NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/

In short, a study has yet again shown that America is the first-world nation with the worst healthcare and yet still somehow pays the most money for it. The capitalist, bureaucratic piece of shit of a system leads to millions of people uninsured and therefore encouraging them to not go to the doctor until their health has seriously deteriorated making everything cost more than it would have if a universal healthcare system covered everybody's basic medical care.

Studies continue to prove America pays more for worse care than universal healthcare systems but since apparently that is teh ebil socialism, we can't have it! Down with socialism, pay more for healthcare!

Of course we pay the most for shitty healthcare--insurance companies and health maintenance organizations and big Pharma have stockholders who need to be taken care of first.

is there any American product that isn't expensive and inefficient?

but... but...

the free market!

In Soviet Russia, healthcare pays for YOU!!

I felt obligated to do that.

is there any American product that isn't expensive and inefficient?

Well...we make candies...and Reese's cups are fairly cheap...

but... but...

the free market!

Yep. The free market, in all its glory.

Well...we make candies...and Reese's cups are fairly cheap...

Yeah but they are shitty candies...

is there any American product that isn't expensive and inefficient?

Most frivolous tat is much cheaper over there than it is here...

Shame that it isn't getting far more attention in the elections. A few candidates stand behind it, but they haven't tried to market it as one of their biggest issues. Shame too, if the polls about it are right.

Well...we make candies...and Reese's cups are fairly cheap...

I'm sorry but peanut butter doesn't go in cake *hides fish covered in batter*

I hope the Australian system does not degenerate into the US one, but it seems to be happening anyway.

lol, stupid capitalists.

And yet it was shitty healthcare that saved my mother's life. BTW: she had ovarian cancer.

Yeah, I can't go to a doctor because right now, we do not have insurance and it will be uber-expensive to go and get my toe fixed. :mad:

Yeah, privatized healthcare is a wonderful idea :rolleyes:

Yeah, the Aus is starting to slip a bit (in terms of effective treatment) because for some reason the belief that you can make really bad PPP deals and somehow think that you can reduce the amount of money per capita spent on healthcare when you are getting an increasing amount of people.

And yet it was shitty healthcare that saved my mother's life. BTW: she had ovarian cancer.

apparently, personal annecdote pwns all. who'd a thunk it??



stupid capitalists.

And yet it was shitty healthcare that saved my mother's life. BTW: she had ovarian cancer.

And what makes you think that good healthcare couldn't have done the same?

And yet it was shitty healthcare that saved my mother's life. BTW: she had ovarian cancer.

So think of all the other lives it might have saved, or the amount of trouble it might have reduced via preventative/early treatment measures. Or think of having more money in your back pocket in the long term.

Thats weird...some Canadians say that our Health Care system sucks compared to the US system :confused:

Yeah, I can't go to a doctor because right now, we do not have insurance and it will be uber-expensive to go and get my toe fixed. :mad:

Yeah, privatized healthcare is a wonderful idea :rolleyes:

America's is capitalism's bitch. Remember that and you will go far.

So think of all the other lives it might have saved, or the amount of trouble it might have reduced via preventative/early treatment measures. Or think of having more money in your back pocket in the long term.

It has saved numerous lives. The Hospitals are obligated to treat people. That is by law.

The American healthcare system may be privatized but it is not at all a free market.

It has saved numerous lives. The Hospitals are obligated to treat people. That is by law.

What a fucked up country. The hospitals are legally obliged to treat you and then can charge you for the privelege, yet your police are not legally obligated to protect you.

USA number one!!!:rolleyes:

It has saved numerous lives. The Hospitals are obligated to treat people. That is by law.

And once again, how would making it better make the hospitals stop saving those lives?

The American healthcare system may be privatized but it is not at all a free market.

Indeed.

What a fucked up country. The hospitals are legally obliged to treat you and then can charge you for the privelege, yet your police are not legally obligated to protect you.

USA number one!!!:rolleyes:

Hospitals need supplies and equipment. That costs money.

Thats weird...some Canadians say that our Health Care system sucks compared to the US system :confused:

Probably because (so I've heard) that you have a lack of doctors...

Here in America we have to pay uber-amounts of money just for... say, an infected toe. I can't go to the doctor for my infected toe, so I have to limp around with an infected toe for another couple weeks till my family can afford to get my infected toe fixed.

:headbang:

Probably because (so I've heard) that you have a lack of doctors...

Here in America we have to pay uber-amounts of money just for... say, an infected toe. I can't go to the doctor for my infected toe, so I have to limp around with an infected toe for another couple weeks till my family can afford to get my infected toe fixed.

:headbang:

And on alot of it, you can blame it on the cost of Malpractice insurance which is driving doctors away. Not to mention malpractice lawsuits when they are not warrented.

Hospitals need supplies and equipment. That costs money.

So use tax money. Have some human compassion for a change instead of being selfish.

"Noes not the ebil government taxes!!!!!!!!!"

And once again, how would making it better make the hospitals stop saving those lives?

Seriously, Corny. Either answer it or admit that you can't.

So use tax money. Have some human compassion for a change instead of being selfish.

"Noes not the ebil government taxes!!!!!!!!!"

Fine. I will let my state taxes go there but I prefer my federal taxes to go elsewhere.

Seriously, Corny. Either answer it or admit that you can't.

What? Me not answering means I do not know? Bull fucking shit.

C-A-N-A-D-A

So use tax money. Have some human compassion for a change instead of being selfish.

"Noes not the ebil government taxes!!!!!!!!!"

On previous occasions, he has stated that he would rather pay 13,000 dollars a year out of his pocket for health insurance than pay 2,000 dollars a year in taxes for the same level of health insurance.

Fine. I will let my state taxes go there but I prefer my federal taxes to go elsewhere.

What is it Americans have about taxes? Surely you all understand that government services don't just appear out of no where? Surely some of you realise that governments (even big federal ones) are actually capable of managing efficient services?

Hospitals need supplies and equipment. That costs money.

and in a socialised system they get that money, rather than the shareholders.

What? Me not answering means I do not know? Bull fucking shit.

C-A-N-A-D-A

The question was not "how do you spell Canada?", Corny. It was "why would a better healthcare system not save as many lives as a horrible one?". Canada has jack shit to do with it.

is there any American product that isn't expensive and inefficient?

American crack whores. Best in the world, pal, best in the world.

On previous occasions, he has stated that he would rather pay 13,000 dollars a year out of his pocket for health insurance than pay 2,000 dollars a year in taxes for the same level of health insurance.

Sounds like some one whose argument can be dismissed out of hand.

The question was not "how do you spell Canada?", Corny. It was "why would a better healthcare system not save as many lives as a horrible one?". Canada has jack shit to do with it.

Its Corny's favorite trick. I once repeated a question to him 14 times and he refused to answer, claiming he did know but didn't want to tell me :D

On previous occasions, he has stated that he would rather pay 13,000 dollars a year out of his pocket for health insurance than pay 2,000 dollars a year in taxes for the same level of health insurance.

heh! i rememmber that. i couldn't stop laughing.

It has saved numerous lives. The Hospitals are obligated to treat people. That is by law.

To treat people yes. But the emphasis is less on preventative measures etc, and more on treating them when the problems arise, which is less effective and costs more. Also problem is contributed to by people being less willing to go and incur costs for minor complaints that may grow into larger even more expensive ones. Hence, less efficient.

heh! i rememmber that. i couldn't stop laughing.

IIRC, his rationale was that if he paid that tax he'd have less money than if he paid out of his pocket.

The question was not "how do you spell Canada?", Corny. It was "why would a better healthcare system not save as many lives as a horrible one?". Canada has jack shit to do with it.

lulz

Probably because (so I've heard) that you have a lack of doctors...

Here in America we have to pay uber-amounts of money just for... say, an infected toe. I can't go to the doctor for my infected toe, so I have to limp around with an infected toe for another couple weeks till my family can afford to get my infected toe fixed.

:headbang:

ouch...:(

I've always wondered about insurance. Doesn't it seem like some kind of scam? You pay for it, in case you have something really expensive happens to you. So, to get any kind of ROI, you gotta use it.
The insurance company, on the other hand, wants to pay out as little as possible, because they're a business. Apparently, it's very profitable, since there's plenty of companies out there, and they aren't going broke. To get an ROI, they need a certain % that uses it less than they pay.
So, someone here is being an idiot.

I don't think it's the insurance companies :(

IIRC, his rationale was that if he paid that tax he'd have less money than if he paid out of his pocket.

cornelieu is the same as 'allegen (sp?) county' right? cuz that rings bells. i can barely add and subtract and my maths (therefore economics) was better than his.

I've always wondered about insurance. Doesn't it seem like some kind of scam? You pay for it, in case you have something really expensive happens to you. So, to get any kind of ROI, you gotta use it.
The insurance company, on the other hand, wants to pay out as little as possible, because they're a business. Apparently, it's very profitable, since there's plenty of companies out there, and they aren't going broke. To get an ROI, they need a certain % that uses it less than they pay.
So, someone here is being an idiot.

I don't think it's the insurance companies :(

insurence is a scam made legal. in any sphere. never get insurence unless you absolutely have to. 90% of the time it's cheaper not to.

insurence is a scam made legal. in any sphere. never get insurence unless you absolutely have to. 90% of the time it's cheaper not to.

But if you're part of the 90% you're not ruined, just lessened, if you're part of the 10% then you could be.

You're paying for a safety net, not an ROI necessarily.

American crack whores. Best in the world, pal, best in the world.

Nah man the girls in Russia are way better. They'll give you sex just to get in from the cold.

Even better is that you pay a standard price to her pimp, because she was sold into slavery from her home in Chechnya.

What is it Americans have about taxes?

We like our money what do you want from us?...The people who don't have any?

Go ahead have them, we were just going to turn them into food stuffs anyway

I've always wondered about insurance. Doesn't it seem like some kind of scam? You pay for it, in case you have something really expensive happens to you. So, to get any kind of ROI, you gotta use it.
The insurance company, on the other hand, wants to pay out as little as possible, because they're a business. Apparently, it's very profitable, since there's plenty of companies out there, and they aren't going broke. To get an ROI, they need a certain % that uses it less than they pay.
So, someone here is being an idiot.

I don't think it's the insurance companies :(

yea, insurance is a legal scam :D

To treat people yes. But the emphasis is less on preventative measures etc, and more on treating them when the problems arise, which is less effective and costs more. Also problem is contributed to by people being less willing to go and incur costs for minor complaints that may grow into larger even more expensive ones. Hence, less efficient.
Right. The hospitals are obliged to treat emergency problems (e.g., heart attack), even when the patient will default on payment and file bankruptcy. This costs a lot of public money.

However, since the medical profession isn't obliged to treat non-emergency problems (cholesterol and blood pressure problems), and doesn't offer an affordable price for preventative care for the uninsured, that means a lot more people having heart attacks.

So then you have public spending - which still outstrips the spending of many other countries, since fully one third of US health care spending goes out through Medicare and Medicaid alone - plus private spending, which also outstrips the spending of many nations with socialized medicine.

The problem is not the fact that the US does or does not, spend public money on health care - the US spends lots of public money, between states, feds, and municipalities, on health care. The problem is that the US does not have a coherent and efficient health care system available to more than a small fraction of its population. It's paying for two full systems (a public and a private system), both of which have enough money to be complete in any other country, and getting back about half a system.

ouch...:(

yeah :(

It's all swollen... and it hurts...

My mom wants me to wear flip-flops, but I hate those....

What is it Americans have about taxes? Surely you all understand that government services don't just appear out of no where? Surely some of you realise that governments (even big federal ones) are actually capable of managing efficient services?

Cultural thing actually, and not something that only occurs in red states either. Distrust of government is just something that many Americans grew up having, likely due to political heritage (revolutions, civil wars, and everything). That distrust used to extend to large businesses too, but I think that ended somewhere near the 1940's or with the rise of extensive advertising.

cornelieu is the same as 'allegen (sp?) county' right? cuz that rings bells. i can barely add and subtract and my maths (therefore economics) was better than his.

that's it though. the safety net costs too much. because nobody can value it properly, it's basically the case that those that can afford it, or those that don't care, fuck up. they get their treatment and then they fuck off. those that cannot afford it then have to foot a bill that they cannot even imagine paying.


edit: errr, i meant to quote forsakia here, not myself, not too sure how that happened.

What is it Americans have about taxes? Surely you all understand that government services don't just appear out of no where? Surely some of you realise that governments (even big federal ones) are actually capable of managing efficient services?

A lot of it's our political heritage. But hey, if I had to pay taxes and for health insurance, I'd pay higher taxes for universal healthcare and have more money. This is coming from an American who doesn't pay taxes though.

yeah :(

It's all swollen... and it hurts...

My mom wants me to wear flip-flops, but I hate those....

is it an ingrown toenail? if it's not too bad you can fix it youself. get a set of angled clippers, sterilise them, then cut back into the toenail as close in as you can and as far back as you can without hurting yourself. that'll solve it in the short term, or it did for me but mine wasn't all that serious. my sister had to go to hospital for the operation though.

Thats weird...some Canadians say that our Health Care system sucks compared to the US system :confused:

They just don't like waiting for their CT scans. I'd rather wait4-6 months for a scan on a knee than pay an assload of money for it.

is it an ingrown toenail? if it's not too bad you can fix it youself. get a set of angled clippers, sterilise them, then cut back into the toenail as close in as you can and as far back as you can without hurting yourself. that'll solve it in the short term, or it did for me but mine wasn't all that serious. my sister had to go to hospital for the operation though.

Yeah, it's an ingrown toenail. Mine's nasty though, but nowhere near as nasty as it was a few months ago (just went away very recently, now it's come back :()

is there any American product that isn't expensive and inefficient?

Crystal Meth.

is there any American product that isn't expensive and inefficient?

Crystal Meth.

You see you just gotta be positive :)

All I can say is that I'm loving Japan's system. It pays 70% cost of everything, more on certain things (Meaning when my wife delivers our baby, it's going to be free of charge) and is a lot less out of my paycheck than the insurance I carried in the US.

It's nice to go to the doctor for a quick checkup about my allergies and pay about $3 for it.

A public health care system would not work. Firstly, taxes for healthcare would be enormous. If people complain about how expensive healthcare is now, they should see it once it is under big, beauracratic government that does not attempt to appeal to a customer, but just uses revenue from mandatory taxes. Secondly, America can make better healthcare products. The government needs abort restrictions on all sorts of regulations against the big businesses that actually make money. We can compete with socialist Europe. Just instead of subsidizing and giving money, just give us back our business's earned money that the government took away.

Objectivisim triumphs over all. It is the only one made by rational businessmen and women.

is there any American product that isn't expensive and inefficient?

Toyotas, with 80% of their cars parts manufactured in America.

Toyotas, with 80% of their cars parts manufactured in America.
Which are still Asian products.
The American companies that ironically have their cars manufactured overseas still suck and cost and assload.
It's the Asian business practices and standards are better.

yeah :(

It's all swollen... and it hurts...

