This is a cheap, emotional argument. I love how you essentially are saying that one can't be a good, compasionate person without supporting universal healthcare. As if you and yours have some kind of monopoly on morality.
The question is one of providing free health care or health insurance to everyone. While this is done in many countries, there is little LEGAL basis for it here in the US (not that it couldn't happen or couldn't be made legal).
Secondly, "sick people" can get critical care at hospitals. They can't be turned away, actually. Coupled with immigration troubles, it's one reason our ER's are stressed financially.
I do believe compassionate people will continue seeking and supporting policies that will make health care available to all those who need it. Why do some folks constantly throw up barriers to solutions intended for goodwill? Digging for legal reasons to frustrate universal care does not sound like some one interested in salving a wound. Some take umbrage when their opinions of exclusion are not fawned over.
Hospitals are required to provide emergency treatment to all those seeking needed care. After stabilization and release/discharge the patient is at the mercy of available Doctors who are not required to render care and many do not because the pittance paid for those Medicaid eligible. The tiny amount paid is not enough to pay for support staff let alone the Doctor. What are they to do?
Some other countries are providing universal care though not without some frustrations. The US can learn from those experiences and improve upon their examples.
Universal health care will be good for businesses like GM, Ford, steel companies and others now finding themselves disadvantaged because health costs can be moved off their accounting statements. Companies new to the USA do not have the legacy costs like our home grown American companies. Instead the US companies fire employees and reorganize to become more like the Toyotas, Hondas, BMW, Hyundia and Mercedes which seek advantages here they do not have in their own countries.
Shall we advance our society together or race to the bottom? Who next wants to be triaged for death? I want to be a better man.
According to NIH, 2006 health care expenditure was 2.1 trillion dollars, 16% of US GDP. Assuming 300 million Americans, this works out to about $7000 per person.
Canada's per capita health expenditures for 2005 were about $3400, which is about half of that in the US. Perhaps one of the reasons is that when you have health coverage, you can go to your GP each year for a physical. And when your doctor catches diseases like, say, cancer early on, you not only have a better chance of survival, but you can save the system tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Canada's per capita health expenditures for 2005 were about $3400, which is about half of that in the US. Perhaps one of the reasons is that when you have health coverage, you can go to your GP each year for a physical. .
No. If it takes 8 months to get a ct scan fewer are done which lowers per capita expenditures. The same scenario exists for elective surgery.
The per capita expentitures are lower because care is rationed.
No. If it takes 8 months to get a ct scan fewer are done which lowers per capita expenditures. The same scenario exists for elective surgery.
The per capita expentitures are lower because care is rationed.
Apparently, the median wait time for a CT scan in Canada last year was 4.8 weeks. It was 10.1 weeks for an MRI. 8 months? pulling numbers out of your ass doesn't make your argument any better.
Why don't you add one more thing to the list: HMOs are in the business of making money -- making money off of people who are sick! You think that's a better system just because you can see a specialist a couple of weeks faster? Perhaps if people weren't profiting from the health care system in the US your per capita health costs would be lower?
Why don't you add one more thing to the list: HMOs are in the business of making money -- making money off of people who are sick!
I need to eat to live yet I don't begrudge the farmers or restaurants who make a profit off the food they sell to me. Why is health care different?
Quote:
You think that's a better system just because you can see a specialist a couple of weeks faster?
If you've got a headache and your doctor thinks you need a CT scan to rule out a tumor then yes I prefer the American system where I can get it faster.
Quote:
Perhaps if people weren't profiting from the health care system in the US your per capita health costs would be lower?
I'm not aware of any goods or services that aren't sold or provided at a profit. Even churches make a profit.
A doc I shared the same barracks with told me that many old and lonely folks who don't have any friends around do, indeed, like to go to the doctor. I presume it's the same people who try to tell as much of their life story to the supermarket cashier as possible while the line behind them keeps growing. Have you not seen that happen either?
Quote:
Do you like going to the doctor any more than you absolutely have to?
Yes. I could live with a rash, but I prefer to have it treated. Almost all of my training injuries have turned out to heal by themselves, but I'd go to the doc quicker (as in, the same day) if it was both "free" and quick, whereas I now tend to wait and see.
