Will Universal Healthcare in the USA lower the quality of our Healthcare?

Question

The USA has the best quality healthcare in the world. People from all over the world (who can afford it) come to our hospitals for the best treatments. We have the best outcomes in almost every disease in the world. But what im interested in is that if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008, and they implement a Universal Healthcare system, where the medicine stays private like it is, but the government regulates the insurance companies more and covers the people who dont have any insurance. Will that have a good or bad effect on the quality of care.

When i look for answers over Yahoo for this, the people answering seem not to understand the difference between what the US will probably do, and Socialized Medicine.

I am just wondering, is it because we keep 50 million people out of the healthcare system, that is why our quality of care is better. Or will covering everyone have no effect on the quality.

Any thoughts.

I tried to choose my word carefully, but i guess i will have to give it another try.
Whatever type of reform occurs in our healthcare system, the medical industry will stay private as it is today, there will be in no way, a socialized, government run medical service from the USA government, thats just something everyone needs to understand. and for some reason this simple fact is ignored by a large portion of people who answer and they just begin a diatribe about how bad government run healthcare is. What is the most likely outcome of reform in the USA is that the current program that covers the poor will be expanded, insurance companies will be made to play more fair, and cost savings will be employed.

What i want to know, is with this being the likely path the USA is going to take, do you think, that by adding 50 million people into the system, and by greatly equalizing the the insurance premiums to be more fair and inclusive, will that have an adverse effect on the quality of care.

Now about the Quality of Care issue.

I tried to make clear that our actual Medical Practices are the top of the line. The USA has the best hospitals in the world for treatment in every disease. It has the best doctors and surgeons in the world. It has the finest research centers in the world (but the Bush administration has been hacking at that), and most of the drug advancements have been made here, and are being made here. And this is due to the whole medical industry being private.

What I tried to point out is that the uninsured and the underinsured of the USA are not reaping these benefits. And i was wondering, is the quality of care due to this inequity. That because you must be able to afford these services in order to receive them, is that why the quality is so high. And would adding 50 million+ into the system depress and degrade that quality.

Im trying to understand whether there is a connection, and that when the USA adds these people, will that bring hurt us.

Answer 1

Yes it would and it would place too much power over my health care into the hands of the government.

Answer 2

"The USA has the best quality healthcare in the world"
WRONG. We have the 37th best quality. We certainlt have the best capability, but often times insurance companies regulate the treatment and not doctors, bringing the quality way down.

"People from all over the world (who can afford it) come to our hospitals for the best treatments."
People from all over the world can afford our system better than our own citizens can.

The affect on healthcare is a matter of opinion. If you think Dr.s being paid the same amount and focusing on your health instead of your wealth is a good thing, then yes, Universal Healthcare is a good thing.

"When i look for answers over Yahoo for this, the people answering seem not to understand the difference between what the US will probably do, and Socialized Medicine. "
In the short term the US will probably do nothing. If it does anything it will likely be in the health insurances' interest.

"I am just wondering, is it because we keep 50 million people out of the healthcare system, that is why our quality of care is better. Or will covering everyone have no effect on the quality."
The ability of our system or any system to have quality is based on how much money goes into it. Ours has tons of money, but tons more are wasted on profits. We could easily skip the middle man, paying the same amount, and reach the vastly high potential of our healthcare system.

My thoughts: Not-for-profit healthcare makes a lot more sense.

Answer 3

Any form of government intervention will lower the quality of health care. Examine the health care disaster run by the Veterans Administration.
The federal government and state governments regulate the insurance industry and the health care industry too much already. The government bureaucratic bumbling makes things worse and your answer is more government regulation. I don't think so.
Providing people with insurance is a bad idea. Someone else has to pay through taxes. That is socialism. The number of uninsured is a bogus statistic. Roger Hedgecock, a radio talk show host in San Diego, examined the stats. He estimates the number of people who don't have insurance and who cannot afford it at about 8 million.
Everyone in the US has access to health care.
Buying insurance or not buying should be an individual's choice.
Your reasoning is faulty. Try to separate health care from health insurance. The US is not keeping 50 million people out of the health care system.
The US system is the best because the system is based on free enterprise. There are rewards for people who succeed in providing new health care programs.
If a cardiac surgeon earns 5 million dollars a year, is that a good thing or a bad thing? He might save the lives of 500 people a year. As far as I am concerned, he can earn as much as he can.

