william wrote:StarAC17 wrote:c933103 wrote:But isn't that a way of exploiting young inexperienced doctors? (Public place salary are lower than private thus cannot attract private doctors - So those with less bargaining power aka in this case those with less experience, are forced to work for it for less than they could otherwise earn - Unless that's considered a return by them to training they received)
When you are new you start at the bottom and that is way for the two tier British system to not fall into a completely private system due to it being more lucrative. You have to do a minimum time in the public system.
I hope someone from the UK can chime in but I remember from the Michael Moore movie Sicko which was released in 2007 (not the greatest example I know) that the NHS doctor earned something like $100,000 pounds a year which is USD $137,000. Keep in mind that this is a GP and in the UK under the NHS the infrastructure is already there and all of the nurses and associated staff are also employed by the NHS so that is a salary. While a US GP would earn far more they would have to pay their staff, malpractice/liability insurance, rent a clinic etc. None of those costs would have to be assumed by the doctor.
Also they get bonuses for positive health outcomes. If they get a patient to quit smoking or lose weight they get paid more.Even in Canada where the universal system is run provincially dental, optometry, prescription drugs, physiotherapy, therapy aren't covered by the government and you usually get extended health through your employer.
The biggest thing with the wait times coming from Canada is that there is simply not enough funding in the system to fulfill capacity. Covid has exposed this issue but it was always there.
Amid aging population across developed countries, is it realistic for a public health system in such countries to remain properly funded?
I think if its clearly explained to the taxpayers that this is the cost of the system and it isn't mired in in-efficiency and corruption then people will pay the higher taxes for it.
The reason that say the Scandinavian countries accept the tax levels they have is that that money in used very well for the society where in the US and even in Canada the money is often used poorly.
The alternative is that some people are waiting or dying. We are going to the polls in 3 weeks in Canada and this question is very much on the ballot with the conservatives suggesting some kind of two tier system.Healthcare like private business will face highs and lows of demand on their services but with the system operating near or above capacity and when there is a surge like a pandemic or a bad cold and flu season then the system gets to its limit. For healthcare to work properly you need that capacity which if strictly looking at the books is inefficient because 100% is ideal as there is no wasted capacity. For healthcare to actually work you need 10-25% spare capacity to handle things like Covid or any local outbreak of other infectious diseases. Taxpayers don't like this because higher taxes but they don't like the wait times either.
That's a trade off that need to be made no matter it's public or privately funded
That's fine but when you get an event like Covid then there might not be the ability to get treated if you need it and you will face delays.
Funny, I remember when Obamacare was being argued, why not just full on Universal. One of the sticking points was malpractice. The trial lawyers are a BIG donor to Democrats, and they did not want that gravy train to go away. How does malpractice work under Universal Healthcare? What role do the lawyers have in Universal Healthcare?
Why do so many Canadians and Europeans come to the US for treatment? Its expensive, I go to Mexico for dental because of the quality and price.
How many is 'so many'?