Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

dicktice · 2003-09-16 17:12:14

Byron: We have no national dental plan, although it's mentioned at every election. And the Pharmacare fee is too high for me, so I don't subscribe--not being a diabetic, or someone who needs lots of medications. Generic prices for drugs generally prevail here, which explains the prescriptions from Canadian docs via U.S. docs, to you folks (Quite illegal, but who cares, except the big-name drug companies?) I'll delete my diatribe next week: It was just to counter all the misinformation about the Canadian Health Plan, coming from whoever it was who was putting out all that blather. Cheers.

Byron · 2003-09-16 17:19:31

I'll delete my diatribe next week: It was just to counter all the misinformation about the Canadian Health Plan, coming from whoever it was who was putting out all that blather. Cheers.

No, please don't...

People need to know how good you Canadians really have it..lol..

B

dicktice · 2003-09-16 18:58:07

Copy that.

Cobra Commander · 2003-09-26 17:51:41

Yes! Medical care is absolutely vital, but why stop there? If we add universal food and housing then every American can enjoy the same benefits as... my cat. Surely American citizens deserve the same benefits as an animal that begs for table scraps and defecates in a box.

No? surely complete dependence is a small price for such bounty. It may severely undermine freedom, self reliance and pride but isn't our collective health worth it? A relevant quote comes to mind:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

That was James Madison, something of an authority on the matter. Universal health care certainly qualifies as an "object of benevolence."

Now, I know that sometimes people get sick or injured and can't afford the exorbidant cost of medical care, but I also realize that turning the responsibility over to the government will destroy the nation. Do not be tempted to use the Canadian system as a model for triumphant success, it owes more to Canada's proximity to and good relations with the US than the brilliance of the system's design. Yes, drugs are cheaper, but those drugs are developed primarily with the US market in mind. Destroy the profit potential of new products and you destroy the motivation to develop them. The Canadian system feeds off the United States. I don't hold it against them, it's a wise move given their situation, but if the US adopts a similar system the people of both nations will suffer.

sethmckiness · 2003-09-26 19:25:35

I would like to make a couple point real quick.

1.) Not all Hospitals are non-profit.

Insurance copmanies don't always pay the complete bill for procedures. This is also true for Ambulances. Ambulances are required to transport everyone. But if the person being transported doesn't pay for it, other people pick up the tab. The average Ambulance costs between 1/2 to 1 million dollars fully stocked(from a friend thats an EMT). Also, EMT's and Paramedics are underpaid.. imagine how much it would cost if they were paid more. The typical semi-driver makes more money.

But, back to my point. Tri-Care is the military's insurance. They give certain amounts for procedures no matter what. So, the Hospital must derive costs where it can. They must pay high salaries to attract nurses and Doctors since they are in short supply. So.. It is merely a trickle down effect.

2.) Most non-smokers may not know this but a good portion of cigarettes is tax. I would say about 60-80% of a pack of Cigarettes is tax. This 'sin' tax is supposed to goto cigarette related illness treatment and research(yeah right).

3.) I don't see us ever going to a straight general health care system. I do see us going to a minimum health care insurance. But that will require more taxes. People that have better coverage are not going to want to pay for it. There hase to be atleast 100,000-200,000 people employed in the US in Health insurance related fields. Those people could potentially lose their jobs. Companies may cut health insurance benefits etc.. Is that better? Because the minority of people don't have medical coverage.(I know thats harsh, I do believe everyone should have some sort of medical coverage)

4.) Their are many areas in the US that upon privatization and demonopolization, the services improved drastically. I hardly think by making something government run, the services will improve. I think, therefore, a very minimum health care system should be setup, like medicare for people below the poverty line, or can';t afford insurance.. Also, allow broader access to VA hospitals. Anyone that has had Military Medical Care would appreciate better insurance, and a good hospital, even if it costs more money.

dicktice · 2003-09-29 16:58:56

Cobra: Will you please explain to us how you drew your conclusions regarding statements (1 - 5 ) below, because your post is the first time I've ever heard them mentioned, honest!

"Now, I know that sometimes people get sick or injured and can't afford the exorbidant cost of medical care, but I also realize (1) that turning the responsibility over to the government will destroy the nation. Do not be tempted to use the Canadian system as a model for triumphant success, it (2) owes more to Canada's proximity to and good relations with the US than the brilliance of the system's design. Yes, drugs are cheaper, but those drugs are developed (3) primarily with the US market in mind. Destroy the profit potential of new products and you destroy the motivation to develop them. (4) The Canadian system feeds off the United States. I don't hold it against them, it's a wise move given their situation, but (5) if the US adopts a similar system the people of both nations will suffer."

Byron · 2003-09-30 05:15:48

Dickice...don't even bother taking Cobra's points seriously...he's parroting typical American propaganda...lol

B

dicktice · 2003-10-01 07:14:21

Copy that...but why? Don't bother to answer, let's get goin' on the idea front, eh?

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-03 17:56:51

Cobra: Will you please explain to us how you drew your conclusions regarding statements (1 - 5 ) below, because your post is the first time I've ever heard them mentioned, honest!

I will explain my typical American propaganda. Point 1:

turning the responsibility over to the government will destroy the nation.

Hopefully this will clear after points 4-5. Standby,

Points 2&3:

owes more to Canada's proximity to and good relations with the US than the brilliance of the system's design. Yes, drugs are cheaper, but those drugs are developed (3) primarily with the US market in mind. Destroy the profit potential of new products and you destroy the motivation to develop them.

The motivation for drug companies to market new drugs is profit, just as with any other business. The US market is enormous, far larger than Canada's. Canada's drug prices would take far longer to recoup development costs and turn a profit were they over all of North America rather than just Canada. At present Canada is such a small percentage of the overall market that the "loss" can be absorbed, but bringing the entire US market to this level would drastically reduce profits, leading to drug companies cutting costs and developing fewer new drugs.

Point 4:

The Canadian system feeds off the United States.

See above. And below.

Point 5, with some spillover from 4:

if the US adopts a similar system the people of both nations will suffer."

In addition to the stifling of the drug industry, a US socialized medical program would require enormous amounts of the federal budget. Just for reference, the current proposal for a prescription benefit addition to MediCare is estimate to run $400 billion to start and it would cover only the elderly, badly. Just enacting drug coverage for the entire population would be crippling, not even trying to add other medical coverage. At present the Canadian system functions in a relationship with the US that, I won't go so far as to call parasitic but a skewed symbioisis at any rate. Living right on the border, I see this on a regular basis. On one hand we have pharmacies (shady but legal) which sell Canadian drugs at Canadian prices to US customers. This gets a fair amount of press here, but it is also not unusual for Canadians to come to the US to visit doctors here. Why is that? I'm not certain, but I suspect its because either the wait is too long or the care is inferior.

Just for the record, I'm not trying to be a dick here. Sorry if I'm coming off that way.

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-03 18:50:58

Heh, I find it ironic though, that the scientists who work for drug companies aren't getting infinitely rich off of the deal. As far as I know they don't get a real piece of the pie (ie, the so called 'incentive' is a fallacy). So to say that development would be retarded is a bit, well, I don't know, wrong in my mind. Cuba (an evil socialist country), for example, is on the forefront of AIDS related drug research.

The main issue, I think (and this isn't just limited to drug companies) with profit based science, is that sometimes it leads to scientists lying or exaggerating. Look at the various diet drugs that have ruined so many lives.

But I don't want to get into this discussion, really.

I would prefer to have a checkup device wherein I can perform my own checkup (and the availablity of a cool diagnosis and cure device at a local clinic that doesn't cost much to use).

Ahh, I can pipe dream, can't I? :;):

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-03 19:24:44

Heh, I find it ironic though, that the scientists who work for drug companies aren't getting infinitely rich off of the deal. As far as I know they don't get a real piece of the pie (ie, the so called 'incentive' is a fallacy). So to say that development would be retarded is a bit, well, I don't know, wrong in my mind.

But the drug companies are run by their executives, not the scientists. The executives are interested in making money, the scientists are interested in keeping their jobs. If the company does well, meaning makes a profit, the scientists continue to get paid to work. If the company does badly, meaning does not make money, then the research and development will suffer. If there is no hope of recouping the development costs of a new product in a reasoanble timeframe (remember executives think quarterly) then what's the point?
Drug companies are not out to help people, they are in it for the money, forcing them to continually improve. To a point of course, there is far more money to be made treating a disease than curing it so don't look for those magic AIDS vaccines or cancer-killers anytime soon ???

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-04 05:16:49

So I guess one has to weigh it, huh?

Socialized (or at least non-profit based) biology which could potentially provide true cures, or for-profit biology which will probably in the short term be more effecive. Personally, I feel that in the end they're equal.

Though, looking at historical evidence, socialized (or non-profit based) biology can lead to amazing turnarounds; look at the 'pill' for example. The birth control pill was decovered quite literally months after they began research. Like magic.

Interestingy, for-profit systems benefit more from encroaching laws and government, like embyro research, for a very obvious example.

Byron · 2003-10-04 06:05:27

I would prefer to have a checkup device wherein I can perform my own checkup (and the availablity of a cool diagnosis and cure device at a local clinic that doesn't cost much to use).

Same here...maybe have low-cost, "self-serve" clinics that are accessible 24/7, and would also issue drug prescriptions on the spot, etc.

I support any mechanism that would reduce costs and demand on the medical system...even to the point of giving nurses or the like greater power to examine patients, hand out prescriptions, administer routine tests, etc...therefore saving doctors for the bigger stuff.

Cobra...I have to say that the current U.S. medical care system is geared to making profit for the most part. But this is one area of the economy where seeking profit is not the best way to go about things. For example, do you know that nearly one half of the costs of prescription drugs here in the U.S. is due to marketing and advertising? If we did just one thing - ban drug advertising - we would drastically cut the cost of prescription drugs in one fell swoop...without affecting R & D one bit.

As for your idea that socialized medicine would bankrupt the U.S. Treasury, I would like to ask why is it that the U.S. devotes a greater portion of its GDP to medical care than any other nation in the world? And yet, we're not at the top of the major "health indicators," such as infant mortality, longevity, the average height of the population, educational achievement, plus many others. The system that is in place now is extremely inefficient, with bean counters often dictating who gets what care, based on how much is costs, as opposed to need. Of course, this results in lawsuits, which is another thing that drives health care costs through the roof.

Under a single-payer system, all these inefficiencies would be streamlined into one system, with a standard set of protocols throughout the country (it's truly amazing at how much the quality of health care varies throughout the U.S.), and the government would have the responsibility of overseeing the care administered by doctors and hospitals, eliminating the need for all these lawsuits (and greatly reducing costs as a result).

As for paying for this system, I guess that's the downside, as you need to come up with the monies to pay for all the people that currently do not have coverage. One idea I would like to suggest is implementing a high tariff on imported oil...this would have the twin benefits of reducing our dependence on OPEC while raising huge amounts of revenue. (as for the higher cost of gas, I suggest selling your SUV if you have one and get something that gets better mileage..lol) Another way of raising revenue in a fair manner is to increase taxes on alcohol and cigarettes (at least to Canadian levels.) Also, the Federal Gov't could do stuff like cutting out all subsidies to various industry and devote the $$ to health care...start backing away from our ideal of Pax Americana and go back to enjoying the "peace dividend" we enjoyed so much in the late '90's...I could go on and on here, but I'll stop here with a question: If the American style of health care really is superior to universal, single-payer systems, why then, hasn't a *single country* switched over to a private health care system in the past few decades - in spite of the various problems that their respective systems have enountered over the years? Could it be that they know something we don't? Hmmm....

B

dicktice · 2003-10-04 10:17:22

I repeat what I wrote previously: When I need a 'flu or any other injection, or if I'm feeling poorly, I just drop in at my family GP's office, weekdays, or for emergencies, evenings (where he or one of his collegues & nurses take turns on duty at the clinic next door) or if I really hurt myself, anytime, take or have myself taken to the community hospital . . . without financially crippling myself or my family. It's first of all, provencially funded from our taxes, partially federally from ditto, the federal involvement ensuring universal access between provences. Drugs are another thing. My point is simply, that the system is there for me if and whenever I need it, regardless of changing residence and/or workplace before retirement, regardles of cost(s) for professional medical service, resulting in peace of mind and lack of stress, which I'm sure contributes to my own continued good health and little need of the service. At bottom: No financial dread.

Byron · 2003-10-04 10:38:44

resulting in peace of mind and lack of stress, which I'm sure contributes to my own continued good health and little need of the service. At bottom: No financial dread.

Indeed. I say you've got it made up there....let's just hope somebody doesn't come in and muck it up for you guys...

B

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-08 16:23:34

Though, looking at historical evidence, socialized (or non-profit based) biology can lead to amazing turnarounds; look at the 'pill' for example. The birth control pill was decovered quite literally months after they began research. Like magic.

The "pill" was developed privately if I'm not mistaken, I'll look into it.

Interestingy, for-profit systems benefit more from encroaching laws and government, like embyro research, for a very obvious example.

Sometimes they benefit, other times they get screwed. In the absence of government prohibitions all of this banned research would be carried out if there was a realistic chance of making a profit from the results.

Under a single-payer system, all these inefficiencies would be streamlined into one system, with a standard set of protocols throughout the country

Byron, in theory you're right, but have you ever seen government make anything more efficient? I haven't, with the exception of organized armed forces of course. And certainly lawsuits are a serious problem in this country, not only in the medical profession but many others. But this can be solved without nationalizing the entire healthcare system.

If we did just one thing - ban drug advertising - we would drastically cut the cost of prescription drugs in one fell swoop...without affecting R & D one bit.

On this point I'm in complete agreement.

One idea I would like to suggest is implementing a high tariff on imported oil...this would have the twin benefits of reducing our dependence on OPEC while raising huge amounts of revenue.

Of course then we'd have to drill more oil domestically. I personally like the idea, but the same people who want this universal health care would never go for it. Romping through the magical fantasy-land of the Left where fuel burns clean and never ends and money falls from the sky for good causes...

Another way of raising revenue in a fair manner is to increase taxes on alcohol and cigarettes

Ah, so the smokers and drunks should pay for it! Seriously and slightly off topic; this has big problems. Drinking and more so smoking are unhealthy behaviors, so if we tax them to fund a government function then we cannot actually do anything to stop these behaviors because too much money is at stake. In which case, why is cocaine illegal? Why not tax it, just at a higher level? It's a system that is forced to condone if not encourage people to engage in activities that will likely have serious health consequences in order to pay for the medical care of everyone. It creates a caste of people on whom the system is a parasite, who then in turn drive up costs for everyone else with their preventable health problems.

If the American style of health care really is superior to universal, single-payer systems, why then, hasn't a *single country* switched over to a private health care system in the past few decades - in spite of the various problems that their respective systems have enountered over the years? Could it be that they know something we don't? Hmmm....

Simply because a government entity is the closest thing to an immortal being we have in this world. They are rarely removed except by force. Besides, many of the people in those countries are happy with it, it's only decades down the line when they pay taxes of 60% and have to wait 3 years to see a doctor that they'll get angry enough to do something about it.

Dicktice, all I have to refute your anectodal evidence is anectodal evidence of my own. I'm open to any hard data you have, but I'm skeptical.

Byron · 2003-10-09 05:57:39

Cobra, first let me say that you brought up some reasonable points...

Byron, in theory you're right, but have you ever seen government make anything more efficient? I haven't, with the exception of organized armed forces of course.

Well, I'm a huge fan of government efficiency...and yes, I admit this is one area that needs a great deal of work, as our friend Arnold will soon be able to attest...lol.. But what gets me is that people from all over the political spectrum are saying that he'll never be able to balance the budget out there while repealing the car tax...I think he will, as it's generally a matter of cutting out the "fat." (Of which California has a great deal.)

