Political Discussions
English Style Socialized Medicine?
Posted by Agit8r • 5/13/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: fearmongering, healthcare reform, objective analysis
Fear mongers like to compare the goal of healthcare reform to "English Socialised Medicine" and "Soviet Healthcare Rationing"
Has any such thing been proposed here?
According to Whitehouse.gov, these are the goals that the Obama administration is asking congress to accomplish via legislative action:
"The Administration believes that comprehensive health reform should:
>Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government
>Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs
>Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans
>Invest in prevention and wellness
>Improve patient safety and quality of care
>Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans
>Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job
>End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions"
Does this equal England's NHS? As described in the Wikipedia articlem the NHS is funded thus:
"The principal fundholders in the NHS system are the NHS Primary Care Trusts (PCTs), who commission healthcare from hospitals, GPs and others. PCTs disburse funds to them on an agreed tariff or contract basis, on guidelines set out by the Department of Health. The PCTs receive a budget from the Department of Health on a formula basis relating to population and specific local needs. They are required to "break even" - that is, they must not show a deficit on their budgets at the end of the financial year, although in recent years cost and demand pressures have made this objective impossible for some Trusts. Failure to meet financial objectives can result in the dismissal and replacement of a Trust's Board of Directors, although such dismissals are enormously expensive for the NHS"
Sounds rather different than the subsidized/regulated health insurance coverage and preventative care being proposed here o_0
User Comments
-
I agree that reforms need to be made. Many opponents of socialized health care state that no one can be turned away from an Emergency Room. That is true, to an extent. I mean if you have a cold, and there is a busload of accident victims, then yeah, you might be turned away. But I think that would be a case where someone is using the ER for their primary care, not as an emergency visit.
I disagree that "no one gets turned down." Last year, my wife became disabled and lost her job. She is a brittle diabetic and her insulin alone costs $14,000.00 a year. There was a period of about six months that she had no health insurance and we had a very, very difficult time getting her insulin. When her blood sugars went out of control, and she had no insurance, then yes, she was seen at the ER. But ER visits aren't where our health care system needs attention. It is in the preventative and maintenance health care where the weakness of the U.S. system lies. She did finally receive Medicare when she got her disability, but she didn't get the prescription coverage right away. In other words, it didn't go into effect right away and because she did have coverage, even though it hadn't started yet, the pharmaceutical companies that manufactured her insulin said she didn't qualify for their reduced cost/free medicine programs. So I am providing all this personal information to demonstrate that I believe the system DOES need fixed, but I don't really want the government to run my health care. Aside from the Military, the government cannot run anything that makes a profit, or even run any enterprise in a sensible manner. Look at the stimulus money, I mean they are having a problem making sure the stimulus money is getting to the right people.......and by "the right people" I mean people that are living.
michellemalkin.com/2009/05/12/hey-hows-that-porkulus-working-out/
Also, looks like Obama wants to tax private health care benefits, something he chided McCain about during the presidential campaign.
www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/politics/15health.html-
Obama? steal a McCain idea? Never! *snicker*
the point is, it isn't socialized medicine per se... it is subsidized health insurance coverage, along with some regulations -
I agree with your assessment of the problem at hand.
I disagree with one thing though:
the government cannot run anything that makes a profit, or even run any enterprise in a sensible manner.
The health care industry may make a profit, but the program being designed (or the ones already in use) are not for profit - as it should be, in my opinion. Once you attach "profit" to the well being of a human being, you automatically put that human at risk, by attaching a bullseye in the shape of a dollar sign directly to their head and vitals.
Our lives should not be tampered with for the sake of a greasy buck. -
Okay, making a profit off people's health needs isn't very saintly. But it does allow hospitals, doctors, etc... to stay in business. I have a huge problem with what the government did to the health care industry, along with the greed shown by insurance companies. In 1950 the cost for one day of a hospital room was $14. When the government created Medicare and Medicaid, the insurance companies saw deep pockets and the costs started rising exponentially. By 1976 that same hospital room cost $151 and today it averages from $5,300 to $5,400.00.
www.nathanwelton.com/stories/health/maybelle.html
www.ahd.com/sample_inpatient.html
So, in summary I am not saying that nothing needs to be done, but I have a serious distrust of this administration based on how they have handled other things so far. I see no transparency, no concern for anything other than repaying campaign contributors and of course, the all powerful opinion polls. -
Quite a bit of private healthcare is already provided by non-profit organizations. The health insurance companies (at least most) are for profit, and this provides a method for them being "reducible to strict rule and method" as well as subsidizing in order to allow more to partake in the service. I don't know how HMO's will be effected.
-
There's a difference between charging for services provided, and charging to "make a profit" though. (Private) Companies charge enough to not only cover the cost of operation, but to also make a company profit - above and beyond what is needed to keep the doors open. (Net, in other words).
-
I meant "this" added regulation 9much in the same way that parlimentary charter did in Adam Smith's day) makes an insurance company reducible to "strict rule and method" the Smithian criterion for establishing a joint stock company
-
-
In the UK the National Healthcare System is paid for through tax. This means if a UK or EU citizen requires any medical treatment they don't have to pay for it at the point of service or through medical insurance.
It is the Star Trek model of health care.-
Not sure how best to describe the US model of healthcare...
-
that's rather kind of you to restrain
-
-
The republicans like to raise the question: "Do you want some bureaucrat deciding what treatment you're eligible for?"
Well, right now, we have some insurance agent, who may be rewarded for denying coverage, making that decision. And the insurance companies certainly don't want to pay for expensive treatment.-
So you have your choice between the government or somebody trying to make a buck off you.
-
yeah, it's really not much difference at best... a no brainer at worst. I haven't seen any indication that the wealthy Sean Hannity types won't be able to purchase whatever care they desire.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
