I think a large percentage of us can agree that a socialized healthcare system in the United States is an overdue improvement to the overall quality of life of American citizens. However, too many use the Canadian system as a model for what the United States should do. With this, I disagree.
In this system, healthcare is free, and [b]must[/b] be free. Well, what about the people that would rather pay? Hear me out. Can you imagine waiting for months to get a crucial MRI or CT Scan? How about that very non-elective surgery on your leg? Can that wait a few months? Now, imagine being a person who can afford to just [b]pay[/b] for these things and receive them quickly from a for-profit institution. Unfortunately, you do not have this option in such systems. Many Canadians come to the United States to receive life-saving treatment simply due to the huge waiting periods.
Now imagine a system of socialized healthcare that [b]permits[/b] private, for-profit clinics and hospitals. This effectively eliminates most issues with the prospect of universal healthcare, while at the same time, assuring the alternative of rapid treatment in dire circumstances. So basically, those who cannot afford healthcare can still receive whatever they need, and those who can needn't wait.
The option *does* exist in many such systems - that's why the preferred term is "single-payer insurance" in places that have such a hybrid system. This embodies the fact that the state does not legally provide the actual healthcare in many instances - the UK has (or used to have, thanks to the Tories, unless Nick Clegg decides to grow a pair of balls) PCTs which commission independent providers, for example - if you want a much more liberalized system, though, in Japan the government strictly deals with the "insurance" portion.
Uh, actually here in the UK you can get private health care if you want. Just you've got to pay for it.
I'm talking about a completely parallel system of private healthcare, complete with organized and regulated insurance companies and the like. So essentially, any person can pick the system they prefer.
That's what we meant. I doubt few places regulate against such a system - it's just that demand for an alternative is rather low. The difference in mindset between the US and countries that take UHC for granted is rather large, IMO.
[QUOTE=HubmaN;29738964]That's what we meant. I doubt few places regulate against such a system - it's just that demand for an alternative is rather low. The difference in mindset between the US and countries that take UHC for granted is rather large, IMO.[/QUOTE]
Then I have been hugely misinformed on the legality of the private sector. However, there is still demand. I think it's like 17% of Canadians are dissatisfied with the system. Why not please them? That 17% translates to like 40% in the US anyway.
[QUOTE=Matix;29739045]Then I have been hugely misinformed on the legality of the private sector. However, there is still demand. I think it's like 17% of Canadians are dissatisfied with the system. Why not please the 17%? That 17% translates to like 40% in the US anyway.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure how a proportion magically increases itself, but that's a Canadian issue. While I don't agree with stifling the opposite system just for the sake of it, there is a very potent argument for doing so in the US: to keep the legislature out of the hands of privatized health care interests. It's the case with all businesses, but frankly any form of UHC in the US would be under relentless assault.
Exactly. I'm saying that a much larger percentage (larger than 17%) would disapprove of such a system in the US. Obviously there is a difference in ideology between the two countries.
This just might make the conservative demographic more open-minded.
[QUOTE=Matix;29739106]Exactly. I'm saying that a much larger percentage (larger than 17%) would disapprove of such a system in the US. Obviously there is a difference in ideology between the two countries.
This just might make the more conservative demographic more open-minded.[/QUOTE]
I agree with that argument. My previous proposal was based on expediency, though.
I wonder how a paid-for flat-fee Medicare would work, though - does the US particularly need to go full-bull with healthcare providers?
[QUOTE=Matix;29739045]Then I have been hugely misinformed on the legality of the private sector. However, there is still demand. I think it's like 17% of Canadians are dissatisfied with the system. Why not please the them? That 17% translates to like 40% in the US anyway.[/QUOTE]
In Australia, if you have get private health cover, you get a small tax concession.
I think the system (for the private sector) in place now would suffice, since that is what conservatives prefer anyway.
As far as taxation, I'm not so sure. Perhaps enrollment in a private insurance plan would nullify the health care tax on those individuals. I'm not so sure that would work, though.
[editline]10th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Contag;29739181]In Australia, if you have get private health cover, you get a small tax concession.[/QUOTE]
That's an even better idea. Let's go with that for private patients.
[QUOTE=Matix;29739220]I think the system (for the private sector) in place now would suffice, since that is what conservatives prefer anyway.
As far as taxation, I'm not so sure. Perhaps enrollment in a private insurance plan would nullify the health care tax on those individuals. I'm not so sure that would work, though.
[editline]10th May 2011[/editline]
That's an even better idea. Let's go with that for private patients.[/QUOTE]
Having equally influential private and public sectors of medicine only serves to devalue the public one.
Exactly what I said in the libertarian thread.
[QUOTE=Matix;29738792]Many Canadians come to the United States to receive life-saving treatment simply due to the huge waiting periods.[/QUOTE]
-
[quote]A study by Barer, et al., indicates that the majority of Canadians who seek health care in the U.S. are already there for other reasons, including business travel or vacations. A smaller proportion seek care in the U.S. for reasons of confidentiality, including abortions, mental illness, substance abuse, and other problems that they may not wish to divulge to their local physician, family, or employer.[/quote]
[quote]In a Canadian National Population Health Survey of 17,276 Canadian residents, it was reported that only 0.5% sought medical care in the US in the previous year. Of these, less than a quarter had traveled to the U.S. expressly to get that care.[/quote]
However
[quote]Many US citizens purchase prescription drugs from Canada, either over the Internet or by traveling there to buy them in person, because prescription drug prices in Canada are substantially lower than prescription drug prices in the United States; this cross-border purchasing has been estimated at $1 billion annually[/quote]
Basically stop watching Fox News
[img]http://imgkk.com/i/lzam.jpg[/img]
In all seriousness though, I support socialized healthcare because of the obvious benefits over the current private health-care system but I don't think a simple adaptation of other countries' systems as described in the OP would completely fit with Americans just because of the vast cultural difference between our country and countries which have socialized healthcare. It would be a big improvement over what we would have now in terms of quality of living for everyone if we instated a socialized healthcare system, but Americans and Europeans have vastly different mentalities on things like public goods (ie Americans hate paying taxes to the death while Europeans often see it as a necessary sacrifice) so in my opinion I think a complete refresher of heavy regulations towards health insurance companies would work more with Americans rather than forcing them to trust the government.
You have to wait months to get a CT scan in Canada? I remember having to get major appointments scheduled months in advance but just for a simple scan? Shit I can literally walk across the street and have them do an array of different scans for a few hundred bucks within the day.
[QUOTE=OvB;29747869]You have to wait months to get a CT scan in Canada? I remember having to get major appointments scheduled months in advance but just for a simple scan? Shit I can literally walk across the street and have them do an array of different scans for a few hundred bucks within the day.[/QUOTE]
Only tests I've had done were CT scan and EKG, waited about 3 days for both
Also had bloodwork done a bunch of times, about a 10 minute wait
[editline]10th May 2011[/editline]
shit meant to put MRI, not CT scan
never had one of those
It's like this in Brazil. If you want public healthcare you go to one hospital, use a specific set of doctors, and get different benefits. If you can afford private healthcare you obviously get better hospitals, treatment, and faster results.
I'm not quite sure which system I favor. The access to quality healthcare is a basic human right. That is not to say the system in Brazil doesn't provide quality care (and in the United States it would be even better seeing as the nation is much wealthier), but to have one system be so disadvantaged seems wrong in my books.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29748085]Only tests I've had done were CT scan and EKG, waited about 3 days for both
Also had bloodwork done a bunch of times, about a 10 minute wait
[editline]10th May 2011[/editline]
shit meant to put MRI, not CT scan
never had one of those[/QUOTE]
Have you ever had to wait longer than a month for anything? I remember IIRC waiting to see an orthopedic doctor for my hips took at least a month or two. Which reminds me I might get my other hip replaced this summer.