If enough pressure is brought to bear, I think government efficiencies can be increased dramatically....and the first place I would cut is "middle management", as these are the non-productive people that run the cost of providing government services sky-high. Getting back to a single-payer system, you would obviously have to have a number of strict protocols in place that would regulate how each dollar is spent (something like administrative costs must be limited to 10% of the budget or whatever.) Frankly, I don't see why this can't be done with all government agencies... mandate that administrative expenses be kept at very low levels (therefore insuring that precious tax money goes where it's actually supposed to go), and have total transparency of government operations, complete with volunteer committees that serve as watchdogs for everything this and that agency does.

The reasons I feel so strongly about universal care is 1) I think this is the only way you'll ever be able to have universal access to medical care...in a country as wealthy as the US, I really think this should be a given. 2) Medical care is a lot like a monopoly...just like electric power or water, it's something that you have to have...which means that left in private hands, they can charge unlimited prices for keeping you alive. Case in point: New Zealand made the mistake of privatising everything in sight, including electric power. Does anyone recall the Mercury Power fiasco in Auckland a few years back? Some areas in the CBD went weeks without power, as the power company was busy trying to make a profit rather than doing what they were supposed to be doing, which is of course, to provide uninterrupted electrical power. Same thing with a lot of HMO's...when they first came onto the scene, everyone thought they were a wonderful thing, as they would provide all the health care the subcribers needed at greatly reduced costs...but what happened? They got greedy and started denying care just to save $$, and the cost of health care under HMO's are rising faster than ever before. (In spite of these "cost control" measures.)

A free market only works when you have unobstructed competition and it's not something you depend on with your life...and you can't have a partially socialized system such as we have with Medicare and Medicaid and expect the "private" portion of the system to pick up the slack. That's a recipe of failure right there, especially with the coming surge of Baby Boomers putting extra pressure on the system.

Simply because a government entity is the closest thing to an immortal being we have in this world. They are rarely removed except by force. Besides, many of the people in those countries are happy with it, it's only decades down the line when they pay taxes of 60% and have to wait 3 years to see a doctor that they'll get angry enough to do something about it.

This is why I think we need to have greater citizen participation in their respective governments...we (the whole world, basically) just cannot sit back and let our "leaders" take care of things for us, because they're going to muck it up one way or another. Only by taking full responsibility for what our respective governments do, can we invoke "real" change. In most countries, there *is* such a thing as democracy, but democracy only works if the people actually work at it...and if things get bad enough, they will.

B

Shaun Barrett · 2003-10-09 07:04:08

Here in Australia, in 1984, the then Labor government under Bob Hawke introduced Medicare. Everyone paid 1% of their gross income towards it, above and beyond their regular taxes. (The rate is currently at 1.5%.)

Under the new scheme, a medical consultation attracted a certain payment by the govt. to the doctor, which was called the Schedule Fee and was set by the government. The Fee was usually increased slightly each year to partially offset inflation.
The patient could see the doctor, get a bill for the Schedule Fee (SF), pay the SF at the doctor's office, and then go and make a claim at a Medicare office. But the amount claimable was only 85% of the SF, not the full amount. In other words, the govt. paid 0.85*SF while the patient paid 0.15*SF. Or the patient could take the bill, unpaid, to the Medicare office, claim 0.85*SF from the govt., wait a week for a cheque in the mail, top it up with his/her own money, and go back to the doctor's office and pay it.
Needless to say, a great many people chose the latter course, since it entailed not having to pay out money from their own wallet or purse on the day of the consultation. This produced a huge govt. bureaucracy to handle all the paper work, of course, and it became more and more unwieldy and the turnaround time for a Medicare cheque stretched out from one week to as many as five weeks ... surprise, surprise!
The person waiting for the money was the doctor and s/he was inclined to be unhappy with the situation, particularly since a percentage of people would never actually get around to doing anything at all about the outstanding bill! This meant doctors having to keep extra records and chase up late payers and bad debts.