Answer 4

The answer to your question is dependent upon one's current health care coverage. If you're not currently covered, then NO, Universal Healthcare will NOT lower your quality of healthcare. For people who can afford, and are covered by decent insurance, the answer is YES. Universal Health Care WILL lower the quality of health care.

Capitalism is FAR more efficient than Socialism.

That said, why does our "capitalistic" society control the supply of doctors and nurses? If it wasn't so difficult for Doctors to get medical degrees, and if barriers to entry into the medical field weren't so great, it wouldn't cost as much to provide healthcare because there'd be more healthcare professionals.

Also, to people who say that USA doesn't have the best healthcare....Why is it that most innovations come from the USA? When people have the money (foreign leaders, etc.), and they need the best of the best, why do they come to America for treatment?

Answer 5

Well that's just lovely unless you are one of those fifty million.
And I'm so glad you asked since today I got notice of an increase in my co payments to my health plan. Money can always buy quality, problem is that health insurance no longer buys quality health care. You can't choose your own provider, your own hospital, your own specialists, they have to be on the providers list. Do you like the thought of paying $18,000 a year and finding out you can't get covered? That you have a maximum or that they can drop you if you are ill? You would think for that price they could make their profit and make you well, but it seems not. Fifty million people will not suddenly be stricken with a major illness, though more of them might go when they need to instead of trying to tough it out, and, since the vast majority of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, it might even save the country some money.
Quality is determined by doctors and hospitals. There is no reason to assume they will do a worse job although they may need more people, knowing there is a single payer system may pave the way for them to know they will get their money in a timely manner and so invest in more personnel.

Answer 6

It depends - quality of anything is subjective. What we have now is choice - the individual has a great deal more choice than he has in other systems, and the individual can seek out what he considers quality. It's my Miles Davis CD analogy all over again. The government can provide something more efficiently than the private sector - there are a lot of reasons why it usually doesn't even do that, but it can conceivably do it, through sheer volume, by forcing everyone to buy the same model - - - but that benefits only those who would have bought that model if they still had the choice - - - the greater the difference between what you would have bought - or need to buy - and what the government forces everyone to buy, the more you're being screwed by the process. Since most people make different choices, generally speaking these forced-purchase programs work for the minority at the expense of the majority. Thus even if you can get around the waste, fraud and abuse, and all the other reasons why the government programs usually are far LESS efficient at producing the one item - it's also not a money or time saver for anyone but the people who would have bought that specific item - - - - the government could conceivably force me to buy In a Silent Way for $10 instead of the $15 it costs at Newbury Comics, but if you don't like Miles Davis, John McLoughlin, Herbie Hancock or Chick Corea, you didn't save $5, you're just out $10.

And "afford" is a funny word - - it's driven as much by cash outflow as inflow - - - - individual plans are a few hundred per month. To anyone who says he can't afford that I have two words: cancel cable.

"American" is also a funny word - and its definition for this purpose is far more certain. It means someone in the population within the borders of the US. That's what the Census Bureau considers to be an "American." Thus, of the 45 million "Americans" who lack health insurance, 20 million are illegal immigrants. And a national healthcare program is NOT going to insure them.

Answer 7

Your first premise is still faulty IMO.

You say: "The USA has the best quality healthcare in the world"

This is patently untrue and has been researched extensively. The US falls into lower rankings in many AREAS of healthcare.

In medical technology, we are among the top nations but that's not the same as patient care and overall population health, or infant mortality, etc.

Quite honestly, I rate our healthcare as mediocre at best even for those who pay top dollar for it.

So I think you should re-frame the question and ask how the nature and quality of healthcare will change in the USA with universal healthcare, without getting into a value judgment about how it is right now.

That would be a fairer question.

Answer 8

Yes it will turn into socialized medicine. Government paying for healthcare will raise our taxes substansially and cost many jobs in the insurance industry. In Europe as well as Canada, it is not the greatest. You have to wait and wait for care if it is not life threatening. You may have to wait weeks just to get looked at. All in all it is a bad idea. Healthcare for all Americans would be nice but is unrealistic. Another thing is people would abuse the system the same way medicare and medicaid is being abused now. Both of those programs including social security, and welfare are about 40% of the federal budget. Now imagine if universal healthcare is added to that. How high do you want your taxes to go?

