Do folks understand the difference between a National Health Insurance plan and a National Healthcare Service? (Congress, health care system)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I ask because there seems to be a great deal of confusion between the two on this board. What is being promoted in Congress is a national healthcare insurance plan, in short the Federal government will provide healthcare insurance in competition with private insurers. Doctors, and other healthcare employees, hospitals, and clinics would remain in private hands which isn't the same as developing a national healthcare service, such as Britain, where all the above are employed by the national government. The confusion seems to be most prevalent with those who insist on comparing what is being proposed and what exists in Great Britain, they are two completely different animals.
It's the word 'national' that is the problem for the conservatives. Only use the word 'national' for a car rental company or maybe for a semiconductor company. Then it's OK.
I ask because there seems to be a great deal of confusion between the two on this board. What is being promoted in Congress is a national healthcare insurance plan, in short the Federal government will provide healthcare insurance in competition with private insurers. Doctors, and other healthcare employees, hospitals, and clinics would remain in private hands which isn't the same as developing a national healthcare service, such as Britain, where all the above are employed by the national government. The confusion seems to be most prevalent with those who insist on comparing what is being proposed and what exists in Great Britain, they are two completely different animals.
yes I understand what the difference is, and they are both not in the realm of the federal goverments to control or give out.
Yes but all the government has to do is set the prices so low and there will be no more choices because private insures will not be able to meet those low prices. The government can also make the payments to doctors so low that the doctors will not be able to stay in their practices which in turn causes rationed care and long wait times.
It seems most people can't think of health care without including insurance. I think a lot of people simply cannot grasp a health care system that doesn't include insurance coverage. Far too many think health care and insurance coverage are interchangable terms.
yes I understand what the difference is, and they are both not in the realm of the federal goverments to control or give out.
Either are well within the "realm" of what the Federal government to either control or give out if the populace so decides that this is what the Federal government is charged with doing.
Of course, since you believe this we all can rest assured that you will not be not be taking part in Medicare, right?
People understand that the Fed Govt doesn't have a great track record of running anything efficiently, under or at cost, or without a huge amount of other headaches, so it's less about the semantics of the word "national" and more about the concept of the Govt having yet another hand in the private cookie jar of individual citizens.
I agree. I simply cannot find anything wrong with a VOLUNTARY medicare program for all? If the private companies cannot find a way to compete... oh well. UPS and FedEx do fine with the USPS in business.
In the end, even if the whole thing goes "gubmint," it's merely changing one group of privately employed, unelected bureucrats to decide health coverage decisions for you (private health insurance) for some publically employed, unelected bureaucrats.
Yes but all the government has to do is set the prices so low and there will be no more choices because private insures will not be able to meet those low prices.
If insurance companies can't manage to meet the governments 10% lower premiums in light of their record profits... they need to find some better marketing executives.
Quote:
The government can also make the payments to doctors so low that the doctors will not be able to stay in their practices which in turn causes rationed care and long wait times.
if that is the case then folks will pay the higher premium provided by the private sector.
I ask because there seems to be a great deal of confusion between the two on this board. What is being promoted in Congress is a national healthcare insurance plan, in short the Federal government will provide healthcare insurance in competition with private insurers. Doctors, and other healthcare employees, hospitals, and clinics would remain in private hands which isn't the same as developing a national healthcare service, such as Britain, where all the above are employed by the national government. The confusion seems to be most prevalent with those who insist on comparing what is being proposed and what exists in Great Britain, they are two completely different animals.
There are those who don't understand the difference, and then those who LIE on purpose to make sure others don't understand the difference. It's been quite effective.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
