Well, I think your characterization was misleading. I never said that ther was a call for abandonment of the universal health care principle in Hawaii, Canada, England, or Sitzerland. I only said that the economic realities were forcing them in that direction.
And I notice that you failed to mention the other cuse of rising health care costs mentioned in that article. Increasing numbers of patients.
Something about my attitude has put people off from an objective look at this issue. Let me try and summarize a few points and then I’ll back off for a while.
I am not advocating that the government should not be involved in providing health care. I think we have a pretty good system of regulation, oversight and licensing. Certainly this system could use some changes. But I think it works pretty well for those things.
I do not think that anyone has a right to medical treatment. It is a service like any other. I don’t have a right to medical service any more than I have a right to force a particular doctor to service me.
At the same time, however, I believe that there are definitive advantages for everyone to providing some level of medical care to everyone in our society. Not because I fear being poor some day, but because of the disease prevention arguments made earlier. In addition, I believe that we can devise a system of care for the indigent and working poor which would not be a hardship on the rest of us.
However, let me be clear on this if it is not already obvious, Socialized medicine is not it. I think that some combination of tax and regulation reform combined with MSAs and a reform of the free clinics and medicaid system could provide adequate medical treatment for most Americans.
The health care industry in America is a very complicated beast. Made more so by the complicated nature of our society. simple comparisons of expenditures as a percentage of GDP are not sufficient to compare the costs of our system with other countires. Life expectancy and infant mortality are woefully inadequate for measuring the efficacy of our system relative to others.
None were rhetorical.
I know that I already pay for it, with those ridiculous prices I was quoting. I was rather hoping that costs were being controlled a little better under a universal system. Frankly, so many Americans are sue-happy, and I could see large costs to any system just through “malpractice” issues here. That makes me wonder if the US can ever put together a health care scheme that can be even moderately cost effective–and I’m definitely including what we’ve got now.
Julie
Oh, I see jsgoddess. Okay. Here’s some information you might find interesting. Or not:
Lies, damn lies and statistics - make of it what you will
"The World Health Organization has carried out the first ever analysis of the world’s health systems. Using five performance indicators to measure health systems in 191 member states, it finds that France provides the best overall health care followed among major countries by Italy, Spain, Oman, Austria and Japan.
The findings are published today, 21 June, in The World Health Report 2000 – Health systems: Improving performance.
**The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. ** The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on health services, ranks 18th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy."
I realize those statistics are out there. My point is that the US is a very litigious society. Malpractice insurance is one of the driving factors behind health costs. If that doesn’t change with universal coverage, the costs would continue to skyrocket.
Julie
As I understand it, as a general proposition what’s driving costs is the profit motive. For example, I read a Canadian doctor on here some while ago explaining how that might work;
A patient comes in and his treatment might involve a range of things but including two e-rays. Now, in the US, that might well mean him having 6 x-rays because each and every x-ray carries a profit. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to extrapolate that ethic throughout the guys treatment to understand why bills can be so high.
Then you have the senior managers and CEO’s on profit-sharing schemes, etc and shareholders to consider . . .
I‘m sure litigation awards are a contributing factor, but more of a headline distraction from what’s really goes on. IMHO.
Sory, that barely made sense. I was distracted!
The reason why I don’t trust your points: I had this conversation before 10 years ago, then just like today, predictions of an inmminent change of direction, towards abandoning universal healthcare in other developed nations was predicted. It sounded iffy then, it sounds silly today. All your cites do make me realize that it is also silly to assume waste and abuse are not being confronted in a government setting. They do have a press that puts their feet to the coals and people do demand better. In our system, people demand better but from the current administration, we can expect only a band-aid.
After reading your complaints about my cites, and reading yours, I still see that still there is no movement afoot to displace national health care, only to make changes on the rate of payment and do some reduction to access or to change the way lists are made, if you have not noticed: this is an acknowledgment that people indeed have no right to a doctor every time they choose, so there is room to maneuver in those systems.
The reason why national health care should be considered is that the current care in the US is affecting now the bottom line of business, and not only the health of the people is affected, but also their economical well-being.
And much more than 40 million people remain uninsured in the US 10 years after that previous conversation.