medicineman
New Member
At least you're not bashful, welcome to the political forum. Us liberal leaning folk need all the help we can get.
No fillibuster for Repukes.Talks move forward
- Thread starter londonfog
- Start date
Jack*Herrer420
Well-Known Member
Single payer systems are disastrous. Name an example where they have worked. It leads to higher taxes, rationing, and overall poorer care. The doctors would be sectioned off, where you have the good doctors taking money from the rich, and the crappy doctors treating everybody else. It would create an even larger problem than we already have. You have no problem letting the government take money that they have no right to take, and proportioning it as they see fit. The rich already pay a ridiculous amount of taxes, and after a while they would see that it would save themselves more money to just retire, rather then giving money to the government. You feel that somehow you are entitled to other peoples incomes. Everybody has to earn money, and you believe the ones who were successful at that need to provide for those who weren't. Do you know how hard it is to become a doctor? All the money they spend to go through training and schooling? And after all of that, you believe that you have the right to determine how much money they will make. Since when was profit a problem in America? Everybody strives to make profits. Everybody strives to be successful. Grocery stores make profits, clothing stores make profits, electricity companies make profits. When is the government going to step in and say those are rights, and that they are going to confiscate even more money to also provide those services? Your dream of utopia just doesn't work, maybe if you educate yourself a little more on the subject, it would make sense.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
could not have said it better myself...oh but they so want to forget about Bush...My thought is this...IF YOU VOTED FOR BUSH ...STFU
Jack*Herrer420
Well-Known Member
Most people on these forums are just as much against bush as they are obama. I thought obama was going to move this country forward, hope we can believe in. Should we spend taxpayer dollars to investigate all prior presidents? You don't think there has been political corruption for a long time? Screw bush and obama, but since it is obama that has tripled the deficit, where even our bank the Chinese are talking about outrages spending. Should we spend the next few years wasting time on what has already been done, and when obama is out, go back and investigate that? Why not catch him in the act, and fix this hypocricy. This is a game the politicians play to keep our focus on past injustices, so they can carry out their injustices at the same time.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
So i guess now you didn't vote for Bush
Jack*Herrer420
Well-Known Member
I have already said numerous times that he lost my vote.
medicineman
New Member
OK here goes, you decide:
Universal health care is a broad concept that has been implemented in several ways. The common denominator for all such programs is some form of government action aimed at extending access to health care as widely as possible and setting minimum standards. Most implement universal health care through legislation, regulation and taxation. Legislation and regulation direct what care must be provided, to whom, and on what basis. Usually some costs are borne by the patient at the time of consumption but the bulk of costs come from a combination of compulsory insurance and tax revenues. Some programs are paid for entirely out of tax revenues. In others tax revenues are used either to fund insurance for the very poor or for those needing long term chronic care. The UK government's National Audit Office in 2003 published an international comparison of ten different health care systems in ten developed countries, nine universal systems against one non-universal system (the U.S.), and their relative costs and key health outcomes.[3] A wider international comparison of 16 countries, each with universal health care, was published by the World Health Organization in 2004 [4] In some cases, government involvement also includes directly managing the health care system, but many countries use mixed public-private systems to deliver universal health care.
[edit] Americas
Argentina, Brazil (see below), Canada (see below), Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico (see below), Panama, Peru (see below), Uruguay, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela all have public universal health care provided.
[edit] Brazil
Main article: Health care in Brazil
The universal health care system was adopted in Brazil in 1988 after the end of the military regime's rule.
[edit] Canada
Main article: Health care in Canada
In 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed, which prohibited extra billing by doctors on patients while at the same time billing the public insurance system. In 1999, the prime minister and most premiers reaffirmed in the Social Union Framework Agreement that they are committed to health care that has "comprehensiveness, universality, portability, public administration and accessibility."[5]
The system is for the most part publicly funded, yet most of the services are provided by private enterprises or private corporations, although most hospitals are public. Most doctors do not receive an annual salary, but receive a fee per visit or service.[6] About 29% of Canadians' health care is paid for by the private sector or individuals.[7] This mostly goes towards services not covered or only partially covered by Medicare such as prescription drugs, dentistry and vision care.[8] Many Canadians have private health insurance, often through their employers, that cover these expenses.[9]
The Canada Health Act of 1984 "does not directly bar private delivery or private insurance for publicly insured services," but provides financial disincentives for doing so. "Although there are laws prohibiting or curtailing private health care in some provinces, they can be changed," according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine.[10][11] The legality of the ban was considered in a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which ruled in Chaoulli v. Quebec that "the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance, while it might be constitutional in circumstances where health care services are reasonable as to both quality and timeliness, is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services." The appellant contended that waiting times in Quebec violated a right to life and security in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The Court agreed, but acknowledged the importance and validity of the Canada Health Act, and at least four of the seven judges explicitly recognized the right of governments to enact laws and policies which favour the public over the private system and preserve the integrity of the public system.
[edit] Colombia
Main article: Health in Colombia
In 1993 a reform transformed the health care system in Colombia, trying to provide a better, sustainable, health care system and to reach every Colombian citizen.
[edit] Mexico
Further information: Health care in Mexico
On December 1, 2006 the Mexican government created the Health Insurance for a New Generation also known as "life insurance for babies".[12][13][14]
On May 28, 2009 Mexico announced Universal Care Coverage for Pregnant Women.[15]
[edit] Peru
On April 9, 2009 the Government of Peru published the Law on Health Insurance to enable all Peruvians to access quality health services, and contribute to regulate the financing and supervision of these services. The law enables all population to access diverse health services to prevent illnesses, and promote and rehabilitate people, under a Health Basic Plan (PEAS).[16][17]
[edit] Trinidad and Tobago
Main article: Health care in Trinidad and Tobago
The universal health care system is used in Trinidad and Tobago and is the primary form of health-care available in the country. It is used by the majority of the population seeking medical assistance, as it is free for all citizens.
[edit] United States
See also: Health care reform in the United States and Health care in the United States
The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.[1] Federal law was changed in 1986 with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requiring certain hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with emergency medical conditions including childbirth without first demanding evidence of ability to pay. According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science, this unfunded safety net mandate has contributed to increasing strain on the health system. Emergency treatment is not free or subsidized and some patients cannot or will not pay their bills. Furthermore, this system encourages use of the emergency facilities for primary care and not just for emergency purposes.[18]
In lieu of a national program, some states and municipalities have made attempts to approach universality of insurance in their respective jurisdictions. The state of Massachusetts implemented a near-universal health care system by mandating that residents purchase health insurance by July 1, 2007.[19] The City of San Francisco is also undertaking a universal health care system for uninsured residents.[20][21] Hawaii has, since 1974, required employers to provide employees working more than 20 hours per week with a comprehensive health insurance plan.[22] California, Maine and Vermont are also considering or seeking to implement universal or near-universal systems.[23] In July, 2009, Connecticut passed into law a plan called SustiNet, with the goal of achieving near-universal healthcare coverage by 2014.[24]
Whether a federal system of universal health care should be implemented in the US remains a hotly debated political topic, with Americans divided in their views. The Congressional Budget Office and related government agencies scored the cost of a universal health care system several times since 1991, and have uniformly predicted cost savings,[25] probably because of the 40% cost savings associated with universal preventative care.[26]
[edit] Asia
Bhutan, Brunei, China,[27] Hong Kong SAR, India[citation needed], Kuwait[citation needed], Qatar[citation needed], UAE[citation needed], Saudi Arabia[citation needed], Israel,[28] Japan, Malaysia[citation needed], South Korea, Seychelles[citation needed], Sri Lanka,[29] Taiwan,[30], Pakistan[citation needed] and Thailand[citation needed] have universal health care.
[edit] Bhutan
Main article: Health in Bhutan
The Royal Government of Bhutan maintains a policy of free and universal access to primary health care. As hospital facilities in the country are limited, patients with diseases that cannot be treated in Bhutan, such as cancer, are normally referred to hospitals in India for treatment. Such referral treatment is also carried out at the cost of the Royal Government.[31]
[edit] People's Republic of China
Main article: Healthcare system reform in the People's Republic of China
Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, the goal of health care programs has been to provide care to every member of the population and to make maximum use of limited health-care personnel, equipment, and financial resources.[citation needed]
China is undertaking a reform on its health care system, which was largely privatized in the 1990s. The New Rural Co-operative Medical Care System (NRCMCS), is a new 2005 initiative to overhaul the healthcare system, particularly intended to make it more affordable for the rural poor. Under the NRCMCS, the annual cost of medical cover is 50 yuan (US$7) per person. Of that, 20 yuan is paid in by the central government, 20 yuan by the provincial government and a contribution of 10 yuan is made by the patient. As of September 2007, around 80% of the whole rural population of China had signed up (about 685 million people). The system is tiered, depending on the location. If patients go to a small hospital or clinic in their local town, the scheme will cover from 70-80% of their bill. If they go to a county one, the percentage of the cost being covered falls to about 60%. And if they need specialist help in a large modern city hospital, they have to bear most of the cost themselves, the scheme would cover about 30% of the bill.[32]
On January 21, 2009, the Chinese government announced that a total of 850 billion yuan will be provided between 2009 and 2011 in order to improve the existing health care system.[33]
[edit] Hong Kong SAR
Main article: Healthcare in Hong Kong
Hong Kong is one of the healthiest places in the world.[34] Because of its early health education, professional health services, and well-developed health care and medication system, Hongkongers enjoy a life expectancy of 84 for females and 78 for males,[35] which is the second highest in the world, and 2.94 infant mortality rate, the fourth lowest in the world.[36][37]
There are two medical schools in Hong Kong, and several schools offering courses in traditional Chinese medicine. The Hospital Authority is a statutory body that operates and manages all public hospitals. Hong Kong has high standards of medical practice. It has contributed to the development of liver transplantation, being the first in the world to carry out adult to adult live donor liver transplant in 1993.[38]
[edit] India
Main article: Healthcare in India
India has a universal health care system run by the local (state or territorial), governments. The government hospitals, some of which are among the best hospitals in India,[39] provide treatment at taxpayer expense. Most essential drugs are offered free of charge in these hospitals.
Government hospitals provide treatment either free or at minimal charges. For example, an outpatient card at AIIMS (one of the best hospitals in India) costs a one time fee of rupees 10 (Around 20 cents US) and thereafter outpatient medical advice is free. In-hospital treatment costs depend on financial condition of the patient and facilities utilized by him but are usually much less than the private sector. For instance, a patient is waived treatment costs if he is below poverty line. Another patient may seek for an air-conditioned room if he is willing to pay extra for it. The charges for basic in-hospital treatment and investigations are much less compared to the private sector. The cost for these subsidies comes from annual allocations from the central and state governments.
Primary health care is provided by city and district hospitals and rural primary health centres (PHCs). These hospitals provide treatment free of cost. Primary care is focused on immunization, prevention of malnutrition, pregnancy, child birth, postnatal care, and treatment of common illnesses.[citation needed] Patients who receive specialized care or have complicated illnesses are referred to secondary (often located in district and taluk headquarters) and tertiary care hospitals (located in district and state headquarters or those that are teaching hospitals).[citation needed] However, the fact that the government sector is understaffed and underfinanced and poor services at state run hospitals forces many people to visit private medical practitioners.
Now organizations like Hindustan Latex Family Planning Promotional Trust and other private organizations have started creating hospitals and clinics in India, which also provide free or subsidized health care and subsidized insurance plans.[citation needed]
[edit] Israel
Main article: Health care in Israel
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2009)
In Israel, the National Health Insurance Law (or National Health Insurance Act) is the legal framework which enables and facilitates basic, compulsory universal health care. The Law was put into effect by the Knesset on January 1, 1995, and was based on recommendations put forward by a National Committee of Inquiry which examined restructuring the health care system in Israel in the late 1980s. Prior to the law's passage approximately 85% of the population was already covered by voluntarily belonging to one of four nation-wide, not-for-profit health maintenance organizations (HMOs/sick funds). However, there were three problems associated with this arrangement. First, membership in the largest HMO, Clalit, required one to belong to the Histadrut labor organization, even if a person did not wish to (or could not) have such an affiliation while other HMOs restricted entry to new members based on age, pre-existing conditions or other factors. Second, different HMOs provided different levels of benefit coverage or services to their members and lastly was the issue mentioned above whereby a certain percentage of the population, albeit a small one, did not have health insurance coverage at all.
This section may stray from the topic of the article into the topic of another article, Health care in Israel. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page.
Before the law went into effect, all the HMOs collected premiums directly from members. However, upon passage of the law, a new progressive national health insurance tax was levied through Israel's social security agency which then re-distributes the proceeds to the HMOs based on their membership and its demographic makeup. This ensured that all citizens would now have health coverage. While membership in one of the HMOs now became compulsory for all, free choice was introduced into movement of members between HMOs (a change is allowed once per year), effectively making the various HMOs compete equally for members among the populace. Annually, a committee appointed by the ministry of health publishes a "basket" or uniform package of medical services and prescription formulary which all HMOs must provide as a minimum service to all their members. Achieving this level of equality ensured that all citizens are guaranteed to receive basic healthcare regardless of their HMO affiliation which was one of the principal aims of the law. An appeals process was put in place to handle rejection of treatments and procedures by the HMOs and evaluating cases falling outside the "basket" of services or prescription formulary.
While the law is generally considered a success and Israeli citizens enjoy a high standard of medical care comparatively, with more competition having been introduced into the field of health care in the country, and order having been brought into what was once a somewhat disorganized system, the law nevertheless does have its critics. First and foremost among the criticisms raised is that the "basket" may not provide enough coverage. To partly address this issue, the HMOs and insurance companies (often in conjunction with employers) began offering additional "supplementary" insurance to cover certain additional services not included in the basket. However, since this insurance is optional, critics argue that it goes against the spirit of the new law which stressed equality among all citizens with respect to healthcare. Another criticism is that in order to provide universal coverage to all, the tax income base amount (the maximum amount of yearly earnings that are subject to the tax) was set rather high, causing many high-income taxpayers to see the amount they pay for their health premiums (now health tax) skyrocket. Finally, some complain about the constantly rising costs of copayments for certain services.
[edit] Singapore
Main article: Health care in Singapore
Singapore has a universal health care system where government ensures affordability, largely through compulsory savings and price controls, while the private sector provides most care. Overall spending on health care amounts to only 3% of annual GDP. Of that, 66% comes from private sources.[40] Singapore currently has the lowest infant mortality rate in the world (equaled only by Iceland) and among the highest life expectancies from birth, according to the World Health Organization.[41] Singapore has "one of the most successful healthcare systems in the world, in terms of both efficiency in financing and the results achieved in community health outcomes," according to an analysis by global consulting firm Watson Wyatt.[42] Singapore's system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions (funded by both employers and workers) a nationalized health insurance plan, and government subsidies, as well as "actively regulating the supply and prices of healthcare services in the country" to keep costs in check; the specific features have been described as potentially a "very difficult system to replicate in many other countries." Many Singaporeans also have supplemental private health insurance (often provided by employers) for services not covered by the government's programs.[42]
[edit] Taiwan (Republic of China)
Main article: Health care in Taiwan
The current health care system in Taiwan, known as National Health Insurance (NHI), was instituted in 1995. NHI is a single-payer compulsory social insurance plan which centralizes the disbursement of health care dollars. The system promises equal access to health care for all citizens, and the population coverage had reached 99% by the end of 2004.[43] NHI is mainly financed through premiums, which are based on the payroll tax, and is supplemented with out-of-pocket payments and direct government funding. In the initial stage, fee-for-service predominated for both public and private providers.
NHI delivers universal coverage offered by a government-run insurer. The working population pays premiums split with their employers, others pay a flat rate with government help and the poor or veterans are fully subsidized. Taiwans citizens no longer have to worry about going bankrupt due to medical bills.[44]
Under this model, citizens have free range to choose hospitals and physicians without using a gatekeeper and do not have to worry about waiting lists. NHI offers a comprehensive benefit package that covers preventive medical services, prescription drugs, dental services, Chinese medicine, home nurse visits and many more. Working people do not have to worry about losing their jobs or changing jobs because they will not lose their insurance. Since NHI, the previously uninsured have increased their usage of medical services. Most preventive services are free such as annual checkups and maternal and child care. Regular office visits have co-payments as low as US $5 per visit. Co-payments are fixed and unvaried by the persons income.[45]
[edit] Thailand
Main article: Health care in Thailand
Thailand introduced universal coverage reforms in 2001, becoming one of only a handful of lower-middle income countries to do so. Means-tested health care for low income households was replaced by a new and more comprehensive insurance scheme, originally known as the 30 baht project, in line with the small co-payment charged for treatment. People joining the scheme receive a gold card which allows them to access services in their health district, and, if necessary, be referred for specialist treatment elsewhere. The bulk of finance comes from public revenues, with funding allocated to Contracting Units for Primary Care annually on a population basis. According to the WHO, 65% of Thailand's health care expenditure in 2004 came from the government, 35% was from private sources.[40] Although the reforms have received a good deal of critical comment, they have proved popular with poorer Thais, especially in rural areas, and survived the change of government after the 2006 military coup. The then Public Health Minister, Mongkol Na Songkhla, abolished the 30 baht co-payment and made the UC scheme free. It is not yet clear whether the scheme will be modified further under the coalition government that came to power in January 2008.[46][47][48]
[edit] Europe
Virtually all of Europe has publicly sponsored and regulated universal health care. The public plans in some countries provide basic or "sick" coverage only; their citizens can purchase supplemental insurance for additional coverage. Countries with universal health care include Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal,[49] Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine[50] and the United Kingdom.[51]
[edit] Austria
In Austria, public health care (the care, not the running of hospitals itself) is funded by means of so called "Social insurance contributions" accounting for approx. 24% of the salary, they are therefore no taxes as such. 7% of the contribution is reserved for health coverage in one of Austria's 22 public insurances, but cannot exceed EUR 281,- monthly (USD 399,-). Depending on the job, somebody will be insured at one of the 9 state-run territorial health funds or at job specific insurances, e.g. public employees or farmers have their own (compulsory) health insurance. 22 public insurances for 8 million people is subject to violent criticism, as tremendous savings could be reached by unifying the insurances to one centralized provider. However, no Austrian state is willing to give up its own public insurances as it is sphere of action for electoral campaigns. The operation of hospitals is not paid by social contributions, but by taxes. This means that general health coverage adds up to much more and is therefore more expensive as often depicted. Austria spends approx. 10% of its GDP for health coverage.
[edit] Finland
Main article: Healthcare in Finland
In Finland, public medical services at clinics and hospitals are run by the municipalities (local government) and are funded 76% by taxation, 20% by patients through access charges, and 4% by others. Private provision is mainly in the primary care sector. There are a few private hospitals [52]. The main hospitals are either municipally owned (funded from local taxes) or run by the medical teaching universities (funded jointly by the municipalities and the national government). According to a survey published by the European Commission in 2000, Finland's is in the top 4 of EU countries in terms of satisfaction with their hospital care system: 88% of Finnish respondents were satisfied compared with the EU average of 41.3%.[53] Finnish health care expenditures are below the European average.[citation needed] The private medical sector accounts for about 14 percent of total health care spending. Only 8% of doctors choose to work in private practice, and some of these also choose to do some work in the public sector.[citation needed]
Taxation funding is partly local and partly nationally based. The national social insurance institution KELA reimburses part of patients prescription costs and makes a contribution towards private medical costs (including dentistry) if they choose to be treated in the private sector rather than the public sector. Patient access charges are subject to annual caps. For example GP visits cost 11 per visit with annual 33 cap; hospital outpatient treatment 22 per visit; a hospital stay, including food, medical care and medicines 26 per 24 hours, or 12 if in a psychiatric hospital. After a patient has spent 590 per year on public medical services (including prescription drugs), all treatment and medications thereafter in that year are free.
[edit] Germany
Main article: Health care in Germany
Germany has the world's oldest universal health care system, with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's Health Insurance Act of 1883.[54] As mandatory health insurance, it originally applied only to low-income workers and certain government employees, but has gradually expanded to cover the great majority of the population.[55] The system is decentralized with private practice physicians providing ambulatory care, and independent, mostly non-profit hospitals providing the majority of inpatient care. Approximately 92% of the population is covered by a 'Statutory Health Insurance' plan, which provides a standardized level of coverage through any one of approximately 1100 public or private sickness funds. Standard insurance is funded by a combination of employee contributions, employer contributions and government subsidies on a scale determined by income level. Higher income workers sometimes choose to pay a tax and opt out of the standard plan, in favor of 'private' insurance. The latter's premiums are not linked to income level but instead to health status.[56]
Historically, the level of provider reimbursement for specific services is determined through negotiations between regional physician's associations and sickness funds. Since 1976 the government has convened an annual commission, comprised of representatives of business, labor, physicians, hospitals, and insurance and pharmaceutical industries.[57] The commission takes into account government policies and makes recommendations to regional associations with respect to overall expenditure targets. In 1986 expenditure caps were implemented and were tied to the age of the local population as well as the overall wage increases. Although reimbursement of providers is on a fee-for-service basis the amount to be reimbursed for each service is determined retrospectively to ensure that spending targets are not exceeded. Capitated care, such as that provided by U.S. health maintenance organizations, has been considered as a cost containment mechanism but would require consent of regional medical associations, and has not materialized.[58] Copayments were introduced in the 1980s in an attempt to prevent overutilization and control costs. The average length of hospital stay in Germany has decreased in recent years from 14 days to 9 days, still considerably longer than average stays in the U.S. (5 to 6 days).[59][60] The difference is partly driven by the fact that hospital reimbursement is chiefly a function of the number of hospital days as opposed to procedures or the patient's diagnosis. Drug costs have increased substantially, rising nearly 60% from 1991 through 2005. Despite attempts to contain costs, overall health care expenditures rose to 10.7% of GDP in 2005, comparable to other western European nations, but substantially less than that spent in the U.S. (nearly 16% of GDP).[61]
[edit] Ireland
Main article: Health care in Ireland
The public health care system of the Republic of Ireland is governed by the Health Act 2004, which established a new body to be responsible for providing health and personal social services to everyone living in Ireland - the Health Service Executive. The new national health service came into being officially on 1 January 2005; however the new structures are currently in the process of being established as the reform programme continues. In addition to the public-sector, there is also a large private healthcare market.
[edit] Netherlands
Main article: Health care in the Netherlands
The Netherlands has a dual-level system. All primary and curative care (i.e. the family doctor service and hospitals and clinics) is financed from private compulsory insurance. Long term care for the elderly, the dying, the long term mentally ill etc. is covered by social insurance funded from taxation. According to the WHO, the health care system in the Netherlands was 62% government funded and 38% privately funded as of 2004.[40]
Insurance companies must offer a core universal insurance package for the universal primary, curative care which includes the cost of all prescription medicines. They must do this at a fixed price for all. The same premium is paid whether young or old, healthy or sick. It is illegal in The Netherlands for insurers to refuse an application for health insurance, to impose special conditions (e.g. exclusions, deductibles, co-pays etc or refuse to fund treatments which a doctor has determined to be medically necessary). The system is 50% financed from payroll taxes paid by employers to a fund controlled by the Health regulator. The government contributes an additional 5% to the regulator's fund. The remaining 45% is collected as premiums paid by the insured directly to the insurance company. Some employers negotiate bulk deals with health insurers and some even pay the employees' premiums as an employment benefit). All insurance companies receive additional funding from the regulator's fund. The regulator has sight of the claims made by policyholders and therefore can redistribute the funds its holds on the basis of relative claims made by policy holders. Thus insurers with high payouts will receive more from the regulator than those with low payouts. Thus insurance companies have no incentive to deter high cost individuals from taking insurance and are compensated if they have to pay out more than might be expected. Insurance companies compete with each other on price for the 45% direct premium part of the funding and try to negotiate deals with hospitals to keep costs low and quality high. The competition regulator is charged with checking for abuse of dominant market positions and the creation of cartels that act against the consumer interests. An insurance regulator ensures that all basic policies have identical coverage rules so that no person is medically disadvantaged by his or her choice of insurer.
Hospitals in the Netherlands are also regulated and inspected but are mostly privately run and for profit, as are many of the insurance companies. Patients can choose where they want to be treated and have access to information on the internet about the performance and waiting times at each hospital. Patients dissatisfied with their insurer and choice of hospital can cancel at any time but must make a new agreement with another insurer.
Insurance companies can offer additional services at extra cost over and above the universal system laid down by the regulator, e.g. for dental care. The standard monthly premium for health care paid by individual adults is about 100 per month. Persons on low incomes can get assistance from the government if they cannot afford these payments. Children under 18 are insured by the system at no additional cost to them or their families because the insurance company receives the cost of this from the regulator's fund.
[edit] United Kingdom
Main article: Healthcare in the United Kingdom
Each of the Countries of the United Kingdom has a National Health Service that provides public healthcare to all UK permanent residents that is free at the point of need and paid for from general taxation. However, since Health is a devolved matter, considerable differences are developing between the systems in each of the countries.[62]
[edit] England
Main article: Healthcare in England
The National Health Service (NHS), created by the National Health Service Act 1946 has provided the majority of healthcare in England since its launch on 5 July 1948.
The NHS Constitution for England documents at high level, the objectives of the NHS, the legal rights and responsibilities of the various parties (patients, staff, NHS trust boards) and the guiding principles which govern the service.[63] The NHS constitution makes it clear that it provides a comprehensive service, available to all irrespective of age, gender, disability, race, sexual orientation, religion or belief; that access to NHS services is based on clinical need and not an individuals ability to pay; and that care is never refused on unreasonable grounds. Patient choice in terms of doctor, care, treatments and place of treatment is an important aspect of the NHS's ambition, and in some cases patients can elect for treatment in other European countries at the NHS's expense. Wait times are low, with most people able to see their primary care doctor on the same day or the following day[64] and only 36.1% of hospital admissions are from a waiting list, with the remainder being either emergencies admitted immediately or else pre-booked admissions or similar (e.g. child birth) [65]. No patient should experience a delay of more than 18 weeks from initial hospital referral to final treatment[66]. This includes the time for all investigative tests and consultations, and two thirds of patients are currently treated in under 12 weeks.[67]
Although centrally funded there is no large central bureaucracy to manage it. Responsibility is highly devolved to geographical areas through Strategic Health Authorities and even more locally through NHS primary care trusts , NHS hospital trusts and increasingly to NHS foundation trusts which are providing even more decentralized services within the NHS framework, with more decision making taken by local people, patients and staff. The central government office, the Department of Health, is not involved in day to day decision making in either the Strategic Health Authorities or the individual local trusts (primarily health, hospital or ambulance) or the national specialist trusts such as NHS Blood and Transplant, but it does lay down general guidelines for them to follow. Local trusts are accountable to their local populations, whilst government ministers are accountable to Parliament for the service overall.
The NHS provides, among other things, primary care, in-patient care, long-term healthcare, psychiatric care and treatments ophthalmology and dentistry. All treatment is free with the exception of certain charges for prescriptions, dentistry and ophthalmology (which themselves are free to children, the elderly, the unemployed and those on low incomes). Eighty-nine percent of NHS prescriptions are obtained free of charge, mosly children, pensioners and pregnat women. Others pay a flat rate of £7.20[68], and others may cap their annual charges. Private health care has continued parallel to the NHS, paid for largely by private insurance. Private insurance accounts for only 4 percent of health expenditure and covers little more than a tenth of the population. [69]. Private insurers in the UK only cover acute care from specialists. They do not cover generalist consultations, pre-existing conditions, medical emergencies, organ transplants, chronic conditions such as diabetes or conditions such as pregnancy or HIV. [70] Most NHS general practitioners are private doctors who contract to provide NHS services but most hospitals are publicly owned and run through NHS Trusts. A few NHS medical services such as "surgicentres") are sub-contracted to private providers [71] as are some non-medical services (such as catering). Some capital projects such as new hospitals have been funded through the Private Finance Initiative, enabling investment without excessive strain on the public sector borrowing requirement.
[edit] Northern Ireland
Main article: Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland
Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland is the designation of the national public health service in Northern Ireland.
[edit] Scotland
Main article: Healthcare in Scotland
NHS Scotland, created by the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947, was also launched on 5 July 1948 though it has always been a separate organisation. Since devolution, NHS Scotland follows the policies and priorities of the Scottish Government, including the phasing out of all prescription charges by 2011.
[edit] Wales
Main article: Healthcare in Wales
NHS Wales was originally formed as part of the same NHS structure created by the National Health Service Act 1946 but powers over the NHS in Wales came under the Secretary of State for Wales in 1969[72], in turn being transferred under devolution to what is now the Welsh Assembly Government.
[edit] Oceania
[edit] Australia
Medicare's logo
Main article: Medicare (Australia)
In Australia, Medibank as it was then known was introduced, by the Whitlam Labor government on 1 July 1975, through the Health Insurance Act 1973. The Australian Senate rejected the changes multiple times and they were passed only after a joint sitting after the 1974 double dissolution election. However, Medibank was supported by the subsequent FraserCoalition (Australia) government and became a key feature of Australias public policy landscape. The exact structure of Medibank/Medicare, in terms of the size of the rebate to doctors and hospitals and the way it has administered, has varied over the years. The original Medibank program proposed a 1.35% levy (with low income exemptions) but these bills were rejected by the Senate, and so Medibank was funded from general taxation. In 1976, the Fraser Government introduced a 2.5% levy and split Medibank in two: a universal scheme called Medibank Public and a government-owned private health insurance company, Medibank Private.
During the 1980s, Medibank Public was renamed Medicare by the Hawke Labor government, which also changed the funding model, to an income tax surcharge, known as the Medicare Levy, which was set at 1.5%, with exemptions for low income earners.[73] The Howard Coalition government introduced an additional levy of 1.0%, known as the Medicare Levy Surcharge, for those on high annual incomes ($70,000) and do not have adequate levels of private hospital coverage.[74] This was part of an effort by the Coalition to encourage take-up of private health insurance. According to WHO, government funding covered 67.5% of Australia's health care expenditures in 2004; private sources covered the remaining 32.5% of expenditures.[40]
[edit] New Zealand
Main article: Health care in New Zealand
As with Australia, New Zealand's healthcare system is funded through general taxation. According to the WHO, government sources covered 77.4% of New Zealand's health care costs in 2004; private expenditures covered the remaining 22.6%.[40]
[edit] Economics
Main article: Health care economics
[edit] Funding models
Universal health care in most countries has been achieved by a mixed model of funding. General taxation revenue is the primary source of funding, but in many countries it is supplemented by specific levies (which may be charged to the individual and/or an employer) or with the option of private payments (either direct or via optional insurance) for services beyond that covered by the public system.
Almost all European systems are financed through a mix of public and private contributions.[75] The majority of universal health care systems are funded primarily by tax revenue (e.g. Portugal[75] and Spain). Some nations, such as Germany, France[51] and Japan[76] employ a multi-payer system in which health care is funded by private and public contributions. However, much of the non-government funding is by defined contributions by employers and employees to regulated non-profit sickness funds. These contributions are compulsory and vary according to a person's salary, and are effectively a form of hypothecated taxation.
A distinction is also made between municipal and national healthcare funding. For example, one model is that the bulk of the healthcare is funded by the municipality, speciality healthcare is provided and possibly funded by a larger entity, such as a municipal co-operation board or the state, and the medications are paid by a state agency.
Universal health care systems are modestly redistributive. Progressivity of health care financing has limited implications for overall income inequality.[77]
[edit] Single-payer
Main article: Single-payer health care
The term single-payer health care is used in the United States to describe a funding mechanism meeting the costs of medical care from a single fund. Although the fund holder is usually the government, some forms of single-payer employ a public-private system.
[edit] Public
Some countries (notably the United Kingdom, Italy and Spain) have eliminated insurance entirely and choose to fund health care directly from taxation. Other countries with insurance-based systems effectively meet the cost of insuring those unable to insure themselves via social security arrangements funded from taxation, either by directly paying their medical bills or by paying for insurance premiums for those affected.
[edit] Compulsory insurance
This is usually enforced via legislation requiring residents to purchase insurance, though sometimes, in effect, the government provides the insurance. Sometimes there may be a choice of multiple public and private funds providing a standard service (e.g. as in Germany) or sometimes just a single public fund (as in Canada).
In some European countries where there is private insurance and universal health care, such as Germany, Belgium, and The Netherlands, the problem of adverse selection (see Private insurance below) is overcome using a risk compensation pool to equalize, as far as possible, the risks between funds. Thus a fund with a predominantly healthy, younger population has to pay into a compensation pool and a fund with an older and predominantly less healthy population would receive funds from the pool. In this way, sickness funds compete on price and there is no advantage to eliminate people with higher risks because they are compensated for by means of risk-adjusted capitation payments. Funds are not allowed to pick and choose their policyholders or deny coverage, but then mainly compete on price and service. In some countries the basic coverage level is set by the government and cannot be modified.[78]
Ireland at one time had a "community rating" system through VHI, effectively a single-payer or common risk pool. The government later opened VHI to competition but without a compensation pool. This resulted in foreign insurance companies entering the Irish market and offering cheap health insurance to relatively healthy segments of the market which then made higher profits at VHI's expense. The government later re-introduced community rating through a pooling arrangement and at least one main major insurance company, BUPA, then withdrew from the Irish market.
[edit] Private insurance
This article may be inaccurate in or unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (June 2009)
In some countries with universal coverage, private insurance often excludes many health conditions which are expensive and which the state health care system can provide. For example in the UK, one of the largest private health care providers is BUPA which has the following list of general exclusions[79].
Dental/oral treatment (such as fillings, gum disease, jaw shrinkage, etc); pregnancy and childbirth; temporary relief of symptoms; convalescence, rehabilitation and general nursing care; drugs and dressings for out-patient or take-home use; screening and preventive treatment; birth control, conception, sexual problems and sex changes; allergies or allergic disorders; chronic conditions; eyesight; physical aids and devices; *deafness; cosmetic, reconstructive or weight loss treatment ; ageing, menopause and puberty ; dialysis ; complications from excluded or restricted conditions/ treatment ; HRT and bone densitometry; learning difficulties, behavioural and developmental problems ; overseas treatment and repatriation ; AIDS/HIV ; pre-existing or special conditions ; experimental drugs and treatment ; sleep problems and disorders ; speech disorders
all of which (except overseas repatriation) are available for free or very low cost from the NHS. ( indicates that treatment may be provided in certain circumstances)
Where voluntary insurance (often private) is predominant, such as in the U.S., medical (health) insurance is subject to the well-known economic problem of adverse selection which may also be referred to as a market failure.[citation needed] Adverse selection in insurance markets occurs because those providing insurance have limited information with which to estimate the health risks on which they may need to pay future claims.[citation needed] In simple terms, those with poor health are more likely to apply for insurance and more likely to need treatments requiring high insurance company payouts.[citation needed] Those with good health may find the cost of insurance too high for the perceived benefit, and some will remove themselves from the risk pool.[citation needed] This adverse selection concentrates the risk pool, thereby further raising costs.[citation needed] In practical terms, the potential for adverse selection means that private insurers have an economic incentive to use medical underwriting to 'weed out' high cost applicants in order to avoid adverse selection.[citation needed] Among the potential solutions posited by economists are single payer systems as well as other methods of ensuring that health insurance is universal, such as by requiring all citizens to purchase insurance and limiting the ability of insurance companies to deny insurance to individuals or vary price between individuals.[80][81]
londonfog
Well-Known Member
so you voted for gore ????? Kerry ????
