Who should handle the change if there is one? (Think critically rather than an opinion, i.e. economic costs, public v. private, governmental intervionists v. free market economics)
2007-08-06 01:48:47 · 4 answers · asked by roymam 1 in Social Science ➔ Economics
There are three options.
First (used in all industrialized nations except the U.S., where it is used only for seniors) is a publicly funded health insurance.
Second (also widely used in the industrialized world, and also in the U.S., where it is used only for providing healthcare to veterans of armed forces) is direct provision of healthcare by the public sector.
Third is an emulation of car insurance requirement. The state of Massachussets is trying it now. Every resident of the state is required to have health insurance, except children, whose insurance is paid for by the state. Individuals and families who cannot afford health insurance, must apply for state aid to get it.
Each option has its critics. It is quite likely that none of the three is perfect. It is open to debate which, if any, would bring about an improvement compared to the current situation.
2007-08-06 08:09:28 · answer #1 · answered by NC 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In Singapore, basic insurance is compulsory and premiums are automatically deducted from our CPF (Central Provident Fund), which is something like a 401k.
However, that insurance is not enough, there is a need to upgrade the plans or to increase coverage.
I think the govt intervention is impt, by way of providing compulsory contribution or by educating the masses.
2007-08-06 14:18:43 · answer #2 · answered by floozy_niki 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A new formed Department of Public Healthcare should administer National Healthcare Insurance for those persons in this unfortunate situation.
2007-08-06 09:07:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i don't believe in insurance. I think it is a waste of resources
2007-08-06 09:59:29 · answer #4 · answered by haggismoffat 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