Apparently, the median wait time for a CT scan in Canada last year was 4.8 weeks. It was 10.1 weeks for an MRI. 8 months? pulling numbers out of your ass doesn't make your argument any better.
Perhaps my wait times were a bit exaggerated.
I did find this link which shows that it is not uncommon for patients to wait 6 months for elective hip replacement surgery.
I still stand by my contention that health care is rationed in Canada and that is the major factor that reduces their per capita expenditures on health care. You seem to think that the Canadian system of health care leads to earlier diagnosis and treatment of disease which lowers cost. I disagree. How do long waits for CT and MRI tests lead to early diagnosis? Wait times for breast biopsy in Canada are also longer as well compared to America.
For some conditions the Canadian system is superior. For the management of hypertension the Canadian system works better. But if you need surgery or expensive testing you are probably better off in America.
You want social medicine. Let me give you two cogent examples of how the government does "adequate" medical care. And adequate is all anyone would get in a national system. Adequate as defined by a set of bureaucratic laws. Some may think that would level the playing field, but if you read about
Walter Reed Army Medical Center & Naval Hospital Jacksonville
you will shudder at how the government provides adequate care.
The counterpoint would be that nobody likes going to the doctor.
Not necessarily true. We can pretty much be sure that the counter for increased demand would be a more complex filing system, longer queuing, and more bureaucracy. Why? This is what we know happens every time demand outstrips supply, in cases where the market is controlled.
This kind of bullshit makes me want to find a way to build colonies on Mars. After adventure died 150 years ago, mankind once again needs a greater purpose to concern itself over than trying to find ways to slow its own progress.
Demand goes up when cost goes down. Especially in health care. And one of the reasons employer paid plans are going up dramatically is usage. You can take that to the bank.
Um... Medical care isn't a classic economic entity. There is only so much care people on average will seek to receive. Yes, it will be more than currently, but that, my friend, is a good thing.
I need to eat to live yet I don't begrudge the farmers or restaurants who make a profit off the food they sell to me. Why is health care different?
Taking advantage of people who are desperate is immoral. Your food example doesn't even begin to describe an equivalent situation.
I'll tell you what: when the American plains are turning into desert because you have no water to irrigate your land in the summer due to non-existent snow-packs, and when America is on the verge of starving because of the loss of so many crops due to this desertification, we in Canada will sell you some of our excess water for, say, $1 per gallon so that you can irrigate your land. You'll only need, what, 500 billion* gallons per year? That would be fair, right? Pay us or die?
*Incidentally, 500 billion gallons is a stab in the dark, though it represents 1/4 of the volume of fresh water that might reasonably be diverted from James Bay under the GRAND canal idea that has been floating around for the past 30 years.
Taking advantage of people who are desperate is immoral. Your food example doesn't even begin to describe an equivalent situation.
I'll tell you what: when the American plains are turning into desert because you have no water to irrigate your land in the summer due to non-existent snow-packs, and when America is on the verge of starving because of the loss of so many crops due to this desertification, we in Canada will sell you some of our excess water for, say, $1 per gallon so that you can irrigate your land. You'll only need, what, 500 billion* gallons per year? That would be fair, right? Pay us or die?
*Incidentally, 500 billion gallons is a stab in the dark, though it represents 1/4 of the volume of fresh water that might reasonably be diverted from James Bay under the GRAND canal idea that has been floating around for the past 30 years.
Obviously you are happy with the health care system in Canada.
While I don't think the American system is perfect, the Canadian health care system has it's drawbacks as well and I don't think it would work here in America.
I find it puzzling that people who aren't Americans are so emotional over the issue.
The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.
This is exactly why everyone who is not an American on this board doesn't understand the concept of the private health system in the US. Public health care is part of the culture of the western world (minus the US).
I had the flu a month ago. I went to the walk-in clinic and saw a doctor an hour later. She sent me to the radiologist to make sure that it wasn't pneumonia (I had to wait 45 minutes). For all of this, I didn't have to submit a claim form, I didn't have to get pre-approved with my HMO and I didn't have to worry that they would only cover 75% of the cost (or none of the cost): I didn't pay a penny. Yes, my taxes are higher than yours, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
I would propose that this discussion is unproductive.
