Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
If not, how come?
that nationalised healthcare = socialism= another word for communism
I don't really understand it, but America has an insane level of individualism through its society. They seem to hate "big government" in any way, shape or form, especially taxes. "Why am I paying for poor people to go to hospital?"
On Question Time in America during the election, some sceptic was asked if he'd have nationalised health care in America and he said "No, because if I need life saving treatment I don't want to wait in a queue"
Yep. It's amazing.
America will never adopt 'nationalised healthcare'. For a start, it's an unnecessarily complex and inefficient way to 'solve' the problem of not having universal healthcare, and is completely at odds with their existing system. What they will most likely do it introduce some kind of larger version of Medicare/Medicaid so that people who don't have jobs aren't necessarily at risk of not having treatment.
This is assuming there's a moral or otherwise case for universal healthcare.
which is the angle Obama and co are taking to justify tackling it at this (seemingly) incongruous time. Especially with the number of baby boomers about to retire, there's going to be a more top heavy system than ever before.
I've just looked around for it, but I can't find it on the Economist's site (and now I'm not sure it's there anyway...)
But it went like this - look at every industrialised nation with universal healthcare. They've all taken their existing systems and taken the shortest steps towards full coverage. So in the UK, where there was mass evacuation to the countryside during WWII, there was also a massive rise in government-run hospitals and clinics - after the war, the system was merely rolled out to include those in cities as well. Some countries gave everyone public insurance, some started semi-nationlisation, etc. etc.
So in the US, the gap exists with the unemployed, the young, and the chronically ill. They've already extended coverage to kids, so now they've just got to work out a way to cover people without jobs and decent pensions.
Most of the inefficiencies in the US system come from the pharmaceutical companies restricting the use of generic drugs, and the restrictions upon doctors to prescribe cheaper drugs - the incentives right now are for the medical system to charge more than is necessary for treatment. I'd argue this comes from unnecessary intervention in the medical industry due to lobbying than a problem with a money-based system.
i bet in 1909 it seemed a ridiculous idea in the UK as well.
one's called medicaid and one's called medicare.
i can't remember how they differentiate and it's in no way a blanket scheme like the nhs, but there are some provisions made for people who have no money
they now have the problem of not being able to afford to, i cant imagine raising taxes to pay for it would be easy at the best of times....now it will be far more difficult
Obama included around $700 billion in the (as yet unapproved) budget specifically set aside to get public healthcare underway.
What they're proposing is really only the first step - it's not single payer like in the UK - but would give people the chance to opt into the public system. The idea is to make it so attractive that eventually the private health sector is basically priced out of the market, which would lead to universal coverage.
The majority of Americans support national health care contrary to popular belief. And especially now, with the number of people losing their jobs (which consequently means they lose their employee-sponsored private health care), a popular president, and control of both houses of congress, it's actually a good chance that something willl be passed this year.
It provides choice for the indidual. You can choose where and how you receive your medical care, you can choose the level of service you want and, crucially, if you don't like it you can go somewhere else.
If you don't like the NHS you can go private. Except here if you can't afford to choose you're not completely fucked.
If you don't like the NHS you can go private. Except that here, if you can't afford to choose, you're not completely fucked.
Here, the average earner loses about 28% of their pay packets in tax, in the US it's about 11%.
So instead of the Government spending money on healthcare on your behalf, you get to spend it yourself, where you think best.
So, because everyone pays less tax, everyone is more 'wealthy' by default.
That's how I understand it anyway.
The more important stat is the percentage of GDP which goes towards health care - and it's a lot more in the US, for a level of care which is fairly unanimously declared inferior
(Right Wing) Paranoia on a national scale at its finest.