If single payer works in Canada and the UK, why can't it here? (healthcare, how much)
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.
"[The Bismarck Model] relies on payroll deductions to fund nonprofit insurers and requires that they cover everyone. Coverage and medical pricing is strictly regulated by the state.
Aside from Germany, you’ll find variations of this system in France, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Japan.
Pro: Plenty of flexibility in choosing insurers and healthcare providers. Con: Doctors may seek higher fees through private clinics."
I like the idea of blue states joining together in a single payer network instead of one state doing it alone. I never thought of that as an option, but it could be groundbreaking. Especially big states like CA and NY joined by smaller blue states.
There was no issue with the care his mother was receiving. Jason didn't like the diagnosis.
Why couldn't Jason have dealt with his dislike of the diagnosis in Australia? It would appear he has an issue with his mother's care, and decided the issue was best resolved in America. Looks like his mother agrees.
I just wanted to comment that although Canada has a national health care system, each province and territory has its own health insurance plan which it administers for its residents. There are some minor differences in coverage between the plans. Guidelines are set by the federal government who also provides funds to the provinces and territories which they in turn supplement with funds from their own treasury.
Quote:
Under the terms of the Canada Health Act, all "insured persons" (basically, legal residents of Canada, including permanent residents) are entitled to receive "insured services" without copayment. Such services are defined as medically necessary services if provided in hospital, or by 'practitioners' (usually physicians).
Given the population of the U.S., I can't envision a single payor system being administered at the federal level. I think the states would have to be heavily involved and have some leeway on what is covered in their state. That may partly depend on how much money a state is willing to add to the money provided by the federal government for health care.
First you'd have to prove that it "works" in those countries. The number of people who buy additional insurance and go out of the country for treatment would argue that it DOESN'T work.
Also the US isn't like those other countries, they don't have the huge welfare class of the US and have very different tax structures. Just look at the way US liberals howl anytime someone mentions everyone paying their own way, or at least paying SOMETHING. Those other countries the left admire so much don't have a "47%" like the US. Just who do you think would pay for healthcare when one party thinks everyone should get it but only half should pay for it.
Those countries also have higher minimum wages, guarenteed sick, vacation time, free or very inexpensive healthcare, help paying for child care, subsided higher education and other programs that allow people to maintain a better quality of life even while paying higher taxes. In the US, the vast majority of people on welfare are working. 75% of people on welfare are members of the working poor. Large wealthy corporations that own our politicians do not want to pay people a living wage, so the taxpayers have to pick up the slack.
Indeed. Insurance companies actually make providing healthcare unpleasant, add no value to the patient, and suck money out of the system. I think the profits should go the people and vendors that are adding value.
Why should American employers have to subsidize the bottom line of other for profit companies?
Simple. In World War II, the US government essentially made them do it. Employers were forbidden from raising wages, but the government said that the value of health insurance would not be taxed, so employers who wanted to stay competitive had to offer their employees health insurance. It all goes back to government interference in the market.
Those countries also have higher minimum wages, guarenteed sick, vacation time, free or very inexpensive healthcare, help paying for child care, subsided higher education and other programs that allow people to maintain a better quality of life even while paying higher taxes. In the US, the vast majority of people on welfare are working. 75% of people on welfare are members of the working poor. Large wealthy corporations that own our politicians do not want to pay people a living wage, so the taxpayers have to pick up the slack.
Most people on welfare are children. They're not working.
What makes the US different, that would make such system a disaster?
I have a good friend who lives in the UK and she thinks their healthcare is wonderful. My son spent over a year there in school. When he was sick he was seen right away and the cost of any prescription was very reasonable. When I get sick and call my doctor, they tell me they have no openings for 2 weeks. I could be dead by then
"As these programs became more established, there was less necessity for the rigorous and comprehensive reporting and auditing required on the part of the federal government. Federal support for national priorities began to shift to block funding based on acceptance of broad principles and shared objectives."
"Under the legislation, in the agencies’ view, key factors bringing about market stability include subsidies to purchase insurance, which would maintain sufficient demand for insurance by people with low health care expenditures, and grants to states from the Patient and State Stability Fund, which would reduce the costs to insurers of people with high health care expenditures. Even though the new tax credits would be structured differently from the current subsidies and would generally be less generous for those receiving subsidies under current law, the other changes would, in the agencies’ view, lower average premiums enough to attract a sufficient number of relatively healthy people to stabilize the market."
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.
