Hi folks, Al Borealis here.
I see the debate is still raging on. Well, with the risk of stepping on sensitive toes, here's my frank and direct take on it:
If we have as a premise that Big Pharma should not run Health Care, no matter which model of financing is used, and that what services should be included in the health care system must be up to the citizens of each country as a separate issue from how it is financed (today Big Pharma has the power in all types of systems, including USA) - then I wonder:
Why would anyone want to keep the Corporatist model used in USA today, given that:
* It cost the nation MORE than single payer solutions (M4A saves half a trillion over 10 years according to the most anti-M4A study, financed by the Koch Brothers - much more according to fear studies) - thereby inflating taxes.
* Universal Health Care halfes your personal expanses (removes the private taxes such as deducables, co-pays, etc) because there's no longer leeches making profit from your health.
* UHC let you choose any doctor or hospital to use.
* UHC saves job-sellers (employers) fortunes as they dont have to finance it for their staff.
* UHC liberates job-buyers (employees) who has safety net and can change jobs without worrying about health care - more personal freedom.
* UHC keep the insurance companies in business as there will always be wealthy people who want more fancy options than the bottom line, plus there's tons of area which are voluntary and not included in health care (silicon boops, nose job, etc).
* Current US model rips off those who have health care on paper, in that there's an incentive for insurance not to pay out and you need to fight to get what you already should have (google it, people get sick and don't get what they are owed).
* UHC avoids the huge number of medical bankruptcies (google it, people get sick and get bankrupt).
* Current US model is highly costly for the public as people avoid going to their doc to save money, or become homeless, or chooses to do crime, etc.
* UHC keeps price of medicine down as there's a single payer who can dictate prices, rather than let Big Pharma rip you off (that's why americans who can flee to Canada and Mexico to get medicines for a normal price).
* UHC is more ethical in that it saves many families from much grief and suffering. Makes for a happier society with lower crime.
* In UHC money is spent on health, not wasted on profit, therefore Doctors still make tonns of money, and are usually the highest middle class in all countries with UHC. Nurses and others get paid better with UHC and thereby do a better job.
It's just the Oligarchs who has a rationale to favour the current corporate system, plus the politicians they owe (95%). Yet it is also supported by people who has fallen for the propaganda (same reason normal people are against legalized cannabis).
Texas implemented temporary M4A due to the winter storm. Why is that a legitimate reason and not all other reasons? There's no difference whether you die of Cancer, Car Crash, or Corona, so why should the collective safety net discriminate and just be valid in a random instance?
This leads us to an interesting question: Which health system is best?
1) NHS (National Health Service) can be defined as a left wing (socialist) plan. Free at the point of service for everyone. This is the U.K. model. Publicly run & publicly financed.
2) M4A (Medicare for all) can be defined as a centrist plan (nonetheless what Bernie is pushing). Free at the point of service for everyone. This is the Scandinavian model. Privately run, publicly financed.
3) H4A (Health care for all) can also be defined as centrist (what Tulsi is pushing). Free at the point of service for everyone. This is the Australian model. Privately run, publicly financed, + priv insurance add-on.
4) Public Option can be defined as a right-wing (capitalist) plan. For those who can't afford private insurance, the public option makes it free at the point of service. Although this covers everyone, it lead to a 2 tier quality service. Private insurance marked + pub insurance add-on.
5) Corporate Dictatorship - private insurance exploitation. Does not belong to any wing, it's just the wet dream of Wall Street psychopaths and can best be defined as Corporatism. It's a dictatorship over people, as you have no say in your own health but must be an obedient slave abiding by whatever dictate their profit motive demands. This "system" is not Universal Health Care, but rather an insane situation where life & death is regarded as commodities, governed by a needless and irrelevant middleman who price gouge & extorts, yet bails on delivery (aka "insurance companies"). Despite not being free for anyone, it actually cost tax-payers half a trillion USD more per year than M4A. It also leads to 70 000 yearly deaths and innumerable bankruptcies (before corona - much worse now). But hey, those vampire corporations are people too and need your blood. This is what peoeple in USA have today (except that small segment, like elected politicians, who receive the publicly funded free service of Medicare - which is good enough for them but not for you, as the great majority is at the mercy of the health mafia).
Personally I've never worried about my health because I knew there is a safety net no matter what happened. Health isn't an issue in my country. Here we rather debate what should be covered or not. But I would be happy under any of the first 4 options. Outside of USA, no right-wing party is arguing against Universal Health Care. If our consvervative party did, they would be eradicated by the next election. It's not a wing thing, it's just common sense and ethics.
Certain matters should not be a market place. Hospitals should focus on health, not making money. Fire department should focus on putting out fires, not making money. Prisons should focus on running the incarceration, not making money. Police should focus on keeping order, not making money. Schools should focus on education, not making money. Military should focus on defence, not making money. Courts should focus on maintaining the law, not making money. Politicians should focus on making laws & implemehnting solutions, not making money.
It is telling that only in USA half of these concerns are money-makers.
In my personal view, money should be made in the market place. Meaning commodities, trade, & services. Here I am libertarian - don't interfer with the old woman selling fish at the town square!!! But it is a crazy libertarian fundamentalism to regard everything as a market. What's next? Expropriate the parents and sell the children to the highest bidder for a more fiscally efficient family? If families are exempt, why not health care? So we agree there's a limit, we just don't agree where it should be drawn?
Wake up my american friends: Your country (richest in the world) is almost alone in not offering universal health care. But to be fair: you have Nigeria and Saudi Arabia agreeing with you on this one. (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care)
When I learned about your health care system I couldn't believe it. My reaction was identical with this:
Watch it. I think its a wake up call even for Americans. If not, google the poor bastard who got a bill of hundreds of thousands USD for corona treatment - or the lady who even got millions (again, google it).
If any of you visit me in Norway and something happens to you, you get immediate health care. Free at the point of service. Even if your ailment is your own fault. Even if it was a condition starting before you came here. No questions asked, just treatment. From top quality providers (the rich use the same hospitals and doctors).
Because you are good enough. Because you deserve it.
Mens sana in corpore sano.
- Al