More Moore or less Moore? A question of healthcare. [Archive]

Quid

06-13-2007, 19:17

Devastatin Dave

06-13-2007, 19:34

If its as good as your experience, its fine with me. The only problem is, I'm not sure, but i would think that your system works good for a country of its size. The US is a different story considering the large population and the make up of the population (soc/eco factors)...

Don Corleone

06-13-2007, 19:43

How widespread are medical malpractice lawsuits in Switzerland?

Quid

06-13-2007, 19:51

How widespread are medical malpractice lawsuits in Switzerland?

I cannot give you number, but since we do not have a 'culture' of filing law suits in general, I presume they are a whole lot lower than in the US.

I am uncertain, as to what this has to do with universal healthcare?

Quid

Don Corleone

06-13-2007, 19:54

I cannot give you number, but since we do not have a 'culture' of filing law suits in general, I presume they are a whole lot lower than in the US.

I am uncertain, as to what this has to do with universal healthcare?

Quid

Exorbitant awards by juries in malpractice cases, and the resultant exponential increase in malpractice insurance premiums are a signficant portion of the health care cost in our country. When you see people talk about the amount spent per patient versus the quality of care, you never see what percentage of that 'amount per patient' went to lawyers and bureaucrats to prevent lawsuits or to pay one off.

Devastatin Dave

06-13-2007, 20:00

Odin

06-13-2007, 20:05

Now, I realise that Michael Moore is a somewhat controversial figure. This will not change with his new film/documentary 'Sicko'. It is about the American Healthcare System in comparison with other more socialist systems around the world (namely France, Canada, Cuba and the UK).

Link (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/)

Has anyone seen it? If you have, do you think that he makes any valid points at all. Since we are an international community here, it may be interesting to see some facts verified or indeed refuted.

In Switzerland, prices are heavily regulated by the government. Each year, new prices are negotiated. Every Swiss citizen is required to have health insurance by law. For the less fortunate, the government will cover their financial input.

I pay about $200 a month (semi private). The service is excellent. There are virtually no waiting times. The doctors are competent and helpful.

A few years ago, I needed knee surgery. I could choose the time and place where I wanted it done. Within the week, I was lying on the operating table watching a new cruciate ligament being implanted. I was provided with a single room (with all the hotel comforts one could wish for - in the foothills of the Alps) and excellent physio therapy (6 months). I ended up footing only about $500 of the bill (due to the pre-negotiated contract with the insurance company). The total bill was well in excess of $12000.

One thing to remember - the injury was by no means life threatening. The operation not actually necessary!

I am well aware that this might end up into another America-bashing thread. This is clearly not my intention nor is it helpful. I ask everyone to stay away from criticising a people rather than a system. I am merely interested in how different healthcare systems seem to operate in the world and whether anything can be taken as 'fact' from the film.

Quid

I havent seen it.

Let me say I support moore for one reason only, he causes discussion, and thats a positive. I dont agree with a lot of this views, and I suspect that comparing health care systems from different cultures is not really the excersise he is performing.

Moore seems to have taken on more of an activist persona then a documentary director.

That said, my health care is similar to yours. Mine is more expensive per month but for 10.00 dollars I can have open heart surgery by the best doctors in america. The only problem with my health care is, not everyone is covered.

I have no problem with universal coverage for all, I would even support using tax revenues for the cause, but in the end this is a social issue. The U.S. is not socialist and is likely to not go down that route any time soon.

If Moore can further the discussion in the states to find a middle ground somehow (taxes, corporate liability, government mandates) I whole heartily applaud. However if this is another one of his rants on the imperfections of the U.S. culture, I'll tune it out very fast.

drone

06-13-2007, 20:08

The health care system in this country is messed up, but I don't think the solution is to put the government in charge (especially this administration and Congress). As previously stated, malpractice claims drive up a lot of costs, and various special interests would always want a slice of the pie. We would get screwed over, no doubt about it.

Quid

06-13-2007, 20:15

Exorbitant awards by juries in malpractice cases, and the resultant exponential increase in malpractice insurance premiums are a signficant portion of the health care cost in our country. When you see people talk about the amount spent per patient versus the quality of care, you never see what percentage of that 'amount per patient' went to lawyers and bureaucrats to prevent lawsuits or to pay one off.

I see your point. This will also explain some of your extremely high insurance costs. However, as I understand it, you are partly also covered by the company you work for. Is that correct? Here, the company is almost entirely exempt from providing any financial help at all. We all fund our insurances privately. In cases where a family (or indeed a single person) cannot afford an insurance, the state will provide it. In essence, this makes our system more expensive than yours. If you are interested you may have a look at this (http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/bus/stories/DN-swisshealth_07bus.ART0.State.Edition2.21730ee.html) site. It looks at the differences in both of our countries in terms of medical care.

Now, what I really want to get at is not necessarily the prices themselves (although I am aware that it all comes down to money, in the end), but the availability of healthcare to someone who cannot afford it. In the previously mentioned film, it was clearly evident that people were denied certain (life saving) treatments and paid with their life. I have yet to hear of something like that here in this country.

I am not disillusioned to the point where I believe anything I see or hear but clearly Mr. Moore must have a point somewhere.

I have previously been treated in Britain and it cost me £20 to see a GP. The medicine and the actual treatment I then received was for free (last year). The £20 was because I could not be bothered filling in a certain form plus I was in a world of pain.

Quid

doc_bean

06-13-2007, 20:17

Well i don't feel like getting into a big argument about this, but ...

I feel providing healthcare, at an affordable price, to everyone is a basic duty of society. If the person can't afford it society should lend the money or just pay for it. And i'm willing to pay a lot for this.

That said, certain 'experimental' treatements which cost millions per patient are simply not affordable on any heathcare budget, if you want to help as many people as possible. Neither do I fully approve of some 'luxery' medicine being refunded, such as wigs for cancer patients, I feel the money could be better spent elsewhere. Where to draw the line is difficult, but I'm willing to err on the side of paying back too much.

Quid

06-13-2007, 20:23

Let me say I support moore for one reason only, he causes discussion, and thats a positive. I dont agree with a lot of this views, and I suspect that comparing health care systems from different cultures is not really the excersise he is performing.

It is this, and only this reason, why I posted what I did. He did raise some interesting questions and I just started wondering.

I am well aware that he has his own agenda and has a go at some politicians and the corporate America. This does not exclude him from consideration, however.

Quid

Devastatin Dave

06-13-2007, 20:36

It is this, and only this reason, why I posted what I did. He did raise some interesting questions and I just started wondering.

I am well aware that he has his own agenda and has a go at some politicians and the corporate America. This does not exclude him from consideration, however.

Quid
Well, when Moore moves out of his mansion and stops flying around in private jets to tell me how to live my life, I'll take him "moore" seriously.:laugh4:

doc_bean

06-13-2007, 20:42

Well, when Moore moves out of his mansion and stops flying around in private jets to tell me how to live my life, I'll take him "moore" seriously.:laugh4:

It's not like he's giving paid speeches about poverty or making movies about global warming.

Besides, he's apparently given some money to help someone pay the medical bills (http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2007/05/19/moore-pays-medical-bills-of-conservative-critic%E2%80%99s-wife/). No one knows how much he gives to charity, and he shouldn't tell people, so calling him a hypocrite seems pretty cheap.

Don Corleone

06-13-2007, 20:46

I see your point. This will also explain some of your extremely high insurance costs. However, as I understand it, you are partly also covered by the company you work for. Is that correct? Here, the company is almost entirely exempt from providing any financial help at all. We all fund our insurances privately. In cases where a family (or indeed a single person) cannot afford an insurance, the state will provide it. In essence, this makes our system more expensive than yours. If you are interested you may have a look at this (http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/bus/stories/DN-swisshealth_07bus.ART0.State.Edition2.21730ee.html) site. It looks at the differences in both of our countries in terms of medical care.

Now, what I really want to get at is not necessarily the prices themselves (although I am aware that it all comes down to money, in the end), but the availability of healthcare to someone who cannot afford it. In the previously mentioned film, it was clearly evident that people were denied certain (life saving) treatments and paid with their life. I have yet to hear of something like that here in this country.

I am not disillusioned to the point where I believe anything I see or hear but clearly Mr. Moore must have a point somewhere.

I have previously been treated in Britain and it cost me £20 to see a GP. The medicine and the actual treatment I then received was for free (last year). The £20 was because I could not be bothered filling in a certain form plus I was in a world of pain.

Quid

I see. Well, as for whether my company funds my insurance or I do out of pocket, it's all a form of compensation. If my company just gave me the money for the premiums in the form of extra salary, there's not really much difference, so I don't think there's a big difference between our systems in that sense. However, since my company is negotiating on behalf of 5000 customers where as I'm negotiating based on 1, you would imagine they are better suited to get lower rates.

Until today, as luck would have it, I would have said that our system does not do what you accuse it of, that regardless of somebody's ability to pay, care must be given. In theory, this is true, as hospitals are legally obligated to provide essential care, regardless of the patient's ability to pay. This is why so many people use the Emergency Room as their primary physican (very inefficient by the way, but the ER is the only place that cannot say no, private practice physicians can and do). However, this story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281775,00.html), beyond being sickening and scary, indicates to me that I need to challenge some of the assumptions I have about our system. I'll grant you, this story is anecdotal in nature, but what does it say that a hospital would feel free to allow a woman to die on their waiting room floor with something so obviously critical as a ruptured bowel. :shame:

By the way, please note that the news agency bringing this terrible story to light is none other than the oft-maligned FoxNews, which is supposed to be a corporate mouthpiece. Guess they didn't get their hush-money check from the Hospital Administrator's trade association.

Devastatin Dave

06-13-2007, 20:49

doc_bean

06-13-2007, 20:52

Cheap? oh well. When you opine then you open your self to criticism, as you have just shown.:beam:
So if I want to call him a hypocrit, then guess what, I will. He's a public figure and i should have every right to say how I fell, much like you have every right to criticize me. All the world's a stage, if the shoe fits, kettle, yadda yadda yadda....:yes:

Hey, I didn't say you weren't allowed to call him whatever you want. There are more appropriate things to call him though.

Don Corleone

06-13-2007, 20:56

It's not like he's giving paid speeches about poverty or making movies about global warming.

Besides, he's apparently given some money to help someone pay the medical bills (http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2007/05/19/moore-pays-medical-bills-of-conservative-critic%E2%80%99s-wife/). No one knows how much he gives to charity, and he shouldn't tell people, so calling him a hypocrite seems pretty cheap.

I totally disagree with this post, Doc, sorry. Advocating for socialized medicine is in affect saying "we all must pay for each other's health care". I agree more or less with health maintenance and critical care, less so with things like viagra and plastic surgery. As I understand it, most universal health care systems discussed in the US make no such distinction.

But to my rebuttal of your statement: If you're going to make the argument that you have a right to the money in my wallet to give to a 3rd party for their health care, I have every right to investegate how much of your own is going to the same cause. Michael Moore is the king of publicity stunts (during Roger and Me he bought a house in Dearborn, just to claim he was local. In reality, he lived in the Hollywood Hills the entire time). So I wouldn't be surprised in the least to learn that Michael Moore's grand charitable expenditure this year was that one highly publicized donation for medical care.

I don't think it's cheap at all to expect Michael Moore to live up to the same policies he's advocating throwing on the rest of us.

Devastatin Dave

06-13-2007, 20:58

Alright, what would be the appropriate thing to call him. I'm just saying that he lives a life of privilage but yet he wants to raise my taxes in order to subsadise his socialist agenda. He can sell his mansion and do a hell of a lot more with his own money that he "earned" from making "documentaries" than sticking his hand down my pockets.

doc_bean

06-13-2007, 21:11

I totally disagree with this post, Doc, sorry. Advocating for socialized medicine is in affect saying "we all must pay for each other's health care".

True.

I agree more or less with health maintenance and critical care, less so with things like viagra and plastic surgery.

Which aren't covered by our system, with the exception of reconstructive surgery.

As I understand it, most universal health care systems discussed in the US make no such distinction.

Don't tell me you don't have people with enough brains over there who can divise a system that says: open heart surgery: yes, nose job: no. Even if you end up paying for some 'non-critical' issues, if 90% of the money goes to necessary medical procedures, then i'm happy.

But to my rebuttal of your statement: If you're going to make the argument that you have a right to the money in my wallet to give to a 3rd party for their health care,

I'm not sure MM really advocates socialized medicine, I haven't seen the movie. All the clip shows is he's against the policies of HMOs, which are focused on making profit, not on helping people.
Perhaps he suggest socialized medicine as a possible solution, in which case he'd make a valid point.

