Which sucks more: Private health insurance or socialized medicine?

[Peasant Phill]

The key to to a good social or socialized health care system is IMO the quality of the hospitals and medical staff. The problem most people have with social (public) health care is the poor quality it provides in comparison to private health care. Long waiting time, less competent medical staff, worse equipment, ... This is, however, not inherent to a social health care system itself. Belgium for example is a benchmark on the matter of health care and is a social health care system.

The biggest problem IMO is the capitalism in health care. Private hospitals have more resources than public hospitals due to low governmental funding (in comparison to other countries). Private hospitals can then 'buy' the best medical staff. Doing so lowers the quality of public hospitals.
One should lower the average wages of medical staff to the point that public hospitals can afford to rival or at least approach private hospitals. I'm aware that this is unimaginable in the USA but I think that is the best (cost/effectiev) way to improve health care in general: the price will drop, comfort will rise and more people will have access to better health care.

[Papewaio]

You cannot just lower the prices locally you would have to do it throughout the world.

Drs and Nurses quite readily move cities, states, countries to get a better lifestyle. If you decide to pay them less they will move somewhere else, its the upside of capitalism... when you are in an in demand profession that is low on supply... you get to play the piper not the bean counters.

[Peasant Phill]

You cannot just lower the prices locally you would have to do it throughout the world.

Drs and Nurses quite readily move cities, states, countries to get a better lifestyle. If you decide to pay them less they will move somewhere else, its the upside of capitalism... when you are in an in demand profession that is low on supply... you get to play the piper not the bean counters.

Although I partly agree with you, your statement only works in theory. In real life a workforce isn't as mobile as you make it out to be. Doctors earn more in the US than they do in Belgium for example while the the quality is equal. Why isn't the majority of Belgium doctors moving to the US?
As long as the wage difference isn't that big, most people will stay in there familiar suroundings.

[Papewaio]

As long as the wage difference isn't that much... so if you artificially lower wages you will get more and more leaving. Not a hundred percent, but with highly skilled professionals they can more easily move then others. Halve the wage of a factory worker and they don't have much choice... even then you can see such workers from South-East Asian working in the middle east.

[Peasant Phill]

As long as the wage difference isn't that much... so if you artificially lower wages you will get more and more leaving. Not a hundred percent, but with highly skilled professionals they can more easily move then others. Halve the wage of a factory worker and they don't have much choice... even then you can see such workers from South-East Asian working in the middle east.

I agree that the wage difference can't be so substantial that the better part of a workforce relocates. We see this in Poland where there is a shortage of capable workmen due to relocation to the Western European countries.

BUT

I'm quite sure that the wages of US based medical staff is bigger than those of other countries in the region (maybe only a slight difference to the Canadian wages). Which means that there is some margin before other countries become 'more interesting'.
Add to that, the patriotism of most Americans and difference in culture between the US and its surrounding countries (again this may be less of a factor when Canada is concerned).

I'm not talking about a huge cut in wages, only about a legal maximum for the biggest earners while making sure this doesn't cause a too big difference with the surrounding countries. Keep in mind that this maximum should only make sure that public hospitals can somewhat compete with private hospitals what staff is concerned.

The goal is making public hospitals become a real alternative for the average American. In turn private hospitals will lower their prices or better their services for the same price.

[ShaiHulud]

It's a misconception that public hospitals in the US can turn away a patient. A great many such hospitals in states like Texas and Cal., bordering Mexico, are near bankruptcy because they CANNOT refuse service- to illegal aliens. I won't dabble in the details, but, the services they provide to illegals, over 1/3 of their patient loads in many cases, is THE cause of their insolvency.

Can a private institution in the US decline a service? I really don't know. One would expect to hear many apocryphal stories of such events. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that they can.

In what great sense would that differ from, say, hospitals in England where doctors were told by their government to stop taking new patients until the next fiscal year came around? Or, both Canada and England in which you can be diagnosed and then put on a waiting list that extends for years before proper treatment MAY be received? Even the diagnosis can be delayed for months, waiting in queue for sparingly provided test equipment like a MRI.

Fairly recently the Montreal Supreme Court determined that the Canadian system was unconstitutional because it prevented people from seeking, from private institutions, treatment that they were unable to receive from the mandated social medical system. The 'moral superiority' of such a system wanes when it fails to provide.

In the end, anything run by government is run poorly and wastefully. The moral aspect is good cover when the government, predictably, fails and the system declines.When governments actually make it ILLEGAL to attain better service by going outside the mandated system, one should understand that the impetus for such restrictions do not result from humane impulses.

[Lemur]

In the end, anything run by government is run poorly and wastefully.

By this line of reasoning, we should privatize the armed forces and the police. Blackwater must be more effective and efficient than the Navy Seals, right?

[Peasant Phill]

It's a misconception that public hospitals in the US can turn away a patient. ... THE cause of their insolvency.

I don't think that there is a misconception about this. At least I didn't notice it in this thread.
I agree with you on the cause of the problem with the American system, however, my solution still stands. Wheel in the middle class with better staff and service and your solvability will increase meaning even better service can be provided.
The other solution is to leave all those that can't afford health care to die.

Can a private institution in the US decline a service? I really don't know. One would expect to hear many apocryphal stories of such events. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that they can.

In what great sense would that differ from, say, hospitals in England where doctors were told by their government to stop taking new patients until the next fiscal year came around? Or, both Canada and England in which you can be diagnosed and then put on a waiting list that extends for years before proper treatment MAY be received? Even the diagnosis can be delayed for months, waiting in queue for sparingly provided test equipment like a MRI.

Great ! Yes, the world only exists of an Anglo-Saxon system .
I understand that you are only familiar with this one system and this one sphere of countries but there is a whole world out there that have different values and different solutions. You just compared three very similar systems to each other.

In the end, anything run by government is run poorly and wastefully. The moral aspect is good cover when the government, predictably, fails and the system declines.When governments actually make it ILLEGAL to attain better service by going outside the mandated system, one should understand that the impetus for such restrictions do not result from humane impulses.

You actually support a 'Laissez-faire'-policy?
Do you realise that that theory has been gathering dust since the beginning of the previous century? No public hospitals would mean no health care for a few million people in America

P.S. Your post is quite inconsistent. First you seem to come down on situations where people are left out of health care and then you promote a system where only profit is important.

[Ironside]

It's a misconception that public hospitals in the US can turn away a patient. A great many such hospitals in states like Texas and Cal., bordering Mexico, are near bankruptcy because they CANNOT refuse service- to illegal aliens. I won't dabble in the details, but, the services they provide to illegals, over 1/3 of their patient loads in many cases, is THE cause of their insolvency.

Can a private institution in the US decline a service? I really don't know. One would expect to hear many apocryphal stories of such events. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that they can.

It's only the emergency care that has a legal demand on accepting all patients (and without that law almost none would get emergency care).

In the end, anything run by government is run poorly and wastefully.

Depends, like all systems, it needs something to control it. The goverment got waste and corruption as issues (like all big organisations actually) and the companies got greed as another issue.

The moral aspect is good cover when the government, predictably, fails and the system declines.When governments actually make it ILLEGAL to attain better service by going outside the mandated system, one should understand that the impetus for such restrictions do not result from humane impulses.

So what are you suggesting to solve the crumbling American system that cost almost twice as much as the OECD average, still got people uninsured and where the company insurence starts to be something that's only working when you don't need it. A the medical costs are still rapidly increasing.