Universal Healthcare Plan Options

I don't know enough about the plans you listed but I think I would lean towards the UK plan. I used to against the idea of national health care and having the government as a provider but running a small business has changed my mind. My company has two employees, me and my business partner. We can't afford to bring on people on a regular basis even if we have more than enough business to do so largely because of things like health care. At the same time we have individually bought our own health care plans which aren't very good and we have to compromise with a high deductable for relatively low premiums. While there will be a costs in taxes for a government run health care I think taking that burden off of small businesses will pay back in more employment, better health so less sick days, and more spending as money spent on expensive deductables and pricy care by people like me will go to other sectors of the economy.

 

Where is the no option?

 

Given the choices and your description of them, I would choose the Canada plan.

If you make medicine a source of profit, it will always operate according to the needs of shareholders and CEOs, even if it's to the detriment of people who require care. This is the situation we have now.

Allowing economic processes to dictate everything will lead to optimal economic results, but not to optimal TOTAL results as so many free-marketeers suggest - that experimental system has had 200 years and has failed in everything EXCEPT producing optimal economic results, and, even then, those results are realized by a very small percentage of the total populations that live within that system. Ethical and social concerns are not met through economic processes - in fact, capitalism has been detrimental to the pursuit of ideal social and ethical outcomes, precisely the opposite result of what the system intially promised and what its most fervent supporters still insist is true - after 200 years of history proving them wrong.

With that being said, it's obvious the Canadian system (though far, FAR more responsible than the American system) is not ideal - we're Americans, we've seen the mistakes other countries have made, we already have an extensive infrastructure in place - we can IMPROVE upon earlier models of healthcare.

 

you make a valid argument but you cant totally eliminate the economic aspect of medicine which is one of the reasons medicine is able to attract the brightest minds out there.

ideally, doctors shouldnt be chasing the dollar bill. but reality is, the brightest minds go where the biggest payday is.

you wouldnt want billy bob to perform a bypass on you no matter how good his intentions are if he doesnt make the cut.

 

Ugh, Massachusetts plan if I had to pick one.

 

If we changed to the Canadian system, which country would function for us as the US currently functions for Canada (foot the bill for all the medical R&D, provide access to specialists in a reasonable time frame, basically everything beyond routine doctor visits)?

EDIT: Sorry about the double post, meant to tack this on to the last one.

 

According to a good friend of mine, who's been moving back and forth between Massachusetts and Texas the last few years, the Massachusetts Plan works very well. Texas, needless to say, has no plan and one of the highest %'s of uninsured, of all ages, in the country. I would be least interested in the British Plan. Canada, according to one of my best friends that has lived in British Columbia for about 30 years, is being misrepresented here. In his province of BC, he's had supplemental insurance through a private firm for a very long time, unless I've misunderstood him. He's had high praise for the Canadian system of health care.



Impeach Boosh.

 

can someone explain the healthcare crisis to me please?

I insure myself for less that 100 dollars a month through a major insurance company, and I could have gone cheaper. Thats like 2 days pay for a mcdonalds hamburger flipper.

Why don't people just insure themselves?

Maybe people that have serious problems have higher rates? I would support a cap on the rates for those people, but currently it seems to me that health care coverage is affordable for the average american.

 

To actually outlaw private practices is a gross and vile intrusion on freedom.

We might as well start outlawing all private industries which are "necessary" - such as food, housing, transportation. I suppose we would have to outlaw all private industries associated with the medical field too. btw- Cuba is not a pretty place. That best, most motivated people there do not become doctors. They go into the service industries such as taxicab drivers. And no - a scripted Michael Moore scenario doesn't prove anything. Floridians to not flock to Cuba for the health care. sorry for tangent.

 

I disagree. In my experience the most brilliant people are compelled to do what they love regardless of the reward/cost. The people who are most obsessed with wealth will pursue wealth- and may or may not make better doctors than the "brightest minds" out there.

You lost me. Socialized medicine will allow Billy Bob to do bypasses?

 

Thx - that clears things up. The idea of the moose mounties cuffing up doctors for making unregulated house calls is kind of far-fetched.

 

if universal health care is implemented, i think you still have to allow private companies to sell supplemental insurance.

ive lived and worked in korea for about 2.5 years when i graduated from college. they have universal health care. i though it was great. the only down side was that the number of students enrolling in medicine was in decline over there. also, those who graduated from med school were all trying to go into dematology or plastic surgery. both of which is not covered by the national health care insurance.

if you think about it, doctors study 4 yrs undergrad, 4 yrs med school, and another 2-8 yrs intern/residency/fellowship. thats 10-16 years of busting your butt studying. after all that work and around $200,000+ of debt, would you want to make the same amount of money as a guy who went to college for 4 yrs and got a job at a company...

i think universal health care is a good idea and would benefit america as a country. but you have to implement it in a way so that you dont turn away future doctors and private companies have incentive to keep innovating. yet the public has access to affordable care and preventative care. also, the tax payer shouldnt be held to pay for care for an individual who has ignored warnings from doctors and has allowed his/her own health to deteriorate.

 

I think there is no black and white here. The brightest minds are attracted to to what they "love" yes. But there is a huge financial incentive too. If the US passed a law to limit doctor's salaries to 50dollars/ hour AND to outlaw any side-cash they might make on their own, how many doctors do you think would complain? My guess is just about all of them. How many would quit or go on strike? Would the government then be forced to point guns at these doctors to "guarantee" to right to health care?

The sheer investment in cost/time/stress to become a doctor is quite staggering. Many of these people, while not motivated by pure $$, would not pursue medicine if there were not some sort of payoff at the end.

 

i can agree with this for a very very very small handful of individuals. but you'll need more than a handful of doctors to care for all the citizens in this country.

what i meant was quality of care would definately suffer. and for something critical like a bypass, you would want the best person for the job.

 

Anyone have "good" stats on how many of the uninsured choose to be uninsured?

Case in point: my sister-in-law likes to complain about how my father's small company does not buy medical insurance for spouses. My brother (who works for my father) makes a decent 100k a year and could easily afford to purchase health care for his wife (my sister-in-law). In fact, my father gave him a raise to do just that.

Did they get her private health insurance? No. But they do have the newest cellphones, an SUV, highspeed internet, and high definition digital cable. And they did rack up 50K+ in HELOC debts for their vacations.

Does she "deserve" subsidized health care? no way.

But I am getting personal here. Sorry bored at work on friday afternoon.

 

The friend I mentioned above who's lived in both Massachusetts and Texas the last few years? He moved to Austin a few months ago and attempted to get health insurance (he's self-employed and makes damn good money). He has a few health issues, but all are taken care of by medication, with no long term health problems likely to occur because of that. My friend was astonished to discover that getting health insurance was damned near impossible. The state of Texas supposedly has a "plan" to get insurance coverage to those who'll pay for it and have a hard time getting coverage, like my friend's situation. The cost per month of the "level" the state said they would give him? $2400 bucks a month. This is through private health insurance that has a "deal" with the state to provide coverage. He makes damn good money, like I said, but that was beyond the pale. In short, the price "insured" that anyone put at that level, due to "health issues," would be denied coverage, but the state could claim they offered coverage to anyone.

Chew on that a bit.

The state plan he had in Boston had co-pays affordable to any working class person, much less someone making his income, and you could see a doctor whenever you wanted, with the choice of doctor up to you.



Impeach Boosh.

 

What kind of coverage do you get?? 100 bucks a month?

 

Seems pretty standard through aetna.

35$ doctor visits
25$ name brand prescriptions

2500 deductable