Healthcare: Private, Public, And In Between
killswitch
Join Date: 2003-02-05 Member: 13141Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2003-02-05 Member: 13141Members, Constellation
in Discussions
I live in Canada, and at least every week there is a news article about our public healthcare system being underfunded, and the resulting massive waitlists that it causes. If it was simply as easy as pouring more money into it (and believe me we pour a lot **** it is) then we'd be fine, but taxes are pretty high as it is here.
Of course in a private system, it won't be the people sitting on waitlists that will suffer, but the one's that can't afford it. It seems like in either case, healthcare is a scarce resource and someone will be left behind.
What does your country use and what do you think is the ideal? I am leaning more towards a private system, but I want to hear different viewpoints.
Note: This isn't about drug companies and their policies, but rather government's role in providing healthcare.
Of course in a private system, it won't be the people sitting on waitlists that will suffer, but the one's that can't afford it. It seems like in either case, healthcare is a scarce resource and someone will be left behind.
What does your country use and what do you think is the ideal? I am leaning more towards a private system, but I want to hear different viewpoints.
Note: This isn't about drug companies and their policies, but rather government's role in providing healthcare.
Comments
Technically, I think the healthcare is overpriced, I wouldn't mind a little help from the government (hey, howsabout we tax the rich people a little bit more, for a change? - that'll give us money for it.) I had my appendix out 2 years ago...it cost like $5000, just from the cash cows that are hospitals and the lame ducks that are insurance companies.
Way to go Blue Cross Blue Shield, way to pay for almost absolutely-freaking-nothing. Although, those 2 days were fairly relaxing, if somewhat overpriced...got to read 2 books <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> . To bad Oxycotone works better on me than morphine (but not by much, as they're both weak...bah).
I would also fear the people that enjoy surgery if it were cheaper though. People might take advantage of it in some ways...I'm sure Canada prevents the health care system benefits being used for plastic surgery.
Overall, ours is a bit expensive, but it's alright...if you're not a chronic sicky.
Health care, in my opinion, is one of those things governments are supposed to provide. We pay taxes so our governments can supply us with services and keep the whole country going. Services such as health an education are crucial to the success of a nation, and as such it's not only in the government's best interest to provide these services, but it should also be their responsability.
I'm more than happy to pay taxes to provide my family with public health care.
This is one of the very few areas upon which me and my hero Howard disagree <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Now get out there, log an old growth forest, shoot some protesters and eat a kitten like a decent respectable Liberal Party supporter!
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Unfortunately you may not get it at all either way. Shouldn't waitlists be perpetually expanding ad inifinitum. Well no. They eventually cap off at 6,7,8 months. Why? It wasn't because people magically got better, it's because they died. And I'm sure many of us would be happy to pay a couple thousand if it meant our life. But the government considers that a big no-no in Canada.
I think a good example is food. Like healthcare, isn't food something that's a necessary right? Well sure. Shouldn't the government provide it then? Absolutely not. Supermarkets are the one of the most fiercly competetive industries in the US, the 'profit' they make on each sale are in the pennies. Because of all this mass privatization, we are able to feed ourselves, and then some. Obesity is a bigger problem then starvation.
Would this same not apply to hospitals? It's important to realize that costs and prices are not the same. Just because the government pays for it doesn't mean it's free. Doctors must be paid and hospitals must be built. Historically, private companies are much more adept at cutting costs that public ones. This is why national postal services have chronic debt that is alleviated by tax payers.
Well "overpriced" doesn't really mean anything. The cost of the appendix is still $5000. The difference is yor fellow man had to pay for it, not you.
And most of the chronically sick are seniors. Incidentally they also hold the lion's share of the wealth in first world countries.
- If everyone payed for their own healthcare, why do we need public healthcare?
I'm not saying it's the best solution, because I think there are benefits in privatizing health care, it's just that there's no clear cut solution and there's a rationale for both sides.
But governments do ensure that supermarkets don't charge too much for nessessities and also help the poor out with social security that helps them pay for food. Farmers are given generous tax breaks, tarrifs are placed to prevent external competition and the government will step in and import food from elsewhere if shortages arise. If every supermarket in Australia tommorow decided to charge $10 for a loaf of bread, there would be an immense public backlash and the government would immediatly act.