My mom wants me to wear flip-flops, but I hate those....
Why? 'Cuz John Kerry turned out to be a flip-flopper? :D

Lets face it, government involvment in my health is expensive and unessisary for the country. Its my problem, not yours. Plus personal responsibility is more effective than government responsibility when it comes to my body.

Lets face it, government involvment in my health is expensive and unessisary for the country.
Er, it's the exact opposite. The more the government gets involved, the cheaper it gets.

Lets face it, government involvment in my health is expensive and unessisary for the country. Its my problem, not yours. Plus personal responsibility is more effective than government responsibility when it comes to my body.

lets face what? you seem to be facing away from the facts so i can only guess you're facing cloud cookoo land. private health care is extortionate, socialised healthcare is cheaper. simple maths, without numbers even.

Lets face it, government involvment in my health is expensive and unessisary for the country. Its my problem, not yours. Plus personal responsibility is more effective than government responsibility when it comes to my body.
I disagree, if you can't afford to go to the doctors for, say, the sniffles, you might just decide to hold off going, telling yourself that it's ok and that it will get better on its own. When you finally DO go, it is far, FAR too late to not only save you, but to prevent you from infecting others with the latest plague, like, say, SARS.

I'd rather pay a bit extra and catch the plague rats in time than have to deal with a very deadly epidemic.

Why? 'Cuz John Kerry turned out to be a flip-flopper? :D

Nah, just hate flip-flops...

...and John Kerry, though he has nothing to do with it.

Nah, just hate flip-flops...

...and John Kerry, though he has nothing to do with it.

...sure he doesn't...

<.<
>.>

To be honest, I don't think a universal healthcare system would work in the US. Lots of people point to Canada as it having a good health care system (which it does, it works great for them) but then say that it would work for America.

The key difference between Canada and America is that Canada has only 82 million people to cover... The United States has 300 million. The US government could not cover 300 million people effectively, unless it were Walter Reed quality or worse.

The key difference between Canada and America is that Canada has only 82 million people to cover... The United States has 300 million. The US government could not cover 300 million people effectively, unless it were Walter Reed quality or worse.

Yes, it has 300 million people to cover. And 300 million people paying taxes. Argument moot.
Walter Reed is a product of the current shitty medical system combined with the government's criminal level bureaucracy.

lets face what? you seem to be facing away from the facts so i can only guess you're facing cloud cookoo land. private health care is extortionate, socialised healthcare is cheaper. simple maths, without numbers even.

Let me ask you, how much competition goes on between government health care providers. zero. Do you think cell phones would be cheaper if only the government could sell them? Look at Canada for instance. There is one government-run auto insurance agency and its alot more expensive than Gieko.

Let me ask you, how much competition goes on between government health care providers. zero. Do you think cell phones would be cheaper if only the government could sell them? Look at Canada for instance. There is one government-run auto insurance agency and its alot more expensive than Gieko.

I note you failed to read the OP, which demonstrated that government-run healthcare is cheaper.

"lets face what? you seem to be facing away from the facts so i can only guess you're facing cloud cookoo land. private health care is extortionate, socialised healthcare is cheaper. simple maths, without numbers even."---Pie and Beer

socialized health care is a crock. Forcing me to get only the treatments that other people deem necessary for me? Leave me on a waiting list while dying for the sake of cheaper health care?

i would rather get the care i need, even though i have to pay more for it.

I note you failed to read the OP, which demonstrated that government-run healthcare is cheaper.

pwned :D

Yes, it has 300 million people to cover. And 300 million people paying taxes. Argument moot.
Walter Reed is a product of the current shitty medical system combined with the government's criminal level bureaucracy.

wrong. I shouldn't have to explain that one though, If you give it any amount of thought it should be self-evident. That statement is worth defending though so:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/Non-Payers/Figure1.jpg (http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/Non-Payers/Figure1.jpg)


The coverage of 300 million will require exponentially more bureaucracy, oversight, and funds than just about any other system in the world.

The closest system to our population is China (I believe), and they aren't really the go-to guys on effective medical services. Also take into account that Americans aren't necessarily going to visit the doctor more often, yet.

I support UH, but even I admit there are going to be several decades of growing pains and failures.

http://www.truemajorityaction.org/oreos/

take some money from the military budget and a lot of problems become moot.

Military spending is a large part of fault here, we have the money but USA dont care about much else but "National Security"

"socialized health care is a crock. Forcing me to get only the treatments that other people deem necessary for me? Leave me on a waiting list while dying for the sake of cheaper health care?
Someone knows nothing about socialized healthcare and it's not me.

wrong. I shouldn't have to explain that one though, If you give it any amount of thought it should be self-evident. That statement is worth defending though so:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/Non-Payers/Figure1.jpg
Thanks Cpt Obvious. The point was that the US has more people than Canada but it has as many more tax payers as well.

Also take into account that Americans aren't necessarily going to visit the doctor more often, yet.
It's a bit hard to visit the doctor for every minor symptom when you can't afford the cost of a simple check-up.

"Someone knows nothing about socialized healthcare and it's not me."---CthulhuFhtagn

apparently it IS you since you seem to have a problem with the reality of socialized health care. everyone is entitled to their own opinion about which system they prefer, but your opinion has no basis for determining reality.


Living in Indiana and Mississippi both have their ups and downs. You can prefer one over the other......but your opinion has no effect on the fact that Mississippi faces more hurricanes and Indiana is more likely to face a tornado.

both private and social health care systems have their ups and downs. I prefer private, because it allows the most freedom.

Of course, the thing is, we have both the best and the worst healthcare in the world. It's absolutely top-notch if you've got the cash for it, but if you don't you're hardly able to get even the most basic care without breaking the bank. That's one of the reasons why we have a disproportionately high infant mortality rate compared to other developed nations.

This is why I feel public-private hybridization would work best. Retain the private competition between hospitals, but provide a strong government financial net to allow everyone that qualifies to receive quality basic care and coverage for medications and essential surgeries. Elective surgeries and treatments can be covered by personal income or private insurers, and people who want to can opt out of government coverage. The entire point is to give healthcare to those that can't afford it.

We also need to revise medical malpractice laws to stop greedy lawyers from ripping off the system, but that's another issue entirely.

I disagree, if you can't afford to go to the doctors for, say, the sniffles, you might just decide to hold off going, telling yourself that it's ok and that it will get better on its own. When you finally DO go, it is far, FAR too late to not only save you, but to prevent you from infecting others with the latest plague, like, say, SARS.

I'd rather pay a bit extra and catch the plague rats in time than have to deal with a very deadly epidemic.

You are talking about some kind of catastrophic doomsday senerio. I'm not talking about policy that is effective in the case of an all-out death-dealing epidemic, which has never happened in America. I'm talking about policies that work better in day to day situations.

If going to the doctor for the sniffles is too expensive, then maybe you should buy some Dayquil and chicken noodle soup, and then stop taking walks in the morning if you think its too cold outside. The simple fact is, I know how to take care of myself, my doctor knows how to help me, the government really has no part to play here.

apparently it IS you since you seem to have a problem with the reality of socialized health care.
I'm looking at the United Kingdom and I am not seeing anything you mentioned.

Er, it's the exact opposite. The more the government gets involved, the cheaper it gets.

So you are saying that a massive tax-funded burreacracy is making things cheaper and easier. Forgive me if I seem a little skeptical.

You I'm not talking about policy that is effective in the case of an all-out death-dealing epidemic, which has never happened in America.
1918. Over 500,000 people died in the U.S. alone.

So you are saying that a massive tax-funded burreacracy is making things cheaper and easier. Forgive me if I seem a little skeptical.

Read the damned OP.

It's a bit hard to visit the doctor for every minor symptom when you can't afford the cost of a simple check-up.

I'm only saying that this attitude will likely carry on for a few years after UH has already been put into use. As to the former reply: We can hope that UH will eventually lower poverty levels- but for the time being only 68% of Americans will actually pay the taxes needed to set up and maintain the massive system in the first place.

"I'm looking at the United Kingdom and I am not seeing anything you mentioned."---CthulhuFhtagn

then you must not be looking particularly hard. i've seen it plenty, and coincidentally....today....about a person in England that didn't know if they would still be alive 9 months from now.....the length of time they were told they would have to wait for the surgery.

1918. Over 500,000 people died in the U.S. alone.

But there were some special factors involved then that aren't now, the immediate aftermath of WWI being one of them.

I note you failed to read the OP, which demonstrated that government-run healthcare is cheaper.

Excuse me but the OP does not demonstrate that government funded health care is better than private. It only states that in a competetive study between five countries, America is the worst and the most expensive.

EDIT: apparently i cannot deliet this post in which i quoted an actionable troll. please do not read it.

Excuse me but the OP does not demonstrate that government funded health care is better than private. It only states that in a competetive study between five countries, America is the worst and the most expensive.

ever heard of QED?

Excuse me but the OP does not demonstrate that government funded health care is better than private. It only states that in a competetive study between five countries, America is the worst and the most expensive.

Of which America was the only country without a universal healthcare system :rolleyes:

But there were some special factors involved then that aren't now, the immediate aftermath of WWI being one of them.

Then the current AIDS pandemic.

"I'm looking at the United Kingdom and I am not seeing anything you mentioned."---CthulhuFhtagn

then you must not be looking particularly hard. i've seen it plenty, and coincidentally....today....about a person in England that didn't know if they would still be alive 9 months from now.....the length of time they were told they would have to wait for the surgery.

a situation mde worse by PFI, not better.

Let me ask you, how much competition goes on between government health care providers. zero. Do you think cell phones would be cheaper if only the government could sell them? Look at Canada for instance. There is one government-run auto insurance agency and its alot more expensive than Gieko.
... and the public sector accounts for roughly half the health care market. Look. The US healthcare system has it the worst of both worlds, with about the least optimal combination of public and private mish-mashing together.

In terms of health benchmarks, the US is generally competitive with... oh.. Cuba. As I've mentioned before. For what the US government already spends on health care, it should be able to provide universal health coverage. Add in what the private sector spends on top of that, and it becomes utterly ridiculous what sort of health care America experiences.

In any comparison with Australia, I can say that the United States has a lower cost for the same standard of living. A McDonald's Hamburger is a dollar in the states, and six dollars in Oz. The news here down under is always proud to announce that the Australian dollar is gaining strength, but if it doesn't translate into reduction of prices for goods, then it means nothing. In fact, it means that American's won't buy Australian goods. It's good for Australians who want to buy American products, I suppose.

The American economy is benefiting the American people, and I believe it is in part due to America's economic policies.

Most plans to extend healthcare coverage (such as Schwarzeneggers) involve mandates that force employers to pay for healthcare coverage. Now, whenever you force people to buy something, the people providing that product or service really don't need to worry about remaining competitive. They can charge whatever they want, and you'll have to buy by law. This has already happened throughout the United States with most doctors and health insurance businesses--when you go to the doctor, you don't see a menu of prices for services; it's nearly impossible for individuals to "shop around" for doctors, hospitals, and medical treatment. Most insurance plans dictate that individuals use particular hospitals, doctors, and services. Hospitals have no incentive to be cost-efficient, since "consumers" (that is, patients) will pay for it no matter what. They don't have a choice. Because people don't have a choice as to which insurance provider they go with (they usually just take whatever their employer provides) they don't have a choice about what medical treatment they receive. The way to go about remedying this is not to mandate more insurance be provided by employers, but to loosen requirements that employers provide healthcare. If employers could take the money they spend on healthcare and just pay it directly to the employees, the employees can then buy their own healthcare, choosing whichever plan they like best.

Federal or State mandated healthcare has tended to inflate costs of healthcare. As an example, the new compulsory insurance schemes that Schwarzenegger wants to put in place are estimated to cost $380 a month ($4560 a year) for every individual. Compare that to states with less regulated healthcare, like Connecticut, where a 35-year-old man can get covered for $50 a month.

This basically means three things for California. First, people will lose jobs. To a business-owner, it's simply too expensive to remain in operation with the same employees at the same wages; the alternative is to lower wages to compensate for the healthcare benefits, but this can only go so far with the minimum wage (and when you've gone down that far, you've stopped being competitive and you'll have a hard time hiring quality employees). Second, businesses will leave. Why continue doing business in a state where you need to pay $4560 a year for every employee just for healthcare, not mentioning their wages? Finally, people will leave California for jobs elsewhere. California businesses will be hiring fewer employees and paying them less; the market for jobs will be elsewhere. Basically, it will ruin California economically (and while a good economy doesn't necessarily relate to a "good" society, a bad economy does imply increased poverty and a lower standard of living).

Now let's move on to universal nationalized healthcare plans. Take all of my dire predictions for California's economy and extend them to the entire nation. Only now businesses will be going overseas to find employees, and those that don't or can't will struggle and decline. And no appreciable percentage of Americans will migrate to other countries for better jobs--migration laws are strict, and the costs of moving out of the country present a barrier to all the people who would be most effected by the declining economy.

Now, I don't mean to imply that the U.S. will become a third-world country because of nationalized universal healthcare. But the American economy will take a big hit; the U.S. job market wouldn't be any worse than Canada's, but unemployment would skyrocket.

The American Democratic party is smart about alot of issues, especially in terms of individual freedoms and rights, but I have to disagree with the party's views on economic freedoms and rights. In an attempt to enforce equality, the government ends up sabotaging many of the practices and patterns that benefit everyone. Blind to the field of economics and the observable patterns therein, it seems that the Democratic party has adopted the British pre-industrialization view of the economy--which was essentially, in order for someone to be rich, someone else has to be poor; Britain used this as a justification to "keep" Ireland poor, while the Democratic party uses this model to condemn the wealthy and the increasing wealth-gap between the top and bottom rungs (no matter if the 'bottom rung' has improved its state considerably and continues to do so, despite the 'top rung' improving its state and material wealth at a faster rate).

Of which America was the only country without a universal healthcare system :rolleyes:

I though correlation does not automatically mean causation.

I though correlation does not automatically mean causation.

It doesn't. However, there don't seem to be any other factors that could be relevant, so correlation most likely means causation in this instance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vielum View Post
I though correlation does not automatically mean causation.

It doesn't. However, there don't seem to be any other factors that could be relevant, so correlation most likely means causation in this instance.

I don't suppose the limited number of schools able to license doctors, and the fact that qualified individuals such as nurses cannot practice without special license would be considered factors? American medical costs are inflated because the free-market system has been over tampered with.

I though correlation does not automatically mean causation.

To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

I don't suppose the limited number of schools able to license doctors, and the fact that qualified individuals such as nurses cannot practice without special license would be considered factors?
I would presume doctors in Germany, Canada, New Zealand, and the other countries listed are competent, qualified, and licensed...

It doesn't. However, there don't seem to be any other factors that could be relevant, so correlation most likely means causation in this instance.

Thats kinda silly. Health care programs are way more complex than you're letting on. What about lack of competition or the overabundance or malpractice lawsuits? There are many, many different reasons. Using logic like that is flawed.

Lets face it, government involvment in my health is expensive and unessisary for the country. Its my problem, not yours. Plus personal responsibility is more effective than government responsibility when it comes to my body.

Interestingly enough, it becomes my problem when your untreated illness turns out to be contagious and makes me sick, too. Funny, that.

