Posted on 11/02/2008 1:15:52 PM PST by RangerM
We all know the potential horrors if Socialized Medicine were ever made a reality in this country, but to someone who only sees the good, and none of the bad, it is difficult for them to see the truth.
In my discussion with a liberal friend I was having difficulty describing a parallel. We all can provide stories of long wait times, and lack of care experienced in other countries, but the answer always seems to be, "America will do it better". My point is that when a person has no responsibility to bear the costs of healthcare, he will not consider costs when pursuing healthcare, and the system will ultimately either fail economically or be forced to resort to rationing.
I was trying to think of a parallel that a person could see every day, and not simply disregard.
The only thing I could think of would be the Food Stamp program. Specifically, I was trying to remember if I have EVER seen a person using Food Stamps (or the debit card that some use) AND using a coupon or other similar discount. I DO remember seeing someone using one of those store discount cards, but those don't require any real effort.
I see this as a parallel in that the person who could benefit most from using coupons fails to make an effort to do so, but I don't want to misrepresent based on my own observation.
Does the group have any insights?
If you like what the Democrats (Dodd, Frank, the CRA, etc.) have done for the mortgage industry then you’ll just love what they do with the healthcare industry!
We have socialized medicine in America now with Medicare, Medicaid, VA hospitals, military hospitals, etc.
When I was born, my dad was in the military, but my mom refused to allow me to be delivered in a military hospital. My dad died because of the SUB-STANDARD care he received from the Veterans Administration.
That is how socialized medicine works in the US.
I certainly like your comparison, but of course a lib would only see the dems as being prevented (by the Republicans) from invoking the right policies.
The insanity runs deep, when you see the dems through rose-colored glasses.
The soviet healthcare system is a shining example. People dying while on waiting lists of curable and preventable ailments, dissidents considered mentally ill and incarcerated, they ARE doing this in Europe BTW.
The problem (as I see it) with your argument is that it makes sense.
What I mean is that I’m trying to come up with a comparison that is undeniable, even when someone refuses to believe.
The Walmart comparison goes that direction, and I’ll think along that line.
I’m really trying to come up with something that could best be described as an “Identity Politics” argument.
The DMV.
I believe there is a role for government in the health care system. I’m interested in creative ideas and not the tired old ‘government sucks’ with no ideas.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not for a ‘takeover’, but I see areas where the government can take over routine, low cost procedures.
A friend told me government healthcare would be horrible...it would take 6 months wait for X procedure. I told him its going to take me 6 months wait to save in order to do X procedure so what is the difference?
Please no flames. If you have an idea, I’m all ears.
How about..
“..go ahead and socialize healthcare, just imagine when neocons win the election and have all that power over your health..”
One word: CANADA!
Even the man who created the system there admits that it is an abject FAILURE.
We already have a form of socialized medicine for certain groups: Veterans' hospitals, Medicare, Medicaid, and state. Medicare is lousy. They pay my caregivers less than 60% or more of what that actual charges are, and I have a supplement, am looking for a better one even if it costs me more because I don't think it is right shafting my providers plus it may disincentivize them to accept me as a patient. My options are limited already.
One argument I have used was pointing out how it works in Canada, telling my own story of my experience in England and what I've read about Canadians who can afford it crossing the border to obtain urgent health care at their own expense because the wait lines are so long. Some Canadians seem to like it.
Like England, the wealthy won't wait in line; they will have a private physician and pay their own money to avoid wait lines and better options obtaining the best care.
People will flock to emergency rooms with the sniffles worse than now. They won't know until they actually talk to you and/or get a diagnosis, taking time away from more critical patients.
You won't be able to sue your doctors for malpractice. I've never done it, but would like to have that option.
We will have to accept all foreign patients, whether visitors , legal immigrants waiting for citizenship or illegals and pay their total expenses like England, even if they have the ability to pay.
It will cost more to somebody, the taxpayer, may give the illusion of being free but the taxpayers will have to foot the total bill. Once the government gets their hand in anything, it only gets worse.
It will mean making the government larger because more people will be brought on board to manage it.
