Why couldn't our required tax dollars pay for health insurance?

Any of you that have money taken out of your checks at work (otherwise it's expensive as fizuck) for health care, are you upset that you do so?

- N
 
Personally, I think if i could pay a third of what i pay today for healthcare an have everyone covered and get similar results, it is a no brainer to me.
 
objking said:
Why can't our tax money pay for health insurance?
Click to expand...

It can. It does in many countries.

It's just that in the USA the medical sector is ... fat.

Doctors in the USA make about 4 times more than those in Finland.

They charge easily 1500$ for an epidural in the USA, while in Finland the philosophy is that the medical staff is there anyway and hence the only extra cost to the treatment are the supplies, of which the costs are actually negligent (i asked about it last time I was in a Finnish hospital).

You will never get rich as a doctor in a Finnish public hospital. You will have a normal salary (just above average joe). It does do wonders for the costs of health care. Similar to the limiting of unnecessary procedures and diagnostics that are usually done in the USA to gain income.

In the end you end up paying less than you pay now in the USA (as a nation) and get healthcare for all. For free.

Now, what are the problems with public healthcare?
  • There are often waiting lists. Especially for non-urgent treatments.
  • Rich people do not get the instant special treatment they are used to in their lives.
  • Your doctor may not drive the latest Mercedes convertible.
  • You end up paying less. Which is bad for the consumer economy.
I don't know. Been in both systems. I prefer the public health care. I guess if you have the cash it might feel nicer that you can have excessive healthcare. Public health care is more equal. And that is what we are supposed to cherish in a democratic society. allegedly.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
You will never get rich as a doctor in a Finnish public hospital. You will have a normal salary (just above average joe).
Click to expand...

It used to be that way here too.
A very long time ago.
Back when people became doctors because they were passionate about it and cared about the welfare of others.
We are much better off now, though... We have... ummm... More expensive equipment!
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Now, what are the problems with public healthcare?
  • There are often waiting lists. Especially for non-urgent treatments.
  • Rich people do not get the instant special treatment they are used to in their lives.
Click to expand...

  • I think the second point isnt nessesarily true. Because of waiting lists, the private sector in the UK has made big money off rich people who still want instant special treatment. And you dont need an insurance policy.
 
Nickelodeon said:
I think the second point isnt nessesarily true. Because of waiting lists, the private sector in the UK has made big money off rich people who still want instant special treatment. And you dont need an insurance policy.
Click to expand...

Of course you are perfectly right. The same is true in Finland, where there is a private sector as well.

Often though the treatments in the private sector are partially covered by the public health sector and you will get some of it back. Obviously you will never get the full amount back unless it is cheaper as in the public sector. Which never happens of course.
 
Mad, you don't like government run programs because of the red tape. Get this, in the United States with our so called private healthcare system we pay six times more for healthcare administrative expenses than any country providing socialized medicine in the entire world.
 
Here is another article from the New England Journal of Medicine published in 2003 referencing data from the 1990's comparing administrative healthcare costs in the United States and Canada. It does not include costs of insurance company marketing or administration as Canada has none or virtually none.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/349/8/768
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
 
One other point, everyone seems to think our military folks get the best medical treatment while on duty. Military men, women and their families receive a socialized government run healthcare system. I don't hear them screaming or complaining about government run healthcare.
 
I think that was with the Army and I belive it was over the conditions of the quarters folks receiving ongoing care stayed in, not on the quality of care.
 
Hillarycare is an interesting step forward in healthcare for the United States. I mandates insurance coverage which is good. It mandates some operational improvements. But does really not go to the real quick of the mater establishing a healthcare delivery system that is efficient (competitive) and yeilding quality care. It is probably a baby step, a half step in order to satisfy the industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top