K
Keenly
Guest
Jack*Herrer420
Well-Known Member
I didn't vote for anybody, no one represented me. I turned 18 in 04' so I didn't feel like it was that important anyways.
medicineman
New Member
Single payer systems are disastrous. Name an example where they have worked.
Here goes, You decide:
Universal health care is a broad concept that has been implemented in several ways. The common denominator for all such programs is some form of government action aimed at extending access to health care as widely as possible and setting minimum standards. Most implement universal health care through legislation, regulation and taxation. Legislation and regulation direct what care must be provided, to whom, and on what basis. Usually some costs are borne by the patient at the time of consumption but the bulk of costs come from a combination of compulsory insurance and tax revenues. Some programs are paid for entirely out of tax revenues. In others tax revenues are used either to fund insurance for the very poor or for those needing long term chronic care. The UK government's National Audit Office in 2003 published an international comparison of ten different health care systems in ten developed countries, nine universal systems against one non-universal system (the U.S.), and their relative costs and key health outcomes.[3] A wider international comparison of 16 countries, each with universal health care, was published by the World Health Organization in 2004 [4] In some cases, government involvement also includes directly managing the health care system, but many countries use mixed public-private systems to deliver universal health care.
[edit] Americas
Argentina, Brazil (see below), Canada (see below), Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico (see below), Panama, Peru (see below), Uruguay, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela all have public universal health care provided.
[edit] Brazil
Main article: Health care in Brazil
The universal health care system was adopted in Brazil in 1988 after the end of the military regime's rule.
[edit] Canada
Main article: Health care in Canada
In 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed, which prohibited extra billing by doctors on patients while at the same time billing the public insurance system. In 1999, the prime minister and most premiers reaffirmed in the Social Union Framework Agreement that they are committed to health care that has "comprehensiveness, universality, portability, public administration and accessibility."[5]
The system is for the most part publicly funded, yet most of the services are provided by private enterprises or private corporations, although most hospitals are public. Most doctors do not receive an annual salary, but receive a fee per visit or service.[6] About 29% of Canadians' health care is paid for by the private sector or individuals.[7] This mostly goes towards services not covered or only partially covered by Medicare such as prescription drugs, dentistry and vision care.[8] Many Canadians have private health insurance, often through their employers, that cover these expenses.[9]
The Canada Health Act of 1984 "does not directly bar private delivery or private insurance for publicly insured services," but provides financial disincentives for doing so. "Although there are laws prohibiting or curtailing private health care in some provinces, they can be changed," according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine.[10][11] The legality of the ban was considered in a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which ruled in Chaoulli v. Quebec that "the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance, while it might be constitutional in circumstances where health care services are reasonable as to both quality and timeliness, is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services." The appellant contended that waiting times in Quebec violated a right to life and security in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The Court agreed, but acknowledged the importance and validity of the Canada Health Act, and at least four of the seven judges explicitly recognized the right of governments to enact laws and policies which favour the public over the private system and preserve the integrity of the public system.
[edit] Colombia
Main article: Health in Colombia
In 1993 a reform transformed the health care system in Colombia, trying to provide a better, sustainable, health care system and to reach every Colombian citizen.
[edit] Mexico
Further information: Health care in Mexico
On December 1, 2006 the Mexican government created the Health Insurance for a New Generation also known as "life insurance for babies".[12][13][14]
On May 28, 2009 Mexico announced Universal Care Coverage for Pregnant Women.[15]
[edit] Peru
On April 9, 2009 the Government of Peru published the Law on Health Insurance to enable all Peruvians to access quality health services, and contribute to regulate the financing and supervision of these services. The law enables all population to access diverse health services to prevent illnesses, and promote and rehabilitate people, under a Health Basic Plan (PEAS).[16][17]
[edit] Trinidad and Tobago
Main article: Health care in Trinidad and Tobago
The universal health care system is used in Trinidad and Tobago and is the primary form of health-care available in the country. It is used by the majority of the population seeking medical assistance, as it is free for all citizens.
[edit] United States
See also: Health care reform in the United States and Health care in the United States
The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.[1] Federal law was changed in 1986 with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requiring certain hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with emergency medical conditions including childbirth without first demanding evidence of ability to pay. According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science, this unfunded safety net mandate has contributed to increasing strain on the health system. Emergency treatment is not free or subsidized and some patients cannot or will not pay their bills. Furthermore, this system encourages use of the emergency facilities for primary care and not just for emergency purposes.[18]
In lieu of a national program, some states and municipalities have made attempts to approach universality of insurance in their respective jurisdictions. The state of Massachusetts implemented a near-universal health care system by mandating that residents purchase health insurance by July 1, 2007.[19] The City of San Francisco is also undertaking a universal health care system for uninsured residents.[20][21] Hawaii has, since 1974, required employers to provide employees working more than 20 hours per week with a comprehensive health insurance plan.[22] California, Maine and Vermont are also considering or seeking to implement universal or near-universal systems.[23] In July, 2009, Connecticut passed into law a plan called SustiNet, with the goal of achieving near-universal healthcare coverage by 2014.[24]
Whether a federal system of universal health care should be implemented in the US remains a hotly debated political topic, with Americans divided in their views. The Congressional Budget Office and related government agencies scored the cost of a universal health care system several times since 1991, and have uniformly predicted cost savings,[25] probably because of the 40% cost savings associated with universal preventative care.[26]
[edit] Asia
Bhutan, Brunei, China,[27] Hong Kong SAR, India[citation needed], Kuwait[citation needed], Qatar[citation needed], UAE[citation needed], Saudi Arabia[citation needed], Israel,[28] Japan, Malaysia[citation needed], South Korea, Seychelles[citation needed], Sri Lanka,[29] Taiwan,[30], Pakistan[citation needed] and Thailand[citation needed] have universal health care.
[edit] Bhutan
Main article: Health in Bhutan
The Royal Government of Bhutan maintains a policy of free and universal access to primary health care. As hospital facilities in the country are limited, patients with diseases that cannot be treated in Bhutan, such as cancer, are normally referred to hospitals in India for treatment. Such referral treatment is also carried out at the cost of the Royal Government.[31]
[edit] People's Republic of China
Main article: Healthcare system reform in the People's Republic of China
Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, the goal of health care programs has been to provide care to every member of the population and to make maximum use of limited health-care personnel, equipment, and financial resources.[citation needed]
China is undertaking a reform on its health care system, which was largely privatized in the 1990s. The New Rural Co-operative Medical Care System (NRCMCS), is a new 2005 initiative to overhaul the healthcare system, particularly intended to make it more affordable for the rural poor. Under the NRCMCS, the annual cost of medical cover is 50 yuan (US$7) per person. Of that, 20 yuan is paid in by the central government, 20 yuan by the provincial government and a contribution of 10 yuan is made by the patient. As of September 2007, around 80% of the whole rural population of China had signed up (about 685 million people). The system is tiered, depending on the location. If patients go to a small hospital or clinic in their local town, the scheme will cover from 70-80% of their bill. If they go to a county one, the percentage of the cost being covered falls to about 60%. And if they need specialist help in a large modern city hospital, they have to bear most of the cost themselves, the scheme would cover about 30% of the bill.[32]
On January 21, 2009, the Chinese government announced that a total of 850 billion yuan will be provided between 2009 and 2011 in order to improve the existing health care system.[33]
[edit] Hong Kong SAR
Main article: Healthcare in Hong Kong
Hong Kong is one of the healthiest places in the world.[34] Because of its early health education, professional health services, and well-developed health care and medication system, Hongkongers enjoy a life expectancy of 84 for females and 78 for males,[35] which is the second highest in the world, and 2.94 infant mortality rate, the fourth lowest in the world.[36][37]
There are two medical schools in Hong Kong, and several schools offering courses in traditional Chinese medicine. The Hospital Authority is a statutory body that operates and manages all public hospitals. Hong Kong has high standards of medical practice. It has contributed to the development of liver transplantation, being the first in the world to carry out adult to adult live donor liver transplant in 1993.[38]
[edit] India
Main article: Healthcare in India
India has a universal health care system run by the local (state or territorial), governments. The government hospitals, some of which are among the best hospitals in India,[39] provide treatment at taxpayer expense. Most essential drugs are offered free of charge in these hospitals.
Government hospitals provide treatment either free or at minimal charges. For example, an outpatient card at AIIMS (one of the best hospitals in India) costs a one time fee of rupees 10 (Around 20 cents US) and thereafter outpatient medical advice is free. In-hospital treatment costs depend on financial condition of the patient and facilities utilized by him but are usually much less than the private sector. For instance, a patient is waived treatment costs if he is below poverty line. Another patient may seek for an air-conditioned room if he is willing to pay extra for it. The charges for basic in-hospital treatment and investigations are much less compared to the private sector. The cost for these subsidies comes from annual allocations from the central and state governments.
Primary health care is provided by city and district hospitals and rural primary health centres (PHCs). These hospitals provide treatment free of cost. Primary care is focused on immunization, prevention of malnutrition, pregnancy, child birth, postnatal care, and treatment of common illnesses.[citation needed] Patients who receive specialized care or have complicated illnesses are referred to secondary (often located in district and taluk headquarters) and tertiary care hospitals (located in district and state headquarters or those that are teaching hospitals).[citation needed] However, the fact that the government sector is understaffed and underfinanced and poor services at state run hospitals forces many people to visit private medical practitioners.
Now organizations like Hindustan Latex Family Planning Promotional Trust and other private organizations have started creating hospitals and clinics in India, which also provide free or subsidized health care and subsidized insurance plans.[citation needed]
[edit] Israel
Main article: Health care in Israel
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2009)
In Israel, the National Health Insurance Law (or National Health Insurance Act) is the legal framework which enables and facilitates basic, compulsory universal health care. The Law was put into effect by the Knesset on January 1, 1995, and was based on recommendations put forward by a National Committee of Inquiry which examined restructuring the health care system in Israel in the late 1980s. Prior to the law's passage approximately 85% of the population was already covered by voluntarily belonging to one of four nation-wide, not-for-profit health maintenance organizations (HMOs/sick funds). However, there were three problems associated with this arrangement. First, membership in the largest HMO, Clalit, required one to belong to the Histadrut labor organization, even if a person did not wish to (or could not) have such an affiliation while other HMOs restricted entry to new members based on age, pre-existing conditions or other factors. Second, different HMOs provided different levels of benefit coverage or services to their members and lastly was the issue mentioned above whereby a certain percentage of the population, albeit a small one, did not have health insurance coverage at all.
This section may stray from the topic of the article into the topic of another article, Health care in Israel. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page.
Before the law went into effect, all the HMOs collected premiums directly from members. However, upon passage of the law, a new progressive national health insurance tax was levied through Israel's social security agency which then re-distributes the proceeds to the HMOs based on their membership and its demographic makeup. This ensured that all citizens would now have health coverage. While membership in one of the HMOs now became compulsory for all, free choice was introduced into movement of members between HMOs (a change is allowed once per year), effectively making the various HMOs compete equally for members among the populace. Annually, a committee appointed by the ministry of health publishes a "basket" or uniform package of medical services and prescription formulary which all HMOs must provide as a minimum service to all their members. Achieving this level of equality ensured that all citizens are guaranteed to receive basic healthcare regardless of their HMO affiliation which was one of the principal aims of the law. An appeals process was put in place to handle rejection of treatments and procedures by the HMOs and evaluating cases falling outside the "basket" of services or prescription formulary.
While the law is generally considered a success and Israeli citizens enjoy a high standard of medical care comparatively, with more competition having been introduced into the field of health care in the country, and order having been brought into what was once a somewhat disorganized system, the law nevertheless does have its critics. First and foremost among the criticisms raised is that the "basket" may not provide enough coverage. To partly address this issue, the HMOs and insurance companies (often in conjunction with employers) began offering additional "supplementary" insurance to cover certain additional services not included in the basket. However, since this insurance is optional, critics argue that it goes against the spirit of the new law which stressed equality among all citizens with respect to healthcare. Another criticism is that in order to provide universal coverage to all, the tax income base amount (the maximum amount of yearly earnings that are subject to the tax) was set rather high, causing many high-income taxpayers to see the amount they pay for their health premiums (now health tax) skyrocket. Finally, some complain about the constantly rising costs of copayments for certain services.
[edit] Singapore
Main article: Health care in Singapore
Singapore has a universal health care system where government ensures affordability, largely through compulsory savings and price controls, while the private sector provides most care. Overall spending on health care amounts to only 3% of annual GDP. Of that, 66% comes from private sources.[40] Singapore currently has the lowest infant mortality rate in the world (equaled only by Iceland) and among the highest life expectancies from birth, according to the World Health Organization.[41] Singapore has "one of the most successful healthcare systems in the world, in terms of both efficiency in financing and the results achieved in community health outcomes," according to an analysis by global consulting firm Watson Wyatt.[42] Singapore's system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions (funded by both employers and workers) a nationalized health insurance plan, and government subsidies, as well as "actively regulating the supply and prices of healthcare services in the country" to keep costs in check; the specific features have been described as potentially a "very difficult system to replicate in many other countries." Many Singaporeans also have supplemental private health insurance (often provided by employers) for services not covered by the government's programs.[42]
[edit] Taiwan (Republic of China)
Main article: Health care in Taiwan
The current health care system in Taiwan, known as National Health Insurance (NHI), was instituted in 1995. NHI is a single-payer compulsory social insurance plan which centralizes the disbursement of health care dollars. The system promises equal access to health care for all citizens, and the population coverage had reached 99% by the end of 2004.[43] NHI is mainly financed through premiums, which are based on the payroll tax, and is supplemented with out-of-pocket payments and direct government funding. In the initial stage, fee-for-service predominated for both public and private providers.
NHI delivers universal coverage offered by a government-run insurer. The working population pays premiums split with their employers, others pay a flat rate with government help and the poor or veterans are fully subsidized. Taiwans citizens no longer have to worry about going bankrupt due to medical bills.[44]
Under this model, citizens have free range to choose hospitals and physicians without using a gatekeeper and do not have to worry about waiting lists. NHI offers a comprehensive benefit package that covers preventive medical services, prescription drugs, dental services, Chinese medicine, home nurse visits and many more. Working people do not have to worry about losing their jobs or changing jobs because they will not lose their insurance. Since NHI, the previously uninsured have increased their usage of medical services. Most preventive services are free such as annual checkups and maternal and child care. Regular office visits have co-payments as low as US $5 per visit. Co-payments are fixed and unvaried by the persons income.[45]
[edit] Thailand
Main article: Health care in Thailand
Thailand introduced universal coverage reforms in 2001, becoming one of only a handful of lower-middle income countries to do so. Means-tested health care for low income households was replaced by a new and more comprehensive insurance scheme, originally known as the 30 baht project, in line with the small co-payment charged for treatment. People joining the scheme receive a gold card which allows them to access services in their health district, and, if necessary, be referred for specialist treatment elsewhere. The bulk of finance comes from public revenues, with funding allocated to Contracting Units for Primary Care annually on a population basis. According to the WHO, 65% of Thailand's health care expenditure in 2004 came from the government, 35% was from private sources.[40] Although the reforms have received a good deal of critical comment, they have proved popular with poorer Thais, especially in rural areas, and survived the change of government after the 2006 military coup. The then Public Health Minister, Mongkol Na Songkhla, abolished the 30 baht co-payment and made the UC scheme free. It is not yet clear whether the scheme will be modified further under the coalition government that came to power in January 2008.[46][47][48]
[edit] Europe
Virtually all of Europe has publicly sponsored and regulated universal health care. The public plans in some countries provide basic or "sick" coverage only; their citizens can purchase supplemental insurance for additional coverage. Countries with universal health care include Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal,[49] Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine[50] and the United Kingdom.[51]
[edit] Austria
In Austria, public health care (the care, not the running of hospitals itself) is funded by means of so called "Social insurance contributions" accounting for approx. 24% of the salary, they are therefore no taxes as such. 7% of the contribution is reserved for health coverage in one of Austria's 22 public insurances, but cannot exceed EUR 281,- monthly (USD 399,-). Depending on the job, somebody will be insured at one of the 9 state-run territorial health funds or at job specific insurances, e.g. public employees or farmers have their own (compulsory) health insurance. 22 public insurances for 8 million people is subject to violent criticism, as tremendous savings could be reached by unifying the insurances to one centralized provider. However, no Austrian state is willing to give up its own public insurances as it is sphere of action for electoral campaigns. The operation of hospitals is not paid by social contributions, but by taxes. This means that general health coverage adds up to much more and is therefore more expensive as often depicted. Austria spends approx. 10% of its GDP for health coverage.
[edit] Finland
Main article: Healthcare in Finland
In Finland, public medical services at clinics and hospitals are run by the municipalities (local government) and are funded 76% by taxation, 20% by patients through access charges, and 4% by others. Private provision is mainly in the primary care sector. There are a few private hospitals [52]. The main hospitals are either municipally owned (funded from local taxes) or run by the medical teaching universities (funded jointly by the municipalities and the national government). According to a survey published by the European Commission in 2000, Finland's is in the top 4 of EU countries in terms of satisfaction with their hospital care system: 88% of Finnish respondents were satisfied compared with the EU average of 41.3%.[53] Finnish health care expenditures are below the European average.[citation needed] The private medical sector accounts for about 14 percent of total health care spending. Only 8% of doctors choose to work in private practice, and some of these also choose to do some work in the public sector.[citation needed]
Taxation funding is partly local and partly nationally based. The national social insurance institution KELA reimburses part of patients prescription costs and makes a contribution towards private medical costs (including dentistry) if they choose to be treated in the private sector rather than the public sector. Patient access charges are subject to annual caps. For example GP visits cost 11 per visit with annual 33 cap; hospital outpatient treatment 22 per visit; a hospital stay, including food, medical care and medicines 26 per 24 hours, or 12 if in a psychiatric hospital. After a patient has spent 590 per year on public medical services (including prescription drugs), all treatment and medications thereafter in that year are free.
[edit] Germany
Main article: Health care in Germany
Germany has the world's oldest universal health care system, with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's Health Insurance Act of 1883.[54] As mandatory health insurance, it originally applied only to low-income workers and certain government employees, but has gradually expanded to cover the great majority of the population.[55] The system is decentralized with private practice physicians providing ambulatory care, and independent, mostly non-profit hospitals providing the majority of inpatient care. Approximately 92% of the population is covered by a 'Statutory Health Insurance' plan, which provides a standardized level of coverage through any one of approximately 1100 public or private sickness funds. Standard insurance is funded by a combination of employee contributions, employer contributions and government subsidies on a scale determined by income level. Higher income workers sometimes choose to pay a tax and opt out of the standard plan, in favor of 'private' insurance. The latter's premiums are not linked to income level but instead to health status.[56]
Historically, the level of provider reimbursement for specific services is determined through negotiations between regional physician's associations and sickness funds. Since 1976 the government has convened an annual commission, comprised of representatives of business, labor, physicians, hospitals, and insurance and pharmaceutical industries.[57] The commission takes into account government policies and makes recommendations to regional associations with respect to overall expenditure targets. In 1986 expenditure caps were implemented and were tied to the age of the local population as well as the overall wage increases. Although reimbursement of providers is on a fee-for-service basis the amount to be reimbursed for each service is determined retrospectively to ensure that spending targets are not exceeded. Capitated care, such as that provided by U.S. health maintenance organizations, has been considered as a cost containment mechanism but would require consent of regional medical associations, and has not materialized.[58] Copayments were introduced in the 1980s in an attempt to prevent overutilization and control costs. The average length of hospital stay in Germany has decreased in recent years from 14 days to 9 days, still considerably longer than average stays in the U.S. (5 to 6 days).[59][60] The difference is partly driven by the fact that hospital reimbursement is chiefly a function of the number of hospital days as opposed to procedures or the patient's diagnosis. Drug costs have increased substantially, rising nearly 60% from 1991 through 2005. Despite attempts to contain costs, overall health care expenditures rose to 10.7% of GDP in 2005, comparable to other western European nations, but substantially less than that spent in the U.S. (nearly 16% of GDP).[61]
[edit] Ireland
Main article: Health care in Ireland
The public health care system of the Republic of Ireland is governed by the Health Act 2004, which established a new body to be responsible for providing health and personal social services to everyone living in Ireland - the Health Service Executive. The new national health service came into being officially on 1 January 2005; however the new structures are currently in the process of being established as the reform programme continues. In addition to the public-sector, there is also a large private healthcare market.
[edit] Netherlands
Main article: Health care in the Netherlands
The Netherlands has a dual-level system. All primary and curative care (i.e. the family doctor service and hospitals and clinics) is financed from private compulsory insurance. Long term care for the elderly, the dying, the long term mentally ill etc. is covered by social insurance funded from taxation. According to the WHO, the health care system in the Netherlands was 62% government funded and 38% privately funded as of 2004.[40]
Insurance companies must offer a core universal insurance package for the universal primary, curative care which includes the cost of all prescription medicines. They must do this at a fixed price for all. The same premium is paid whether young or old, healthy or sick. It is illegal in The Netherlands for insurers to refuse an application for health insurance, to impose special conditions (e.g. exclusions, deductibles, co-pays etc or refuse to fund treatments which a doctor has determined to be medically necessary). The system is 50% financed from payroll taxes paid by employers to a fund controlled by the Health regulator. The government contributes an additional 5% to the regulator's fund. The remaining 45% is collected as premiums paid by the insured directly to the insurance company. Some employers negotiate bulk deals with health insurers and some even pay the employees' premiums as an employment benefit). All insurance companies receive additional funding from the regulator's fund. The regulator has sight of the claims made by policyholders and therefore can redistribute the funds its holds on the basis of relative claims made by policy holders. Thus insurers with high payouts will receive more from the regulator than those with low payouts. Thus insurance companies have no incentive to deter high cost individuals from taking insurance and are compensated if they have to pay out more than might be expected. Insurance companies compete with each other on price for the 45% direct premium part of the funding and try to negotiate deals with hospitals to keep costs low and quality high. The competition regulator is charged with checking for abuse of dominant market positions and the creation of cartels that act against the consumer interests. An insurance regulator ensures that all basic policies have identical coverage rules so that no person is medically disadvantaged by his or her choice of insurer.
Hospitals in the Netherlands are also regulated and inspected but are mostly privately run and for profit, as are many of the insurance companies. Patients can choose where they want to be treated and have access to information on the internet about the performance and waiting times at each hospital. Patients dissatisfied with their insurer and choice of hospital can cancel at any time but must make a new agreement with another insurer.
Insurance companies can offer additional services at extra cost over and above the universal system laid down by the regulator, e.g. for dental care. The standard monthly premium for health care paid by individual adults is about 100 per month. Persons on low incomes can get assistance from the government if they cannot afford these payments. Children under 18 are insured by the system at no additional cost to them or their families because the insurance company receives the cost of this from the regulator's fund.
[edit] United Kingdom
Main article: Healthcare in the United Kingdom
Each of the Countries of the United Kingdom has a National Health Service that provides public healthcare to all UK permanent residents that is free at the point of need and paid for from general taxation. However, since Health is a devolved matter, considerable differences are developing between the systems in each of the countries.[62]
[edit] England
Main article: Healthcare in England
The National Health Service (NHS), created by the National Health Service Act 1946 has provided the majority of healthcare in England since its launch on 5 July 1948.
The NHS Constitution for England documents at high level, the objectives of the NHS, the legal rights and responsibilities of the various parties (patients, staff, NHS trust boards) and the guiding principles which govern the service.[63] The NHS constitution makes it clear that it provides a comprehensive service, available to all irrespective of age, gender, disability, race, sexual orientation, religion or belief; that access to NHS services is based on clinical need and not an individuals ability to pay; and that care is never refused on unreasonable grounds. Patient choice in terms of doctor, care, treatments and place of treatment is an important aspect of the NHS's ambition, and in some cases patients can elect for treatment in other European countries at the NHS's expense. Wait times are low, with most people able to see their primary care doctor on the same day or the following day[64] and only 36.1% of hospital admissions are from a waiting list, with the remainder being either emergencies admitted immediately or else pre-booked admissions or similar (e.g. child birth) [65]. No patient should experience a delay of more than 18 weeks from initial hospital referral to final treatment[66]. This includes the time for all investigative tests and consultations, and two thirds of patients are currently treated in under 12 weeks.[67]
Although centrally funded there is no large central bureaucracy to manage it. Responsibility is highly devolved to geographical areas through Strategic Health Authorities and even more locally through NHS primary care trusts , NHS hospital trusts and increasingly to NHS foundation trusts which are providing even more decentralized services within the NHS framework, with more decision making taken by local people, patients and staff. The central government office, the Department of Health, is not involved in day to day decision making in either the Strategic Health Authorities or the individual local trusts (primarily health, hospital or ambulance) or the national specialist trusts such as NHS Blood and Transplant, but it does lay down general guidelines for them to follow. Local trusts are accountable to their local populations, whilst government ministers are accountable to Parliament for the service overall.
The NHS provides, among other things, primary care, in-patient care, long-term healthcare, psychiatric care and treatments ophthalmology and dentistry. All treatment is free with the exception of certain charges for prescriptions, dentistry and ophthalmology (which themselves are free to children, the elderly, the unemployed and those on low incomes). Eighty-nine percent of NHS prescriptions are obtained free of charge, mosly children, pensioners and pregnat women. Others pay a flat rate of £7.20[68], and others may cap their annual charges. Private health care has continued parallel to the NHS, paid for largely by private insurance. Private insurance accounts for only 4 percent of health expenditure and covers little more than a tenth of the population. [69]. Private insurers in the UK only cover acute care from specialists. They do not cover generalist consultations, pre-existing conditions, medical emergencies, organ transplants, chronic conditions such as diabetes or conditions such as pregnancy or HIV. [70] Most NHS general practitioners are private doctors who contract to provide NHS services but most hospitals are publicly owned and run through NHS Trusts. A few NHS medical services such as "surgicentres") are sub-contracted to private providers [71] as are some non-medical services (such as catering). Some capital projects such as new hospitals have been funded through the Private Finance Initiative, enabling investment without excessive strain on the public sector borrowing requirement.
[edit] Northern Ireland
Main article: Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland
Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland is the designation of the national public health service in Northern Ireland.
[edit] Scotland
Main article: Healthcare in Scotland
NHS Scotland, created by the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947, was also launched on 5 July 1948 though it has always been a separate organisation. Since devolution, NHS Scotland follows the policies and priorities of the Scottish Government, including the phasing out of all prescription charges by 2011.
[edit] Wales
Main article: Healthcare in Wales
NHS Wales was originally formed as part of the same NHS structure created by the National Health Service Act 1946 but powers over the NHS in Wales came under the Secretary of State for Wales in 1969[72], in turn being transferred under devolution to what is now the Welsh Assembly Government.
[edit] Oceania
[edit] Australia
Medicare's logo
Main article: Medicare (Australia)
In Australia, Medibank as it was then known was introduced, by the Whitlam Labor government on 1 July 1975, through the Health Insurance Act 1973. The Australian Senate rejected the changes multiple times and they were passed only after a joint sitting after the 1974 double dissolution election. However, Medibank was supported by the subsequent FraserCoalition (Australia) government and became a key feature of Australias public policy landscape. The exact structure of Medibank/Medicare, in terms of the size of the rebate to doctors and hospitals and the way it has administered, has varied over the years. The original Medibank program proposed a 1.35% levy (with low income exemptions) but these bills were rejected by the Senate, and so Medibank was funded from general taxation. In 1976, the Fraser Government introduced a 2.5% levy and split Medibank in two: a universal scheme called Medibank Public and a government-owned private health insurance company, Medibank Private.
During the 1980s, Medibank Public was renamed Medicare by the Hawke Labor government, which also changed the funding model, to an income tax surcharge, known as the Medicare Levy, which was set at 1.5%, with exemptions for low income earners.[73] The Howard Coalition government introduced an additional levy of 1.0%, known as the Medicare Levy Surcharge, for those on high annual incomes ($70,000) and do not have adequate levels of private hospital coverage.[74] This was part of an effort by the Coalition to encourage take-up of private health insurance. According to WHO, government funding covered 67.5% of Australia's health care expenditures in 2004; private sources covered the remaining 32.5% of expenditures.[40]
[edit] New Zealand
Main article: Health care in New Zealand
As with Australia, New Zealand's healthcare system is funded through general taxation. According to the WHO, government sources covered 77.4% of New Zealand's health care costs in 2004; private expenditures covered the remaining 22.6%.[40]
[edit] Economics
Main article: Health care economics
[edit] Funding models
Universal health care in most countries has been achieved by a mixed model of funding. General taxation revenue is the primary source of funding, but in many countries it is supplemented by specific levies (which may be charged to the individual and/or an employer) or with the option of private payments (either direct or via optional insurance) for services beyond that covered by the public system.
Almost all European systems are financed through a mix of public and private contributions.[75] The majority of universal health care systems are funded primarily by tax revenue (e.g. Portugal[75] and Spain). Some nations, such as Germany, France[51] and Japan[76] employ a multi-payer system in which health care is funded by private and public contributions. However, much of the non-government funding is by defined contributions by employers and employees to regulated non-profit sickness funds. These contributions are compulsory and vary according to a person's salary, and are effectively a form of hypothecated taxation.
A distinction is also made between municipal and national healthcare funding. For example, one model is that the bulk of the healthcare is funded by the municipality, speciality healthcare is provided and possibly funded by a larger entity, such as a municipal co-operation board or the state, and the medications are paid by a state agency.
Universal health care systems are modestly redistributive. Progressivity of health care financing has limited implications for overall income inequality.[77]
[edit] Single-payer
Main article: Single-payer health care
The term single-payer health care is used in the United States to describe a funding mechanism meeting the costs of medical care from a single fund. Although the fund holder is usually the government, some forms of single-payer employ a public-private system.
[edit] Public
Some countries (notably the United Kingdom, Italy and Spain) have eliminated insurance entirely and choose to fund health care directly from taxation. Other countries with insurance-based systems effectively meet the cost of insuring those unable to insure themselves via social security arrangements funded from taxation, either by directly paying their medical bills or by paying for insurance premiums for those affected.
[edit] Compulsory insurance
This is usually enforced via legislation requiring residents to purchase insurance, though sometimes, in effect, the government provides the insurance. Sometimes there may be a choice of multiple public and private funds providing a standard service (e.g. as in Germany) or sometimes just a single public fund (as in Canada).
In some European countries where there is private insurance and universal health care, such as Germany, Belgium, and The Netherlands, the problem of adverse selection (see Private insurance below) is overcome using a risk compensation pool to equalize, as far as possible, the risks between funds. Thus a fund with a predominantly healthy, younger population has to pay into a compensation pool and a fund with an older and predominantly less healthy population would receive funds from the pool. In this way, sickness funds compete on price and there is no advantage to eliminate people with higher risks because they are compensated for by means of risk-adjusted capitation payments. Funds are not allowed to pick and choose their policyholders or deny coverage, but then mainly compete on price and service. In some countries the basic coverage level is set by the government and cannot be modified.[78]
Ireland at one time had a "community rating" system through VHI, effectively a single-payer or common risk pool. The government later opened VHI to competition but without a compensation pool. This resulted in foreign insurance companies entering the Irish market and offering cheap health insurance to relatively healthy segments of the market which then made higher profits at VHI's expense. The government later re-introduced community rating through a pooling arrangement and at least one main major insurance company, BUPA, then withdrew from the Irish market.
This article may be inaccurate in or unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (June 2009)
In some countries with universal coverage, private insurance often excludes many health conditions which are expensive and which the state health care system can provide. For example in the UK, one of the largest private health care providers is BUPA which has the following list of general exclusions[79].
Dental/oral treatment (such as fillings, gum disease, jaw shrinkage, etc); pregnancy and childbirth; temporary relief of symptoms; convalescence, rehabilitation and general nursing care; drugs and dressings for out-patient or take-home use; screening and preventive treatment; birth control, conception, sexual problems and sex changes; allergies or allergic disorders; chronic conditions; eyesight; physical aids and devices; *deafness; cosmetic, reconstructive or weight loss treatment ; ageing, menopause and puberty ; dialysis ; complications from excluded or restricted conditions/ treatment ; HRT and bone densitometry; learning difficulties, behavioural and developmental problems ; overseas treatment and repatriation ; AIDS/HIV ; pre-existing or special conditions ; experimental drugs and treatment ; sleep problems and disorders ; speech disorders
all of which (except overseas repatriation) are available for free or very low cost from the NHS. ( indicates that treatment may be provided in certain circumstances)
Where voluntary insurance (often private) is predominant, such as in the U.S., medical (health) insurance is subject to the well-known economic problem of adverse selection which may also be referred to as a market failure.[citation needed] Adverse selection in insurance markets occurs because those providing insurance have limited information with which to estimate the health risks on which they may need to pay future claims.[citation needed] In simple terms, those with poor health are more likely to apply for insurance and more likely to need treatments requiring high insurance company payouts.[citation needed] Those with good health may find the cost of insurance too high for the perceived benefit, and some will remove themselves from the risk pool.[citation needed] This adverse selection concentrates the risk pool, thereby further raising costs.[citation needed] In practical terms, the potential for adverse selection means that private insurers have an economic incentive to use medical underwriting to 'weed out' high cost applicants in order to avoid adverse selection.[citation needed] Among the potential solutions posited by economists are single payer systems as well as other methods of ensuring that health insurance is universal, such as by requiring all citizens to purchase insurance and limiting the ability of insurance companies to deny insurance to individuals or vary price between individuals.[80][81]
Jack*Herrer420
Well-Known Member
Good job med man, you can cut and paste a long ass article. It seems you can't really take on what I layed down, so you had to get someone else to explain it, poorly at that.
medicineman
New Member
Single payer systems are disastrous. Name an example where they have worked.
Here are a few, the list is long, If you want click on the underlined to learn more about succesful single payer. You ask and you have recieved, happy motoring
Americas
Argentina, Brazil (see below), Canada (see below), Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico (see below), Panama, Peru (see below), Uruguay, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela all have public universal health care provided.
[edit] Brazil
Main article: Health care in Brazil
The universal health care system was adopted in Brazil in 1988 after the end of the military regime's rule.
[edit] Canada
Main article: Health care in Canada
In 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed, which prohibited extra billing by doctors on patients while at the same time billing the public insurance system. In 1999, the prime minister and most premiers reaffirmed in the Social Union Framework Agreement that they are committed to health care that has "comprehensiveness, universality, portability, public administration and accessibility."[5]
The system is for the most part publicly funded, yet most of the services are provided by private enterprises or private corporations, although most hospitals are public. Most doctors do not receive an annual salary, but receive a fee per visit or service.[6] About 29% of Canadians' health care is paid for by the private sector or individuals.[7] This mostly goes towards services not covered or only partially covered by Medicare such as prescription drugs, dentistry and vision care.[8] Many Canadians have private health insurance, often through their employers, that cover these expenses.[9]
The Canada Health Act of 1984 "does not directly bar private delivery or private insurance for publicly insured services," but provides financial disincentives for doing so. "Although there are laws prohibiting or curtailing private health care in some provinces, they can be changed," according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine.[10][11] The legality of the ban was considered in a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which ruled in Chaoulli v. Quebec that "the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance, while it might be constitutional in circumstances where health care services are reasonable as to both quality and timeliness, is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services." The appellant contended that waiting times in Quebec violated a right to life and security in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The Court agreed, but acknowledged the importance and validity of the Canada Health Act, and at least four of the seven judges explicitly recognized the right of governments to enact laws and policies which favour the public over the private system and preserve the integrity of the public system.
