16 August 2009

WHERE I STAND [2]: Universal Publicly Funded vs For-Profit Health Care

As things stand now with private/corporate/for-profit health care, the health care provider makes the ultimate call for or against payment for any procedure, suture, or even an office visit. Neither the person nor the doctor controls that. They can appeal and often decisions fall in their favor but sometimes not. Sure, a wealthy person could just pay for any of it out of pocket but we aren't all so well funded.

Those opposing universal/public health care often argue that they don't want the government getting in the way of what one's doctor thinks is best let alone telling the doctor what to do. As I described earlier, those in charge now ARE doing this.

The difference between the government being the one deciding vs a for-profit company is that the government is explicitly tasked, and held accountable, to uphold the public interest. In other words, it is for the common good of all its citizens whereas the for-profit company's is ultimately to serve shareholders by making money.

It would be ludicrous to suggest that the companies can sustain themselves by often NOT providing somewhat good care but they can and do make decisions based on the suit's bottom lines (shareholder pressure) and bonuses instead of the patient's well being. They are doing their jobs to serve the bottom line can we fault them for doing their job's well? Not completely at least. It is the system that is flawed.

1 comment:

deano said...

I would just like to say...YOU AMERICAN HATING SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST...GOV' HEALTH CARE IS HEALTH CONTROL!....what happen...sorry sometimes I go Schizo. ha ha!!

Yes, I am of the same persuasion too. You broke it down well. Good post man.

© 2012. Design by Main-Blogger - Blogger Template and Blogging Stuff