Also interestingly enough, some of us give a crap about other people. I'd rather like it if people gave a crap about me, for example. I, personally, am currently uninsured, because I cannot possibly afford insurance at present. Because of this, I have been dealing with a fair number of health problems I can't afford to do anything about without ceasing to buy crazy luxuries like, y'know, food. Incidentally, guess why I can't get jobs I'm qualified for, and which would make me enough money to afford insurance? I have treatable health conditions which make a full-time job impossible for me until I can do something about them, which, of course, I can't do without insurance. I'm glad that you think my insane catch-22 situation is reasonable, and that my taking "personal responsibility" for it is so very effective, but I must disagree.

Thats kinda silly. Health care programs are way more complex than you're letting on. What about lack of competition or the overabundance or malpractice lawsuits? There are many, many different reasons. Using logic like that is flawed.

If those didn't also apply to the other countries, they would be candidates. But they do, so they aren't.

In America, there are hospitals that actually import doctors because the few American medical schools do not produce enough doctors to keep up with demand, and there are federal laws prohibiting the establishment of any new medical schools. This is artificially restricting supply while demand goes up steadily with the population. And thus American doctors are guaranteed a high-paying job, while the rest of America's citizens are forced to pay--as the article points--overmuch for inferior medical services. The principles behind a monopoly come into play in the American medical system.

It's not that private healthcare is worse than government-funded universal healthcare, it's that America doesn't truly have private healthcare.

And yet it was shitty healthcare that saved my mother's life. BTW: she had ovarian cancer.
And all is well in lala land??? :p

To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Five countries is not a comprehensive enough study to tell us what we need to set up our own system. The countries mentioned are far too different from the circumstances that exist here anyway.

Thats weird...some Canadians say that our Health Care system sucks compared to the US system :confused:
They probably haven't don't much research or are part of the hesaidshesaidsoitmustbetrue crowd?

It has saved numerous lives. The Hospitals are obligated to treat people. That is by law.
Well then you need to do some research to see that it could and should be doing much better than it is.

This is why I feel public-private hybridization would work best. Retain the private competition between hospitals, but provide a strong government financial net to allow everyone that qualifies to receive quality basic care and coverage for medications and essential surgeries. Elective surgeries and treatments can be covered by personal income or private insurers, and people who want to can opt out of government coverage. The entire point is to give healthcare to those that can't afford it.

We also need to revise medical malpractice laws to stop greedy lawyers from ripping off the system, but that's another issue entirely.

Ok how do hospitals compete? I would be a little concerned if I saw say heart surgery significantly less at one hospital.

One simple step that would save boat loads of money would be neonatal care for all women. Stuff caught early is cheap. Rather then the guaranteed loss on a lawsuit over a "gork" kid.

I agree with stopping lawyers but at the same time you have to have a system to toss quack doctors. Probably the best way to do that is to disallow insurance companies from hiking the rates on good doctors with a clean track record.

If those didn't also apply to the other countries, they would be candidates. But they do, so they aren't.

That would be true, if all the countries were the same. But, they aren't. No two countries are the same. Their people are different, they have different values and cultures. Their demographics are different and so are their economies. This is a study, not a controlled experiment.

You are talking about some kind of catastrophic doomsday senerio. I'm not talking about policy that is effective in the case of an all-out death-dealing epidemic, which has never happened in America. I'm talking about policies that work better in day to day situations.

If going to the doctor for the sniffles is too expensive, then maybe you should buy some Dayquil and chicken noodle soup, and then stop taking walks in the morning if you think its too cold outside. The simple fact is, I know how to take care of myself, my doctor knows how to help me, the government really has no part to play here.
Well, 1, there HAS been a number of contagions that have gone out in the US and many of them would have been prevented if the infected person was found and held before becoming yet ANOTHER Typhoid Mary (which also happened in the US, BTW).

2. A lot of those more deadly ones start off small. See, there's an old saying about how an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Given that the US loses billions each year due to things like the flu, it would seem better to make it easier to get to a doctor to be told it's the flu and get the hell home before infecting the rest of your office than not.

And yes, for many people, going to the doctor's for what feels like a cold really is too expensive.

Five countries is not a comprehensive enough study to tell us what we need to set up our own system. The countries mentioned are far too different from the circumstances that exist here anyway.

Yeah, the people who live there don't have practically criminal aversions to paying taxes that would lead to helping other people as well as themselves.

Right. The hospitals are obliged to treat emergency problems (e.g., heart attack), even when the patient will default on payment and file bankruptcy. This costs a lot of public money.

However, since the medical profession isn't obliged to treat non-emergency problems (cholesterol and blood pressure problems), and doesn't offer an affordable price for preventative care for the uninsured, that means a lot more people having heart attacks.

So then you have public spending - which still outstrips the spending of many other countries, since fully one third of US health care spending goes out through Medicare and Medicaid alone - plus private spending, which also outstrips the spending of many nations with socialized medicine.

The problem is not the fact that the US does or does not, spend public money on health care - the US spends lots of public money, between states, feds, and municipalities, on health care. The problem is that the US does not have a coherent and efficient health care system available to more than a small fraction of its population. It's paying for two full systems (a public and a private system), both of which have enough money to be complete in any other country, and getting back about half a system.
You seem to have a handle on the real problem. It would be so good if the laggers could catch up.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/

In short, a study has yet again shown that America is the first-world nation with the worst healthcare and yet still somehow pays the most money for it. The capitalist, bureaucratic piece of shit of a system leads to millions of people uninsured and therefore encouraging them to not go to the doctor until their health has seriously deteriorated making everything cost more than it would have if a universal healthcare system covered everybody's basic medical care.

Studies continue to prove America pays more for worse care than universal healthcare systems but since apparently that is teh ebil socialism, we can't have it! Down with socialism, pay more for healthcare!

Granted, we do have big and growing problems with our healthcare system, but it's NOT because it's privatized! It's because these d&%$! malpractice lawsuits are driving the cost of healthcare up!

1. A patient sues for malpractice
2. The doctors and hospitals have to start charging more to pay for any possible FUTURE malpractice lawsuits

Or:
1. More people get sick more often
2. The health insurance companies have to raise rates to pay for the additional claims

And yet it was shitty healthcare that saved my mother's life. BTW: she had ovarian cancer.

um...that's nice? What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

"sorry guys, he must be right, after all...his mother had cancer"

I prefer Private Health Care more so than Public Health Care. Here's why.

Day 1. I have a problem with my body, and I need to go to the doctor to take care of it.

Day2. So I go to the doctor, now the problem requires me to have operation (which I had today). So the doctor schedule an OR for.......wait for it.....the next day!

Day 3. I have the operation, and came home on the same day.

The problem and the solution only took three days to resolve, now this was not a life threatening problem, but it did warrant enough attention to send me to the OR, under UH, how long would it take me to go from discovering the problem and post-op?

Of course, the thing is, we have both the best and the worst healthcare in the world. It's absolutely top-notch if you've got the cash for it, but if you don't you're hardly able to get even the most basic care without breaking the bank. That's one of the reasons why we have a disproportionately high infant mortality rate compared to other developed nations.

This is why I feel public-private hybridization would work best. Retain the private competition between hospitals, but provide a strong government financial net to allow everyone that qualifies to receive quality basic care and coverage for medications and essential surgeries. Elective surgeries and treatments can be covered by personal income or private insurers, and people who want to can opt out of government coverage. The entire point is to give healthcare to those that can't afford it.

We also need to revise medical malpractice laws to stop greedy lawyers from ripping off the system, but that's another issue entirely.
I totally agree. You take the words off my mouth.

I prefer Private Health Care more so than Public Health Care. Here's why.

Day 1. I have a problem with my body, and I need to go to the doctor to take care of it.

Day2. So I go to the doctor, now the problem requires me to have operation (which I had today). So the doctor schedule an OR for.......wait for it.....the next day!

Day 3. I have the operation, and came home on the same day.

The problem and the solution only took three days to resolve, now this was not a life threatening problem, but it did warrant enough attention to send me to the OR, under UH, how long would it take me to go from discovering the problem and post-op?

Hey, let's try your same scenario, except imagine you're one of the many, many, many people in this country who can't afford insurance!

Day 1: You have a problem with your body, and you need to go to the doctor to take care of it.

Day 2: You can't afford to go to the doctor, so you don't.

Days 3-7: You continue to have the problem with your body.

Day 8: You get so obviously sick that you decide that if things get worse, you'll simply have to go to the ER.

Day 9: You go to the ER, where you are informed that you now have an immensely serious medical problem, which could have been easily treated if you'd come in a week ago, but which will now require major surgery and a three-week hospital stay. This will, incidentally, send you into debt for the next several years.

No one disputes that private health care works well for those with the means to pay for it. Unfortunately, there's an awful lot of people out there who aren't so lucky as you, and I rather think they matter, too.

Seems appropriate to the discussion.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/15/homeless.dumping.ap/index.html

Seems appropriate to the discussion.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/15/homeless.dumping.ap/index.html

So a minority of hospitals are in dire need of a revamping on how it treats is patients, what does that have to do with anything? The patients would have to be discharged sooner or later, you can't have a hospital/homeless shelter. It's really more of a case against bad procedure when handling homeless patients than a case for UH TBF.

It has saved numerous lives. The Hospitals are obligated to treat people. That is by law.

Well, actually all that is U.S. law is that hospitals need to stablize you if you're in critical condition, they don't need to actually treat you.

An expensive amount does not necessarily mean bad.

I have a question: How are American doctors inferior to other doctors? From what I've seen it takes quite a while to become doc with undergrad, med school, and then residency.

Socialized care wouldn't work for the US as far as I know since the population is too big. Yes we would increase taxes but we DON'T like taxes. Gah, it would have to be completely refinanced since you'd get rid of Medicare and that adds to the transfer payments given toward the citizens from the Government.

Unfortunately I don't agree with socialism so I don't agree with socialized health care (and no I don't make or my family enough to pay for it easily or bearly). Just because you live doesn't give you the right toward the health care, others have worked on the research, education, etc so then one must pay for it. The demand isn't met so supply is expensive. This is my opinion, by no means a fact but socialism has pissed me off lately so that colors my judgement.

Yes that's right folks, if your ever in an american ambulance, hold onto your wallet.

Yes that's right folks, if your ever in an american ambulance, hold onto your wallet.

And if you're unconscious? :D

And if you're unconscious? :D

Then your screwed.

In any comparison with Australia, I can say that the United States has a lower cost for the same standard of living. A McDonald's Hamburger is a dollar in the states, and six dollars in Oz

What kind of burger is that?

What kind of burger is that?

I was wondering the same thing; across the ditch in NZ, the biggest McDonald's burger value meal is barely NZ$10, let alone the burger itself (one NZ$ is presently worth AU$0.887, so the relative strength of the dollar can't be the reason)...

Yeah that sounds about right; The most expensive meal packages you can get in McDonalds here are about $7-8

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/

In short, a study has yet again shown that America is the first-world nation with the worst healthcare and yet still somehow pays the most money for it. The capitalist, bureaucratic piece of shit of a system leads to millions of people uninsured and therefore encouraging them to not go to the doctor until their health has seriously deteriorated making everything cost more than it would have if a universal healthcare system covered everybody's basic medical care.

Studies continue to prove America pays more for worse care than universal healthcare systems but since apparently that is teh ebil socialism, we can't have it! Down with socialism, pay more for healthcare!

*isn't remotely surprised*

frankly the British system could be yet more efficient if it weren't for the piece-by-piece privatising that's been going on for the last 20 years

It has saved numerous lives. The Hospitals are obligated to treat people. That is by law.

so the fact that that law is better enforced - by the evidence in the OP (at the very least) - by socialised universal health care systems means nothing to you?

And yet it was shitty healthcare that saved my mother's life. BTW: she had ovarian cancer.

my mum and i would have died when i was born had it not been for the socialised healthcare that saved our lives.

what the fuck are you trying to prove?

my mum and i would have died when i was born had it not been for the socialised healthcare that saved our lives.

what the fuck are you trying to prove?
His is the mantra of the "I'm okay screw the rest of you" crowd and yet he would have us believe that he is a devout follower of Christ's teachings.

Typical Corny material.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/

In short, a study has yet again shown that America is the first-world nation with the worst healthcare and yet still somehow pays the most money for it. The capitalist, bureaucratic piece of shit of a system leads to millions of people uninsured and therefore encouraging them to not go to the doctor until their health has seriously deteriorated making everything cost more than it would have if a universal healthcare system covered everybody's basic medical care.

Studies continue to prove America pays more for worse care than universal healthcare systems but since apparently that is teh ebil socialism, we can't have it! Down with socialism, pay more for healthcare!

Interesting that not a single conclusion of the report calls for universal, single-payer health care in the United States. Just improvements to the existing system seem to satisfy this activist organization. I agree. Fix what's keeping 40 million of our citizens away from the doctor, but don't screw up what works well enough for the rest of us.

I like these excerpts from the report, as well -- they bolster the claim that we only need adjustments, not overhauls.

The U.S. is first on preventive care, and second only to Germany on waiting times for specialist care and non-emergency surgical care...
Any attempt to assess the relative performance of countries has inherent limitations. These rankings summarize evidence on measures of high performance based on national mortality data and the perceptions and experiences of patients and physicians....
The findings indicate room for improvement across all of the countries...
Based on these patient and physician reports, the U.S. could improve the delivery, coordination, and equity of the health care system by drawing from best practices both within the U.S. and around the world.

Yeah that sounds about right; The most expensive meal packages you can get in McDonalds here are about $7-8
See, there's your problem. Don't eat at McDonalds, and you can save billions in healthcare, both public and private.

I don't know if anyone has posted this:

According to the World Factbook the life expectancy in Cuba is 77.8 years and in the USA its 78 years.

Not much of a difference when you thing of the comparative wealth of the two nations.

See, there's your problem. Don't eat at McDonalds, and you can save billions in healthcare, both public and private.

I don't eat there (though I admit I am very porky).

but... but...

the free market!

America's health care system is free market? Can a person in New Jersey buy a plan from Connecticut? Do most people choose their plan or do they obtain it through their employers? Do tax preferences distort health care buyer behaviour encouraging company-provided care (tax deductible) while discouraging personal purchase of care (not tax deductible)? Does the US government spend aplenty on health care via the Department of Veteran Affairs, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and so on?

If the answers to the above questions are what I think they are, based on what I've read, there is no free market health system in any country on this planet except South Korea (Hong Kong not mentioned by default, since it is not a country).

I like these excerpts from the report, as well -- they bolster the claim that we only need adjustments, not overhauls.
And our emergency room waiting times are worse than the other countries.

Fix what's keeping 40 million of our citizens away from the doctor, but don't screw up what works well enough for the rest of us.
Which would require getting them the ability to visit the doctor without going broke. I would love to hear what ridiculous idea you have for that which probably involves companies somehow becoming magically altruistic.

And our emergency room waiting times are worse than the other countries.


Which would require getting them the ability to visit the doctor without going broke. I would love to hear what ridiculous idea you have for that which probably involves companies somehow becoming magically altruistic.

