Talk:Universal health care
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 (March 13, 2006 - June 9, 2006)
Contents |
[edit] Opposition to Universal Health Care
"Not dying from an easily treated disease because a person cannot afford health insurance is not a right." I don't think even the Nation would phrase things in this manner if it were asked to list criticisms its opponents have to universal health care, hence I edited this. Furthermore, is it really appropriate to have unsourced rebuttals to the criticisms?
There are some serious NPOV problems with this section, but I'll leave it to a more experienced Wikipedian to fix it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tin Man (talk • contribs) 15:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC).
- Regarding: "[I]s it really appropriate to have unsourced rebuttals to the criticisms?" Rebuttal to criticism is OK, but Wikipedia policy is that content must be published by verifiable sources. -AED 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] pro and con lists
The lists have some serious problems, and should probably just be summary sections that point to a full article on the topic. For example, it is misleading to state "health care is a right" without explanation, and it is also embarrassing because the artics] 18:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- UHC is not always SP, but SP is a type of UHC, so I thought it would be better incorporated into that article. Kborer 19:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not true that SP is a form of UHC. Contray to what many people think, including many single-payer advocates, the two are distinct concepts. Single-payer is a economic model for financing health care. UHC is a concept that all people are guaranteed access to needed medical care; that there is universal coverage, such as under a private and/or public health insurance system. That's it. Single-payer is, in it's literal meaning--which is what's most relevant--simply an economic model for financing medical services delivered to patients. Single-payer also denotes--for nearly all of its advocates--a way of setting up a fee negotiation structure between the payer and providers (this can be referenced by leading SP advocacy organizations such as Physicians for a National Health Program). The payer of single-payer can be either a private or public payer. Single-payer does not imply UHC; they address distinct concepts; respectively, a financing model and access model. Some of the confusion comes from that fact that virtually all single-payer systems also utilize universal coverage, and most single-payer advocates--in the US and elsewhere, also advocate for universal coverage. But they are distinct. UHC is not a type of single-payer, and single-payer is not a type of UHC. I wrote a fair amount of the entry for single-payer and addressed these issues in a slightly more expanded manner there. Single-payer advocates also call for a number of other health system elements, but those, too, are not literally "single-payer." I'm new to this, so I have more to comment about in the article--not having made any edits yet, most saliently the misstatements regarding UHC and socialism and the inapt inclusion of this entry in the Socialism category. If anything is to be done, rather than repeating the info from other entries, like single-payer, or merging, is to hyperlink to the more expanded commentary elsewhere and to strip it out of here, allowing the focus on UHC itself, and secondarily referring to the related issues such as financing mechanisms. ---- my sigg isn't showing up, so by JackWikiSTP
-
-
- You're right. I removed the suggested merge tags awhile ago, but I guess there's no harm in continuing to talk about it. There is a lot of misunderstanding with this and related health care topics. Originally I had thought that bringing together the ideas that were being miss used would help clarify the situation, but currently it seems best to have separate pages which specify what is what, and what is not what. Kborer 22:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
-
Leads to make this a better site:
Two important details to research on this topic.
The top two systems Italy and France, (Canada way back, because it is controlled by the Doctors Union, and most services are privatly supplied, with no quality control.)
France. You pay the doctor first, and then the government re-imburses you, so that you are the audit system.
Italy. Doctors receive a per capita annual salary, so the system, the payment system rewards health. [1]
Canadian system rewards visits.
I will try to do the research...asap...
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 00:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The first paragraph
User:Caesarjbsquitti's edit of the 24th January[1] leaves the first paragraph making no sense:
- This type of socialized medicine is practiced in many countries, especially first world nations such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and France and Italy ranked in the top three in the world
How can four countries rank in the top three in the world? (And the top three for what?)