Answer 9

It depends on how you go about 'covering' everyone.

If you do it by providing government run facilities there is no question that the quality of care will diminish. See IRS, DMV, State Department.

Providing low cost insurance will get people out side the system inside and not necessarily diminish the coverage of people already in. See Romney's Massachusettes Connector plan. No increase of taxes.

The law requires every individual in the state to purchase health insurance by July 1, 2007. Of the approximately 500,000 uninsured, about 100,000 are eligible for Medicaid, another 200,000 making less than 300 percent of the federal poverty level, but not eligible for Medicaid will receive premium assistance on an income-based sliding scale for policies with no deductibles, and another 200,000 with incomes above 300 percent FPL will be able to purchase lower-cost policies in the private market. Premium assistance will be financed by redirecting a portion of the $1 billion currently spent by state government on the uninsured.

If healthcare coverage is a hot button item for you, vote for Romney because he is the only one who has done anything at all about it. His plan on a national level would not be the same but, at least it's something and it won't raise taxes.

Answer 10

"Tremendous damage to our superior medical system" is an oxymoron when you consider that there are more than 100,000 unnecessary deaths annually in the U.S. because of the lack of health care. Sure, the ones who can afford probably have world class care but those without the ability to pay those exorbitant premiums with their pre-existing clauses are doomed to bankruptcy, at best. If one thinks that socialism is the death of free enterprise, one should look at the Scandinavian countries where freedom abounds with the exception that handguns do not abound. And drugs in other countries, the same drugs you use, are far cheaper and therefore more available to the less .fortunate. And as far as the free market doing a better job than the government - do you really believe that the private American mercenary armies in Iraq do a better job than the U.S. military? I would like to reply to NTZYSMO. There is virtually no truth in your entire statement regarding Canada and health care. You are taking information given by those with an agenda and we can guess who they are. I live in Canada. We have the parliamentary system of government and if you are familiar with such a system you will understand that any government, either Provincial or Federal, who tinkers with our Health Care system except to improve it (which is constantly occurring) does so at their peril. The last premier of my province to do this - he reduced the number of medical students in the universities, was gone shortly afterwards. There are no set in stone times for elections ( max. 5 years) and a lack of confidence vote will take the gov't down at any time. And as far as Great Britain goes, do some real reading on the subject.There the government, under pressure from free enterprise for a piece of the pie (read insurance and HMO's) allowed them in and almost destroyed a good system. They are now slowly correcting some mistakes

Answer 11

Here's the biggest kicker, we have the most productive advances in medical technology and pharmacuticals. Let's take a look at the pharmacuticals idenstry and see what happens, and then see what happens if we go universal, shall we?

What hapens:

Pharm company spends years in trial and error, investing hundreds of million to develope treatment - medication - etc. for ailment. Very csotly, very time consuming. However, a patent is held at the end of the day when the right formula - technology is found. Treatment is very expensive, but it exists. Eventually when patent runs out it becomes cheap in knock off form (or in numerous other countries overseas who don't care about our patents and thier government offers unviversal health care so they allow knock offs to keep thier coss down, as they could not cover it otherwise). Not ideal, but treatments evolve, the pharm companies make money and the wheel of capitalism turns as the company's ten year 100 million dollar investment turns into a 25 year profitable venture.

With universal health care:

Pharm company invests great deal of time and money into developing new treatment. Government allows knock off to be produced and sold cheaply otherwise they couldn't cover it. Pharm Company looses 100s of million. Pharm company quits developing drugs, doesn't make any business sense / couldn't stay in business due to to cost even if they wanted to purely out of thier own goof nature. No progress made.

Now am I exagerating. Probably a little, but not much. I don't know where the US ranks in terms of health care, but we do have the largest medical advancement industry in the world by far. Stagnate that an stagnate medicinal advances for the world.

PS...exhibit #2 against government run health care - TRICARE, the US military heath care program. Every service member and thier family gets full care! I mean, you can only go to your approved doctors list and have to wait weeks for a basic appointment and months for a specialist, but hey, it's a universally (for the military) crappy experience.

(yes, I am in the military so don't tell me that's not how it works - it is.)