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.
When people talk about what type of economic system a country should have as far as government's role vs the private sector does anyone take into account how different country's population size shape these decisions?
For example,many here may feel that the U.S should be more like the Nordic countries as far as government programs. But those Nordic countries are a lot smaller than the U.S population wise. What may work well for 8 million Swedes may not be the best system for 300 million Americans. Many Americans want a single-payer health insurance system for the U.S where the U.S gov't would be the sole provider of insurance for all Americans. But I question how well a single-payer system would work for a large population like America has. With 300 million people I think it would be a huge strain on the U.S gov't to be the sole provider of insurance for such a large population. Single payer may be better for countries like Sweden with 8 million people,Canada with around 34 million or Australia with 22 million. I think the U.S with it's much larger population will need more than one source for health insurance other than government insurance.
So what role do you see a country's population size playing in shaping what the government should be providing vs what the private sector should provide?
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,769,842 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion
When people talk about what type of economic system a country should have as far as government's role vs the private sector does anyone take into account how different country's population size shape these decisions?
For example,many here may feel that the U.S should be more like the Nordic countries as far as government programs. But those Nordic countries are a lot smaller than the U.S population wise. What may work well for 8 million Swedes may not be the best system for 300 million Americans. Many Americans want a single-payer health insurance system for the U.S where the U.S gov't would be the sole provider of insurance for all Americans. But I question how well a single-payer system would work for a large population like America has. With 300 million people I think it would be a huge strain on the U.S gov't to be the sole provider of insurance for such a large population. Single payer may be better for countries like Sweden with 8 million people,Canada with around 34 million or Australia with 22 million. I think the U.S with it's much larger population will need more than one source for health insurance other than government insurance.
So what role do you see a country's population size playing in shaping what the government should be providing vs what the private sector should provide?
Single payer is what almost ALL nations do because they recognize what we do not- you cannot have a system that EVERYBODY uses but less than half the people PAY for. It is going to break sooner or later as cost go up and the number of PAYERS go down while the number of users go up. That is exactly what is going on now- more and more employers are limiting coverage and even dropping it all together. The only thing saving the system now is "government health care" that covers about 40% of the popluation (Medicare, VA, military, Medicaid, government employees) and is largely immune to the double digit medical increases. But that is not going to last much longer. At some point not even the government will be able to afford that and the rest of us who have been left to fend for ourselves sure as HELL will not be willing to pay higher taxes for those on government care. Then it will get fixed but probably not before.
Even China has single payer UHC and they are much bigger than we are.
Since the founding of the People's Republic, the goal of health programs has been to provide care to every member of the population and to make maximum use of limited health-care personnel, equipment, and financial resources. The emphasis has been on preventive rather than curative medicine on the premise that preventive medicine is "active" while curative medicine is "passive." The health-care system has dramatically improved the health of the people, as reflected by the remarkable increase in average life expectancy from about thirty-two years in 1950 to sixty-nine years in 1985.
Well, the question really is, how many tax dollars per individual should it take to insure health insurance for its non-insured, or almost-uninsured citizens? Can a country of 300+ million citizens--many of them paying their fair share of tax dollars to the government--subsidize the cost to make it worth it? If you're asking me, I think it's more than feasible.
The biggest opponet to this? Big Pharma, Big Business, etc. Healthcare is a raging business run by suits who can charge extravagent cost for simple procedures and medication. May I ask if this is a net positive or a net negative for our country as a whole? To combat costs to a single payer, single insurer, inevitably costs (as well as variety) would drop pretty significantly.
Is it worth it? In my opinion, absolutely.
P.S. I actually work for a pharmaceutical (that I'll obviously leave unnamed).
This thread is not about health care ,but USA is the only country with free healthcare & not socialised medicine...
That's why everyone who can afford it,comes to America to get treatment
What certainly is sure,is that the bigger a country,the more ...ungovernable it becomes...
Same goes for states within USA...
CA is ungovernable.it must be divided into North & South CA...
This thread is not about health care ,but USA is the only country with free healthcare & not socialised medicine...
That's why everyone who can afford it,comes to America to get treatment
What certainly is sure,is that the bigger a country,the more ...ungovernable it becomes...
Same goes for states within USA...
CA is ungovernable.it must be divided into North & South CA...
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,769,842 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrymiafl
This thread is not about health care ,but USA is the only country with free healthcare & not socialised medicine...
That's why everyone who can afford it,comes to America to get treatment
What certainly is sure,is that the bigger a country,the more ...ungovernable it becomes...
Same goes for states within USA...
CA is ungovernable.it must be divided into North & South CA...
That will never happen because the consequences would most likely be 2 more "safe" Democratic Senators and the Republicans would never go for it unless we divide a Republican state (Texas?) the same way.
When I talk about a country's system we can also include their overall welfare programs and not just health care.
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.
