Is socialized medicine cause collapse of OUR government?

[Clipper]

www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-12/finlands-government-collapsed-under-weight-socialized-healthcare

Is this where we are heading with the so many liberals leaning toward socialism, and socialized medicine? It seems that some factions embedded in our government are pushing farther and faster in their effort to achieve government control over many aspects of our lives, not only healthcare, that take away our freedoms to choose and over regulate factors in our daily lives. I for one am seriously frightened by the prospect of living under a government led by some of the candidates that are making their intentions and agendas known for upcoming elections at all levels. Our government has proven time and time again that they can stick their nose into something and turn it into a totally disastrous bureaucratic nightmare.

The problems and failures to provide an acceptable level of care that have plagued the Veteran's Administration and the veteran's healthcare system are a prime example of why we should oppose ANY effort to impose single payer, government dictated and sponsored healthcare and should raise a large red flag. The government should continue to provide programs for those who can't acquire or can't afford private insurance, but for those of us who can afford and do like to choose the source of our healthcare insurance, it should remain an available option. I see nothing but doom for all aspects of the healthcare industry if the government were to take over control. Healthcare does need reform, but I don't believe that a single payer programs or excess government interference in the private sector is the answer.

[Deleted]

I don't know if we will get to the point where Doctors are paid by the government for a real Socialized medicine but I do like the Medicare for all from cradle to natural death. No reason in today's society especially the USA for people to have to pay for medical services at least the first 80%. That should be free. Then we can get into how the other 20% is handled through various private insurance agencies.

[Clipper]

That would depend entirely on how the program was structured and managed. I certainly would not condone another program like the "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" lies, fallacies, and failures put forth in the ACA in order to pass within the time frame promised. The biggest drawbacks were that those of us who COULD afford insurance, saw ridiculously outrageous premium prices in order to pay to subsidize those that couldn't otherwise afford insurance coverage.

I presently pay about $200 for a plan F insurance plan through United Healthcare. It covers absolutely everything that is not covered by medicare. I have NEVER had to pay a penny to a doctor or hospital. Everything has been fully covered by either medicare or the insurance plan. I can't even imagine what the premium cost for medicare will be if those of us that are adults are tasked with picking up the cost of insuring those that are not of an age that has them working and paying medicare premiums.

The effect that it would have on hospitals and doctors might be far from positive. We have already seen doctors and other medical providers that have opted to no longer accept medicare patients and the low prices that medicare pays for the services. It is doubtful that the services would get any cheaper. The costs would simply be passed along to us in the form of increased copays for some plans and increased premiums for plans like I have that DO cover everything not paid for by medicare.

When I worked for the federal government people always said that the federal govt. could screw up a soup sandwich. If we are forced to subsidize medical care through a government program, let each state legislate and regulate it through increased coverage by Medicaid programs. I may be wrong, but I have more faith in state level elected officials than I do in our federal officials to actually legislate with sincere consideration for the average constituent rather than calculating how much money they can put in their own pockets from lobbyists and campaign donors. At least if it is regulated on a state level, we would know that our money was being spent in our home state and not disproportionately spent in other areas of the country, leaving our own particular area on the short end of the stick

[clarencebunsen]

One of the reasons that St. E's has been such a money pit is that they have a high percentage of Medicare and MedicAid patients. The reimbursement rate does not cover the costs. If the hospital merger does not go through there is a real possibility that they could go belly up.

[BHU]

"You can keep your own Doctor" is a refrain I keep hearing. Well, Ins. Co's have been steering the insured to visit Doctor's who are enrolled in their networks as providers for decades. So, what's the diference if the ACA required patients to see Doctor's who accepted plans offered by the ACA marketplace? I have private ins. & unless I see a doctor who is a provider in my plan I'll be forced to meet deductibles totaling a hell of a lot more then I can afford.

Not everyone who enrolled in plans offered by the ACA were forced to change Doctors. About 3 years ago my primary care dr. who I saw for 20 years moved out of state, so i had to find another & it wasent a big deal to me. That's life. Some of the same people who keep repeating the "you can keep your own Dr." jazz are the same ones who don't give a damn whether or not the poor or elderly or anyone else can afford decent health care. It's just a shiny object used by people who have offered no solutions of their own to this crisis even though they've had years to do something about it.