Is national health care possible in the United States - and is it a good idea?
- Politician bemoans two-tier health system in U.S. – wealthy vs poor, insured vs uninsured, haves vs have-nots.
- Politician promises government solution of “universal health care” – coverage for all.
- Citizen elects Politician.
- Politician installs a “standard” benefit plan (read high deductible, catastrophic coverage).
- Politician raises taxes to pay for “universal health care.”
- Citizen realizes that there are holes in the “standard” coverage.
- “Wealthy” Citizen purchases private insurance to supplement the government’s “standard” plan.
- “Poor” Citizen cannot afford private insurance; has high out-of-pocket medical expenses.
- Politician bemoans two-tier health system in U.S. – wealthy vs poor, insured vs uninsured, haves vs have-nots.
And, so it goes…
Differing types of “National Health Care”
The term “national health care” should not be used interchangeably with “universal health care.” Universal health care simply means that coverage is available to all – a worthy goal indeed. “National health care” is coverage that has been nationalized by the government.
There are a number of national health care models. These include:
Socialized Health Care. Under this model, the government owns the health care facilities and the providers – the doctors and nurses – are government employees. The National Health Care System (NHS) in the United Kingdom is an example of socialized medicine.
Single-Payer Health Care. In a single-payer system, the government collects taxes and uses those funds to pay for benefits. But, unlike a socialized health care system, the delivery of care may be provided by privately employed doctors and hospitals, but paid for with public funds (taxes). Canada, Denmark and Sweden have single-payer systems.
