Socialized Medicine

[SigurdReginson]

So I learned something interesting the other day. See, my parents are both conservatives, but it turns out they both want a government controlled healthcare system.

They told me that though their taxes would go up, sure, but their insurance would go down drastically or even go away altogether, and the cost of medical visits and procedures would be tiny compared to what they pay now. They don't think so many people would also wait to go to the doctor out of fear of how much the visit would cost, especially for something serious (something I've actually done myself, stupidly).

I'm curious to know who else would be in favor of it. I'll put up a poll so we can see who would want it according to their political alignment. This poll is designed with American politics in mind, but it's not strictly so, and I do want everyone to contribute if they feel so inclined.

(Also, I wanted free discussion on the subject, so I figured a debate forum would allow for that. If there would be a better suited subforum to put this under, please do!)

 

[SigurdReginson]

Speaking for myself, I'm voting yes, and that I'm left leaning. Though my political views are all over the map, socially I am more left leaning, so I figure that qualifies.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So I learned something interesting the other day. See, my parents are both conservatives, but it turns out they both want a government controlled healthcare system.

They told me that though their taxes would go up, sure, but their insurance would go down drastically or even go away altogether, and the cost of medical visits and procedures would be tiny compared to what they pay now. They don't think so many people would also wait to go to the doctor out of fear of how much the visit would cost, especially for something serious (something I've actually done myself, stupidly).

I'm curious to know who else would be in favor of it. I'll put up a poll so we can see who would want it according to their political alignment. This poll is designed with American politics in mind, but it's not strictly so, and I do want everyone to contribute if they feel so inclined.

I'd be in favor provided it's funded like the education system is with options of privatization. Unfortunately that means higher taxes, but in this one instance it's probably for the better in the long run considering how botched the ACA was all around by the stupid people passing it.

Mandate? The ACA can go to hell. Again.

 

[Stevicus]

So I learned something interesting the other day. See, my parents are both conservatives, but it turns out they both want a government controlled healthcare system.

They told me that though their taxes would go up, sure, but their insurance would go down drastically or even go away altogether, and the cost of medical visits and procedures would be tiny compared to what they pay now. They don't think so many people would also wait to go to the doctor out of fear of how much the visit would cost, especially for something serious (something I've actually done myself, stupidly).

I'm curious to know who else would be in favor of it. I'll put up a poll so we can see who would want it according to their political alignment. This poll is designed with American politics in mind, but it's not strictly so, and I do want everyone to contribute if they feel so inclined.

(Also, I wanted free discussion on the subject, so I figured a debate forum would allow for that. If there would be a better suited subforum to put this under, please do!)

From a practical standpoint, it would make sense and benefit the majority of people.

 

[fantome profane]

Yes.

And I have it.

 

[sun rise]

I voted yes but there are other options for universal health care than socialized medicine. The Swiss system which has private insurance companies with universal health care is one.

What I'd like to see is a comparison of all the systems without a political overlay to determine which of them offers the best health care for all at a reasonable or hopefully low price.

So let's take the Japanese, German, Swiss, French, British and Canadian systems (and maybe more) and look at them objectively.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes.
It is the basis of Administrative Law: the essential public services (healthcare, water, electricity) are supposed to be controlled by the State (either directly or indirectly).
Healthcare is something light years away from the freedom of entrepreneurship (which I defend and is protected by Constitution too).
Healthcare is not business. It is people's sacred right to life.

As for taxation: in Macroeconomics taxes are exlusively a tool to control inflation and demand of money.
A state does have all the money in the world to fund universal feee healthcare. By printing money theough the Central Bank. FED or ECB

 

[SigurdReginson]

Yes.
It is the basis of Administrative Law: the essential public services (healthcare, water, electricity) are supposed to be controlled by the State (either directly or indirectly).
Healthcare is something light years away from the freedom of entrepreneurship (which I defend and is protected by Constutution too).
Healthcare is not business. It is people's sacred right to life.

You know, something to think about with standardized, government controlled health would be that it would require standardized, government controlled medical equipment. It would be a perfect opportunity to open plants that would produce this equipment in areas of the country where some of our poorest people live due to lack of work opportunities. Just a thought.

 

[ChristineM]

Ok, not american but after reading the OP i voted Yes - I'm left leaning. I have lived under 2 healthcare systems.

NHS, which is free at the point of use although the user is taxed throughout their lives to pay. I think its a wonderful system however the conservative right don't like it and would prefer the American model. So successive conservative governments have defunded the NHS, sold off its profitable departments and left the rest struggling.

And CPAM, the French system. Which is partially funded by government/taxes and part private insurance. Depending on the care needed the government pays between 15 and 85% of the cost, the balance paid by compulsory private insurance.

 

[exchemist]

I voted yes but there are other options for universal health care than socialized medicine. The Swiss system which has private insurance companies with universal health care is one.

What I'd like to see is a comparison of all the systems without a political overlay to determine which of them offers the best health care for all at a reasonable or hopefully low price.

So let's take the Japanese, German, Swiss, French, British and Canadian systems (and maybe more) and look at them objectively.

I agree. The very term "socialised medicine" - which is an entirely American piece of terminology - is politically loaded to be pejorative and does not seem to have any really defined meaning. It could be anything from publicly funded health insurance, used to buy services from private providers, through to state ownership of the hospitals and clinics and employment of medical staff directly by the state. Or anything in between.

