What are some pros and cons of free health care?

Question

please give me a few :)

Answer 1

No pros.

Canadian doc:

...Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the health-care system’s problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him down. “This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,” he fumed to the New York Times, “and in which humans can wait two to three years.”

And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day’s clinic, for instance, handles workers’-compensation cases for employees of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital’s emergency room.

This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain’s government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party—which originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as “Americanization”—now openly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: “The big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.” Last year, the private sector provided about 5 percent of Britain’s nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to voucherize certain surgeries, offering patients a choice of four providers, at least one private. And in a recent move, the government will contract out some primary care services, perhaps to American firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente.

Sweden’s government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm’s primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city’s largest hospitals. Since the fall of Communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany: increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority of German hospitals will remain under state control). It’s important to note that change in these countries is slow and gradual—market reforms remain controversial. But if the United States was once the exception for viewing a vibrant private sector in health care as essential, it is so no longer."

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_ca...



The NHS, the oldest system, is in Britain:

"Staff are being laid off, and deficits are at an all time high (£1.07bn for 2005-2006)” (Hazel Blears, Labour Party Chair and Minister Without Portfolio, labourachievements.blogspot.com/2006/08/...

In the National Review Online article, Coburn & Herzlinger state “more than 20,000 Brits would not have died from cancer in the U.S.” Just recently Alex Smallwood of the BMA (British Medical Association) was quoted in the Scotsman as saying: “’Rationing is reduction in choice. Rationing has become a necessary evil. We need to formalise rationing to prevent an unregulated, widening, postcode-lottery of care. Government no longer has a choice.’” (Moss, “NHS rationing is ‘necessary evil,’ says doctors,” 26 June 2007).

"Comparing Canada with other industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that provide universal access to health care, a study released by The Fraser Institute in May revealed that Canada spends more on its system than other nations while ranking among the lowest in several key indicators, such as access to physicians, quality of medical equipment, and key health outcomes.

...

In 1999, Richard F. Davies, MD, described how delays affected Ontario heart patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. In a single year, for this one operation, 71 patients died before surgery and another "121 were removed from the list permanently because they had become medically unfit for surgery;" 44 left Ontario and had their CABG elsewhere, such as in the USA. In other words, 192 people either died or were too sick to have surgery before they worked their way to the front of the waiting line.

One of the reasons Canadians are slow to acknowledge the problems with their system is that general practitioners have been relatively easy to access and reasonably efficient at providing everyday services for common complaints, such as colds, sprains, aches and pains.

As time passes, however, more and more Canadians are confronted by the halting quality of their system when they face complex and expensive medical problems. They often cannot get timely or appropriate care for bone fractures, prompt treatment for cancer, or non-emergency surgery such as hip replacements. Their doctors complain that they are unable to help them and the government pleads shortage of funds.

...

Canadian physician frustration with their inability to provide quality and timely care is resulting in a brain drain. According to one poll, one in three Canadian doctors is considering leaving the country. A doctor shortage looms, as the nation falls 500 doctors a year short of the 2,500 new physicians it needs to add each year to meet national health needs, according to Sally Pipes, a policy expert formerly with the Canadian Fraser Institute.

Another casualty of the lengthy waiting periods is Canada's much-vaunted equal access to medical treatment. Even though medical emergencies allow some people to jump ahead in the waiting line — making others wait longer — a survey published in the Annals of Internal Medicine medical journal found that more than 90 percent of heart specialists had "been involved in the care of a patient who received preferential access" to cardiac care based on non-medical reasons including the patient's social standing or personal connections with the treating physician."

Jewish World Review June 11, 2004 written by Dr. Cihak

AND

"The biggest Canadian fiscal drain comes from the single-payer medical system. "Current model of health-care delivery leading us down the path to financial ruin," states the lead editorial in the Calgary Sun. Health-care costs would consume 50% of Alberta's budget by 2016 (according to the Fraser Institute) or 2017 (according to Aon Consulting, a firm hired by the Alberta government). Health care would devour 100% of the provincial budget by 2030, if present trends continue.

...

An estimated 90,000 Canadians sought medical care outside their country in 2005. The cry "no two-tiered system" could be replaced by "set our patients free," stated a lead editorial (National Post 9/18/06)."

Jewish World Review Dec. 1, 2006 by Dr. Glueck

So why no total collapse yet? Because “illegal, for-profit health-service centers” have “proliferated” in Canada and are so accepted that the head of one became the president of the Canadian Medical Association (“Individual Freedom vs. Government Control,” 1 August 2007, nationalreview.com).

Japan doesn't fare any better:

"According to Japanese legislator Takashi Yamamoto, who was just diagnosed with cancer, "abandoned cancer refugees are roaming the Japanese archipelago." Patients are told they¹ll never get better, even when treatments exist, and many are not even informed of their diagnoses. Cancer mortality rates in Japan have been steadily climbing and are now more than 250 per 100,000, while U.S. rates are now around 180 per 100,000. (Glueck, “Far East illustrates the limitations and dangers of universal health care,” 26 January 2007, jewishworldreview.com)

The much lauded French system raises some questions as well. From their Embassy site (ambafrance-us.org) they state that 96 percent of the population receives free or 100 percent reimbursed health care. They state the system is part of their Social Security and is funded from worker’s salaries (60 percent), “indirect taxes on alcohol and tobacco and by direct contribution paid by all revenue proportional to income, including retirement pensions and capital revenues.” They state that it appears that health insurance pays less to its doctors in France than in other European countries, but that 80 percent of the public have supplemental health insurance, typically from their employers. If they’re providing so well for the needs of the public, why is there a need for “supplemental” health insurance for the majority of the public and what about the additional cost that imposes? The site states that the poorest have free universal health care, funded by taxes. Long-term illness sufferers are to be reimbursed for their treatments. They do have private clinics, as well as public hospitals, and not-for-profit healthcare. In fact, “private medical care in France is particularly active in treating more than 50% of surgeries and more than 60% of cancer cases.”

Private insurance, which the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) site said in a 2004 report, was held by 92 percent of the French, helps to cover both vision and dental care which are not well covered under the government system. “The public system is facing chronic deficits and recent cost containment

Answer 2

Well, the biggest con, is that it isn't free.  People pay about 60% income tax to support it.

The second biggest is, the government runs it.  That means, costs will jump up through the roof, and so will fraud.  

The third is, people who can afford private insurance, will keep it.  They'll get the fast, best service, and lines for "Joe Average" will go through the roof.  Want to wait 4 months for that open heart surgery like they do in the UK?  How about 18 months for a hearing aid?  

Government isn't effecient at ANYTHING.  If you love dealing with the IRS, you'll love government health care.

Pros?  Can't think of any, sorry.

Answer 3

Getting advice about "free" health care from an insurance agent is about as useful as getting information on STDs from the Emperors Club.

The advantage of "free" health care is that it's cheap.  The disadvantage is that it doesn't exist.  Do you think doctors and hospitals are simply going to stop charging you?

Answer 4

its great eveyone has acess to it no exceptions .the taxes are a bit high but it is well worth it. it is not an extra worry about whether or not you can afford treatment or the insurance company will cover.  when you are sick and need treatment you dont need that extra stress.

Answer 5

A pro is it would be great.  A con is where the h**l do you find it?  My agent is great but he is not free.

Answer 6

Whilst I agree with the previous answer that there is no such thing as 'free' health care in that you pay for it via some form of 'tax' the quoted rate of 60% is a vast exagerration.

The average tax burden in the UK is around 36% compared to the USA's 26%. Of course this isn't just due to state health care, but I mention it to illustrate that the 60% figure is, I'm afraid, rather spurious.

I also have to take umbrage with the issue of costs & fraud, I'm afraid.  I'll take a lot of convincing that fraud is significantly higher where there is a state run system. Ask a US medical insurer if it thinks it loses money to fraud and then watch them start crying (or laughing, depending on their sense of humour). Some estimates say there is over $2bn of fraud committed every year in the US alone.

A state run system where you just turn up and get treated, well how do you defraud it ...pretend to be ill when you aren't ?

I don't see how you can financially defraud a state health system, but maybe someone will correct me.

There is a question over the cost of care given versus that required.

A hospital operating for profit may be inclined to run $50,000 of tests, just because it knows the insurer will cover the bill. whilst a state hospital running on a tight fixed budget may only do $20,000 worth.... where perhaps the OPTIMUM level would be worth say $35,000.

It is a sad fact that governments aren't allways the best at running things, too keen on paperwork rather than on action. So one could argue that a state system is bloated and overlly expensive to operate compared to private corporations who are competing for your premiums.

Is the standard of healthcare adequate where there is a state system ?

I wouldn't like to say definitively, probably better in some ...worse in others, but since according to the US Government (CIA Factbook 2008) people in the UK live 1% longer than those in the US and infant deaths are 27% HIGHER in the US. It can't be much worse surely.

The difficulty here is seperating theory from reality.

A well run, well managed state healthcare system has much to commend it. If you are ill you just go to a doctor or hospital and you are treated until you recover....wealth and personal circumstances have no bearing. No claims forms, no insurance paperwork, nothing. I cannot think of a greater Pro.

Con:  Well who likes paying taxes ? So we all moan and vote for lower taxes and then there's less money to pay for the healthcare and so waiting times go up and facilities decline.

The biggest thing is where you are on the wealth scale...

If I was rich I'd want a nice brand new hospital with my own room and cable TV which the private system provides.  

If I was poor I'd rather live somewhere where getting life saving (or prolonging) treatment was available to me, despite being broke and so what if I had to be on an open ward with a radio.