Reading #1 - A Freakonomics Proposal to Help the British National Health Service
In 150 words, post a reply to "Reading #1 - A Freakonomics Proposal to Help the British National Health Service". Within your reply, summarize the article and propose a question or critique regarding the article.
In this piece, the author states that people will consume as much of what they can if it is free; he uses the specific example of healthcare and suggests an idea where each citizen is given one thousand pounds a year from the government which they can spend on whatever they want; although this money is mostly looked at as compensation from the government for not providing free health care. Something that concerns me about this is, although a large majority of people are using the most of what they can get, when it comes to free healthcare, there are also the people who need it. However once you add in the money factor people are going to avoid checking up on their health for the reasoning to save that money and the idea could possibly just end up putting the health of citizens in danger and possibly risking lives.
ReplyDeleteThis article proposes a new system for the British health care system.It suggests that every resident will receive one thousand pounds, medical costs up to 2000 pounds are self paid, 50% of costs over 2000 pounds are covered by the government, and anything over 8000 pounds is completely covered. With their rational that it will support all and reduce overall spending, it seems like a relatively fair system. I'm curious about how the 1000 pound allotment would be affected by or change for immigrants, children in the foster-care system, children in general, seniors, and single parents(if the allotment varies, or isn't allotted for children).
ReplyDeleteIn this Freakonomics article, Steven D. Levitt proposes a new healthcare system for Great Britain. The system Levitt lays forth a system where the British citizen is given one thousand pounds at the start of the year which would ideally be used for their healthcare and well being. The higher the cost of their personal healthcare, the more pounds the government subsidizes and pays for. Two critiques I have is that the money would not be spent ideally. If they spend the money on something other than healthcare and later, need four thousand pounds to pay for surgery, too bad. More people will go in debt. Less money will go towards the healthcare system and hospitals. The second critique is that, if you were to enforce a policy that you may not spend the thousand pounds on anything other than healthcare, there would be no way of legitimately enforcing such a thing. Keeping track of millions of people's personal finances makes little political or financial sense to me.
ReplyDeleteThe proposed healthcare system for Britain would require citizens to pay for their own healthcare services. Government could aid only in great amount of spending such as over 8,000 pounds a year. For the average citizen, it would be good because the less amount of money they spend on healthcare, the more money they keep from the government such that as the 1,000 pounds provided to them in the beginning of the year. However, those individuals needing to spend more money will be worse off. Even though this system would obviously retain insurance, the total amount of wealth in the country would end up varying by health levels.
ReplyDeleteThe Freakonomics Proposal to help the British National Health Service states that the current health care service in effect in the United Kingdom is not reasonable and that this service is abused as a result of consumers not having to pay for the service. Steven D. Levitt counters the current health care system by proposing his own system where citizens are paying 100% for health care when the costs are under $2000 and 50% when costs are between $2000 and $8000. In his proposal, the government pays entirely for the health care service when costs are beyond $8000. This raises the doubt within our own society and Canada's health care service. Is it really worth the higher taxes? Are Canadians openly abusing this service?
ReplyDeleteThe article compares the original system of healthcare in Britain and contrasts it to the proposed one. During the beginning of the year, residents in Britain are given 1000 pounds where they can spend it whenever they please. But along with this gift the resident would be depended on to make astute choices with it, but in the proposed
ReplyDeleteIn the article A Freakonomics Proposal to Help the British National Health Service" there was a idea that was proposed where every new year 1,000 pounds were sent to every British citizen and they were allowed to do whatever they want with the money that they have received. Because of the cost of healthcare is high.
ReplyDeleteThis article revolves around a proposal made by Steven D. Levitt on the model of a new health care system. This model would feature the British government handing every British resident 1000 pounds as a "gift" at the start of a new year. Essentially this money could be spent however they wanted it to, however, if they were smart they would keep it aside. Basically, if the citizens required health care that cost up to, 2000 pounds it would be out their own pockets. If they required health care that cost above 2000 but between and equal to 8000 pounds, they would pay half the amount. Above 8000, and the government would be held responsible. Critically speaking, in this model, every citizen would be forced to make decisions depending on their income level, so rationally thinking how would they know, when or when not see a doctor?
ReplyDeleteThis article is written regarding a proposal for a new health care system. The author is confident that if health care is offered for free, there will be over consumption of resources. In his idea, the govt would gift every citizen 1,000 pounds every year, specifically for health care. For expenses under 2,000 pounds, the citizen would have for everything, and between 2,000 and 8,000 pounds, the govt would pay for 50%, and the govt would pay for everything over 8,000. People don't want to pay out of their pockets, so unnecessary consumption of resources would be reduced. One problem is that there is a way around. If someone is charged 1,990, they pay 990 from their own pocket. Instead, they could just spend 2,100 pounds, and since govt pays 50%, they only have to pay 1,050 pounds, and they have a 1,000 pound govt gift, so they only pay 50 pounds.
ReplyDelete