Voices
in
Japan

have your say

Health care is a hot topic for debate in many countries. What do you think is the best system so that no one gets left out?

22 Comments

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

22 Comments
Login to comment

Universal healthcare, paid for by taxes and free to all residents.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

"Many countries"?

I guess in the US and currently in Japan due to the vaccine fiasco and rising costs.

But many other countries are not debating universal coverage or other structural issues with their health systems.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Universal healthcare, paid for by taxes and free to all residents.

I may be going Tory in my old age, but I think a small fee, say 10% is good, just to discourage time-wasters and people who are bored or lonely going to the doctors. Put it this way, I do not think the Japanese system would be better if it were free and even more people went to the doctors to get aspirins or elastoplasts.

With health, prevention is better than cure, so it makes sense to spend money subsidizing public sports facilities, healthy food, and cycle lanes, not sugar, cars, and triple-bypass heart operations.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Like Luddite

Universal healthcare paid for by taxes or health insurance and free at source to all legal residents. The system of GP doctors works better than when not available.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Like Luddite and zichi. And that goes for education as well

9 ( +10 / -1 )

@kohakuebisu. Define a “time-waster”.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

paid for by taxes and free 

It’s not actually “free” then.

I think models like that in Singapore where individuals control how their personal share of health spending is spent are evidently superior to alternative western country approaches which cost a lot more without showing better results.

An excellent health care reform proposal is seen from an economist and former Labour government finance minister from New Zealand, where they proposed a “savings not taxation” based system, as well as considering transition issues.

Japan alas will be having to change its system in time because it’s simply unsustainable.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

LudditeToday  03:55 pm JST

@kohakuebisu. Define a “time-waster”.

These are people who visit a doctor or hospital when there's little or nothing wrong with them, but go because its "free" (i.e. other taxpayers cover the cost) and they have someone to talk to. A visit to the pharmacy would frequently serve the same purpose and free up doctors' time for people who actually need treatment. What would you think when a few people like this come in to the hospital for a band aid and a chat when you've got a kid with a coin stuck up his nose, or worse?

I agree with kohakuebisu about charging even a small fee to discourage these people from wasting valuable time and resources, which are already stretched.

Remember, folks. Nothing is "free."

0 ( +3 / -3 )

These are people who visit a doctor or hospital when there's little or nothing wrong with them, but go because its "free" (i.e. other taxpayers cover the cost) and they have someone to talk to

You believe people seeking medical advice are time wasters if they feel they have an issue you do not deem important enough. How sick to they have to be before they are allowed to seek advice? Do you have a list of symptoms?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I note the the back-and-forth about “time wasters” would be largely eliminated if individuals were spending their own share of the health spending, rather than going down to the doctors for “free”, or close to it.

They would be spending effectively their own money.

With personal incentives to spend the money wisely, they themselves would make the decision (without other bearing the costs, except where they had inadequate funds to be able to do so and the govt steps in), and people on the whole spend their own money more carefully than they spend someone else’s money.

Google: Savings not taxation health reform!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Don't care: I'm much more interested in great healthcare.

How many groundbreaking healthcare innovations were created in socialist countries? Honest people know the answer...

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

The NHS model is the best in the world.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The NHS model is twice as expensive as a share of GDP as the Singapore model, so I wonder if it produces better outcomes for the double cost, and is worthy of the mantle of the best?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

LudditeToday  12:39 am JST

You believe people seeking medical advice are time wasters if they feel they have an issue you do not deem important enough. How sick to they have to be before they are allowed to seek advice? Do you have a list of symptoms?

I know doctors in my home country who complain of this very problem. Might be better to argue with them about it than to shoot the messenger.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I know doctors in my home country who complain of this very problem. Might be better to argue with them about it than to shoot the messenger.

Shooting the messenger? No. If you make a claim then expect to be challenged on it. In my experience, not second hand whispers, I’ve never met any “time wasters”.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

If anyone knew the answer to this question, all countries would already be doing it.

It's not easy to know what the right answer is, but there are some countries that are VERY clearly doing it wrong.

Look at the overall cost of health care, and the overall health of the people of each nation, to figure out which countries do not know how to do health care. Take any comments from people of those countries with a pound of salt.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Define a “time-waster”.

 

These are people who visit a doctor or hospital when there's little or nothing wrong with them, but go because its "free" (i.e. other taxpayers cover the cost) and they have someone to talk to.

Conversely there will be people who won't visit the doctor until they are on their death bed. Should these people be given the 10% that the others pay out? Or should we also charge these people 10%, as their unwillingness to go to the doctor means they are more likely to have a negative impact on the economy in areas other than the medical system?

Or maybe it just all balances out. The mindset of worry that someone may get a little out of the system unfairly results in one of two things:

A bureaucracy put in place to ensure no gets anything unfair, that costs more than that unfairness would cost, as well as preventing some legitimately deserving people who get caught up in said bureaucracy.

A lack of any progress at all, due to the naysayers and their logical fallacy of a slippery slope, whereby any progress can only result in the other extreme, and therefore no progress can be tolerated.
1 ( +1 / -0 )

Most European countries seem to be happy with their healthcare systems but don't follow the NHS model.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Conversely there will be people who won't visit the doctor until they are on their death bed.

People drink alcohol although there’s little doubt it does no good to anyone’s health.

So by the same sort of logic, why do we allow people to make their own choices of what to do with their own bodies, at all?

People should be free to make their own choices. If someone wants to take the benefits of a drink versus the costs then they should be able to do so - but not to the cost of others.

I’d wager that the sort of person that won’t visit a doctor until they are almost dead would behave that way irrespective of the cost to them and their ability to pay. (My own father was this type, and unfortunately he’s dead and I do wonder if he might still be alive were he more inclined to visit a doctor rather than procrastinate)

Should these people be given the 10% that the others pay out? Or should we also charge these people 10%, as their unwillingness to go to the doctor means they are more likely to have a negative impact on the economy in areas other than the medical system?

Those are good questions for the people that demand a centralized system largely devoid of individual choice and responsibility.

A savings based approach (rather than a taxation based one) similar to the Singapore model would largely eliminate such questions, I believe.

Decentralize the decision making, and leave individuals with personal choices.

I keep getting down votes but I again encourage interested folks to Google about “savings not taxation” health reform proposals.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

What the heck, here is the top hit from Google: https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/winter-2018/welfare-savings-not-taxation

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Australia has the world best health care system, hand down, No other country came near what Australia has. You pay 2% total yearly income or you can opt out or pay your own health insurance. Australia is one of the only countries that have no community transmitted COVID 19. Slow with vaccinating it's population but they are diverting vaccines for their population to other badly affected countries ( 1,000,000 doses so far ). The Australian system dose not cover dental.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Universal single-payer health insurance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites