![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Universal Health Care
Dec. 5th, 2007 11:32 amJay Lake is trying to figure out why conservatives are against universal health care. He's liberal, and the opposition to proposed plans, many of which get branded as "socialized medicine," baffle him.
I think part of the problem is there's no good understanding of what the goal of "universal healthcare" should be. My understanding of universal healthcare as practiced in Canada and the UK is this. If you're a citizen or legal resident and get hit by a bus, the local hospital will take care of you in a competent manner with minimal fuss.
However, if you're a 65-year-old woman who wants an artificial hip so you can play tennis (AKA, "My Mother") or a 70+ man who's worn out an artificial hip playing tennis (AKA, "Treasurer of my Rotary Club") you will be wait-listed at best and denied at worst. In short, universal health care schemes are good at providing a baseline of coverage. They're not so good at "luxuries."
Moreover, the devil is in the details. My understanding is that in Canada, private insurance is essentially banned. So, even if you wanted to pay for additional coverage, you can't. It's either cash-on-the-barrel or wait in line. (Maybe my Canadian readership can enlighten me.)
Personally, I think an acceptable solution for the US mess would be a scheme that guaranteed a baseline of services, including preventative care. In the US, emergency rooms cannot refuse to treat people, so many folks without insurance use the ER as their primary care stop. This is hugely inefficient and expensive. Any US scheme would have to allow and encourage people to get supplemental coverage, much like we do now with Medicare.
But nobody asked me, and we seem constitutionally unable to have a reasonable political discussion in this country.
I think part of the problem is there's no good understanding of what the goal of "universal healthcare" should be. My understanding of universal healthcare as practiced in Canada and the UK is this. If you're a citizen or legal resident and get hit by a bus, the local hospital will take care of you in a competent manner with minimal fuss.
However, if you're a 65-year-old woman who wants an artificial hip so you can play tennis (AKA, "My Mother") or a 70+ man who's worn out an artificial hip playing tennis (AKA, "Treasurer of my Rotary Club") you will be wait-listed at best and denied at worst. In short, universal health care schemes are good at providing a baseline of coverage. They're not so good at "luxuries."
Moreover, the devil is in the details. My understanding is that in Canada, private insurance is essentially banned. So, even if you wanted to pay for additional coverage, you can't. It's either cash-on-the-barrel or wait in line. (Maybe my Canadian readership can enlighten me.)
Personally, I think an acceptable solution for the US mess would be a scheme that guaranteed a baseline of services, including preventative care. In the US, emergency rooms cannot refuse to treat people, so many folks without insurance use the ER as their primary care stop. This is hugely inefficient and expensive. Any US scheme would have to allow and encourage people to get supplemental coverage, much like we do now with Medicare.
But nobody asked me, and we seem constitutionally unable to have a reasonable political discussion in this country.