Providing services is differant to providing nessessities. Health care is a service; the community as a whole does not need health care as they can get by without it. Food production and distribution works well in the private sector because the government keeps a close eye on it and the public won't stand for prices they can't afford. Private health care doesn't work as well because a private company can charge basically whatever they want for their service, and claim that they're providing a service, not a nessessity.
Now why should any citizen be denied health care because they can't afford private health cover? Why should their government not supply them with a service such as this? Forlorn, you ask what if everyone could pay for private health care. The reality is of course that many citizens cannot, but many do pay taxes. Should those tax dollars not go towards helping them? Which would you rather: your tax dollars buying a new B2 stealth bomber or hospital beds for 10,000 people?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Historically, private companies are much more adept at cutting costs that public ones. This is why national postal services have chronic debt that is alleviated by tax payers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a simple reason for that: government services have to provide services to everyone. Take Telstra here, our national telecommunications provider. They have to provide phone and internet to remote bush communities, at great cost. Yet they can't charge the recievers more. Post offices have to be open all around the country, often in small communities that send costs rising. Private companies can simply close such branches and sack staff en masse like the major banks here do for example. A public hospital must provide services to everyone, even those who usually could not afford such a service. Private hospitals can simply deny service to all those who can't pay.
The poor, the isolated, the "battlers" as they're known as here: these are the people who lose out when services are fully privatised. And they're the very people who the government should be trying to help.
- If everyone payed for their own healthcare, why do we need public healthcare? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you kidding? Treatments these days are expensive. medical bills can run thousands, even tens of thousands, PER DAY. I'd like to see all but the multibillionaires be able to pay for that.
*edit* a little vague
Private health care doesn't work as well because a private company can charge basically whatever they want for their service, and claim that they're providing a service, not a nessessity.
The reality is of course that many citizens cannot, but many do pay taxes. Should those tax dollars not go towards helping them?
A public hospital must provide services to everyone, even those who usually could not afford such a service. Private hospitals can simply deny service to all those who can't pay. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree, almost entirely <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Governments play <b>no</b> part in regulating supermarkets, nor should they. What they quite normally do is **** tariffs, which drive up the cost of imported food and forcing consumers to pay up. They don't need to regulate, nor should they. If any one supermarket raised their prices their consumres would leave in droves to a competetitor. Your bread example is nice and hypothetical, but would never ever happen, and it doesn't have to do with the government stepping in or even collusion and anti-trust laws.
Health care IS a necessity, how could it not be? And if you think it's not a necessity, then why should the government sonsor it all? Why doesn't the government sponsor all kinds of services like foot massages and valets? Medicare is a necessity, but is it one that the government should be providing?
And of course hospitals can charge whatever they want. Everybody can. I can demand $1mil/year from my employer but he won't pay it. Why? Because someone else will do the job cheaper. Which is exactly what happens in the states. There is very rarely a single hospital in a major town, and it is completly unlawful to change prices just because one customer is more desperate than another.
"Many people can not afford medicare". The answer is of course they can. We are affording it right now. The difference is instead of our money going directly to the hospital, it is routed through governments and beauracracies and THEN to the hospitals. Since the brunt of taxes comes from the middle class anyway, they will most certainly be able to afford it.
And what about extraordinary and cataclysmic medical tragedies that are massively expensive? Well what do we do if we get in a car accident that causes extraordinary and cataclysmic expenses? Should we expect the government to pay out the costs? Of course not, insurance companies handle this, and so should they for extraordinary medical costs. For day-to-day problems paying out of pocket is more practical. And you can bet that people that are in charge of their own health are more inclined to take care of themselves, and not see the doctor everytime they have a headache or a cold (I realize that there is an insignificant probability that a headache or a cold could be something severe but if everyone with such conditions were to see a doctor they would displace people with ailments that are much more likely to be severe).
"Ahhh but there are going to be people who can't afford it!" Of course. Healthcare is a scarce resource. And like all scarce resources, it must be rationed. That usually either means waiting lists of cash, but in either case somebody will go without. There are only x number of MRIs and 5x number of people who need them.
But that still doesn't explain what will happen to the poor. Well what happens if the poor can't get food? They seek charities. And these charities do an infintely better job cutting costs and servicing their patrons than any governmental agency. Would doctors be willing to take on patients for free? Absolutely. Just ask any med student. And if taxes were reduced you can bet that people would be a lot more generous. Indeed, Canada and the US are some of the most generous givers in the world, even on a percentage basis.
