Daily News Updates - Health Insurance News

Myth Buster 101, Pt.7 – (5) What isn’t ‘socialized medicine’?

Previous…

5) “Myth:   Any health reform plan in which the government is involved is “socialized medicine,” which will result in bureaucratic, big-government programs that contradict the American ideals of free market and choice.”

“Truth: Affordable coverage for all does not equal “socialized medicine.” In fact, public-private hybrid health care plans can be used to achieve a higher degree of universal, high-quality health coverage.” To this, the Mr. Kazanjian shares that there are many ‘flavors’ and degrees of health insurance/care reforms. The degree of severity and necessity dictates the appropriate degree of reform needed. With a worsening crises and 47 million citizens without health insurance, only a higher degree of health insurance/care reform is appropriate.

With that said, a ‘progressive plan’ that needs to cover all Americans with health insurance/care will need to include government involvement. The ‘free market’ could care less about the fate of the 47 million without health insurance or even the 22,000 in our nation that died last year for lack of health insurance. This could not even be tackled at the state level.

It’s been proven by many of the leading nations around the world that hybrid health insurance/care systems work well. Hybrids combine both public and private health insurance options that provide the best synthesis for optimum choices. Already, in our country, there is a vast array of viable proposals that promote building on “our current system of shared financing between public insurance programs and private plans,” as Mr. Kazanjian explains it.

As to the fear of “rationing” and long waiting lines, be appraised critics, our “people are already dying and waiting in overcrowded emergency rooms.” We are already waiting longer for same-day access to care than most nations with universal coverage. “ Also, understand that our country is already the worst off “among 19 industrialized nations,” when it comes to prevented deaths caused by ‘economic rationing’. If those poor victims would have had more money or, at least, ‘affordable’ health insurance, they would have received the “timely and effective care” that could have saved their lives. Why point the finger, when we already have the worst ‘rationing’ and waiting lines where preventable death is concerned. ‘Late for work’ or dead, which is worse?

 Continued…