[snowbunny]

Originally Posted by Seahorse3 Thats one of many opinions. Which, if anyone does not agree with said opinion or does not hail the second coming of obama, then we see the true colors of "progressives" come out.

I was not a huge Obama supporter but did vote for him in the primary and in the election. There *was* a big sense of optimism and hope amongst his supporters which was refreshing to see.

I knew he could not live up to what those who saw him as a JFK or Gandhi were expecting of him, and honestly wondered if Hillary didn't relax her campaign because she could more clearly see how thankless the job of president was going to be. But getting back to the topic: it is CLEAR that a vast majority of the country want health coverage *for themselves*. What they differ on is how to pay for it, and how to cover those who can't pay for it.

[Brit3964]

Originally Posted by willmore Ill never understand why people equate an allegedly "socialist" healthcare system as "bad" and are against it. Surely it has to be better than what is being offered now in the states......why does the term "socialist" scare people so much.....

It already exists in a form. Those who have health insurance subsidize those without. You can't get much more socialist than that.

As others have said, people run scared because they don't know what social medicine is like. Frightened of the unknown. Those of us who have lived in other countries do know what it's like, and while there are some problems with it overall I think it's a great idea.

Private healthcare has its place too. BUPA in UK is well known for taking the heat off the NHS when it comes to routine elective surgery such as hernia repair etc. This kind of procedure is easy to quantify for cost purposes and so it lends itself to shopping for surgery by the public easily.

As Micheal said, other areas of healthcare are not really possible to do in the same way. For example, the ER is probably one of the worst areas to cost healthcare and make a profit from it.

[Steerpike]

What is interesting now is that Mitt Romney is taking heat from his fellow Republicans for advocating and implementing a system in MA that has many of the same goals and features as Obamacare. So Mitt Romney finds himself having to distance himself from his own political success story! The irony of it all. Great composite video at this site, where Romney utterly contradicts himself. Just about the only tangible difference I could glean from this is that the MA bill was 70 pages while the Fed bill was 200 or 2,000 ...

Even scarier - this guy looks like the best of the crop so far in terms of Republican candidates in 2012! There's hope for Obama after all!

Another interesting read on the topic, this time from Newsweek!

[Giantaxe]

Originally Posted by Steerpike What is interesting now is that Mitt Romney is taking heat from his fellow Republicans for advocating and implementing a system in MA that has many of the same goals and features as Obamacare. So Mitt Romney finds himself having to distance himself from his own political success story! The irony of it all. Great composite video at this site, where Romney utterly contradicts himself. Just about the only tangible difference I could glean from this is that the MA bill was 70 pages while the Fed bill was 200 or 2,000 ...

Romney knows he won't win the Republican primary unless he opposes Obama's reforms. So he has to make up non-existent differences to justify how he enacted this in MA but now opposes the Obama reforms. Comedy gold.

[Bluegrass Lass]

The additional problem I think would crop up is that I think doctors would run screaming from any 'universal healthcare' system, and opt to open private practices. I don't think very many of them would accept any kind of standard salary, or a salary that will likely be lower than what they have right now. How do you overcome that? You can't force a doctor to be part of a 'universal healthcare' if you also allow for private doctors (i.e. BUPA).

[Giantaxe]

Originally Posted by sunflwrgrl13 The additional problem I think would crop up is that I think doctors would run screaming from any 'universal healthcare' system, and opt to open private practices. I don't think very many of them would accept any kind of standard salary, or a salary that will likely be lower than what they have right now. How do you overcome that? You can't force a doctor to be part of a 'universal healthcare' if you also allow for private doctors (i.e. BUPA).

Universal healthcare doesn't require doctors to be public employees. Medicare is a form of universal healthcare - for the over 65's - by virtue of the fact that it's a (largely) single-payer system.

[Bluegrass Lass]

Originally Posted by Giantaxe Universal healthcare doesn't require doctors to be public employees. Medicare is a form of universal healthcare - for the over 65's - by virtue of the fact that it's a (largely) single-payer system.

