Log in

View Full Version : Should we socialize healthcare in the US?


Hauptmann Kauffman
January 13th, 2008, 07:10 PM
I think so, and here are some reasons why.

Outline of Talk Given To The Association of State Green Parties, Moodus, Connecticut on June 4, 1999

By John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D.


Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.


Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.
Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990


Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960


Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.


Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana


Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.


Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation


Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive
Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care


Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.


Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits


Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.


Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money


Myth Three: Universal Health Care Would Deprive Citizens of Needed Services
Fact One: Studies reveal that citizens in universal health care systems have more doctor visits and more hospital days than in the US


Fact Two: Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of our population is without health insurance. About 75% of ill uninsured people have trouble accessing/paying for health care.


Fact Three: Comparisons of Difficulties Accessing Care Are Shown To Be Greater In The US Than Canada (see graph)


Fact Four: Access to health care is directly related to income and race in the United States. As a result the poor and minorities have poorer health than the wealthy and the whites.


Fact Five: There would be no lines under a universal health care system in the United States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons, whereas demand would increase about 15%


Conclusion: The US denies access to health care based on the ability to pay. Under a universal health care system all would access care. There would be no lines as in other industrialized countries due to the oversupply in our providers and infrastructure, and the willingness/ability of the United States to spend more on health care than other industrialized nations.
Myth Four: Universal Health Care Would Result In Government Control And Intrusion Into Health Care Resulting In Loss Of Freedom Of Choice
Fact One: There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurer’s panel to obtain medical benefits


Fact Two: There would be no management of care under a single payer, universal health care system unlike the current managed care system which mandates insurer preapproval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer


Fact Three: Although health care providers fees would be set as they are currently in 90% of cases, providers would have a means of negotiating fees unlike the current managed care system in which they are set in corporate board rooms with profits, not patient care, in mind


Fact Four: Taxes, fees and benefits would be decided by the insurer which would be under the control of a diverse board representing consumers, providers, business and government. It would not be a government controlled system, although the government would have to approve the taxes. The system would be run by a public trust, not the government.


Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care administered by a state public health system would be much more democratic and much less intrusive than our current system. Consumers and providers would have a voice in determining benefits, rates and taxes. Problems with free choice, confidentiality and medical decision making would be resolved
Myth Five: Universal Health Care Is Socialized Medicine And Would Be Unacceptable To The Public
Fact One: Single payer universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense.


Fact Two: Repeated national and state polls have shown that between 60 and 75% of Americans would like a universal health care system (see The Harris Poll #78, October 20, 2005)


Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care is not socialized medicine and would be preferred by the majority of the citizens of this country
Myth Six: The Problems With The US Health Care System Are Being Solved and Are Best Solved By Private Corporate Managed Care Medicine because they are the most efficient
Fact One: Private for profit corporation are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration.


Fact Two: The same procedure in the same hospital the year after conversion from not-for profit to for-profit costs in between 20 to 35% more


Fact Three: Health care costs in the United States grew more in the United States under managed care in 1990 to 1996 than any other industrialized nation with single payer universal health care


Fact Four: The quality of health care in the US has deteriorated under managed care. Access problems have increased. The number of uninsured has dramatically increased (increase of 10 million to 43.4 million from 1989 to 1996, increase of 2.4% from 1989 to 1996- 16% in 1996 and increasing each year).


Fact Five: The level of satisfaction with the US health care system is the lowest of any industrialized nation.


Fact Six: 80% of citizens and 71% of doctors believe that managed care has caused quality of care to be compromised


Conclusion: For profit, managed care can not solve the US health care problems because health care is not a commodity that people shop for, and quality of care must always be compromised when the motivating factor for corporations is to save money through denial of care and decreasing provider costs. In addition managed care has introduced problems of patient confidentiality and disrupted the continuity of care through having limited provider networks.
Overall Answer to the questions Why doesn’t the US have single payer universal health care when single payer universal health care is the most efficient, most democratic and most equitable means to deliver health care? Why does the United States remain wedded to an inefficient, autocratic and immoral system that makes health care accessible to the wealthy and not the poor when a vast majority of citizens want it to be a right of citizenship?
Conclusion: Corporations are able to buy politicians through our campaign finance system and control the media to convince people that corporate health care is democratic, represents freedom, and is the most efficient system for delivering health care

*discuss* :D

Sugaree
January 14th, 2008, 12:39 PM
After reading that I would say yes. It really needs to become an issue.

Hauptmann Kauffman
January 14th, 2008, 06:14 PM
Exactly! Although we need more discussion here:D

Doc.
January 14th, 2008, 09:55 PM
No. I do not, nor will ever support a free heath care system in the U.S. It is socialist which is one step above communism. Your facts are valid but I stand firm on keeping this country capitalist, if the people cannot afford to pay then that's their fault. They need to go to school, graduate and go on to higher education so they can afford it. I will not stand idly by while dropouts sit on their ass and collect welfare checks and get free health care. This, in my mind, promotes people not to graduate and get a job. We have so many financial aid systems that today, one can drop out and float by on life while others work 80 hours a week and make the same amount that the dropouts are making from welfare.

Hauptmann Kauffman
January 14th, 2008, 10:00 PM
Doc, you fail to realise much of the US is already socialised. We have socialised Police Force, Fire Dept. , Schools, etc..

Doc.
January 14th, 2008, 10:13 PM
And do I support them? Of course not, I loathe socialism and unions. Throwing big government checks away like that sickens me.

Hauptmann Kauffman
January 14th, 2008, 10:15 PM
So, how would we support schools, police, and other forms w/out socialising them?

Doc.
January 14th, 2008, 10:24 PM
They become private industries and not leach off the government, or at least not so much.

Hauptmann Kauffman
January 14th, 2008, 10:25 PM
And how would the police force become a private organisation? How would they pay for themselves? They are already under-funded

Doc.
January 14th, 2008, 10:47 PM
Corporate sponsorships, anyway, I'm not trying to sway you to my side. If I wanted to, I would have put up an argument in my first post. I thought I'd just read what you had to say and leave my opinion.

Hauptmann Kauffman
January 14th, 2008, 10:50 PM
Don't worry, there is no way you could sway me. And feel free to bring evidence or other plans to desocialise what has already been socialised. Im always up for a good debate. And why do you hate Socialism so much?

Doc.
January 14th, 2008, 10:59 PM
I am a cut-throat capitalist, I would have no problem with making a buck at the expense of another. The world revolves around money, if I have money everything will be good for me. If that means that I have to stand on the backs of countless individuals and having a war in the middle east to line my pockets with money well I'm just fine. Also, look at Russia after the revolution, originally, it was supposed to be socialist but it was reformed into communism, don't you think that if that happened here the high brass would eventually get cocky and reform?

Hauptmann Kauffman
January 14th, 2008, 11:02 PM
Ok, so you ar, by your own admission, a greedy Capitalist witha losse sense of morals. You don't care about anyone but yourself. I can see how socialism is appealing to anyone except you

Doc.
January 14th, 2008, 11:07 PM
Correct in all but one sense, I care for my blood, friends, and loved ones but that's about it.

Hauptmann Kauffman
January 14th, 2008, 11:08 PM
Ok, i am rather frightened by your lack of compassion for other human beings around the world... (Now to get back on topic) *hopefully*

Doc.
January 14th, 2008, 11:13 PM
That's life for ya, people (myself included) just don't give a damn if it doesn't benefit them in one way or another. Even charity, what do they get out of it? Tax deductions, and a sense of pride or some such emotion. Nothing, not anything is done just out of compassion or good will. I dare you to tell me something and I can easily tell you what's wrong with the said statement.

Hauptmann Kauffman
January 14th, 2008, 11:16 PM
I'd prefer not to stray any further off topic, I have the belief that people have the good will to give without recieving

madness
January 18th, 2008, 05:14 PM
okay doc. i want you to imagine you have not been born but will be soon but know nothing about how you will be once you are born
how would you set up the healthcare system?- you may be terribly poor or you may be stinking rich
what would you say would be the best system then?

Whisper
January 18th, 2008, 06:12 PM
To be honest
I can't see it ever working in the US

Patchy
January 18th, 2008, 06:29 PM
over here we have a free healthcare service or u can go private.

it does work but there is waiting lists for non-neccessary op's but if you decide to go private and pay there is no/very small waiting list.

the ammount of times my sister has been in hospital our family would run out of money if we had to pay shes been in 3 times already this year with a broken leg, tonsils out, apendix out.

so yeah it could work in usa but the goverment would really need to invest in it to make it work.

Doc.
January 18th, 2008, 07:27 PM
okay doc. i want you to imagine you have not been born but will be soon but know nothing about how you will be once you are born
how would you set up the healthcare system?- you may be terribly poor or you may be stinking rich
what would you say would be the best system then?

