It might sound silly but Iím very paranoid about where I registerÖ Iíll just take your word for it. The fact that it took me some time to find any failures of UHC to counter your points speaks volumes.
It's the Lancet - one of, if not the
medical journal of record. You're probably safe. As for failures: When checking my lists, Mongolia jumped out at me. I suspect that has something to do with a lack of resources or infrastructure, though.
Unless, of course, youíre willing to take FOX as a totally unbiased and completely legitimate source of news. Then I suddenly have a surplus of reasons why a UHC is bad news.
Hahahahahahano. I'm sorry, but no news source that fought a court battle for its right to outright lie has the slightest shred of credibility with me.
Did some more digging. Regulations aren't subject to the same sort of compulsory publication as law, but I do have an example of provincial health care law
, and it does provide some insight: Items specifically noted as requiring legal regulation include not just costs of uninsured services, but staffing requirements, quality of care, and related factors. I won't lie - funding cuts do
hit nurses hardest (often in the form of excessive hours), but nobody's pulling down seven figures in a hospital.
I doubt this will go anywhere considering that weíre both debating from experienceÖ
I'll concede the point; it's far more likely that I'm suffering from confirmation bias than that a huge number of people have the same odd fault in thinking.
By drive, I was simply referring to the motivation required to push an administrator to succeed. For example, you believe that administrators will be motivated by their own political interests. Drive/Motivation is essential for at least some success.
Mmm. I honestly don't care why
the job gets done - be it from personal drive, or a desire for promotion out of a crappy job, or what have you. What I care about is the effects where the rubber meets the road: How does a change affect actual patients?
Thereís never only one middle-ground. Sorry if I implied as much. Naturally thereíll be an assortment which lean either toward greater government or private control. Regulated costs is simply the one Iíve heard of the most.
There's a very clever collection of well-paid organizations and people whose job it is to suggest the worst possible implementation as loudly as possible, and then say that since that won't work the whole thing is a wash. (See also: Fox news.)
Not from my perspective but this was because I was trying to lump developing and developed countries into the same basket. I figured the situations would be similar but I was obviously wrong.
Developing countries are different, yes. It's difficult to implement universal anything
without the money and infrastructure to do it.
Iím shocked to say that I canít provide any, at least not in the developed world. The two main culprits that Iíve been made aware of over the years were Russia and Cuba and yet a little in-depth research shows that most of what Iíve been told was either an over-exaggeration or outright lie. Cubaís health-care is apparently praised the world over, with the only problem being that it benefits foreigners more than its own people: www.global-politics.co.uk Ė link to article
Russiaís own UHC failed horrifically but from what Iíve read this was due more to the effect communism had as a whole as well as other external factors (radiation, industry, fall of the Soviet Union, etc) rather than the UHC itself. Unfortunately, the best article I could find doesnít go beyond the year two thousand but from what Iíve read, Russia is moving away from its current system. Itís considered a developing country however so it really doesnít add much to the discussion. www.countrystudies.us - link to article
I must say, it's very rare to see someone actually check the facts, conclude that they were mistaken, and change their mind. You have my deep and abiding respect. As for Russia... I haven't looked into it in depth, but there's endemic corruption issues and serious infrastructure problems, so this doesn't surprise me overmuch. The fact that they're considered developing does, though.
There is an interesting titbit I found while digging through articles. This is just a hunch for now, one which Iíll look up more thoroughly when I have time, but it seems that the USís private system might provide better care than other countries. So the difference might lie in the fact that a UHS provides more, if less specialized, care while the USís current system provides less but highly specialized care. Of course, providing for a bigger group trumps providing for individuals at exorbitant prices.
Speaking for my country, we've got roughly the same level of specialization. Where the US pulls way, way ahead is in specialized-treatment capacity
. You have, for example, a huge number of CT machines. The problem is, while this looks good on paper, it's actually masking another hefty form of inefficiency - there is far more specialist capacity in the US than is needed or ever used, including people coming to the US from other countries for care. Machines are sitting empty and silent, and the half-million dollars or so that each one cost is basically money that was set on fire instead of helping patients.
I'll take your word for it. I looked it up and was instantly put-off by the definition I found...
The actual, original meaning of the term was, basically, an idea that seems to self-propagate in a manner not dissimilar to a biological virus.