Feasible for US in its current state to make a move toward free healthcare?

[dannybht]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I made this thread to gather opinions about current the health care system and gather the important facts about healthcare as it is an important issue for future physicians and for premeds who don't know a whole lot about it.

What do you guys think about our current healthcare system? What are the cons and pros? For the cons, what can we do improve them. Should we encourage our physicians to undertake additional roles in academic medicine, advocacy and teaching besides just only clinical medicine. Is it feasible for our current state to take a step toward free healthcare? Should the government have a bigger role or smaller role in healthcare? In the face of the increasing problem of diabetes and obesity, how can the institutions of medicine and public health change their curriculum in training future physicians and public health workers in dealing with these epidemics.

 

[Ravizzle]

Ain't no such thing as free. We will have to pay for it somehow. Cutting reimbursements, raising taxes etc...

Sent from my Galaxy S2

 

[Oo Cipher oO]

I made this thread to gather opinions about current the health care system and gather the important facts about healthcare as it is an important issue for future physicians and for premeds who don't know a whole lot about it.

What do you guys think about our current healthcare system? What are the cons and pros? For the cons, what can we do improve them. Should we encourage our physicians to undertake additional roles in academic medicine, advocacy and teaching besides just only clinical medicine. Is it feasible for our current state to take a step toward free healthcare? Should the government have a bigger role or smaller role in healthcare? In the face of the increasing problem of diabetes and obesity, how can the institutions of medicine and public health change their curriculum in training future physicians and public health workers in dealing with these epidemics.

Healthcare is not free. Most of the debate centers on who should pay what.

 

[red doctober]

Right, even citizens of Canada and the UK pay for healthcare; it's just in the form of taxes.

 

[red doctober]

Pro of current healthcare system: if you can afford it, you can get the world's best care available.

Con: if you can't, you may be s*** out of luck.

 

[alexandertg6]

Principle number one if economics: nothing is free. Doctors are already encouraged to be more than clinical practitioners.

I don't like using impossible, but this is as close a situation as I could imagine. Healthcare will never just "be free" because it takes way too much time, resources, and manpower to treat patients-- even if the staff was entirely volunteer

 

[sieg5]

It makes sense that we would start having free healthcare, it's just the ebb and flow of things.

 

[IslandStyle808]

Based on WHO standards, the best care in the world has some degree of government interaction. This could be in the form of universal health care with the government being the sole provider. It could be a competitive market where private sectors compete with government (not really a true competitive market mind you). It could even have only private providers but with the government preventing care-for-profit on basic health care.

 

[dannybht]

Sorry, I meant to say free health insurance for patients in general terms. Some western nations do provide free universal health care or reduced health costs for their citizens but do it indirectly through taxes paid by people.

 

[red doctober]

Sorry, I meant to say free health insurance for patients in general terms. Some western nations do provide free universal health care or reduced health costs for their citizens but do it indirectly through taxes paid by people.

So basically rephrase your question to, "Feasible for US in its current state to make a move toward universal state-sponsored healthcare?" The problem with including in the word "free" is that it implies that no one is paying for it. Someone has to pay for it, and if it's the government, it's actually the tax-payers. I really don't see the US reaching a system similar to Canada or the UK because Americans love their "freedom" too much, and regardless of what the some people say, the PPACA does not implement universal healthcare. I'm not going to argue whether or not I think that the US can/should implement universal healthcare, but I will say that "the grass may sometimes seem greener."

 

[dannybht]

Good comments guys. What about your opinions on the other aspects of healthcare?

 

[Spinach Dip]

First thing we'd have to do is get away from profit-driven healthcare. That means no more pharmaceutical companies claiming billions in profits and no more hospital administrators making millions.

But we're a capitalist country. So that will not happen any time in the near future.


It would also help (not fix anything, but help) if our government could pass a balanced budget at least once a decade.

 

[dannybht]

First thing we'd have to do is get away from profit-driven healthcare. That means no more pharmaceutical companies claiming billions in profits and no more hospital administrators making millions.

But we're a capitalist country. So that will not happen any time in the near future.


It would also help (not fix anything, but help) if our government could pass a balanced budget at least once a decade.

Good point. Instead of providing affordable drugs/medicine, some companies drive the costs up for their own benefits. Its disheartening but greed is part of human nature...

 

[Wordead]

Good point. Instead of providing affordable drugs/medicine, some companies drive the costs up for their own benefits. Its disheartening but greed is part of human nature...

On the other hand, those companies are responsible for a lot of innovation and scientific breakthroughs. Who is responsible for the majority of medical research in the world? The USA.

So where's the balance and what do you prefer? Mankind moving forward with healthcare disparity and inefficiency, or slower progress with equality? Hard to say.

Obviously this is healthcare simplified to abstract terms, but something always get sacrificed.

 

[notbobtrustme]

On the other hand, those companies are responsible for a lot of innovation and scientific breakthroughs. Who is responsible for the majority of medical research in the world? The USA.

Pharma has outsourced R&D to universities in this day and age. They conduct phase trials to get FDA approval and market the drugs but they are relying more and more on universities to come up with new pharmaceuticals.

 

[dsoz]

I would add to this conversation by making an analogy to grade school through high school education.

Think about the words "free public education." It is something that we, as Americans, take for granted. But do you pay for that education? You sure do. It is called taxes.

Can you opt out of that free education? It is called private school, but you still pay the taxes for the public school system.

Is the system of free education a quality system? Most would say it is OK. But it is not the best in the world.

Think about the amount that teachers get paid. Now think about doctors getting paid a similar amount. People don't want to support "rich money-grabbing doctors" with their tax money.

-----------------------
To me, I would not be glad to see the medical system follow the public education system in this country. That is all that I am going to say about that.

dsoz

 

[TheMaverick]

First thing we'd have to do is get away from profit-driven healthcare. That means no more pharmaceutical companies claiming billions in profits and no more hospital administrators making millions.

Pharma has outsourced R&D to universities in this day and age. They conduct phase trials to get FDA approval and market the drugs but they are relying more and more on universities to come up with new pharmaceuticals.

I agree wholeheartedly that for-profit care increases costs and invites abuse, and that outsize compensation is just a drain, but when it comes to pharmaceutical companies the story is more complex.

Part of the issue is that it is incredibly difficult and expensive to make a drug. Most of the expense is in the phase trials (and each phase costs more than every step before it combined) and that 80-90% of the drugs that make it into in Phase III trials fail. All in all, billions are spent for each marketable drug that gets made. There are certainly a great many abuses by the drug industry that need to be rectified and which will cut costs, but straight up paying less for drugs endangers the development of new ones because the capital costs are enormous. A better strategy is to do things like use ROI calculations to determine how much we'll pay for a drug and improve the quality of generics (despite claims, at present generics=\=original drug).

(PS Good resource on pharmaceutical industry: http://pipeline.corante.com/)

 

[RomanTaylor]

I will cut to the quik.

I would love to see it, but in a capitalist society, it ain't never going to happen.