Health Care System - which design would you choose?

[lawrocket 3]

The poll is simple. You are in charge of designing a health care system for a country. Health care has these three goals in mind: 1) Quality; 2) Affordability; and 3) Accessibility.

The problem is, you can only have two of them.

How would you vote? What do you find more important, and why? Also, is there any choice that you find to be abhorrent? If so, why?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,995]

I vote for two separate systems.

A 'lower tier' system that is of average quality, somewhat hard to get, something of a pain in the butt to use, but very very cheap. (Free or close to it.)

A higher tier system that is entirely private. You can get an MRI in two hours if you're willing to pay for it, and you have a doctor willing to write the orders (also private.) Otherwise, come back in 3 weeks.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Isn't that what you have now?

[narcimund 0]

I choose high quality/expensive for myself but I wouldn't ever consider that I have the right to make that choice for anyone else.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Isn't that what you have now?

No. If you can pay (have good insurance), then you do have access to quality healthcare. If you cannot pay, then you have very limited access and it's expensive.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[rushmc 23]

None of the above. Put a Fed department in charge or control of this and there will be no quality, the price will skyrocket, and what is left will be damed near impossible to get.

So, to follow your questions, I find any combination, if gov run, to be so abhorrent I could not support any of them.

Edited to add,
Of course I am assuming that this system would be gov. run

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Of course I am assuming that this system would be gov. run

well, then, obviously it would be "FREE" then

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

None of the above. Put a Fed department in charge or control of this and there will be no quality, the price will skyrocket, and what is left will be damed near impossible to get.

So, to follow your questions, I find any combination, if gov run, to be so abhorrent I could not support any of them.

Edited to add,
Of course I am assuming that this system would be gov. run

Just like Air Traffic Control - oh, wait, the US has the best, most accessible ATC system in the world, and it's inexpensive and government run (in contrast to Europe, S. America, etc).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lindsey 0]

I do kinda like the idea of some basic healthcare provided by the federal gov't while keeping the bulk of our healthcare funding private. We already have federal control of health insurance for elderly and disabled adults and poor children. Medicare pays pretty well for old folks' healthcare. I don't think quality has suffered as a result of Medicare. Medicaid ain't so great. But either way, these are basically federally-funded insurance programs. People with medicaid don't have as good of access as people with medicare, but neither has left us with "no quality" or healthcare that's impossible to get.

If there were some basic healthcare provided, then I think overall our healthcare costs would go down. People would not feel as compelled, I don't think, to use (much more expensive) ERs for routine complaints. And with more access to routine healthcare, people who can't pay might just take care of health problems before they become REALLY expensive. As it is, people without the ability to pay for care are often not seen until they absolutely have to be. So instead of managing their minor illnesses, we end up taking care of (eventually with federal and state dollars) really sick people.

I, personally, want better care than that for me and my family. I'll make it a priority and use private insurance and my own resources to make sure that we have much better than basic healthcare coverage. I think that if basic healthcare were available to everyone then health insurance costs just might go down....but that's just goin' with my gut.

liinz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

None of the above. Put a Fed department in charge or control of this and there will be no quality, the price will skyrocket, and what is left will be damed near impossible to get.

So, to follow your questions, I find any combination, if gov run, to be so abhorrent I could not support any of them.

Edited to add,
Of course I am assuming that this system would be gov. run

Just like Air Traffic Control - oh, wait, the US has the best, most accessible ATC system in the world, and it's inexpensive and government run (in contrast to Europe, S. America, etc).

You can support socialism if you choose. I will not

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I do kinda like the idea of some basic healthcare provided by the federal gov't while keeping the bulk of our healthcare funding private. We already have federal control of health insurance for elderly and disabled adults and poor children. Medicare pays pretty well for old folks' healthcare. I don't think quality has suffered as a result of Medicare. Medicaid ain't so great. But either way, these are basically federally-funded insurance programs. People with medicaid don't have as good of access as people with medicare, but neither has left us with "no quality" or healthcare that's impossible to get.

If there were some basic healthcare provided, then I think overall our healthcare costs would go down. People would not feel as compelled, I don't think, to use (much more expensive) ERs for routine complaints. And with more access to routine healthcare, people who can't pay might just take care of health problems before they become REALLY expensive. As it is, people without the ability to pay for care are often not seen until they absolutely have to be. So instead of managing their minor illnesses, we end up taking care of (eventually with federal and state dollars) really sick people.

