Health Care Post #5 - Can we accept a less than perfect system?

[Silverhair]

Any single payer health care system will have to have some limits to what it will and won't pay for. If you try to have an everything-for-everybody system, the costs will quickly get out of control. Yet anyplace where the line is drawn will result in somebody crying, "Unfair!!"

Suppose we say that we will not pay for cosmetic surgery except for resconstructive surgery. But some people are born with seriously disfiguring features, and surgery to correct those is really reconstructive. So somewhere we would have to decide what is correcting a disfigurement, and what is merely appeasing vanity? How big does that nose need to be before a person can get it reshaped?

Now, before somebody seriously misunderstand - I am using the example above to talk about the concept of limits. If we start placing any limits, then there will be some individual that will fall throught he cracks in the system. A perfect system is not attainable here on earth. Humans simply aren't that good. And an everything-for-everybody system is unaffordable.

Are liberals able to make the tough decisions needed to build a realistic limited system that takes care of almost everybody's needs? Or will we demand the impossible, and be howling mad when we can't get it?

[blondeatlast]

1. Model it after Canada's.

I've been served by the Canada system and the nightmare stories are just howling pieces of crap. Quick, efficient, and effective.

Yes, there must be limits. But the cases you mention are straw men cases. No one is going to be willing to pay for Cher's next facelift; but there will be nothing to prevent someone from having their child's cleft palate fixed.

There will be an appeal process as well.

Be aware that there is an ENORMOUS difference in reconstuctive surgery/medicine and cosmetic surgery.

Here's a great site that covers the issue (Physicians for a National health Program):
http://www.physiciansproposal.org/

Also: read the book "Health Care Meltdown" by Robert Lebow. It explains how the system would work in detail and puts the outrageous myths surrounding the NHP to rest.

[Silverhair]

3. Please read the ENTIRE post.

I think you stopped at the plastic surgery paragraph. I specifically stated, "Now, before somebody seriously misunderstand - I am using the example above to talk about the concept of limits. If we start placing any limits, then there will be some individual that will fall throught he cracks in the system."

Or did you even see that? But no, you focused on the example, instead of the principle that I wanted the example to illustrate.

MY POINT IS: Any system, even with the checks and balances of an appeals system will be less than perfect. Some people WILL fall through the cracks.

Do we accept a somewhat flawed system, or demand a perfect one?

At no point did I critize Canada's system. If you will read the entire series of health care posts that I have been putting up, you will see that I am STRONGLY in favor of a single payer system. I simply realize that for us to get such a system, we will have to accept some limits. Progressives, in general, seem not to like the idea of any limits on health care. So I am trying to stimulate discussion on that aspect of any realistic health care program.

[blondeatlast]

5. You misunderstood me, too. You asked how do we deal with the

inevitable failings--I pointed out Canada's system as a model.

Welfare isn't perfect, the military isn't perfect, there is no government program that is. But the system we have is seriously flawed. Demanding a "perfect" system is dooming us to failure.

We're in this together--this is THE ISSUE for me.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Ddin't Oregon...

have a pretty good system set up until BushI said it interfered with the disabilites act? IIRC, it specifically listed procedures that would be paid for.

With 50 states, DC, and a few islands floating around, it seems reasonable to use them to experiment with just what the best plan may be.

[Silverhair]

4. Would any DUers in OR care to respond? n/t