much about the subject, so I'm wondering if there's a way to roll out socialized medicine and still maintain the quality of care we have today. Quality that is diminishing, but still somewhat present.

[bascule]

How do you purport that the efficiency of a public system would be lower than a private one when the US, who has the largest private healthcare system in the world, also spends the most on healthcare as a percentage of GDP (16%, or $1.9 trillion), and consistently ranks as one of the lowest industrialized nations in the world in a number of different surveys?

[Pangloss]

Well perhaps, but it's also probably not a great idea to just assume that a publically-run system will automagically be better. That's not the full history of government-run services in this country. Fortunately we do know how to do these things right when we put our minds to it.

 

If it has to be done, it needs to be done right. I think we'd all agree on that?

[GutZ]

ha I get it, I guess it was a give for me. We are considering developing a two tier system though. Which is a decent idea since people who have the money to pay for better services at hospitials(less wait times,etc) will be taken out of the public cue, increasing the free public funding and wait time. Some of that money could go to updating hospitials and such (whether it will be used for that is unknown, but I like to think positive).

[ParanoiA]

ha I get it, I guess it was a give for me. We are considering developing a two tier system though. Which is a decent idea since people who have the money to pay for better services at hospitials(less wait times,etc) will be taken out of the public cue, increasing the free public funding and wait time. Some of that money could go to updating hospitials and such (whether it will be used for that is unknown, but I like to think positive).

 

 

Well a tier system bothers me though too, because I get this image in my mind of dirty, overcrowded waiting rooms and nasty ole doctors that barely passed med school on one tier, while the upper class tier drinks martini's and stretches out in the waiting room while waiting for their doctor to come to them.

 

We have enough class division in america as it is. But, it would certainly be better than what we have now.

[ParanoiA]

Well perhaps, but it's also probably not a great idea to just assume that a publically-run system will automagically be better. That's not the full history of government-run services in this country. Fortunately we do know how to do these things right when we put our minds to it.

 

If it has to be done, it needs to be done right. I think we'd all agree on that?

 

 

See, my dad's a registered respiratory therapist and has worked for several hospitals - some of them owned by Columbia,and some of them non-profit. He's seen the decline in quality in medical equipment and supplies, management, cross-training, patient-doctor time and etc over the years. He's also visited and studied several hospitals out of the country and he continually tells me we have it better - not just better - much better.

 

But that doesn't mean we have it good. And that doesn't mean it isn't imploding either.

 

Socialized medicine as it has been applied in other countries is not acceptable to me. It just shifts the problems around. This problem is fixed, but now we have this problem. This other problem is corrected, but now we have a new problem over here...

[GutZ]

Well a tier system bothers me though too, because I get this image in my mind of dirty, overcrowded waiting rooms and nasty ole doctors that barely passed med school on one tier, while the upper class tier drinks martini's and stretches out in the waiting room while waiting for their doctor to come to them.

 

We have enough class division in america as it is. But, it would certainly be better than what we have now.

 

I think Canada has beem more of a social country in general, Our health care is pretty good from the start (I have not complaints anyway), but the waiting times were getting quite large, and adding more personale on the problem wasn't doing much either, so this was the direction that was considered. If the government is envolved there will have to be standards in place, the problem is, does the majority want to pay higher taxes for it.

 

I am sure there are numberous amounts of consideration, like what benefits does the government get from it, are they getting more problems or in affect are they reducing problems in other areas. I think no matter what you change or how efficient you are, it comes down to money.

[ParanoiA]

I think Canada has beem more of a social country in general, Our health care is pretty good from the start (I have not complaints anyway), but the waiting times were getting quite large, and adding more personale on the problem wasn't doing much either, so this was the direction that was considered. If the government is envolved there will have to be standards in place, the problem is, does the majority want to pay higher taxes for it.

 

I am sure there are numberous amounts of consideration, like what benefits does the government get from it, are they getting more problems or in affect are they reducing problems in other areas. I think no matter what you change or how efficient you are, it comes down to money.

 

You say "were", so I'm assuming the waiting times aren't as bad now? If you wake up sick with the flu tomorrow, how long would it take for you to get an appt and see the doctor?

 

It's an interesting direction, really. Another big problem though is R&D and attracting talent. Again, I don't know much about these things, so I have no idea how socialism helps or hinders these things, but it's been a point of contention for conservatives.

[GutZ]

You say "were", so I'm assuming the waiting times aren't as bad now? If you wake up sick with the flu tomorrow, how long would it take for you to get an appt and see the doctor?

 

It's an interesting direction, really. Another big problem though is R&D and attracting talent. Again, I don't know much about these things, so I have no idea how socialism helps or hinders these things, but it's been a point of contention for conservatives.

