NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, I mostly want to hear from people living in countries where the government provides health care (Canada, Germany, etc.): Do you think you are getting the same quality of health care available in the U.S.? Now, obviously someone who can't afford healthcare in the U.S. is going to be better off having it provided by the government, but would you say you have more confidence in American hospital/doctors/treatment, or those of a country with socialized health care? No flame intended, its just that I've heard a lot of arguments for or against it from Americans, but I'd like to hear from someone who has experienced it firsthand.

I'm not sure . . . I've always had private healthcare, and I've heard both good and bad about socialized healthcare:

Good: Everybody gets it
Bad: Equiptment is terrible, sterility sometimes is compromised

Now, I mostly want to hear from people living in countries where the government provides health care (Canada, Germany, etc.): Do you think you are getting the same quality of health care available in the U.S.? Now, obviously someone who can't afford healthcare in the U.S. is going to be better off having it provided by the government, but would you say you have more confidence in American hospital/doctors/treatment, or those of a country with socialized health care? No flame intended, its just that I've heard a lot of arguments for or against it from Americans, but I'd like to hear from someone who has experienced it firsthand.
i've experienced the "tender loving and intelligent care" provided by private health care, and i got to tell you, it cant get worse having the government regulate their asses.

Well, the quality of the treatment is probably about the same here in Canada, but the waiting lists might be a tad longer. That's not the result of public funding, I think, so much as it is the fallout from the "brain drain". Doctors can move South, and make more money in a private system, so some of them do, and as a result some hospitals seem to be understaffed. Never been to Europe, so beats me about how their system is doing.

I'm not sure . . . I've always had private healthcare, and I've heard both good and bad about socialized healthcare:

Good: Everybody gets it
Bad: Equiptment is terrible, sterility sometimes is compromised
...what country do you live in??

I made another thread on this weeks ago. I concluded that Canadian and American systems of healthcare are almost similar. But if you are poor then your better off in Canada. And if your rich your better off in the U.S.

Well, the quality of the treatment is probably about the same here in Canada, but the waiting lists might be a tad longer. That's not the result of public funding, I think, so much as it is the fallout from the "brain drain". Doctors can move South, and make more money in a private system, so some of them do, and as a result some hospitals seem to be understaffed. Never been to Europe, so beats me about how their system is doing.

we are all understaffed anyway HEAVILY understaffed.

I made another thread on this weeks ago. I concluded that Canadian and American systems of healthcare are almost similar. But if you are poor then your better off in Canada. And if your rich your better off in the U.S.
id doubt that unless you are rich enough to buy some one elses arm and a leg to pay for the cost of health care. and if your that rich, it wont matter where you are because you can buy whoever you want

we are all understaffed anyway HEAVILY understaffed.
Who's "we"?

...what country do you live in??
US - forgive me; I do admit I am somewhat ignorant on the subject of socialized healthcare

US - forgive me; I do admit I am somewhat ignorant on the subject of socialized healthcare
oh no, i was just wondering about he sterility thing.
that would be quite scary.

US - forgive me; I do admit I am somewhat ignorant on the subject of socialized healthcare
I'd not worry too much if I were you. I don't know much about Private Healthcare, either. It's generally considered an evil thing up here. I'm not too sure if the equipment is much less advanced (though the ocassional piece of equipment is likely fairly old, but they probably figure why waste the money if it still works), but considering the amount of tax dollars going into the system, it would be pretty pitiful if hospitals were too far behind American ones.
As for the compromised sterility.... I kinda doubt it. I've heard plenty of operating room horror stories from my ma, the nurse, but never anything like that. Though there was this one time they were about to take the organs out of a woman, and her head moved..... she did die three days later, and she was more or less a vegetable, but it turns out she wasn't quiite dead yet. Everything was sterile, though. ;)

I'd not worry too much if I were you. I don't know much about Private Healthcare, either. It's generally considered an evil thing up here. I'm not too sure if the equipment is much less advanced (though the ocassional piece of equipment is likely fairly old, but they probably figure why waste the money if it still works), but considering the amount of tax dollars going into the system, it would be pretty pitiful if hospitals were too far behind American ones.
Perhaps then my worries are about the half-assed socialized healthcare, not the full extensive ones

Perhaps then my worries are about the half-assed socialized healthcare, not the full extensive ones
We are probably a little behind, but rhetoric does tend to exagerate certain qualities.. I mean, hospitals in the States probably don't leave people to bleed to death in the emergency room due to lack of coverage.... right? RIGHT?

We are probably a little behind, but rhetoric does tend to exagerate certain qualities.. I mean, hospitals in the States probably don't leave people to bleed to death in the emergency room due to lack of coverage.... right? RIGHT?
Actually, they don't. They would be in SERIOUS shit if they turned someone away from the ER because they didn't have insurance. Now, if they, let's say, had cancer and couldn't afford the treatment, then they'd be pretty well fucked.

Well, despite our continual complaints, it seems to work in Australia. I've never been overseas, so I can't really compare - however, I've heard several horror stories from fellow Aussies who've been overseas, complaining that while critically injured they've been delayed getting into the hospital because the admin people were more interested in making sure that the patient could pay for treatment than they were in whether the patient needed emergency surgery.
So I'd say ensuring that avoiding that problem alone justifies socialised medicine. (As other people have pointed out, you end up paying one way or another. The question is, which way is most effective).

Actually, they don't. They would be in SERIOUS shit if they turned someone away from the ER because they didn't have insurance. Now, if they, let's say, had cancer and couldn't afford the treatmen, then they'd be pretty well fucked.

For the poor and elderly there is medicare and medicaid.

We are probably a little behind, but rhetoric does tend to exagerate certain qualities.. I mean, hospitals in the States probably don't leave people to bleed to death in the emergency room due to lack of coverage.... right? RIGHT?
actually yes, they've been known to

This question was asked once before, and as I said then, I doubt many of people from countries other than the USA will have experienced their healthcare to compare them. In any event.

would you say you have more confidence in American hospital/doctors/treatment, or those of a country with socialized health care?

