Socialist healthcare being demonised in the US?

I find it fascinating how people from countries that have socialized medicine throw around the word 'free'. It isn't free. You pay for it through high taxes and (typically) long waits to see a doctor. My taxes are already far too high, and my wages far too low.

In the US, we already have 'free' health care. If you are injured, and have no insurance, but require immediate attention (i.e., "emergency room")--guess what? The hospital, by law, MUST treat you. They aren't allowed to turn anyone away. That's a fact. Should they turn you away, they are considered criminally negligent. If you can't pay the bill, the government pays it for you (eventually). There's Medicare, Medicaid, HMO's, etc... I am upset enough by these failed programs!

The debate in the US isn't over emergency care. It's over long-term and normal care. Meaning intensive operations, life-support and regular visits (i.e., check-ups, 'colds', etc.). It's a difficult issue, to be sure, but do I have a responsibility to pay for health care (for everyone) that I may never need or use? No, I don't believe that I do. That's why charities exist. Sorry. If I have a cold, I deal with it. I don't go to the doctor. That's my choice. If I die because of it, that's my fault. It's called personal responsibility, and it goes hand-in-hand with personal liberty.

Okay, so you need an operation for your dying child? That is very unfortunate, and I empathize, I really do--but call a charity, that's why they are there. If I happen to have anything left over after my gigantic grocery and transportation costs, maybe I'll give something to one of them, but taking it from me by force via taxes is tantamount to armed robbery, and I don't appreciate that kind of 'benefit'. It's not that I don't care that your child is sick, but why is your child (or whoever) suddenly my responsibility?

I have no responsibility to my fellow human beyond abstaining from causing harm to him/her. I didn't hurt you--Nature did, you did, or some other uncaring jerk did. It's not my problem--take it up with the source. I will gladly do what I can because it is morally right, however it is morally wrong for you to force me.

a good friend and neighbor of mine, a doctor, moved to the USA from Canada to practice medicine a few years back....i asked him why he would leave his home to do so....

his answer?

In canada he worked 12 - 16 hours a day between the office and hospital, now he works 8 to 10 and makes almost triple, seeing less than half as many patients.

I wonder how this can be the case with posters insisting that the USA for profit vrs the Canadian universal systems being essentially equal when taxation is factored.

just my 2 cents.....

Here's a really crude calculation. Don't diss me on the math. I know it's crude. But like most things it all comes down to ££ and $$.

The British NHS budget for 2007/8 is £107 billion, say $214 billion. Times that by 5 as a population multiplier and you come out with a potential cost to the US Federal government of $1,070 billion per annum to provide a comprehensive socialised medical system, or roughly $3500 per person per year. That's half of what the USA was paying per person in 2005 - yet it provides 100% universal coverage.

Financially, if nothing else, socialised medicine seems less expensive than what some of you folks claim you & your employers are paying right now. And it provides universal coverage from cradle to grave. Socialised medicine might not be perfect but it works - & that is reflected in the US life expectancy stats compared with Western Europe.

For me it's a no brainer. Half the price. More coverage. Longer life expectancy. What's the problem ?

* awaits the deluge *

Oh aye. How to pay for it ?

Take existing employer contributions & stick them into the Federal scheme, scrap Medicare & Medicaid (won't be needed) & make up the shortfall - if any - by general taxation. Oh no !! Increased taxes !! Well, not really, because you'll no longer be paying for your private insurance. And compulsorily bring all private hospitals into the Federal scheme by an Act of Congress. Democracy in action.

Sorted.

(course it'll never happen ... )

Originally posted by nethrelm
I will gladly do what I can because it is morally right, however it is morally wrong for you to force me.

Totally agree with you Nethrelm.

What's wrong with socialized medicine? Quite frankly, the principle of it. What gives the govt the right to take the money that I have worked for, and sacrificed my time and effort to earn, and use it to pay for health care for everyone? Every single cent that I earn, be it my salary or my investments, is taxed to hilt as it is. Now some people are crying out that we should UP the taxes further to pay for the construction of another massive govt bureaucracy? Why the hell should I be required to pay for their health care, or their child's health care? They are not my responsibility.

