Does Socialized Medicine Work?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Japher
Socialized Medicine "works" in a socialized economy, such is the post WWII Britland. Still, you have to wonder why many of those britlanders come over to the Ameriland for specialized operations, surgeries, and procedures.

IMO, the problem with socialized medicine is that it focuses itself souly on the many and ignores the few. If everyone has the disease you have than you will be in luck, but if you have some autoimmune disease that would take 2 minutes to cure than you might as well dig your grave now, because it won't get the time of day.

Normally, socialized medical system allow people to get private treatment if they wish, or pay for additional insurance, where you get rooms for yourselves, choose your surgeon, etc.
A socialized medical system is not necessarily good, when it's run badly... duh - which is what happened in the UK for quite some time now, and I'm not sure if I want to get treatment in Italy. But it works very well here (though it has to get more efficient, being too expensive in comparison to other countries with less expensive socialized medical systems).

And medical tourism is nothing special to the USA: one of the favorite countries for getting treatment is, ...drumroll... Cuba.
edit: Here a Wikipedia-link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism

To those who complain about the preventive aspect of socialized medicine: It's much more preventive than a private system where you think thrice before seing a doctor...

[TheStinger]

The Uk system is not run that badly, it is a major political topic over here but on teh whole people receive good treatment

[OneFootInTheGrave]

the very fact that someone can question "socialized medicine" as a good approach - which is so obvious on social and personal level- just shows the power of the media/culture can have over an individual... we are a lot more collective "animals" than one would think at first look, even explicitly freedom loving individualistic Americans...

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by TheStinger
The Uk system is not run that badly, it is a major political topic over here but on teh whole people receive good treatment

But for some years, you had quite major problems and a certain lack of doctors, right?

[TheStinger]

We don't do that well in comparison to some countries in terms of number of docs per head of population however, waiting lists are down and from a personal poitn of view we received very good treatment when my wife got a serious compplication during her pregnancy

[ColdPhoenix]

In the experience of myself and my extended family, we have always received swift and good quality service from the NHS.

My family are in N. Ireland so it may be different in a city like London (I live in London but have had no need of their services beyond travel injections since moving here).

[asleepathewheel]

Why look outside the US when there are two bang up examples of socialized medicine here?

The wait to see primary care doctors in Massachusetts has grown to as long as 100 days, while the number of practices accepting new patients has dipped in the past four years, with care the scarcest in some rural areas.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2008/09/22/across_mass_wait_to_see_doctors_grows/

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93SBEUG0&show_article=1

[Elok]

I'm just curious why you specified autoimmune disorders, Japher. That's not a subset of illness one generally thinks of as easily cured, since it's typically genetic and caused by one's own body rather than a pathogen.

[Arrian]

Why look outside the US when there are two bang up examples of socialized medicine here?

Because the furriners have been doing it longer, and seem to have figured out how to work it?

Mass's system is what, a year old?

-Arrian

[GePap]

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2008-releases/hsph-bcbs-poll-strong-support-for-ma-health-reform-law.html

BOSTON, MA - Two years after the implementation of a health care reform law aimed at providing health coverage for nearly all Massachusetts residents, public support for the law remains high. According to a new poll by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation, over two-thirds (69%) of Massachusetts residents support the law. Just over one in five (22%) oppose the law and approximately one in ten (9%) say they do not know enough about it to give an opinion. Since the law's passage in 2006, public support has increased slightly (69% in 2008 compared to 67% in 2007 and 61% in 2006). The poll was conducted June 10-23, 2008.

Other signs of public support for the law include the following:

77% support providing subsidized coverage
58% support requiring individuals to have insurance
71% say the law has been successful at reducing the number of uninsured in Massachusetts

But of course, these people aren't real Americans - they are Taxachusseans.

[GePap]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Why look outside the US when there are two bang up examples of socialized medicine here?

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2008/09/22/across_mass_wait_to_see_doctors_grows/

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

The funny thing is that the reason for the waits, as the Boston Globe article clearly states, is that there already was a shortage of primary care doctors, and now that so many more people have gotten insurance, people are actually using it.

Yeah, I know, the gall of people tryin to see a doctor now that they have the ability to, after years of not going! Shouldn't they have known that our system was working better when the lack of insured patients hid the lack of primary care doctors coming out of medical schools because you can make more money in a hospital or being a specialist? Terrorists!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Lots of brits do not go to the US for treatment, what happens in a few high profile cases is that if and its a big if people raise bucketloads of cash they go to the staes for some high risk experimantal treatment that has very little chance of success.

At the very top end the US is probably better than the UK however babies form poor families get treated in the UK and I would rtaher have this than the lottery that is the UK

The problem with the UK system is that not enough money is spent on it. More money is spent per capita in most other EU countries. Of course the US spends twice as much per capita as the UK and doesn't do nearly as good of a job for a large portion of citizens.

The problem in the US is that costs are technology driven. Technology usually lowers costs in an industry, but in the healthcare industry it increases costs, and you need a socialized system to control that.

[GePap]

There is also the problem of redundant beaurocracy. I mean, the US government runs multiple health care systems of it's own, but I would guess that they all have independent beaurocracies doing the same things, when perhaps one single Federal health care system for those civilians that get governmen subsidized care (seniors, the poor, veterans) would be cheaper.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
There is also the problem of redundant beaurocracy. I mean, the US government runs multiple health care systems of it's own, but I would guess that they all have independent beaurocracies doing the same things, when perhaps one single Federal health care system for those civilians that get governmen subsidized care (seniors, the poor, veterans) would be cheaper.

That right. That's why competition increases costs.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kidicious


That right. That's why competition increases costs.

When it comes to healthcare, yes.