U.S. Health Care–not privatized but Socialized Medicine

[pinto]

Monopolies? Who said monopoly? I have not said it. You seem to bring unrelated casts onto the matter, first with capitalism erroneously, a focus at the state level and now monopoly. A conglomerate does not mean monopoly. My reference to the Stanford Medicine article was only to show that public funds–the govt. hand–is into national health care policies in a big way, which includes administrative directives how medical services must follow.

Curtis G. Graham, MD, not the doctor in the podcast but another one, writing in the book, The Wounded Physician Project:

“Our government politicians who are pushing for total control of healthcare as well as the whole medical profession give a standing ovation to each and every physician today that is coerced into joining a managed care governmental facility to practice medicine.

You see, for those medical doctors under the government indentured servant program earning money for someone else, are happy with their style of practicing without having to learn how to make money, living with constant administrative rules for practicing, never being in control of their medical careers, and normally have the funds to do what they want to do. Of course, for some, there are a few (about 10-15%) who want to practice medicine with the freedom allowed while in full control of their careers and lifestyle.”

Again, it would be hard for any sane person to argue that turmoil is non-existent in health care. I am not an MD and so I don’t know about the coercions placed on doctors that Graham, the podcast, and other doctors have been voicing. From patients I have heard horror stories about network constraints unreasonably made. Billing issues further complicate how patients (cash vs. insurance) are inequitably treated, not to mention medicare administrations and so on. It all adds up to turmoil that the fed has created at least in part.

[Watchful]

What federal government subsidies encourage medical conglomerates to be formed? The doctor in the podcast states this, but isn’t able to explain it when asked. The article you cited is about health insurance prices in different areas, not conglomerates/monopolies.

[pinto]

As an example, Stanford Medicine in an article, “How government subsidies affect private health insurance prices, reveals research on the matter:
https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2019/11/05/how-government-subsidies-affect-private-health-insurance-prices/

For someone who began with the mistaken view by yourself that medical conglomerates being capitalistic precludes therefore the system being a socialized one, I must wonder what your real purpose is. Ok, you want to say the US health care system is not socialized? Perhaps not completely but if you listened to the podcast, then you should know the doctor spoke of a “paradigm shift” in way of explaining how US health care has been changing from privatized to socialized forms. He is a doctor and is reporting from the front lines of medical service. It dovetails with my impressions and what I’ve been hearing. And I believe it may have relevance for some of the HT members who have felt short-changed by their medical providers.

[“You can actually find examples of the opposite where
state governments go after medical
conglomerates/monopolies ….”]
I agree but 1) govt. in my post refers to federal and 2) there will always be contradictions given the many different branches and offices of govt. as well as competing political forces and “politics.” Perhaps your perspective has been at the state level, for which I certainly would agree that the state govt. hardly can be expected to be blamed for the bad socialized medicine being practiced. If blame is to be made, I put it on the federal govt.

[Watchful]

It’s not clear from this podcast how “govt. subsidies” are involved in the emergence of these medical conglomerates. This doctor never really explains how that works. He makes some bizarre statements about FBI money and CIA money, and some other vague comments when asked about this.

You can actually find examples of the opposite where state governments go after medical conglomerates/monopolies with antitrust lawsuits. For example, see the $575M antitrust settlement between California and Sutter Health.

I don’t see how government can be blamed for the emergence of these medical monopolies, although it’s reasonable to say that the government doesn’t do enough to pursue antitrust.

[pinto]

Socialized is not my term. You’ll have to debate it with the medical expert who uses it in reference to the US–namely the doctor on the podcast noted. Actually any term can differ in meaning according to who uses it. That the medical conglomerates are capitalistic is unrelated. What makes the system socialized are the govt. subsidies under it. Thus application of the term socialized.

[Watchful]

I wouldn’t call it “socialized”. These medical conglomerates and monopolies are capitalistic entities. It is true that they effectively limit the quality and quantity of care, so there’s some similarity to what happens in socialized medicine.

Another aspect of this is shared medical records within the conglomerates and across them. Patients have no privacy rights limiting access to their medical records by medical providers. This constrains the ability to seek meaningful additional opinions or obtain care from additional providers. Again, this effectively limits care. It’s also a very dangerous situation where any incorrect diagnosis or some other misguided opinion becomes sticky and ubiquitous negatively affecting your care.