Socialised Medicine ...... Arrrrgh

dogs4thewin

dog lover
Christian Forums Staff
Hands-on Trainee
CF Ambassadors
Supporter
Apr 19, 2012
30,291
5,593
32
Georgia U.S. State
✟887,200.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Even if a person has made poor lifestyle choices they should not be penalized by not receiving adequate health care. One scenario I offer is diabetes which is related to poor lifestyle choices but also has a genetic factor. Diabetic medication is costly and people who can't afford it have typically had low paying jobs without health insurance. Not taking the medication can eventually lead to serious medical conditions, for example amputation and blindness. After the person becomes seriously disabled they can get on SSD and then they will receive medical coverage. I can't get away from the idea that many American Christians are greedy and self-centered.
Well, it is like in a court of law. They have what is call compare neglectance. The concept being that IF part of the issue you are suing for is your OWN fault you will get less money for the damages because you had a hand in the damages.
 
Upvote 0

SteveNZ

Adventurer for my King
Oct 24, 2011
800
60
Nelson New Zealand
✟8,913.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, it is like in a court of law. They have what is call compare neglectance. The concept being that IF part of the issue you are suing for is your OWN fault you will get less money for the damages because you had a hand in the damages.
Tell me what about the fact that for health the government may need to force the issue. Is the fact that it is for societies good strong enough in law to do so.

I am from a public works background where some folk are forced to sell land (you never hear of the 3/4 who agree even if brassed off) for a project that serves society. I tend to see public health, in a similar manner.
 
Upvote 0

Joykins

free Crazy Liz!
Jul 14, 2005
15,710
1,181
53
Down in Mary's Land
✟29,390.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
It can be a problem in any healthcare system. It's one of the very, very few instances where the healthcare system in the U.S. generally does better (for those to whom it's accessible) than some universal systems, though, so it's something that some opponents of universal healthcare latch onto.

I believe the underlying dynamics have more to do with supply and demand, unless the system intentionally uses wait listing as rationing (as Canada does) for some non-urgent elective procedures (and in Canada, as I understand it, the trick is timing your placement on the wait list carefully).

The US system is rationed more or less by access to good insurance coverage. But even with good coverage, a less urgent suspected diagnosis and busy specialists can leave you with quite a wait.
 
Upvote 0

Joykins

free Crazy Liz!
Jul 14, 2005
15,710
1,181
53
Down in Mary's Land
✟29,390.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The next time you go to the DMV or the Post Office, ask yourself on the way out: Do I want them managing my health care?

It is true I don't want a Postal/DMV clerk managing my health care... ^_^

But working down the road from the National Naval Medical Center for so long, I gather they have a pretty tight operation there.
 
Upvote 0

SteveNZ

Adventurer for my King
Oct 24, 2011
800
60
Nelson New Zealand
✟8,913.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
..............The US system is rationed more or less by access to good insurance coverage. But even with good coverage, a less urgent suspected diagnosis and busy specialists can leave you with quite a wait.
Hi Joykins,
Is there such a thing as poor insurance cover. Is there a standard minimum expectation of cover or can folk get quite limited cover if they choose.

Hmmm .......... in the US would it work better having compulsory insurance for major medical but not basic. I am thinking along the lines that folk can choose to insure against basic care (or fund it themselves) but have compulsory cover if they need extreme care.

The idea that say 70% of care is basic (the Dr/nurse you see can have power to decide 'no this is major') and the expensive, not as common items therefore less called on are enforced. It would be hard to abuse (even sincerely) the system that way and using expensive resources out of place.

*I am still in favour of total protection but everyone must fund it.
 
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
7,437
2,362
Massachusetts
✟94,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
You're right. Someone worse would be in charge...Congress.

Nope. A doctor would still be in charge of your health care.

Because government-run health care would never not have money, right?

Well, I've yet to see the Armed Forces need to have a bake sale every time they need a new tank.

As to whether or not health care could be affordable, look at it this way: under our current system, private for-profit health insurance companies generate BILLIONS of dollars IN PROFIT every year. If that money were not taken out of the system by private insurance companies, imagine how it could be used were it spent on actual health care!

For medical treatments that I pay for, or are privately paid for, that would be a good thing.

If it's somehow socialized, and the government runs things, then, that's not necessarily a good law because Congress really wouldn't have any oversight about how it's run, and government money disappearing in black holes is not a good thing.

If we created a single payer plan, we could have MEDICAL PERSONNEL oversee the administration of health care. In other words, a doctor would determine what procedure you would require, and other doctors or medical administrators at that particular facility would determine whether it was advisable. Congress wouldn't be involved in any specific health care decisions.

Can you think of anything that could possibly go wrong with essentially handing a doctor a blank check?

Who said they would have a blank check? Do they now? Don't medical boards and hospital administrators look over such things? I fully accept this isn't a perfect system, but have you ever seen any human system that is?

If you have a single payer system, and all of the treatment information is restricted to between the doctor and the patient you have absolutely no way to hold a doctor accountable for fraud, or, at least it makes the investigation far more difficult.

