I’ve spent a lot of time talking with people about my desire to see a national universal health insurance plan adopted in the US. Almost everyone has voiced the same concerns.
- We don’t need another government program that’s inefficient and expensive.
- We don’t want a program that causes “good” doctors to leave the system and only offer their services to those who can afford to pay.
- We don’t want a program that creates long wait times for treatment.
- We don’t want to affect a system that provides millions of people with the most advanced health care in the world.
I couldn’t agree more that these are legitimate concerns but it shows a lack of understanding of the universal health insurance plans being proposed by the presidential candidates and the plans now in effect in states such as Massachusetts.
Yes, we don’t want another government program like Medicare and we don’t want a national health care system like the one in Canada. Canada’s public health care system does have some positives but I think we can all agree that it would be a disaster in the US. We need to keep our system but we need to make more affordable and equitable.
In the US doctors are, for the most part, paid handsomely for their services. Of course, they may be better off to pursue a career in professional sports, music, or entertainment but most doctors didn’t choose their career based on the paycheck. I’ve never met a doctor that didn’t feel it was a calling but the reality is that doctors do expect to earn a higher than average income. Changing the source of compensation and the amount that doctors are compensated for their services should never be tolerated.
We’ve all heard that the average Canadian has to wait weeks for treatment. The long wait times are due to a shortage of doctors in Canada. According to an article in the Canadian Readers Digest the shortage of doctors “is partly rooted in a 1991 report commissioned by the provincial deputy ministers of health. In that document, Morris Barer and Greg Stoddart, two health economists, predicted that Canada was facing a physician surplus. In response, provincial governments, scrambling to save money, cut first-year enrollment to Canadian medical schools by about ten percent. Dr. Andrew Cave, an associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, says, “Despite the predictions of the gurus ten years ago, in fact, we need more doctors.” Long waits for treatment isn't an automatic result of universal health insurance.
We do have an advanced health care system. Much of that is the result of expensive research and development. Those responsible for this technology know they will be compensated for their efforts and they work hard to provide us with more advanced technology every day. We have the best medical technology and we also have the most expensive healthcare. No one wants to be without the technology but the expense is creating a crisis.
None of the top presidential contenders is suggesting a national plan funded by taxes and administered by the federal government. None of the state programs are funded by taxes and administered by the state. I will write a number of posts about what the presidential candidates are proposing and what one state, Massachusetts, has done. Keep in mind that a national universal health insurance plan would not change the system we have now. It would change how many people contribute to the pool of cash that funds our system. If that’s a negative, I would like to hear why.
Yes, we don’t want another government program like Medicare and we don’t want a national health care system like the one in Canada. Canada’s public health care system does have some positives but I think we can all agree that it would be a disaster in the US. We need to keep our system but we need to make more affordable and equitable.
In the US doctors are, for the most part, paid handsomely for their services. Of course, they may be better off to pursue a career in professional sports, music, or entertainment but most doctors didn’t choose their career based on the paycheck. I’ve never met a doctor that didn’t feel it was a calling but the reality is that doctors do expect to earn a higher than average income. Changing the source of compensation and the amount that doctors are compensated for their services should never be tolerated.
We’ve all heard that the average Canadian has to wait weeks for treatment. The long wait times are due to a shortage of doctors in Canada. According to an article in the Canadian Readers Digest the shortage of doctors “is partly rooted in a 1991 report commissioned by the provincial deputy ministers of health. In that document, Morris Barer and Greg Stoddart, two health economists, predicted that Canada was facing a physician surplus. In response, provincial governments, scrambling to save money, cut first-year enrollment to Canadian medical schools by about ten percent. Dr. Andrew Cave, an associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, says, “Despite the predictions of the gurus ten years ago, in fact, we need more doctors.” Long waits for treatment isn't an automatic result of universal health insurance.
We do have an advanced health care system. Much of that is the result of expensive research and development. Those responsible for this technology know they will be compensated for their efforts and they work hard to provide us with more advanced technology every day. We have the best medical technology and we also have the most expensive healthcare. No one wants to be without the technology but the expense is creating a crisis.
None of the top presidential contenders is suggesting a national plan funded by taxes and administered by the federal government. None of the state programs are funded by taxes and administered by the state. I will write a number of posts about what the presidential candidates are proposing and what one state, Massachusetts, has done. Keep in mind that a national universal health insurance plan would not change the system we have now. It would change how many people contribute to the pool of cash that funds our system. If that’s a negative, I would like to hear why.
3 comments:
That's an interesting fact you read in the Digest.
I'll be interested in reading what the cadidate's positions are.
Well you hit most of my concerns. Anytime I hear that the government will be getting involved, I have concerns.
Michelle, As you'll see in one of my future posts, the candidates aren't the only ones proposing universal health care.
Anthony, I have the same concerns but some things are too big to leave to the individual states. Unfortunately, many of the states have had to take on universal health care because of the lack of leadership at the national level. Imagine if we had 50 Social Security systems. What a mess. We may as well become 50 separate countries if we continue on our present course. We can build an interstate highway system but we can't have universal interstate insurance. That doesn't sound like a problem? Read this article from the New York Times and you'll see that business is just as much a part of this as some of our candidates http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01Healthcare.t.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=636bdc6bb678c4f2&ex=1333080000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss .
Post a Comment