[edit] Colombia
Main article: Health in Colombia
In 1993 a reform transformed the health care system in Colombia, trying to provide a better, sustainable, health care system and to reach every Colombian citizen.
[edit] Mexico
Further information: Health care in Mexico
On December 1, 2006 the Mexican government created the Health Insurance for a New Generation also known as "life insurance for babies".[12][13][14]
On May 28, 2009 Mexico announced Universal Care Coverage for Pregnant Women.[15]
[edit] Peru
On April 9, 2009 the Government of Peru published the Law on Health Insurance to enable all Peruvians to access quality health services, and contribute to regulate the financing and supervision of these services. The law enables all population to access diverse health services to prevent illnesses, and promote and rehabilitate people, under a Health Basic Plan (PEAS).[16][17]
[edit] Trinidad and Tobago
Main article: Health care in Trinidad and Tobago
The universal health care system is used in Trinidad and Tobago and is the primary form of health-care available in the country. It is used by the majority of the population seeking medical assistance, as it is free for all citizens.
[edit] United States
See also: Health care reform in the United States and Health care in the United States
The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.[1] Federal law was changed in 1986 with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requiring certain hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with emergency medical conditions including childbirth without first demanding evidence of ability to pay. According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science, this unfunded safety net mandate has contributed to increasing strain on the health system. Emergency treatment is not free or subsidized and some patients cannot or will not pay their bills. Furthermore, this system encourages use of the emergency facilities for primary care and not just for emergency purposes.[18]
In lieu of a national program, some states and municipalities have made attempts to approach universality of insurance in their respective jurisdictions. The state of Massachusetts implemented a near-universal health care system by mandating that residents purchase health insurance by July 1, 2007.[19] The City of San Francisco is also undertaking a universal health care system for uninsured residents.[20][21] Hawaii has, since 1974, required employers to provide employees working more than 20 hours per week with a comprehensive health insurance plan.[22] California, Maine and Vermont are also considering or seeking to implement universal or near-universal systems.[23] In July, 2009, Connecticut passed into law a plan called SustiNet, with the goal of achieving near-universal healthcare coverage by 2014.[24]
Whether a federal system of universal health care should be implemented in the US remains a hotly debated political topic, with Americans divided in their views. The Congressional Budget Office and related government agencies scored the cost of a universal health care system several times since 1991, and have uniformly predicted cost savings,[25] probably because of the 40% cost savings associated with universal preventative care.[26]
[edit] Asia
Bhutan, Brunei, China,[27] Hong Kong SAR, India[citation needed], Kuwait[citation needed], Qatar[citation needed], UAE[citation needed], Saudi Arabia[citation needed], Israel,[28] Japan, Malaysia[citation needed], South Korea, Seychelles[citation needed], Sri Lanka,[29] Taiwan,[30], Pakistan[citation needed] and Thailand[citation needed] have universal health care.
[edit] Bhutan
Main article: Health in Bhutan
The Royal Government of Bhutan maintains a policy of free and universal access to primary health care. As hospital facilities in the country are limited, patients with diseases that cannot be treated in Bhutan, such as cancer, are normally referred to hospitals in India for treatment. Such referral treatment is also carried out at the cost of the Royal Government.[31]
[edit] People's Republic of China
Main article: Healthcare system reform in the People's Republic of China
Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, the goal of health care programs has been to provide care to every member of the population and to make maximum use of limited health-care personnel, equipment, and financial resources.[citation needed]
China is undertaking a reform on its health care system, which was largely privatized in the 1990s. The New Rural Co-operative Medical Care System (NRCMCS), is a new 2005 initiative to overhaul the healthcare system, particularly intended to make it more affordable for the rural poor. Under the NRCMCS, the annual cost of medical cover is 50 yuan (US$7) per person. Of that, 20 yuan is paid in by the central government, 20 yuan by the provincial government and a contribution of 10 yuan is made by the patient. As of September 2007, around 80% of the whole rural population of China had signed up (about 685 million people). The system is tiered, depending on the location. If patients go to a small hospital or clinic in their local town, the scheme will cover from 70-80% of their bill. If they go to a county one, the percentage of the cost being covered falls to about 60%. And if they need specialist help in a large modern city hospital, they have to bear most of the cost themselves, the scheme would cover about 30% of the bill.[32]
On January 21, 2009, the Chinese government announced that a total of 850 billion yuan will be provided between 2009 and 2011 in order to improve the existing health care system.[33]
[edit] Hong Kong SAR
Main article: Healthcare in Hong Kong
Hong Kong is one of the healthiest places in the world.[34] Because of its early health education, professional health services, and well-developed health care and medication system, Hongkongers enjoy a life expectancy of 84 for females and 78 for males,[35] which is the second highest in the world, and 2.94 infant mortality rate, the fourth lowest in the world.[36][37]
There are two medical schools in Hong Kong, and several schools offering courses in traditional Chinese medicine. The Hospital Authority is a statutory body that operates and manages all public hospitals. Hong Kong has high standards of medical practice. It has contributed to the development of liver transplantation, being the first in the world to carry out adult to adult live donor liver transplant in 1993.[38]
[edit] India
Main article: Healthcare in India
India has a universal health care system run by the local (state or territorial), governments. The government hospitals, some of which are among the best hospitals in India,[39] provide treatment at taxpayer expense. Most essential drugs are offered free of charge in these hospitals.
Government hospitals provide treatment either free or at minimal charges. For example, an outpatient card at AIIMS (one of the best hospitals in India) costs a one time fee of rupees 10 (Around 20 cents US) and thereafter outpatient medical advice is free. In-hospital treatment costs depend on financial condition of the patient and facilities utilized by him but are usually much less than the private sector. For instance, a patient is waived treatment costs if he is below poverty line. Another patient may seek for an air-conditioned room if he is willing to pay extra for it. The charges for basic in-hospital treatment and investigations are much less compared to the private sector. The cost for these subsidies comes from annual allocations from the central and state governments.
Primary health care is provided by city and district hospitals and rural primary health centres (PHCs). These hospitals provide treatment free of cost. Primary care is focused on immunization, prevention of malnutrition, pregnancy, child birth, postnatal care, and treatment of common illnesses.[citation needed] Patients who receive specialized care or have complicated illnesses are referred to secondary (often located in district and taluk headquarters) and tertiary care hospitals (located in district and state headquarters or those that are teaching hospitals).[citation needed] However, the fact that the government sector is understaffed and underfinanced and poor services at state run hospitals forces many people to visit private medical practitioners.
Now organizations like Hindustan Latex Family Planning Promotional Trust and other private organizations have started creating hospitals and clinics in India, which also provide free or subsidized health care and subsidized insurance plans.[citation needed]
[edit] Israel
Main article: Health care in Israel
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2009)
In Israel, the National Health Insurance Law (or National Health Insurance Act) is the legal framework which enables and facilitates basic, compulsory universal health care. The Law was put into effect by the Knesset on January 1, 1995, and was based on recommendations put forward by a National Committee of Inquiry which examined restructuring the health care system in Israel in the late 1980s. Prior to the law's passage approximately 85% of the population was already covered by voluntarily belonging to one of four nation-wide, not-for-profit health maintenance organizations (HMOs/sick funds). However, there were three problems associated with this arrangement. First, membership in the largest HMO, Clalit, required one to belong to the Histadrut labor organization, even if a person did not wish to (or could not) have such an affiliation while other HMOs restricted entry to new members based on age, pre-existing conditions or other factors. Second, different HMOs provided different levels of benefit coverage or services to their members and lastly was the issue mentioned above whereby a certain percentage of the population, albeit a small one, did not have health insurance coverage at all.
This section may stray from the topic of the article into the topic of another article, Health care in Israel. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page.
Before the law went into effect, all the HMOs collected premiums directly from members. However, upon passage of the law, a new progressive national health insurance tax was levied through Israel's social security agency which then re-distributes the proceeds to the HMOs based on their membership and its demographic makeup. This ensured that all citizens would now have health coverage. While membership in one of the HMOs now became compulsory for all, free choice was introduced into movement of members between HMOs (a change is allowed once per year), effectively making the various HMOs compete equally for members among the populace. Annually, a committee appointed by the ministry of health publishes a "basket" or uniform package of medical services and prescription formulary which all HMOs must provide as a minimum service to all their members. Achieving this level of equality ensured that all citizens are guaranteed to receive basic healthcare regardless of their HMO affiliation which was one of the principal aims of the law. An appeals process was put in place to handle rejection of treatments and procedures by the HMOs and evaluating cases falling outside the "basket" of services or prescription formulary.
This was only a partial list, the server would not allow the whole list.
BTW what do you define as success? I define it as having medical care for the masses, private or public, but of course there must be a public option to keep the insurance companies honest and keep cost down.
Jack*Herrer420
Well-Known Member
What country would you prefer to get sick in? Do you think they have any of the freedoms or the quality of care we have, there is no comparison.
Jack*Herrer420
Well-Known Member
I can cut and paste too.
Great Britain
[Top]Great Britain's National Health Service (NHS) was created on July 5, 1948. As with all government programs, bureaucrats underestimated initial cost projections. First-year operating costs of NHS were 52 million pounds higher than original estimates1 as Britons saturated the so-called free system.
Many decades of shortages, misery and suffering followed until 1989, when some market-based health care competition was reintroduced to the British citizens2.
Unfortunately for those requiring care, a mostly socialist health care system has problems. The articles and commentaries in this section identify some disasters caused by government intervention in the British health care system.
I also recommend reading David G. Green and Laura Casper's economic report, Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer to see the inevitable outcome of the necessary rationing of government health care.
Straight from the newspapers
Other European Countries
[Top]
Canada
[Top]Parliament unanimously passed the Canada Health Act in 1984 and established a single-payer, publicly-financed health care system. To ensure a true government monopoly (is there any other kind?) Canadian provinces outlawed private health insurance.
Chaoulli v. Quebec UPDATE (June 9, 2005): In a 4 to 3 decision, the Canadian Supreme Court struck down Quebec's law that prohibits private medical insurance.
Former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
[Top]
Cuba
[Top]
The Cuban Government has implemented a two-tiered medical system (e.g. "medical apartheid") that caters to foreign tourists while denying native Cubans access to basic medical necessities (at least it is "free" to them). This attempt to draw foreign dollars is one of many programs that were necessary once the Soviet subsidies ended in the early nineties.
New Zealand
[Top]New Zealand's Ministry of Health is the New Zealand "Government's principal agent and advisor on health and disability."
Australia
[Top]Australia's universal health care scheme is relatively new (introduced in 1983, which built on the 1974 Medibank program). As with all socialized health care systems, there is a mixture of public versus private care (approximately 30% of Australians also retain private health insurance). As a result, the private patients receive better care than their medicare counterparts. The salary caps and artificial increase in demand for care that always occur in a national health care system are resulting in predictable physician shortages.
Great Britain
[Top]Great Britain's National Health Service (NHS) was created on July 5, 1948. As with all government programs, bureaucrats underestimated initial cost projections. First-year operating costs of NHS were 52 million pounds higher than original estimates1 as Britons saturated the so-called free system.
Many decades of shortages, misery and suffering followed until 1989, when some market-based health care competition was reintroduced to the British citizens2.
Unfortunately for those requiring care, a mostly socialist health care system has problems. The articles and commentaries in this section identify some disasters caused by government intervention in the British health care system.
I also recommend reading David G. Green and Laura Casper's economic report, Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer to see the inevitable outcome of the necessary rationing of government health care.
Straight from the newspapers
- Labour's secret plan to send overweight children to NHS fat camps
- Laura Donnelly, September 6, 2009 [Telegraph UK] - Burnham Forgets 230,000 on List
- Macer Hall, August 14, 2009 [Daily Express (UK)] - £1.2bn bill for the bureaucrat army within the NHS
- Jenny Hope, August 13, 2009 [Daily Mail (UK)] - Couples Face an IVF Postcode Lottery
- Katherine Fenech, August 6, 2009 [Daily Express (UK)] - Kidney cancer patients denied life-saving drugs by NHS rationing body NICE
- April 29, 2009 [Daily Mail (UK)] - Girl, 3, has heart operation cancelled three times because of bed shortage
- David Rose, April 23, 2009 [Times Online] - Number of children going to hospital to have teeth pulled soars by 66% since 1997
- Daniel Martin and Cher Thornhill, April 12, 2009 [Daily Mail (UK)] - NHS 'failings' over elderly falls
- March 25, 2009 [BBC] - Learning disabled 'failed by NHS'
- Nick Triggle, March 24, 2009 [BBC] - Cancer survivor confronts the health secretary on 62-day wait
- Lyndsay Moss, March 21, 2009 [The Scotsman] - Culture of targets prevents nurses from tending to patients
- Claire Rayner, President of the Patients Association, March 21, 2009 [Telegraph UK] - Children being failed by health system, says head of watchdog
- Sarah Boseley, March 21, 2009 [Guardian Unlimited] - Our cancer shame: Survival rates still lag behind EU despite spending billions
- Jenny Hope, March 20, 2009 [Daily Mail(UK)] - Failing hospital 'caused deaths'
- March 17, 2009 [BBC] - Health gap drive 'wasted money'
- Nick Triggle, March 14, 2009 [BBC] - Longer GP opening hours branded wasteful 'PR exercise' by doctors
- Lyndsay Moss, March 13, 2009 [The Scotsman] - "Political meddling" threatens general practice, warns GP leader
- March 13, 2009 [Management in Practice (UK)] - Children at risk through lack of training for doctors and nurses, report warns
- Rebecca Smith, March 13, 2009 [Telegraph UK] - Chocolate should be taxed to control obesity epidemic, doctors are told
- Simon Johnson, March 13, 2009 [Telegraph UK] - 1,000 villagers wait for a dentist after just one NHS practice opens
- March 10, 2009 [Daily Mail(UK)] - Study that proves the folly of NHS Alzheimer's drug ban
- Jenny Hope, March 7, 2009 [Daily Mail(UK)] - NHS charges to rise in England
- March 5, 2009 [BBC] - Disabled children wait up to two years for wheelchairs
- March 4, 2009 [Guardian Unlimited] - NHS under fire over waiting times
- February 25, 2009 [The Scotsman] - Government procrastination blamed for HIV-contaminated blood tragedy
- February 23, 2009 [Guardian Unlimited] - Specialist nurses 'vastly overworked'
- February 20, 2009 [Harwich & Manningtree Standard] - Hundreds of operations cancelled at Lothian hospitals
- Adam Morris, February 19, 2009 [The Scotsman] - Stop asking for antibiotics to cure coughs and colds, Government tells patients
- Daniel Martin, February 17, 2009 [Daily Mail(UK)] - Stroke services are 'UK's worst'
- February 17, 2009 [BBC] - Hospitals curb caesarean births
- Sarah-Kate Templeton, February 15, 2009 [The Times] - Only five out of 51 hospital trusts pass hygiene test, say inspectors
- Sarah Boseley, November 24, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited] - Top doctors slam NHS drug rationing
- Sarah-Kate Templeton, August 24, 2008 [The Times] - Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report
- Sarah Boseley, June 8, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited] - NHS dentistry loses almost a million patients after new dentists' contract
- David Rose, June 6, 2008 [The Times] - Private healthcare managers could be sent to turn round failing NHS hospitals
- Philip Webster, Political Editor, and David Rose, June 4, 2008 [The Times] - Cancer patients betrayed by NHS
- Sarah-Kate Templeton, June 1, 2008 [The Times] - NHS scandal: dying cancer victim was forced to pay
- Sarah-Kate Templeton, June 1, 2008 [The Times] - Pensioner, 76, forced to pull out own teeth after 12 NHS dentists refuse to treat her
