Socialized Healthcare

[DemonicAppleGuY]

I honestly think it's a great idea.

I disagree a little with the implementation in many countries, but a "National Health Insurance company" would greatly reduce the costs of healthcare for everyone.

This is one of those monopolies I'd be okay with

EDIT: This thread created in part to make sure people don't think I'm too soul-less.

 

[emzie]

Yes, I quite agree with your sentiment. Others, however, might disagree.

 

[Tarquelne]

Sure it works in practice, but does it work in theory?

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Sure it works in practice, but does it work in theory?

Yes...?

 

[Synobun]

Yup, it's a good idea.

So... What's the discussion?

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Yup, it's a good idea.

So... What's the discussion?

I'm not sure.

I'm sort of looking for more drawn out reasoning as to the negative impacts of socialized healthcare. Quite a few don't appreciate it too much. Especially in the US.

 

[Tahuti]

Its a trade-off you're making. A well implemented socialized healthcare will ensure nobody will have to die because of lack of money, but then again, a market health care system will minimize waiting lists and encourage innovation. For instance, USA has quite an edge on medical innovation compared to Europe and Canada (even when discounting medical patents which in most cases isn't innovation) and waiting lists are less in the USA as well if I'm not mistaken. Then again, while the US healthcare system is the most capitalistic, it isn't as capitalistic as humanly possible (due to medicare and numerous regulations that were already in place as early as the 1910s) and many government interventions in the US health care industry have a very strong impact.

Do note that the overall picture is however badly blighted by the fact some countries with socialized medicine have it horribly implemented (like Russia and Poland) and countries with primarily market medicine (USA, Netherlands) have some ridiculous regulations like legislatively limiting the amount of medicine students and badly thought out price controls.

 

[Synobun]

I'm not sure.

I'm sort of looking for more drawn out reasoning as to the negative impacts of socialized healthcare. Quite a few don't appreciate it too much. Especially in the US.

Ah, yes. Plenty of Americans (and other nationalities) who have allergic seizures at the mention of universal healthcare. You'll find that the go-to argument these days is that the economic model of universal healthcare is terrible and that USA is #1 because capitalism. You can actually see it right above this post.

I find any perception that you are more deserving of health care than another simply because you have a certain amount of an arbitrary item to be rather barbaric. I fear the day when their mighty dollar is no longer what counts. It'll be on that day that they cry out that healthcare is a human right.

But, you know, hindsight is, as always, 20/20.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Its a trade-off you're making. A well implemented socialized healthcare will ensure nobody will have to die because of lack of money, but then again, a market health care system will minimize waiting lists and encourage innovation. For instance, USA has quite an edge on medical innovation compared to Europe and Canada (even when discounting medical patents which in most cases isn't innovation) and waiting lists are less in the USA as well if I'm not mistaken. Then again, while the US healthcare system is the most capitalistic, it isn't as capitalistic as humanly possible (due to medicare and numerous regulations that were already in place as early as the 1910s) and many government interventions in the US health care industry have a very strong impact.

Yeah, I think that about sums up both sides of the argument.

What do you guys think of a state-run non-profit insurance company that citizens could buy into?

I think this would be far easier politically to create because people are still paying for it. Since it would cover many people (and is non-profit) it would be far cheaper than any other insurance plan, many more Americans could afford it.

This could transition sometime into universal healthcare, but that would take a lot more political will I reckon.

 

[Leoreth]

Sure it works in practice, but does it work in theory?

Hahaha, what a wonderful post

 

[Tahuti]

Yeah, I think that about sums up both sides of the argument.

That's because the more intellectually deep arguments of both sides are right to some extent. Neither system is universally preferable, and I would favor market medicine over socialized medicine if low medical spending compared to average income can be guaranteed, and there is an effective welfare state that is easily accessible.

What do you guys think of a state-run non-profit insurance company that citizens could buy into?

I think this would be far easier politically to create because people are still paying for it. Since it would cover many people (and is non-profit) it would be far cheaper than any other insurance plan, many more Americans could afford it.

This could transition sometime into universal healthcare, but that would take a lot more political will I reckon.

