Head over to Greg Mankiw's Blog (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/) and check out the story titled "Should the rich get better health care?" Read the original article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/world/europe/21britain.html) and then read Mankiw's commentary.
Post your thoughts about the article, as well as any implications this may have regarding Free Healthcare in the United States.
20 comments:
Joe M
This articel brought up a very big issue. Universal healthcare sounds like a great idea but thier are too many flaws involved with it. For starters, who is going to pay for all the expense that come with this. Millions of people go to the doctor everyday and and the government only has so much money so wehre do you think the rest is going to coem from. Secondly, many people will start to take advantage of this system just by goin in when they have headache or a mild cold just so that they can recieve medicine and not have to pay for anything. Unfortunanly there is no real solution to these problems but things might have to stay the way they are becaue as of now no drastic changes can occur with inquring a great economic dissaster.
I do think that people should be able to get better health care if they can afford it. There will be more disadvantages of providing equal healthcare to all then there will be disadvantages. Making health care public for everyone would lead to a lower standard of healthcare. Patients will have to wait longer to see doctors and be limited in the tests, drugs, and treatments they recieve. This article shows some of the problems that come from it. I think that since we live in a capitalist society, not a communist one those who can afford to pay for better healthcare should be able to do so.
~Amanda
I think it’s ridiculous that someone in the UK couldn’t pay for health care they needed to prolong their life and help their cancer. The health care system should pay for what ever their willing to cover and if someone has to money to better their treatment plan then they should be able to do so. I feel that letting people pay for some of their health care is still equal coverage because the government is paying for the same amount of everyone’s health care so if someone decides they want to pay more to get better care they should be able to. Free health care in the United States could also lead to this problem the UK is facing. I think that as long as the government pays for the same amount of coverage for everyone, people that want further treatment should have the option to buy it for themselves. I don’t think that just because someone wants to pay for some of their health care they should have to pay for it all. That’s unfair to people who want to spend extra on their treatments.
My personal opinion on Healthcare is that people should have to pay for it on their own. For the poor, this can sometimes be an expense that is unreachable, where I think that the government should step in. It could be similar to welfare. If you have a health problem that the government finds serious or fatal, they should step in to help pay for some of it after the person has applied for the healthcare with their financial status and a examination by the doctor etc. This could be a problem because like welfare and unemployment, people might simply take advantage of the system, so I think that people should have to pay back the government in time whether it be though paying them, or simply doing work for the government. How much the person has to pay back would be based on the financial status of the person.
~Michael Scorzelli
I think it's ridiculous that if a person is not given the support to buy drugs that doctors recommend for them and then they try to pay for it out of pocket that they have their basic coverage taken away. Just because they have enough money to try and pay for the extra recommended treatment does not mean they have enough to pay for full coverage, and just because they are paying for the extra coverage doesn't mean they should have to pay for the basic coverage - because if they have paid into that system through taxes then they have already earned that coverage. The reason that people are trying to pay for things privately is because the public system has become so innefficient (which is a major argument against universal healthcare) but to take away their public healthcare is an outrage that doesn't fix the problems of the system, instead it highlights them.
Although I believe in equality when it comes to natural rights, I feel that the health care system is putting up a huge roadblock for the sick. I’m not saying that the wealthy should be treated first or given any special privileges. But if a person is willing to sell their house, take out a loan or raise money another way, they should have the opportunity to do so. With the analogy that a child receiving private tutoring be unable to attend public school, doesn’t that show how ridiculous the health care system looks? Public school is open to the PUBLIC. Health care should be open to everyone, but if someone wants to help pay for it, why would the insurance companies stop them?
I agree with Joe M(...anonymous) that people would take advantage of a universal healthcare system. this is one of the things taht slows the whole system down and makes it ineffective. Also its not like people will be recieving free healthcare, it will come straight from their pockets in the form of taxes and the only thing that this does is reduce American citizens freedoms - that is the freedom to spend their money how they want.
Regarding this article, I am in complete agreement with Debbie Hirst. She couldn't afford her regular cancer treatment, which the NFS was providing for her free of charge, plus the drug she needed to keep her alive, which the NFS would not supply. She was at the point that she would need to sell her home in order to pay for the drug separately, but the government refused to continue her "free" treatments if she was indeed able to purchase the drug. Obviously, seeing as she was at the point of selling her home, Mrs. Hirst was in need of the government aid. In her attempt to buy the drug in addition, she was willing to do whatever was in her power to do in order to save her life. I think that she absolutely should have been able to buy the extra medication she needed for herself, especially since other cases like Mrs. Hirst's had been allowed to do essentially the same thing. I don't think that her case qualifies as giving the rich an advantage over the poor- Mrs. Hirst clearly was not a wealthy person.
In regards to universal healthcare in the United States, I can definitely see this problem arising here. In my opinion, everyone should be given the same basic health benefits, regardless of income, but should be allowed at the same time to pay for additional care if the government will not provide further aid.
Brennan
This article brought up a major issue in the United States, univerisal health care. This is a big topic in the upcoming election and I felt this article helped me get a good grasp on it. Public health care is great because then everyone would have it and wouldn't be deined service, but it is expensive. There is no way to supply everyone health care, it is to expensive. People would also take advantage of the system and like in the article rules would be put in effect that hurt people. Waiting lines are also a problem and I believe the quality of the treatmennt would decline. I feel we leave the health care system as it is and maybe try and find a way to make it more affordable for more people.
If someone is willing to pay extra money in order to receive more medication, treatment, etc, then they should be aloud to do so. It’s not like ‘you’re rich, you get extra benefits’, it’s more like ‘if you’re willing to pay for more, then ok’. Although this seems wrong, in that people are “buying upgrades to their basic free medical care,” if you have the money to buy that extra care, and this is a possible life or death situation, why should you be penalized for doing all you can to stay alive and healthy? This is dealing with the lives of people who need help. The NHS is helping them by providing the basic needs of surviving their health crisis. The “upgrades” are being paid for by the patient, so what is the problem?
