No, if the supply did not meet the demand then people would never get attended to. Waiting lists just show the demands are met at a delayed rate.
Besides... if you think that having a waiting list makes a country's health care automatically worse, why do single payer countries out perform the US health system to such a large degree? You are trying to claim that they are inferior, but you have no statistics to show for it.
Waiting lists just show the demands are met at a delayed rate.
You are trying to claim that they are inferior
blah, I hope I'm not just stepping on people's toes here, I wanted to rant on this issue earlier in the week, but I only got internet in my new place yesterday.
Anyways. The problem isn't the health system per se. In fact, unless we want a total big brother solution, there is no solution to "the-health-care-problem" through health care reform.
The reason is simple. Based on how the economy is structured, more people are going to require more government spending as prices become more expensive at a rate increasingly disproportionate to wage increases.
Reform the economy or go public, it is sort of the only long term option. I don't know if nations like France and Norway have a "baby boom" coming up, but in North America, the social servies associated with that generation are going to destroy most of our current budgets.
Re: Fixing Health Care in America
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The cost of health insurance and health care in America are not problems. They are symptoms. Universal health care treats these symptoms but not the underlying causes. To fix health care in America requires several steps.[b]1. Eliminate government-regulated health care monopolies.
Seriously. Why can't we buy health insurance out-of-state? There is absolutely no reason for this to exist except for lining the pockets of insurance companies. Let people buy insurance from any company in any state across the nation. Given the opportunity to buy cheap insurance in other states, people will flock toward lower-cost insurance providers. The "invisible hand" of the market will (hopefully) ***** slap the insurance execs who have flourished under anti-competitive policies.2. Remove all licensing restrictions on doctors and hospitals.
Simple supply-and-demand economics here. Make licensing an elective process rather than a mandatory. This will allow more doctors into the market. More supply equates to a decrease in cost. Likewise, what the **** is up with hospitals requiring permits to be built? That's a bunch of bull**** right there.3. Drastically alter how drug patenting functions.
Sorry, folks, but we need heavy, heavy restrictions on how this works. Patents are a government-granted monopoly on drugs that prevent the free market from working. Once a drug can be made generic, costs drastically plummet due to competition.4. Tort reform.
And lots of it. Malpractice insurance is too expensive as-is (meaning that doctors charge more for procedures to pay for this out-of-pocket expense), and defensive medicine drives up the demand for medical services. Greater demand equates to higher price.5. Institute a public option.
Yes. We need one. People with pre-existing conditions need to be able to afford health insurance. If you don't like it, tough. Part of being a first-world country means that you sacrifice the freedoms of anarchy for a better society. [/B]
Agree completely with 1, 4, and 5
Disagree with 2. Doctors and hospitals need to be licensed. Do you want a doctor caring for you that isn't qualified? You will get this without licensing.
3 is a gray area. many drugs take a decade or more plus tens of millions to develop. Drug companies need to be able to recover their investment. Limit drug patents to 1-2 years giving the drug companies time to recover their costs, then make the drugs available as generics.
Originally posted by Bardock42.
That's of course not true, at all. Even your WHO (whose metrics you know I am not quite in love with) states France to have the best health care system in the world...a hybrid system.Hybrid systems can be as good, and often even better if done right. Because you can get the general safety for everyone as well as faster help from better doctors.
Additionally they tend to pay better for themselves.
I quite agree with the points Zeal raised, people need to be insured, but it shouldn't be at the expense of a functioning system. The biggest problem the US has is government backed monopolies.
In fact, the best systems ARE hybrids. France - Hybrid. UK - Hybrid. Denmakr - Hybrid. Denmark - Hybrid. Canada - Hybrid. New Zealand - Hybrid. Switzerland - Hybrid.
And this is right off the top of my head. I'm sure I missed some obvious ones.
In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of european countries that are pure UHC systems.
UHC simply means that everyone has access to health care, and can be done even with 100% private insurance (like some state laws in the US provide). Almost every country in Europe has UHC. And even in these cases, the basic needs of every citizen are government covered; in france, private insurance is just "supplementary".
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, ok, maybe, but, private care here has found a back door into existence. A huge percentage of the population still is against any type of two-tier system, but our courts have ruled it illegal to stop it.
Can you purchase supplementary insurance for your healthcare like you can in the UK, France, Switzerland, and so forth?
Also, I've read lots of stuff about he Canadian hybrid system. You mean that's all illegal stuff? (Like "half and half" medical facilities. That was he most recent one I read about.)
Originally posted by King Kandy
UHC simply means that everyone has access to health care, and can be done even with 100% private insurance (like some state laws in the US provide). Almost every country in Europe has UHC. And even in these cases, the basic needs of every citizen are government covered; in france, private insurance is just "supplementary".
But "only" a UHC system is not the best option. It is the hybrid systems that are seeing the best numbers.
Originally posted by dadudemon
But "only" a UHC system is not the best option. It is the hybrid systems that are seeing the best numbers.
All Euro countries are more or less equally UHC; "hybrid system" and UHC are not mutually exclusive. A hybrid system is one way of achieving UHC, not a system in competition to it.