Socialized Healthcare

[GrayMatterWife]

I would agree with the residents Abigail is talking off.

OK, I wanted it noted on the record that someone just described their thoughts using the words "Abigail" and "agree" in the same sentence without any negative helping verbs or any sarcasm. I feel a deep sense of accomplishment.

[Meenah]

Duly noted!!!! But, I think I have agreed with you in other forums in the past (though not many!!!). I do love you as a fellow medical spouse!

[Rapunzel]

In the socialized medicine debate I think it helps to examine solutions that have been tried and actually work. Here's an intriguing one:

How Safeway is Cutting Health Care Costs:
Market-based solutions can reduce the national health-care bill by 40%

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476804026308603.html

[oceanchild]

Ah yes, because charging fat people more for their health insurance will go over REALLY well...

I can see the lawsuits now.

[Rapunzel]

Having natural consequences for behavior is a good thing.

As a parent I know that if I take away the natural consequences for behaviors my children learn very little.

[Rapunzel]

And, at least for one company (Safeway), it does appear to be working thusfar.

[McPants]

In the socialized medicine debate I think it helps to examine solutions that have been tried and actually work. Here's an intriguing one:

How Safeway is Cutting Health Care Costs:
Market-based solutions can reduce the national health-care bill by 40%

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476804026308603.html

Yes, let's examine that one. It penalizes people whose behavior is deemed unsuitable to their health by making them pay higher health insurance premiums if they're fat, smoke, have high cholesterol levels or do other things that aren't in line with what is deemed healthy behavior. This is monitored through what I presume is mandatory physicals.

It certainly is one way to make people healthier and I really like the fact that it focuses attention on preventative measures, however it doesn't exactly seem like something a red-blooded American would be likely to approve of. Would gun ownership or huntin' be approved behavior, one would wonder?

I could totally see more big brother society-influenced countries adopting measures such as this though.

[McPants]

And, at least for one company (Safeway), it does appear to be working thusfar.

I'm not sure I'd say it is working, given that they appear to have been unable to get their union-represented work force to adopt the system. There can be little doubt that the system saves resources, however.

The Healthy Measures program currently applies only to our nonunion work force. While we have numerous health and wellness provisions in our union contracts, we are working with union leaders like Joe Hansen of the United Food and Commercial Workers to incorporate healthy measures provisions in our union work force as well.

[Michele]

Why would the "unhealthy" people pay those higher premiums? They'd just go uninsured and we'd end up paying for them....at least that's what seems to happen here.

[MarissaNicole]

Obama is completely full of crap regarding his claim that "anyone who currently has private insurance will be able to keep it." The result of his plan being implemented would be to discourage private health insurance and encourage getting on board with the Government's plan....

It's a deep violation of the free market policies that have made America the incredible success that it has been. It's turning us into...France. If you've ever done business with any company located in France, you know what I mean.

Okay perhaps I need to read up on what exactly is "Obama's plan" and what exactly qualifies as "socialized healthcare" . . . but I guess I just kinda thought that if he does what Abigail is talking about here - that is socialized healthcare because 1) most people won't get private insurance and 2) the government will have so much control that there will be a lot of red tape making things inefficient for both doctors and patients....

So I guess I should rephrase my question... do you think Obama's plan will be accepted AND/OR implemented?

[McPants]

Since European healthcare has been discussed in this thread and people have shown some interest in finding out more about various countries, I figured I might post this here.

An Irish perspective on Swedish healthcare:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...255974046.html

My views on Swedish healthcare: The primary care can only be regarded as poor from the patient's perspective because the access to primary caregivers is sub-standard. The main reason for this is the country's lingering socialist mentality. Physicians in primary care see fewer patients than they do in almost all other comparable countries and the reason is that the prevailing political opinion has been that doctors shouldn't be above doing their own paperwork etc. Thus there are hardly any medical secretaries. That this hasn't been sorted out by the country's current non-socialist government is remarkable.

Specialist care, etc. Easily among the best in the world. If I were to develop a serious illness, I would without a doubt return to Sweden to have it treated.

[Rapunzel]

Yes, let's examine that one. It penalizes people whose behavior is deemed unsuitable to their health by making them pay higher health insurance premiums if they're fat, smoke, have high cholesterol levels or do other things that aren't in line with what is deemed healthy behavior. This is monitored through what I presume is mandatory physicals.

It certainly is one way to make people healthier and I really like the fact that it focuses attention on preventative measures, however it doesn't exactly seem like something a red-blooded American would be likely to approve of. Would gun ownership or huntin' be approved behavior, one would wonder?

I could totally see more big brother society-influenced countries adopting measures such as this though.

Since I already demonstrated that gun ownership does NOT significantly increase the chance of injury or fatality on another thread I'll not repeat myself with a rebuttal in this thread on that subject.

I think this is a viable option because it 1)focuses on prevention, 2)holds individuals accountable for their choices, and 3)really does reduce overall healthcare costs.

I DO believe our society should allow people to make choices. We are a free society, after all. However, that does NOT mean we should ignore the fact that all choices have consequences - some good and some bad.

For example, if I gamble away all of my paycheck I have just demonstrated my right to freely choose what to do with my money. HOWEVER, by making that particular choice I have denied myself the ability to, say, pay my rent. Should I be prevented from LEARNING by having the consequence removed?

In our nation right now we end up making others pay the consequences for our own behavior ofttimes. And, one of those times concerns healthcare. Why should I pay higher premuims to pay for the people who make poor choices?

If anything, the way Safeway has gone about it supports a free market AND freedom of individual choice. It also upholds the ability for each of us to learn via consequences (both good and bad) - a necessary component to maturity.

[Rapunzel]

Why would the "unhealthy" people pay those higher premiums? They'd just go uninsured and we'd end up paying for them....at least that's what seems to happen here.

Not if we required individuals to have health insurance (as we require home owners insurance and auto insurance). It's been given a supposedly "dirty" word- "mandate". However, we do so for auto insurance - why not health insurance as well?

[McPants]

Since I already demonstrated that gun ownership does NOT significantly increase the chance of injury or fatality on another thread I'll not repeat myself with a rebuttal in this thread on that subject.

I'm sure the good people of the NRA have made or sponsored a few studies that manage to somehow come to the conclusion that having items in the household designed to cause harm do not in fact increase the risk of harm being caused to members of said household, however I don't think those studies will necessarily be the ones on which insurance companies will base their decision regarding who deserves higher premiums. It'll be up to them to determine whose lifestyle leaves them more at risk after all, not you or me.

[ladymoreta]

Why would the "unhealthy" people pay those higher premiums? They'd just go uninsured and we'd end up paying for them....at least that's what seems to happen here.

Not if we required individuals to have health insurance (as we require home owners insurance and auto insurance). It's been given a supposedly "dirty" word- "mandate". However, we do so for auto insurance - why not health insurance as well?

I agree with this. If we are going to remove the pre-existing condition exclusions (and I think we should), then everyone should be required to have health care coverage. Otherwise, people would just do what Michele mentioned.