I would keep it as is and I'll explain why:

In 2005 (the latest year data are available), total national health expenditures rose 6.9 percent - or $6,700 per person.

In 2006, employer health insurance premiums increased by 7.7 percent – The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $11,500. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,200.

Contrary to popular belief, almost everyone can in fact afford heathcare according to the US Census Bureau, 2006; income statistics for the year 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Income

Maverick
January 18th, 2008, 07:31 PM
If Americans were healthier and took better care of themselves health care costs would go down.

Doc.
January 18th, 2008, 07:47 PM
Agreed.

Mannequin
January 19th, 2008, 10:17 PM
No, people need to get off their asses and get jobs and fat people cause all the problems anyways. Love ya!

Doc.
January 19th, 2008, 10:56 PM
Oh? So you're saying that if people where healthier the price of Health Care wouldn't go down? Please elaborate why you think that. Also, I really hope you are not implying that all people are lazy and fat people are the source of all problems, if you are, you are completely wrong.

Whisper
January 19th, 2008, 11:02 PM
I am a cut-throat capitalist, I would have no problem with making a buck at the expense of another. The world revolves around money, if I have money everything will be good for me. If that means that I have to stand on the backs of countless individuals and having a war in the middle east to line my pockets with money well I'm just fine. Also, look at Russia after the revolution, originally, it was supposed to be socialist but it was reformed into communism, don't you think that if that happened here the high brass would eventually get cocky and reform?

and this is why i strongly believe it will NEVER work in the states
Because from what I've seen and the many Americans I've met from multiple states, this type of attitude is common
I'm not saying all Americans are like that obviously not if socialized health care is being talked about so freely in the open among American politicians
but theres enough
that I can't see it ever functioning

http://youtube.com/watch?v=37wkX2gklzo&feature=related

Doc.
January 19th, 2008, 11:57 PM
There are multiple scenarios that can play out, if socialism does triumph over capitalism, we could end up like Norway or Iceland. (The two most developed countries in the world) or as I said, the government can start up the whole workers paradise, pro-communism bit and reform while still calling is socialism and then later adding more and more power to the government until it goes into full blown communism. How would this work? Security. People want security in their lives, for instance the whole 'right to work' bit. And what does communism promise? Security. They can keep on promising that until they have all the cards, all by going off the fear of the people and lack of security in their lives. Then the final result is another Stalin another Fidel Castro! Another U.S.S.R. Don't think it can happen? I bet that's what Russia thought too.

On the other hand, lets say the war takes a bad turn (like another 9/11, a nuclear threat, or an actual invasion by Iran or something) and people are even more fearful. We then have a political party (lets say the Conservatives) who get a charismatic leader who then start exploiting effective propaganda and use their leaders charismatic oratory to gain popularity. They start to emphasize nationalism and blame the countries faults on the Arabic/Persian peoples. These ideals will its primary political expressions, and it is human nature to want to blame someone else and not actually say "hey, this is my fault and I'm going to grow up and take responsibility for it."

(Starting to sound familiar yet?)

So now they have the peoples trust, but they want more. They want supreme power and they can get it by playing off the publics fears. So what do they do? Well, with the peoples support of their country high and full of pride they can commit some sort of act of terror like blowing up the White House or destroying some other symbol of American pride and then blame it on the Arabic and Persians. With fear and anger running through the veins of the people they can now seize power. They will promise security and justice and propose a bill that will allow the party to act on its own without the ratification of the senate. It gets approved and then they further strengthen their party by unifying the country with a hatred toward the Arabic and Persians. So they criminalize and persecute the Arabic/Persian people.

Blaming them for every single thing that has gone wrong since the 9/11 incident, they make up even more propaganda to fuel the fear until eventually we have another holocaust, another WWII, another Hitler! This is a very real scenario, the past repeats itself. Even if you have 'learned from your mistakes' intense emotions such as fear and undying nationalism, patriotism and faith can easily blind the masses.

This could be the results of pro-socialism. So instead of depending on the government for security, go to school and graduate, go onto higher education and get into a good field that will have a high pay. Don't make risky investments and then you will have security. Knowing that you have money if you need it, knowing that you can retire, knowing that your kids will always have a roof over their heads and food on the table. That is why capitalism is the best choice to make. It puts you in charge of your life, not anyone else. And if it all goes wrong, you can only blame yourself. Preventing any such persecutions of people, races, minorities and the government.