- Olinka Koster, March 26, 2008 [Daily Mail(UK)] - Dental patients face care lottery
- March 26, 2008 [Metro(UK)] - Lung patients 'condemned to death as NHS withdraws their too expensive drugs'
- Jenny Hope, March 24, 2008 [Daily Mail(UK)] - Women in labour turned away by maternity units
- John Carvel, March 21, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited] - Health inequality has got worse under Labour, says government report
- Andrew Sparrow, March 13, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited] - Angry GPs reluctantly accept plan for weekend and evening surgeries
- John Carvel, March 7, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited] - NHS chiefs tell grandmother, 61, she's 'too old' for £5,000 life-saving heart surgery
- Chris Brooke, February 28, 2008 [Daily Mail(UK)] - Patient 'removed' from waiting list to meet target
- January 31, 2008 [The Scotsman] - NHS patients told to treat themselves
- James Kirkup, January 4, 2008 [Telegraph UK] - NHS is 'failing patients' despite record funding
- Rebecca Smith, October 4, 2007 [Telegraph UK] - NHS rationing rife, say doctors
- September 24, 2007 [BBC] - One in eight patients waiting over a year for treatment, admits minister
- John Carvel, June 8, 2007 [Guardian Unlimited] - Audit Office asked to investigate record £500m NHS underspend
- John Carvel, May 30, 2007 [Guardian Unlimited] - The drugs the NHS won't give you
- May 11, 2007 [Telegraph UK] - UK lagging behind on cancer drug access, study finds
- May 10, 2007 [Guardian Unlimited] - One in six trusts is still putting patients on mixed-sex wards
- Daniel Martin, May 10, 2007 [Daily Mail(UK)] - Specialist stroke care 'lottery'
- May 9, 2007 [BBC News] - Smokers and the obese banned from UK hospitals
- May 2, 2007 [Healthcare News] - Cancer patients told life-prolonging treatment is too expensive for NHS
- Lyndsay Moss, February 13, 2007 [The Scotsman] - UK health service "harms 10 percent of patients"
- Kate Kelland, July 7, 2006 [Reuters] - 5,000 elderly 'killed each year' by lack of care beds
- June 26, 2006 [Telegraph UK] - Dental Socialism in Britain
- Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., May 9, 2006 [LewRockwell.com] - Pay for nurses and surgeons doubles NHS overspend
- Beezy Marsh, Patrick Hennessy and Nina Goswami, April 23, 2006 [Telegraph UK] - The money addicts: it's your cash they are gambling with
- Patience Wheatcroft, April 23, 2006 [Telegraph UK] - NHS chiefs get luxury car deals
- Daniel Foggo and Steven Swinford, April 9, 2006 [The Times] - Secret NHS plan to ration patient care
- Nigel Hawkes, April 7, 2006 [The Times] - British Healthcare To Be Rationed
- April 7, 2006 [United Press International] - British body rejects EPO drugs for cancer patients
- March 17, 2006 [Reuters] - National Health Service - Grappling with Deficits
- March 9, 2006 [Economist.com] - Hundreds wait to register as another dentist quits the NHS
- Martin Williams, September 23, 2005 [The Herald (Scotland)] - Life-saving cancer drugs 'kept from NHS patients by red tape'
- Sam Lister, September 20, 2005 [The Times] - NHS slides into the red despite record increases in health care spending
- September 20, 2005 [Telegraph UK] - Alzheimer's sufferers hit by further delay in NHS approval for vital drugs
- Michael Day, September 18, 2005 [Telegraph UK] - We all pay a price for our 'free' NHS
- John Smith, August 19, 2005 [The Scotsman] - 2,000 British doctors out of work
- August 14, 2005 [The Washington Times] - UK health 'unsustainable'
- August 14, 2005 [Finance24] - NHS faces rising bill for negligence claims
- Ben Hall, August 8, 2005 [Financial Times] - British boy to go to India for operation
- August 5, 2005 [United Press International] - NHS failed to stop doctor raping scores of women
- Lois Rogers and Jonathon Carr-Brown, July 31, 2005 [The Times] - Top crimewriter funds drugs for cancer victim refused by NHS
- Martyn Halle, July 8, 2005 [Telegraph UK] - Report says NHS is mired in huge debts
- David Simms, June 25, 2005 [ABC Money (UK)] - U.K. set to restrict smoking
- June 21, 2005 [The Associated Press] - NHS fund bias against men may cost 2,500 lives a year
- Sarah-Kate Templeton, June 19, 2005 [The Times] - Doubts on funding NHS 'monuments'
- Nicholas Timmins, June 10, 2005 [Financial Times] - 17 million reasons why we must improve hospital meals
- June 7, 2005 [Cambridge Evening News] - Figures show more patients waiting for operations
- June 3, 2005 [Guardian UK] - Scarcity of NHS dental treatment is revealed
- Celia Hall, May 19, 2005 [telegraph.co.uk] - Why NHS Opposes 'Treatment by Demand' for the Dying
- Stephen Howard and Jan Colley, PA, May 18, 2005 [Scotsman] - 800 queue for NHS dentists
- May 5, 2005 [telegraph.co.uk] - Hundreds more heroin addicts to be given a fix on the NHS
- Nic Fleming, April 25, 2005 [telegraph.co.uk] - British health service facing nurse exodus
- April 25, 2005 [United Press International] - About 400 patients a year in Scotland succumb to MRSA
- April 25, 2005 [Scotsman] - NHS debts soar to over £1bn
- Karyn Miller, April 24, 2005 [telegraph.co.uk] - British taxpayers foot $26.5 million bill for abortion tourists
- April 18, 2005 [Catholic World News] - U.K. Liberal Democrats Would Raise Taxes to Pay for Health Care
- Reed Landberg, April 14, 2005 [Bloomberg] - Number of NHS Bureaucrats 'Rising Faster Than Health Staff'
- Joe Churcher, March 22, 2005 [Scotsman] - '£500m hole' in hospital budgets
- Celia Hall, March 21, 2005 [telegraph.co.uk] - 1,000 Scots desert NHS every week
- Murdo Macleod, March 5, 2005 [Scotsman] - British NHS facing financial crisis
- March 3, 2005 [Washington Times] - NHS drugs regulator to withdraw approval of Alzheimer's treatment
- Nicholas Timmins, March 2, 2005 [FT.com - Financial Times] - NHS waiting list rises
- February 11, 2005 [Guardian UK] - Tumour patients hit by NHS shortages
- Jo Revill, February 6, 2005 [Guardian UK] - NHS financial crises set to outlast winter
- Mike Waites, February 4, 2005 [Yorkshire Post] - NHS 24 'priority' callers wait four hours for advice
- Caroline Wilson, January 14, 2005 [Evening Times (UK)] - 'No strategy' on NHS waiting time
- January 14, 2005 [BBC] - Output figures show NHS decline
- John Carvel, October 19, 2004 [Guardian UK] - Heart patients die on waiting lists
- Peter Sharples, October 18, 2004 [Manchester Online] - £25bn overspend feared for NHS computer network
- Karen Attwood, October 12, 2004 [telegraph.co.uk] - Gaps in care cost £7bn, says charity
- John Carvel, October 4, 2004 [Guardian UK] - NHS excluding poor people, UK
- September 15, 2004 [Medical News Today] - Smokers 'should not get NHS care'
- September 6, 2004 [BBC News] - Waiting list row blights Brighton
- John Carvel, September 4, 2004 [Guardian UK] - Patients are denied the last rites under data protection law
- Elizabeth Day, July 25, 2004 [telegraph.co.uk] - Shortage of dentists to double by 2011
- John Carvel, July 24, 2004 [Guardian UK] - Britain's stiff upper lip gives way to a snarl
- Sarah Lyall, July 18, 2004 [The New York Times] - Hospital Overcrowding A Cause of Superbug Infections
- John von Radowitz, July 1, 2004 [Scotsman.com] - Hospital Crisis: Fallen Angels
- Lindsay Mcgarvie, May 23, 2004 [Glasgow Sunday Mail] - Study finds British hospitals are still austere, cold, smelly and poorly maintained
- May 6, 2004 [News-Medical.net] - Hospital bathrooms and showers: a continuing saga of inadequacy
- Andy Monro, MRCP & Graham P Mulley, DM, FRCP, May 2004 [Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine] - Majority back public smoking ban
- March 24, 2004 [BBC] - Discrimination Rampant In British Health Care
- Peter Moore, November 17, 2003 [365gay.com] - PERIPATETICSTo the Medical Socialists of All Parties
- Sheldon Richman, September 2003 [FEE.org] - Creeping Privatization?
Shortages of skilled workers, low morale, long queues for services, crumbling facilities and corrupt practises. - Roland Watson, August 6, 2001 [LewRockwell.com] - The World's Worst HMO
- Stephen D. Moore, November 24, 1999 [Random Thoughts] - Socialized Medicine in Great Britain: Lessons for the Oregon Health Plan
- Professor John Spiers, March 18, 1999 [Cascade Policy Institute] - The Sickbed Which is Socialized British Medicine
- December 23, 1997 [NCPA] - The British Way of Withholding Care
- Harry Schwarz, March 1989 [FEE.org]
Other European Countries
[Top]
- Only six potency pills per month to be covered by Social Insurance Institution
- August 13, 2004 [Helsingin Sanomat] - Hospitals on the verge of a breakdown
Switzerlands hospitals may be the envy of the world, but rising health costs and patient numbers are increasingly putting the system under strain. - July 24, 2003 [swissinfo.org] - Sweden Edges Toward Free-Market Medicine
- A. Wess Mitchell, August 31, 2001 [NCPA] - Netherlands aims to tackle health divide
Socioeconomic inequalities remain similar to those in the United Kingdom and Scandinavian countries, despite a sustained effort over 20 years. - Tony Sheldon, October 13, 2001 [British Medical Journal] - A Hard Lesson About Socialized Medicine
Europeans are now learning some hard facts of life about socialized medicine: there's no such thing as a free lunch.- September 23, 1996 [CATO] - Paying The Price For Drugs In Europe
Whether they admit it or not, those who advocate 'making drugs more affordable for American seniors' are actually headed down a slippery slope to price controls, free-market analysts charge.- Stephen D. Moore, July 21, 2000 [NCPA]
Canada
[Top]Parliament unanimously passed the Canada Health Act in 1984 and established a single-payer, publicly-financed health care system. To ensure a true government monopoly (is there any other kind?) Canadian provinces outlawed private health insurance.
Chaoulli v. Quebec UPDATE (June 9, 2005): In a 4 to 3 decision, the Canadian Supreme Court struck down Quebec's law that prohibits private medical insurance.
- Surgery postponed indefinitely for 1,000 Kelowna patients
- Cathryn Atkinson, April 8, 2008 [Globe and Mail] - Majority of Que. dentists quit health-care system
- March 27, 2008 [CTV.ca] - Why Ontario keeps sending patients south
- Lisa Priest, February 22, 2008 [Globe and Mail] - Will Socialized Health Care in the US Kill Canadians?
- Don Surber, March 3, 2008 [Acton Institute] - Wait times for surgery, medical treatments at all-time high: report
- October 15, 2007 [CBC News (Canada)] - The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care
- David Gratzer, Summer 2007 [City Journal] - Cancer patients question why PET scan not covered
- May 28, 2007 [CBC News] - BC Medical Association: Waiting Too Long for Hip and Knee Surgery Costs $10,000 Per Patient-Maximum Wait Times Should Be No Longer Than 6 Months
- June 28, 2006 [CCN Matthews] - Ont. physician turns away patient for being 55+
- March 17, 2006 [CTV.ca] - Canada inches toward private medicine
- Rebecca Cook Dube, August 8, 2005 [CS Monitor] - Doctor defends private cancer clinic
- Gillian Livingston, July 15, 2005 [Canadian Press] - Dogma trumps truth in health-care issues
- DArcy Jenish, July 7, 2005 [Ontario Business News] - Why Canadians Purchase Private Health Insurance
- Walter Williams, June 20, 2005 [Capitalism Magazine] - Doctor welcomes health ruling
- June 9, 2005 [CBC Montreal] - Patients shouldn't wait more than 8 weeks for cardiac defibrillator: experts
- May 24, 2005 [Canadian Press] - Grads fail to slow doctor shortage
- Jennifer O'Brien, May 21, 2005 [London Free Press] - Free Canadian health care comes at cost
- April 10, 2005 [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette] - Canada's drug tab reaches $22 billion, report suggests
- Sheryl Ubelacker, CP, April 6, 2005 [London Free Press] - Canadian health care is free and first-class -- if you can wait
- Beth Duff-Brown, March 19, 2005 [The Associated Press] - Pediatricians, parents warn of shortage of community-based care for children
- Colin Perkel, March 4, 2005 [The Canadian Press] - Access to specialists difficult: study
- February 16, 2005 [CBC Calgary] - Doctor shortages, frustrations vary from region to region, survey shows
- February 15, 2005 [Canada.com] - Montreal leads the country in offering private health care
- Aaron Derfel, February 12, 2005 [Montreal Gazette] - Canada falling short on medical imaging
- February 9, 2005 [Macleans.ca] - Creative incentives required to retain older doctors
- Dr. Charles Shaver, January 20, 2005 [Toronto Star] - MRI gap defies cash fix
- Mark Kennedy, January 14, 2005 [National Post (Canada)] - A boy's plight, a nation's problem
- Lisa Priest, January 13, 2005 [The Globe and Mail] - Where's proof private clinics cost more?
- Tom Brodbeck, December 4, 2004 [The Winnipeg Sun] - Surgery backlog tops 5,500 at kids' hospitals; One-year waits common
- Aaron Derfel, December 3, 2004 [The Gazette (Montreal)] - Hospital wait lists to get worse, Carriere says
- Chris Traber, November 14, 2004 [Yorkregion.com] - Frustrated patients can't handle ER waits
- Jennifer Stewart and Jeffrey Simpson, October 28, 2004 [The Halifax Herald Limited] - Private medical clinic opens in Montreal
...it answers, "an ever-increasing demand from the public for greater accessibility and quality of health services." - October 13, 2004 [CTV.ca] - Canadians have higher death risk than Americans after heart attack: study
- Sheryl Ubelacker, September 20, 2004 [Canada.com] - Canadian medical tourists in India
- Jeremy Copeland, September 20, 2004 [CBC News] - Doctor shortage cripples Canada's free health care
- Clifford Krauss, September 18, 2004 [Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune] - Canada's Once-Proud Public Health System in Crisis
- David Ljunggren, September 14, 2004 [Reuters (Ottawa)] - Hospitals to cut, again
- September 5, 2004 [Toronto Star] - Canada's Medical Nightmare
- Robert J. Cihak, M.D., September 1, 2004 [Health Care News] - Canada faces shortage of doctors
- August 19, 2004 [MSNBC] - Canadians losing faith in health system: poll
- August 16, 2004 [CTV.ca] - Ontario hospitals a health risk
- Michael Hurley, August 8, 2004 [Toronto Star] - Need surgery? Here's how long you'll wait
"It's inhuman. The quality of my life is horrible and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it." - Jason Fekete, July 28, 2004 [Calgary Herald] - Docs, nurses fed up
Canadian doctors and nurses are fed up with inter-governmental "bickering" that is dragging out wait times and causing more pain and suffering for patients. - July 28, 2004 [Winnipeg Sun] - Free Health Care?
...in some cases, patients die on the waiting list because they become too sick to tolerate a procedure. - Walter E. Williams, July 24, 2004 [CATO] - The truth about Canada's ailing health-care system
All the major candidates in Canada's recent national election acknowledged that the country's health-care system is failing Canadians. - Robert J. Cihak, July 13, 2004 [The Seattle Times] - Health-care crisis looms, even with new money
Canada's health-care system is "five to 10 years" from the breaking point -- even with cash injections from government, says the new president of the B.C. Medical Association. - Doug Alexander, July 5, 2004 [Vancouver Sun] - Emergency room delays a strong campaign factor
"Go into the emergency room it is the most pitiful piece of work you ever seen in your life." - David Bruser, June 22, 2004 [Toronto Star] - Canadian Health Care in Crisis
Analyst visits NC to describe how single-payer health care really works in practice. - Donna Martinez, June 17, 2004 [Carolina Journal] - Quebec cancer patients sue over wait
Women waited months for radiation; lawsuit could cost system $50-million. - Ingrid Peritz, March 11, 2004 [The Globe and Mail] - Health care: no waiting lists
'You get knee surgery within two days ... try and get that in human hospitals.' Canada's [private] pet health-insurance industry is projected to grow at roughly 50 per cent a year... - Robert Scalia, November 30, 2003 [Montreal Gazette] - For some, surgery abroad a welcome answer
- Daniel Girard, November 29, 2003 [Toronto Star] - Canadian Doctors Eyeing United States
- Clifford Krauss, October 17, 2003 [The New York Times] - The Top Ten Things People Believe About Canadian Health Care, But Shouldnt
- Brian Lee Crowley, October 9, 2003 [Mackinac Center for Public Policy] - Canadians' health at risk, CMA says
- Valerie Lawton, September 26, 2003 [Toronto Star] - Burnout is now doctors' ailment
Almost half of Canadian doctors say they're burned out, emotionally exhausted and blame medicine for putting a drain on their family life. - Karen Palmer, August 20, 2003 [Toronto Star] - New MRI clinic in row over poaching
While she insists she's not making any money off the venture, she says it provides an income allowance for her and her husband, the other principal in the company. - Theresa Boyle and Robert Benzie, July 28, 2003 [Toronto Star] - Price Controls and Overall Drug Spending
The Canadian system, however, tends to push up overall spending on prescription drugs, despite the low prices for some brand name ones. - John Melby, July 2, 2003 [Buckeye Institute] - Gore Endorses Canada's Medical System
- William L. Anderson, November 29, 2002 [Mises] - How Good is Canadian Health Care?
- August 2002 [Fraser Institute] - Canadian Health-Care System Is No Model for Prescription Drug Reform
- May 1, 2001 [Mackinac Center for Public Policy] - The Ghost of America's Health Care Future Lives in Canada Today
- James Frogue and Robert Moffit, December 25, 2000 [Capitalism Magazine] - Socialized Medicine: The Canadian Experience
Explores several lessons that can be drawn from the Canadian experience with socialized medicine:- Socialized medicine, although of poor quality, is very expensive;
- Political compromise is the result;
- Socialized medicine is both a consequence and a great contributor to the idea that economic conditions should be equalized by coercion. - Pierre Lemieux [The Freeman]
- Canadian Health Care
...if Canadians knew as much as they think they do about the economic and moral workings of Medicare, they might not be as enthusiastic as they are about their cherished right to 'free' health care. - Andrei Kreptul, August 30, 2000 [Mises] - When Patients Become Victims - The Crime of Government-Run Health Care
- Merrill Matthews Jr., Ph.D. and Kerri Houston, May 1, 2000 (PDF format) - Socialized Medicine Leaves a Bad Taste in Patients' Mouths
- Lawrence W. Reed, February 23, 2000 [Mackinac Center for Public Policy] - Canadians Dissatisfied With Socialized Medicine
- January 26, 2000 [NCPA] - Memo to Al Gore: Canadian Medicine Isn't Cheap or Effective
- William McArthur, former chief coroner for British Columbia, January 28, 2000 - Loved to Death: America's Unresolved Health-Care Crisis
As Canada's national government slashes spending on medical care in order to reduce the deficit, local provinces are reducing medical staff. In Ontario, pregnant women are being sent to Detroit because no obstetricians are available. Specialists of all kinds are in short supply. Patients have to wait eight weeks for an MRI, ten weeks for referral to a specialist, and four months for heart bypass surgery. - Michael J. Hurd, November 1997 [Liberty Haven] - Is Canadian Health care a Good Model for the U.S. to Follow?
- Michael Walker, August 1994 [Liberty Haven] - Health of the State (commentary by a cancer survivor)
I tell you this not to alarm you, to elicit sympathy, or to bore you. I tell you because the episode has been, for me, a salutary lesson (just in case I needed one) in why the government should not be allowed anywhere near a syringe, a dressing, a scalpel, an oxygen mask, a tissue sample anything to do with health. - Michigan Shouldn't Copy Canada's Health System
- Lawrence W. Reed, July 29, 1991 [Mackinac Center for Public Policy]
Former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
[Top]
- Russia's Health Care Is Crumbling: Dire Lack of Funds Creates Sick, Dwindling Populace And 'National Emergency'
- Jeanne Whalen, February 13, 2004 [Wall Street Journal] - Capitalism Comes to Russian Health Care
With the "free" government-run health system in Russia in a state of collapse, an increasing amount of health care is being provided by for-profit clinics and hospitals. - Michael Wines, December 22, 2000 [New York Times] - Russia's public health care system is crumbling
- Rob Reynolds, November 13, 1995 [CNN] - Socialized Health-Care Nightmare
In contrast to the impression created by the liberal American media, health-care institutions in Russia were at least fifty years behind the average U.S. level. - Yuri Maltsev and Louise Omdahl, November 1994 [Liberty Haven]
Cuba
[Top]
The Cuban Government has implemented a two-tiered medical system (e.g. "medical apartheid") that caters to foreign tourists while denying native Cubans access to basic medical necessities (at least it is "free" to them). This attempt to draw foreign dollars is one of many programs that were necessary once the Soviet subsidies ended in the early nineties.
- Castro's Diet and Exercise Plan
- Ronald Bailey, September 25, 2007 [Reason] - Castro says still in full control after fall
The Communist dictator received prompt medical care to repair his shattered kneecap. He even used his cell phone from the ambulance. If only his countrymen had similar access to service and "evil" capitalist technology... - Anthony Boadle, October 22, 2004 [Reuters] - La Lucha: The Human Cost of Economic Repression in Cuba
- Patricia Linderman, May 2000 [FEE] - Bad Cuban Medicine
Begging for medicines is common in Havana - next to begging for money to feed children, it is the most common plea... - Larry Solomon, April 15, 2003 [Capitalism Magazine]
New Zealand
[Top]New Zealand's Ministry of Health is the New Zealand "Government's principal agent and advisor on health and disability."
- On the waiting list roller-coaster
- Martin Johnson, March 20, 2008 [The New Zealand Herald] - No charge for trips to emergency department
The figures show most people who arrive at the emergency departments don't need to be there.- Alison Brown, December 17, 2004 [Rotorua Daily Post] - Surgical waiting lists numbers come under twin attacks
- November 15, 2004 [stuff.co.nz] - Hospital Waiting Lists Under Serious Pressure
- October 26, 2004 [Scoop New Zealand News] - Hundreds on waiting list as hospital pleads for help
- August 23, 2004 [The New Zealand Herald] - Private hospitals offer help with waiting lists
- August 12, 2004 [The New Zealand Herald] - Alarm over GP shortage
- July 5, 2004 [The New Zealand Herald] - Hospital urges patients to stay away unless really ill
- March 6, 2004 [The New Zealand Herald]
Australia
[Top]Australia's universal health care scheme is relatively new (introduced in 1983, which built on the 1974 Medibank program). As with all socialized health care systems, there is a mixture of public versus private care (approximately 30% of Australians also retain private health insurance). As a result, the private patients receive better care than their medicare counterparts. The salary caps and artificial increase in demand for care that always occur in a national health care system are resulting in predictable physician shortages.
- Mental patients face bed shortage
- Clara Pirani, July 4, 2005 [News.com.au] - Public patients wait longer for surgery
- June 29, 2005 [The Sydney Morning Herald] - Painful wait for care
- Luke McIlveen, February 17, 2005 [Herald Sun (Australia)] - Hospitals crippled by poor planning
- Ruth Pollard, December 1, 2004 [Sydney Morning Herald] - Operating theatres shut to save cash as thousands wait for surgery
- Nick O'Malley, November 23, 2004 [Sydney Morning Herald] - Private funds creating 'two-tier' health system
- David Uren, November 3, 2004 [The Australian]
londonfog
Well-Known Member
so what you like 23 now..hmmmm son you just a baby...so now 5 years later you see how important it is ???? so you didnt vote for Bush ..nor Kerry but now you Bitch about Obama..hmmmm I'm assuming that you voted for Mccain or did you not vote last election as well
Jack*Herrer420
Well-Known Member
I can cut and paste too.
Great Britain
[Top]Great Britain's National Health Service (NHS) was created on July 5, 1948. As with all government programs, bureaucrats underestimated initial cost projections. First-year operating costs of NHS were 52 million pounds higher than original estimates1 as Britons saturated the so-called free system.
Many decades of shortages, misery and suffering followed until 1989, when some market-based health care competition was reintroduced to the British citizens2.
Unfortunately for those requiring care, a mostly socialist health care system has problems. The articles and commentaries in this section identify some disasters caused by government intervention in the British health care system.
I also recommend reading David G. Green and Laura Casper's economic report, Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer to see the inevitable outcome of the necessary rationing of government health care.
Straight from the newspapers
Other European Countries
[Top]
Canada
[Top]Parliament unanimously passed the Canada Health Act in 1984 and established a single-payer, publicly-financed health care system. To ensure a true government monopoly (is there any other kind?) Canadian provinces outlawed private health insurance.
Chaoulli v. Quebec UPDATE (June 9, 2005): In a 4 to 3 decision, the Canadian Supreme Court struck down Quebec's law that prohibits private medical insurance.
Former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
[Top]
Cuba
[Top]
The Cuban Government has implemented a two-tiered medical system (e.g. "medical apartheid") that caters to foreign tourists while denying native Cubans access to basic medical necessities (at least it is "free" to them). This attempt to draw foreign dollars is one of many programs that were necessary once the Soviet subsidies ended in the early nineties.
New Zealand
[Top]New Zealand's Ministry of Health is the New Zealand "Government's principal agent and advisor on health and disability."
Australia
[Top]Australia's universal health care scheme is relatively new (introduced in 1983, which built on the 1974 Medibank program). As with all socialized health care systems, there is a mixture of public versus private care (approximately 30% of Australians also retain private health insurance). As a result, the private patients receive better care than their medicare counterparts. The salary caps and artificial increase in demand for care that always occur in a national health care system are resulting in predictable physician shortages.
Great Britain
[Top]Great Britain's National Health Service (NHS) was created on July 5, 1948. As with all government programs, bureaucrats underestimated initial cost projections. First-year operating costs of NHS were 52 million pounds higher than original estimates1 as Britons saturated the so-called free system.
Many decades of shortages, misery and suffering followed until 1989, when some market-based health care competition was reintroduced to the British citizens2.
Unfortunately for those requiring care, a mostly socialist health care system has problems. The articles and commentaries in this section identify some disasters caused by government intervention in the British health care system.
I also recommend reading David G. Green and Laura Casper's economic report, Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer to see the inevitable outcome of the necessary rationing of government health care.
Straight from the newspapers
- Labour's secret plan to send overweight children to NHS fat camps
- Laura Donnelly, September 6, 2009 [Telegraph UK] - Burnham Forgets 230,000 on List
- Macer Hall, August 14, 2009 [Daily Express (UK)] - £1.2bn bill for the bureaucrat army within the NHS
- Jenny Hope, August 13, 2009 [Daily Mail (UK)] - Couples Face an IVF Postcode Lottery
- Katherine Fenech, August 6, 2009 [Daily Express (UK)] - Kidney cancer patients denied life-saving drugs by NHS rationing body NICE
- April 29, 2009 [Daily Mail (UK)] - Girl, 3, has heart operation cancelled three times because of bed shortage
- David Rose, April 23, 2009 [Times Online] - Number of children going to hospital to have teeth pulled soars by 66% since 1997
- Daniel Martin and Cher Thornhill, April 12, 2009 [Daily Mail (UK)] - NHS 'failings' over elderly falls
- March 25, 2009 [BBC] - Learning disabled 'failed by NHS'
- Nick Triggle, March 24, 2009 [BBC] - Cancer survivor confronts the health secretary on 62-day wait
- Lyndsay Moss, March 21, 2009 [The Scotsman] - Culture of targets prevents nurses from tending to patients
- Claire Rayner, President of the Patients Association, March 21, 2009 [Telegraph UK] - Children being failed by health system, says head of watchdog
- Sarah Boseley, March 21, 2009 [Guardian Unlimited] - Our cancer shame: Survival rates still lag behind EU despite spending billions
- Jenny Hope, March 20, 2009 [Daily Mail(UK)] - Failing hospital 'caused deaths'
- March 17, 2009 [BBC] - Health gap drive 'wasted money'
- Nick Triggle, March 14, 2009 [BBC] - Longer GP opening hours branded wasteful 'PR exercise' by doctors
- Lyndsay Moss, March 13, 2009 [The Scotsman] - "Political meddling" threatens general practice, warns GP leader
- March 13, 2009 [Management in Practice (UK)] - Children at risk through lack of training for doctors and nurses, report warns
- Rebecca Smith, March 13, 2009 [Telegraph UK] - Chocolate should be taxed to control obesity epidemic, doctors are told
- Simon Johnson, March 13, 2009 [Telegraph UK] - 1,000 villagers wait for a dentist after just one NHS practice opens
- March 10, 2009 [Daily Mail(UK)] - Study that proves the folly of NHS Alzheimer's drug ban
- Jenny Hope, March 7, 2009 [Daily Mail(UK)] - NHS charges to rise in England
- March 5, 2009 [BBC] - Disabled children wait up to two years for wheelchairs
- March 4, 2009 [Guardian Unlimited] - NHS under fire over waiting times
- February 25, 2009 [The Scotsman] - Government procrastination blamed for HIV-contaminated blood tragedy
- February 23, 2009 [Guardian Unlimited] - Specialist nurses 'vastly overworked'
- February 20, 2009 [Harwich & Manningtree Standard] - Hundreds of operations cancelled at Lothian hospitals
- Adam Morris, February 19, 2009 [The Scotsman] - Stop asking for antibiotics to cure coughs and colds, Government tells patients
- Daniel Martin, February 17, 2009 [Daily Mail(UK)] - Stroke services are 'UK's worst'
- February 17, 2009 [BBC] - Hospitals curb caesarean births
- Sarah-Kate Templeton, February 15, 2009 [The Times] - Only five out of 51 hospital trusts pass hygiene test, say inspectors
- Sarah Boseley, November 24, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited] - Top doctors slam NHS drug rationing
- Sarah-Kate Templeton, August 24, 2008 [The Times] - Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report
- Sarah Boseley, June 8, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited] - NHS dentistry loses almost a million patients after new dentists' contract
- David Rose, June 6, 2008 [The Times] - Private healthcare managers could be sent to turn round failing NHS hospitals
- Philip Webster, Political Editor, and David Rose, June 4, 2008 [The Times] - Cancer patients betrayed by NHS
- Sarah-Kate Templeton, June 1, 2008 [The Times] - NHS scandal: dying cancer victim was forced to pay
- Sarah-Kate Templeton, June 1, 2008 [The Times] - Pensioner, 76, forced to pull out own teeth after 12 NHS dentists refuse to treat her
- Olinka Koster, March 26, 2008 [Daily Mail(UK)] - Dental patients face care lottery
- March 26, 2008 [Metro(UK)] - Lung patients 'condemned to death as NHS withdraws their too expensive drugs'
- Jenny Hope, March 24, 2008 [Daily Mail(UK)] - Women in labour turned away by maternity units
- John Carvel, March 21, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited] - Health inequality has got worse under Labour, says government report
- Andrew Sparrow, March 13, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited] - Angry GPs reluctantly accept plan for weekend and evening surgeries
- John Carvel, March 7, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited] - NHS chiefs tell grandmother, 61, she's 'too old' for £5,000 life-saving heart surgery
- Chris Brooke, February 28, 2008 [Daily Mail(UK)] - Patient 'removed' from waiting list to meet target
- January 31, 2008 [The Scotsman] - NHS patients told to treat themselves
- James Kirkup, January 4, 2008 [Telegraph UK] - NHS is 'failing patients' despite record funding
- Rebecca Smith, October 4, 2007 [Telegraph UK] - NHS rationing rife, say doctors
- September 24, 2007 [BBC] - One in eight patients waiting over a year for treatment, admits minister
- John Carvel, June 8, 2007 [Guardian Unlimited] - Audit Office asked to investigate record £500m NHS underspend
- John Carvel, May 30, 2007 [Guardian Unlimited] - The drugs the NHS won't give you
- May 11, 2007 [Telegraph UK] - UK lagging behind on cancer drug access, study finds
- May 10, 2007 [Guardian Unlimited] - One in six trusts is still putting patients on mixed-sex wards
- Daniel Martin, May 10, 2007 [Daily Mail(UK)] - Specialist stroke care 'lottery'
- May 9, 2007 [BBC News] - Smokers and the obese banned from UK hospitals
- May 2, 2007 [Healthcare News] - Cancer patients told life-prolonging treatment is too expensive for NHS
- Lyndsay Moss, February 13, 2007 [The Scotsman] - UK health service "harms 10 percent of patients"
- Kate Kelland, July 7, 2006 [Reuters] - 5,000 elderly 'killed each year' by lack of care beds
- June 26, 2006 [Telegraph UK] - Dental Socialism in Britain
- Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., May 9, 2006 [LewRockwell.com] - Pay for nurses and surgeons doubles NHS overspend
- Beezy Marsh, Patrick Hennessy and Nina Goswami, April 23, 2006 [Telegraph UK] - The money addicts: it's your cash they are gambling with
- Patience Wheatcroft, April 23, 2006 [Telegraph UK] - NHS chiefs get luxury car deals
- Daniel Foggo and Steven Swinford, April 9, 2006 [The Times] - Secret NHS plan to ration patient care
- Nigel Hawkes, April 7, 2006 [The Times] - British Healthcare To Be Rationed
- April 7, 2006 [United Press International] - British body rejects EPO drugs for cancer patients
- March 17, 2006 [Reuters] - National Health Service - Grappling with Deficits
- March 9, 2006 [Economist.com] - Hundreds wait to register as another dentist quits the NHS
- Martin Williams, September 23, 2005 [The Herald (Scotland)] - Life-saving cancer drugs 'kept from NHS patients by red tape'
- Sam Lister, September 20, 2005 [The Times] - NHS slides into the red despite record increases in health care spending
- September 20, 2005 [Telegraph UK] - Alzheimer's sufferers hit by further delay in NHS approval for vital drugs
- Michael Day, September 18, 2005 [Telegraph UK] - We all pay a price for our 'free' NHS
- John Smith, August 19, 2005 [The Scotsman] - 2,000 British doctors out of work
- August 14, 2005 [The Washington Times] - UK health 'unsustainable'
- August 14, 2005 [Finance24] - NHS faces rising bill for negligence claims
- Ben Hall, August 8, 2005 [Financial Times] - British boy to go to India for operation
- August 5, 2005 [United Press International] - NHS failed to stop doctor raping scores of women
- Lois Rogers and Jonathon Carr-Brown, July 31, 2005 [The Times] - Top crimewriter funds drugs for cancer victim refused by NHS
- Martyn Halle, July 8, 2005 [Telegraph UK] - Report says NHS is mired in huge debts
- David Simms, June 25, 2005 [ABC Money (UK)] - U.K. set to restrict smoking
- June 21, 2005 [The Associated Press] - NHS fund bias against men may cost 2,500 lives a year
- Sarah-Kate Templeton, June 19, 2005 [The Times] - Doubts on funding NHS 'monuments'
- Nicholas Timmins, June 10, 2005 [Financial Times] - 17 million reasons why we must improve hospital meals
- June 7, 2005 [Cambridge Evening News] - Figures show more patients waiting for operations
- June 3, 2005 [Guardian UK] - Scarcity of NHS dental treatment is revealed
- Celia Hall, May 19, 2005 [telegraph.co.uk] - Why NHS Opposes 'Treatment by Demand' for the Dying
- Stephen Howard and Jan Colley, PA, May 18, 2005 [Scotsman] - 800 queue for NHS dentists
- May 5, 2005 [telegraph.co.uk] - Hundreds more heroin addicts to be given a fix on the NHS
- Nic Fleming, April 25, 2005 [telegraph.co.uk] - British health service facing nurse exodus
- April 25, 2005 [United Press International] - About 400 patients a year in Scotland succumb to MRSA
- April 25, 2005 [Scotsman] - NHS debts soar to over £1bn
- Karyn Miller, April 24, 2005 [telegraph.co.uk] - British taxpayers foot $26.5 million bill for abortion tourists
- April 18, 2005 [Catholic World News] - U.K. Liberal Democrats Would Raise Taxes to Pay for Health Care
- Reed Landberg, April 14, 2005 [Bloomberg] - Number of NHS Bureaucrats 'Rising Faster Than Health Staff'
- Joe Churcher, March 22, 2005 [Scotsman] - '£500m hole' in hospital budgets
- Celia Hall, March 21, 2005 [telegraph.co.uk] - 1,000 Scots desert NHS every week
- Murdo Macleod, March 5, 2005 [Scotsman] - British NHS facing financial crisis
- March 3, 2005 [Washington Times] - NHS drugs regulator to withdraw approval of Alzheimer's treatment
- Nicholas Timmins, March 2, 2005 [FT.com - Financial Times] - NHS waiting list rises
- February 11, 2005 [Guardian UK] - Tumour patients hit by NHS shortages
- Jo Revill, February 6, 2005 [Guardian UK] - NHS financial crises set to outlast winter
- Mike Waites, February 4, 2005 [Yorkshire Post] - NHS 24 'priority' callers wait four hours for advice
- Caroline Wilson, January 14, 2005 [Evening Times (UK)] - 'No strategy' on NHS waiting time
- January 14, 2005 [BBC] - Output figures show NHS decline
- John Carvel, October 19, 2004 [Guardian UK] - Heart patients die on waiting lists
- Peter Sharples, October 18, 2004 [Manchester Online] - £25bn overspend feared for NHS computer network
- Karen Attwood, October 12, 2004 [telegraph.co.uk] - Gaps in care cost £7bn, says charity
- John Carvel, October 4, 2004 [Guardian UK] - NHS excluding poor people, UK
- September 15, 2004 [Medical News Today] - Smokers 'should not get NHS care'
- September 6, 2004 [BBC News] - Waiting list row blights Brighton
- John Carvel, September 4, 2004 [Guardian UK] - Patients are denied the last rites under data protection law
- Elizabeth Day, July 25, 2004 [telegraph.co.uk] - Shortage of dentists to double by 2011
- John Carvel, July 24, 2004 [Guardian UK] - Britain's stiff upper lip gives way to a snarl
- Sarah Lyall, July 18, 2004 [The New York Times] - Hospital Overcrowding A Cause of Superbug Infections
- John von Radowitz, July 1, 2004 [Scotsman.com] - Hospital Crisis: Fallen Angels
- Lindsay Mcgarvie, May 23, 2004 [Glasgow Sunday Mail] - Study finds British hospitals are still austere, cold, smelly and poorly maintained
- May 6, 2004 [News-Medical.net] - Hospital bathrooms and showers: a continuing saga of inadequacy
- Andy Monro, MRCP & Graham P Mulley, DM, FRCP, May 2004 [Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine] - Majority back public smoking ban
- March 24, 2004 [BBC] - Discrimination Rampant In British Health Care
- Peter Moore, November 17, 2003 [365gay.com] - PERIPATETICSTo the Medical Socialists of All Parties
- Sheldon Richman, September 2003 [FEE.org] - Creeping Privatization?
Shortages of skilled workers, low morale, long queues for services, crumbling facilities and corrupt practises. - Roland Watson, August 6, 2001 [LewRockwell.com] - The World's Worst HMO
- Stephen D. Moore, November 24, 1999 [Random Thoughts] - Socialized Medicine in Great Britain: Lessons for the Oregon Health Plan
- Professor John Spiers, March 18, 1999 [Cascade Policy Institute] - The Sickbed Which is Socialized British Medicine
- December 23, 1997 [NCPA] - The British Way of Withholding Care
- Harry Schwarz, March 1989 [FEE.org]
Other European Countries
[Top]
- Only six potency pills per month to be covered by Social Insurance Institution
- August 13, 2004 [Helsingin Sanomat] - Hospitals on the verge of a breakdown
Switzerlands hospitals may be the envy of the world, but rising health costs and patient numbers are increasingly putting the system under strain. - July 24, 2003 [swissinfo.org] - Sweden Edges Toward Free-Market Medicine
- A. Wess Mitchell, August 31, 2001 [NCPA] - Netherlands aims to tackle health divide
Socioeconomic inequalities remain similar to those in the United Kingdom and Scandinavian countries, despite a sustained effort over 20 years. - Tony Sheldon, October 13, 2001 [British Medical Journal] - A Hard Lesson About Socialized Medicine
Europeans are now learning some hard facts of life about socialized medicine: there's no such thing as a free lunch.- September 23, 1996 [CATO] - Paying The Price For Drugs In Europe
Whether they admit it or not, those who advocate 'making drugs more affordable for American seniors' are actually headed down a slippery slope to price controls, free-market analysts charge.- Stephen D. Moore, July 21, 2000 [NCPA]
Canada
[Top]Parliament unanimously passed the Canada Health Act in 1984 and established a single-payer, publicly-financed health care system. To ensure a true government monopoly (is there any other kind?) Canadian provinces outlawed private health insurance.
Chaoulli v. Quebec UPDATE (June 9, 2005): In a 4 to 3 decision, the Canadian Supreme Court struck down Quebec's law that prohibits private medical insurance.
- Surgery postponed indefinitely for 1,000 Kelowna patients
- Cathryn Atkinson, April 8, 2008 [Globe and Mail] - Majority of Que. dentists quit health-care system
- March 27, 2008 [CTV.ca] - Why Ontario keeps sending patients south
- Lisa Priest, February 22, 2008 [Globe and Mail] - Will Socialized Health Care in the US Kill Canadians?
- Don Surber, March 3, 2008 [Acton Institute] - Wait times for surgery, medical treatments at all-time high: report
- October 15, 2007 [CBC News (Canada)] - The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care
- David Gratzer, Summer 2007 [City Journal] - Cancer patients question why PET scan not covered
- May 28, 2007 [CBC News] - BC Medical Association: Waiting Too Long for Hip and Knee Surgery Costs $10,000 Per Patient-Maximum Wait Times Should Be No Longer Than 6 Months
- June 28, 2006 [CCN Matthews] - Ont. physician turns away patient for being 55+
- March 17, 2006 [CTV.ca] - Canada inches toward private medicine
- Rebecca Cook Dube, August 8, 2005 [CS Monitor] - Doctor defends private cancer clinic
- Gillian Livingston, July 15, 2005 [Canadian Press] - Dogma trumps truth in health-care issues
- DArcy Jenish, July 7, 2005 [Ontario Business News] - Why Canadians Purchase Private Health Insurance
- Walter Williams, June 20, 2005 [Capitalism Magazine] - Doctor welcomes health ruling
- June 9, 2005 [CBC Montreal] - Patients shouldn't wait more than 8 weeks for cardiac defibrillator: experts
- May 24, 2005 [Canadian Press] - Grads fail to slow doctor shortage
- Jennifer O'Brien, May 21, 2005 [London Free Press] - Free Canadian health care comes at cost
- April 10, 2005 [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette] - Canada's drug tab reaches $22 billion, report suggests
- Sheryl Ubelacker, CP, April 6, 2005 [London Free Press] - Canadian health care is free and first-class -- if you can wait
- Beth Duff-Brown, March 19, 2005 [The Associated Press] - Pediatricians, parents warn of shortage of community-based care for children
- Colin Perkel, March 4, 2005 [The Canadian Press] - Access to specialists difficult: study
- February 16, 2005 [CBC Calgary] - Doctor shortages, frustrations vary from region to region, survey shows
- February 15, 2005 [Canada.com] - Montreal leads the country in offering private health care
- Aaron Derfel, February 12, 2005 [Montreal Gazette] - Canada falling short on medical imaging
- February 9, 2005 [Macleans.ca] - Creative incentives required to retain older doctors
- Dr. Charles Shaver, January 20, 2005 [Toronto Star] - MRI gap defies cash fix
- Mark Kennedy, January 14, 2005 [National Post (Canada)] - A boy's plight, a nation's problem
- Lisa Priest, January 13, 2005 [The Globe and Mail] - Where's proof private clinics cost more?
- Tom Brodbeck, December 4, 2004 [The Winnipeg Sun] - Surgery backlog tops 5,500 at kids' hospitals; One-year waits common
- Aaron Derfel, December 3, 2004 [The Gazette (Montreal)] - Hospital wait lists to get worse, Carriere says
- Chris Traber, November 14, 2004 [Yorkregion.com] - Frustrated patients can't handle ER waits
- Jennifer Stewart and Jeffrey Simpson, October 28, 2004 [The Halifax Herald Limited] - Private medical clinic opens in Montreal
...it answers, "an ever-increasing demand from the public for greater accessibility and quality of health services." - October 13, 2004 [CTV.ca] - Canadians have higher death risk than Americans after heart attack: study
- Sheryl Ubelacker, September 20, 2004 [Canada.com] - Canadian medical tourists in India
- Jeremy Copeland, September 20, 2004 [CBC News] - Doctor shortage cripples Canada's free health care
- Clifford Krauss, September 18, 2004 [Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune] - Canada's Once-Proud Public Health System in Crisis
- David Ljunggren, September 14, 2004 [Reuters (Ottawa)] - Hospitals to cut, again
- September 5, 2004 [Toronto Star] - Canada's Medical Nightmare
- Robert J. Cihak, M.D., September 1, 2004 [Health Care News] - Canada faces shortage of doctors
- August 19, 2004 [MSNBC] - Canadians losing faith in health system: poll
- August 16, 2004 [CTV.ca] - Ontario hospitals a health risk
- Michael Hurley, August 8, 2004 [Toronto Star] - Need surgery? Here's how long you'll wait
"It's inhuman. The quality of my life is horrible and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it." - Jason Fekete, July 28, 2004 [Calgary Herald] - Docs, nurses fed up
Canadian doctors and nurses are fed up with inter-governmental "bickering" that is dragging out wait times and causing more pain and suffering for patients. - July 28, 2004 [Winnipeg Sun] - Free Health Care?
...in some cases, patients die on the waiting list because they become too sick to tolerate a procedure. - Walter E. Williams, July 24, 2004 [CATO] - The truth about Canada's ailing health-care system
All the major candidates in Canada's recent national election acknowledged that the country's health-care system is failing Canadians. - Robert J. Cihak, July 13, 2004 [The Seattle Times] - Health-care crisis looms, even with new money
Canada's health-care system is "five to 10 years" from the breaking point -- even with cash injections from government, says the new president of the B.C. Medical Association. - Doug Alexander, July 5, 2004 [Vancouver Sun] - Emergency room delays a strong campaign factor
"Go into the emergency room it is the most pitiful piece of work you ever seen in your life." - David Bruser, June 22, 2004 [Toronto Star] - Canadian Health Care in Crisis
Analyst visits NC to describe how single-payer health care really works in practice. - Donna Martinez, June 17, 2004 [Carolina Journal] - Quebec cancer patients sue over wait
Women waited months for radiation; lawsuit could cost system $50-million. - Ingrid Peritz, March 11, 2004 [The Globe and Mail] - Health care: no waiting lists
'You get knee surgery within two days ... try and get that in human hospitals.' Canada's [private] pet health-insurance industry is projected to grow at roughly 50 per cent a year... - Robert Scalia, November 30, 2003 [Montreal Gazette] - For some, surgery abroad a welcome answer
- Daniel Girard, November 29, 2003 [Toronto Star] - Canadian Doctors Eyeing United States
- Clifford Krauss, October 17, 2003 [The New York Times] - The Top Ten Things People Believe About Canadian Health Care, But Shouldnt
- Brian Lee Crowley, October 9, 2003 [Mackinac Center for Public Policy] - Canadians' health at risk, CMA says
- Valerie Lawton, September 26, 2003 [Toronto Star] - Burnout is now doctors' ailment
Almost half of Canadian doctors say they're burned out, emotionally exhausted and blame medicine for putting a drain on their family life. - Karen Palmer, August 20, 2003 [Toronto Star] - New MRI clinic in row over poaching
While she insists she's not making any money off the venture, she says it provides an income allowance for her and her husband, the other principal in the company. - Theresa Boyle and Robert Benzie, July 28, 2003 [Toronto Star] - Price Controls and Overall Drug Spending
The Canadian system, however, tends to push up overall spending on prescription drugs, despite the low prices for some brand name ones. - John Melby, July 2, 2003 [Buckeye Institute] - Gore Endorses Canada's Medical System
- William L. Anderson, November 29, 2002 [Mises] - How Good is Canadian Health Care?
- August 2002 [Fraser Institute] - Canadian Health-Care System Is No Model for Prescription Drug Reform
- May 1, 2001 [Mackinac Center for Public Policy] - The Ghost of America's Health Care Future Lives in Canada Today
- James Frogue and Robert Moffit, December 25, 2000 [Capitalism Magazine] - Socialized Medicine: The Canadian Experience
Explores several lessons that can be drawn from the Canadian experience with socialized medicine:- Socialized medicine, although of poor quality, is very expensive;
- Political compromise is the result;
- Socialized medicine is both a consequence and a great contributor to the idea that economic conditions should be equalized by coercion. - Pierre Lemieux [The Freeman]
- Canadian Health Care
...if Canadians knew as much as they think they do about the economic and moral workings of Medicare, they might not be as enthusiastic as they are about their cherished right to 'free' health care. - Andrei Kreptul, August 30, 2000 [Mises] - When Patients Become Victims - The Crime of Government-Run Health Care
- Merrill Matthews Jr., Ph.D. and Kerri Houston, May 1, 2000 (PDF format) - Socialized Medicine Leaves a Bad Taste in Patients' Mouths
- Lawrence W. Reed, February 23, 2000 [Mackinac Center for Public Policy] - Canadians Dissatisfied With Socialized Medicine
- January 26, 2000 [NCPA] - Memo to Al Gore: Canadian Medicine Isn't Cheap or Effective
- William McArthur, former chief coroner for British Columbia, January 28, 2000 - Loved to Death: America's Unresolved Health-Care Crisis
As Canada's national government slashes spending on medical care in order to reduce the deficit, local provinces are reducing medical staff. In Ontario, pregnant women are being sent to Detroit because no obstetricians are available. Specialists of all kinds are in short supply. Patients have to wait eight weeks for an MRI, ten weeks for referral to a specialist, and four months for heart bypass surgery. - Michael J. Hurd, November 1997 [Liberty Haven] - Is Canadian Health care a Good Model for the U.S. to Follow?
- Michael Walker, August 1994 [Liberty Haven] - Health of the State (commentary by a cancer survivor)
I tell you this not to alarm you, to elicit sympathy, or to bore you. I tell you because the episode has been, for me, a salutary lesson (just in case I needed one) in why the government should not be allowed anywhere near a syringe, a dressing, a scalpel, an oxygen mask, a tissue sample anything to do with health. - Michigan Shouldn't Copy Canada's Health System
- Lawrence W. Reed, July 29, 1991 [Mackinac Center for Public Policy]
Former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
[Top]
- Russia's Health Care Is Crumbling: Dire Lack of Funds Creates Sick, Dwindling Populace And 'National Emergency'
- Jeanne Whalen, February 13, 2004 [Wall Street Journal] - Capitalism Comes to Russian Health Care
With the "free" government-run health system in Russia in a state of collapse, an increasing amount of health care is being provided by for-profit clinics and hospitals. - Michael Wines, December 22, 2000 [New York Times] - Russia's public health care system is crumbling
- Rob Reynolds, November 13, 1995 [CNN] - Socialized Health-Care Nightmare
In contrast to the impression created by the liberal American media, health-care institutions in Russia were at least fifty years behind the average U.S. level. - Yuri Maltsev and Louise Omdahl, November 1994 [Liberty Haven]
Cuba
[Top]
The Cuban Government has implemented a two-tiered medical system (e.g. "medical apartheid") that caters to foreign tourists while denying native Cubans access to basic medical necessities (at least it is "free" to them). This attempt to draw foreign dollars is one of many programs that were necessary once the Soviet subsidies ended in the early nineties.
- Castro's Diet and Exercise Plan
- Ronald Bailey, September 25, 2007 [Reason] - Castro says still in full control after fall
The Communist dictator received prompt medical care to repair his shattered kneecap. He even used his cell phone from the ambulance. If only his countrymen had similar access to service and "evil" capitalist technology... - Anthony Boadle, October 22, 2004 [Reuters] - La Lucha: The Human Cost of Economic Repression in Cuba
- Patricia Linderman, May 2000 [FEE] - Bad Cuban Medicine
Begging for medicines is common in Havana - next to begging for money to feed children, it is the most common plea... - Larry Solomon, April 15, 2003 [Capitalism Magazine]
New Zealand
[Top]New Zealand's Ministry of Health is the New Zealand "Government's principal agent and advisor on health and disability."
- On the waiting list roller-coaster
- Martin Johnson, March 20, 2008 [The New Zealand Herald] - No charge for trips to emergency department
The figures show most people who arrive at the emergency departments don't need to be there.- Alison Brown, December 17, 2004 [Rotorua Daily Post] - Surgical waiting lists numbers come under twin attacks
- November 15, 2004 [stuff.co.nz] - Hospital Waiting Lists Under Serious Pressure
- October 26, 2004 [Scoop New Zealand News] - Hundreds on waiting list as hospital pleads for help
- August 23, 2004 [The New Zealand Herald] - Private hospitals offer help with waiting lists
- August 12, 2004 [The New Zealand Herald] - Alarm over GP shortage
- July 5, 2004 [The New Zealand Herald] - Hospital urges patients to stay away unless really ill
- March 6, 2004 [The New Zealand Herald]
Australia
[Top]Australia's universal health care scheme is relatively new (introduced in 1983, which built on the 1974 Medibank program). As with all socialized health care systems, there is a mixture of public versus private care (approximately 30% of Australians also retain private health insurance). As a result, the private patients receive better care than their medicare counterparts. The salary caps and artificial increase in demand for care that always occur in a national health care system are resulting in predictable physician shortages.
- Mental patients face bed shortage
- Clara Pirani, July 4, 2005 [News.com.au] - Public patients wait longer for surgery
- June 29, 2005 [The Sydney Morning Herald] - Painful wait for care
- Luke McIlveen, February 17, 2005 [Herald Sun (Australia)] - Hospitals crippled by poor planning
- Ruth Pollard, December 1, 2004 [Sydney Morning Herald] - Operating theatres shut to save cash as thousands wait for surgery
- Nick O'Malley, November 23, 2004 [Sydney Morning Herald] - Private funds creating 'two-tier' health system
- David Uren, November 3, 2004 [The Australian]
CrackerJax
New Member
What's not looked at of course is the cost and the quality.
The USA has the finest medical technology in the world. get a really serious disease? Wanna live? Better head to the states, just like 400000 foreigners do each and every year.
No one is flying to europe or canada to be cured.... that's for sure. It's the other way around.
The only thing needed is to reduce the cost of our current system.
The govt. again is the main culprit in why it's high.
The USA has the finest medical technology in the world. get a really serious disease? Wanna live? Better head to the states, just like 400000 foreigners do each and every year.
No one is flying to europe or canada to be cured.... that's for sure. It's the other way around.
The only thing needed is to reduce the cost of our current system.
The govt. again is the main culprit in why it's high.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
again says the man who thinks greed cannot increase
Jack*Herrer420
Well-Known Member
Probably more of a man than you'd ever be. I take care of myself, and I don't expect to get a handout when times are tough. I didn't like bush, and I don't like obama, is that a hard concept to grasp? Do I have to be a partisan bonehead to care about politics?