Republican Party and Low Taxes

Dirk said:

It's certainly possible. In regards to healthcare, i was recently informed of a poll that showed about two thirds in favour of an American NHS. And the American people have been overwhelmingly in its favour for quite a number of decades, apparently. Nobody realises because the issue isn't on the table. It's only working around the current corporate-based system (which is a massive failure).

Click to expand...

deanhills said:

Which poll is that, as that does sound a little strange and out of whack with the polls I'm familiar with?

Click to expand...

Dirk said:

The Harris poll: (August)

Fifty-two percent of 2,276 US adults surveyed online by Harris Interactive between July 9 and 13 said they were in favor of a government-run health plan, while just 30 percent were against.

Unbeknownst to me, it is the New York Times poll i remembered. I should note that it is substantially less reliable than the Harris poll.

A clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government-sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, the poll found. Most also think the government would do a better job than private industry at keeping down costs and believe that the government should guarantee health care for all Americans.

(This was in July)

The reason i mentioned when it was is to show that there's not a big difference in dates.

Click to expand...

DodgeFB said:

If the government "sponsored" plan is anything like Medicare they will not be happy with it in my opinion. I have been on Medicare for a long time. And it is a pain. That is one reason I went 7 years without seeing my doctor.

Click to expand...

Dirk said:

It's certainly possible. In regards to healthcare, i was recently informed of a poll that showed about two thirds in favour of an American NHS.

Click to expand...

The bolded and red-inked portion of your previous posting was the part that worried me. Yes, I am aware that quite a large percentage of Americans favour healthcare reforms, but no mention was made of an American NHS when the polls were taken. I'm not an expert on the current healthcare reform legislation (I wonder who really are given the 2000 plus pages that it has grown into), but as far as I can see this has to do with healthcare reforms that are no where even close to the NHS. The following article in the Washington Post is a really good one that exactly expresses how I see it, as I'm convinced people who are being polled have no idea really what socialized medicine is about.

The following article has been quoted from: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/health_reform_for_beginners_th_1.html :

Health Reform for Beginners: The Difference Between Socialized Medicine, Single-Payer Health Care, and What We'll Be Getting
By Ezra Klein | June 9, 2009; 11:09 AM ET - Washington Post

I've been meaning to write this post for some time. The words "socialized medicine" and"single-payer health care" get thrown around with such gleeful abandon that they've both become a bit unmoored from their actual meanings. In the American health-care debate, they tend to refer to "whatever the Democrats are proposing." But that's not what they mean.

Socialized medicine is a system in which the government owns the means of providing medicine. Britain is an example of socialized system, as, in America, is the Veterans Health Administration. In a socialized system, the government employs the doctors and nurses, builds and owns the hospitals, and bargains for and purchases the technology. I have literally never heard a proposal for converting America to a socialized system of medicine. And I know a lot of liberals.

Single-payer health care is not socialized medicine. It's a system in which one institution purchases all, or in reality, most, of the care. But the payer does not own the doctors or the hospitals or the nurses or the MRI scanners. Medicare is an example of a mostly single-payer system, as is France. Both of these systems have private insurers to choose from, but the government is the dominant purchaser. (As an aside here, unlike in socialized medicine, "single-payer health care" has nothing in particular to do with the government. The state might be the single payer. But if Aetna managed to wrest 100 percent of the health insurance market, then it would be the single payer. The term refers to market share, not federal control.)

Socialized medicine is far outside any discussion we're having. Single-payer medicine has a genuine constituency but is also a vanishingly unlikely outcome. But the promiscuous use of the terms has created a rather confused population. "Socialized medicine" is the thing we don't have. In some case, it's the thing we don't like. The graph atop this post comes from a poll conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health. They found that Americans actually preferred socialized medicine to our system. Or take this question, about our current system:

You're reading that right. About 30 percent of Americans think HMOs are socialized medicine. Which implies a couple things. First, the term "socialized medicine" has been diluted beyond all meaning. Second, it's no longer considered a terrifying outcome. And third, nothing that's this amorphous -- and actually preferred by a plurality of the population -- is likely to prove a terribly effective attack against health reform. Socialized medicine has become such a stand-in for "not this system of medicine" that it's begun to look good in comparison.

Meanwhile, what we're actually going to get is not socialized medicine or single-payer health care. It's a hybrid system. Private insurers, hopefully competing with a public option. Private doctors and private hospitals. Government regulation and subsidies. It's going to be complicated and messy and inefficient and hopeful and the product of a strange mix of corporate preferences and public compassion and latent populism. It will, in other words, be a uniquely American system, and hard to describe with a single epithet.

Dirk said:

Well, the NHS exists alongside the private system. So the poll says exactly as i'd suggested. Thing was, i mixed up the polls in my mind.

Click to expand...

deanhills said:

Right, but what the article by Ezra Klein revealed was that people don't really know what they are voting for in the polls. They cannot distinguish between "socialized medicine" and "single-payer health care". He used a specific example of the Harvard University Public Health Poll that showed that 45% Americans thought that "socialized medicine" would be better, however when they were polled as to what they thought "socialized medicine" was, they came up with wrong answers.

Click to expand...

Dirk said:

Well, there are those that don't believe the term "socialised medicine" doesn't mean anything, but i thought it simply mean publicly funded healthcare? Of which single payer would be a variation?

Click to expand...

Socialized medicine is a system in which the government owns the means of providing medicine. Britain is an example of socialized system, as, in America, is the Veterans Health Administration. In a socialized system, the government employs the doctors and nurses, builds and owns the hospitals, and bargains for and purchases the technology. I have literally never heard a proposal for converting America to a socialized system of medicine. And I know a lot of liberals.

Click to expand...

Single-payer health care is not socialized medicine. It's a system in which one institution purchases all, or in reality, most, of the care. But the payer does not own the doctors or the hospitals or the nurses or the MRI scanners. Medicare is an example of a mostly single-payer system, as is France. Both of these systems have private insurers to choose from, but the government is the dominant purchaser. (As an aside here, unlike in socialized medicine, "single-payer health care" has nothing in particular to do with the government. The state might be the single payer. But if Aetna managed to wrest 100 percent of the health insurance market, then it would be the single payer. The term refers to market share, not federal control.)

Click to expand...

deanhills said:

Explanation is quite simple, refer the article in my posting below:



Single payer has nothing to do with socialized medicine.

Click to expand...

drewkirbyexamin said:

Does anyone feel that the prevalence of the socialist party and a renweal of the healthcare debate think that these will effect the outcome of november's election?

Click to expand...

drewkirbyexamin said:

Does anyone feel that the prevalence of the socialist party and a renweal of the healthcare debate think that these will effect the outcome of november's election?

Click to expand...

DodgeFB said:

First let me say I am glad to meet you.

And I do think the health care debate will have a big effect on the election.

Click to expand...

drewkirbyexamin said:

Does anyone feel that the prevalence of the socialist party and a renweal of the healthcare debate think that these will effect the outcome of november's election?

Click to expand...

• #1