Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Looks like the Prime Minister was trying to reform their universal health care....no one would have it
...so the Prime Minister and cabinet all resigned on Friday
"The government of Finland collapsed Friday due to the rising cost of universal health care and the prime minister's failure to enact reforms to the system.
Prime Minister Juha Sipila and the rest of the cabinet resigned after the governing coalition failed to pass reforms in parliament to the country's regional government and health services, the Wall Street Journal reports. Finland faces an aging population, with around 26 percent of its citizens expected to be over 65 by the year 2030, an increase of 5 percent from today."
I would have to say that sounds like a strength of so called universal healthcare, rather than a weakness - the ability to reform and rationalise at a national level, would likely result in the best value for money
Yes, it sounds like they wanted reforms to what was already there instead of completely doing away with it. Shame they couldn't come to an agreement.
Now it will come to pass that the incoming party MUST make those needed reforms.
Not an altogether bad thing that a government can get tossed over something as morally and ethically imperative as sleeping at the switch of it's citizens healthcare program.
Looks like the Prime Minister was trying to reform their universal health care....no one would have it
...so the Prime Minister and cabinet all resigned on Friday
"The government of Finland collapsed Friday due to the rising cost of universal health care and the prime minister's failure to enact reforms to the system.
Prime Minister Juha Sipila and the rest of the cabinet resigned after the governing coalition failed to pass reforms in parliament to the country's regional government and health services, the Wall Street Journal reports. Finland faces an aging population, with around 26 percent of its citizens expected to be over 65 by the year 2030, an increase of 5 percent from today."
That is because Finland DOES NOT spend any significant amount of money on their public healthcare system.
Most of their budget goes towards two things - education and child care. Their healthcare system has been underfunded for decades and that's just the way they chose to live their lives. They value children and schools, they don't much care for the old and sick.
On the flip side, their education system is top notch. Consistently ranks as one of the best in the world. At least they have that. US have crap healthcare and and crap education.
What this means is that the system works! The Fins choose to have great schools over great hospitals, that's their choice, but public funded system worked and it is one of the best in the work. If US does the same thing and divert the fund to healthcare instead of other things, we'll have a great healthcare just like the Fins have a great school system.
I would have to say that sounds like a strength of so called universal healthcare, rather than a weakness - the ability to reform and rationalise at a national level, would likely result in the best value for money
The only measurement of strength would be if it worked and not some made up premise. What good are reform and rational if the product is inefficient and lacks quality?
First, let’s try to grasp how healthcare is managed/ delivered in Finland.
Universal healthcare means all have the ability to access healthcare. No two countries do Universal Healthcare the same. All tweak their systems annually and periodically reform.
Finland has a national healthcare baseline with a costly decentralized administrative and delivery system. Each of the 295 municipalities administers healthcare as they see fit to do. Funding occurs at both the national and municipal level.
( Imagine the 20,000 municipal government in the US, each doing their own healthcare thing)
The overwhelming majority of healthcare in Finland is public.
( The overwhelming majority of healthcare in the US is private)
Like most developed countries, the Finnish population is aging and healthcare costs are rising. The Center-Right party attempted legislation to reform healthcare:
Reduce the the cost of redundancies of 295 separate healthcare administrative systems in favor of county administration, managed by the private sector. Doing so would result in a Constitutional challenge.
Based on polls, the Finns have a strong preference for local control by local governments and reject the notion of reducing redundancies and privatization. Based on polls, the Center- Right party has fallen out of favor because of the proposed legislation. The national election is a month away.
The Prime Minister is of the Center- Right Party. The resignation is being viewed as a tactical manuver to take the healthcare debate out of the election.
No major economic impact is expected as the result of the resignations.
No one was trying to eliminate Universal Healthcare in Finland. No one was trying to eliminate the public delivery of healthcare in Finland. The intent of the now failed legislation was to reduce the cost of 295 independent public administrations in favor of private sector management of Admin functions at the county level.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