People in America have begun to forget about one defining trait of our nation: Self-responsibility. We are guaranteed the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, but not the attainment thereof. YOU are responsible for your own life in this world, not the govt. If YOU fail to do what is necessary to succeed, than that is no one's fault but YOUR OWN. People can argue about the moral implications of such a position, given the poor's inability to afford health care in some instances, but how is it morally right to forcefully take what others have worked to earn, and give it to those who haven't done anything to earn it?


By giving up our right to chose how we spend our money, we are giving up even more freedom than we already have. As Nethrelm pointed out, there are charities and socialist programs, such as Medicaid and Medicare, that exist to help the less fortunate. Let's stop the development of the Nanny-state before it progresses any further.
.
In addition to my regular sig, I post the following for your consideration:

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."- Ayn Rand

Originally posted by Niall197
And compulsorily bring all private hospitals into the Federal scheme by an Act of Congress. Democracy in action.

How exactly is the quasi-nationalization Democracy in Action? Many hospitals in the states are run by for-profit companies, and provide excellent care. Apparently, you are advocating simply destroying their business model, and devastating shareholder wealth? Sounds terrific to me, Im sure the business community will jump right onto that bandwagon! (/sarcasm)

By the way, your post on the costs of socializing health care in the US is incredibly specious. You cannot simply "use a multiplier" to adjust the cost to an equitable population level. Costs simply don't work that way. Depending upon how the system would be structured, there would be ENORMOUS start-up costs, such as the cost of developing the system in the first place, the cost of labor, then you have to develop the infrastructure to support it, etc. etc.

After all that, you would have to ascertain the economic costs that would spread throughout the market. Private health insurance companies would obviously be adversely affected, so they would lose an enormous amount of money, as would their stockholders (if the company was publicly traded), who in turn would have to take the appropriate measures to hedge their losses, probably divesting a huge amount of securities onto the open market, etc. etc.

On a macro scale, you would have to deal with the ripple effect that the huge losses experienced by the health care companies would send out. Insurance companies keep HUGE amounts of capital on hand, which would quickly vanish thanks to their new govt-dictated business model, so their investments would become very devalued (selling securities/stocks on the market increases supply; less institutional investors means aggregate demand would drop, thus prices would collapse in some instances), and that would cost a whole helluva lot. You could argue that demand would increase, given the suddenly undervalued price of many stocks, but its very unlikely the market would be able to absorb such a massive change in any short amount of time.

After all that, consider the ancillary businesses and industries that would be affected, such as the Pharm. industry, the R/D community, hospital suppliers, etc. All effected by your "plan".

So, no, the cost of socialized medicine would certainly NOT be cheap.

reply to post by BlueTriangle
Did you know that in Britain, the waiting lists are so long for open heart surgery that they've taken to denying smokers? If you smoke and need heart surgery, you better fly to America or you're going to die. Did you know that hip and knee replacements are denied to overweight patients in Britain?? Guess you're going to be crippled for the rest of your life. Did you that if you're over 80 in Britain and you have a stroke you're written off and not treated?

reply to post by BlueTriangle
Did you know that in Britain, the waiting lists are so long for open heart surgery that they've taken to denying smokers? If you smoke and need heart surgery, you better fly to America or you're going to die. Did you know that hip and knee replacements are denied to overweight patients in Britain?? Guess you're going to be crippled for the rest of your life. Did you that if you're over 80 in Britain and you have a stroke you're written off and not treated?

I'm fed up with Americans having a go at our British health System, and quoting propaganda 'facts' that are simply not true.

Let me tell you about a 60 year old woman I know who is overweight. She had a knee replacement just 4 weeks ago and she's doing fine. She had to wait about 9 months but it didn't cost a bean. Now waiting for this may be tough but it will be done and it won't bankrupt you.

As for smokers, well I'm a smoker and I was diagnosed with prostate cancer on Wednesday and by Friday I was having a MRI scan and by Monday I was having a bone scan. It didn't cost a bean. After 1 week I had the results and I was relieved to hear it was low grade i.e. it had not spread. I am now on hormones and after a prescribed wait (for medical reasons) of 3 months I will be undergoing 3d beam radiology. The choice of treatment was entirely mine. How many thousands of dollars would that have cost?

