Do any members of Congress support a British-style socialized healthcare system?












16














A number of Democratic members of Congress, Senator Bernie Sanders being the most prominent, support a Canadian-style single-payer system where doctors and hospitals are private, but health insurance is run by the government. But my question is, are there any members of Congress who support a British-style socialized healthcare system, where not just health insurance but healthcare providers like doctors and hospitals are part of the government?



Does Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez support such a system, for instance?






united-states congress healthcare socialism







share|improve this question


















  • 3




    The question is a little odd as almost all European countries have free universal healthcare and none of have the British system. Are you really interested in the idiosyncratic British health care system or is your real interest in free universal healthcare?
    – Anush
    yesterday






  • 4




    I mentioned this in a comment below, but you have some misconceptions about the British system: primary care under the NHS is delivered by private practices (along with pharmacy and dentistry). Additionally, unlike Canada, the British have a parallel private insurance, primary care, and hospital system which covers ~10% of the population, who opt-out of NHS. Also, unlike Canada, doctors can work in both private and public systems.
    – user71659
    yesterday






  • 1




    @user71659 UK NHS GP practices are privately run, but they all operate under an NHS contract. They are heavily tied to the NHS - they cannot provide additional private medical care for instance. The NHS tells them when to jump and how high, and the only recourse for the GP practice is to withdraw from their NHS contract, which is a complicated and messy process. The fact that NHS GP practices are privately owned is an idiosyncracy that dates back to when the NHS was first created - GPs didnt want to be owned by the NHS.
    – Moo
    yesterday






  • 2




    @user71659 my wifes an NHS GP - she cant legally work for anyone else when holding an NHS GP practice service provision contract. Those contracts also limit what contracted GPs to the practice can do in a similar vein. The only GP which can flit between NHS and private is a locum. The NHS does indeed allow public specialists to work privately, but the NHS relationship with GPs is entirely different to that of a doctor in a hospital contract - junior doctors under a hospital contract are also required to first offer any hours over 40 to their NHS employer first.
    – Moo
    yesterday






  • 1




    @user71659 People don't "opt out" of the NHS, it's funded by general taxation. They purchase additional healthcare privately
    – Caleth
    yesterday
















16














A number of Democratic members of Congress, Senator Bernie Sanders being the most prominent, support a Canadian-style single-payer system where doctors and hospitals are private, but health insurance is run by the government. But my question is, are there any members of Congress who support a British-style socialized healthcare system, where not just health insurance but healthcare providers like doctors and hospitals are part of the government?



Does Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez support such a system, for instance?






united-states congress healthcare socialism







share|improve this question


















  • 3




    The question is a little odd as almost all European countries have free universal healthcare and none of have the British system. Are you really interested in the idiosyncratic British health care system or is your real interest in free universal healthcare?
    – Anush
    yesterday






  • 4




    I mentioned this in a comment below, but you have some misconceptions about the British system: primary care under the NHS is delivered by private practices (along with pharmacy and dentistry). Additionally, unlike Canada, the British have a parallel private insurance, primary care, and hospital system which covers ~10% of the population, who opt-out of NHS. Also, unlike Canada, doctors can work in both private and public systems.
    – user71659
    yesterday






  • 1




    @user71659 UK NHS GP practices are privately run, but they all operate under an NHS contract. They are heavily tied to the NHS - they cannot provide additional private medical care for instance. The NHS tells them when to jump and how high, and the only recourse for the GP practice is to withdraw from their NHS contract, which is a complicated and messy process. The fact that NHS GP practices are privately owned is an idiosyncracy that dates back to when the NHS was first created - GPs didnt want to be owned by the NHS.
    – Moo
    yesterday






  • 2




    @user71659 my wifes an NHS GP - she cant legally work for anyone else when holding an NHS GP practice service provision contract. Those contracts also limit what contracted GPs to the practice can do in a similar vein. The only GP which can flit between NHS and private is a locum. The NHS does indeed allow public specialists to work privately, but the NHS relationship with GPs is entirely different to that of a doctor in a hospital contract - junior doctors under a hospital contract are also required to first offer any hours over 40 to their NHS employer first.
    – Moo
    yesterday






  • 1




    @user71659 People don't "opt out" of the NHS, it's funded by general taxation. They purchase additional healthcare privately
    – Caleth
    yesterday














16












16








16


1





A number of Democratic members of Congress, Senator Bernie Sanders being the most prominent, support a Canadian-style single-payer system where doctors and hospitals are private, but health insurance is run by the government. But my question is, are there any members of Congress who support a British-style socialized healthcare system, where not just health insurance but healthcare providers like doctors and hospitals are part of the government?