All the above is assuming you bypass the insurance companies and go government-managed, total UHC, and we're not there yet, but with the economy on the downturn, either McCain's plan or Obama's plan will have an adverse impact on the insurance companies.
It will require one more ID card which will be compulsory, no telling whether a chip (storage of all your records) will be involved, no telling about privacy issues. Those are already looming as a potential threat.
They will make it so complicated (read the new 127-page 2009 Medicare manual), few people will be able to understand it and believe that it is a good idea.
The way I see it, your argument is most effective to a person who has experienced the horrors first-hand, but to someone who only thinks of the good, without considering the negative, your argument would result in the “glazed eyes” response.
Not that you are wrong. It’s just that I’d think the typical (lib) “soundbite” response would be the most effective to a lib.
Good Point.
I’ve reminded people that if socialized medicine was so great, why are our Northern hospitals filled with Canadians paying cash?
Or people in UK dying before getting treatment?
Go ahead, set up a system where the government has power over over all of your life, even your health care.. then, when you all have the perfect system in place, the neocons can take over and they will control every aspect of your life... go ahead.. give them that power.. let the Bush's and Cheney's run your health care..
Americans can’t repeal the laws of economics.
The most relevant examples for what American health care would become under a single-payer plan are Canada’s and the UK’s health care systems both of which are nightmarishly dysfunctional and dangerous at this point in time.
The fallacy of of arguments for socialized medicine reside around an exclusive emphasis on incentives for consumers of health care and a complete avoidance of the effects of socialized medicine on incentives for providers of health care. When huge disincentives are erected in the name universal access to health care for consumers, producers do what they always do when the government begins to tax something heavily: they leave.
In 1948, after the UK started up the National health Service (NHS) within a few years a large number of Doctors in their 50s retired from practice. The prospect of a lot more work for less pay was not appealing. Those Doctors who had sufficient financial resources simply quit practicing. On the demand side, once going to the Doctor became a cost free transaction for the patient. UK facilities were inundated with hypchondriacs looking to treat phantom maladies. Demand goes up, supply decreases so prices go up. The NHS reacted to this through an at first implicit and the explicit care rationing scheme. This pattern has continued through to this day. It has become so severe that UK NHS officials are now seriously looking at privatization schemes to address the crisis.
The pattern in Canada followed the UK pattern almost exactly but just a little bit later. It also worth noting that both the UK and Canadian systems are about a least 20 years behind the US in terms of treatment modalities, both drug and and non-drug treatments. It is also worth noting that most notable medical device and drug research happens in the US and not in Canada and the UK. The incentives to innovate have been destroyed in these two countries.
People will not continue to work and to innovate under the threat of a gun. We don’t need or want care rationing schemes here in the US. The forgotten health care producer has to be remembered in any health care reform discussion.
There are far better ways to address health care access problems than to impose a single-payer program. Fewer health care producers, less health care. This elemental economic truth can’t seem to penetrate the obtuseness of liberals on this issue.
The problem is that the person (a lib) has to see it. Given that we are in the age of “Sicko”, there is little evidence (the type that is spoon-fed on TV) to support your (well documented) scenario.
There lies the problem. A person will only acknowledge what they see, and even then they may deny it.
The arguement isn’t about socialized anything. Once conservatives understand that the arguement is forcing others to pay for something for other people we will win the arguement.
Whatever the topic is only diverts us from the true issue. And this is done for exactly that reason.
Who can argue against feeding the hungry?
Who can argue against forcing others to give you their earnings to serve their own goals? This is robbery, extortion or whatever term you use it is evil.
The back door to destroying our present system is removal of the pre-existing condition limitation. I’ve heard some commercials here in Carolina from the Obama campaign pushing this line of argument.
How will it destroy the private insurance business?
An analogy that everyone will understand. You choose not to pay auto insurance. You have an accident with your car and it is totaled. The insurance company is forced to insure you regardless of the pre-existing condition of your car. You pay 1 premium payment, they pay to get you a new car. Why ever pay another premium? They go out of business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.