4 ms·
"Universal" means goverment-paid. It means that we have officially accepted that healthcare is so unfathomably impossible for a normal person to afford that the
by cookiecaper 10y ago
"Universal" means goverment-paid. It means that we have officially accepted that healthcare is so unfathomably impossible for a normal person to afford that the government has to inflate the cost out of existence.
This is obviously not a sustainable or mature solution to the problem, but it's a band-aid that appears to relieve much of the burden involved for patients.
I broke it out once and my net salary would be about $1k less than what I receive now if I lived in Canada instead of the U.S. I know that those extra taxes aren't all directly attributable to the health care apparatus, but the unverified impression is that a lot of it goes to that.
There have been periods when I've had to pay more than $1000/mo on medical bills on an ongoing basis, and there's pretty much always at least $500/mo going out to medical payments of some type or another in our family of 7. Our credit has also been routinely hounded by the medical industry's inability to figure out its own billing. Is avoiding all of that worth a net loss of $500/mo? Probably.
The polarization in America is really sad. We need to acknowledge that these are legitimate issues. Republicans need to take their heads out of the sand and quit just shrieking that "we have the best health care in the world!!!! We're America, bitch!", and Democrats need to respect that Republicans don't think "Just have the government pay for it and increase taxation commensurately" is an acceptable solution. Let's get away from each others' throats and try to figure this out constructively.
IMO the best option is to outlaw non-catastrophic medical insurance, set up new, temporary medical device and pharmaceutical suppliers who sell brand-name products at a loss, make serious revisions to the terms of drug patents, remove any applicable governmental subsidies that encourage reckless, unsustainable expansion of medical facilities, and make a law that says medical bills cannot be included in any credit worthiness determination.
This converts everyone to self-pay, which means medical providers will have to charge prices that real people can actually pay, it will end the absurd pricing showdowns and billing shenanigans between providers and insurers that often leave patients as collateral damage, it will undercut the supply chain that ratchets up the costs for everyone on the way down to the patient, it will discourage hospitals from building extravagant campuses that rival universities and instead focus on affordable, utilitarian designs, and so on.
I can hardly think of a worse solution than "just make everyone get an insurance policy and leave everything else essentially the same", aka Obamacare/Romneycare.
That should take us a long way to a sustainable, market-based solution. But it's clear at this point that some governmental action is needed to grease the wheels here.
- DanBC 10y agoDo you realise that the US government spends more per capita on your current health care than the UK government spends? http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-compare-internationally/ http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-com... Government spending (not including insurance) > Despite less than half of the USA’s total healthcare expenditure coming from government expenditure or compulsory insurance schemes, it still spends more per person on these financing schemes than the UK- £3,111 in the USA in 2014, compared with £2,210 in the UK. In the USA spending on privately-funded healthcare is over five times more per person than in the UK.
- cookiecaper 10y agoYes, but that doesn't mean nationalization/socialization of the health care industry a la NHS is a good solution. It's clear to anyone who is not a political religionist that the U.S. health system is FUBAR'd, both before and after Obamacare, and that it needs to be fixed. However, we can't seem to hold a productive discussion on this, as one extreme virulently insists all medical care must be completely free at the point of sale (see other commenter above), which leaves no option except government payment, and the other extreme virulently insists that American medicine is fine as it was pre-Obamacare. There's practically no one in the middle who a) recognizes there's a problem and b) has a good suggestion that addresses the core causes of the problem instead of trying to cover the cost up by pouring government funds into it. No one is going after the industrial profiteers and exploiters here. People either want to leave those profiteers completely alone or force them to continue to be paid exorbitant rates by the government (that only look non-exorbitant by comparison to other nations where they're even higher). Those are both bad answers! The marketplace must be kickstarted so it can stay in the hands of the people, surrendered to neither government bureaucrats (as proposed by pro-universal healthcare advocates) nor heartless capitalists (as is mostly the current state). We need to start from first principles here and say "What does a sick person need to get better, and how can we provide that in a cost-efficient way that allows medicine to be like all the rest of our industries: open to competition, appropriately regulated, and run by fair and competitive private enterprises?"
- wvenable 10y ago