I have neither more, nor less. Canadian healthcare has served me so far, and while it isn't perfect, I've yet to hear of a country in which it is.

Now, I mostly want to hear from people living in countries where the government provides health care (Canada, Germany, etc.): Do you think you are getting the same quality of health care available in the U.S.? Now, obviously someone who can't afford healthcare in the U.S. is going to be better off having it provided by the government, but would you say you have more confidence in American hospital/doctors/treatment, or those of a country with socialized health care? No flame intended, its just that I've heard a lot of arguments for or against it from Americans, but I'd like to hear from someone who has experienced it firsthand.

Australia has better healthcare than America, and it has a very good public health care system, it frequently provides spare capacity in operations to New Zealand. I would say that I would prefer using the Australian public system to the New Zealand public system.
However, both have great private health care. If it was something cheap and fast to recover from, I would go private.

BTW, cuba's socialist health system is the best in the world.

actually yes, they've been known to
Could you direct me to a source documenting a specific case of this?

Well, despite our continual complaints, it seems to work in Australia. I've never been overseas, so I can't really compare - however, I've heard several horror stories from fellow Aussies who've been overseas, complaining that while critically injured they've been delayed getting into the hospital because the admin people were more interested in making sure that the patient could pay for treatment than they were in whether the patient needed emergency surgery.
So I'd say ensuring that avoiding that problem alone justifies socialised medicine. (As other people have pointed out, you end up paying one way or another. The question is, which way is most effective).

They must have traveled to India(lol)

in any case, what you said about which way is more efficient is the key.

The government never does anything efficiently. The govt health care systems in the US are hopelessly mired in fraud and administrative costs. Coupled with the litigious nature of the US society and the resulting defensive medical practices, it makes me think that socialized medicine to very inefficient.

Could you direct me to a source documenting a specific case of this?
just personal knowledge

So is there anyone here who's lived in both the U.S. and Canada, and can compare the two? So far it seems that the quality of treatment is about the same, but I'd certainly be interested to hear someone with experience with both.

So is there anyone here who's lived in both the U.S. and Canada, and can compare the two? So far it seems that the quality of treatment is about the same, but I'd certainly be interested to hear someone with experience with both.


I have a few friends that moved from NY to Canada(Toronto) and they LOVE the Canadian system. Of course, they love it because it costs so much less. They havent had to actually USA the system yet because they are young and dont really need it yet. Then again their taxes are higher so go figure.

Wheter private or socialized healthcare is better depends very much on what teh evaluation criteria are. If you are interested in ensuring a minimum access and care level to all it is totally differant than if you are talking about the ability to provide very specialized care. For a hypothetical example look at two elderly gentlemen; Mr Jones and Mr Smith. Both are wealthy and have a very rare cancer and heart disease that requires a heart transplant. Mr Jones lives in a "private insurance" area and Mr Smith in a "socialized" one. Mr Smith has guaranteed access to his doctor and is seen quickly. Unfortuanatley for him there is no available treatment for his specialized cancer due to its rareity (resources in socialized systems tend to be focused on where it does most good for greatest numbers) and the gov also deceides that due to his advanced age he is not suitable for a transplant as younger folks will get the available hearts. Poor Mr Smith, he is out money but will die; his fortune was worthless. On the other hand, Mr Jones calls a specialist and pays an exhorbitant sum of moey and receives cutting edge cancer treatment and hires the top heart surgeon to do a transplant (as it is expensive there are fewer performed and therefore more hearts available). He is out a great deal of money but has his life. Here private healthcare is better. Now lets say they both are poor and need a flu shot. Mr Smith gets his shot at no cost as vaccination has a great cost/benefit ratio. He did not have to pay and is protected and doesn't get sick. Great for him. On teh other hand, Mr Jones cannot afford to see his doctor or pay for the flu shot. He goes without. Later that year he contracts the flu and dies from complications. Obviously "socialized" healthcare is better here. So which is better? It all depends on the goal. Somehow we have to find a middle ground.

Actually, they don't. They would be in SERIOUS shit if they turned someone away from the ER because they didn't have insurance. Now, if they, let's say, had cancer and couldn't afford the treatment, then they'd be pretty well fucked.
I know. That's actually what I meant: horror stories that aren't necessarily true. That and I was joking.

I know. That's actually what I meant: horror stories that aren't necessarily true. That and I was joking.
Yeah, sorry, I sorta misread your post there. But a lot of people do believe that if you're poor the hospitals won't have anything to do with you, which simply isn't true.

The government never does anything efficiently. The govt health care systems in the US are hopelessly mired in fraud and administrative costs. Coupled with the litigious nature of the US society and the resulting defensive medical practices, it makes me think that socialized medicine to very inefficient.
That's *your* govt. Othr govts are more efficient. That may actually be the benchmark: in nations with effective public sectors - Canada, Oz, Scandinavia - you want the public sector to be involved. If your public sector sucks, keep everything private.

Yeah, sorry, I sorta misread your post there. But a lot of people do believe that if you're poor the hospitals won't have anything to do with you, which simply isn't true.
No worries. Well, that is, unless you have cancer and no insurance, right? ;)

Wheter private or socialized healthcare is better depends very much on what teh evaluation criteria are. If you are interested in ensuring a minimum access and care level to all it is totally differant than if you are talking about the ability to provide very specialized care. For a hypothetical example look at two elderly gentlemen; Mr Jones and Mr Smith. Both are wealthy and have a very rare cancer and heart disease that requires a heart transplant. Mr Jones lives in a "private insurance" area and Mr Smith in a "socialized" one. Mr Smith has guaranteed access to his doctor and is seen quickly. Unfortuanatley for him there is no available treatment for his specialized cancer due to its rareity (resources in socialized systems tend to be focused on where it does most good for greatest numbers) and the gov also deceides that due to his advanced age he is not suitable for a transplant as younger folks will get the available hearts. Poor Mr Smith, he is out money but will die; his fortune was worthless. On the other hand, Mr Jones calls a specialist and pays an exhorbitant sum of moey and receives cutting edge cancer treatment and hires the top heart surgeon to do a transplant (as it is expensive there are fewer performed and therefore more hearts available). He is out a great deal of money but has his life. Here private healthcare is better. Now lets say they both are poor and need a flu shot. Mr Smith gets his shot at no cost as vaccination has a great cost/benefit ratio. He did not have to pay and is protected and doesn't get sick. Great for him. On teh other hand, Mr Jones cannot afford to see his doctor or pay for the flu shot. He goes without. Later that year he contracts the flu and dies from complications. Obviously "socialized" healthcare is better here. So which is better? It all depends on the goal. Somehow we have to find a middle ground.
here is how you fix this: the specialised doctors can be private. but general hospitals and doctors offices should be government controlled to prevent the bullshit that makes our local hospital a licensed killzone

this is what i know of the comparison between different systems

one of our local doctors took a years sabbatical in new zealand. i live in a tiny town in new mexico where the hospital is considered mediocre at best. when the doctor got back he said he felt that new zealand was at least 10 years behind us.

when my mother had cataracts 10 years ago, while living in florida, she was diagnosed one day, scheduled the surgery as soon as was convenient for her, picked her up at her house and brought her back after it was done. IF she paid any money out of pocket, it wasnt enough for her to bitch about afterwards. she was on medicare and has some kind of supplemental insurance

when my friend in sheffield england got diagnosed with a cataract it took over a year to get it done. the second eye took a year and a half after that. he had to find his own way there and back. i dont think he had to pay any money out of pocket.

thats all i know. although it was my impression that socialized medicine was a disaster in australia but maybe that was just doctors bitching, i wouldnt know for sure.

Public ("socialized"; is it called that to smear it by association with *gasp* socialism? or is it a coincidence?) works very well in the UK; it's modern, it's efficient, it's comprehensive and most importantly it's free at the point of use. The NHS is very popular over here, only really sad cases go private for NHS-covered (all health related) treatment. I'm in favour of abolishing private competition with the state provider, which only serves to undermine equity of provision.

this is what i know of the comparison between different systems

one of our local doctors took a years sabbatical in new zealand. i live in a tiny town in new mexico where the hospital is considered mediocre at best. when the doctor got back he said he felt that new zealand was at least 10 years behind us.

when my mother had cataracts 10 years ago, while living in florida, she was diagnosed one day, scheduled the surgery as soon as was convenient for her, picked her up at her house and brought her back after it was done. IF she paid any money out of pocket, it wasnt enough for her to bitch about afterwards. she was on medicare and has some kind of supplemental insurance

when my friend in sheffield england got diagnosed with a cataract it took over a year to get it done. the second eye took a year and a half after that. he had to find his own way there and back. i dont think he had to pay any money out of pocket.

thats all i know. although it was my impression that socialized medicine was a disaster in australia but maybe that was just doctors bitching, i wouldnt know for sure.

Of course a small nation like New Zealand will be worse for public health, but we have one of the worlds best private health systems.
Socialized medicine in australia is pretty good, my uncle is a doctor who recently graduated as a psychiatrist. (double the pay to A$100 k)
I think you will find that the australian system is better because they have the numbers to run an efficient system with quick waiting times. Maybe a few weeks or so, compared to a few months in NZ.
The biggest complaint doctors have in OZ is the tax rate being 49% for high earners, 10% more than NZ.

Public ("socialized"; is it called that to smear it by association with *gasp* socialism? or is it a coincidence?) works very well in the UK; it's modern, it's efficient, it's comprehensive and most importantly it's free at the point of use. The NHS is very popular over here, only really sad cases go private for NHS-covered (all health related) treatment. I'm in favour of abolishing private competition with the state provider, which only serves to undermine equity of provision.
I take it NHS is National Healthcare System, or something to that effect?

Public ("socialized"; is it called that to smear it by association with *gasp* socialism? or is it a coincidence?) works very well in the UK; it's modern, it's efficient, it's comprehensive and most importantly it's free at the point of use. The NHS is very popular over here, only really sad cases go private for NHS-covered (all health related) treatment. I'm in favour of abolishing private competition with the state provider, which only serves to undermine equity of provision.

I'd rather give significant tax breaks to people who take private health insurance. By doing so they relieve strain on the ever-overloaded National Health Service, which has the knock-on effect of costing the public less tax money. Don't forget that any tax is basically robbing people en masse for "the greater good".

I'd rather give significant tax breaks to people who take private health insurance. By doing so they relieve strain on the ever-overloaded National Health Service, which has the knock-on effect of costing the public less tax money. Don't forget that any tax is basically robbing people en masse for "the greater good".
But if you give them tax breaks, they aren't reducing the cost because they aren't paying the same amount of tax to supposrt said overloaded National Health Service.. unless it's just a small tax break.

I made another thread on this weeks ago. I concluded that Canadian and American systems of healthcare are almost similar. But if you are poor then your better off in Canada. And if your rich your better off in the U.S.

Heh. Money gets you benefits in either country. The major difference is organ transplants which can mean in the US you can abuse the hell out of your liver like David Crosby did and get a new one easily, while in Canada, triage is the rule of the day. Your physical condition, disease/cause of damaged organ/tissue and age says who gets the organs. Not your bank account.

I'd rather give significant tax breaks to people who take private health insurance. By doing so they relieve strain on the ever-overloaded National Health Service, which has the knock-on effect of costing the public less tax money. Don't forget that any tax is basically robbing people en masse for "the greater good".

Absolutely not. The less money coming in to a nation health service the worse the service gets and the effects can be exponential.

Its only the rich who could afford such private care and they pay most of the taxes. Give them breaks and everyone else suffers.

"Robbing"??? Please. Taxes are necessary. :rolleyes:

Taxes are a cooperative activity. Everyone pitches in so we have funds for everything we need to government to provide.

Heh. Money gets you benefits in either country. The major difference is organ transplants which can mean in the US you can abuse the hell out of your liver like David Crosby did and get a new one easily, while in Canada, triage is the rule of the day. Your physical condition, disease/cause of damaged organ/tissue and age says who gets the organs. Not your bank account.

With regards to organ transplants, you are dead wrong about the USA. You cannot purchase an organ here. Who receives what organs is based solely upon things like how old they are, chance of success, quality of life etc. Money is not considered at all.

With regards to organ transplants, you are dead wrong about the USA. You cannot purchase an organ here. Who receives what organs is based solely upon things like how old they are, chance of success, quality of life etc.
Well, that's not what determined who got MY kidney! ;)

If you want info on health care systems it best to go to the horse's mouth.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/care/

As someone who has used Canada's system all my life and has had lots of relatives with many medical problems I can say the service is great. Emergencies were handled well. Quality superb. Even with the cutbacks over recent years Canada Health is fine, and now that a budget surplus has arisen, the era of cuts are soon to come to an end.

If you want info on health care systems it best to go to the horse's mouth.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/care/

As someone who has use Canada's system all my life and has had lots of relatives with many medical problems I can say the service is great. Emergencies were handled well. Service is great. Quality superb. Even with the cutbacks over recent years Canada Health is fine, and now that a budget surplus has arisen, the era of cuts are soon to come to an end.
You do realize you said "service is great" twice, right? I'll just assume you're really enthusiastic..... say, did you read my story about the organ transplant? It's funny in that "Oh sweet God!" kinda way, but it's not indicative of typical care in Canada. Then there was that one time when the power went out and the generator didn't kick in for a minute or so....... just kidding. Really.

With regards to organ transplants, you are dead wrong about the USA. You cannot purchase an organ here. Who receives what organs is based solely upon things like how old they are, chance of success, quality of life etc. Money is not considered at all.
just like doctors who write for medical journals dont take money to ignore the horrible setbacks in a drug, or just like the FDA doesnt suppress important health information from getting out

Actually, they don't. They would be in SERIOUS shit if they turned someone away from the ER because they didn't have insurance. Now, if they, let's say, had cancer and couldn't afford the treatment, then they'd be pretty well fucked.
Herein lies probably the greatest benefit of "universal health care" which you choose to call "socialize medicine", is the fact that rich or poor, ALL citizens are entitled to equal access to medical facilities, including the services of specialists.

On the whole, I believe that our health care system is on par with that of the US. Certain procedures are better in the US and certain procedures are better in Canada:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040503-084924-5336r.htm

As for the cost, it appears that Canada pays anywhere from 1/2 to 1/3 that the US pays per capita:

Per Capita U.S. Health Care Costs Triple Canada's
http://consumeraffairs.com/news03/health_costs.html

U.S. Health Spending vs. that of Other Nations
http://www.allhealth.org/sourcebook2002/ch8_8.html

Study: Overhead pads health care costs

U.S. nearly twice as wasteful as Canada

http://www.freep.com/news/health/health21_20030821.htm

When you factor in that Canada has a lower infant mortality rate and that Canadians live longer by about 2 years, it appears that we get good value for our health care dollar.

You do realize you said "service is great" twice, right?

Ah! The perils of writing when sleepy.


I'll just assume you're really enthusiastic..... say, did you read my story about the organ transplant? It's funny in that "Oh sweet God!" kinda way, but it's not indicative of typical care in Canada. Then there was that one time when the power went out and the generator didn't kick in for a minute or so....... just kidding. Really.

I could use a laugh. I'll look for it.

With regards to organ transplants, you are dead wrong about the USA. You cannot purchase an organ here. Who receives what organs is based solely upon things like how old they are, chance of success, quality of life etc. Money is not considered at all.

David Crosby then. How did he get one so soon.

There is a waiting list for transplants in the US, yes and the two systems are similar in this regard. Somehow he managed to bypass that and get his liver while I'm sure more deserving ones were left to wait.

Was fame a factor? Was he able to find a money solution to his problem? I'm not saying the amount of money ones has has an intrinsic value to being placed on the list.

Finding out the conditions on how the liver was acquired will be highly improbable, obviously.

This just doesn't smell right.

One of the topics commonly brought up is the fact that almost every single new drug is created by American pharmaceutical companies. You see, almost all of the worlds medical R&D is performed in the US by US companies. The reason? We can have higher drug prices than basically every other country.

We are sacrificing to develop the new drugs for other countries (admit it, the Germans, Canadians, Japanese, French, Chinese, Swiss, Belgian, etc. drug companies do very little R&D and mainly copy American drugs) If the countries who are living off of our tremendous expenditures would be so polite as to pay a little bit of money to help in R&D, well life would be a lot better for all of us.

I have also bought medicine in socialized medicine countries. Namely Germany, where I was for an extended period of time. I was required to pay 5 Euros for each medicine. I bought prescription antibiotics, eyedrops (Berberil N), and a minor painkiler. Now, when comparing this to my US copay of $5 (for similar medicines) I'd say I actually pay a little bit less in a private medicine economy.

David Crosby then. How did he get one so soon.

There is a waiting list for transplants in the US, yes and the two systems are similar in this regard. Somehow he managed to bypass that and get his liver while I'm sure more deserving ones were left to wait.

Was fame a factor? Was he able to find a money solution to his problem? I'm not saying the amount of money ones has has an intrinsic value to being placed on the list.

Finding out the conditions on how the liver was acquired will be highly improbable, obviously.

This just doesn't smell right.

There is also the issue of compatability. Crosby fit a certain Kidney exactly (age, blood type, gender, etc.), and the current system tends to favor exact matches over similar matches. That's all.

There is also the issue of compatability. Crosby fit a certain Kidney exactly (age, blood type, gender, etc.), and the current system tends to favor exact matches over similar matches. That's all.

That's true. Its a big list though.

For a hypothetical example look at two elderly gentlemen; Mr Jones and Mr Smith. Both are wealthy and have a very rare cancer and heart disease that requires a heart transplant. Mr Jones lives in a "private insurance" area and Mr Smith in a "socialized" one. Mr Smith has guaranteed access to his doctor and is seen quickly. Unfortuanatley for him there is no available treatment for his specialized cancer due to its rareity (resources in socialized systems tend to be focused on where it does most good for greatest numbers) and the gov also deceides that due to his advanced age he is not suitable for a transplant as younger folks will get the available hearts. Poor Mr Smith, he is out money but will die; his fortune was worthless. On the other hand, Mr Jones calls a specialist and pays an exhorbitant sum of moey and receives cutting edge cancer treatment and hires the top heart surgeon to do a transplant (as it is expensive there are fewer performed and therefore more hearts available). He is out a great deal of money but has his life. Here private healthcare is better.
More hearts available can only result from that same number of people (as there are extra hearts) having missed out on getting a heart they needed to stay alive. If there are enough less people taking up the hearts (ie getting their lives saved) due to the cost, then there are that many more people not having their life saved. To accept that your example shows that private is better, it is necessary to accept the premise that it is better to save one wealthy person than several not so wealthy people.

one of our local doctors took a years sabbatical in new zealand. i live in a tiny town in new mexico where the hospital is considered mediocre at best. when the doctor got back he said he felt that new zealand was at least 10 years behind us.

when my mother had cataracts 10 years ago, while living in florida, she was diagnosed one day, scheduled the surgery as soon as was convenient for her, picked her up at her house and brought her back after it was done. IF she paid any money out of pocket, it wasnt enough for her to bitch about afterwards. she was on medicare and has some kind of supplemental insurance
You are comparing private health care to the public health care, as opposed to a private health care system to a public health care system. It is illogical to compare privately provided health care in the US with public funded health care in New Zealand. If you health care insurance or can afford to pay the cost of private health care, in either the US or New Zealand, you can access private health care. If you have no health insurance and cannot afford to pay the cost of private health care in New Zealand, then you have to put up with the public health care system; in the US you.....pray a lot perhaps....? :confused:

Why do people have such a problem with me calling it "socialized medicine"? An industry is controlled by the state; that's about as close to socialism as we get. You people assume that I see something wrong with socializing certain industries, which I don't. Some things belong in the public sector, and I'm just trying to decide if medicine is one of them.

You are comparing private health care to the public health care, as opposed to a private health care system to a public health care system. It is illogical to compare privately provided health care in the US with public funded health care in New Zealand. If you health care insurance or can afford to pay the cost of private health care, in either the US or New Zealand, you can access private health care. If you have no health insurance and cannot afford to pay the cost of private health care in New Zealand, then you have to put up with the public health care system; in the US you.....pray a lot perhaps....? :confused:


I'm pretty sure New Zealand lost their national health system bue to cutbacks and negligance. That's probably why they were 10 years behind. If you compare the US's sustem to Canada's, which is much better managed, there is no difference in available treatments.

Why do people have such a problem with me calling it "socialized medicine"? An industry is controlled by the state; that's about as close to socialism as we get. You people assume that I see something wrong with socializing certain industries, which I don't. Some things belong in the public sector, and I'm just trying to decide if medicine is one of them.

Because political parties in the US (esp. republicans) like to keep the citizen in a state of mental infancy by alluding that if they let this socialist system in then they'll become communists. The result of decades of effective anti-communist brainwashing. It's also a nice way to discourage people for asking for free services that could deprive businesses of billions.

"You want this free, huh?....COMMUNIST!"
"The American system is completely opposite from communism, which makes it better."

*gag*

Because political parties in the US (esp. republicans) like to keep the citizen in a state of mental infancy by alluding that if they let this socialist system in then they'll become communists. The result of decades of effective anti-communist brainwashing. It's also a nice way to discourage people for asking for free services that could deprive businesses of billions.

"You want this free, huh?....COMMUNIST!"
"The American system is completely opposite from communism, which makes it better."

*gag*
No, I'm talking about the Canadians who seem pissed that I call it socialized, as opposed to universal, health care.

You are comparing private health care to the public health care, as opposed to a private health care system to a public health care system. It is illogical to compare privately provided health care in the US with public funded health care in New Zealand. If you health care insurance or can afford to pay the cost of private health care, in either the US or New Zealand, you can access private health care. If you have no health insurance and cannot afford to pay the cost of private health care in New Zealand, then you have to put up with the public health care system; in the US you.....pray a lot perhaps....? :confused:
no really thats ALL i know about the comparison with public vs private health.

and you have mixed up 2 different examples. i compared the new zealand system to our local hospital here in new mexico. to our local doctor that worked in NZ it seemed to him that NZ was about 10 years behind.

i compared getting cataract treatment in florida to sheffield england. the service was better and quicker in florida. out of pocket expenses were the same, the quality of treatment were equal as far as i can tell.

if you dont have insurance in the US and dont meet income guidelines for medicare you dont get non emergency treatment. its a big downside but its one we are working on, mostly on a state level.

really thats all i know. it says alot to ME but then i have insurance and dont have to worry about waiting for anything.

No, I'm talking about the Canadians who seem pissed that I call it socialized, as opposed to universal, health care.

Because we know what 'socialized' means when an american says it and it is essentially badmouthing a perfectly credible and much-beloved system in Canada, one that I think should exist in the US. Talking about it in negative way only lessens the possibility of americans getting this service that could greatly improve the quality of life in the US.

Because we know what 'socialized' means when an american says it.
Yeah, because we all know every American has exactly the same viewpoints on everything.

just like doctors who write for medical journals dont take money to ignore the horrible setbacks in a drug, or just like the FDA doesnt suppress important health information from getting out

If you dont know how the organ donation process works in the United States then you simply do not know.

I for one am for a free market for organ donation because the lack of money in this system is the sole cause of the SEVERE LACK of organs available. All the people who died waiting for an organ have this system to blame.

Like any artifical price control, this one also leads to shortage of SUPPLY.

David Crosby then. How did he get one so soon.

There is a waiting list for transplants in the US, yes and the two systems are similar in this regard. Somehow he managed to bypass that and get his liver while I'm sure more deserving ones were left to wait.

Was fame a factor? Was he able to find a money solution to his problem? I'm not saying the amount of money ones has has an intrinsic value to being placed on the list.

Finding out the conditions on how the liver was acquired will be highly improbable, obviously.

This just doesn't smell right.

compatability + additional factors like how long he will live + chance of success of the procedure. It isnt a first come first serve type of list. Depending on many factor you go up or down on the list. Fame and money have nothing to do with it.

I wish the system was differant, but it is what we have.

actually when it comes to socialized medicine we are scared of 2 possibilities

1) that the whole healthcare system will be run as a huge HMO. healthcare decisions being made not by doctors but by bureaucrats. rationing. paper pushers hoping you will die before they have to pay to treat your serious illness.

2) that it will end up being run like the VA hospital system, where everything is free right up to the day they kill you.

other countries might be doing FINE with their system but we have a healthy distrust of the way our government does things and we KNOW that we are very likely to end up with #1 or #1 or BOTH.

no really thats ALL i know about the comparison with public vs private health.
Private means a private provider, public refers to funding, so in fact a proceedure could be publically funded and privately provided.


and you have mixed up 2 different examples. i compared the new zealand system to our local hospital here in new mexico. to our local doctor that worked in NZ it seemed to him that NZ was about 10 years behind. i compared getting cataract treatment in florida to sheffield england. the service was better and quicker in florida. out of pocket expenses were the same, the quality of treatment were equal as far as i can tell.
The Dr visiting New Zealand example has no specifics, so I referred to the cateracts. If you can afford private health care you will get private health care, but if you cant afford it, then the alternative (public) isnt as good. Chances are the building and fixtures are less modern, equipment is probably only upgraded when it needs to be as opposed to when it would be 'competitive'. Chances are the staff have a heavier work strain, meals are probably not as nice, etc. All things which may look 'behind' when compared to privately provided health care, add in long waiting lists and you can understand your Dr's impression. However this is the health care you get if you cant afford health care, not the health care you get if you can afford privately provided health. It's like comparing a gourmet French restaurant to a New York Homeless shelter kitchen, and suggesting that the comparison proves that American cuisine is 10 years behind.

Going back to those cateracts, if you can finance the proceedure you can have them taken out today in either the US or NZ, and if you are insured with no out of pockets worth mentioning, and all in time to be home for a nice cuppa with your favourite TV show. However if you live in the US and you cannot finance the proceedure somehow, you had better start getting used to seeing less and less of that tv, no matter how often you watch, whereas in NZ you might have to wait, put up with stressed and grumpy staff, have your proceedure done in an older (but appropriately santitised and equipped) building, with entirely adequate but less than state of the art equipment etc, but getting your cateracts removed in an older building by grumpy staff using appropriate but not trendy equipment is better than not having them removed at all.

Private means a private provider, public refers to funding, so in fact a proceedure could be publically funded and privately provided.



The Dr visiting New Zealand example has no specifics, so I referred to the cateracts. If you can afford private health care you will get private health care, but if you cant afford it, then the alternative (public) isnt as good. Chances are the building and fixtures are less modern, equipment is probably only upgraded when it needs to be as opposed to when it would be 'competitive'. Chances are the staff have a heavier work strain, meals are probably not as nice, etc. All things which may look 'behind' when compared to privately provided health care, add in long waiting lists and you can understand your Dr's impression. However this is the health care you get if you cant afford health care, not the health care you get if you can afford privately provided health. It's like comparing a gourmet French restaurant to a New York Homeless shelter kitchen, and suggesting that the comparison proves that American cuisine is 10 years behind.

Going back to those cateracts, if you can finance the proceedure you can have them taken out today in either the US or NZ, and if you are insured with no out of pockets worth mentioning, and all in time to be home for a nice cuppa with your favourite TV show. However if you live in the US and you cannot finance the proceedure somehow, you had better start getting used to seeing less and less of that tv, no matter how often you watch, whereas in NZ you might have to wait, put up with stressed and grumpy staff, have your proceedure done in an older (but appropriately santitised and equipped) building, with entirely adequate but less than state of the art equipment etc, but getting your cateracts removed in an older building by grumpy staff using appropriate but not trendy equipment is better than not having them removed at all.
see now, thats just not a system i would want to have
here, if you have medicare which is state funded insuance, you go to the same doctors and the same facilities as anyone with private insurance. quality of care might vary from doctor to doctor or hospital to hospital but everyone gets equal access to anything that is covered by insurance.

i wouldnt want to religate the poor to inferior health care.

Because we know what 'socialized' means when an american says it and it is essentially badmouthing a perfectly credible and much-beloved system in Canada, one that I think should exist in the US. Talking about it in negative way only lessens the possibility of americans getting this service that could greatly improve the quality of life in the US.
BINGO.....you hit the nail on the head. :cool:

I, for one, have lived in both Canada and the US and could compare the systems...had I moved to the US when I was a little older. I move when I was 8, so I can't compare too well. But I'll try. When I was born, I needed emergency care, being as I was premature and somewhat unable to breathe properly (or so they tell me). A public healthcare system treated me quickly and correctly (obviously, or I'd be dead). If I had been unfortunate enough to be born to a low-income family in the US, I'd be rather screwed. Far as I can tell and have found out from other sources, public ("socialized," the term doesn't bother me at all...of course, I'm a socialist) healthcare is efficient and just as competent as private HC, and it doesn't screw over huge portions of the population. It's frustrating to live in the only post-industrialized nation without public healthcare. I wish the US would get with the program.

