SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A US National Health Care System?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Solon who wrote (68)1/11/2005 7:28:59 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (2) of 42652
 
Sorry, but citing the terms of Canada's Health Act as authoritative is unimpressive from my POV. Circular arguments are not convincing. It and similar statutes in other countries are the subject of debate, not the authority.

Medical needs don't wait till pay-day.
Billing at time of service by docs in this country is rare and is nonexistent with hospitals to the best of my knowledge. They mail a bill later. So have the cash in our pocket isn't an issue.

And the arguments are fairly compelling if one insists on not deviating from the principles.
But one has to accept the principles. Again, they are the subject of debate. DEMONSTRATE that those principles result in better health at lower cost and do so long term. And long term counts. You may despise the profit motive all you want, but it gets people to put out effort an 8 to 5 gov't job won't.

You are welcome to prove me wrong, but the last significant medical discovery I remember coming from Canada is insulin in the 1930's. Not exactly a sterling record. The US can credibly claim leadership in this area.

What DOES a single mother do when she has $20 left for baby food until payday but she is running a high fever?
In the US? She heads for the local hospital's ER. The situation you describe would be consider a valid emergency and the ER is required BY LAW to treat the child.

Also..."at point of service" user fees can only be regulated through a mountain of administrative record keeping and processing--cumbersome, unreliable, and extremely expensive.
What is the cost of unnecessary use of "free" services? Maybe that should be weighed against your administrative costs.

On the other hand, everyone could pay for public health insurance just as they pay into a Government pension plan for old age--so that some relationship would obtain between contribution and usage.
The efficiency of gov't organizations, particularly with respect to cost, is well known. $1000 toilet seat, anyone? I doubt that Canada has achieved a Nirvana where such problems do not exist.

Against the point of service user fee argument is also the socialist appeal that it is "unfair" that someone unlucky enough to require overwhelming medical care because of random misfortune should therefore be forced to choose between a minimal lifestyle or minimal health care. For these people, "Universal" means all or none.
An appeal to socialism is an argument? Maybe to you; not to me.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News