Preventing Corruption w/ Gov Controlled Health Care

[dreadpirate]

I was wondering if someone living in a country with "socialized medicine" could comment on safeguards against corruption. Specifically, how does one one prevent health care from being withheld to those who are not part of the ruling party? How do you insure fair and equitable health care for all?

Also - do government leaders get the same health care or do they receive an elite class of health care? In the US - the congress receives top-shelf health care. I am not sure they would be signing up to the same medical program they want the rest of us to have.

 

[Island Brian]

Nobody in the current administration or congress has proposed so-called "socialized medicine". Rather, they are discussing a program of government-offered insurance. Its just not the same thing. Contrary to the hysteria being spread by those who seek to protect the mega-billion dollar insurance industry and the multi-million dollar bonuses of their executives, the government would not be a provider of health care. Doctors would not work for the government. Hospitals would not be controlled by the government. Decisions about whether or not a patient would be entitled to receive a procedure would not be decided by the government. Such is the case in some systems, but it would not be the case under the proposals being endorsed by the administration.

The government, as any insurer, would merely establish prices that the government insurance would be willing to pay for healthcare and then pay the bills. Under such a plan, no governmental agency decides what procedures you may or may not have. The insurance plan would merely dictate whether or not a procedure is covered under the insurance plan and if so by how much. The patient can still get the procedure (unlike what may be the case under "socialized medicine"), but it may not be covered by insurance.

This is the same as it is right now. We have access to any medical procedure we want to have. Its a question of whether it is paid for and if so in what amount. However, instead of the administrators of a private, for-profit insurance company deciding what gets paid for and in what amount, the decision about whether a procedure is covered and in what amount would be made by the administrators of the government insurer. Its just like Medicare, but with more plans and more options for coverage. It is, in fact, the same type of plan the congress has.

Granted, nothing is as simple as all that and there will be issues and problems, but I think I've made a fair characterization of what is being proposed. The insurance industry, which acts like it is in the business of denying claims, and those who lobby for it are trying to confuse the issue by crying about "socialized medicine," which these proposals clearly are not.

 

[professorchaos]

A post to register my disagreement with information contained in this thread.

 

[mretzloff]

A post to register my disagreement with information contained in this thread.

Same here.

So much for what was said in this thread

 

[gone down south]

I was wondering if someone living in a country with "socialized medicine" could comment on safeguards against corruption. Specifically, how does one one prevent health care from being withheld to those who are not part of the ruling party? How do you insure fair and equitable health care for all?

Also - do government leaders get the same health care or do they receive an elite class of health care? In the US - the congress receives top-shelf health care. I am not sure they would be signing up to the same medical program they want the rest of us to have.

Back to the original question, in Canada all doctors are reimbursed for procedures on a standard schedule of payments. Any patient can go to any doctor and obtain treatment; the patient's medical insurance number is noted on the billing and all invoices are batched to the gov't repayment office on a regular basis. The government doesn't get involved until after the treatment was completed, so I don't see how the gov't could blackball anyone.

Of course, this is highly simplified, but you get the idea.....

 

[patrisVII]

Universal government insurance is, by definition, the socialization of health care service payment.

The plan would theoretically exist in competition with private plans, but the frame work of that competition is set by government in this legislation. The government is not just another insurer under this plan. The plan deliberately restricts private insurance to 'local' options only - you can only buy private insurance from companies in your state. It assigns minimum coverages for all insurance, it mandates 'same cost for all patients' meaning insurers cannot charge higher premiums for smokers or bungee jumpers, and above all, it will be funded by universal violent expropriation not voluntary fees for service. In short it is set up to make what ever vestige of private insurance remains completely uncompetitive with the government 'option'.

If this passes, we will move from 'government' insurance to single payer provision with 10 years or less.

 

[dreadpirate]

Thanks for the info.

Yeah, I guess yous guys (that's Northeast slang) don't come here to see political debate.

Ok - I guess we'll talk about tallow in shaving soap ...

Back to the original question, in Canada all doctors are reimbursed for procedures on a standard schedule of payments. Any patient can go to any doctor and obtain treatment; the patient's medical insurance number is noted on the billing and all invoices are batched to the gov't repayment office on a regular basis. The government doesn't get involved until after the treatment was completed, so I don't see how the gov't could blackball anyone.

Of course, this is highly simplified, but you get the idea.....

 

[Stubblefield]

A post to register my disagreement with information contained in this thread.

Perhaps if people keep ON TOPIC it might be OK. One might hope, anyway.

 

[Bertilak]

Government controlled business -- other than reasonable laws and oversight to

a) present a level playing field for private competition and
b) prevent fraud and coercion

is inherently a problem.

The way to protect us from the problem is to not let it happen.

 

[richmondesi]

Without making any political statements at all:

My job is health care related. I am friends with a lot of doctors (a lot). I don't know any doctors that are excited about the government's plans. Take that for what it's worth.

 

[Sue]

If it is similar to Medicare, hold onto your wallet.
Sue

 

[RazorDingo]

I was wondering if someone living in a country with "socialized medicine" could comment on safeguards against corruption. .

Here in the United States we have "socialized" Police and fire departments (in other words, they are paid for by taxes, and run by the Government.)

Do the cops in your town only investigate crimes commited against the Mayor's supporters? Do the firemen ask who you voted for before they come to your house?

Corruption is possible in virtually any interaction between humans. I'd be more concerned about the ~70 million of your fellow citizens who currently have little or no access to health care under the present situation than worrying about "corruption."

 

[richmondesi]

Here in the United States we have "socialized" Police and fire departments (in other words, they are paid for by taxes, and run by the Government.)

Do the cops in your town only investigate crimes commited against the Mayor's supporters? Do the firemen ask who you voted for before they come to your house?

Corruption is possible in virtually any interaction between humans. I'd be more concerned about the ~70 million of your fellow citizens who currently have little or no access to health care under the present situation than worrying about "corruption."

While I understand where you get this logic, it isn't accurate at all. As I mentioned, I am friends with a lot of doctors. I can't tell you how many free surgeries my friends do complete with pre/post operative care. My neurosurgeon friends, in particular, chronicle the quality of care that they give away for free on a regular basis and it's quite impressive. No insurance doesn't equate to "little or no access to health care". It just doesn't

 

[Brodirt]

Think about it this way...when you ask the Gov't to reduce the cost of health care you are asking the same people who willingly paid $640 for toilet seats, $435 for claw hammers and $7,600 for coffee makers (Mr. Coffee type...not a La Marzocco FB-70). Its a complete and utter impossibility.

 

[RazorDingo]

No insurance doesn't equate to "little or no access to health care". It just doesn't

No it doesn't.

But not having adequate insurance means that such people live in fear of financial catastrophe in the event they do require treatment. Not having insurance means that people defer or delay treatment - and often end up in emergency rooms (costing thousands of dollars) where a doctors visit would have prevented or treated the condition for a fraction of the cost.

Doctors and hospitals already factor in the cost of treating the uninsured to their budgets. They simply pass those costs on to private insurance premiums and the fees they charge medicare/medicaid.

 

[richmondesi]

No it doesn't.

But not having adequate insurance means that such people live in fear of financial catastrophe in the event they do require treatment. Not having insurance means that people defer or delay treatment - and often end up in emergency rooms (costing thousands of dollars) where a doctors visit would have prevented or treated the condition for a fraction of the cost.

Doctors and hospitals already factor in the cost of treating the uninsured to their budgets. They simply pass those costs on to private insurance premiums and the fees they charge medicare/medicaid.

While valid points, my doctor friends overwhelmingly prefer this system to any other model. They also think that the patients get better care now than they would under any of the other models that they've seen. Again, take that for what it's worth.

 

[joto]

In all things where human beings are involved, I think corruption will be experienced, government being no exception. I applaud all efforts to stamp it out, but I don't think sets of rules will help to prevent it- if someone is dead set to screw you over and they have the power (legal or otherwise) they're probably going to do it.

That said, while I don't support universal health care, I DO think it would be interesting to see what a health care company run as a not-for-profit could accomplish for the system and its customers compared to a for-profit corporation version, if that is even possible/ legal. I have read that 30% or so of every dollar goes to pure profit. I don't know where that statistic came from or how it was calculated, but it seems reasonable to assume that if profits were removed from the system, costs would fall. Now, I'm certainly not against a company providing a service for profit, but that would be one way to lower costs for consumers.

Some small medical companies are NFP- I understand that some rare diseases are being researched in this way. Some people start them up because based on the rarity of the condition, there is virtually no payback on the drugs/ treatment consiudering the huge research and testing costs.

 

[RazorDingo]

If you add up the ~60 million people who get healthcare through Medicare; plus the 20 million or so who are eligible for VA medical, plus another couple million active duty military (plus their dependents), or the other two million or so Federal employees (and their dependents) - plus the millions of State and Local employees (and THEIR dependents) who are all CURRENTLY getting their healthcare paid for by the Government - I'm not sure that anyone can pretend that we are really living in some sort of free-market healthcare paradise.

 

[richmondesi]

If you add up the ~60 million people who get healthcare through Medicare; plus the 20 million or so who are eligible for VA medical, plus another couple million active duty military (plus their dependents), or the other two million or so Federal employees (and their dependents) - plus the millions of State and Local employees (and THEIR dependents) who are all CURRENTLY getting their healthcare paid for by the Government - I'm not sure that anyone can pretend that we are really living in some sort of free-market healthcare paradise.

exactly right. And considering most of my doctor friends either don't accept medicare, or are making plans to stop accepting medicare, I don't think that speaks very well for the way the government has been doing things all of this time.

 

[Island Brian]

Consistent with the "other" thread, I would say in a gentlemanly way, it would be a much higher minded debate if everyone read and rebutted the facts rather than speculations and instead of spouting rhetorical, political slogans.

Ah me.

Thank you, gentlemen