You might argue that they shouldn't have to seek charities, that if medicare was free then all the problems would be solved. Well obviously not. I just outlined the current problems such as the waitlist and general government inefficiency. <b>There is no cure to this system</b>, it is doomed to failure so long as healthcare is a scarce resource. Indeed, any system is, there are simply systems that are more efficient than others, and I argue that more lives would be saved with a private system then a public one. Granted more 'rich' people would be saved, but if 100 poor people die in a private system, and 70 rich people and 70 poor would die in a public one, I think the choice is obvious. Providing that is you don't hold some loathing for 'rich' people.
This is the smartest thing I've heard all day. Thank you.
Of course it seems horrible that rich people should get more things than poor people. It would be nice and wonderful if everyone had the same access to everything. Unfortunately anytime this has been attempted universally it has resulted in monumental failure, and I hope I don't need to tell you the examples.
It is vital that people that earn more money be able get more things than people that make less money.
Sorry for the triple post but I had to point out that the censors actually blocked:
"E r e c t"! What the heck?!
Health care is a service. Nessessities are food, air and water, sometimes shelter. A person can live their entire live and never need health care. They'll probably die a lot sooner, but it is not a nessessity.
It is important enough though that people want it and consider it to be quite vital. The government does not sponser foot massages because they are not considered to be important: they are a luxury. If the entire population of a nation suffered from chronic foot pain constantly and foot massages were the only way to alleviate it, people would place much more importance upon it (and the government would be pressured to support foot massages).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Governments play no part in regulating supermarkets, nor should they. What they quite normally do is **** tariffs, which drive up the cost of imported food and forcing consumers to pay up. They don't need to regulate, nor should they. If any one supermarket raised their prices their consumres would leave in droves to a competetitor. Your bread example is nice and hypothetical, but would never ever happen, and it doesn't have to do with the government stepping in or even collusion and anti-trust laws.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiry/psa/finalreport/psa.pdf' target='_blank'>A rather extensive pdf document on the Australian government overseeing prices in Australia</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->merger (s. 81).
The minister determines which organisations, goods
or services should be subjected to prices surveillance.
These are formally ‘declared’. In cases where an
organisation is specified, the minister must nominate
how long the declaration must remain in effect.
A declared organisation cannot raise the price of a
declared product beyond its peak price of the
previous 12 months unless it fulfils the requirements
of the Act. The maximum penalty for individual is
$11 000 and for a corporation $55 000.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=325781&nodeId=file3f0d0f935a977&fn=ACCC%20Journal%20Appendix%203%202003.pdf' target='_blank'>Overview of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission</a>
Governments do watch food prices closely and take action if they change to unacceptable levels.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Ahhh but there are going to be people who can't afford it!" Of course. Healthcare is a scarce resource. And like all scarce resources, it must be rationed. That usually either means waiting lists of cash, but in either case somebody will go without. There are only x number of MRIs and 5x number of people who need them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Healthcare is not a scarse resource. There are always people doing medical degrees and the infrastructure simply requires funding. True, demand often is higher than what can be provided e.g. Organ transplants. But in all areas where supply can be helped by application of funding (such as greater incentives for doctors to work in remote areas, or building new hospitals, or increasing the average wages of nurses so more people will take up that profession) it should be done. The money and the manpower is there, it's just not being applied properly. That's where governments come in.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And of course hospitals can charge whatever they want. Everybody can. I can demand $1mil/year from my employer but he won't pay it. Why? Because someone else will do the job cheaper. Which is exactly what happens in the states. There is very rarely a single hospital in a major town, and it is completly unlawful to change prices just because one customer is more desperate than another.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But it is entirely legal to deny someone treatment if they don't have health insurance. Some citizens simply cannot afford such insurance; it's not a question of another company doing it cheaper because no company will lower their prices to a level that everyone can afford. Corperations are there to make a profit: simple. There's no profit to be made in helping the poor.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But that still doesn't explain what will happen to the poor. Well what happens if the poor can't get food?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The government here provides them with money to get that food. That's what a government is ment to do: help it's citizens.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no cure to this system, it is doomed to failure so long as healthcare is a scarce resource. Indeed, any system is, there are simply systems that are more efficient than others, and I argue that more lives would be saved with a private system then a public one. Granted more 'rich' people would be saved, but if 100 poor people die in a private system, and 70 rich people and 70 poor would die in a public one, I think the choice is obvious. Providing that is you don't hold some loathing for 'rich' people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strange that you completely ignore the fact that the rich, and high middle income earners, simply take out private health cover. The waiting lists here in public hospitals in Australia are long; you can bypass all that by going to a private hospital. That's what better off people do. They pay the quite miniscule Medicare levy like everyone else and don't think twice about it; they'll in all likelihood never see the inside of a public hospital in their lifetime. Most of Medicare is ensuring that the millions of Australians who can't afford private health care are given adequate health care.
It's preposterous to claim that a fully private system will save more lives than a public/private system. Unless prices are so low that anyone can afford them (and they most certainly are not), people are going to miss out and die from diseases that could easily be treated. <a href='http://www.politicsol.com/guest-commentaries/2002-07-13.html' target='_blank'>40 million Americans miss out</a> <a href='http://democrats.house.gov/issues/health_care/overview.cfm' target='_blank'>Backing that claim up</a>
<a href='http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/index.php?newsid=5592' target='_blank'>15% of Americans without health care</a>
The private health care system in the US is failing to provide for all US citizens. And before you say "But it's impossible to fix": Australia and Canada both have 100% health coverage for their citizens. Your government has the money, it's just not spending it on health.
So aside from "let the poor rot" and "Private health care works perfectly, as long as you can afford it", why should governments not provide public health care?
Public.
EDIT: EEK ive been operated for appendicite in Canada when i was 13 and the system was less under attack than it has been since. (13 is 15 years ago for me)
My operation was top notch... I was up and walking 3 days after, and running through the hospital corridors to prove i was ready to go 5 days after.
Where do you take that idea that public healthcare is slipshoddy? ever been treated in a public hospital? I dont think so
The quality of the health care here in Australia is excellent; the public health care system is constantly monitored by the government to ensure that an acceptable standard is maintained. Sure, if you go to a private hospital the room will be nicer, and they'll probably have cable TV, but the standard of the health care will not be noticeably higher. I've been to both public and private hospitals here and in each the doctors were excellent and compitant.
There's no doubt that a private hospital offers higher wages, but remember that you have to achieve a very high level of education to become a doctor in the first place. Saying that public hospitals get "the dregs" as it were doesn't mean that the staff are incompitant. If you're a bad doctor in a public or private hospital you'll be out the door. Besides, a doctor can work in a public hospital here and command a very respectable salary.
Privatised health care does not guareentee that the service will be top notch; it guareentees that you'll pay more for it and get treated like a hotel guest (and, lets face it, you pretty much are). Logic would dictate that bad service would mean less customers, so a private hospital would avoid that. However, bad services at a public hospital means the government will land on you with both feet, so a public hospital would also avoid that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The reason why our system is starting to suck, is because throughout the 90s, right wing politicians have started taking the US as a model, and give more and more tax breaks to the top % of rich folks, that makes a hole in the gov. budget.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And exactly the same thing is happening here: the government is determined to undermine Medicare. They've been giving tax breaks for private health coverage (government will pay 30% of your insurance) and diverting funds away from public health care (and I had to laugh when right after the government gave those insurance breaks, the private health companies put their premiums up by approximatly the same amount <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ). Public health care has been suffering; longer queues, an acute shortage of nurses. It's a credit to the organisation that they've managed to maintain their high standards in the face of all this.
But surely if food is a necessity, and medicare is a mere service, the government should be stepping and <b>controling</b> food production and allocation. I mean my god, starvation is rampant in first world countries due to all the rampant 'greed' and 'profit'.
About Australia: That's great you have laws, but it doesn't mean the laws are actually preventing any price fixing or collusion by supermarkets. Unfortunately we can't see the cause and effect of removing those laws. But in Canada, we have no such laws and nor do we want them. Between Wal-Mart, Superstore, and Safeway, groceries have never been cheaper. Starvation is not a problem because of long periods of privatization, not because of regulation. We do have advertising laws, bait-and-switch laws, which are fine and necessary. But if Safeway wanted to charge $10 for a loaf of bread the government would do nothing about it. However their consumers would, which is why no supermarket would ever charge that much.
My question to you is why wouldn't the same privatization scheme work in healthcare? If it's a race to the bottom for food, why not surgery? Will there be people that, even at rock bottom prices, won't be ablt to afford health care? Of course, just as sure as there are people that can't afford food. But asking government to 'do' something only makes things worse, as I will explain later.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Healthcare is not a scarse resource. But in all areas where supply can be helped by application of funding (such as greater incentives for doctors to work in remote areas, or building new hospitals, or increasing the average wages of nurses so more people will take up that profession) it should be done. The money and the manpower is there, it's just not being applied properly. That's where governments come in.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course it's a scarce resource! The only way everyone can have all their medical needs satisfied on demand when they need it at no charge is to pump billions of dollars into the system. We'd need 10 times as many MRI, 4 times as many specialists, twice as many hospitals, etc. This would require massive, even debilitating tax increases to reach the standards. Unfortunately you can only increase tax rates so much before tax revenues start tapering off, and even decreasing. Why? Because the more you are taxed, the more you are willing to leave the country. Our brain drain to the states is considerable, and totally expected because of our high taxes. And ideally we would be paying our doctors good salaries. But we don't, and that's why they all get funneled to the states. Any attempt to increase their salary would just result in increased taxes and a propensity toward emigration.
I hope you understand that there is simply no way to provide for <b>everyone's</b> medical needs and wants on demand. The question is who should get it, and who should not? Ideally everyone would get equal access. That's what our public system tries to accomplish. And it does accomplish this. But it's not equl access to medicare, it's equal access to sit on waitlists, waitlists that are only aggravated when people abuse the system by exagerrating their illnesses and begging for CTs whenever they get a little headache. This kind of arbitrary usage is curbed by privatization, and the entire process is more efficient.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
But it is entirely legal to deny someone treatment if they don't have health insurance. Some citizens simply cannot afford such insurance; it's not a question of another company doing it cheaper because no company will lower their prices to a level that everyone can afford. Corperations are there to make a profit: simple. There's no profit to be made in helping the poor. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's also entirely legal for someone with a potentially terminal cancer to be put on a waitlist while hundreds of other people go for their MRI scans because they have a headache. Is that right? No. of course it's not. Both systems have their flaws, yet you keep holding the public system in an artificial light.
Once again corporations are brought up as the all-purpose scapegoat for societal ills. But how evil are profits? The beauty of a private system is that even someone driven by pure greed and profit motives will be benefiting society. Once again let's look at supermarkets. Clearly their desire for money and profit has only improved our standard of living by leaps and bounds. They saved poor people 20 billion dollars last year (I don't want this to turn into a "Ya but Walmart pays minimum wage and therefore are bad". Why Wal-mart is the greatest thing to happen to business is a post for another time). Wal-mart regularly depends on the patronization by the poor, and do very well for themselves. You could argue that Wal-mart aren't really 'helping' the poor (I would argue they are helping each other), which may be true. But for charity organizations that <b>do</b> genuinally help people (United Way, Mustard Seed) their bang for buck is enormous. The government can only hope for this kind of efficiency.
Those welfare payments you speak of to poor people are very rarely spent entirely on food. Even if they did spend it on food wouldn't be necessary. In my city it's possible to get 7 square meals of day, free of charge, from various charities.
I don't know how familiar you are with the true plight of the homeless, but it has very little to do with 'being on hard times' or 'getting laid off'. For a large portion of the homeless, their desparity is a circle of drug addiction and alcoholism. There was a feature in our newspaper about 24h in the life of a homeless person, and when their $700 welfare cheques came in the mail it was cashed immediately and spent on a hotel, a prostitute, and booze. Now, does this apply to <b>everyone</b>? Of course not. But for those that have an earnest desire to get back into the working life, there are a variety of charities that do this infinitely better than the government. That is the reason these people get back on track, not because of government handouts. Welfare payments have a higher rate of <b>increasing</b> the dismal conditions of the poor rather than alleviating them.
