View Full Version : Free Health Care in The USA
Strike For The South
11-18-2005, 01:16
Should we take a page out of Canadas book and nationalize health care? I think we should I beleive the benifits would overshadow the minor tax-bump
Goofball
11-18-2005, 01:20
Should we take a page out of Canadas book and nationalize health care? I think we should I beleive the benifits would overshadow the minor tax-bump
*waits for Sergeant-at-Arms to confiscate SFTS's Conservative Club membership card, rip the epaulettes from his jacket, confiscate all his guns, and send him on his way out the door with a swift kick in the arse*
Viva socialized medicine!
The hallmark of humanity, intelligence, and civilization.
All we need is better implementation and control of it. The idea itself is sound and the right one.
Goofball
11-18-2005, 01:25
On a more serious note:
You should take half a page from our book. Have universal free health care, but also allow "for profit" private health care.
All of the evidence shows that countries that take a blended approach are able to offer a higher overall quality of healthcare to all of their citizens.
On a more serious note:
You should take half a page from our book. Have universal free health care, but also allow "for profit" private health care.
All of the evidence shows that countries that take a blended approach are able to offer a higher overall quality of healthcare to all of their citizens.
God knows our system stinks sometimes, but the idea of socialized medicine is nearly perfect.
I think if the system is properly administered, there is no need for pay-as-you-go health care, which, as evidence shows, is a slippery slope to mass for-profit-health care, which is an abomination.
Kaiser of Arabia
11-18-2005, 01:39
No.
STFS, as a long member of the Conservative Club in good standing, I hereby declare your membership null and void.
May God have Mercy on your Soul, for we shall have none ~D
Strike For The South
11-18-2005, 01:46
meh thats fine KOA~;) I seriosuly think it would be great for us I see no downside espacilly in the long run
Kaiser of Arabia
11-18-2005, 01:49
meh thats fine KOA~;) I seriosuly think it would be great for us I see no downside espacilly in the long run
Give me a T! Give me an A! Give me a X! Give me an E! Give me a S!
What does that spell?
Communist Dictatorship based off of anti-American and anti-Freedom ideas that opress the majority of the population with opressive programs and pogroms that will result in the deats of at least 20 million people! :bow:
Strike For The South
11-18-2005, 01:51
becuas eCanadas in such strife~:rolleyes:
Weebeast
11-18-2005, 01:53
I don't mind paying taxes as long as I get it back not spent on some e-porno crackdown.
Kaiser of Arabia
11-18-2005, 01:58
becuas eCanadas in such strife~:rolleyes:
We're talking a nation of 32,270,507 people and 9,984,670 sq km. They have too much land and natural resources for them to have any form of strife. Also, they're unemployment is much higher than ours (6.6 percent average versus a 5 percent average.)
EDIT: You also don't see the US deporting people because of their political beleifs, no matter how radical they are...
Red Harvest
11-18-2005, 02:00
GM is becoming a candidate for bankruptcy. One of the big overhanging problems being named: healthcare costs.
The decades of double digit inflation in healthcare costs are taking their toll. They are finally reaching the point of making our nation *uncompetitive.*
I'm not as enamored of a fully "Free" system. Sharing the cost is probably best, but also making sure there is full coverage (not simply "free" coverage.) I would like to see a *uniform* system nationally, and some direct effective methods of controlling cost. There is a quite a bit in the way of overhead that could be completely eliminated in this manner.
I don't think true nationalization is necessary...although it would beat the current course we are on. The current course WILL lead to higher taxes, as well as a decreasingly competitive economy.
KafirChobee
11-18-2005, 02:13
In 1948, Truman proposed a National health insurance policy - his "do nothing" republican congress fought him at every turn and it failed. Had LBJ, not gotten stuck to that war across the pond he crey well may have been able to push his through. But, alas he was bogged down in a war and the cost of it detracted from the medical needs of the public at large.
Today, the majority of Americans are either uninsured or have medical policies that in the event of a catostrphic emergency would bankrupt them (even if they can no longer file for bankruptcy due to medical reasons).
The need is there, but the AMA is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in D.C.. It is highly unlikely that any medical bill can be passed that does not insure that things go on as they have - except maybe making it harder to sue for malpractice.
btw, did you know that if we simply reversed the taxes of the $1million+ a years back to 2001 rates (and left the remainder as is) we would again have a surplus - and then be able to have a health care system for all Americans (plus other social programs, and a better educational system - - you did hear Bush wants to slash the moneys for education to "balance" his budget).
Some day, after the revolution ..... maybe.
Should we take a page out of Canadas book and nationalize health care? I think we should I beleive the benifits would overshadow the minor tax-bump~:joker:
Wait.... you're not joking? ~:eek:
Alexander the Pretty Good
11-18-2005, 02:18
Today, the majority of Americans are either uninsured or have medical policies that in the event of a catostrphic emergency would bankrupt them (even if they can no longer file for bankruptcy due to medical reasons).
From my limited understanding, there are segments of the population that do not purchase health insurance because they don't see the need. What are the chances of a "catostrphic" injury or medical crisis, anyway?
Papewaio
11-18-2005, 02:23
On a more serious note:
You should take half a page from our book. Have universal free health care, but also allow "for profit" private health care.
All of the evidence shows that countries that take a blended approach are able to offer a higher overall quality of healthcare to all of their citizens.
Australia has a blended approach.
I have private health cover but I haven't used it except for Wasabi's contact lenses. Public health is pretty good and we use it most of the time.
Alexander the Pretty Good
11-18-2005, 02:25
So you pay for private health when you want it "snappy" or something like that?
Papewaio
11-18-2005, 02:30
For elective surgery yes. For emergency stuff the public hospitals are the primary ones.
For things like glasses, lenses, orthodontics ... anything that is a want rather then a need then you use private health care. Anything that you need to live is generally done in the public sector.
Crazed Rabbit
11-18-2005, 02:34
The hallmark of humanity, intelligence, and civilization.
All we need is better implementation and control of it. The idea itself is sound and the right one.
Reminds me of some things people say about Communism.
God knows our system stinks sometimes, but the idea of socialized medicine is nearly perfect.
I think if the system is properly administered, there is no need for pay-as-you-go health care, which, as evidence shows, is a slippery slope to mass for-profit-health care, which is an abomination.
Yup, better to make people wait for months for essential services than give them the ability to pay to get better! That's why people are crossing into the US for $25,000 sugeries!
Crazed Rabbit
Papewaio
11-18-2005, 02:38
I think for some aspects of Health care it is far more cost efficient to be a public funded insitution for others it is better held in the private courts.
Service and innovation is almost invariably better in free markets and private enterprise- whether its medicine or computers.
Papewaio
11-18-2005, 02:52
So you think the CDC would be better privatised?
Things like immunisation are better done to everyone rather then just who can afford it. It works better then a piecemeal approach.
No, preventing and controlling epidemics would fall under the general welfare duties of the government. Day to day healthcare does not, imo.
Reminds me of some things people say about Communism.
If you would be so kind, please offer unto me, any examples of how allowing all people equal access to life saving medicine, regardless of their ability to pay, equates with a dictatorial police state.
And if it is true that socialized medicine equates with the tenets of communism, and communism bearing the hallmark of mass incarceration of its own citizens, why does the US with its for-profit medicine have one of, if not the highest, percentage of its own people in jail? Far more than Canada with our quasi-commie healthcare. Where is the corelation there?
Yup, better to make people wait for months for essential services than give them the ability to pay to get better! That's why people are crossing into the US for $25,000 sugeries!
Absolutely true. Not all the time, but enough of the time to matter. Again, it's our management of the system that is lacking, not the system itself.
solypsist
11-18-2005, 03:04
we're too busy trying to build a wall across our southern border to bother with giving even a modicum of national healthcare to the average citizen.
we're too busy trying to build a wall across our southern border to bother with giving even a modicum of national healthcare to the average citizen.Yes, clearly the better choice would be to throw our borders wide open and then give free healthcare to our millions of illegal immigrants along with everyone else. ~D
solypsist
11-18-2005, 03:08
Yes, clearly the better choice would be to throw our borders wide open and then give free healthcare to our millions of illegal immigrants along with everyone else. ~D
O RLY? by "citizen" I was referring to legal citizens, i should have been clearer.
My mistake- I didnt know you were in favor of denying healthcare to illegal immigrants. Now I know.
My question still stands.
If socialized medicine is linked to communism, and communism is linked to oppression of the people, why does the US with for-profit medicine have higher rates of imprisonment of its own people than (most if not all) countries with socialized medicine?
Red Harvest
11-18-2005, 03:12
From my limited understanding, there are segments of the population that do not purchase health insurance because they don't see the need. What are the chances of a "catostrphic" injury or medical crisis, anyway?
No, it's cost to benefit, pre-existing conditions, etc. Heck the supposed "premium" for my company's family group health insurance was a full year's pay for a minimum wage earner. (1/4th a year's pay for someone earning four times as much as minimum wage.) Cheapest private group plan I could find was about 1/3rd as much, but covers less...and doesn't cover some things at all. So once you figure in annual cost of premium and copay/non covered expenses the total is at least half of what a minimum wage earner would make.
Catastrophic...depends on income...chances are relatively high with lower income, even in the healthy. A $50,000 bill is not all that unusual for a treatable illness/surgery and a few weeks of hospitalization (having gotten one of these bills not all that long ago.) Without insurance that is catastrophic for many. You have to multiply it out over family size too when considering probability. And even if you are insured, you can expect a fairly hefty out of pocket expense, on top of those annual premiums.
And keep in mind, the chunk it is taking out of income each year is larger percentage wise than the year before. (The govt. expense and employer expense for it is growing disproportionately as well because of the inflation rate of medical expenses.)
Red Harvest
11-18-2005, 03:21
Service and innovation is almost invariably better in free markets and private enterprise- whether its medicine or computers.
Yet it isn't in the U.S. with regards to healthcare. The customer "service" sucks goat g'nads compared to just about any other market in the U.S. and we are not getting our money's worth as a nation. I've gotten free care in a military hospital, and it was no worse than the "private" care I've received or that my family members have received.
If the free market approach was actually working then prices would not be hyperinflating on us. It isn't a free market though. Prices are variable depending on customer. Prices are not advertised. Prices quoted are altered after the agreement is made to use the services. You get billed by 20 other agencies who you did not have ANY agreement with. The whole damned system is broken and needs proper regulation.
Tachikaze
11-18-2005, 03:33
Yes, we definitely should have it. The healthcare tragedy we have in the US is one of the reasons I consider this a barbaric country. What we have now is nothing short of cruel and despicable.
If you would be so kind, please offer unto me, any examples of how allowing all people equal access to life saving medicine, regardless of their ability to pay, equates with a dictatorial police state.
And as mentioned several times in the past - the current system in the United States does exactly this.
ITs not perfect - but neither is any other health care system out there.
I've gotten free care in a military hospital, and it was no worse than the "private" care I've received or that my family members have received.
Excellent point.
If it's considered by the state that a person being in the armed forces is performing the highest service an individual can perform for the state, then why does the state subject its soldiers to what is obviously sub-par government run health care? Should not the government, out of concern for its cherished soldiers, force them to use for-profit medicine?
Also, if the state controls the army to safeguard the well being of the people, and the state controls the police to safeguard the well being of the people, why does the state instantly say that the state is in no position (to the point of admitting they are grossly incompetent compared to the private sector) to safeguard the health of the people?
"We're the only ones smart enough to wage war and use nuclear weapons, but if you want your kid to see doctor for a broken leg, sorry, we're simply not good enough."
It's patently ridiculous.
Kanamori
11-18-2005, 03:49
Perhaps it would be best to show the actual results under each system, rather than some vague idea of 'good' results v. some vague idea of 'bad' results, w/o even knowing to what degree each system makes those 'bad' and 'good' results and how.~:cheers:
Yes, we definitely should have it. The healthcare tragedy we have in the US is one of the reasons I consider this a barbaric country. What we have now is nothing short of cruel and despicable.
Have someone develop a medically sound and finicially affordable health care plan to support the roughly 300,000,000 citizens of the United States plus the 10,000,000 or more illegal immigrants in this country - that does not increase our taxes more then what I must pay out for my current health care premiums - then I am all for it. You can get a picture of what universal health care will cost by looking at what it costs in Canada - and then factor in the population that is about 10 times as large.
But not one single plan has been mentioned nor does anyone in politics espouse a plan that might be workable. What you get is rethoric from both sides - to include this little tidbit of yours Tachikaz, it means absolutely nothing in the overall picture of the discussion - nor does it offer a viable solution to the problem.
solypsist
11-18-2005, 03:59
it's funny how people will pay $3 a gallon for gas, but feel asking for some $ beyond some relative premium-bar for healthcare that could benefit their children and it's a deal breaker.
