Great for citizens until the government runs out of money.
Sounds like a financial disaster waiting to happen which is what the UK is now facing with the NHS. I just do not see how any government can absorb the costs of major medical for all citizens. That is why The Netherlands did what they did. Get people to take on the costs for majo…
Great for citizens until the government runs out of money.
Sounds like a financial disaster waiting to happen which is what the UK is now facing with the NHS. I just do not see how any government can absorb the costs of major medical for all citizens. That is why The Netherlands did what they did. Get people to take on the costs for major medical conditions that they will likely encounter at some time in their lives but also allow for pre-existing conditions.
That's not how government works. It's not funded from a finite pool of money. We don't say the same about schools, public transport , defence forces etc. We fund them sustainably. It's not "a financial disaster waiting to happen". Do some research on it rather than.making snap judgements.
Really???? Then why is NHS for example rationing health care? Because there is a VERY finite pool of money available, Yes, that is a sustainable approach, but most people would tell you it is inhumane. No different than what the insurance companies are doing to people today.
Jeff, the NHS is not in Australia. Our system is different. A recent review of the NHS found Australia’s system (Medicare) is one of the best in the world and one from which the NHS could learn. Americans seem to lump everything under “socialised medicine”, whatever that means. Universal health schemes vary from country to country. They are not the same but World Bank data shows they deliver better outcomes than does the US.
Ours is sustainable because it is funded by a levy (a small % of income) of all taxpayers topped up from general revenue in just the same way as schools, etc are funded.
I sometimes think Americans have the view they are best at everything (the exceptional country) and therefore they have nothing to learn from anyone else. Don’t know you well enough to know if you are in that category or not. But I do know that no-one in Australia would swap our health care system (with all its faults) for that of the US.
America’s health care system is possibly one of the best in the world.
However, accessing it sucks because without insurance, the cost is astronomical and unaffordable for anyone but a billionaire. And even with insurance, accessing it can be daunting.
Then there are the outcomes which, based on the latest reporting, Americans are horrible as far as our health goes. We apparently live with a lot of pain due to (again) access to the system.
The for profit insurers in the US are taking heat for being the bad guys, which in some cases they are because they deny claims at a phenomenal rate at times all in the name of making a profit. Non-profit insurers seem to be a bit better in claims, but they too do not have an endless supply of funds.
The Australian system must be one of the better kept secrets in the Western world because until you explained it, I had not heard about it. I had assumed like most things in Australia, it would be patterned after the UK. So it is good to know that it is better than what the UK has in the NHS.
Because for 14 years, the Conservatives continually cut the appropriation for the NHS. They also began privatizing some aspects of the service. Privatization ALWAYS adds to the cost of a government service, despite the dishonest claims of privatization advocates. And it's basic arithmetic - you're adding shareholder profits and usually higher executive compensation to the cost of the service. What inevitably follows is a reduction of either the number of people served or the quality of the services rendered. And sometimes it's both.
Great for citizens until the government runs out of money.
Sounds like a financial disaster waiting to happen which is what the UK is now facing with the NHS. I just do not see how any government can absorb the costs of major medical for all citizens. That is why The Netherlands did what they did. Get people to take on the costs for major medical conditions that they will likely encounter at some time in their lives but also allow for pre-existing conditions.
That's not how government works. It's not funded from a finite pool of money. We don't say the same about schools, public transport , defence forces etc. We fund them sustainably. It's not "a financial disaster waiting to happen". Do some research on it rather than.making snap judgements.
Really???? Then why is NHS for example rationing health care? Because there is a VERY finite pool of money available, Yes, that is a sustainable approach, but most people would tell you it is inhumane. No different than what the insurance companies are doing to people today.
Apologies about the comment re not learning from anyone else. You spoke favourably about the Dutch system so you are clearly not in that category.
Cheers and have a good Christmas.
No problem. I too get a bit wound up when replying to things, Have a great holiday as well.
Jeff, the NHS is not in Australia. Our system is different. A recent review of the NHS found Australia’s system (Medicare) is one of the best in the world and one from which the NHS could learn. Americans seem to lump everything under “socialised medicine”, whatever that means. Universal health schemes vary from country to country. They are not the same but World Bank data shows they deliver better outcomes than does the US.
Ours is sustainable because it is funded by a levy (a small % of income) of all taxpayers topped up from general revenue in just the same way as schools, etc are funded.
I sometimes think Americans have the view they are best at everything (the exceptional country) and therefore they have nothing to learn from anyone else. Don’t know you well enough to know if you are in that category or not. But I do know that no-one in Australia would swap our health care system (with all its faults) for that of the US.
America’s health care system is possibly one of the best in the world.
However, accessing it sucks because without insurance, the cost is astronomical and unaffordable for anyone but a billionaire. And even with insurance, accessing it can be daunting.
Then there are the outcomes which, based on the latest reporting, Americans are horrible as far as our health goes. We apparently live with a lot of pain due to (again) access to the system.
The for profit insurers in the US are taking heat for being the bad guys, which in some cases they are because they deny claims at a phenomenal rate at times all in the name of making a profit. Non-profit insurers seem to be a bit better in claims, but they too do not have an endless supply of funds.
The Australian system must be one of the better kept secrets in the Western world because until you explained it, I had not heard about it. I had assumed like most things in Australia, it would be patterned after the UK. So it is good to know that it is better than what the UK has in the NHS.
Because for 14 years, the Conservatives continually cut the appropriation for the NHS. They also began privatizing some aspects of the service. Privatization ALWAYS adds to the cost of a government service, despite the dishonest claims of privatization advocates. And it's basic arithmetic - you're adding shareholder profits and usually higher executive compensation to the cost of the service. What inevitably follows is a reduction of either the number of people served or the quality of the services rendered. And sometimes it's both.