Is universial heathcare the answer?

[Word2Action]

That pretty much says it all. The government doesn't do the best job in the world at Medicare but they try, I have to give them credit for not being completely useless.

 

[triumph]

I used to be very against universal healthcare, but seeing how the insurance industry has evolved, how health insurance is becoming a ridiculous part of every person's monthly expenses, and I think something has to change.

For a lot of people health insurance is their single biggest monthly expense. That just doesn't make sense.

 

[sarah]

Universal healthcare may help the cost of medical care, but we may have to sacrifice some quality in order to make healthcare available to all. I just don't know if it would all work out.

 

[l99999us]

I think that it could work out and we could have both quality and affordable care. Most other industrialized countries have it. besides we have over 40 million people without insurence who could be bankrupted for having even a simple health problem.

Universal healthcare may help the cost of medical care, but we may have to sacrifice some quality in order to make healthcare available to all. I just don't know if it would all work out.

 

[Proletarian]

We should have universial healthcare for all citizens. Insurance companies and hospitals should not be allowed to profit off of peoples misery and suffering.

 

[framed]

I think some level of basic emergency care, and care of chronic conditions (to some set degree) would be a good thing to provide everyone. I think it would have to come with some strong limits on what is covered, to the point that the government may not cover some life-saving procedures if they're too expensive, or don’t provide enough return in terms of quality of life. Those procedures would have to come out of the citizens (or his insurance companies) pocket to avoid bankrupting the state.

From what I've heard (very third hand) about other countries systems they tend to offer every available treatment, but also tend to have supply shortfalls. Are those because there's no budget for the procedure, or the government is just not good enough at predicting demand?

If budget is the problem maybe the solution is to have the government cover fewer procedures/pills, so that you can more effectively guarantee access to what you do cover. Leave the more exotic, lower cost/benefit procedures to private industry and cover the comodity type healthcare inside government.

Going a bit more general..

The problem with healthcare is that when you’re sick and/or dying you can’t really put a price on a cure. You'll pay anything and everything you have, because if you don’t your quality of life is seriously degraded, or worst case you die. As technology gets better and better this problem gets worse because there are newer and more elaborate (and thus more expensive) ways to maintain your good health. The problem gets worse with insurance companies, since it’s not your money you spend when you go in for that "must do" procedure.

If you decide to regulate the entire system and provide universal care, you'd have to find a way to set a maximum price that is worth "investing" in an ill person. It sounds cruel, but if the government across the board starts spending its resources pulling every last string to keep every last person alive and comfortable, the bill will be more than taxpayers can bear. Take it further to "elective" procedures, and you have to ask questions like how much Viagra does the government pay for per covered citizen?

 

[dong]

What framed discusses in the final paragraph is somewhat akin to the issues surrounding the quantitative assessments of burden of disease, and such measures as Disability Adjusted Life Years (courtesy of the WHO). It's a limited system as it too has its biases but it's something we have to make do with.