How does a government takeover make the system work cheaper? Everything they have taken over is on the verge of becoming bankrupt.
I used to be very against the idea of the government single payer system but my experience as a small business owner and also experiencing health care in another country has changed my mind. As an employer we can't hire people on anything more than a short term contract basis partly because the cost of health insurance. I am paying my own health insurance and even then I have to be careful how much I use it due to high deductable and co-pay. Luckily I am very healthy. I've had treatment including a surgery done in Singapore and it was as good as anything here in the US but what was even better was the amount of preventive care provided there compared to here were our system is geared towards providing care in primarily extreme situations. I understand there are all sorts of problems with a government system and costs but to me that seems like a much better system especially for small business than what we have now.
That's not really a very deep or compelling argument. The government's own health care program (Medicare) has administrative costs that are a far smaller % of total outlays than private health insurers do. Yes it has funding issues but that's really a separate argument. Anyway, the example of dozens of industrialized nations with much cheaper (and by many measures, better) health care stands as a glaring counterpoint to your example. I heard a story on the radio this AM that covered this very point, premiums and deductibles for smaller businesses in particular keep going up and up to the point where they eventually have to just layoff workers or only hire on contract.
Insurance works on the fact that healthy people supplement the costs of sick people. Saving lives hurts the insurance companies bottom line. Therefore a for profit company can not be asked to try to save lives and make more money because those goal oppose each other. Every other 1st world country has universal healthcare. The US has a worse life expectency and quality of life then most of the countries. Based on all that data how can you say what we are doing now works.
The other result of universal healthcare that doesn't get talked about enough is the employment flexibility it will provide. Right now people stay in crappy jobs they hate, rather than take a risk on starting their own business or switching careers, because they can't afford to lose their health insurance. If this were clearly explained, I think that people who live in rural areas would find this aspect of universal health care hugely appealing, because they wouldn't be forced to leave their communities to find work that includes a decent health plan.
For the medicare example it is a disaster. You also have inadequate healthcare. MediGap ring a bell? Also the prescription drug program is going to cost us much more. You will either have to lower quality, raise the total % spent for GDP or both to cover everyone int he USA.
doesn't this make the argument that a government system would cost us a higher % of our GDP than our current system? It sure seems that way to me.
Why is it a disaster - You said the government couldn't spend less money. In fact they manage to spend far less than private insurers do on administrative costs, which make up a huge portion of your health care dollar. Again, I point you to the exxamples of other countries which manage to do the same, while achieveing the exact opposite effect. You are just making random assertions with no basic. You're just making bald assertions and there's a mountain of evidence against you - and you're not addressing the deteriorating state of our current system. Do you actually have a solution or are you just trying to be contrarian/obnoxious?
Anything the gov't manages is going to be.....less efficient, more costly, and a general cluster****. It's just the nature of the beast.
Yes if we just repeat a bunch of platitudes and slogans again and again it saves us from having to be cognizant of reality, which is that empirical evidence shows that you are wrong.
Having more people makes it so more healthy people are paying into the system and less are drawing out. We have the highest healthcare costs in the world yet we have millions who aren't covered. and a worse quality of life. How is private insurance good? I have been paying for it for 3 years and haven't used it once. The insurance company has pocketed 15k from me.
Seriously, I've probably indirectly paid over $50-100,000 in premiums for the last 9 years (when I took a sabbatical from my job they were jacking me for about 600$ a month, so I assume that's what they were paying) I've maybe visited the doctor less than 10 times, and have had zero expensive procedures, surgeries or tests. I'd like to see how my costs could get any higher and my returns lower?
I think the problem with this particular issue is that the solution isn't a clear black and white solution. There are pros and cons to both systems. In countries with ceilings on costs and profit, companies don't spend nearly as much on medical research. Drug companies in the US make the majority of drug developments in the world because they are profit driven. In countries with Universal Health care, yes, often its easy and cheap to go to the Doctor for a cold, but it is also often hard to get quality care for specialized medicine due to red tape and long waits. I'm not totally sure of this, but I've heard the amazing Canadian health care system, or all of its pluses, still has people coming into America for cancer treatments and such, because the care is better, and they don't have to wait. In the US, we often pay too much to ofset costs of non-payers and development. We have a large portion uninsured. All I'm saying: I'm not sure the system we have right now is the best system, but I'm also not sure a government run Universal System is the best either. Maybe a combo, maybe we let the government FUND healthcare, but not manage it. Health care vouchers or insurance, but I'd be wary of letting the US government MANAGE health care either. There has to be a solution, and the solution may just be the LEAST undesirable solution, and perhaps an amalgamation of different ideas as well. The bottom line is: we still have to have an environment that promotes the best and brightest going into medicine, companies fronting hundreds of millions if not billions to develop new medicine, procedures, and equipment, and cutting edge technology while being able to maintain the ability for the average American to afford good care.
This sounds like john mccain's plan and would essentially act as a transfer payment from the government to private insurers, and does nothing about the underlying cost inefficiencies. Anyway, who do you want managing your health care? The government, or somebody intent on boosting UnitedHealth Group's earnings per share? Guess who manages it now....
I'm not sure that I want private insurers getting the money either. How about a voucher or private medical account that is government funded that you could pay directly to the Doctor or hospital based on your needs? Any money you don't spend you can roll over and use later. If you need more than that amount you could apply for further assistance or then have some sort of supplement. Cut out the middle man entirely maybe? Make the govermnent provide the funding and insurance to a point or based on need. People could still purchase private insurance if they wanted or needed, etc. I don't have all the answers to a more complex problem than most people make it out to be. I DO think there is something better than the current system, and I also think there is a better system than a totally government managed health care system as well.
That would require finding some way to eliminate the insurers - I'm not sure how you would do it other than to just outlaw them, and I don't know if vouchers would probably end up being enough. But assuming you can do that, I mean what if you are in perfect health but are stuck with mega-obscure form of brain cancer? Then your $10,000 voucher is useless - I think some form of insurance is probably a necessity (with the healthy subsidizing the sick), and the private form has failed in all its aspects here.
Our health care system works very well for the wealthy, who can easily afford what is some of the best care in the world, and the very poor that get free healthcare through the government. The system screws families that are in between getting free health care, but can't really afford it. I don't know if there is a way to completely fix the system. It is over $700/month to add my wife and son to my insurance policy at work. The worst part about it is that it is the same rate regardless of how many children I have. And why does my health cost the same amount as the morbidly obese people at my work. Regardless of what we do, there are holes in every system. BTW, don't trust life expectancy/infant mortality rates. Most countries around the world do not offer honest/accurate numbers.
