Somewhere in the middle...

Though I am an advocate for the national health system, I think it would be hard for US to adopt this plan. Currently there are many problems with the US’s free market system, but that would not be solved by having a health system with full government control; rather US would benefit by falling somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. There are many drawbacks with going toward the two extremes. Many people would be reluctant to share the risks of having to care for others; they may have trouble adjusting to the idea of a national health system depending on whether they view health as a positive or negative right. This may also affect stakeholders’ contribution to the health system and will require a complete restructuring of the whole system. However, many people will be able to benefit from having a health system with greater government control. Many people who could not afford health insurance will be able to have the government subsidize their plans. With greater government monopoly, more people will be able to receive health care, and thus will result in a healthier country. The disparities between the rich and poor and healthy and sick will also decrease. A system with only private insurers is able to monopolize the system and only care about themselves and profit. However, a system with greater government control, not necessarily a national health care system (though that would be ideal), will be able to address the public’s needs, thus benefiting everyone on a wider scale.

Benefits and Drawbacks

There is no doubt there are more benefits with the NHS because everyone both rich and poor will have access to some basic health care regardless of one's status. The NHS can also help increase primary care which the US is lacking. Some of the problems of high cost for health care will be controlled leaving families at a more comfortable place in regards to their health care. There are drawbacks such as possibilities of shortage in health care provider thus higher wait time for care especially for specialist as it is happening to countries like the UK and Canada for example.

Having a NHS in the US will not work immediately because there are many people involved in the process. Even though the US population is governed by the same president, they are people with different cultural background and beliefs. They are also governed by their states and each state have its own way of doing things, thus changing the health care insurance plan will cost so much on the government but eventually have a good impact because the problem of access and basic care will be reduced and the gap between the rich and poor will be closed up a bit in regards to health care. The Obama reform is at the moment the best for the US to aim at since changing the whole insurance program to NHS will involve so much money to put together.

I like the idea of having a NHS but not for the US, it would collapse the insurance companies not forgetting the number of people who work for these private insurance companies.

The US must take its baby but huge steps with the Obama reform before thinks about doing it big to change the whole system to NHS which I know will eventually benefits us if its done! NHS is good but not sure if its the best or good one for the US...We have a long way to go to give better access and care to the whole population.

Not now...

I do not agree because the United States has a complicated culture. The culture is more individualistic emphasizing minimized limits on freedoms by the government. Also, health care as of now is viewed as a private good and almost a negative right. National Health Insurance basically would not fit in with United States’ culture right now. As almost all revolutions, there are steps necessary to take and within time. I like Obama’s reform plan because it’s the first step in introducing a mini national health insurance system through the disguise of a public option for the currently uninsured that fall between the cracks of our current health care system (not poor or old enough and/or unemployed).

The drawbacks to having a NHS in the US now could be discrimination towards the ones that use the health care system more (sick) because by individual mandate, everyone would have to share unequally spread risk. This taps into the Puritan historical belief that the poor are sinners, not victims, in society. The benefits, well, are many. Decreased medical care costs and the uninsured could be insured preventing many of the injustices experienced everyday by Americans (bankruptcy, no treatment, preventable death, etc.)

Pros & Cons

Adopting a national health system in the US has several potential strengths and weaknesses. On the plus side, a national health care system (like the one in Britain) would ensure that everyone has a least a minimum level of health care. At a population level, benefits would be maximized, although at the expense of a minority of individuals (to me it seems reasonable to require someone to be a healthy weight to receive a knee replacement). And do the people receiving costly, experimental end of life care really choose it for themselves? To what extent are they and their families persuaded and pressured by the medical community to further research and profits (e.g. the infant who received a baboon heart)? In the UK, if you have the money you can even choose to buy supplemental insurance to cover the extras or pay out of pocket. In terms of overall cost, it is hard to imagine that such a system could cost more than our current one, but the flow of money would be re-routed. In fact, it would likely cost less when all was said and done because it would eliminate insurance profits, would emphasize primary care, coordinate care, etc. Providing health care for those under 65 wouldn't be that expensive relative to what the government already spends on the elderly, the poor, and the disabled especially when money is diverted from having to pay health insurance, out of pocket fees, etc. Having a national health system is pretty much the largest pool of risk possible. Plus, the government would benefit from an economy of scale and would have much more leverage in terms of regulation and costs.

However, it is doubtful if Americans would ever accept such a system. It would also be difficult to ensure that the system was equal across all states and regions. The US is geographically and culturally diverse that a one-size-fits all approach would not work, but variations might be deemed unfair. There would be huge resistance by the medical community, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies who would seek to preserve their interests at all cost. Likely they would try to find some loop-hole to exploit the system. There might initially be a huge demand and strain on services if changes were made overnight and a national health system would have to be phased in gradually.

Overall, a national health system would be preferable to the system currently in place, but a social insurance model would be even better. Although there would be a great deal of resistance at first, I think that once it was in place, people would wonder why they ever favored the old, private, for-profit insurance system.

no 2 countries are the same

While the idea of a National Health System in the US sounds appealing I am not sure it would work at the moment. America is very focused on individual freedoms and being able to profit from services offered. To pickup a national health system both of these values would be compromised in ways I am not sure the public or the insurance companies and medical professionals are ready to handle.

On paper the National Health Service seems excellent. We would be able to provide greater access to care, increase the number of insured Americans, decrease the number of individuals going bankrupt due to medical costs, limit the increasing costs of medical care, and minimize unnecessary expenses since there will be a regulatory agency administering the costs.

America isn't ready for this change however. First of all, it will be wildly expensive to administer this new health system. Many individuals in higher socioeconomic classes already complain about their high taxes and so will be unlikely to want to pay out more money in taxes. Secondly it will be difficult to convince medical practitioners of the benefits. The National health system has a much higher focus on primary care then secondary care as system which is completely at odds with the current system. Many providers would be concerned about losing their position and source of income under a national health system.

While we definitely need a new or improved system in the US. I am not quite sure that we are ready for the National Health System.

American National Health

I agree with what has been posted, that there is no perfect health system. Currently, in our political climate, a national health system will just not be accepted by the american people and politicians. There is are too many overtones of "socialism" (whether they be accurate or not). There is a lot of pride and support for our "capitalist" system and the american ideal of choice reigns supreme.
The first step towards a universal health system is to mandate and make affordable, universal health insurance.

The drawbacks of a national health service would be that it would require a complete restructuring of our insurance system, renegotiating our individual salaries with our employers, and the pharmaceutical/device industries. It would limit options for providers (I'm not convinced that people make the best choices for their provider, given the choice). It would need major overhauls in our judicial system and our medical system, including reimbursement, billing and training. There would not be automatic competition between providers, insurers and suppliers unless something was built in to the system to promote competition to ensure proper, cost-effective care.

As an advantage, it would eliminate middlemen, provide care for all citizens (and possibly non-citizens), and decrease unneccessary, and redundant tests and procedures.

Gradually, we could move towards a National Health Plan, but it will take stepwise change and fundamental shift in priorities, it has happened before, most Americans today consider Social Security, Medicare and Public Education to be fundamental to American society and virtually see them as rights. We (?unfortunately?) are going to have to wait for the paradigm shift, and in the meantime, work with the system we have and the changes that we will allow ourselves.

Moore has the right idea!

I do agree with Michael Moore in regards to our system being incredibly flawed and incredibly unfair. It is not okay that 46 million Americans are uninsured. It is not okay that 700,000 people go bankrupt per year due to medical bills. It is not okay that 16% of our GDP is allocated towards healthcare spending and yet we still have high mortality rates and low life expectancies in comparison to other OECD countries. It is not okay that a father and mother must chose to not get a raise or promotion just so they could qualify their baby girl for Medicaid.
I definitely understand why Michael Moore advocates a national health system. That would be the ideal solution to all the “not okay” circumstances that currently define what our healthcare system today is doing to Americans. The benefits of a national health system would be many. All Americans would be insured despite their socioeconomic status. All Americans would have insurance despite preexisting conditions. And lastly, all Americans would be covered despite their employment status. No woman would be declined because she had a urine infection as was explained in the film. No little girl would be turned away from a hospital and sent to another due to the insurance she has-losing her life far too early as a result.
Although, I believe that a national health system would be great, I do not think it would be possible in America- at least not yet. America has always believed that the government is meant to implement laws and then step out of the picture as long as those laws are being followed. It is almost as if America is too rooted in the belief that the government, if given too much power will take over and make our county a monarchy. We are so focused on keeping the government out- as a result we fail to see that only if the government is integrally involved could a drastic difference in the structure of the country actually take place. Due to these likely hesitations to let government take a major role in healthcare planning, I believe that the system Obama is suggesting is a good in- between. It lets us keep our federalized planning but demands for public and private funding. By switching over to this plan, we might be making progress towards a future with a national health system.

