What is the opposite of "socialized medicine"?

[CGP]

"Commercialized medicine"?

"For-profit medicine"?

What is the correct terminology?

[Kbentleyis]

Well, I believe socialized is totally free medical coverage. Unsustainable if not rationing care and medicine. England has the 3rd highest employment in the health industry, in the world. They spend billions per year to keep it running. There are more managers then doctors. After WWII, they had a rationing of food and housing, etc., so socialized medical was the answer. After a period of time, they couldn't get out of it. Daniel Hannan, member of Parliment, warned USA of what could happen if we chose this road. Serious ailments are put off until care is available.

For profit medicine? Extremely good medical care and medical research. For profit industry makes good investments to cover loss of unpaid costs.

What I can make of the government run health care being proposed, is not free like socialized--unless participant comes under the Medicaid plan. Limitations on coverage, much like regular private health insurance. Members would still be obligated to pay for costs not covered.

Hell, I don't know CGP, about this government run health care. Maybe for the first time we Americans can run to Canada and wait for care.

[CGP]

What I can make of the government run health care being proposed, is not free like socialized--unless participant comes under the Medicaid plan. Limitations on coverage, much like regular private health insurance. Members would still be obligated to pay for costs not covered.

KB, just to clarify: a government health care plan, which is optional, isn't the same thing as "government run health care".

[Kbentleyis]

You see CGP, they didn't start using "insurance" plan until after they wrote this bill. They can call it anything they want, but under this bill it is a Medicare and Medicaid plan--government run. I'll post some pages if you'd like--Medicare and Medicaid is used in every section and subsection.

Not only do you pay for the plan, but under any of these plans, the payer is subject to limitations and expenses. That's why we or the government can't call it "socialized." The plan(s) under Medicaid are subject to income. None of it is free.

The government cannot participate in market investments, so "new" money cannot cover costs to any losses. BTW, I don't know if that's not necessarily true any longer since we're in bed with so many banks. Money could be laundered through there (acorn comes to mind)--if I were in a conspiracy mode. Keep in mind, Bernacke won't let the Federal Reserve go through any audit--there I go--stop me already.

[karate kid x]

You see CGP, they didn't start using "insurance" plan until after they wrote this bill. They can call it anything they want, but under this bill it is a Medicare and Medicaid plan--government run. I'll post some pages if you'd like--Medicare and Medicaid is used in every section and subsection.

Not only do you pay for the plan, but under any of these plans, the payer is subject to limitations and expenses. That's why we or the government can call it "socialized." The plan(s) under Medicaid are subject to income.

well, then get your insurance from somewhere else

[CGP]

Not only do you pay for the plan, but under any of these plans, the payer is subject to limitations and expenses.

Yes, no different from a commercial health insurance plan.

It's a simple situation - if someone doesn't like the features of the government managed health plan option, don't purchase it! There is no but...

[Kbentleyis]

Well, not exactly. Suppose the government plans can bring in a cost less than the private? Looks and sounds good? Now imagine 70 million people grabbing the same "deal." Here's where it gets tricky and I hope I'll explain it as I've grasped from my readings.

BHO says "NO DEDUCTABLES", but under this shell of a plan it doesn't say that. There is intention of "shared" expenses and left to interpretations of what a deductable will be defined. Everyone will be required to take one of these plans--even aliens. A person will be subject to a penalty (which is undisclosed in this plan), if he/she is not in a plan.

Also, and this is so important. Those who are covered under a plan by their employer should have the option to go government or stay private. Right?

(Forcing Employer Penalties) If your employer is paying $1,800 per year to cover you under a private plan, but the government would only penalize your employer $700 for not insuring you---what do you think the employer would rather pay?

Eventually, all roads would lead to government run health care.

[karate kid x]

Well, not exactly. Suppose the government plans can bring in a cost less than the private? Looks and sounds good? Now imagine 70 million people grabbing the same "deal." Here's where it gets tricky and I hope I'll explain it as I've grasped from my readings.

If everybody buys the public healthcare over the private healthcare, than the private healthcare sucked anyways.


BHO says "NO DEDUCTABLES"

prove it, he said no such thing


, but under this shell of a plan it doesn't say that. There is intention of "shared" expenses and left to interpretations of what a deductable will be defined. Everyone will be required to take one of these plans--even aliens. A person will be subject to a penalty (which is undisclosed in this plan), if he/she is not in a plan.

and then the real aliens will come, the kind from outer space, and Obama will try to force his healthcare plan on them, and they'll get angry

and they'll destroy the world, and it will all be because of Obama and his health plan.


Also, and this is so important. Those who are covered under a plan by their employer should have the option to go government or stay private. Right?

(Forcing Employer Penalties) If your employer is paying $1,800 per year to cover you under a private plan, but the government would only penalize your employer $700 for not insuring you---what do you think the employer would rather pay?

Employer health care is part of your compensation along with your paycheck and stuff like that.


Eventually, all roads would lead to government run health care.

[CGP]

Suppose the government plans can bring in a cost less than the private? Looks and sounds good? Now imagine 70 million people grabbing the same "deal." Here's where it gets tricky and I hope I'll explain it as I've grasped from my readings.

I think it's called COMPETITION!

Perhaps a tough competitor is just what the private insurance industry needs for it to stop ripping people off & to stop treating people like garbage.

[TheTaoOfBill]

For everyone worried about the insurance companies let me repeat this:

There is no way at all that the insurance companies are going to go out of business with this plan. No way.

How do I know? Because in Canada and in Europe where everyone has full universal healthcare guess what still exists? Private insurance companies.

They will ALWAYS be a part of the healthcare system. And if they don't go away from universal healthcare they certainly aren't going away from this puny ass excuse for a public healthcare plan.