There is no ban on smokers it's just been a discussion. The fact is if a diagnosis reveals a life threatening condition then things happen VERY quickly. A knee joint is not life threatening but even so 9 months is not too long to wait under the circumstances.

The NHS is not perfect but it's got to be better than the US system where the survival of the wealthiest is the rule.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by Bran Caughan]

[edit on 26-10-2007 by Bran Caughan]

reply to post by syrinx high priest


Thank you Syrinx. I think it's great when we can introduce facts.

The numbers don't sound that unreasonable. I suppose I was hoping for an easy answer, someone I could point to and say, "It's YOUR fault." I should have known better.

So really then, maybe the question is, not why does it cost so much, but how can we make it cost less?

reply to post by Bran Caughan


I could counter that with this fact: more and more people are seeking medical help outside of the US due to the high costs.

Dismayed by high surgical costs in the U.S., increasing numbers of American patients are packing their bags to have necessary surgery performed in countries such as India, Thailand, and Singapore.

www.medicinenet.com...

It's true, some NHS Trusts - still a small minority - are denying smokers & obese individuals operations on medical grounds ... that there's an increased risk of operative complication and poorer chances of a full post operative recovery. It's quite a controversial move & subject to great debate over here. Can you deny people much needed medical treatment because of their poor lifestyle choices ? The government, needless to say, are looking into the whole question.

As to abandoning old folks who have had strokes, that claim is just risible.

I've got personal experience of that. My Grandmother, aged 92, collapsed with a stroke during the Summer. She was taken to hospital immediately by an ambulance, with a police escort as it travelled through the heavy traffic in Glasgow city centre, she was in intensive care for 9 days at a specialist trauma unit in the Southern General Hospital, transferred to a local hospital general ward for 3 weeks and now is in rehabilitation at an NHS long stay geriatric unit. There she's getting physical and voice therapy twice a day to help speed her recovery. Ultimately she's going to be discharged back to her own home after the local Council make some changes .... a walk in shower/bath, guide rails and the installation of an Alert buzzer system .... total upfront cost to our family for all of that ? Not one penny piece.

Like I say, the NHS is not perfect. But it's way better than what the US has at the moment.

Originally posted by Niall197
It's true, some NHS Trusts - still a small minority - are denying smokers & obese individuals operations on medical grounds ... that there's an increased risk of operative complication and poorer chances of a full post operative recovery. It's quite a controversial move & subject to great debate over here. Can you deny people much needed medical treatment because of their poor lifestyle choices ? The government, needless to say, are looking into the whole question.

As to abandoning old folks who have had strokes, that claim is just risible.

I've got personal experience of that. My Grandmother, aged 92, collapsed with a stroke during the Summer. She was taken to hospital immediately by an ambulance, with a police escort as it travelled through the heavy traffic in Glasgow city centre, she was in intensive care for 9 days at a specialist trauma unit in the Southern General Hospital, transferred to a local hospital general ward for 3 weeks and now is in rehabilitation at an NHS long stay geriatric unit. There she's getting physical and voice therapy twice a day to help speed her recovery. Ultimately she's going to be discharged back to her own home after the local Council make some changes .... a walk in shower/bath, guide rails and the installation of an Alert buzzer system .... total upfront cost to our family for all of that ? Not one penny piece.

Like I say, the NHS is not perfect. But it's way better than what the US has at the moment.

Yes, treatment can be denied on medical grounds but the inference was that it's for financial reasons. It's commonsense. If smoking or obesity adversely affects the medical outcome then yes, don't do it. I would have thought that would have applied to any medical system not just the NHS. On the other hand if it's all done by private companies for profit then maybe they just want the business anyway regardless.

Originally posted by Bran Caughan
Let me tell you about a 60 year old woman I know who is overweight. She had a knee replacement just 4 weeks ago and she's doing fine. She had to wait about 9 months but it didn't cost a bean. Now waiting for this may be tough but it will be done and it won't bankrupt you.

granted if that were my father, by the time 9 months came around we would be homeless and attempting to prevent starvation. In a capitalist society, you get an injury and in 9 weeks, you are usually half way to recovery. 9 months wait for surgery is a death sentence to any middle class working family.