 

If I called today, wouldn't know I've moved around too much and I haven't been sick in over a year and a half. I go to walk-ins if I am injuried, maybe 30 mins to 2 hr wait, depending on how busy it is. Hospitials are a bit longer 1 - 4 hours, (depending on severity rated by a nurse, that wait is like 15-20mins) I've heard all the horror stories though before of like 8-12 hour waits. It really depend on where you live though. Ottawa is a nice city(captial), I grew up in Hamilton, which, is...well...decent.

 

It's not a perfect system, and maybe I am not the greatest person to ask because I rarely get sick or hurt, and when I do, waiting never bothers me.

 

p.s. I need to stop using the word "though" so often.

[Sisyphus]

See, that doesn't sound bad. I've definitely waited around in hospital waiting rooms for hours. Privatized medicine is hardly immune to horror stories. And anyway, if its more crowded because more people go to the doctor sooner, that's a good thing. People are healthier, and it costs less overall, because preventing ailments is almost always an order of magnitude cheaper than curing them.

[ParanoiA]

See, that doesn't sound bad. I've definitely waited around in hospital waiting rooms for hours. Privatized medicine is hardly immune to horror stories. And anyway, if its more crowded because more people go to the doctor sooner, that's a good thing. People are healthier, and it costs less overall, because preventing ailments is almost always an order of magnitude cheaper than curing them.

 

Well, craddling your immune system isn't smart either. I don't think people should run to the doctor as soon as they get the sniffles. That's why I hardly ever get sick. I almost get sick every year. But my immune system thinks I'm not going to do squat about it and apparently takes care of the problem. My wife, on the other hand, visits the doctor three or four times a year getting prescriptions for this and that while she wonders why I never get what she has.

 

Everybody's different, I know, but I wonder if part of America's problem is an obsession to always feel perfect.

 

And yes, I've spent hours in the emergency room with a sick child. The difference is though, we waited to be discharged after we got the care and attention. Some of these places my dad has told me about have you waiting before you ever get looked at.

[GutZ]

Everybody's different, I know, but I wonder if part of America's problem is an obsession to always feel perfect.

 

Yeah I think it's a western mentality overall. My parents and I came from the Nederlands to Canada. My mother was so shock to see how frequent people use medication and go to the doctors. I was hardly give medication ever, of course I would get plenty of time to sick it through (well that and this wierd tasteless bread and orange juice). Now It takes me 3 days to get over the same flu that others take a week and a half, if I even get it.

[Glider]

I remember a piece of research that was done some years ago. It showed that in America, 95% of women in labour requested some form of narcotic analgesia, whilst in the Netherlands, only 5% of women in labour did.

 

Given that there are no significant differences in physiology between American and Dutch women, the research concluded that it was attributable to differences in social attitudes.

 

In the USA, there is a greater clinical involvement in pregnancy, so pregnancy becomes associated with clinics and hospitalisation and so pregnant women tended to adopt the 'patient role'. Further, there seemed (at that time) to be a greater expectation that, in the richest country in the world, with all its advances in technology, everything should be pain-free and safe. There should be no reason to feel pain and so they did not expect to.

 

The women from the Netherlands by contrast, accepted that, by definition, labour involved some discomfort and so tended to just get on with it.

 

The interesting thing is, on overall measures, the Dutch women tended to suffer less during labour in general, simply due to these difference in short-term expectancies.

 

I use the past tense because this research is about 10 years old and I don't know if it's still valid.

[Severian]

Judging by how bad the UK' Nation Health Service is, socialized medicaine does not seem like a good idea.

[JHAQ]

I have familiarity with both the Canadian & British national health systems and know the populace neither country would want to eliminate them . Both are excellent for emergency care but very deficient in elective care & tend to 'ration ' it by interminable delays . My Canadian brother had a heart attack on the W coast but on return to Toronto had to wait 3 months for a cardiologist aptmt & was w/o any aggressive follow up ( angiographies , by pass recommendations ) such as would be done here in USA . He dropped dead at Torontos Unin Station of anothee attack while commuting home . An UK aunt had to pay for private hip surgery even when non ambulatory & delays in getting it under national health . I also understand no dialyisis is done under UK national health when patient is over 55 years old .

[Pangloss]

In the USA, there is a greater clinical involvement in pregnancy, so pregnancy becomes associated with clinics and hospitalisation and so pregnant women tended to adopt the 'patient role'. Further, there seemed (at that time) to be a greater expectation that, in the richest country in the world, with all its advances in technology, everything should be pain-free and safe. There should be no reason to feel pain and so they did not expect to.

 

The women from the Netherlands by contrast, accepted that, by definition, labour involved some discomfort and so tended to just get on with it.

