Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

El_Johns

(1,805 posts)
Fri Jan 10, 2014, 03:25 AM Jan 2014

Socialized Health Care in a Red State

Most people in the United States don’t really know what the Canadian health care system is all about. And they certainly don’t know that the Canadian national health care system—called Medicare in that country—began not as a national system, but as a provincial experiment...

Now, 50 years later, Montana has implemented a remarkable program to provide socialized health care to state employees. They don’t call it “socialized health care,” but just put two and two together as you consider the following remarks from a story on National Public Radio from last July:

“Montana opened the first government-run medical clinic for state employees last fall. A year later, the state says the clinic is already saving money.”

Note that Montana’s experiment is not a “single-payer” insurance plan. It’s actually socialized medicine, as the NPR report makes clear without stooping so low as to use the “S” word:

“The state contracts with a private company to run the facility and pays for everything—wages of the staff, total costs of all the visits. Those are all new expenses, and they all come from the budget for state employee healthcare. Even so, division manager Russ Hill says it’s actually costing the state $1,500,000 less for healthcare than before the clinic opened.”

“Physicians are paid by the hour, not by the number of procedures they prescribe like many in the private sector. The state is able to buy supplies at lower prices. ‘Because there’s no markup, our cost per visit is lower than in a private fee-for-service environment,’ Hill says.”

“Bottom line: a patient’s visit to the employee health clinic costs the state about half what it would cost if that patient went to a private doctor. And because it’s free to patients, hundreds of people have come in who had not seen a doctor for at least two years.”

And, in a telling comment about what can happen when life experience contrasts with the “free market” ideology with which we are constantly propagandized, we have this comment:

“Pamela Weitz, a 61-year-old state library technician, was skeptical about the place at first. ‘I thought it was just the goofiest idea, but you know, it’s really good,’ she says. In the last year, she’s been there for checkups, blood tests and flu shots. She doesn’t have to go; she still has her normal health insurance provided by the state. But at the clinic, she has no co-pays, no deductibles. It’s free.”

Had Obamacare included a “public option” that looked anything like Montana, we might be hearing comments like those of Ms. Weitz from every corner of the USA. Could Montana be our health-care Saskatchewan?

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/08/socialized-health-care-in-a-red-state/

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Socialized Health Care in a Red State (Original Post) El_Johns Jan 2014 OP
Physicians are paid by the hour - not by the number of procedures. dipsydoodle Jan 2014 #1
The key term in there is "non-profit" Wounded Bear Jan 2014 #2
I'm not familiar with their system painesghost Jan 2014 #3
If that is addressed to what I wrote dipsydoodle Jan 2014 #4
What I favor is painesghost Jan 2014 #7
Joe Lieberman, the Senator from the insurance capitol of the world, pnwmom Jan 2014 #5
+1 El_Johns Jan 2014 #6

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
1. Physicians are paid by the hour - not by the number of procedures.
Fri Jan 10, 2014, 05:08 AM
Jan 2014

Under the UK's NHS it's more closely related to the latter - per patient plus other odds and sods....annual checkups, vacs etc. Our doctors / general practitioners here don't work for the NHS : they do work on behalf of the NHS.

The system in Montana sounds closer to the Dutch system whereby all medical work is carried out privately but on a non profit basis.

Wounded Bear

(58,649 posts)
2. The key term in there is "non-profit"
Fri Jan 10, 2014, 05:12 AM
Jan 2014

We'll never truly get costs down until the profit motive is totally removed from the system, at least for non-elective procedures.

painesghost

(91 posts)
3. I'm not familiar with their system
Fri Jan 10, 2014, 05:52 AM
Jan 2014

Is it close to that of Vermont or Australia's except that the hospitals are non-profits?

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
4. If that is addressed to what I wrote
Fri Jan 10, 2014, 05:58 AM
Jan 2014

then our public hospitals in the UK are owned by the NHS.

The exceptions are those owned by private insurance companies which the NHS on occasions pays for the use of too.

painesghost

(91 posts)
7. What I favor is
Sat Jan 11, 2014, 04:26 AM
Jan 2014

A single payer universal healthcare in which hospitals and health services would remain private, but where basic healthcare accesses would be free. I have no problem with private health insurance for elective and experimental healthcare. This being said, basic healthcare should be "free" (paid by tax dollars). This would include normal preventive healthcare. The problem becomes with experimental healthcare initiatives that might be prohibitive based on costs. I.E. cancer treatment that costs $3 million dollars. It would be nice if everyone could have accesses, but in reality only the super rich will. Hopefully if the rich fund it based on need it will advance and get cheaper. However, I am against the auctioning of organs and such. This should be based on a first come first serve rational based on immediate need. Just my 2 cents.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
5. Joe Lieberman, the Senator from the insurance capitol of the world,
Fri Jan 10, 2014, 06:11 AM
Jan 2014

Connecticut, was the Independent caucusing with the Dems who prevented us from having the 60 votes for closure for the public option. We had 59 votes including the other Independent, Bernie Sanders. And then Kennedy died, and was replaced by a Rethug, and it was all over.

Otherwise, there would have been a public option.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Socialized Health Care in...