Quote Originally Posted by Fengzi
There are pros and cons to each Birdgirl. My experience with socialized medicine is that it's great for basic things but when something really goes wrong you're screwed. I got serious food poisoning when I was living in China and had to go to the hospital. A day at the hospital, with all kinds of tests, and a sack of meds cost me 25 yuan, about US$3.00. The last time we took our daughter back she got bad bronchitis and we had to take her in to the hospital. Her doctor visit and meds were free. Sounds great, right? But when my father in law got cancer, there was no one around for miles and miles who could treat him. Fortunately he knew somebody, who knew somebody, who knew somebody who was a specialist in Shanghai and agreed to see him, but only if he could come up with US$30K. Fortunately between my wife and I, and my brother in law, the money wasn't a problem but that's not the case with the vast majority of folks.

Socialized medicine really seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of thing. And, until our government starts to think that it's better to spend billions a year to keep our citizens healthy than to kill Iraq's, it always will be.
Why the disparity in medical costs for the treatment of your father-in-law, Fengzi? Because it was cancer? Admittedly, that is a more expensive disease anywhere than, say, food poisoning or pediatric pneumonia. But I'm just wondering about such a huge disparity, particularly in China.

I agree that there are damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't aspects to the prospect of socialized medicine here. All the opponents say it'll affect our quality of care as it has in other places, and they may well be right. There'll certainly be some bumps and bruises as we're adjusting, assuming we ever get such a system, which, with the current medical, pharmaceutical, insurance, and hospital corporation lobby, is highly unlikely. In the end, we need to make some adjustments to incorporate aspects of both a private and public system. I think it'll have to be a cooperative effort among private employers, contributors (the insured), and a national system. That cooperative effort will help maintain some quality and some of the good aspects of the current system. It'll probably lengthen our wait times for care. And the growing pains will be miserable.

One thing is true, however. The groups who're wailing the loudest in opposition to the idea of a national health care program--conservative doctors, the AMA, the pharma, hospital and insurance industries--are the ones who also wailed the loudest 40 years ago about Medicare and Medicaid when they were implemented. These are companies and individuals who are richer than God, for the most part, and who are brilliantly adept at adjusting their methods so they'll still benefit immensely from a new system. They did that in the 1960s and can do it again. Doctors aren't going to find themselves out in the cold or dying from poverty or providing inferior care to patients, although 9 our of 10 will say that's what'll happen. They'll reinvent themselves and rise from the ashes like the skilled phoenices they are. What may suffer for a time is the quantity of trained professionals to deal with all the newly covered patients. We have a nursing shortage as it is. And we're increasingly seeing a doctor shortage. So that'll be a challenge to overcome. We also won't be able to create a system that provides as well for people who live in remote, rural areas. Patients who live in urban or suburban areas near major medical centers will continue to have more choices and better access to care, I'm afraid.

Hey, Reb, I'm glad you had good coverage. I have, too, for the most part. But I expect if you ask your parents about your insurance coverage, you'll find that you got such good coverage of your Hodgkins treatment because that was a few years ago. If you developed that cancer today, your parents would pick up a larger percentage of those expenses. Our health care plan used to pay 100% of covered expenses. This year it covers 90. Next year it'll be 80. And that's a very good plan. More and more plans nowadays pay only 40% or 50%. The benefits go down with each passing year. Check with your mom and dad or whoever carries you on insurance and see if your coverage would be the same today as it was a few years back. If it's anything like the insurance most people have, the answer is no.