The UK, which is one model that is quite well known, is a mixture. Family doctors, known as General Practitioners ("GPs") are private businesses, contracted by the National Heath Service (NHS) to provide a service to their community and remunerated according to the patients on their books. They are responsible for managing their own surgeries and can have private practice alongside their NHS work. Hospital doctors too can have private practices alongside their NHS work. But the NHS owns and operates the clinics and hospitals and the system is, in theory at least, connected up so that patient records are available across the service, allowing for joined up care.

The NHS is centrally funded out of taxation and is one of the larger elements of the tax bill, about 20%: UK Spending Pie Chart in 2022 - Charts

The system works OK, just about, but is under increasing pressure as longevity increases and the scope of possible medical treatments expands. Governments have been reluctant to increase taxation to fund the extra demands. Wealthier people often supplement their right to free NHS treatment with private medical insurance. There are private hospitals as well as NHS ones. However the NHS is almost always what people use for major medical interventions, because that is where the centre of gravity of medical expertise and resources lies. The private system tends to be used to avoid waiting lists for non-urgent conditions. One of its great benefits is the income stream for doctors, who might otherwise refuse to work just for an NHS salary.

I think it is a good balance - above all avoiding the ghastly business of worrying about whether you can afford medical treatment if you lose your job, for example. Any citizen can show up at a hospital anywhere and get treated, without filling in forms or money changing hands. And their GP will be updated with the treatment provided, so it is all on the patients' record. But we in the UK need to pay a bit more in taxes to get the service up to what we need for the modern age - it is getting ramshackle round the edges.

P.S. With the Covid epidemic, we are seeing one of the great strengths of this system is that medicine is not political and not profit-driven. People feel they can trust the NHS, so they don't worry about unnecessary treatments etc and (mostly) go and get vaccinated. The existence of a national set of data on the progress of the epidemic and the performance of the vaccines has proved very useful.

 

[Altfish]

In the UK we have the nHS, which all tax-payers contribute to, it is fine, not perfect but everyone has access to healthcare.
As #ChristineM says the right would love something akin to the US system and are currently trying to do it by stealth.

But in the UK private medicine is also available. The well off can buy into it as a layer on top of the NHS; it is often offered as a 'perk' in some jobs.
The advantage is that you can fast track the medical treatment. For example, I had two knee replacements done privately at a time that suited both me and my employer.

 

[JustGeorge]

I put "yes-other".

I don't want to be aligned with the political left or right. Neither side reflects my thinking. But, I would indeed like to see universal healthcare.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yes, however will this decrease medical research?

I'd like to hear from somebody who understands what drives medical research. I know part of research is good will, but part of it is some kind of funding which may be linked with profitability. That is questionable and not necessarily a strong link, or it may be that profitable medicines drive medical research.

For example I want to know if we could still hope soon for more cures to cancers, brain diseases, blindness and arthritis. What about transplant medicine and growing new organs? I don't know how the research for these is funded, but I'd like to know whether a universal healthcare system would change things. Its great that you can go to a hospital for things which have a cure. How are those cures obtained, and how is it connected to the current system?

 

[Lyndon]

Many of the breakthroughs in health and medicine are largely the result of research done at not for profit universities

 

[PureX]

Mandate? The ACA can go to hell. Again.

Keep in mind that was a republican proposal, first implemented by a republican administration (under Mitt Romney). And the only reason it became law was because of the massive bribery of our legislature by all the health care conglomerates and their lobbyists against any form of universal health care reforms. The ACA band-aid was all those corrupt legislators could come up with and still pretend they were doing something to "reform health care".

 

[Twilight Hue]

Keep in mind that was a republican proposal, first implemented by a republican administration (under Mitt Romney). And the only reason it became law was because of the massive bribery of our legislature by all the health care conglomerates and their lobbyists against any form of universal health care reforms. The ACA band-aid was all those corrupt legislators could come up with and still pretend they were doing something to "reform health care".

Well maybe it should of simply stayed a Republican proposal rather than making it a Democrat first priority.

Blaming the Republicans is just a cop out for the extreme idiocy that followed.

 

[sun rise]

Well maybe it should of simply stayed a Republican proposal rather than making it a Democrat first priority.

Blaming the Republicans is just a cop out for the extreme idiocy that followed.

Extreme idiocy indeed with the right attacking their own proposal because the left adopted it. And now we've seen the right emulating Don Quixote and tilting at the ACA windmill, losing again and again but refusing to give up dismantling something which has improved the health care for millions of people because if the left likes it, it's automatically evil to be destroyed.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Extreme idiocy indeed with the right attacking their own proposal because the left adopted it. And now we've seen the right emulating Don Quixote and tilting at the ACA windmill, losing again and again but refusing to give up dismantling something which has improved the health care for millions of people because if the left likes it, it's automatically evil to be destroyed.

Lol. I'd like to see the insurance companies go on board this time after Obama conned them about the profitable windfall they would receive.

 

[Kooky]

My healthcare is publically funded, not "government controlled".

 

[Jainarayan]

We need something. When I lost my job last year I lost my pretty damn good health benefits. I’m on Social Security retirement now but not eligible for Medicare for another year. And I have health issues. I was not eligible for NJ Medicaid because I make too much with my $713/week unemployment gross. So I had to find something through NJ Cares, or some **** like that, which is Obamacare. I lucked out and got something close to my employee benefits. But it was no easy task. I contributed to my employee benefits, but I’m paying for this on less than half my former salary. So we need something.