Adaher thinks the US should adopt the French model of UHC. What country’s system do you think the US should copy?
The German/Swiss/French plans all seem rather similar - a mix of mandatory coverage with a public/private mix. Not unlike what the ACA would provide if Medicare (or some other public option) were available in the exchanges. I could support any of those models over what we currently have.
I’m also somewhat fond of the Swedish system, which has lower costs but a bit more government control.
It’s rather hard to suss out how much of the cost savings are due to the systems vs. specific demographic factors.
Are we talking about adopting one by magic fiat, or realistically? If the former then I’d go with Canada as a good model. They seem pretty happy with their care and it seems to be working out pretty well for them, by and large.
Actually, I support the Swiss. I just acknowledged that according to many international measurements, the French system is the best.
I think the basic idea of the ACA is sound policy, I just don’t like a lot of the specifics. But I think that reform of Obamacare is a fine idea if they can’t repeal it and start over.
So states would be primarily responsible for funding care?
Does having it be administered by the provincial government cause any problems?
Confused about the nature of this discussion. Why call out adaher here? Is he, specifically, relevant to the discussion you wish to have, or are we just going to pick our favorite health care system and that’s that?
The only thing I don’t like about Sweden’s system is that it is funded by tax and a small charge by the person using it. I prefer the NHS-style “you just walk in” rather than having to pay 30 USD (with a cap of a hundred or so dollars a year).
But then it’d really just be like the UK’s system. So I guess I prefer the UK’s. Maybe I prefer the more centralized large GP surgeries that the smaller ones that you can still see in the UK.
The French system has some historical quirks, like agricultural and some other workers being covered by a separate fund. Otherwise it’s pretty good. I’m partial to the UK NHS, though; I grew up in it, and both parents worked in it for 20+ years, so I know it pretty well.
Co-pays prevent overtaxing of the system though.
Well, I’d suggest the possibility of letting neighboring and/or economically similar states pool their resources for common coverage, so you end up with a map like the one for Federal Circuit Courts - ten or a dozen systems nationwide instead of fifty.
Yes, though as Bryan Ekers pointed out several could pool their resources. Personally, I’m more in favor of this model, if we have to have this sort of system, than many of the European models. Besides, it’s working for Canada, and of all the countries in the world they are probably the closest to us in spirit (sorry, no offense intended towards any Canadian 'dopers…like you, Bryan :)).
[QUOTE=fumster]
Does having it be administered by the provincial government cause any problems?
[/QUOTE]
Change ‘provincial government’ to ‘state government’ and I don’t have a real issue…at least at the big picture level. I’m certain that there are all sorts of little devils in the details, but if we are going to emulate any country wrt health care I’d pick Canada, which is what was asked in the OP.
The Canadian system is not without its problems, of course. I’m curious how Vermont’s efforts toward single-payer will work out, and if it can be a model for the rest of the states.
I’m Canadian, and I believe France’s system is better.
I’m not dissatisfied with our system but I think you could do better.
Singing out for the Australian system.
Culturally, economically, and in many ways geographically, Australia is a pretty close cousin to the U.S. If there is an “American Exceptionalism,” it’s closely mirrored by “Australian Exceptionalism.” Something that works for them – and their health care program works right fine – has a very good chance of working for the U.S.
Well, at least we really wouldn’t have to change the name:
“In Australia the current system, known as Medicare, was instituted in 1984.”
From what I know about Australian immigration policy, they have some unique ideas about maintaining their exceptionalism. Although I have no idea what effects immigration has on a health care system.
Well, see? Another way they and we are kinda similar!
(And, of course, everything depends on the details. You could simply exclude from immigration anyone who wasn’t wealthy…)
Does it? Or do people just pay it as it is just what they are used to?
The reason I prefer the UK way is that I grew up with it. Getting your credit card out when visiting a doctor feels weird to me.
I’m happy with the Spanish system, I just wish they had never transferred SS competencies from the central government to regional ones or that it had been done better, without letting each regional government come up with different forms and procedures and with mutually-incompatible computer formats. Oh, and damnit Madriz: if you’re going to transfer management of something to someone, move the corresponding budget out of the “Daddeeee mo’ money!” financing model.
Kthxbye,
Someone whose region is not in the Daddeeee mo’ money model.