Public option is dead. It's official.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Mister Bill -

You go find me a definition of 'nationalized medicine' - not industry.

My research tells me it's not out there because most persons use the words interchangeably.

My post, my definitions. National Heathcare and Socialized Medicine are interchangable, only because of common miss-usage. Nationalizing the Healthcare Industry is a different idea. That's my point. Read anything else beyond that is being argumentative on your part.

[rebeccajo 14]

someones being social ...

Aye

[rebeccajo 14]

Mister Bill -

You go find me a definition of 'nationalized medicine' - not industry.

My research tells me it's not out there because most persons use the words interchangeably.

My post, my definitions. National Heathcare and Socialized Medicine are interchangable, only because of common miss-usage. Nationalizing the Healthcare Industry is a different idea. That's my point. Read anything else beyond that is being argumentative on your part.

Noooooooooo.

Nationalizing implies the physical takeover of plant and equipment by a government.

Socialization implies the government builds an industry from the bottom up.

One has a militaristic connotation - the other a political.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

India "nationalized" the insurance industry in the 60s during the heydays of the Cold War as a symbolic protest against American economic "colonialism". There wasn't anything militaristic about it. They just took the companies over, turned private enterprises (which had American partners) into state-run enterprises.

[rebeccajo 14]

India "nationalized" the insurance industry in the 60s during the heydays of the Cold War as a symbolic protest against American economic "colonialism". There wasn't anything militaristic about it. They just took the companies over, turned private enterprises (which had American partners) into state-run enterprises.

I'm just sayin' - let's not go all out there trying to find ANOTHER scary buzzword.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Mister Bill -

You go find me a definition of 'nationalized medicine' - not industry.

My research tells me it's not out there because most persons use the words interchangeably.

My post, my definitions. National Heathcare and Socialized Medicine are interchangable, only because of common miss-usage. Nationalizing the Healthcare Industry is a different idea. That's my point. Read anything else beyond that is being argumentative on your part.

Noooooooooo.

Nationalizing implies the physical takeover of plant and equipment by a government.

Socialization implies the government builds an industry from the bottom up.

One has a militaristic connotation - the other a political.

In the case of the US, since this is where this debate is taking place, socialization of healthcare has already happened. The model being used is Medicare, and the Progressives, including Obama, see as their goal, the complete socialization, that is single payer heathcare.

Personally, I don't think that goes far enough: I am for the complete nationalization of the healthcare industry. My philosphy here is that if government want to run it, and pay for it, they might as well own it.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[rebeccajo 14]

Mister Bill -

You go find me a definition of 'nationalized medicine' - not industry.

My research tells me it's not out there because most persons use the words interchangeably.

My post, my definitions. National Heathcare and Socialized Medicine are interchangable, only because of common miss-usage. Nationalizing the Healthcare Industry is a different idea. That's my point. Read anything else beyond that is being argumentative on your part.

Noooooooooo.

Nationalizing implies the physical takeover of plant and equipment by a government.

Socialization implies the government builds an industry from the bottom up.

One has a militaristic connotation - the other a political.

In the case of the US, since this is where this debate is taking place, socialization of healthcare has already happened. The model being used is Medicare, and the Progressives, including Obama, see as their goal, the complete socialization, that is single payer heathcare.

Personally, I don't think that goes far enough: I am for the complete nationalization of the healthcare industry. My philosphy here is that if government want to run it, and pay for it, they might as well own it.

Ok - whatever you want to call it. Like AJ said, if you want to go with that definition, then a whole lot of people yelling at town hall meetings ought to be turning down their Medicare when they turn 65 just out of general principle.

IMO, there is no way to control health care costs unless you do away with the fee-for-service model. And you can't do away with that model as long as you have so many different providers. Nations with 'nationalized' (as you care to call it) systems can control costs because they treat the patients entire condition, and not each step of it.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

See my thread on Canada... they are considering moving to a fee-for-service model.

[rebeccajo 14]

See my thread on Canada... they are considering moving to a fee-for-service model.

I saw that.

Fee-for-service is a feeding frenzy for providers. Goal of the day at every facility is to figure out what can be billed and what can't. The more billing - the more profit. It doesn't improve quality of care one iota.

[natty bumppo 297]

Ok - whatever you want to call it. Like AJ said, if you want to go with that definition, then a whole lot of people yelling at town hall meetings ought to be turning down their Medicare when they turn 65 just out of general principle.

IMO, there is no way to control health care costs unless you do away with the fee-for-service model. And you can't do away with that model as long as you have so many different providers. Nations with 'nationalized' (as you care to call it) systems can control costs because they treat the patients entire condition, and not each step of it.

why? didn't the people (who legally worked) pay into it? why should they turn down something for which they paid?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

See my thread on Canada... they are considering moving to a fee-for-service model.

I saw that.

Fee-for-service is a feeding frenzy for providers. Goal of the day at every facility is to figure out what can be billed and what can't. The more billing - the more profit. It doesn't improve quality of care one iota.

I know this has become a wingnut talking point, but it's a good one.

If quality of care in the US isn't good, why do foreigners with money mostly come here for treatment?

My sense is the American care, at the best hospitals with the best doctors, is or is close to the best in the world.

Where we fall short is at the bottom.

