From what I've seen and read, that doesn't sound much different from what they already have on their minds to me =?
Also, if I'm not mistaken, Medicare and those government run programs already cover about half of the population. Here in Spain we have public health care for everybody, but you can have private insurance too, and both systems seem to be doing pretty well.
And, as far as I can tell, your solution would be considered socialism.
Well, that makes no sense, as you say. You know, here public servants get paid less than doing the same job in a private company. Also, they have to pass an official exam, quite comprehensive usually, and those with the best grade get the jobs. But the job is for life. The possibility of getting fired is almost non-existant. It's not perfect, but sounds better than getting paid less with no benefits.
About socialism, it's a matter of ideology, not efficiency (also, efficiency tends to end up just as profit). If you want good public schools, that requires money. The same goes for national healthcare. But that money comes from taxes. So, you want good public services? Pay more taxes. Taxes are expent by the government and it's chosen by you.
Is it better or worse? It depends. Mostly, of who you are. With ultra capitalism those with money and success fare better. With modern socialism (which implies capitalism, btw) those who don't have a dime can cope.
Why should good public schools require more money when private schools spend less money per student? If i were to venture a guess, it would be that private schools see themselves as in competition with eachother and with public schools, while public schools do not see themselves in competition with anyone.
...or it may be the government bogs down the public schools with regulation. *shrug*
My thought would be that the Medical Academy would work just like the Academies, except be a medschool. Bachelors would be required, congressional appointment, good grades on your previous degrees, minimum MCAT scores, etc.
And yeah, there could be a ROTC equivalent. And i'm not certain what the equivalent training would be. This is just an idea I came up with off the top of my head Friday night. Some people get drunk, i ponder social reform.
Huh. I like the idea, too. There are actually similar programs not just for ROTC but for science majors. It's works with scholarships rather than a difference academy. For example, I could apply for a scholarship from the government that would pay for my tuition, room&board, and books (I'm not certain about the room&board). In return, as I'm majoring in oceanography, however many years the government pays for, at whatever school I'm going to (undergrad and/or grad) I then owe the government that many years working in their navy marine science labs.
That would be a simpler structure to set up, but works similarly as what you described.
You're actually describing a good chunk of the Army's current health-care system, as far as I can tell. (My sister's looking at an army scholarship for her Psy.D.) The proposal is also very similar to the British system, which has doctors employed by the government, but individuals can buy private health insurance (or have it provided by employers) which adds extra benefits. The US is more likely to implement a plan that looks like Switzerland's, if we get anything done at all.
There are a couple of problems with the current health care system that I don't see your proposal as addressing:
1) Health insurance companies make money by NOT paying for care. They have no direct incentives to pay for good care. Part of this is a long-term vs. short-term profit problem: if you are accountable to your shareholders for quarterly profits, you may not want to invest in expensive things like "doctors chatting with patients" which might cut your costs in the long run but won't save you anything this year
( ... )
Despite that, I think that universal health care is a good thing, but I don't believe that the government can fairly and properly compete with the insurance industry in the current system. Either the costs will be too high or the care will be too low. I mean, really, if corporations (who get to keep every dollar they don't spend) can't find ways to cut costs and still meet their mandate, why do we expect the government (who have to give back every dollar they don't spend) to do better?Insurance isn't like other products. With other products, like tennis shoes or hairdressing, there are costs of materials, the cost of labor, the cost of transportation, marketing and ancillary expenses, and then there's the amount you sell it for. The difference between these things is profit
( ... )
But government-underwritten insurance is a whole different ball o' wax. Insurance actually becomes more efficient as it scales, and costs are spread over a larger population; the law of averages dictates that expenses become more predictable as the size of the pool increases. And the insurance would actually encourage greater innovation in health care; as more people are insured, the number of folks who become consumers of health care services increases, which encourages competition and innovation in the health care industry.I will concede this point, but the problem is that the people who the government would be covering are going to be at the tail: those who won't be insured due to preexisting costs, er, conditions, those who demand lots of expensive treatments, and those who can't afford insurance (increasing, at least theoretically, the likelihood that they don't take care of themselves for whatever reason, be it lack of funds to bad planning & foresight
( ... )
Comments 14
Also, if I'm not mistaken, Medicare and those government run programs already cover about half of the population.
Here in Spain we have public health care for everybody, but you can have private insurance too, and both systems seem to be doing pretty well.
And, as far as I can tell, your solution would be considered socialism.
Reply
Reply
You know, here public servants get paid less than doing the same job in a private company. Also, they have to pass an official exam, quite comprehensive usually, and those with the best grade get the jobs. But the job is for life. The possibility of getting fired is almost non-existant.
It's not perfect, but sounds better than getting paid less with no benefits.
About socialism, it's a matter of ideology, not efficiency (also, efficiency tends to end up just as profit). If you want good public schools, that requires money. The same goes for national healthcare.
But that money comes from taxes. So, you want good public services? Pay more taxes.
Taxes are expent by the government and it's chosen by you.
Is it better or worse? It depends. Mostly, of who you are. With ultra capitalism those with money and success fare better. With modern socialism (which implies capitalism, btw) those who don't have a dime can cope.
At least from my point of view :P
Reply
...or it may be the government bogs down the public schools with regulation. *shrug*
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
(The comment has been removed)
And yeah, there could be a ROTC equivalent. And i'm not certain what the equivalent training would be. This is just an idea I came up with off the top of my head Friday night. Some people get drunk, i ponder social reform.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
That would be a simpler structure to set up, but works similarly as what you described.
Reply
There are a couple of problems with the current health care system that I don't see your proposal as addressing:
1) Health insurance companies make money by NOT paying for care. They have no direct incentives to pay for good care. Part of this is a long-term vs. short-term profit problem: if you are accountable to your shareholders for quarterly profits, you may not want to invest in expensive things like "doctors chatting with patients" which might cut your costs in the long run but won't save you anything this year ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment