Posts
The Des Moines Register wrote an editorial last week about the movie Sicko and the need for changes in our health care system. The Register says a government financed health care system would be the best way to go...
The best option for doing that: a government-financed system, much like Medicare, which covers America's senior citizens. That wouldn't be "socialized medicine." Under Medicare, seniors still choose their doctors, and doctors don't work for the government.The Register also responds to critics of a government-run system...
The United States spends more than any other country on health care, yet leaves more than 45 million Americans uninsured. Lack of insurance results in thousands of deaths each year. Even having insurance doesn't protect Americans from huge bills and bankruptcy. Americans have lower life expectancies than Canadians and Europeans - where health care is managed by the government.
Of course, some people get defensive when anyone suggests a "government-run" system (even though more than 100 million Americans use "government-run" Medicare and Medicaid). A few contacted the media before the movie opened. They wanted to be sure we had all the "facts." Among them: Canadians wait a long time for non-urgent treatment, and "4.2 million Canadians can't find a primary-care physician."I am surprised to see the Register taking this stance, but welcome with open arms. The government-financed systems like Medicare and Medicaid operate with only a 3% overhead, while private insurance has a 20%-30% overhead. The idea of insurance is the more people that share the cost the cheaper it will be or the bigger the pool the cheaper the insurance will be. By putting everyone under one government-financed system the pool becomes pretty darn big, burden is spread around, and costs are reduced. People are still able to choose their doctors.
Our response: Many Americans wait months for cataract surgeries and hip replacements. Non-urgent means it's not urgent. Being uninsured means you might wait forever. It also often means not having a primary-care physician. Instead, you might go to the emergency room, costing much more.
Most importantly people would have health care coverage from birth to death, which would encourage preventative care. Currently, people are covered from job to job. There is little incentive to provide preventative care. Knowing a person would be their a patient their entire life would be motivation to keep that patient in top health, so catastrophic care isn't needed later on.
Making sure everyone is covered, reducing the overhead costs, having birth to death coverage, emphasize preventative care, along with electronic medical records would save a lot of money and make our health care system more efficient.
8 comments:
You're surprised that the Register came out in favor of a liberal cause celeb? The Des Moines Register has long been one of the more liberal news papers in the country.
I'm of two minds with regards to "Sicko", with the obviously huge caveat of not having actually seen the movie. I can whole heartedly agree that the current health care system is broken. I don't, however, feel that socialized medicine a la England or Canada would be the magic bullet many claim. There are equally horrorific stories under both paradigms.
There are things that can be done to improve the health care system greatly without going the socialized medicine route, which I outlined above.
As for being surprised the Des Moines Register was knowing what the largest business in Des Moines are and then taking a position to change the insurance system and go to a government financed position.
Your 3% overhead doesn't take into account how the Government budgets for these types of programs. It is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Personnel costs for the Government programs(such as retirement costs, health care costs, training, etc...) are all paid for outside of the Medicare/Social Security offices. If you were to dig deeper into the costs associated with managing Medicare you would find that the Government's overhead is much higher than industry's. The principal reason: The Government doesn't work for profit, industry does.
Ben, England and Canada take different approaches to health care. Canada is more of a true "single-payer" system, whereas Britain has a parallel private medical industry.
My understanding is that France has one of the best systems, as measured by access to health care, health of the population, and percent of GDP spent on health care.
Incidentally, even a single-payer system (like the "Medicare for all" that Kucinich proposes) would not truly be "socialized medicine." Socialized medicine means the government runs all the hospitals and clinics, and all doctors and medical personnel are in essence government employees.
Single-payer means that the government pays for medical services, as happens now in the U.S. with Medicare. But doctors still have their own medical practices, which are not operated by the state, and most hospitals are privately owned as well. With single-payer, people would get to choose their doctors, just like Medicare recipients do now.
@DesMoinesDem
Yes, I realize I was simplfying the various health care alternatives. My underying point, however, is still valid. Every model of healthcare has horror stories which highlight its flaws. Be it the paitent who is uninsured and dies without simple life saving treatment, the patient in Canada who dies while waiting for a simple diagnostic test, or the paitent in England whoes treatment is compromised due to bugutary constraints. Stereotyped examples, all, but all documented.
I'm reading your post in Florida, and glad to hear this debate in Iowa. I saw "Sicko," and was touched by the actions of the Cubans and the doctor in Great Britain. With so many people sympathetic to the shortfalls of health care, I hope we see a change of attitudes in this country.
First of all, people need to get past the BS name calling like "Socialism". Remember the days when unionizing meant "Communism"? Go up to a UAW worker, call him a Commie and see what happens :)
That said, I own my own business and pay about 1100 a month for health insurance which does not cover preexisting conditions, mental health and has a crap load of deductibles and no dental. People talk about taxes, but federal taxes pale in comparison to my health insurance costs. My 1100 goes to a company which makes a profit by keeping my money, and has no incentive to make sure I am taken care of when I get sick. I guess I could do that "other" American dream and work for a big company and hope they don't lay me off, but I like owning my own business.
If you have not seen "Sicko" I highly recommend it. I am still waiting for a documentary that makes a counterpoint. It seems that the only argument that the other side has is to yell "socialism". If "Socialism" means not throwing sick people out on the street because they have no coverage, or allowing a mother to take her daughter to the closest hospital and not have to worry about her insurance covering the visit then so be it. (BTW, these are in the movie and the daughter died because she had to go to another "in network" hospital but it was too late.)
I keep hearing that all we need to do is fix what we have, but as long as our health care is run by profit driven institutions then it will NEVER work. Profit means making money not helping you when you get sick.
Post a Comment