Have someone develop a medically sound and finicially affordable health care plan to support the roughly 300,000,000 citizens of the United States plus the 10,000,000 or more illegal immigrants in this country - that does not increase our taxes more then what I must pay out for my current health care premiums - then I am all for it. You can get a picture of what universal health care will cost by looking at what it costs in Canada - and then factor in the population that is about 10 times as large.
But not one single plan has been mentioned nor does anyone in politics espouse a plan that might be workable. What you get is rethoric from both sides - to include this little tidbit of yours Tachikaz, it means absolutely nothing in the overall picture of the discussion - nor does it offer a viable solution to the problem.
it's funny how people will pay $3 a gallon for gas, but feel asking for some $ beyond some relative premium-bar for healthcare that could benefit their children and it's a deal breaker.
Its a start point Solypsist. Come up with a better start point if you don't like where I would like it to start. The point is that provide a viable and working plan - not the neublus idea of unversial or free medical care. Its not hard to point out the errors of many of the universial health care most of them are based on cost and why some must resort to paying out or their own pockets for health care to get it in a more timely manner.
Give me a plan - a working model of an idea that makes sense to support the concept of universal health care. If you can't think of one - your objection to my comment is nothing but the same basic rethoric that means absolutely nothing in working toward a better health care system.
BTW my child already benefits from a workable plan for health care - so your objection once again is mote.
I don't like paying $3 for a gallon of gas either - and I cut back on the amount of extra driving I do - not only to conserve - but to pay more attention to what I am doing.
it's funny how people will pay $3 a gallon for gas, but feel asking for some $ beyond some relative premium-bar for healthcare that could benefit their children and it's a deal breaker.
Because, as we know, it's purely ideological. It has nothing to do with whether it would work or not, it only has to do with profits and profitable politics.
Kaiser of Arabia
11-18-2005, 04:14
If you would be so kind, please offer unto me, any examples of how allowing all people equal access to life saving medicine, regardless of their ability to pay, equates with a dictatorial police state.
And if it is true that socialized medicine equates with the tenets of communism, and communism bearing the hallmark of mass incarceration of its own citizens, why does the US with its for-profit medicine have one of, if not the highest, percentage of its own people in jail? Far more than Canada with our quasi-commie healthcare. Where is the corelation there?
Taxes lead to poor people. Poor people lead to Communists. Communists lead to millions dead.
How do you intend to pay for this free healthcare in the US?
And also, may I note that, compared to the US, Canadian law is basically anarchy. Or at least, that's how I view it. Except that you deport people because they say something the government disagrees with vehemantly. Doesn't seem very nice, does it?
In essence, it doesn't lead to communism, but some of the things nessissary for it to be implemented can lead to communism. ~:handball:
In essence, it doesn't lead to communism, but some of the things nessissary for it to be implemented can lead to communism. ~:handball:
Yep, goodness know the GPs in Quebec who average $190,000 a year are all Marxists. I have to step over the hammers and sickles every time I go for a flu shot.
solypsist
11-18-2005, 04:19
it's not my job to come up with a better concept; it's what i elect and pay local/state/federal officials for. i'm tired of electing them* and they not coming through on their promises for this because their corporate lobbyists keep shutting down even the best start points.
*yes, i have even voted for republicans who claim this as a priority.
Its a start point Solypsist. Come up with a better start point if you don't like where I would like it to start. The point is that provide a viable and working plan - not the neublus idea of unversial or free medical care.
Kaiser,
May I ask why you (or someone who holds similar views) trust the government to raise an army, wage war, control the police, pass laws, imprison people, and a myriad of other critical things, yet you draw the line sharply at healing the sick. Not only draw the line, but say that the other side of the line is not only wrong, but un-American and anti-freedom.
solypsist
11-18-2005, 04:21
listening to someone whose mommy and daddy pay their healthcare is like taking auto repair advice from someone whose parents own a bicycle shop: it may be viable, and the intention is good, but it doesn't beat talking to someone who actually fixes cars.
/end nonsense metaphor
Yep, goodness know the GPs in Quebec who average $190,000 a year are all Marxists. I have to step over the hammers and sickles every time I go for a flu shot.
Papewaio
11-18-2005, 04:24
The states in Australia look after the public health system but it is federally funded... so things get tweaked for local issues.
Me and my Medicare card are going to bed. "Smooch!"
Night all. :sleeping:
Because, as we know, it's purely ideological. It has nothing to do with whether it would work or not, it only has to do with profits and profitable politics.
Goes to show that you don't really know do you, its about cost and benefit analysis - how else will you sell it to the average middleclass individual. You can sell it to the poor easily - it eases their burdern, but emotional appeal only goes so far when your in the middleclass and watching your money. Tell me what I am going to get for my tax money being spent - and how much of my earning are going to be taken from me to pay for it.
Offer a economically viable plan or even a basic idea - that does not bankrupt the government nor continues to cause the taxpayers have to pay more and more in taxes to float a large healthcare system managed by the Government.
Comments like yours and Solypsists show a more purely ideological make-up on the issue then my own. Your just argueing from an emotional appeal standpoint. Provide the plan, the numbers, and how it will be managed for review if you can.
I have taken hard look at the Canadian System - and to implement anything like your system in the United States would bankrupt the government with a growth in defiect spending that far exceeds the currrent level. We had this same discussion in the not so distant past - and when presented with the costs - you did not counter how much it might end up costing the average taxpayer - nor could you explain away the beuaracy that is in the Canadian system.
Your arguement is nothing but emotional appeal - which is pure ideological based. Yet you refuse to see your ideological fallacies in your postion and only attempt to point out mine - good way to solve an issue or come to a consensus.
If it was not so predictable - it would actually be amusing.
it's not my job to come up with a better concept; it's what i elect and pay local/state/federal officials for. i'm tired of electing them* and they not coming through on their promises for this because their corporate lobbyists keep shutting down even the best start points.
*yes, i have even voted for republicans who claim this as a priority.
Then you really have no base in which to complain that I want it to be planned, thought out, and explained to the taxpayers before it comes about.
To say my view is purely ideological without seeing yours, an arguement based on emotional appeal - which is also a purely ideological standpoint is nothing but hypocrisy on your part.
Me and my Medicare card are going to bed. "Smooch!"
Night all. :sleeping:
Well low and behold - care to guess how many Americans also have a Medicare card which entitles them to free medical care at the taxpayer expense. I will give you a clue - its about roughly the same number as the total population of Canada.
Kaiser of Arabia
11-18-2005, 04:37
Kaiser,
May I ask why you (or someone who holds similar views) trust the government to raise an army, wage war, control the police, pass laws, imprison people, and a myriad of other critical things, yet you draw the line sharply at healing the sick. Not only draw the line, but say that the other side of the line is not only wrong, but un-American and anti-freedom.
It's the governments job to raise an army, wage war, control the police, pass laws, imprison people, and a myriad of other critical things. It is not their job to heal the sick, help the poor, or any of that other socialist stuff. The Government is here to protect the people from foreign threats and crime, mainly. And to make sure anarchy doesn't reign. It is not they're job to baby the people.
solypsist
11-18-2005, 04:47
it's not hypocrisy to understand that national healthcare would offer US citizens a better quality of life overall. i want it to be planned and thought out, too, and i'm sure there are some good solutions. but someone always wants the other guy to be the one who takes the hit (the selfish "me generation" baby boomer mentality so at odds with the ww2 "greatest generation" mentality), and so of course nothing is ever accomplished.
Then you really have no base in which to complain that I want it to be planned, thought out, and explained to the taxpayers before it comes about.
To say my view is purely ideological without seeing yours, an arguement based on emotional appeal - which is also a purely ideological standpoint is nothing but hypocrisy on your part.
it's not hypocrisy to understand that national healthcare would offer US citizens a better quality of life overall. i want it to be planned and thought out, too, and i'm sure there are some good solutions. but someone always wants the other guy to be the one who takes the hit (the selfish "me generation" baby boomer mentality so at odds with the ww2 "greatest generation" mentality), and so of course nothing is ever accomplished.
Hince you get my initial comment - if it doesn't cost what I have to currently pay for my medical insurance - I don't have a problem with going to a National or Universal Health Care system - because its already spending money that I have personally had to spend already. Its a zero sum loss on my pocketbook - the difference is only who takes my money.
Your statement of it's funny how people will pay $3 a gallon for gas, but feel asking for some $ beyond some relative premium-bar for healthcare that could benefit their children and it's a deal breaker. is based upon a false assumption on your part and is a more ideological based arguement then mine - I want the plan thought out and explained to me before I decide how I want to vote for it through my elected representive. Since I am willing to allow them to just do it if it doesn't cost anymore then what is alreadly being spent - but if it goes beyond that - they have to show me how it benefits not only society but me as a taxpayer.
A simple cost to benefit analysis is all that it would take to explain the program to me. Something that no politican has ever attempted to explain - they rely on the rethoric that people like Tachikaze, Beriut, and even you have shown in this thread to become the deal breakers to the middleclass. Edit: Not so much the middleclass but the moderates who would most likely support a national health care program if it was explained to them in terms that go beyond the rethoric that is currently being used concerning National Health Care.
Devastatin Dave
11-18-2005, 05:37
Nothings for free....
Seamus Fermanagh
11-18-2005, 05:37
Seamus' pet peeve #1:
There is no such thing as "free." Somewhere, somehow, it was created through the expenditure of labor and resources.
Life's basic rule is TANSTAAFL.
Bingo. Either way, it costs the people. It comes down to who you trust more: People who's livelyhood depends on the quality of their medical care, or the state? It's been ovbvious for decades which one provides higher quality.
Give me private healthcare any day, with Government subsidies only for those who truly need it.
And what many don't realize is that there are already several major programs being used - one of them that already provides health care for more American Citizens then the populations of many countries who have a National Health Care system.
Medicare
Medicaid
Then there is the state programs
and finally many counties have a County Hospital that gets taxpayer funds from the property taxes to care for the disadvantage. Some counties even have a free health clinic to serve the citizens of that county who can not pay for a visit to the doctor.
All has been covered in a previous thread about this issue.
And then the law that clearly states that Hospitals must provide health care for all life threatening emergancies without asking if the individual can pay. Only after the care has been given and patient stablized can they ask.
PanzerJaeger
11-18-2005, 05:50
I dont want to be taxed to pay for other people's medical problems. (Or mexicans, if that is applicable ~:joker: )
Free healthcare is a blessing, but Yanks have wayyy too many hang-ups about tax for it to happen there anytime soon...
bmolsson
11-18-2005, 06:28
Medical care is never free. The problem in countries with "free" health care programs is that people actually believe that it's free. This creates a disrespect for the cost involved and sooner or later it spirals out of control.
It is really irrelevant who owns the hospitals and/or the insurance companies, as long as control and competition is maintained. The customer service and care comes out of competition and nothing else.
I would not trust the government with a borrowed pen, let alone my healthcare. Let's stick with the way it is, eh? Illegal Immigrants flooding the emergency rooms with no way of paying the fee are far more of a problem.I'd argue that our healthcare is already too socialized and that is what's responsible for many of our healthcare systems problems- spiraling costs and lower quality of care.
Red Harvest
11-18-2005, 08:16
Redleg,
I would like to see this analysis, because it doesn't add up when I look at it. In a 2000 WHO report the U.S. spent $4,178 per capita compared to $2,312 for Canada. Considering that Federal and State government is already paying a fairly large share of the total U.S. health care costs (about 45%) it seems the problem is not what Canadians spend on health care, but what Americans do. American costs are far higher and we are already spending nearly as much in public funds per capita as Canada--we just don't get nealy as much bang for the buck.
And administrative costs are an interesting comparison: the U.S. was spending $1,059 per capita on administration in 1999 versus $307 per capita in Canada. Considering economies of scale, Canada's system should cost far more per person to operate, rather than 3 times less. But a single payer system is naturally far more efficient in that regard. http://consumeraffairs.com/news03/health_costs.html
While in ones study it was reported the U.S. spends 14% of GDP on healthcare (6.2% public, 7.7% private), Canada spends 9% (6.8% public, 2.8% private.)
Here is a link with some better breakdowns for the U.S. by year (note that it won't match some other figures precisely--different bases I suppose): http://www.cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe/historical/t1.asp
What I found interesting is that the inflation rate of health care cost is not nearly as high as what I've seen previously and repeated--as presented by companies to employees, as presented by "liberals", etc. Instead it is running about 7% per capita inflation now, about twice that of overall inflation. Under Clinton it averaged 4.3% (and was in the 3.7% range while universal health care was a threat. ~D ) Premiums are inflating at about 9%.
A particularly disturbing trend is that U.S. healthcare costs have risen from 8.8% of GDP in 1980 to 15.3% in 2003. If that continues...well...26.5% of GDP for healthcare sounds extremely harmful to the economy to me.
As I've said, I'm not in favor of completely "free" healthcare, but I do want full access. It is shameful that a "developed" nation treats its poor this way.
