CDB
Registered User
Started this thread to take the discussion out of the Prohormone section where it doesn't belong.
As far as the health are systems, they're no where near as a different as people think they are. First, both have one major thing in common: almost all health care costs are paid by a third party. In Canada it's the government. In the US it's insurance companies that are heavily regulated by the government. People try to compare the two as if one was socialized and one was free market, when both are essentially socialized systems to different degrees.
In Canada you have price controls and predictably this leads to regional shortages and waiting lists for this or that procedure because there is no market price system to help distribute scarce services. There is also less of an incentive for doctors to go into this or that field because of the profit limitations imposed by following a national pricing schedule. Whether it's medical procedures or medication, there's no way to predict the shortages and no way to eliminate them without an honest, market determined price structure.
In the US you have a very mixed system, and it's a really a cock up and to be honest a fully socialized system would at least be more honest and might even be better than what we have now in some ways. You have insurance companies who are prohibited from differentiating between different risk groups, forced to pool people with different risks together. You have HMOs, basically the result of needing to limit care because of the unpredictability of risk pools. You have whining, obnoxious people who think they should be able to pay 20 bucks a month and get unlimited coverage for everything, even if they have a high risk for a high cost disease, and they demand this coverage through an insurance system that relies on third party payments, so you see bills which when paid through insurance are ridiculously higher than if paid out of pocket. You have the government basically controlling the supply of doctors indirectly through the AMA. If you look back to late 19th century, early 20th you'll see a battle between those who believed in homeopathy vs aleopathy. The Flexner report was released in that time period, and it was the first step in what basically resulted in the nationalization of the US health care system, heavily in favor of proponents of alleopathy, who were not shy in admitting their goal was to restrict the availability of care to jack up prices. This was done basically by allowing the AMA to control the licensing of medical schools, the amount of seats available in those schools, etc.
Basically both systems are heavily nationalized. The US is slightly more privatized. The basic difference between a private and socialized health care system is this: in a private system everyone has access to the healthcare they can afford, and as a consequence different qualities and quantities of care are available to people of different means, and to some who can't afford service there is none available, except through charity; in a socialized system everyone has access to essentially the same level of care, with all the attendant problems of a socialized system, such as rationing of services and supplies.
What people don't seem to get or are not willing to admit is that the same market forces at work in other areas of the economy are applicable to healthcare. There's a reason why almost everyone has the ability to buy, or have access to, a computer, a car, a television, etc. There's way too many interferences in the US health care market to definitively say this or that action would make things better. One thing is definite though: the government has done more than its share in screwing it up.
A true private system would see a lot of currently insured costs come directly out of people's pockets, with some catstrophic and other extreme coverages mixed in. It would allow honest pooling of risks no matter what the determining factors were. You'd generally see lower prices because of competition, but in the end staying alive and things that help you keep your life going will always come at a high premium. I would always disagree with the statement that medical care is a right, at least not in the way most people define rights these days. You don't have a right to live at someone else's expense. I have a right to buy a Lexus, just because I can't afford one doesn't mean anyone is trampling on my rights, nor would they be if I couldn't afford a new heart but needed one. The right to do something and the ability to do it are two different things. We can't have immortality through government fiat anyway. People want to live forever, they want the highest quality of life, which is understandable, but I don't think anyone has the right to force another person to provide the means to achieve this or any other desirable end in life.
As far as the health are systems, they're no where near as a different as people think they are. First, both have one major thing in common: almost all health care costs are paid by a third party. In Canada it's the government. In the US it's insurance companies that are heavily regulated by the government. People try to compare the two as if one was socialized and one was free market, when both are essentially socialized systems to different degrees.
In Canada you have price controls and predictably this leads to regional shortages and waiting lists for this or that procedure because there is no market price system to help distribute scarce services. There is also less of an incentive for doctors to go into this or that field because of the profit limitations imposed by following a national pricing schedule. Whether it's medical procedures or medication, there's no way to predict the shortages and no way to eliminate them without an honest, market determined price structure.
In the US you have a very mixed system, and it's a really a cock up and to be honest a fully socialized system would at least be more honest and might even be better than what we have now in some ways. You have insurance companies who are prohibited from differentiating between different risk groups, forced to pool people with different risks together. You have HMOs, basically the result of needing to limit care because of the unpredictability of risk pools. You have whining, obnoxious people who think they should be able to pay 20 bucks a month and get unlimited coverage for everything, even if they have a high risk for a high cost disease, and they demand this coverage through an insurance system that relies on third party payments, so you see bills which when paid through insurance are ridiculously higher than if paid out of pocket. You have the government basically controlling the supply of doctors indirectly through the AMA. If you look back to late 19th century, early 20th you'll see a battle between those who believed in homeopathy vs aleopathy. The Flexner report was released in that time period, and it was the first step in what basically resulted in the nationalization of the US health care system, heavily in favor of proponents of alleopathy, who were not shy in admitting their goal was to restrict the availability of care to jack up prices. This was done basically by allowing the AMA to control the licensing of medical schools, the amount of seats available in those schools, etc.
Basically both systems are heavily nationalized. The US is slightly more privatized. The basic difference between a private and socialized health care system is this: in a private system everyone has access to the healthcare they can afford, and as a consequence different qualities and quantities of care are available to people of different means, and to some who can't afford service there is none available, except through charity; in a socialized system everyone has access to essentially the same level of care, with all the attendant problems of a socialized system, such as rationing of services and supplies.
What people don't seem to get or are not willing to admit is that the same market forces at work in other areas of the economy are applicable to healthcare. There's a reason why almost everyone has the ability to buy, or have access to, a computer, a car, a television, etc. There's way too many interferences in the US health care market to definitively say this or that action would make things better. One thing is definite though: the government has done more than its share in screwing it up.
A true private system would see a lot of currently insured costs come directly out of people's pockets, with some catstrophic and other extreme coverages mixed in. It would allow honest pooling of risks no matter what the determining factors were. You'd generally see lower prices because of competition, but in the end staying alive and things that help you keep your life going will always come at a high premium. I would always disagree with the statement that medical care is a right, at least not in the way most people define rights these days. You don't have a right to live at someone else's expense. I have a right to buy a Lexus, just because I can't afford one doesn't mean anyone is trampling on my rights, nor would they be if I couldn't afford a new heart but needed one. The right to do something and the ability to do it are two different things. We can't have immortality through government fiat anyway. People want to live forever, they want the highest quality of life, which is understandable, but I don't think anyone has the right to force another person to provide the means to achieve this or any other desirable end in life.
