What's new
By:

Jazzfanz: how would YOU rebuild America's health-care system?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 848
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 848

Guest
Let's say tomorrow America nukes its entire health-care system (with ACA, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.) and leaves YOU with the responsibility of building it up from scratch.

How would you rebuild it? Multiplayer? Single-payer? What are some of the general (or, maybe specific) principles that you would intend to uphold, as you built it up from scratch? If you wish, you can name who you think would be the winners and losers from your conception of a health care system.
 
I understand the German model uses private corporations, funded entirely by the national government, and with bonuses offered vor covering chronic diseases, encouraging certain improvements, etc. I would try something along those lines.
 
No system is perfect, everything has advantages and disadvantages. However, I do like the idea of everyone having coverage, despite knowing some people will abuse it and it will increase taxes.
 
I favor Medicare for all, but if and only if, and this should go without saying, government keeps its hands off my coverage and all the choices I wish to make therein, thereby, and thereabouts, in any way and of any kind, in reference to doctors and treatment options and really any and all things related to medical care. . .




(Sorry for a joke in a serious thread, but also the dichotomy of attitude that points to a real obstacle facing any rebuilding of American health care system.)
 
Single payer.

Free or affordable schooling for doctors, practitioners, etc. doctors don't need to be rich, but right now they have to make a lot of money in order to pay back all that debt they acquired to get where they are.

Better oversight on costs of medical equipment.
 
To those of you who aren't aware, a single-payer system generally means way, way less spending on health-care by the government. Generally this coincides with free health-care for all.

But, it means that the government is the one completely funding health-care, and it also tends to mean that wait-times are longer.
 
One Brow said:
I understand the German model uses private corporations, funded entirely by the national government, and with bonuses offered vor covering chronic diseases, encouraging certain improvements, etc. I would try something along those lines.
Click to expand...

This tends to be one of the most preferred of recommendations among Americans who would prefer to not distance themselves from a multi-payer system.

Are you comfortable with the fact that the German system also provides complete coverage for things like orthomolecular, naturopathic, and homeopathic therapies? In other words, are you comfortable with the extensive coverage also coinciding with pretty extensive taxing?
 
I would certainly prefer a single payer system to what we currently have.

I would say single payer with a new tax that works much like FICA, where it is a fixed percentage of income and is matched dollar for dollar by the employer.

A significant concern I would have regarding single payer in the U.S. would be regulation of personal behavior (smoking, alcohol, unhealthy foods, exercise) as I don't want the government eliminating big gulps because a study says it will reduce health care spending by x amount of dollars. But I would be okay with tax credits for things like preventative care, healthy bmi, etc.

I don't consider single payer morally appropriate according to my ideology, but our current system is a big mess and it isn't helping anyone. Our current system isn't free market, or socialist, or anything. It's a mish-mash of crap piled on top of crap. Single payer would absolutely be better than what we currently have.
 
dalamon said:
Are you comfortable with the fact that the German system also provides complete coverage for things like orthomolecular, naturopathic, and homeopathic therapies? In other words, are you comfortable with the extensive coverage also coinciding with pretty extensive taxing?
Click to expand...

I've never heard of orthomolecular before, I'll have to look that up.

I would of course prefer that medicine be science-based, so no naturopathy or homeopathy.

In my case, most of the increase in taxes would be offset by no longer paying for insurance. I would be fine with paying the rest.
 
Great question, Dala.. I may find time soon to offer a more thorough reply, but for now I will say that anything one wants can be found.. somewhere in the world.

What I personally love about America, is if I want A+ care (best in the world), I have it. I can pay for it, my ins company pays for it.. but either way, it's at least a possibility, here.

Also, if something like Obamacare bugs me enough, there are multitudes of ways I can alleviate both myself personally and corporately from its financial burden.. yet still live here and have access to the same world-class care.

Too many Americans sadly don't realize the trillions of dollars that are earned by Americans and their corporations that do little to nothing to contribute to government subsidized programs. (everyone knows it while few comprehend the extent)

I say this because there are so many variables in your question. How would I want it IF everyone paid their fair share? (or) How would I want it under the current tax-haven environ that ultimately places the burden on the middle/upper-middle class(es)?

Sorry, I know I didn't answer your question in the least. lol
 
^one last small point..

I have more than a dozen very wealthy clients that are Canadian and have moved to America for the sole reason of better crisis care. They cite the wait times and lack of cutting-edge medical as the two main reasons for fleeing to America in an attempt to save a loved one from a terrible health problem.
 
PKM said:
^one last small point..

I have more than a dozen very wealthy clients that are Canadian and have moved to America for the sole reason of better crisis care. They cite the wait times and lack of cutting-edge medical as the two main reasons for fleeing to America in an attempt to save a loved one from a terrible health problem.
Click to expand...

In my mind the lack of crisis care and cutting edge health care is analogous to the lack of cutting edge care in places like North Dakota or the middle of wyoming. Canada doesn't have these things because they are Canada. Not because of the political system. They don't have a huge population, and the further you get from the border, the more rural it gets. I would be interested to compare the care with the care received in comparable areas of the states.
 
b_line said:
In my mind the lack of crisis care and cutting edge health care is analogous to the lack of cutting edge care in places like North Dakota or the middle of wyoming. Canada doesn't have these things because they are Canada. Not because of the political system. They don't have a huge population, and the further you get from the border, the more rural it gets. I would be interested to compare the care with the care received in comparable areas of the states.
Click to expand...

Not certain I agree with you. (while open-minded you may be)

A country ridding an industry segment from the free enterprise pool sets itself up for complacency in quality of goods/services within that segment. Of course, abuses exist in the vice versa as well. There are pros and cons to all these arguments and I don't think any country feels they've truly figured it out.
 
b_line said:
In my mind the lack of crisis care and cutting edge health care is analogous to the lack of cutting edge care in places like North Dakota or the middle of wyoming. Canada doesn't have these things because they are Canada. Not because of the political system. They don't have a huge population, and the further you get from the border, the more rural it gets. I would be interested to compare the care with the care received in comparable areas of the states.
Click to expand...

Does getting the absolute best care with minimal wait-times matter, if only 0.5% of people can afford it? Particularly set to a backdrop of what, 20 million uninsured who can't even get a throat-swab to see if they have strep? Or 1/3rd of Americans not getting dental coverage?



Aside: Canada has a problem with wait times. It's true.


However, Canada is ranked 30th in the world in terms of how good our health care system is. We aren't perfect either.

A system like Germany's has the shorter wait times you want, pharmaceutical drug output, universal coverage, AND multiparty insurance offerings.
 
Also, the "we offer the best care, this is why we spend so much money" is a misconception.



The provision of state-of-the-art care isn't what jacks up American HC costs so much-- it's the insanely inflated administrative costs of supporting two types of insurance systems, and the fact that insurance companies have zero leverage when negotiating things like drug costs with pharmaceutical industries.


You'd be troubled to name 5 medical procedures done uniquely in the US, to my knowledge.
 
dalamon said:
Also, the "we offer the best care, this is why we spend so much money" is a misconception.



The provision of state-of-the-art care isn't what jacks up American HC costs so much-- it's the insanely inflated administrative costs of supporting two types of insurance systems, and the fact that insurance companies have zero leverage when negotiating things like drug costs with pharmaceutical industries.


You'd be troubled to name 5 medical procedures done uniquely in the US, to my knowledge.
Click to expand...

The bolded is TRUTH.
Your last sentence, though, is somewhat immaterial to the subject. "5" is a quantity, after all.

.. and I assume Jazzfanz is helping you write a paper on the topic and you'll be sorry u asked our opinions when u recieve your grade.. :^)
 
On the bright side though.. even if you do fail med school, the fact you were born in another country, are a bleeding heart liberal, a muslim, and have a passing fancy for the sport of basketball, proves you could have a career in executive management of the United States.
 
PKM said:
The bolded is TRUTH.
Your last sentence, though, is somewhat immaterial to the subject. "5" is a quantity, after all.

.. and I assume Jazzfanz is helping you write a paper on the topic and you'll be sorry u asked our opinions when u recieve your grade.. :^)
Click to expand...

Haha, extremely good guess. Finished writing a paper, been reading lots of books, and lots of this research is fresh in ma noggin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top