I have every right to investegate how much of your own is going to the same cause.

Unless you're a whole lot wealthier than I'd assume, he'd be paying more for socialized healthcare than you if it ever got through, simply because he makes/has more money.

Michael Moore is the king of publicity stunts (during Roger and Me he bought a house in Dearborn, just to claim he was local. In reality, he lived in the Hollywood Hills the entire time).

Which is one of the things i'd hold against him.

So I wouldn't be surprised in the least to learn that Michael Moore's grand charitable expenditure this year was that one highly publicized donation for medical care.

So far he hasn't even acknowledge the money was his. The blogger tracked the money himself.

I don't think it's cheap at all to expect Michael Moore to live up to the same policies he's advocating throwing on the rest of us.

I don't think he owns a gun, a don't think he's doing deals with the Saudi's or is involved with haliburton, I don't think he owns stock in an HMO. So far the man seems to walk the walk.

doc_bean

06-13-2007, 21:13

Alright, what would be the appropriate thing to call him. I'm just saying that he lives a life of privilage but yet he wants to raise my taxes in order to subsadise his socilaist agenda. He can sell his mansion and do a hell of a lot more with his own money that he "earned" from making "documentaries" than sticking his hand down my pockets.

Untrue considering Belgium's healthcare cost runs into the Billions, and there aren't that many of us. MM isn't that rich.

EDIT: if $ 20 million pays for about 500 pancreas transplants, then 1 costs about $40K, how righ is MM and how many more pancreas transplants get payed for since the show ? You'd be surpised at how fast his money would run out if he started paying for everybody's operation.
Again I'd like to add that he might be spending millions on giving people healthcare, we just don't know and he shouldn't have to tell us (right hand and left hadn and all that).

I'd call him a biased reporter who only shows one viewpoint. I'd call his reports over emotional and not rational. I might even call him someone who preys on fear to make a profit, though he might actually sincerely care about the issues he raises.

Quid

06-13-2007, 21:20

I totally disagree with this post, Doc, sorry. Advocating for socialized medicine is in affect saying "we all must pay for each other's health care".

Our healthcare is mainly private (insurances) but the government is putting a lid on prices in order for everyone to be able to afford it. Many Swiss still think it is way too expensive (me included) compared to our European neighbours but then we are getting some of the best care available worldwide.

What are the profits like of US health insurance companies?

We all have our problems with the 'system' at times. I just find it very 'unusual' for a developed country to have patients die because of the insurance company denies a necessary request?

Quid

Don Corleone

06-13-2007, 21:24

Don't tell me you don't have people with enough brains over there who can divise a system that says: open heart surgery: yes, nose job: no. Even if you end up paying for some 'non-critical' issues, if 90% of the money goes to necessary medical procedures, then i'm happy.

Based on Medicaid Part D, the so-called prescription drug benefit for seniors, which does cover Viagra, Cialis and other performance enhancing drugs, my answer would be no, we do not. :no: Intelligence wasn't so much a factor as pharmaceutical lobbyists.

Don Corleone

06-13-2007, 21:29

Our healthcare is mainly private (insurances) but the government is putting a lid on prices in order for everyone to be able to afford it. Many Swiss still think it is way too expensive (me included) compared to our European neighbours but then we are getting some of the best care available worldwide.

What are the profits like of US health insurance companies?

We all have our problems with the 'system' at times. I just find it very 'unusual' for a developed country to have patients die because of the insurance company denies a necessary request?

Quid

Yes, the movie "John Q" forced me to take a very hard look at our system and question what I would do if my insurance company told me that Jillian wouldn't be getting approved for coverage of a necessary but expensive treatment. My guess is it would involve just about anything it would take, and I'm not saying that proudly or boastfully. By the mercy of God, I'll never have to experience that first hand and I do have deep sympathy for people who fall through the cracks.

I just don't think universal health care is the right answer. The state of Massachusetts just implemented what your country has. It's a watershed moment and everyone around the country is watching to see how it goes. Needless to say, they have no price controls, so it's not a perfect copy.

I don't think it's fair to look at profits. If I have 1000 patients in my health care plan and you only have 10, I will almost certainly make more in profit than you will, even if I am much more generous. The right metric in this case is profitability or what sorts of margins the health insurance business generates. I'm afraid I have no idea where they stand on that.

Do you find that fixing prices you create shortages? Will doctors perform appendectomies if they know they can only get $50.00 for them?

Quid

06-13-2007, 21:32

So far he hasn't even acknowledge the money was his. The blogger tracked the money himself.

In the film, it was portrayed that he gave $12000 to his most active internet 'basher' because (allegedly) the bashers wife was having medical problems and was unable to foot the medical bill.

Quid

Don Corleone

06-13-2007, 21:34

I do resent that in typical American fashion, the health care debate is limited to the typical bipolar disorder that holds our politics hostage. We have proposals for universal health care and we have arguments for maintaining the status quo. You never hear anybody advocating for other options, like Switzerland's approach. Or what the Germans and the Japanese have. It's always universal socialized medicine or nothing.:furious3:

Quid

06-13-2007, 21:57

I don't think it's fair to look at profits. If I have 1000 patients in my health care plan and you only have 10, I will almost certainly make more in profit than you will, even if I am much more generous. The right metric in this case is profitability or what sorts of margins the health insurance business generates. I'm afraid I have no idea where they stand on that.

Do you find that fixing prices you create shortages? Will doctors perform appendectomies if they know they can only get $50.00 for them?

Health insurance companies are not allowed by law to strive for profit in Switzerland. That is one reason why prices are newly negotiated every year.

Doctors in Switzerland earn enough money and they would find it incredibly difficult to argue their case if they conveniently did less surgeries than they had done previously. I am not saying that this may or may not happen but I would rather tend to the latter. Unfortunately, I am more ignorant on the subject matter than I should be. This is perhaps because people here are never refused necessary treatment and the waiting periods are relatively short. It simply never crossed my mind.

Quid

Don Corleone

06-13-2007, 22:10

Quid

06-13-2007, 22:57

Be very, very careful about the wolf in sheep's clothing known as 'not for profits'. Believe me, as an ardent free market capitalist, these boys are some of the shrewdest charlatans out there. In America, the big trend has been a shift from individual hospitals to 'health care systems'. Typically, the local hospital will start using its available cash to buy out every other hospital, group practice and emergency facility within a certain radius (usually 1 hour driving distance, conveniently just far enough that you cannot escape their range in an emergency). Now, to take advantage of certain tax loopholes, almost all of them are 'not for profit'. But there's lots of ways to avoid turning a profit, and humanitarianism is the road less often traveled when it comes to them, IMHO.

For example, what you pay your administrators is not profit. So if I pay everyone 25% above the going market rate, I might just barely break even. That doesn't mean my patients are receiving better care.

I understand your concern. As far as I know, we have private as well as publically owned hospitals. The private ones usually specialise on something or other. Doctor's salaries are regulated in both sectors. The regulations vary from canton to canton (the whole system is very de-centralised just like most politcal and economic laws and regulations). Because of this, a take-over would become a political issue. The people would start signing petitions and the government would have to get involved. It would end up being decided in a local referendum.

Also, to take into consideration, most people do not go to hospitals for a cold or other such trivial matters. Most of us have a so-called 'house doctor' who is generally responsible for you and also is informed about your general health status (the Brits would call them GPs). If the matter is less trivial, he will refer you to a specialist (also, very often not a hospital). Generally, people here go to hospitals only for surgeries and emergencies.

I do not know how this is in the US.

Quid

Lemur

06-13-2007, 22:59

There are benefits and dangers to a capitalist healthcare system. The same applies for a socialist healthcare system. The United States, in our wisdom, have managed to wind up with the worst aspects of both. Almost anything would be an improvement.

I don't think Sicko has been released yet, so unless someone snuck into the Caen film festival, nobody's seen it. As for Moore ... yeah, he starts conversations, I'll give him that much. I just wish he made coherent arguments.

Don Corleone

06-13-2007, 23:05

Also, to take into consideration, most people do not go to hospitals for a cold or other such trivial matters. Most of us have a so-called 'house doctor' who is generally responsible for you and also is informed about your general health status (the Brits would call them GPs). If the matter is less trivial, he will refer you to a specialist (also, very often not a hospital). Generally, people here go to hospitals only for surgeries and emergencies.

I do not know how this is in the US.

Quid

That's how it's supposed to work here as well. The problem is, many insurance carriers pay their GPs a 'bonus' for not having made too many referrals during the year. The people that flood hospitals for every little ailment generally don't have any insurance at all (because your insurance will deny coverage if you go the hospital w/out doctor's orders and you'll have to pay it yourself). Needless to say, it can be annoying if you know you need a specialist in the first place. Example: Dermatology. You develop an allergy. You know your GP won't know how to fix it, but you still have to wait to get an appointment with him and go see him to get the referral before you can go to the guy that can help you. And sometimes, the GP tries the "well, I still remember my dermatology rotation 30 years ago. Let me try a couple of rounds at it...". That's usually where I remind them that they're not the only GP in my plan within driving distance and they take the hint.

AntiochusIII

06-13-2007, 23:07

To be honest, the US health care system confuses the bloody hell out of me. :dizzy2:

My rather limited contact with them (I'm young and not drugged up, so yeah) doesn't help matters.

I wonder what Moore is saying in this other movie of his. I'm not his fan but I'm curious nonetheless.

And I agree with the Don, Universal Health Care sounds wonderfully egalitarian but building it from the US framework with the US mindset*? Disaster. Choice isn't that bad unless it's such a big choice you are cleaving society in two between the privileged rich and everybody else.

*Meaning, with the terrible amount of special interests and the current insurance-medicare-more crap quagmire as framework and the me-and-nobody-else for the mindset. Neither is probably exclusively US.

Quid

06-13-2007, 23:19

That's how it's supposed to work here as well. The problem is, many insurance carriers pay their GPs a 'bonus' for not having made too many referrals during the year. The people that flood hospitals for every little ailment generally don't have any insurance at all (because your insurance will deny coverage if you go the hospital w/out doctor's orders and you'll have to pay it yourself). Needless to say, it can be annoying if you know you need a specialist in the first place. Example: Dermatology. You develop an allergy. You know your GP won't know how to fix it, but you still have to wait to get an appointment with him and go see him to get the referral before you can go to the guy that can help you. And sometimes, the GP tries the "well, I still remember my dermatology rotation 30 years ago. Let me try a couple of rounds at it...". That's usually where I remind them that they're not the only GP in my plan within driving distance and they take the hint.

Don't get me wrong, Don, if you KNOW what the problem is, then you are free to go to any specialist straight away. You do not need to go through your 'house doc'. Should your house doc diagnose the problem he will simply help you to find a specialist.

Quid

Quid

06-13-2007, 23:20

I don't think Sicko has been released yet, so unless someone snuck into the Caen film festival, nobody's seen it. As for Moore ... yeah, he starts conversations, I'll give him that much. I just wish he made coherent arguments.

Oops! I will go stand in the corner and be ashamed...

Quid

KafirChobee

06-13-2007, 23:22

Haven't seen the film, but will. Since "Roger & Me" and "Bowling for Columbine" (though he could have cut the Moses Heston bit out, wasn't necessary), I find his approach to social issues both informative and amusing. Those that dislike Mr. Moore tend to be closed to his way of exposing the ills in America.

Harry Truman proposed a universal health system in 1948, it and all other social legislation he proposed was rejected by his Republican "Do Nothing" Congress. Good ideas, bad timing.

Americans (many) have a preconceived idea of what social medicine is, and an inherent fear of change. The fear of change (in this case) is based more on propaganda spewed out by those that perceive that by offering universal health care they will suffer financial loss - that is, the AMA, hospital corporations and Insurance corporations. The facts mean less than the perception - like it costs more supporting the uninsured using emergency rooms for common illnesses than it woulf to give them health coverage.

That hospital costs are out of control, that the duplicity of specialized medical equipment in facilities blocks apart (for competition? no, so they can raise costs - $prices$. Ever heard of the guy charged $10 on his hospital bill - for an aspirin?

Our congress, and candidates, like to be thought of as original - therefore, rather than going outside the country to see what is working in other nations they have the impulse to reinvent the wheel. Even when their is a functional one already inplace elsewhere.

It isn't a matter that most americans don't realise the need to do something, it is more a matter that the medical industry (insurance companys included) is one of the most powerful lobbying groups ($campaign contributors$) in htis country.

After the elections it is a gimme, nothing will happen and things will go on as they always have.

Blaming the rising costs on lawsuits over malpractice is a boogyman - it isn't real. That the rising cost for malpractice insurance needs review is an absolute. But, as long as the medical profession refuses to actually manage this area (their are more than a few dolts withs MD before their name) - then the courts will.

