[Nuclear1]

I think they don't realize that they're "government" insurance isn't actually run by the government, merely paid for by same.

Thank you for insulting my intelligence.

[NGTM-1R]

I think they don't realize that they're "government" insurance isn't actually run by the government, merely paid for by same.

Yes, my Federal Employee Insurance comes from Blue Cross.

Unfortunately for you, the government mandates certain things (nearly everything, in fact) from it in addition to paying for it. So basically it's a private insurance policy both run by and paid for by the government.

[MR_T3D]

I think they don't realize that they're "government" insurance isn't actually run by the government, merely paid for by same.

and that's the real trick: when paid by gov't, it becomes not-for-profit, and this means that there is no finnancial incentive to NOT pay for treatment, unlike the basicially evil private insurance companies, whom are scared ****less about reform, for obvious reasons

[SpardaSon21]

Its worth noting that reforming the health care system does not have to be about more government.  Its a sad fact but today most people automatically equate "reform" with "more government".  Health care reform can also be reduced government in the form of fewer mandates for care, as well as the ability to purchase medical insurance across state lines, increasing competition.  Health Savings Accounts could also be part of reform, putting more money in control of the health care user.  Also, one could remove the tax exemption for employer-provided health care and just do a straight-up tax exemption for all medical insurance.

[NGTM-1R]

Either the government has to legislate it and then set up something to enforce legislation or provide that power and the means to enforce to an existing agency (because the folks who do healthcare sure as hell aren't going to do it themselves), or do it themselves. Either way, it's more government. There is no smaller-impact solution.

[SpardaSon21]

No smaller impact solution?  How about fewer coverage mandates?  That would certainly involve less government in medical care.

[NGTM-1R]

Allow me to rephrase. There is no good smaller impact solution. There are, however, bad or stupid ones.

[Turambar]

No smaller impact solution?  How about fewer coverage mandates?  That would certainly involve less government in medical care.

it would also make the problem worse instead of better.

[SpardaSon21]

It would end up reducing how much insurance costs since companies would be required to provide less coverage.  Every mandate added increases premiums since the companies will be forced to cover those mandates.

[General Battuta]

So, could I repeat one more time that the cheapest, most effective healthcare systems in the world are European ones?

[SpardaSon21]

I heard most English doctors use private health care for them and their families instead of NHS.  If NHS is so good, why would that be?

[General Battuta]

Because they can afford better than the standard level of care, so they buy better?

But the baseline level of care is still far higher.

[TESLA]

So, could I repeat one more time that the cheapest, most effective healthcare systems in the world are European ones?

Depends on country to country.

In UK its completely free. In Ireland we make a 'contribution' of around €40. Once off payment per visit. But once your in the hospital, it runs (usually) pretty well. Of course there are problems, such as staffing issues, and at times their could be waiting lists, but the priority is on the patient, and on health, not on 'how much can this person afford'

We pay a higher tax for healthcare but it is worth it.
While we have insurance companies for private healthcare, its works as a doubling of the system. But because most of the country's population is covered by public hospitals, the govermnet carefully regulates the insurance and private healthcare companies to make sure the system stays stable, such as a leading insurance agency which has the majority of 'older' members, is being subsidised by other insurance agencies.
Our current problem is with the COST of medicine, related to the pharmacies. Which is a slightly different issue.

[karajorma]

You know what really makes me laugh though. Despite all the claims of death panels and poorer coverage not a single person from any of the countries with government run health care has said they'd prefer the American system.

That really should tell the doubters something cause I can only think of a few possible scenarios that cover it.

1) Everyone except the Americans are dumb not to have realised their system is better.
2) The Americans are dumb not to have realised that the system the rest of the Western world use is better.
3) The American government is so crap that even if they tried to run a system like the rest of the Western world they'd **** it up.


I'm pretty sure it's not 1 and the WHO agrees with me on that.

[Rian]

 I honestly think it's an issue of inertia at this point. A lot of people (zealots notwithstanding) recognize that basically everyone else has it better. But you can't just say "OK, we're going to do it the way France does it next year." Health insurance administration in the US is basically an industry of its own at this point, which both employs a hell of a lot of people and has massive lobbying force behind it. A lot of people's livelihoods/private jets are on the line, so any changes have to be incremental, and even those meet massive resistance. Change is happening, but I'm not sure it'll happen quickly enough.

[iamzack]

Crossing my fingers for within 4 years.

[Sushi]

3) The American government is so crap that even if they tried to run a system like the rest of the Western world they'd **** it up.

Actually, this is pretty much the motivation for a lot of people. A deep distrust of the government, especially the federal government, is very much a part of American culture. It's not totally justified...but it's not totally unjustified, either.

And so far, everyone I've heard from who actually lives under nationalized healthcare of some sort is satisfied with it. To me, that's the single most telling argument in favor of doing it in the U.S. But I'm very skeptical of the federal government's ability to do it right, and even more skeptical about some of the plans that have been floating around (although, to be fair, they're not yet fully defined). And I still think that it would be better to keep the federal government out of it and let states enact whatever system they want.

[General Battuta]

Sushi, though you are not in my part of the political spectrum, you are a reasonable man. I wish we had more of you.

[Tomo]

The NHS has a lot of waste, makes mistakes and doesn't always provide the absolute best.

But, for all its failings, it's pretty damn good.

The NHS is ours. We *****, moan and complain, but it's our system to complain about.

At the end of the day, I can go to my GP tomorrow and get any treatment I need. If I need drugs, it will cost me £7.20, regardless of whether those drugs are actually worth £10, £50 or £1000. If I need to see a specialist, I might have to wait a while, but it will cost me absolutely nothing.

If I didn't have a job, I could still go and do that, except my drugs will be free.

Details of implementation aside, how can any civilised being complain about that idea?

[General Battuta]

Wow. That sounds idyllic. I didn't know it was that good.