Am I the only one?

By | August 15, 2009

Am I the only one who has the following question about socialized medicine?

I know this might come across as some snarky little “gotcha” commentary, but I have a 100% legit question:

How can socialized/universal/tit-tastic/wtfever you want to call it health care simultaneously make health care accessible for everyone while not causing additional waiting times for various procedures?

It’s not a matter of me “buying into propaganda” or any dismissive thing like that.  It’s a legit question.  I don’t see how it is possible to give people “free” health care that will encourage them to get medical treatment without a large increase in people utilizing that “free” health care and choking up the health care system.  Seriously, it takes a good 2 months or so to get a gyno appointment in this country for a routine checkup; I find it very difficult to believe that the wait times would not increase significantly.

It’s a very basic supply and demand equation.  When everyone suddenly has access to health insurance, but the number of doctors don’t suddenly multiply, you’ll be stuck with a much higher demand than supply.  Which is going to lead to longer wait times and a higher chance that you won’t be able to get time-sensitive treatments.  I’m not a fancy pants economist here, but it seems pretty obvious to me.  I’m wondering if maybe I’m missing something and somebody could explain how you can get both more accessible health care while not choking up the system.

Of course, I’m not even taking into consideration the endless bullshit calls and doctors appointments that will inevitably help to choke up the system even more than it already is in low-income, urban areas.

I’m sure this will draw out a ton of idiots whose only “constructive” words on the matter are along the lines of “Y DO U H8 POOR PPL? NO H8!”  Right, because the rich often have to go to dental schools to get broken teeth fixed and can’t just get squeezed into an appointment at the real dentist or an oral surgeon.  (For the record, I had appointment #2 on Thursday and appointment #3 is scheduled for next Thursday.  My jaw is still a bit sore from all the yanking and prodding around in there.)  It sucks that we’re out a few hundred bucks that we really don’t have for me to get a root canal and another few hundred bucks for me to get a crown.  At the same time, I’m really lucky that within 3 weeks of breaking my tooth, I’ll have most of the work done.  I don’t know if I could guarantee that luck with a universal/socialized health care plan.

The biggest shame in all of this is that universal/socialized health care’s supporters are often the biggest reason I’m turned off from it.  I mean, John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, states an OPINION in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, and liberals go ballistic.  (Because you’ve never held an opinion that your employer’s clientele may not like.)  A twitter friend childishly bleated that if universal health care didn’t go through, she was going to cancel her insurance plan and rely on ERs for everything.  I’m assuming she’s not planning on paying those bills, but regardless of whether or not she is, her empty threat highlights the fact that very few Democrats and liberals seem to understand how to make this plan more palatable.  It highlights the fact that many seem to care less about alleviating people’s fears and concerns and more about just getting what they want done.

It’s for the same reason that certain episodes of Intervention make my fucking head explode.  They will sometimes chase the addict down to force them to go into treatment; this, to me, points more to the family’s desire to get their own way then to make sure the person gets off drugs/alcohol and stays off.  I really hate the fact that high ranking Democrats are reminding me of attention seeking reality TV “stars.”  Isn’t it a little scary that this is the first comparison I’m making in my mind?

I would love for Democrats to actually, truly explain why this plan is good, why it will be beneficial, and why it won’t end the way I see it ending.  I have a feeling that even if getting this clear explanation was possible, Democrats would rather pull the same exact Bush era shit they were decrying since 2001.

I can’t imagine why I’d vote third party.

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • Marc

    In my experiance, the bulk of people who are abusing the emergency room are on some sort of taxpayer-funded insurance, not uninsured. Few doctors will accept the low reimbursement from those plans, so the waits to see a doctor are longer. As a result, rather than wait a few extra days they go to the ER since the ER is mandated by law to accept the pittance their tax-funded insurance will pay out to take a look at their stubbed toe. Furthermore, they generally tie up ambulances and 911 since, for them, it's cheaper than a taxicab. The uninsured generally don't want to take on the cost of an ER visit or an ambulance ride for little shit.

    Government creates the problem them promptly offers the cure. No thanks.

