It doesn’t work because the government keeps cutting budgets (and politicians keep on stealing funds).

Because those things won’t happens in the US, right?

In Canada, many provinces are thinking and allowing private practices (all but abolished in the 70′s) to return because the government cannot keep up with the costs.

But you should get what you wish and live to regret it.

The private/government part is described as social security patients (payed by the government) that get attention in private hospitals. Most of the times they are referred to a private facility is because the IMSS is either swamped with delayed schedule (months of backlog), IMSS hospitaks don’t have the advanced equipment needed for a test or a particular surgery is only performed at the private institution.

But private hospitals are that, no government oversight on what they charge unless the patient they’re attending comes from the IMSS.

Otherwise is called welfare. Those not covered in the social security are people that don’t pay taxes.

No wonder you’re so confused with the subject.

http://tinyurl.com/djn7b8

While the health of Mexicans has increased in the last four generations, there are millions of citizens who still do not have regular access to health care services. Mexico has adopted a pluralistic health care system. It consists of a combination of public and private health insurance programs. Of the 6.6% of government revenue spent on health, this provides only health insurance to 40% of the population who are privately employed.

Also:

Half of Mexican citizens are uninsured and even more pay health costs out of their own pockets. For some families, more than a third of their income goes towards paying for medical needs

Try again pedro; perhaps in a country with socialized medicine they could do a brain transplant to replace your defective one.

Is not my “standard” that IS social security. Or why else do you think their name stands for? http://tinyurl.com/cmyog6

And it has absolutely nothing to do with what you have in the US. Which is kinda funny that you show what you have now in the US, since you clearly want what Mexico has.

However, EDs are awakening to the problems of patient over utilization. My company, Collective Medical Technologies, has been working on this very issue with several hospitals in the state of Washing. We are seeing very promising results in both reducing non-emergent/abusive visits to the ED as well as getting the appropriate treatment to patients. In some cases we have been able to reduce visits by 60% (and this is without denying a single patient treatment or service).

Adam Green

President
Collective Medical Technologies
http://www.collectivemedicaltech.com

Well, if that’s your standard, then we also already have government run health care. Next time you’re in NYC and in need of a hospital, Check out Bellevue; I think it’ll be every bit as good as Mexico’s hospitals … and not much better.

Either way, by your standard, you’ve already lost. We have that level of government health care and more with medicare and medicaid.

There has been government run health care all around latin america.

I think you should model the US social medicine with the Mexican model. It’ll be swell. Maybe that’s why there are so many illegal gringo’s in Mexico, huh?

You’re probably right about that (and little else).

With the exception of the United States, every developed democratic nation in the world has some form of universal health care, as does most of the developing world. In fact, the only two countries I can name without it are the U.S. and Mexico.

Anyone else have list of the nations that still have only private health care? I’ve been unable to find one. Perhaps because it would make for extremely light reading.

Your whole idea that a social use of tax payer money is slavery is bullshit. The cost of being a member of society is we all contribute. If you don’t want to be a member of society, please don’t let the door hit your butt on the way out. I’m sure that places like North Korea, Singapore, and China would gladly love someone with your mind set.

Scott, it is basic math. If the population is aging, and this is the part that uses more health care, then you can expect higher costs.

Mike, it is basic math. If Americans pay $X every year towards health care then why would it matter if that $X goes towards a bloated private, poorly run system or a government run efficient system. We are still paying $X. The only difference for your pocket would be where that contribution goes.

Before you claim that the government would only waste the money, think again. Currently 25 to 35% of health care dollars go into bureaucracy and profit. Ontario Canada’s health care program runs with less than 1% overhead and NO profit. That alone would pay for all those without insurance and the under insured.

As for the aging population, regardless of who is paying, they will still be there. The difference is as they retire, someone other than their private insurance company is going to have to cover them. So while the private insurers get the more healthy (and profitable) younger clients, the government has to pay for the older, more expensive people. Now that is a neo-con ideology if there ever was one.

#104 How could you? If you spend so much time drinking kool-aid…

#111 You’re getting desperate. Proof that you lost the discussion.

You’re a liberal now?

Trying to get a liberal to give a straight answer to a VERY simple question is like herding cats. Is it part of the mental illness that goes along with the belief system?