Does Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez support such a system, for instance?






united-states congress healthcare socialism







share|improve this question













A number of Democratic members of Congress, Senator Bernie Sanders being the most prominent, support a Canadian-style single-payer system where doctors and hospitals are private, but health insurance is run by the government. But my question is, are there any members of Congress who support a British-style socialized healthcare system, where not just health insurance but healthcare providers like doctors and hospitals are part of the government?



Does Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez support such a system, for instance?






united-states congress healthcare socialism




united-states congress healthcare socialism






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 2 days ago









Keshav SrinivasanKeshav Srinivasan

3,25511449




3,25511449








  • 3




    The question is a little odd as almost all European countries have free universal healthcare and none of have the British system. Are you really interested in the idiosyncratic British health care system or is your real interest in free universal healthcare?
    – Anush
    yesterday






  • 4




    I mentioned this in a comment below, but you have some misconceptions about the British system: primary care under the NHS is delivered by private practices (along with pharmacy and dentistry). Additionally, unlike Canada, the British have a parallel private insurance, primary care, and hospital system which covers ~10% of the population, who opt-out of NHS. Also, unlike Canada, doctors can work in both private and public systems.
    – user71659
    yesterday






  • 1




    @user71659 UK NHS GP practices are privately run, but they all operate under an NHS contract. They are heavily tied to the NHS - they cannot provide additional private medical care for instance. The NHS tells them when to jump and how high, and the only recourse for the GP practice is to withdraw from their NHS contract, which is a complicated and messy process. The fact that NHS GP practices are privately owned is an idiosyncracy that dates back to when the NHS was first created - GPs didnt want to be owned by the NHS.
    – Moo
    yesterday






  • 2




    @user71659 my wifes an NHS GP - she cant legally work for anyone else when holding an NHS GP practice service provision contract. Those contracts also limit what contracted GPs to the practice can do in a similar vein. The only GP which can flit between NHS and private is a locum. The NHS does indeed allow public specialists to work privately, but the NHS relationship with GPs is entirely different to that of a doctor in a hospital contract - junior doctors under a hospital contract are also required to first offer any hours over 40 to their NHS employer first.
    – Moo
    yesterday






  • 1




    @user71659 People don't "opt out" of the NHS, it's funded by general taxation. They purchase additional healthcare privately
    – Caleth
    yesterday














  • 3




    The question is a little odd as almost all European countries have free universal healthcare and none of have the British system. Are you really interested in the idiosyncratic British health care system or is your real interest in free universal healthcare?
    – Anush
    yesterday






  • 4




    I mentioned this in a comment below, but you have some misconceptions about the British system: primary care under the NHS is delivered by private practices (along with pharmacy and dentistry). Additionally, unlike Canada, the British have a parallel private insurance, primary care, and hospital system which covers ~10% of the population, who opt-out of NHS. Also, unlike Canada, doctors can work in both private and public systems.
    – user71659
    yesterday






  • 1




    @user71659 UK NHS GP practices are privately run, but they all operate under an NHS contract. They are heavily tied to the NHS - they cannot provide additional private medical care for instance. The NHS tells them when to jump and how high, and the only recourse for the GP practice is to withdraw from their NHS contract, which is a complicated and messy process. The fact that NHS GP practices are privately owned is an idiosyncracy that dates back to when the NHS was first created - GPs didnt want to be owned by the NHS.
    – Moo
    yesterday






  • 2




    @user71659 my wifes an NHS GP - she cant legally work for anyone else when holding an NHS GP practice service provision contract. Those contracts also limit what contracted GPs to the practice can do in a similar vein. The only GP which can flit between NHS and private is a locum. The NHS does indeed allow public specialists to work privately, but the NHS relationship with GPs is entirely different to that of a doctor in a hospital contract - junior doctors under a hospital contract are also required to first offer any hours over 40 to their NHS employer first.
    – Moo
    yesterday






  • 1




    @user71659 People don't "opt out" of the NHS, it's funded by general taxation. They purchase additional healthcare privately
    – Caleth
    yesterday








3




3




The question is a little odd as almost all European countries have free universal healthcare and none of have the British system. Are you really interested in the idiosyncratic British health care system or is your real interest in free universal healthcare?
– Anush
yesterday




The question is a little odd as almost all European countries have free universal healthcare and none of have the British system. Are you really interested in the idiosyncratic British health care system or is your real interest in free universal healthcare?
– Anush
yesterday




4




4




I mentioned this in a comment below, but you have some misconceptions about the British system: primary care under the NHS is delivered by private practices (along with pharmacy and dentistry). Additionally, unlike Canada, the British have a parallel private insurance, primary care, and hospital system which covers ~10% of the population, who opt-out of NHS. Also, unlike Canada, doctors can work in both private and public systems.
– user71659
yesterday




