Eugene
location: Maryland
listening to: Alexander Scriabin-The Solo Piano Works, Maria Lettberg
registered: 1999.08.12
posts: 3540
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
There is a huge difference between Universal Health Care and what most of the recent candidates
are calling Universal Health Care. Universal Health Care is socialized medicine, which in this
country would be run hopefully at the state, rather than federal level. Simply put, it means
everyone carries a health card, sees doctor of choice (they are all on the system) and there is
absolutely no out of pocket expense because the doctor only gets what UHC is paying (which would
be roughly at the current medicare level; it sucks for physicians, but the public loves it, because
those greeedy doctors finally don't get to make the big bucks anymore....). They don't deserve it
anyways....right? Drug costs are also subsidized but not covered so that there is out of pocket
expense for meds. Sounds simple, but there are a few problems. One is that not all tests/
procedures can be afforded by such system, so there is a rationing of care and significant waiting
times for surgery and scans. Secondly, the expense of running the system must be paid through
tax, so taxes have to rise considerably. A good example of this is the current Canadian health plan.
Great Britain, I think is somewhat better, because doctors can opt OUT of the plan, meaning that
not all or none of their care is provided by the plan and people who choose to see them must pay
extra (fair enough, if you want plastic surgery or a superspecialist). Every hospital in the NHC there
has doctors on staff who are totally in the NHC, so essential care is available to all citizens.
Most of the politicos here are advocating INSURANCE for all, which just means, the current system
will prevail, with insurance and drug companies continuing to call the shots, except everyone will
have INSURANCE. Having everybody insured is not the same as Universal Health Care. And...don't knock the VA. It is an excellent working model for a form of Universal Health Care. In
fact, if each citizen were able to get VA level health care, it would be a major 1st approach to UHC
in this country. People in the plan would have to go to a VA type facility or outpatient clinic and see
a VA physician. Meds are covered or subsidized, same with tests. I don't see the problem.
Currently, superspecialist type care for physicians not in the VA is outsourced at cost to the VA, for
VA enrollees.Everybody seems to want excellent health care for all, but nobody wants to pay for it. Won't
happen. The current wasteful and excessive health care system in this country (too much care), will
always come at a price, so if people continue to want every test, every med and all the best doctors,
a UHC plan would never work here. I think the choice for sensible rationed care may be the only
option to continuing the current 3rd party payor system.
E
Eugene
(view)
There is a huge difference between Universal Health Care and what most of the recent candidates
are calling Universal Health Care. Universal Health Care is socialized medicine, which in this
country would be run hopefully at the state, rather than federal level. Simply put, it means
everyone carries a health card, sees doctor of choice (they are all on the system) and there is
absolutely no out of pocket expense because the doctor only gets what UHC is paying (which would
be roughly at the current medicare level; it sucks for physicians, but the public loves it, because
those greeedy doctors finally don't get to make the big bucks anymore....). They don't deserve it
anyways....right? Drug costs are also subsidized but not covered so that there is out of pocket
expense for meds. Sounds simple, but there are a few problems. One is that not all tests/
procedures can be afforded by such system, so there is a rationing of care and significant waiting
times for surgery and scans. Secondly, the expense of running the system must be paid through
tax, so taxes have to rise considerably. A good example of this is the current Canadian health plan.
Great Britain, I think is somewhat better, because doctors can opt OUT of the plan, meaning that
not all or none of their care is provided by the plan and people who choose to see them must pay
extra (fair enough, if you want plastic surgery or a superspecialist). Every hospital in the NHC there
has doctors on staff who are totally in the NHC, so essential care is available to all citizens.
Most of the politicos here are advocating INSURANCE for all, which just means, the current system
will prevail, with insurance and drug companies continuing to call the shots, except everyone will
have INSURANCE. Having everybody insured is not the same as Universal Health Care. And...don't knock the VA. It is an excellent working model for a form of Universal Health Care. In
fact, if each citizen were able to get VA level health care, it would be a major 1st approach to UHC
in this country. People in the plan would have to go to a VA type facility or outpatient clinic and see
a VA physician. Meds are covered or subsidized, same with tests. I don't see the problem.
Currently, superspecialist type care for physicians not in the VA is outsourced at cost to the VA, for
VA enrollees.Everybody seems to want excellent health care for all, but nobody wants to pay for it. Won't
happen. The current wasteful and excessive health care system in this country (too much care), will
always come at a price, so if people continue to want every test, every med and all the best doctors,
a UHC plan would never work here. I think the choice for sensible rationed care may be the only
option to continuing the current 3rd party payor system.