Hmm. I have great insurance, which is paid for by the company I work for.

Free emergency room visits (from my point of view).
10 dollar co-pay no matter who I go to, in or out of network.
No need for referrals.
10 dollar co-pay on all prescription drugs, no limitations on the drugs that may be prescribed compared to either the military or Canadian health plans.

Some insurance plans are better than others. And some areas of the country have much better health care than others.

I want to hear how you'll tell me that the government will lower costs without driving doctors out of the country (as has happened by the thousands in Canada, producing shortages of skilled surgical specialists causing waiting times of 6 to 18 months for gastrointestinal surgery). Or how you'll lower costs without eventually screwing the patient (as the military has).

Whether it's public or private, it eventually stoops to cutting costs - and eventually that means you tell the patient "you can't have that drug because it's expensive - and even if the substitute doesn't work for you, well fuck you" or "you can't have surgery on that pancreas for 18 months because there are only four qualified pancreas surgeons in the whole fucking country because we don't pay them shit compared to what they could make elsewhere".

I want to hear how you'll tell me that the government will lower costs without driving doctors out of the country (as has happened by the thousands in Canada, producing shortages of skilled surgical specialists causing waiting times of 6 to 18 months for gastrointestinal surgery).
Let's consult Germany, where they have better wait times than we do. Try again.

Or how you'll lower costs without eventually screwing the patient (as the military has).
Already addressed the problem with that.

both private and social health care systems have their ups and downs. I prefer private, because it allows the most freedom.

No it doesn't. People who can visit the doctor whenever they feel like they need to I would say have much more freedom than people who can't because they don't have any insurance.

Let's consult Germany, where they have better wait times than we do. Try again.


Already addressed the problem with that.

The point I'm making is that making it a government plan doesn't automagically make it all better. Or cheaper on overall cost.

Neither does making it a private plan.

I have better care in my local area than Germany has on average. The wait time at my extremely new, extremely modern emergency room is zero. So is the wait time for any surgery you could name.

But that doesn't mean that the rest of the US enjoys this - or that they could afford it, whether private or government run.

No it doesn't. People who can visit the doctor whenever they feel like they need to I would say have much more freedom than people who can't because they don't have any insurance.

Access to a waiting list is not the same as access to a doctor.

I'd REALLY like to know how South Korea & Hong Kong (free market), Japan (closest to American third-party payer system), and Taiwan (fully state run single-payer system) compare. These countries were not included in the study.

The point I'm making is that making it a government plan doesn't automagically make it all better. Or cheaper on overall cost.

Neither does making it a private plan.

I have better care in my local area than Germany has on average. The wait time at my extremely new, extremely modern emergency room is zero. So is the wait time for any surgery you could name.

But that doesn't mean that the rest of the US enjoys this - or that they could afford it, whether private or government run.
I really like your use of personal anecdote and forced ignorance to dismiss national findings about this and other countries' medical care.

I really like your use of personal anecdote and forced ignorance to dismiss national findings about this and other countries' medical care.

If I had the German version of healthcare, my healthcare would start to suck by comparison.

That's why. Are you saying that I somehow have the same healthcare as the American average? I don't. Because I'm not fucking stupid.

No it doesn't. People who can visit the doctor whenever they feel like they need to I would say have much more freedom than people who can't because they don't have any insurance.
*agrees*
Access to a waiting list is not the same as access to a doctor.
since others are arguing on the merits of personal experience, i have to say that 2 years ago (ish) i had an abscess causing me great pain. i went to the doctor about it, got an appointment no problem, and was seen and referred to for surgery at the local hospital the same day. actually, the surgery required a stay in the hospital for 3 days (one day for nil-by-mouth preperation, a day for the surgery and a day to recover)

i walked in and out without paying a penny or even filling in any forms or other beaurocratic nonsense :)


however this area is terrible for mental health provision. i could go private but its too expensive to afford.



I want to hear how you'll tell me that the government will lower costs without driving doctors out of the country (as has happened by the thousands in Canada, producing shortages of skilled surgical specialists causing waiting times of 6 to 18 months for gastrointestinal surgery). Or how you'll lower costs without eventually screwing the patient (as the military has).

Whether it's public or private, it eventually stoops to cutting costs - and eventually that means you tell the patient "you can't have that drug because it's expensive - and even if the substitute doesn't work for you, well fuck you" or "you can't have surgery on that pancreas for 18 months because there are only four qualified pancreas surgeons in the whole fucking country because we don't pay them shit compared to what they could make elsewhere".

its called economies of scale, and its one of the driving forces, and one of the only good things, behind monopolies. a national state-run healthcare monopoly would (and does) have vast economies of scale that can be passed on to patients/the taxpayer.

If I had the German version of healthcare, my healthcare would start to suck by comparison.
I assume this is based on your overwhelmingly awesome knowledge of social medicine and the German healthcare system :rolleyes:

Because I'm not fucking stupid.
I don't think I need to say what I'm thinking.

its called economies of scale, and its one of the driving forces, and one of the only good things, behind monopolies. a national state-run healthcare monopoly would (and does) have vast economies of scale that can be passed on to patients/the taxpayer.

True, but this can also be achieved via legislation. Japan has the closest thing to the US system (third-party payer) of any country and yet spending on health as a percentage of GDP is 7% here versus the 14% or whatever level it is at now in the United States. The reason? Legislation. The government regulates what hospitals can charge. It does not do this in a way that makes hospitals unprofitable, but rather attempts to achieve the best win-win solution for the user, payer and the provider possible. Maybe this works for us because Japan is more consensus oriented than America. I don't know, but if Americans want to reform their health care system I think they should look either here or to South Korea and not to Europe.

True, but this can also be achieved via legislation. Japan has the closest thing to the US system (third-party payer) of any country and yet spending on health as a percentage of GDP is 7% here versus the 14% or whatever level it is at now in the United States. The reason? Legislation. The government regulates what hospitals can charge. It does not do this in a way that makes hospitals unprofitable, but rather attempts to achieve the best win-win solution for the user, payer and the provider possible. Maybe this works for us because Japan is more consensus oriented than America. I don't know, but if Americans want to reform their health care system I think they should look either here or to South Korea and not to Europe.

There is only two compulsions the average American has: an ingrained hate for any sort of socialism and the ingrained need to own and carry around firearms. That could be equated to socialism and people would probably campaign for legislation allowing hospitals to charge three times as much money before putting a cap on what they can charge.

I assume this is based on your overwhelmingly awesome knowledge of social medicine and the German healthcare system :rolleyes:

That, and I lived there for three years.

Studies continue to prove America pays more for worse care than universal healthcare systems but since apparently that is teh ebil socialism, we can't have it! Down with socialism, pay more for healthcare!


One part of the problem is that pharmasuetical reason is extremely expensive and for any company those costs have to be covered or the company goes our of business and no one receives any of the benefits.

That said the fact that America has the worst health care of the 1st world countries shows the problem with complete socialized healthcare systems, like that in Canada and other 1st world countries.

You see, all socialized healthcare systems specify how much a given company can charge for specific medications and usually prohibit the use of experimental medications. Usually these costs do not cover all of the expenses associated with research and production of the drugs. Therefore the companies have to find someplace to make up those costs. And since the U.S. is one of the only countries that has a free market healthcare system, there is only one place they can actually use to earn a profit for each of the their drugs.

Not that I have that off my chest, I am not against socialized healthcare. I am against universal socialized healthcare. Essentially, I believe the U.S. government, and other nations as well, should adopt a policy that requires all companies filing income tax, to provide healthcare coverage for their all their employees and their families. Then those governements need to provide a socialized healthcare plan for anyone that does not work for a company. This is allow the free markets to lower their costs and will provide healthcare covereage for everyone in the country.

True, but this can also be achieved via legislation. Japan has the closest thing to the US system (third-party payer) of any country and yet spending on health as a percentage of GDP is 7% here versus the 14% or whatever level it is at now in the United States. The reason? Legislation. The government regulates what hospitals can charge. It does not do this in a way that makes hospitals unprofitable, but rather attempts to achieve the best win-win solution for the user, payer and the provider possible. Maybe this works for us because Japan is more consensus oriented than America.
Out of interest, can you tell us more about how it works in Japan?

I don't know, but if Americans want to reform their health care system I think they should look either here or to South Korea and not to Europe.
Well, don't look at the UK at any rate. Sure, I like the NHS, but it's not the most user-friendly system in the world.

And our emergency room waiting times are worse than the other countries.

That is a self-healing problem. Better access to MDs and PAs potentially reduce the need for ER care.

Which would require getting them the ability to visit the doctor without going broke. I would love to hear what ridiculous idea you have for that which probably involves companies somehow becoming magically altruistic.
Sorry I don't have any ridiculous ideas about how to produce order from chaos. I do know there are some things we don't want to do...

Don't fix wages or prices. That instantly creates rationed scarcity
Don't abandon something that mostly works.
Don't encourage more government control of our economy

We might try allowing groups, other than employers, to qualify for insurance plans. If credit unions, AARP, or other big groups could offer group plans, I can't imagine that the costs would be prohibitive. For instance, Disney offers one plan through CIGNA that costs the employee $4.50 a week. It's a budget plan that requires network doctors and has a limit of $250K per year. But they offer free preventive care and have $15 deductibles on other visits.

We already spend tons of dollars at the federal level. Let's see what can be done to take the bureaucracy out of Medicare & Medicaid. I have no doubts that spending could be improved.

Let's get rid of the numerous government mandates for employer-sponsored plans. We should be able to buy health care like we do anything else. Pick what we need and don't buy what we don't need. My wife and I don't need maternity benefits. We shouldn't have to pay for them. I'm willing to do without Chiropractic care, as well. I'd really like that $4.50 per week CIGNA plan, but I can't get it.

Anyway, you single-payer, universal care advocates will probably get what you're asking for. I just wish you didn't have to drag the rest of us into that whole morass.

I have made use of the NHS, whilst it is very far from fantastic, and has it's glaring faults, I would never have to worry about not going to the Dr. because I can't afford to. I have had three children, the third pregnancy was very difficult and I spent six weeks in a private room in the hospital, I had tests and scans coming out the ying yang and a visit from the consultant at least once a day (even Sundays) I gave birth early after the baby was induced and he was given extra care. I didn't have to pay a penny, over and above the small contribution that my husband paid in his taxes anyway (he was not earning a ton, so it was a small amount) My kids have had their teeth fixed, and they have really beautiful smiles and it didn't cost me. I have had operations, been in hospital, been in accidents. Had my family in hospital and it has never worried me that I can't afford to pay. I take them if and when they need it, and if I am honest, when they were babies, sometimes just for reasurance. The NHS is what the USA should aim for, not this you get what you pay for crap that they have at the moment. You should not have to worry if you can afford to see a Dr.

Let me ask you, how much competition goes on between government health care providers. zero. Do you think cell phones would be cheaper if only the government could sell them? Look at Canada for instance. There is one government-run auto insurance agency and its alot more expensive than Gieko.

Actually having lived in Canada and having used both public and private insurance, I have to say that I do not believe this without some sort of proof. By the way, since auto insurance is a provincial matter, there are at least twelve different government-run auto insurance agencies.

The coverage of 300 million will require exponentially more bureaucracy, oversight, and funds than just about any other system in the world.

Except for one where you have many different payers, many different people being billed, many different insurance companies, and several government offices to keep track of them all. A socialised healthcare system can actually reduce bureaucracy because you have a single payer, a standardised list of suppliers, no insurance agents, and one government office to keep track of it all. Capitalists always neglect to mention that bureaucrats work for private corporations too.

The problem and the solution only took three days to resolve, now this was not a life threatening problem, but it did warrant enough attention to send me to the OR, under UH, how long would it take me to go from discovering the problem and post-op?

That would depend on the severity of the illness or injury. Priority is given to those who need it. Not those who can afford it.

I want to hear how you'll tell me that the government will lower costs without driving doctors out of the country (as has happened by the thousands in Canada, producing shortages of skilled surgical specialists causing waiting times of 6 to 18 months for gastrointestinal surgery).

I don't believe you. Please provide a source for your claims concerning Canadian doctors.

Interesting that not a single conclusion of the report calls for universal, single-payer health care in the United States. Just improvements to the existing system seem to satisfy this activist organization. I agree. Fix what's keeping 40 million of our citizens away from the doctor, but don't screw up what works well enough for the rest of us.

I like these excerpts from the report, as well -- they bolster the claim that we only need adjustments, not overhauls.

That could well suggest that they don't believe it's realistic for them to get it implemented. The debate is between state and private healthcare, not specifically the situation in the USA.

Except for one where you have many different payers, many different people being billed, many different insurance companies, and several government offices to keep track of them all. A socialised healthcare system can actually reduce bureaucracy because you have a single payer, a standardised list of suppliers, no insurance agents, and one government office to keep track of it all. Capitalists always neglect to mention that bureaucrats work for private corporations too.

Medicare/Medicaid operates exactly that way. Why is it that, instead of being a shining example of government efficiency, it's more often held up as an example of fraud, waste, and ineffectiveness. Tell me how you would avoid the problems with our current government sponsored health-care, if it were expanded to include all of us.

That could well suggest that they don't believe it's realistic for them to get it implemented. The debate is between state and private healthcare, not specifically the situation in the USA.
I think you need to read about what the goals of the Commonwealth Fund consist of. They stand for improved health care in the United States.

I know it's hard to find out more, when the effort requires google, but here's a quote from the Commonwealth Fund's "about us" page.


The Commonwealth Fund is a private foundation that aims to promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults.

And yet it was shitty healthcare that saved my mother's life. BTW: she had ovarian cancer.

Sorry, but that isn't a valid arguement.

What about lack of competition...What lack of competition?

Having tax *bought* healthcare doesn't have to equal to no competition - A *lot* of the public services and subsidiaries you think "socialist Europe" inefficiently provides from tax funds are infact a product of competition, from public transit and postal service to road construction & maintenance with the bidder(s) providing the best service for lowest price getting the contract.

Sometimes this practice, however, doesn't work...there are some sad examples of putting economical savings above quality of service and wellbeing of people.... or the overabundance or malpractice lawsuits?This is primarily an american phenomenon, and indeed a factor here - However, I'm pretty sure hospitals & healthcare are insured to a degree against such cases.

edit:
Also, for those saying 300 million people = too much bureaucracy...Think state or county division: Here in our country health care is predominantly overseen in municipality (cities, towns..) wide blocs with only few of the bigger blocs providing more specialized - like brain surgery - healthcare needs. The government subsidies these blocs but they're entitled to collecting their own tax which is the primary source of funding for services like healthcare and education. The state sets the laws & standards of operation which are left to municipalities to carry out.