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/costix.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1215/p21s01-coop.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55301-2004Sep27.html

Husar

06-13-2007, 23:34

I don't know how exactly our system works, but whenever I visit a doctor I have to pay 10€ once every three months, that goes directly to the insurance company. The rest is mostly free, but I couldn't really say we have short waiting times. The doctor close to my parents, a rather rural area, usually takes quite long, waiting times of around an hour are not uncommon, unless you pop in first when he opens. Here in the big city it seems the waiting time is a bit shorter but half an hour is quite possible as well. To be honest, this actually works as a deterrent since I don't always feel like sitting around for hours when I have some pain here or there, I usually wait until at least a week or so is over if the pain is bearable.

But I don't think I'd be left to die in an emergency here, the only "emergencies" I've had so far were two broken arms and while the waiting times in hospital weren't really short either, it didn't cost a thing. However, lately when I get a prescription for some medicine, I usually have to pay part of the costs(or maybe the whole costs even, not sure there) myself. That was the reason I didn't do that physiotherapy for my spine anymore, I had to get a new prescription for every six times, that cost me 10€ every three months and then 18€ for every prescription I handed in(they actually changed that while I was doing it, when I started it was all free until suddenly the woman at the desk asked for the prescription money:dizzy2: ).
Now I'm paying 20€ per month(my grandma gives me 25 for 45 total) to work out at the fitness company and I enjoy that a lot more, I can go whenever I want, do the same workout for my spine that I did before, don't always have to visit a doctor(it's not like the doctor ever checked process, usually I just had to wait about an hour for a new prescription:wall: ) and I can train other body parts as well.:eyebrows:

Now I almost forgot where I'm going, but I think all systems have their pros and cons and our system became more expensive lately, they introduced those 10€ every quarter rule promising to reduce monthly rates and oh wonder, when it was time to reduce monthly rates, the insurances companies needed the money so badly, not long after it was found that managers of one company had gotten a pay rise of IIRC 25%, so yeah, we're being ripped off as well.:shame:

Devastatin Dave

06-14-2007, 00:17

Gawain of Orkeny

06-14-2007, 00:20

Well, until I start seeing thousands of Americans swiming into the loving arms of Cuba and its "free jealthcare", I think we have a pretty good deal here in the US of A. Those who disagree are free to leave anytime.

Or heading to our beloved neighbors to the North:laugh4: Its a one way street all right. Right here to our crappy health system. In fact people from all over the world flock here to take advantage of our crappy health care.

Strike For The South

06-14-2007, 00:35

Gawain of Orkeny

06-14-2007, 01:01

Why cant people advocate for change?

He never said you couldnt. Its not the governments job. And I dont want it to be the governments job.

Oh yeah and a good rule of thumb I follow . If this jerks for Im against it.:)

HoreTore

06-14-2007, 01:04

He never said you couldnt. Its not the governments job. And I dont want it to be the governments job.

Well, it seems that some people in your country wants it to be the governments job, and so they should of course be able to advocate a change. Telling them to leave if they don't like the status quo isn't doing any good.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-14-2007, 01:13

Telling them to leave if they don't like the status quo isn't doing any good.

It sure will. It will garuntee that people like Dave and I stay in the majority :laugh4: America love it or leave it.:laugh4:

Its failed everytime its brought to a vote. The reason healthcare is such a mess now is government intervention in the first place. Ive had universal healthcare. It was called sickbay :laugh4: I remember in bootcamp having my two upper front teeth put through my bottom lip. They sent me to sickbay. A few corpsemen were sitting around and they asked ok who is gonna stich him up. One said let Jim do it hes never done it on his own yet. Im thinkin ok their messing with me. No way. It took the guy three tries with another guy giving him instructions. They all found it quite humorous. I could tell you other horror tales. Its very convinient and in most cases good. But as they say you get what you pay for. Also I have no faith in the government running anything efficentlly or even well for that matter. Whats next everyone deserves a house? Im for it how about you?

Lemur

06-14-2007, 01:20

Yeah, our system is perfect as is (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19207050/), and if you don't like it, you can go swear fealty to Lichtenstein!

Gawain of Orkeny

06-14-2007, 02:17

Yeah, our system is perfect as is, and if you don't like it, you can go swear fealty to Lichtenstein

Is any? And i bet this womans family will sue and collect millions.

Don Corleone

06-14-2007, 03:17

Yeah, our system is perfect as is (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19207050/), and if you don't like it, you can go swear fealty to Lichtenstein!

Sorry Lemur, there's no way that story could be valid. I posted a link to the same story on FoxNews earlier and we all know they make everything up.

Tribesman

06-14-2007, 04:16

Well, until I start seeing thousands of Americans swiming into the loving arms of Cuba and its "free jealthcare", I think we have a pretty good deal here in the US of A. Those who disagree are free to leave anytime.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

open your eyes dave , you will see something you won't like .:dizzy2:

silly assumptions based on preconceptions are just sooooo easy to ridicule:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
3 simple errors in one short post , congratulations Dave:2thumbsup:

KafirChobee

06-14-2007, 05:02

Yeah, our system is perfect as is (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19207050/), and if you don't like it, you can go swear fealty to Lichtenstein!
Shocking, but all to common.

A few years ago a friend of mine was in a serious auto accident. He was rushed to our local hospital - the doctors decided he was to far gone to bother doing anything. His father heard about it (cell phone) and called for an emergency helicopter to fly his son to Orlando. Took almost two hours to get my friend to the hospital in Orlando (they had been alerted), and six hours of surgery later he was placed in intensive care. He lives, with a slight limp, today.

Doctors are clowns that think they are gods. In some cases they are - gods of hades.

Btw, had it been most anyone else in that accident - they'ld be dead.

Devastatin Dave

06-14-2007, 05:16

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

open your eyes dave , you will see something you won't like .:dizzy2:

silly assumptions based on preconceptions are just sooooo easy to ridicule:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
3 simple errors in one short post , congratulations Dave:2thumbsup:
Hey its the smiley guy!!!:laugh4: :juggle2: :idea2: :inquisitive: :help: :furious3: :dizzy2: :thumbsdown: :smash: :clown: :egypt: :yes: :beam: :whip: :wall: :2thumbsup: :sweatdrop: :shame: :no:

There my points are as valid as yours. Thanks :beam:

Devastatin Dave

06-14-2007, 05:28

Its failed everytime its brought to a vote. The reason healthcare is such a mess now is government intervention in the first place. Ive had universal healthcare. It was called sickbay :laugh4:
Amen, and that would be the healthcare the US would get. Walter Reed anyone? Nothing like going to the base emrgency room after a long night of drinking and chasing rabbits with your beagles in the dark and breaking your foot and them sending you home with a couple of 800 milligrams of mortin cuz the LT didn't want to call the Capt who did the x-rays because of the ass chewing he would recieve. Again, when I start seeing my fellow Americans latching themselves to 55 Caddys with inflated rubber under them trying to drift to Cuba by the thousands, I'll give a cuban cigar sized turd about America's healthcare system. I'll trade you Euros our trial lawyers and politicians (lets face it, thats who were run by)for your health system any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but it aint happening.

Tribesman

06-14-2007, 10:22

There my points are as valid as yours. Thanks
errrrr....for a point to be valid it must have some basis in fact .
Since your "points" are not based on any facts at all they are not valid .
Simple isn't it ........silly assumptions based on preconceptions are just sooooo easy to ridicule.......though of course the question does remain , is it realy worth ridiculing someone who is so detatched from reality ?

rory_20_uk

06-14-2007, 10:48

Doctors are clowns that think they are gods. In some cases they are - gods of hades.

I take it you've little / no idea how medicine works.
If it was a well provisioned trauma hospital with senior, experienced doctors present it is bad.

But juniors might not be aware what is available. They in their heart of hearts might have thought they made the best decision. You appear to expect the doctors to know everything about all specialities in all hospitals!

As a junior doctor myself I can't get a helicopter to fly anyone anywhere for anything. Possibly relatives with more pull can even though I can't. Does this make me culpable? Hell no. If I say there's nothing I can do yet another can do something else, it doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Everybody wants the best team with the most experience to treat their family / friends and of course learn this from other people that somehow don't matter as much.

The reality is that people do die due to lack of experience, incorrect decisions and even logistical failure!

In your country to admit failure means you get sued. So doctors can't admit any failure on anything ever - basically to be human and make human errors.

You can blame the doctors if you like, but there are many other factors.

~:smoking:

Meneldil

06-14-2007, 12:10

Its not the governments job.

Any real argument to support that claim ? Or is it just because you/the Holy Mother of God Founding Fathers/God himself/the Holy Constitution of the US of A that-shall-never-be-amended-even-though-some-part-of-it-are-clearly-outdated/the flying spaghetti monster said so ?

Now, mind you, I don't care about the US health care system. Not being american, I don't know how it works, though my readings would lead me to think it sucks, quite badly at that. But if you think it's all fine, that's your problem, not mine.

However, making blank statements like that is just childish, pointless, and doesn't make a valid argument.

As for the movie itself, I don't know. I've read many articles that labelled MM as a total hypocrit, and I usually watch his work with a pince of salt. He's usually funny and irreverent, but I think he sometimes goes to far.
On the other hand, the way he pisses off the american rights would hint that people calling him hypocrit are just average members of the stuborn, religious, pro-gun far right (yeah, I'm labeling here), that simply can not and do not want to admit that America isn't teh sex and has social, economical and political issues. And of course, name-calling and labeling MM is easier than answering to the points he brought.

Banquo's Ghost

06-14-2007, 13:03

Any real argument to support that claim ? Or is it just because you/the Holy Mother of God Founding Fathers/God himself/the Holy Constitution of the US of A that-shall-never-be-amended-even-though-some-part-of-it-are-clearly-outdated/the flying spaghetti monster said so ?

Now, mind you, I don't care about the US health care system. Not being american, I don't know how it works, though my readings would lead me to think it sucks, quite badly at that. But if you think it's all fine, that's your problem, not mine.

However, making blank statements like that is just childish, pointless, and doesn't make a valid argument.

As for the movie itself, I don't know. I've read many articles that labelled MM as a total hypocrit, and I usually watch his work with a pince of salt. He's usually funny and irreverent, but I think he sometimes goes to far.
On the other hand, the way he pisses off the american rights would hint that people calling him hypocrit are just average members of the stuborn, religious, pro-gun far right (yeah, I'm labeling here), that simply can not and do not want to admit that America isn't teh sex and has social, economical and political issues. And of course, name-calling and labeling MM is easier than answering to the points he brought.

The above is close to a blanket insult to a group of Backroom posters. By all means disagree with the points put forward but to characterise members with different political views in this way is not acceptable here.

Being a conservative or in favour of small government does not make one childish, stubborn etc.

Once again, I urge posters to debate the points made, not attack the poster or the category to which he supposedly belongs.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Odin

06-14-2007, 13:18

Now, mind you, I don't care about the US health care system.

So why are you posting about it then? are you just attempting to be an atongonist?

Not being american, I don't know how it works, though my readings would lead me to think it sucks, quite badly at that.

We have fine medical care in america, it dosent suck, quite badly, your wrong.

However, making blank statements like that is just childish, pointless, and doesn't make a valid argument.

:laugh4: You dont say?

As for the movie itself, I don't know.

hhhmmm so you havent seen it ? Well thats okay it was only a matter of time for the america bashing to start.

On the other hand, the way he pisses off the american rights would hint that people calling him hypocrit are just average members of the stuborn, religious, pro-gun far right (yeah, I'm labeling here), that simply can not and do not want to admit that America isn't teh sex and has social, economical and political issues. And of course, name-calling and labeling MM is easier than answering to the points he brought.

I personally find this offensive, and even though a mod made a public reccomendation that its offensive, he didnt say we couldnt respond. I have no problem with people who dont like america, or culture, or our governments. I do however dislike bias, I suspect I could find many items regarding your culture to point out as unsatisfactory, or negative as well.

that however dosent further the discussion of the film does it genius?

Gawain of Orkeny

06-14-2007, 13:27

Im sorry I believe in the constitution and our rule of law. Please forgive me.

Husar

06-14-2007, 13:47

Im sorry I believe in the constitution and our rule of law. Please forgive me.
Six Ave Maria and you're fine.:2thumbsup:

Devastatin Dave

06-14-2007, 13:58

The funny thing is the people here that are argueing that the American Government should take over the healthcare system of the US are the same one's in every other thread talk about the US having the most curropt, irresponsible, and contemptable in the world. You guys should consider going to your local medical facility and see about getting some of that government prozac, or do you guys get shrinks for free as well?:laugh4:

Don Corleone

06-14-2007, 14:49

Any real argument to support that claim ? Or is it just because you/the Holy Mother of God Founding Fathers/God himself/the Holy Constitution of the US of A that-shall-never-be-amended-even-though-some-part-of-it-are-clearly-outdated/the flying spaghetti monster said so ?.