I mentioned this in a comment below, but you have some misconceptions about the British system: primary care under the NHS is delivered by private practices (along with pharmacy and dentistry). Additionally, unlike Canada, the British have a parallel private insurance, primary care, and hospital system which covers ~10% of the population, who opt-out of NHS. Also, unlike Canada, doctors can work in both private and public systems.
– user71659
yesterday




1




1




@user71659 UK NHS GP practices are privately run, but they all operate under an NHS contract. They are heavily tied to the NHS - they cannot provide additional private medical care for instance. The NHS tells them when to jump and how high, and the only recourse for the GP practice is to withdraw from their NHS contract, which is a complicated and messy process. The fact that NHS GP practices are privately owned is an idiosyncracy that dates back to when the NHS was first created - GPs didnt want to be owned by the NHS.
– Moo
yesterday




@user71659 UK NHS GP practices are privately run, but they all operate under an NHS contract. They are heavily tied to the NHS - they cannot provide additional private medical care for instance. The NHS tells them when to jump and how high, and the only recourse for the GP practice is to withdraw from their NHS contract, which is a complicated and messy process. The fact that NHS GP practices are privately owned is an idiosyncracy that dates back to when the NHS was first created - GPs didnt want to be owned by the NHS.
– Moo
yesterday




2




2




@user71659 my wifes an NHS GP - she cant legally work for anyone else when holding an NHS GP practice service provision contract. Those contracts also limit what contracted GPs to the practice can do in a similar vein. The only GP which can flit between NHS and private is a locum. The NHS does indeed allow public specialists to work privately, but the NHS relationship with GPs is entirely different to that of a doctor in a hospital contract - junior doctors under a hospital contract are also required to first offer any hours over 40 to their NHS employer first.
– Moo
yesterday




@user71659 my wifes an NHS GP - she cant legally work for anyone else when holding an NHS GP practice service provision contract. Those contracts also limit what contracted GPs to the practice can do in a similar vein. The only GP which can flit between NHS and private is a locum. The NHS does indeed allow public specialists to work privately, but the NHS relationship with GPs is entirely different to that of a doctor in a hospital contract - junior doctors under a hospital contract are also required to first offer any hours over 40 to their NHS employer first.
– Moo
yesterday




1




1




@user71659 People don't "opt out" of the NHS, it's funded by general taxation. They purchase additional healthcare privately
– Caleth
yesterday




@user71659 People don't "opt out" of the NHS, it's funded by general taxation. They purchase additional healthcare privately
– Caleth
yesterday










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















18














What the Government Provides Today



In the US as of January 2019, the government provides healthcare both directly and indirectly. Its direct programs (i.e. state ownership and employment of facilities and providers) are exclusively for members of the military, veterans or Native Americans, and are managed by the Department of Defense (through the services themselves), the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of Health and Human Services. Indirect care (i.e. health insurance) is provided through Medicare for the elderly; Medicaid for the poor (administered by the several states); Tricare for active duty or retired military; and a patchwork of other programs (e.g. CHIP, SCHIP).



Party Platforms & Politicians



As a party, the Democrats tend to favor either the existing ACA system or a "single-payer"/"Medicare-for-All" plan (which is typically loosely defined). The Republicans, for their part, tend to advocate for a more market-centered plan that relies on federalism and streamlining legal issues. Given the failure of the GOP in the last Congress to coalesce around any particular system, we can only say for sure that they oppose the ACA and single-payer.



Given that there are 435 members of the House and 100 senators, I would guess at least one advocates for or has advocated for a VA-for-all type of system. However, several web searches have turned up nothing. "Medicare-for-All" is a much more common phrase.



Ocasio-Cortez



Since the question asked about Ocasio-Cortez, during a recent interview with Jake Tapper on CNN, she stated:




Well, one of the things we need to realize when we look at something like Medicare-for-All, Medicare-for-all would save the American People a very large amount of money, and what we see as well is that these systems are not just pie-in-the-sky. Many of them are accomplished by every modern civilized democracy in the Western world. The United Kingdom has a form of single-payer health care, Canada, France, Germany. [Emphasis added]




What does she mean?



The UK, Canada, France and Germany each have quite different models for how they provide health care to their populations. The UK itself has a heavily-nationalized system (albeit with certain private providers) and Canada has a single universal insurance plan (i.e. true single-payer). Furthermore, France and Germany are both "universal multi-payer," with the state paying a large percentage of medical bills and citizens or supplemental insurance being responsible for the remainder. Given that, a fair interpretation is that Ocasio-Cortez is using "single-payer" as a shorthand for all "universal" systems, with the exception of the current universal American system under the ACA.



