It's time for universal health care (choices, choice, faith, verse)

[Seyorni]

As I understand it, Medicare, the socialized, single-payer government medical program for the elderly, has only 2-3% overhead and is entirely non-profit. "Government is always incompetent" mythology aside, this program is cost-effective.

No private, for-profit insurance scheme can compete for cost-effectiveness with a single-payer system.

Why can't Medicare be extended to the whole population? (Rhetorical question -- answer: the insurance lobby).

[GeneCosta]

It seems to me idealogy is the only thing standing in the way.

http://healthypolicy.typepad.com/blo..._health_c.html

Universal health care has been achieved in dozens of nations on this planet. One of which has some waiting lists, while others have essentially none. According to surveys, less than 0.1% of Canadians are expressly seeking care in the U.S.

The bottom line is our health care is twice as expensive, fails to cover 46 million people, has questionable quality, kills around 100,000 people a year from error, and for all this we have worse health indicators (i.e. lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, etc). Other countries do it better, and they do it with the help of government to pay for health costs.

[MaddLlama]

Ok, well how exactly is the government going to pay for establishing and effectively running a health care system for 300 million people? Canada only has 33 million, and they're having trouble keeping the system financially stable.
With a deficit in the billions, taxes already high to pay for the war, and a budget that barely ever passes, how in the world do you expect the government to find the money to provide health care for every single person in the country?

Personally, I would like to see less government involvement in just about everything. National health care would be a disaster, like just about everything else the government touches.

[Terrywoodenpic]

Originally Posted by NoahideHiker

It's not too hateful. At least it's done at the state level and it's only subsidized which only makes it a partial nanny state. I don't like the compulsory aspect of it though. I'd vote it down in my state were it presented to the people. But that's just me.

The various systems used in the EEC could be a model for the states, if you substituted a European country for a US state. All could have their own way of doing it.

People in the UK have only recently fallen in to the fact. that if a person can not get treatment in the UK, of the right type and on time, under EEC law they can obtain that treatment from another EEC country Paid for by the UK health service.

This is not in any way normal practice and some health authorities have been taken to court to get the facility... but they always do get it. In reality most patients get what they need and in reasonable time right here.

All European health schemes are paid for by the patient by contributions to a health or social insurance scheme. the various governments control the services in different ways. but payment into the fund is compulsory for those of working age.
It is a self funded insurance scheme.

This has considerable cost benefits,
neither Health providers nor insurance schemes make any profit and any surpluses are ploughed back for the benefit of patients. Those countries that have an approved list of drugs, control the prices and "profits" of the drug companies. and use the leverage of generic drugs to force the prices down.

Are the European systems perfect?
if any one was we would all use it.
Importantly they are all free at the point of need. and like all insurance led systems payment is continuous, but in this case compulsory. That way all but the most desperately unfortunate pay for their health care.

In all the countries Private health care is available... mostly for fringe services such as cosmetic surgery, various laser treatments etc.. or for the rich to soothe their egos and to fit in with their life styles.

In the UK our most pressing need is for improvements to our maternity provision and immediate care of babies. A few years ago it was taken out of the hand of the professional Midwives, and was controlled by local hospitals, the quality of the service and the results are now worse than previously. It is soon to be reorganised.

At least with a centralised control, changes are possible in a universal way.

[The Seeker]

The government should set up health saving accounts for people who can't afford their own insurance and give each person a fixed amount of money each year. People can then use that money for doctor appointments and routine exams. This should make people shop around for the most affordable care and help limit unnecessary trips to the doctors. With the way Medicaid/Medicare is set up in most states, people go to the doctor for free or with a minimal co-pay which isn't very cost effective. This set up also encourages people to go to the doctors unnecessarily. The government could also provide extra insurance for medical emergencies.

[Terrywoodenpic]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

Ok, well how exactly is the government going to pay for establishing and effectively running a health care system for 300 million people? Canada only has 33 million, and they're having trouble keeping the system financially stable.
With a deficit in the billions, taxes already high to pay for the war, and a budget that barely ever passes, how in the world do you expect the government to find the money to provide health care for every single person in the country?

Personally, I would like to see less government involvement in just about everything. National health care would be a disaster, like just about everything else the government touches.

The whole of Europe is of comparable size to the USA. they have managed it. State sized schemes admittedly but all workable schemes.

If you think you government is a disaster get rid of it, and elect more suitable people next time. It's in your hands not theirs.

[Terrywoodenpic]

Originally Posted by The Seeker

The government should set up health saving accounts for people who can't afford their own insurance and give each person a fixed amount of money each year. People can then use that money for doctor appointments and routine exams. This should make people shop around for the most affordable care and help limit unnecessary trips to the doctors. With the way Medicaid/Medicare is set up in most states, people go to the doctor for free or with a minimal co-pay which isn't very cost effective. This set up also encourages people to go to the doctors unnecessarily. The government could also provide extra insurance for medical emergencies.

See the post above...

All European health schemes are paid for by the patient by contributions to a health or social insurance scheme. the various governments control the services in different ways. but payment into the fund is compulsory for those of working age.
It is a self funded insurance scheme.

The government pays contributions for those who are registered unemployed or disabled or long term sick. But that is what all insurance is about... spreading risk.

[michel]

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

It's time for universal health care

http://www.yesmagazine.com/article.asp?ID=1503

Whilst I agree with you in priciple (both from a moral and from a "duty" POV), the danger with Universal health care is that same problem that hits all very large Public Sector Government run organisations ; "economies of scale"

We have found here, in the U.K that our national health service has become a "money drain" - there is never enough (money), and the more you put in, the lesser the return for it.

To be fair, there are other reasons why this is exaserbated - Longetivity has been greatly extended, and the greater number of cures discovered = more money spent (that would never have been spent in the past); yet, I am aware of the absurdities of how money is spent, simply because "The goverment will pay...they jolly well will have to do so".