If you get your jollies by ridiculing people of faith, fine. If you want to laugh at and insult people who hold views different than your own, my guess is that you won't be warned for it, as your views lean left, not right.

But lumping the US Constitution in with religious beliefs is a serious error in logic. It shows sloppy and lazy thinking, and if that's the best way you can attack it, it shows you're on very shaky ground indeed.

The Constitution is a contract. It is a compact. If we shrug it off as 'oh a bunch of arcane mumbo-jumbo' what basis for law do we have at all? Are you attempting to make an argument for anarchism, that each of us is free to act beyond any imaginary bounds of 'law'? If I rented a room from you, would I be free to destroy the property as I saw fit and as for the damages you suffered, tough luck? I'm serious about this. People that denigrate the Constitution as meaningless.... I think you do this because you have no idea what you're railing against. That, or you really are making an argument in favor of anarchism, you're just not honest enough to say so. I don't see any 3rd option. Arguing for changing the Constitution is one thing. We all do that, as it is not ideally suited for any one individual. But arguing against the idea of a Constitution, that's arguing against law itself.

HoreTore

06-14-2007, 14:56

It sure will. It will garuntee that people like Dave and I stay in the majority :laugh4: America love it or leave it.:laugh4:

So....does that mean that the anti-abortion people should shut or leave too? :laugh4:

Quid

06-14-2007, 15:41

I apologise for starting a thread that is clearly going to end in an 'America sucks' thread. It was not my intention as I only wanted to have some input how the American, French and Canadian healthcare systems actually operate and then compare it to my country's. Seemingly, a hopeless endeavour (I should have known better...).

Alright, before this thread is derailed beyond hope, I will come forward with some of the stuff that was being portrayed in the film. As I was not aware that it hadn't been released I hoped that some of the .org members had seen it.

For the Pro Moorers, the film will be sort of a tear jerker; for the contra Moorers, it will only reinforce your hatred towards him.

After some sad stories of people who fell through the cracks of the American health service, Moore goes to Canada to meet some people. He follows an American woman who went to Canada to get her cancer treated. He 'investigates' the Canadian health care system a little and not so surprisingly it shines compared to the American one.

He then goes to Britain and pretty much does the same. He interviews some medical staff, a young doctor and Tony Benn. He talkes about the history of the NHS and is amazed that the Brits don't seem to foot much of a bill at all for all kinds of ailments. In fact, he makes a point that people coming in by public transport can have their money refunded - not only do they not pay anything for being treated but leave the hospital with a bag of cash. It's a very utopian view, clearly, as even I know that the British NHS is far from perfect.

He then goes to France and investigates their services. Very cleverly, he gets together with some American expatriots and discusses with them the services the cool French get provided. Doctors making housecalls for free, nannies provided by the state (who do your laundry and cook you a lovely meal by the end of the day) ect. Obviously, these French must be paying taxes to high heaven.
He then visits an 'average' French family of four. They don't seem to be doing too badly at all. In fact, they have lots of holidays, spend most of their money on vegetables and fruits, and have not a complaint in the world.

Last, but not least, he talks to some voluntary 9/11 workers who all suffer some kind of disease or other. They have been forgotten by the government and do not know where to get proper help anymore. They are duely informed that Guantanamo Bay offers excellent medical facilities and treatment. So they set off to Cuba. Naturally, they are not let anywhere near the detention centre and end up going to a Cuban hospital where all the poor souls get treated.

I mean no disrespect to anyone in the film by my perhaps a little sarcastic undertone. Some (or all) of them might indeed have been neglected by the American government. MM just has this way of portraying things that really make some people angry.

Having said that, I seriously do think he might actually have a point. Perhaps America can work out some system that makes more people happy. I am sure that if the people really want it, the government is left with no choice. Otherwise, one might really start to wonder who holds the crown and who the shovel...

Quid

Seamus Fermanagh

06-14-2007, 16:13

Moore is an out-and-out socialist/elitist. He represents, personally, the worst combination of "here's what we need to do to help everybody -- but I, as a wonderful artist (alt clebrity labels usable here) will, of course, be treated differently." That said, I do acknowledge that his criticisms do point up weaknesses in the American system of things, howevermuch I may disagree with his proscriptions for a response.

USA health care is, sadly, a horrid mix of socialism and capitalism and generally trends towards the worst elements of both.

We will, relatively soon, move towards something analogous to the Swiss system. It will not be as efficient, because political support will be sufficient to allow for mandated health insurance coupled with government payment for the economic underclass (whose votes count very nicely thank you, even if they pay little or nothing into the system that helps support them), but will not be sufficient to overcome the lawsuit costs -- trial lawyers make the NRA lobby look like amateurs -- so insurance costs will continue to rise.

Ultimately we will end up with one of two results. A system wherein ALL physicisians are mandated to participate or deprived of their licenses -- OR -- a system where the best physicians opt out of participating in order to handle things on a fee for service basis.

Either way, the best and brightest will NOT end up as doctors. Why should they, when they can make more for their families by hacking through the much shorter training requirement of a law school/bar system and thus be empowered to steal money legally and with virtual impunity?

Don Corleone

06-14-2007, 16:28

One of the biggest criticisms of the American health care system is that insurance companies set a cap to maximum benefits allowed. From that point on, even if the treatment is life-saving, the insurance company may not allow coverage, and the individual is on their own.

Nefarious aspects of this practice aside, the insurance company defends this by stating that they operate with a limited pool of coverage cash, and if they allow anyone unfettered access, it limits access for everyone else.

In a Swiss system, what mechanism is there in place to make certain costs are controlled? If I stub my toe and get my doctor to agree that I need 10K/month physical therapy, what prevents this? If I have scerosis of the liver due to years of alcoholism, am I covered for expensive experimental procedures? Who makes these decisions, and how much is too much? I mean, sooner or later, no matter how much money you put into the system, patients are going to die. If you ask the patient, some patients will say that no amount of money is too much to spend to save their life, regardless of how likely the remedy is to actually work.

I agree that proven remedies should be available regardless of ability to pay. But 'proven' in the medical field is a gray word.

KafirChobee

06-14-2007, 16:36

Quid, it isn't a matter of turning into an America sucks thread, so much as exposing the stubborness of some to actually accept the idea that changes are needed to our present medical system to assist all americans.

At present over 34million americans are without any form of health insurance. Another group, though insured, are at the mercy of their healthgroup as to what treatments they can have - reviews are common and exceptions are numerous, so while a patient in need awaits the determination of his insurer as to whether or nor they will cover the treatment necessary he (she) waits in limbo or dies.

Then we have the cap limits of the insured. Often catastophic illness meant bankruptcy, before congress made bankruptcy all but illegal (in 2006, that is). People that paid into medical insurance companys for years suddenly discover their loyal insurance companys that were willing to take their checks prior to their contracting cancer or being seriously injured find that the small print in their policies extract the insurer from having to continue their policies - they get cancelled because it is no longer viable (profitable - it's now costing the insurer money) to retain them as customers. [There is no law I am aware of that disallows this.]

There was a time, a short time ago (prior to 1992) that nearly all workers here were covered by insurance by their employers (even the part-timers). Then we had the Republican revolution that saw no need to encourage employers from insuring their employees - it cut into their profits after all. Companys determined that more of the cost needed to be passed on to their employees, and some needed to be excluded all together. Congress looked about and thought how can we make this better(?) - for the employer, and determined it was silly for employers to have to pay for their employees having insurance at all - they and not the employer should be responsable.

Still, it all depends on how big a fish one is in a company to what their insurance plan is and how much they have to pay. Me, all the companys I worked for (1964-2001) paid for my insurance and one dependent, plus insured me (life ins.) for an outrageous amount. It is still that way - for management.

Is our system broke? Well, since it has always been a voluntary system - there was nothing to break, but the health insurance system is (insurance in general actually).

drone

06-14-2007, 16:47

We'll see what happens when Hillary gets elected in 2008. Since health care was her top priority as First Lady, I'm sure she'll be able to sort it out when she is President. :ahh:

Don Corleone

06-14-2007, 17:20

Well, here are some basic facts that any health care system must address. How well it does is an appropriate metric for the system.

1) Medical treatment costs money. There is by necessity a scarcity issue associated with it.

2) Individuals believe regardless of cost, there should be no limit to the amount of care they may receive.

3) Not everyone saves for rainy days.

4) Regardless of 3, we want to make #2 (unlimited coverage) available to everyone.

5) It is patently unfair that if I do participate in #3 I shouldn't be able to enjoy the fruits of my savings.

6) Not all patients will act in ways that promote good health.

7) We do not want to exclude those in #6. Even so, indulging too much in #6 can worsen fact #1... witness America's problem with obesity and the rising cost of drugs to treat diabetes.

I'm not saying that I believe we maintain the American health care system exactly as it is. I don't think that. I'm saying that until we understand what the consequences of other systems are in light of the 7 inescapable truths I listed above, for the time being we're better served with the devil we know.

Example: Britain's socialized medicine system is frequently held up as an ideal model. But does anybody here really believe some chav off the street that gets knifed in a fight with another chav receives exactly the same care Prince Charles would, under the circumstances? Once we start allowing for exceptions, is it really universal anymore? What do I need to do to be in the better-served group? In America, the answer is simple, part with your own cash.

Big King Sanctaphrax

06-14-2007, 17:37

Example: Britain's socialized medicine system is frequently held up as an ideal model. But does anybody here really believe some chav off the street that gets knifed in a fight with another chav receives exactly the same care Prince Charles would, under the circumstances? Once we start allowing for exceptions, is it really universal anymore? What do I need to do to be in the better-served group? In America, the answer is simple, part with your own cash.

Well, Prince Charles has private health insurance, I should imagine-I'd be very surprised is he didn't, anyway. So it's the same as the American system, in that respect.

If you're interested, the way in which we decide which treatments to pay for and which not to under the NHS is largely through a body called NICE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Health_and_Clinical_Excellence)-the national institute of clinical excellence. This looks at the cost of treatments and, more importantly, their effectiveness, and decides if they should be provided by the NHS.

They get a lot of flak for denying experimental treatments on the grounds that their cost-effectiveness is low, but it seems as fair a way of doing it as any. Unless we allocate infinite money to the NHS, rationing is unavoidable.

Don Corleone

06-14-2007, 17:41

Well, Prince Charles has private health insurance, I should imagine-I'd be very surprised is he didn't, anyway. So it's the same as the American system, in that respect.

If you're interested, the way in which we decide which treatments to pay for and which not to under the NHS is largely through a body called NICE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Health_and_Clinical_Excellence)-the national institute of clinical excellence. This looks at the cost of treatments and, more importantly, their effectiveness, and decides if they should be provided by the NHS.

They get a lot of flak for denying experimental treatments on the grounds that their cost-effectiveness is low, but it seems as fair a way of doing it as any. Unless we allocate infinite money to the NHS, rationing is unavoidable.

Okay, bad example. Maybe it's Australia where they outlaw you trying to buy better coverage on your own. In any case, how does one get themselves onto NICE? How do you make certain various health care trade industry reps and pharmaceutical reps don't stack the deck? Because whether they get appointed or voted onto the panel, there's always a way to buy their way on.

Odin

06-14-2007, 17:49

I apologise for starting a thread that is clearly going to end in an 'America sucks' thread.

No big deal quid, that wasnt your intent, its to be expected here in the backroom anyway.

I mean no disrespect to anyone in the film by my perhaps a little sarcastic undertone. Some (or all) of them might indeed have been neglected by the American government. MM just has this way of portraying things that really make some people angry.

I dont think your tone was disrespectful, disagreement is the basis for discussion, and often increased knowledge. Moore, for all his faults, presses issues. We have a problem with health coverage in the U.S. (note I said coverage), if he furthers that discussion, at a time when we are in the midst of a presidential contest I say hats off to him, hes a savvy guy.

Having said that, I seriously do think he might actually have a point.

And there in lies the crux of it, he probaly does have a point, but he offers no solutions other then comparisson to other systems of government that dont apply to our own. Whats his solution?

I think you will find concensus from americans that the health care system needs improving, but it dosent take a genius to point to the sky and say "its blue". There in lies my issues with Moore, he presents the worst case scenario, offers no solution other then to point at the problem and scream "it needs to be fixed"

doc_bean

06-14-2007, 18:11

Well, here are some basic facts that any health care system must address. How well it does is an appropriate metric for the system.

