Why not have nationalized health care as they do in Britain?

Orange Punch, The Orange County Register political commentary blog ^ | 4-5-2012 | Mark Landsbaum

[landsbaum]

The defenders of Obamacare, it is pretty obvious, don’t intend to stop with dictating that you buy insurance, and what kind of insurance, and how much you must pay. They want a nationalized health care plan like Great Britain’s. Obamacare is a step, albeit a big step, in that direction. So, what would it be like to put the government in charge of your health care? Isn’t that British system wonderful? Not exactly. But George Orwell would recognize it. “An elderly woman was ordered to find a new GP because the ‘carbon footprint’ of her two-mile round trips to the surgery where she had been treated for 30 years was too large,” reports the Telegraph. ...

[kiltie65]

I wonder what the Australian medical plan is like? I recall an Australian visitor, 20 years or so ago now, telling me you must have mandatory health insurance there, but you have the option of a minimum care plan (cheapest), medium care plan, or the most expensive full care plan. Anybody know?

[Nifster]

Because you are an idiot. National health services in the UK kills people.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Nationalize groceries.
Everybody’s gotta eat !

[az_gila]

And not many US folks realize the extent of private insurance in the UK.

http://www.bupa.co.uk/individuals/health-insurance/

Part of the pay package by many companies to speed up doctors visit waiting time and diagnostic procedures.

[mjp]

Isn’t that British system wonderful? Not exactly.

Egalitarianism encourages people to do nothing and demand everything.It is tantamount to the abolition of causality in the earning of income,but also of cost in the spending of income.The egalitarianism of socialized medicine would result in the appearance of giving something free to the individual and chargeable to the group as a whole, and would make the consumption of the individual appear to be virtually costless-both to himself and to every other individual.

When this happens, there is increased demand by individuals, which leads to increase overall cost.More individuals seeking more care will also reduce the quantity and quality of supply of care available to each individual because doctor's time is limited.

To deal with these problems, the government will try to control medicine even more, making the practice of medicine unattractive as a profession, causing a decrease in the supply of doctors,leading to even more decrease in quantity and quality of supply of care.

Increased control over medical costs will also result in an assault on paying for advances in diagnosis and treatment.

[Puppage]

you must have mandatory health insurance there, but you have the option of a minimum care plan (cheapest), medium care plan, or the most expensive full care plan.

Awww, how bloody nice of 'em.

[21twelve]

I read some minutes of a British gov’t meeting on their healthcare. One Parliament guy was complaining that to get a hearing TEST done in his outlying district was a 10 month wait. He thought that the same standard of care should be available for the whole country, and that it was too long of a wait. And that it should be what the wait time in London is - 3 weeks! For a lousy frikkin hearing TEST!

[GenXteacher]

“Why not have nationalized health care as they do in Britain?”

Because there is nothing European that the US should desire to emulate.

[RFEngineer]

“....why should I be coerced, literally at the point of a gun, to pay for my neighbor’s health care?”

That’s the thing, you already do that with our healthcare system.

What’s different about UK system is that you’ll pay, but your neighbor won’t be able to get health care, in many cases, and neither will you.

However, I do think we are headed for some sort of UK-like system - a poorly funded public system that is “free” and a private system for people who don’t mind paying twice.

We can’t keep the system we have now. We can’t afford it.

[OneWingedShark]

>At root, except for the TRULY poor, why should I be coerced, literally at the point of a gun, to pay for my neighbor’s health care?

Even with the truely poor why should you be *coerced* to pay for their healthcare?

The significance of the Parable of the Good Samaratian is precisely that there was no coersion involved; it was illustrating the answer of the question “who is my neigbor?,” would the man that cared for the wounded man be a neighbor if there was a gun to his head? I think not.

[EyeGuy]

Yes, you are absolutely right, and I WAS thinking of The Gospels.

I saw that inconsistency, unfortunately AFTER I had posted (no edit function on FR).

One too many clauses/thoughts in the same sentence.

[EyeGuy]

“We can’t keep the system we have now. We can’t afford it.”

####

Probably not. However, the problems with our current system have more to do with not enough market rigor and personal responsibility brought to bear, than the need to go more collectivist.

[RFEngineer]

“Probably not. However, the problems with our current system have more to do with not enough market rigor and personal responsibility brought to bear, than the need to go more collectivist.”

Our system has many collectivist elements already. Medicare/Medicaid covering at least half (and growing) of the market - leaving the other half to make up the losses incurred. That is not going to work much longer.

Market Rigor would have to include patients paying their own way if it were to work in the classical sense.

Personal responsibility would have to include telling people “no” when they want lifestyle-related care that they expect someone else to pay for.

[Ramius]

That’s very well said.

Also: Take away the profit motive, and you take away most new advancement in medical and pharmaceutical science. Say goodbye to innovation. Whenever socialized medicine happens here... That’s the state of medical technology we’ll be stuck with for many decades.