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.
Some challenges America has compared to Singapore is that we have a larger diverse population and more political diversity. Singapore is smaller and I think just has one political party so they will have less politics coming into play with making adjustments with their system unlike here in the U.S.
1- What has diversity got to do with it? (Hint: Singapore ain't a monolithic society either)
2- What has population size got to do with it? Fewer people also make for fewer contributors.
3- Singapore has been presented as one of the leading examples of a free market economy, usually by those who call self conservatives or libertarians. What is interesting about it is that Singapore has mostly one-party system because it has been dictatorial. But even if there were dozens of party, a system failing or succeeding has to be measured on its own virtues.
I'am not so big on that single payer idea. America will need some type of better run multipayer system. Even in Canada where they have single payer they are starting to debate the need for more private services to improve health care service access there.
I think it is worth mentioning that Canada is at the opposite extreme from the US when it comes to private/public provision. Every other first world country have more private provision in the mix than Canada, and less than the USA.
Also, most countries with single payer has it broken down into regional providers with "federal" funding.
Thanks for posting that. I hate youtube videos and generally don't watch them. I can read a lot faster than I can watch some vid. Anyway, rant over. . .
I notice is has a compulsory element to it which would send many conservatives up in arms.
Medisave is a compulsory medical savings scheme with funds available to meet a portion of future personal or immediate family’s hospitalisation, day surgery and certain outpatient expenses.
The compulsory element would probably work if there were assurances that prices could be kept under control. It's the fact that no such assurances can be made that makes compulsory options unpopular. For sure, they'd be unpopular with the right wing corporate propagandists under any circumstances, but they'd be more popular with the public if we had price caps.
Actually, the American system is generally more efficient than the systems in other countries, not less. Private industry is always more efficient than the government. Without profits or competition, public sector organizations have no incentive to be efficient.
And a universal healthcare system may or may not create jobs, depending upon whether the expansion of coverage would make up for the elimination of competition and development. But it would for sure transform healthcare from a profitable industry to a financial burden.
There's also the fact that virtually all breakthroughs in medical science come as a result of the profit motive, which UHC would eliminate.
But aside from that --- it wouldn't matter even if what you said were true. Because there's a thing we have in America called personal freedom. That means we make our own choices regarding our health care. The government does not make them for us.
So whether the sytem would work better or worse in the end really doesn't matter because it simply isn't compatible with the principles of the constitution.
Actually, the American system is generally more efficient than the systems in other countries, not less. Private industry is always more efficient than the government. Without profits or competition, public sector organizations have no incentive to be efficient.
This is the same argument Mussolini made for his policy using Fascism. Today, we call it a conservative principle, that not public but private enterprise works in people's best interest.
But, I couldn't disagree more. A business is more efficient if it pays less and makes more, at the expense of the consumer. They aren't putting consumers' interest above their own. They are not supposed to, nor should be expected to.
1- What has diversity got to do with it? (Hint: Singapore ain't a monolithic society either)
2- What has population size got to do with it? Fewer people also make for fewer contributors.
3- Singapore has been presented as one of the leading examples of a free market economy, usually by those who call self conservatives or libertarians. What is interesting about it is that Singapore has mostly one-party system because it has been dictatorial. But even if there were dozens of party, a system failing or succeeding has to be measured on its own virtues.
Well I got this impression of Singapore from reading this article on their health care system.
Quote:
Tucci warns that it may be hard to replicate Singapore’s system in the United States. After all, Singapore has a small, concentrated population, with a “backdrop of political stability, enabling successive governments [all of the same party] to introduce consistent measures relating to individual responsibility, compulsory savings, and regulatory control of healthcare services and costs.”
Well I got this impression of Singapore from reading this article on their health care system.
Maybe I miss-interpeted the words "concentrated population" as meaning they were more monolithic in Singapore.
They aren't. Singapore's monolithic structure primarily comes from dictatorial whims. Having said that, dense population probably makes for a better argument than small population. The reason being, Canada's greatest challenge is its geography. If the same population were concentrated in a fraction of the size, than the system would be easier to manage with minimum redundancies.
Some challenges America has compared to Singapore is that we have a larger diverse population and more political diversity. Singapore is smaller and I think just has one political party so they will have less politics coming into play with making adjustments with their system unlike here in the U.S.
I also doubt they have as many ambulance chasing lawyers as we do.
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.