Ahh, I see. I assumed they would basically be considered government contractors. Would it work the same way for doctors in hospitals?

[Sally Redux]

Originally Posted by sunflwrgrl13 Ahh, I see. I assumed they would basically be considered government contractors. Would it work the same way for doctors in hospitals?

Many doctors in the UK work for the NHS and also in private practice.

[Giantaxe]

Originally Posted by sunflwrgrl13 Ahh, I see. I assumed they would basically be considered government contractors. Would it work the same way for doctors in hospitals?

Why not? You don't have to have a UK-style NHS to achieve universal healthcare. In fact, the UK is very much an outlier amongst western countries in the way provides such coverage.

[snowbunny]

Originally Posted by sunflwrgrl13 Ahh, I see. I assumed they would basically be considered government contractors. Would it work the same way for doctors in hospitals?

There are different models of universal health care ranging from having the doctors as government employees to having a single payer system to .... laws that force insurers to insure everyone and everyone to be insured.... which is what's on the table now.

[Michael]

Originally Posted by sunflwrgrl13 Ahh, I see. I assumed they would basically be considered government contractors. Would it work the same way for doctors in hospitals?

The Swiss have universal health care that is nearly 100% private. All Swiss residents (including retirees) are required to purchase health insurance from private health insurance companies. The cost is based on the families income and can't exceed 10% of their income with the remainder being paid by the Swiss government. The poorest of the residents have their health insurance paid 100% by the government. All doctors and hospitals are private and bill the insurance companies for services rendered.

It is very similar to the US health care reform.

[robin1234]

Originally Posted by snowbunny There are different models of universal health care ranging from having the doctors as government employees to having a single payer system to .... laws that force insurers to insure everyone and everyone to be insured.... which is what's on the table now.

I'm not sure that any system has all doctors as government employees .. except maybe communist countries such as Cuba?

[cindyabs]

Originally Posted by sunflwrgrl13 Ahh, I see. I assumed they would basically be considered government contractors. Would it work the same way for doctors in hospitals?

We already have contract drs (and have had for years) in the US, on military bases.

[ironporer]

Originally Posted by cindyabs We already have contract drs (and have had for years) in the US, on military bases.

Yes, oddly enough we don't seem to have major issues accepting 'socialized medicine' for the military, VA, and Medicare/Medicaid....which I have read (somewhere) account for over 25% of the total market in the US.

Of course, many might argue that these programs often provide sub-standard care, and in the case of Medicare- have contributed to the ridiculous billing practices of most medical providers.

We also dont seem to have major issues with 'socialized schools'...except for the fact that US schools consistantly rate at the bottom of the world barrel.

Socialized/Government Mail delivery is another case in point...it seems to work well- except that UPS/FED Exetc can get your package there quicker, cheaper and in one piece.

Maybe that's why we are all afraid of a Gov't take over of the Medical system....cuz they pretty much suck hind tit at everything else they do?

[Giantaxe]

Originally Posted by ironporer Yes, oddly enough we don't seem to have major issues accepting 'socialized medicine' for the military, VA, and Medicare/Medicaid....which I have read (somewhere) account for over 25% of the total market in the US. Of course, many might argue that these programs often provide sub-standard care, and in the case of Medicare- have contributed to the ridiculous billing practices of most medical providers. We also dont seem to have major issues with 'socialized schools'...except for the fact that US schools consistantly rate at the bottom of the world barrel. Socialized/Government Mail delivery is another case in point...it seems to work well- except that UPS/FED Exetc can get your package there quicker, cheaper and in one piece. Maybe that's why we are all afraid of a Gov't take over of the Medical system....cuz they pretty much suck hind tit at everything else they do?

Does the socialized military suck? I don't hear opponents of socialized medicine criticizing it.

In the case of schools and USPS, the employees are effectively government employees. With Medicare that's not the case.