After Clinton’s recent support of socialized medicine, I think a few excerpts of her original plan is in order:
“HHS will control the allocation of residency slots and (p. 129) assure preferential treatment of certain groups of persons.”“Wise allocation of resources: The nation should balance prudently what it spends on health care against other important national priorities.”
Related posts:
- Universal health care: Slim chance?
- "We must ration health care, but we should do it morally"
- MedGadget takes on universal health care
- Why do the world’s richest come to the US for health care?
- Can universal health care lead to a restriction of individual freedoms?
- My take: Dr. Nurses, supporting universal care
- Universal health care: Missing the true problem
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 25 comments }
If anyone wants to see socialized medicine in action,come into the blue..or green. Check out the sorry state of military medicine which is a socialized system, and you will see why the retention rate hovers around 1 percent yearly. Hint: it’s not the money, and it’s not the patient population. It’s the bureaucratic system at it’s worst, with patient care dictated by paper-pushers from on high, no access to primary care precisely because it’s free. Everybody uses, and the sickest have to wait longer. I long for the day I can leave this cesspool. If Hilary gets her way, I’ll have to go into real estate or something. Beware, free medical care that remains quality is but a pipe dream.
Hi Doc, I couldn’t agree with you more. As a med-student I’ve spent a lot of time at the local VA, but it wasn’t until just recently that an attending pointed out the unique irony of the VA system. Many of our aging vets, died fighting against communist/socialist regimes. Now, in an ironic fate, they support a socialist HC system that has failed them.
I couldn’t agree more with you. It is so interesting that every socialist system (i.e, Canada, England . . .) is drowning with the EXACT same problems.
In my opinion the answer is simple: The Free Market. I know many will disagree, but its worked in every other industry and it WILL work in medicine. If you could combine strong business skills w/ the altruistic personalities of HC workers, the system would improve.
Thoughts?
I swear that woman just scares the crap out of me.
I wonder…if she gets to cram this terror down the throats of Americans if the Senators who now have healthcare that any American would love to have will get to keep it or if they will have to become part of the masses?
I wonder…if Chelsea were to come down with some horrific disease if she will have to wait for treatment because of rationing or if her Mom will get her daughter the best and the fastest?
Hillary is the poison pill for the Democratic Party to swallow. And there is a good chance that they will do just that. She is probably the best chance that a John McCain GOP ticket has, and I am saying that as a card-carrying Democrat. And forget Barak Obama. Nothing personal, but he doesn’t have enough of a track record to get the presidency (but he should think about the governorship of Illinois).
The universal health care debate is over – it’s a done deal.
Unfortunately Anonymous, the debate is just starting over again. If you do a Google.News search for “universal health care” you’ll see just how many states are proposing legislation on UHC.
I suppose our society is going to have to learn a new phrase in the future…
Doctor strike…
What I’m saying is that it’s a done deal that it will happen. THe only debate is the form.
Doctors aren’t going to strike. This is what they wanted. They’ll get their limited liability with this. Congratulations.
Limited Liability? Who do you think Hillary’s running mate will be? None other then John “Jury, can you hear the victim crying from the grave” Edwards, the billionare sodomite. Yeah he’ll allow limited liability for the layer sodomites who pay his way into the white house.
“Doctors aren’t going to strike. This is what they wanted. They’ll get their limited liability with this. Congratulations.”
This sure as hell isn’t what we want. A government funded system run like Medicare? God help us all, moreso the patients, if this ever goes into effect. And there’s no way a Democratic controlled Congress is going to give docs limited liability.
Agreed Dr. IS, this isn’t what doctors want at all. Not to mention the fallacy is that w/ gov’t run HC, docs will have limited liability? That couldn’t be further from the truth, as I’m sure you know. Kevin’s covered plenty of articles of insane lawsuits across the pond in England or north of the border in Canada. Even in the slim chance that liability from pts decrease, the risk of being wrongly attacked/prosecuted by the gov’t for “HC fraud” would probably sky rocket as a way to scare physicians into under-coding etc.
USAF MD
Very true. I am in the Navy and TRISCARE is horrible. It is the blue print fot the Hillaryscare Health System. TRISCARE is dangerous to patients. I am out in 1yr and 4mths. Can’t wait to get out of this pathetic healthcare system.