The NHS is not perfect but it's got to be better than the US system where the survival of the wealthiest is the rule.

It is not the survival of the wealthiest. 1/3 of my paycheck is taken in taxes. Corruption and interest on the national debt is so high that 2/3 of the personal income tax, which makes up about 900 billion dollars, is gone. 600 billion on waste and interest to private banks.

Sure I can go into the ER whenever I want. But we all pay for it in taxes at the end of the day.

Capitalism is the idea you do the work first, get the money second.
Socialism is the idea you get the money first, and do the work second.
One of these doesn't make very much sense. If I have the money, regardless of how good I do my job, why should I do the best I can? The good of my heart? Good luck motivating the workforce on that idea.


[edit on 26-10-2007 by grimreaper797]

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Capitalism is the idea you do the work first, get the money second.
Socialism is the idea you get the money first, and do the work second.
One of these doesn't make very much sense. If I have the money, regardless of how good I do my job, why should I do the best I can? The good of my heart? Good luck motivating the workforce on that idea.
[edit on 26-10-2007 by grimreaper797]

So because the UK has a National Health System we are not a capitalist country then? Maybe some misinformed yanks think we're all commies.

Your healthcare system is not capitalistic is it? Sounds pretty socialist to me. Seems like the government gets the money, sends it to the hospitals, then you get your service.

Efficiency is created by doing it the other way around. You get the money after you do a good job. If you screw up, we don't pay you. In nationalized healthcare, they get the money, and it really doesn't matter what you say or do, because they already have what they want.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by grimreaper797]

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Your healthcare system is not capitalistic is it? Sounds pretty socialist to me. Seems like the government gets the money, sends it to the hospitals, then you get your service.

Efficiency is created by doing it the other way around. You get the money after you do a good job. If you screw up, we don't pay you. In nationalized healthcare, they get the money, and it really doesn't matter what you say or do, because they already have what they want.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by grimreaper797]

So much ignorance. I said: 'we are not a capitalist country then?' We pay the money - by way of National Insurance - all our working lives, then we get the product - healthcare. Seems the same to me, except you pay the money + profit to the insurance companies + profit to the healthcare industry. Difference is if you lose your job and don't pay your insurance you have problems. Nothing wrong with applying a little bit of care and compassion to those who have fallen on hard times. If you don't you get a rather nasty dog eat dog society that seems to breed more than it's fair share of nasty dogs.

Maybe socialized medicine can work, but I can tell you one thing, I don't think I want our government running it. There are very few government run programs that would serve as a good model. Social Security should be a huge red flag for how this would be bankrupt in no time.

reply to post by Copernicus


my wife and i presently dwell in canada----if we leave this country for whatever reason we have 6 months minus one day to return if we want our health care benefits to continue------and these are not what they used to be 20 years ago-------drugs for many treatments are no longer free under this system--------our health care has fallen behind the newer treatments that specialists have discovered-----by the time someone in the government wakes up to realize they should change their system "x number" of poor patients die because they are not covered anymore and cant afford to pay for help.not all operations are free----you could have warts all over your feet so you couldnt even walk but you'd have to pay for an operation totally yourself with this condition and this is the same scenero for many disabilities---its not all free.if you work for the government here you are entitled to get extra coverage free untill you retire where upon we pay 25$ per month per family for extra coverage and the same for dental.this also is not free in this country-----for my wife and i it is free as a government worker but when i retire again it will cost 25$ per month to cover us but even then there is a cap on what your dental treatment bill is allowed to be----dont know what that is sorry------havent been to a dentist for 40 years----am ok---but hope i die before i ever need one----or a doctor for that matter.

reply to post by Copernicus


A Political Conspiracy is a plan to violate law for political purposes devised by one or more political figures or groups.

The key to any conspiracy is that it must be illegal. Campaign strategies and oily rhetoric may be unsavory, but unless there is a violation of law or a suspected violation of law involved, political topics belong on Politics@ATS, not here.

Political Conspiracy Topics

You pay first, then get the service later. That is not capitalistic. I don't see your businesses competing for business over there. You pay your fund to the government, who pays for the healthcare system, and then you "get the service". That is not capitalism, in any way, shape, or form