You should be less concerned about the insurance companies going broke and more concerned about everyday Americans going broke.

60% of all bankruptcies are due to healthcare costs.

[CGP]

For everyone worried about the insurance companies let me repeat this:

There is no way at all that the insurance companies are going to go out of business with this plan. No way.

How do I know? Because in Canada and in Europe where everyone has full universal healthcare guess what still exists? Private insurance companies.

They will ALWAYS be a part of the healthcare system. And if they don't go away from universal healthcare they certainly aren't going away from this puny ass excuse for a public healthcare plan.

You should be less concerned about the insurance companies going broke and more concerned about everyday Americans going broke.

60% of all bankruptcies are due to healthcare costs.

Australia has a universal health care system funded by the government.

And shock horror, it also has a very robust private health insurance industry.

Both public & private can co-exist. Why is that so hard for people to grasp?

[Kbentleyis]

KKX--YES he did, I can't post videos. It's the one where he says "no deductables, pre-existing conditions would be covered, blah blah blah. You heard it.

CGP, private insurance companies are stiffled under each 50 states regulations. A proposed option to health insurance was denied by the dems.

Instead of lifting the 50 individual state regulations where private insurance companies can compete across America, reform the "tort" laws, protect hospital and doctor's lawsuit limits, and laws to require coverage to pre-existing conditions -- would cost us NOTHING. Not raise our taxes, and it would promote competiveness between insurance companies and coverage costs could be kept low. We would never have had all this broohaha over health insurance by our government. Which is going to cost a fortune.

Can you remember in one of my posts I said it's all about control? Having the above plan was easy. But, I can't help think that many would benefit if this bill is passed. One for sure is GE.

Reform, you bet we need it. Medical costs are extremely high. Catastrophic illness can devastate a person. Under the government plan--the monthly cost would be lower, but the catastrophic costs to be paid for an individual would not change.

This bill has an enormous amount of government agencies to be involved. Decisions, costs, and quality of care is so vague, it's baffling. I can't help think that they did this on purpose.

[Kbentleyis]

Does Canada, England, Austraila penalize people not insured or employers for not insuring employees?

How come Americans aren't running to these other countries for medical care, instead of them coming to us?

Maybe because their private insurance companies can't compete and therefore the quality of health care is poor?

[CGP]

Does Canada, England, Austraila penalize people not insured or employers for not insuring employees?

I don't know about Canada, but in England and Australia employers are not responsible for providing health insurance. Employers have nothing to do with health insurance. In England and Australia, the government provides a universal health care system and citizens have the choice of being able to purchase additional private insurance independently. Employers are not part of the equation and they shouldn't be - what fool thought it a good idea to burden employers/businesses in America with providing health insurance coverage? The government of the country should have a greater responsibility to provide health care for its citizens than the local McDonalds or Starbucks store.

[OzDemocrat]

How come Americans aren't running to these other countries for medical care,Because the governments of these countries only cover emergency treatment for non residents. They call it "national health care", not "everyone in the world come get it for free on us health care".

And lots of people do travel overseas for treatment - in many cases the cost of thousands of dollars in flights and accommodation for weeks, more than accounts for the difference in cost of medical care for the exact same treatment they would get in the US.

instead of them coming to us?Residence of countries with national health care travel to the US for treatment only in cases where the US's role as leader in the field of treatment will make a difference to their quality of life. While this is significant compared to a lot of countries in the world, for places like Canada and Australia its incredibly uncommon to the point of being a notable exception.

Maybe because their private insurance companies can't compete and therefore the quality of health care is poor?The idea that there is, or must be, a correlation between the profits made by private health insurers and the quality of health care shows a flawed understanding of the situation.

[Tybee]

You can compare our 'bill' with other countries till the cows come home, it still won't be the same. Only way you can is if ours and theirs are worded the exact same, and it won't be. Plus, I'm sure other countries deal with private insurance differently as well. Get rid of lobbyists, and there's a slight risk of getting something decent. Not that there's a chance in hell of that happening.

[NSTYLE77]

I read that Obama is now caving into the pharma companies. This makes me so sad:(.
I am still curious why former Hillary supporters are al of the sudden against National Health Care!!!!

[hobbitt]

Employer health care is part of your compensation along with your paycheck and stuff like that.


If your employer offers health insurance for full-time employees, and if your employer has designated you as a full-time employee.

Not everyone who works has health insurance. And some people are offered jobs for 30 some hours a week, which does not qualify as full-time.

And not every employer can afford to offer health insurance. Large corporations typically do but small companies may or may not.

[Steffi]

In Germany it's 14,9 % from my pre-tax. The employer pays 7 % of it and I have to pay the rest. No difference between full- and part time.

[cinnamongirl]

I am still curious why former Hillary supporters are al of the sudden against National Health Care!!!!

Because Obama's for it, and now apparently only the "Kool-Aid drinkers" support monstrous policies like a government-subsidized alternative for healthcare. :rolleyes:

Also, the big pharma thing scares me a little too. Those companies are disgusting.

[foxyladi]

I don't know about Canada, but in England and Australia employers are not responsible for providing health insurance. Employers have nothing to do with health insurance. In England and Australia, the government provides a universal health care system and citizens have the choice of being able to purchase additional private insurance independently. Employers are not part of the equation and they shouldn't be - what fool thought it a good idea to burden employers/businesses in America with providing health insurance coverage? The government of the country should have a greater responsibility to provide health care for its citizens than the local McDonalds or Starbucks store.

i,m trying so hard to understand this gov. run health plan.
seems that the gov.already has many plans working.
are they doing away with schip va medicare medicade??
love the new avatar..