  • elliott

    Read up on the Indian Health Service. Note that many of the casino tribes no longer rely on the straight-up government support, instead relying on the mandate that certain physicians complete mandatory rotations through IHS clinics, working off their GI Bill obligation or other federal loans. It is considered a shining example in this country of socialized medicine working. If there were some sort of Urban Health System, I'm sure that you would get far fewer Main Line GPs, and more urban docs. Reason being: Docs (like all other service providers) go where the money is. If all of a sudden the Evil Student Loan People told me that I could get some loan forgiveness on my $140k+ (per AMA) in med school debt, and I wouldn't have to worry about things like malpractice insurance, health insurance paperwork burdens (all taken care of by others), I'd be much more likely to work in an otherwise underserved area. See also: Teach for America.

    Not having to worry about payment of bills would also help prevent what the 1st poster talks about.

  • elliott

    (Oh, I forgot this part) Disclaimer: I have been an IHS patient in the past and have gotten a high level of care. Thank you, Dr. DuBray at the House of Wellness in Baraboo, WI.

  • http://www.drunkenatheist.com drunkenatheist

    Read up on the Indian Health Service.

    Wait a second… Did you actually just tell me that, to see a model of any government program working, I should look at how they treat Native Americans? Love ya, Elliott, but are you sure you want to remind people of other colossal US government fuck-ups?

    If there were some sort of Urban Health System, I’m sure that you would get far fewer Main Line GPs, and more urban docs. Reason being: Docs (like all other service providers) go where the money is.

    Okay, but I was referring back to low-income urban areas as an example I previously mentioned, about people already bogging down the health care system with endless amounts of bullshit. I used low-income areas because that's what my source has experience with, and therefore I could better pick his brain for it.

    Here, let me use another example: It's already hellish to try to get an appointment at my GP within 48 hours; frankly, from going there for 20+ years, I know it's because the place has an influx of Medicare patients who simply tie up appointments. Why not? If I had state paid health insurance, I'd get every damn check up I was eligible for. It wouldn't be because of a newfound concern for my health; it's because I'm not paying out of pocket for it. (Hell, right now, I wouldn't be paying for it period.)

    What's going to happen if socialized health care goes through? There obviously aren't enough people becoming doctors to fill that niche. In that area, a new GP practice could come in, easily take half their business, and everyone would still live comfortably. (There's probably enough business there that each office could have the same if not close to the same amount of business as my GP.) Yet, no one's moving into that same area at warp speed.

    It doesn't add up. It would lead me to believe that there's more than just "going where the money is." You mentioned education, which has way more of an impact on the supply end of things. Most people aren't becoming full-fledged doctors until they're about our ages. It's not as if you can become a doctor in the same time it takes to earn an Associate's degree. So despite the fact loan forgiveness programs might encourage more people to become doctors, how will that impact the short-term goals?

    In other words, if there are so few GP's in an area that only 200 people can be seen every month, which already results in an average 3 week wait for an appointment but suddenly 600 people in the town have insurance, then how on Earth will the system not get backlogged? How do loan forgiveness programs lessen the seven (or more) years it takes before someone can actually begin practicing medicine? How will the system not remain backlogged during that time they are waiting for people – like yourself – who would have never become doctors unless it were for loan forgiveness programs?

    Honestly, I think that programs like the one you're proposing and Teach for America are the absolutely worst reasons to considering becoming a doctor or teacher. I especially detest Teach for America, whose whole shtick seems to be "Don't have a job? Come join Teach for America! It's not as if teaching requires any skills at all!" Right, because the public school system totally needs kids who just want a paycheck instead of people who know the first thing about education or child psychology.

    As for your last point, I think you misread when Marc was saying. More often than not, the people who are wasting hospital resources are those with insurance, usually state-funded insurance – i.e., Medicaid – not the uninsured. That is completely contrary to your last point. There is no reason why an ambulance should be tied up because it never occurred to some fucking idiot that "911 shouldn't be called because I have a headache and the Tylenol I took 4-6 hours ago has worn off," and neither EMTs nor medics are allowed to diagnose anyone in the field. So they can't legally refuse treatment to someone even if you or I could see that it's a bullshit 911 call.

    There's something fucked up with that. I get that the law was designed to protect people, but it really wasn't designed so everyone on the damn planet can waste emergency resources. And yeah, calling 911 because you stubbed your toe or a vitamin got stuck in your throat while someone across town is bleeding in a back alley from a stabbing wound is bullshit. I just fail to see how this shit will not increase once a public health plan goes through.