As a separate matter (which long predates that edit), I'm not sure it's NPOV to use the loaded term "socialized medicine" without qualification in the first paragraph (at least in the US, it's a term used primarily by opponents of such a system, as noted on the Socialized medicine page). The Wednesday Island 14:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether you feel socialized medicine is a loaded term, it just doesn't apply to universal health care and should be removed. Kborer 00:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Of the countries listed, only the UK practices true socilaized medicine (although it is also a system of universal healthcare), because physicians are government employees and most of the healthcare system is run by the public sector. In France, Italy, Germany, Canada, etc., physicians are not salaried by the government and the private sector still has a presence, thus they are simply countries practicing universal healthcare, not socialized medicine. Refer to "International Healthcare Systems Primer," by Hohman & Chua, published by the AMSA.
[edit] This Article Is Not Neutral
It has a pro big buisness insurance company slant as if written primarily by the sellers of Health Insurance and without much consideration towards the 40million plus people in the United States who have no more access to health care above what they might get in an impoverished country like Mexico. The article needs to defend the rights of all citizens to Health Care, rather than having a bias and implying that its as good for the rich in a country to have superior health care than for most people to have access to it. This writer feels it would be best for modernized countries to make laws that make it illegal for companies to make money off the misery, pain and suffering of others. Companies who often refuse to pay claims as things are. This article needs a rewrite or side article relating what it feels like to be uninsured person in a rich country. --merlinus 21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- What you are suggesting is that the article be rewritten to push your personal political agenda. That is not what wikipedia articles are for. Kborer 00:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Those 41.2 million people "without healthcare" in the U.S. are only 14.2 % of the population, so what's the problem? Looks like we're doing great to me. Note that that number is actually people who were without healthcare for at least part of the year surveyed (meaning many of those may actually have healthcare but were in between jobs or something). Also, approximately one-third of that 14.2 million people live in households with an income over $50,000, with half of these having an income of over $75,000 [2] That means these are people who can afford to buy healthcare but are choosing not to for their own reasons (many of these are young and healthy and choose to put off purchasing it). Another third of that 14.2 million are people who are eligible for public health insurance programs but have not signed up for them. That leaves only 4.5 million people out of a nation of 300,000,000 people that don't have access to healthcare. That's only about 2% of the population. That's so small that half of that may even be an accounting error. The solution is not a welfare state. Find these people who make up that 2% of the population, put them on a list, and let bleeding hearts like you give them charity. All Male Action 07:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- These are all interesting points -- why don't you add a section to health care politics about these ideas? Also, if anyone knows a forum for arguing about health care topics, that would be a great link for these pages, judging from how the talk pages keep getting off topic. Kborer 13:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Single Payer Health Care merge.
It seems to be that single payer and Universal health care are very seperate things and should not be merge.
It is posible to have a Single payer system that is not universal and it is possible to have a Universal system that has multiple payers.
I think that merging these two topics whould only make it harder to seperate the two different ideas and might make it harder for readers to tell the difference between these two ideas. 72.228.90.129 19:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality of this article needs to be examined!
I have added a neutrality icon to this page - the section on universal coverage in the United States cites examples in other countries that are not backed up with sources, true examples or figures. I also added links to tables dealing with life expectancy and infannt mortality rates among nations, as published by the CIA World Factbook online, found here.Dmodlin71 11:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, the statements pertaining to states enforcing monopolies on state-funded healthcare services should be deleted, unless they can be backed up with verifiable references. Dmodlin71 11:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Definition
Does anybody have a source for a definition of "Universal health care"? As far as I could tell, the source cited, Massachusetts Nursing Association. "Single Payer Health Care: A Nurses Guide to Single Payer Reform.", does not have a definition. Nbauman 20:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
For a definition of Universal health Care please visit http://www.euro.who.int/observatory/Glossary/TopPage?phrase=U
which states in summary, that Universal Health Insurance provides health care coverage to the entire population (100%)
"Universal Health Insurance Core definition: A national plan providing health insurance or services to all citizens, or to all residents. Source: Getzen, 1997 Example/s: Ninety-five percent of the population was covered in 1997, but it was not until a law was passed in 1999 providing universal health insurance that the entire population was covered. "
204.174.219.3 19:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article quality
This article is really bad right now. It provides no good information, has many unsourced and POV statements, and it glances over the topic in favor of playing up emotions. It needs to have less emotion and more information. As it stands, it reads like something off a short website instead of an encyclopedic article. Topics that should be included could include things like how countries implement care, what restrictions there are, and possibly political or social response to the topic if done so in a neutral manner that documents support and dissent. It should also not be presented as a list of opinions as the last two sections are, because they run into the same problem of merely glancing at the topic and offering no information beyond talking points. Rebochan 13:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] One Heck of a Mess
I began work to correct this mess but gave up in favor of commenting here. I comment not only as a dual citizen of the USA and Canada [more than 30 years lived in each nation] but also as a provider of healthcare services in hospitals on BOTH sides of the border.