As an alternative to all this, the govt. gave the doctor the 'opportunity' to 'bulk-bill' patients. With this system, the doctor swiped the patient's Medicare card, got their signature, and that was that ... the govt. simply paid the doctor directly. No hassle at all!
But the govt. would only pay 0.85*SF, never the whole SF!
So, the first way, the doctor got all of the SF ... maybe! .. Eventually! ... Or maybe not at all!
The second way, he definitely got paid ... eventually (remember it's in the govt.'s interests to drag out payments) ... but only 85% of the fee set by the govt. in the first place!

Now, what do you suppose happened? Some doctors decided to bulk-bill, while most resisted it because they would lose 15% of their fee. But patients soon noticed that some doctors only required a swipe of their Medicare card and no monetary payment at all, while others demanded money ... the heartless, capitalist bastards!!
Guess what happened to the patient numbers at practices which charged a co-payment? Right! And guess what happened to patient numbers at bulk-billing practices? Right again!
Soon, the vast majority of doctors were bulk-billing, by necessity, and had taken a 15% cut in pay. In addition, their fees were now set by the govt., which could choose to raise them only very slightly each year or, if convenient, not raise them at all.

It was the most brilliant manipulation of the medical profession by a left wing government I have ever heard of!! (Maybe Cuba did it better, I don't know! ) It effectively reined in medical salaries while giving Australians a de facto free medical service.
So, everything has been fine ever since, right? Wrong!

The Australian Medical Association would, each year, set a recommended consultation fee based on the actual economics of running a medical practice, rather than based on what the Australian Labor Party thought a doctor should be paid. As the years went by, inflation and new technology dictated that a medical consultation should go up in price and this was reflected in the AMA recommended fee each year. Strangely enough, the govt. didn't see it that way and, having the doctors by the short and curlies, they were in a position to thumb their noses at the profession and set the SF much lower than the AMA's figure.
With their pay going further south each year, while costs were going progressively north, doctors were forced to cut appointment times and squeeze more people into each hour of the day, while trimming staff and making the remaining nurses work harder. This gave rise to the 'three minute medical consultation', during which your posterior never had time to warm the chair and a comprehensive examination became increasingly rare.

In the nearly two decades of constantly expanding gaps between the real cost of a medical consultation and the amount being paid by the govt., it became ever more apparent that something had to give. And now it has.
The public health structure is in near-crisis as the 'free' medical system is over-used and abused, hospitals are turning away patients while wards remain empty for lack of nursing staff (their numbers were progressively cut due to lack of funds until the remaining nurses buckled under the strain and quit), there is a looming massive shortage of doctors because working conditions and workloads are scaring off potential medical students, and doctors are abandoning bulk-billing in their thousands because it's simply not economically feasible to practise on such returns.

It appears the party is over! The great socialist dream of free health care has been found wanting, the fabled 'free lunch' was a mirage, and it turns out someone will have to pay the bill after all.

The transition to a more economically sane and viable system is likely to be a bitter one though. Almost an entire generation of Australians has come to imagine that world-class medical treatment can be bought cheap, or even free!
Now, it's going to be hard to make them see that you only ever get what you pay for.

Byron · 2003-10-09 08:22:09

First of all, thank you Shaun for your lengthly and informative post to this thread...I really do appreciate hearing different viewpoints on this issue (and others).

The transition to a more economically sane and viable system is likely to be a bitter one though. Almost an entire generation of Australians has come to imagine that world-class medical treatment can be bought cheap, or even free!

If you don't mind me asking, exactly what system is Australia getting ready to transistion to? Please keep in mind that the majority of people in the United States get their health care coverage from their employers...this of course, pushes the cost of labor higher, and the sharp increase in medical premiums is one factor that has caused the loss of three million jobs in the past few years in this country. Companies are learning very quickly that they can avoid the cost of paying out costly benefits simply by shipping jobs overseas, which is exactly what many companies are doing...even for high-paying "tech" jobs and the like.

The situation you've described about the Australian Schedule Fee system is eerily similar to the U.S. Medicare system, as the US government has consistently keeping a lid on reimbursements, giving doctors the "squeeze" and this has led to many doctors refusing to see Medicare patients at all. I admit, this is a problem. The question is... how to resolve the difference between what the government (on behalf of the taxpayer) wants to pay, and what doctors want to charge. Obviously there's got to be a middle ground in there somewhere...we just have to find a way to reach it.

I know that you think switching over to a free market will solve this problem, as the traditional laws of supply and demand would apply, therefore balancing out the system. This is all fine and dandy in theory, but in practice, this would mean denying care to those who need it but can't afford it. Should a person be denied a life-saving operation just because of "supply and demand" economics? I don't there is a population anywhere in the world that would stand for this. And as for the American system of covering the "needy" (namely the elderly and the poor), as I've stated before, this places long term, unsustainable distortions in the "free market" sector of the system, causing the sorts of problems the U.S. is experiencing now (people without coverage, more people getting sick as they can't afford to see the doctor, companies bucking under the cost of soaring premiums, currently running at 13% per annum.)

So what's to be done about the poor doctors, who are having major problems with bean-counting HMO's who have the power to dictate fees just as much as the government does, not to mention covering the people that seek out their care but turn their empty pockets inside out (the guilt principle at work here...it really is amazing how much free care some doctors hand out becuase of this...) ??

One thing is for sure, I think we need greater education and dialog betwen the government, the taxpayer and the medical community. The taxpayers obviously has to pay more if they want to continue getting the care they expect and deserve, the government needs to follow the basic principles of common sense, and a way has to be found to make working conditions better for those in the medical profession. Also, the "people" need to start taking responsibility for their own health, and not use the medical system as a crutch for all of their problems (such as making people pay a reasonable fee up-front when they see a doctor, and a larger fee (but not enough to require a 2nd mortgage on the house) each time they use the hospital. While this sort of system would only pay a small portion of the actual cost of using the medical system, it would at least induce some of the positive benefits of the "supply and demand" system while mitigating some of the abuses of the "free for all" system.

In summary, I sincerely hope...for all of you wonderful blokes in Australia...that your country doesn't try to cram down a major, abrupt change that inflicts a lot of pain on the population....if the government is dumb enough to try something like that, then you'd better watch out for the socialists, because that's the kind of situation that would get the people to vote for them. Australia, just like any other democratic country, needs to sit down and figure out what works and what doesn't and introduce incrememental change, over time.

But who knows, maybe it's just better if we just let the whole medical system crash and burn world-wide and just take it from there.... ???

B

clark · 2003-10-09 09:10:36

Might I suggest either subsidizing potential medical students schooling with the stipulation that they work X amount of time as a general practioner in certain areas where there is less than an ideal physician to person ratio. Or, the creation of a government funded medical school, similar to the peace corps or even the military, where they train physicians and then deploy them in certain areas. They get a free education but are commited to working (similar to the army) for a set number of years afterwards.

Government can help on the supply side by creating more opportunities for physicians to train, which in turn drives down final costs becuase of the supply.

Just a thought outside the box.

Byron · 2003-10-09 09:28:54

Might I suggest either subsidizing potential medical students schooling with the stipulation that they work X amount of time as a general practioner in certain areas where there is less than an ideal physician to person ratio. Or, the creation of a government funded medical school, similar to the peace corps or even the military, where they train physicians and then deploy them in certain areas. They get a free education but are commited to working (similar to the army) for a set number of years afterwards.
Government can help on the supply side by creating more opportunities for physicians to train, which in turn drives down final costs becuase of the supply.
Just a thought outside the box.

You know what, I was going to mention almost exactly what you've just mentioned, but held back in my last post as I had typed enough stuff already...lol..

Thanks for bringing this up... I, for one, think it's an excellent idea...

B

Pat Galea · 2003-10-09 09:37:02

But who knows, maybe it's just better if we just let the whole medical system crash and burn world-wide and just take it from there.... ???