Red Harvest
11-18-2005, 08:21
I dont want to be taxed to pay for other people's medical problems. (Or mexicans, if that is applicable ~:joker: )
But you are, and at a higher rate than Canada. You are getting screwed twice and you don't even realize it. That's what is funny. We are paying large sums for Federal and state Medicare/Medicaid and VA health benefits. The total is nearly the same as Canada's total per capita. On top of that you have to pay out of your pocket and insurance premiums. And your insurance premiums are inflating even more rapidly because of paying for the benefits of illegals...and the uninsured. ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: You've been had and you don't even realize it!!!
Redleg,
I would like to see this analysis, because it doesn't add up when I look at it. In a 2000 WHO report the U.S. spent $4,178 per capita compared to $2,312 for Canada. Considering that Federal and State government is already paying a fairly large share of the total U.S. health care costs (about 45%) it seems the problem is not what Canadians spend on health care, but what Americans do. American costs are far higher and we are already spending nearly as much in public funds per capita as Canada--we just don't get nealy as much bang for the buck.
I posted it somewhere here in the tavern - and its about bed time for bonzo so I will try to find it later. But it deals not only with the per capita cost - but the realitive tax amounts that one happens to pay. Per Capita costs are good - but it only paints part of a picture
For instance off of memeory. Some of the costs per capita comes from the Medicare and Medicaid funds which are supported by taxpayer dollars - you can see Medicare taken out of your check every payperiod - roughly 2% of your income.
Then look at your property tax - there is in many cities (especially in Texas) a portion of your property tax is paid to the County Hospital. Check out Parkland Hosiptal in Dallas - some figures are available since its the Dallas County Hospital that handles free medical care to those unable to pay. But for me I averaged this value into my wages and it was just less then 1%
Then I looked at what I spend yearly on my Medical Insurance Premium - plus co-pays extra. These cost me about 5% of my wages. So if the Federal Government can develop a program that allows me to regain these precentages of my income back - so that they can formulate a national health care plan that does not increase my tax burdern in terms of income by not more then 8%, I am more then willing to support such a plan. I see it as a re-organization of how I spend my alreadly allocated money for health care. Be it a national health insurance scheme or national health care - the cost comes out to be the same for the average Middleclass income - or in simple terms 8% of my income comes out to roughly the $4,178 per capita that is alreadly spent.
If a governmental program can be developed that only costs the average tax payer an increase in taxes relative to his medical insurance - the moderates will most likely apply pressure to their congressmen and women to get something done. Especially if they can actually make a system that models what is already being spent, and leave the hyperbole out of the sell and just explain the facts
And administrative costs are an interesting comparison: the U.S. was spending $1,059 per capita on administration in 1999 versus $307 per capita in Canada. Considering economies of scale, Canada's system should cost far more per person to operate, rather than 3 times less. But a single payer system is naturally far more efficient in that regard. http://consumeraffairs.com/news03/health_costs.html
While in ones study it was reported the U.S. spends 14% of GDP on healthcare (6.2% public, 7.7% private), Canada spends 9% (6.8% public, 2.8% private.)
Here is a link with some better breakdowns for the U.S. by year (note that it won't match some other figures precisely--different bases I suppose): http://www.cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe/historical/t1.asp
What I found interesting is that the inflation rate of health care cost is not nearly as high as what I've seen previously and repeated--as presented by companies to employees, as presented by "liberals", etc. Instead it is running about 7% per capita inflation now, about twice that of overall inflation. Under Clinton it averaged 4.3% (and was in the 3.7% range while universal health care was a threat. ~D ) Premiums are inflating at about 9%.
A particularly disturbing trend is that U.S. healthcare costs have risen from 8.8% of GDP in 1980 to 15.3% in 2003. If that continues...well...26.5% of GDP for healthcare sounds extremely harmful to the economy to me.
As I've said, I'm not in favor of completely "free" healthcare, but I do want full access. It is shameful that a "developed" nation treats its poor this way.
The problem is that no one has really taken a look at how to make a national health care plan work nor has it ever been sold to the public in terms that the moderates can understand and support.
Edit: to fix an incorrect quote code
Aurelian
11-18-2005, 10:43
We do need "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE" in the US. I put that in big scary quotes to freak out the free-market conservative types. ~;)
The truth is that our system is incredibly inefficient. Just think of all the lost time, and the wasted resources, that come from having our medical professionals drowning in a sea of insurance company paperwork. Each form completely different... and trying to confuse people so that the company can avoid having to pay. Most hospitals have a whole floor now that's just devoted to insurance processing.
Then there are the advertising costs, and the administrative overhead, and the huge profit margins that come from private insurance. It's silly.
The same goes for the pharmaceutical companies. They're the most profitable business in America, and we pay higher drug costs than anybody else on the planet. Most of the drug research is done in universities with taxpayer money, and then we hand the patents over to pharmaceutical companies so they can extract monopoly pricing for the length of the patent. Their choices as to which drugs to research and produce are completely driven by stock and profit considerations, so the research goes to creating a half-dozen erection pills rather than something more genuinely important.
I think we need a thorough redesign of the system. There's no reason that we can't learn from everybody else and create a model program... other than the opposition from special interests. We're essentially paying for the power that the pharmaceutical, insurance, and doctor's lobbies have in Washington. Pharma and insurance in particular would be screwed by meaningful reform - so they fight it.
If I was going to create a single-payer system, I'd also go after the pharmaceutical industry. The prices we pay for drugs are one of the biggest factors in skyrocketing health costs and they're way out of line with where they should be. We're getting almost no knew drugs from an industry that takes taxpayer funded research and charges us monopoly prices for it. I'm sorry, but I don't think we should all have to empty our wallets and suffer just to keep up the stock price on Pfizer. It's a stupid way to run an economy.
There's a great article about the pharma industry and what's wrong with it here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
minor tax-bump
Doubtful. The UK spends 8% of its entire wealth on the NHS, and the service is still desperately underfunded.
For the US to do that, the annual bill would be approx $1.02 Trillion p.a. based on 2004 GDP. To put that figure in perspective, the military budget for the same period was $370.7 billion.
So with a public healthcare system costing about 2.8 times more than what the US spends on military, the minor tax bump is more likely to be $8 a gallon.
Well low and behold - care to guess how many Americans also have a Medicare card which entitles them to free medical care at the taxpayer expense. I will give you a clue - its about roughly the same number as the total population of Canada.
Yet you have tens of millions who have no coverage at all. You have insurance companies demanding top dollar for policies that they are downright eager to cancel as soon as any of the fine print is violated.
When a lawyer and an accountant are the top dogs deciding who gets what health care, it is an intrinsically bad system.
You ask for numbers, I admit I cannot give you dollars and cents, accounting is not what I do. But I do know that a country that can put a man on the moon, be the first to harness nuclear power, have the most powerful army in the history of the world, and be an economic wonder calling itself the leader of the free world, is able to create and manage a system that cares for the health of its citizens.
That may sound like nothing but hopeful rhetoric, but, to me, to deny it flies in the face of all intelligent reason. Hell, hasn't the US spent hundreds of billions just in Iraq? How can a conservative say the money is there to wage dubious wars but not for the care of our own people?
I refuse to accept that the US of A, with its brains and economic brawn, sees itself capable of any achievement save for caring for the health of its own people.
Yes, we can put a man on Mars someday - No we cannot afford to run health care.
Yes, we are the most powerful country in the world able to defeat any and all foes - No we cannot afford to run health care.
Yes, the US is the leader of the free world, the world's policeman, and the model of humanitarian democracy that all other countries should follow - No we cannot afford to run health care.
Where does it stop? Once you've colonized Pluto, have annexed Cuba, Canada, China, and Kenya, once you've got Mr. Fussion machines in every kitchen in America; will health care still be beyond the capabilities of the USA?
Aurelian
11-18-2005, 12:54
Doubtful. The UK spends 8% of its entire wealth on the NHS, and the service is still desperately underfunded.
For the US to do that, the annual bill would be approx $1.02 Trillion p.a. based on 2004 GDP. To put that figure in perspective, the military budget for the same period was $370.7 billion.
Yeah, but we spend 15% of GDP (and rising) on healthcare every year in the US. Plus, we don't even get universal coverage for that. About 16% of the population doesn't have any insurance. About 27% are already covered under one of the government programs.
If we nipped the huge amounts of fat in the insurance and pharmaceutical bureaucracies I'm sure we could get decent universal health care coverage for something approaching the 10% of GDP that Canada spends.
It might be best though if healthcare taxes were split apart from the general income tax (though still preferably graduated) so we didn't scare people to death when they see their tax bill. If you could easily compare your healthcare tax side-by-side with your health insurance bill, it might even be a pleasant shock.
It's important to note that a majority of Canadians view socialized medicine not only as a birthright, but as the defining aspect of our national self.
We view government run health care as the most important reason to have a government at all. Even our far-right conservatives tread on eggshells when discussing for-profit health care. It's a political career killer. Akin to a US politician trying to legalize pot in schools and daycares.
Watchman
11-18-2005, 13:28
Sounds oddly familiar, that.
I don't think you actually need to spend all that much, it's just keeping such a huge institution running efficiently is practically impossible. 8% of Britain's GDP might go on the NHS, but that would probably be enough if things were actually run as efficiently as possible, but they aren't. Equally if you doubled funding things would probably not improve all that much because it would all just disappear into more red tape and more pointless beaurocratic positions.
Goofball
11-18-2005, 17:43
Taxes lead to poor people. Poor people lead to Communists. Communists lead to millions dead.
How do you intend to pay for this free healthcare in the US?
And also, may I note that, compared to the US, Canadian law is basically anarchy. Or at least, that's how I view it. Except that you deport people because they say something the government disagrees with vehemantly. Doesn't seem very nice, does it?
In essence, it doesn't lead to communism, but some of the things nessissary for it to be implemented can lead to communism. ~:handball:
If you had any less of an idea of what you were talking about, you wouldn't even be able to spell your own name.
Goofball
11-18-2005, 17:48
Well low and behold - care to guess how many Americans also have a Medicare card which entitles them to free medical care at the taxpayer expense. I will give you a clue - its about roughly the same number as the total population of Canada.
So: Less than 10% of your population can get free healthcare, whereas 100% of our population enjoys free coverage.
I like my odds of pulling through a little better here, thank you very much...
master of the puppets
11-18-2005, 17:57
generalized health care would be an acceptable and good thing to establish in my opinion, i have to go with canada on this one. and also i would like to see government sponsored medical research, i was watching 60 mi9nutes a few monthas ago and it was titled "Guiene pigs" it was a test where 20 people with parkinsons disease (some so bad they could not even move) and they all did this magnificent medicine which had to be injected via a small pump implanted in the persons body, after a week of the treatment the people who could not move or walk or control there bodies were much better, at a month they were normal functioning human beings. so finally when they had something that could cure them the company pulled the project, no more medicicne, no more pumps, no more real life. in 2 weeks all the test subjects had deteriorated to such a state as when it began. and why did the company pull the project? because it would cost to much for them to distribute and implant the pumps and medicine. if this was goverment sponsered they may not so redely steal away hope for so many people.
Red Harvest
11-18-2005, 18:52
If you had any less of an idea of what you were talking about, you wouldn't even be able to spell your own name.
That was so funny that I think I might have to change my pants. :laugh4:
Red Harvest
11-18-2005, 19:07
Doubtful. The UK spends 8% of its entire wealth on the NHS, and the service is still desperately underfunded.
For the US to do that, the annual bill would be approx $1.02 Trillion p.a. based on 2004 GDP. To put that figure in perspective, the military budget for the same period was $370.7 billion.
So with a public healthcare system costing about 2.8 times more than what the US spends on military, the minor tax bump is more likely to be $8 a gallon.
We spend ~$1.7 trillion a year on health care and 765 billion or so of that is by the Feds and State govts. We spend nearly twice as much in terms of GDP as the UK for healthcare. And yet we can't cover about 15% of our population (and growing each year.)
The key problem is U.S. healthcare inefficiency, and it gets worse every year. It's a pseudo-free market that continually raises prices at greater than the inflation rate. In order to make health care affordable, we need nationwide cost containment. Stop the runaway growth in costs and each year we will stop losing ground in dealing with this.
The so called free market approach to health care in the U.S. has been an abject failure. If a "free market" is driving up costs rather than driving them down, then it is obviously the wrong tool for the problem. There is no way to deny that U.S. health care is the most expensive in the world. There is also no way to deny that in quite a few measures (infant mortality, etc.) the U.S. lags behind many industrialized nations.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
11-18-2005, 23:04
my experience of the NHS has been far worse than my experience of U.S. healthcare.
U.K. private medicine is the best experience I've had overall though.
So: Less than 10% of your population can get free healthcare, whereas 100% of our population enjoys free coverage.
I like my odds of pulling through a little better here, thank you very much...
And the amount of people covered by both programs is roughly the same.
I'm sure the coincidental math makes the tens of millions without coverage feel much better.
I'm sure the coincidental math makes the tens of millions without coverage feel much better.
And you continue with the emotional appeal - ideological based arguements without making a valid point. Look at what it costs to do a national health care plan. Formulate ideas about how to make it work - sell me on the concept and how it makes for a better idea.
And again I can walk into any hospital and get emergancy care without paying a dime if I so chose - I can walk into the county health clinic and not pay a dime if I can show that I do not have the means to pay - and get the health care I need.
Again your arguing for health care using an emotional appeal - and you claim the same crap like the last thread on this issue - but you can not show how much it costs - nor can you make an arguement for how to help the United States work on a plan - and you didn't bother to explain why so many Canadian Citizens come to the United States to seek health care - since the Canadian system is so great. How's it feel to know a decent size portion of you nation must come to the United States to get Health Care because your socialized system will not take care of the citizens that need the care. (Hows that for a little of your own hyperbole medicine.)
Hyperbole seems to be your only resort - you should just stick to moderating the frontroom where your ability to think doesn't have to be as great. ~:rolleyes:
Kaiser of Arabia
11-19-2005, 02:02
If you had any less of an idea of what you were talking about, you wouldn't even be able to spell your own name.
So you are saying high government envolvement in the average human's life and high taxes aren't part of a communist system?
And you continue with the emotional appeal - ideological based arguements without making a valid point. Look at what it costs to do a national health care plan. Formulate ideas about how to make it work - sell me on the concept and how it makes for a better idea.
Perhaps one of the fundemental differences between our viewpoints is that we (my side) does see health care as a very emotional issue. Good physical health is the starting point for good mental health, self reliance, productivity, economic succeess, be it for the individual or the whole society. Health is the starting point for the enjoyment of life. Every measure possible should be taken by the state to ensure all of its citizens have equal access. The health of a nation is exactly on par with the security of the nation. Why should one be sole role of government while the other is considered not the role of government at all?
You want to know where the cash will come from? From the taxpayer of course. Just like every single other government program. Cut tax loopholes, raise the bar on tax collection efficiency, cut subsidies to multi-billion dollar companies, tax the ultra rich at a higher level, stop spending hundreds and hundreds of billions in Iraq. there are all sorts of ways to raise cash without putting excess strain on Joe Average.
Is it cheap? Of course it's not cheap. But in the long run, better health amongst the public will relate to better productivity in the future. Less sick kids means more kids learning which means a smarter next-generation. That means more profit and success for the nation as a whole. I'm sorry if that's too emotional for you but there are many of us (oh, billions I'd say) who know that good health is an emotional issue and is the jumping board to success in life on many levels.
Why on earth would the state wash its hands of something that affects its own future on such a fundemental basis? Quite honestly, its nothing less than a national security issue. Do you think a country full of fat (often young) people with diabetes and heart problems is good for the future of a country? Health. It all starts with health.
Hyperbole seems to be your only resort - you should just stick to moderating the frontroom where your ability to think doesn't have to be as great. ~:rolleyes:
Oh mercy... I've been pwned. ~:doh:
And I always thought Texas produced such fine gentlemen... ~:mecry:
Well Beriut and his hyperbole stupidity has forced me to once again show that the Canadian system is full of holes that allows people to die just as much as the American System.
Several little tidbits that a Canadian won't ever admit to - since he avoided it like the plauge last time he tried the tact he has now pursued.
As for cost -
Incentives matter, and one need only examine the incentives of the Canadian system to predict the results: inefficient use of resources and severe rationing of expensive procedures. Patients consider health care to be free. They pay for it for sure. Canadian doctor and author David Gratzer (currently part of the Canadian doctor brain drain to the U.S.), estimates that the system costs each Canadian 21 cents for every $1 they earn, which translates into $7,350 a year for a person earning $35,000. But they don’t pay for it when they use it. The result is an overuse—and inefficient use—of primary care facilities
futher down in the article
Tom Holland, director of diagnostic imaging for the Ottawa Hospital and, therefore, the man who grants access to the MRI Mrs. Besner needs, can only offer his sympathies. “Unfortunately, we hear these stories all the time,” says Mr. Holland. “There’s a tremendous amount of anxiety for the patients and a tremendous amount of anxiety for those who are working here as well. Everybody associated with this operation deals with this on a daily basis.”6
Norwood’s and Besner’s cases are routine. In January of 2001, more than 7,000 people were languishing in line for one of the hospitals two magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines, a necessary step before many conditions can be accurately diagnosed and then treated. Patients in such straits face stark choices. Many, like Canadian Senator Edward M. Lawson, former head of the Teamster’s Union, run for the border and pay for prompt care in the United States. Lawson experienced chest pains in August 2001 and his doctor told him he’d have to wait a month for an angiogram, the recommended treatment. No thanks, he said, as he headed to Seattle to receive prompt care.7 When lines get too bad, the provinces may actually fund the ticket and treatment. Ontario, for example, sent just under 1,800 cancer patients south for care in between April 1999 and May 2000.
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/health/speech_sally.html
An even more interesting read that shows that a national health scheme is not all its cracked up to be.
http://www.debate-central.org/topics/2002/book2.pdf#search='Failures%20of%20the%20Canadian%20Medical%20system'
Before a certain Canadian gets on his high horse about free Medical Care - he needs to realize that its not free nor it the great system he is attempting to protray with his hyperbole criticism of what happens in the United States
http://www.cmwf.org/usr_doc/canada52003_db_641.pdf#search='Failures%20of%20the%20Canadian%20Medical%20system'
http://www.boston.com/news/world/canada/articles/2005/06/09/quebec_private_health_insurance_ban_nixed/
By Beth Duff-Brown, Associated Press Writer | June 9, 2005
TORONTO --Canada's Supreme Court dealt a powerful blow to the state monopoly on health care Thursday, striking down a Quebec ban on private health insurance for services provided under the country's Medicare system of universal coverage.
Although the unanimous ruling applies only to Quebec, it is sure to bring similar cases in other Canadian provinces and give impetus to a growing movement pushing for public and private care.
Government leaders rushed to defend the current system, and Medicare supporters voiced fears the ruling will bring a two-tiered system favoring those with money and possibly hurting care for the poor. Proponents of change say it will improve care by offering more choices and cut waiting times for treatment.
The Supreme Court said Quebec's prohibition violated the province's charter of rights by threatening the lives of patients, and the justices noted other countries have successfully combined private and public care.
"The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health-care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote.
"The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital health care result in physical and psychological suffering ... ."
Medicare arose from a 1984 law that affirmed the federal government's commitment to provide mostly free health care for all, including the more than 200,000 immigrants arriving each year.
Most polls indicate that Canadians support the system despite the high taxes needed to finance health care, seeing it as a marker of egalitarianism and independent identity that sets their country apart from the United States, where some 45 million Americans lack health insurance.
But in recent years Medicare has been plagued by long waiting lists and a lack of doctors, nurses and state-of-the-art equipment. Some patients wait months for surgery, MRI machines are scarce and many Canadians travel to the United States for treatment.
Under the Canadian system, it is illegal to seek faster treatment and jump to the head of the line by paying out of pocket for public care. Private health clinics have sprouted up for Canadians willing to spend their own money for treatment. But they are technically illegal, though some provincial governments tend to look the other way, especially for more minor treatments.
Although unanimous in voiding Quebec's law, the court split 4-4, with one abstention, on whether the ban on private insurance was unconstitutional or violated the federal Charter of Rights and Freedom that guarantee "life, liberty and security of the person."
Yep don't toot your horn so loud Beruit Your so called free health care ain't free and its not all that great.
Strike For The South
11-19-2005, 02:14
And I always thought Texas produced such fine gentlemen... ~:mecry:
we do...he couldve been meaner~:cheers:
Perhaps one of the fundemental differences between our viewpoints is that we (my side) does see health care as a very emotional issue. Good physical health is the starting point for good mental health, self reliance, productivity, economic succeess, be it for the individual or the whole society. Health is the starting point for the enjoyment of life. Every measure possible should be taken by the state to ensure all of its citizens have equal access. The health of a nation is exactly on par with the security of the nation. Why should one be sole role of government while the other is considered not the role of government at all?
You want to know where the cash will come from? From the taxpayer of course. Just like every single other government program. Cut tax loopholes, raise the bar on tax collection efficiency, cut subsidies to multi-billion dollar companies, tax the ultra rich at a higher level, stop spending hundreds and hundreds of billions in Iraq. there are all sorts of ways to raise cash without putting excess strain on Joe Average.
Is it cheap? Of course it's not cheap. But in the long run, better health amongst the public will relate to better productivity in the future. Less sick kids means more kids learning which means a smarter next-generation. That means more profit and success for the nation as a whole. I'm sorry if that's too emotional for you but there are many of us (oh, billions I'd say) who know that good health is an emotional issue and is the jumping board to success in life on many levels.
Why on earth would the state wash its hands of something that affects its own future on such a fundemental basis? Quite honestly, its nothing less than a national security issue. Do you think a country full of fat (often young) people with diabetes and heart problems is good for the future of a country? Health. It all starts with health.
Good health does not require the government to hold your hand - good health means the individual must take responsiblity in their lifestyle and what they eat, drink, how much sleep they get and how much exercise - all areas that the government does not need to be involved in.
Oh mercy... I've been pwned. ~:doh:
And I always thought Texas produced such fine gentlemen... ~:mecry:
Certain comments deserve harsh retorts.
First of all, I never said it was free.
Second, your repeated insults show that you take the issue far too personally, or should I say, emotionally. You speak of "us" displaying too much emotion, but, correct me if I'm wrong, has Goofy or I called you stupid yet? Or is it only us who are stupid because we don't share your point of view?
In either case, your insults are, from what I've seen, out of the ordinary for you and I find them bewildering. Honestly, I don't understand your anger.
Mouzafphaerre
11-19-2005, 02:26
.
you should just stick to moderating the frontroom where your ability to think doesn't have to be as great.
This isn't the Redleg I've always respected all this time. ~:mecry:
.
First of all, I never said it was free.
Second, your repeated insults show that you take the issue far too personally, or should I say, emotionally. You speak of "us" displaying too much emotion, but, correct me if I'm wrong, has Goofy or I called you stupid yet? Or is it only us who are stupid because we don't share your point of view?
In either case, your insults are, from what I've seen, out of the ordinary for you and I find them bewildering. Honestly, I don't understand your anger.
Maybe you should go back and read your comments.
Oh and you might want to read what was written - I said the your hyperbole stupidity. That is slightly different from using the direct insult of calling you stupid.
Its calling your use of hyperbole as being stupid.
Red Harvest
11-19-2005, 02:29
You make it sound like we have people dying in the streets from an infected broken arm, or something. Which is simply wrong.
Well not exactly wrong, I didn't go to the doctor when I was in high school and injured my arm playing basketball. We lacked coverage. It was probably a minor fracture as it wasn't like any sprain I've ever had. I knew we didn't have the money for it, so I did without seeing a doctor. No infection though and the bone was still aligned, it just swelled up and turned green.
We didn't go to the doctor until we were half dead...LOL. And I've been to doctors who did a worse job than I could do at home. Never stopped them from sending a bill.
Well I still feel that you have taken a personally insulting tone in the matter that is far out of the ordinary for your style.
I thought my last note was (somewhat) well reasoned and showed the importance of good health vis a vis the state as a whole, as well as offering at least one or two small suggestions on helping to finance it.
Your response was a personal attack. Honestly, I don't understand your anger. And it is anger.
Red Harvest
11-19-2005, 02:35
You seem to be leaving out that socialized medicine is invariably of a lower quality. That goes for Canada, as well. The Medical Business is best when it is driven by the invisible hand of capitalism. If the government were to get involved, it should not commandeer the medical industry, it should subsidize the patients.
I would not be adverse to that, as long as I didn't have to pay much more taxes.
Baloney. It isn't of invariably lower quality. And that "invisible hand" is doing an incredibly poor job with an overinflated medical costs. The invisible hand is robbing the cookie jar every year.
Let's recap: we pay more than anyone else, we have more uncovered patients, and we have poorer average outcomes the many industrialized nations. That invisible hand must have its invisible finger stuck up its invisible nose.
Well I still feel that you have taken a personally insulting tone in the matter that is far out of the ordinary for your style.
I take people who use hyperbole to attempt to make a statement seem to be uncompassionante (SP) beneath contempt, especially when that individual normally steers clear of such tactics unless he is talking about Palenstine and Israel.
I'm sure the coincidental math makes the tens of millions without coverage feel much better.
As for this statement
I thought my last note was (somewhat) well reasoned and showed the importance of good health vis a vis the state as a whole, as well as offering at least one or two small suggestions on helping to finance it.
You argued about the overall health of the individuals in the Nation - the overall health of an individual is based upon lifestyle and the choices one make's not in an universal health care scheme being provided by the government
Your response was a personal attack. Honestly, I don't understand your anger. And it is anger.
Of course its anger - maybe you should think about what statements you have made to bring it about - you have a small clue above - now you can either figure it out - or not.
