When we finally do get a government run universal health system...

[originalpckelly]

what happens when the Republicans eventually lie and cheat their way back into power?

If they don't dismantle the program first, will they use it to spy on political opponents?

Would individuals who felt they wanted to go into politics or work their way up in our nation go to a doctor about something embarrassing or would they stay away from that care, for fear it might be used against them?

What about average Joe Smoe? What if he gets VD while fooling around on his wife, are we going to legislate morality and keep him from getting care? Would he embarrassed to come forward?

If you apply for a job with the government, will health records be used openly or secretly?

What happens if the government fucks up?

Many jurisdictions have limits on the amount of liability they will provide to someone, and yes, they can do that. It's called sovereign immunity.

Will you even be able to sue the government for shitty care?

At least a private company/charity can be sued to death and put out of business if they fuck it up.

I think that's important, the ability of a company and it's reputation to be so horribly ruined, that most people know not to return to them.

What happens to the confidence of Americans in their new universal health system, if it should ever fuck up on a big scale? Would people still go to a government doctor if they were worried about the fuck up happening to them?

As of yet many of these and other questions haven't been answered, although there is probably an answer in Medicare/Medicaid for the liability question, and even the confidence question.

We might look to other systems, but we must remember the vicious nature of the opposing party, they will not stop at anything to gain a political advantage.

[phillysuse]

1. Medicare for All with private physicians

No one wants government doctors or government run health care.

What we want is Medicare for All - government paid insurance, not government health care. There is a difference. Medicare is taken by most physicians so you can choose your doctor who is a private practitioner. That is the kind of single payor insurance program that will work. You see your doctor and the government pays. Right now, that is the way it works with Medicare. If the doctor or the hospital screws up, you do not sue Medicare, you sue them, not the US government.

A single payor insurance system would work the same way.

Right now if your private insurance company denies care, you can't sue them under the ERISA legislation.

[originalpckelly]

2. Yes, but that requires private hospitals. Are we going to mandate those hospitals be...

non-profit?

[phillysuse]

3. Right now for-profit hospitals seem to have no problem

taking Medicare dollars from the government.

Look at Tenet, they looove to bilk Medicare.

The question of whether or not hospitals should be "non-profit" or "for-profit" is a good one but is not related to whether we have single payor health insurance, Medicare for All.

Personally, having worked in both For-Profit and so called Non-Profit Hospitals, I think there is hardly any difference. The For Profits are squeezing money out by cutting nursing, housekeeping, infection control, IV teams so that there stock holders can profit and the nonprofits cut corners on the same items so that their administrators, their many self important Vice Presidents, their marketing department etc can be overpaid.

[originalpckelly]

4. Yes, but part of the high cost of medicine is for-profit hospitals.

That and for-profit medical supply companies, and drug companies. And then there's the whole thing where it takes lots of people to keep up a hospital, even if they are non-profit.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. I know not what answer others may give, but I see this as an issue

of professional ethics. The insurance industry is already forcing people to give up too much information--diagnoses, treatments, etc.--in the name of utilization reviews, etc. There is nothing stopping the government from getting the insurance cos. to release that info, just like they've done with the telcos, Yahoo, etc. I don't know that the government is a more dangerous repository for this information than the insurance/HMO establishment, who are already using the information inappropriately.

In the area of outpatient mental health care--one of the most sensitive areas there is--I always tell people that if they want to maintain confidentiality, the best way to do it is to do self-pay, in which case the information remains between them and their therapist, and the therapist is bound by very strict ethical codes.