Universal Healthcare

[peritonlogon]

Is there an actual pragmatic argument against universal healtchare? I know a lot of people would argue against UH from an ideological perspective, but, from a pragmatic perspective, has anyone made a convicing case for our current healthcare system? Is it not clear that the USA and it's citizens would have more money at the end of the day and better healthcare? It would also put US international businesses on more even footing with international competition that does not have to foot this bill. This would not proclude a higher level of care for those who could afford it.

This http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cns.html#10 (skip the social security part, scroll a couple pages down for the universal healthcare part) puts forth a pretty convincing economic and pragmatic argument for universal healthcare.

[iron81]

I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] universal health care, but I think the argument against is that health care that externalizes its costs onto the taxpayers will lead to overuse. Of course, the cost is already externalized onto a combination of taxpayers and businesses, but whatever.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] universal health care, but I think the argument against is that health care that externalizes its costs onto the taxpayers will lead to overuse. Of course, the cost is already externalized onto a combination of taxpayers and businesses, but whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the pragmatic reply to this is that, right now, poor people on medicare (or is it medicaid?) drastically weigh down the system because they all go to the emergency room (which will always take them) instead of making appointments and going right to a physician. Relieving this burden alone, by directing medicare (or medicaid) more efficiently (to any clinic) would relieve a large portion of the weight already, and could (I'm just guessing right now because I don't have the stats in front of me, and I'm a little lazy) actually save money.

[lehighguy]

What if we just got rid of Medicare.

HUGE savings.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]

I think the pragmatic reply to this is that, right now, poor people on medicare (or is it medicaid?) drastically weigh down the system because they all go to the emergency room (which will always take them) instead of making appointments and going right to a physician. Relieving this burden alone, by directing medicare (or medicaid) more efficiently (to any clinic) would relieve a large portion of the weight already, and could (I'm just guessing right now because I don't have the stats in front of me, and I'm a little lazy) actually save money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Peritonlogon

You're a bit confuse about how our health care system works.

Medicare and Medicaid allow people to make appointments with their physcians. Part of the problem people on medicare and medicaid have is they cannot easily find a physician who is willing to accept what medicare and medicaid pay. If medicare and medicaid increased thier re-imbursement rates people in these programs would not have any difficulty making appointments with doctors. I suppose one could make a case against making substantial increases in the re-imbursement rates because with some effort people on medicare/medicaid do find doctors who are willing to accept them into their practice.

The majority of people who flood emergency rooms are people who have no coverage at all.

Stu

[lehighguy]

But only because they are required by law to treat them.

[Poofler]

I like the notion, but hate the practicality for American government. I think it's the kind of endeavor that will be extensively mismanaged, unresponsive, and has enormous potential to bankrupt our state (more). I'd imagine a lot of long-term thinking ACers might actually want this to happen. From a statist perspective, we've got financial demons too big looming in the near future and I'm not sold that it wouldn't create more aggregate harm than good anyway (even to those it would help).

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the notion, but hate the practicality for American government. I think it's the kind of endeavor that will be extensively mismanaged, unresponsive, and has enormous potential to bankrupt our state (more). I'd imagine a lot of long-term thinking ACers might actually want this to happen. From a statist perspective, we've got financial demons too big looming in the near future and I'm not sold that it wouldn't create more aggregate harm than good anyway (even to those it would help).

[/ QUOTE ] What do you think about a one payer Canadian style system in the U.S? Under this system, the government just pays for health care, but does not provide it. Private businesses produce it. This system also has the advantage of keeping down costs of producing it, by avoiding insurance messes and such partly, but mostly by giving the BUYER monopoly power, which drives down the cost of purchasing it (just like a monopoly on the seller side increases costs). Even the U.S. government can pull this simple task off, correct?

This is the best system anyway [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like the notion, but hate the practicality for American government. I think it's the kind of endeavor that will be extensively mismanaged, unresponsive, and has enormous potential to bankrupt our state (more). I'd imagine a lot of long-term thinking ACers might actually want this to happen. From a statist perspective, we've got financial demons too big looming in the near future and I'm not sold that it wouldn't create more aggregate harm than good anyway (even to those it would help).

[/ QUOTE ] What do you think about a one payer Canadian style system in the U.S? Under this system, the government just pays for health care, but does not provide it. Private businesses produce it. This system also has the advantage of keeping down costs of producing it, by avoiding insurance messes and such partly, but mostly by giving the BUYER monopoly power, which drives down the cost of purchasing it (just like a monopoly on the seller side increases costs). Even the U.S. government can pull this simple task off, correct?

This is the best system anyway [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the Canadian system is all that peachy, there are definitely significant downsides. IIRC back in health-care econ class, the Canadian system produces very long waiting lists. 2-4 times longer than Americans in some cases. I'm sure that's partly due to people who otherwise wouldn't have access, but it's also a product of over-consumption in some cases. So the monopoly power buyer savings is tempered somewhat by that. I've also read it is illegal for a Canadian to hold private insurance (is that right?), and for anyone with the resources that want to get faster/better care privately, they have few options, besides the rich using American doctors. A minimum level of coverage for every citizen is great, but I don't like the government telling you to wait in line with everyone else by eliminating private coverage for those who have the means not to take gambles on their life in queues. The system saves lives through coverage, but kills some through unresponsiveness, brain-drain, and monetary disincentive for doctors to become doctors (shortage). I might be ok with some kind of blend, like mandatory government coverage with an opt-out for private coverage, but I haven't done a 1600 page research report on that. I'm still weary of this government being so ambitious. They'll find a way to bankrupt it somehow.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like the notion, but hate the practicality for American government. I think it's the kind of endeavor that will be extensively mismanaged, unresponsive, and has enormous potential to bankrupt our state (more). I'd imagine a lot of long-term thinking ACers might actually want this to happen. From a statist perspective, we've got financial demons too big looming in the near future and I'm not sold that it wouldn't create more aggregate harm than good anyway (even to those it would help).

[/ QUOTE ] What do you think about a one payer Canadian style system in the U.S? Under this system, the government just pays for health care, but does not provide it. Private businesses produce it. This system also has the advantage of keeping down costs of producing it, by avoiding insurance messes and such partly, but mostly by giving the BUYER monopoly power, which drives down the cost of purchasing it (just like a monopoly on the seller side increases costs). Even the U.S. government can pull this simple task off, correct?

This is the best system anyway [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the Canadian system is all that peachy, there are definitely significant downsides. IIRC back in health-care econ class, the Canadian system produces very long waiting lists. 2-4 times longer than Americans in some cases.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know people who recently moved to New Hampshire who just couldn't find a doctor with their health plan. The were just [censored] out of luck. No primary care physician no coverage.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure that's partly due to people who otherwise wouldn't have access, but it's also a product of over-consumption in some cases. So the monopoly power buyer savings is tempered somewhat by that. I've also read it is illegal for a Canadian to hold private insurance (is that right?), and for anyone with the resources that want to get faster/better care privately, they have few options, besides the rich using American doctors. A minimum level of coverage for every citizen is great, but I don't like the government telling you to wait in line with everyone else by eliminating private coverage for those who have the means not to take gambles on their life in queues. The system saves lives through coverage, but kills some through unresponsiveness, brain-drain, and monetary disincentive for doctors to become doctors (shortage). I might be ok with some kind of blend, like mandatory government coverage with an opt-out for private coverage, but I haven't done a 1600 page research report on that. I'm still weary of this government being so ambitious. They'll find a way to bankrupt it somehow.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the New Zeland's method where everyone is covered for catastrophic health problems and everyone (maybe over the age of 18) gets a certain amount of money, we'll say, for our American plan $2000 annually? This money can only be used for health expenses and accrues in a savings account (I don't know if you can will it or not). So, naturally, at the age of 18-35 or so, money will accrue, after 45 you'll start spending your health savings.

Think they could bankrupt that?