I, personally, want better care than that for me and my family. I'll make it a priority and use private insurance and my own resources to make sure that we have much better than basic healthcare coverage. I think that if basic healthcare were available to everyone then health insurance costs just might go down....but that's just goin' with my gut.

liinz

I see you point but look at what has happened to the programs you list. From what they were intended to be to what they have become is scarry

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lindsey 0]

I see you point but look at what has happened to the programs you list. From what they were intended to be to what they have become is scarry

Well...Medicare. Do you mean that it's really become a pretty comprehensive insurance program for all elderly and disabled people rather than a safety net for elderly indigent people?

I think it's usually true that once any program is put into place, it evolves....which usually means "grows." I'm not a fan of government becoming responsible for what individuals should be responsible for. It makes people lazy and stupid, imho. But I also see where we're in a bit of a bind in terms of health care costs.

The idealist in me thinks that government involvement in health care should really be minimal. The realist, though, recognizes that there are a BUNCH of folks who just ain't gonna ever be responsible for themselves. I'd like to limit the financial burden they place on the rest of us....in whatever way that is accomplished the best. The answers I see here lie on a continuum of going back to lepers segregated from society and cripples begging on the street to using government funds to meet ALL these folks' needs--food, clothing, shelter, health care (and on and on). I don't know where the best place is for a line to be drawn, but I don't think it's at either extreme.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Medicare pays pretty well for old folks' healthcare.

There's a big difference with 50% of all the people (those that pay any tax) paying for 5% of the people (elderly)

compared to

50% of all the people (those that pay any tax) paying for 100% of the people

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I don't know where the best place is for a line to be drawn, but I don't think it's at either extreme.

However, anyone making an argument will always point at the extreme and claim that is the result of not following "their" plan.

so enjoy the emotionally ridden nonsensical arguments

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Zipp0 1]

France, with universal health care, (socialism) is ranked #1 health care system by the World Health Organization.

The USA, who spends more then anyone, is #37.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 2,995]

> Isn't that what you have now?

Not really. We have a "shadow" free healthcare system where people go to ER's and simply don't pay. We all end up paying for them anyway (of course) but since there are dozens of levels of paperwork, billing, collection agencies, government subsidies etc it ends up being very expensive for the level of care that's provided.

My proposal is to get rid of all those levels. The government pays for the most basic levels of critical care, and some minimal levels of ongoing care. Should cost less than this shadow program we have now.

Meanwhile we keep our current private system, which is what you use when you want good care quickly.

[shropshire 0]

I like and support our (UK) model but definitely NOT how it is currently being run (into the ground - by a socialist [aledgidly] government)

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rushmc 23]

Quote

France, with universal health care, (socialism) is ranked #1 health care system by the World Health Organization.

The USA, who spends more then anyone, is #37.

That is one country I will never care to be compared to. You can have the attitude, taxes and all the other bs they have right along with the WHO rated health care systme

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

France, with universal health care, (socialism) is ranked #1 health care system by the World Health Organization.

The USA, who spends more then anyone, is #37.

That is one country I will never care to be compared to. You can have the attitude, taxes and all the other bs they have right along with the WHO rated health care systme

You're happy being #37, with life expectancy and infant mortality on a par with some 3rd world nations?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,995]

>That is one country I will never care to be compared to.

Better health care
Better nuclear program

You don't have to compare yourself to them, but if you ignore what you can learn from people just because you personally detest them, you end up less informed overall. Imagine where we'd be today if we didn't learn about rocketry from the Germans, or manned spaceflight from the Russians.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>That is one country I will never care to be compared to.

Better health care
Better nuclear program

You don't have to compare yourself to them, but if you ignore what you can learn from people just because you personally detest them, you end up less informed overall. Imagine where we'd be today if we didn't learn about rocketry from the Germans, or manned spaceflight from the Russians.

Got no problem with learning anything but, I do not think what they are "claimed" to have is worth the price.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

> Imagine where we'd be today if we didn't learn about rocketry from the Germans, or manned spaceflight from the Russians.

we'd have one less exploded space shuttle?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,995]

>we'd have one less exploded space shuttle?

Two less, by my counting! No dead astronauts either.

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

>we'd have one less exploded space shuttle?

Two less, by my counting! No dead astronauts either.

Burkina Faso has had no Astronaut casualties...so they've got that going for them...which is good...

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Burkina Faso has had no Astronaut casualties...so they've got that going for them...which is good...

Quantus, I have to fly on Quantus. After Wapner.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants