meatcleaver
Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
quote:
ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
I've lived at least 3 years each in five European countries. UK, Holland, Belgium, Germany and France. All have good, cheap(relatively) healthcare. All are bloody fast too in an emergency. Where you have none life threatening ailments, things do slow down somewhat. From my experience they slow down the most in Britain, probably because tax payers pay less for healthcare than say, Germany and France, where tax payers pay the most and from my experience get a great deal for their tax euro.
So, your endorsing the nearest thing to the EU example, a state based solution? Because that is what each of those countries is like a state, or two. So, you living in the EU, have the option at least of traveling here or there relatively freely for different options. We in the US would be left with absolutely only one option. If it gets busted, or mismanaged, there is absolutely no jumping the border, or whatnot like you could do in the EU. Or even looking to the Federal government to help out a ailing state mishap would be off the table. With a one plan for all solution it is all or nothing. That is a terrible way to manage anything.
It doesn't seem worth it to me, when one could just let each state handle it, and then even if one fails, or is mismanaged, it doesn't sink the ship like a federal fuckup would do.
I wasn't thinking that far ahead but on reflection it seems to me to be a perfectly good idea. That would allow each state some democratic choice rather than feeling compelled to do Washington's bidding on every little detail. What appears to happen in the EU, each state had a system that works for them but now compare their own system with other states to see if their is ways of improving their own system.
Take Britain and France, France spends so much more on drugs and consultant's fees than Britain, the logical thing for the French is to ask why. On the other hand the French have far lower waiting lists for hospital treatment than Britain, the logical question is for Britain to ask why. In both cases France spends far more money, the first case, it wastes money, the second case Britain is working on the cheap. The political choices become clear. The British NHS has spent money to get some of its patients treated in France which proved cheaper than treating them in the NHS because France was happy to get money for unused facilities. There are so many German doctors that many seek work experience in Britain (amd other countries) and then go back to Germany having gained more experience than a doctor who would have stayed in Germany where there are an excess of doctors. Most of this flexibility was not planned but each state recognizing the possiblities a varied state system gives.
_____________________________
There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.
|
RE: Vote Universal Health care - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread