National health care could be a disaster because of cost and complexity. A government-controlled system also creates agonizing moral dilemmas (Read about the decision eye treatment covered below). Yet, despite my opposition to this, I see that it is a real possibility, and soon. In that spirit, here is what we can do to solve some of the problems and make the system work better. What’s Your Score Qualys?
Who gets what health care? It would be a difficult decision for us all, but some might say that the bureaucrats of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) are quite good at it. They are to evaluate and approve the salaries of the National Health Services in Great Britain (national bureaucracy of their health care). After all, life expectancy in Britain is much the same in the United States and the government spends less on health care while covering all citizens.
Take such decisions, of course, leads to interesting problems. An example: In 2002 NICE recommended that a treatment for macular degeneration be used only in one eye – the least affected by the disease. What about the other eye? It is probably possible to go blind. They arrived at this decision using “Qualys,” or Quality-Adjusted Life Years.
How does this method to measure the value of the treatments work? Lets look at some examples couple. Surgery gives you an average of ten years of life is better than giving you five, and higher scores on the scale of Qualys. Years added to the material life, but because of the quality of those years. Suppose you could be saved by treatment, but be in a coma for six years, while another person could be saved and healthy for six years by another treatment. If funds are limited (are not they always?), It would be approved.
Now we will look again at the case of eye treatment. The score Qualys is high for the first eye, since probably see increases in the quality of life on blindness. But seeing with the second eye does not increase the quality of life almost as much, right?
We do not need to enter the complex system to understand the logic. The questions of life, but the quality of life counts as an idea most of us agreed. But it leads to some uncomfortable conclusions, is not it?. For example, a person with a disabling illness or disability may score lower than Qualys when deemed to extend the life of the functioning of the heart. He might go in favor of a healthier person who would benefit more in terms of score Qualys.
The real truth generally ignored, is there a financial limit to a national health plan. Accordingly, we must make decisions that can certainly be uncomfortable, and sometimes downright disturbing. What if one million dollars could prevent ten thousand people from contracting a deadly disease, or that same million could be used to treat and possibly cure a score of people who already have the disease. Should we allow twenty to die to prevent the death of ten thousand?
Of course, it is easy to say that we should heal the twenty-run prevention. This may even be possible, and we would certainly pay for the two eyes to be treated in the case of macular degeneration. On the other hand, we really can not do everything. Honesty compels us to admit that he may go blind in one eye is not nearly as tragic as losing sight in both, and if just one eye treatment for a patient saves enough money to treat another heart condition of the patient with a new procedure that saves his life, perhaps we need to make such decisions.
Whatever the utopian theories we do, difficult choices must be made at some point if we decide on the national health care. We need to put a value on life, or the different qualities of life at least. Yes, we may have even put a value on an eye instead of two, or the view in relation to registered members who might otherwise be amputated. In a market system of health care providers compete to provide better treatments for diabetes, but this will, in part, a system where your diabetes is in competition with the headaches of someone or a broken nose. National Health Care – Some suggestions
If we allow a market system of health care coexist with a system of government, we could at least pay for the other eye fixed. The rich will obviously get better care, but I do not think we’re such a little envious that we would vote against such a dual system just because of that. Safety wealthy does not hurt the rest of us. Also, we have all, at least I hope to raise money for some extra care for the health we desire. Thus, the market still exists.
There will also issue the request. Free means higher demand, of course. For now I have a few teeth that I could have a dentist look at this week if the examination and treatment was free, but since it’s not that I’ll wait a little. People often delay treatment because of the expense, but they also look and find cheaper alternatives. That would change if we had a free national health care.
There will be a surge in demand. Naturally, the cuts could be blindfolded will usually be sewn if the service is free. A headache or sore throat that should normally be borne could mean a trip to the hospital or clinic for free. Unfortunately, it would use money from government health care that might otherwise pay for research or treatment of fatal diseases, which means making decisions more difficult.
How can we solve this problem of excessive demand? Designing a system that is not free. After all, the problem is not that we pay for health care, since we find a way to pay for groceries, clothing and cable television, without government assistance. The problem is the high cost and unpredictability of health spending. An occasional surprise is one thing if it is a few hundred dollars, but a few weeks in a hospital can consume up to a lifetime of savings.
Addressing this issue, instead of encouraging the reluctance of people to budget for contingencies, but the surprises for you? How? One way is to have a national health insurance for all, but with a deductible of $ 500 annually. When a person can not afford it (it is 42 $ per month), it usually suggests a budgetary problem, a problem not care too expensive.
Ask each person to pay 20% of all costs beyond the deductible and up to $ 1,000 ($ 5,000 in costs). This would prevent people from running to the doctor or hospital for every little thing. It also encourages them to seek treatment less effective ones, so that the system does not destroy the usual incentive (money) for this creative process of improving health care.
Prescription drugs should not be covered until the cost goes beyond $ 500 annual deductible, and even then, the patient must pay her 20%. People People (even the poor in this country) to find a way to pay expenses more important in life, and it would keep the system from being abused. And if some people are really too poor to pay even this? Addressing this problem through programs of general welfare, rather than paying for prescriptions for tens of millions of people who can easily afford.
I am not thrilled with the idea of a national system of health care. On the other hand, if it will happen in all cases, we at least make it sustainable and leave open more options for us all. This is what the system described above, hope to achieve.
