Gov't Provided Healthcare: Workable?

To those who would like to see a "free" healthcare system or government provided system in the U.S similar to other industrialized countries,how realistic or workable is it? How would a free system for 300 million Americans be managed to avoid the problems found with other healthcare systems with smaller populations than America's?


INDEPTH: HEALTH CARE
Introduction
CBC News Online | September 07, 2004

Health care in Canada may be on the verge of some of the biggest changes since former Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas was credited with fathering medicare. Most Canadians take government-funded health care for granted today, but when it was first introduced it in Saskatchewan in 1962, most of the province's doctors responded by going on strike to protest against "creeping socialism."

The strike lasted three weeks - public support for the doctors had collapsed, persuading the doctors to accept a deal with the government. Within five years, government-funded health care spread across the country.

While most Canadians - 80 per cent according to Statistics Canada - are satisfied with their access to the health care system, many experience long waits to see a specialist, get diagnostic tests and undergo elective surgery. Others find themselves facing huge bills for prescription drugs they need to survive.

At one time, the federal government provided about a third of the money the provinces spend on health care. But as government belts tightened to deal with record budget deficits in the early 1990s, complaints about access to health care increased. Ottawa drastically cut the amount of money it transferred to the provinces to cover health care costs.

By the time another former Saskatchewan premier - Roy Romanow - released his landmark report on fixing medicare in 2002, Ottawa had slashed its share to about 16 per cent of the total. Romanow recommended an immediate infusion of federal dollars, to bring Ottawa's share up to 25 per cent.

With Romanow's landmark report under their belts, the nation's first ministers gathered in Ottawa in February 2003 for a meeting that was described as the most important session on health care since Canada adopted medicare.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/index.html




French healthcare is 'badly run'


France must make big changes to its health system in order to cut waste and increase efficiency, a government-commissioned report is warning.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3423159.stm

 

I don't think it's feasible. There are plenty of failed models of socialized health care, such as Canada and France, and very few (any?) successful models of socialized health care.

Government health care means that if the government plan doesn't cover your treatment, you're either paying for it out of your own pocket IN ADDITION to your medicare taxes, or you're just not getting the treatment at all.

Government health care means that people will be more likely to visit the doctor for every sniffle if they know that they don't have to pay anything.

Government health care means higher taxes for everyone.

Government health care means more bureaucracy, more regulations, and less productivity...and the last industry that we need those things in is health care.

 

That's been a part of the problem in Canada and some of the other countries as far as the waiting lists. Too many people are going to the hospital for various things and it's crowding the hospitals it seems. Canada only has about 40 million people,so it could be even worse in America with 300 million.

 

Look at government subsidized housing, food stamps, welfare, social security, public schools, etc, etc, etc. Government healthcare WILL be just as ineffective as EVERY other social program we have instituted.

Both quality and accessability of service will decline.

 

Coming from a country with, what some types of American quaintly call a ‘socialised’ health care system, I have to ask are you actually putting forward the present US system as some type of paradigm that others should emulate?

Yes we have problems that is sure and I think things could be improved but I and very few others would want an American style system.

**

There is more than enough money in the system now to give Americans all the health care they need or could reasonably want--if it were distributed differently. We spend over $4,000 per capita on personal health care, about twice as much as Canada and the European countries (which cover all their citizens), and the gap is growing. Why is our system such a money sink? Not because our population is older or sicker. All the Western countries have aging populations vulnerable to nearly the same illnesses at roughly the same rates, and ours is actually younger than most. Nor is the reason that we get better outcomes. By all the usual measures of health--life expectancy, infant mortality, childhood immunization rate--we do worse than most Western countries. The only plausible explanation is how health care is financed and delivered. The American health care system is staggeringly wasteful and inflationary.
http://www.prospect.org/web/printfriendly-view.ww?id=5498

**

What if the sniffle that the person goes to the doctor with is the first stages of TB or that flue feeling is meningitis?

The fact is that not fearing going to the doctor because of the fear at the amount saves lives, and the spreading of diseases.

**

Fact is that having just had a little baby girl I was very pleased with the health care my partner received which was actually envied by an American friend of ours.

 

What are some of the things you find wrong with the American system? Are you thinking about our 45 million unisnsured? I've read that about half of that number is made up of middle-class people who could afford healthcare but don't have it for various reasons. Either they're between jobs or will pay for costs out of their pocket.

We do have some government provide healthcare like Medicaid for the poor,but we seem to be having problems financing and managing it like with TennCare in Tennesse. I'd have to wonder what sort of problems we'd have financing and managing a universal system for all Americans?

One possible sloution to improving U.S healthcare.
I've read that one reason American healthcare is so expensive is because people are made to have healthcare coverages that they don't need added to their policies. People can't get their policies personalized to their specific needs,which would lower their costs. They have extra coverages added that the gov't requires.

Then they should hopefully be able to get that treated without a long wait. I read where a Canadian doctor said that Canadian waiting list could be made shorter if they could reduce the numbers of people going to the doctors for things they themselves could treat or for things that aren't that serious. In France they don't have too many waiting list problems,but do have problems with patients wanting every drug and medical test available wether they actually need them or not. This is contributing to France's problems.

But it also seems to lead to more people "over-consuming" healthcare like with the Canadian and French examples, which contributes to their financing and management problems. I've heard it said that whenever something is free people will over-consume it. People should only go to the doctor when something is actually wrong with them and not just because it's free.

 

My advice to you all would be to start a Health Savings Account.

Your contributions to it are tax deductible, and it works as an investment program too, like an IRA or 401k, where you can choose exactly how you want to invest your contributions, and you can withdraw from it at any time for medical and drug expenses. Once you turn 59 years old, you can withdraw from it for anything, just like an IRA, but this, of course, isn't recommended.

Most of them come with what's called "Catastrophic Coverage" as well, where you'll be covered for high-deductible expenses as well. So you'll be covered if you have unexpected medical expenses that are more than you have saved in your account.

These plans make sense if you don't want to pay for Health Insurance each monty that you rarely use, if your self employed, and gives you the option to pay as you go.

 

I took my baby son to the doctor the other week, and we happened to be in between paychecks...they said they had to have money up front...I had to call my mother and have her come pay with her credit card before they would see my BABY SON. This was a pediatrics office...and apparently all of them are the same according to my mother, who callled around because she loves my son even more than I do lol. If I had had to go to the emergency room with my baby I would've had a long wait...isn't rthat the main problem ya'll see? See, most of the time people who complain about having to wait a little bit are people who expect their money to get them whatever they want....I have no sympathy for that. Rich people have always had options, how about the poor people who can't afford healthcare right now? (yes I understand some people who don't have healthcare could afford it but that's not always the case)They are the people who'd be getting seen while you have to wait even though you have money. Please, no matter how workable or nonworkable it is it can't be that much worse than what we have now. Maybe for you it would be but try, just try and think of the innocent child whose single mom can't afford to pay 100 dollars to the doctor and gets sent away...thats what they would've done to my baby if my mother couldn't have paid the co-pay (yes I even have insurance and healthcre is still crappy)

 

I agree that we need healthcare reform, and I do have sympathy for you and they many people that are in your situation. I just can't figure out WHERE DOES THIS STOP? Is healthcare a necessity? YES! But so is food, a winter coat, shoes, clothes, toothpaste, soap, water, electricity, etc, etc, etc. . .

Why should healthcare be a free benefit to all citizens? What about all of the other necessities? Where does this stop? What about PERSONAL responsibility?

The problems with the American healthcare system can almost all be traced back to one factor, INSURANCE. Because of insurance, we do have a sort of socialized medicine. Quality of and access to care has declined in correlation with the rise of employment healthcare benefits.

For instance, prescription drug prices would not be so high if it weren't for insurance. Insurance companies collect large rebates from drug companies to be on their formulary. Drug companies know that about 90% of all prescription drug sales are currently paid for, in part, by insurance. The high cost is due to 2 factors: #1, the consumer does not care how much it cost when they pay a $10 copay, #2, the person without insurance has to pay the full price, which has been inflated, in part, to compensate for the rebates.

 

Well it is clear that the Americans here are not claiming that other countries should copy their system, at least not for the foreseeable future.

**

I get the feeling that some peoples comments here are not based on a realistic assessment of alternative health care systems but purely ideologically driven criticism.

**

As to being treated for sniffles or flu that doesn’t normally come with a long waiting time attached. People can usually see their GP within the same day and of course we have national sick leave which means that you can take time off work to go to the appointment without a lose in pay.

**

As to the middle class people not paying into a health care system that is a problem with the US system NOT an advantage. When people are young and healthy they may not feel they need health care cover but later in life they are likely to need a lot more treatment. Now if they have saved enough in the time or have become rich then that is ok but if not it is likely that the state will have to cover them or they are allowed to rot in the streets.
With a monitory national heath insurance or health care system paid for by taxation, theoretically money received during the healthy period is used during the unhealthy times.

 

**


As to the idea of waiting times for medical treatment I have heard a very persuasive argument that states that they were introduced into the UK NHS as a means of bring free market ideas into the system.

The idea being that the NHS contributions would be seen as a kind of ‘basic cover’ insurance package. Most things would be covered immediately such as A&E and general health complaints. However for more complex (expensive) procedures or treatments there would be a waiting list. Such a list means and allow for people to pay more and opt for, let us call it, ‘premium cover’ so people can be seen and treated immediately. In Britain the ability of customers to be seen straight away is the main selling point for taking out private health insurance.
It always seems strange to me that so many free market thinking right wing opponents of the so called ‘socialised’ health system in Britain attack it on the issue of waiting lists when those waiting list are the one element that allows for the free market ideas to corrupt the system.

 

Let us get down to basics here

It seems that people want some type of health care system.

So ask yourself why you want one and what you want it to do?

 

Well some forms of privatization has been a part of the French and Swedish healthcare systems and have helped to reduce waiting lists according to them. So some privatization in the British system might not be too corrupting.

" The cooperation between the public and private sector in the French healthcare system is a positive feature that allows citizens to avoid waiting lists for surgeries, which are often associated with socialized medicine. Indeed, private medical care in France is particularly active in treating more than 50% of surgeries and more than 60% of cancer cases. This unique combination of government financed medical care and private medical services produces a health care system that is open to all and provides the latest in medical technology and treatment."

http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/health.asp

" Walker says the solution may be to follow the lead of countries such as France and Sweden. They spend less on medical care, but have better outcomes. Such countries charge user fees, have private insurance plans, and a parallel private system."

http://winnipeg.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=mb_fraserwaitlist020919

 

Motion

Your post is still not exactly a ringing endorsement for the American system of health care.

I mean, you seem to be saying that the French and Swedish systems are the models that seem best to follow?

**

As to the argument presented about waiting times it was not that waiting times were able to be cut by private companies but that waiting times due to government caps on health spending allowed an opening for private companies. If the government increased spending waiting times would be cut and the main selling point for private health companies would disappear.

**

It seems that people want some type of health care system.

So ask yourself why you want one and what you want it to do?

 

Well, we would get rid of insurance if we had universal healthcare, that would actually free up a ton of money...Yes, insurance is gumming up the works I agree..Everybody'd be pissed about how much taxes they'd have to pay I guess, but it probably wouldn't be much or any more that you're paying now for health insurance that doesn't always cover you
About "where does it stop", well, school is already free, and I do think that no child should want any of that stuff, including healthcare. I mean kids don't have personal resonsibility, that's what the parents are there for. I don't think it should stop anywhere when it comes to kids..I mean I will probably survive if I can't go to the doctor..but I can't take any chances on my baby boy
I guess I think that "right to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness" applies to healthcare...it's possible now, other countries have done it...and we have the resources...now, I'm aware that you need somewhat of a trustworthy government and we don't...so I definitely understand people not wanting the government controlling their healthcare...but isn't this the way it should be? that everyone can have treatment for illness?

 

I disagree. Universal healthcare just means the government IS the insurance. I think it would be a huge, costly, inefficent buearocracy, much like Medicare, public education, welfare, etc.

 

Believe me, I DO feel very deeply for the children who are stuck in these situations.

I also feel deeply for the working parents, who take responsibility for the families they create, and barely scrape by.

 

The current problem is not "where will it stop", but "where should it start."

I find the current situation where basic public heath care for children, like vacinations and hearing testing are not universaly avaliable on the wrong side of the starting line.

Too much government care for the people is not America's problem. When it becomes one, that is the time to discuss where it will stop. (Isn't that what happened with welfare.)

Our country is wealthy enough that letting children die because they are poor is obscene. If your kid needs a transplant, raising money is your first priority. The government will let your kid die because you aren't rich. That is obscene.

 

Can you provide a link from a mainstream U.S news source on this?

 

Most states do provide health insurance for poor children that do not qualify for Medicaid.