I have made use of the NHS, whilst it is very far from fantastic, and has it's glaring faults, I would never have to worry about not going to the Dr. because I can't afford to. I have had three children, the third pregnancy was very difficult and I spent six weeks in a private room in the hospital, I had tests and scans coming out the ying yang and a visit from the consultant at least once a day (even Sundays) I gave birth early after the baby was induced and he was given extra care. I didn't have to pay a penny, over and above the small contribution that my husband paid in his taxes anyway (he was not earning a ton, so it was a small amount) My kids have had their teeth fixed, and they have really beautiful smiles and it didn't cost me. I have had operations, been in hospital, been in accidents. Had my family in hospital and it has never worried me that I can't afford to pay. I take them if and when they need it, and if I am honest, when they were babies, sometimes just for reasurance. The NHS is what the USA should aim for, not this you get what you pay for crap that they have at the moment. You should not have to worry if you can afford to see a Dr.


Yep I agree, the NHS for all of it's faults, and there are many, is basicley open to all and health care can always be found here.

Medicare/Medicaid operates exactly that way. Why is it that, instead of being a shining example of government efficiency, it's more often held up as an example of fraud, waste, and ineffectiveness. Tell me how you would avoid the problems with our current government sponsored health-care, if it were expanded to include all of us.

Your current situation of having a public healthcare system piggybacking on a private is part of the problem. Your Medicaid system still has to deal with the bureaucracy of insurance agencise, the bureaucracy of multiple payers, the bureaucracy of multiple suppliers, etc. Expanding the system would not alleviate that. Instead, it would make the problems worse.

If you wanted to have universal, government provided healthcare, you would have to revamp your current system to cut the insurance companies out of the loop. You would also have to have price controls and standardised suppliers or some other method of ensuring that doctors and nurses have the supplies they need without having to pay some exorbitant amount far beyond the cost of producing them. There are many other things that would need to be changed.

The list of radical changes that would have to be made and how to implement them is very long, detailed, and complicated. I could not possibly fit it into one post.

Right. The hospitals are obliged to treat emergency problems (e.g., heart attack), even when the patient will default on payment and file bankruptcy. This costs a lot of public money.

However, since the medical profession isn't obliged to treat non-emergency problems (cholesterol and blood pressure problems), and doesn't offer an affordable price for preventative care for the uninsured, that means a lot more people having heart attacks.

So then you have public spending - which still outstrips the spending of many other countries, since fully one third of US health care spending goes out through Medicare and Medicaid alone - plus private spending, which also outstrips the spending of many nations with socialized medicine.

The problem is not the fact that the US does or does not, spend public money on health care - the US spends lots of public money, between states, feds, and municipalities, on health care. The problem is that the US does not have a coherent and efficient health care system available to more than a small fraction of its population. It's paying for two full systems (a public and a private system), both of which have enough money to be complete in any other country, and getting back about half a system.

The biggest problem we have here in the US with medical care is the federal concept of one size fits all approach. The federal Medicare system is an abhoration that should have been dismantled many years ago.

The Medicare system was originally established to take care of the poor and elderly. The system then expanded int Medicaid, which was ran by the states under Medicare. Medicaid was to take care of the uninsured, and paid for by Medicare.

When Medicare started going broke in the early 80's, I was working EMS, and a lot of our calls were Medicare calls. Medicare has a law, that if you accept Medicare/Medicaid, you cannot bill the patient for the percentage that they will not pay. M/M used to pay about 80% of charges, after reviewed and approved. When they started going broke, the cut the payments back to 50% of the cost. That left the hospitals, doctors and private ems having to eat the difference. The only way that the hospitals and doctors could keep giving care was to raise prices, so that the reimbursement of Medicare will cover about 80% of the cost. But in the meanwhile, Medicare told us that since we were already taking M/M patients, we could not stop accepting M/M.

As Medicare/Medicaid got in worse financial shape, they dropped the Medicaid to the responsibility of the individual states. Of course, it was an unfunded federal mandate.

But one of the really funny rules of Medicare is, that at a certain age, you are mandated by law to sign up for Medicare. My father retired from the US Army with 30 years service, so he and mom get medical care for life. He also has medical insurance from the civilian job he retired from, which provides for doctor offices, hospitals and medications. Yet, he is force to enroll in Medicare. Like any federal program, it refuses to die and it keeps growing and growing. Medicare was already paying for health, hospital and medications. Then, the politicians decided to add the prescription medicine plan to Medicare--wasn't Medicare already paying for prescription drugs?--and even that plan will cost several times more than the original estimates.

Every time that Medicare decides to add another plan, it cuts back on the percentage that they will reimburse to the providers, thus forcing the providers to raise their costs.

In 7 years, I will retire from local government with 30 years service. In addition to my pension, I will also get full medical for life. But still, even with that medical insurance, I will still be forced to enroll in Medicare. Why don't the let the people that have medical insurance get away from Medicare? Couldn't that money be better used to take care of those less fortunate?

But wait, there is more (like the old Ginsu knive commercial). When Medicare decided to dump Medicaid onto the states with no federal funding, it also passed along the fact that every new program that Medicare established, the states have to implement onto Medicaid. And how did the states deal with this mandate? Shit flows down hill. It was mandated onto the counties in North Carolina to run their own Medicaid program with no state funding.

And yes, I know that our law suit happy society is also partly to blame, for those over exaggerated lawsuits. But as a country, we are also demanding top notch medical care and the newest medical technology and medications irregardless of the costs.

But at least I know that even if I did not have health insurance, I would not have to wait for god knows how long for a Cat-Scan or an MRI. Plus, how many foreign "dignitary's" decide to fly to the US in the middle of the night for specialty medical treatment?

Y'all take care out there.

Vic

I think you need to read about what the goals of the Commonwealth Fund consist of. They stand for improved health care in the United States.

I know it's hard to find out more, when the effort requires google, but here's a quote from the Commonwealth Fund's "about us" page.

That's my point, if they don't think it would be possible for them to achieve it for the USA, they wouldn't advocate it, just because something's not practical for a group to realistically campaing for doesn't mean it might not be better if it could be.

Cultural thing actually, and not something that only occurs in red states either. Distrust of government is just something that many Americans grew up having, likely due to political heritage (revolutions, civil wars, and everything). That distrust used to extend to large businesses too, but I think that ended somewhere near the 1940's or with the rise of extensive advertising.

That argument just doesn't make sense to me. Plenty of other countries have had revolutions and civil wars, more recent and more bloody in some cases, yet the US seems to be one of the few western countries where there is such a distrust of the government.

one of the other things that it would seemingly push up the cost of healthcare in the US, compared to round here, is all the 'brand-name' medicines. the NHS supplies only generics, unless it has to. this makes providing meds themselves cheaper. i think it may also produce em

one of the other things that it would seemingly push up the cost of healthcare in the US, compared to round here, is all the 'brand-name' medicines. the NHS supplies only generics, unless it has to. this makes providing meds themselves cheaper. i think it may also produce em

So who does the research to develop these generic drugs, and how do those companies stay in business?

I believe that most generic drug are derivatives of name brand drugs, and someone has to spend the money to research and develop those drugs. And those companies are typically commercial companies that must earn a profit to stay in business.

So this leads me to a new question.

If all 1st world countries provided universal healthcare and only used generic drugs, who would develop new drugs for us to use?

Just a question; how much, on "average" would it cost for an 85 year old woman to stay in an elderly ward for a month in the US, after she'd had a fall?

There's an elderly ward?

If all 1st world countries provided universal healthcare and only used generic drugs, who would develop new drugs for us to use?
The same people who develop them now - medical universities.

So who does the research to develop these generic drugs, and how do those companies stay in business?

I believe that most generic drug are derivatives of name brand drugs, and someone has to spend the money to research and develop those drugs. And those companies are typically commercial companies that must earn a profit to stay in business.

So this leads me to a new question.

If all 1st world countries provided universal healthcare and only used generic drugs, who would develop new drugs for us to use?
If there weren't any generic drugs, they'd use brand ones, so the demand for branded/patented drugs would remain.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/

In short, a study has yet again shown that America is the first-world nation with the worst healthcare and yet still somehow pays the most money for it. The capitalist, bureaucratic piece of shit of a system leads to millions of people uninsured and therefore encouraging them to not go to the doctor until their health has seriously deteriorated making everything cost more than it would have if a universal healthcare system covered everybody's basic medical care.

Studies continue to prove America pays more for worse care than universal healthcare systems but since apparently that is teh ebil socialism, we can't have it! Down with socialism, pay more for healthcare!

OMG please don't get me started on my American health care system. Plz don't I'll rant and rant and rant. I HATE IT!!

There's an elderly ward?

Yeah...a ward where elderly patients are put, with nurses and doctors who 'specialise' in helping and working with older patients.

You don't have that sort of thing in the US?

Yeah...a ward where elderly patients are put, with nurses and doctors who 'specialise' in helping and working with older patients.

You don't have that sort of thing in the US?

Not to my knowledge. We barely have doctors that 'specialize' in the most up-to-date procedures for healthcare.

Not to my knowledge. We barely have doctors that 'specialize' in the most up-to-date procedures for healthcare.

Well, I suppose there might not be much of a market for elderly wards, compared to other areas where hospitals can make money.

Another win for the services provided by "socialised" (god, I hate that word) healthcare.

OK, I'll modify my question;

Just a question; how much, on "average" would it cost for an 85 year old woman to stay in a ward for a month in the US, after she'd had a fall?

There's an elderly ward?


The same people who develop them now - medical universities.

Only a fraction of the drugs we use today are produced through research from medical universities. The vast majority of them were developed by large pharmaceutical companies that are in the business of making a profit. Even those handled by medical universities are done using funding provided by the large pharmeceuticals. Since producing these drugs is extremely expensive and usually takes decades of research the costs associated with drug development is extrememly high. If I remember correctly, Lipitor, the most widely used cholesterol managment drug, took 20 years and hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants to produce.

So, I ask again. If all 1st world countries had universal healthcare and used only generic drugs, who would spend the millions of dollars necessary to develop new drugs?

If there weren't any generic drugs, they'd use brand ones, so the demand for branded/patented drugs would remain.

OK, but that still doesn't answer either of my questions.

Who does the research to develop these generic drugs, and how do those companies stay in business?

If all 1st world countries provided universal healthcare and only used generic drugs, who would develop new drugs for us to use?

OK, but that still doesn't answer either of my questions.

Who does the research to develop these generic drugs, and how do those companies stay in business?

If all 1st world countries provided universal healthcare and only used generic drugs, who would develop new drugs for us to use?

both those questions assume profit-maximising corporations are the only entities capable of researching pharmaceuticals, and that sale & profit is the only method of generating income for this research.

With the current system in the US, we are already having difficulty getting very intelligent people to become physicians. If all US healthcare is made into a public system, unless there is significant lawsuit reform, no one will want to become physicans. As a US doctor in solo practice, my 2nd biggest office expense is malpractice insurance. My rates are already controlled by the government. I find it interesting that physicians from all over the world come to the USA for their medical training. In my hospital in rural Oklahoma, we have physicians who were born in Malaysia, China, Myanmar, Syria, Lebanon, India, Pakistan, Canada, Mexico and the Phillipines. WHY? Because it is better to be a doctor here, than in all of those other places. Personally, while our system is flawed, it seems to be the best there is now.:confused:

With the current system in the US, we are already having difficulty getting very intelligent people to become physicians. If all US healthcare is made into a public system, unless there is significant lawsuit reform, no one will want to become physicans. As a US doctor in solo practice, my 2nd biggest office expense is malpractice insurance. My rates are already controlled by the government. I find it interesting that physicians from all over the world come to the USA for their medical training. In my hospital in rural Oklahoma, we have physicians who were born in Malaysia, China, Myanmar, Syria, Lebanon, India, Pakistan, Canada, Mexico and the Phillipines. WHY? Because it is better to be a doctor here, than in all of those other places. Personally, while our system is flawed, it seems to be the best there is now.:confused:

Because you can earn more money there due to the more private nature. Plus the perceived attraction of the USA in general.

Not to my knowledge. We barely have doctors that 'specialize' in the most up-to-date procedures for healthcare.

I guess you're just a little too young to know what geriatric means.

both those questions assume profit-maximising corporations are the only entities capable of researching pharmaceuticals, and that sale & profit is the only method of generating income for this research.

Yes it does, because I am assuming, as history has shown, that research is very expensive, and it not something that people will be willing to do for free.

Even taking the sale/priofit factor out, and lets assume that all medical universities are the only group doing drug research, which is not the case at the moment, where is the money coming from to perform the research?

If the pharmaceutical companies are no more, then who provides the funding for research? The cash strapped governments that are already heavily in debt?

Just a question; how much, on "average" would it cost for an 85 year old woman to stay in a ward for a month in the US, after she'd had a fall?

Anybody?

Yes it does, because I am assuming, as history has shown, that research is very expensive, and it not something that people will be willing to do for free.

Even taking the sale/priofit factor out, and lets assume that all medical universities are the only group doing drug research, which is not the case at the moment, where is the money coming from to perform the research?

If the pharmaceutical companies are no more, then who provides the funding for research? The cash strapped governments that are already heavily in debt?

yes, the government. taxes.

I guess you're just a little too young to know what geriatric means.

Hehehe. But I bet you're not. :D

Though to my knowledge my local hospital lacks for a geriatric ward.

yes, the government. taxes.

So your solution is:

Instead of paying 25% of my income to the government, and high medical costs, I pay 50 or 60% of my income to the government to finance expensive research and get substantially decreased medical costs?

No thanks, I prefer to keep my income and purchase my own insurance to cover my medical costs.

Hehehe. But I bet you're not. :D

Though to my knowledge my local hospital lacks for a geriatric ward.
Good try. I'm not even eligible for the AARP, yet. I have a very old and distinguished family. Emphasize old...a couple of grandmothers are pushing 100.

I don't know about our local hospital, either. It's not something I worry about from day to day.

Anybody?
Figure out what an average day in the hospital costs and multiply by 30. The answer is assigned as homework.

Figure out what an average day in the hospital costs and multiply by 30. The answer is assigned as homework.

OK, what does an average day in a hospital in the US cost?

Ok, so government is sometimes corrupt and can be inefficient at times. It is also well known for instituting systems which don't always make a lot of sense. But that isn't really an argument you can use to promote privatisation of healthcare (or privatisation of any other public service either).

There are some clear benefits of private healthcare:

1. You don't have to wait very long for treatment.

2. If your insurance is comprehensive enough, you won't be denied any treatment or medication that would possibly be deemed "too expensive" by an NHS type system.

3. If you're a conservative American (and hence have a blind distrust of government) it allows you to sleep soundly at night knowing that the government isn't controlling your life!

The disadvantages are:

1. If you can't afford insurance, the standard of care you get is seriously compromised. Ok, so they won't let you die, but you won't get anything except "life-saving" treatment. As I understand it, this is what Medicare / Medicaid is for - to provide bare-bones insurance for people who would otherwise have none.

2. The system becomes ludicrously inefficient (much more so than any NHS could be). You have HMO's (Hand the Money Over), private insurance companies (whose primary mandate, like any private company, is to make money rather than provide efficient service) and government programs (medicare and medicaid) all jumbled together in a rather haphazard way, creating who knows how many levels of bureaucracy and wasting colossal amounts of time and money.