I agree with what Weston (and most others that I can see so far) said, and feel that he brought up a good point: people are left with no choice but to privately buy the care they need because the public aid offered to them has become so inefficient.
Joe M
I agree with kelli on the the topic of if you want ot pay more for health care you should be bale to. IT's your money that you worked hard for and if you want to spend it on healhtcare expenses then why not? You should not be penalized in life becase you ahve dne well for yourself and can afford better things.
I agree with Weston. Why can’t we have a health care system that would provide a plan that would pay for partial treatment if a patient is willing to pay for the other part? Wouldn’t that lead to more coverage for the poor that are unable to afford it? Then there would be no excuse to turn a patient away because of insufficient, or now, over sufficient funds. This is just another example to point out the major flaws of the current health care system and why it needs to be changed to not only cover more people, but catch silly problems such as this.
Brennan
I agree with Joe M. There is no possible way to fund a health care system, and if you try to it will only take away money from taxpayers. For example, a person uses a private health care company because it has better advantages then the public one, but will be taxed for the public health care system to pay for someone who dropped out of high school, has cancer because he does drugs, and works at Mcdonalds. They are paying double for health care because they didn't drop out of high school and worked hard. I also agree with Joe on the fact that people will take advantage of this system
with what Mike S. said, i disagree because a person shouldn't have to pay back the gov if they cant possibly ever get enough money to do so. and its unfortionate and kind of ironic that people with minimum wage jobs in bad workplaces are more at risk to getting hurt/sick and then they can't pay to get help... if they are working already and are useful to the economy and working the "crappy" job that no one wants to work, then they shouldn't have to pay back the gov. for the healthcare...it's morally wrong and rediculous.
I agree with Rachel and Weston, that healthcare should be public. I think that the government should pay an equal amount for each persons healthcare, however since public systems are often inefficient because they are simply too expensive and the standard of healthcare would be low, people should have the option of paying extra money to upgrad their plan or recieve reccommended treatment that would not have been paid for. This would then mean that the government is still providing equal healthcare to all people, however if a person wanted additional healthcare they would have to pay for it themselves.
People should not have to pay for all of their healthcare on their own just because they want to pay for additional treatment when they have been paying taxes and paying into this system just like everyone else.
~Amanda
The article is bothersome and I can almost feel Mrs. Hirst's aggravation when she was told she could not even pay a ridiculous sum of money (the cost) for the drugs that she NEEDED TO LIVE. The irony that Britain's National Health Service deemed her in bad enough condition that they now offer her the drug for free shows that she actually needed it in the first place and because they denied her the drugs she needed, they should be sued. People nonchalantly mix private and public health care all the time, so why can't she? Even if the health board says it is not fair that people get better service than others, they have to realize that these people PAY MONEY to do so, hard earned money. Both public and private health care should be able to be had at the same time in order to save money and benefit those with a good work ethic. It is simply not right to deny people health care just because they want more than what is offered them. The NHS could not offer her the drug, saying the drug she needs is "too expensive to be cost-effective." So she raised money. Yet the same board that won't provide her with the vital drug said she cannot buy it herself either. Like Greg Mankiw said, health care is a normal good. His argument, from an economic standpoint, is that people are different and have different needs and different incomes, so they should be able to make the decision whether the cost of certain medications or procedures is worth it, not the government. This situation is directly applicable to our country, which may soon adopt a similar system if the Democratic candidate for president is elected. Be it Hillary's universal health care plan or Obama's national health care plan, revisions must be made to make sure situations like Mrs. Hirst's are prevented. If we do establish free health care, we must still offer private health care for those who can afford it. If you have the money, you should get the best care possible. If you don't, there should at least be an option for you to get health care, be it restrictive and tedious as it may.
I agree with Nicole, in that Mrs. Hirst was obviously not too well off if she was going to have to sell her home to keep her life. It is simply unreasonable to expect her to pay for full private cancer care when she is already on public care. Being that she was willing to sell her home, she was in dire need of the drug she was so unjustly denied of. Nicole was right that we should have a basic system so everyone could get health care, but private care should not be outlawed if bought in addition to public. It makes a little bit of sense that middle class people would be taking the free health care with those who really can't afford it, but if they choose to upgrade, they should. And a combination of both, if most cost efficient, should not (and I don't see how it could) be illegal.
I think that if you are willing and can afford to pay for drugs and treatments you should be able to. Debbie Hirst's cancer would've been more contained if the government had just allowed her to pay for her own medicine. Instead, they denied her the right to get the medicine, and then once her cancer spread they allowed her to recieve it for free. The hole system seems corrupt and if it was brought to the United States many problems would arise because of this. I feel that the most beneficial healthcare system would be if the government would provide basic health care to pepole for free, and any extra procedures would be paid at their own expense. This allows people to recieve some form of healthcare, and could probably prevent some diseases from arising. Any other health care would need to be provided at the individuals expense.
This is an extremly controversial article that I enjoyed reading. Like almost every debatable arguement that comes up in this race for the presidency, the views on the United Healthcare Plan democrats plan on instilling comes from your position in this country. If you are more towards the poverty line in this country chances are your for it. However the rich who might have a healthcare plan already might receive not as good treatment as they recieve now. I agree with Greg Mankiw's statement about this being a huge problem in the future if we start with United Health care. I personally believe that United Healthcare is one more step for this country toward socialism. For example why should teachers, cops, anyone with a great healthcare plan suffer a loss and start getting worse or incompetent healthcare.
Post a Comment