Public health care, with the option to purchase private insurance if you want fancier treatment (this would also opt you out of paying the tax for the public service).
As someone that grew up with Canada's health care...I can't fathom how anyone could think it is morally/ethically fine to create a system where something as basic and necessary as health must be purchased, and is something that only some of the country's citizens and residents can realistically afford. Every day in the USA, all those "helpful" private insurance companies we pay gigantic chunks of our money into are trying their damn hardest to find a way to refuse to cover their customers - People that pay them for a service - Just to increase their own profit potentials. It's practically theft (in any other industry, taking payment and refusing service without a refund IS theft!).
The last thing anyone should have to think about when their life or long-term health is threatened is whether or not their bank account is stuffed enough to handle the bill. I shouldn't have to have the knowledge that any day, I could have a horrible accident and need treatment, and somewhere in some office is a person sitting at a desk looking at my claim, trying to find even the slightest weakness in my records that would give them an excuse to turn me away (a customer that has been paying them for years), and leave my family with thousands of dollars' worth of unnecessary stress and debt.
You have the right to your body and your liberty, not other peoples property especially when taken through force and coercion.
The Free Market model has been shitted on for far too long, its not the reason for shit overpriced care in the US, the problem is government interference.
We need to try this model, at least give it a shot because heck it works for Samsung and Apple...
Let them compete for patients (they being Hospitals and Big Pharma) and they'll be falling over each other.
Riddle Me this:
"too much government interference" gets Americans their $2000 MRI and $400 liter of Salene (Salt Water).
But then you have France with its $4.73 liter of saline and Japan with its $70 MRIs, because the government set the prices.
And it's the American government's fault it's expensive? What kind of counter-factual reality do you live in? Competition doesn't work in health care. It doesn't work because people don't shop around for health care services when they need them, and they never will.
And beyond that, spreading the costs - and accepting high costs in a cornered market - is inherently stupid. We can talk about the division of health care insurance till the cows come home, but problem number one is services in the US cost more than other developed nations by an order of a hundred, and we sit here and pretend there isn't any known solutions to this quandary.
Oh it's well known. The government sets health care prices, insurers charge those prices. It's a very low-profit industry. Call that socialist if you like. But no less than Japan, one of the most wildly successful capitalist countries in the world operates under that exact model, and it works. So why are we debating this like we're the first human beings to ever come across this issue?
a bit higher taxes (around 35-40% of income), but free healthcare and education.
Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
"government gives free healthcare, taxes up by 5%" Cant really see the free-for-all working too well.
I totally agree.
When you buy a TV, you can shop around for competitive prices from Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Amazon, etc. But in the end, you just throw down a few hundred dollars, and your relationship with your retailer is concluded.
If Healthcare is like anything, it's like the Space Launch industry. First, there are only a few good options. I live in Massachusetts. Nominally there are about 20 providers, but Harvard has so cornered the market in this region with it's constellation of hospitals, there are really essentially three: Partners, Tufts and Blue Cross Blue Shield. This is like the rocket industry. Sure, THEORETICALLY, you can launch your satellite on a Chinese rocket - China is after all, trying to become a big player in such launches. But as a practical matter - like healthcare - you want quality over affordability, so you sign on a rocket launch agreement with United Launch Alliance. Instead of a $90 million Chinese Rocket, you use a $400 million Delta IV.
But here's a thing about the Space Launch industry, like healthcare: the business relationship is ongoing.
If I need knee surgery, i see several doctors and specialist surgeons, all requiring being paid for. I have the surgery, and then I have months of physical therapy. It's an ongoing financial relationship. Unlike buying a television, which is over and done in an afternoon, my financial relationship with my healthcare provider will last a year or more.
With the Space Launch industry is it similar. United Launch Alliance just doesn't have have all it's models of Delta IVs (with strap on boosters, upper stages, payload fairings) sitting around in some factory waiting for my company's launch manager to come say "we'll take the one that can launch 19,000kg to LEO". They are contracted to build the rocket, and need a lead in time measured in about two years to fabricate it. Along the way, until lift off, there are regular payments, in installments, as milestones are met until launch day comes In a way, it's like healthcare, with "getting a second opinion", and paying for that visit, being similar to finishing construction of the first stage or something. And just as you really can't "fire you doctors" after you've had your surgery, you can't "cancel your Delta IV contract" after it's been 3/4s built.
But more than anything else, health care and space launch have one more thing in common that makes them both subject to the same failures for market forces to control prices: they are both highly specialized. Every Delta IV launched is, in a way, it's own special creation. Sure, there are lots of similarities between different models, but the needs of a weather or GPS satellite differ from the needs of a Mars lander, which differ from the needs of a probe to the outer solar system, which differ from the needs of an ISS module. Delta IV has launched 24 times since it's inception, and will probably launch 100 times before the end of the program in the 2030s... and most "builds" of the rocket won't fly more than a few times each total.
Health Care is exactly like this. There is commonality in human anatomy from person to person, but people are different in many ways and require personalized (so more expensive) approaches. Six weeks of physical therapy might be sufficient for a 30 year old male in good physical condition, but what about a 60 year old male in poor condition? He could need two or three times that, not to mention the surgery itself would be more complicated.
And therein lies the problem. Specialized services and a long term financial relationship make these two very different (but in many way similar) industries uncontrollable by market forces. Beyond the lack of competition these highly specialized fields have to deal with, the structure of how services are delivered makes market based controls of prices essentially impossible, because once you're "a customer", either for health care services or a rocket, you're stuck on a conveyor belt with no way off of it until the business relationship has concluded, which could be years.
If patients could could have absolute control of costs every step of the way, then this would be a different story. But when a doctor says "you need to take this medicine for the next 2 weeks", you're no more likely to challenge it any more than the Satellite Company manager challenging the Rocket Company as to why they are using a new $470,000 radiation hardened CPU rather than the obsolete $60,000 model used by the same rocket a decade ago. In Best Buy, you have the expertise to say 'no' to an overpriced TV. In the hospital, or the deal room with ULA, those individuals do not have that expertise.