Of course you would. Under HIPAA, hospital staff and administrators still have access to records, as needed, and they could provide any necessary oversight. And besides, none of this would preclude lawsuits brought for negligence, if it goes that far.

Remember, what I proposed did specify no GOVERNMENT interference. There is always a need for oversight and administration, but I feel that is best kept within the medical system, not in the hands of politicians who may have personal agendas that go beyond the needs of the patient.

-- A2SG, but I guess some don't like the idea of a lack of government interference, particularly in determining medical care decisions.....
 
Upvote 0

Joykins

free Crazy Liz!
Jul 14, 2005
15,710
1,181
53
Down in Mary's Land
✟29,390.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Hi Joykins,
Is there such a thing as poor insurance cover. Is there a standard minimum expectation of cover or can folk get quite limited cover if they choose.

Yes, there is poor coverage in one of 3 different ways I can think of off the top of my head:

1. The insurance plan doesn't cover a lot of medically necessary services/procedures. Much of this is now forbidden by Obamacare, but Obamacare has raised the price of plans, because some of the older "unqualifying" plans didn't cover very much.

2. The insurance plan has a very limited network of providers. This has the potential to shoot waiting times up, if there are a lot of people covered by the plan but a limited number of providers. This can also require long trips to see a participating provider or go to a participating hospital. Obamacare requires some kind of measure of network adequacy to qualify the plan, but even so in some areas these plans remain quite restricted.

3. The insurance plan still leaves the covered individual with a lot of financial liability (i.e. very high deductibles and out of pocket maximums). A friend's husband was "covered" at the time he died a few years ago (after some serious cardiovascular issues), but she ended up owing $11,000 in deductibles after his death. Some families can't bear those kinds of costs, even if they have a "qualifying" plan.
 
Upvote 0

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
39
✟19,002.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Nope. A doctor would still be in charge of your health care.

If the government is paying for it, then, ultimately, Congress is in charge.



Well, I've yet to see the Armed Forces need to have a bake sale every time they need a new tank.

It's probably not a good idea to invoke the military when it comes to defending the efficiency of a government program.

As to whether or not health care could be affordable, look at it this way: under our current system, private for-profit health insurance companies generate BILLIONS of dollars IN PROFIT every year. If that money were not taken out of the system by private insurance companies, imagine how it could be used were it spent on actual health care!

You lost me when you started conflating health insurance and health care, but, a lot of people make that mistake.

Of course, how many billions are we talking about? Interestingly enough, Blue Cross, made $643 million in profit in 2013. By comparison, the US government lost $535 million when Solyndra defaulted. Blue Cross is one of the largest health insurance companies. Solyndra was a relative drop in the bucket of federal spending.

If we created a single payer plan, we could have MEDICAL PERSONNEL oversee the administration of health care. In other words, a doctor would determine what procedure you would require, and other doctors or medical administrators at that particular facility would determine whether it was advisable. Congress wouldn't be involved in any specific health care decisions.

But Congress still controls the purse strings, which means that ultimately Congress is in charge. As with our current health care system, a single payer system would not have an unlimited budget. Why do you keep ignoring this? There is still a limited budget for government health care.

Who said they would have a blank check? Do they now? Don't medical boards and hospital administrators look over such things? I fully accept this isn't a perfect system, but have you ever seen any human system that is?

No, but, I don't advocate more government regulation for a system that government regulation played a major part in creating.


Of course you would. Under HIPAA, hospital staff and administrators still have access to records, as needed, and they could provide any necessary oversight. And besides, none of this would preclude lawsuits brought for negligence, if it goes that far.

Remember, what I proposed did specify no GOVERNMENT interference. There is always a need for oversight and administration, but I feel that is best kept within the medical system, not in the hands of politicians who may have personal agendas that go beyond the needs of the patient.

You mean, other then giving those pesky politicians the power to control the entire medical system, that is? Read that again. You're saying that you want a single payer medical system that is funded by the government, [you know, those politicians in Congress] but you don't want the system to be in the hands of politicians [who happen to make up Congress].

-- A2SG, but I guess some don't like the idea of a lack of government interference, particularly in determining medical care decisions.....

:doh:
 
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
7,437
2,362
Massachusetts
✟94,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
If the government is paying for it, then, ultimately, Congress is in charge.

Not if we, the people specifically set it up otherwise.

See, it used to be that lawmakers wrote laws themselves, based on ideas from people. I know that may seem odd, since we're living in an age where private for-profit insurance companies (and the lobbyists who work for them) write the laws, but it doesn't have to be that way.

It just takes responsibility and initiative from we, the people.

I know, I know, that's the fly in the ointment....but we liberals still hold out for that dream. Call us starry-eyed optimists.

It's probably not a good idea to invoke the military when it comes to defending the efficiency of a government program.

When did I say it was efficient? I only said they always had the money for what they wanted.

You lost me when you started conflating health insurance and health care, but, a lot of people make that mistake.

I didn't conflate them. Health insurance carriers pay for the health care their subscribers receive. Well, most of it, anyway. The difference between what they pay out for health care costs and what they take in from premiums paid for by subscribers is called profit. Roughly billions a year over the entire private for-profit insurance industry.