I believe the future of healthcare will reside in a state by state plan similar to the MA and MD plans where private insurers cover all the populace in a mandatory type of a system. The single payer dream of the socialists in this country will not happen b/c Americans don’t want it and the Insurance industry, Trial Lawyer, and AMA lobbies are too powerful. Notice I put ATLA in there as not wanting a socialized single payer system.
Cuba did real well with their system. Notice they had to call in a Spanish surgeon to save their leader. I am sure they would have prefered to call in a US surgeon…
“This sure as hell isn’t what we want. A government funded system run like Medicare? God help us all, moreso the patients, if this ever goes into effect. And there’s no way a Democratic controlled Congress is going to give docs limited liability.”
Nonsense. It will be just like workers’ comp. No fault with caps on recovery. You will be employees of the govt. for the most part, except for those exceptional physicians or exceptional marketers who can sustain a truly private practice.
If it’s not what you want, it’s your own fault. You took the guaranteed payments decades ago and ensured yourselves a very high standard of living, but with the tradeoff of being subject to the govt.’s rules and whims. Despite endless complaining about that arrangement, you offer no alternatives. P4P gets attacked nonstop (reminds me of the NEA attacking merit pay in schools), but again, you offer no alternatives.
What is going to happen will just up the ante a little more in terms of govt. control. Again, except for those who are exceptional physicians and are willing to take the risk of truly private pay (where you might not get paid back and might have to hound the individuals for payment) and marketing themselves.
You only have yourselves, and your unwillingness or inability to come up with alternative solutions, to blame.
Yes, you are right. I am sorry. I should have told the physicians from forty years ago to fight a little harder against the government.
Just wait until the new generation of docs comes out. They aren’t going to put up with treatment. They will choose to work less and just make less money or maybe even equal money by treating patients who can pay.
?Socialized Medicine” is an antiquated term that was created during the Cold War in an effort to derail national health insurance as communist. We already have national health insurance. Its called medicare and anyone who know anything about practice management “in the trenches” know that medicare is our best insurance with the most straightforward rules, the least restrictive policies, and the least hassle factor. Everything that detractors say, such as inability to pick doctors, beauracracy, rationing etc, actually occurs most frequently with the commercial payors. With regards to the previous posters who actually are federal employees, yeh I can see why that would be less than ideal. But that is not national health insurance as most commonly envisioned.
People for or against national health insurance need to take an honest look at the issues and just knee jerk to the rhetoric from sides.
“Kevin’s covered plenty of articles of insane lawsuits across the pond in England or north of the border in Canada”
Josh: I have worked in both US and Canadian healthcare systems and this just isn’t true. In Canada Lawsuits occur but they are rare and more importantly there is no concern for unreasonable “pain and suffering” settlements that will bankrupt the physician. The average specialist physician in Canada has never been sued while the average physician in any raped specialty in the US has. It’s apples and oranges.
Make physicians governement employees? That sounds like a great way to increase productivity. Its not going to happen United healthcare gave their CEO a 100 million dollar bonus, what do you think the whole industry will spent to protect their livelyhood. Chomp on that for a second.
“In Canada Lawsuits occur but they are rare and more importantly there is no concern for unreasonable “pain and suffering” settlements that will bankrupt the physician.”
How many physicians have been bankrupted by a lawsuit? Names would be nice.
Well, obviously you’re Exhibit “A” for the “mentally bankrupt” argument.
Wow, these comments really reveal some fundamental ideological differences between the U.S. and other western countries.
I think before dismissing Canada’s or England’s healthcare systems, you should really know how the systems work.
At least in Canada, doctors are NOT goverment employees. They own private practices, make profit etc. but simply bill the government agencies (different provinces cover different drugs/procedures etc.) instead of the patients or patients’ insurance companies. We all share the cost of this universal healthcare by paying taxes. This way every citizen has access to health care regardless of income level (which is considered a fundamental right to most Canadians, is it not to most Americans?). We actually pay much less per capita for health care than Americans do. It’s simply a myth that it is a big, inefficient bureaucracy.
