Copyright (c) 2009 Kentaro KonikaSpesso referred to as universal health care, health care, a national system of health care is provided and operated by a government of a country. The system provides free access to health care for all citizens of the country. Medical services offered to citizens free right may vary from country to country, which means that there are some services to personal expenses, they need access to funds. However, the vast majority of health services will be free and paid from the national taxes. Many countries provide universal health care today as one of the first to do it successfully in Germany. The first country to apply the ever such a system, but the Great Bretagna.Tra other countries had to offer such a system, France, Australia and Italy. Almost all economically developed countries in the world offer some form of universal health care system, with the exception of the United States of America. In the United States is the only way to access to health care is for health insurance have. While most industrialized countries some kind offer of free medical service to their citizens, the structure of this system can be a bit “to vary between nations. An example of this is on private health policy. In Britain it is customary for private practitioners, medical services outside the public system available free of charge, but in other countries more restrictions on doctors’ offices private.l “have universal health care is a broad term that has many possible applications. However, the main feature of the provision of a free health service for the citizens of a nation. Such systems require large amounts of money to run. As in the countries that normally pay for such a system through national taxes paid by all citizens. be guaranteed in return for the payment of such taxes to the citizens free access to national health care system. And “the government’s decision on who has the right to health care and what type of treatment will be made available in the system. In some systems, patients have to pay a part of the treatment it receives, while the rest free. It is a form of treatment because they have far sovvenzionato.Sistemi very well in a number of countries around the world. Although these systems are necessarily very difficult to handle, especially the benefits outweigh the costs. For this reason, many citizens and U.S. politicians have suggested that such a system could be for the United States. The rising prices of health insurance in the United States, many asked to see a national health care as a good solution. Recently, the cost of health insurance have out of the reach of the average citizen, so that many uninsured go to the polls every year has increased. The difficulty here is that if medical treatment is necessary, the cost of this treatment enough to be a family go bankrupt. The opposition to this view argue that the tax burden on those who need the least such care.
Posts Tagged ‘National’
-
National Health
0 -
One-Eyed National Health
National health system could be a disaster because the costs and complexity. A system of government also creates agonizing moral dilemmas (read the sentence processing eye falling below control). But despite my opposition to it, I can see is a real possibility, and soon. Against this background, here is what we can do to solve some of the problems and make the system work better. What is your score Qualys?
Who gets what health care? That would be a difficult decision for us all, but some would argue that bureaucrats at the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) are pretty good. It is evaluated and approved treatments for the National Health Services Administration in the UK (their national health care bureaucracy). After all, the life expectancy in Britain is about the same in the United States, and the government spends less on health care for all citizens and cover.
Such decisions, of course, contains some interesting problems. An example: In 2002 NICE recommended that a particular treatment be used for macular degeneration in only one eye – the one least affected by the disease. What about the other eye? It’s probably allowed to go blind. They came to this decision, adding “Qualys’ or quality-adjusted life years.
How does this method to measure the value of the treatment work? Let’s look at a few examples. A surgical procedure that you are an average of ten years of life better than one of you five, and so higher values on the scale of Qualys. Added years of life to matter, but the quality of those years. Suppose that could be saved by treatment, but in a coma for six years, while another person could be saved and healthy for six years for a different treatment. If the funding limits (not always?) The second was approved.
Let us now again the case of treatment of the eye. The score of Qualys is high at first sight, probably because there is increasing in the quality of life on blindness. But since the other eye does not improve the quality of life almost as much, right?
We do not need the complexity of the system, give to understand the logic. Questions of life, but the quality of life is important, a concept more than we can accept. But leads to some unpleasant conclusions, is not it?. For example, a person with a debilitating disease or disability likely low values in Qualys, if they considered to extend for a heart operation life. It could be about his support for a healthy person who might benefit are under Qualys guests.
The real truth, usually ignored, is that it is to plan a financial limit for a National Health Service. As a result, we have to make decisions that can certainly be unpleasant and sometimes disturbing. What happens when one million U.S. dollars could prevent tens of thousands of people to get a deadly disease, or the same one million could be used to treat and cure may be a dozen people who will already have the disease. If we allow the winds to die in order to prevent the death of tens of thousands?
Sure, it’s easy to say we ought to handle the wind and run prevention. This may also be possible, and certainly could pay for both eyes to be treated in the event of macular degeneration. On the other hand, we can not really do anything. Honesty compels acknowledge that it is not may be seen in one eye as tragic as the loss of vision in both, and whether one eye save for a patient enough money to treat heart problems, other patients with a treatment new trial, life save, perhaps we need to do this kind of decision.
What we do utopian theory, difficult decisions must be made at some point when we decide for the national health systems. We must put a value on life, or at least a different quality of life. Yes, we can also put a value in one eye against two limbs or eyes to be saved, which otherwise would be amputated. In a market system of health care providers compete to offer better care for diabetes, but this will be part of a system in which diabetes in competition with the headache of someone or a broken nose. National Health – Some suggestions
If we are a market system of health care to coexist with a system to enable government, it could pay fixed at least for the other eye. The rich are, of course, better care, but I do not think that such petty jealousy of people that we are against such a dual system, but should because of this vote. The health of the rich does not hurt the rest of us. In addition, we would all want to at least hope to raise additional money for health care we do. Then let the market still exists.
There is also the problem of demand. Free is the demand has increased, of course. At the moment I could have only a few teeth that I search at the dentist this week when the investigation and treatment was free, but I’ll wait a bit. “Often, delay in treatment because of cost, but also try and find cheaper alternatives. What would change if we have free NHS care.
There will be a strong increase in demand. Of course, the cuts could be linked mostly sewn, if the service be free. Headaches or neck pain, which would normally be born, perhaps a trip to the hospital or clinic be seen free of charge. Unfortunately, this government would be money for health care that might otherwise pay for the research or the treatment of life-threatening diseases, the use in the most difficult decisions.
How can we alleviate this problem of excessive demand? Design a system that is not free. After all, the problem is not that we pay for healthcare as it provides a way to find for food, clothing and cable pay-TV without government handouts. The problem is the high cost and unpredictability of medical expenses. A surprise is something occasionally in a few hundred dollars, but a few weeks in a hospital not able to eat a lifetime of savings.
Tackle the problem, instead of promoting the reluctance of people budget for unforeseen surprises, but affordable? How? One possibility is to have national health for all “, but with an annual deductible of $ 500. If a person can not afford this (the amount is $ 42 per month) proposes a rule, a problem of the household, not a service Problems on the price.
Have each person 20% of all costs beyond the deductible will pay up to $ 1,000 ($ 5,000 cost). This will prevent people from running to the doctor or hospital for every little thing. This also encourages them to seek treatment less effective, so do not destroy the system, the usual incentive (money) for this creative process of improving health care.
Prescription medications should not be covered until the costs exceed $ 500 annual deductible, and even then the patient should they pay 20%. People (the poor in this country), to find a way to pay for larger life, and that would keep the system from abuse. And if some people are really too poor to afford even that? Addressing the problem through social welfare programs in general, rather than paying for prescriptions for dozens of millions of people who can afford it.
I am not enthusiastic about a national health system. On the other hand, if you happen anyway, at least make it sustainable, and can open more opportunities for us all. This is what the system is described above, hopefully.