Universal Healthcare

[kvnchrist]

I've heard just about every argument on this subject, but I'd like to hear from those who have this system already in their countries, just what the honest pros and cons of the system they have in place. I'm not interested in in political rhetoric or pie in the sky/horror stories. If the Republicans don't get their way and the Supreme Court allows it to stand, we will have to deal with it and I for one, would like to find out just how great or how horrible it can be.

 

Has there been cases of The Government penalizing people for not living in any approved manner as far as eating, drinking, smoking.

 

Are there excessive waiting periods?

 

Are the pressure or incentives among the health care students to go in fields that lack doctors and nurses?

[HeyYou]

Just like so many other things, Government run health care has the possibility of offering a lower quality of care. It doesn't necessarily HAVE to.... but, given what I have seen what happens to things that work pretty well until the fed sticks their fingers into it.... I have no reason to believe health care would be any different.

 

Same with the second question. The possibility is there, but, it doesn't necessarily imply that it WILL happen.

 

Anything can be used as a social/political tool. If health care was nationalized, you can bet that it would be.

[marharth]

Just like so many other things, Government run health care has the possibility of offering a lower quality of care. It doesn't necessarily HAVE to.... but, given what I have seen what happens to things that work pretty well until the fed sticks their fingers into it.... I have no reason to believe health care would be any different.

 

Same with the second question. The possibility is there, but, it doesn't necessarily imply that it WILL happen.

 

Anything can be used as a social/political tool. If health care was nationalized, you can bet that it would be.

This is my view entirely.

[JimboUK]

Does universal HC reduce the quality of that care?

 

That depends how it's run, a well run system could provide higher quality care for less. Sadly with universal care governments tend to get involved and we all know if you want something done badly you get the government to do it, the UKs National Health Service is a prime example of how not to do it.

 

Can Universal HC reduce the options patients have?

 

Limits on what that service will provide must be set, if not it becomes a black hole that sucks in more and more money. Is there less choice than a completely private system? As long as private medicine isn't banned then I'd argue it gives greater choice.

 

Can Universal HC be used as a social and political tool?

 

Hell yes. Over here smokers, drinkers, drug users and those who won't eat what they're told to are always under attack for costing the taxpayer money. They do seek to control people through the healthcare system, in some cases threatening to refuse treatment for those who won't give up smoking or stop drinking, the irony is those who smoke and drink have paid in more via duties than those who do neither. Political interference in the way it's run is also an issue, parties of different colours will have their own ideas on how it should be run and put those into practice when in office, this results in a continual state of flux as one set of ideologies is replaced by another every time a different party is in power.

[Ghogiel]

 

Can Universal HC reduce the options patients have?

 

Limits on what that service will provide must be set, if not it becomes a black hole that sucks in more and more money. Is there less choice than a completely private system? As long as private medicine isn't banned then I'd argue it gives greater choice.

 

Private health care, in many circumstances will not give greater choice. It's an insurance company, and will only cover procedures that are of the options you are given, much the same in a government taxed one. It has the right to refuse many types of treatment based on what it considers valid, and the cheapest one is the one usually on offer. It is a fundamental conflict of interest in that a main goal would be to try not to pay out as much as possible.

[JimboUK]

 

Can Universal HC reduce the options patients have?

 

Limits on what that service will provide must be set, if not it becomes a black hole that sucks in more and more money. Is there less choice than a completely private system? As long as private medicine isn't banned then I'd argue it gives greater choice.

 

Private health care, in many circumstances will not give greater choice. It's an insurance company, and will only cover procedures that are of the options you are given, much the same in a government taxed one. It has the right to refuse many types of treatment based on what it considers valid, and the cheapest one is the one usually on offer. It is a fundamental conflict of interest in that a main goal would be to try not to pay out as much as possible.

 

I have a choice between private or nationalised healthcare, if we didn't have both systems then I wouldn't have that choice, simples.

[Ghogiel]

Aye, I was furthering the point that even in the treatments offered, private can be every bit as restrictive in what is available.

[HeyYou]

Aye, I was furthering the point that even in the treatments offered, private can be every bit as restrictive in what is available.

 

True that. Some insurance companies are more stingy than the government...... any insurance company would HATE me...... I get an MRI every other month.

[stars2heaven]

I agree with the other posts so far. I.E., that universal health care could, if run well, be of better quality for less. It could be used as a political tool, and because of this, the first point is unlikely to ever be fully realized. Etc.

[HeyYou]

I agree with the other posts so far. I.E., that universal health care could, if run well, be of better quality for less. It could be used as a political tool, and because of this, the first point is unlikely to ever be fully realized. Etc.

 

:yes:

 

That is so VERY true. Makes you wonder if the government PURPOSELY mismanages things...... that gives them 'room for improvement', so, it looks like the politicians are actually doing something.