inciteHEALTH - a Portal for Health and Wellness

Login arrow General arrow Universal "Free" Access arrow HEALTH CARE Systems arrow General  




We have 53 guests online

RSS Syndication

ALL |0-9 |A |B |C |D |E |F |G |H |I |J |K |L |M |N |O |P |Q |R |S |T |U |V |W |X |Y |Z



Search by tag : ambulance, heavy, transport, big patient, overweight, firefighter assist, emt, ems tribute, paramedic heroes, paramedic


Universal "Free" Access PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 0
PoorBest 
 
Written by Administrator,
Editor's rating
Average user rating    (0 vote)

Rating 0.0/5 (0 vote)


A healthcare delivery system based on universal and equal access on "no cost to user" basis sounds good in theory.
COMMUNICATE - DISCUSS - COMMENT

Whether you, agree, disagree with, or even like this article or video clip, your input is IMPORTANT and VALUABLE.

  a) Make a COMMENT - [End of Article]
  b) Visit the FORUM to exchange ideas with other members, or;
  c) AUTHOR your own article - video

Check out other articles at www.incitehealth.com  
 
It is a laudable goal and one that should not be discarded out of hand. On an altruistic level it is the morally correct objective. Altruism however should not cloud the economic cost to society. In designing a universal health care system lessons can be learned from other existing systems and tendencies that are empirical or logical.

So-called Universal Healthcare amplifies all problems:


To be cost conscientious and find the best possible price for the best possible service/product available. Patients who receive "free" (taxpayer-funded) health care have no incentive to conserve their health care dollars. Care is "free" so they visit the doctor's office several times a month or request "free" prescriptions for over-the-counter medication such as Tylenol.

To provide competitive care is reduced and reduces drug companies' incentives to provide new drugs and treatments.

With no incentive to provide quality care, physicians and nurses leave the government-monopolized area for better opportunities in a freer country. Shortages result. Drug companies are hindered by price controls and regulations and soon cease research and development of new medication. In the U.S., start-up drug companies cannot afford to run the FDA gauntlet, so the market is dominated by a few established corporations.


Yes, you do have a right to health care, just as you have a right to food, shelter and property. However, you have no "right" to force others to provide these things for you - All "free" medical care is subsidized through taxes stolen from other people.

And the average citizen will get sicker.

As the poor and middle-class wait in agony for simple procedures, those with resources can travel to other countries for treatment.


Suddenly your problems are mine and mine are yours. If you eat unhealthy foods or drive a motorcycle without a helmet, I have a direct interest in your business - you are going to see a provider on my tax dollars. Your neighbors might support government bans on smoking, "unsafe" sex or other "risky" behaviors to reduce costs. Politicians will use the federal bureaucracy to force you and your family to comply with programs such as the "New Freedom Commission on Mental Health".


When you blindly support a system that bestows power on politicians and bureaucrats, they will receive their orders from those with the most money - and this will not be you, your friends or your family. The power of government will be used against you as you are forced to use medicines or accept treatments from well-connected health care companies.


A quick search shows that pharmaceutical companies donated $152,437,727 to political campaigns since 1990. Who do you think has the ear of those elected politicians?

Conversely, if government power is eliminated (e.g., abolish the FDA - whose restrictions benefit the most powerful companies by eliminating most competition), those same companies would have to use their funds and resources to sell their drugs to the most people in the least expensive, most reliable and safest way. They would need to outperform their competitors to get your money - otherwise they lose business.

Most links below direct you to newspaper articles from different established sources and different countries, including the New York Times, the BBC, the Daily Mail, ABC or CNN. These articles show widespread problems such as physician shortages or increased waiting times that are inevitable when businesses are monopolized by the government. ~

So-called Universal Health Care amplifies all problems:

One

Greatly reduces patient incentives to be cost conscientious and find the best possible price for the best possible service/product available. Patients who receive "free" (taxpayer-funded) health care have no incentive to conserve their health care dollars. Care is "free" so they visit the doctor's office several times a month or request "free" prescriptions for over-the-counter medication such as Tylenol. {/tab}

Two

The physician's incentives reduced} to provide competitive care is reduced and reduces drug companies' incentives to provide new drugs and treatments.

With no incentive to provide quality care, physicians and nurses leave the government-monopolized area for better opportunities in a freer country. Shortages result. Drug companies are hindered by price controls and regulations and soon cease research and development of new medication. In the U.S., start-up drug companies cannot afford to run the FDA gauntlet, so the market is dominated by a few established corporations. {/tab}

Three

Steals from your wallet to pay for my health care. Yes, you do have a right to health care, just as you have a right to food, shelter and property. However, you have no "right" to force others to provide these things for you - All "free" medical care is subsidized through taxes stolen from other people. {/tab}

Four

The quality of "free" health care will deteriorate and the average citizen will get sicker. As the poor and middle-class wait in agony for simple procedures, those with resources can travel to other countries for treatment. {/tab}

Five

Destroys your privacy. Suddenly your problems are mine and mine are yours. If you eat unhealthy foods or drive a motorcycle without a helmet, I have a direct interest in your business - you are going to see a provider on my tax dollars. Your neighbors might support government bans on smoking, "unsafe" sex or other "risky" behaviors to reduce costs. Politicians will use the federal bureaucracy to force you and your family to comply with programs such as the "New Freedom Commission on Mental Health". {/tab}

Six

Destroys your liberty. When you blindly support a system that bestows power on politicians and bureaucrats, they will receive their orders from those with the most money - and this will not be you, your friends or your family. The power of government will be used against you as you are forced to use medicines or accept treatments from well-connected health care companies. {/tab}

A quick search shows that pharmaceutical companies donated $152,437,727 to political campaigns since 1990. Who do you think has the ear of those elected politicians?


Conversely, if government power is eliminated (e.g., abolish the FDA - whose restrictions benefit the most powerful companies by eliminating most competition), those same companies would have to use their funds and resources to sell their drugs to the most people in the least expensive, most reliable and safest way. They would need to outperform their competitors to get your money - otherwise they lose business. ~

 



Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Free and Open Source Software News Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! Yahoo! Free Joomla PHP extensions, software, information and tutorials.
Quote this article in website Print Send to friend Save this to del.icio.us

Users' Comments (1) RSS feed comment
Posted by rriva, on 03-11-2008 15:10, IP 69.159.55.12, Registered
1. AN OPPOSING VIEW
As often happens, when opponents of a proposed solution to fix a broken system run out of valid arguments in defence of their position, there is a tendency of denigrate the advocates of change by using fear tactics, lies, falsehoods, misleading statements, etc. Your article is simply one-sided, serving the interests of those who currently control and manipulate the health care in the U.S., with a blind disregard for the 40% of the population that have no health care coverage. A shameful situation for a nation that leads the globe in funds allocated to the health of its people.
 
» Report this comment to administrator
» Reply to this comment...

Add your comment



mXcomment 1.0.8 © 2007-2010 - visualclinic.fr
License Creative Commons - Some rights reserved