Anecdotal evidence may suggest that throngs of people are being turned away, doctors are a little more caring then that. Otherwise they wouldn't be doctors in the first place. I have no idea how many doctor you know, but many happy to do pro-bono work providing it's feasible. Hundreds of doctors work for as little as $30,000 in Doctors without Borders programs. People are more charitable then you are giving them credit for. It is of course feasible that a poor person who has no insurance, has no money saved for an operation, and who has no family friends for support, and charities simply can't afford a $100,000 operation. Will he die? Yes. This is just an economic reality that, regardless of the system, some people necessarily must go without. The question is who? it is perfectly feasible that in spending $100,000 to save this one person's life, 20 others would have to go without and would also have died. There are no solutions, simply trade offs.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
*Stats on uninsured Americans*
It's preposterous to claim that a fully private system will save more lives than a public/private system. Unless prices are so low that anyone can afford them (and they most certainly are not), people are going to miss out and die from diseases that could easily be treated.
The private health care system in the US is failing to provide for all US citizens. And before you say "But it's impossible to fix": Australia and Canada both have 100% health coverage for their citizens. Your government has the money, it's just not spending it on health.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Virtually everything that the government does costs more than when the same thing is done in private industry -- whether it is building housing, running prisons, collecting garbage, or innumerable other things. Why in the world would we imagine that health care would be the exception?
And I've got news for you, people are missing out in Canada right now and die from diseases all the time. Why do you ignore this? You keep attacking the flaws in the private system without acknowledging the chronic and unrepairable flaws in the public one. Right off the bat I recognized private systems are flawed, but they are the best out of a list of alternatives.
Now I very much doubt that someone with an 'easily treatable disease' like, say tonsilitis, is going without in a private system. More than likely they'll fork over the $30 to see the doctor, and the $40 for the pills. It all depends on what you call 'easily' treated. And that depends on what it costs to provide these treatments. And for all expensive treatments, such as surgeries, MRIs, and specialist work, we have waitlists. Prices are not costs. Prices are what pay for costs. The public system just hides the fact that visiting a clinic and getting heart surgery are free and therefore equally scarce, which is false and the reason why we have waitlists for these items. Even the most rudimentary of healthcare services, a family doctor, is in short supply and you sit on a waitlist for that as well.
Prices are a means of conveying how scarce something is. Just because it's 'free' doesn't mean that MRI scan appeared inside a hospital somewhere. If you think we can tax these ills away you need to refer to a previous paragraph.
Not surprisingly these are exactly the same services that many Americans can't afford. Notice in either case that people must go without.
Health care <b>IS</b> impossible to 'fix'! Why have I mentioned all the drawbacksabout the public system? Being "100% covered" and actually getting medicare are too entirely different things. Under the British government's health service, for example, more than 10,000 people waited more than 15 months for surgery. These included a woman whose cancer surgery was postponed so many times that it finally had to be cancelled because the cancer had become inoperable. Is this the type of 'coverage' we need?
Considering all that let's compare the US and Canada. One has a private model, the other has a 'public' model. You would expect that the life expectancy would be 5, or even 10 years higher than the Americans. But is it?
No. Canadians live, on average, <b>1 year</b> more than Americans.
"AH HA! There you have it, undeniable evidence that public systems help, if only marginally, to save more lifes." But we'd of course be neglecting a variety of major differences; taken from WHO:
In the United States, some groups, such as Native Americans, rural African Americans and the inner city poor, have extremely poor health, more characteristic of a poor developing country rather than a rich industrialized one.
The HIV epidemic causes a higher proportion of death and disability to U.S. young and middle-aged than in most other advanced countries. HIV-AIDS cut three months from the healthy life expectancy of male American babies born in 1999, and one month from female lives;
The U.S. is one of the leading countries for cancers relating to tobacco, especially lung cancer Tobacco use also causes chronic lung disease.
A high coronary heart disease rate, which has dropped in recent years but remains high;
Fairly high levels of violence, especially of homicides, when compared to other industrial countries.
Notice even the WHO did not mention privatization as a reason. Another potential reason are litigation costs. Doctors are regularly sued for some of the most ridiculous claims, and often for millions of doctors. These impose unecessary costs on doctors, which are in turn delivered over to their patients. Fortunately Canada doesn't have this kind of problem (it is impossible to sue if your illness becomes terminal due to a waitlist). Furthermore Americans tend to be of an unhealthy weight as well.
And yes, the quality of healthcare in the states is indeed better. They spend 50% more time with their patients, their equipment is more modern. and unlike Canada they are not pressured to discharge patients quickly. After giving birth new mothers were discharged after 3 days. This has since decreased to 1 day, and in truly appalling circumstances same-day. I'm glad Asteroids had a favorable experience, but that's not always the norm.