I believe I have talked about this in the past, but it is an
important topic to know especially as so many people seem to want universal
health care here in the States (Sanders and Clinton supporters among other
Democrats). So what is the weakness of this system? Let’s discuss.
1) The primary weakness to this system is
that in order for it to work, the government needs to decide what
cures/treatments will be provided. In this instance, the government takes
on the same role as an insurance company where they decide what is the
cheapest, yet most effective, treatments for an illness or a condition.
For example, if a person has cancer, the government may only cover under
this system; operations to remove the cancer or placing a radioactive isotope
near the tumor to slowly kill the cancer if it is too dangerous to operate on a
patient. Other treatments like Chemotherapy, and others may receive
partial payment or none at all due to them not being as cost effective for the
government. They do this because the government has to meet a budget
requirement that is created each year by politicians. Likewise, private
insurance companies do the same thing, but they only have to cover a smaller
group of individuals which also allows for more things to be covered or
partially covered. Basically, a smaller budgetary requirement as compared
to government who has to now treat millions of people.
2) Another weakness of this system is that
when deciding what treatments, the government also looks at the potential
success and failure rate of those treatments for each person depending on age,
and other factors. As such, if the government thinks you will simply die
regardless of treatment after a few days or even months, then they may refuse
to pay for your treatment. This has been the case with Baby Mathew, (this
happened a few years ago and was covered by Fox News) a child born in Canada
with an impossible to treat disease. The parents already had lost one child to
the condition Mathew had, but wanted to still fight to save their child.
The Canadian government however refused treatment as they saw the case
was hopeless and that the child would die regardless. As such, the parents took
their child to the United States, paid for the child's treatment granting the
child another three months of life before the disease killed Mathew.
Basically, the treatment allowed the parents more time to say goodbye to
their child, something the Universal health system in Canada does not care
about.
Conclusion: Both the first and second weakness is what
amounts to rationing in a universal health care system. It is also the
reason why in Europe that private health insurance companies still exist, but
they only help pay for what the government does not cover and only at a premium
as only the rich can afford health insurance as it covers only the most
expensive treatments. As such, the government has to take drastic
measures to keep costs down as people, thinking that healthcare is free (they
pay upwards of 50% to 75% of their income for this system in European
countries) are more likely to go visit a doctor which in turn increases costs
further as they visit for the smallest of cuts and curable conditions.
Basically they waste the doctor's time and thus the government's money
which pays for the visit. So is there a way to make the Universal health
system work while keeping costs down? In the next few issues I will look
at exactly that.
No comments:
Post a Comment