Couldn't have said it better myself.
Great Britain and New Zealand have similar systems.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/postrel-drugs
to pay for a drug that tens of thousands of cancer patients are currently in need of, effectively dooming them in the name of "efficient" health
care.
The American system certainly could be better; health care costs too much, and the array of cost-deferring devices we use to defray that aren't available
to everyone. The system is tied up in too much red tape right now, and that limits its efficiency. For one thing, we have a shortage of doctors and nurses,
when compared to the amount of care we provide; medical school is expensive, after all. Also, since practicing doctors determine who is allowed to practice in
individual states, they prevent applicants from being officially recognized in order to keep the supply low and the fees they can charge high, reducing the
supply still further. If we can make it easier for doctors to be educated and begin practicing, the cost of health care will drop. It would be cheaper for
the government to reduce regulation, provide reforms, and create incentives for prospective doctors than it is for it to pay for medical care, and it might
even improve quality, to boot! Health care in America is, like Winston Churchill once said about democracy, the worst form of health care out there, except
for all the others that have been tried.
I'm with Logan on this one- don't tell us that your system is better than ours and we should adopt it, when the people of your country have to come use
our "inferior" health care system to get treatment.
When you have a health care system that can give them the treatments that the doctors think they need, when they need it, for less than our system costs,
I'll be the first one to promote it. Until then...
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate. Get yours.
I've been writing a bit.
Great Britain and New Zealand have similar systems.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/postrel-drugs
Quote: Consider New Zealand. There, a government agency called Pharmac evaluates the efficacy of new drugs, decides which drugs are cost-effective, and negotiatesThere's an even worse example of the problem with government-managed health care being quoted in the news right now: the NHS has decided not
the prices to be paid by the national health-care system. These functions are separate in most countries, but thanks to this integrated approach, Pharmac has
indeed tamed the national drug budget. New Zealand spent $303 per capita on drugs in 2006, compared with $843 in the United States. Unfortunately for
patients, Pharmac gets those impressive results by saying no to new treatments. New Zealand "is a good tourist destination, but options for cancer
treatment are not so attractive there right now," Richard Isaacs, an oncologist in Palmerston North, on New Zealand's North Island, told me in
October.
to pay for a drug that tens of thousands of cancer patients are currently in need of, effectively dooming them in the name of "efficient" health
care.
The American system certainly could be better; health care costs too much, and the array of cost-deferring devices we use to defray that aren't available
to everyone. The system is tied up in too much red tape right now, and that limits its efficiency. For one thing, we have a shortage of doctors and nurses,
when compared to the amount of care we provide; medical school is expensive, after all. Also, since practicing doctors determine who is allowed to practice in
individual states, they prevent applicants from being officially recognized in order to keep the supply low and the fees they can charge high, reducing the
supply still further. If we can make it easier for doctors to be educated and begin practicing, the cost of health care will drop. It would be cheaper for
the government to reduce regulation, provide reforms, and create incentives for prospective doctors than it is for it to pay for medical care, and it might
even improve quality, to boot! Health care in America is, like Winston Churchill once said about democracy, the worst form of health care out there, except
for all the others that have been tried.
I'm with Logan on this one- don't tell us that your system is better than ours and we should adopt it, when the people of your country have to come use
our "inferior" health care system to get treatment.
When you have a health care system that can give them the treatments that the doctors think they need, when they need it, for less than our system costs,
I'll be the first one to promote it. Until then...
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate. Get yours.
I've been writing a bit.