Government Run Health Care
There has been much debate in society regarding the health care “crisis” in America, and recently a lot more on the municipality, state and on the federal level. Public polls show that most of us are unhappy with U.S. health care spending. Of those, a smaller percentage prefers a universal coverage system to the private marketplace. Yet when asked if going to a government run single-payer system means higher taxes or health premiums, those same people are opposed to the idea especially if treatments currently covered by insurance were no longer covered. The polls seem to reflect that Americans value freedom of choice and access too much for single payer limits.
Let’s take a closer look at one system that is commonly espoused as a model approach. The Canadian health care system has large gaps in coverage compared to what Americans have come to expect. If we implemented Canada’s health care system in the U.S. a few things would change overnight.
- Scrap most technological equipment, including:
- 330 lithotripters
- 6,000 MRI’s
- 23,750 CAT scanners
- Stop covering prescriptions outside of hospitals
- Make ½ drugs approved by the FDA in the past 5 years illegal
- Give 10% more of your gross income to government
- Cut national Research&Development by $77 billion (25%)
- Stop covering mental-health care
- Never again be allowed to visit a specialist or even get a test without first having a visit&referral from a family doctor
- Put 7,730,000 people on waiting lists for everything: doctor visits, tests, surgeries, etc.
Everyone in America has full access to all the healthcare services they want. The only question is who will pay for it – the government, an insurance carrier, or the individual themselves. In some Socialized Medicine countries, people are not even free to have private insurance or private funds pay for medical care; for example, this is the case in Canada.
Since users of the system don’t pay for care directly, the only way to control costs is to limit utilization and access to medical technology. A single-payer system’s economic success is dependent on rationing the access to services. Significant savings in single-payer systems come from limiting the supply of medical services to curb demand (rationing of treatment and technology).
There is no system out there that provides all the health care people want, when they want it, with the doctor of their choice, for free. The reality is much more complex. Systems either ration care or they require individuals to pay a substantial amount for their care. In fact, most countries are actually moving away from centralized command and control styles to systems that incorporate much more market forces, consumer cost sharing, things of that nature. Even in our own Medicare system the average senior still pays $4,000 in out of pocket costs each year.
The cost of health care in other countries compared to the United States can be measured in a number of ways. Currently Canadians pay 40% more taxes than Americans, and Europeans are paying 60% more than we do. As a percent of Gross Domestic Product, America spends 15.3% on healthcare compared to 9.9% in Canada. That is more than any other country in the world. Of that 15.3%, 6.8% is public money. That compares to 6.9% in Canada. Many people would be amazed to find out that Canadians and Americans spend virtually the same amount of taxes on healthcare.
Cost can also be measured in productivity. The gap in worker productivity between Canada and the U.S. can partly be attributed to missed days and unproductive days at work due to delayed medical treatment. In 2006 the average wait time from referral to surgery in Canada was 17.7 weeks. In 2005 the average wait time for cancer and cardiac tests in Britain was 25 weeks. In September 2006 in Scotland, more than 200 hip fracture operations were cancelled because of lack of operating room space. In 2006, in 5 out of 6 European countries surveyed, access to new cancer drugs is by “post-code” lottery.
So what is the answer? In recent years, Consumer Directed Health Plans in the form of Health Reimbursement Arrangements and Health Savings Accounts have shown some promise. Their growing popularity is creating competition between insurers which may help drive the cost down. Another concept that shows promise is the idea of relying on individual health plans more than employer provided group health plans. In most cases, the premiums for individual plans are less than group premiums. This would also solve the portability issue that now exists. If an employee depends on a company to supply their health plan and that employee leaves that employer for whatever reason, they have to find another source for their health plan. With individual plans, the employee owns the policy and it follows them wherever they go. There has been debate on how the premium is paid. Some suggest tax credits, others employer subsidized. Still others suggest a combination of both.
Recently Switzerland and the Netherlands revamped their Universal Health plans going to more market based programs. These countries rely more on individual policies with private companies than in centralized government. Both countries still mandate the choice of coverage’s. This also limits competition mainly to price. Admittedly, all of the pros and cons cannot be fully analyzed in one article. Stay tuned, especially in an election year we will have an abundance of cures for the system and comments on those cures.
Insurance Quotes
Get a Quote Today
Can't find what you're looking for?
Call us (517) 849-1000
Toll Free 800-451-0717
Email us: insure@barrettins.com