I fully support Universal Healthcare for children up to the age of 18+ (as long as they stay in school with restrictions). Outside of that, I am not so sure?
SDW2001 made some interesting points of what would and wouldn't be covered. So under a unverisal system, drug dealers and hookers get free coverage too? Or do you need a job to get it?
What I think is needed is to reform what HMOs are and how they function. HMO's need to be treated as non-profit organizations, not for profit corporations. When HMOs post millions of dollars of profits and their CEO and other high ranking staff makes millions of dollars per year at the cost of patient health. How is this good for healthcare in the US? This is were the problem lies.
For my auto and life insurance, I can switch companies at my choice. But my HMO I can only make changes during "open enrollment" or have a life changing event (i.e., birth of a child). Why is this?
For my auto and life insurance, I can switch companies at my choice. But my HMO I can only make changes during "open enrollment" or have a life changing event (i.e., birth of a child). Why is this?
Why can't I sue my HMO?
Because of government regulations and rules.
This is what most people don't get when they falsely criticize the "free-market" health care system in the U.S. It isn't. Quasi-free-market? Maybe. Pseudo-free-market? Perhaps. Truly free market? Not by a country mile. People blame what they think is a free-market health care system but, in reality, it's the excessive level of government regulation, protectionism and control (including effective cartelization of the medical, pharmaceutical and insurance industries) that is causing the problems in the U.S. system. This significantly reduces consumer choice and raises prices.
The profit motive is a very good thing. It rewards efficiency and productivity and causes resources to be allocated where, collectively, the public desires resources to be allocated. The profit motive is what has caused entrepreneurs to provide the amazing variety of goods and services and varying quality, feature and price levels in many industries (including those like food, clothing, housing, etc.)
We don't have "universal food" and yet people people are (well) fed. In fact, if not for government price supports to farmers, food would be even cheaper for everyone.
We don't have "universal clothing" and yet people are (well) clothed.
We don't have "universal housing" (though we have had "public housing", disaster that that has been) and yet people are (well) housed. In fact, if not for government regulations here, there would be more affordable housing for more people.
This is what most people don't get when they falsely criticize the "free-market" health care system in the U.S. It isn't. Quasi-free-market? Maybe. Pseudo-free-market? Perhaps. Truly free market? Not by a country mile. People blame what they think is a free-market health care system but, in reality, it's the excessive level of government regulation, protectionism and control (including effective cartelization of the medical, pharmaceutical and insurance industries) that is causing the problems in the U.S. system. This significantly reduces consumer choice and raises prices.
The profit motive is a very good thing. It rewards efficiency and productivity and causes resources to be allocated where, collectively, the public desires resources to be allocated. The profit motive is what has caused entrepreneurs to provide the amazing variety of goods and services and varying quality, feature and price levels in many industries (including those like food, clothing, housing, etc.)
We don't have "universal food" and yet people people are (well) fed. In fact, if not for government price supports to farmers, food would be even cheaper for everyone.
We don't have "universal clothing" and yet people are (well) clothed.
We don't have "universal housing" (though we have had "public housing", disaster that that has been) and yet people are (well) housed. In fact, if not for government regulations here, there would be more affordable housing for more people.
And on the list goes.
Good points. Aren't other insurance companies also under numerous government regulations as well? What makes health care so unique?
We do have some universal systems in place that work "fairly" well don't we? Public education, post office, police/fire/911 services, etc.
I think there is a ton of FUD being spread around about UHC. I am not an expert on the subject by any means, but the fundamental question I have is this. How does it work in so many other countries? I have relatives in Canada and while there is problems with their system, they don't fear losing health coverage because they develop cancer.
Because of the way that government regulations mandate employer-provided health insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K.
We do have some universal systems in place that work "fairly" well don't we? Public education, post office, police/fire/911 services, etc.
The failures in our public education system are legion. The majority of parents want much more choice, but they won't get it (one case where the majority's wishes don't really count). It's a sacred cow. It has a hugely powerful lobby. It can't be touched. I suspect that UHC, if enacted in this country, will join public education and social security as political sacred cows and we'd be saddled with three hugely expensive socialist programs that we can't afford in the long run.
Finally, I'd argue that (at least) the first two could use a big dose of competition and that, if they had it, you'd see and explosion of services, prices, features, etc. for consumers of those services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K.