BINGO.....you hit the nail on the head. :cool:
Except I wasn't talking about it in a negative way...

here, if you have medicare which is state funded insuance, you go to the same doctors and the same facilities as anyone with private insurance
quality of care might vary from doctor to doctor or hospital to hospital
And more often than not this qaulity variance is related to price.

but everyone gets equal access to anything that is covered by insurance.
A lot of people have no access to what is covered by insurance, firstly. Secondly there is no way that some people choose pay more for their insurance than their neighbour who is in identical health, unless the insurance is more comprehensive, ie unless it gives them access to things that even other insured people dont all have access to. You pay more for your insurance you get more benefits, obviously getting more benefits means someone has to be getting less benefits....clearly there cannot be equal access because if there were, all insurance would be equal.

i wouldnt want to religate the poor to inferior health care.
Firstly I dont understand why you think the care is inferior when contrasted with no care at all. Secondly it's not religating the poor people to anything. Private providers are profit driven, they need to entice customers, and so they spend money on things that are medically unnecessary even though they might be nice.
Do you think that if you found someone who had no insurance and who was as a result not able to afford necessary cancer treatment, whether they would rather go without than go to a perfectly adequate hosptital with a high standard of care, but they dont get a personal tv, that they would say they would rather go without than put up with 'inferior' health care?

Some of you people have really weird ideas about PUBLIC (or universal) healthcare. Calling it "Socialised" is just a tad loaded, don't you think...

I ONLY see doctors who bulk-bill (i.e. charge you nothing upfront), and I'm in Australia btw. And if I don't have an appointment sure I have to wait a while but generally the treatment of of a really high standard. One problem that I've found is that some doctors who bulk-bill rush consultations so that they can make as much money as possible. I'm sure there are ways to avoid this, including a sliding time-payment scale i.e. doctors get paid a certain amount for a <5min consultation, a bit more for a 5-10 min one and so on.

I know there are sometimes long waiting times, but if it's say, urgent surgery it will usually go right ahead. And these waiting times come, not from something inherent within the medical system itself, but rather from political interference or poor handling of situations; such as state and federal governments quarrelling over funding allocation and the federal government introducing fee paying medical school places so that stupid rich kids can pay $180 000 for a degree... (yes, I'm sure they'll go work in poor or rural communities...) So if we had better politicians I'm sure many of the flaws within the healthcare system would be fixed.

I just don't understand how anyone can be in favour a private, user pays system, where people aren't guaranteed care, and I'm going to be a doctor. I mean, anything that leads to inequality in healthcare is bad in my mind. I intend to bulk-bill my patients by the way- I don't need that second mercedes.

;)

I posted this link on another site, and think it needs to be posted here too.

WHO Rankings (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html)

These rankings are from 2000, but unless a paticular nation has drastically improved or ruined its health care system, they are probably much the same now. Neither the USA or Australia make it into the top 20.

Most, if not all, the top 20 have socialized heath care.

Absolutely not. The less money coming in to a nation health service the worse the service gets and the effects can be exponential.


There are statistics that you can look up, gathered from various European countries, that will show that the more money you pump into a national health system, the more it will be used, and so the quality does not get any better. The more money you throw at the NHS, the more people will just complain about how overloaded things are (like they always seem to do), and also, the more unscrupulous contractors will realise that they can milk their contracts for every penny they can because the government has an unlimited public purse. What needs to happen is the existing money needs to be spent better.


Its only the rich who could afford such private care and they pay most of the taxes. Give them breaks and everyone else suffers.

"Robbing"??? Please. Taxes are necessary. :rolleyes:


Yes, taxes are taking money by force without consent. Robbing. You have a problem, take it up with people who write dictionaries.



Taxes are a cooperative activity. Everyone pitches in so we have funds for everything we need to government to provide.

If you say so. I'd rather have less money forcibly extracted from me if possible. If you want to give more in taxes, the Inland Revenue and NHS do accept donations. By all means, give them all your worldly wealth.

I would say that socialized medicine is better.
Quality of service may be marginally lowered and the first few years will have higher costs but as time progresses the advantages of tax based on-demand healthcare are evident.
*Cost through taxes is significantly lower than through insurance
*Patients need never worry about insurance premiums rising (Since there are no premiums)
*Poorer patients would recieve treatment previously unavailable to them (because they could not originally afford them)

Socialised medicine can still work side by side with a private system.

One of the topics commonly brought up is the fact that almost every single new drug is created by American pharmaceutical companies. You see, almost all of the worlds medical R&D is performed in the US by US companies. The reason? We can have higher drug prices than basically every other country.

We are sacrificing to develop the new drugs for other countries (admit it, the Germans, Canadians, Japanese, French, Chinese, Swiss, Belgian, etc. drug companies do very little R&D and mainly copy American drugs) If the countries who are living off of our tremendous expenditures would be so polite as to pay a little bit of money to help in R&D, well life would be a lot better for all of us.


Merck - corporate headquarters-Darmstadt, Germany -a few of the products developed: Propecia, Singulair, Zocar

GlaxoSmithKline - headquarterd in the UK - a few of the products developed:Amoxil, Avandia, Flonase, Lamictil, Paxil, Tagamet, Valtrex,

AstraZeneca -headquarted in UK, R&D HQ in Sweden - a few of the products developed - Iressia, Nexium, Atacand, Crestor, Seroquel, Zomig

Yeah, because we all know every American has exactly the same viewpoints on everything.

Don't make it look like I'm calling all americans ignorant or that I somehow lumped everyone into one category which would be illogical and therefore defeat my argument somehow. Don't strawman me.