But I am only slightly pissed - not completely mad :bow:
Gawain of Orkeny
11-19-2005, 02:48
Well not exactly wrong, I didn't go to the doctor when I was in high school and injured my arm playing basketball. We lacked coverage.
So whos fault was that? You could have gone to the emergancy room but chose not to. Dont make it seem like care wasnt available to you because you were too poor. You chose not to go.
I take people who use hyperbole to attempt to make a statement seem to be uncompassionante (SP) beneath contempt, especially when that individual normally steers clear of such tactics unless he is talking about Palenstine and Israel.
Some issues are passionate issues. And I'm a passionate guy. :knuddel:
As for my use of hyperbole, sorry, my state of perfection has been reduced this week due to poor weather. Besides, I don't think I use any more of it than most posters here.
You argued about the overall health of the individuals in the Nation - the overall health of an individual is based upon lifestyle and the choices one make's not in an universal health care scheme being provided by the government
The two complement each other like milk and cookies. And each is in the other's best interest.
Of course its anger - maybe you should think about what statements you have made to bring it about - you have a small clue above - now you can either figure it out - or not.
I may have said many things you disagree with, that's obvious. But to actually make you angry? All I've said is that every child should have equal access to health care. How on earth does that piss you off? I have not insulted you nor your country, I've only put forth that socilaized medicine is better than private medicine. Unless you are an HMO lawyer, you should be able to brush off my comments with a light breeze.
But I am only slightly pissed - not completely mad :bow:
I'm delighted... I guess.
Red Harvest
11-19-2005, 03:21
So whos fault was that? You could have gone to the emergancy room but chose not to. Dont make it seem like care wasnt available to you because you were too poor. You chose not to go.
I couldn't pay for it. Guess I was raised different than you, but I didn't go because I didn't have the money to pay for it. The emergency room was also 40 miles away...
These are the types of decision that the poor have to make. You can stuff it Gawain. Compassionate conservative, what utter crap that political packaging is.
Gawain of Orkeny
11-19-2005, 03:46
I couldn't pay for it. Guess I was raised different than you, but I didn't go because I didn't have the money to pay for it. The emergency room was also 40 miles away...
And I suppose you never thought you would? Youd rather have your arm fall off? You made the decision. Care is available for all here. Besides you have no idea how I was raised. Lets not start getting personal here. Were you so poor you didnt have a car in the family. Admit it . You didnt think your injury was that bad.
These are the types of decision that the poor have to make.
I venture Im far poorer than you. Ive had to go to the emergency quite a few times because I couldnt afford heathcare. In fact I still cant. You pay them when you have the money or would you rather just complain?
You can stuff it Gawain. Compassionate conservative, what utter crap that political packaging is.
Just when I was starting to like you. Theres no one here more compasionate than I. Sorry for calling a spade a spade.
Strike For The South
11-19-2005, 03:52
Im so poor I have to walk 15miles in the snow...uphill...bothways~:cool:
Kaiser of Arabia
11-19-2005, 03:59
Im so poor I have to walk 15miles in the snow...uphill...bothways~:cool:
That's it?
Seamus Fermanagh
11-19-2005, 04:09
Free healthcare is a blessing, but Yanks have wayyy too many hang-ups about tax for it to happen there anytime soon...
Free healthcare isn't.
Gawain of Orkeny
11-19-2005, 04:11
You want free health care move to Cuba. I hear its the best. Any volunteers?
Kaiser of Arabia
11-19-2005, 04:15
You want free health care move to Cuba. I hear its the best. Any volunteers?
Carpet...bomb...cuba..? :charge:
Red Harvest
11-19-2005, 04:21
And I suppose you never thought you would?
No, we didn't have the money at the time. It was a choice of giving the money to a doctor or spending it on something essential--like food.
Youd rather have your arm fall off? You made the decision. Care is available for all here. Besides you have no idea how I was raised. Lets not start getting personal here. Were you so poor you didnt have a car in the family. Admit it . You didnt think your injury was that bad.
Admit what? I already said I figured I could tough it out and I did. I also could have had things go against me. I would not have gambled with it if I knew I could pay for it.
Heck isn't like I ever had any preventative medicine as a kid. We didn't go to the doctor until we were so sick that it looked like we couldn't recover without it. What a great medical system we have in this country! Best in the world??? Yeah, righhhhht.
As for the family car, it could get to work most times, but we rarely drove it 40 miles one way like that.
I venture Im far poorer than you. Ive had to go to the emergency quite a few times because I couldnt afford heathcare. In fact I still cant. You pay them when you have the money or would you rather just complain?
No, I would rather have system that made sense. Instead I've got someone trying to tell me how great it is, who can't afford to pay his medical bills. That's some pretty screwed up logic.
I don't know how poor you are, I was poor as a kid, worked my way out of it (my family always worked, they were just poor.) But I haven't forgotten where I came from.
Just when I was starting to like you. Theres no one here more compasionate than I. Sorry for calling a spade a spade. Compassion? Yeah, right. I've not seen any real compassion from you. It's always, "let the stupid jerks take care of themselves." Hint for you, that ain't compassion.
Strike For The South
11-19-2005, 04:29
You guys sound like my dad:dizzy2: After reveiwing the thread I think Goofs Idea would be the best (wow never thought Id say that~:grouphug: )
Gawain of Orkeny
11-19-2005, 04:40
No, we didn't have the money at the time. It was a choice of giving the money to a doctor or spending it on something essential--like food.
So? Thats why you go to the emergency room. It wasnt a choice as you say of paying the doctor or eating. It was a choice of oweing them or not going.
Admit what? I already said I figured I could tough it out and I did. I also could have had things go against me. I would not have gambled with it if I knew I could pay for it.
Well Im pretty much the same . I wont go unless I think im going to die. But the choice was still yours. Care was available money or no.
Heck isn't like I ever had any preventative medicine as a kid. We didn't go to the doctor until we were so sick that it looked like we couldn't recover without it. What a great medical system we have in this country! Best in the world??? Yeah, righhhhht.
This is the fault of the insurance companies and slip and fall lawyers. For you information I grew up in Levittown. You know like Bill O Reilly. The house cost 5000 dollars. My parents had seven kids. My dad was in the Navy and an enlisted man . Boy were we loaded. But back then there werent big law suits for malepractice. No one expected free healthcare or needed it. You could afford a doctor back then . In fact they would even come to your home. If they didnt have tol ay out all this money for malpactice insurance basic healthcare would still be cheap.
As for the family car, it could get to work most times, but we rarely drove it 40 miles one way like that.
So 40 miles was too far to go for healthcare if you had to owe then for it but not if you could afford it? Or would it still be too far away?
No, I would rather have system that made sense. Instead I've got someone trying to tell me how great it is, who can't afford to pay his medical bills. That's some pretty screwed up logic.
Well then lets go back to the 50s
I don't know how poor you are, I was poor as a kid, worked my way out of it (my family always worked, they were just poor.) But I haven't forgotten where I came from.
Im poorer now then I was as a kid.
Compassion? Yeah, right. I've not seen any real compassion from you. It's always, "let the stupid jerks take care of themselves." Hint for you, that ain't compassion.
Hey I feel sorry for you. Now dont tell me thats not compassion ~D
Seamus Fermanagh
11-19-2005, 05:07
Kaiser, you are nothing if not consistent. I don't believe I can recall an issue wherein you did not think that a liberal dose of high explosives wouldn't improve on the situation.~D
Most of you have acknowledged that there is no such thing as "free" healthcare. Good first step.
What we are really arguing about is: how should that care be apportioned and how should those costs be paid.
So far, both sides seem to think that everyone should have access to healthcare.
"Socialized Medecine" assumes that by having a national health service, everyone will have complete and equal access to needed care and that costs can be kept under control through a combination of regulation and economy of scale. Some kinds of care, vaccines for example, would be mandatory. R&D would be done via government funding and no treatment program or drug program discontinued because the patient base was small. Taxes are the primary funding source for care, although user fees may be imposed for some/all services or recipients.
The drawbacks to socialized medicine include: government bureacracies are rarely, if ever, as efficient as private organizations; the waiting period for non-emergency services in a cost-control environment may be excessive; their is often a "dis-incentive" for the best and brightest, who may not choose medicine as a career if it isn't lucrative enough.
Issues for concern include government's role in personal lifestyle. With government funding health care for all, there would be real pressure to prohibit activities/behavior deemed detrimental to one's health -- since that would be an act of "greed" by an individual that was a "tax cost" for all.
Socialized medicine would function best in a fully regulated and tightly controlled social/government system. Having private fee-for-service care available will drag down the talent pool for the national system and will promote inequities in care that undercut the moral basis for the system.
"Free Market Medecine" assumes that consumers will decide whether or not to pay for treatment based on their level of concern and ability to pay. Cost control, in this model, results from market competition forcing prices down and encouraging efficiency. R&D would be done based on perceived need and anticipated market value. The primary funding source for this approach is consumer direct payment and/or payment via insurance policy according to the guidelines of that policy. Since the perceived need will be high, and potential for financial gain excellent, many of the best and brightest will seek a career in this field.
The drawbacks are obvious: people with little or no money to devote to health care would either not receive care or would do so only in the most extreme instances. Private charity would probably need to fund some portion of the population's health care. Private competitive firms would not necessarily fund "nuance" treatments/reasearch given the small profit potential and the goal would be to maximize cost to the consumer -- within the constraints of market competition. Private insurance policies can be difficult for consumers to understand and use effectively.
Issues for concern include the degree of regulation -- free markets are supposed to be self-regulating and the role of negligence torts in costing.
The Free Market medical approach works best in an un-regulated environment where each consumer can maximize the value of their own choices and decide when/to what extent they should spend for health care. Requiring insurance, parameters on insurance policies, etc. only distort the free market and minimize the effect of the "invisible hand."
As a small government guy, I strongly prefer the latter model to the former. I just don't trust government not to malf things up.
I believe that one shining problem for health care in America is that we are using neither system, but instead have a bastardized version that combines elements from each. We neither provide equal care for everyone nor let people pay for their own when and how they see fit. We regulate some things but not others, try to control private insurance but keep in privately funded and a host of other inconsistencies.
Kaiser, you are nothing if not consistent. I don't believe I can recall an issue wherein you did not think that a liberal dose of high esplosives wouldn't improve on the situation.~D
Priceless. :laugh4:
Aurelian
11-19-2005, 06:27
The drawbacks to socialized medicine include: government bureacracies are rarely, if ever, as efficient as private organizations; the waiting period for non-emergency services in a cost-control environment may be excessive; their is often a "dis-incentive" for the best and brightest, who may not choose medicine as a career if it isn't lucrative enough.
I would argue that the perception that government is generally less efficient than the private sector is just not true. It may not be as efficient at making profits for stockholders, but it can be more administratively efficient, and lead to more desirable outcomes. The whole Social Security system, for example, is administered for less than 1% of the money that goes through the system. That's incredibly low overhead for a program that incorporates every working and retired person in the country.
In the corporate healthcare and pharmaceutical industries, we have to subsidize the massive inefficiencies that come with advertising, sales, and profits. The pharmaceutical industry spends more on marketing than it does on R&D. They have a salesman for each doctor in the country. All of that is just so that we know about their "purple little pills" and erection enhancers. They spend more money getting you to ask your doctor about their latest lifestyle drug than they do on R&D. That's a pretty serious waste of resources that is reflected in our general medical costs. A public-sector health care system (that incorporated pharma) would do away with all of that nonsense.
In either sector, the trick is to build the right incentives into the system to get the outcomes that you want.
As for waiting periods, I've got good insurance now (finally... there was a long stretch when I didn't have any), and I'm constantly waiting to get in for procedures. Waiting a month for an angiogram isn't optimal, but it doesn't sound very unusual to me.
What you're seeing with waiting periods in other countries is that if everybody is covered, the way you ration healthcare is by time availability. In the United States, we ration healthcare by not making it available to people who aren't lucky enough to have coverage. Healthcare is rationed under both systems. Under a single-payer system, the well-off face a waiting period. Under our system, the less well-off just don't get basic care and screening until they face a medical emergency and are forced to go to the emergency room. Giving people emergency treatment when their condition could have been caught and treated earlier with basic screening is enormously inefficient in terms of both costs and human lives.
Plus, it's predatory. The hospitals charge people who don't have insurance a multiple of the fee that they charge the insured.
A personal note: In college, my wife fell off her bike and hit her head. She wouldn't go to the hospital and get a scan because she didn't want to burden her parents with the bill. People make those kinds of choices all the time in this country, and in other civilized countries they don't have to.
As for disincentives to talented people entering the medical field... there isn't any reason that doctors couldn't be paid the same salaries as they are now. However, there probably wouldn't be any need to pay them those salaries. If you cut the costs of administrative overhead, and you enacted a state-run insurance system to cover the malpractice insurance they have to shell out, then you could pay them less and they'd still come out ahead. Besides, what other field are they going to go into that's more lucrative? We're already having problems attracting people to certain specialities (obstetrics for one) because of liability issues. Public sector health care could fix that problem easily.
