This is a thread that is aimed at exploring whether a system of private healthcare, or a National Health Service is the better way to go. While I'm not that familiar with how a fully private system works I find myself leaning towards a national healthcare system funded by the taxation of the whole population.
Not really. Look at the NHS, a system that's funded entirely through taxation: http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/2014/07/uk-nhs-named-best-healthcare-system-by-the-commonwealth-fund Just because healthcare is free and managed by the state doesn't mean it will be worse that private healthcare and of course you could argue that if you can't afford private healthcare bad healthcare is better than no healthcare.
Look at the important factors. With a national system that has a single payer the users are motivate to use as they please. Same goes when large groups share restaurant bills. You take the individual reward for frugality out of the equation. The payer can only manage costs by limiting services and access. This results in waiting periods and lesser provisions. Try moving to canada and finding a family doctor. Try getting an MRI there. The only problem with our system is the quasi socialist systems of Medicare and group insurances. If the government were serious about affordable care it would not allow companies write offs for providing insurance, but instead incentivize companies fund HSA'S. This would have individuals shopping for low cost insurance and paying out of pocket for normal care. The individual would be incentivized to not waste HSA funds and grow them as savings. Our current system only motivates overuse and socialization. It is no coincidence that we have the same issue with higher ed and our housing crash. We have to allow market forces to work and stop with the socialization.
An NHS would need to be a confederation of state health systems with a federal reimbursement schedule to that if a Californian breaks a leg in Texas, California has to pay Texas for treatment of their guy at a standardized rate. It is the only way legally and politically to deal with unequal health infrastructure over the first generations of such a program.
Well perhaps if it was funded by each and legal resident it might be fair but the. Hancss of that happening is slim. It will be the lower through upper middle class paying the bill.doctors and surgeons will be low paid employees of the government, treatment controlled by the government. If that's what you want so be it. It will destroy our medical system that is o e of the best despite the lies spread by socialists.
You can certainly with a tiny amount of effort find outcome comparisons of various countries healthcare systems. Crappy would certainly describe the results in America despite spending more than almost any other country. Buy please don't let yourself be confused by actual facts.
My nurse friend said she'd go public rather than private if she needed something done. she says public hospitals are better.
Interesting how more Americans seek healthcare out of their country than people from abroad seek healthcare in America,
By the way, a National Healthcare System, while a good idea is Not Free. - - - Updated - - - You mean like we provide our service men and women and their families? Strange I had no more issues with it than the private system and in some ways it was far more efficient.
No healthcare system is free and not everyone will pay their share just as they don't pay any percentage in federal income tax, I.e. the should pay the same percentage of their income all other workers regardless if the earn $1.00 or 1 million dollars. Therefore it will still be the middle class footing the bill. As far as the nurse that says she prefers public funded hospitals, she is in the minority on this one.......these facilities are considered welfare facilities, usually have high emergency room use and exist to treat those that can't afford or have no insurance no one wants to be treated at these facilities if they don't have to be. I suggest she does not represent the view of the majority health care professionals and patients. A universal system in this Country will not be successful because we are use to being able to choose are physicians and hospital seclusive and that will not be possible in a universal system and there will be fewer doctors due to low pay and government micromanagement of how patients can be treated,diagnostic texts surgical procedures. Much of the approved. Care will be based o n age and potential outcomes..
Apologies to those who have read my point on this before but it depends on how you see health care services. If they are a commodity then you'll see the topic differently from those who see it as a public service. Comparing the UK and the US on this is problematic. The UK is a small country with a national government (yes, hello Scotland, but this is just for argument) so a single payer system would work fine and has worked very well since its inception despite the hatred inflicted on it by the Tories. The US is very different. It's a federation, many independent states spread over a huge and very diverse landmass. A regional approach to a single payer system might work but I doubt if it would work federally. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't work. It can, it's just that so many Americans believe it is a commodity and not a public service.
Excluding the fact that almost 1/2 of American household can't afford the taxation and the numerous other problems related to a "national health care" system there's one overriding consideration that makes it impossible for the United States to make the change from our "private health care" system to a "national health care" system. Annually there are trillions of dollars involved our "private health care" system and any attempt to convert to a "national health care" system today would result in an economic collapses that would dwarf the 2008 recession. Even our government funded Medicare and Medicaid insurance programs rely on our private health care system. The only true government health care system we have is the Veterans Adminstration and it doesn't provide health care to a significant percentage of the people. A national health care system might have been feasible 50 or 75 years ago but not today. Our private health care system is simply too large economically to replace.
There's no reason why a state funded sector and the private sector can't coexist like in the UK. Considering that the state sector would only provide healthcare for those without insurance, with those that can likely sticking to their private providers, there's no reason to fear that trillions would be lost. The evidence suggests that those who can afford it tend to prefer private healthcare.
I think what has happened in this country is that both h/c providers and insurers have discovered that there is more money to be made simply by raising fees and premiums than by economizing, even when fewer and fewer companies and individuals can afford the premiums. It's a case of "hey, we can make more money, take care of fewer people, and the counties can pick up the slack." I think we should 86 the capitalizers and just go with the counties.
The one major problem, in the US with 50 sovereign States, including US Medicare/Medicaid, is that Healthcare is dependent 90% on individual lifestyles. To Nationalize, self evident by it's name, means treating, prevention or even the cost involved, which can't be equalized among 320 millions people.
Just a quick question. Do medical insurance companies in America contribute in any way to the national healthcare expenditure or do they exist solely for profit?
In theory we all ready have that with Medicaid except for the Republican states that rejected the expansion under the PPACA (Obamacare).
Private insurance companies fund almost 50% of all medical expenditures in the US and probably half are not-for-profit entities.
Insurance Companies in the US, take in the premiums, invest that money, to allow a profit from participants future health care problems. If the private sector were allowed to participate on the National level, as do most all other forms of insurers, those investment profits alone could be enough to cover most the expenses of their clientele. We also have a very large portion of private healthcare, based on charitable contributions or combined with medical research. Government doesn't work this way, simply takes money from general funds to pay medical bills, they judge legitimate, passing on those deemed unnecessary to the care providers or in some cases the various States. As it is with many free market entities, if a Medical Facility or Insurance Provider fails (they do), others in the industry will either buy out the failed entity or accept from the bankruptcy courts, both the good and bad parts of that which has failed, the difference assumed by investors (stock holders) or the State. On the other hand, if a Federal Government Program fails, the cost is born by the tax payers, who have had no control over the process.
physicians and surgeons can raise their fees all they want but they won't be paid more as insurance companies control their fees since the mid 90's. Most private doctors and surgeons earn 50 to75% less then they earned in the early 90's while see more patients each day and working 12hour days. You are I'lill informed . - - - Updated - - - physicians and surgeons can raise their fees all they want but they won't be paid more as insurance companies control their fees since the mid 90's. Most private doctors and surgeons earn 50 to75% less then they earned in the early 90's while see more patients each day and working 12hour days. You are I'lill informed .
How about addressing this using the "Laws of Physics" as a foundation for logic and simple flowcharts based upon different hypothetical and highly simplified scenarios. 1. Company pays wages > Employee pays taxes > Government funds health insurance > Person receives medical services. 2. Company pays wages > Employee funds insurance > Person receives medical services. 3. Company funds insurance > Person receives medical services. The laws of physic establish that everytime energy is converted to mechanical action there is a "frictional" loss and that applies to money transactions as well. Everytime the money changes hands it's loses a little value because of "frictional" losses related to handling the money. Based upon the "laws of physics" option 1 costs is most expensive, option 2 is the second most expensive, and option 3 is the least expensive. We must also note that the source of the funding (money) never changes. Funding always originates with the company regardless of which option we select and logic dictates the best choice.