Summary



Without a concrete proposal, we can only speculate on what "single-payer" or "Medicare-for-All" actually mean, but a fair guess is something on the spectrum between France/Germany and Canada. While the UK is sometimes mentioned as having a "single-payer" system, it usually is mentioned alongside Canada and other Western countries, which have diverse health care systems. Few or no politicians are advocating "VA-for-All," which would be the closest American analogue to Britain's National Health Service, so we can fairly assume that direct nationalization only has marginal support in the US.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Andrew is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 4




    "we can fairly assume that direct nationalization only has marginal support in the US" - agreed, and with good reason. The US's direct care services -- by which I mainly mean the VA -- have been notoriously problematic, with recent scandals primarily involving excessive waits for care and falsification of records, at multiple VA hospitals. There are some things that the VA reputedly does well, but although Medicare-for-All may have some traction, nothing that smells like VA-for-All is likely to be well received any time soon.
    – John Bollinger
    yesterday








  • 4




    It's incorrect to say the UK has "outright nationalization", it's rather complex. First, public primary care practices (GP) are independent private entities, like in the US (excluding Kaiser), under contract to the NHS. Second, about 10% of the UK has opted-out of the NHS system and purchases private insurance. There exists private hospitals and private primary care. NHS does contract some services to this private sector and vice versa. A doctor can work in both sectors, charging different rates, unlike Canada's "all or nothing" policy.
    – user71659
    yesterday








  • 2




    @Andrew The UK general practice system involves essentially no govt ownership. It is however "free at the point of delivery" and taxpayer funded.
    – Anush
    yesterday






  • 1




    Correction: In Germany the state doesn't pay a large percentage of medical bills etc; the systems is mostly financed by the insured (and their employers).
    – Martin Schröder
    yesterday






  • 2




    @user71659 You do not opt out of the UK NS you can pay to have some things done ut not opt out. e/g/ my parents used NHS for most things but for somethings .g. removal of wisdom teeth used a private hospital.
    – Mark
    yesterday











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37745%2fdo-any-members-of-congress-support-a-british-style-socialized-healthcare-system%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









18














What the Government Provides Today



In the US as of January 2019, the government provides healthcare both directly and indirectly. Its direct programs (i.e. state ownership and employment of facilities and providers) are exclusively for members of the military, veterans or Native Americans, and are managed by the Department of Defense (through the services themselves), the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of Health and Human Services. Indirect care (i.e. health insurance) is provided through Medicare for the elderly; Medicaid for the poor (administered by the several states); Tricare for active duty or retired military; and a patchwork of other programs (e.g. CHIP, SCHIP).



Party Platforms & Politicians



As a party, the Democrats tend to favor either the existing ACA system or a "single-payer"/"Medicare-for-All" plan (which is typically loosely defined). The Republicans, for their part, tend to advocate for a more market-centered plan that relies on federalism and streamlining legal issues. Given the failure of the GOP in the last Congress to coalesce around any particular system, we can only say for sure that they oppose the ACA and single-payer.



Given that there are 435 members of the House and 100 senators, I would guess at least one advocates for or has advocated for a VA-for-all type of system. However, several web searches have turned up nothing. "Medicare-for-All" is a much more common phrase.



Ocasio-Cortez



Since the question asked about Ocasio-Cortez, during a recent interview with Jake Tapper on CNN, she stated:




Well, one of the things we need to realize when we look at something like Medicare-for-All, Medicare-for-all would save the American People a very large amount of money, and what we see as well is that these systems are not just pie-in-the-sky. Many of them are accomplished by every modern civilized democracy in the Western world. The United Kingdom has a form of single-payer health care, Canada, France, Germany. [Emphasis added]




What does she mean?



The UK, Canada, France and Germany each have quite different models for how they provide health care to their populations. The UK itself has a heavily-nationalized system (albeit with certain private providers) and Canada has a single universal insurance plan (i.e. true single-payer). Furthermore, France and Germany are both "universal multi-payer," with the state paying a large percentage of medical bills and citizens or supplemental insurance being responsible for the remainder. Given that, a fair interpretation is that Ocasio-Cortez is using "single-payer" as a shorthand for all "universal" systems, with the exception of the current universal American system under the ACA.



