Broken Record

[OfficerImpersonator]

The fundamental problem with a government-run plan is it is subject to decisions based on politics instead of economics. The airline and aircraft manufacturer will pay for the healthcare that the government provides and/or pays for, just in a different way. People just assume that the amount will be less than they are paying now, but we all know that government entitlement programs (which is what this would be) inevitably grow and grow over time, with ever higher costs.

You mean like an annual health care costs inflation rate of around 25%, which is what we have with the status quo?

But no one has yet discussed WHAT people get for their 10% of GDP compared to what we get for our 16%. And I hope you are not implying that in Taiwan there are no "gatekeepers" at all, and that people have unlimited access to any healthcare services they want. There have to be limiters in the system somewhere.

Thanks for reminding me of an important component of Taiwan's system. The plan's central computer keeps track of how many times you see the doctor. If you see the doctor 15 times a month, a case worker comes to visit you to see what's going on. Similarly, if doctors see the same patient too frequently, or prescribe questionable amounts of certain prescriptions, an administrator will investigate to see if anything unethical or illegal is taking place.

No one has said (certainly not me) that the U.S. cannot improve its health care system. The issue is HOW do we improve it.

Agreed. We should seriously look at what other developed nations have done. To casually dismiss the experiences of other nations out of hand because it's "socialized medicine" or given some similarly loaded but perhaps not quite accurate label doesn't give the subject matter the respect it deserves.

 

[mika]

It took me six years to receive my four year degree. When they handed it to me I owned it as a result of working my way through at a wonderful variety of jobs. On that level I can understand where you are coming from.

As to the government leviathan and how long we have to work to feed it each year, there are many reasons. The ones that come to mind in relationship to this topic, and give us our largest increase in life expectancy are public works and health projects such as water treatment, sewage systems, sanitation, mosquito controls and things like this. Dollar for dollar the biggest bang for the buck.

Government may or may not be the best provider for all forms of healthcare. In these examples government may make sense as the provider of these services to all.

 

[Rod Sheridan]

Certainly a valid political/philosophical position, but of course one that is open to honest disagreement about the proper role of government. Can you let us know your feelings about HOW MUCH and WHAT TYPES of healthcare the government should provide, since that affects the total costs and amount of taxes needed to support it?

Hi Mike, I hope I was clear that it was my opinion, and certainly not the only opinion.

We have universal healthcare, so if I go to my family doctor, the visit is paid for by the health plan. The same is true if I need surgery, or emergency medical treatment at a hospital.

I'm by no means an expert on our medical system, so I couldn't answer specific questions.

My feelings on the matter are that expenses for necessary care, operations, emergency services, doctor visits etc should be paid for by the state. I'm not advocating that discretionary items such as elective surgery be paid for.

It's a great conversation topic, we're always talking about it in Canada.

Regards, Rod.

 

[BeemerMike]

Hi Mike, I hope I was clear that it was my opinion, and certainly not the only opinion.

We have universal healthcare, so if I go to my family doctor, the visit is paid for by the health plan. The same is true if I need surgery, or emergency medical treatment at a hospital.

I'm by no means an expert on our medical system, so I couldn't answer specific questions.

My feelings on the matter are that expenses for necessary care, operations, emergency services, doctor visits etc should be paid for by the state. I'm not advocating that discretionary items such as elective surgery be paid for.

It's a great conversation topic, we're always talking about it in Canada.

Regards, Rod.

You were perfectly clear that it is your opinion, and that it is not the only possible opinion. Unfortunately, not everyone is so clear or accomodating of other opinions.

I have a Canadian friend just down the street. We have this "discussion" all the time.

 

[BeemerMike]

You mean like an annual health care costs inflation rate of around 25%, which is what we have with the status quo?

First, annual health care costs are NOT increasing at 25% per year, although they are increasing much faster than the overall rate of inflation. But, how do you think the federal government running the health care system would change that? That's the question that no one answers.

Thanks for reminding me of an important component of Taiwan's system. The plan's central computer keeps track of how many times you see the doctor. If you see the doctor 15 times a month, a case worker comes to visit you to see what's going on. Similarly, if doctors see the same patient too frequently, or prescribe questionable amounts of certain prescriptions, an administrator will investigate to see if anything unethical or illegal is taking place.

I did not know that about Taiwan. And yet, the same people (in general) who advocate the federal government running a national universal health care system, scream to high heaven about a federal/national drivers license as equivalent to "Nazi papers". "Why is that, Captain Ron?"

Do you really think people in the U.S. would accept the concept of the "government" knowing every little detail about their medical history and having it in some central government database, and more so, having government workers come to their house to question them if their medical history falls outside of the government "norm"? Don't you think somebody MIGHT raise a privacy objection to that?

Agreed. We should seriously look at what other developed nations have done. To casually dismiss the experiences of other nations out of hand because it's "socialized medicine" or given some similarly loaded but perhaps not quite accurate label doesn't give the subject matter the respect it deserves.

Well, I personally have never said we should casually dismiss anything. I've only said that we should carefully look at other systems IN THEIR ENTIRETY before we just jump to the conclusion that they are "better".