Of course for many concerns about cost, not unfounded. For others denial anything's wrong with them, fear of being told "the worst", and others just plain fear of doctors and hospitals. You'd be surprised at the number of people who won't avail themselves of what financial aid programs that ARE out there for some misplaced sense of "shame" for having to do so. Another tragedy of our system.
We have the opposite problem. Last time I was in A&E (A few years back when a tungsten saw tip broke off and hit me in the eye) there was a sign up saying 45% of the people who visit this A&E should not be there. I was surrounded by people who woke up this morning with stiff fingers or had a bit of a rash. Friends in the NHS say it has improved, now staff are allowed to tell people to go home and call their GP for a proper appointment. Down side of being free
IGNORANCE MAY BE BLISS BUT KNOWLEDGE IS AWESOME We, as a nation, wake-up every four-years to elect a presidency and bits of both national and state parliaments. But the overall voting tendency in the US is pathetically subdued. From Pew Research's document titled "In past elections, U.S. trailed most developed countries in voter turnout" . Excerpt: Now those who still think "Uncle Sam is the Greatest Democracy on earth" can make their rebuttal here. Ignorance may be bliss, but factual knowledge is awesome ...
Yes, as a resident of France, I can attest to that fact! Nonetheless, the French are being faced with the same Overweight Problem as elsewhere. And Covid does not help. People eat more when left in their houses on lock-down except to do food-shopping ... But, that works! That is, it is becoming apparent with the second-wave of Covid here, we've come to learn the problem and are improving our treatments (throughout Europe). But it took 7/8 months and THOUSANDS of deaths to get to that point. As mummy used to say - An ounce of prevention is worth a tone of cure! Meaning, I hope somebody is thinking already about Covid-2
I have private health insurance on top of Australian Medicare. In this way, I can use public hospitals as a private patient. Philosophically speaking, if Capitalists want to use a societies' workforce, then they have a moral obligation to ensure that it is healthy enough so they can access same as demand requires. That concept lends itself to universal healthcare so that the workforce is work ready to meet the demands of capitalism.
YEARS TO COME Yes and no. Yes, capitalists "want to use the workforce". But they are the minimal part of that equation. That is, given that they "own" either wholly or part of the company, and thus benefit from its management. Or not. It's different for we, the sheeple. We just work and then go shopping for the goods/services provided by others. Except, these "others" are on a different planet money-wise. They are America's "super-rich". The question is therefore not either those who own the means of production (goods/services) nor those who work to provide them. That bag contains both. Any sense of democratic equality means that our votes should weigh the same individually and not be mishandled by either as when: *An Electoral College negates all the votes of the loser and reports only the votes of the winner! *Gerrymandering on the state-level that allows politicos to "design voting districts according to their political whimsies". For all the sense of democracy that Americans THINK they have, damn few actually use it. And the sense of "fairness" in the voting mechanism is practically invisible. A "for instance": The Supreme Court, we must learn, is supremely capable of making some idiotic decisions. It is NOT impartial. From here: This orientation in Political Thought of those consisting the Supreme Court is dangerous stuff. The court should be perfectly neutral. Now tell that to the Replicants, because they are responsible largely for STUFFING the Supreme Court*! Such attitudes DO NOT CONSTITUTE a democracy. It is one from the Far, Far Right of any political organization AND FOR WHICH THERE SHOULD BE NO ACCEPTANCE! The political game-set in the US is not over, boyz-'n-girlz. It has just begun. Watch this space - the sacrosanct neutrality of America's democracy is at stake ... *And frankly I think that this spiral into the depths of political-polemics and in-fighting at the Supreme Court shall be Uncle Sam's biggest problem for years-upon-years to come.
I pay $50/mo at a co-op. Socialism is F'in great so long as it remains voluntary. (a 'co-op' is a cooperative, notably distinct from a collective in that no one is forced to participate in a cooperative)
Yes, well, in my book those demands are reversed. "Capital" has had enough of its unfair-share of the economic booty and that consequence is largely due to wholly unfair upper-income taxation ...
There are places where capitalism is appropriate and where it is not. The fact that healthcare is governmental in nature has increased lifespan in Europe over that of the US! To the point where Europeans are living at least two years longer than Americans with private healthcare, which is far more expensive. The same dichotomy exists for those who graduate (or not) from post-secondary schooling compared to those who do not. Which is why I insist on treating both as government-related services to be left as little as possible to "private profit-interests". I have lived as much in the US (where I grew up) and worked as much in Europe (where I live permanently). The two economies are really quite different in a great many respects. And, therefore, so are standards-of-living. Namely, lifespan. Europeans live longer. Do they live "better"? Dunno. What does one mean by "better" ... ?
I not only live in the UK but have worked in the NHS for many years. I work in IT and that has involved working with both the clinical and financial side of the system, plus working with a some private sector and American healthcare systems too. One thing I've always said about this topic is that I don't think the underlying funding structure of a healthcare system is the primary driver of quality. You could have good or bad public healthcare and you could have good or bad private healthcare (and good or bad mixed economies, which is what most places actually have, including the US and UK). I do think the debate in the US can focus to much on that single aspect while ignoring all of the other things that influence a healthcare system and the wider question of public health. No system is going to please all of the people all of the time nor will any system be perfect in all ways. Ultimately we're all trying to achieve the same thing - get the best healthcare for as little expenditure as possible. There will always be limits and compromises and the question of where they should fall will ultimately be a matter of opinion. There are also general difficulties with modern healthcare that impact the entire developed world (and in different ways, the rest of the world too), regardless of healthcare system. We have made some massive steps in science and development in healthcare over the last few decades. We can detect, prevent and treat so many more things than we could in the recent past but all of those things tend to cost money, often lots of money. I feel we've reached a point where we would be able to do more than any of us are willing to pay for. Where as in the past, clinicians would be doing pretty much everything they physically could to treat patients, there are now so many options and alternatives that there is a much more difficult decision making process of what (and significantly, how much) to actually try. On the NHS specifically, I personally think it is pretty good. It's long established and has been fairly stable allowing it to work pretty well on all the core elements. Most of the big problems have come from excessive political interference in the system over the years. There are certainly imperfections, some from those unavoidable compromises, some from general human imperfections and while there is certainly scope for improvement, I don't think there is any massive shift that would make it significantly better than it already is. From what I know of the US system, I'd probably say the same kind of thing. There are probably as many commonalities as there are differences, it's just that the differences are often more apparent.
Excellent contribution! The largest dis-commonality between the US and the EU (including UK, though they are leaving) is that it does not cost nearly as much to obtain a medical degree in Europe than in the US. I have placed this article before and will do so again (from here): Let's presume that Biden wants to introduce a European-like Medical-degree program (at some state-schools across the country). What does he do about those already in a Medical Degree program at a much higher cost? New students into these degree-programs are not a problem. They should be taught in an established MDs program at selected schools around the country - tuition paid-for by the US government.. Which is the reason why I suggest that ALL TERTIARY LEVEL EDUCATION should be subsidized by the US Government at state institutions-of-learning.
Then the US must learn from Europe. How do they solve that problem you mention? Because they do solve that problem (by means of government spending) and for a very low-cost that remains affordable to most families. (It costs me 20 euros to see a doctor in France.) Meaning the US government assumes the larger cost of educating MDs. And why not ... ?
That's more an education system problem than a healthcare one, though there is one common key point; The cost is (largely) the same, it's the price that is different or, more to the point, who pays it. I don't know but presumably the could introduce grants or loans to help support the cost and that could be implemented for new and existing students. I don't know about the US but the major staffing issue is recruitment and retention rather than training, as is more stark in nursing and ancillary sectors, where there is often lower pay and less public appreciation. We haven't because it can't be solved. It doesn't really matter where the money comes from, we could easily spend more than anyone would be willing to pay. There is always going to be a line, the only question is who draws it and how. Again, price, not cost. The full cost is still being paid for, it's just that a significant proportion comes from general taxation rather than from the patient (directly or via insurance) as in the US. Neither system is automatically better or worse though.
IMO the reason the American system is screwed is because a third party runs the show--the insurance industry. The American system is screwed because a third, for profit, party regulates strongly the relationship between doctor and patient. Obamacare supports that faulty system, it was crafted by the insurance industry.
The simple fact that society takes care of something collectively does not constitute "socialism". Socialism is a comprehensive ideology, unlike capitalism that is merely an evolutionary economic form. The error of humans is trying to take something and make it work everywhere for everything. We need only to borrow what works well from all ideas and apply them when and where appropriate. Ideologues and fundamentalists will be the end of us all.
I would go further. I would say some form of socialism has proved essential for any society to survive. Capitalism itself includes a certain amount of socialism, being the acceptable form of totally free trade. Where that trade and its behaviour is controlled by elected representatives.
I don't know how people become doctors in England. But, here with everything said and done its about a 10 year process. SO with that said, anyone who goes through that isn't going to sit back and get low ball for the pay. Which brings up the point that you can have the greatest healthcare system in the world, but if you dont' medical providers you got nothing
I think one of the biggest things that can help is tort reform for the medical industry. MDs have to pay out the nose for malpractice insurance. Which also bring up a 2nd point, That with tort reform they dont' have order more and sometimes useless tests to CYA.
Yes, the problem with health care in the U.S. compared with other modern states is that costs, and especially education of doctors, are the ultimate controlling factor. The focus is on money, not people. It is a fixation that lacks soul. Materialism reigns, and that is a very hollow idol.