Between NHS and Private Sectors

There is no such thing as a perfect healthcare system in the world and I believe that there are only certain choices to be made among imperfect systems. Although I do not agree with completely eliminating insurance system in U.S. and adopting NHS, there are absolutely many things need to be addressed in health care reform. America is often criticized for its lack of a NHS comparable to the Europeans and Canadians. However, we do have something better than those who have NHS. Government running programs are inefficient in terms of quality compare to private sectors and the higher costs have to be paid for with higher taxes among all citizens. In other hand, there can be beneficial things from adopting NHS; less pressure for employers to provide health insurance for employee, less headache to insurance procedures and premiums and most importantly increasing access to affordable health care. But NHS might lead to a decrease in patient flexibility since some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from increasing. And who decides what is elective and required medical procedures. This ultimately will put in controls that limit patient options. Moreover, I do not like the fact that medical services, drugs and equipments can end up being rationed by the government which implies that people in power can determine who gets what eventually
I am sure there are good arguments for and good arguments against NHS and private insurers. And I feel that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Maybe there is a solution to current US health care system but we just haven't found the right one yet. It is true that people are having a hard time affording it due to high cost and no one wants to get taxed even more from NHS. Every nation is different and we are our own country with our own problems and our own ways to make things work. Not everything that works for UK and Canada is going to work for us. I have to personally say that the difference between developed nations and underdeveloped nations may reflect on ways to take care of its poor and sick. Why don’t we build our own health care system based on them?

Money makes our country SICKo!

Lets think about why we are using the "system" we are today in the US. Our country has a "wealth equals health" policy going on. Therefore, the wealthier you are, the better health care you will get and better life you will live. The rich people have no problem with this, but most of the country does not fall into that category. But right now, aren't the rich paying more taxes? I mean I do agree that we are not doing too well with people going into bankruptcy to pay medical bills and people being uninsured, etc. but how will this pan out in the end? Since I am unemployed and uninsured I think that I have struggled enough to say that the NHS would be a great way to benefit everyone and just charge everyone more tax. But, most rich people will not appreciate this idea. It will have a huge impact on culture, the economy and politics. We will still have problems financially first of all to balance out our situation right now and second with the new NHS plan. I think it might be really hard to switch and people would have to make major adjustments but in the end, it could benefit the country and world as a whole. Im sure there might be salary cuts, medical school applicant changes, people would go to other countries to get medical work done. Health care just might not be as satisfying as it is now to some people.

An American NHS??

I disagree with Michael Moore's view that the American health care system should be canned.
And, though a national health system sounds great, but I don't think it would work in the states.

First and most obviously, a NHS-style system would be great because everyone would be insured. No more 46 million uninsured Americans. No more hunting for jobs because of coverage. No more bankrupcy due to hospital bills. Those in poverty who need the most care will finally be covered.

The downside to this sort of system would be the cost. American's already complain that our taxes are too high, so asking for more taxes is asking for trouble. Also, access to health care would probably go down due to the higher volume of patients. And not just costs and access, but more importantly, America's mindset is the antithesis of a NHS system. Americans are too individualistic and are not willing to share health risks with other Americans. Everyone is out for what they can get out their own health insurance. Though a national health system would be the superhero who saves us from our insurance ailments, I don't think the system would be able to seep through the cracks of our fragmented government system.

Comprehensive Reform

I do agree with Michael Moore in that the US system is so fragmented something must be done to change it and fast. When we were talking about comprehensive reform in the 508 lecture we sat in on, I realized just how daunting a task it would be to implement Obamacare let alone an entire National Health Service. The American people are scared of the unknown and anything that might be labeled "un-American" (whatever that means). As a society that is driven by mass media and internet news, it seems as though the correct information is not getting out there and assuring Americans that a National Health Service or comprehensive reform are good things.

