Posted: 07 April 2010 at 10:48pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Jodi,
As my parting shot before leaving for a couple of days, I'll take a swing at your question. (I don't consider myself part of the right, but it looks like I'm standing on your righthand side.)
As a good Canadian, I have no objection to socialized medicine. As I've said before, there should be a social safety net to catch the less fortunate, and a floor that no one falls below.
From my Canadian experience, to the consumer socialized medicine has no "value" because it is "free". Thus, we have instances of over-use of the system because there was no penalty for doing so. Because government couldn't control the demand side, it elected to control costs on the supply side, lowering doctor reimbursements, restricting the variety of services available (my earlier five-year hip story) and increasing waiting lists for specialists. The policy of universality created a ceiling that you couldn't rise above.
My paradigm would be a two-tier system, with no cost basic services for those without means, and cadillac services for those who wish to pay extra. I would put the system under the control of NGOs, non-profits and cooperatives that were not aligned with the government so that medical services would not be at the whim of electoral politics and be used to buy votes.
My personal objection to the recent Healthcare Act was that it did not address the issues related to costs. Rather, it mandated that 30 million people now must get health insurance, with many of those individuals having their insurance purchase subsidized by the government. But the cost drivers pushing up the price of insurance still remain. In short order, we will have people complaining about the high cost of the health insurance that they've now been forced to buy.
My preference would have been to attack the cost side first. Slow the rise or even reduce the cost for services would in turn lower the cost of insurance, making it more affordable to individuals. And then, if we wished to subsidize insurance coverage for the less fortunate, the outlay to the government would be cheaper.
Of course, there are those who might read this and decide that I "error on the side of compassion." (Sorry, couldn't resist, but it works so well to both tease you and deprecate me!)
Edited by Matthew McCallum on 07 April 2010 at 10:53pm
|