Consensus emerging on universal healthcare - but single payer is off the table

[one...two...tree 2,762]

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm

The other nations like Canada tend to have NHS which is different to the UHC (UHS). NHS means the government runs and owns the majority of the hospitals etc. That is simply no longer an option in the US. It would cost trillions to buy that stuff.

I don't know anybody who is advocating a nationally run health care system (where the doctors are government employees, gov't owned hospitals), regardless of whatever label you want to throw on it. A single payer system - like Medicare and Medicaid is what I'm talking about.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[HAL 9000 96]

Anyone who thinks UHC will cost less is on crack. NHS is simply not an option for the US as it would require a complete overhaul of the medical system. Probably costs trillions to setup. UHC is the only option and will come at a cost. IE Increased taxes for individual taxpayers. What Fancy Pants fails to realize is that in countries like Aus we the taxpayer foot the bill by paying up to 3% in extra an Medicare levy on income taxes.

And yet Australians are somehow doing worse than Americans?

I do agree with you though- a complete overhaul of the cost to provider structure has to be done- likely at a price tag far less than the trillions you assume it to cost. Furthermore, the initial costs tend to be diluted out over time as less future (and significantly greater than the initial investments) expenditure is needed to tweak the system if we base healthcare as a reactive pay-as-you-go arrangement.

The question is does the W.H.O. quality of health care list actually equate to quality of life. No.

Anyone who thinks UHC will be a walk in the park and be cheaper is delusional. You guys have some of the best doctors in the world. These doctors would have to take a dramatic pay cut for NHS to work. NHS is simply not an option in America without changing the entire country. From the system of government to the way tax is collected. UHC with reasonable regulation is the only viable solution for the US. Consequently tax payers will still need to pay a separate UHC tax levy to cover this. There is no other way.

A pay cut is only dramatic if all other costs remain static. Which, of course- they won't. So out the window with an unrealistic view and in comes the dynamic view of how doctors, still earning a very good income, could practice medicine and ironically not owe more than half of their salary to insurance companies and debtors.

As for separate, and greater taxes... I gently disagree. Again, we're talking replacement costs- not cumulative effects from charging more on top of what is there. You said it yourself- its about restructuring the right way.

private health insurance is a benefit at almost every company I worked for in the UK - at my last job there the premium was paid by my employer.

Excellent point. So perhaps extras (supplementals) can be part of benefit packages.

[Heracles 417]

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm

The other nations like Canada tend to have NHS which is different to the UHC (UHS). NHS means the government runs and owns the majority of the hospitals etc. That is simply no longer an option in the US. It would cost trillions to buy that stuff.

I don't know anybody who is advocating a nationally run health care system (where the doctors are government employees, gov't owned hospitals), regardless of whatever label you want to throw on it. A single payer system - like Medicare and Medicaid is what I'm talking about.

411: The country's you listed above tend to have a NHS.

[rocks 494]

411: The country's you listed above tend to have a NHS.

do you know which ones do and which don't?

[Heracles 417]

A pay cut is only dramatic if all other costs remain static. Which, of course- they won't. So out the window with an unrealistic view and in comes the dynamic view of how doctors, still earning a very good income, could practice medicine and ironically not owe more than half of their salary to insurance companies and debtors.

As for separate, and greater taxes... I gently disagree. Again, we're talking replacement costs- not cumulative effects from charging more on top of what is there. You said it yourself- its about restructuring the right way.

I lived under a NHS so I think I know how the systems works. NHS is simply not workable or feasible in the United States. You guys are not a federalist country. Whereas most of the countries listed earlier have a federal oriented government. You cannot pull a Michael Moore and pick and choose aspects of other countries while ignoring the overall picture (system). A NHS is only feasible under a federalist government. Like Canada, Australia, the UK, France etc.

You are also talking out of your buttocks because one of my good friends works in an ER in a major Australian hospital an basically earns $41K and works 55+ hours a week. I have also been to a number of hospitals in other countries using a NHS and have to say they rank poorly when compared to the Hospitals I have visited in the United States.

[rocks 494]

I lived under a NHS so I think I know how the systems works.

"think" being the operative word. perhaps if you did more of that, listened and threw around less insults that violate the tos you might learn something.

[doodlebugg 10]

I wonder what the difference in malpractice insurance would be with a universal health system. That alone has driven a large population of doctors to join the organization that I work for.

Also how would it work with all of the teaching hospitals?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wonder what the difference in malpractice insurance would be with a universal health system. That alone has driven a large population of doctors to join the organization that I work for.

Also how would it work with all of the teaching hospitals?

My feeling is that the insurance system essentially fuels medical litigation. When you have insurance agents looking to deny coverage wherever they can - for frivolous reasons, you can't be too surprised when the "me first" attitude manifests itself in frivolous law suits.

[HAL 9000 96]

<br />

A pay cut is only dramatic if all other costs remain static. Which, of course- they won't. So out the window with an unrealistic view and in comes the dynamic view of how doctors, still earning a very good income, could practice medicine and ironically not owe more than half of their salary to insurance companies and debtors.<br /><br />As for separate, and greater taxes... I gently disagree. Again, we're talking replacement costs- not cumulative effects from charging more on top of what is there. You said it yourself- its about restructuring the right way.

<br /><br />I lived under a NHS so I think I know how the systems works. NHS is simply not workable or feasible in the United States. You guys are not a federalist country. Whereas most of the countries listed earlier have a federal oriented government. You cannot pull a Michael Moore and pick and choose aspects of other countries while ignoring the overall picture (system). A NHS is only feasible under a federalist government. Like Canada, Australia, the UK, France etc.<br /><br />You are also talking out of your buttocks because one of my good friends works in an ER in a major Australian hospital an basically earns $41K and works 55+ hours a week. I have also been to a number of hospitals in other countries using a NHS and have to say they rank poorly when compared to the Hospitals I have visited in the United States.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Yeah Bill... making overstated assumptions is indeed your forte so lets leave it at that. But since you want to get into personal conjecture-

I also happen to have very good friends that are healthcare providers in places where national health care exists- Spain, UK to name two. And you even put it in numbers: 55+ hours a week. And I personally work with an Irish and work next door to a French MDs that are here on Fellowships.

ER MDs work typically work those hours overseas. And many tend to work more here in the USA. Specially if they are in Residencies. I should know since my sister and my brother in law are MDs. During their residencies salaries ranged from the low $40s to the high $50s. With loan repayment and additional hour work requirements to help pay for hospital coverage of malpractice insurance- which is incidentally not something that is much of a problem for your good friend in that Australian hospital is it?

[britty 1]

There is no god given right to healthcare.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What does God have to do with it?

God doesn't run the economy or the government

[HAL 9000 96]

<br />There is no god given right to healthcare.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Apparently true. Nor is there a God-given right to compassion and modern thinking.

[britty 1]

ok, there is no right to healthcare

Nothing to do with compassion or modern thinking. It is a simple and true observation.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Presumably there's no right to life either.

Nothing to do with compassion or modern thinking. It is a simple and true observation.

What did you observe to reach that conclusion?

Its not about fact - its about ideology.

Edited December 3, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[britty 1]

Presumably there's no right to life either.

If you mean if someone is sick and medicine or surgery would ensure they wouldn't die, then still no, there is no given right to healthcare.

Nothing to do with compassion or modern thinking. It is a simple and true observation.

What did you observe to reach that conclusion?

Its not about fact - its about ideology.

I don't like to see people ill or suffering any more than the next person, but can you provide the evidence where there is in fact a right to healthcare ?