Universal Health Care

[mr_whomp]

I'm a little confused by some of the posts in this thread.

1) Several posters mention that cost of healthcare in the US should be cheaper than in other industrialized countries because governments are more inefficient than companies, and their healthcare is offered by companies.
2) Several posters show that cost of healthcare in the US is more expensive than in other industrialized countries and also ranks lower in terms of effectiveness.
3)In rebuttal first posters say it is because people aren't spending their own money on healthcare, that they are spending other peoples money. They also mention that because there isnt much competition between healthcare providers prices go up.

I think opinion #3 is poop.

1) US system involves earning profit for services, Canadian/International system offers services at cost.

2) In Canada/Internationally it's not like we are spending our own money on healthcare either and trying to shop for the cheapest price. If anything we are spending someone else's money just like in the states, this time, it's the governments money not an HMO's.

3)While increasing competition would drive prices down, the duplication of services which is inherent to creating that competition would be more inefficient then the Canadian/international system.

Please discuss...

Also saying that canadian's are unhappy with our healthcare system would be untrue. It's often said that us canadians define ourselves as "not being american", and along with kicking your buts in hockey, not having guns everywhere (though this summer in toronto was pretty violent), we hold up our public health care system as one of the reasons canada is better than the states.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
They also mention that because there isnt much competition between healthcare providers prices go up.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is key. There will never really be a competitive "market" for healthcare for a variety of reasons, and this is partly why free-market fixes are not going to work. It is a sector that lends itself toward oligopoly for a variety of reasons. The US system is incredibly wasteful, offers huge rents to privileged players like HMOs, doctors, and drug companies that conspire to maintain their privilege, and does a poor job overall in safeguarding the health of Americans, especially poor ones.

Many of the smaller European countries have demonstrated that the health system can be run more efficiently with a larger government presence. However, they are countries that have a history of competent public administration. This is not really something can be said of the United States, so its not clear that we would be better off at all by creating a large health bureaucracy. Despite what the ideologues on either side say, the ability of government to perform bureaucratic tasks efficiently is not some intrinsic property of governments per se, but differs greatly across countries.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a little confused by some of the posts in this thread.

1) Several posters mention that cost of healthcare in the US should be cheaper than in other industrialized countries because governments are more inefficient than companies, and their healthcare is offered by companies.
2) Several posters show that cost of healthcare in the US is more expensive than in other industrialized countries and also ranks lower in terms of effectiveness.
3)In rebuttal first posters say it is because people aren't spending their own money on healthcare, that they are spending other peoples money. They also mention that because there isnt much competition between healthcare providers prices go up.

I think opinion #3 is poop.

1) US system involves earning profit for services, Canadian/International system offers services at cost.

2) In Canada/Internationally it's not like we are spending our own money on healthcare either and trying to shop for the cheapest price. If anything we are spending someone else's money just like in the states, this time, it's the governments money not an HMO's.

3)While increasing competition would drive prices down, the duplication of services which is inherent to creating that competition would be more inefficient then the Canadian/international system.

Please discuss...

Also saying that canadian's are unhappy with our healthcare system would be untrue. It's often said that us canadians define ourselves as "not being american", and along with kicking your buts in hockey, not having guns everywhere (though this summer in toronto was pretty violent), we hold up our public health care system as one of the reasons canada is better than the states.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much would you like to wager on my ability/inability to find five Canadians that dont like their healthcare system?

[mr_whomp]

how much would you like to wager i can find 5 americans that believe that no one ever landed on the moon?

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Perhaps the people I've talked to are well off enough to supplement the Gov't provided care with private care when they want/need it. (I don't really know, it's not as if I've had any in-depth discussion about it). Thanks for the response.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it isn't until recently that you can buy private health insurance to suppliment the government insurance. There was a Supreme Court case in Canada that ruled that by preventing private health care you are infringing upon the Charter rights of people who can afford better health care.

As for my opinion, I think that the only agreeable position is to have basic universal health care up to a certain point like $2000 per year and that takes care of prenatal, ER visits and the like. Then you can supplement your healthcare above that with your own funds.

I think basic healthcare is needed in todays modern society to keep the peace and increase productivity, but call me insensitive I do not think Healthcare is a basic right.

Also, I think if we do go to a universal healthcare system, you shouldn't get full medical treatment if you abuse your body with cigarettes, alcohol, obesity and anything that is detrimental to your health. I think you can be on a continuum, like there are a 60% more likely to get disease A from smoking and if you get that disease and you smoke the health care only covers 40% of the bill.

-Gryph

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I've been out of college for about a year and a half and haven't not been able to find a decent job Needless to say I haven't had insurance and I haven't had any money.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a young single male in good health you can purchase personal coverage for under $100 month. Maybe you weren't aware of this, but the fact is that anyone who isn't disabled or has an expensive pre-existing condition can get insurance for an affordable price. They CHOOSE not to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you please provide the name/contact info for where this $100 healthcare coverage can be purchased? I wonder what the deductibles/co-pays/limits are for this $100/month policy? When I was laid off, it cost me over $300/month to continue my current coverage (Aetna) using COBRA. My sister has shopped around and has not found anything affordable for her family (her, husband, & 3 kids) -- everything has been over $1,000/month for the family. They are self-employeed, so they don't get the group-rates that bigger companies get.

Anyway, I'd sure like to know where this $100/month coverage is... and how good it is. Thanks.

[jthegreat]

The insurance system in the US is a key factor in our ballooning health care costs. Hospitals/doctors charge more because people don't pay the bills themselves, they only tend to pay a small percentage.

[ QUOTE ]
The insurance system in the US is a key factor in our ballooning health care costs. Hospitals/doctors charge more because people don't pay the bills themselves, they only tend to pay a small percentage.

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't answering my question are you? Just making sure...

Anyway, I agree with what you said.

[jogger08152]

Re: your car crash scenario, presumably the police return the car to its original owner.