Why not have the federal government demonstrate that it can provide adequate health care to American Indians, a promise it hasn’t kept for 222 years? Then demonstrate it can provide adequate health care to veterans, a promise it hasn’t kept for 79 years. Then demonstrate that it can reform and efficiently run the health insurance system called Medicare, which it has been been making a dog’s breakfast of for the last 44 years. And then, and only then, take over all of American health care.Sounds like a good plan to me.
Or even better, why not have the mainstream media do its job for once and vigorously investigate the federal government’s actual track record in regard to health care? It’s not an impressive résumé for someone applying to run the whole show. Indeed, it’s a more-than-two-hundred-year record of failure, inadequate funding, bureaucratic indifference, and broken promises.
Banner ad
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Here's an idea
John Steele Gordon has a reasonable proposal. Before we have the government take over health care for everyone, let's see them demonstrate their ability to fix the problems they have with the health care that the federal government now controls.
Labels:
Health
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
That doesn't sound like a good plan to me.
It sounds like an idea for running out the clock, from people who want to deny Americans the same kind of health care that citizens get in insignificant countries like, say, Scotland.
The president said yesterday that everyone will be able to keep their current plan, if they want to. Everyone.
So given that, we have nothing to lose by introducing some new options - and everything to gain.
It is wrong to introduce delay because of fear of change. Find someone who is unsatisfied with Medicare. You can find ten people who are fully satisfied, for every one who has a complaint. If you want to wait for a perfect system, we will wait forever.
The president's actual words were: "If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what."
Don't take away the chance of improvement for those Americans who currently have no health care except the emergency room.
Considering that Scotland is a subsidy state that can only survive on the dole from GB and the NHS I'm pretty sure that I don't want that kind of healthcare. They have done such a great job in Scotland that life expectancy there is a full year shorter than the US. A headline in BBC Online decribes Scotland as the "...worst performing country in Western Europe," in all the indicators of health. What will really bother Bill is that the gap between the health of those who can pay for supplemental insurance is growing apart from those that are tied to the NHS like Coleridge's stinking albatross. I can only guess that Bill basically wants us all to have miserable health care because it's only fair that we are all just as sick as the Scottish.
http://tinyurl.com/yo4nty
The CBO Health Care Bill Report
says the president is lying through his pearly whites, "Jaw Bone." That's why he'll toss out the CBO report and use OMB stats to try muddying the financial waters to fool Jane and John Six-Pack into thinking this is another free ride before jamming his Crisis du Jour down their throats.
We ought to have learned from the financial "crisis," housing and loan "crises," and auto "crisis" that the pointy heads in Washington wasted billions under the guise of "sky is falling" scare tactics.
Magic Mouth says lots of things that have a shelf life of "X" days. When he decides they are no longer useful, POOF! They expire. Watch what he DOES, not what he says.
If the healthcare system is so outstanding in UK, Canada and all those other socialized medicine (single payer) countries, "Bill B.," why do so many, who can afford to do so, go to other countries for care they can't get in their own? Why are there long waiting lists for what are simple exams here, like CT scans and MRIs, or what are fairly routine surgeries here, like hernia repairs, that require weeks or months waiting IF you are deemed healthy or young enough to be granted permission to get? (I have friends in Scotland who know of cases exactly like these, "Bill B.")
What bothers Bill is how readily Pat invents some nonsense and ascribes it to Bill.
That seems to happen a lot round here. When you can't prevail in a discussion honestly, you resort to inventing fiction. Very telling. Please stop doing it.
You seem to be missing the big picture that millions and millions of Americans don't even have healthcare that comes up to the level of that in Scotland.
Hmmm, a lot of comments there, Bachbone. I will try my best to answer the questions.
1. why do some people in places with government-organized health care go to other places for some medical care?
OK, I would think the answer is they can get something that they cannot legally get at home, like going to Pakistan for a purchased kidney transport. Or they do it for the same reason that Americans try to fill their prescriptions in Canada - they can get something more cheaply elsewhere.
In general though, the number of Europeans going outside Europe for medical care is infinitesimal. It is tiny compared to the overall number of health care transactions, and it says that the vast majority of Europeans are very satisfied with the state of their health care.
How many Americans travel to Canada and Mexico for health care?
The best health care system in the world is currently found in France. Why shouldn't Americans have a health care system like that?
Your other question is "why are there long waiting lists?" Newsflash: we have long waiting lists in America too. I cannot get a same day appointment with my doctor, and I have great health care in a major metro area.
I'd be happy if the president did nothing more than open up Medicare eligibility to all Americans, and charged a monthly fee to cover the costs. And got rid of "pre existing condition" denial of claim in private insurance.
Biddle,
Go to this link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/yourview/1566976/Should-English-taxpayers-fund-Scottish-healthcare.html
Taxpayers other than the Scots are carrying Scotland's burden and as such they often don't even enjoy the same level of health care themselves. Your model is a failed artifice.
I lived in the UK for several years. Do you know what the term "postcode lottery" means? Put simply, it comes down to which side of the tracks you live on as to what benefits are available and it galled many of my friends and work associates in various parts of the UK.
Jaw Bone,
Betsy's article has not been refuted. The government has not shown a history of managing its current medical responsibilities and yet you want them to take charge of more. That just makes absolutely no sense.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, tfhr. The region of Scotland is a net beneficiary of taxes raised in the United Kingdom, and so ... what?
There are many regions within the US that are net beneficiaries of taxes raised within the US.
For example, only two "red" states (states with right wing majorities) pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal subsidies. But you don't hear progressives calling to cut off the funding to them.
Why do you allege that "government health care has failed" thfr?
The majority of Medicare participants are very happy with it indeed. It has worked very well for them. I don't see Medicare members crowding to get into private health insurance.
If anything has completely failed, it is the system of private health insurance, which profits from denial of coverage.
Bill hasn't quite figured out that the average American without the benefit of the NHS is healthier and lives longer than than those that are. Plus the swerve to the touting the French model is moot as it is not a one payer system but it still is basically one gigantic HMO.
And the unanswered question still is why would anyone want to live a less healthy life and a year less under NHS?
I think we should strive to do better than the French, Pat. They have the best national health care in the world. Doing better than the brits is a goal hardly worth achieving.
The USA currently ranks very poorly in the data I have seen, like this:
http://tinyurl.com/lagqgh
You know, I'm actually willing to give government run healthcare a shot, provided:
1) No elected official is allowed to receive treatment outside of the government healthcare system while in office. If they need to travel to a foreign land for a heart transplant or something, or resort to private medical practice, they must resign and forego all government pensions.
2) If any rationing of care is introduced, all non-military government officials shall have their priority downgraded. That is, if a plumber, a government bureaucrat, and the President need a vaccine for swine flu at the same time, the plumber gets first dibs.
I'm actually willing to consider the possibility that such a system might actually work, as the first people to feel any negative consequences will be those running it.
Please, make up your mind! First you claim that health care is better in Scotland, now worse, now we should emulate the French system. When you change your mind so often does it make beeping sounds to let everyone else know you are backing up, again?
Plus it really is useless using any of the WHO or OECD figures to determine which system is better as there are such great discrepancies in how the data is arrived at to make it nonsensical. France does not provide any coverage for illegal aliens and in many cases, unlike emergency hospital rooms which are required by law to treat anyone, they are denied treatment and often encouraged to go back home. I'm sure the brochures are cutting edge and nuanced.
Infant mortality rates in France are only drawn from citizens and legal residents while the US counts all residents via the census, legal or not, for these figures. France also doesn't even count some babies as live birth unless they live for one full year while in the US if there is a pulse at birth anytime in the 2nd trimester then that counts as a live birth even though that maybe agonal and lasting for several minutes.
It's useless to compare when one country limits its health information sources to citizens and legal residents who are generally much healthier than illegals. While another country, the US, using a more expansive system of counting will include citizens from other countries that have shocking low infant mortality rates and life expectancy. Basically we seem hell bent on fixing a problem that may simply not be justified by the cost.
But we know,Jim, that will never happen. Congress has made sure that they are able to get the best--paid for the taxpayers.
Anywone thinking that everyone else will get that kind of healthcare with government healthcare is not living in the real world.
Medicare is broke -- government has done a great job of managing that. thfr is exactly right about their track record in several different areas.
Biddle/Jaw Bone,
The point is that these programs are unsustainable because the tax base can only provide so much. Medicare, Jaw Bone, will be insolvent by 2019, and that is probably an optimistic estimate.
Jim, Congress could lay on all kinds of restrictions like you say to get the bill passed. But inevitably, follow-up bills and amendments to unrelated legislation will sneak through and erode those guarantees and safeguards until the system becomes just another political tool.
Draw the line at expanding government. The greatness of America owes all to the limitations of government imposed by the Constitution. And that's slipping away at an alarming rate.
The president said yesterday that everyone will be able to keep their current plan, if they want to. Everyone.
So given that, we have nothing to lose by introducing some new options - and everything to gain.
If we've learned anything in four months it's that we need to look at the facts and not rely on what this president says. On this issue, Michael Tanner sums it up nicely:
"During his speech yesterday to the American Medical Association in Chicago, President Obama said not once, but twice that if you have health insurance today and like it, you will be able to keep it under his reform. Shortly afterwards, the congressional budget Office released its initial scoring of the health care bill drafted by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and the Senate Committee on Health Education Labor and Pensions (HELP), concluding that it would result in roughly 23 million people losing the insurance they currently have. Oops!"
I'd be happy if the president did nothing more than open up Medicare eligibility to all Americans, and charged a monthly fee to cover the costs.
We can't afford it. According to Cato's Doug Bandow's analysis we're already strapped with over 100 trillion in unfunded Medicare and Social Security benefits. It will take a lot more than a monthly fee just to get us out from under what we already owe.
The majority of Medicare participants are very happy with it indeed. It has worked very well for them.
What about for the REST of us, Jawbone? The Medicare system is going to collapse in the not-too-distant-future, racking up trillions more in debt. Its collapse, along with that of Social Security, will have us longing for the economic golden age of 2009.
These massive government social programs are going to have to stop. They are simply unaffordable, and an Obamacare plan will further bankrupt an already bankrupt country. Do you understand, Jawbone? WE CAN NOT AFFORD THIS.
Guys,
I think I've come up with a compromise solution that will provide health care for those who can not afford it: Since Jawbone and millions of others believe that the government should provide that health care, let them pay for it.
I propose a tax that would only be levied on those who support socialized medicine. Every year, when you fill out your tax form, you would check yes or no as to whether you want the government to prove this. If you check "yes," an additional income tax will be levied on you to pay for it... the actual amount will have to be worked out, of course, but shouldn't be more than half your income. Since debt is a form of taxation, the new program's costs would have to be covered each year in full without further borrowing.
What do you think, Jawbone? that seems fair, doesn't it?
I think I've come up with a compromise solution that will provide health care for those who can not afford it: Since Jawbone and millions of others believe that the government should provide that health care, let them pay for it.
This proposal makes a sharp point, but I would oppose even this. Most of the commentary has been about cost and efficacy -- and indeed these are the points on which the outcome hinges. However, a far more important consideration, in my view anyway, is that a national health care program is unconstitutional.
The Constitution simply doesn't grant the federal government the authority to confiscate money for these purposes. Sadly, this notion of limited powers isn't even on our collective radar anymore.
Yes, Otto - your proposal is fine with me. I am not proposing anyone get something for nothing.
I will be happy just to see the excessive private profits taken out of health care. A medicare scheme in which participants pay the full premiums is just fine with me.
Thank you.
Much of the criticism seems to be that "Medicare is running out of money".
Well gee, maybe you should have thought of that before signing up for a pointless war that costs $6 bn/month in Iraq.
If we can find the money for that, we can find the money for health care for Americans.
You should be ashamed of yourselves. Putting unnecessary death and destruction of foreigners for an oil grab, ahead of proper health care for all Americans.
Jaw Bone,
Where have we grabbed oil?
$6 billion a month? Do you believe you can provide health care for every American that needs it for that?
You can pull numbers out of your ass all day long as far as I'm concerned but the simple fact is and always has been that government programs increase costs and that the tax base is not unlimited. We either run out of money, wait longer for services, or have services rationed for us while our take home pay is eaten by an ever growing bureaucracy. Most likely we will see all of the above and more. Just imagine when those first medical malpractice suits start coming in against the government! Who is going to pay for those settlements and awards?!
If we do get government health care for all, will you please use it to seek psychiatric help? Maybe you and Biddle can go in on a group session!
JB, what level profit do you believe is excessive (percentage, please)?
Personally I am always in favor of the necessary death and destruction of foreigners so I can fill my car with Trick Racing fuel!
Your "http://tinyurl.com/lagqgh" link leads to a page for "RegistryPC" on how to fix PC errors, "Bill B."
A Picis report on patient satisfaction with healthcare services in the US, UK, Spain and France was reported 10/29/2008. Overall satisfaction with all was roughly equal, with Spain highest. Spanish patients felt their care and staff morale had improved over the previous 10 years, whereas the others felt both had decreased.
Spanish patients felt efficiency in their system had improved, but the others felt theirs had gotten worse. In UK, 41% felt Interference from Management and Lack of Staff Coordination were the biggest problems. Lack of Staff Coordination was cited as the bigest problem in the US (35%), Spain (44%) and France (43%).
Top 3 major challenges faced were: US - Inefficiency (26%), Other (25%), Lack of Qualified Staff (19%). UK - Hospital Infections (34%), Inefficiency (22%), Waiting Lists (20%). Spain - Waiting Lists (73%), Lack of Qualified Staff 7%), Inefficiency and Other (6% each). France - Lack of Qualified Staff (43%), Hospital Infections (24%), Waiting Lists (21%).
Another recent (1998) study by Health Affairs compared results of 1000+ adults in each of Australia, New Zealand (NZ), Canada, UK and the US. More interesting results are reported there.
Americans complain about their healthcare about as much as do those in other countries, but when the reasons for complaining are investigated, many differences are distinguished. As with so many other matters, a lot of whining goes on, because many of us don't know, or pay attention to, how well off we are. I don't want to substitute the problems cited by US patients for those given by patients from other countries. Infections and waiting lists are deadly matters we can do without.
Somehow, every other country in the Western world has managed to arrange national health care for its citizens.
Against this proud example, thfr remains resolute - Americans will fail, Americans cannot do it, Americans will find it costs too much.
This is one of the worst examples of your lack of belief in America, thfr. One of the worst.
Jawbone:
Yes, Otto - your proposal is fine with me. I am not proposing anyone get something for nothing.
No, you are proposing to make me and those like me who are opposed to this pay for it too. Y'see, what I wrote wasn't serious. I was being sarcastic. The fatal flaw in my immodest little proposal is that it won't work. The vast majority of socialized medicine supporters, when given the choice to lose hundreds of dollars from their paychecks to pay for someone else's medical care, will check the "no" box, to say nothing of the masses in the middle who are indifferent.
In order for a socialized system to work, it must be mandatory. No one can be given the choice whether or not to be taxed to pay for it, even if the system allows people some choice in their doctors or is partially private. If given a choice, the vast majority will choose not to pay for it. We will thus be required to pay for the health care of others, regardless of whether we use the system ourselves or not.
There's nothing stopping you, Jawbone, from paying for someone else's care RIGHT NOW. You could grab the checkbook and write a check to the hospital of your choice, or the government, in order to assist with someone's health care. It's pretty good odds that you don't do so, though. Why? Because you don't have to. Because you can use the money you earn more than the government. Because you earned that money.
I will be happy just to see the excessive private profits taken out of health care.
Who decides what are "excessive" profits? Where in the Constitution does the government have the power to regulate profits?
A medicare scheme in which participants pay the full premiums is just fine with me.
You will be denying health care to the poor if you do so. The whole POINT of Medicare is that the people using it can't afford to pay "full premiums." If they could, they could get private insurance.
But that's not what I was proposing. Simply put, I was proposing that you pay for other people's health care. You, Jawbone.
Much of the criticism seems to be that "Medicare is running out of money".
It's not "running" out of money. It HAS run out of money.
Well gee, maybe you should have thought of that before signing up for a pointless war that costs $6 bn/month in Iraq.
Iraq is a drop in the bucket compared to spending on Medicare and Medicaid. You could end the war tomorrow, take all that money you're spending on it, and it still wouldn't make the slightest dent.
The unfunded liability for Medicare is $74 TRILLION. $74,000,000,000,000.
Do you have any idea how large that number is? That's just Medicare. That isn't Medicaid or Social Security or any of the other bloated government programs we've had piled on us for decades.
If we can find the money for that, we can find the money for health care for Americans.
No. We can't. It is like claiming we can fully fund the Pentagon if we cut the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
No, you should be ashamed of yourself for saddling our children with untold debt.
Putting unnecessary death and destruction of foreigners for an oil grab,
(rolling eyes)
ahead of proper health care for all Americans.
I'm not ashamed of standing up and saying "no more" to yet more bloated government spending. Not even a little.
Otto -- perhaps you should go in a corner and have a little talk with Pat.
Pat is arguing equally as strenuously as you that "there is no cost problem with American health care".
You can't both be right.
Evil Otto,
Well said.
Biddle,
I have faith in Americans like you wouldn't believe but I have no faith that the government will do a better job managing their health care than they can do on their own. Who makes the decisions for you in your house, Biddle?!
No, we have both addressed different parts of the argument. I was referring to the individual cost of health care which on a per capita basis of premiums and out of pocket expenses is barely at the rate of inflation.
While Otto is referring to the cost of Medicare/Medicaid which is gallopping along nicely at unsustainable levels. Private vs public. It is the state run part that is a failure in keeping costs down and a lack of backbone among the Left to acknowledge that the water is coming in much faster than any of them are able to bail.
But I'm certainly not surprised that Bill makes these kinds of arguments considering he believed, until he stepped on an exposed fleshy part of himself, that Scotland should be a role model for the US. Also in his touching faith that Americans are indeed taking buses of geriatrics to Canada for drugs.
BTW, this little tired argument ender as to not support a larger government role in health care as lacking in faith in Americans merely draws attention to the Left's faith that Americans cannot manage their lives and need the guiding hand of the government to make it all better.
Still waiting to hear about all the Americans currently getting nationally organized health care, who you claim are unhappy with it.
That would be all Federal employees, and all Medicare participants. You know, they seem to be pretty happy with the service.
What's wrong with just opening up Medicare to any American who wants it, and charging the full monthly premium for the cost?
Every other Western country has managed to provide health care for all citizens, and Americans will too.
150 years ago, you regressives would have been arguing against compulsory education for all children. "We can't afford it"! "It's the parents' job, not the government's!", "The teaching system is already broke"! But look how that small investment magnified the wealth of every nation that introduced it. It will be the same with health care.
And again, please don't misrepresent my words, again Pat. Very unsavory habit of yours.
I pointed to Scotland as the minimum level to which Americans should aspire, and France as the pinnacle. Everyone in Scotland has health care. Some 20 % of Americans don't have it.
As I said before, when you resort to dishonesty, you have lost the discussion.
Bill, I'm still waiting for a multitude of examples that you repeat but never source or link. Such as naming one Republican bill that created a situation similar to people losing their food stamps. If you can't figure out that I was using Betsey McCaughey's link, which I'm sure you didn't go to, then why do you respond other than in a knee-jerk fashion.
How are the Scottish doing these days?
No, your exact words were, "...from people who want to deny Americans the same kind of health care that citizens(BTW, Scots are subjects) get in insignificant countries like, say, Scotland. I don't see any comparison between countries and the implication is quite clear that you believe Scotland has a better health care system than the US.
Some 20 % of Americans don't have it.
As I said before, when you resort to dishonesty, you have lost the discussion.
My irony meter just broke.
Add to that:
This is one of the worst examples of your lack of belief in America, thfr.
Despicable, BB. Take a walk outside and get your thoughts together. You're embarrassing yourself. Or am I "misrepresenting "your words?
Still waiting to hear about all the Americans currently getting nationally organized health care, who you claim are unhappy with it.
I understand there are often problems with the VA hospitals, as well as with health services provided to Native Americans. For now, services via Medicare is still provided by non-government entities, yet I'm sure you'll find many complaining about the inefficiency of being administered through the federal government.
... "the implication is quite clear that you believe Scotland has a better health care system than the US."
Only clear to a person lacking wisdom or common sense. My actual point is that they have universal coverage in even an impoverished, unhealthy place like Scotland. But in the USA we have about 47 M citizens with no formal health care access.
Try discussing things that are on point, not irrelevant, and try using some common sense when understanding what I say. You might get somewhere.
"I understand there are often problems with the VA hospitals, as well as with health services provided to Native Americans."
And these unspecified "problems" would be a fatal flaw to extending health care to all Americans because ... ?
Because you don't want it to happen. Well, it's too bad bro. We got primary and secondary education for all children, and we will get health coverage for all Americans whether you like it or not.
I guess in a way it is ironic - the Bush administration was so bad for so long for so many Americans, that it created a backlash allowing the advancement of a popular progressive agenda. The GOP is down to the low 20%s in support. Universal healthcare enjoys 70% support in some polls. You do the math.
Still waiting to hear about all the Americans currently getting nationally organized health care, who you claim are unhappy with it.
It is utterly irrelevant whether they are happy with it or not. The issue is whether or not we can afford it. We can't.
Regardless, in my job, I interact with quite a few people who use the Medicare system. Not ONCE have I ever heard someone express happiness with the system. Not once. I frequently hear complaints about wait times, and issues with treatments not being covered, with difficulty finding doctors.
That would be all Federal employees, and all Medicare participants. You know, they seem to be pretty happy with the service.
And what evidence are you basing this off of?
Personally, if I were getting "free" health care (really, health care paid for by someone else), I probably wouldn't complain as much as some of the people I've heard. But that's just me.
What's wrong with just opening up Medicare to any American who wants it, and charging the full monthly premium for the cost?
SEVENTY FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS, Bill. That's what. Because Medicare "premiums" don't cover the actual cost of Medicare. Because its your own damned responsibility to pay for health insurance, not the government's.
Every other Western country has managed to provide health care for all citizens, and Americans will too.
Really? We don't have a say in this? There's no escaping the collective, is there Bill? Government health care is for the best, and we peons shall have it whether or not we want it.
Besides, those Western countries are bankrupting themselves even faster than we are with their lavish social programs. Many provide substandard care, long wait times, and poor equipment, paid for with confiscatory tax rates that stifle their economic growth.
150 years ago, you regressives
Clever. And by "clever" I mean "not clever."
I would assume you want to be treated like an adult in this argument, Bill. Then act like one. Personally, I wear an insult like that from a progressive as a badge of honor.
would have been arguing against compulsory education for all children. "We can't afford it"! "It's the parents' job, not the government's!", "The teaching system is already broke"!
I work in the school system. The system, quite frankly, stinks. I could spend the next several years telling you horror stories. Don't lecture me about the wonders of our school system.
But look how that small investment magnified the wealth of every nation that introduced it. It will be the same with health care.
I have questions. Please answer them.
1) Health care isn't a small investment. It is the largest investment the government can make. Given the government's utter incompetence in managing Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and every other medical program, why should we believe it will be any more competent running this program you envision?
2) How is health care an "investment" at all?
As I said before, if you want uninsured people to have health care, cut a check, Bill. Don't demand that we do.
So now you are claiming that quoting from your comment is off the point? Yes, I think I do want to deny the kind of health care the Scottish get! Which was your question regardless of how little thought went into its phrasing.
No Pat. The point is that everyone in a tiny little podunk place like Scotland is covered for health insurance.
And the failing GOP and regressives wants to block the same benefit for Americans. Good luck with that.
Hey, Bill. Your initial quote doesn't mention covering everyone it says the same kind of health care. Not only ignorant of the world at large but now misrepresenting your own worlds.
Plus can you make up your mind please, is it to be the NHS or France's General National Health Care Plan? I don't really think you understand the difference other than to slavishly believe they must be better than the US simply because.
No Biddle,
The point is that Scotland's medical bills are balanced on the backs of taxpayers in England and Wales while those two demographics do not receive the same level of care themselves. They couldn't achieve their current standard in Scotland without "outside" help.
Who is going to help the US pay? Where is the money going to come from?
It is a fact fhrt that the same NHS delivers the same health care to England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, and the Channel islands.
Your stridency mirrors your fatuous ignorance.
A little research and Bill would have found that there are four versions of the NHS; for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. While the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands have their own much smaller health services that are run idependently of the NHS(England). All of the different bodies get most of their money from locally collected taxes but most get subsidy payments from Parliament because they have the ability and legislative power to create other sources of tax revenue. The aulity of care obviously varies as the discrepancies of mortality canot simply be dismissed as solely a product of demographics.
And the type of care and the quality of care varies from region to region as per my original BBC Online link. But what this whole change means is simply those that want coverage are going to force those that don't want or rarely use medical services to join and provide a portion of the budget.
Post a Comment