Universal Healthcare with NPO?

Question

I have seen sicko lately and, as a Canadian living in the US for the past 10 years, was impressed by the movie.
I have seen the 2 sides and think the Canadian system is better overal. I understand the claim many americans say why they are scared to the idea of having a Universal Healthcare system provided by the gvt like in the UK or Canada. That's part of the culture and since we have several huge Health Care Insurance companies trading on the stock market, changing this equation will make them suddenly irrelevant hence big changes and lots of people yelling.
However, I have personally no problem with bringing universal healthcare here, but that's my personal opinion.
But one thing I do believe is the need for Healthcare Insurance not to be money driven. These corporations should be non profit organizations and need to provide a statement of their accounting to show how efficient (how much overhead) they incurred. What's your opinion on such proposition?

Well, Non Profit Organization do exist.
Mostly with things that are specific to helping people in need (like Salvation Army) which in my sense is not far off. Isn't healthcare helping people with health problems similar?
Thx

Regarding regerugged's comment, that depends who you talked to. I talked to my brother in law and with his health problem (hearth surgery,...) and low family salary, he would have been dead a long time ago. So, between a shorter time to wait for certain things versus living longer, I'm sure he would vote for the latter.
Yes, the system in Canada could be fixed and it is the major visible universal healthcare system most americans (snow belt at least) can easily compared to as the UK is farther away. It might be better over there. A system of copay should be introduced in Canada so that those complaining for long hours for a little cut wouldn't be in the waiting room in the first place.

For the answers against both NPO and Universal Healthcare, should Welfare be totally removed since it is a sort of universal healthcare for 65+

Answer 1

From my own little bit of experience as an insider in a non-profit healthcare facility, I was struck by the fact that it seemed as profit-driven as the others. I do believe that non-profit anything in the healthcare field would be the same, whether insurance or whatever. Here's why, and here's where a bit of what I consider corruption comes in: There's a yearly budget just like in a for-profit, and the administrator and top staff try to make the bottom line look great: meet the budget or exceed it--that is, keep costs way down so there's some left over. So where does that excess money go? For patients, you would think. That's their formally-stated mission, their reason-for-being. Nope. It goes into the pockets of the top staff as a bonus for having a great year (at least in some and I presume in most). So that does work the same as the profit motive after all. They can line their own pockets if they keep costs down--even if it hurts patients. Of course they can always tell themselves stuff like "if we cut such and such costs it really helps patients in the long run" or some rationalization like that. So after observing this I'm not sure whether perhaps the profit motive may actually be better and less prone to corruption. Strange thought, but if you've seen this in action... Sure they're audited, but... No, in some ways, the profit motive does keep people on the straight and narrow; there may be more consequences if they play around with the money than there would be in a non-profit. Just a thought. Did you ever read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, explaining why, just why, the profit motive can encourage honorable behavior--good for the wider world the person lives in too? Just a thought, like I said.

Answer 2

I agree with you we need to do something about the for profit side of insurance. It has gotten so your paying tons of money for very little service. Its not always best to make a thing for profit.
If insurance companies see your going to work on the profit side of things and make sure a patient gets their moneys worth things might get better. insurance should only be in the business of insuring not telling doctors what they can and cannot do. It was like that until the 1980's then thing every went for profit. It to sad America needs to get back to being a country that care about people not only money.
That's the crap the Reagan era gave us. Total Capitalism every thing is for profit including your family.

Answer 3

You have bad sources of information. "Sicko" is a movie. Mr. Moore knows how to make movies and to get people to buy tickets. He would not know the truth if it smacked him. You apparently have not had to use the Canadian health care system in the past 10 years. Cleveland, Ohio has a thriving health care business, thanks to Canadians who can afford to go there for immediate treatment...something they cannot get at home.
There is nothing wrong with profits. It is the prime motivating factor in our free enterprise economy. Everyone in the health care industry operates with a profit motive. Would you have a doctor use his income for food, clothing and shelter, then turn over the rest of his earnings to the government?
Competition keeps prices down. The problem with the health care industry in the US is government interference.
The insurance industry and the health care industry are the most regulated in the country. When regulation costs money or does not work, your solution is more government regulation? I don't think so.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield are supposedly non-profit insurers. Most groups have money in reserve, but they operate under government regulation.

Answer 4

If we mold our new health care system after the Canadians, it will be far more superior than it is today for US.. And IF there are any discrepancies with the Canadian plan, then we can fix those BEFORE we implement our own. One thing Americans take in pride is our ingenuity.

Answer 5

I think making health insurance companies non-profits is impossible because nobody would be in the business if there was no incentive for profits.

I think the best way to solve part of the problem is to require individuals to have insurance like we require for cars. In turn, we should allow people to buy plans with less features like we do with auto insurance.