posted
As anyone who's been paying attention knows, I'm no fan of government-run healthcare. It's just too darned inefficient. At present charitable donations are simply not considered taxable income. I have a proposal that might increase efficiency of actually helping people, while simplifying the tax code. We just say "Okay, the government is using 10% of its budget to provide the poor with health care. If you donate 10% of what you would normally pay in taxes to an approved charity for that purpose, you only have to pay us 90% (or slightly less) of your total tax bill." Charities being almost universally more efficient at actually doing good than any government, more good would be done dollar-for-dollar, and I think more money would end up being donated as well.
So what do you think?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Not sure how you figure that, In Canada we pay on average $18.00 US for administartive cost to $95.00 US in the USA. Our doctors make less money which is also a savings on our system, we can now almost access our health records from anuwhere in our country. We pay less per person for health care than Americans do, we live longer, our infant mortality rate is less that yours. Seems the only thing the American system is more efficient at is putting people into the ground sooner.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
a) There would be huge hurdles in deciding what counts as a valid charity for this program i.e. religious groups that happen to do health-related work b) regulation of medical standards would not be fun c) political difficulty in barring flakey groups like homeopathic medicine, acupuncture, herbalists, etc. d)
quote: Charities being almost universally more efficient at actually doing good than any government
posted
Yes, because people are so good at governing and organising themselves. Lord of the Flies anyone?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Healthcare and News reporting should not be a "For Profit" endeavor.
All government is truly good at doing is bleeding the people for taxes.
Well, what's it going to be? A government-regulated system where everybody makes a contribution but is assured free medical service or a privatized industry where profit comes first and the quality of health care second?
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Omega: So, what you're saying, essentially, is that something like MedicAid should be converted from a tax-funded organization that the public has to pay for, to a charitable tax write-off to which people can choose to contribute, or choose not to?
I don't really know what the numbers would be, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there would be a noticeable decrease in the amount of money available for such organizations, if a program like that were implemented.
"...government-run healthcare [is] just too darned inefficient."
Funny how the people who actually have it seem to be happy with it. And how the people in the US complain so much about our current system.
If privatized insurance were really so much better, wouldn't it be the Canadians buying drugs from us?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"And how the people in the US complain so much about our current system."
Or about socialism. I've never had any complaints, but if Omega says it sucks for all involved, then who am I to argue?
quote:Originally posted by Omega: It's just too darned inefficient.
Your system may be. Ours isn't. Don't knock it until you've tried it, as the old adage goes. Or at least set aside your innate aversion to socialism for once and examine the Canadian and European health care schemes that *gasp* ARE efficient with some objectivity (or whatever passes for that in Tennessee) before you write the whole thing off as a crazy liberal fantasy.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
"Our doctors make less money which is also a savings on our system"
Watch your mouth. That statement is one of the many reasons for the so-called "brain drain" to the US.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:"Our doctors make less money which is also a savings on our system"
Watch your mouth. That statement is one of the many reasons for the so-called "brain drain" to the US.
I work in the healthcare field and have talked to alot of Doctors and nurses that have gone to the states and returned. Most site, strangely enough the high cost of healthcare as one of the reasons they returned. Also they didn't feel safe in the US' large cities.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
It does sort of run contrary to the hippocratic oath if you've got to check and make sure the patient is covered before performing a potentially life-saving procedure.
I have a question for the 'nucks. I know the system is socialized and 'universal', but I'm unclear on exactly how this works. I've been wondering how well a parallel system would work. Where everyone would have access to universal health care, but there are also private (and perhaps more specialized) hospitals and care-systems to drive medical advances, etc. You know for people too good or too rich to be mixing it up with the rabble. I can imagine it working, but I can also foresee there being a lot of complications.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, in the UK we have private medical companies and hospitals, as well as the NHS. Generally speaking the system works OK except when certain politicians introduce targets that are politically rather than medically motivated. The NHS does need streamlining though; the amount of managers and paperwork especially needs looking at.
Omega's idea might be feasible, but it could lead to significant differences in the quality of care between rich and poor areas. Some charities may set themselves up exclusively in richer areas; they get more money and so have better equipment and can pay better wages, therefore drawing good doctors away from poorer regions.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:I have a question for the 'nucks. I know the system is socialized and 'universal', but I'm unclear on exactly how this works. I've been wondering how well a parallel system would work. Where everyone would have access to universal health care, but there are also private (and perhaps more specialized) hospitals and care-systems to drive medical advances, etc. You know for people too good or too rich to be mixing it up with the rabble. I can imagine it working, but I can also foresee there being a lot of complications.
According to the Canada health Act, private hospitals are illegal, although the idea is being kicked around, usually to much public resistance. We do have specialised hospital, Sick Childrens, Regional Cardiac care centres, London General Hospital specialises in severe trauma, usually to the head. There are regional cancer centres. A lot of research is done in co-ordination with universities. The provinces here provide healthcare but the are governed by the Canada Health act, a federal bill.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
