enigma2517
29th May 2004, 00:39
Ok so I've been talking with my dad a lot about the whole concept of universal/state vs privatized healthcare. A little background, my father was born in '53 and lived in the Soviet Union (in Moscow) until the time we moved to the U.S. in '93. Anyway, he says that uni. healthcare just isn't as beneficial for the individual b/c for doctors it often produces that well-known "conveyor belt" feeling. Since they derive no profit from the quality of treatment they give patients, doctors are less inclined to do quality work (i.e. work faster, attempt to make the procedure as painless as possible, in other words actually care about the patient).
Also, he notes that doctors are unwilling or very unsure about complex procedures (heart bypass surgery). He gave me an example. He said sure, maybe uni. care gives the working class some sustainable medical care, the number of people who actually benefit from it decline. In Russia, even now, we still have uni healthcare. However, doctors there only perform about 3,000 bypass surgeries every year. Now this is a life saving operation. In America, doctors motivated by profit perform about 300,000 bypass surgeries a year. Ultimately, more lives are saved, and even if Russia had a less affordable privatized care program, he doubts that the difference of 297,000 lives could be closed. This is of course all debatable, but the logistics are unimportant. The general question here is, does universal healthcare really decrease the actual quality of care that much? Would love to hear from some Canadians, Britons, Cubans (best doctor to patient ratio in the world), etc.
My response was kind of unprepared and shaky, but I meant to make the point that a.) America is far wealthier than Russia so comparing the two states is kind of hard. b.) practically it may (not yet) work well, but idealogically it is far superior to idea of a citizen deriving health from system that already exploits his wages (capitalism)
My dad's a cool guy tho, and he completely understood where I was coming from. He offered somewhat of a market socialist approach to the problem. He suggested two individual systems in a country, like in Ireland. They have universal for everybody that wants it (satisfies those just in desperate need), but private firms are also allowed to exist and provide care to those who are unsatisfied with state system and want to acheive a higher standard. This sounds the most reasonable direction to go in, since until we reach that point where money/profit incentive is elminated and individuals begin focusing more on fulfilling jobs to serve humanity as a whole (what better one than a doctor?). This is my first post at che-lives, although I've been reading the boards for quite some time now. Comments/thoughts welcome and appreciated.
Also, he notes that doctors are unwilling or very unsure about complex procedures (heart bypass surgery). He gave me an example. He said sure, maybe uni. care gives the working class some sustainable medical care, the number of people who actually benefit from it decline. In Russia, even now, we still have uni healthcare. However, doctors there only perform about 3,000 bypass surgeries every year. Now this is a life saving operation. In America, doctors motivated by profit perform about 300,000 bypass surgeries a year. Ultimately, more lives are saved, and even if Russia had a less affordable privatized care program, he doubts that the difference of 297,000 lives could be closed. This is of course all debatable, but the logistics are unimportant. The general question here is, does universal healthcare really decrease the actual quality of care that much? Would love to hear from some Canadians, Britons, Cubans (best doctor to patient ratio in the world), etc.
My response was kind of unprepared and shaky, but I meant to make the point that a.) America is far wealthier than Russia so comparing the two states is kind of hard. b.) practically it may (not yet) work well, but idealogically it is far superior to idea of a citizen deriving health from system that already exploits his wages (capitalism)
My dad's a cool guy tho, and he completely understood where I was coming from. He offered somewhat of a market socialist approach to the problem. He suggested two individual systems in a country, like in Ireland. They have universal for everybody that wants it (satisfies those just in desperate need), but private firms are also allowed to exist and provide care to those who are unsatisfied with state system and want to acheive a higher standard. This sounds the most reasonable direction to go in, since until we reach that point where money/profit incentive is elminated and individuals begin focusing more on fulfilling jobs to serve humanity as a whole (what better one than a doctor?). This is my first post at che-lives, although I've been reading the boards for quite some time now. Comments/thoughts welcome and appreciated.