Socialize Medicine

[Francesca R]

That's the whole point - eligible claims - there is always going to be some mechanism by which a decision is made as to what treatment is funded, and what isn't. It was that fact hat I don't think the OP was recognising.

Oh absolutely, if it is carte blanche under any system at all, the likelihood is that "healthcare" liabilities explode.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Far enough Joe, if that's what he meant I have no particular quibble.

 

[Francesca R]

I think it was about denying valid claims to increase profits, which is a big problem in the current system here.

You need government-mandated entitlements to remove this; that is--it has to be the law to cover a number of treatments, regardless of whether an individual pursues a healthy lifestyle, or declared prior cases, or submits to an examination. Indeed in universal systems the standard is that you don't have to do any of these.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It does not have to be privately managed. (In the UK it is not). But some people trust the civil service to act in the interests of "customers" even less than they trust ACME Insurance Inc. Others trust them more.

This is the key.
Much of the concern in the States over government-run healthcare comes from the belief that claims will be denied on the basis of what's best for the country rather than what's best for the individual patient.
People believe they can pay a private insurer to look out for them more than they believe the government will.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well the government (UK) does hold the premiums since they are taken from direct tax. It also sets the budget for the NHS, which is the fund from which "claims" are settled. It further allows the budget to be overshot or undershot, which is loosely how it works to have all* entitlements met free.

So it is not a million miles off.

*all eligible ones

I would be very happy if the U.S. adopted a system very much like the U.K.!

It's sad that this is just a pipe-dream.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

People believe they can pay a private insurer to look out for them more than they believe the government will.

If that's what people believe, I think they're wrong. (See the links I added about the House investigations into the practice of rescission a few posts up.)

 

[AvalonXQ]

I would be very happy if the U.S. adopted a system very much like the U.K.!

And I would be very unhappy.

 

[Darat]

I would be very happy if the U.S. adopted a system very much like the U.K.!

It's sad that this is just a pipe-dream.

From participating in these threads over the years I would suggest to look at some of the other European systems as a first preference, for example the French system seems to rate higher.

 

[Francesca R]

Much of the concern in the States over government-run healthcare comes from the belief that claims will be denied on the basis of what's best for the country rather than what's best for the individual patient.

Well I think the suspicion is more centred on "what's best for the special interests in whose pockets politicians are" instead of "the country"

But if you check any universal medical system in Europe, and Japan, and down under, they really work in reverse. Instead there being a ceiling on what the insurer will pay, there is a ceiling on what the patient does. The state underwrites large liabilities. With purely private insurance, the patient has to (or go without, or declare themself bankrupt and put their liability back to the state anyway)

People believe they can pay a private insurer to look out for them more than they believe the government will.

In the aspect I mention above, this cannot be true, and no private insurer would say it can. In other ways (efficiency, value for money), then a private insurer can do better IMO. But they're not actually looking out for you.

 

[Francesca R]

Much of the concern in the States over government-run healthcare [ . . . ]

(Oh and this correction has been made many times already but) . . . It's not government run health care, it's government funded.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

From participating in these threads over the years I would suggest to look at some of the other European systems as a first preference, for example the French system seems to rate higher.

Just from what I saw about the French system in Moore's Sicko, I would also be happy if the U.S. adopted a system like that.

But again, it's just a pipe-dream. We can't even pass health insurance reform with a public option with the most favorable White House and Congress we're likely to see for a loooong time.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And I would be very unhappy.

Why?

 

[Arcade22]

Can anyone define 'socialized medicine' for me?

 

[Francesca R]

Usually it means universal coverage up to some level of provision.

(IE people who don't want it cannot opt out of paying for it)

 

[DavidJames]

Can anyone define 'socialized medicine' for me?

I doubt you'll get one definition, but my cynical one would be.

Socialized medicine is a health care system which includes a level and type of government intervention that I don't agree with.

Of course the level and type will vary by person.

I have stated before that the U.S. should audit health care systems throughout the world and implement a system based on the best they can find. Unfortunately that won't happen due to xenophobia, the not invented here syndrome and the religious level of love of capitalism many have.

 

[Francesca R]

^Mine's less vague than yours. Do you agree with my definition? (not do you agree with the system)

 

[Arcade22]

Usually it means universal coverage up to some level of provision.

(IE people who don't want it cannot opt out of paying for it)

Thank you.

 

[Segnosaur]

I don't think that's the theory at all. I think the idea is that if you don't take profits out, there is more money available for healthcare goods and services...

The problem with that "theory" is that it assumes that while the profits are taken out (when you go to a government-run system), everything else stays the same.

Problem is, it may not be that simple...
- Are people who would work for the private insurance industry paid the same as those working for a government-run system? I suspect not... Here in Canada, our public service sector is highly unionized, and as a result salaries are often higher (for things like file clerks, etc.) compared to the private sector
- How much incentive do they have to reduce costs in a public insurance system? We've probably all heard stories about "lazy" public servants, and things like layoffs are rare. On the other hand, I'm sure you're average private insurance company would only be to happy to abuse their employees if it meant reducing costs

So, while going from public to private insurers would save in some areas, it might increase costs in others.

However, almost any system in the industrial world works better than the status quo in the U.S.

Keep in mind that the definition of "works better" is a very subjective one.

It is true that the WHO ranked the U.S. system much lower than the top western countries. However, their rankings were based on several criteria; quality of health care was only one component (costs, equality, etc. were also included.) The U.S. actually ranked #1 in at least part of the criteria for measuring the quality of health care (although they were ranked very low over costs, etc.)

If someone felt that having the option of the "best" health care was the only consideration, they may prefer the American system, even if it meant some people wouldn't be able to afford it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Keep in mind that the definition of "works better" is a very subjective one.

It is true that the WHO ranked the U.S. system much lower than the top western countries. However, their rankings were based on several criteria; quality of health care was only one component (costs, equality, etc. were also included.) The U.S. actually ranked #1 in at least part of the criteria for measuring the quality of health care (although they were ranked very low over costs, etc.)

If someone felt that having the option of the "best" health care was the only consideration, they may prefer the American system, even if it meant some people wouldn't be able to afford it.

I was talking about exactly the sort of thing the WHO was--but specifically our per-capita cost.

I think the claim that a system can be considered the "best" even if it's only accessible to relatively few people is an abuse of the language.

 

[IchabodPlain]

I was talking about exactly the sort of thing the WHO was--but specifically our per-capita cost.

I think the claim that a system can be considered the "best" even if it's only accessible to relatively few people is an abuse of the language.

The abuse of language is characterizing a system where more than 80% of the population has access to health care "relatively few". No wait, it's just plain stupid.

I am a proponent of making the American health care system universal, but your portrayal of the current situation is grossly exaggerated and silly. Quality of health results should be the #1 priority,followed then by costs.