Kind of the way we run our communities, too. Our wealthiest communities rock. Our ghettos, well, don't.

It's all very American.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Mister Bill -

You go find me a definition of 'nationalized medicine' - not industry.

My research tells me it's not out there because most persons use the words interchangeably.

My post, my definitions. National Heathcare and Socialized Medicine are interchangable, only because of common miss-usage. Nationalizing the Healthcare Industry is a different idea. That's my point. Read anything else beyond that is being argumentative on your part.

Noooooooooo.

Nationalizing implies the physical takeover of plant and equipment by a government.

Socialization implies the government builds an industry from the bottom up.

One has a militaristic connotation - the other a political.

In the case of the US, since this is where this debate is taking place, socialization of healthcare has already happened. The model being used is Medicare, and the Progressives, including Obama, see as their goal, the complete socialization, that is single payer heathcare.

Personally, I don't think that goes far enough: I am for the complete nationalization of the healthcare industry. My philosphy here is that if government want to run it, and pay for it, they might as well own it.

Ok - whatever you want to call it. Like AJ said, if you want to go with that definition, then a whole lot of people yelling at town hall meetings ought to be turning down their Medicare when they turn 65 just out of general principle.

IMO, there is no way to control health care costs unless you do away with the fee-for-service model. And you can't do away with that model as long as you have so many different providers. Nations with 'nationalized' (as you care to call it) systems can control costs because they treat the patients entire condition, and not each step of it.

So, you can see that while the "Right" has been hoping for the "withering on the vine" of Medicare, determined that privatization would eventually replace it, the "Left" is hoping that the fee for service model that is Medicare will be more cost effective, and eventually replace the private plans with a single public plan. Single-payer takes us in the right direction, but either the government steps away completely (not likely) or government takes it over completely.

I don't think you will see any cost savings, unless the whole thing is nationalized. I mean, when you have defense contractors, you guarantee cost overruns. Why does that logic not apply to the healthcare industry as well?

[luckytxn 2,265]

See my thread on Canada... they are considering moving to a fee-for-service model.

I saw that.

Fee-for-service is a feeding frenzy for providers. Goal of the day at every facility is to figure out what can be billed and what can't. The more billing - the more profit. It doesn't improve quality of care one iota.

I know this has become a wingnut talking point, but it's a good one.

If quality of care in the US isn't good, why do foreigners with money mostly come here for treatment?

My sense is the American care, at the best hospitals with the best doctors, is or is close to the best in the world.

Where we fall short is at the bottom.

Kind of the way we run our communities, too. Our wealthiest communities rock. Our ghettos, well, don't.

It's all very American.

Yeah for some reason the Canadians send a lot of patients from their "Great" health care down to the U.S. to slum with us.

[rebeccajo 14]

Ok - whatever you want to call it. Like AJ said, if you want to go with that definition, then a whole lot of people yelling at town hall meetings ought to be turning down their Medicare when they turn 65 just out of general principle.

IMO, there is no way to control health care costs unless you do away with the fee-for-service model. And you can't do away with that model as long as you have so many different providers. Nations with 'nationalized' (as you care to call it) systems can control costs because they treat the patients entire condition, and not each step of it.

why? didn't the people (who legally worked) pay into it? why should they turn down something for which they paid?

Because it's the same thing they say they don't want?

[rebeccajo 14]

Mister Bill -

You go find me a definition of 'nationalized medicine' - not industry.

My research tells me it's not out there because most persons use the words interchangeably.

My post, my definitions. National Heathcare and Socialized Medicine are interchangable, only because of common miss-usage. Nationalizing the Healthcare Industry is a different idea. That's my point. Read anything else beyond that is being argumentative on your part.

Noooooooooo.

Nationalizing implies the physical takeover of plant and equipment by a government.

Socialization implies the government builds an industry from the bottom up.

One has a militaristic connotation - the other a political.

In the case of the US, since this is where this debate is taking place, socialization of healthcare has already happened. The model being used is Medicare, and the Progressives, including Obama, see as their goal, the complete socialization, that is single payer heathcare.

Personally, I don't think that goes far enough: I am for the complete nationalization of the healthcare industry. My philosphy here is that if government want to run it, and pay for it, they might as well own it.

Ok - whatever you want to call it. Like AJ said, if you want to go with that definition, then a whole lot of people yelling at town hall meetings ought to be turning down their Medicare when they turn 65 just out of general principle.

IMO, there is no way to control health care costs unless you do away with the fee-for-service model. And you can't do away with that model as long as you have so many different providers. Nations with 'nationalized' (as you care to call it) systems can control costs because they treat the patients entire condition, and not each step of it.

So, you can see that while the "Right" has been hoping for the "withering on the vine" of Medicare, determined that privatization would eventually replace it, the "Left" is hoping that the fee for service model that is Medicare will be more cost effective, and eventually replace the private plans with a single public plan. Single-payer takes us in the right direction, but either the government steps away completely (not likely) or government takes it over completely.

I don't think you will see any cost savings, unless the whole thing is nationalized. I mean, when you have defense contractors, you guarantee cost overruns. Why does that logic not apply to the healthcare industry as well?

Medicare already pays less for most services than what insurance does. That's one reason you see the Left going with the Medicare model. But it's still not as effective as saying "a TOTAL procedure should only cost THIS much money".