How can the U.S.A. via President Obama or via another leader create a healthcare system that would provide services to the masses? The answer is simple; just control costs, exclude insurance company participation and consistently provide only services that are truly needed.
I’m not going to argue that such a system would be better than a system based on economic principals; the rich will always find a way to get better healthcare services than the poor. The system proposed parallels in some ways the system found in some Socialist countries, they work but they generally provide fewer and lower quality services.
You start by offering services via large centrally located clinics. Yes, you may have to travel to be seen. The clinics would have no glitz, no marble floors and no impressive towering arched entries. You get your services in plain, functional facilities. Everyone first sees a Nurse Practitioner or Physician Assistant. Many for profit clinics are already being run by these healthcare professionals, and the savings to a system for the masses that employed them would be substantial.
Next, if you want a healthcare system that actually works, you must remove insurance companies from the mix. You don’t need insurance company involvement in a not-for-profit government sponsored system of healthcare. While insurance companies do a good job of controlling costs in the current system, the savings / profits are retained at the expense of participant services. In my opinion they would add no value to a government sponsored healthcare system.
Once someone is diagnosed with a health problem, which may have to be completed with the assistance of higher level medical professionals and tests, patients could be provided treatment. Again the treatment provided would be by the lowest level provider necessary. Even the for profit healthcare system now in place in the U.S. will run you out of a hospital in the blink of an eye. You likely would not perceive much of a difference between the current treatment that you receive from a “for profit” provider and the service you would received under a government sponsored provider.
Like many things that government does, running a sponsored healthcare system for the masses could be devised that offered the government limited liability. The government could draw a line at some arbitrary number, like $ 20,000 per case, and if there are errors made, that amount would be the most that you could collect. A government sponsored healthcare system could not work if everyone who wanted the cheap services could sue the government sponsored system for millions. If you are willing to accept the low cost services you have to accept that the quality would likely be lowered. This is again, not a new idea, limited liability is already in place for many government activities.
If you are looking forward to the day when the healthcare system covers almost everyone, you are looking forward to a day when our quality of care will be lowered. In the end, it will depend on your perspective. If you didn’t have insurance coverage, something is better than nothing. If you did have insurance coverage, you may find that a government system for the masses does not provide you with the quality of service that you were used to.
Popularity: 22% [?]
That’s an interesting article. It also sparks my interest to see Michael Moore’s film “Sicko.”
This is a problem that is getting more prominent as the boomers age and require more medical attention. I’ve definitely notice my health care costs rising in the last decade.
So by the end of the day its us who are actually be the ones responsible for our health services. Hmmm… You made very god points by the way. Still… I think there’s still a way wherein we can balance both the quality and price of the service or treatment. Its not like it should be left to be just like that.
Other countries have health care for all their citizens, the US could do it too. I disagree with some of your points. If someone cannot afford health care and needs the government to help they should not have to accept a lower quality of care and should not have to travel a great distance to get the care. No one should be considered second class when it comes to their health and should not have to accept a lesser quality of care than those who can afford it.
The US has to do something about the fact that business people are dictating how long a sick person can staty in a hospital, not the doctors. Drug companies are getting a lot of money that should go to health services.
This country brags about how wonderful we are and yet millions of people can’t afford to feed their kids and go to a doctor. Shameful! This has to be stopped and the poor and middle class should not be made to suffer for not having money.
It has been a while since I lived overseas, but you really have to have seen first hand just what kind of health care people in places like England have before you talk about how great it is. Sure everyone is provided care, but if you were served by their system, like I was, you would be appalled by the quality of the facilities, the equipment and the timeliness of the services provided. Part of the problem with the push for “universal” health coverage is that everyone gets care, but few realize that a two tiered system will emerge and those who will pay for their care will get what we now consider to be typical services and the rest will get basic services (some would call it “lower quality” services).
When you put the government in the place of insurance companies, regarding a decision as to how much care someone is to receive, I can’t believe that their dictates will be much better than those of the insurance companies. You still have to manage resources and it will appear that their decisions are unfair and that some sick people with not be treated. Our expectation for care here are very high.
I don’t think that we should abandon the capitalist system just because people can’t afford health care, which appears to be where we are going. If the government established a health care system where everyone contributed and got for example a $ 10,000 credit each year toward their own health care which accumulated if not used, that could be a way of dealing with basic coverage that was fair to everyone. Then give people the option of transfering some or all of their credits to those with special needs.
For me, its just that people are not satisfied with what they have now without realizing they have now the best. Like when we went to a hospital in a foreign country (I won’t mention the name), like what admin said you get treated but you’ll be scared by their facilities. The good ones they have are what people call here the cheap ones.
I think that the Goverment in every country should provide the same level of health care and treat every person equal and not to just by wealth.
I am from the UK so we do have the NHS (National Health Service) which is Goverment funded, but yes there is a catch,
All workers pay taxes to the Goverment (Income Tax) which does pay towards the NHS, Police, Fire Deparments, Schools, and many other public sectors.
So i would have to say that the Goverment should provide this in every country which would work a lot better and would cover for people who can not afford health care.