Or any other forms of Universal healthcare, I have watched the debates and would like to know the major differences between them. And please preferably no Wikipedia articles.
--------------------
Universal healthcare is a vague term meaning "getting everyone covered" under either private or publicly sponsored plans. It could and probably would involve forcing people to buy insurance either privately or contributing to a government program if private coverage is unavailable. The goal of universal care is simply to eliminate the problem of the uninsured. It is term that "polls well" politically, but tends to bog down when the details on administration are worked out. Nonetheless, it is the main direction we are likely to head in for the next 10 years, so we will hear lots more about it. Single payer is a far more radical proposal that dictates the end of all private insurance companies, in favor of the government taking over all healthcare. Few countries actually have true "single payer", although Canada probably comes closest. Within the US, the Veterans Administration is probably the best example of a single payor system. It is a very appealing concept to those who believe that government is the only entity with the "moral imperative" to provide healthcare for it's citizens. Setting aside the issue of cost for a moment, it is important to point out that, as satisfying as it might sound, the US Government is not prepared to take over all healthcare, and in any case would probably end up delegating its management back to those same big insurance companies, under competitive, massive contracts, just as they do now for Medicare and Tri-Care.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment