Is this a huge problem with any government ran health care system?

When it comes to running anything the government is usually very lousy at it. Because of this the private sector can usually do it for less money and even make a profit.

And that doesn't count the waste and corruption you usually see in government ran programs

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 2 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Britain's NHS is the poster boy example for exactly this. yes, it's a huge problem

  • 2 years ago

    If that was even true about health care, the US system would be the cheapest in the world, not the most expensive.

  • Anonymous
    2 years ago

    One overwhelming outfit example the government, negotiates to buy at a discount. This is THE cheapest method.

    Private companies operate to maximize profit. They lobby government to cull true competition. Layers, repetition add to the cost charged consumers/ patents.

    A corporation receives tax breaks for research and development, but the benefits aren't passed onto the tax payers, in the form of reasonable drug prices. It's the shareholders who receive all the benefits, as the corporations set the drug prices.

    In foreign countries where private corporations are salivating to get a foothold, they cherry pick the customers. Those that are easy to treat. Whilst they aren't interested in those with long-term ongoing health conditions.

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/14/the-cost-o... "health technology had the highest profit margin of any of 19 broadly defined industrial sectors, at 20.9 percent, topping even finance, the second highest. Three of the biggest companies — Pfizer, Merck & Co. and Johnson & Johnson — had profit margins of 25 percent or higher. When a separate study broke down profit margins by smaller, more specific industry categories, health care-related industries were three of the six most profitable. Generic pharmaceuticals topped the list, with a margin of 30 percent. Major pharmaceuticals and biotechnology were also among the top six.

    What’s good for big business is good for big business

    With such dismal results, why does such a furious campaign continue to insist on privatized health care? Ideology, of course. Ideology no different than that propagated to insist that government is always bad and private enterprise always better. But government doesn’t have to earn a profit; private enterprise expects to and will pack its bags if it doesn’t. Just as privatization invariably results in higher costs and often poorer quality than when the service was provided by a government agency as a public good, health care is provided far more efficiently when in public hands."

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/26/newsletter... "Efforts to create a national health insurance have existed in the United States for the past 100 years. Health historian, David Barton Smith, writes (in a draft chapter) that the fundamental struggle in the US has been over the question of whether health care is a commodity that belongs in a market or whether it is a basic necessity that requires the protection of government so that it is universal. Smith breaks up the past one hundred years into five phases and argues that in each phase, compromises were made that failed because they did not meet the fundamental criteria of covering everyone and achieving effective governmental oversight.."

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/09/how-corpor... "When it comes to medicines, the taxpayers of the United States and other research-supporting countries are the very opposite of free riders: They pay to build the bus, fill it with fuel, and hire the driver. But they’re still asked to pay a steep fare if they wish to take a seat.

    In fact, a decade ago, U.S. economist Dean Baker crunched the numbers and estimated that the U.S. could save over $140 billion a year if its health systems could provide medicines without the artificial mark-up imposed by monopoly patents. That money could fund the replacement of all private industry research and development several times over, while still leaving billions of dollars in remaining public benefit. A significant source of those savings derives from eliminating the for-profit pharmaceutical companies’ expenses on marketing, a cost that exceeds their investment in research and development. As it happens, there are more efficient uses of resources than funding television ads for erectile dysfunction drugs.

    The enclosed medicine system inflicts additional damage beyond the artificially inflated cost of patented medicines."

  • RICK
    Lv 7
    2 years ago

    The argument that the private sector is better is absolute BS

    Medicare spends 8% of revenue on overhead and administration, average civilian health insurance company spends 23% overhead and administration. Same is true with SS vs civilian pension plans. Plus unless you are a CEO with a Gold Parachute no civilian run pension plan equals SS

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    2 years ago

    That simply is not true. Many Government run healthcare systems and single payor are much better than ours and cover everyone much cheaper.

    Socialized medicine is a system in which the government owns the means of providing medicine. Britain is an example of socialized system, as, in America, is the Veterans Health Administration.In a socialized system, the government employs the doctors and nurses, builds and owns the hospitals, and bargains for and purchases the technology. I have literally never heard a proposal for converting America to a socialized system of medicine. And I know a lot of liberals.

    Single-payer health care is not socialized medicine. It's a system in which one institution purchasesall, or in reality, most, of the care. But the payer does not own the doctors or the hospitals or the nurses or the MRI scanners. Medicare is an example of a mostly single-payer system, as is France. Both of these systems have private insurers to choose from, but the government is the dominant purchaser. (As an aside here, unlike in socialized medicine, "single-payer health care" has nothing in particular to do with the government. The state might be the single payer. But if Aetna managed to wrest 100 percent of the health insurance market, then it would be the single payer. The term refers to market share, not federal control.)

  • ?
    Lv 7
    2 years ago

    Other countries have made it work. It might not always work perfectly, but government run public health care is a reality across the developed world.

  • 2 years ago

    Government health care will always have problems, there will will always be a certain amount of waste and corruption, as you said, but private health care also has it's problems, for profit healthcare will be more expensive and will only be available to those who can pay, also the deductibles may be prohibitive, limiting what healthcare is available.

    Both have their problems.

  • Alan
    Lv 7
    2 years ago

    The private sector started to take over parts of our National Health Service in the UK, and because they operate on a profit basis, the price of their services sent the cost of the NHS spiraling ever higher. The NHS in the UK has provided healthcare to every citizen from cradle to grave, free at the point of need to EVERYONE since 1945, regardless of their status or financial situation. People who can afford private healthcare who wish to speed up their access to treatment may opt to go privately, but the cost is exorbitant. Nobody in the UK goes bankrupt because they need a major operation.

  • Anonymous
    2 years ago

    We have never tried a government run system like Israel. How would we know if it works or not?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.