I have watched Sicko and it's a real eye opener for me. They say that the Universal insurance is better than american health insurance and the people don't have to pay for anything. What do you think?
2007-07-09 04:59:28 · 6 answers · asked by t_hassinger 2 in Business & Finance ➔ Insurance
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Many in Europe and other countries that have universal health care feel they are treated well and have had good experiences with the system. Some don't.
The problem as I see it is that comparing the US health care delivery system with that of a small, European country just doesn't make any sense. But, that doesn't excuse us from trying to do something positive about our nearly broken system.
Being in favor of universal health care in the US is kind of like saying that one favors anarchy but doesn't know how to enforce it. Universal health care is a noble goal and I think we should pursue it with the priority that it deserves. But, how to initiate it and keep it running is a tough challenge.
The fact is, universal care is possible. The question is, at what level and at what cost? Some countries with universal care are at the breaking point and sustain their systems from year to year...barely. It's easy to say that "everyone has access", but the follow up question is "what is the availability of that care, and what is the capacity of the system to pay for it?"
Norway and Sweden, for example, do just fine. However, they have nearly zero population growth and no one can simply show up in Oslo and say, "I'd like to become a Norwegian!" They have strict emigration laws and standards. Because their systems can rely on relatively steady numbers and because care costs are heavily regulated, their economies can handle a universal care system with a roughly 50% tax rate on income.
But, we have open borders. We even have a statuesque monument to that fact out in the harbor off New York. Our population growth is very unpredictable. The influx and outflow of people in our country is perhaps unequaled anywhere else in the world. And, we are not likely to achieve 0-population growth in the near future.
Finally, we send a lot of our capital oversees in the form of foreign aid and (currently) in military ventures. We have a huge deficit that we are pawning off to our children and grandchildren.
It's a really tough time to inconvenience ourselves with universal health care. And, that's what our elected officials are likely going to come back to us with.
Oh, sure, we'll get something. Maybe a "medicare for everyone" type of plan that would cover the basics and some prescription allowances. But, my guess would be that if you are middle class or better, such a plan would cause you to want to "buy up" in the private sector to reach an acceptable level of coverage. I'll bet even Michael Moore would be shopping for an "auxiliary contract" to take care of what would be missing from our skeletal universal plan.
Nothing is going to happen right away. It will take years to hammer it out. And, with all of the compromises along the way, it will no doubt be a watered-down version of the ideal.
2007-07-09 18:25:36 · answer #1 · answered by SafetyDancer 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The notion that people do not have to pay is erronious. This is funded through heavy taxes. Hard working tax payers with decent health habits must bear the burden of those with poor health habits. I have seen both systems at work and am convinced that without a doubt, private insurance is the way to go. You will not see people in the USA waiting 6 months on a list for angioplasty. It is common knowledge that cush things occur regularly with a so-called universal health care system.
2007-07-09 05:09:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well I think Canada has a great system, higher taxes but they don't have to pay for doctor checkups, or visits to the hospital. Most of the things are covered by health care (talking specifically about Ontario), but some things you have to pay for like crutches, or staying over night etc. Between US and Europe, I'd say it depends some parts of Europe have it awful, while some parts are quite good. I think Britain apparently has a pretty nice system that's reasonably cheap when compared to the US system.
2007-07-09 05:08:32 · answer #3 · answered by I Think Things I would Never Say 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that the ultra rich europeans and the policiticans in europe all come HERE for medical treatment - and that should tell you EVERYTHING you need to know.
A friend of mine in Europe tells me, there are TWO levels of care in Europe - public care, and private care. And everyone who CAN afford private care, gets it - it's MUCH better than public care, and you don't have to wait 17 months for your open heart surgery.
2007-07-09 05:44:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There's good and bad points to both. Such as, in Canada and Europe, there's nothing out of pocket for the patients, but in the US you get more emergent care - meaning, you don't have to wait a year for "emergency" surgery, or five years for "non-emergency" care....
2007-07-09 05:58:11 · answer #5 · answered by zippythejessi 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think you never know until you try... but i'm def. keeping what i have... but htere is no harm in looking into it... just do a google search :)
2007-07-09 05:08:52 · answer #6 · answered by Meg B 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