Some suggest so:
Consider this: Every country that has adopted universal health care has a “back door” for those who can afford to use it – it may be, like Canada, travel to a place where they can get healthcare that is tailored to their particular illness or, like England, it may be a private healthcare policy that allows them to see a doctor of their choice when they need to.Also, if you think about it logically you’ll see that the United States already HAS a system that comes very close to the concept of Universal health care. We have private/premium healthcare for those who can afford the premium, we have HMOs and other health plans that provide excellent care for others who make a good income but aren’t rich and we have hospital emergency rooms and clinics that provide care to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. If there are “holes” in the system (I’m not saying there are no problems) let’s patch the holes without destroying the system and let’s NOT turn health care into another government program.
Related posts:
- Single-payer: Forcing health care down people’s throats?
- Universal health care: Letting personal responsibility off the hook?
- MedGadget takes on universal health care
- Will universal health care lead to a physician shortage?
- How specialists view universal health care
- "Universal health care provides equal but mediocre care to everyone"
- Universal health care: Slim chance?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 2 comments }
You’d think they’d bother to get some basic facts right before blogging about it. In Canada we are free to buy private insurance and/or get it through work, alongside the care that is covered by the provincial plans.
I agree Kevin. Everyone gets care. The percentage of uninsured almost conincides with the percentage charity care given by physicians.
There are two reasons why we are not happy with it. The idea that everyone should get the same care, patently ridiculous as it is, sounds good in the public forum (but privately, individiduals will always seek something better those themselves when they can afford it).
The other problem is that one leg of our universal coverage is EMTALA, which is burdensome on hospitals (and physicians, but hospitals have more clout) and inefficient.
Comments on this entry are closed.