With the upcoming 2008 election, of the biggest issues that seems to face this great nation is healthcare. In the United States we face some of the highest healthcare costs in the world.
One of the big benefits of working for a corporation that is not self owned today is the ablility to recieve good healthcare benefits. Healthcare is an issue that ranges close and far. It is important to see all aspects of the problem.
The government subsidides two different healthcare programs, Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare is a service offered to those recieving social security benefits over the age of 65. It is a government health insurance policy. Medicaid is similar, but instead of being made for senior citizens, it is made for very low income or low wealth persons.
Recently, a bill reached congress for renewal known as SCHIP. The intentions were to expand some healthcare to more children of low income families which would be paid for by an increase in excise tax on tobacco products.
Now I believe in the good that the government intended and think it is important to understand that I love children. I have been a day camp counselor 2 years and will be one again this coming summer, but in no way do I think that it is necessary for the government to fund healthcare. There are parts of the healthcare system however that need reform so that it is more affordable. I guess you could that this blog is essential intended to talk about non nationalized health care solutions to the healthcare problem and will end with an evalutation of the idea of socialized medicine.
During a session with Georgia Congressman Dr. Tom Price, a group of students including myself and other high school seniors from around the Congressman's district brainstormed possible solutions to the healthcare problem. One issue that was frequently cited was lawsuits against doctors. Doctors now must have malpractice insurance and being sued for malpractice really has no cap. This causes doctors to have to inflate the cost of their service. Those without medical coverage from an insurance policy really get hit hard from this. A single doctors visit that might cost some people a $20 in a co-pay costs a person without even minimum coverage up to $100. A cap on malpractice suits would help to decrease costs for doctors.
Instead of giving people a government sponsored health insurance policy, why not have the government provide low income families instead with an HSA that would allow the family to purchase private health insurance? In case you don't know, an HSA (Health Savings Account), which the government sponsors that allows pre-tax dollars to be put towards medical needs. There are currently caps on how much can be deposited into an HSA ($2,900 individual and $5,800 family) but this could be raised in order to allow for low income families to have enough money in an HSA to purchase a health care policy. Also, funds from an HSA that are not spent carry over to the next year so those who are more fiscally responsible will see the advantages of this. Finally, the use of an HSA could be expanded to the use of other things that ensure better health like the purchase of a gym/workout facility membership.
With social security and estimates that there will be little or no money left for the children of baby boomers, it may be beneficial to phase out Social Security benefits and make it so that rather than a really income, money is given to those who paid in by the form of an HSA. This would allow health care. an increasingly important thing to those elgible for social security.
Ending medicaid and medicare would allow for a lot of the federal workers to be released, giving up tax dollars that can be adjusted to other parts of the budget such as the current U.S. debt. Workers could be implemented into businesses rather than in government service where the economy would benefit more.
Socialized Medicine
So what exactly is it? Imagine being able to go to a hospital or a doctor and not be asked for an insurance card. That is socialized medicine in a really simple way. Sure it sounds great, but there are issues that make it not the right system for America.
If you look at other countries that currently use socialized medicine very successful like Sweden, you see a country that has a very homogeneous population. Sweden also has a lot of oil wealth that can be "thrown" at this. This general socialized system also puts a person into a system where close to 60% of a person's income goes towards different social services.
There is a lot of "traffic" medicine for countries with socialized medicine. The story I most often hear is from Great Britain. A women goes to the the doctor and is diagnosed with breast cancer. It is in the later stages and she needs to start chemotherapy immediately. The problem is that the women must wait a year for there to be space in a hospital to recieve treatment and by this time, the woman would already be dead.
Another big issue of socialized medicine, where are we going to find all the new doctors? The use of healthcare increases dramatically with socialized medicine.
How can a system have enough doctors to support such a system?
With government control of medicine, won't wages of doctors decrease leading to less people going to medical school because of a fear they will never be able to pay back medical school bills?
Is it worth it for America to give up quality of care for more of it?
I know that no system is perfect, but what do you think is the most effective system that could be used in the United States?
Private health care saved my mothers life. She has brain cancer, and it was caught by an MRI because of "sinus headaches" within a day of her first doctor's appointment. She had surgery at NYU within 10 days. None of these things could have occurred in a socialized system, where it can take months to schedule an MRI and potentially years to get surgery.
The United States has the most effective health care system in the world. Our private system funds the most advanced development of technology, drugs, and techniques. People come from all over the world to pay out-of-pocket and get treated by our doctors. I'd rather pay a bit more to get the best health care, and reform the system to make the insurance companies become more efficient, then go to a socialized health care.
I will never support socialized health care.
With that said...
For an Anti-UHC blog check out mine at:
http://progressiveu.org/102850-universal-healthcare-is-a-sham
For a Pro-UHC blog check out Chelle's at:
http://progressiveu.org/164149-why-we-need-universal-coverage
It's good to read both of these to get alternate perspectives.
With government control of medicine, won't wages of doctors decrease leading to less people going to medical school because of a fear they will never be able to pay back medical school bills?
I've heard suggestions from older doctors that the government take over paying for medical school expenses. And, to some degree, that's already happening by trying to convince more doctors to go into primary care.
It also depends on how the government takes over care.
Of course, it all comes down to using the resources we have more effectively. Mothers bringing their children into the doctor because they've had a runny nose for a day isn't terribly effective. Mandating a treatment of chemotherapy that won't make the patient better is not terribly effective either.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Where is all this money coming from? Is the government going to take over the university system as well? Who wants to teach at a medical school if the government is going to pay them less because the government runs it? Also, socialized medicine will swell the size of the federal burecracy which would lead to more increases in taxes. The American tax structure is strange enough as is, what motivation do the rich have to stay here if they are forced to pay for healthcare for the poor and their own? The poor already pay virtually no taxes, so why is it the taxpayer's responsibility to pay for others? I think that charity is better than government. Taxpayer funded programs to me in social welfare type programs seem to cause a lot more waste then they are truely worth.
You clearly have no idea how medical schools are run. Only a small fraction of funding comes from tuition and fees by the students. The government would only, in theory, have to pay for that chunk.
Those who teach at medical school rarely get paid just for teaching. Those in the first two years typically get paid because they're doing research (which, guess what, is partially paid for by the government, though NIH grants), and you will very rarely have a single professor there for the entire class. Instead, you will have various experts in their fields come in and give a lecture or two on a subject, and then leave. The exception to this is probably the Anatomy professors, who have to stay there for the entire first semester.
In the clinical years (years 3 and 4), you get an entirely different setup. Instead of being in a classroom, getting taught, the medical students are under the direction of actual doctors in hospitals. You get residents, who have just barely gotten out of medical school, leading a bunch of medical students around and 'pimping' them while presenting them with various cases within the discipline. The residents get no additional compensation; it is a part of their job, that they get paid a small 42K a year for. The attendings... it's also part of their job, though they get paid a bit more for it.
So, you'd have very few teachers affected if the government took over paying the student's tuition (which they do already if you go into the military, or you agree to go into rural medicine or primary care).
I'm not saying this is the best solution to the problem. Just that I've heard doctors, who have been through the training and know how medical schools work, suggest this.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
What happens to the money made by people from foreign countries to the U.S. who want to have procedures done? Do they not get medical care because they are not citizens or do we make them pay huge amounts? What happens with the advancement of drugs? Do we leave it to other countries to develop drugs? Our healthcare may be more expensive, but generally we have better access to newer drugs. Under a socialized system, I don't know where all the money for these things would come from. Are we suddenly going to be taxing citizens 30% or more of their income? That puts someone like me in a position to leave and find another country to live in that would meet my needs in a more appropriate manner. Meeting my needs should not involve the "Robin Hood" tax structure we have in the United States.
I've heard stories of people going to socialized countries, getting sick, and only having to pay a small amount for care. It's not that much of a phenom, either, as countries (at least, EU countries) will give you back the tax you paid on merchandise if you spent a certain amount, only available to those who aren't citizens.
Other countries do medical research as well. You know Gardasil? There's another brand of it that was developed, and in use, in the EU. The FDA didn't approve it, putting a monopoly on Gardasil, thus allowing the drug companies to choose whatever they want to charge for it. Under our current system, a generic drug cannot be made for x years, again, putting a monopoly on the product.
Our healthcare is so expensive because we do entirely too many unnecessary and expensive procedures, when the same results could be gotten from less expensive tests. Why do we do them? Because people profit from expensive tests, and they want to make more money. Why do a test that costs less than a dollar, when you can do one that costs $100 and pocket the extra $99?
We don't need to be spending something like $4K per person on healthcare (can't remember the exact figure off the top of my head). We may have the best healthcare in the world, but what's the use in having it if no one can afford it?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
You mention that you think charity is better than government, but very few medical practices even offer charity OR any kind of sliding fee scales for their patients without insurance. What sucks is that many people do not find out that no charity is offered until after the bills are already racked up. Many are forced to declare bankruptcy due to medical expenses. Even hospitals that may offer charity, the charity does not apply for the cost of the physicians, which are billed separately, or the cost of x-rays or MRIs, which are billed separately. What can people who have chronic medical conditions and no insurance do? Insurance companies will not take someone with a pre-existing condition so it turns into a vicious cycle. What alternatives do people have other than avoiding medical attention like the plague?
When I say charity is better than government, I say that for if the government wasn't working in welfare. More specific charities could work more effective than the government. Also, many people with pre-existing conditions get government assistance. For example, I know a girl who has some brain damage. The government gives her a check every month, pays for her medical coverage and is paying for her college. The assistance is there, people just don't understand how to manipulate the system.
Ross Kressel
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/rosskressel
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
but most do not Know how to manipulate the system so
Something Must be Done beyond this