First, no one is seriously advocating "socialized medicine" for the United States. Some of the Democratic candidates are urging universal health insurance of some type so everyone can be covered. This might be a "single-payer" system or some variation using private insurance companies. These proposals are not "socialized medicine".

The term "socialized medicine is a loaded term coined by the AMA and insurance companies years ago to frighten Americans and bring up visions of a some type of "Sovietized' American heath care system.

A universal health care system would still allow each person to chose their own doctors just like the current private insurance system does.

Medicare is a good example of universal health care, in this case for everyone 65 or over. Medicare is not socialized medicine and is one of the most popular government programs ever devised.

Second, government does do somethings better than private enterprise and one of those is health care for seniors. The administrative costs for traditional Medicare are far less than the administrative costs for the Medicare Advantage plans run by private insurance companies.

Third, universal health care would cost more in taxes. Nothing is free. But the United States, like other industrialized nations, can afford to provide medical care to all of its citizens. No one wants to pay more in taxes but sometimes it is necessary.

I'm afraid I don't have arguments lined up as yet. And, as an added preface, I should make it clear that when it comes to the practical side of such issues, I am a babe in the woods. I am just not hardwired to think about how things would go administratively, etc. I am, by nature, a very impractical person. (Same thing with the economy. I haven't a clue who is correct on how to balance the budget, etc. I can't even balance my check book.)

Now...

Some of my kids are utterly without any kind of insurance and I worry about them. So I'm tugged in one direction given that concern.

But then there is the other side....

My prostate cancer was caught early because of aggressive screening. The current wisdom is that screening should begin at 50 unless one is in a high risk category, then it begins at 40. Though I was only 47 and not in a high risk category, my doctor suggested that a PSA test, along with other blood work, was a good idea. It proved suspicious and led to the diagnosis and treatment.

Since my diagnosis, I have frequented some websites that feature discusion forums on the disease. I came across one the other day that was puzzling. Somene had started a thread with a petition to the government. It demanded the right for men to have access to PCa screening--PSA tests in particular--at the ages stated above when they display no symptoms.

Various people in the thread shared their experiences of having doctors refuse the tests.

I thought this very odd, until I realized that the thread originated in the UK, where they have socialized medicine in place.

Because of that, I Googled "prostate cancer UK socialized medicine." I learned that Giuliani took heat for saying that the PCa survival rate in the U.S. is roughly twice that in the U.K. An AP story had this to say about Giuliani's assertion:

The American Cancer Society says that survival rates are actually higher and that it's misleading to compare the two countries.

So there is disagreement — and studies conflict — over whether the chances of survival for men with low-risk tumors really improve with aggressive treatment, or if they can be closely monitored and treated only if their tumors grow, thereby avoiding side effects such as impotence and incontinence.

So doctors in the UK's NHS have come down on one side of the debate over the effectiveness of screening. What I do not know here is whether the decisions of UK doctors almost across the board reflect an adopted policy of the NHS itself. IF so, then, as a PCa survivor, I have serious reservations regarding such a system.

As one conservative commentator observed (rightly, I think), the AP article is saying that the U.S. system is not better than the UK system, because the U.S. system screens more aggressively and therefore catches and treats more cancer. And the AP's point is?

Now all of this is highly anecdotal, and it is only one instance. But I'll add that the sort of treatment that I received right here in the Atlanta area is almost non-existent in the UK, so that many patients at my clinic had come across the pond to be treated. The UK, as a rule, does not have nearly the facilities or equipment per capita as available here.

I wound up paying about $200.00 out of pocket for some $80k of diagnostics and treatment because of my Blue Cross. Good doctors will use discretion in sending patients for expensive scans and other diagnostics, but, in our system, if they determine that it is essential in treating the patient, they do so without batting an eye.

Would this change if we put in place the U.S. version of the NHS?

________________

My Opie impression: circa 1963.

For me, I agree with those who say socialized medicine is about POWER. Specifically the additional power the federal government would have over we the people to further control our lives by socializing the largest private sector of our economy. Secondly, do we really think the government is a better administrator and a more efficient operator than a good capitalist? If we lived in the USSR earlier in the twentieth century we would all be expected to be good Communists and if we lived in Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany we'd all be expected to be good Fascists. Fortunately, by the grace of God, we live in the USA. Why shouldn't we be the best Capitalists we can be? Have any of you ever shopped to compare healthcare prices for services before making a purchasing decision? Who among us would purchase an automobile without shopping price? I dare say the car might even cost less!

Spelling? You mean that you never pointed out misspelling?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Good topic sniffles,

Lately, I had not heard anything good about socialized medicine. A recent case that comes to mind is one of a Canadian woman who was having an “at risk” pregnancy. She developed complications and was rushed to a Canadian hospital only to find out that the treatment she needed was not available because the specialized unit had been closed due to lack of funds. What happened? She was flown across the border to the U.S. and the Canadian government ended up paying three times more than if they would have had this service available.

I can tell you I’m not an advocate of a straight across the board program, however, a program that will have a sliding scale fee of some sort, where everyone is a contributor and no one is “smooching”. Ultimately, my gut tells me to let the market determine what type of medical care we should have according to what you can afford.

First of all there is no free luch in life. Someone has to pay for everything.

Why do you think Grady Hospital is out of money?? I think there is not enough money to go around. Especially when that money is spent on people who have never paid a dime in taxes.

Doctors are moving in the other direction. They have opened up 4 new offices of MD VIP, on the Northside of Atlanta. Doctors are moving towards concierge medicine. You pay an annual fee of anywhere between 1,000. to 3,000 a year to be a member of their practice. Then you pay for each office visit. The bonus is because the Dr. is getting paid more, you usually get an appointment the same day, and their cell phone number so you can call with questions.

They have been open for almost 2 years in Atlanta it will be interesting to see how long it lasts.

Hi Sniffles. Good idea for a blog. I'll just ask one simple question to you and everybody else that supports socialized medicine: where specifically in the United States Constitution do you find that Congress is authorized to create such a program? And please, don't use the "General Welfare" clause...that's been so overused by Republicrats and Demicans alike.

I'll save my other arguments for a bit later.