How would national health care work?

Question

Would some bureaucrat decide which doctor I could see? Could I change doctors if I was dissatisfied? This is a huge point. My wife would have died if see had to continue seeing the quack Neurologist in our town.
Would I be restricted in the medications I could use? Who would decide the approved formulary? How long would I have to wait for an operation? Has anybody really thought this through?

Answer 1

There are several systems in which you would have the freedom to choose in all of those situations. Most politicians are talking about universal health care, not socialized health care for the US. See Massachusetts for an example.

Answer 2

The NHS is Britain gets a lot of bad press because no national health service is perfect and people love a bad story. But in reality it is an amazing organisation that satisfies 99% of it’s users.

To answer you questions:

You can choose any General Practitioner from your Primary Care Trust (an administrative area that covers a population from around 50,000 – 500,000 people). Your GP will refer you to whatever specialist you need, but you can always seek a second opinion.

A health service is obviously a black hole for money, as you cannot keep everyone alive for ever and there are always more and more expensive treatments so you can always spend more on medicine. You therefore need an independent body that decides which treatments are cost effective given the resources that government has allocated for the health service. In the UK, this board is the National Institution for Clinical Excellence. They can of course be lobbied to change their policy if the public feel they have misjudged a certain treatment.

Again, waiting lists would depend on the amount the government chose to spend and the number of specialist surgeons and consultants it hired. Some treatments will always take longer than others. In this country a lot of noise is made about long waiting lists, but this is the exception. Most urgent operations are lined up pretty promptly.

I think that answers all your points. I think every country should have a national health care network. The idea that rich people are allowed operations but people to poor to afford health insurance have to suffer is appalling.

I see a lot of people have posted comments regarding government’s management abilities. While big government run organisations will always be slightly clumsy, at least no money gets funnelled out to big share holders and big businesses, making money out of illness.

And I don’t know why Seano believes that only shoddy doctors would work for the NHS. A lot of doctors in the UK to some private work on the side, but even those who suffer at the hands of management and bureaucracy still get a great sense of reward in working for such a great service. I’d rather be treated by someone who cares than someone in it for the money.

Anyway, sorry for the long post. I LOVE THE NHS!

Answer 3

National Health care is a bunch of bullshit!

Why the hell does the govt. need to pay for YOUR health!? It makes no sense. So once they are in control of your health care, they end up making the decisions instead of the doctors. I heard a story recently that a man passed away because the insurance company refused to pay for a treatment that could have saved his life. That's how insurance companies make money off of you. National Health care won't have much of a difference. The American people should have a choice as to which doctors to see. And any health problem is an individual matter. NOT the Governments!

Also, I lived in Brazil for 5 years, and we had a similar health care system and all I can say that it was SCREWED UP. People would have to wait forever to see a doctor and so on.

It's not as pretty as it looks people.

Ron Paul '08!

Answer 4

There are any number of possible schemes. For instance, everyone could be /required/ to carry health insurance, much like many states require everyone who drives to carry auto insurance. Those who meet some means test to prove that they can't afford it would be given some sort of government-subsidised coverage - actually, a lot of coverage might end up being subsidised. Under such a system, you'd combine the worst aspects of proffit-motive care delivery, with the worst aspects of private insurance, /and/ the worst aspects of a burauecratic system (since any hospital or insurance company getting a dime of those subsidies would be open to government interference).

You'd have soaring demand, since individuals don't directly pay for thier medical care, questionable quality as decisions are made by burocrats, and rampant inefficiency as private insurance, providers and unions all take thier cuts - on top of standard issue government waste.

Answer 5

To answer all your questions: No.

It of course depends upon the details; however, most universal coverage systems operate similar to private insurance it just is guaranteed to everyone. In addition, even though you could get free health care you would of course be able to pay for extra health care. Even though we have public schools you can still choose to go to private schools. All the problems you list are certainly serious, but this is more of a reason to engage in a debate about how to design a universal health care system. We would need to ensure personal choice in coverage options and deal with bureaucratic issues. But we should be able to deal with these issues. Some coalition between industry and government would probably work best in terms of coverage and satisfaction (see Massachusetts for an example of universal coverage being achieved without limiting choices or increasing bureaucracy at all).

Answer 6

Kill the idea. Our current health care system is bad but a government controlled system would be much worse.

Here is what we need.
Eliminate the government from the Health care system entirely. That accomplishes a number of good things.

1. It allows drug companies back into business. Drugs come from drug companies not the government tooth fairy. Many drug companies have driven out of business by two factors, the demonetization of drug development and unrealistic government price controls.

2. It forces Americans to pay for their own health care. Sounds cruel but it isn't. If Americans can't pay for health care there will be none. Doctors and nurses and hospitals will go out of business. That will not happen. The entire health care industry will re-align their pricing so they can 'sell' themselves. Health care will become a commodity subject to 'supply and demand' controls.

3. On a theoretic level it restores the government to the system defined by the Constitution and away from a Socialist / Communist system.

Answer 7

Poorly. People who are convinced that national health care is such a good idea are convinced of that because they mistakenly believe that having the government manage health care costs is better than insurance companies. To be honest, its entirely the third party payer system that is screwing up our health care system so much, that and collusionary price fixing by medical doctors.

Answer 8

it really depends each universal healthcare system is different. but yes, you would probably have a list of doctors you could see. But i don't think you have that much to worry about the UK and Canada both have universal healthcare which both work wonderfully and both are loved by everyone.

The thing about universal healthcare is that you can better care with your own insurance or money. what it does is that it ensures that those who cannot afford healthcare get at least some level of treatment, checkups, medicaitons and whatnot. It is really aimed at the poor and those who cannot get their own healthcare.

Answer 9

If I were in charge of it.

I would stop doing 3 million dollar operations for old people with 2 years to live or less

Also, massage and acupuncture, food councelling, lowering cholesterol, etc. Could save the health care industry millions, maybe billions. Then just let anyone go to whoever they want. Also, keep the drug companies in check. Don't let em advertize except just a fact sheet for docs maybe. Then since they would spend less on advertizing, the drugs would cost half what they do. They spend HALF the profits on advertizing !!!!!!! And perks for docs.

Answer 10

there are many ways. look into europes countries for different ways free heath care is working right now.
france-england-greece and plenty more are waiting for you to see what america is missing out on while we the citizens give 1/3rd of our money to the gov to have to pay for insurance which is a scam of the umft degree.