Health

[jazzfish]

Between Jo Walton, The Decembrist, and my own experiences with Those Pig****ers, I have to know:

What are the actual objections to nationalised health care?

Comments

[laughin.livejournal.com]

From personal experience speaking with people from the UK:

- Waiting 6 months to see a general practioner about your thoughts of suicide only to see them and have to wait another 6 months to see a psych.
- Giving birth in a room with 6 other patients.
- Having to go to another country for surgery so you can get rid of the pain earlier.
- Not choosing your own doctor but getting stuck with whoever and if you want to change, having to wait 6 months.

It is almost like Student Health, only worse.

This is a very touchy subject with me. I have seen way too many people in pain and getting NO HELP from their "government funded" (actually taxpayer funded) health care. If it is such great health care then why do those who are rich and in the government there go to private hospitals?

I have been without insurance and pretty much am uninsurable for any reasonable rate. But I was always able to get the help I needed, sometimes based on income, without problems. And that was making "too much" for a free clinic.

[cxi162.livejournal.com]

None of that has much to do with nationalized health care. I don't really have time to go into it, but:

1) One case involved someone being annoying about not even having contact information for their insurance company. Um, yeah.
2) One has to do with patent law and medicines.
3) One has to do with narcotics, which certainly wouldn't be better under a national system! (See Lisa's comments)

I didn't read much of the large article, it seems mostly an economy rant, and I've already discuss that in other replies.

The problem today is lawsuits and patents, plain and simple. If doctors didn't get their asses sued off regularly they would have to charge such insane prices in order to pay for their malpractice insurance. If drug companies didn't have such a strangle hold on patents drugs would not be as expensive. Of course, we might not even have the drugs available it the money didn't justify the huge expense of researching, clinical trials, government approvals, etc, etc. As I said, none of this really has much to do with a national health care system.

[drucsilla.livejournal.com]

it makes the elitest party (those with) and the regular party (the rest of us) equal in healthcare and instead of priority treatment it is equal treatment and of course the lovely little prescription drugs will be strickly monitored. So those who have will be the same as those who have not.


oh yeah and Doctor Salaries will come down to a respectable pay scale.

[ndkid.livejournal.com]

Personally, my problem with Nationalized Health Care is the same as my problem with just about every nationalized organization: the government has shown that, in general, it is more inefficient at completing a task than a private organization that has to compete. As a result, for as many things as possible, I would prefer to give my money to a private organization for a service than the government. The biggest examples I can point to for this are retirement, and other New Deal initiatives.

[markush.livejournal.com]

You know what happened to me. I was without insurance, and fell into the cracks of the system. I might be out of debt sometime next decade, assuming I don't have another incident. I don't want what happened to me to happen to someone else. Saying that...

I agree that a system like England isn't going to work here. We are too large, too varied and too socially independant. The problem is that the PRIVATE insurance companies are starting to use the same structure for their programs. Your doctor isn't in our PPO system? Too bad, you'll have to find another one. Sorry, the procedure that your doctor wants to use is too expensive, use the cheaper treatment, even if it has a worse chance of you surviving.

People in the U.S. are going to foreign countries for certain procedures, simply because they are too expensive here, and their insurance plans won't pay for them. Sure, if you have the money, you can get in right away, but if you don't, too bad, so sad.

What we need is not a national health care program. What we need is a national health insurance program (or at least reform). Already, employers and employees pay for their health insurance. Moving all of this money into a national health insurance program will allow the insurance to bargain for everyone, and use the savings to provide some insurance protection for those who are unemployed or self-employed. It could also bargain with drug companies for reduced rates for prescriptions, and possibly include malpractice insurance. Medicare and medicaid services and Veteran's Benefits could also be rolled into it, providing more savings.

What I envision:
Tier 1: Emergency Health coverage. Designed for those who are not paying into the program at all. It covers emergency procedures (perhaps with other services that we want to provide to those who are without jobs, i.e. neonatal care, etc.). It's designed so that if something critical goes wrong with somebody, they won't be in debt for their lifetime. (An 80/20 split seems reasonable, but that's a detail issue.)
Tier 2: Standard coverage. The level of coverage that most companies already provide to their employers. This will also cover dependants and so forth. Whether or not the employer or employee pays for it depends on contractural issues.
Tier 3: Advanced coverage. For a higher fee, you get the type of coverage you see in the most progressive company insurance programs. Perhaps have a buy-in for employees. (The company provides standard coverage with the employee having an option for the higher level of coverage. Or if a company wants to try to attract certain outstanding employees, pay for all of it.)

There may be higher tiers, that will cover certain procedures not allowed at lower tiers (much as it is now). There will also be certain procedures (experimental or cosmetic or what-not) that would likely not be covered at all.

There are, of course, details that would need to be worked out. The oversight level will need to be pretty high, as what we have here is basically a regulated monopoly. Doctors already don't like to deal with medicare patients, so they may have issues with everyone being on what is essentially medicare. (Perhaps provide reduced malpractice insurance to those who are willing to sign up with the program?) And of course, medical insurers will fight this tooth and nail, as it basically puts them out of business. But it seems like it would be reasonable, without too many changes to our current health system as it now stands. If you can afford it, the U.S. Health system is one of the best in the world. We just need to make it so that it is, in fact, affordable.

Single-Payer, Yo

[zyxwvut.livejournal.com]

The fear is that we'd be all Communist or something.

Z

P.S.: The actual objection: the current health care establishment has a *LOT* of lobbying money...