There are many citizens that say they do not want to give up there private or employer based insurance plans in lieu of a national health service plan. However, as a young American and part of the next generation of Americans with insufficient health care, I am frightened that if something isn't done soon the system will continue to get worse. Myself and many others my age that I know are currently in high risk plans or uninsured because insurance companies are so picky about who they choose to insure.

The advantages to a National Health System are that everyone will be insured, there will be no uninsured citizens being treated at emergency facilities and rising up costs, insurance, medical and pharmaceutical bills will most likely be much lower, employers will not have to provide costly insurance for their employees, hopefully defensive medicine and unneccessary tests will be reduced, and last (we can only hope) maybe we will bring the focus back to preventative care and improve the care given to Americans.

The disadvantages will be a large upfront cost to the US government, government run insurance (hopefully not like the DMV), and wait times.

I think that if we came together as Americans and made a solid plan for a National Health Service, had some trust in the process, let President Obama do his job, and every American gave their support and maybe a little extra taxes in a few years we could have a great system. After all, we are Americans and we like to be the best. :)

A National Health system may work for countries like the UK, but I don't think that it would be a good idea for the US because we place so much value on individual freedoms--namely, freedom of choice. In the UK, the government takes care of everything. But in the US, we do not give all power to the government. The power is with the people. Giving the government complete control of the health system is something that works, absolutely, but I don't think it would ever be successful in the US.

I like the new direction health care reform is proposing. The public option is government-run, but it doesn't (for now, at least, though there are projections that it will) encompass the entire system. The private market still exists, so the individual still has the freedom to choose the plan that is best for him.

The problem we have in the US is that health care is not seen as a positive right. I think that is the main difference between us and other developed countries. We do not see health care as something every individual is entitled to and obligated to have and have provided to him. When that basic concept is legitimized and understood, then we can begin to realize universal health care.

Socialist SMOCIALIST!

My personal opinion is that having a National Health System, while very costly at first, might save costs in the long-term as opposed to making gradual changes over time. Having a national health system bypasses the complications of private health insurance altogether (COMPLICATIONS is an understatement)--afterall, the U.S. government is directly involved in the health care services for its people. We already have systems in place such as the VA and the Indian Health System, and it wouldn't be a super-crazy-long-stretch to consider having an NHS System, afterall, the UK has adopted the system, and they are not looking back ([ironic tone goes here] and did you know their doctors actually get money back for their patients' well-being? Darn those Britain Socialists!). We need to switch the focus to primary care and the change to NHS will allow for us to do that. While many people may consider this notion "socialist," I argue that if having affordable health care and considering health as the utmost number ONE right any human being should have is a socialist notion--by golly, I'd rather be a socialist! In all seriousness though, shouldn't we as part of one of the most powerful nations in the world, think progressively? It is not about being Republican or Democratic anymore, it is about making sure that our families and friends are well taken care of. This is the ideal.

However, in practice, I don't think that a NHS can happen without a huge health care meltdown catastrophe where all of a sudden people are thrust into an even worse panic mode than now. While some may worry now, it is nowhere near the level of fear that warrants a complete change to an NHS system. Oh yeah, not to mention the insurance companies and their lobbyists. Oh my!

The benefits from having an NHS system completely outweigh the costs. Can you find more reasons why we shouldn't have an NHS system besides the fact that it is us being "Socialist?" or that the American people aren't ready? I think many of us are, maybe our politicians aren't.

Too Radical for America

Although I do not disagree with Michael Moore's proposal of gutting America's current health care insurance infrastructure and replacing it with a single payer system, I do disagree with his fervor for immediate change. Americans as a whole have not been the most receptive people in adapting to quick change. Many of our outdated laws are still upheld, we were the far behind other cultures in adopting technology, and in general change is scary to our country. Obama's current plan to merely supplement the gaping hole in our current health insurance scheme has been met with huge opposition and accusations of socialism. If it were even possible for Michael Moore's idea to pass through the steps of the Senate, Congress, and other legislative bodies, the American people would inevitably panic. Drafting a comprehensive health care system in a bill would be extremely difficult. Re-organizing current employer-based insurance programs, government social insurance, and other systems would be a complete nightmare. Integrating the American health care system into a single payor model would be a serious challenge and I hope to one day see the transition. For now, it is not realistic for our health care system to do 180 degree flip. Drastic changes should occur gradually. If we were to immediately change the system, many negative consequences may occur that would outweigh the initial benefits.

If in the far future after Obama's plan for reform has been long implemented and Americans as a whole have come to realize the benefits of universal health care, I do believe that the results could be magnificent. Having a single payor system should eliminate a uniquely American issue: citizens that are denied health care or go bankrupt from medical bills. Like other countries, our health care spending of GDP would be greatly reduced. Many more aspects of health care could be regulated such as costly procedures, malpractice insurance, salaries, and more. Eliminating private insurance companies would remove the incentive for profiting from keeping Americans sick. Organizations that truly care about their work and mission should ideally be non-profit. A national health system implemented in the U.S. would provide many benefits such as mainstreaming medical information, promoting primary care, and reducing health care costs. In conclusion, America needs change and needs it now. The question remains in how drastic the change will be and how soon will it be implemented. I feel that small steps in the beginning will assist in an overhaul reform in the distant future.

In my opinion, I don’t really think the U.S. government should change the whole free-market based health system; the original system were designed to suit the U.S. political, economic, and cultural background, once the health system changing into the national health system, there will definitely be a huge impact to each layer of U.S.. Changing the health system into the national health system is not the best way to deal with the present problems of U.S. health care system; the countries which have the national health care system also have a lot of problems within their countries, I think the financing budget and the equal provision are the most common ones.
I believe that if the U.S. health care system change into the NHS system, the health care market will become the total mess; first, the planning changes from federalized to centralized, which means the government has to come up with the plan that is sustainable for every state. U.S. is a country with huge land, to come up with one plan to the whole nation is nearly mission impossible. There would be the potential problems that the local governments couldn’t provide the best health care to their own people. The financing of NHS will change from private to public, which means the overall federal budget of health care will go up; also means there will be more tax rate for everyone. How do the people afford higher tax rate with the growing unemployment rate and low economic status. The provision part also changes from private to public, the public provision would alter the whole medical related industries in U.S., and it would also result in huge impact on economic. Neither way, the NHS seems not to be the ideal system for U.S.. The more appropriate method for U.S. government to do probably would be the redesigned of the health care insurance coverage plan, remain the free-market based insurance, but make the coverage to all people.

Socialism Success In the USA

I’d have to disagree with Michael Moore’s plan to eliminate the current insurance health system. Even though the current system is flawed, the implementation of a new radical national health service would be prohibitively expensive and would adopt socialist values, thus causing many citizens to label it as “un-American.” The greatest benefit of a NHS is increased access to quality medical care for lower socioeconomic status citizens since all citizens are entitled to quality health care. Also, costs for medical procedures and drugs are likely to decrease since the government will find a way to streamline the process or initiate a price lock since they have to pay the bills. The third benefit is decreased administrative costs and unnecessary tests since all physicians, hospitals and facilities will be under one umbrella organization, sharing of patient information will be encouraged and enforced.

Unfortunately, the drawbacks are substantial and would lead to the NHS program not being considered much less installed. If Obamacare, which primarily addresses the forty-seven million uninsured Americans with the insurance exchange, will cost $900 billion, we can safely assume that the cost will be exponentially greater to trash and start up a completely new system for all 300 million Americans. The second aspect is the fact it is run by the government, which can be extremely fast (IRS tax collection) or extremely slow (DMV). How the government prioritizes the program will affect the quality of care; if slow, we can expect long waits for medical procedures and treatment and vice versa. The final aspect is the possibility of fraud, not just by patients and physicians but by others outside of the system. Just recently, it was reported organized crime had taken interest in Medicare and Medicaid since the government compensates claims based on the honor system. Fraud accounts for 3% of cost today. With a larger system, the possibility for fraud increases.

On theory alone, the national health service program would be perfect for our society, especially for the fact that the strain on the insurance system is increasing with the bad economy and large elderly population. At one point or another, enough money will be spent on healthcare by the government and the population to make it intellectually and financially sensible to create a national health service to control spending. Hopefully, we won’t wait until that point to fix the system.