If you have never had the joy of attending a college history based class you may not have had the honor of attending a sectional. These are small breakdowns of typically large classes that meet once a week to discuss what has been happening in class. It is the chance for students to ask question and in the case of my particular sectional debate the practical applications of the topics at hand.
One question that was presented to us this last Friday was very interesting: Could any form of Communism in the USSR have survived to the 1990s? Our sectional usually quickly strays from the subject and naturally we ended somehow to the topic of universal health care. Not that any of the ideas we presented were unusual. In fact, quite the opposite, the ideas were so simple it is shocking we have not found a way to implement the program already.
But first how we came to our conclusion.
The first part of the question on the table was complete universal health care. Would it be effective? The argument for: It could work if the standard for doctors and medicine were kept at the same or higher level so that all doctors and hospitals would be high quality. In this instance no one would have to worry about getting the care they needed for any ailment. The argument against: This would only cause extremely long lines at hospitals and everyone one would go to hospitals fro every tiny scrape because they can. Quality would naturally be reduced because money is no longer a factor in creating doctors.
Of course the counter argument on that was that this would leave only the doctors who do it for the want of helping people rather than the greed of a high paying position. Doctors would no longer be an elitist community with big houses but would become a job on the level of most blue collar workers. As for the long lines due to minor injuries it was argued that hospitals have a hierarchy of who they accept and how quickly. If you are unconscious or have to be brought in you are clearly higher priority that some one who is able to walk into the hospital themselves.
What about competition? It is human nature to want what you can afford. Why would anyone strive for a better job or a raise if there was no better lifestyle that comes with the change? Who wants to go to the average local doctor that all the county uses if you can afford the best doctors. Of course in a universal system there would be no "best doctors" because they would all be the same. This would in theory lead to an underground black market of the extremely talented doctors (who would most likely work days in the community hospitals) who would perform specialized surgeries much faster than a standard hospital for a premium price.
Not wanting to bore you with more speculation on the long debates that occurred, here was the final consensus: The only way to make universal health care effective would be to cover everyone at the basic level, but allow for individuals who can afford private health care to chose the plans and doctors they wish. The only argument that was given for this plan was the fact that those with lesser insurance would feel cheated by those who were able to afford the top quality service. The counter argument: Would you rather have nothing like now or at least a promise that when you really need medical attention you will be taken care of?
*Note: This blog is a culmination of the opinions and arguments of a dozen students. Arguments have been combined and shortened when possible to save room and your energy (the class is an hour long and that is an awful amount of reading you know). Please feel free to weigh in on the situation and present information that might have been missed.
I think many of your arguments would only be sound if the government completely subsidized the training of doctors in the first place. Of course, they wouldn't want to waste their money on someone who wouldn't do a good job, so they'd probably require some sort of contract, and would require extensive entrance testing... much like it is now, when only 50% of applicants in any given year get into medical school. I'm pretty sure the number was even lower this past year, because applications were at a record level.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
That was actually briefly brought up in the conversation. As long as education is a public venture that must be privately paid for by the individual then there must be economic and status gain from spending the time and money required to get the doctoral degree. It was brought up that if the government paid towards the education of quality doctors then quality standards would remain high. It was suggested that medical school would become more exclusive and less schools would be certified to teach the subject. It was an interesting speculation to say the least.
I don't agree with every point that was brought up, but it is always good to hear a variety of arguments from various points of view.
The Heathen's Guide to: Greed
Due to sheer demand of doctors right now, I find it highly, highly unlikely that the number of schools certified to teach medicine would decrease. We only have 125 allopathic (MD) and like 10 osteopathic (DO) schools here in the US (classes range in size from like 80 to 250 or so). We have more doctors coming from foreign countries to teach now, because the demand is so high and the medical schools aren't churning them out fast enough. And still, 50% of every year's applicant pool is rejected. Go figure.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!