Mississippi and my own Arkansas being 50th and 49th in everything poor, might find it difficult to fund.
Now be fair! Denmark=6m, UK=60m. Only one of those is two Californias!
Exactly. Part of the whole point of a national system ( for health care or anything else, really ) is spreading the costs among people and locations of varying income levels.
Honestly, Sam, I think a godawful large number would.
Get me, I agree with Anomalous Reading that some form of NHS is coming for the United States. I challenge most anyone on this board to watch politics and Congress more closely than I do. The signs are there right now in the fact that the Democratic AND Republican Presidential candidates are positing some form or other of ‘health care reform’ is a sign that they know just as I do that the winds of change are blowing on this issue. The American electorate wants lower, universal health care and they’ll cheerfully vote for those who promise to do something about it. And each election cycle that goes by without will increase the electorates irritability on the subject.
This is coming. No amount of pissing and moaning is going to prevent it. The best you can hope for is to provide some guidance at the polls. Maybe it’ll be a Canadian system. Maybe it’ll be some form of ‘buy basic insurance and the NHS will pick up catastrophic and end-of-life’ sort of thing. Who knows?
But it’s coming.
Probably the Americans who have NO access to health care at all and have to continue to limp around forever untreated unless they’re willing to leave their family homeless in order to have a spiffy artificial knee. Yes, as one of those Americans I think I’d be perfectly happy to wait a while for treatment if it meant that I was going to actually GET treatment at some time. Also, as one of those Americans I’d be perfectly okay with all the spoiled, entitled “I have great health care so screw the rest of you” types having to wait as well. Fair’s fair, but what we have now is in NO WAY fair.
Fire all those highly paid dicks whose job it is to figure out how not to pay for an insured person’s bills and I’m sure that would shake loose some money to pay for treatment for a whole bunch of other people.
As one of the guys with health care, I must agree. I have neat stuff available quickly because others aren’t in line.
Ignorance fought. Thank you. Appreciate the post.
As far as I know, there are certain equalization payments that occur, so (for example), Prince Edward Island (population 139,000) can offer the same services as Ontario (population 12.8 million). Exactly how these transfer payments work, I don’t know, but there is definitely some redistribution of funds that occurs. I would imagine that in an American plan, some sort of similar system would ensure that Mississippi and Arkansas weren’t left without the ability to afford it.
Your’re going to have to explain your answer a bit more because there is no way UK health care is in line with insured health care in the US.
I can give an example of the difference. I had kidney stones, which involved a trip to the emergency room. In less than 2 hrs I had X-rays, an MRI, and was seen by multiple doctors. After 2 weeks of multiple doctor visits to change pain medication I had the stones removed. They were removed 2 hrs after discussing it with a kidney doctor. Done.
After watching a program on world heath care I definitely do not want to end up in a health-rationing program that is prevalent in a number of countries. What appears to work is a combination of collective bargaining, competition and individual health insurance policies. We are already seeing the benefits of market forces in the US with companies such as Wal Mart (retail) and Krogers (grocery). Both companies offer a wide range of generic drugs for $4. This is **cheaper ** than my insurance company’s option of a 3 month supply through the mail. To the extent this can be done without government intervention the better.
Countries such as the UK are re-introducing competition between medical facilities. This has helped reduce the waiting period that has plagued the UK. I’ll admit it was a little surreal watching politicians get excited about waiting periods I would think intolerable. Hopefully the trend continues and the success can be monitored.
Japan appeared to have a well-structured insurance program but I would like to see a timeline (with trends) regarding government pricing strategy. The example given in the program was a 6-inch cut requiring stitches. The cost was $5. I don’t see how a doctor could give this service and survive financially. Even the doctor questioned agreed the rates were low. I don’t want doctor’s priced out of existence. There would have to be a change in the cost of a medical degree and the operating costs of medical care. Certainly liability issues can be addressed. My state has addressed tort reform in regard to medical malpractice but a national referendum would be helpful.
To avoid a tax-based health care system I think the following would need to happen:
1: Collective bargaining for drug costs.
2: A formulary for deciding on drug patent extensions based on development costs.
3: Insurance policies that cannot be withheld based on pre-conditions. That doesn’t mean prices cannot be linked to risk.
4: Competition in all aspects of health care.
5: Tort reform.
6: Government sponsor of training costs in the form of grants.
7: Government sponsor of equipment in the form of X-prizes.
8: Medicaid continues (not sure of Medicare but it would probably turn into Medicaid at some point).
9: Mandated insurance for everyone. I want people to pay for their own policies as a frontline method of controlling costs. When people balk at expensive MRI’s then the market will respond with cheaper equipment. I would be in favor of some assistance on a graduated scale but it should be limited to need and not life style augmentation.
Comparing Canada with the UK, I’d take the lesson that single-payer health insurance works better than making all the doctors government employees.
Ya’ll aren’t from around here, are you? 
Well, I don’t know if you fell on hard times or just never planned financially for your family but you will be paying for that “spiffy new knee” in the form of taxes. There will be no free lunch for you and if it is a government subsidy screw-up like social security then your children will pay for it.
Well, sure. And be able to work and pay taxes since he got a new knee instead of being a handicapped burden on society.
Except that Social Security is only a screw up in the minds of the Right, which would prefer to let the old starve. And having the government pay for it costs less, ultimately.
And unless you are ridiculously wealthy, it doesn’t matter how much you plan; a health crisis can send easily send you into bankruptcy.
You don’t need a knee to earn a living. If health care gets rationed then there is nothing stopping the government from denying treatment. I don’t want to get hosed because people buy into “free healthcare” when it’s anything but free.
I think it would be clear I’m advocating some form of cooperative policy that makes it possible to pay for insurance. Currently it’s not easy to buy a policy as an individual and this needs to change. Dumping it in someone else’s hands (the government) in the form of a tax-funded entitlement is nothing but social security on steroids.
Your debate is that social security is not screwed up?
Behold the warmth and compassion of the Right.
And of course, getting hosed by a profit motivated company that would prefer you die because it’s cheaper is far superior. :rolleyes:
Notice many people on Social Security starving, or eating dog food or garbage or grass & bark like in the “good old days” ?
Uh no, that’s just not true. I’m not even remotely wealthy and my insurance is better in every respect than someone in the UK.
If you bothered to actual read what I said it involved GOVERNMENT rationing which is what is happening in many countries.
I’m not getting hosed. People in the UK waiting to see a specialist are getting hosed. Note this is a reference to rationing DIAGNOSIS, not treatment.
I have no idea what point you’re trying to make. Do I notice people complaining about social security. Yes. Is it in danger of collapsing. Yes.
Don’t let the drug companies or any government body have anything to do with the approval of what drugs are covered by the scheme.
We have an independent board whose job it is to decide whether new drugs are to be subsidised by the scheme or not in a cost/benefit analysis. It means that our drug costs are about the lowest in the developed world. We also have a scheme where a pharmacist must tell you, if you ask, whether there is a generic cheaper alternative to any medicine you are prescribed.