Of course, how many billions are we talking about? Interestingly enough, Blue Cross, made $643 million in profit in 2013. By comparison, the US government lost $535 million when Solyndra defaulted. Blue Cross is one of the largest health insurance companies. Solyndra was a relative drop in the bucket of federal spending.

Um, not sure what point you're trying to make by comparing a private for-profit company's profits with the federal government, which isn't a profit-generating business.

But Congress still controls the purse strings, which means that ultimately Congress is in charge. As with our current health care system, a single payer system would not have an unlimited budget. Why do you keep ignoring this? There is still a limited budget for government health care.

Single payer wouldn't need an unlimited budget, just one that covers the health care costs for all Americans. Since we're spreading the risk over the entire populace, instead of just over a private for-profit insurance company's pool of subscribers, it would cost less in taxes for each individual than insurance premiums currently do, since the billions of dollars a year private for-profit insurance companies make wouldn't be coming out of the overall cost of health care.

No, but, I don't advocate more government regulation for a system that government regulation played a major part in creating.

You must have missed the part where I suggested doctors and medical administrators would oversee medical care, not the government. Check it again.

You mean, other then giving those pesky politicians the power to control the entire medical system, that is?

Which is why I suggested a Constitutional amendment to preclude that. I feel that would be a necessary part of any single payer plan, for precisely the reasons you fear.

Read that again. You're saying that you want a single payer medical system that is funded by the government, [you know, those politicians in Congress] but you don't want the system to be in the hands of politicians [who happen to make up Congress].

Yup.

Why not? We, the people are the ones who give government its power. We've allowed the private for-profit insurance industry and it's lobbyists to write the laws up to now, it's time we took the power back and kept it where it belongs.

It's a very liberal idea, I know, that the government is an arm of the people, and serves them. Unlike the conservative ideal, where corporations and moneyed interests control the government.

The latter, I feel, is what brought us to where we are now. But if we go back to some good old fashioned liberal ideas, maybe we can fix things and make government responsible to those from whom it derives its power: the consent of the governed.

-- A2SG, not just those with the most cash to contribute to campaign funds.....
 
Upvote 0

Messy

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2011
10,027
2,082
Holland
✟21,082.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You know it's funny a higher percentage of Americans GET cancer, but of those who DO more are "cured" or go into remission here as well. Maybe because we do not have to wait.

Waiting is just because another one who's poor also has cancer. Here you just have to wait, the rich ones don't get help first and if they want they can pay for it.
An aunt from my ex lived in the States before the Obamacare and they just didn't even give her morfine, because she didn't have enough money.
Her husband later got cancer and moved to Holland to get proper treatment.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

joyshirley

His Love endures forever
Supporter
Jul 17, 2004
174,273
133,794
New Zealand
✟1,374,137.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In New Zealand, when visiting a doctor, one is seen in order of one's appointment time. However, should someone come in who is obviously needing immediate attention, that person is seen straight away and everyone else waits a little longer. It's the same in the ER depts at our hospitals, though appointments are not necessary there.

With regard to ongoing treatment, our son was treated for leukaemia many years ago. There was no question of waiting on the part of the system here. The instant the diagnosis was made, his treatment began. During this time, which stretched over two years and more, many other children were diagnosed with various cancers and they too, were started on treatment immediately. Our son suffered a relapse after 16 months of treatment and so intensive efforts were made to bring him back into remission and to find a donor in preparation for a bone marrow transplant. Our daughter was a near-perfect tissue match and she became his donor. The transplant was a success and he is now in his late 20's. He was 7 at the time of the transplant.

During all of this, we paid absolutely nothing for his treatment. The only cost was his pills and because he was deemed a high user at the time, we were entitled to lower costs for his pills. I have no idea how much all the chemo etc cost altogether, but I would surmise many hundreds of thousands of dollars and more.

I am so grateful that we have this system here in New Zealand.
 
Upvote 0

joyshirley

His Love endures forever
Supporter
Jul 17, 2004
174,273
133,794
New Zealand
✟1,374,137.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Just to clarify further - the pills we bore the cost of were only the ones our son took when he was well enough to be at home, either pills to do with his treatment and/or antibiotics. We didn't have to pay for a single pill given to him when in hospital and he spent a lot of time in hospital throughout those years.

I have always considered us most blessed to live here in New Zealand.

I acknowledge our small population here compared to the States. However, we manage to take care of each other pretty well, despite our small population. :)
 
Upvote 0

SteveNZ

Adventurer for my King
Oct 24, 2011
800
60
Nelson New Zealand
✟8,913.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
After hearing the stories on this thread I also think we have a great system.
I was amazed to hear stories of folk going to A&E (ER) for basic treatment we take for granted at a medical center. Currently costs $11 or nothing if broke.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SteveNZ

Adventurer for my King
Oct 24, 2011
800
60
Nelson New Zealand
✟8,913.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Another NZ Example: Just a few weeks ago I had a home mishap and needed two stitches. Cost nothing to sort out at the medical center. And then there was the tetanus shot just in case as my records identified it was due. Again no cost.
 
Upvote 0