3. You end up paying more. Americans pay roughly $4,200 per capita on healthcare per year, compared to about $2,400 in Canada and only $1,200 in the UK. Yes, the overall standard of service in NHS systems is a bit lower, but it costs a great deal less.

How is an NHS system more efficient then?

1. You have one central government agency in command of everything. Yes, this does create bureaucracy, and quite a bit of wasted money, but whether you want to believe it or not, it is more efficient and a lot cheaper than a privatised system. The added advantage is that the government does not need to make any profit on the service. In fact, the government is legally not allowed to profit from it.

2. The NHS can act as a bulk buyer for any supplies it needs, including pharmaceuticals. Hence it has the power to bargain with suppliers for lower prices. This doesn't happen so much any more in the UK, largely thanks to lobbying efforts by pharma firms.

3. As has already been said, NHS systems use generic drugs whenever possible. Now before you pull out the tired old argument of "generics undermine profits pharma firms make on branded medicines and hence reduce funding for research", consider this: A drug can only be made by a generics company once the patent has expired. If the patent has expired, then anyone can legally make the stuff, and sell it for any price they like. Likewise, until the patent runs out, only the patent holder can make the drug - and they too can charge whatever they like for it.

The downsides are:

1. Waiting lists - you often can't be seen right away, and you usually have to wait a while for non-life saving operations. The length of time you wait can sometimes be rather silly - up to a year in some cases. But the cause of waiting lists is often diversion of funds and / or resources away from the service by inept management. Having said that, management in the private sector isn't that much better. Also, considering how much cheaper the NHS is, and the fact that you don't pay for it except through taxation, most people are prepared to live with waiting lists.

2. Some very expensive treatments may be denied. An example is Taxol (the anti-cancer drug), which made headline news in the UK a few years ago because the NHS refused to provide it. Having said that, any private insurance plan which would cover an expensive treatment such as Taxol would probably command much higher premiums.

On balance, I prefer the NHS system, although I can definitely understand the advantages of private healthcare.

2. Some very expensive treatments may be denied. An example is Taxol (the anti-cancer drug), which made headline news in the UK a few years ago because the NHS refused to provide it. Having said that, any private insurance plan which would cover an expensive treatment such as Taxol would probably command much higher premiums.



ALL health plans in the US cover Taxol (or an equivalent). There is the advantage of privatized health care right there. It is virtually unheard of for a health plan in the US to not pay for life saving treatments despite what Hollywood says.

Good try. I'm not even eligible for the AARP, yet. I have a very old and distinguished family. Emphasize old...a couple of grandmothers are pushing 100.

If you say so...

Only a fraction of the drugs we use today are produced through research from medical universities. The vast majority of them were developed by large pharmaceutical companies that are in the business of making a profit. Even those handled by medical universities are done using funding provided by the large pharmeceuticals. Since producing these drugs is extremely expensive and usually takes decades of research the costs associated with drug development is extrememly high. If I remember correctly, Lipitor, the most widely used cholesterol managment drug, took 20 years and hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants to produce.

So, I ask again. If all 1st world countries had universal healthcare and used only generic drugs, who would spend the millions of dollars necessary to develop new drugs?

If you are going to make claims such as 'The vast majority of them were developed by large pharmaceutical companies', then I suggest you back them up with some sort of claim.

I do not doubt that many of the current drugs were designed by large pharmaceutical companies. My question to you is this: are these drugs more beneficial to society at large, or to those who can afford it? Since profit os the motivation, I would assume that only those medicines that can be sold at a profit are ever released for distibution. Medicines that can not be sold at a profit would be ignored or buried, regardless of how beneficial they would be to society.

Can they cure the disease, or do they simply alleviate symptoms? In a completely privatised healthcare system, no one would research cures. Your client base is sick people. If the are no longer sick, they will no longer purchase your products. Therefore you make more money and guarantee that money by selling a product that does not cure you but does help alleviate some of the problems associated with the illness. Hopefully for the investors, it will have side effects that also require expensive medication.

The drugs would still be researched and distributed even if no companies wnated to do it. This is because there will always be a need for medical innovation, regardless of the shape or status of the market.

The drugs would still be researched and distributed even if no companies wnated to do it. This is because there will always be a need for medical innovation, regardless of the shape or status of the market.

By whom?

I personally would not spend tens of millions of my own money to try to find a drug if there is no chance to recoup my investment. If you then add the possibility of future lawsuits if there is an unforseen danger (VIoxx, Thalidomide, Acutane) then just forget it.

So your solution is:

Instead of paying 25% of my income to the government, and high medical costs, I pay 50 or 60% of my income to the government to finance expensive research and get substantially decreased medical costs?

No thanks, I prefer to keep my income and purchase my own insurance to cover my medical costs.

precisely. but then i am something of a collectivist and a socialist, so i wouldn't stop there...

OK, what does an average day in a hospital in the US cost?
Here's a hint -- try google

I do not doubt that many of the current drugs were designed by large pharmaceutical companies. My question to you is this: are these drugs more beneficial to society at large, or to those who can afford it? Since profit os the motivation, I would assume that only those medicines that can be sold at a profit are ever released for distibution. Medicines that can not be sold at a profit would be ignored or buried, regardless of how beneficial they would be to society.


anyone remember that potential cancer vaccine thingy (iirc) a few months back which, it was reported, pharmaceutical companies had abandoned researching and testing simply because the patent on the chemical had run out and none of them would be able to make profit from it?

it was posted here sometime. if i wasn't so tired after work i'd go find it

The cost of US healthcare has something to do with frivolous lawsuits also. Drs. are required to have insurance. Insurance costs money... when people sue Drs. insurance rates go up, bills go up, health insurance goes up. We can solve a large portion of the problem by making it tougher to sue. People sue people for the dumbest reasons and as long as they mention the words "pain and suffering" or "Mental distress" they can get whatever they fucking want.

Here's a hint -- try google

Yeah...I already have. If you don't want to answer then don't, just don't be a twat about it.

By whom?

I personally would not spend tens of millions of my own money to try to find a drug if there is no chance to recoup my investment. If you then add the possibility of future lawsuits if there is an unforseen danger (VIoxx, Thalidomide, Acutane) then just forget it.

By people who are capable of doing such research and would like to see cures for the medical problems that ail society. You are correct that there would be no profit motive. My point was that the profit motive is not the only motivation for human behaviour.

Penicillin and insulin are two examples of medical breakthroughs that did not come about through corporate greed. I am sure there are many more.

Yeah...I already have. If you don't want to answer then don't, just don't be a twat about it.

I always figure about a grand a day. It's a little more on the first few days because the non-room costs are higher -- drugs, tests, etc. An average for a 30 day stay, where most of it is rest, then PT ... $1000 per day still isn't a bad wag. I would think a geriatric patient with a broken leg/hip would be transferred to a nursing home after the acute phase of the accident was over. Happened with my mother-in-law, anyway. That reduces the costs quite a bit.

Fact is that a 90 year old isn't going to pay $30,000 for a hospital stay. Medicare will do it.

Check out page 4 (http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:RgaUFwottcgJ:www.info4pi.org/Documents/Publications/2006%2520Results%2520-%2520Report%25203_20070409_142952.pdf+average+daily+cost+hospital+stay+2007&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a).

That [distrust of government is just something that many Americans grew up having] argument just doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't have to make sense. It's a point of view throughout the U.S. that crosses political ideologies and demographics. It's one of the underpinnings of support for citizen's gun ownership and refusal to participate in census surveys. It's so engrained it's not worth fighting and any policy changes have to take it into consideration.

Just a question; how much, on "average" would it cost for an 85 year old woman to stay in an elderly ward for a month in the US, after she'd had a fall?It's an unanswerable question. In the U.S. an 85-year-old woman would not remain in the hospital for a month after a fall. If she relies on Medicare Part B for coverage, she is limited to 100 days hospitalization total per year and Medicare requires "medical progress". If she's not improving, she's shipped out to a nursing home after a week at most. The most common scenario is that she's broken a hip. The joint will be surgically replaced within 2 days of the fall, she'll be required to be up and walking 3 days (if not sooner) after the surgery (and she'll be better for it) and released to assisted living (or home care if there is a caretaker to live with her) within a week.

As for costs, hospital services alone you can roughly est. $500-$800/day (varies by location). That's for bed and board and a nurse checking on you. Any procedures (surgery, x-ray, MRI), treatment (physical therapy, etc.), or doctor's visits are billed separately.

Nursing home costs vary by location, quality, level of care, and projected duration of stay. It's not unusual for self-pay to be $1000-$3000 a month, but it's unusual to be self-pay in a nursing home.

[Who would develop new drugs?]
The same people who develop them now - medical universities.Medical universities? Do you mean medical schools? If so, then no. Some medical schools have research divisions, but the focus is most frequently on basic research and post-development drug trials. Some high-end universities host researchers who do drug development. The majority of development (in the U.S.) though is done by for-profit and non-profit research entities. And even the non-profits have to recoup non-grant development funds.

My dad, who is a doctor and a libertarian, thinks that every service that a doctor does for free (like charity surgery) should receive a tax deduction. That would give incentive for more free charity surgery and free care at places like hospitals.

I always figure about a grand a day. It's a little more on the first few days because the non-room costs are higher -- drugs, tests, etc. An average for a 30 day stay, where most of it is rest, then PT ... $1000 per day still isn't a bad wag. I would think a geriatric patient with a broken leg/hip would be transferred to a nursing home after the acute phase of the accident was over. Happened with my mother-in-law, anyway. That reduces the costs quite a bit.

Fact is that a 90 year old isn't going to pay $30,000 for a hospital stay. Medicare will do it.

Check out page 4 (http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:RgaUFwottcgJ:www.info4pi.org/Documents/Publications/2006%2520Results%2520-%2520Report%25203_20070409_142952.pdf+average+daily+cost+hospital+stay+2007&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a).

Would they pay for her to stay in longer than the doctor reckoned was strictly necessary?

It doesn't have to make sense. It's a point of view throughout the U.S. that crosses political ideologies and demographics. It's one of the underpinnings of support for citizen's gun ownership and refusal to participate in census surveys. It's so engrained it's not worth fighting and any policy changes have to take it into consideration.

It's just...strange to me.

It's an unanswerable question. In the U.S. an 85-year-old woman would not remain in the hospital for a month after a fall. If she relies on Medicare Part B for coverage, she is limited to 100 days hospitalization total per year and Medicare requires "medical progress". If she's not improving, she's shipped out to a nursing home after a week at most. The most common scenario is that she's broken a hip. The joint will be surgically replaced within 2 days of the fall, she'll be required to be up and walking 3 days (if not sooner) after the surgery (and she'll be better for it) and released to assisted living (or home care if there is a caretaker to live with her) within a week.

Most of that paragraph makes me sad.

And no, she hadn't broken a hip, her worst injuries were a split lip and a broken finger.

As for costs, hospital services alone you can roughly est. $500-$800/day (varies by location). That's for bed and board and a nurse checking on you. Any procedures (surgery, x-ray, MRI), treatment (physical therapy, etc.), or doctor's visits are billed separately.

That would work out to a fairly hefty bill, then, if you were in for a long stay.

Nursing home costs vary by location, quality, level of care, and projected duration of stay. It's not unusual for self-pay to be $1000-$3000 a month, but it's unusual to be self-pay in a nursing home.

OK.

Thanks for answering.

Penicillin and insulin are two examples of medical breakthroughs that did not come about through corporate greed. I am sure there are many more.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but insulin (at least Humulin) was developed by Eli-Lily Inc., a major pharmeceutical company. The insulin used prior to 1990 was extracted porcine insulin which developed antibodies very quickly. Prior to the institution of Humulin, the life expectancy of a diabetic was much shorter than it is now, also, now that Humulin is off patent, it is far less expensive than porcine insulin.

And no, she hadn't broken a hip, her worst injuries were a split lip and a broken finger.And she was admitted to the hospital at all? Unless she was kept over-night for observation (which is different than hospital admission), those injuries are treatable in the emergency department and the patient released to recover in the comfort of her own home. The ER doc would possibly order a CT scan to make sure she didn't have a stroke or damage her head in the fall, and would check her blood sugars, etc. (looking for the most likely cause of the fall). But in most cases, she'd be sent home--in the care of a relative, if it seems to be warranted.

Depending on the reason for the fall, she might be referred to social services for assistance (increasing the safety of her house, help in getting medications, help with daily care until recovered, removal of whoever it was that hit her, etc.... whatever it takes to help keep her from falling again.)

I'm sorry, but insulin (at least Humulin) was developed by Eli-Lily Inc., a major pharmeceutical company. The insulin used prior to 1990 was extracted porcine insulin which developed antibodies very quickly. Prior to the institution of Humulin, the life expectancy of a diabetic was much shorter than it is now, also, now that Humulin is off patent, it is far less expensive than porcine insulin.

You can't really compare a medical advance in the 1920's to one in the 1990's though

By whom?
By the same people who are the largest footers of bills for health care:

The government. The Feds currently spends roughly $25 billion a year on medical research through the NIH - which is quite competitive with the amount of money that goes from US consumers into privately funded research by drug companies. That does not, of course, count the chemical, biological, and medical research conducted at state and private universities.

And yes, there is no real long term profit incentive for cures, and yes, medicos looking at the bottom line are encouraged to go for slightly improved versions of current drugs. Non-profit and public institutions outside of the pharmaceutical corporations are responsible for quite a bit of good research.

Take vaccines. Vaccines are critical preventative treatments, but drug companies make very little of their money on vaccines. Flu vaccines often cost about $5 a shot retail, and do a very good job of protecting you from the flu. Catch the flu, and treating flu symptoms can add up to $500 easily - and dramatically more if you're one of those that gets a bad case.

Millions will catch the flu annually, normally - even with widespread vaccination - so the math to find out whether vaccination or treatment is more profitable is very easy.

A publicly owned healthcare system is a capital idea, but to expect it to be achieved by the federal government is somewhat unrealistic.
Individual states might be able to achieve it... I think a devolved process of nationalisation is the only kind that would stand a chance.
Even so... not sure. I'm never sure. I should procrastinate less. Then again, procrastination has its merits... Or does it?

By the same people who are the largest footers of bills for health care:

The government. The Feds currently spends roughly $25 billion a year on medical research through the NIH - which is quite competitive with the amount of money that goes from US consumers into privately funded research by drug companies. That does not, of course, count the chemical, biological, and medical research conducted at state and private universities.

And yes, there is no real long term profit incentive for cures, and yes, medicos looking at the bottom line are encouraged to go for slightly improved versions of current drugs. Non-profit and public institutions outside of the pharmaceutical corporations are responsible for quite a bit of good research.

Take vaccines. Vaccines are critical preventative treatments, but drug companies make very little of their money on vaccines. Flu vaccines often cost about $5 a shot retail, and do a very good job of protecting you from the flu. Catch the flu, and treating flu symptoms can add up to $500 easily - and dramatically more if you're one of those that gets a bad case.

Millions will catch the flu annually, normally - even with widespread vaccination - so the math to find out whether vaccination or treatment is more profitable is very easy.
That is all another thing to consider when getting to arguments whining about "all drug development will disappear!" How much development, and therefore money, goes into profitable treatments as opposed to possible cures? If a group developing medicines was not doing it for profit, how much money could be saved with every cure developed from stuff they refuse to research now because it won't be profitable?

