Universal health care

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Cuba: you have got to be kidding me)
m (Reverted edits by Lurker (Talk); changed back to last version by Human)
Line 47: Line 47:
 
All the slaves have free health care, and it is reputedly rather good.  
 
All the slaves have free health care, and it is reputedly rather good.  
  
After [[Michael Moore]]'s film ''[[Sicko]]'', which depicted Cuba's healthcare system as incredibly good, the [[Republican Party|Republicans]] were quick to point to a hospital in Cuba with absolutely despicable conditions, that make 18th century medicine look like miracles.  The Republicans pointed to this hospital to show that health care in Cuba is ''not'' as good as people present it to be.  The hospital is actually a volunteer hospital providing care to people who are against the [[Communist]] Regime.  It would honestly surprise [[User:Eira|me]] if a [[totalitarian]] government ''did'' provide adequate health care for dissidents.
+
After [[Michael Moore]]'s film ''[[Sicko]]'', which depicted Cuba's healthcare system as incredibly good, the [[Republican Party|Republicans]] were quick to point to a hospital in Cuba with absolutely despicable conditions, that make 18th century medicine look like miracles.  The Republicans pointed to this hospital to show that health care in Cuba is ''not'' as good as people present it to be.  The hospital is actually a volunteer hospital providing care to people who are against the [[Communist]] Regime.  It would honestly surprise [[User:Eira|me]] if a [[totalitarian]] government ''did'' provide adequate health care for dissidents.  The fascist country, the USA, certainly doesn't provide any healthcare at all for its [[Poor|dissidents]].
  
 
===Denmark===
 
===Denmark===

Revision as of 04:38, 13 December 2007

Universal health care describes any system whereby all residents, usually of one country, are covered by plans to pay for their medical needs as they arise.

This can arise in several ways:

  • The free market creates conditions under which, between employer-provided plans, individually-purchased plans, and charity, everyone is covered (neo-con ideal).
  • As above, except the gaps in the free market system are covered by government sponsored programs (current US system, except for the "universal" part).
  • "single payer" systems where one organization, whether private or public, pays for all care.
  • A tax-supported government program is set in place to pay for medical care for all who partake of it. This is what people usually mean by "single payer".

The first two do not succeed in providing health coverage for all, in practice. The third example is provided just to acknowledge the concept that single payer universal health care could arise in the free market private sector somehow.

The fourth is what we see in many countries of the world, with varying results and popularity.

Contents

Advantages of Tax Supported Single Payer Universal Health care

  • Health care for all!
  • No direct health insurance costs for businesses or individuals.
  • Efficiency of scale and simplicity.
  • Health care continuity not affected by employment status changes.
  • Doctors' main goal is to get you healthy/save your life.

Disadvantages of Tax Supported Single Payer Universal Health care

  • The government cannot do anything more efficiently than the private sector.
  • Higher taxes, which may be levied unfairly.
  • Creeping socialism.
  • Lazy poor people don't deserve free health care.

Examples of Systems in Use Today

(please add countries alphabetically and describe systems)

Australia

Residents with a Medicare card can receive subsidised treatment from medical practitioners who have been issued a Medicare provider number, and fully subsidised treatment in public hospitals. Visitors from countries which have reciprocal arrangements with Australia have limited access to Medicare.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) subsidises certain prescribed pharmaceuticals.

Au! Canada

Free leeches back bacon for the asking, eh?

In practice, healthcare is generally funded by a combination of sales tax and federal transfer payments, although in the western provinces they've had good results in using casino revenues. While long wait times are often pointed at as a weakness of the system, they are more likely caused by the system's underfunding by a series of Liberal (centerist) and Conservative (right, recently hard right) governments, who didn't necessarily have a commitment to the system, and only hesitate due to the massive public supports for socialized medicine. Hard to win an election when you give the source of national pride a kick to the 'nads, eh?

There's some good background here on the history of Canada's healthcare system.

China

All the slaves have free health care, but it probably isn't very good.

Cuba

All the slaves have free health care, and it is reputedly rather good.

After Michael Moore's film Sicko, which depicted Cuba's healthcare system as incredibly good, the Republicans were quick to point to a hospital in Cuba with absolutely despicable conditions, that make 18th century medicine look like miracles. The Republicans pointed to this hospital to show that health care in Cuba is not as good as people present it to be. The hospital is actually a volunteer hospital providing care to people who are against the Communist Regime. It would honestly surprise me if a totalitarian government did provide adequate health care for dissidents. The fascist country, the USA, certainly doesn't provide any healthcare at all for its dissidents.

Denmark

All Danish citizens have the right to free treatment from general practitioners, specialists and public hospitals. Depending on personal income, it may also be possible to get financial support from the municipality for other health-related costs.

About 1.8 million Danish citizens are also members of Sygeforsikringen danmark (Health Insurance denmark), a private mutual insurance company, which offers refunds of up to 85% on expenses not generally covered by the public health insurance, such as certain types of medicine, eyeglasses and dental care.

Government expenses for the public health care system amounts to ca. 14 billion, or about 2500 USD per citizen, per year. The system as a whole generally functions well, but is however plagued by certain serious structural problems that lead to inefficiency and dissatisfaction in certain sectors. Many people also believe that the system does not receive enough funding to live up to expectations from the political level.

La belle France

They pay less money for their healthcare, and get better treatment than most non-millionaire Americans.

India

None of the slaves have free health care.

Netherlands

Citizens may choose between private and public health care, where public health care consists of special programs provided by the same companies that offer private health care.

The maximum fees of these public programs are restricted by the government, a typical public health insurance including dental care costs around 80 euros a month.

Health care for all minors (less than 18 years old) is free.

Spain

National health system paid for by taxes. Quite centralized system but it works quite well. Hospital care covered but patients sometimes have to wait for non-urgent treatment. Standard charge for prescription medicines with reductions for pensioners. People have the option of taking out private health insurance if they don't want to wait for their non-urgent operations.

United Kingdom

Britain's National Health Service is similar in principal to Spain's, i.e. a centralized system paid for by taxes. Hospital care is covered but patients sometimes have to wait for non-urgent treatment. There is a standard charge for prescription medicines but there are exemptions for the elderly, expectant mothers, etc. People have the option of taking out private health insurance if they don't want to wait for their non-urgent operations.

Until recently the British NHS was the envy of most other countries but there is a determined effort by the Government to edge it closer to the American model by privatisation in various guises.

Michael Moore's 2007 film Sicko, made for the American market, paints an excessively rosy picture of the NHS and condemns US healthcare.

It is certainly true that the British in general have much better health care than the Americans, except for millionaires.

United States of America

15% of U.S. residents have no health care plan, and despite campaigns by politicians on the center and left, no national health care service seems likely to be implemented any time soon due to the perceived association of "socialized medicine" and Communism. The state of Massachusetts, as of July 2007, has a rudimentary universal health care system based on providing state-funded subsidies to commercial health insurance providers, but it's too early to decide how well it works.

In 2000 a World Health Organisation report noted that the USA ranked 37th out of 191 member states for the quality of health care available to its citizens (France was top, the UK 18th, Colombia 22nd).[1]

The Southern Baptists officially oppose universal child health insurance.[2]

Michael Moore made a documentary, Sicko, in his inimitable style, about the current "system" in the United States, comparing people's experiences with it to those in Canada, France and Great Britain. He also pulled an illegal stunt by bringing several ill first responders from the 9/11 cleanup to Cuba and obtained free care for them. Sean Hannity thinks it is a pack of lies and misrepresentations.

Countries with Universal Health Care

Map of countries with universal health care

External Links

A Conservative Convert To Socialized Medicine.

References

  1. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
  2. http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=26192
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support