Obviously, all systems will have their setbacks, and when wait times are held up as a horror of “socialized” healthcare, I think we should also be thinking about the millions of Americans who have no access to healthcare at all because they can’t afford it. I don’t see how that situation is any more acceptable.
In Canada we’re currently studying other countries’ health systems and trying to mend ours after over a decade of government cuts. France’s looks good, similar to ours but they allow more corporate involvement than we do, which no doubt eases the wait times. Personally, no one I know has ever had a problem receiving timely, quality, free care..whether it was cancer, stroke, anyeurism, epilepsy, heart attack, liver failure, diabyetes, etc.
I’m sure there is a happy medium in there between the two systems that would be way better than the systems we currently have.
Would you US docs prefer to be paid by the hour, like other professionals? And at what rate on average for a PCP? I realize it would vary by locale and specialty somewhat, of course.
I was a military physician, and I beg to differ with the other military docs that have posted. I thought the military medical system worked very well, but one problem with assessment of that system as a model is that if you were too sick, you simply were removed (discharged from active duty).
I’m currently in private practice in a city that is under the thumb of one large payor who pretty much dictates rates of reimbursement–a ruthless corporation called Sierra Health. Medical Economics magazine lists our region of the country as being lowest in terms of reimbursements to health care providers. Practice in this region is very difficult, and we are near the lowest rank of States in terms of physicians per population.
That being said, I for one, am ready to consider a type of “universal” health care. I guess I would rather answer to government bureaucrats than to insurance industry fat cats.
I would hope that such a universal system provides malpractice relief for providers. But alas, I fear that providers would simply become independent contractors to one government payor, rather than employees of the government. That means lower reimbursement, yet no relief of liability. In that case, such a system would be an unmitigated disaster.
Ripple: 1) Not all Americans feel Health care is a universal right. I could talk forever on this point, but I will first reference Dr. Leonard Peikoff’s classic piece on the issue. Second, in a Socratic method of argument, i’ll take the argument of ‘rights’ to the extreme: You need food WAY more than you need medicine, so lets nationalize farms first. You need homes more than Medicine, lets nationalize the construction industry next. etc.
2)You imply that the weight times in Canada aren’t significant when we both know that is not true. If wait times were even CLOSE to manageable, the judge in theland mark legal case in Alberta never would have ruled universal HC unconstitional. In fact, the judge said “access to healthcare is not the same as actual healthcare. Again, this was b/c a pt had to wait 2+ years for hip surgery.
3)Cost, you mentioned that Canadians spend more for less and generally thats true. But at what cost? (pun intended). The state of washington has more MRI’s than the country of Canada. Possibly life saving care is denied to elderly citizens who “may not live long enough” to get the full use of their hip replacement (10 yrs) etc. Good luck arguing comparative quality.
4)Americas Uninsured. Classic case of a lie told often enough, it eventually becomes accepted as fact.
The Pacific Research Institute has a great paper on this:
“Census data show that the number of uninsured has grown for the third straight year. Look a little deeper and they also tell us the number of insured has grown to 243.3 million, just as the total population has grown. The fact is, everything has grown. But the percentage of uninsured Americans remains at 15.6%, the same as in 1996, and lower than in 1997 and 1998, when Bill Clinton was president.
One of every three uninsured live in households with incomes of more than $50,000 a year. One in seven live in households with annual incomes that top $75,000. And the Census Bureau counts as “uninsured” individuals who are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program but are not enrolled. Deven Herrick of the National Center for Policy Analysis estimates that as many as 14 million children and adults fall into this category.”
5)Numbers aside, this argument isn’t about cost saving, efficiency, etc, its about the fundamental opinion of HC as a right or not. If you few it as a right, than you’d be willing to pay for it at any cost. If you don’t view it as a universal right, you don’t care what the “potential” savings are.
Again, the constitution says “Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of Happiness” . . .
Well yes, that was my point about ideological differences. Americans I guess generally have more of a “Lockian” state going on whereas Canadians have more of a “Mill-esque” state, with rights that go beyond what is needed for survival. Under your definition of rights, we wouldn’t have human rights or the concept of equality between genders/races because we don’t need those to live.
If I’m spewing myths about the uninsured, certainly you’re spewing myths about wait times. Picking and choosing certain cases does not prove anything about the system as a whole.
Comments on this entry are closed.