Which of these four health care system models do you prefer and why?

[Swedish Cheese]

Bismarck model with a National Health Insurance model-esque public option

Sounds like a good combination

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

I prefer the Singaporean model, and am annoyed that it wasn't included.

[white trash heroes]

national health insurance model financed through taxes on things like natural resources.

[bore]

The Beveridge model for me, but the NHI and the Bismarck system would also be better than what the US has at the moment.

I voted Out-of-Pocket, since that's closest to what I want, though I don't believe in denying healthcare to someone who can't pay (who should then be indebted to the hospital, except for a few special groups which could be provided insurance by the government -- veterans, the elderly who cannot provide for themselves, children under 18 whose parents cannot provide for them, and pregnant women who cannot provide for themselves).

The fact that you "don't believe in denying healthcare to someone who can't pay" doesn't change the fact that that is the practical effect of the policies you support.

I've already pointed out that universal healthcare pretty much always causes a degradation in quality, which is why I think the solution to the healthcare crisis would be to reform the way you pay hospitals, not to have the government do it for you, which not only do I think would cause quality to decline but would also set a very dangerous precedent. It is better, and fairer, to have some people have better-quality care than others instead of everybody having the same mediocre care. But let's finish the gay Republican debate first -- this is something both of us have argued dozens of times, whereas that one is more outlandish.

What's your source for this?

[Sibboleth]

At some point an obnoxious know-it-all is going to point that 'the Beveridge Model' is a nonsensical term in the context of health policy as William Beveridge had very little to do with the design or implementation of the NHS.

[Leftbehind]

Bevan must be rolling in his grave. Obviously the NHS model.

A move to the National Health Insurance model would be my ideal system, despite the glorification of the NHS at the Olympic Opening Ceremony.

A Tory wanting to do away with the NHS - despite the "glorification" of being included in an opening ceremony - imagine my surprise.

[Californian Tony]

Yeah, I noted that as well but didn't bother pointing that out. I referred to as the NHS model, anyways.

[True Federalist]

At some point an This obnoxious know-it-all is going to point that 'the Beveridge Model' is a nonsensical term in the context of health policy as William Beveridge had very little to do with the design or implementation of the NHS.

Fixed that for you, altho I think of you more as curmudgeonly than obnoxious.

[Redalgo]

I went with Bismarck, but would someone mind listing the pros and cons of these?

This is a fantastic (and easily read) book if you're interested: http://www.amazon.com/The-Healing-America-Global-Cheaper/dp/1594202346

Alternatively, although I am sure this is far from being complete and is less authoritative, here are some basic points I picked up during health care debates in my time as an undergrad student:


Canada (National Health Insurance Model)

- Its method is arguably centre-left and typical of social liberalism
- Average waiting times don’t seem markedly longer than in the States
- State price bargaining lowers the cost of treatments but hinders R&D
- Physicians have more time for patients yet less for each, individually
- Administrative costs and complexity are much lower than in the U.S.
- Queues are not always first come, first serve
- One is basically stuck with using this system


France (Mixed / Bismarck Model)

See Antonio’s post for a basic breakdown of the system.


Germany (Bismarck Model)

- Its approach is more or less centrist and typical of ordoliberalism
- Numerous private, but non-profit health insurers / sickness funds dominate the market
- Insurers compete yet are regulated to avoid unjust discrimination
- Funds redistributed from sickness funds with the healthiest folk to those with the least
- Patients inefficiently use up hospital beds for almost twice as many days as in the U.S.
- Health care costs per capita are markedly higher than in the U.K.
- Opting out is a choice but very few people actually want to do so


United Kingdom (Beveridge/NHS/Whatever Model)

- Its method is arguably left-of-centre and typical of social democracy or socialism
- Health care costs per capita are 60% lower than in the U.S.
- New and/or expensive tests and treatments get rationed for budgetary reasons
- Physicians have more time for patients yet less for each, individually
- Use of resources benefits the young and those with minor ailments
- Yet olds and sufferers of dire ills often get the short end of the stick
- Quality of care can greatly vary by location (i.e. the NHS is a “postcode lottery”)


 United States (Mixed / Out-of-Pocket Model)

- Its method is right-of-centre and vaguely reminiscent of low-GDP countries
- Private insurers compete in a regulated market; patients buy what they want
- People have very low rates of mortality from many treatable diseases
- Physicians have less time for patients yet more for each, individually
- Administrative costs are high and interactions with insurers complex
- Costs are rising but at rates somewhat similar to in other high-GDP countries
- The VHA offers its best quality of care yet uses the Beveridge/NHS/Whatever Model

[Governor Scott]

Thanks.  Looking at that, it seems that either the Bismarck or Beveridge system is the best option.

[Emperor SJoyce]

From Redalgo's information, I'd be willing to support a Bismarck or out-of-pocket system as the superior options.