Summary



Without a concrete proposal, we can only speculate on what "single-payer" or "Medicare-for-All" actually mean, but a fair guess is something on the spectrum between France/Germany and Canada. While the UK is sometimes mentioned as having a "single-payer" system, it usually is mentioned alongside Canada and other Western countries, which have diverse health care systems. Few or no politicians are advocating "VA-for-All," which would be the closest American analogue to Britain's National Health Service, so we can fairly assume that direct nationalization only has marginal support in the US.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Andrew is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 4




    "we can fairly assume that direct nationalization only has marginal support in the US" - agreed, and with good reason. The US's direct care services -- by which I mainly mean the VA -- have been notoriously problematic, with recent scandals primarily involving excessive waits for care and falsification of records, at multiple VA hospitals. There are some things that the VA reputedly does well, but although Medicare-for-All may have some traction, nothing that smells like VA-for-All is likely to be well received any time soon.
    – John Bollinger
    yesterday








  • 4




    It's incorrect to say the UK has "outright nationalization", it's rather complex. First, public primary care practices (GP) are independent private entities, like in the US (excluding Kaiser), under contract to the NHS. Second, about 10% of the UK has opted-out of the NHS system and purchases private insurance. There exists private hospitals and private primary care. NHS does contract some services to this private sector and vice versa. A doctor can work in both sectors, charging different rates, unlike Canada's "all or nothing" policy.
    – user71659
    yesterday








  • 2




    @Andrew The UK general practice system involves essentially no govt ownership. It is however "free at the point of delivery" and taxpayer funded.
    – Anush
    yesterday






  • 1




    Correction: In Germany the state doesn't pay a large percentage of medical bills etc; the systems is mostly financed by the insured (and their employers).
    – Martin Schröder
    yesterday






  • 2




    @user71659 You do not opt out of the UK NS you can pay to have some things done ut not opt out. e/g/ my parents used NHS for most things but for somethings .g. removal of wisdom teeth used a private hospital.
    – Mark
    yesterday
















18














What the Government Provides Today



In the US as of January 2019, the government provides healthcare both directly and indirectly. Its direct programs (i.e. state ownership and employment of facilities and providers) are exclusively for members of the military, veterans or Native Americans, and are managed by the Department of Defense (through the services themselves), the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of Health and Human Services. Indirect care (i.e. health insurance) is provided through Medicare for the elderly; Medicaid for the poor (administered by the several states); Tricare for active duty or retired military; and a patchwork of other programs (e.g. CHIP, SCHIP).



Party Platforms & Politicians



As a party, the Democrats tend to favor either the existing ACA system or a "single-payer"/"Medicare-for-All" plan (which is typically loosely defined). The Republicans, for their part, tend to advocate for a more market-centered plan that relies on federalism and streamlining legal issues. Given the failure of the GOP in the last Congress to coalesce around any particular system, we can only say for sure that they oppose the ACA and single-payer.



Given that there are 435 members of the House and 100 senators, I would guess at least one advocates for or has advocated for a VA-for-all type of system. However, several web searches have turned up nothing. "Medicare-for-All" is a much more common phrase.



Ocasio-Cortez



Since the question asked about Ocasio-Cortez, during a recent interview with Jake Tapper on CNN, she stated:




Well, one of the things we need to realize when we look at something like Medicare-for-All, Medicare-for-all would save the American People a very large amount of money, and what we see as well is that these systems are not just pie-in-the-sky. Many of them are accomplished by every modern civilized democracy in the Western world. The United Kingdom has a form of single-payer health care, Canada, France, Germany. [Emphasis added]




What does she mean?



The UK, Canada, France and Germany each have quite different models for how they provide health care to their populations. The UK itself has a heavily-nationalized system (albeit with certain private providers) and Canada has a single universal insurance plan (i.e. true single-payer). Furthermore, France and Germany are both "universal multi-payer," with the state paying a large percentage of medical bills and citizens or supplemental insurance being responsible for the remainder. Given that, a fair interpretation is that Ocasio-Cortez is using "single-payer" as a shorthand for all "universal" systems, with the exception of the current universal American system under the ACA.



Summary



Without a concrete proposal, we can only speculate on what "single-payer" or "Medicare-for-All" actually mean, but a fair guess is something on the spectrum between France/Germany and Canada. While the UK is sometimes mentioned as having a "single-payer" system, it usually is mentioned alongside Canada and other Western countries, which have diverse health care systems. Few or no politicians are advocating "VA-for-All," which would be the closest American analogue to Britain's National Health Service, so we can fairly assume that direct nationalization only has marginal support in the US.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Andrew is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 4




    "we can fairly assume that direct nationalization only has marginal support in the US" - agreed, and with good reason. The US's direct care services -- by which I mainly mean the VA -- have been notoriously problematic, with recent scandals primarily involving excessive waits for care and falsification of records, at multiple VA hospitals. There are some things that the VA reputedly does well, but although Medicare-for-All may have some traction, nothing that smells like VA-for-All is likely to be well received any time soon.
    – John Bollinger
    yesterday








  • 4




    It's incorrect to say the UK has "outright nationalization", it's rather complex. First, public primary care practices (GP) are independent private entities, like in the US (excluding Kaiser), under contract to the NHS. Second, about 10% of the UK has opted-out of the NHS system and purchases private insurance. There exists private hospitals and private primary care. NHS does contract some services to this private sector and vice versa. A doctor can work in both sectors, charging different rates, unlike Canada's "all or nothing" policy.
    – user71659
    yesterday








