Parodite wrote:I tend to favor a system of 'free' health care for all where the money needed is collected via the (national or state-level) tax system, thusly bypassing the layer of competing insurance companies and healthcare provided by employers. Instead it is directly transferred to those providing healthcare services like hospitals etc.
Does it make me a health-care communist? I'm also a roads-communist and education-communist.
I don't think it makes you a health care communist. But the problems are legion. Once again, it goes back to who gets to define fair or moral. All is well in the societal abstract...... until it gets personal.
Most people love free stuff (where the definition of free is the cost is buried or carried by "society" and I am oblivious and apathetic as to who is paying, as long as it ain't me). The same dude who likes public roads bitches about the tax on gasoline....
Each person has the capacity to be an infinite cost user of health care, but none have the capacity to be an infinite cost payer for health care. Once everyone is responsible for the cost of others, does Fred have an obligation to tell the obese person to lose weight?
Should the obese be punished for stealing from society? Smokers should not be punished, in terms of public health care costs, they are paying more than their fair share! Should Uncle Sam hand out free cigarettes to lower public costs?
At what point do you tell the mother your kid is too premature, or the adult your parent is too old, Uncle Sugar ain't paying no more. Would "society" consider a lifetime cap on individual health care expense to be "fair" or "moral." Once the cap is reached, who will shove that person out into the street to die and consider themselves a good person? When "moral" trumps "responsible" is gonna get real messy.
The same problem exists today with Social Security, many extract more than they pay in. It is unsustainable. In both cases, the name of compassion, since the money does not currently exist in the coffers of "society," the old are "stealing" from the young those who are too young to vote and the unborn. This is moral?
The concept of Robin Hood as moral is fascinating. In formerly chic US lingo, the 60%er who "steals" from the 50%er but who would not steal from the 70%er considers himself a moral person.
Gramma would not take money out of her grandkid's piggy bank, but taking the Social Security check from Uncle Sam is doing exactly that. Fred in his youth loves free schooling, in his retirement he loves Social Security, in between he bitches about his tax burden......
As we have seen thruout the US and thruout the world with the movement of people to lower cost jurisdictions, people love to preach about "the rich" paying their fair share, but few want to consider themselves rich.
Mostly we are dealing with people's reluctance to change, after two generations pass, the new will become the norm. Then there is the excellent track record of past management in the Western governments, Shirley, the same administrators will do a good job with health care.
All that said, parallel systems similar to the US Post Office and private shippers seems the eventual outcome. You want the best and can afford it, go private, otherwise go to the subsidized provider. No one conserves anything they consider to be free.
Alex, nailed it, get the employers out of the picture first. Next eliminate malpractice lawsuits, witch will eliminate malpractice insurance, and let Fred buy health care (and/or insurance) like he buys food or clothes (from who ever he wants whenever he wants) and watch costs drop.