A few times this topic has come up where we end up arguing which country has the best health care system and so I wanted to dedicate a special thread to it, for the record. Should health care be private or publicly subsidized by the government? I am sure there are pros and cons depending on where in the financial spectrum you are but as a whole what you see going into the future? More privatization in the medical field or greater government contribution?
I don’t even know how the system works in Canada or Europe but I have heard it’s all paid through the tax dollars.
Kaleem Bhai, as you know most about it and have probably researched it, can you explain how it works? How much you pay per month or in a year for what kind of services? What are the benefits? What you should look out for? How can it be better? And what is the problem with a publicly run health care system?
There are two ways we can look at this topic. For specialized medical issues, it is possible that different places provide better or best care. If you average everything out, then it will provide a general conjecture (and probably bragging rights) but is probably meaningless for a patient.
I think there are several hospitals in US that provide excellent medical care and cutting edge technology to treat their patients. However, if you look at the emergency rooms in any county hospitals, with enormous wait times and over-worked doctors, it would seem no better than any communist country. Then again with insurance-based medical coverage, doctors, by and large are adequately compensated (some say over-compensated) and have incentive to treat their patients appropriately (that means quick appointments, small wait times, detailed checkup and efficient referrals etc).
Just curious, and this seems like an appropriate place to ask. In the US, for the following situation, what could be some alternate steps the affected could take? I know someone who has two hernias and complications from a two year old C-sec. She is in incredible pain, doesn't have the socioeconomic resources to deal with her life, and her operation is scheduled for mid April. This is in Canada.
Quality healthcare should be provided by the state for all. It is a right, and not something only to be enjoyed by those who can afford it.
However, a parallel private health system that doctors can work part of their time in is important, both to maintain domestic medical talent and also to allow those who can afford superior healthcare to be able to get it.
For Kaleem & Faisal Bhaijaans, what about those who can’t afford a private health care? What should they do? For example, I pay almost 3000 dollars for my family’s medical insurance a year, and I am sure my employer pays many folds for me, which is impossible for someone who works as a grocery store cashier. What do to with them?
Ahmadjee... u asked for "Best Medical Care", not necessarily the cheapest or the most wide-spread.
Sarah, in the situation you described above (most likely a medical emergency), the patient will be admitted to the hospital. All the necessary procedures will be performed on her regardless of whether she can afford it or not. After everything is done, she will be presented with a huge bill and her various options for financing.
There are pros and cons for universal medical care. Obvious con is that if doctors feel that they are not paid enough, they are likely to flee to a place where they are adequately compensated. This will, in the long term, bring down the availability and quality of health care.
On the other hand, we don't want to leave a large portion of population without any safety net of medical benefits. That will create more social problems, including higher crime rate and thus lower quality of life.
So, the best answer is probably a hybrid approach, where you should be able to get the best medical care as long as you can afford it, and appropriate and adequate medical care for those who can't.
However, a parallel private health system that doctors can work part of their time in is important, both to maintain domestic medical talent and also to allow those who can afford superior healthcare to be able to get it.
I hope you realize that most medical school graduates will run to work in the parallel private health system.
Look at what goes on in the US. Try to get a doctor to work for a basic salary in a government paid job in rural America or in underpriveleged areas/ghettos/etc, and they will only do it if the US govt agrees to pay off their med school loans. Give them the option of opening up a private practice and give them the right to manage themselves and set their own prices, and most med school students will run for private practice. Even getting doctors to stick around to work in university environments and do things like teaching, working in university community clinics is hard. No one wants to do it.
So if you make a widespread healthcare system, where the government obviously will pay only what they can afford to doctors, and then make a parallel health system that caters to the ritzy where obviously doctors will make more money, you'll find more doctors running to the parallel health system, and the government will be hard pressed to find doctors to work in the widespread government-subsidized health system.
Maddy bahi, who will foot the bill for "for all"? These utopian ideas are good to get liberals elected, they have no place in the reality of this world. We as (Americans) are already over taxed, in great debt and states (this goes for all states) have squanderd billions of dollars to plethora of social causes which never live up to their billing. There has to be an alternative that does not require everyone else to pay for it.
Fraudia bhaijaan, how can one have 'quality' health care for all and yet have a parallel system for the rich? Either the quality isn't really quality or the rich will be paying for nothing. Its similar to the supreme court ruling of separate but equal for blacks, which works great on paper but never in reality.
Todd, whats so great about Canada?
Faisal Bhaijaan, I meant to say best health care for everyone but I know what you mean.
Kaleem Bhai, there is nothing liberal about healthcare 'for all', this idea is as old as the practice of medicine. The difference is who pays for it, you, your employer or the state. No political party, or even individual will argue that we should exclude anyone from the health care, so indeed it's for all. Secondly this idea isn't as alien to US public because we also believe in 'education for all' and so we have public schools.
Gudia, Gudia, Gudia… you overlooking the awe-inspiring power of legislative healthcare.
In the UK, in order to be allowed to legally practice medicine, doctors must do a certain number of hours (the majority of their hours) for the state. The private medical sector is staffed by the same individuals who are doctors in the state sector. Participating in private health care is something they do on the side, in what little time they have left over.
This system ensures that the state-run health system keeps the majority of available doctor-hours, whilse allowing doctors to do some work in the private sector serving the needs of the minority who can pay for premium treatment - and earning premium pay for it.
Kaleem
An average person even in rich countries cannot pay for Appropriate health care (not the best). Its expensive. If you get an illness that requires long term care and follow-ups, beleive you wounld/nt be able to pay for it, unless you are filthy rich.
Americans are under-taxed… the USA has some of the lowest personal taxation in the Western world. In the UK, sales tax is 17.5%, in Canada 15%, and in many US states less than 10%.
And don’t get me started on income tax…
There is no way to get around the fact that the rich must pay for the welfare of the poor. It is the cornerstone of the modern social welfare state. The role of the government is to act as a bloated bureaucratic Robin Hood, taking from the rich to help the poor.
The resulting higher average quality of life brings its own benefits to society as a whole.
basic healthcare is a right not a gift..I personally don't believe in comprehensive free healthcare as practical..but If i remember right the best health care systems in the world are in Western Europe..I just don't think that level of care is sustainable.
^^^ If you were a doctor and studied for a couple of years or so to learn the trade would you prefer to deal with the poor riff raff for a relatively low wage or the nice wealthy people who paid you more?