My attention to the need for HEALTHCARE REFORM began back in 1991 with the fascinating Walter Cronkite TV Documentary entitled "Borderline Medicine". Walter followed 2 cases of normal pregnancy, 2 of cancer, and 2 of cardiac bypass surgery, one on each side of the border. The subsequent effect upon American cries for UHC surpassed Cronkite's 1968 aposty concerning the winabiity of the Vietnam War, a statement that convinced LBJ not to run again. Most advocacy for UHC in the USA is tracable back to Walter's nifty film.
The worst mess on the article page is the misunderstanding that Canada has national UHC. It does not. Canada is not a republic. It is a federation of ten provinces. Each province has its own government-regulated HC insurance plan. Services covered in Manitoba [which has universal state-operated automobile insurance!] are not the same as services covered in Newfoundland, and so forth. The federal government now provides only Guidelines for the provincial systems. Two decades ago it had purse string power over them by Federal Grants, but those days are now over.
Second, Americans presume that UHC in Canada was implemented under the reign of Left Wing governments. This holds true ONLY for the system implemented in Saskatchewan back in 1949 -and man is THAT a story to be told some day in Wikipedia! But it was the late 50s to early 60s federal CONSERVATIVES that brought UHC from sea to sea. But not a single, national scheme, such as Britain has.
Universal Health care is barely understood by persons who already have it, and dreadfully misunderstood by those who don't have it but either WANT IT or DON'T WANT IT. The former group tend to idealize UHC irationally and misunderstand what can actually be achieved. The latter group defame UHC irationally and misunderstand that it has nothing to do with Karl Marx.
The name of the game is the label one succeeds in imposing upon the facts. Canada does not have a single-payer heathcare system. That term was never used in the lively debate before adopting this kind of healthcare delivery. Canadians did not WANT a nation where the rich would live and the poor would die. The ethical aim of UHC is to ameliorate the biological connection between health and wealth, also between health and social class or rank. The most impressive researcher into this human condition remains British professor of epidemiology and public health, Sir Michael Marmot. Dr. Marmot was also the 2002 winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics. Look him up on the I'net.
Across six decades, a conclusion I have reached is as follows. The system used by a nation or society to distribute health care among its members is that society's answer to the question: Why have a society in the first place? At bottom, different HC delivery systems provide varying degrees of opportunity not to individuals, but to DNA units in our H. sapien gene pool.
Trylon 04:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] US-centric
Apart from the list of countries with UHC, this article bearly mentions any actual UHC systems.
Also, the primary focus of the article should not be a debate on the *worth* of UHC, taking place in a country that doesnt have it. surely the article should focus on UHC as it actually exists in countries where it actually exits?! The article should define what is it, the historical development of the concept and historical attempts at implementing it, describe where and how it is implemented in specific terms in the contempory context, philosophical underpinnings, etc, etc. There is lots that could be discussed other than its good, no its evil, ad infinitum. After that is done then you could have a section on particular pros and cons, etc. But as usual on wikipedia, you come to find out dome iformation and yo just get an argument. aussietiger 05:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