  • 2




    @Andrew The UK general practice system involves essentially no govt ownership. It is however "free at the point of delivery" and taxpayer funded.
    – Anush
    yesterday






  • 1




    Correction: In Germany the state doesn't pay a large percentage of medical bills etc; the systems is mostly financed by the insured (and their employers).
    – Martin Schröder
    yesterday






  • 2




    @user71659 You do not opt out of the UK NS you can pay to have some things done ut not opt out. e/g/ my parents used NHS for most things but for somethings .g. removal of wisdom teeth used a private hospital.
    – Mark
    yesterday














18












18








18






What the Government Provides Today



In the US as of January 2019, the government provides healthcare both directly and indirectly. Its direct programs (i.e. state ownership and employment of facilities and providers) are exclusively for members of the military, veterans or Native Americans, and are managed by the Department of Defense (through the services themselves), the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of Health and Human Services. Indirect care (i.e. health insurance) is provided through Medicare for the elderly; Medicaid for the poor (administered by the several states); Tricare for active duty or retired military; and a patchwork of other programs (e.g. CHIP, SCHIP).



Party Platforms & Politicians



As a party, the Democrats tend to favor either the existing ACA system or a "single-payer"/"Medicare-for-All" plan (which is typically loosely defined). The Republicans, for their part, tend to advocate for a more market-centered plan that relies on federalism and streamlining legal issues. Given the failure of the GOP in the last Congress to coalesce around any particular system, we can only say for sure that they oppose the ACA and single-payer.



Given that there are 435 members of the House and 100 senators, I would guess at least one advocates for or has advocated for a VA-for-all type of system. However, several web searches have turned up nothing. "Medicare-for-All" is a much more common phrase.



Ocasio-Cortez



Since the question asked about Ocasio-Cortez, during a recent interview with Jake Tapper on CNN, she stated:




Well, one of the things we need to realize when we look at something like Medicare-for-All, Medicare-for-all would save the American People a very large amount of money, and what we see as well is that these systems are not just pie-in-the-sky. Many of them are accomplished by every modern civilized democracy in the Western world. The United Kingdom has a form of single-payer health care, Canada, France, Germany. [Emphasis added]




What does she mean?



The UK, Canada, France and Germany each have quite different models for how they provide health care to their populations. The UK itself has a heavily-nationalized system (albeit with certain private providers) and Canada has a single universal insurance plan (i.e. true single-payer). Furthermore, France and Germany are both "universal multi-payer," with the state paying a large percentage of medical bills and citizens or supplemental insurance being responsible for the remainder. Given that, a fair interpretation is that Ocasio-Cortez is using "single-payer" as a shorthand for all "universal" systems, with the exception of the current universal American system under the ACA.



Summary



Without a concrete proposal, we can only speculate on what "single-payer" or "Medicare-for-All" actually mean, but a fair guess is something on the spectrum between France/Germany and Canada. While the UK is sometimes mentioned as having a "single-payer" system, it usually is mentioned alongside Canada and other Western countries, which have diverse health care systems. Few or no politicians are advocating "VA-for-All," which would be the closest American analogue to Britain's National Health Service, so we can fairly assume that direct nationalization only has marginal support in the US.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Andrew is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









What the Government Provides Today



In the US as of January 2019, the government provides healthcare both directly and indirectly. Its direct programs (i.e. state ownership and employment of facilities and providers) are exclusively for members of the military, veterans or Native Americans, and are managed by the Department of Defense (through the services themselves), the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of Health and Human Services. Indirect care (i.e. health insurance) is provided through Medicare for the elderly; Medicaid for the poor (administered by the several states); Tricare for active duty or retired military; and a patchwork of other programs (e.g. CHIP, SCHIP).



Party Platforms & Politicians



As a party, the Democrats tend to favor either the existing ACA system or a "single-payer"/"Medicare-for-All" plan (which is typically loosely defined). The Republicans, for their part, tend to advocate for a more market-centered plan that relies on federalism and streamlining legal issues. Given the failure of the GOP in the last Congress to coalesce around any particular system, we can only say for sure that they oppose the ACA and single-payer.



Given that there are 435 members of the House and 100 senators, I would guess at least one advocates for or has advocated for a VA-for-all type of system. However, several web searches have turned up nothing. "Medicare-for-All" is a much more common phrase.



Ocasio-Cortez



Since the question asked about Ocasio-Cortez, during a recent interview with Jake Tapper on CNN, she stated:




Well, one of the things we need to realize when we look at something like Medicare-for-All, Medicare-for-all would save the American People a very large amount of money, and what we see as well is that these systems are not just pie-in-the-sky. Many of them are accomplished by every modern civilized democracy in the Western world. The United Kingdom has a form of single-payer health care, Canada, France, Germany. [Emphasis added]




What does she mean?



