Socialized medicine and the presidential race

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

Are we headed toward government control of doctors, hospitals and healthcare? The term ‘socialized medicine’ when applied to some proposed health plans implies that the U.S. is on that road. Now an analysis of candidates’ plans finds that of all the plans out there, only one former presidential candidate’s proposal comes even close to government-controlled and run healthcare — true socialized medicine — and he’s no longer in the race.

According to the report by the Urban Institute: ‘Some single-payer proposals (like former candidate Dennis Kucinich’s plan) would limit the ability of individuals to obtain, and providers to render, care outside the public system — potentially giving the federal government sufficient power to constitute the functional equivalent of socialized medicine.’

The authors conclude that ‘no significant proposal seeks a government-run system and that inaccurate, fiery rhetoric is a distraction from much more important issues, such as how proposals affect cost, access, quality and choice.’

But many Americans are ahead of the rhetoric. According to research reported in the Los Angeles Times on Feb. 25, few people are taken in by the boogeyman phrase. Robert Blendon, professor of health policy and political analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health, found that of the 67% of people who said they understood the meaning of ‘socialized medicine,’ 79% thought it was a good thing. He also found a political divide: 70% of Republicans thought socialized medicine would make the U.S. healthcare system worse; 70% of Democrats thought it would improve the system.

--Susan Brink