CT scans are like a faster and less detailed MRI. I hate getting MRI scans. The last one I had I started to break out in sweats and got kinda claustrophobic from not moving.
So in a socialized healthcare system, doctors don't get paid a fixed amount? Wouldn't they be mad about that?
[b]I'm asking this because I just want a better grip on the system itself so I can explain it to my friends. The question I asked was what they always respond with, and I don't bother to continue because I don't know much about it. Can someone explain it (Healthcare in Europe)[/b]
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;29748154]It's like this in Brazil. If you want public healthcare you go to one hospital, use a specific set of doctors, and get different benefits. If you can afford private healthcare you obviously get better hospitals, treatment, and faster results.
I'm not quite sure which system I favor. The access to quality healthcare is a basic human right. That is not to say the system in Brazil doesn't provide quality care (and in the United States it would be even better seeing as the nation is much wealthier), but to have one system be so disadvantaged seems wrong in my books.[/QUOTE]
However that's precisely the point. Having equally influential public and private sectors of healthcare only assures that the private version will be better and of higher quality, and that the inequity will only increase over time.
[QUOTE=Gabe Newell;29748328]So in a socialized healthcare system, doctors don't get paid a fixed amount? Wouldn't they be mad about that?
[b]I'm asking this because I just want a better grip on the system itself so I can explain it to my friends. The question I asked was what they always respond with, and I don't bother to continue because I don't know much about it. Can someone explain it (Healthcare in Europe)[/b][/QUOTE]
I dunno, guess this might help
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOZmvaFfjtk[/media]
I hope this thread doesn't turn into a "lol, usa sux" shitstorm thread.
I'm pretty certain national health services don't make you wait months for something if it's seriously important. I think it's more a case of they determine how necessary and important your case is and then depending on the urgency of the situation fit you accordingly.
I mean as a kid when I used to live back in Scotland I had really pneumonia (got really dehydrated and started starving too because I was half-unconscious most of the time and was refusing to eat/drink even though my parents tried to force it into me out of concern for my safety) and I was in a hospital and taken care of ASAP. Didn't have to pay for shit.
Mum injured her leg really badly a few years later (cut it open, was pretty nasty) and she was in in a second. Within a few hours I believe she'd had an x-ray (to check there had been no damage to the bone), been stitched up, and told she was fine and good to go.
Grandpa went for a check up like 2 or 3 years back and the doctor discovered a weird, smallish lump in his neck. Ran some tests, sent him off for a few scans and within a few days they had found out he had throat cancer (which he got free treatment for VERY quickly).
Of course someone is gonna come in here and tell me that anecdotal evidence isn't real evidence at all, but I've experienced a free health service first hand, seen my family experience it, and seen friends and their family experience it, and I'll tell you: every damn time if something is urgent you get seen to ASAP, and they do a damn fine job of fixing you up.
[QUOTE=Matix;29738792]I think a large percentage of us can agree that a socialized health care system in the United States is an overdue improvement to the overall quality of life of American citizens. However, too many use the Canadian system as a model for what the United States should do. With this, I disagree.
In this system, health care is free, and [b]must[/b] be free. Well, what about the people that would rather pay? Hear me out. Can you imagine waiting for months to get a crucial MRI or CT Scan? How about that very non-elective surgery on your leg? Can that wait a few months? Now, imagine being a person who can afford to just [b]pay[/b] for these things and receive them quickly from a for-profit institution. Unfortunately, you do not have this option in such systems. Many Canadians come to the United States to receive life-saving treatment simply due to the huge waiting periods.
Now imagine a system of socialized health care that [b]permits[/b] private, for-profit clinics and hospitals. This effectively eliminates most issues with the prospect of universal health care, while at the same time, assuring the alternative of rapid treatment in dire circumstances. So basically, those who cannot afford health care can still receive whatever they need, and those who can needn't wait.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't eliminate the fact that I'll be paying for health care through taxes that I more than likely would not use. You're talking about providing 350 million people with "free" health care. Where is the money going to come from to pay for this? Of course the tax payer, but since not all people can pay the tax equally some will be paying more than others. All for what, a free trip to the clinic? You cannot expect to have an equal level of care across the board for everyone in the country. Even if private clinics were available it would not be enough to provide adequate treatment for all. With the way the economy is there is no way this country could go into socialized health care within this century without diving deeper in debt.
In my opinion what needs to happen is higher regulation in the private medical field. Big medical companies are pretty much able to create a drug and sell it for whatever price they want, making huge profit margins off of it. I do understand that a lot of medical equipment is expensive, as well as certain procedures. Why not subsidies a portion of the cost for such things? Granted it would be coming out of the tax payers pocket, it would still be a viable solution for the current economic situation.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;29751375]It doesn't eliminate the fact that I'll be paying for health care through taxes that I more than likely would not use.[/QUOTE]
If I don't use roads may I have a tax exemption?
[editline]11th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=OvB;29748208]Have you ever had to wait longer than a month for anything? I remember IIRC waiting to see an orthopedic doctor for my hips took at least a month or two. Which reminds me I might get my other hip replaced this summer.
CT scans are like a faster and less detailed MRI. I hate getting MRI scans. The last one I had I started to break out in sweats and got kinda claustrophobic from not moving.[/QUOTE]
My dad had to wait 42 days for a followup appointment with a cardiologist in another city, but his family doctor was already monitoring him with frequent EKGs.
[editline]11th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Gabe Newell;29748328]So in a socialized healthcare system, doctors don't get paid a fixed amount? Wouldn't they be mad about that?
[b]I'm asking this because I just want a better grip on the system itself so I can explain it to my friends. The question I asked was what they always respond with, and I don't bother to continue because I don't know much about it. Can someone explain it (Healthcare in Europe)[/b][/QUOTE]
Well I know here in Canada doctors are still for the most part employed either by a private or non-profit clinic or hospital, the "socialized" part is the insurance which we are all automatically members of. (What gets covered is up to the province, but all provinces and territories cover at least basic care, ER visits, hospital stays, that sort of thing)
Basically the hospitals bill the government instead of the patient.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29752378]If I don't use roads may I have a tax exemption?[/quote]
In an ideal world, yeah
That said, the private/public shared thing doesn't really work since it will just jack up prices more. There isn't one single instance of a private/public shared option which lowered private prices.
It's hard to compete with free, so only the _really_ rich will receive ideal care, if they prefer private. Same deal as public schooling.
I would prefer they remove all the restrictions, remove investment into private industry (via government), killed intellectual property in regard to generic medication, restrictions on insurance competition, etc. It would reduce prices astronomically.
The problem with this "right" stuff is you can pull that card with anything, depending on varying degrees of technological advancement you can make anything a "right", if government would remove itself and allow medicine to advance faster, things would be cheaper over time.
Technology advances, things become cheaper to do, nobody wants to provide care that is not affordable, they'd rather have more money believe me.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29752503]In an ideal world, yeah[/QUOTE]
Superlibertarianism isn't ideal
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29752553]Superlibertarianism isn't ideal[/QUOTE]
I don't see whats "Superlibertarian" about not paying for shit you will never use. I'd like you to explain your logic behind that.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29752575]I don't see whats "Superlibertarian" about not paying for shit you will never use. I'd like you to explain your logic behind that.[/QUOTE]
You do use roads, even if you don't drive on them. What does your employer use to get to work to open the store so you can get in and start making money? What do the police and firefighters use to get to your house when there's an emergency? What allows school buses to take your kids to school?
Healthcare is the same in that it assists in holding together the society you live in whether you use healthcare services or not.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.