Details

In the argument over "socialized medicine", there are a lot of details. Details do matter, but the big picture is the guiding principal. Steve raises the common detail;

I think one "problem" you'll see pointed out by some is that with this system you might end up with more people seeing doctors.

Initially that will likely be the case. After all, there are some 45 million people without any insurance and they might want to take advantage of the same opportunity the rest of us have had to be seen by a physician. However, this idea that the system will be overwhelmed by people who are seeking non-necessary treatment is silly. A doctors office is not an amusement park, and it's not like people are going to seek and appointment just for the hell of it. After some initial spike in demand, it'll level out. Part of managing that will be in the implementation of the system.

Will some people try and abuse the system? Maybe.. yes.. it doesn't matter. The number will be exceptionally low and providers will deal with it the same way they deal with people now who make unnecessary appointments, and attempt other types of fraud.

Further, most every physician I know would tell you that preventative medicine saves money in the long run. That much is obvious, which is yet another reason why the government run single-payer system is far superior to the current system. More people are more healthy and put less burden on the system.

Plus - if you're really tweaked out by the idea of poor people making appointments, just charge a $5 co-pay. Heck, there might be an advantage to having a small co-pay. That aught to take care of the people who have some nefarious plan to ruin the new system.

Now, today, Sullivan does the "it's icky and the liberals want to control you" argument. It's an incoherent argument, based on a false perception of what our current system is.

Again - and I don't know how many times we have to tell people this until they figure it the fuck out. IT'S ALREADY A FUCKING SOCIALIZED SYSTEM.

There.. I typed it in all caps-lock, meaning that it should be taken as truth.... (for the loons, that's a joke.. caps-lock doesn't have magical powers)


Anyway.. Sullivan's asshat quote;

Medicare is a particularly revealing program idea in this respect. At a deep level, the left sees all of us as the equivalent of senior citizens, dependent on the benevolence of government for our needs and wants. Of course, they will provide our needs as they see fit - they're good people, you know. And so much smarter than the rest of us. There will be none of that wasteful drug spending we now have. How dare Americans spend their own money on treatments they actually want? It's inefficient! This remains the key template for liberals: citizens as permanent supplicants. Those who do manage to look after themselves? Don't worry. They'll tax you till you really do need the equivalent of Medicare. And expect you to be grateful for it.

As I've said.. it's already socialised so I don't know why Sullivan gets bent about a medical system that doesn't actually exist. Over 50% of the costs are covered by government programs already, including Medicare. The rest is managed care (HMO's, etc.). Sullivan argues for saving a system we don't even have. That's typical of a person (most people) who do not actually know how the system currently works.

How dare Americans spend their own money on treatments they actually want?

You can do that now, and you can do that in any future program. It's just going to cost you a fuckload of money, just as it does now. I wonder where Sullivan gets this idea that in a single-payer model, a patient will have to "spend their own money" on a treatment they don't need? That's a silly argument.

Then Sullivan goes for the "taxes, oh noes!!! more taxes!!!" screed. He's being dishonest of course, because as I've already described, the government single-payer system is far more cost efficient. The tax increase required to pay for the system will be far less than the cost of paying for 4 different government programs, plus the for-profit HMO's. It's a net bonus, and by a large margin. That's the whole point. It costs us less.

The source of Sullivan's dishonest rant is this post, describing an implementation method; lower the age of Medicare eligible people until it eventually covers everyone. That's certainly a possibility, and correctly points out a large number of Americans are already covered by a government sponsored socialized system.

I get the idea that "conservatives" argue against this idea just because it's a pet project of the liberals. There really is no rational argument against it. I have yet to hear one that can't be easily debunked. The conservatives would rather people live without health insurance or receive sub-standard care because their ideology is more important to them then an effective health care system.

By the way.. Does the Socialized Medicine program known as Medicare cause all these problems that people are describing? No - and while it's not perfect, I don't get why people assume that there can't be minor tweaks and adjustments as we go to make it better.

Why are people such pessimists? It's all ideology driven. It's evil.