1) Medical treatment costs money. There is by necessity a scarcity issue associated with it.

Well yeah, but at least you're not paying taxes for something worthwile (imo).

2) Individuals believe regardless of cost, there should be no limit to the amount of care they may receive.

True, although hardly an issue in 99% of the cases. No system is perfect. It also depends on how you interpret 'amounts of care', if you just take it to mean any operation or procedure which is likely to resotre the quality of life to a certain, acceptable degree than i'd agree. If you take it to mean free viagra I disagree.

3) Not everyone saves for rainy days.

Exactly why it's humane to not expect them to pay the full cost of a procdure. In a socialized health care systme you also don't have to save up that much in case of medical emergencies.

4) Regardless of 3, we want to make #2 (unlimited coverage) available to everyone.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive, the whole point of insurance is that the insurance company pays the bill, universal healthcare is like one giant non-profit insurance.

5) It is patently unfair that if I do participate in #3 I shouldn't be able to enjoy the fruits of my savings.

So, you save, you can buy a house, you can take a trip (we offer assistence to countrymen abroad too) and do whatever you want. In fact, since your healthcare is covered, you won't have to keep money aside for a rainy day and enjoy it all the more :2thumbsup:

6) Not all patients will act in ways that promote good health.

Don't you think the tax on tabacco would be enough to cover their expenses later in life ? What exaclty is a healthy lifestyle ? What about freedom ?

You tax and/or discourage dangerous activities, you don't let someone die because you don't agree with their lifestyle (personal opinion).

7) We do not want to exclude those in #6. Even so, indulging too much in #6 can worsen fact #1... witness America's problem with obesity and the rising cost of drugs to treat diabetes.

Tax unhealthy products. Perhaps if people have a decent healthcare system, they'll have a better outlook on life, less risk of losing it all due to some dumb illness, and take better care of themselves anyway.

Also, while it's a problem, it's not enough to convince me to give up our healthcare system.

I'm not saying that I believe we maintain the American health care system exactly as it is. I don't think that. I'm saying that until we understand what the consequences of other systems are in light of the 7 inescapable truths I listed above, for the time being we're better served with the devil we know.

Pretty soon i'll have to suggest you make that you're national motto :laugh4:

Seriously though, I don't believe you can get universal healthcare over night, but whatever system you do have (or anyone else has) you have to be able to evaluate it from time to time.

Once we start allowing for exceptions, is it really universal anymore? What do I need to do to be in the better-served group? In America, the answer is simple, part with your own cash.

Which is the same in most of Europe, except we'll threat anyone as best as we can, whatever their financial status. And if you're well off and do get ill it won't cost you an arm and a leg (errr...perhaps too appropriate here ?), you can get surgery for under €100. Like I said, it's like a giant insurance policy, and yes, there are premium policies*, but at least everyone gets the basic coverage.

*These tend to involve payment for single rooms in the hospital and payment for missed workdays and, occasionally, extra refunds for medicine.

Kagemusha

06-14-2007, 18:26

Here in Finland we have universal healthcare funded by taxes,but you can also have private healthcare insurances if you want to have one. Basicly the population is covered,but if you want to get the best possible private doctors you can pay for it if you have the money or have an private insurance. You get good healthcare from the public service,but you can also use private services if you prefer those.

Don Corleone

06-14-2007, 18:54

Well yeah, but at least you're not paying taxes for something worthwile (imo). I don't think I understand this point.

True, although hardly an issue in 99% of the cases. No system is perfect. It also depends on how you interpret 'amounts of care', if you just take it to mean any operation or procedure which is likely to resotre the quality of life to a certain, acceptable degree than i'd agree. If you take it to mean free viagra I disagree. I'm talking about extreme cost cases of a necessary nature. Example: 30 year old male gets hit by a bus. He gets paralyzed. In reading through a medical journal, he reads about a procedure tried out in America. The doctor was able to restore limited mobility to 2 patients with spinal injuries similar to my guy's. In the other 98 cases, there was no affect. The series of surgeries, the drugs, the hospitalization, everything, costs $3million. Even though there's only a 2% chance it will work, the patient thinks his insurance company (or the government) should pay for it, because he needs it and he can't afford it on his own. Should they? What if we do that for everyone that wants some expensive, unproven treatment?

Exactly why it's humane to not expect them to pay the full cost of a procdure. In a socialized health care systme you also don't have to save up that much in case of medical emergencies. So your answer is to punish the responsible people (take the money away from the savers in the form of new taxes) and reward the irresponsible (pay for free health care for those who don't save). Does this seem fair to you?

I don't think they're mutually exclusive, the whole point of insurance is that the insurance company pays the bill, universal healthcare is like one giant non-profit insurance. Wrong. The whole point is that risk is distributed among a group, not that you break open a never ending piggy bank. There's no such thing as an inusrance company that can always pay the bill, no matter how big the bill and how many bills.

So, you save, you can buy a house, you can take a trip (we offer assistence to countrymen abroad too) and do whatever you want. In fact, since your healthcare is covered, you won't have to keep money aside for a rainy day and enjoy it all the more :2thumbsup: You won't have any saved because you're paying it all in taxes. You won't have the ability to pay for better care, even if you were willing to save, because the government is taking it all and you rely on their kindness.

Don't you think the tax on tabacco would be enough to cover their expenses later in life ? What exaclty is a healthy lifestyle ? What about freedom ? Do you think Mickey Mantle should have had to give back his liver after they found him drinking at a bar? Do you think he would have minded paying some extra taxes? Do you think that would would have made the other people on the list feel better? "Well, I didn't get a liver and I'm going to die, but at least Mickey Mantle will have to pay some extra taxes for ruining the one I could have had".

You tax and/or discourage dangerous activities, you don't let someone die because you don't agree with their lifestyle (personal opinion). I"m a big believer in using taxes to discourage undesirable behavior (it's about the only thing they're good for). But even I would argue that there's a percentage of the population that will engage in detrimental behavior regardless of the taxes you levy. Why should I have to go broke paying for their bad choices?

I thought the argument was that fairness means everyone should have equal health care, regardless of their ability to care. It's not fair that Bob the Homeless Bum from under the train tracks doesn't get a private room, just like the Mayor of Brussels. Isn't the argument for socialized health care is that fair means everyone gets the same treatment, regardless of how rich or how poor? Where are Idaho and Jag when I need them?

doc_bean

06-14-2007, 19:41

I don't think I understand this point.

It costs money, but i'm willing to pay.

I'm talking about extreme cost cases of a necessary nature. Example: 30 year old male gets hit by a bus. He gets paralyzed. In reading through a medical journal, he reads about a procedure tried out in America. The doctor was able to restore limited mobility to 2 patients with spinal injuries similar to my guy's. In the other 98 cases, there was no affect. The series of surgeries, the drugs, the hospitalization, everything, costs $3million. Even though there's only a 2% chance it will work, the patient thinks his insurance company (or the government) should pay for it, because he needs it and he can't afford it on his own. Should they? What if we do that for everyone that wants some expensive, unproven treatment?

We don't pay for that. I think we only pay for treatements provided in the country, but i'm not sure. The system isn't perfect, some people might be helped by expensive, experimental treatements, and we don't pay for those. You have to be realistic.

So your answer is to punish the responsible people (take the money away from the savers in the form of new taxes) and reward the irresponsible (pay for free health care for those who don't save). Does this seem fair to you?

Most taxes are income based...

Wrong. The whole point is that risk is distributed among a group, not that you break open a never ending piggy bank. There's no such thing as an inusrance company that can always pay the bill, no matter how big the bill and how many bills.

Your HMO can go bankrupt to you know...

You won't have any saved because you're paying it all in taxes. You won't have the ability to pay for better care, even if you were willing to save, because the government is taking it all and you rely on their kindness.

Oh please, anyone with a halfway decent job here still makes €30K a year easily, our top managers are still payed millions, the burden of universal health care is big but don't exaggerate.

Do you think Mickey Mantle should have had to give back his liver after they found him drinking at a bar? Do you think he would have minded paying some extra taxes? Do you think that would would have made the other people on the list feel better? "Well, I didn't get a liver and I'm going to die, but at least Mickey Mantle will have to pay some extra taxes for ruining the one I could have had".

The world isn't fair, universal health care makes it a little bit fairer.

Why is, in the US system, a millionaire entitled to the best reatement, regardless of his lifestyle, while other people die in the emergency room ? Do you think the secand group is happy about that ?

I"m a big believer in using taxes to discourage undesirable behavior (it's about the only thing they're good for). But even I would argue that there's a percentage of the population that will engage in detrimental behavior regardless of the taxes you levy. Why should I have to go broke paying for their bad choices?

Yes, because we're all broke over here.

Oh wait, until a year or so ago the Belgians had the most money per capita saved up of all the countries in the world. But yes, universal healthcare makes us poor...

How much debt is the average American in again ?

I don't want to turn this into US bashing, I simply want to defend a system of universal healthcare.

I thought the argument was that fairness means everyone should have equal health care, regardless of their ability to care.

Everyone is entitled to basic and necessary care, not necessarily equal, it's not a perfect world.

It's not fair that Bob the Homeless Bum from under the train tracks doesn't get a private room,just like the Mayor of Brussels.

The Mayor pays for the room, not the treatement, which is the same for both.

Isn't the argument for socialized health care is that fair means everyone gets the same treatment, regardless of how rich or how poor?

Medical treatement yes.

Devastatin Dave

06-14-2007, 20:17

doc_bean

06-14-2007, 20:30

Seriously guys, do you really want the government that you loathe more than anything in the world be responsible for the healthcare as well?:laugh4:

I don't loathe MY government.

Kagemusha

06-14-2007, 20:31

Seriously guys, do you really want the government that you loathe more than anything in the world be responsible for the healthcare as well?:laugh4:

It wouldnt be taking care of our health, but (insert Dev Daves name here.). See, this is another Euro plan to destroy US with socialized healthcare this time.:bling:

Quid

06-14-2007, 20:37

Devastatin Dave

06-14-2007, 20:43

I don't loathe MY government.
This is a thread about the AMERICAN governmnet and AMERICAN healthcare. Your healthcare works because of many factors, and one important factor is the YOUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IS FOR THE UK. It won't work here because of the numerous reasons already given. Again, if things were so bad, why the hell are there still people dying to get here? Anyway, I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine. If you want to blame that there is no universal healthcare because of neanderthals like me, call me Shirly, slap a dress on me, and spank my little hairy pink bottom till Hillary Clinton removes my testicals. I'll take the blame. But there are just too many variables for this to work here whether its the 12 million (low estimate) of illegal leeches already sucking at the teet or the already 30 million lazy good for nothing bums that can't better themselves because they're too busy whacking off to the lastest Paris Hilton news story or they're too busy squiting out another parasite that will never know who daddy is. So I'll just sit back and watch and listen to you guys blast the US for not becoming a nanny state and giggle at the fact that you still can't see the silliness that at one minute you deride the US government's imcompotence but in the next breath think that it should take total control of the health care system.:laugh4:

Don Corleone

06-14-2007, 20:47

I don't want to turn this into US bashing, I simply want to defend a system of universal healthcare.

I did not attack your system of healthcare, I attempted to explain why your system is not the only option we should consider. Talk about thin-skinned. Since anything I say to debate the point makes you feel defensive, perhaps I should bow out of this one.

Devastatin Dave

06-14-2007, 20:47

This might be grossly unsubstantiated but as far as I know, and MM actually makes a point of this, the average European is not that much in debt (if at all - bar perhaps mortgage payments for a house) where, apparently the average American has quite a bit of a debt going.

Quid
Oh yes, this isn't an American bashing thread? Now were going to talk about debt? Here let me add a few...
Americans are fat (see Mike Moore)
Americans are arrogant (see also mike Moore)
Americans are hypocritical (:daisy:, see Mike Moore again!?!?!)
I'm sure this can all be found in his latest "documentary". I'm just glad none of you guys live in the hell hole. I'd feel bad that if you had to subject yourselves to this horrible existance!!!:laugh4:

Tribesman

06-14-2007, 21:08

Again, if things were so bad, why the hell are there still people dying to get here? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Yeah Dave , people are dying to get to America because of your hospitals .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
While hundreds of thousands of Americans are going abroad to third world countries to get their healthcare , third world hospitals that are accredited by an American body and offer better treatment , better survival rates and better prices .
What was it again ...oh yeah......silly assumptions based on preconceptions are just sooooo easy to ridicule

Quid

06-14-2007, 21:09

Oh yes, this isn't an American bashing thread? Now were going to talk about debt? Here let me add a few...
Americans are fat (see Mike Moore)
Americans are arrogant (see also mike Moore)
Americans are hypocritical (wtf, see Mike Moore again!?!?!)
I'm sure this can all be found in his latest "documentary". I'm just glad none of you guys live in the hell hole. I'd feel bad that if you had to subject yourselves to this horrible existance!!!:laugh4:

Actually, no, it isn't America bashing, DD. At least not what you quoted. Perhaps, you misunderstood. I was only responding to doc_bean's and Don's discussion and remembered that MM did make a point of this. As I said, it's unsubstantiated and I was looking for either a confirmation or a rebuttal.

Naturally, I apologise if you felt in the least bit offended (I sort of fail to understand why, however). I did not mean it that way.

I am a Euro-weenie and a coward (being Swiss and all) and will stay well clear of your wrath! :yes:

Quid

Don Corleone

06-14-2007, 21:11

Actually, no, it isn't America bashing, DD. At least not what you quoted. Perhaps, you misunderstood. I was only responding to doc_bean's and Don's discussion and remembered that MM did make a point of this. As I said, it's unsubstantiated and I was looking for either a confirmation or a rebuttal.

Naturally, I apologise if you felt in the least bit offended (I sort of fail to understand why, however). I did not mean it that way.

I am a Euro-weenie and a coward (being Swiss and all) and will stay well clear of your wrath! :yes:

Quid

Please don't lump me in with Doc. I was trying to keep it on the issues, answering your questions and raising a few of my own. As he now feels defensive, I've agreed to move on to other threads.

Devastatin Dave

06-14-2007, 21:13

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Yeah Dave , people are dying to get to America because of your hospitals .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
While hundreds of thousands of Americans are going abroad to third world countries to get their healthcare , third world hospitals that are accredited by an American body and offer better treatment , better survival rates and better prices .
What was it again ...oh yeah......silly assumptions based on preconceptions are just sooooo easy to ridicule

:laugh4: :laugh4: :inquisitive: :idea2: :furious3: :help: :2thumbsup: :beam: :beam: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
There, take that...:2thumbsup: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Tribesman

06-14-2007, 21:18

There, take that...
Hey dave , it helps if you want to ridicule someones position with lots of :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: if you are actually able to write something that can show why their position is so laughable .

But its OK , I fully understand that you are unable to support what you wrote:yes:

Quid

06-14-2007, 21:19

Please don't lump me in with Doc. I was trying to keep it on the issues, answering your questions and raising a few of my own. As he now feels defensive, I've agreed to move on to other threads.

I was not. I was merely referring to your debate.

I do think you have raised important issues and I have not found all the answers to your questions. What I know is that the Swiss system seems to work (far from perfectly, of course, but to my present satisfacion) and, by your own admission, yours has perhaps more grave errors.

I can't help but feel a little misunderstood at times...

Quid

Banquo's Ghost

06-14-2007, 21:36

Gentlemen, perhaps we can all take a moment to breathe. Do some relaxation exercises. Have a nice cup of tea. Listen to the birdsong.

Thus renewed and calm, we may then begin to discuss the issues of healthcare in our many states without being beastly to one another.

Quid started an excellent thread, and there have been some equally excellent responses. Let's continue in that vein.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

...call me Shirly, slap a dress on me, and spank my little hairy pink bottom till Hillary Clinton removes my testicals.

Is that offer open to moderators as well? :flowers:

Devastatin Dave

06-14-2007, 21:38

But its OK , I fully understand that you are unable to support what you wrote:yes:
I guess i should use your example of well thought out and completely suported statements you've posted in the past. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Did I do that right?:yes: :beam: :beam: :beam: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :help: :help: :help: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Devastatin Dave

06-14-2007, 21:45

Is that offer open to moderators as well? :flowers:
You guys have been spanking me since 02, don't be greedy with my booty, Sugar.~:flirt:

Gawain of Orkeny

06-14-2007, 21:50

I want to go back to where people had a sense of personal responsibility and family. The problem is we no longer have these things nor even a sense of community. Let the government do it is all I ever hear. I say the government is doing too much already. Stop with the bloated beuraucracy . If you want something done well and efficiently the government is the last place you should look.

This is the classic liberal case of dumbing down everybody to make everyone even. More people would access to worse healthcare.

Its ok the rich will pay for it. You better check just who is rich. And again corporations dont pay taxes only consumers.

Quid

06-14-2007, 21:55

I want to go back to where people had a sense of personal responsibility and family. The problem is we no longer have these things nor even a sense of community. Let the government do it is all I ever hear. I say the government is doing too much already. Stop with the bloated beuraucracy . If you want something done well and efficiently the government is the last place you should look.

Do you have any suggestions?

What can be done to all those rediculous malpractice litigations? According to Don, this seems to bear heavily on the costs of healthcare. Would not that be one place to start looking and improving?

Quid

Gawain of Orkeny

06-14-2007, 22:07

What can be done to all those rediculous malpractice litigations?

Exactly. Ever hear of Tort reform? There should be a cap on them. How many times do we hear you cant put a price on human life. Yet thats what these ambulance chaser like John Edwards do everyday. Its like hitting the lottery if your relative is killed by a rich person or company. Samething with an accident. You should only be able to claim a certain amount. This is one of the things driving the price of healthcare through the roof.

Next to the government the two things I dispise most are Lawyers and Insurance companies. Talk about a cabal.

Would not that be one place to start looking and improving?

Tort Reform -- Joint Economic Committee (http://www.house.gov/jec/tort.htm)

The Perverse Nature of the Medical Liability System (JEC Research Report -- March 2005)
It is commonly assumed that the medical liability system works as advertised: injured patients sue negligent doctors for compensation for their injuries. This assumption is the basis for arguments defending the current system. However, medical liability in practice differs greatly from theory because the system is ineffective at deterring negligent injuries and fails to justly compensate those truly harmed by negligent injuries, thereby providing compelling grounds for serious medical liability reform. [Download in PDF] Top of Page
Medical Malpractice Reform: Perspectives on Recent Findings by the GAO (JEC Policy Brief -- December 2003)
A recent medical malpractice report is incomplete and lends itself to misinterpretation, according to a new Joint Economic Committee analysis released today by Vice Chairman Jim Saxton. The report, issued in August by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), has been cited in numerous press accounts as evidence that there is no medical malpractice crisis. The new Joint Economic Committee policy brief, entitled Medical Malpractice Reform: Perspectives on Recent Findings by the GAO, shows that much of this coverage has ignored important elements of the GAO report, as well as flaws in certain aspects of the report itself. [Download in PDF] Top of Page
Choice in Auto Insurance: Updated Savings Estimates for Auto Choice (JEC Study -- July 2003)
The auto insurance system in the U.S. suffers from several major failings, including excessive cost, uneven compensation for injuries, extensive fraud and abuse, perverse incentives generated by pain-and-suffering damage awards, and the negative impact on the poor and welfare recipients. [Download in PDF] Top of Page

This is what we need not universal healthcare.

Another good link (http://www.newsbatch.com/tort.htm)

Quid

06-14-2007, 22:38

Exactly. Ever hear of Tort reform? There should be a cap on them. How many times do we hear you cant put a price on human life. Yet thats what these ambulance chaser like John Edwards do everyday. Its like hitting the lottery if your relative is killed by a rich person or company. Samething with an accident. You should only be able to claim a certain amount. This is one of the things driving the price of healthcare through the roof.

Next to the government the two things I dispise most are Lawyers and Insurance companies. Talk about a cabal.

Tort Reform -- Joint Economic Committee (http://www.house.gov/jec/tort.htm)

This is what we need not universal healthcare.

Another good link (http://www.newsbatch.com/tort.htm)

How would you get these tort reforms implemented properly? A lot of it seems just big talk from parties as opposed to actually get down doing it. Do you write to your congress man? And if so, does that chage anything? Do you have the option to start a petition and get a referendum started? Am I simply disillusioned?

Quid

doc_bean

06-14-2007, 23:02

I did not attack your system of healthcare, I attempted to explain why your system is not the only option we should consider. Talk about thin-skinned. Since anything I say to debate the point makes you feel defensive, perhaps I should bow out of this one.

Nah, I just felt your points where directed against the entire premise of universal healthcare, not just an implementation suggested for the US. As long as a distinction is made between the two, we're on the same page.

doc_bean

06-14-2007, 23:04

Oh yes, this isn't an American bashing thread? Now were going to talk about debt?

I just wanted to point out that universal healthcare doesn't have to mean people can't save up for a rainy day, or for whatever they want, which seemed like a big issue for Don.

Like I mentioned in the same post, I try to refrain from US bashing.

Lemur

06-15-2007, 01:08

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 01:22

So what we have is a very, very expensive system that fails to provide world-class results when measured by standard metrics. (Life expectancy, healthy births per 1000, etc.) Arguing that any change will impose an unworkable fiscal burden is an interesting way of looking at things.

Some of this is bogus. The healthy births thing for instance. Ours is worse because our medicine is better. I know it sounds wrong but thats how it works. And life expectancy I think has more to do with our lifestyles than our healthcare.

Lemur

06-15-2007, 01:34

Some of this is bogus. The healthy births thing for instance. Ours is worse because our medicine is better. I know it sounds wrong but thats how it works. And life expectancy I think has more to do with our lifestyles than our healthcare.
So you are arguing that our infant mortality rate is higher because of fertility treatments? Or something else? This is an angle I haven't heard.

Here are some more recent comparative statistics (http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.org/ahr2006/OtherNations.html#Others). Debunk at will, you Long Island Lothario.

We're 29th in terms of life expectancy. And we rank below Luxembourg, Andorra and Malta in infant mortality. Damn you, micro-nations!

I'm throwing down some facts and figures in an attempt to move this debate out of the land of wild accusations and unfounded assertions. If you want to come back at me, Gawain, please come bearing facts.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 01:47

So you are arguing that our infant mortality rate is higher because of fertility treatments?

Yes. We have more premature and under weight babies born so therefore a higher mortality rate.

Premature Birth Rate in U.S. Reaches Historic High; Now Up 29 Percent Since 1981

More Babies Like 5-Year-Old Amanda Reeves Born at Risk for Lifetime Disabilities

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y., FEB. 3, 2004 – The number of babies born prematurely (prior to 37 weeks gestation) reached a record high of 480,812 in 2002, according to a new government report. Nationwide, the rate of premature births jumped 13% between 1992 and 2002, with seven states showing increases of 30 percent or more.

LINK (http://www.marchofdimes.com/10651_10763.asp)

We're 29th in terms of life expectancy. And we rank below Luxembourg, Andorra and Malta in infant mortality. Damn you, micro-nations!

Sounds bad until you see how many are tied. Its only LOL a five year gap. Again this is more reflective of our lifestyle than our healthcare system.

I'm throwing down some facts and figures in an attempt to move this debate out of the land of wild accusations and unfounded assertions. If you want to come back at me, Gawain, please come bearing facts.

I have. Statistics can tell a false story just like polls. How can you say unequivacably that this in any way proves these deaths are mostly caused by our lousy heathcare system ? If you eat crap all the time and dont exercise and other nations do the best healthcare in the world aint gonna make you live longer than them.

Blodrast

06-15-2007, 02:09

Just to inject a little factoid into the discussion, Americans are already paying more per capita for medical care than any other nation on earth. Sorry my figures (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/452954_3) are a bit old, but as of 2000:

U.S. per capita health spending was $4,631 in 2000, an increase of 6.3 percent over 1999. The U.S. level was 44 percent higher than Switzerland's, the country with the next-highest expenditure per capita; 83 percent higher than neighboring Canada; and 134 percent higher than the OECD median of $1,983.

The picture doesn't change if you measure by percentage of GDP:

Measured in terms of share of GDP, the United States spent 13.0 percent on health care in 2000, Switzerland 10.7 percent, and Canada 9.1 percent. The OECD median was 8.0 percent.

So what we have is a very, very expensive system that fails to provide world-class results when measured by standard metrics. (Life expectancy, healthy births per 1000, etc.) Arguing that any change will impose an unworkable fiscal burden is an interesting way of looking at things.

Our current system is a ill-begotten mish-mash of socialized medicine, capitalism, and oligopoly. In terms of efficient use of resources, it's pretty abysmal. Last I checked, 15% of all money spent on healthcare goes towards various attempts to move the cost around. (Insurance companies trying to put it on the Gov, the Gov trying to put it on the insurance companies, etc.)

Complications in process lead to more costs. Bureaucracy leads to costs. Systemic friction leads to costs. Anything that would simplify our current mess would be a good thing.

