Should We Copy the French System of National Health Care?

Question

It may be the best National system yet. French women live four years longer than U.S. women, on average. French men live two years longer. Infant mortality is a whopping 43 % less than it is in the U.S.

The French take a great interest in postpartum health of new mothers. They are taught exercises and watched carefully to make sure their bodies remain firm and healthy. Yet the French spend a little less than $3,500 per person on Health Care while the U.S., even with no National Insurance, spends around $6,000 per person.

The French pay their own doctor and hospital bills and are reimbursed by the state. They are encouraged to carry "Gap" insurance, in case the state payment does not cover all of the costs. While the waiting time for non-emergency surgeries may be greater than in the U.S., the French system is working, doesn't have the fifty million desperate uninsured as in the U.S., and gives each baby born in France a chance for a healthy life. Should we copy the French?

Answer 1

Perhaps we shouldn't create a carbon copy of the French system, but some form of socialized or universal coverage would be a step in the right direction. Plus, the US gov't would have to institute some form of price controls (as the French do, correct me if I'm wrong) on the insurance industry which would most likely meet with heavy resistance by the HMO lobby.

"...No national health care, would change american lifestyle habits."

And please tell how this would be accomplished under "market-based" solutions? The very same people who oppose any form of universal health care coverage are usuallly the ones who will also oppose any legislation that would encourage or mandate such a change in American lifestyles: This would include such amenities that the French currently enjoy: increase funding for developing quality and reliable mass transit to alleviate traffic congestion and pollution, more close-knit, urbanized developments to encourage walking and less sprawl (and long commutes), stricter dietary guidelines for restaurants and mandatory nutrition and exercise programs in grade schools to battle obesity, tougher enforcement of food inspection and medicines to ensure public safety, more paid vacation time and family/medical leave for workers to lessen work-related stress (which is often the culprit for loss of productivity). No. To you all of these are a detriment to "economic progress" and an "affront" to individual liberty.

Answer 2

I don't like politicians using the phrase "cost benefit analysis" in reference to my health care. The idea that the government can deem my medical procedure as not cost effective is a little frightening. I lived in the UK under the NHS. I know that what we have here is better, despite it's flaws. There is no way that the government will be able to run the health care industry without doing some (if not all) of the following things : A) Run the deficit up. B) Attempt to curb costs by rationing care, or limiting access. C) Increase taxes on everyone. Depending on the poll, 75-85% of the population is happy with their health care. I have yet to see where any of these bills address the increasing cost of health care, tort reform, government expenses, and other root problems of the health care industry. This is just off the top of my head......but I could keep going on.

Answer 3

Yes. Will it happen? That's a different question. The French National Health system is the best in the world. Followed by the Canadian national program. The problem, nevertheless, is the AMA has a powerful lobby group. This is why the national health care issue faltered from public view in 1993. If the next president is committed and willing to fight for national health care it stands a chance of passing. The money and power tossed around by lobby groups against it still might be too powerful for both hourses to pass it. By the way, French women live six years longer than American women.

Answer 4

Sure, just tell the French to cut the US a check for one trillion dollars.

And we'll copy thier system.

Oh, and by the way, its 45 million, and 16 million of those 45 million, are not US citizens.

And thats the number, who didn't have health insurance, for as little as one day last year.

So whats the number, of those who want health insurance, but cannot afford it ?

No one ever mentions that number.

And you do not mention, the French lead healthier lives than americans do, so even with equal health care, americans would still get sick more often and die sooner.

No national health care, would change american lifestyle habits.

EDIT :

Just some more facts, think of them what you will.

Under the plan you mentioned, US cost would be about 1 trillion a year, if american doctors were force to accept the pay scale that french doctors have.

Now the US had 1.4 trillion in income tax and corporate tax revenue last year.

So just where is an additional one trillion in tax revenue, to fund this, going to come from ?

It would take a 71% increase in income tax and corporate tax revenue to raise an additional one trillion dollars.

Answer 5

I dunno. How long do you wanna wait for a doctor appointment? 1, 2, maybe 3 months. The reason the costs are lower in France is because they do a better job of keeping costs low. For example, if you stay in a French hospital, you have to supply your own wash cloths, etc. I agree that we need to cut costs more but I don't think we need the government to pay. Nothing's free. The money's going to have to come from somewhere. I think abolishing insurance would be the best solution. Then hospitals, medical supply companies, and drug companies couldn't expect patients to pay their outrageous prices. Also, people would start to care how much their medical coverage would cost. So hospitals would have to start publishing price lists. Basically, any form of insurance creates a disconnect between medical care and prices. In India, where no one has much money, you can get cataract surgery for $25 an eye. I actually think companies like Wal Mart, opening up their own clinics, could bring about such a change in the US.

Answer 6

personally, id say no, but that's my opinion

we discussed this with my civics teacher not too long ago, he said hospital waits for non emergency things can last as long as 1-2 years if you are unlucky, whatever it is could kill you by then

Answer 7

Mais bien sûr. Je suis d'accord.

The waiting time thing is a myth. BTW, if it's non-emergency. how could it kill you?

Answer 8

France is the size of Oregon, they can do that.

Answer 9

As much as we are able, yes, ...but we should be so lucky.