 

While I'm somewhat hesitent to discuss this, being physically incapable of ever judging the relative level of pain involved in childbirth, I did think it was interesting. It may be somewhat overgeneralizing (I'm sure most American women still take their role in childbirth seriously and this is certainly reflected in typical behavior -- avoiding alcohol, for example) and you could spin the meaning of these trends a number of different ways, but it does seem to reflect some kind of underlying societal difference.

[ParanoiA]

I have familiarity with both the Canadian & British national health systems and know the populace neither country would want to eliminate them . Both are excellent for emergency care but very deficient in elective care & tend to 'ration ' it by interminable delays . My Canadian brother had a heart attack on the W coast but on return to Toronto had to wait 3 months for a cardiologist aptmt & was w/o any aggressive follow up ( angiographies , by pass recommendations ) such as would be done here in USA . He dropped dead at Torontos Unin Station of anothee attack while commuting home . An UK aunt had to pay for private hip surgery even when non ambulatory & delays in getting it under national health . I also understand no dialyisis is done under UK national health when patient is over 55 years old .

 

This is exactly the kind of negatives I'm talking about. You're not going to see this represented as statistics. You're not going to see this in the amount of money spent in the US versus how much money was spent in the UK. You're not going to see this when comparing efficiency and so forth.

 

This is why I don't really care what the numbers say, in terms of what country spends the most or the least on health care - there are so many other factors that aren't considered. You could easily say that america spends more on health care because we do aggressive follow up and testing. We do dialysis over 55. We do go the extra mile.

 

This is the kind of thing my dad is always telling me about when he compares our system to other countries. I really like the idea of socialized medicine, but this example is unacceptable. How do we get socialized medicine without losing the quality of care we are used to?

[bascule]

This is why I don't really care what the numbers say, in terms of what country spends the most or the least on health care - there are so many other factors that aren't considered. You could easily say that america spends more on health care because we do aggressive follow up and testing. We do dialysis over 55. We do go the extra mile.

 

If you can afford it, and your insurance covers it. Those are the details you're omitting.

 

The US has great healthcare for the privileged elite. Everyone else gets screwed.

[GutZ]

I guess it comes down to how much you want to spend on public social health care, countries with more of socialist additude will spend more on it relative to their economy, and there is always limits, the pefect system is more of dream, especially when money is invovled.

[ParanoiA]

I guess it comes down to how much you want to spend on public social health care, countries with more of socialist additude will spend more on it relative to their economy, and there is always limits, the pefect system is more of dream, especially when money is invovled.

 

True, but what I've been asking is not a dream and has yet to be answered. I don't mean that offensively, actually it validates that it's a complicated subject. So cheap political rhetoric between liberals and conservatives doesn't do anything to acknowledge the complexity of economics and health care.

 

I would think we would want to spend more money on the outset and then trim back to size. With government invovled, that won't be an issue. So I would say, roll out the socialized health care while the democrats are running things as nobody enjoys spending other people's money more than them - and then they'll pat themselves on the back for the good work they've done in spending our money.

 

Then when the republicans get back in power, they'll trim it up to fund anti-terrorism and domestic spying.

[Severian]

If you can afford it, and your insurance covers it. Those are the details you're omitting.

 

The US has great healthcare for the privileged elite. Everyone else gets screwed.

 

Whereas in the UK, everyone gets screwed. We are a much more egalitarian society.

[-Demosthenes-]

I guess it comes down to how much you want to spend on public social health care, countries with more of socialist additude will spend more on it relative to their economy, and there is always limits, the pefect system is more of dream, especially when money is invovled.

 

The US government spends A LOT more than countries with "socialized medicine" on health care. The US spends about $2200 per person a year, countries like Canada and the UK, around $1500. We spend a lot more, 50% more.

 

But a lot of it never pays for any health care, it pays people to decide what to do with the money. Becuase we have all these little programs doing little things everywhere. It we just get rid of those people, and design a much more simple system, we'd have plenty of money to use. Get rid of all the little programs that use more money than they are worth, and make on big simple one.

 

In the US, with the amount of money we use, using a system similar to socialized medicine, we could have monkey butlers bring us drinks as we wait in the waiting room. (exaggeration ).

[ParanoiA]

Whereas in the UK, everyone gets screwed. We are a much more egalitarian society.

 

Well, the privileged elite he's talking about is like half the freaking country. The rest are "illegal aliens" that apparently like being illegal and getting screwed on wages and benefits - but since no hospital can turn them away for lack of funds, the taxpayers get to pay for it. Or they're welfare recipients that are waiting for a job to knock on their door and provide them with everything they need. Or some other similar tale of bloodsucking consequence.