Tachikaze
11-19-2005, 08:02
Nothings for free....
That's right, we have to raise taxes to have universal healthcare. So, Americans can stop buying $40,000 SUVs and massive home entertainment centers. They can buy $18,000 Camrys and $300 27 inch TVs, and help support the health of the nation.
Tachikaze
11-19-2005, 08:09
What you get is rethoric from both sides - to include this little tidbit of yours Tachikaz, it means absolutely nothing in the overall picture of the discussion - nor does it offer a viable solution to the problem.
The original post was: "Should we take a page out of Canadas book and nationalize health care? I think we should I beleive the benifits would overshadow the minor tax-bump"
I answered the question.
No one is seriously trying to implement a federally-financed universal healthcare system here. The AMA has too strong a lobby. Also, Americans don't want to pay more taxes. It might reduce their entertainment and seasonal clothing fashion budgets.
If we put as much effort into a healthcare plan as we do invading foreign countries, we might be the envy of the world. As it is, people overseas shake their heads in disbelief.
Gawain of Orkeny
11-19-2005, 08:23
I would argue that the perception that government is generally less efficient than the private sector is just not true. It may not be as efficient at making profits for stockholders, but it can be more administratively efficient, and lead to more desirable outcomes. The whole Social Security system, for example, is administered for less than 1% of the money that goes through the system. That's incredibly low overhead for a program that incorporates every working and retired person in the country.
Thats it use the biggest rip off scheme in the history of the world as an example of governent efficency. Efficient at ripping oof the public maybe. I bet a private company could do it cheaper considering what 1% of the money that goes through that system is. It must be a staggering number.
Of course you all know that free healthcare was invented by these evil corporations and not the government.
In the corporate healthcare and pharmaceutical industries, we have to subsidize the massive inefficiencies that come with advertising, sales, and profits.
The massive inefficiencies that come with advertising, sales, and profits. Are you kidding. Thats capitalism. What inefficiencies are there in profit?
The pharmaceutical industry spends more on marketing than it does on R&D.
I would hope so. Their in bussiness to make money. Something many of you liberals dont understand. Their number one concern is selling their products. The capitalist pigs that they are.
Once more get rid of the huge lawsuits and likewise the huge insurance costs and basic healthcare could be a lot cheaper.
Once more get rid of the huge lawsuits and likewise the huge insurance costs and basic healthcare could be a lot cheaper.
Get rid of the lawsuits and you remove the last incentive against malpractice. The judicial remedy is too important as a check against unbridled corporate medical power.
One of the real problems we have today is the system to pay for drugs and health care is driving prices up. Once the big guv is guaranteed to pay whatever the big corps are charging, the incentive is o charge more.
The options are to let capitalism run its course and have unsuccessful people unable to to afford health care, to continue with the current hybrid system is bankrupting us, or go to universal care, which has the drawbacks of a potential bureauratic inefficiency and long waiting lists.
In the end, we will only get what we provide for ourselves. If the people running the system aren't honest, diligent, and compassionate, then what we get will prolly be less than perfect.
ichi:bow:
Gawain of Orkeny
11-19-2005, 08:53
Get rid of the lawsuits and you remove the last incentive against malpractice. The judicial remedy is too important as a check against unbridled corporate medical power.
Read what I post please. I said get rid of the huge law suits. Im talking about family doctors not unbridled corporate medical power.
The options are to let capitalism run its course and have unsuccessful people unable to to afford health care, to continue with the current hybrid system is bankrupting us, or go to universal care, which has the drawbacks of a potential bureauratic inefficiency and long waiting lists.
There are other options.
GAO: Malpractice Lawsuits Don't Limit Access to Care
August 29, 2003
A report from the General Accounting Office (GAO) finds that lawsuits accusing doctors of medical malpractice do not appear to significantly limit access to health care.
The finding by the GAO, Congress' investigative arm, flies in the face of cries by the nation's doctors who say steep costs for medical malpractice insurance are driving them out of business.
GAO examined the experiences in five states with reported malpractice-related problems (Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, and West Virginia) and four states without reported problems (California, Colorado, Minnesota, and Montana) and analyzed growth in malpractice premiums and claims payments across all states and the District of Columbia.
It said it found no evidence that lawsuits against doctors crimp access to health care "on a widespread basis." In an earlier report, the GAO found the biggest contributor to steep medical malpractice rates is increased losses incurred by insurers on medical malpractice claims paid out.
The American Medical Association claims there is a medical liability "crisis" in about 18 states and doctors say they are being driven out of states with higher malpractice premiums, especially in specialties like obstetrics and emergency care.
But the GAO said that, although some physicians reported reducing certain services they consider to be high risk in terms of potential litigation, such as spinal surgeries and mammograms, GAO did not find access to these services widely affected, based on a review of Medicare data and contacts with providers that have reportedly been affected.
The AMA said it disputes the report's findings.
A move to limit pain and suffering awards in medical malpractice lawsuits on the federal level, favored by President Bush and opposed by trial lawyers, died in the Senate in July, although several states have enacted "tort reform" laws that limit patient's rights to be compensated for pain and suffering and other "noneconomic" damages.
The call to cap lawsuits detracts from the real issue, which is medical negligence.
ichi:bow:
Red Harvest
11-19-2005, 09:10
Get rid of the lawsuits and you remove the last incentive against malpractice. The judicial remedy is too important as a check against unbridled corporate medical power.
One of the real problems we have today is the system to pay for drugs and health care is driving prices up. Once the big guv is guaranteed to pay whatever the big corps are charging, the incentive is o charge more.
The options are to let capitalism run its course and have unsuccessful people unable to to afford health care, to continue with the current hybrid system is bankrupting us, or go to universal care, which has the drawbacks of a potential bureauratic inefficiency and long waiting lists.
In the end, we will only get what we provide for ourselves. If the people running the system aren't honest, diligent, and compassionate, then what we get will prolly be less than perfect.
ichi:bow:
That nails it, Ichi. The malpractice lawsuit nonsense is a smokescreen. There is far more serious malpractice than is being pursued in court. And big penalties ARE the only defense patients have in this system. Sometimes when you just want the problem fixed (pay for the correction to their mistake), the clowns won't do it, and force you to sue. I've seen the ass end of this beast in action. Lying scumbags that they are...they lost too. ~D There was one ethical person involved on their end...and that person told the truth. Game over.
As has been said, the only limitation on availability is what we are willing to do for taxing ourselves. If we are stingy, then availability will be a problem.
The current system doesn't work, and decades of it have proven it can't work. It is damaging our economy, hurting our competitiveness and driving up our deficits.
Govt. bureaucratic inefficiency will be far better than the current hodgepodge of insurance/etc. inefficiencies. The amount of overhead in our health care system is huge. The worst part about it is that it is entirely parasitic. It isn't helping us produce better products for the world, it is just eating more resources that could be used to make us more competitive. It is one of the growth "service industries" that is a drag on the economy rather than a boon.
Aurelian
11-19-2005, 09:19
Thats it use the biggest rip off scheme in the history of the world as an example of governent efficency. Efficient at ripping oof the public maybe. I bet a private company could do it cheaper considering what 1% of the money that goes through that system is. It must be a staggering number.
Of course you all know that free healthcare was invented by these evil corporations and not the government.
Maybe they could do it cheaper if they used Mexican illegals to do the paperwork, but I doubt it. Social Security doesn't have all the costs that come with a for-profit organization.
"Free healthcare was invented by these evil corporations and not the government(?)" I don't get it.
"The massive inefficiencies that come with advertising, sales, and profits. Are you kidding. Thats capitalism. What inefficiencies are there in profit?"
Here's a good definition of economic efficiency: "How well an economy allocates scarce resources to meet the needs and wants of consumers." If you had a public health care system that didn't have to factor advertising, sales, and profits into the cost of health care, you'd be able to allocate a lot more of society's scarce resources to actually providing health care... rather than increasing the value of Pfizer stock.
I would hope (the pharmaceutical industry spends more on marketing than it does on R&D). Their in bussiness to make money. Something many of you liberals dont understand. Their number one concern is selling their products. The capitalist pigs that they are.
Gee, I don't know. Should we as a nation be more concerned about the value of Pfizer stock, or the quality of health care and drug innovation in the United States? Hmmm. I would have to say health care and drug innovation.
Besides, their massive profits come from suckling off the government's teat as it is. The taxpayer pays for most of the drug research that results in patents, then we turn those patents over to drug companies so they can charge us monopoly prices for umpteen years. No other country in the world has to pay the prices that our consumers pay for medicine.
If you can get those big sturdy capitalist businessman to actually do something useful rather than just rake in profits from patent protection schemes more power to ya.
Once more get rid of the huge lawsuits and likewise the huge insurance costs and basic healthcare could be a lot cheaper.
Studies have shown that tort reform doesn't result in lower insurance costs. LINK (http://www.centerjd.org/press/release/990713.htm) Why would it? The insurance companies are in business to make money after all.
Red Harvest
11-19-2005, 09:22
The call to cap lawsuits detracts from the real issue, which is medical negligence.
ichi:bow:
That's the truth. It is the one thing I've seen get incompetent/fraudulent doctors banned from practicing in a hospital. When the facilities see a serious liability risk as the result of legal action, they react. Had one that my wife went to very briefly that I concluded was a quack within a few minutes of listening in the waiting room and hearing him in action. She switched doctors after I insisted, I could tell something wasn't right and he performed an unnecessary procedure. A year later his long history of quackery (decades) ended when he became too much of a liability for facilities he worked in. We had nothing to do with it, others actions finally shut him down. I had been referring to him as Dr. Mengele--because it fit and nearly rhymed.
Aurelian
11-19-2005, 09:35
The call to cap lawsuits detracts from the real issue, which is medical negligence.
Dittos. ABC News had an interesting bit on hospital infections a couple of weeks ago. Turns out that hospital infections are the 4th leading cause of death in the United States, and that those deaths are due to negligence on the part of hospital staff. Here's part of the transcript about just how easy it can be to fix the problem entirely by instituting simple procedures for the staff.
Pennsylvania is one of only six states that has passed a law requiring the reporting of infections. Experts say public disclosure forces hospitals to reduce infection rates. Dr. Rick Shannon, chief of medicine at Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh, looked at the data on patients in the hospital's intensive care units. He was stunned.
"Fifty-one percent of everyone who got these infections died. Half the people who got one died," he said. Dr. Shannon wasted no time. He gave an order to the ICU staff. Reduce hospital infections to zero -- in just 90 days.
Staff nurses said they didn't think it could be done.
But after just one week, the ICU staff identified the culprit. It wasn't a superbug -- it was the staff. And the fact they each had their own way of washing hands, changing dressings, and putting in catheters. "No one actually knew what the right way to do it was. And not knowing what the right way to do it was that all these little errors could creep in that would lead to infection," Dr. Shannon said.
Dr. Shannon and his team quickly found solutions, like putting in more hand-sanitizers and raising the head of the bed 30 degrees to prevent pneumonia. The results were unbelievable.
"Ninety days later, we went from 49 infections to zero," he said.
And the results a year later are equally impressive. Only one patient in the ICU has died from an infection. LINK (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/print?id=1213789)
It's astonishing that people drop dead left and right in this country from medical negligence, and yet we're told that we need to restrict the right of people to sue for damages in order to fix the healthcare system.
Notice that it was only when the government required hospitals to start keeping track of and reporting infections that they did so. Most states still don't have such requirements. More evidence that allowing businesses to regulate themselves is always a bad idea.
The call to cap lawsuits detracts from the real issue, which is medical negligence.
Well yes and no. Tort reform wouldnt solve all our healthcare problems, but right now we have doctors paying huge sums of money who have never been sued. They havent committed malpractice- yet they're being forced to pay the price for it anyhow. What we really need is for judges to stop seriously entertaining every sleazy lawsuit brought forward by some ambulance chasing lawyer. The real, clear cases of gross negligence should be paid out fully and the BS cases should be thrown out promptly. Of course, that's not going to happen. ~:handball:
Baloney. It isn't of invariably lower quality. And that "invisible hand" is doing an incredibly poor job with an overinflated medical costs. The invisible hand is robbing the cookie jar every year.That's because we don't really have a capitalist healthcare system. Its overregulated and flush with government handouts that breed waste and ineffeciency. Our healthcare is a poor example of a capitalist one.
The original post was: "Should we take a page out of Canadas book and nationalize health care? I think we should I beleive the benifits would overshadow the minor tax-bump"
I answered the question.
Maybe you did - and maybe you didn't.
No one is seriously trying to implement a federally-financed universal healthcare system here. The AMA has too strong a lobby. Also, Americans don't want to pay more taxes.
Probably the only thing you got right.
It might reduce their entertainment and seasonal clothing fashion budgets.
And you would be wrong for why many Americans don't want to pay higher taxes.
If we put as much effort into a healthcare plan as we do invading foreign countries, we might be the envy of the world. As it is, people overseas shake their heads in disbelief.
So your more worried about what other nations think of the US?
I may have said many things you disagree with, that's obvious. But to actually make you angry? All I've said is that every child should have equal access to health care. How on earth does that piss you off? I have not insulted you nor your country, I've only put forth that socilaized medicine is better than private medicine. Unless you are an HMO lawyer, you should be able to brush off my comments with a light breeze.
If that is all you think you said - your sadly mistaken.
Gawain of Orkeny
11-19-2005, 16:14
Would any of you care to address this then.
And its from the NY Slimes by the way.
The New York Times
August 25, 2002
by Joseph B. Treater
Rise in Insurance Forces Hospitals to Shutter Wards
Around the country this summer, at least half a dozen hospitals have closed obstetric wards, others have curtailed trauma services, and a string of rural clinics have been temporarily shuttered as a result of soaring costs for medical malpractice insurance.
Mercy Hospital in West Philadelphia closed its maternity ward on Friday, and the Largo Medical Center, near Tampa, Fla., plans to do so in December.
In the last few weeks, the only trauma center in Las Vegas closed for 10 days; the Central Florida Regional Hospital in Sanford, Fla., reduced surgical procedures for five days; and a handful of rural clinics across Mississippi sat empty in the summer heat for part of a week. All the closings were because of problems with malpractice insurance.
Increasing malpractice costs over the last two years have led doctors to order batteries of costly exams and limit risky procedures; many doctors decided to retire early. Now the costs are directly affecting medical institutions and the care they deliver to patients, according to interviews with hospital administrators in many states.
In all, more than 1,300 health care institutions have already been affected, according to a survey by the American Hospital Association. The survey, released in June, found that 20 percent of the association's 5,000 member hospitals and other health care organizations had cut back on services and 6 percent had eliminated some units. Many of those units are obstetric wards, where medical mistakes have historically led to expensive jury awards and settlements.
"It is likely that this is going to get much worse," said Carmela Coyle, the senior vice president for policy at the hospital association. "We're likely to see more closures of services."
So far no deaths have been attributed to the cutbacks, but hospitals say risks to patients are rising.
"Our trauma system has basically fallen apart," said Sam Cameron, the chief executive of the Mississippi Hospital Association. "There is a so-called Golden Hour in which a patient with a serious head injury needs to see a specialist like a neurosurgeon, and in some areas of our state that service is no longer available."
In West Virginia, two hospitals closed maternity wards and several hospitals no longer have either neurosurgeons to treat head injuries or orthopedists to mend broken bones, said Steven Summer, the chief executive of the West Virginia Hospital Association.
In New York City, many of the biggest hospitals have kept their insurance prices down by creating their own nonprofit insurance companies. No reductions in service have been reported in the city or elsewhere in the state.
Steven M. Visner, an insurance specialist at Ernst & Young, the consulting firm, said many hospitals had inquired about starting their own insurance companies. But it takes more capital than many of them have, he said, and exposes the institution to greater risk than buying coverage from a commercial carrier.
The New Jersey Hospital Association says insurance costs in the state have nearly doubled in the last year. Gary Carter, the chief executive of the association, said that although most services were being maintained, some New Jersey hospitals say specialists are balking at taking on-call duties in emergency rooms.
"But this is just beginning in New Jersey," he said. "We're expecting to see hospitals increasingly cutting back on services."
Insurance costs have also risen sharply in Connecticut, said Ken Roberts, a spokesman for the Connecticut Hospital Association. But he said the association had received no reports of service curtailments.
Around the country, hospitals say they are cutting services both because the high cost of their own insurance is overwhelming and because specialists, unwilling to bear the new costs for insuring their practices, are becoming scarce.
Some specialists, for example, have abandoned life-long practices and started anew in states where malpractice insurance prices have yet to escalate. Many obstetricians and surgeons are restricting themselves to low-risk procedures. Still other specialists have become consultants, providing advice but leaving actual treatment to others to avoid medical malpractice insurance altogether.
The costs have become truly staggering. Premiums for doctors have doubled and tripled, in some cases, rising to as high as $200,000 a year for obstetricians in Fort Lauderdale and Miami. But even those prices begin to look mild compared with gargantuan insurance bills for hospitals.
In Philadelphia, for example, the cost of malpractice insurance at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, which operates several hospitals, doubled this year, to $32 million. As a result, on June 30, Jefferson closed the maternity unit in its Methodist Hospital in South Philadelphia and cut 270 jobs at Thomas Jefferson and at the Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience.
In June, the Brandywine Hospital closed its trauma center, which served the southwestern suburbs of Philadelphia, and the Paoli Hospital, also near Philadelphia, closed its paramedic unit, said Andrew Wigglesworth, the president of the Delaware Valley Health Care Council.
Many obstetrics units have struggled financially because of growing competition and reduced payments from the federal government and private insurers. That was true of the obstetrics unit that closed on Friday at Mercy Hospital in West Philadelphia.
"We had been subsidizing the program because we had the resources," said Gavin Kerr, the chief executive of the Mercy Health System. "But as the malpractice premiums increased, that dramatically shrunk the resources.
"There are other obstetrics programs in the community," Mr. Kerr added, "but you want to have a baby as close to home as you can, in as comfortable a place as you can."
Concern for the safety of mothers grows when maternity wards close. Since early July, when the Atmore Community Hospital in southern Alabama shuttered its ward, women have had to travel 15 miles, to Brewton, Ala., for a hospital with an obstetrics department.
The roots of the crisis are complex. The insurance companies, President Bush and the American Medical Association largely fault the rising cost of awards in malpractice lawsuits. From 1995 to 2000, the average jury award jumped more than 70 percent, to $3.5 million, and a few claims since then have run to more than $40 million, according to Jury Verdict Research in Horsham, Pa.
J. Robert Hunter, the insurance director of the Consumer Federation of America, attributes the soaring premiums to insurance companies' mismanagement. The insurers acknowledge that through most of the last decade they dropped premium prices while battling for more business from doctors and hospitals, depending for profits on financial reserves and returns from booming equity and bond markets. Now, with Wall Street in a slump, the insurers say they must increase prices to survive. Mr. Hunter and other consumer advocates say the price shock is intolerable.
Mr. Bush and the A.M.A. are campaigning for a federal law that would limit claims for pain and suffering to $250,000 in each malpractice case. The medical association is also urging state legislators to take similar action. Already this year, lawmakers in Pennsylvania and Nevada have imposed lawsuit limits, and Gov. Ronnie Musgrove of Mississippi is expected to call a special session of his state legislature to confront malpractice insurance costs.
Advocates of reducing the amount insurers have to pay for medical mistakes often cite California as a model. In the 1970's, California set a ceiling of $250,000 for jury awards for pain and suffering, and malpractice insurance prices have not soared there. But Harvey Rosenfeld of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica, Calif., says patients have suffered. Because of the cap on payouts, he said, many lawyers refuse to represent malpractice victims, making it difficult for them to pursue claims.
Joanne Doroshow, the executive director of the Center for Justice and Democracy, a national consumer group based in Manhattan that focuses on the civil courts, says the threat of high jury awards helps keep doctors and hospitals practicing at their best.
Though many doctors find Ms. Doroshow's reasoning offensive, and nearly all favor limiting jury awards, some acknowledge that the pressure to avoid any claims that could push their insurance costs even higher is causing them to adopt practices that enhance patient safety.
"We can't control what the insurance companies are charging us," said Dr. Craig Miller, the chief medical officer for Baptist Health Care in Pensacola, Fla., which operates the community hospital in nearby Atmore, Ala. "And we can't control whether there is going to be tort reform. But we can control whether we are creating a safe environment. And we have a lot of patient safety initiatives."
Dr. Miller said the new safety procedures did not help Baptist Health Care with its insurance costs this year. They rose nearly 70 percent, to $2 million, for less coverage than before. But he said that if the hospital group had not demonstrated its concern for safety, it might not have been able to find an insurer to provide coverage at all.
In the town of Waterville in central Washington, surrounded by wheat fields and orchards and home to about 1,000 people, a rural clinic known as Douglas County Hospital District No. 2 shut down for a week in late May.
The clinic's insurer quit the malpractice business because of heavy losses and, at first, no one else would provide coverage. Finally, the clinic's insurance agent obtained a policy. But it cost $50,000 -- four times more than last year.
To finance coverage, said Elonna Rejniak, the clinic's office manager, the local government is going to ask voters in November to approve a special, one-time tax on their homes and businesses.
"It's an increase in maintenance and operating costs because of the insurance increase," she said.
Beirut really didn't sell our system as he didn't explain how it works. Each provinces runs it's own ship as far as health care goes. We have a federal health minister and provincial ones. The federal government kicks in $X money. The provinces make there own contribution. The feds money comes from our brackeded income tax system. The provinces comes from sales tax. So if the US implemented a NHS based on ours all those illegals that people have objections to supporting would be paying for their medical coverage. You see even illegal immigrants still buy stuff. Like cloths, food, cars, wood, axes, etc. Everytime they buy something from a store they are paying for NHS. That is the kicker that most Canadians miss when trying to sell our system to yanks. They all miss that PST exists to pay for healthcare. Now some states would have enough income to not need a state sales tax. But to not need to tax the middle and upper classes they would probably need to have it.
Red Harvest
11-19-2005, 17:01
Would any of you care to address this then.
And its from the NY Slimes by the way.
Nice propaganda. Note that the $50,000 dollar premium is a whopping 1% of the annual expenditure per capita on healthcare of the population of 1,000.
I also enjoyed hearing how it got so bad in another location that "many doctors decided to retire early." Sounds like they were really having trouble making ends meet. They had to take their money and retire early it was so bad. ~:rolleyes: In other words, they couldn't continue to make money hand over fist.
I came across total malpractice losses for 2000...hold onto your chair...$21 billion. (And that is from an industry report trying to emphasize how horrible malpractice cost is.) And that on a $1.3 TRILLION health care expenditure for 2000. Would you like a salad with your herring?
And I love this part, novel concept, "some acknowledge that the pressure to avoid any claims that could push their insurance costs even higher is causing them to adopt practices that enhance patient safety." Wow! Actually addressing the problem rather than a symptom! They might become decent doctors yet!
Alexander the Pretty Good
11-19-2005, 17:07
Everytime they buy something from a store they are paying for NHS. That is the kicker that most Canadians miss when trying to sell our system to yanks. They all miss that PST exists to pay for healthcare. Now some states would have enough income to not need a state sales tax. But to not need to tax the middle and upper classes they would probably need to have it.
Most states in the US already have sales taxes supporting one thing or another. And if the federal government is contributing a dime to "free" healthcare, then illegal immigrants have an advantage - they generally don't pay income taxes.
I'm sure that the sales taxes I pay don't all go to healthcare. They go to the provincial coffers and they dole it out. With healthcare and education being what they spend most of their budget on. I wouldn't know about income taxes I've never made enough in one year to have to pay any.
If that is all you think you said - your sadly mistaken.
Well enlighten me then. Where did I pee in your Cheerios to such an extent that you took personal offence and responded with insults?
If I owe you an apology, it will, of course, be forthcoming.
Well enlighten me then. Where did I pee in your Cheerios to such an extent that you took personal offence and responded with insults?
If I owe you an apology, it will, of course, be forthcoming.
I don't know peeing in Cheerios might make them better. Maybe you pisseed in his frosted flakes that would make anybodies day suck.
Well enlighten me then. Where did I pee in your Cheerios to such an extent that you took personal offence and responded with insults?
If I owe you an apology, it will, of course, be forthcoming.
Like already stated - if you think that is all you said - then your sadly mistaken. That is what happens when you depend upon hyperbole to support your arguement. You need to enlighten yourself
Like already stated - if you think that is all you said - then your sadly mistaken. That is what happens when you depend upon hyperbole to support your arguement. You need to enlighten yourself
Well, if all you want to do is stand in the corner with your arms folded, scowling, that's up to you.
I've tried to rephrase what I said, I tried to explain myself, and I asked you to point out my errors so that if I did offend you I could at least have the opportunity to apologize. You want none of it.
Well, enjoy your anger. It seems to be your best friend today.
(Honestly, I am a bit hurt here, I have never seen you take this tone with anyone and I have no idea what "hyperbole" I wrote that caused you such personal offence as to descend in repeated posts containing insults and outright hostility.)
What is spent on healthcare to care for those without Insurance? Some of you are assuming that those who can not afford Insurance can not get adequate care when they need it or preventive care as they need it. You might want to get off the hyperbole of the arguement for National Health Care in the United States and actually do some research.
A decent read, its a little dated - but the context of the writting is valid in my opinion.
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/rodwin/american.html
What Is Medicaid?
Medicaid is health insurance that helps many people who can't afford medical care pay for some or all of their medical bills.
Good health is important to everyone. If you can't afford to pay for medical care right now, Medicaid can make it possible for you to get the care that you need so that you can get healthy – and stay healthy.
Medicaid is available only to certain low-income individuals and families who fit into an eligibility group that is recognized by federal and state law. Medicaid does not pay money to you; instead, it sends payments directly to your health care providers. Depending on your state's rules, you may also be asked to pay a small part of the cost (co-payment) for some medical services.
Each state has its own program under this umberalla - a little research before making unfounded accusations based upon hyperbole.
http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/Programs/how_to.html
Medical Care
Medical care through the Medicaid program is available at no cost to many low-income families as well as people who are elderly or who have a disability.
Families and children
Medicaid is available to families who receive TANF benefits as well as
low-income children under age 19,
pregnant women,
youths aging out of foster care,
families that leave TANF for work or whose time limits have expired, and
families that have high medical bills they can't pay.
Applying for children's Medicaid just got easier. Beginning January 1, 2002, several changes took place, including:
The application form is the same as the CHIP application.
You don't have to go to an eligibility office for an interview.
Your children are eligible for six months of coverage even if your income or assets increase.
Your children may be covered by CHIP if your income or assets increase and they are no longer eligible for Medicaid.
In addition, parents new to Medicaid must attend an orientation to learn how to use Medicaid properly and all children must receive check-ups and immunizations as described by the Texas Health Steps program.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicare/
CMS is the federal agency, which administers the Medicare Program. Currently, Medicare, provides coverage to approximately 40 million Americans. Medicare is the national health insurance program for:
People age 65 or older
Some people under age 65 with disabilities
People with End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD), which is permanent kidney failure requiring dialysis or a kidney transplant
A whole bunch of stats for review
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/researchers/pubs/datacompendium/current/
This shows the numbers of people utlilizing the Medicaid program -
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/researchers/pubs/datacompendium/2003/03pg34.pdf
And here is the data for the Medicare Program for the elderly
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/researchers/pubs/datacompendium/2003/03pg30.pdf
These two programs cover the elderly, children, and even adults who can not afford private Medical Insurance - the number covered under these two programs alone represent appoximately 1/3 of the population of the United States.
Now add that to what is done at the community level - be it the County Health Clinics or the County Hospitals. You begin to see a picture that many refuse to see. And that picture is that while the system is far from perfect - if you need medical care - you can get it without any problem be it from your private insurance - or from governmental aid.
Well, if all you want to do is stand in the corner with your arms folded, scowling, that's up to you.
I've tried to rephrase what I said, I tried to explain myself, and I asked you to point out my errors so that if I did offend you I could at least have the opportunity to apologize. You want none of it.
Well, enjoy your anger. It seems to be your best friend today.
(Honestly, I am a bit hurt here, I have never seen you take this tone with anyone and I have no idea what "hyperbole" I wrote that caused you such personal offence as to descend in repeated posts containing insults and outright hostility.)
Maybe you should review your statements again - for you to understand it - you have to read your statements not for what you think you stated but for what you did indeed state.
I'm sure the coincidental math makes the tens of millions without coverage feel much better.
Maybe that will help you figure it out.
Major Robert Dump
11-20-2005, 11:17
It will never happen here because it means doctors would make less money, lawyers would lobby against it because "government" doctors would be immune from lawsuits, and if you left open the option to get "private care" if you could afford it all the people getting free care would whine about the qaulity difference and want the better docs as well.
But hey, if it means more affordable breast implants than I'm all for it. For women, not for me.
Maybe you should review your statements again - for you to understand it - you have to read your statements not for what you think you stated but for what you did indeed state.
Maybe that will help you figure it out.
That was a remark directed at the US health care system. Not at the US and certainly not at you.
I'm standing here, hat in hand, offering an apology for anything I said that you might have construed as a personal insult. I have always had the highest respect for you and I have zero intention of allowing this to become a barrier to further discussions between us. :bow:
That was a remark directed at the US health care system. Not at the US and certainly not at you.
Fine if that is how you intended it.
I'm standing here, hat in hand, offering an apology for anything I said that you might have construed as a personal insult. I have always had the highest respect for you and I have zero intention of allowing this to become a barrier to further discussions between us. :bow:
No apology needed - no barrier to futher discussion. Like I stated it only pissed me off - it didn't make me completely mad. I get pissed off every now and then.
Major Robert Dump
11-22-2005, 06:01
Redleg:
Seeing as how we "elect" people every couple of years who would essentially be controlling the funds for the universal healthcare system, I don't think there is any need to present a workable plan and no need to present anything past emotional appeal. Presenting a workable plan is whats moot.
We all know damn well any sound plan that were presented and implemented would be robbed of funds and "reworked" to account for deficits and surpluses, and every four or eight years some yahoo would inherit the last yahoos changes and it would become just like social security, just putting of the bill for next year, and the year after that...the money may have been there but its not anymore thanks to a system that stopped working 8 years after it started.
I'm all for socialized medicine if it actually worked for the people, in fact It's hard not to be for socialized everything considering the phenominal amount of government spending waste on ALL levels. To say I'm against socialized medicine and welfare makes me feel dirty
Redleg:
Seeing as how we "elect" people every couple of years who would essentially be controlling the funds for the universal healthcare system, I don't think there is any need to present a workable plan and no need to present anything past emotional appeal. Presenting a workable plan is whats moot.
And that is the problem - the people we vote into office refuse to come up with a workable idea.
We all know damn well any sound plan that were presented and implemented would be robbed of funds and "reworked" to account for deficits and surpluses, and every four or eight years some yahoo would inherit the last yahoos changes and it would become just like social security, just putting of the bill for next year, and the year after that...the money may have been there but its not anymore thanks to a system that stopped working 8 years after it started.
And you have sumed up the major reason I am against socialized medicine in this country - it will fall victim to the same polticial malipulation that goes on with Social Security, and yes even Medicare. You ever notice the commericals on TV that state that the supplier will get you the item and bill Medicare, if your qualified or not. They are indictive of the problem with National Health Care schemes in this country.
I'm all for socialized medicine if it actually worked for the people, in fact It's hard not to be for socialized everything considering the phenominal amount of government spending waste on ALL levels. To say I'm against socialized medicine and welfare makes me feel dirty
Well - join the crowd.
I'm all for socialized medicine if it actually worked for the people, in fact It's hard not to be for socialized everything considering the phenominal amount of government spending waste on ALL levels. To say I'm against socialized medicine and welfare makes me feel dirtyI've always felt that the amounts of government waste were the strongest arguments against it- not for it.
Lars573, what is your sales tax rate? Im just curious.
Gawain of Orkeny
11-22-2005, 07:36
I hear 25% of US healthcare is just in admistration. Talk about waste.
I hear 25% of US healthcare is just in admistration. Talk about waste.
It's a bit worse than that, from what I've read. Something like 15% of all U.S. healthcare costs are consumed by various insurance agencies, hospitals and gov't agencies attempting to shift the cost from one to the other. Who knew passing the buck was so expensive?
Nobody's going to argue that nationalised healthcare is the promised land, but it's also silly to assert that our system is the best of all possible worlds.
Kagemusha
11-22-2005, 10:24
Here is a nice little map of health spending of National GDP around the globe:
https://img291.imageshack.us/img291/470/thegdpmap1024x7008gy.jpg
It shows that US is using highest amount of money out of GDP into healthcare,and they still cant provide a public healthcare.Sounds pretty wierd to me.~:confused:
Seamus Fermanagh
11-22-2005, 15:06
Actually, we have the worst of both worlds.
We use an incomplete form of socialized medicine for our elderly (though the medications have been added as of this new year) -- easily the most expensive segment -- and the government has become the single biggest provider of long term care. Full coverage requires our retirees to purchase supplemental insurance.
This is hooked into a system where we are paying for our own healthcare the rest of our lives -- or actually having our government force our employers to pay for it. The system actively discourages anybody from saving for future medical costs or crafting/negotiating an insurance plan on their own.
All health care plans must pass government minimums in a bunch of categories -- you can't simply buy the kind of coverage you want/need and nothing else.
So here in the USA, we do not have socialized medicine, but we certainly do not have a free market in which to negotiate services. We have enough government interference to guarantee that nothing can run with market efficiency, but nothing like government control. Some countries treat it as a commodity/service others as though it were a public utility. Either approach is probably more workable than what we have.
The stunner is that the quality of our health care is still the highest in the world -- despite its glorious inefficiencies.
The US has a kind of Saudia Arabia of healthcare. Fantastic wealth and luxury at the top, and barely subsistence at the bottom.
Go and look at the maternal mortality figures for childbirth. The average level of maternal mortality in the US is higher than Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Kuwait, etc.
Even worse is that this average hides the alarming disparity between maternal mortality for white women and for black women. With black women being 3 times as likely to die in labour in the US - whereas they are on a par in Canada (which has a third the level of maternal mortality).
Source: http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/maternal_mortality_2000/mme.pdf
Gawain of Orkeny
11-22-2005, 16:59
Go and look at the maternal mortality figures for childbirth. The average level of maternal mortality in the US is higher than Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Kuwait, etc.
This is a very misleading stat. Its because were ahead of them not because were worse.
WASHINGTON — The number of U.S. babies dying shortly after birth has crept up for the first time in more than four decades, federal health officials reported Wednesday.
The cause of the small but disturbing rise remains unclear, but it may be a combination of the surge in older women having babies, the popularity of fertility treatments and, paradoxically, advancements in identifying and saving fetuses in distress, experts said.
Nevertheless, the surprising increase has raised alarm because the infant mortality rate is considered a fundamental measure of a society’s well-being.
LINK (http://www.detnews.com/2004/health/0402/14/a12e-62117.htm)
QwertyMIDX
11-22-2005, 17:42
I believe the point is that the US is worse than the rest of the minority world.
This is a very misleading stat. Its because were ahead of them not because were worse.
Sorry Gawain - you are going to have to translate that into english for me.
Red Harvest
11-22-2005, 17:57
The stunner is that the quality of our health care is still the highest in the world -- despite its glorious inefficiencies.
Not true, unfortunately. In some respects like infant mortlity we are running 2nd world numbers (low on the list of industrialized nations.) The lack of preventative medicine and access to large segments of the population takes a big bite out what *should be* the highest quality care.
Red Harvest
11-22-2005, 18:00
I hear 25% of US healthcare is just in admistration. Talk about waste.
Yes, and that is much higher than socialized systems. Insurance administration is a real killer. We are paying for whole legions of middle men. And this is the part of cost that is outpacing the others.
Major Robert Dump
11-24-2005, 08:01
A couple interesting things that I don't think have been mentioned yet regarding socializing mdicine:
-With free doc visits how many unsick people would call in sick to work everyday because they can now spend 30 minutes at a clinic, get a "doctors note" and be excused from work that day. It happens plenty with people who have full coverage insurance, particularly students, but how much would it happen if care were free??
-Also, What sort of safeguards would be in place to keep it from being abused by hyperchondriacs? We all know/have known people like this in real life....always too sick or too tired or too depressed to work or behave like a normal person, always me me me everyone pity me....how would we weed these people from over burdening the system and how would we do it without hurting the people who REALLY ARE sick and in need of care?
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
11-24-2005, 11:13
Well, a quick look at a chart of % GNP going into healthcare on one hand, and another look at healthcare stats on the other hand (average life expectancy, child death...) would be enough to settle the discussion about which system is efficient or not...
It seems that socialized system get the same result for less money than private system. To be fair, Socialized system are not fully socialized, and "extra" healthcare is often private (as Pape pointed out). And (US) private system is not fully private either: see Medicare or Medicaid
As far as how to fix the US healthcare problem: I don't know if socialized healthcare is a solution. I do know that the private healthcare market is rigged beyond recognition, that health insurance got little to no incentive to lower cost, and they all raise their premium in synch. There is no real competition and anyway the end customers pay.
there are a couple of good case to make for socialised medical system:
1/ real life and stats show that it achieves the same result with less money.
2/ public healthcare requires that all members are covered. I'd even make the case that illegals need to be covered for the greater good of everyone. You do not want a substantial part of your population to be deprived of healthcare, because that part will serve as an "infection pool" and raise the healthcare cost for all others.
Louis,
Adrian II
11-24-2005, 13:52
What sort of safeguards would be in place to keep it from being abused by hypochondriacs?Um, this may come as a shock to you, but this is one of the reasons why we have doctors in The Netherlands. We use them to establish, you know, medical diagnoses and such. ~;p
Red Harvest
11-24-2005, 18:01
The U.S. system's only real plus is speed of service...and only for certain things. We are paying one hell of a premium for that. Efficiency wise we are near the bottom of the chart rather than the top.
I'm not sure what the best answer is in the U.S., but I am sure about some of the features that are REQUIRED for a good system, and that are NOT already present: full access (including preventative care), cost containment--inflation rate of care should not exceed the prevailing economic inflation rate. To do this, you are going to have to wipe out the extremely inefficient and wasteful private overhead/administration built into our system. It is parasitic and is contributing greatly to the rise of cost that exceeds inflation.
If you get cost under control, the benefit to the economy and Federal budget will be extremely positive.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.