You been reading Ayn Rand lately? :laugh:

dicktice · 2003-10-09 10:42:45

Regarding national, state-run healthcare programs for everyone. I've been keeping up with your arguments about the seeming impossibility of eliminating the fear of finanacial ruin by becoming sick or injured or changing employment, etc. and wonder how we in Canada and the Scandinavian countries appear to be better off in this regard. It didn't happen automatically, and its fairly recently accomplished. Could it that terms of enablement, such as "social-democratic" and "liberal" have become anathema? You may have to de-toxify these and other such scary words in order to plan the system you seek, in order to arrive at the one that works for you. Because, it seems obvious to me that universal healthcare should be nurtured and protected from abuse as a collective resource, like any vital public utility.

clark · 2003-10-09 12:02:02

The value of National Health Care systems: Priceless award.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....hock_dc

Would-Be Thief Has Electrifying Shock

VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) - A man was recovering in a Vancouver-area hospital on Tuesday after his apparent attempt to steal a roll of copper wire ended up giving him a 27,000-volt electrical shock.
The man was found on Monday wandering in a Surrey, British Columbia, railroad yard with second degree burns but without his shoes, which police said had been blown off when he tried to disconnect the wire from a running generator.
Investigators said the 41-year-old man, whose name was not released but was already "well known" to police, was expected to recover from his injuries and faced several criminal charges.

Luckily, he won't have to worry about the hospital bill! :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-10 18:34:59

Clark, your idea has merit. I once suggested something similar in a conversation a few years back. They called me a fascist, then went into some rant about forcing people into the service of the state. Silly liberals.

The problem with finding a solution to healthcare is essentially this: on the one hand we have the need to motivate those providing the service, which means profit. Providing the best care is expensive, cutting into profits, resulting in fewer people in the profession.
On the other hand, government control, which makes providing the service the priority rather than turning a profit is also expensive, and grows more so as it continues. Government control also results in a decrease in quality as there is no competition. Going to either end of the scale won't work. Trying a half-assed fusion as we have in the US doesn't work all that well either, unless one accepts the premise that those that can't afford healthcare shouldn't get it. From an economic standpoint this actually makes sense as their tax revenue is small or non-existent and they'd be parasites rather than contributors. But I certainly don't want people dying in the streets from easily treatable sickness and injury. It looks bad in the travel brochures.

I had an idea awhile back that I threw out to a group of political science students, to much confusion. I must stress that I AM NOT ADVOCATING THIS as policy I'M NOT SURE IT WILL WORK, It is inefficient at best, a ponderous waste of of resources at worst but still better than just nationalizing the whole system as some advocate.

Free-market socialism.
We have government provided healthcare, but it isn't fully centralized. We create three completely independent healthcare agencies, each duplicating all functions. Funding is dependent on treatment success, patient reviews, doctor evaluations and other service-based factors. The highest rated agency gets a larger cut of the healthcare budget, creating an incentive to become increasingly efficient while still keeping the focus on providing the best care possible. Paying for this beast is the problem. Bleeding off resources from various third-world vassal states is workable, but then I'm the fascist imperialist.

Just a thought for your examination. Unorthodox solutions for difficult problems.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-09-16 17:12:14

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#27 2003-09-16 17:19:31

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#28 2003-09-16 18:58:07

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#29 2003-09-26 17:51:41

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#30 2003-09-26 19:25:35

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#31 2003-09-29 16:58:56

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#32 2003-09-30 05:15:48

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#33 2003-10-01 07:14:21

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#34 2003-10-03 17:56:51

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#35 2003-10-03 18:50:58

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#36 2003-10-03 19:24:44

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#37 2003-10-04 05:16:49

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#38 2003-10-04 06:05:27

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#39 2003-10-04 10:17:22

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#40 2003-10-04 10:38:44

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#41 2003-10-08 16:23:34

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#42 2003-10-09 05:57:39

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#43 2003-10-09 07:04:08

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#44 2003-10-09 08:22:09

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#45 2003-10-09 09:10:36

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#46 2003-10-09 09:28:54

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#47 2003-10-09 09:37:02

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#48 2003-10-09 10:42:45

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#49 2003-10-09 12:02:02

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#50 2003-10-10 18:34:59

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

Board footer