Many americans know or at least want to know about universal health care. However it portrayal by the media and those in power as defective due to their use of the 'socialized' tag isn't helping.

Socialism has been demonized in the US and its the bad connotation of the word that is harmful and it is being used today to discredit it. That's what is upsetting.

Except I wasn't talking about it in a negative way...

I recognize you may have not, and I sure as hell wouldn't either. Sadly, its not how socialism was portrayed in the media over many decades in the US.

Hence the problem.

There are statistics that you can look up, gathered from various European countries, that will show that the more money you pump into a national health system, the more it will be used, and so the quality does not get any better. The more money you throw at the NHS, the more people will just complain about how overloaded things are (like they always seem to do), and also, the more unscrupulous contractors will realise that they can milk their contracts for every penny they can because the government has an unlimited public purse. What needs to happen is the existing money needs to be spent better.

I can't believe I have to write this twice. I hate it when the things logs out on you. Anyway...

(from an earlier post from CanuckHeaven, i think) Comparing the quality of American and Canadian private/public services found no difference in quality that would place one better over the other. Due to cuts in Canada the number of beds available decreased. However once money will be injected into the system again (soon since we have a surplus now) the beds will open up, meaning more people can use the facilities, so yes they will be used more and since quality was already high there is no reason to expect an increase in quality.

Of course people will complain if the amount of work they get increases. What planet are you from? They also exaggerate about how much work they have to do as well.

The private system is built to bilk you from your money, not the public system. People pay more for everything. Insurance alone costs more than the average person would pay in taxes and it covers less and less things everyday. Drugs are more expensive. Tests, basic procedures and supplies cost way more. Unnecessary procedures and tests are usually done just so they can charge you more. It is the suppliers to the private system and the private system itself which will end up costing you more in the end. More and more insurance companies don't cover outpatient care which means you are more likely to be sick so they can charge you for more tests. It's unethical and the true meaning of robbery.

The public system has safeguards against this by encouraging competition, using generic drugs, and making sure you are healthy by the time they let you go, otherwise its only going to cost the government more if you come back. The government doesn't want return business but you can bet the private industry does.


Yes, taxes are taking money by force without consent. Robbing. You have a problem, take it up with people who write dictionaries.

tax ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tks)
n.
1. A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.
2. A fee or dues levied on the members of an organization to meet its expenses.
3. A burdensome or excessive demand; a strain. (as in, "if I put a ton of coal on a donkey's back it will be taxing to the donkey")

Nope. No robbery here. Honestly, make sure a dictionary says robbery or even 'force' before you say its in a dictionary.


If you say so. I'd rather have less money forcibly extracted from me if possible. If you want to give more in taxes, the Inland Revenue and NHS do accept donations. By all means, give them all your worldly wealth.

Are you Hagar the Horrible? Is a big ugly man with an axe outside your door demanding money. Now THAT would be robbery.

Considering everything taxes pay for, from roads to health to military its a damn bargain.

Only an idiot gives all his money to the tax man. Don't even try to say that's the same thing.

Because political parties in the US (esp. republicans) like to keep the citizen in a state of mental infancy by alluding that if they let this socialist system in then they'll become communists. The result of decades of effective anti-communist brainwashing. It's also a nice way to discourage people for asking for free services that could deprive businesses of billions.

"You want this free, huh?....COMMUNIST!"
"The American system is completely opposite from communism, which makes it better."

*gag*

Ah, but the important thing to remember is that the US system fosters comptetition and constant improvement. Improvement that is imitated all around the world. Sometimes not with the same efficiency as the US system. For example, if your hospital sucks in the US you can go to any other hospital, but in other countries you are required to go to a certain hospital if the government is to pay for it. (After all, why do many world leaders come to the Cleveland Clinic for treatment?)

Now, I mostly want to hear from people living in countries where the government provides health care (Canada, Germany, etc.): Do you think you are getting the same quality of health care available in the U.S.? Now, obviously someone who can't afford healthcare in the U.S. is going to be better off having it provided by the government, but would you say you have more confidence in American hospital/doctors/treatment, or those of a country with socialized health care? No flame intended, its just that I've heard a lot of arguments for or against it from Americans, but I'd like to hear from someone who has experienced it firsthand.
The government does not pay for the healthcare. They just ditribute the money which is provided by all people of that country. Boy, it would be great if the government actually would pay.

However once money will be injected into the system again (soon since we have a surplus now) the beds will open up, meaning more people can use the facilities, so yes they will be used more and since quality was already high there is no reason to expect an increase in quality.



The private system is built to bilk you from your money, not the public system. .

Hmm, does not sound like Canada is saving much money then...

My experience with Public Healthcare in Canada is not pretty. I suppose if all you need is a regular checkup or a few stitches it is ok, but when the health is very poor, particularly for the elderly - it is atrocious.

I have had three family members (one distant) die in Canada from preventable causes. Two were septic infections from IV lines left in too long while waiting for long delayed surgery that never came, and one was an infecton from an epiziotomy during childbirth.

In the US the facility could have been sued and those responsible held liable for their negligence - but Canadian Healthcare is being run by the govt and exempt from lawsuits - therefore exempt from liability ore responsibility for their own negligence! You could count on one hand how many malpractice suits are seen in court every year in Canada - yet the mortality rates there are higher!

In the US most people ignorant of our system presume that the poor have no healthcare coverage. That would be wrong. Medicare and medicaid are two examples - plus some states also offer programs.

Medical liability in the US is still problematic, thought I do not think monetary lawsuit caps are the right answer. (Maybe limiting attorney fee % would be more productive...)

Medical costs in the US are so high in large part because insurance, particularly HMO, has limited free enterprise. If it only costs $5 to go see a doctor, then you really are not going to spend much time shopping for the best value for your money. As a result, doctors are left to charge whatever they want - resulting in a de-facto universal price fixing scheme.