What needs to be stressed in the debate on the future of healthcare is the obvious, but rarely spoken truth: We already HAVE socialized medicine. Only, because we have failed to institute a comprehensive policy on how to manage it, we end up paying far more than necessary, and have more inadequate care than necessary as a result.
Example, uninsured person has a heart attack in downtown Anytown, USA. Ambulance is called, person is brought to the local hospital, is treated in the ER, is admitted to CICU, and receives days of expensive treatment. Who do you think is paying for all this?
1) Taxpayers ... through a variety of provisions for indigent care.
2) The insured. Yes, we "voluntary" participants get the double shaft. Why? Medical costs are figured taking into account the work that is done without compensation. These higher costs show up as higher fees and higher premiums.
3) The uninsured. You should see the "non-negotiated" rates charged to those who actually pay for their own medical care. Mostly for the reasons cited in #2.
4) Taxpayers ... through higher rates than necessary charged to Medicare and Medicaid due to reasons in #2.
So long as we're not willing to lock the ER door to the uninsured, and let them die in the street, we have socialized medicine. I don't think a nation such as ours can morally bar the uninsured, so we have to face reality. We have socialized medicine. Now what are we going to do about managing it properly?
European nations and Canada's total spending on medicine per capita is close to 1/2 the United States's. Yet they have: lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, generally better quality of care. They spend around $3,700 per year per person. We spend $7,600. That's $2.3 TRILLION! Per year! Imagine what could be done for the US economy, and the wealth of Americans, if that money was not wasted as it is today.
Somehow, we have developed a boogeyman of what a national health care system would mean. But what it realistically could mean is more quality care to more people for less money. We've been sold a bill of goods about why we need to hold onto the system we have. How's that working for you?
Our man dying in the street might rather have had a checkup, caught his condition early, and managed it with medicine, and never cost any of us anything for an ER visit at all. He's much happier, I'm happier. Seems worth looking into.
15 November 2008
National Healthcare - Is it Socialized Medicine?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It feels like stating the obvious, doesn't it? But thanks for explaining this point about the system we already have. I like to add the point about how the system has already degraded to the point that the "socialized medicine" complainers try to warn us about -- patients dying after waiting in the emergency department for 19 hours, for example. I also like to point out the "socialized" aspect of private insurance: We join together in risk pools to share costs, yet this system we're supposed to like would work better if we could take out the profit motive so that patients could actually be guaranteed coverage instead of fighting claim denials.
Indeed. The trick going forward will be to keep some profit motive in place to continue to encourage innovation and development of new pharmaceuticals, machines and methodologies. I have no doubt this can be done.
Post a Comment