The UK, Canada, France and Germany each have quite different models for how they provide health care to their populations. The UK itself has a heavily-nationalized system (albeit with certain private providers) and Canada has a single universal insurance plan (i.e. true single-payer). Furthermore, France and Germany are both "universal multi-payer," with the state paying a large percentage of medical bills and citizens or supplemental insurance being responsible for the remainder. Given that, a fair interpretation is that Ocasio-Cortez is using "single-payer" as a shorthand for all "universal" systems, with the exception of the current universal American system under the ACA.



Summary



Without a concrete proposal, we can only speculate on what "single-payer" or "Medicare-for-All" actually mean, but a fair guess is something on the spectrum between France/Germany and Canada. While the UK is sometimes mentioned as having a "single-payer" system, it usually is mentioned alongside Canada and other Western countries, which have diverse health care systems. Few or no politicians are advocating "VA-for-All," which would be the closest American analogue to Britain's National Health Service, so we can fairly assume that direct nationalization only has marginal support in the US.







share|improve this answer










New contributor




Andrew is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited yesterday





















New contributor




Andrew is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered yesterday









AndrewAndrew

1,132412




1,132412




New contributor




Andrew is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Andrew is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Andrew is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 4




    "we can fairly assume that direct nationalization only has marginal support in the US" - agreed, and with good reason. The US's direct care services -- by which I mainly mean the VA -- have been notoriously problematic, with recent scandals primarily involving excessive waits for care and falsification of records, at multiple VA hospitals. There are some things that the VA reputedly does well, but although Medicare-for-All may have some traction, nothing that smells like VA-for-All is likely to be well received any time soon.
    – John Bollinger
    yesterday








  • 4




    It's incorrect to say the UK has "outright nationalization", it's rather complex. First, public primary care practices (GP) are independent private entities, like in the US (excluding Kaiser), under contract to the NHS. Second, about 10% of the UK has opted-out of the NHS system and purchases private insurance. There exists private hospitals and private primary care. NHS does contract some services to this private sector and vice versa. A doctor can work in both sectors, charging different rates, unlike Canada's "all or nothing" policy.
    – user71659
    yesterday








  • 2




    @Andrew The UK general practice system involves essentially no govt ownership. It is however "free at the point of delivery" and taxpayer funded.
    – Anush
    yesterday






  • 1




    Correction: In Germany the state doesn't pay a large percentage of medical bills etc; the systems is mostly financed by the insured (and their employers).
    – Martin Schröder
    yesterday






  • 2




    @user71659 You do not opt out of the UK NS you can pay to have some things done ut not opt out. e/g/ my parents used NHS for most things but for somethings .g. removal of wisdom teeth used a private hospital.
    – Mark
    yesterday














  • 4




    "we can fairly assume that direct nationalization only has marginal support in the US" - agreed, and with good reason. The US's direct care services -- by which I mainly mean the VA -- have been notoriously problematic, with recent scandals primarily involving excessive waits for care and falsification of records, at multiple VA hospitals. There are some things that the VA reputedly does well, but although Medicare-for-All may have some traction, nothing that smells like VA-for-All is likely to be well received any time soon.
    – John Bollinger
    yesterday








  • 4




    It's incorrect to say the UK has "outright nationalization", it's rather complex. First, public primary care practices (GP) are independent private entities, like in the US (excluding Kaiser), under contract to the NHS. Second, about 10% of the UK has opted-out of the NHS system and purchases private insurance. There exists private hospitals and private primary care. NHS does contract some services to this private sector and vice versa. A doctor can work in both sectors, charging different rates, unlike Canada's "all or nothing" policy.
    – user71659
    yesterday








  • 2




    @Andrew The UK general practice system involves essentially no govt ownership. It is however "free at the point of delivery" and taxpayer funded.
    – Anush
    yesterday






  • 1




    Correction: In Germany the state doesn't pay a large percentage of medical bills etc; the systems is mostly financed by the insured (and their employers).
    – Martin Schröder
    yesterday






  • 2




    @user71659 You do not opt out of the UK NS you can pay to have some things done ut not opt out. e/g/ my parents used NHS for most things but for somethings .g. removal of wisdom teeth used a private hospital.
    – Mark
    yesterday








4




4




"we can fairly assume that direct nationalization only has marginal support in the US" - agreed, and with good reason. The US's direct care services -- by which I mainly mean the VA -- have been notoriously problematic, with recent scandals primarily involving excessive waits for care and falsification of records, at multiple VA hospitals. There are some things that the VA reputedly does well, but although Medicare-for-All may have some traction, nothing that smells like VA-for-All is likely to be well received any time soon.
– John Bollinger
yesterday






