Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Manx
Define this. The potential quality of care or the quality of care for the average American?
The free-market approach to health care is going to provide a higher potential quality of care - but you're far less likely to receive it. The universal approach to health care is going to lower the quality of the best possible care, but you are far more likely to receive it.
In other words, do you hold the opinion that the U.S. health care system provides the best care in the world, and if so, are you willing to sacrifice that?
|
Since most of the same people that are providing our healthcare now will be providing our healthcare under a universal system, I can hope that the quality of care stays the same.
I think the question is going to fall under motivation.
Money is a powerful motivator. Will the same monetary incentives be in place under a univeral healthcare system? I don't know. As I mentioned, I wasn't really prepared to state an "argument", but I did want to add my two cents.
Also, I have absolutely no experience with a universal system. Right now, working in the healthcare industry is very attractive as kids grow up and make career decision for themselves--will those same incentives be in place under a universal system?
What is the pay difference between a doctor in the U.S. and a doctor in a country that has a universal system?
Is there a country that is really well-known for its quality of care under a universal system? I seem to remember roach pointing out that France had excellent quality of care--does anyone have more info on that?
If we were to model our proposed system after someone else's, who would we choose as a model?
For those that live in a country that has a universal healthcare system, what would you change about it. What do you see as it's flaws? It's greatest benefits?
As you can see, at this point, I have more questions than anything else.