I am not an expert on the subject by any means, but the fundamental question I have is this. How does it work in so many other countries?
Despite Michael Moore's propaganda attempts to the contrary, the answer is that it works badly but that UHC has a lot of good PR. Many of the people under those systems have an "escape hatch" (the U.S. for example).
According to NIH, 2006 health care expenditure was 2.1 trillion dollars, 16% of US GDP. Assuming 300 million Americans, this works out to about $7000 per person. According to the same NIH report, Medicaid spending was $315 billion, Medicare was $418 billion. Lets be generous and assume total government spending in 2006 to $800 billion. This still leaves about $1.3 trillion in spending, or about $4300 per person. I don't think many people would be willing to pay that much more.
Keep in mind that with a single payer system, employees would contribute a portion of taxes (current Medicare taxes plus an additional 2%) and employers would also contribute. Many low income Americans could see more money in their pockets because of lack of insurance premiums. This is particularly true of those who have individual policies, which can be quite expensive.
Currently, 31% of all healthcare spending is spent on administrative costs. A single payer system would need to eliminate the beauracracy that is common in HMO's and Medicare. Eliminating a significant portion of the administrative overhead with our healthcare spending could either be used to further support healthcare through better iniatives or it could be passed along as savings to Americans.
Our country will eventually become a single payer system where universal coverage will be an American right. France, England, and many other countries adopted such a system shortly after World War II. The US tried, but it was adamantly opposed by the American Medical Association, several hospital organizations, and the insurance industry.
It is not quite time to change to a single payer system because Americans are still not ready for this. We need about ten more years of "HMO abuse" to get Americans in the mood. Without drastic changes in the HMO era, we will all become so disgruntled that a single payer system will be on everyone's mind in the next ten years.
We know it's a problem when more than half those who file for bankruptcy due to medical bills actually had medical insurance and exceeded their caps, which haven't been adjusted for inflation in the last thirty years.
Contrary to popular saying, "universal" or socialized healthcare is not free. The costs are shifted, and with the elimination of a profit motive, costs can be contained.
Comments
This is a cheap, emotional argument. I love how you essentially are saying that one can't be a good, compasionate person without supporting universal healthcare. As if you and yours have some kind of monopoly on morality.
The question is one of providing free health care or health insurance to everyone. While this is done in many countries, there is little LEGAL basis for it here in the US (not that it couldn't happen or couldn't be made legal).
Secondly, "sick people" can get critical care at hospitals. They can't be turned away, actually. Coupled with immigration troubles, it's one reason our ER's are stressed financially.
I do believe compassionate people will continue seeking and supporting policies that will make health care available to all those who need it. Why do some folks constantly throw up barriers to solutions intended for goodwill? Digging for legal reasons to frustrate universal care does not sound like some one interested in salving a wound. Some take umbrage when their opinions of exclusion are not fawned over.
Hospitals are required to provide emergency treatment to all those seeking needed care. After stabilization and release/discharge the patient is at the mercy of available Doctors who are not required to render care and many do not because the pittance paid for those Medicaid eligible. The tiny amount paid is not enough to pay for support staff let alone the Doctor. What are they to do?
Some other countries are providing universal care though not without some frustrations. The US can learn from those experiences and improve upon their examples.
Universal health care will be good for businesses like GM, Ford, steel companies and others now finding themselves disadvantaged because health costs can be moved off their accounting statements. Companies new to the USA do not have the legacy costs like our home grown American companies. Instead the US companies fire employees and reorganize to become more like the Toyotas, Hondas, BMW, Hyundia and Mercedes which seek advantages here they do not have in their own countries.
Shall we advance our society together or race to the bottom? Who next wants to be triaged for death? I want to be a better man.
According to NIH, 2006 health care expenditure was 2.1 trillion dollars, 16% of US GDP. Assuming 300 million Americans, this works out to about $7000 per person.
Canada's per capita health expenditures for 2005 were about $3400, which is about half of that in the US. Perhaps one of the reasons is that when you have health coverage, you can go to your GP each year for a physical. And when your doctor catches diseases like, say, cancer early on, you not only have a better chance of survival, but you can save the system tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Canada's per capita health expenditures for 2005 were about $3400, which is about half of that in the US. Perhaps one of the reasons is that when you have health coverage, you can go to your GP each year for a physical. .
