Just because the American system has flaws doesn't mean it needs to resemble the same failed systems in Europe and Canada.
Never said we need to emulate their systems.
I had an argument the other day with a Canadian who, in their defense of waiting times, chimed that someone needing lesser care should have to wait because perhaps the Doctors have more pressing diseases/operations to deal with and this could wait.
although the canadian's argument was pretty simplistic, from the standpoint of pure efficiency, that may be an important rule to discuss. These types of rules are discussed all the time in hospital scheduling or organ donor systems. I would prefer that individual hospitals ("firms") layout these rules over the government, but some rules that have proven themselves regardless of the situation could be codified in law.
My response was; "say what?" Why does ANYONE have to wait for ANY level of care if a system is working correctly?
there will ALWAYS be waiting times. This is because medical services is costly and scarce. In fact, one thing in this country I would like fixed is the extreme regulation of the number of doctors allowed to practice in this country by institutions like the AMA. Relax, these restrictions, and you would increase the supply problem.
You see my Liberal friends, government managed healthcare systems control the never ending increases in costs by limiting services, demanding lower pay for doctors and nurses which results in decline in such professions as they go where their services demand more pay and the Government won’t allow you to sue them.
I don't advocate government controlled health institutions. You're assessment is obvious from a free market standpoint, and I agree with it.
People die every day for surgery that in this great nation they would have gotten immediate treatment for.
There are stories of denial of care in the US as well.
Do we need reform; you betchya. But the notion that the ONLY option is to allow the most incompetent and inefficient organizations on earth, our Governments, take them over defies common sense.
I agree. I believe in government intervention that helps promote proper market incentives.
Folks, these are the people who have spent us into a $1.8 trillion hole without any idea how to pay for it and you want them to manage your health? You have GOT to be kidding me right? :roll:
Again, I agree. I believe government intervention would be helpful in establishing rules of law that help ensure stable, ethical practices from all parties in healthcare.
Healthcare IT, I believe, is crucial to reducing costs. However, effective healthcare IT requires standardization. I think the government should work at coordinating standardization efforts, so that various IT systems will be able to interact effectively.
As earlier stated, the efforts of NPR are to promote "liberal" agendas and distort the facts to fit their narrow and closed minded views about what "reform" constitutes.
In my experience, NPR is not that closed minded. I am sure depending on the program, speaker, etc., this bias changes.
Dogma underpins the ideas of both liberals and conservatives when it comes to economics.
The best definition of reform is to put or change into an improved form or condition, or to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses and not to destroy it.
I agree, but I think its stupid for people to have a knee-jerk reaction to anything "government." Like it or not, people have chosen government as an institution to voice their individual choices.
A good government, through trial and error, (just like firms and corporations), and learning from other governments, can balance economic policies with basic market principles. There is always going to be some sort of planning when you have an institution. Economic planning exists in corporations, firms, non-profits, and governments. We just have to decide how much.