A publicly owned healthcare system is a capital idea, but to expect it to be achieved by the federal government is somewhat unrealistic.
Individual states might be able to achieve it... I think a devolved process of nationalisation is the only kind that would stand a chance.
Even so... not sure. I'm never sure. I should procrastinate less. Then again, procrastination has its merits... Or does it?

Do you live in the US? State governments barely have enough money as it is, and that is with getting money from the federal government to implement required programs. And unlike the federal government, they can't just print money and run an unbalanced budget indefinitely. All we need is the government to force another shitty, unfunded program on the states.

And she was admitted to the hospital at all? Unless she was kept over-night for observation (which is different than hospital admission), those injuries are treatable in the emergency department and the patient released to recover in the comfort of her own home. The ER doc would possibly order a CT scan to make sure she didn't have a stroke or damage her head in the fall, and would check her blood sugars, etc. (looking for the most likely cause of the fall). But in most cases, she'd be sent home--in the care of a relative, if it seems to be warranted.

Depending on the reason for the fall, she might be referred to social services for assistance (increasing the safety of her house, help in getting medications, help with daily care until recovered, removal of whoever it was that hit her, etc.... whatever it takes to help keep her from falling again.)

They kept her in to do what's basically therapy. Try and help her get back on her feet and stay on her feet. She's got bad balance, which is why she fell in the first place, so they kept her in to see if they could help her, and to give her general check ups and things. Rehabilitation, that sort of thing. She came out much better than she was before her fall.

She had to stay in for an extra few days because her son died the day before she was meant to leave. We all went over to England for his funeral (he'd lived there for about 25 years), and the hospital was happy enough to keep her in where she'd have company and where there'd always be someone look in on her. At no extra cost, of course.

They kept her in to do what's basically therapy. Try and help her get back on her feet and stay on her feet. She's got bad balance..., Ah, similar to "swing bed" placements here... someone who really doesn't warrant critical care hospitalization, isn't chronically bad off enough to need full nursing care, but will get better, just isn't well enough to go home either.

Swing bed is much cheaper than either full hospitalization or nursing home (though most such beds are located in hospitals) and is covered (for 90 days,iirc) by Medicare. As we're obviously talking of someone you personally know, I'm glad to hear the rehab was helpful and hope she's still doing well.

There really are some good things about universal health care (single-payer, whatever name folks tag it with), I just don't see it happening here, if only because it would consign one (very large and very well educated) segment of the working public to earning less than they're used to earning, while allowing other segments to continue rapacious profit-making. I think we're on the corporatization track for the long haul.

The reason why the costs in the US are so amazingly high is not because it is a private system but rather that the level of regulation is onerous. There are too many regulations specifying how doctors can behave, what procedures have to be followed, what treatments you can specify, etc. etc. It may be privatized, but the health industry is the most regulated industry in America.

Lobbyist groups get to specify pretty much whatever dirty little trick they want to legislatures which skew the system from an efficient market to something benefiting their pet projects at the cost to society as a whole.

If you want proof of this, just compare the differences between jurisdictions within the US. Some areas suffer from a drastic shortage of doctors and nurses, while only a couple miles away there are plenty of competent doctors and nurses. The only difference being the regulatory environment under which they work.

Schooling is one of the biggest bottlenecks in terms of doctor and nurse shortages. Schools turn away thousands of highly qualified applicants. This in turn, reduces the supply and thus raises the wages doctors and nurses command. Despite this, being a doctor is no longer a great way to make money (unless you specialize in something relatively harmless like cosmetic surgery).

I know a couple doctors who simply retired because the only way they could afford the malpractice insurance (despite never having committed malpractice and thus having a clean record) means they had to see a minimum of one patient every 15 minutes to make the slightest profit for the practice. The insurance company wasn’t even making that big of a profit either – it all went to lawyers who make tons of money suing. Companies are likely to settle even highly spurious claims out of court for a few hundred thousand rather than risk getting a dumb jury and have to pay tens of millions on top of the lawyer fees for a lengthy court case.

Fortunately there are some companies now that figure they are big enough (spreading the risk and thus getting a lower rate per practitioner) to afford the insurance to setup clinics. There are even ‘Minute Clinics’ in some pharmacies which are staffed by a nurse practitioner (highly trained nurse that can legally write prescriptions for simple medicines) who can take care of any minor illness and recognize when something is serious enough to warrant seeing a doctor.


To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.And when you haven't eliminated anything at all – well just take whatever you want to be true and say that must be the cause for the difference.

Hey, let's try your same scenario, except imagine you're one of the many, many, many people in this country who can't afford insurance!
Then Medicaide pays for treatment.

OK, what does an average day in a hospital in the US cost? The US, unlike most countries to which it is compared, is a country with a large population over a vast geographical area and subdivided into many jurisdictions with wide differences in legal regulations. It is not homogeneous but rather has vast differences between regions. The costs in California are in no way comparable with the costs in New Jersey or Louisiana.

That being said – I do not believe there are ‘geriatric’ wards in the US. After emergency care is provided, most hospitals then transfer the patient to an ‘outpatient facility’ which has a more appropriate level of care.

Since profit os the motivation, I would assume that only those medicines that can be sold at a profit are ever released for distibution. Medicines that can not be sold at a profit would be ignored or buried, regardless of how beneficial they would be to society.
Ah yes, the tinfoil hat of evil corporations theory.

Corporations are not some alien creature – they are made up of human beings. Normal people. What you are saying is that hundreds of people are going to spend a lot of money on researching a drug that could be beneficial to society and then conceal its existence because it wouldn’t be profitable (perhaps everyone who works for a pharmaceutical company are, rather than having gotten into medicine out of a desire to help people, actually sadists taking glee at watching people suffer while they know the cure?).

Even if not profitable, what little could be made offsets at least part of the expenditure on research reducing the financial loss (which businesses like to do). Additionally there is the great PR gains from releasing the new drug. They get to trumpet what great things they are doing for society – which helps them gain better standing in the ranks to be able to attract better investors and a better applicant pool for jobs. It makes absolutely no business sense to bury a new drug just because it would be unprofitable.

I am so tired of people shouting “Ebil Corporations!!!11!1”

Corporations are not some alien creature – they are made up of human beings. Normal people.
And are legally obligated to maximize profits. Next question.

What you are saying is that hundreds of people are going to spend a lot of money on researching a drug that could be beneficial to society and then conceal its existence because it wouldn’t be profitable
What he is saying is they wouldn't research it in the first place and then if it even already has been, it probably won't be released for use because it isn't profitable.

It makes absolutely no business sense to bury a new drug just because it would be unprofitable.
To paraphrase Groucho Marx, business sense is to sense what military justice is to justice.

@Pantless

There is a defininte incentive for the pharmaceutical industry to make "orphan drugs" (drugs which treat a disease/syndrome which affects a very small population). These drugs are usually money losers, but every company develops some. Why?.... Good PR, that's why. They then use it for ads, which then causes their stock to rise, and then they have more money for drug development. This is not a bad thing!

Ah yes, the tinfoil hat of evil corporations theory.

Corporations are not some alien creature – they are made up of human beings. Normal people. What you are saying is that hundreds of people are going to spend a lot of money on researching a drug that could be beneficial to society and then conceal its existence because it wouldn’t be profitable (perhaps everyone who works for a pharmaceutical company are, rather than having gotten into medicine out of a desire to help people, actually sadists taking glee at watching people suffer while they know the cure?).

Even if not profitable, what little could be made offsets at least part of the expenditure on research reducing the financial loss (which businesses like to do). Additionally there is the great PR gains from releasing the new drug. They get to trumpet what great things they are doing for society – which helps them gain better standing in the ranks to be able to attract better investors and a better applicant pool for jobs. It makes absolutely no business sense to bury a new drug just because it would be unprofitable.

I am so tired of people shouting “Ebil Corporations!!!11!1”

I am not saying that hundreds of people are going to spend a lot of money on researching a drug that could be beneficial to society and then conceal its existence because it wouldn’t be profitable. I am saying that they will not research a cure if they do not see a profit in it. No one has to hide anything.

Or maybe they do. (http://www.breggin.com/Breggin_Observations_on_Paxil_Suicide_in_Adults._May_2006.html)

And again. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/business/17drug.html?ex=1179460800&en=fe7a51b4e9b0a656&ei=5070)

And it's not some tin foil conspiracy when thirteen of the world's leading medical journals make the same accusations. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicalscience/story/0,,549562,00.html)

Ah, similar to "swing bed" placements here... someone who really doesn't warrant critical care hospitalization, isn't chronically bad off enough to need full nursing care, but will get better, just isn't well enough to go home either.

Swing bed is much cheaper than either full hospitalization or nursing home (though most such beds are located in hospitals) and is covered (for 90 days,iirc) by Medicare. As we're obviously talking of someone you personally know, I'm glad to hear the rehab was helpful and hope she's still doing well.

Is that 90 days at a time or 90 for the whole year?

And yeah, thanks, she's doing fine now. :)

There really are some good things about universal health care (single-payer, whatever name folks tag it with), I just don't see it happening here, if only because it would consign one (very large and very well educated) segment of the working public to earning less than they're used to earning, while allowing other segments to continue rapacious profit-making. I think we're on the corporatization track for the long haul.
How would they end up earning less?

Is that 90 days at a time or 90 for the whole year?

And yeah, thanks, she's doing fine now. :)


How would they end up earning less?

The sharp increase in taxes required to maintain a universal healthcare system.

The US, unlike most countries to which it is compared, is a country with a large population over a vast geographical area and subdivided into many jurisdictions with wide differences in legal regulations. It is not homogeneous but rather has vast differences between regions. The costs in California are in no way comparable with the costs in New Jersey or Louisiana.

Well, you've certainly told me something I never knew before. There was me thinking that the US was all the same. Thank you for correcting me. I have now been educated.

Not that you actually answered my question.

That being said – I do not believe there are ‘geriatric’ wards in the US. After emergency care is provided, most hospitals then transfer the patient to an ‘outpatient facility’ which has a more appropriate level of care.

OK.

The sharp increase in taxes required to maintain a universal healthcare system.

Even though, as people have pointed out before me, it actually works out cheaper, giving people more money in their pocket?

Or, of course, as others have pointed out, even though the current US system has more than enough funding to provide universal care without an increase in taxes?

Then Medicaide pays for treatment.


Not unless you're already on Medicaid. I'm not. Neither are millions of other people. If I developed a serious illness tomorrow, I would not go to the hospital until I knew I was unquestionably in danger of my life, not by choice but simply because I cannot afford it.

Is that 90 days at a time or 90 for the whole year?For the whole year... so you get 100 hospital days and 90 swing bed. Medicare will also pay for the first 30(?) days of nursing home if you're admitted directly to a nursing facility from the hospital.
How would they end up earning less?

The sharp increase in taxes required to maintain a universal healthcare system.Nope, sorry. The taxes spread out over all wage earners wouldn't result in a significant drop in personal annual income of any one group of people.

But taxes would play a role, as Medicare (and DM) has shown. Taxes, even those going to A-1 beneficial to everyone programs, are a dirty word and an easy campaign platform--we're a self-centered lot mostly. I would suspect that a universal health system would remain underfunded, in the same way Medicare is, with the expectation that the ebil doctors (nurses, etc.) should earn less than they do now. Whoever (above) pegged federal reimbursement of services at 50% was on the money. I don't think earnings for health care personnel would drop 50%, but I would expect the single-payer (fed or state) to only agree to a salary of 60-75% (depending on specialty) of what it is now. And unless there is a compensatory increase in quality of life for those workers, that's not something they're going to accept.

For the whole year... so you get 100 hospital days and 90 swing bed. Medicare will also pay for the first 30(?) days of nursing home if you're admitted directly to a nursing facility from the hospital.

So if you need more than that you pay for it yourself?

Not unless you're already on Medicaid. I'm not. Neither are millions of other people. If I developed a serious illness tomorrow, I would not go to the hospital until I knew I was unquestionably in danger of my life, not by choice but simply because I cannot afford it.
This is as good as any excuse to post numbers about who _doesn't_ have health insurance...Then I have to order some metal for my barn roof.

The Blue Cross saw that various folks were misusing the census data regarding the number of insured citizens. That figure was about 43 million. Looks pretty bad, doesn't it? But, like every other study, there were a few tidbits that were overlooked. Those without health insurance can be grouped into three categories.

1. Individuals Eligible for Public Programs: Many of the Census-identified uninsured are reachable through Medicaid or SCHIP. Consumer unfamiliarity with the programs, enrollment red tape, language barriers, and a perceived stigma all discourage enrollment. This accounts for about a third of the 43 million.

2. Those earning $50,000 or more: Many of these individuals may be able to afford insurance but may not believe they need it because they are young or healthy. They may be unaware of coverage options for individuals and its tax deductibility (for the self-employed) and may overestimate the cost of coverage. This accounts for another third of that 43 million. We're up to around 28 million that could get health insurance, if they wanted it.

3. Lower-Income Individuals and Families: Many of the uninsured have difficulty affording coverage because they are ineligible for public assistance but earn less than $50,000 annually. This is the right group to target with _new_ initiatives. How many? Do the math 43-28=15. Wow! Only 15 million people are the cause of all this hand-wringing.

I repeat -- There are 15 million that need some kind of new initiative for access to health care. That certainly doesn't even begin to merit the incredible reorganization that a universal system would require.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gratzer200310060938.asp
http://www.bcbs.com/issues/uninsured/background/addressing-the-uninsured-2.html

I know what you mean! When I got stabbed in the knee it took me over 3 hours to get into an exam room in the states (the stabbing didn't hurt much, it was the injections of ani-biotics right in the wound that were really painful). 2 years later I got a nail put through my hand while in Canada and it took 15 hours before I was treated. Great fucking job, socialized medical system of Canada, great fucking job!

And are legally obligated to maximize profits.
Ah, thats where you misconceptions come from...
Corporations are not obligated to maximize profits. There is no legal requirement to make a profit at all. None whatsoever.

Those that run a corporation are charged with following the wishes of the stockholders (in other words - don't defraud the owner), who generally want the best return on their investment (either by building value in the share price or paying dividends). This does not mean they are obligated to generate profits at any cost.

Most companies pursue activities which do not squeeze out every penny but rather devote some of their efforts to building the reputation of the company, improve their working environment, maintain the goodwill of the local community, or any number of other not-directly-profitable goals.

Once again, you are operating under the assumption that corporations are faceless entities out to rape and pillage when reality is nowhere near that. While some companies have leadership which might make questionable decisions (and these are generally covered extensively in the press, thus leading to your misconception I'm sure), they are in the minority. Corporate executives to not rape, murder, steal, defraud, etc. etc.

What he is saying is they wouldn't research it in the first place and then if it even already has been, it probably won't be released for use because it isn't profitable.
Devoting hundreds of millions into developing a drug without the expectation or any gain is not the function of a company, that is the function of a charity.

Donate your money to a charity which researches such things if you like.
There is absolutely nothing that states that because there are for-profit pharmaceuticals in existence that there cannot be any charities or universities researching nonprofitable drugs and treatments.

Like I said before, if they already had done such research, they would release it even if it is not profitable. The investment has already been made - to think that corporations would conceal beneficial information because it would not directly generate profits indicates your belief that everyone who works for a company must be an evil sadist who takes glee at the misfortune of others.

Even if it would not directly generate profits, there are non-financial gains to be made from releasing such information which builds the value of the company, and is thus very much the function of the executives.

Corporations are not some alien creature – they are made up of human beings. Normal people. What you are saying is that hundreds of people are going to spend a lot of money on researching a drug that could be beneficial to society and then conceal its existence because it wouldn’t be profitable (perhaps everyone who works for a pharmaceutical company are, rather than having gotten into medicine out of a desire to help people, actually sadists taking glee at watching people suffer while they know the cure?).
More likely, they will simply discontinue research when it looks like it may not be a profitable line of research - or not research into the notion in the first place.

Now, if the drug is expensive to manufacture and has a small market, it will simply be priced ridiculously high, and people who really need it and can afford it will buy it anyway.

Well, you've certainly told me something I never knew before. There was me thinking that the US was all the same. Thank you for correcting me. I have now been educated.

Not that you actually answered my question.
No need to get snippy - I am merely pointing out that any such number could not be generated by anything other than just pulling it out of your ass. It would be completely meaningless which is why nobody was answering the question.

Edit: A clarification - you could come up with such a number, but it would take a very long and arduous study to generate a number with very low significance.

This is as good as any excuse to post numbers about who _doesn't_ have health insurance...Then I have to order some metal for my barn roof.

The Blue Cross saw that various folks were misusing the census data regarding the number of insured citizens. That figure was about 43 million. Looks pretty bad, doesn't it? But, like every other study, there were a few tidbits that were overlooked. Those without health insurance can be grouped into three categories.

1. Individuals Eligible for Public Programs: Many of the Census-identified uninsured are reachable through Medicaid or SCHIP. Consumer unfamiliarity with the programs, enrollment red tape, language barriers, and a perceived stigma all discourage enrollment. This accounts for about a third of the 43 million.

2. Those earning $50,000 or more: Many of these individuals may be able to afford insurance but may not believe they need it because they are young or healthy. They may be unaware of coverage options for individuals and its tax deductibility (for the self-employed) and may overestimate the cost of coverage. This accounts for another third of that 43 million. We're up to around 28 million that could get health insurance, if they wanted it.

3. Lower-Income Individuals and Families: Many of the uninsured have difficulty affording coverage because they are ineligible for public assistance but earn less than $50,000 annually. This is the right group to target with _new_ initiatives. How many? Do the math 43-28=15. Wow! Only 15 million people are the cause of all this hand-wringing.

I repeat -- There are 15 million that need some kind of new initiative for access to health care. That certainly doesn't even begin to merit the incredible reorganization that a universal system would require.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gratzer200310060938.asp
http://www.bcbs.com/issues/uninsured/background/addressing-the-uninsured-2.html
If you have 30 million people who could be insured through existing programs, but aren't, thanks to red tape and difficulty finding an affordable provider, then that's a serious problem in and of itself.

I know what you mean! When I got stabbed in the knee it took me over 3 hours to get into an exam room in the states (the stabbing didn't hurt much, it was the injections of ani-biotics right in the wound that were really painful). 2 years later I got a nail put through my hand while in Canada and it took 15 hours before I was treated. Great fucking job, socialized medical system of Canada, great fucking job!

Everybody and their dog has some kind of story about waiting days for something in the ER at a Canadian hospital. Kind of like that weird uncle who stares at you just a bit too intently during the big family get-together.

Shall I recount the tale of the time I nearly perished in the US because the hospital wouldn't treat that damn foreigner without ponying up the cash first?

Should I then contrast that to when I was airlifted to the hospital after a brutal accident all the way out in rural nowhere Canada?

Our medecine does just fine. And once I paid the exorbitant price down there American medecine was great too. So there.

Every week I need to respond to some ignorant tripe about how Canada's healthcare sucks. Goddamn its starting to get on my nerves.

No need to get snippy - I am merely pointing out that any such number could not be generated by anything other than just pulling it out of your ass. It would be completely meaningless which is why nobody was answering the question.

Edit: A clarification - you could come up with such a number, but it would take a very long and arduous study to generate a number with very low significance.

Yes, well, people already have answered the question.

If you have 30 million people who could be insured through existing programs, but aren't, thanks to red tape and difficulty finding an affordable provider, then that's a serious problem in and of itself.
I'll give you about 15 million in category #1 fit that description and there are things that could be done better to improve enrollment.

Category #2 people are smart enough to decide for themselves that they either need or don't need health insurance. We should never reach the point where we force people to make decisions we like because we think we know better. Probably a little education in the form of advertising would help #2 people get on board.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/

In short, a study has yet again shown that America is the first-world nation with the worst healthcare and yet still somehow pays the most money for it.
Wait for it, wait for it....

The capitalist,
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! You actually think the US has a capitalist healthcare system? Damn you're stupid.

bureaucratic piece of shit of a system
Kind of contradicted yourself there, no?

leads to millions of people uninsured
When the government creates a system where no one needs to worry about prices or take responsibility for their own health because someone else is paying, costs tend to shoot through the roof.

and therefore encouraging them to not go to the doctor until their health has seriously deteriorated making everything cost more than it would have if a universal healthcare system covered everybody's basic medical care.
And a free market in healthcare would be far cheaper and provide higher quality care than either the current system or UHC.

Studies continue to prove America pays more for worse care than universal healthcare systems but since apparently that is teh ebil socialism, we can't have it! Down with socialism, pay more for healthcare!
Interesting how you failed to mention that Canada, which has the most socialist healthcare system of any industrialized nation, placed right behind the States.

Is public healthcare any better? The NHS is, at present a monumentally beaurocratic, inefficient and expensive cock up that serves to demonstrate that only European levels of taxation can result in a public health service of any significant quality. Surely the best option, both for the US, and in a more general sense, is a composite system whereby emergency services and genuinely essential operations are provided by the state, and other services provided by private insurance?

Category #2 people are smart enough to decide for themselves that they either need or don't need health insurance. We should never reach the point where we force people to make decisions we like because we think we know better. Probably a little education in the form of advertising would help #2 people get on board.
Speak for yourself. Earning $50,000 a year does not make you an expert on the health care system, or help you figure out what, if any, providers are affordable for your situation.

Add in that a surprising number of advertised "individual" plans don't cover regular checkups and we're back to where we started.

More likely, they will simply discontinue research when it looks like it may not be a profitable line of research - or not research into the notion in the first place.

Now, if the drug is expensive to manufacture and has a small market, it will simply be priced ridiculously high, and people who really need it and can afford it will buy it anyway.

Whatever research has already been done, if it has any significance whatsoever, will then be published in a journal so that any university professor or post doc could then pursue the matter further (actually, either way it ends up the same - it is a student doing all the actual work). This happens because getting research published is how the scientific community tends to rate people and institutions. Thus even if it will not generate a profitable treatment, but will still be of some benefit, by the time you find that out there is something to publish so it is not a total loss to society.

Or even if it will not end up with a profitable treatment, it could still be further researched by the company for nothing more than bragging rights. You would be surprised how much of a motivation that is in the corporate world.

Is public healthcare any better? The NHS is, at present a monumentally beaurocratic, inefficient and expensive cock up that serves to demonstrate that only European levels of taxation can result in a public health service of any significant quality. Surely the best option, both for the US, and in a more general sense, is a composite system whereby emergency services and genuinely essential operations are provided by the state, and other services provided by private insurance?

All the NHS shows right now is that too much management is never a good thing. The NHS has enough funding to be brilliant, it's just the way it's currently run isn't very good; if somebody came in and reformed its management then it would be fantastic. It's not a money problem, it's an organisation problem.

Corporations are not obligated to maximize profits. There is no legal requirement to make a profit at all. None whatsoever.
Wrong. A corporation with shareholders is legally obligated to maximize profit.Go get informed and don't come back until you are talking out of somewhere that isn't your ass.

I posted this way back on page 7, but I don't think anyone directly addressed my points.

Most plans to extend U.S. healthcare coverage (such as Schwarzeneggers) involve mandates that force employers to pay for healthcare coverage. Now, whenever you force people to buy something, the people providing that product or service really don't need to worry about remaining competitive. They can charge whatever they want, and you'll have to buy by law. This has already happened throughout the United States with most doctors and health insurance businesses--when you go to the doctor, you don't see a menu of prices for services; it's nearly impossible for individuals to "shop around" for doctors, hospitals, and medical treatment. Most insurance plans dictate that individuals use particular hospitals, doctors, and services. Hospitals have no incentive to be cost-efficient, since "consumers" (that is, patients) will pay for it no matter what. They don't have a choice. Because people don't have a choice as to which insurance provider they go with (they usually just take whatever their employer provides) they don't have a choice about what medical treatment they receive. The way to go about remedying this is not to mandate more insurance be provided by employers, but to loosen requirements that employers provide healthcare. If employers could take the money they spend on healthcare and just pay it directly to the employees, the employees can then buy their own healthcare, choosing whichever plan they like best.

Federal or State mandated healthcare has tended to inflate costs of healthcare. As an example, the new compulsory insurance schemes that Schwarzenegger wants to put in place are estimated to cost $380 a month ($4560 a year) for every individual. Compare that to states with less regulated healthcare, like Connecticut, where a 35-year-old man can get covered for $50 a month.

This basically means three things for California. First, people will lose jobs. To a business-owner, it's simply too expensive to remain in operation with the same employees at the same wages; the alternative is to lower wages to compensate for the healthcare benefits, but this can only go so far with the minimum wage (and when you've gone down that far, you've stopped being competitive and you'll have a hard time hiring quality employees). Second, businesses will leave. Why continue doing business in a state where you need to pay $4560 a year for every employee just for healthcare, not mentioning their wages? Finally, people will leave California for jobs elsewhere. California businesses will be hiring fewer employees and paying them less; the market for jobs will be elsewhere. Basically, it will ruin California economically (and while a good economy doesn't necessarily relate to a "good" society, a bad economy does imply increased poverty and a lower standard of living).

Now let's move on to universal nationalized healthcare plans. Take all of my dire predictions for California's economy and extend them to the entire nation. Only now businesses will be going overseas to find employees, and those that don't or can't will struggle and decline. And no appreciable percentage of Americans will migrate to other countries for better jobs--migration laws are strict, and the costs of moving out of the country present a barrier to all the people who would be most effected by the declining economy.

Now, I don't mean to imply that the U.S. will become a third-world country because of nationalized universal healthcare. But the American economy will take a big hit; the U.S. job market wouldn't be any worse than Canada's, but unemployment would skyrocket.

I'm not saying that America's "privatized" healthcare is better than government-funded universal care. I'm saying that a truly privatized healthcare system would be better, but there are too many other factors in play in the United States to allow that at this time. America would have to loosen restrictions on the establishment of new medical schools, avoid laws requiring employers to insure their employees, and allow qualified professionals to practice specialized medicine without requiring medical doctor licensing.

Right now, a monopoly scenario exists in the U.S. medical system, and it's driving up costs and there is little to no incentive for medical professionals and insurance companies to offer competitive pricing.

allow qualified professionals to practice specialized medicine without requiring medical doctor licensing.
Then how would we judge qualification?

And on alot of it, you can blame it on the cost of Malpractice insurance which is driving doctors away. Not to mention malpractice lawsuits when they are not warrented.

Not true. While Malpractice Insurance has been rising, it is because the insurance companies are gouging doctors, and not because of lawsuits. The rise in the price of malpractice insurance is completely unrelated to payouts, the first increases far more than the second. And in cases when "tort 'reform'" does occur, insurance costs do not drop accordingly.

If you really want to lower the number of lawsuits, get rid of the 1% of doctors who cause 50% of malpractice cases, eh?

Then how would we judge qualification?

How about expanding Physician's Assistants and Nurse Practitioners roles and responsibilities? Or on the lighter side, we could bring back barber-surgeons.

Speak for yourself. Earning $50,000 a year does not make you an expert on the health care system, or help you figure out what, if any, providers are affordable for your situation.

Add in that a surprising number of advertised "individual" plans don't cover regular checkups and we're back to where we started.
Fact is that these people made a conscious and calculated decision to forgo health insurance. The "we know better" philosophy isn't sufficient reason to undo that. Some people don't buy life insurance. Do we want to require that too, because we think it's good to have it? Of course not.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/

In short, a study has yet again shown that America is the first-world nation with the worst healthcare and yet still somehow pays the most money for it. The capitalist, bureaucratic piece of shit of a system leads to millions of people uninsured and therefore encouraging them to not go to the doctor until their health has seriously deteriorated making everything cost more than it would have if a universal healthcare system covered everybody's basic medical care.

Studies continue to prove America pays more for worse care than universal healthcare systems but since apparently that is teh ebil socialism, we can't have it! Down with socialism, pay more for healthcare!


I suppose we have let the private sector too tend too the citizenry too avoid the general burden of the government subsidy, that being, hundreds of billions of dollars. Would it be a worthy program? Of course. Private corporations, those in medical insurance at least, can be enticed too lower prices by a general sense of competition, the quintessential element in the capitalist system. However this can work backwards, in which prices raise across the board. This is a double negative in essence, as the consumer base shrinks as prices go up.

It is a straw man too categorize the opponents of Universal Health care as "Anti-Socialists", as Socialized Medicine in itself, is a synonym fro Universal health care. Is this bad? It would be a fallacy too say so. The point is, with a strained Defensive budget, with congressional appropriations in the hundreds of billions going too foreign conflict, it is nonsensical too pay into a universal domestic health care program at the moment.

My suggestion? Shrink the national Defence budget. In the next two fiscal years, American forces will be out of Iraq. A federal deficit has been slowly shrinking, but it would make sense that payoffs too foreign debts will unfortunately, come before government domestic health care subsidy, for the sake of maintaining America's national credibility.

Too conclude, I must simply state, it is wrong too state that the individual is being robbed, and we are being nonsensical in our competitive system. Simply enough, a huge government subsidy program would yield vast government waste, as it has been shown time and time against, government economic programs and interventionary applications are much less efficient than free market practices. Over time subsidies are needed, but for now, lets focus on minimizing our defense budget.

but... but...

the free market!

is a load of BS

Wrong. A corporation with shareholders is legally obligated to maximize profit.Go get informed and don't come back until you are talking out of somewhere that isn't your ass.

Please find me the relevant law - doesnt matter what state. I would love to see it. It must strangely not ever be enforced because many corporations do not make a profit every year yet I do not hear of many CEOs going to prison for not turning a profit (just the occasional one for committing fraud). Not making a profit might get them fired if the shareholders think someone else could do better, but it will not land them in prison.

The officers of a corporation are required to serve the shareholders (the owners of a company) much like any other employee is required not to defraud their employer. Please show me the law which specifies corporations must maximize profits.