Lemur, why do you persist in bringing facts to the table ?! Why are you spoiling our game, hmm ? After all these years, you still can't get a proper backroom debate right... Shame on you, for using logic and facts - actually, "facts" which are published by bleeding-heart soulless, America-hating liberals anyway. ~;)

So the healthcare system is perfectly fine, it doesn't need fixing, is great, etc, say some of you ?
Let's have a looksie...

http://www.newstarget.com/004318.html

Highlight:
A new study says that medical bills cause financial troubles for more than 2.2 million Americans each year, and they account for about half of all U.S. bankruptcy filings. Most bankruptcy filers have medical insurance but fall upon financial hard times anyway when their policies either lapse or do not cover certain illnesses. One of the study's authors concludes Bill Gates is about the only American who can afford an extended illness.

Original source:
http://www.expressnewsline.com/1005/fullstory1005-insight-medical+illness+bankruptcy-status-28-newsID-23.html

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1

ABSTRACT:

In 2001, 1.458 million American families filed for bankruptcy. To investigate medical contributors to bankruptcy, we surveyed 1,771 personal bankruptcy filers in five federal courts and subsequently completed in-depth interviews with 931 of them. About half cited medical causes, which indicates that 1.9–2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy. Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness. Medical debtors were 42 percent more likely than other debtors to experience lapses in coverage. Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

Medical Bills Leading Cause of Bankruptcy, Harvard Study Finds

Advertisement

February 3, 2005
Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.

The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children.

Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.

Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most.

Families in bankruptcy suffered many privations -- 30 percent had a utility cut off and 61 percent went without needed medical care.

The research, carried out jointly by researchers at Harvard Law School and Harvard Medical School, is the first in-depth study of medical causes of bankruptcy. With the cooperation of bankruptcy judges in five Federal districts (in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas) they administered questionnaires to bankruptcy filers and reviewed their court records.

Dr. David Himmelstein, the lead author of the study and an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard commented: "Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy. Most of the medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick."

Today's health insurance policies -- with high deductibles, co-pays, and many exclusions -- offer little protection during a serious illness. Uncovered medical bills averaged $13,460 for those with private insurance at the start of their illness. People with cancer had average medical debts of $35,878.

"The paradox is that the costliest health system in the world performs so poorly. We waste one-third of every health care dollar on insurance bureaucracy and profits while two million people go bankrupt annually and we leave 45 million uninsured" said Dr. Quentin Young, national coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program.

"With national health insurance ('Medicare for All'), we could provide comprehensive, lifelong coverage to all Americans for the same amount we are spending now and end the cruelty of ruining families financially when they get sick."

What do you know, over 75% of them actually had medical insurance at the onset of their illness, and STILL they went bankrupt... And half of all the people going bankrupt do so because of medical expenses...
Yes, a system that leads 2.2 million people to bankruptcy every year (even though they had insurance...) is clearly fine. Not to mention they were not Mexicans, ilegales, homeless winos, or whatever else scum of the earth - no sirree, 56% of them owned houses and had gone to college - full, solid middle-class folks...

Oh well. I'm sure the methodology of the study is flawed, and the sources unreputable anyway. Damn universities - a nest of liberalism and dirty free-thinking, always up to no good!...

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 03:06

Lemur, why do you persist in bringing facts to the table ?! Why are you spoiling our game, hmm ? After all these years, you still can't get a proper backroom debate right... Shame on you, for using logic and facts - actually, "facts" which are published by bleeding-heart soulless, America-hating liberals anyway.

So the healthcare system is perfectly fine, it doesn't need fixing, is great, etc, say some of you ?
Let's have a looksie...

Lets see how many fallacies we have here

why do you persist in bringing facts to the table

Statistical facts again do not tell the whole story. They can in fact be very misleading.

Lemur, why do you persist in bringing facts to the table ?!

Your loving every line of his post. LOL

After all these years, you still can't get a proper backroom debate right..

More needless sarcasim .

Shame on you, for using logic and facts -

You keep beating the same dead horse and act like we totally ignore your so called facts and you infer that we are not logical in our manner of thought.

facts" which are published by bleeding-heart soulless, America-hating liberals anyway.

Unlike you guys none of us have attacked your sources or even disputed the numbers.

So the healthcare system is perfectly fine, it doesn't need fixing, is great, etc, say some of you ?

And that one is the topper. Quote someone here saying that.

Lemur

06-15-2007, 03:10

Statistics can tell a false story just like polls. How can you say unequivacably that this in any way proves these deaths are mostly caused by our lousy heathcare system ?
Gawain, what I'm saying is that we pay a higher price than any other nation on earth, and by the commonest measures of health, we aren't getting special results. Dispute that if you will.

Blodrast made a very good point about the relationship between medical emergencies and bankruptcy, one which bears addressing by the defenders of the current system.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 03:22

Gawain, what I'm saying is that we pay a higher price than any other nation on earth, and by the commonest measures of health, we aren't getting special results. Dispute that if you will.

But universal healthcare will make things worse not better. Why do you think the government can do it better? In fact if you can afford it we have the some of if not the best healthcare in the world. We do get very special results.

Just look at the lunacy in this. If you needed a heart operation how many of those nations listed as having better healthcare than the US would you prefer over having the operation done here by our best doctors? Again statistics dont tell the whole story.

Blodrast made a very good point about the relationship between medical emergencies and bankruptcy, one which bears addressing by the defenders of the current system.
Today 02:06

Because of frivolous law suits and uncapped ones. Again TORT reform is whats needed.

No one says the system is perfect. But its no where near as bad as some here make it out to be. I think it used to be a lot better before all these insurance companies and HMOs got involved. Back in the old days the Dr actually came to your house. You pay for things you will never use. Like female related tests and procedures for men and vica versa. This one size fits all is never as good as custom tailored or as efficient. Its just easier to implement.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-15-2007, 03:35

Gawain, what I'm saying is that we pay a higher price than any other nation on earth, and by the commonest measures of health, we aren't getting special results. Dispute that if you will.

Blodrast made a very good point about the relationship between medical emergencies and bankruptcy, one which bears addressing by the defenders of the current system.

Lemur:

I have always wondered about the infant mortality thing. Seems counterintuitive. Are countries reporting data to the same metric? E.G. A country which counts any non-stillborn as a live birth v. a country that doesn't count any child as a live birth until they draw their first independent breath. Couldn't see anything on that when I dug into the report a bit. If the measurements are functionally the same, then I am a bit cheesed.

On the whole, I agree with you that we are spending a lot for a sub-optimal result (good of you to include %age GDP, as that's the only fair comparison).

My preferences:

Tort reform strictly limiting punitive damages and providing some limitation for "pain and suffering." Obviously, compensatory damages should not be mucked with at all. I favor having a party judged to have been frivolous or fraudulent in their intent being saddled with the court costs.

Some form of mandated "Major Medical" policy -- parameters defined by NAIC -- to which all must subscribe. Policies which offer more can be offered by employers or purchased individually.

Probably have to have some form of government-payment lodged for the truly indigent -- but hate the necessity as this then becomes a new "welfare" meal ticket for pols. Don't see a better answer, regrettably.

Do NOT favor, but see as most likely, the adoption of a Swiss/Canadian healthcare system run by government as a gloriously boondoggled HMO which will provide "free' healthcare to the lowest 40% of the voting roles at the expense of the top 40% -- this is easily the most politically "doable" option.

Lemur

06-15-2007, 03:36

But universal healthcare will make things worse not better. Why do you think the government can do it better?
I didn't realize that I was your straw man. Where have I said that the government will do it better? Where have I advocated universal health care?

For Pete's sake, I'm trying to make a careful, limited argument. As for heart operations, I'd much rather have the one that doesn't force me into bankruptcy, thanks very much.

Look, I eat healthy, live healthy, drink sparingly and don't smoke. I'm not exactly freeloading on the system. But it takes a certain special something to declare that our healthcare system is great.

You would like to move to a more capitalist system? Sounds good! As I said, anything that simplifies our current system would be good. I'm going to say it for the third time, and if you keep arguing with straw men, I'm going to walk away from this thread whistling:

Socialized medicine has advantages and dangers. Same goes for capitalist systems. We have crafted a system with many of the worst aspects of both. Change would be good.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 03:49

Where have I said that the government will do it better? Where have I advocated universal health care?

Then you have my apologies.

As for heart operations, I'd much rather have the one that doesn't force me into bankruptcy, thanks very much.

Even if it kills you?

Look, I eat healthy, live healthy, drink sparingly and don't smoke. I'm not exactly freeloading on the system. But it takes a certain special something to declare that our healthcare system is great.

Again no on says its great. In fact we all agree it needs a serious overhaul. And do you think your healthy lifestyle is indicative of that of most Americans?

You would like to move to a more capitalist system? Sounds good! As I said, anything that simplifies our current system would be good. I'm going to say it for the third time, and if you keep arguing with straw men, I'm going to walk away from this thread whistling:

My apologies again. Nothing worse than a Ruffed Lemur :laugh4:

Socialized medicine has advantages and dangers. Same goes for capitalist systems. We have crafted a system with many of the worst aspects of both. Change would be good.
Today 02:35

So we in general agree.:2thumbsup:

Lemur

06-15-2007, 06:26

As for heart operations, I'd much rather have the one that doesn't force me into bankruptcy, thanks very much.Even if it kills you?
Actually, yeah, I would prefer to have a treatment that has a chance of killing me than force my family into bankruptcy. Kinda weird, but true.

So we in general agree.:2thumbsup:
Mostly. I think our main difference is that you have a very specific idea of what change would be best; I'm still undecided. There are huge issues of competence and execution that would have to be addressed. Any system could get messed up with a bad implementation, so how a change is applied will probably be more important than the nature of the change.

doc_bean

06-15-2007, 09:55

Just look at the lunacy in this. If you needed a heart operation how many of those nations listed as having better healthcare than the US would you prefer over having the operation done here by our best doctors? Again statistics dont tell the whole story.

Then how do you explain the market for cheap surgery in third world countries ?

I'm not arguing that you can ge tthe best care int he world in the US *if* you can afford it. I'm not arguing socialized medicine is always better (I wonder if MM mentions the amount of amputees in Cuba).
I just find the arguments brought forward against the system to be more emotional or based on principle than based on the cold hard facts (some of which Lemur was so kind to provide).

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 13:18

Then how do you explain the market for cheap surgery in third world countries ?

For the same reason most people dont drive Mercedes. Its cheap and affordable.

I just find the arguments brought forward against the system to be more emotional or based on principle than based on the cold hard facts (some of which Lemur was so kind to provide).

Except these facts are misleading.

Lemur

06-15-2007, 15:04

Except these facts are misleading.
Everybody knows that life expectancy and infant mortality have a well-known liberal bias.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 15:06

Everybody knows that life expectancy and infant mortality have a well-known liberal bias.

No one ever said that. You know what Im driving at. You can use facts to make plenty of false assumptions.

Don Corleone

06-15-2007, 15:35

I think what Gawain's driving at is the old political adage, "There's lies, there's damn lies, then there's statistics".

Even so, I think we can agree our system is tiered. Gawain, you're pointing to the top tier of service when you talk about people coming from other countries. You and I don't have access to the best cardiac surgeons at Cedars or Mt. Sinai, let alone some young kid working at Walmart.

I've always wondered if our high abortion rate doesn't play into infant mortality. I believe they include that, though as they were intentionally terminated, they shouldn't.

Even so, the American system will never change. There's two big factors that keep it the way it is, and as bad as it is, it is a very stable system:

1) Look at how much of the money spent per patient goes into legal bills, malpractice insurance, scarcity of doctors that won't practice in sue-happy states (North Carolina) or specialties (obstetrics). People are convinced that they're entitled to a big fat settlement check if the doctor doesn't perform perfectly. Lawyers that represent them aren't just going to give all this cash up without a fight. This is a big part of what's wrong with our system, but it pales in comparison to #2.

2) Most of our health care policy is written by pharmaceutical and health care industry lobbyists. Just look at Medicaid Part D, the "Make Pfeizer rich" bill, I mean the prescirption drug benefit. You couldn't have crafted a worse bill for seniors or for taxpayers. Only one group came out with what they wanted. In an unprecednented move, we outlawed the ability to negotiate on drug prices!!! Think about that for a second... by order of Congress and the President, Medicaid is not allowed to haggle with the drug companies on the prices they put forward for drugs they have to pay for! Insanity!!!!!

The only system that might work is a Swiss/Massachussets style system where medical insurance becomes mandatory. If you can't afford it, the government pays for you and takes what they can out of your paycheck.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 15:41

Even so, I think we can agree our system is tiered. Gawain, you're pointing to the top tier of service when you talk about people coming from other countries. You and I don't have access to the best cardiac surgeons at Cedars or Mt. Sinai, let alone some young kid working at Walmart.

I never disputed that. Even if we go to universal healthcare it will still be tiered. I dont see the rich going to any health clinics soon for treatment. And dont you think most of our doctors rank far better than 29th in the world? Ill take my chances in a hospital here before I will in Cananda thank you. Never mind the wait you have up there. Again we all agree its a mess. Something needs to be changed. It wasnt always this way. Im old enough to remember when it wasnt.

Tribesman

06-15-2007, 16:49

Just look at the lunacy in this. If you needed a heart operation how many of those nations listed as having better healthcare than the US would you prefer over having the operation done here by our best doctors? Again statistics dont tell the whole story.

Ah so its a matter of choice Gawain , some American people prefer paying 5 times the price at double the risk of failure than going to an American accredited hospital in India for their heart surgery .

For the same reason most people dont drive Mercedes. Its cheap and affordable.

Gawain you are getting that the wrong way round , you are paying for a mercedes but ending up with a pinto .

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 17:40

Gawain you are getting that the wrong way round , you are paying for a mercedes but ending up with a pinto

No more like a Galaxy. But if you have enough money you can get the Mercedes which is not available in most other nations. Metaphoricaly speaking of course.

Ah so its a matter of choice Gawain

No more a matter of how much money do you have. But you can luck out:laugh4:

KafirChobee

06-15-2007, 19:45

Again with the bugaboo about lawyers driving the cost of healthcare. Thing is, isn't tort reform more about limiting the amounts lawyers receive for winning a law suit - and assuring the injured party receives a fare share in any settlement?
http://www.newsbatch.com/tort.htm

Certainly the ambulance chasers aren't benefiting anyone more than themselves - but, the lawfirms on retainer for the insurance companys, hospitals, prescription mfg's, etc make up +10% of these institutions costs (20% of their costs is advertising - for drug manufacturers, the cost of advertising is actually is more than their research costs).

So, is reform needed in the legal area of medical injury? Yes. Should there be monetary limitations? No - that is a court decision, not a congressional one.

None of this, imo, has anything to do with providing health coverage to the 18% of americans that have 0% today.

There are those that talk about family values, about american morals, about government responsibility, and about individual responsibilty to care for those less fortunate. Yet, when it is presented to these high values peeps that something can be done to aid the poor they begin screaming "SOCIALISM" - or pointing out that they are just fine, so it must be the others fault they are in the position they are in. Or, some imaginary 3rd party or institute is the cause for these woes.

At times it seem the american aversion to taxes is the only universal thing they beleive in. They want the serves the taxes provide - they just want someone else to pay for them (except the wealthy of course - whom we always assure pay the least percentagely).

Thing is, once an american reaches 65, they are given universal healthcare - try taking that away. The last drug bill for the elderly, was actually for the drug companys. As pointed out earlier, it took the right for the government agencies associated with overseeing the elderlys' healthcare from negotiating the prices of the drugs being sold them, and made it illegal to use Canada's drug distribution centers.

There is so much written about the need for universal health care in America - both positive and negative, that anyone can find something that will support any arguement. Therefore, it can be assumed that the debate over it and any compromises for it will in the long run benefit more those presently in charge of it, than the people intended to serve. Just as the last drug bill did (Pfiesher was real happy 'bout the last one - drove up drug costs by +20%).

The disagreements here (for the most part) are not so much that there is not a need, as to how to comprehensively acheive a goal in an equitable and practical manner.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 20:45

So, is reform needed in the legal area of medical injury? Yes. Should there be monetary limitations? No - that is a court decision, not a congressional one.

Yes there should. Ill give you let the states make the limits.

None of this, imo, has anything to do with providing health coverage to the 18% of americans that have 0% today.

Some just dont want it. Their young and not worried about it yet.

The disagreements here (for the most part) are not so much that there is not a need, as to how to comprehensively acheive a goal in an equitable and practical manner.

I think we can all agree on that. But this the case in every nation. No one has a perfect healthcare system.

Blodrast

06-16-2007, 01:29

Gawain:
Yes, I prolly went a bit overboard with the sarcasm, in order to get my point across.
However, I notice that you didn't actually address the content of my post, just my sarcasm. Which does absolutely nothing to support your argument.
Oh well.

Lemur posted some statistics that prove that from a certain standpoint, there are problems with the system. I posted some articles and a study that point out that there are also problems with the system from yet another perspective (the financial/bankruptcy aspect).

If you're not accepting statistics as proving anything, then pray tell, what exactly DO you accept as proof that the system is flawed ? His statistics are worthless; the articles I posted, and the study I posted, are not good enough. What IS/WOULD BE ?

You keep beating the same dead horse and act like we totally ignore your so called facts and you infer that we are not logical in our manner of thought.

Because you ARE ignoring them. You did not make ONE comment in reply to the articles and the study I posted. Not a single one. That is the definition of ignoring, my friend.
And you ARE ignoring them: you disagreed with the statistics Lemur posted right off the bat, claiming they are useless:

Statistics can tell a false story just like polls. How can you say unequivacably that this in any way proves these deaths are mostly caused by our lousy heathcare system ?

Quote:
So the healthcare system is perfectly fine, it doesn't need fixing, is great, etc, say some of you ?

And that one is the topper. Quote someone here saying that.

*sigh* Fine... although, I'd like to point out that instead of commenting on the articles I posted, all you did was comment on my sarcasm, and hiding yourself behind words, with cheap tactics like "Nobody said exactly that", "Nobody used those specific words", etc... If I say "the colour of sky", then the meaning of that phrase IS "blue", damnit, whether I explicitly said "blue" or not.

post #37.

Or heading to our beloved neighbors to the North:laugh4: Its a one way street all right. Right here to our crappy health system. In fact people from all over the world flock here to take advantage of our crappy health care.

You're obviously using "crappy" with sarcasm here, which means you think it's actually the opposite: not crappy, hence fine.

Here's a post from Dave, who also says that the system is perfectly fine:

post #36.

Well, until I start seeing thousands of Americans swiming into the loving arms of Cuba and its "free jealthcare", I think we have a pretty good deal here in the US of A. Those who disagree are free to leave anytime.

And here's yet ANOTHER post from Odin, who, surprise, says exactly the same thing:

post #53.

We have fine medical care in america, it dosent suck, quite badly, your wrong.

There you go, Gawain.
The only line that actually had some content in your reply, and THAT was incorrect.

But you know what ? It's tiring, and totally not worth it, to try to have a discussion in this manner, where I post some ideas/articles, and you address nothing about them, instead play semantics and say that nobody really said that (when it's blatantly, patently, and obviously false - and I offered you proof), and you ask for specific proof - and I gave you proof. And even those comments are wrong.

If you want to have an actual discussion, I'll only be too happy to, and I'll try to keep my sarcasm down (there's a reason for it, though. And you may note that I actually had some content in my post, besides the sarcasm. Can't really say the same thing about you.). If you want to play word games, I'm sure there are other folks around who will accomodate you.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-16-2007, 02:21

Because you ARE ignoring them.

No Im not. Your ignoring my posts.

You did not make ONE comment in reply to the articles and the study I posted. Not a single one. That is the definition of ignoring, my friend.

I didnt have anything to say about them.

And you ARE ignoring them: you disagreed with the statistics Lemur posted right off the bat

I never claimed they were wrong.

claiming they are useless:

I never said that either.

You're obviously using "crappy" with sarcasm here, which means you think it's actually the opposite: not crappy, hence fine.

So know your a mind reader? Thats quite a leap isnt it? Im saying its not as bad as some make it out to be. How you take that to me saying its just fine leave it alone after the countless times Ive stated otherwise is beyond me. Who is ignoring who here?

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Well, until I start seeing thousands of Americans swiming into the loving arms of Cuba and its "free jealthcare", I think we have a pretty good deal here in the US of A. Those who disagree are free to leave anytime.

Does pretty good mean fine in your book?

We have fine medical care in america, it dosent suck, quite badly, your wrong.

We do and weve expalined that is if you can afford to pay for it. Its the truth. Whats your problem?

The only line that actually had some content in your reply, and THAT was incorrect.

Where?

nstead play semantics and say that nobody really said that (when it's blatantly, patently, and obviously false - and I offered you proof)

Obviously your very bad at this game because you just did it again. Dont post what you think I mean and we wont have this problem.

Just in case I didnt make myself clear

The Problems with Statistics (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/evistats.html)

And one more time so it will sink into your head. The COST of healthcare here is out of hand and needs to be reined in. Your arguing with the wrong dude here. I want it reformed as bad as you do. I just dont think it sucks as bad as most people here think. I also oppose any form of government healhtcare from the federal government. Maybe a program with clinics where the government pays your tuition to become a doctor but then you have to work in a clinic for so many years. Im perfectly open to reasonable ideas.

KafirChobee

06-17-2007, 06:05

Er, Gawain? Your link even says that statistics are the best way to demonstrate a point. It basically just says that one should be aware of where the stats are coming from because they can be twisted. i.e. if a small select group is used to make a point, that is if someone selected just anti-abortionists to determine the percentage of americans that appose abortion.

Ignoring the stats that have been presented here is just being stubborn.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-17-2007, 06:14

Er, Gawain? Your link even says that statistics are the best way to demonstrate a point

How is that contradictory to my point? That certainly is what it is being used for in this case.

It basically just says that one should be aware of where the stats are coming from because they can be twisted.

I dont think anyone twisted them. I never said they did. At least not on purpose.

Ignoring the stats that have been presented here is just being stubborn.

I guess Blodrast better make room in his boat for you. I never ignored them. I didnt even ever question the numbers. Go back and see my explanation. Does every country collect stats in the same exact manner? Does every country have the same proportion of premature births? Is every nation made up of mostly over weight fast food eating, sit at home non exercising loafs? Heck most men I know dont go to the doctor anyway. Not unless their dying :) And thats just a start.

Ironside

06-17-2007, 10:16

I've always wondered if our high abortion rate doesn't play into infant mortality. I believe they include that, though as they were intentionally terminated, they shouldn't.

They don't include the full number for certain and although I don't know if they do it for the very late term, I don't understand why.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-17-2007, 16:41

Heres a sipmle example of what Im talking about

Men in Australia have an average life expectancy of 78 years compared to 83 in women.

So using the logic presented here women receive better healthcare than men. Now I will sit back and enjoy seeing you tear this logic apart.

Big King Sanctaphrax

06-17-2007, 18:00

So are you arguing that people in the US are just naturally unhealthier?

Gawain of Orkeny

06-17-2007, 18:07

So are you arguing that people in the US are just naturally unhealthier?

No we actually work at it :laugh4:

Big King Sanctaphrax

06-17-2007, 18:09

I take your point. But isn't that a public health issue in itself, and thus an indictment of the health system? I would imagine that many people without insurance in the US, while they may be able to get acute care from an ER in a pinch, don't have easy access to advice on eating healthily, exercise, etc, or support from their GP in actually doing these things.

Of course, the irony is that doing things that way around actually works out being far more expensive.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-17-2007, 18:13

I take your point. But isn't that a public health issue in itself, and thus an indictment of the health system?

No its not in my book. Its a cultural thing . Its for exactly the same reasons as why women generally out live men around the world. You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink.

lars573

06-18-2007, 05:49

Okay, bad example. Maybe it's Australia where they outlaw you trying to buy better coverage on your own. In any case, how does one get themselves onto NICE? How do you make certain various health care trade industry reps and pharmaceutical reps don't stack the deck? Because whether they get appointed or voted onto the panel, there's always a way to buy their way on.
Nope Auzzie-land encourages people who can afford it to go soley on a private plan (according to Pape anyway). Your thinking of, :canada: In the past most areas here "discouraged" any sort of private medical care. Exccept Alberta, but "Texaho" would be happiest as the 51st state. :rolleyes:

Quid to answer your question. Our system is an insurance plan. Given by a public corporation.* It covers all medical needs eccept dental, optical, and elective surgeries. And we co-pay of drugs. I'm not sure what the percentages are but MSI (Nova Scotias insurance company) pays over half of drug costs. Like most things Canadian it's decentralized*, we have 10 individual medical insurance companies, one fo each province (not sure about the territories). Each mandated by the Canada health act to provide medical care for all citizens and landed immigrants free of charge.

Like any socialized system wait times and rationing are the order of the day. However these wait times are determined by severity. For someone who needs knee replacements (like my Grandmother) you wait 1.5-2 years to get both done. For someone with cancer (former supervisors wife) you wait 3 days.

But like any system it has it's flaws. Such as rarely someone can die of complecations on a waiting list. And people using the system wrong. Like going to the ER if you don't have a family GP instead of a drop-in clinic.