No. If it takes 8 months to get a ct scan fewer are done which lowers per capita expenditures. The same scenario exists for elective surgery.
The per capita expentitures are lower because care is rationed.
No. If it takes 8 months to get a ct scan fewer are done which lowers per capita expenditures. The same scenario exists for elective surgery.
The per capita expentitures are lower because care is rationed.
Apparently, the median wait time for a CT scan in Canada last year was 4.8 weeks. It was 10.1 weeks for an MRI. 8 months? pulling numbers out of your ass doesn't make your argument any better.
Why don't you add one more thing to the list: HMOs are in the business of making money -- making money off of people who are sick! You think that's a better system just because you can see a specialist a couple of weeks faster? Perhaps if people weren't profiting from the health care system in the US your per capita health costs would be lower?
Why don't you add one more thing to the list: HMOs are in the business of making money -- making money off of people who are sick!
I need to eat to live yet I don't begrudge the farmers or restaurants who make a profit off the food they sell to me. Why is health care different?
You think that's a better system just because you can see a specialist a couple of weeks faster?
If you've got a headache and your doctor thinks you need a CT scan to rule out a tumor then yes I prefer the American system where I can get it faster.
Perhaps if people weren't profiting from the health care system in the US your per capita health costs would be lower?
I'm not aware of any goods or services that aren't sold or provided at a profit. Even churches make a profit.
No.
No one likes going to the doctor.
A doc I shared the same barracks with told me that many old and lonely folks who don't have any friends around do, indeed, like to go to the doctor. I presume it's the same people who try to tell as much of their life story to the supermarket cashier as possible while the line behind them keeps growing. Have you not seen that happen either?
Do you like going to the doctor any more than you absolutely have to?
Yes. I could live with a rash, but I prefer to have it treated. Almost all of my training injuries have turned out to heal by themselves, but I'd go to the doc quicker (as in, the same day) if it was both "free" and quick, whereas I now tend to wait and see.
Apparently, the median wait time for a CT scan in Canada last year was 4.8 weeks. It was 10.1 weeks for an MRI. 8 months? pulling numbers out of your ass doesn't make your argument any better.
Perhaps my wait times were a bit exaggerated.
I did find this link which shows that it is not uncommon for patients to wait 6 months for elective hip replacement surgery.
I still stand by my contention that health care is rationed in Canada and that is the major factor that reduces their per capita expenditures on health care. You seem to think that the Canadian system of health care leads to earlier diagnosis and treatment of disease which lowers cost. I disagree. How do long waits for CT and MRI tests lead to early diagnosis? Wait times for breast biopsy in Canada are also longer as well compared to America.
For some conditions the Canadian system is superior. For the management of hypertension the Canadian system works better. But if you need surgery or expensive testing you are probably better off in America.
Walter Reed Army Medical Center & Naval Hospital Jacksonville
you will shudder at how the government provides adequate care.
The counterpoint would be that nobody likes going to the doctor.
Not necessarily true. We can pretty much be sure that the counter for increased demand would be a more complex filing system, longer queuing, and more bureaucracy. Why? This is what we know happens every time demand outstrips supply, in cases where the market is controlled.
This kind of bullshit makes me want to find a way to build colonies on Mars. After adventure died 150 years ago, mankind once again needs a greater purpose to concern itself over than trying to find ways to slow its own progress.
Demand goes up when cost goes down. Especially in health care. And one of the reasons employer paid plans are going up dramatically is usage. You can take that to the bank.
Um... Medical care isn't a classic economic entity. There is only so much care people on average will seek to receive. Yes, it will be more than currently, but that, my friend, is a good thing.
I need to eat to live yet I don't begrudge the farmers or restaurants who make a profit off the food they sell to me. Why is health care different?
Taking advantage of people who are desperate is immoral. Your food example doesn't even begin to describe an equivalent situation.
I'll tell you what: when the American plains are turning into desert because you have no water to irrigate your land in the summer due to non-existent snow-packs, and when America is on the verge of starving because of the loss of so many crops due to this desertification, we in Canada will sell you some of our excess water for, say, $1 per gallon so that you can irrigate your land. You'll only need, what, 500 billion* gallons per year? That would be fair, right? Pay us or die?
*Incidentally, 500 billion gallons is a stab in the dark, though it represents 1/4 of the volume of fresh water that might reasonably be diverted from James Bay under the GRAND canal idea that has been floating around for the past 30 years.
Taking advantage of people who are desperate is immoral. Your food example doesn't even begin to describe an equivalent situation.
I'll tell you what: when the American plains are turning into desert because you have no water to irrigate your land in the summer due to non-existent snow-packs, and when America is on the verge of starving because of the loss of so many crops due to this desertification, we in Canada will sell you some of our excess water for, say, $1 per gallon so that you can irrigate your land. You'll only need, what, 500 billion* gallons per year? That would be fair, right? Pay us or die?
*Incidentally, 500 billion gallons is a stab in the dark, though it represents 1/4 of the volume of fresh water that might reasonably be diverted from James Bay under the GRAND canal idea that has been floating around for the past 30 years.
Obviously you are happy with the health care system in Canada.
While I don't think the American system is perfect, the Canadian health care system has it's drawbacks as well and I don't think it would work here in America.
I find it puzzling that people who aren't Americans are so emotional over the issue.
Possibly because it goes against the current western world philosophy that we don't offer guaranteed health care.
You need to explain that further. I don't see where you come to such a conclusion.
You need to explain that further. I don't see where you come to such a conclusion.
Wikipedia:
The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.
This is exactly why everyone who is not an American on this board doesn't understand the concept of the private health system in the US. Public health care is part of the culture of the western world (minus the US).
I had the flu a month ago. I went to the walk-in clinic and saw a doctor an hour later. She sent me to the radiologist to make sure that it wasn't pneumonia (I had to wait 45 minutes). For all of this, I didn't have to submit a claim form, I didn't have to get pre-approved with my HMO and I didn't have to worry that they would only cover 75% of the cost (or none of the cost): I didn't pay a penny. Yes, my taxes are higher than yours, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
I would propose that this discussion is unproductive.
SDW2001 made some interesting points of what would and wouldn't be covered. So under a unverisal system, drug dealers and hookers get free coverage too? Or do you need a job to get it?
What I think is needed is to reform what HMOs are and how they function. HMO's need to be treated as non-profit organizations, not for profit corporations. When HMOs post millions of dollars of profits and their CEO and other high ranking staff makes millions of dollars per year at the cost of patient health. How is this good for healthcare in the US? This is were the problem lies.
For my auto and life insurance, I can switch companies at my choice. But my HMO I can only make changes during "open enrollment" or have a life changing event (i.e., birth of a child). Why is this?
Why can't I sue my HMO? The list goes on and on.
Dave
For my auto and life insurance, I can switch companies at my choice. But my HMO I can only make changes during "open enrollment" or have a life changing event (i.e., birth of a child). Why is this?
Why can't I sue my HMO?
Because of government regulations and rules.
This is what most people don't get when they falsely criticize the "free-market" health care system in the U.S. It isn't. Quasi-free-market? Maybe. Pseudo-free-market? Perhaps. Truly free market? Not by a country mile. People blame what they think is a free-market health care system but, in reality, it's the excessive level of government regulation, protectionism and control (including effective cartelization of the medical, pharmaceutical and insurance industries) that is causing the problems in the U.S. system. This significantly reduces consumer choice and raises prices.
The profit motive is a very good thing. It rewards efficiency and productivity and causes resources to be allocated where, collectively, the public desires resources to be allocated. The profit motive is what has caused entrepreneurs to provide the amazing variety of goods and services and varying quality, feature and price levels in many industries (including those like food, clothing, housing, etc.)
We don't have "universal food" and yet people people are (well) fed. In fact, if not for government price supports to farmers, food would be even cheaper for everyone.
We don't have "universal clothing" and yet people are (well) clothed.
We don't have "universal housing" (though we have had "public housing", disaster that that has been) and yet people are (well) housed. In fact, if not for government regulations here, there would be more affordable housing for more people.
And on the list goes.
Because of government regulations and rules.
