It depends on the system, and there was some discussion upthread. But the point is, that is not necessarily the case. Under a single-payer system such as the one proposed in California on the state level, doctors, hospitals, medical facilities, etc. remain private. Health care would be privately run and publicly financed. The government manages only finances, not operations.
To be honest, I don’t really know. Effective means different things to those on different sides of the aisle.
To me, its probably more economical than anything. Morality doesn’t factor in to it much.
Except is isn’t a tax.
If you want to debate PPACA, there are a million threads for that. This one is about socialized medicine.
That is correct. After years and years of this being debated, how can people not understand the most basic concepts?
10-4
Then all you need to do is show that it is a necessary evil.
It’s not necessary or evil. It’s helpful and good, or at least morally neutral.
The VA health system is an example, in the US, of a government run healthcare system. It is also regarded as a model of efficient and effective health care delivery.
The idea that something provided by the government will necessarily be substandard doesn’t hold up to the most meager scrutiny.
The left wing assertion that any dissent from a government run utopia makes your assertion a big right wing heaping pile of bullshit … is a big heaping pile of bullshit.
The OP simply asked what our stance was on the subject and why. Everyone is a summation of their personal experiences - yours were a bit different from others.
Perhaps you could demonstrate them with a little less agenda and a narrower brush.
Well, except where arguments are based on empirical measures. Those are something other than a summation of personal experience, and they go directly to answering the OPs question. They’ve also been largely handwaved away in this thread.
Effective to me means
-best standard of care to the largest number of people for the minimum cost per head and minimal cost at point of delivery.
Those are all attainable figures, they exist already. You may think some of those border on moral or ideological issues but I’d be interested to know why. On purely economical grounds though the case has already been made. We can simply consider cost per head as we already have good data on that and it is blind to morality or ideology.
UHC is cheaper per person. A simple fact. Cheaper in all the places where it is implemented, even in places with higher costs of living than the USA.
But you can’t give a answer to what effectiveness means to you, then that is where the discussion breaks down.
When people have access to affordable health care, they can afford to save for retirement, buy houses, put their kids through college. Without it, tons of those families will fall into the expensive social safety net. For generations.
But all things being equal, when healthcare goes from being comparatively expensive to affordable, someone else is paying the difference right?
And if you achieve affordability by lowering the costs of healthcare itself then you are either employing less people or lowering their wages … thus denying them the luxuries you mention.
So you are suggesting that it is best to do everything in the most wasteful, inefficient way possible are you? Or does this only apply to healthcare? :rolleyes:
By spreading the cost out to a vast sample size.
So keeping people employed within a pointless, vast, subsidised bureaucracy is better than reform. Reminds me of something but I can’t put my finger on it. Soc- Socia- Socialis- Someone help me out here.
Instead of people, who can afford it, paying hefty premiums, and, poorer people, not having coverage, everyone will pay the same, lowest available cost, (as part of a very large group), and everyone will be covered. It’s almost simplistic.
All that happens is you take profit out of the system, in the case of the US healthcare system you take a license to print your own money out of the system.
The flip side of that is a reduction in the amount you pay each month in insurance and a reduction in out of pocket expenses such as co-pays or excesses. So for the man in the street it actually frees up money and allows them to plan and save for luxuries and not have to keep money aside for medical emergencies. If I have $500 in my pocket and a fractured wrist and a knackered telly, under UHC I can fix both.
As for lowered wages generally? perhaps, but it may also mean that it is cheaper and easier for employers to employ.
Lowered wages in healthcare specifically? perhaps but see my previous two points.
Perhaps less jobs overall for those in healthcare? feel free to make that argument but be aware that the USA has less doctors, nurses and midwives per 10,000 people than many countries with UHC. That makes sense, you have millions of people in the USA with unmet needs so why would an expansion of coverage mean a requirement for less jobs?
Less money into the pockets of the Healthcare insurance companies? Ah well, here I can’t help you. That will indeed happen. They will have do adapt or die, just as did spats manufacturers and buggy-whip makers. But at least they won’t have to worry about healthcare costs while they search for a new job.
;
LOL.
So, please tell me: Why is the US such a special snowflake that systems which work in most of the developed and civilized world can’t be compared to systems in the US?