In the current US political environment, such a move would be impossible. The belief goes that with more government comes more taxes (and death panels, FEMA camps, forced abortion, FEMA CamPS, gun prohibtion, FEMA cAMps and Hippies!) so current American legislators will oppose it. However, trust in the current paleoconservative controlled congress is at an all time low, so it might change in the future I beckon.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

That's because the more intellectually deep arguments of both sides are right to some extent. Neither system is universally preferable, and I would favor market medicine over socialized medicine if low medical spending compared to average income can be guaranteed, and there is an effective welfare state that is easily accessible.

I feel.

In the current US political environment, such a move would be impossible. The belief goes that with more government comes more taxes (and death panels, FEMA camps, forced abortion, FEMA CamPS, gun prohibtion, FEMA cAMps and Hippies!) so current American legislators will oppose it. However, trust in the current paleoconservative controlled congress is at an all time low, so it might change in the future I beckon.

I think it isn't necessarily politically impossible, but it would be hard. And I don't think Obama will be going for much more healthcare reform anytime soon.

Healthcare spending is certainly a problem the US will need to deal with soon though I think.

 

[galdre]

IMO, we should completely get rid of private health insurance and create a publicly owned national health insurance.

The problem with having a duel private/public system is that the wealthy will buy the private and then want the public underfunded to lower their taxes.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

IMO, we should completely get rid of private health insurance and create a publicly owned national health insurance.

Even more politically impossible. An "NHI" alongside private companies would surely drive private companies out of business over time though.

The problem with having a duel private/public system is that the wealthy will buy the private and then want the public underfunded to lower their taxes.

Unless the public side is funded by voluntary insurance payments rather than compulsory taxes.

 

[Tahuti]

The problem with having a duel private/public system is that the wealthy will buy the private and then want the public underfunded to lower their taxes.

Well, private health care is a lot more adaptive to technological change than public health care. It's a fact: You would be dumb not to go to China or the USA if these countries offer great treatments through private schemes, provided you can afford those, notwithstanding the obvious con of not being able to provide free health care to everyone.

 

[galdre]

Well, private health care is a lot more adaptive to technological change than public health care. It's a fact: You would be dumb not to go to China or the USA if these countries offer great treatments through private schemes, provided you can afford those, notwithstanding the obvious con of not being able to provide free health care to everyone.

I would leave the health care providers privately owned and operated, although I would prefer they be non-profit. I'm only talking about making health insurance publicly owned.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Its a trade-off you're making. A well implemented socialized healthcare will ensure nobody will have to die because of lack of money, but then again, a market health care system will minimize waiting lists and encourage innovation. For instance, USA has quite an edge on medical innovation compared to Europe and Canada (even when discounting medical patents which in most cases isn't innovation) and waiting lists are less in the USA as well if I'm not mistaken.

I don't really see how the nature of health insurance has any influence on medical innovation and I don't see how there's a trade off. I really can not think of any advantage of the american moel.
It is of course a matter of implementation. I think my country's healtchcare policy is decent, but that's about it. There are some serious flaws that need to be ironed out and I'd much rather prefer something like the NHS.

 

[say1988]

Unless the public side is funded by voluntary insurance payments rather than compulsory taxes.

The people using won't be able to afford to fund it and the people not using it have no incentive to fund it. You will have to either tax directly or tack on large taxes for the use of private medical care.

There will be a few philanthropists that put money into helping the poor, but there will never be neough to fully fund such a system.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

The people using won't be able to afford to fund it and the people not using it have no incentive to fund it. You will have to either tax directly or tack on large taxes for the use of private medical care.

There will be a few philanthropists that put money into helping the poor, but there will never be neough to fully fund such a system.

By voluntary payments I mean that you can choose to use an insurance plan the government offers.

 

[say1988]

By voluntary payments I mean that you can choose to use an insurance plan the government offers.

And if you can afford to pay what it would cost to run the system (and subsidize those who can't while anyone with money is not part of the system) you will likely be paying into the private system, not the government one. By eliminating everyone in the middle class upwards from the funding pool you aren't going to have much coming in.