This is what most people don't get when they falsely criticize the "free-market" health care system in the U.S. It isn't. Quasi-free-market? Maybe. Pseudo-free-market? Perhaps. Truly free market? Not by a country mile. People blame what they think is a free-market health care system but, in reality, it's the excessive level of government regulation, protectionism and control (including effective cartelization of the medical, pharmaceutical and insurance industries) that is causing the problems in the U.S. system. This significantly reduces consumer choice and raises prices.
The profit motive is a very good thing. It rewards efficiency and productivity and causes resources to be allocated where, collectively, the public desires resources to be allocated. The profit motive is what has caused entrepreneurs to provide the amazing variety of goods and services and varying quality, feature and price levels in many industries (including those like food, clothing, housing, etc.)
We don't have "universal food" and yet people people are (well) fed. In fact, if not for government price supports to farmers, food would be even cheaper for everyone.
We don't have "universal clothing" and yet people are (well) clothed.
We don't have "universal housing" (though we have had "public housing", disaster that that has been) and yet people are (well) housed. In fact, if not for government regulations here, there would be more affordable housing for more people.
And on the list goes.
Good points. Aren't other insurance companies also under numerous government regulations as well? What makes health care so unique?
We do have some universal systems in place that work "fairly" well don't we? Public education, post office, police/fire/911 services, etc.
I think there is a ton of FUD being spread around about UHC. I am not an expert on the subject by any means, but the fundamental question I have is this. How does it work in so many other countries? I have relatives in Canada and while there is problems with their system, they don't fear losing health coverage because they develop cancer.
Dave
What makes health care so unique?
Because of the way that government regulations mandate employer-provided health insurance.
We do have some universal systems in place that work "fairly" well don't we? Public education, post office, police/fire/911 services, etc.
The failures in our public education system are legion. The majority of parents want much more choice, but they won't get it (one case where the majority's wishes don't really count). It's a sacred cow. It has a hugely powerful lobby. It can't be touched. I suspect that UHC, if enacted in this country, will join public education and social security as political sacred cows and we'd be saddled with three hugely expensive socialist programs that we can't afford in the long run.
Finally, I'd argue that (at least) the first two could use a big dose of competition and that, if they had it, you'd see and explosion of services, prices, features, etc. for consumers of those services.
I am not an expert on the subject by any means, but the fundamental question I have is this. How does it work in so many other countries?
Despite Michael Moore's propaganda attempts to the contrary, the answer is that it works badly but that UHC has a lot of good PR. Many of the people under those systems have an "escape hatch" (the U.S. for example).
According to NIH, 2006 health care expenditure was 2.1 trillion dollars, 16% of US GDP. Assuming 300 million Americans, this works out to about $7000 per person. According to the same NIH report, Medicaid spending was $315 billion, Medicare was $418 billion. Lets be generous and assume total government spending in 2006 to $800 billion. This still leaves about $1.3 trillion in spending, or about $4300 per person. I don't think many people would be willing to pay that much more.
Keep in mind that with a single payer system, employees would contribute a portion of taxes (current Medicare taxes plus an additional 2%) and employers would also contribute. Many low income Americans could see more money in their pockets because of lack of insurance premiums. This is particularly true of those who have individual policies, which can be quite expensive.
Currently, 31% of all healthcare spending is spent on administrative costs. A single payer system would need to eliminate the beauracracy that is common in HMO's and Medicare. Eliminating a significant portion of the administrative overhead with our healthcare spending could either be used to further support healthcare through better iniatives or it could be passed along as savings to Americans.
Our country will eventually become a single payer system where universal coverage will be an American right. France, England, and many other countries adopted such a system shortly after World War II. The US tried, but it was adamantly opposed by the American Medical Association, several hospital organizations, and the insurance industry.
It is not quite time to change to a single payer system because Americans are still not ready for this. We need about ten more years of "HMO abuse" to get Americans in the mood. Without drastic changes in the HMO era, we will all become so disgruntled that a single payer system will be on everyone's mind in the next ten years.
We know it's a problem when more than half those who file for bankruptcy due to medical bills actually had medical insurance and exceeded their caps, which haven't been adjusted for inflation in the last thirty years.
Contrary to popular saying, "universal" or socialized healthcare is not free. The costs are shifted, and with the elimination of a profit motive, costs can be contained.