"we can fairly assume that direct nationalization only has marginal support in the US" - agreed, and with good reason. The US's direct care services -- by which I mainly mean the VA -- have been notoriously problematic, with recent scandals primarily involving excessive waits for care and falsification of records, at multiple VA hospitals. There are some things that the VA reputedly does well, but although Medicare-for-All may have some traction, nothing that smells like VA-for-All is likely to be well received any time soon.
– John Bollinger
yesterday






4




4




It's incorrect to say the UK has "outright nationalization", it's rather complex. First, public primary care practices (GP) are independent private entities, like in the US (excluding Kaiser), under contract to the NHS. Second, about 10% of the UK has opted-out of the NHS system and purchases private insurance. There exists private hospitals and private primary care. NHS does contract some services to this private sector and vice versa. A doctor can work in both sectors, charging different rates, unlike Canada's "all or nothing" policy.
– user71659
yesterday






It's incorrect to say the UK has "outright nationalization", it's rather complex. First, public primary care practices (GP) are independent private entities, like in the US (excluding Kaiser), under contract to the NHS. Second, about 10% of the UK has opted-out of the NHS system and purchases private insurance. There exists private hospitals and private primary care. NHS does contract some services to this private sector and vice versa. A doctor can work in both sectors, charging different rates, unlike Canada's "all or nothing" policy.
– user71659
yesterday






2




2




@Andrew The UK general practice system involves essentially no govt ownership. It is however "free at the point of delivery" and taxpayer funded.
– Anush
yesterday




@Andrew The UK general practice system involves essentially no govt ownership. It is however "free at the point of delivery" and taxpayer funded.
– Anush
yesterday




1




1




Correction: In Germany the state doesn't pay a large percentage of medical bills etc; the systems is mostly financed by the insured (and their employers).
– Martin Schröder
yesterday




Correction: In Germany the state doesn't pay a large percentage of medical bills etc; the systems is mostly financed by the insured (and their employers).
– Martin Schröder
yesterday




2




2




@user71659 You do not opt out of the UK NS you can pay to have some things done ut not opt out. e/g/ my parents used NHS for most things but for somethings .g. removal of wisdom teeth used a private hospital.
– Mark
yesterday




@user71659 You do not opt out of the UK NS you can pay to have some things done ut not opt out. e/g/ my parents used NHS for most things but for somethings .g. removal of wisdom teeth used a private hospital.
– Mark
yesterday


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37745%2fdo-any-members-of-congress-support-a-british-style-socialized-healthcare-system%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

An IMO inspired problem

Image
14 4 This problem from IMO 1988 is said to be one of the most elegant ones in functional equations. Problem : The function $f$ is defined on the set of all positive integers as follows: begin{align} f(1) = 1, f(3) &= 3, f(2n) = f(n), \ f(4n+1) &= 2f(2n+1) - f(n), \ f(4n+3) &= 3 f(2n+1) - 2f(n) end{align} Find the number of $n$ with $f(n) = n, 1 leq n leq 1988$. The main idea towards the solution is realizing that these conditions stand for the fact that $f(n)$ just reverses the digits in the binary representation of the number $n$. So, essentially the solution is finding the number of binary pallindromes $leq 1988_{10}$. My question is the following : How to reformulate the problem so that $f(n)$ reverses the digits of $n$ in its ternary representation. Or even better, can we reformulate it for a
Read more

Management

Image
Management From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Manager" redirects here. For other uses, see Management (disambiguation) and Manager (disambiguation). An organization chart for the United States Coast Guard shows the hierarchy of managerial roles in that organization. Business administration Management of a business Accounting Management accounting Financial accounting Financial audit Business entities Cooperative Corporation Limited liability company Partnership Sole proprietorship State-owned enterprise Corporate governance Annual general meeting Board of directors Supervisory board Advisory board Audit committee Corporate law Commercial law Constitutional documents Contract Corporate crime Corporate liability Insolvency law International trade law Mergers and acquisitions Economics Commodity Pu
Read more

Has there ever been an instance of an active nuclear power plant within or near a war zone?

Image
36 3 The question Has there ever been a military combat going on around an active (running or in outage but not decommissioned) commercial nuclear power plant? Or dangerously near it? If yes, how did the plant and its personnel fare in such situation? Why I ask Let's assume for the scope of this question modern commercial nuclear power plants (CANDU, PWR, BWR of generation II plus all of gen III and newer) are usually reasonably safe to operate given that the engineering has been done right and there is a whole cohort of very well trained personnel on-site at all times, well rested and with considerable resources on their hands. Things hard to get with an armed conflict like the recent Syrian war raging around. I can't seem to find any reference or a comprehensive article about this, hence this question.
Read more