NationStates Jolt Archive

Well it started with the symptoms I was experiencing. When I didn't eat properly, or enough, or often enough I would (and still do) start shaking, sweating, my vision would blur, I would slur my words, and be unable to focus. I'd have to immediately eat something high in sugar, or come close to passing out. There have been a number of times where I had to pull over to recover, which could take up to an hour...it's like being drunk. To verify it was a sugar issue, I started using my mother-in-law's blood glucose metre. I was plummeting to 3.

The problem is that outside of diet...there is little one can do to deal with hypoglycemia.
Dude, you're like Bender and alcohol. (And yes, I can say 'dude' to chicks)

It's pretty cool if you look at it the right (wrong) way-

"Man, I'm gonna tie one on tonight, I haven't eaten any sugar for like 7 hours...PAR-TAY!!!"

feh, eat a candy bar and quit bitching.

Yes. That's exactly what I should do. Because refined sugar in no way metabolises faster in my body than the average person, causing me to experience a sugar crash that leaves me nearly unconscious.

Smartass :P

Dude, you're like Bender and alcohol. (And yes, I can say 'dude' to chicks)

It's pretty cool if you look at it the right (wrong) way-

"Man, I'm gonna tie one on tonight, I haven't eaten any sugar for like 7 hours...PAR-TAY!!!"

Yes, and I also start singing folk songs when I'm on a bender :D

Funny (tangental) story...my brother gave my daughters a picture of Bender, and signed it, "Love, from Uncle Bender". They now believe they have a robot uncle who is so busy in Hollywood that he can't visit very often. This Christmas, we are photoshopping some pictures of Bender in with their baby photos. I can't wait until they get into their first fight at school over the existence of their uncle Bender.

Yes. That's exactly what I should do. Because refined sugar in no way metabolises faster in my body than the average person, causing me to experience a sugar crash that leaves me nearly unconscious.



Note I said "eat a candy bar and quit bitching", seems rendering you unconscious would accomplish that nicely.

Smartass :P

see if you were unconscious you wouldn't be so rude omg!

Yes, and I also start singing folk songs when I'm on a bender :D

Funny (tangental) story...my brother gave my daughters a picture of Bender, and signed it, "Love, from Uncle Bender". They now believe they have a robot uncle who is so busy in Hollywood that he can't visit very often. This Christmas, we are photoshopping some pictures of Bender in with their baby photos. I can't wait until they get into their first fight at school over the existence of their uncle Bender.
Quality.

On the principle that when someone asks you to verify a story always say yes that existed when I worked at the record store, a receiving clerk was convinced that Wilferd Brimley was the manager's uncle. The illusion lasted long enough that we were under instructions not to disillusion him so that the manager would get grievance days off when Brimley died.

Poppycock. The US is a perfect example of a non-nationalised health(doesn't)care system, and yet it turns out to be more expensive per capita. Obviously the NHS can't be that much of a 'waste of money'... especially when it turns out to require less money than the 'privatised' version.

The problem is that the health insurance system in America is not privatized. There area some simple things to do that would truly privatize the system and reduce costs because of reduced compliance costs.
1. Eliminate government mandates on health insurance
2. Give individuals the same preferential tax treatment that employers get for purchasing insurance.
3. Make policies individual polices instead of group policies.
4. Allow insurance companies to refuse to write policies on people.
5. Expand health care savings accounts.

Simply put, removing the over-regulation and unfavorable tax treatment of the health insurance industry would bring prices in line with other commonly held insurance.

4. Allow insurance companies to refuse to write policies on people.


Yeah. This one will help a lot.:rolleyes:

The problem is that the health insurance system in America is not privatized. There area some simple things to do that would truly privatize the system and reduce costs because of reduced compliance costs.
1. Eliminate government mandates on health insurance
2. Give individuals the same preferential tax treatment that employers get for purchasing insurance.
3. Make policies individual polices instead of group policies.
4. Allow insurance companies to refuse to write policies on people.
5. Expand health care savings accounts.

Simply put, removing the over-regulation and unfavorable tax treatment of the health insurance industry would bring prices in line with other commonly held insurance.

The trouble with such a solution is that it is entirely theoretical. You are comparing the theory of privatised healthcare with the reality of public healthcare. And in reality, we have already shown that the public healthcare model works. Even for those people that insurance companies would refuse.

The trouble with such a solution is that it is entirely theoretical. You are comparing the theory of privatised healthcare with the reality of public healthcare. And in reality, we have already shown that the public healthcare model works. Even for those people that insurance companies would refuse.
You're assuming quite a bit to say that the single-payer, nationalized healthcare model works. I've seen quite a few personal anecdotes that indicate some people are satisfied, but no real counter to the facts that it rations medical care to most. Unfortunately, national health care seems to be much like communism...It works in theory, but falls apart when put to the practical test.

Even the WHO rated America best in quality and right care. Poor Canada was 5/6 in those categories. Only in the amount of socialization, did America fall short in WHO's eyes. But they're an organization that is in favor of facist healthcare, so I recognize and accept their bias.

Yeah. This one will help a lot.:rolleyes:
If the private insurance companies can decide who they want to declare too risky to insure, that's fine with me. It WILL bring the costs down for the rest of us.

I'll write this real slow so you can follow...

The government can then take care of the rejected applicants in a form of assigned risk pool. That's a fine purpose for our tax money.


And besides, why shouldn't smokers and fat people have to pay higher premiums because of their risky lifestyles?

You are almost right and mostly wrong.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1481/is_200411/ai_n9437483No, I'm entirely right.

The article refers to the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages when punitive damages are awarded.

My point is that punitive damages are almost never awarded. The vast majority of total awards, summing all cases, are compensatory.

Let me put it this way: In order to make up the difference, you would need to find a source showing that punitive damages, when awarded, are awared in a ratio of 50:1 against compensatory damages, not 1.6:1, which is what your source showed.

Good luck.

Let me get this - you look at the highest number that still qualifies as poverty then double it. Half of these people are earning more than poverty up to that number?

Why stop there? Why not triple it? Even better - multiply it by pi! Factor of three divided by the square root of the average IQ of congress?Twice poverty is a widely accepted benchmark in family budgeting economics. It's actually the cut-off for a lot of welfare programs for children.

Excuse me for living in a world of considered professional opinions.

Twice poverty is a widely accepted benchmark in family budgeting economics. It's actually the cut-off for a lot of welfare programs for children.

Excuse me for living in a world of considered professional opinions.

At this point, I'm ready to give up. Clearly Mystic Skeptic not only does not know the first thing about what we're discussing here, but he also clearly seems to be holding a specific opinion that he will not change despite any evidence to the contrary, and will miscontrue, misinterpret, and ignore to prove his points.

In other words, just stop arguing with him. It's not worth it.

The problem is that the health insurance system in America is not privatized. There area some simple things to do that would truly privatize the system and reduce costs because of reduced compliance costs.
1. Eliminate government mandates on health insurance
2. Give individuals the same preferential tax treatment that employers get for purchasing insurance.
3. Make policies individual polices instead of group policies.
4. Allow insurance companies to refuse to write policies on people.
5. Expand health care savings accounts.

Simply put, removing the over-regulation and unfavorable tax treatment of the health insurance industry would bring prices in line with other commonly held insurance.

I agree with you, if your country does not want to adopt a national service, then the private system must be made "fair" or at least a little more socially equal. More emphasis needs to be put onto helping those who need the help. It would appear that this is something that needs to happen across the board really, not only in healthcare, and is not going to happen under your current government (that's not to say I believe the Democrats would do any better, they're hardly socialist in a European view :D )

Question is would deregulating the system truly make it cheaper or more equal? If you look at car insurance, here (I can't speak for you guys) you get examples of how it favours certain people. As a new driver, I looked at buying an old banger £500 car, however insurance for a year on this could cost anywhere between £1000 - £2000, with a £500 excess - I simply couldn't afford to buy insurance that was double the cost of the car, which I'd be better off replacing anyway if I had to claim, as insurance is mandatory I was priced out of buying a car. You would find health insurance similar, those who are poor and live in "bad areas" (there is a correlation between poverty and bad health) would be the equivalent of the new driver, and would have huge premiums and therefore end up priced out, similarly the elderly would find themselves priced out as "high risk". Therefore, there would still need to be heavy government subsidy.

I would just like to repeat that the parents did not have to pay these fess to access the necessary medical services. The publicly funded healthcare system tokk care of that just fine.
I know, but had this woman lived in the US instead of Canada, she would probably have had to pay a large portion of those fees herself, which was more my point...

The government can then take care of the rejected applicants in a form of assigned risk pool. That's a fine purpose for our tax money.


And besides, why shouldn't smokers and fat people have to pay higher premiums because of their risky lifestyles?

This sort of proves the French system (as painful as that is to say :p) If the government could provide a system where BASIC healthcare is provided based on tax money, but anything above and beyond is paid for by the patient, it would be the most fair while giving the best care. Obviously this raises questions of what counts as basic healtcare, a massive debate both in France and here in the UK.

My friend has no health insurance. Until she moved out of her highly abusive home, she was the main breadwinner of the family, too.

She also has a heart problem and I think a brain tumor (though it could be brain cancer, been a long time since I talked to her about it, I can't remember which for sure). She cannot afford health insurance, she currently lives with her boyfriend, whose family is also very poor.

You're assuming quite a bit to say that the single-payer, nationalized healthcare model works. I've seen quite a few personal anecdotes that indicate some people are satisfied, but no real counter to the facts that it rations medical care to most. Unfortunately, national health care seems to be much like communism...It works in theory, but falls apart when put to the practical test.

Even the WHO rated America best in quality and right care. Poor Canada was 5/6 in those categories. Only in the amount of socialization, did America fall short in WHO's eyes. But they're an organization that is in favor of facist healthcare, so I recognize and accept their bias.
Go ahead and perpetuate the myths if you will but you are not fooling anyone. In 2000, the WHO rated the US at 37th.

Here is more damning evidence:

The Myth of American Health Care: The Lies that Are Killing Us (http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=11031)

It is attitudes such as yours that make me feel very fortunate to be a Canadian. :D

If the private insurance companies can decide who they want to declare too risky to insure, that's fine with me. It WILL bring the costs down for the rest of us.

I'll write this real slow so you can follow...

The government can then take care of the rejected applicants in a form of assigned risk pool. That's a fine purpose for our tax money.

How does this bring the cost down for the rest of us? Lowered premiums are paid for by increased taxes.

You're assuming quite a bit to say that the single-payer, nationalized healthcare model works. I've seen quite a few personal anecdotes that indicate some people are satisfied, but no real counter to the facts that it rations medical care to most. Unfortunately, national health care seems to be much like communism...It works in theory, but falls apart when put to the practical test.

Even the WHO rated America best in quality and right care. Poor Canada was 5/6 in those categories. Only in the amount of socialization, did America fall short in WHO's eyes. But they're an organization that is in favor of facist healthcare, so I recognize and accept their bias.

I'm not assuming anything. I have seen first hand how it works. I think it works so well that I have trusted my family's health to it. Since you make the claim that it rations healthcare to most, feel free to back up that claim with a source. Meanwhile, I'll take the evidence of my own eyes over your economic theories.

Health insurance is frickin' expensive, that's why a lot of families don't have it.

My parents were paying $2800 a month for the five of us to be fully covered. It's ridiculous. My mother's job has a lovely plan that saves her/my parents $33,600(!!!!!!) a year now though, so all is good in the neighborhood, but not everyone is so lucky.

How health insurance could even be that high is beyond me. But I have major health issues and my father has major health issues so it's needed, and we're lucky to even be able to have it.

National Health Insurance is only rationed scarcity. It can never be a permanent solution for real and quality care. Only private enterprise can provide that kind of guarantee.
Japan comes in with the longest life spans of any country. It has a universal care system and national health insurance. It also has one of the lowest rates of infant mortality for developed countries (The US has the highest BTW). You fail.

but no real counter to the facts that it rations medical care to most. Unfortunately, national health care seems to be much like communism...It works in theory, but falls apart when put to the practical test.


All health care rations. Private rations health care to those who can pay.

An NHS or other national system prioritises those most in need and yes it does ration. Mostly the rationing is on things that don't actually save your life such as IVF.

And don't forget you still have the option of private care if you want it and can afford it.

Go ahead and perpetuate the myths if you will but you are not fooling anyone. In 2000, the WHO rated the US at 37th.

Here is more damning evidence:

The Myth of American Health Care: The Lies that Are Killing Us (http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=11031)

It is attitudes such as yours that make me feel very fortunate to be a Canadian. :D

It's hardly damning evidence. None of those "indicators" of poor health care are valid. We should be looking at the quality of care and the appropriateness, as well as the innovations that have been made, both in medical procedures and in pharmaceuticals. Without being tedious, I'd say that America leads in all of those areas. Let's face it...If you have a serious disease, where would you rather go, Cuba, or America?

We do have a number of citizens that don't have adequate access to healthcare and this should be fixed. But to take care of less than ten percent of our population, we don't need to abandon a good system. We should fix what's wrong, without "major surgery" and we certainly shouldn't adopt the model of rationed scarcity that you prefer.

Japan comes in with the longest life spans of any country. It has a universal care system and national health insurance. It also has one of the lowest rates of infant mortality for developed countries (The US has the highest BTW). You fail.
Let's put an end to this life span thing right now. Life span calculations include deaths for any reason, don't they? Japan and other countries hardly have the murder rate that the United States does. That's the first factor. There are certainly more 'lifestyle' factors that show increased deaths at a earlier age in the United States that don't have anything to do with access to medical care. How about fatal transportation accidents? I bet we lead a lot of the world in that category, too. Point is that there are a lot of fatal injuries that don't mean squat, as far as health care, or access to it is concerned.

Quality is important. When was the last time you heard of someone LEAVING the United States to get an important -- not cheaper -- procedure performed?

It's hardly damning evidence. None of those "indicators" of poor health care are valid. We should be looking at the quality of care and the appropriateness, as well as the innovations that have been made, both in medical procedures and in pharmaceuticals. Without being tedious, I'd say that America leads in all of those areas.
You would say? What do the experts say? Perhaps you can provide evidence to prove your case?

Let's face it...If you have a serious disease, where would you rather go, Cuba, or America?
I would prefer to stay here in Canada. :D

We do have a number of citizens that don't have adequate access to healthcare and this should be fixed. But to take care of less than ten percent of our population, we don't need to abandon a good system. We should fix what's wrong, without "major surgery" and we certainly shouldn't adopt the model of rationed scarcity that you prefer.
A number of citizens? Like 45 to 50 million. That is a large number, and that doesn't take into account the tens of millions of Americans that have less than full coverage.

Quality is important. When was the last time you heard of someone LEAVING the United States to get an important -- not cheaper -- procedure performed?
It has been posted earlier but here we go again:

More Americans Seeking Surgery Abroad (http://www.webmd.com/news/20061018/more-americans-seeking-surgery-abroad)

Vishal Bali, chief executive officer of the Wockhardt Hospitals Group in Mumbai, India, says there has been a 45% increase in the number of American patients seeking care at his 10 Indian hospitals during the past two years.

"Cost is a major factor," Bali tells WebMD. Some examples: Wockhardt Hospitals usually charge $6,000-$8,000 for coronary bypass surgery, $6,500 for a joint replacement, and $6,500 for a hip resurfacing, which represent a small fraction of the typical costs at U.S. hospitals.

High Costs In U.S. Is Driving Some Patients To Seek Treatment In India And Elsewhere (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/18/health/webmd/main2104425.shtml)

Today's "medical refugees," the term Smith uses in an article published in the Oct. 19 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, are going to foreign countries for lifesaving procedures such as coronary bypass surgery and heart valve replacement, and also life-enhancing procedures such as hip and knee replacement.

"People are desperate," Smith tells WebMD. "This illustrates the growing unaffordability of the U.S. health care system, even to people who are by no means indigent."
Kinda dispels your theory?

Japan comes in with the longest life spans of any country. It has a universal care system and national health insurance. It also has one of the lowest rates of infant mortality for developed countries (The US has the highest BTW). You fail.
Don't bother, he is a libertarian and as such sees everything corporations do through rose colored glasses.
Trying to tell all the "omg socialism is evil and national healthcare is socialism and will resurrect Stalin!" conservatives that other nations with national healthcare have better healthcare and pay less per capita for it than the US government does it like trying to explain quantum physics to a barn.

It has been posted earlier but here we go again:

More Americans Seeking Surgery Abroad (http://www.webmd.com/news/20061018/more-americans-seeking-surgery-abroad)



High Costs In U.S. Is Driving Some Patients To Seek Treatment In India And Elsewhere (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/18/health/webmd/main2104425.shtml)


Kinda dispels your theory?

These aren't quite as common as the stomach stapling, but aren't a mystery anymore, either. I'll bet that many of the docs were trained in the United States, though.

But where do people come for really serious surgery? When was the last time co-joined twins were separated in complex surgery outside of the U.S. Nope, when you want really good care for a really serious problem, the place to come is America.

Not to mention that the last time I went to India, the local doc gave me a kit of sterile supplies -- things like saline, syringes, needles, bandages. Then he told me to be evacuated before any serious treatment was done.

Low cost has a reason for being low cost.

You would say? What do the experts say? Perhaps you can provide evidence to prove your case?


I would prefer to stay here in Canada. :D


A number of citizens? Like 45 to 50 million. That is a large number, and that doesn't take into account the tens of millions of Americans that have less than full coverage.
Nonsense. At least a third of those 50 million are illegally here. Another third are consciously choosing not to buy insurance. The real number is more like 18 million that don't have adequate access.

Even if it were 50 million, numbers alone aren't a good reason to overhaul the whole system. Make fixes...

These aren't quite as common as the stomach stapling, but aren't a mystery anymore, either. I'll bet that many of the docs were trained in the United States, though.

But where do people come for really serious surgery? When was the last time co-joined twins were separated in complex surgery outside of the U.S. Nope, when you want really good care for a really serious problem, the place to come is America.

or France (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4484728.stm)

These aren't quite as common as the stomach stapling, but aren't a mystery anymore, either. I'll bet that many of the docs were trained in the United States, though.

But where do people come for really serious surgery? When was the last time co-joined twins were separated in complex surgery outside of the U.S. Nope, when you want really good care for a really serious problem, the place to come is America.

Or Saudi Arabia apparently.

frex, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-03/06/content_4263666.htm

A host of other examples at http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rls=GZHZ,GZHZ:2007-25,GZHZ:en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22saudi+arabia%22+conjoined+twin+separation&spell=1

Not to mention that the last time I went to India, the local doc gave me a kit of sterile supplies -- things like saline, syringes, needles, bandages. Then he told me to be evacuated before any serious treatment was done.

Low cost has a reason for being low cost.

When was the last time you were there?

I know doctors who go annually (to Bangalore), and they say the Indian's have surprisingly top knotch stuff.

Who to believe, who to believe...

Maybe they don't like being dependent on someone who could easily decide whether they live or die. Seriously, if your insurance company won't give you the money to get some mortally important bit of medical work done, how are you going to pay for it? I suppose you could borrow a ton of money and figure out how to pay it back later, but how practical is that?

An example: it isn't a medical thing, it's about cars, but I can easily see the same thing applying. All of our cars were vandalized about four months ago; we were royally hosed, but we figured our insurance company would pay us since we'd ben paying them for that sort of coverage for years. All of a sudden, the company doesn't want to pay us the money -- they think we vandalized the cars ourselves just to get more money out of them, since they were going to drop us in a couple of weeks anyway due to a rather poor driving history in my family. (NOT me.)

So let's apply this scenario to medicine, shall we? Let's say you've had some really nasty health problems over the last year or so, and your insurance company can't afford to keep you on their list anymore. All of a sudden, one day you show up at the hospital with a quite badly mangled arm. It's going to take a very long time and a very large amount of money to fix this arm. Your insurance company assumes that you have somehow inflicted this injury upon yourself in order to take advantage of the last days of your policy with them, even though they can't prove any such thing. After long and harrowing negotiations (in which you're still trying to recover from your bad arm, I might add), the company agrees to pay you one-third of what they normally would, leaving you to pay the rest of the cost yourself. To put it mildly, this would be difficult for you to do, would it not? I know I at least trust myself more than an insurance company with a burr up its collective butt to care and pay for me when I need it; along this same line of thought, I definitely do NOT want the government to pay for my health insurance. Think of the examples I just gave on a magnitude of about ten, and multiply the DMV in there somewhere; you'll understand why I don't want these people deciding how much money the man with the knife gets, or indeed who the man with the knife is.

Arguing for or against a privatised system in America is pointless. Both systems have their flaws, both have their advantages. But America is NEVER going to adopt a national health service, the American public is far too suspicious of anything that can be related to socialism. I assume everyone here is educated enough to know about the red scare and domino effect theories. With Cuba on the border with an nhs, don't you think that perhaps people may get very worried in the US if the government was to adopt a similar system?

As the OP was asking why people wouldn't have insurance, implying that they must be stupid and that there is no way on earth they could not afford it, perhaps the focus should be back on that topic.

The problem is a lack of support for the less rich members of US society. This leads to a vicious cycle, they cannot afford health care, and therefore get ill, needing more health care and making less money as they cannot work. The problem is fixing this. The question is can it be done by simply deregulating the insurance industry - would this mean that those most in need would still have massively high premiums? Could it be done using a similar program to the pro-bono clinics used in Law - maybe doctors should all have a certain quota of free medical work they have to do. Don't most American hospitals run something similar to this with free clinics, would it work to make it mandatory?

Not to mention that the last time I went to India, the local doc gave me a kit of sterile supplies -- things like saline, syringes, needles, bandages. Then he told me to be evacuated before any serious treatment was done.


Why are you wasting my time with your 'anecdotal' evidence?

Nonsense. At least a third of those 50 million are illegally here. Another third are consciously choosing not to buy insurance. The real number is more like 18 million that don't have adequate access.


Cite?


Even if it were 50 million, numbers alone aren't a good reason to overhaul the whole system.

Why? If the system is utterly failing one in every six, surely that's a perfect reason for an overhaul?

Are you seriously trying to convince me that you'd be willing to accept an almost 20% failure rate? What about if you were heading in for surgery, and the doctor told you you would be failed 20% of the time for no reason other than artifact problems inherent in the system?

Let's put an end to this life span thing right now. Life span calculations include deaths for any reason, don't they? Japan and other countries hardly have the murder rate that the United States does. That's the first factor. There are certainly more 'lifestyle' factors that show increased deaths at a earlier age in the United States that don't have anything to do with access to medical care. How about fatal transportation accidents? I bet we lead a lot of the world in that category, too. Point is that there are a lot of fatal injuries that don't mean squat, as far as health care, or access to it is concerned.

Quality is important. When was the last time you heard of someone LEAVING the United States to get an important -- not cheaper -- procedure performed?

So... our statistics are skewed to an excessive degree because we kill each other and make bad lifestyle choices? We don't have poor healthcare, we're just violent and stupid?

It's hardly damning evidence. None of those "indicators" of poor health care are valid.


Says you? Who should I listen to? Some random internet libertarian-wannabee, or the World Health Organisation?

Hmm... it's a tricky one.


We should be looking at the quality of care and the appropriateness, as well as the innovations that have been made, both in medical procedures and in pharmaceuticals.


The converse is that many advances are really nothing more than a slight repackage of an earlier product - just enough of a tweak to sell it different.

Also, of course, pharm companies hold back treatments until it becomes economically worthwhile to phase in something new.


We do have a number of citizens that don't have adequate access to healthcare and this should be fixed. But to take care of less than ten percent of our population, we don't need to abandon a good system.


Sure. But we should abandon the not-very-good system we really have.

Damn that liberal bias of reality.


We should fix what's wrong, without "major surgery" and we certainly shouldn't adopt the model of rationed scarcity that you prefer.

No. Obviously we should adopt the model of rationed scarcity (that favours only the rich) that you prefer, right?

Quality is important. When was the last time you heard of someone LEAVING the United States to get an important -- not cheaper -- procedure performed?

"Siegfried and I are thrilled to return to our home country and excited with the programs set forth by the great doctors and staff at the world-class Leonardis Clinic," Horn said in a statement Friday. "The support we have received from our fans in Germany has been overwhelming and continues to inspire me daily."
Here's an example of someone who has plenty of money availing himself of healthcare in more than one country.
The U.S. has some good people and some fine healthcare. However, it's just unwarranted arrogance to assume our healthcare is superior to many other countries. This kind of thinking is non-productive. In order for us to improve we must constantly be looking to other countries' successes.

Cite?



Why? If the system is utterly failing one in every six, surely that's a perfect reason for an overhaul?

Are you seriously trying to convince me that you'd be willing to accept an almost 20% failure rate? What about if you were heading in for surgery, and the doctor told you you would be failed 20% of the time for no reason other than artifact problems inherent in the system?
No, you're just not paying attention. If we simply reform our system, we can accommodate the ones that have legitimate access problems. That means no illegal residents and no government force to provide for those that don't want insurance. That's why the number of uninsured that we should concern ourselves with is much less than 20%. The actual number is subject to discussion, but the fact that it is less than 45-50 million is not.

Or Saudi Arabia apparently.

frex, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-03/06/content_4263666.htm

A host of other examples at http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rls=GZHZ,GZHZ:2007-25,GZHZ:en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22saudi+arabia%22+conjoined+twin+separation&spell=1



When was the last time you were there?

I know doctors who go annually (to Bangalore), and they say the Indian's have surprisingly top knotch stuff.

Who to believe, who to believe...
I was in Punjab two years ago, Hydrabad last year, and Delhi a few months back. When was the last time you visited?

Why are you wasting my time with your 'anecdotal' evidence?

Clearly it's not a waste, if you see a reason to reply. But, I see so many anecdotes that are supposed to prove that there are no long waits, no wrong care, and that facist health care is a utopia. And they go unchallenged...

Why do you waste my time with irrelevant questions?

I was in Punjab two years ago, Hydrabad last year, and Delhi a few months back. When was the last time you visited?

Your word doesn't mean much on forum boards though (i don't mean you specifically simply anecdotal evidence)

So... our statistics are skewed to an excessive degree because we kill each other and make bad lifestyle choices? We don't have poor healthcare, we're just violent and stupid?
I've raised valid and logical reasons why longevity may be red herring in the area of sufficient healthcare.

Prove that I'm wrong.

Your word doesn't mean much on forum boards though (i don't mean you specifically simply anecdotal evidence)
I don't see you opposing the anecdotes that shower praise on the wonders of facist healthcare. Have you? Maybe I've just missed it.

I don't see you opposing the anecdotes that shower praise on the wonders of facist healthcare. Have you? Maybe I've just missed it.

I've only just started into this thread. I don't tend to retrospectively look at posts to be honest. Just because others do it doesn't make it right

Has it occurred to you, Myrmi, to consider WHY there are millions of people who refuse health insurance? Has it occurred to you to consider why? No?

It's precisely because of what has been outlined time and again in this thread, because insurance companies are purely about profit and do their best to avoid ever paying out benefits they're supposed to pay out. Small wonder that millions of people would say "fuck that" and just hope that they don't become sick. Hell, one of the reasons I'm joining the Navy is so I can make sure I'm still covered medically speaking after I move out from my parent's house...even then our insurance doesn't cover everything, and they definitely try to avoid paying out for certain things. My dad is still trying to get our insurance to pay for a medical procedure he had done nine months ago that was necessary to save his life and keep him working, and our insurance is Blue Cross Blue Shield, the alleged best, most respectable insurance company!

Has it occurred to you, Myrmi, to consider WHY there are millions of people who refuse health insurance? Has it occurred to you to consider why? No?

It's precisely because of what has been outlined time and again in this thread, because insurance companies are purely about profit and do their best to avoid ever paying out benefits they're supposed to pay out. Small wonder that millions of people would say "fuck that" and just hope that they don't become sick. Hell, one of the reasons I'm joining the Navy is so I can make sure I'm still covered medically speaking after I move out from my parent's house...even then our insurance doesn't cover everything, and they definitely try to avoid paying out for certain things. My dad is still trying to get our insurance to pay for a medical procedure he had done nine months ago that was necessary to save his life and keep him working, and our insurance is Blue Cross Blue Shield, the alleged best, most respectable insurance company!
Glad to see that. You will be a changed person after you have dealt with military medicine. It's okay for officers, poor for enlisted men, and damned lousy for families. It is everything you want though -- no payments.

Interesting that you think I like the healthcare situation the way it is, though. I've said in every substantial post that access needs to be improved. I would rather follow the tried and true path of deregulation, tax fairness, and private enterprise that has worked well for auto, life, and casualty insurance. I should remind you that even those are not completely free of government regulation -- the government does have a responsibility to protect us from fraud and, as we've seen in Florida,. to require private insurance companies to write insurance when it is not in their best interests to do so.

Live a little more and get away from the college crowd -- you'll see things far more clearly and less abstractly.

Lol fascist health care, well I suppose it depends how you look at it. Really you can't describe the British system as fascist, health care may be "rationed" but is still provided to everyone in society, and private systems are not outlawed, so you have an option. People don't like having their national institutes called fascist...unless of course they are themselves.

Anyway, as it seems that my post did not get through the system, I'll repeat it.

There is no point in debating Private/national health care in this situation. The USA will never adopt this system because it is too closely linked to socialism, which frightens a good number of Americans, and the US has become very conservative over the years. I'll assume everyone reading this is familiar with the red scare and domino effect theory. With a nation like Cuba sitting so close to the US and flaunting its "socialist health care system" there is instantly going to be huge resistance to adopting a system which is similar to this "enemy"'s. I don't think there is much room for debate on that, as much as some may want huge changes, they are not going to happen in the US, and it would be dangerous if they did, your civil rights are being undermined enough as it is with terrorism "protection".

So the real issue is back to the original topic, and why people would not have insurance. Obviously most of this is down to money, if not ignorance. So reforms are the way to go. The issue is what form these changes should take. It has been suggested to completely deregualte the system, and this would definately help the better off in society, but they can already help themselves. If the companies choose to dump people who are "too risky" you will find that it is self perpetuating. A person who is poor is often in the most need of health care (poor quality of life etc) but will be marked as "too big a risk", so they cannot get health insurance and get more ill, therefore cannot work to earn enough money to pay for their medical bills. Perhaps a way to deal with this is providing a basic level of heath care state paid, then ask for money for anything above an beyond. Or perhaps a similar principal to the pro-bono clinics run by law firms could be set up. I know many American hospitals do run free clinics, but that is obviously not enough - maybe there should be an amount that ALL are required to provide (based on size and population etc.).

I've only just started into this thread. I don't tend to retrospectively look at posts to be honest. Just because others do it doesn't make it right
Of course not -- When someone asks MY opinion, they deserve the anecdote that has help to form that opinion.

It is everything you want though -- no payments.

Well in theory he pays for it with his service, if it's not very good care they obviously don't value mariners/soldiers very much. ;)

Glad to see that. You will be a changed person after you have dealt with military medicine. It's okay for officers, poor for enlisted men, and damned lousy for families. It is everything you want though -- no payments.

And apparently therefore, because one particular system isn't run very well, the very idea of the system must be flawed, despite the examples seen in many other countries.

Interesting that you think I like the healthcare situation the way it is, though. I've said in every substantial post that access needs to be improved. I would rather follow the tried and true path of deregulation, tax fairness, and private enterprise that has worked well for auto, life, and casualty insurance. I should remind you that even those are not completely free of government regulation -- the government does have a responsibility to protect us from fraud and, as we've seen in Florida,. to require private insurance companies to write insurance when it is not in their best interests to do so.
Oh yes, this is a really great idea, given that it's even more difficult to get auto insurance to pay out reasonably than it is to get health insurance to pay out reasonably, and life insurance is even worse than that!

Live a little more and get away from the college crowd -- you'll see things far more clearly and less abstractly.
Abstract thinking is required for complex understanding, so I'm afraid that doesn't really work very well.

I especially love your accusation of the college crowd, seeing as how I'm not in college and I won't be until I'm in the Navy and able to use it to get the education I wish to get.

Even the WHO rated America best in quality and right care. Poor Canada was 5/6 in those categories. Only in the amount of socialization, did America fall short in WHO's eyes. But they're an organization that is in favor of facist healthcare, so I recognize and accept their bias.

Do you have a link for this?

I don't see you opposing the anecdotes that shower praise on the wonders of facist healthcare. Have you? Maybe I've just missed it.

Since the only sources you have used during this thread are anecdotal, isn't this a bit hypocritical?

You keep championing a free market system. Please provide a historical example of a free market system that provided the same quality of coverage for the same number of people at the same cost as any public healthcare system.

If you can't, at least provide the study I asked for above.

Here's a study (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/snapshotscharts/snapshotscharts_show.htm?doc_id=409110) for you:

In a 2005 survey of sicker patients conducted in six developed countries, the United States ranked last on four measures of continuity of care and access problems reported by patients. The U.S. patients reported relatively longer waiting times for doctor appointments when they were sick, but relatively shorter waiting times to be seen at the emergency department, see a specialist, and have elective surgery.

I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Of course not -- When someone asks MY opinion, they deserve the anecdote that has help to form that opinion.

Yet you should be fully aware that it is reasonable for anyone to take your 'experience' to be worthless without proof

Not to mention that your experience may be the exception rather than the rule

Yet you should be fully aware that it is reasonable for anyone to take your 'experience' to be worthless without proof

Not to mention that your experience may be the exception rather than the rule

That's complete rubbish, what is personal experience if not a primary source?

Why do people value statistics from THE INTERENET!!!! above the anecdotal evidence of a real person. Yes anecdotes are biased and not fully representative, but they are still relevant. Statistics can be manipulated, and what is a news article if not a bunch of politically driven people quoting anecdotes?

Someone telling you their story is perhaps the best form of primary evidence you can get, obviously that's if it's not just a lie.

That's complete rubbish, what is personal experience if not a primary source?

Why do people value statistics from THE INTERENET!!!! above the anecdotal evidence of a real person. Yes anecdotes are biased and not fully representative, but they are still relevant. Statistics can be manipulated, and what is a news article if not a bunch of politically driven people quoting anecdotes?

Someone telling you their story is perhaps the best form of primary evidence you can get, obviously that's if it's not just a lie.

Ta Da

Lol, I should have expected that :D

Thing is you have to try and judge it. What's to say that the stuff in papers is not made up?

Lol, I should have expected that :D

Thing is you have to try and judge it. What's to say that the stuff in papers is not made up?
If you go down that logical path to its ultimate extreme you'd never accept any sort of evidence whatsoever.

Statistics are usually verifiable and show trends. Obviously they can be misconstrued and misunderstood--not to mention misinterpreted to say something completely different--but unlike personal anecdotes, they are verifiable and confirmed to be true.

I don't believe most statistics are, they are usually "representative". While in theory a representative sample is just that, in practice it isn't, asking one in 100 people (that would be far more accurate than most) you may still get the exception in every 100.

Who verifies statistics? Most information is regurgitated and cited by everyone else, so the people who are confirming one source could quite easily have used the other source themselves.

I don't believe most statistics are, they are usually "representative". While in theory a representative sample is just that, in practice it isn't, asking one in 100 people (that would be far more accurate than most) you may still get the exception in every 100.

Hrm, k, so assuming one in every 100 people is an exception, then your chance there would be, obviously, 1/100...but then, if you interviewed 10 of 1000 of this population, it's far more unlikely that you get the ten exceptions, no? and 100 of 10000....

Yes, but that's not to say it doesn't happen, after all there is still a chance, and people win the lottery.

But this is kinda off topic, why aren't my longer posts showing up?

Yes, but that's not to say it doesn't happen, after all there is still a chance, and people win the lottery.

But this is kinda off topic, why aren't my longer posts showing up?

I believe it has to do with jolt's anti-spam software. I think it goes away after the first ten posts. Welcome to NSG.

I live in Minneapolis. I was on a state sponsored health insurance program, but the last time I went in they had changed the plan on me (which I found out they do about every couple of months or so). I could go through the hassle of waiting in the lines at either of the offices where I can constantly re-apply and get mean-mugged by a bunch of crack heads who think I don't deserve to benefit from programs I actually pay taxes on. I rarely get sick, so chances are for insurance next time instead of not paying the bill I need to go to one of those offices before the doctor. Broken leg, ruptured appendix, xenomorph in my abdomen or whatever. What I would really like would be some state sponsored dental care that I can qualify for, or I can just skip out on the bill.

I would like to see a system whereby trauma or obviously unavoidable health issues, such as congenital defects, or being hit by a drunk driver would be treated cost free, and there would be no insurance required. The money to recoup this expense would be from those people who use the medical industry as a method for coping with their behaviorally caused health disorders, such as people who develop diabetes from eating crap, or heart disease from eating crap, or cancer from eating crap, or morbid obesity from eating crap AND not moving much, or STD's from inability to keep pants on, or many of the other various ways you can develop disease by being irresponsible with your body. Force those people who through their own behavior are straining the health care system to pay the extra costs for people who have done nothing but be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Also, offer up Yoga and other alternative health science programs to teach people more about preventative medicine so that less people get sick altogether.

I know...lets plan for health, not for sickness. The law of attraction and vibrational affinity says that you will get what your tuned for...tune for health.

I believe it has to do with jolt's anti-spam software. I think it goes away after the first ten posts. Welcome to NSG.

It let me post the silly little ones, but not the kick ass clever mega long ones :rolleyes: I'm not writing it out again.

Generally the gists was; America is deeply conservative and has a fear of everything socialist/communist, Cuba is a "socialist" state and has an NHS, therefore an NHS would be seen as the devil, see Redscare and Domino theory. Ergo, very very little chance of US ever adopting an NHS, so reforms must be made instead. I suggested some form of pro-bono similar to the law clinics.

And thanks, I've been playing on an off for a few years, but never bothered with the forums.

Clearly it's not a waste, if you see a reason to reply. But, I see so many anecdotes that are supposed to prove that there are no long waits, no wrong care, and that facist health care is a utopia. And they go unchallenged...

Why do you waste my time with irrelevant questions?
You waste our time by not posting any relevant "facts" to support your claims.

Try refuting these claims:

Facts on Health Insurance Coverage (http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml)

Who are the uninsured?

Nearly 47 million Americans, or 16 percent of the population, were without health insurance in 2005, the latest government data available (1).

The number of uninsured rose 1.3 million between 2004 and 2005 and has increased by almost 7 million people since 2000 (1).

The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens (2).

The increase in the number of uninsured in 2005 was focused among working age adults. The percentage of working adults (18 to 64) who had no health coverage climbed from 18.5 percent in 2004 to 20.5 percent in 2005 -- an increase of over 800,000 uninsured workers (1). Nearly one (1) million full-time workers lost their health insurance in 2005.

Nearly 82 million people – about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2002 or 2003 without health coverage (3).

Over 8 in 10 uninsured people came from working families – almost 70 percent from families with one or more full-time workers and 11 percent from families with part-time workers (2).

The percentage of people (workers and dependents) with employment-based health insurance has dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 59.5 percent in 2005. This is the lowest level of employment-based insurance coverage in more than a decade (4, 5).

In 2005, nearly 15 percent of employees had no employer-sponsored health coverage available to them, either through their own job or through a family member (6).

In 2005, 27.4 million workers were uninsured because not all businesses offer health benefits, not all workers qualify for coverage and many employees cannot afford their share of the health insurance premium even when coverage is at their fingertips (1).

The number of uninsured children in 2005 was 8.3 million – or 11.2 percent of all children in the U.S. (1). The number of children who are uninsured increased by nearly 400,000 in 2005, breaking a trend of steady declines over the last five years.

Young adults (18-to-24 years old) remained the least likely of any age group to have health insurance in 2005 – 30.6 percent of this group did not have health insurance (1).

Based on a three year average (2003-2005), people of Hispanic origin were the least likely to have health insurance. An average of 32.6 percent of Hispanics were without health insurance during that period (1).

Nearly 40 percent of the uninsured population reside in households that earn $50,000 or more (1). A growing number of middle-income families cannot afford health insurance payments even when coverage is offered by their employers.

Why is the number of uninsured people increasing?

Millions of workers don't have the opportunity to get health coverage. A third of firms in the U.S. did not offer coverage in 2005 (4).

Nearly two-fifths (38 percent) of all workers are employed in smaller businesses, where less than two-thirds of firms now offer health benefits to their employees (7). It is estimated that 266,000 companies dropped their health coverage between 2000-2005 and 90 percent of those firms have less than 25 employees.

Rapidly rising health insurance premiums are the main reason cited by all small firms for not offering coverage. Health insurance premiums are rising at extraordinary rates. Over the past five years the average annual increase in inflation has been 2.5 percent while health insurance premiums for small firms have escalated an average of 12 percent annually (4).

Even if employees are offered coverage on the job, they can't always afford their portion of the premium. Employee spending for health insurance coverage (employee's share of family coverage) has increased 143 percent between 2000 and 2006 (8).

Losing a job, or quitting voluntarily, can mean losing affordable coverage – not only for the worker but also for their entire family. Only seven (7) percent of the unemployed can afford to pay for COBRA health insurance – the continuation of group coverage offered by their former employers. Premiums for this coverage average almost $700 a month for family coverage and $250 for individual coverage, a very high price given the average $1,100 monthly unemployment check (9).

Coverage is unstable during life's transitions. A person's link to employer-sponsored coverage can also be cut by a change from full-time to part-time work, or self-employment, retirement or divorce (10).
Good luck!!

You do realise that Myrmidonisia is arguing that there are flaws with the system, and that there are inequalities stopping people from being insured, if not actually against the private system as a whole?

Also I don't think I can post my thing because I mention, conservative, socialism, Cuba, Red scare, and America in the same paragraph :p

I was in Punjab two years ago, Hydrabad last year, and Delhi a few months back. When was the last time you visited?

I never said I did, just I know people who go over frequently. And that those people are medical professionals and are quite impressed with what they have seen.

and food... and gas... and car... so what?

The priority of health insurance really does fall on age doesn’t it? If you’re in your 20's or even early 30's, how often are you going to be using hospital services. Frankly, the average 20 year old will rarely, if ever find themselves in the hospital.

If your paying 350/month on heath insurance you’re rarely going to be using, that’s 4200 a year you’re wasting. That 4200 alone could be invested, or otherwise better utilized than on services you may or may not ever need.

If in 5 years you never end up in the hospital room, you've lost 21,000.00 in healthcare premiums. This is why it is well known the youth fun the elderly healthcare. You'd have been better off sticking that money in a savings account and if you HAPPEN to require hospital services that money will still be available to you, and you've probably made a tidy some of interest on it!

If your young, really you would be better off with at MOST catastrophic health coverage, in the even of major injury. Everything else you’re better off covering on your own.

I do not currently have health insurance (though I have been looking for catastrophic coverage if I can find it cheap enough) because it doesnt make much sense for me to have it at this point in my life.

Were I paying for health insurance, that would be tens of thousands of dollars I would have wasted. If I need any medical attention, I pay cash. I have absolutely no limit on what doctor I can see, when I can see a specialist, what kind of procedures I can do... no limits at all. Obviously it costs a lot more than some $25 copay someone with insurance might pay, but they are limited by what restrictions their insurer puts on their medical care and pay far more for their insurance every month than I pay directly.

The entire health system in the US is highly wasteful and inefficient, which drives the cost up for everyone. Without the horrid bureaucracies and inefficiencies, medical care would be far more affordable so even the poor wouldnt be so greatly dissuaded from seeing a doctor without insurance.

The government's meddling in the health market just makes things worse - the US is nowhere near a 'free market' system and it is ludicrous to describe it as such. One very simple way of getting it more rational is to end the corporate tax breaks for offering benefits - this is a tax dodge for offering better compensation for high earners (disproportionately harming those on the lower end of the pay scale), decreases mobility as it ties health insurance to someone staying at a particular company, makes the customer the health insurance company is trying to service the corporation offering benefits to employees rather than the end consumer, and a host of other problems as well. Throw in the problem with doctors padding claims with unnecessary procedures (both to earn more money and as added cover against lawsuits) and patients not being cost conscious in their decisions, and you have misallocated health resources.

Make the individual receiving the health care the actual customer being served, make the patient aware of just how much things cost, eliminate government mandated market distortions, and you will see the cost of health care become far more manageable. This would end the little problem of either working for an employer that offers insurance or doing without health care.

Do you have a link for this?



Since the only sources you have used during this thread are anecdotal, isn't this a bit hypocritical?

You keep championing a free market system. Please provide a historical example of a free market system that provided the same quality of coverage for the same number of people at the same cost as any public healthcare system.

If you can't, at least provide the study I asked for above.

Here's a study (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/snapshotscharts/snapshotscharts_show.htm?doc_id=409110) for you:



I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.
Now, to pick up where my battery died...
The WHO (http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf)study ranks the US as best in responsiveness...look at the table on page 155. Look again at who's on top on page 184.

Your Commonwealth Fund study is just as slanted toward the amount of socialism/facism that a country puts into its healthcare, rather than the quality of care.

The Commonwealth Fund study divides "quality" into right (effective) care, safe care, coordinated care and patient-centered care. The U.S. placed fifth or sixth in the last three.

But where did the U.S. place in "right care"?

First.

All of the problems -- and there are problems, with health care in the United States have to do with deviating from the free-market model. We certainly don't want to deviate even further and watch our health care degenerate into a Canada, or U.K.-like morass.

Only a fool would confuse low-cost with high quality and ignore the standards of living of the entities involved.

I do not currently have health insurance (though I have been looking for catastrophic coverage if I can find it cheap enough) because it doesnt make much sense for me to have it at this point in my life.

Were I paying for health insurance, that would be tens of thousands of dollars I would have wasted. If I need any medical attention, I pay cash. I have absolutely no limit on what doctor I can see, when I can see a specialist, what kind of procedures I can do... no limits at all. Obviously it costs a lot more than some $25 copay someone with insurance might pay, but they are limited by what restrictions their insurer puts on their medical care and pay far more for their insurance every month than I pay directly.

The entire health system in the US is highly wasteful and inefficient, which drives the cost up for everyone. Without the horrid bureaucracies and inefficiencies, medical care would be far more affordable so even the poor wouldnt be so greatly dissuaded from seeing a doctor without insurance.

The government's meddling in the health market just makes things worse - the US is nowhere near a 'free market' system and it is ludicrous to describe it as such. One very simple way of getting it more rational is to end the corporate tax breaks for offering benefits - this is a tax dodge for offering better compensation for high earners (disproportionately harming those on the lower end of the pay scale), decreases mobility as it ties health insurance to someone staying at a particular company, makes the customer the health insurance company is trying to service the corporation offering benefits to employees rather than the end consumer, and a host of other problems as well. Throw in the problem with doctors padding claims with unnecessary procedures (both to earn more money and as added cover against lawsuits) and patients not being cost conscious in their decisions, and you have misallocated health resources.

Make the individual receiving the health care the actual customer being served, make the patient aware of just how much things cost, eliminate government mandated market distortions, and you will see the cost of health care become far more manageable. This would end the little problem of either working for an employer that offers insurance or doing without health care.
That is all patently absurd. The US government doesn't "meddle" in healthcare except for maybe Medicare or Medicaid because of the drug lobby. Drugs cost so much in the US because the government doesn't negotiate with the companies for cheaper drugs, and that is why we can't import perfectly safe drugs from Canada. And the customer knows perfectly well how much things cost because the insurance companies cover the bare minimum that they can get away with. Except for those lucky enough to have their company covering all their healthcare costs or most of it.

All of the problems -- and there are problems, with health care in the United States have to do with deviating from the free-market model. We certainly don't want to deviate even further and watch our health care degenerate into a Canada, or U.K.-like morass..

Tax credits for healthcare and a social safety net for the uninsurable are hardly hardly consistent with the free market model.

The US government doesn't "meddle" in healthcare
we can't import perfectly safe drugs from Canada.
Ignoring for the moment the extensive government regulation on absolutely everything relating to health care... even though you clearly recognize it as a problem, you don't consider blocking the importation of pharmaceuticals meddling in the pharmaceutical market? Just where is your cut-off for what you would consider government interference in markets? Do you consider anything short of total government monopoly a free an unfettered market?

And the customer knows perfectly well how much things cost because the insurance companies cover the bare minimum that they can get away with. Except for those lucky enough to have their company covering all their healthcare costs or most of it.
End consumers know their copay or deductible - I find it highly unlikely that people know how much their insurance companies pay doctors and hospitals for the various procedures and services they use.

Without looking it up - how much does your insurance company pay for an x-ray? An eye test? A standard doctors office visit? Getting stitches? How about when you step on a nail - simple outpatient procedure to fix you up, so you know how much your insurance company pays for that eh?

Tax credits for healthcare and a social safety net for the uninsurable are hardly hardly consistent with the free market model.
Sure they are - so long as those tax credits do not specify exactly what the money must be spent on, and the social safety net likewise avoids dictating specific products and services that will be purchased, it is entirely consistent with a free market in health care. Whether a consumer is paying out of pocket or is subsidized by charity (public or private) is irrelevant so long as that subsidy does not control what is consumed.

Why should the elderly get subsidies? Why not give subsidies to people with chronic conditions?

How are you going to finance the subsidies? How are you going to regulate the prices? A state regulation of prices department, that would be inefficient.

BTW waste of money?

fixing my father's hip? Treating my mother and grandmother for breast cancer? Putting my friend's face right after some idiot smashed his nose? Obviously you can think of better things to spend money on

Yeah, me in short.

I'm sure you could all be responsible enough to put money away for health insurance, and I don't see why I should pay any more for healthcare than that which I would pay for private insurance.

Ignoring for the moment the extensive government regulation on absolutely everything relating to health care... even though you clearly recognize it as a problem, you don't consider blocking the importation of pharmaceuticals meddling in the pharmaceutical market? Just where is your cut-off for what you would consider government interference in markets? Do you consider anything short of total government monopoly a free an unfettered market?
It wasn't meddling how you implied it. The importation of medicines from Canada is because of the drug lobby because they themselves can't directly stop said import. The drug companies would ban drugs from Canada themselves but they can't enforce it.


End consumers know their copay or deductible - I find it highly unlikely that people know how much their insurance companies pay doctors and hospitals for the various procedures and services they use.
Well when copay for major procedures that you actually need insurance for exceeds what insurance pays, I think people are highly aware of the cost of medical care.

Without looking it up - how much does your insurance company pay for an x-ray? An eye test? A standard doctors office visit? Getting stitches? How about when you step on a nail - simple outpatient procedure to fix you up, so you know how much your insurance company pays for that eh?
Without looking it up: what is the cost of an MRI, a full-wing dental X-ray, a PET-scan, a CAT-scan, a week long hospital stay?
Here's a suggestion, don't try being an elitist on subjects you yourself don't have the answers for on the tip of your tongue.

Poppycock. The US is a perfect example of a non-nationalised health(doesn't)care system, and yet it turns out to be more expensive per capita. Obviously the NHS can't be that much of a 'waste of money'... especially when it turns out to require less money than the 'privatised' version.

To quote Thatcher, "No, no, no". The US is an example of private healthcare; it is not the great examplar to which all private systems will eventually adhere.

Now, to pick up where my battery died...
The WHO (http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf)study ranks the US as best in responsiveness...look at the table on page 155. Look again at who's on top on page 184.
First of all, that report was issued 7 years ago. Although the US ranked 1st in responsiveness, and overall spending then, the US still ranked 37th overall. Even Canada, whose healthcare system you abhor, ranked 30th overall.

Has the US healthcare system deteriorated in the past 7 years?

US health insurance costs rise nearly twice as fast as pay: survey (http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_health_insurance_costs_rise_near_09122007.html)

The cost of health insurance in the United States climbed nearly twice as fast as wages in the first half of 2007, with family coverage costing employers around 1,000 dollars (714 euros) a month, a poll showed Wednesday.

Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose an average of 6.1 percent in 2007, while wages went up by 3.7 percent, the Employer Health Benefits Survey released by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust showed.

The 6.1 percent rise in health insurance premiums marked a slowdown from the rate of increase last year, but also strongly outpaced inflation, running at 2.6 percent.

"In 2007, the increase in health insurance premiums was about twice the rate of inflation and not quite twice the increase in workers' pay," Kaiser vice-president Gary Claxton said in a webcast.

Premiums for family coverage have surged by 78 percent since 2001, while wages have gone up 19 percent.

The average premium for family coverage in 2007 was just over 12,000 dollars, with workers having to pick up part of the cost.

Workers contributed, on average, 273 dollars a month towards family health coverage packages, up from 248 dollars last year, the survey, which polled just over 3,000 public and private employers with three or more workers during the first five months of 2007, showed.

"Every year health insurance becomes less affordable for families and businesses. Over the past six years, the amount families pay out of pocket for their share of premiums has increased by about 1,500 dollars," Drew Altman, chief executive of Kaiser, said in a statement.

Employers in the United States offer health insurance packages as a worker benefit.

In 2007, 60 percent of US firms offered health benefits.

That was down by nine percentage points on companies offering health care packages in 2000, the survey showed.

Low-paid workers were found to have the fewest healthcare options, because the small firms they tend to work for are less likely to offer coverage.

The high cost of premiums was cited as a main reason firms fail to provide healthcare coverage to their employees.

A survey released last month by the US Census Bureau showed that 47 million people had no health insurance in the United States last year, up from 44.8 million in 2005.
The alarm bells are not going off yet?

But where do people come for really serious surgery? When was the last time co-joined twins were separated in complex surgery outside of the U.S. Nope, when you want really good care for a really serious problem, the place to come is America.


.

http://www.ich.ucl.ac.uk/pressoffice/pressrelease_00106

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/937449.stm

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1268000,00.html

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=922&id=1138962003

Look they are seperated in the UK, Rome and .................. you had better sit dowwn for this ........................India

Now, to pick up where my battery died...
The WHO (http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf)study ranks the US as best in responsiveness...look at the table on page 155. Look again at who's on top on page 184.

From the first table, I noticed that in overall performance, the USA was 37th. Costa Rica, a developing nation, was number 36. Canada was 30th. Number one and two were France and Italy respectively. While the French system combines private and public care, I am sure you would consider it to be 'socialism/facism'. Italy appears to have a public healthcare system as well.

The same table shows that the USA ranks number one in expenditure! France and Italy are at 4 and 11 respectively.

The second table looks at two things in terms of responsiveness: level of responsiveness (I assume they mean speed and efficacy of reaction) and distribution of responsiveness (access and proximity, I guess). You are correct that the USA is first in 'level', but it is tied for third place with thirty-four other countries in the distribution department. Congratulations. You are number one in one thing other than expenditure.

Meanwhile, other tables out the USA at 24th for life expectancy at birth, and 32nd for equality of child survival.

Your Commonwealth Fund study is just as slanted toward the amount of socialism/facism that a country puts into its healthcare, rather than the quality of care.

That's right. Claim bias in the study.:rolleyes:

The Commonwealth Fund study divides "quality" into right (effective) care, safe care, coordinated care and patient-centered care. The U.S. placed fifth or sixth in the last three.

But where did the U.S. place in "right care"?

First.

So, you placed 1st in one quarter of the tests and last in the other three. That would put the US system in the lowest quarter percentile, right? Yet the USA spends more money per capita on health than any other system.

All of the problems -- and there are problems, with health care in the United States have to do with deviating from the free-market model. We certainly don't want to deviate even further and watch our health care degenerate into a Canada, or U.K.-like morass.

Only a fool would confuse low-cost with high quality and ignore the standards of living of the entities involved.

According to my study, and yours, if the USA were to adopt a system like Canada's, the USA would have an increase in overall performance at a reduced cost. Since you are unable to provide an example of a free market system that has provided a comparable level of care as the Canadian public system, I will assume that these claims of benefits through privatisation are based solely on theory.

http://www.ich.ucl.ac.uk/pressoffice/pressrelease_00106

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/937449.stm

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1268000,00.html

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=922&id=1138962003

Look they are seperated in the UK, Rome and .................. you had better sit dowwn for this ........................India
And at the Hospital for Sick Kids in Toronto, Canada, where they have performed 10 operations for conjoined twins:

Conjoined twins (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/health/conjoined-twins.html)

In 2005, Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children separated the twins from Zimbabwe while they were less than a year old. It was the 10th operation to separate conjoined twins by the hospital.
From another article:

Separate Lives (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1115408450231_24/?hub=WFive)

While other hospitals had the facilities and the expertise to do the job, only Sick Kids could cover the medical costs through its Herbie Fund. It's a humanitarian fund established in 1979 specifically to help children who cannot get the necessary medical treatment in their home country.

Dr. Spitzer sent in an application to the Herbie Fund. Within weeks it was approved. The twin boys were coming to Toronto to be separated. When Elizabeth heard the news, she was overjoyed. And it was only then that she decided to bless her boys with very special names.
There are medical facilities outside of the US that provide quality healthcare.

Yeah, me in short.

I'm sure you could all be responsible enough to put money away for health insurance, and I don't see why I should pay any more for healthcare than that which I would pay for private insurance.

Does it affect your decision that private healthcare insurance actually costs every individual more than they would be paying under a 'national health care' model?

Has anyone tried to argue that the USA is to big for a national health care plan?


Granted I think it is a shit claim, but it seems to be the one people fall back onto when claims that public health care doesn't work don't hold water.

Does it affect your decision that private healthcare insurance actually costs every individual more than they would be paying under a 'national health care' model?

At the moment. I see little point in reiterating the point that it need not do so if you will not give it the slightest notice.

Sure they are - so long as those tax credits do not specify exactly what the money must be spent on, and the social safety net likewise avoids dictating specific products and services that will be purchased, it is entirely consistent with a free market in health care. Whether a consumer is paying out of pocket or is subsidized by charity (public or private) is irrelevant so long as that subsidy does not control what is consumed.

So if consumers, individually, were offered the choice between a healthcare voucher, which one could add to from one's income, and using a single payer system, both payed for by the taxpayer, that'd be consistent with the free market? Huge welfare state entitlements are consistent with the free market as long as consumers are not dictated what exactly to spend them on? A private chairty that does specify exactly what goods and/or services a consumer consumes if one wants its aid is inconsitent with a free market ?

I don't have health insurance. Don't need it.
You pay national insurance as you live in the UK. Everyone pays something for health it's just the way it's collected that differs.

Does it affect your decision that private healthcare insurance actually costs every individual more than they would be paying under a 'national health care' model?
It puts the extra dollars into the pockets of the profiteers.

Have you seen the movie Sicko? Interesting.....it covers all of Myrmidonisia's talking points.

It puts the extra dollars into the pockets of the profiteers.

Have you seen the movie Sicko? Interesting.....it covers all of Myrmidonisia's talking points.
Sicko, right. Moore is an even bigger fraud than the tabloids that people turn their noses up at...The lack of veracity in Sicko is probably worthy of a separate thread.

According to my study, and yours, if the USA were to adopt a system like Canada's, the USA would have an increase in overall performance at a reduced cost. Since you are unable to provide an example of a free market system that has provided a comparable level of care as the Canadian public system, I will assume that these claims of benefits through privatisation are based solely on theory.
And along with that increase in a biased overall performance, there would be a corresponding decrease in effective care. I'd rather be part of a system that ranks first in quality, rather than 5th or 6th.

And I've already pointed out how the mostly unfettered auto, home, life, and casualty insurance industry can provide reasonably priced insurance by following the free-market model. Health care isn't any different in how it will respond to market forces.

Sicko, right. Moore is an even bigger fraud than the tabloids that people turn their noses up at...The lack of veracity in Sicko is probably worthy of a separate thread.
Did you even see the movie?

Did you even see the movie?
There are some things that I just won't do out of principle. Drinking Zima and watching Michael Moore are two of them.

He used to have a syndicated TV show for a year or two and I watched the first season of that. It's enough of a sample to know that the opening and closing credits are probably the only accurate parts of any 'FatBoy' production. The reviews of Columbine only reinforced that conclusion. Why should Sicko be any different?

There are some things that I just won't do out of principle. Drinking Zima and watching Michael Moore are two of them.

He used to have a syndicated TV show for a year or two and I watched the first season of that. It's enough of a sample to know that the opening and closing credits are probably the only accurate parts of any 'FatBoy' production. The reviews of Columbine only reinforced that conclusion. Why should Sicko be any different?
Ahhhh.....ignorance is bliss????

How can you possibly critique the salient parts of the movie, if you in fact have not seen Sicko or at least have been provided relevant information from a credible source?

I know how not to have health insurance!
Just go live in the USA :p

And along with that increase in a biased overall performance, there would be a corresponding decrease in effective care. I'd rather be part of a system that ranks first in quality, rather than 5th or 6th.

And I've already pointed out how the mostly unfettered auto, home, life, and casualty insurance industry can provide reasonably priced insurance by following the free-market model. Health care isn't any different in how it will respond to market forces.

If you wish to claim that the study is biased, feel free to show me another study, or an intelligent rebuttal of the methodology by an expert in the field. Until then your claim of bias is nothing more than an empty claim.

And how does an increase in overall performance equal a decrease in effective care? That makes no sense. You're usually smarter than this.

And the USA does not rank first in quality. It ranks first in level of response. This does not translate into level of health. The US ranks 72 in that regard. Cuba ranks 36. Canada ranks 35.

As for your claims that these other insurance models would work, please explain how. After rereading the thread, I find that you had previously made this claim, but you did not back it up.

EDIT: Apparently, some US economists do not agree with you:

To begin with, borrowing the most talked about feature of auto insurance—mandatory purchase—won’t actually provide coverage to all of the 47 million Americans who lack it. While over 95 percent of American motorists live in states that mandate auto insurance purchase, about 13 percent of accidents involve drivers without coverage. Countries like Switzerland, Israel, and Germany that require individuals to buy private health insurance, likewise, find that not everyone complies. Mandatory purchase would decrease the number of uninsured, but, alone, nobody can seriously contend that it would actually result in universal coverage.

http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,06027.cfm

There are some things that I just won't do out of principle. Drinking Zima and watching Michael Moore are two of them.
.... The reviews of Columbine only reinforced that conclusion. Why should Sicko be any different?

Because unlike the other polarizing issues M.M. has dealt with in the past, medical care failures are a near universally and bipartisan acknowledged problem. Even critics cant assail the facts he uses, simply because the facts he uses are basic, universally accepted and nearly indesputable.

Because unlike the other polarizing issues M.M. has dealt with in the past, medical care failures are a near universally and bipartisan acknowledged problem. Even critics cant assail the facts he uses, simply because the facts he uses are basic, universally accepted and nearly indesputable.
Exactly!!

After watching Sicko last night, I was in shock. Such a sad state of affairs.....for Americans that is. I saw exactly,

How can someone NOT get health insurance?

The movie talked about limits and exclusions, and used terms such as "not medically necessary", "pre-existing conditions", "co-payment", "HMOs and their limitations on certain coverages, maximum benefit payable, etc. Totally shocking indeed.

So I thought I would check out some of these horror claims and discovered this example:

A Consumer’s Guide to Health Insurance (http://www.ins.state.pa.us/ins/lib/ins/consumer/brochures/2003_health.pdf)

What a nightmare compared to the Canada Health Act. You need to be a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out adequate insurance coverages and exactly what those coverages are. It is easy to see how Medicaid and Medicare are made of fail, and how the healthcare industry in the US is heavily balanced in favour of the insurance companies.

My advice to my American friends:

- Check out the above consumer guide

- If you have health insurance please read what your "exclusions and limitations" may be.

- If you don't have health insurance or rely solely on Medicaid, etc., don't get sick.

- Don't allow your pride/ego block you from obtaining the best healthcare available for you and your loved ones.

- Don't think that it only happens to the other guy.

- Lobby your Congressmen/Senators for universal healthcare.

For the richest country in the world to have such a sick healthcare industry is way beyond comprehension. :(

All of the problems -- and there are problems, with health care in the United States have to do with deviating from the free-market model. We certainly don't want to deviate even further and watch our health care degenerate into a Canada, or U.K.-like morass.

Only a fool would confuse low-cost with high quality and ignore the standards of living of the entities involved.

A morass?

Wow. Some people...

I guess all that healthcare I got that did everything I needed and left me in top notch condition was horrid and terrible. Hmm. Fooled me.

And I suppose that time I had to hand over my credit card while I was vacationing in the States and they drove me into a two-year debt was the pinnacle of good quality?

Yah, once I gave them all that money it was good service. It wasn't better than what my taxes pay for at a VASTLY reduced cost.

Someday, they'll get it. Someday.

universal health care? i still cannot come up with one solid, sane reason that I would actively lobby for an increase in my taxes in order to wait longer for care that is at a lower standard than what I am currently getting. The only reason I see that there is currently any problem with much of the private health care sector is that insurance companies are given such free reign to redefine their terms whenever they want. This is a problem with pretty much ALL types of insurance right now, from health to home to life. If the consumer were given the power to force insurance companies to stand by their legally binding agreements, then we could all have a stable, efficient system.

And the USA does not rank first in quality. It ranks first in level of response. This does not translate into level of health. The US ranks 72 in that regard. Cuba ranks 36. Canada ranks 35.

Responsiveness is in the WHO study. Your Commonwealth reference finds that the United States ranks first in "right", or effective care.

As for your claims that these other insurance models would work, please explain how. After rereading the thread, I find that you had previously made this claim, but you did not back it up.

EDIT: Apparently, some US economists do not agree with you:



http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,06027.cfm
Sorry, but my argument was that removing the government regulation and unfair tax treatment from privately obtained health insurance would lower the costs, not that making it mandatory would force people to buy it.

Because unlike the other polarizing issues M.M. has dealt with in the past, medical care failures are a near universally and bipartisan acknowledged problem. Even critics cant assail the facts he uses, simply because the facts he uses are basic, universally accepted and nearly indesputable.
Far from it. In one of John Stossel's columns, he quotes a Cuban doctor...

Cuban-born Dr. Jose Carro, who interviews Cuban doctors who have moved to the United States, says Moore's movie lies. Dr. Darsi Ferrer, a human-rights advocate in Cuba, told us that Americans should not believe the claims being made. He describes the Cuban people as "crazy with desperation" because of poor-quality care.

One example of why a leopard doesn't change his spots that easily...
Another, George Utset, who writes The Real Cuba (http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm) Web site , says Moore and his group were ushered to the upper floors of the hospital, to rooms reserved for the privileged. "They don't go to the hospital for regular Cubans. They go to hospital for the elite. And it's a very different condition," Utset says.
Two examples...

Moore is an inveterate liar. He's made his reputation. There's no reason to believe him now.

Responsiveness is in the WHO study. Your Commonwealth reference finds that the United States ranks first in "right", or effective care.

Sorry, but my argument was that removing the government regulation and unfair tax treatment from privately obtained health insurance would lower the costs, not that making it mandatory would force people to buy it.

Sorry, my bad. I was confused since both of the studies say pretty much the same thing: the USA did well in one category and very poorly in all others. The quality provided by the Canadian system is only slightly worse than the US system. In every other aspect, the Canadian system is better or equal. Including cost. I pay less than you for a better service.

Go back and reread our back and forth. I asked you to show me a free market system that gives a comparable amount of coverage as the public system in Canada for the same cost. You replied that the auto insurance model could do so. I did some searching and I find out that the model you propose has been tried and has failed to do so.

Sorry, my bad. I was confused since both of the studies say pretty much the same thing: the USA did well in one category and very poorly in all others. The quality provided by the Canadian system is only slightly worse than the US system. In every other aspect, the Canadian system is better or equal. Including cost. I pay less than you for a better service.

Go back and reread our back and forth. I asked you to show me a free market system that gives a comparable amount of coverage as the public system in Canada for the same cost. You replied that the auto insurance model could do so. I did some searching and I find out that the model you propose has been tried and has failed to do so.
You really need to read a little more deeply into you Commonwealth Fund study. "Right care" is the most important criterion because it includes things like how often women have mammograms and whether diabetics get proper treatment.

The Commonwealth Fund ranked the U.S. last in "equity": "Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick, not getting a recommended test, treatment or follow-up care ... because of costs."

How much of that is due to the government's increasing the cost of care and insurance through excessive meddling, a tax code that encourages reliance on expensive insurance and bureaucratic red tape? These are all departures from the free-market model, much to our detriment.

The Commonwealth Fund's study has other problems. It was based on telephone interviews with patients and doctors. So it grades nations on people's perceptions without controlling for their expectations. Yet patients who live in a country with long waits for medical care and bureaucratic inefficiency may have low expectations. I think most Canadians and certainly all Brits have succumbed to this effect. Now, they truly seem pleased to get any care at all, mainly because it doesn't cost them anything directly.

There's more that bothers me about the study. That's how different categories are arbitrarily weighted -- is that to give the study the result they expect?

The proportion of patients who say they got infected at a hospital counts about the same in the "quality" measure as the proportion of doctors who use automated computer systems to remind them to tell patients their test results.

Nah, it's a biased report. One wonders how the United States did as well as it did with the quality category. That does truly make me glad to live here and have this kind of care available.

Exactly!!

After watching Sicko last night, I was in shock.

LOL!! If you are going to sight Michael Moore as a reference you may as well also site Rush Limbaugh also. They both are equally unbiased. :headbang:

LOL!! If you are going to sight Michael Moore as a reference you may as well also site Rush Limbaugh also. They both are equally unbiased. :headbang:

It's 'cite', as in citation.

Personally, I'd make the equivalence between the FatBoy and Bill O'Reilly. Not only does their bias cancel one another, but they're usually just as equally incorrect.

It is actually a pretty rational choice for a person in their 20s and in generally good health to not carry health insurance, or at the very least to only carry catastrophic health insurance. People inside this demographic often end up subsidising people in other demographics.

It is actually a pretty rational choice for a person in their 20s and in generally good health to not carry health insurance, or at the very least to only carry catastrophic health insurance. People inside this demographic often end up subsidising people in other demographics.
And these are the people who would benefit from Medical Savings Accounts. Just like retirement savings -- early and often is the best rule. Here's the first place government regulation should butt out. To have a tax-advantaged account, one must first buy a health insurance policy. Let's cut the red tape and just allow people to contribute to their own health care fund at a reduced tax rate.

LOL!! If you are going to sight Michael Moore as a reference you may as well also site Rush Limbaugh also. They both are equally unbiased. :headbang:
Did you see the movie? If not, then your comment is irrelevant?

And these are the people who would benefit from Medical Savings Accounts. Just like retirement savings -- early and often is the best rule. Here's the first place government regulation should butt out. To have a tax-advantaged account, one must first buy a health insurance policy. Let's cut the red tape and just allow people to contribute to their own health care fund at a reduced tax rate.
How about just supporting a healthcare system that everyone can access without fear of dying or going bankrupt?

Eliminate the middle man and shut down the ambulance chasers. Cut the overburdening red tape and for about the same money that is being spent now, you will end up with a first rate healthcare system.

Far from it. In one of John Stossel's columns, he quotes a Cuban doctor...

Cuban-born Dr. Jose Carro, who interviews Cuban doctors who have moved to the United States, says Moore's movie lies. Dr. Darsi Ferrer, a human-rights advocate in Cuba, told us that Americans should not believe the claims being made. He describes the Cuban people as "crazy with desperation" because of poor-quality care.

One example of why a leopard doesn't change his spots that easily...
Another, George Utset, who writes The Real Cuba (http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm) Web site , says Moore and his group were ushered to the upper floors of the hospital, to rooms reserved for the privileged. "They don't go to the hospital for regular Cubans. They go to hospital for the elite. And it's a very different condition," Utset says.
Two examples...

Moore is an inveterate liar. He's made his reputation. There's no reason to believe him now.
And these doctors have a vested interest in keeping US healthcare private? Why should we take these words to be true?

It's 'cite', as in citation.

Personally, I'd make the equivalence between the FatBoy and Bill O'Reilly. Not only does their bias cancel one another, but they're usually just as equally incorrect.
And you just have contempt prior to investigation?

Check out the facts that he states:

'SiCKO' Factual Backup (http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/)

Or better yet, watch the movie and then we can compare notes.

I pay less than you for a better service.



Mmmmmmmmmmm

OK 10 years working in the UK NHS and every American I met (admittedly only a few) who had come into hospital was amazed at how quickly and efficiently they were seen and treated.

Whether this was because they thought, like you, that their own system had to be better because they paid for it I cannot say.

Far from it. In one of John Stossel's columns, he quotes a Cuban doctor...

Cuban-born Dr. Jose Carro, who interviews Cuban doctors who have moved to the United States, says Moore's movie lies. Dr. Darsi Ferrer, a human-rights advocate in Cuba, told us that Americans should not believe the claims being made. He describes the Cuban people as "crazy with desperation" because of poor-quality care.

One example of why a leopard doesn't change his spots that easily...
Another, George Utset, who writes The Real Cuba (http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm) Web site , says Moore and his group were ushered to the upper floors of the hospital, to rooms reserved for the privileged. "They don't go to the hospital for regular Cubans. They go to hospital for the elite. And it's a very different condition," Utset says.
Two examples...

Moore is an inveterate liar. He's made his reputation. There's no reason to believe him now.

So, your refutation to Michael Moore is Stossel? And that Stossel is some paragon of reporting the fact?

LMFAO!!!

Shall we recall John's "Greatest Hits"?

During a 20/20 report, Stossel claimed that ABC News tests had shown that neither organic nor conventional produce samples contained any pesticide residue. ABC rebroadcast the story uncorrected even after it was pointed out that the produce samples had been tested only for bacteria. Stossel was reprimanded by ABC and issued an apology over the incident.

Stossel attempted to demonstrate media bias by pointing out that a petition on global warming circulated by the Union of Concerned Scientists had received much more attention than a response, the Oregon Petition, which questioned the existence of global warming and had many more signatories. FAIR criticized Stossel, arguing that, while the former petition was signed by most living recipients of the Nobel Prize in science, the latter was "famously discredited" and had not, at the time, verified its only necessary qualification, that signatories had a bachelor's degree in science.

In 2007, Frederick Price sued ABC over a 20/20 special on televangelists that showed Price apparently boasting over his riches and possessions. Actually Price was describing a hypothetical person who lives a spiritually unfulfilled life despite having great wealth. ABC News aired two apologies over the incident.

Julie Pierce, who appeared in the film Sicko complaining about insurance company denial of "experimental" cancer treatments to her deceased husband, criticized Stossel for alleged distortions and factual inaccuracies, and for not interviewing or seeking comments from her, in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece called "Sick Sob Stories".


So a couple of members of the Cuban ex-pat community don't want to support the notion that Fidel's regime does anything good for his people. I'm not a fan of Fidel, but let's all recognize that there exists a vocal group of extremely militant ex-pats who have axes to grind to.

For example, one wonders if this Doctor Jose Carro is the same one who was accusing Clinton of trying to "reprogram" Elian Gonzales (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-61760545.html), and devotes time to writing other anti-Castro articles (http://www.haciendapub.com/article47.html). If it is, then it seems that this person is far more devoted to politics than perhaps he is to actual medecine.

As for the other "expert" being "the guy who write a website", well sheesh - I can find websites too!!!!

LOL!! If you are going to sight Michael Moore as a reference you may as well also site Rush Limbaugh also. They both are equally unbiased. :headbang:

Logical fallacy.

Even if you can show bias, it doesn't invalidate evidence.

Nah, it's a biased report. One wonders how the United States did as well as it did with the quality category. That does truly make me glad to live here and have this kind of care available.

Again, logical fallacy.

Bias doesn't invalidate a source of evidence.

You really need to read a little more deeply into you Commonwealth Fund study. "Right care" is the most important criterion because it includes things like how often women have mammograms and whether diabetics get proper treatment.

I am not debating the fact that the US system has good care for those who can afford it. All the proof is here (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/snapshotscharts/snapshotscharts_show.htm?doc_id=376949).

In terms of safety (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/snapshotscharts/snapshotscharts_show.htm?doc_id=396134) of patients, efficiency (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/snapshotscharts/snapshotscharts_show.htm?doc_id=426280), access and timeliness (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/snapshotscharts/snapshotscharts_show.htm?doc_id=409110), and patient-centered care (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/snapshotscharts/snapshotscharts_show.htm?doc_id=429912), the USA did far worse than any other system.

The Commonwealth Fund ranked the U.S. last in "equity": "Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick, not getting a recommended test, treatment or follow-up care ... because of costs."

Not only equity. See above.

How much of that is due to the government's increasing the cost of care and insurance through excessive meddling, a tax code that encourages reliance on expensive insurance and bureaucratic red tape? These are all departures from the free-market model, much to our detriment.

Since the nation with the most privatised system is also the most expensive, i.e. the USA, the numbers seem to indicate that public healthcare reduces cost.

The Commonwealth Fund's study has other problems. It was based on telephone interviews with patients and doctors. So it grades nations on people's perceptions without controlling for their expectations. Yet patients who live in a country with long waits for medical care and bureaucratic inefficiency may have low expectations. I think most Canadians and certainly all Brits have succumbed to this effect. Now, they truly seem pleased to get any care at all, mainly because it doesn't cost them anything directly.

There's more that bothers me about the study. That's how different categories are arbitrarily weighted -- is that to give the study the result they expect?

The proportion of patients who say they got infected at a hospital counts about the same in the "quality" measure as the proportion of doctors who use automated computer systems to remind them to tell patients their test results.

Nah, it's a biased report. One wonders how the United States did as well as it did with the quality category. That does truly make me glad to live here and have this kind of care available.

You do realise that the Commonwelath Fund report is actually a compilation of many different studies, right? You seem to think that the Commonwealth Fund gave more weight to the other studies than the one where the US pwned all. That's your opinion. I see it as a large collection of independent studies that show the different strenghts and weaknesses of different models.

And your theory about perceptions versus expectations is simply a theory. I could just as easily claim that USians perceive the quality to be better because they pay for it, and they don't want to admit to themselves that they are getting ripped off. Like I keep saying: all theory, no evidence.

Right - it's not like anyone in France died just because all the doctors were on vacation....

Right, it isn't.

I really don't understand why people are still talking to you, even in your own thread. All they have to do is read your responses to me to see that you're just blowing hot air.

You are funny! :)



LOL! I can almost see you sitting with your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala can't hear you lalalalala"
You're the one who never responded to the links I gave you long ago. What's the matter, too much reading involved?

I've been eager to see your response to Hillary's new insurance proposal. It should sound quite familiar to you and everyone else in MA.
Why? What does it matter since it doesn't exist yet? Obviously, her current plan appears to be a close copy of Massachusetts' system, and since I strongly disapprove of Massachusetts' system, I also disapprove of Hillary Clinton's plan. What precisely does that have to do with anything?

Oh, maybe you didn't know that I strongly disapprove of the Massachusetts system, even though it was the first thing I made clear in my very first post. Can we take that as proof that you haven't actually read any of my posts? It would explain why you haven't actually responded to anything I've said.

No, of course they don't. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to say that because it's not the government's responsibility there should be no universal health care? We can still have universal healthcare because we as a people have voted and decided that we are willing to spend tax money on it.

I really hope we do, because it will cause the health insurance industry to implode, and there is nothing--NOTHING--I'd like to see more right now than the look on the faces of those cutthroat bastards when they realize that they can't keep making money off of the suffering of others.

Amen, brother. *drinks to the discomfort of the enemy* :)

Not really - they are choosing other priorities. Half of the people without health insurance are above the poverty line. I am certain that the majority of them are not uninsurable.

Several posters have already shown this statement to be a gross error, if not a deliberate lie. Ignoring arguments that have already been posted will not make them go away. Oh, and your certainty that you are right and the whole rest of the world is wrong doesn't actually make it so.

I can't. Granted, I'm not typical of all Americans, but I can't get any of that stuff. So - whether I can afford it or not, when I must have medical attention... I have to find someway to pay (read, borrow the money off someone, if I can)... or go without.

Same here. This is because I am one of the millions of Americans who fall into a financial no-man's land of neither rich enough nor poor enough nor adorned with enough of the right kind of life accessories (kids, dependent elders, prior military service, prior state aid service, etc, etc) to trigger any number of specialized supplemental programs.

Essentially, we are the libertarian dream - completely on our own, dependent upon our own devices, and in reality, totally fucked.

No - actually that poster balked when I asked for concrete evidence then called me immature for thinking that concrete evidence was better then ancedotal evidence. Muravyets has failed to bring anything resembling credible data to support their argument that insurance denials are epidemic - just as you have.

If you are going to make value judgments based on anecdotal or faith-based evidence that is your prerogative - but don't be surprized when nobody takes you serious when you fail to provide any credible evidence to support your position.

Lies. I gave you a list of links to primary sources. And I challenge you to quote me calling you immature. What I've called you is a liar. That implies nothing about your age, physical or mental.

LOL. That is what made the post so funny - because she said I know nothing about insurance while this comment makes it abundantly clear that she is the one who is completely clueless about health insurance. The obvious part? 'specifically tailored insurance program' part. Such a thing does not exist. That is pure unadulterated bullshit. All major health insurance policies are standardized with very little room for customization - and all customization is at the discretion of the policy holder.

Sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut and risk people thinking you are ignorant, than to open your mouth and prove it.


or - in other words - she really does not understand anything about what she is talking about... :rolleyes:


Not a single one of these links includes any statistics about claims going unpaid. Not one. But I'm sure that you knew that and are just testing me.
In fact her motive was not about claims being paid as it was about qualifying for insurance. I saw no information in any of these links about people having difficulty qualifying for insurance either. As it pertains to her and your post - They represent a random collection of noise and fury - signifying nothing.

I tend to ignore the irrelevant and the post had nothing in it which supported any of her hypothesis. Essentially her argument can be boiled down to 'It is all too complex to understand and it can change any time so I really can't explain it anyway- and that's my evidence'. A very weak argument.

Meanwhile - in the real world - I am still waiting for evidence of this epidemic of unpaid claims or denied insurance eligibility.
I will ignore the blatant insults and personally insulting general tone of your remarks about me and focus only on the bolded part as proof that you have never applied for a health insurance policy of your own. If you had, you would know that when you apply, you will be asked a short series of questions about your age, gender, place of residence, general health, family history and life style, and BASED ON THAT, you will be qualified for some plans and disqualified for others, and within the set of plans you are qualified for, if you are dealing with a private insurer, the sales rep will urge you towards some plans and away from others. That is the personal tailoring I was talking about. You cannot know just from reading the literature that comes with the marketing materials of the plan whether you will get it or not. You have to give this personal information first.

Either you don't know this because you've never experienced it, which would make you the one who doesn't know what they are talking about, or you do know it and are deliberately lying in your own argument and misrepresenting mine.

Oh - and if you want to know how health insurance policies works in the US you can find it here;
http://www.insurance.com/quotes/Article.aspx/All_You_Need_to_Know_About_Health_Insurance/artid/30
This site is a marketing site run by an insurance agency. It is taking advantage of the current marketing trend among insurance agencies of facilitating comparison shopping, but its purpose is to sell policies.

http://www.insurance.com/AboutUs/AboutUs.aspx

About Insurance.com
Insurance.com is an independent, unbiased insurance agency located outside of Cleveland, Ohio.

Despite its claims to be "unbiased," this cannot be taken as an objective source, compared to the government, media and multi-agency sites I posted earlier.

By the way, the page you linked to merely describes the kinds of plans, coverage, etc that are available. It does not tell us anything about how the US health insurance system works.

I don't see you opposing the anecdotes that shower praise on the wonders of facist healthcare. Have you? Maybe I've just missed it.

The bolded phrase is a solid gold, museum quality Give-Me-A-Fucking-Break (tm) moment. Thank you, Myrmidonisia, for erasing all credibility you may ever have had in just two simple words and relieving all of us of any nagging sense of obligation to take you seriously. 'Bye.

<snip>

End consumers know their copay or deductible - I find it highly unlikely that people know how much their insurance companies pay doctors and hospitals for the various procedures and services they use.

Without looking it up - how much does your insurance company pay for an x-ray? An eye test? A standard doctors office visit? Getting stitches? How about when you step on a nail - simple outpatient procedure to fix you up, so you know how much your insurance company pays for that eh?

I gave one personal example earlier. My mother received an prescription for medicated eye drops after a minor eye injury. The insurance she got through her employer covered it. The amount she was prescribed was about a quarter of an ounce. Her copay came to less than $20. Out of curiosity, she asked the pharmacist what the full cost of that dose of that medicine was, i.e. what she would have been charged if she was a self-pay customer. She was told it was $175 for the quarter ounce.

Feel free to use that as an example in discussion if it is useful.

Yeah, me in short.

I'm sure you could all be responsible enough to put money away for health insurance, and I don't see why I should pay any more for healthcare than that which I would pay for private insurance.

In other words, you just don't give a fuck about other people.

Fair enough. There's no rule that says you have to. I just amuse myself idly by wishing that people like you someday suffer the kind of bad luck that puts "responsible" people into the deep financial shit that has them ending up dying of preventable diseases, so I can exercise my right not to give a fuck as well.

My interest in universal healthcare is entirely self-serving. To me, it is simply a cheaper version of the same safety net I'm looking for in private insurance, and it's there to catch ME if I fall. The fact that it helps others as well is merely a side benefit.

Failure to look at someone else's misfortune and realize that it could happen to you as well, and that the systems that help them could also help you, is self-defeating in the long run.

A morass?

Wow. Some people...

I guess all that healthcare I got that did everything I needed and left me in top notch condition was horrid and terrible. Hmm. Fooled me.

And I suppose that time I had to hand over my credit card while I was vacationing in the States and they drove me into a two-year debt was the pinnacle of good quality?

Yah, once I gave them all that money it was good service. It wasn't better than what my taxes pay for at a VASTLY reduced cost.

Someday, they'll get it. Someday.
I know exactly when they'll get it. When all those baby boomers hit the nursing homes almost simultaneously. Oh yay, looking forward to that tsunami.

Well, I haven't read the many pages of replies, only the first page and a few on the last- it doesn't look like the topic is still what's being addressed.
Either way, I'm responding to the starting post.
After initially getting mad and thinking, what the ---- is this person talking about? Health insurance is cheap my ---. But, instead of being mad, I will assume the post to be an inquiry and indicative of a desire on the part of the poster to understand something.

Soooo, here Mystic, are my reasons:

I. Health insurance is absurdly expensive. I am a student and the school requires that I have insurance. The "cheap" policy they provide is relatively cheap, about $700/ year. If I were to add my husband to the policy it would be over $2000/year. He remains uninsured.

II. Many health insurance plans are relatively useless (inlcuding mine). My policy does not cover devastating illnesses, only minimal accident and ER visits, a sizeable copay and deductible and then 80% of remaining "reasonable charges". Should I become ill or injured, the plan is close to useless. My husband is unemployed right now, but highly unlikely to get an insurance-providing job when he goes back to work (neither of us have ever been provided affordable insurance on a job). As it stands, we have a very small living allowance. $700 of that is being wasted as required by my school. If I should need medical care, I will not be able to afford my copay or deductible. Therefore the insurance will only discount the overall debt I will owe- and judging the problems people tend to have paying off their medical bills combined with the amount of student debt I will accumulate, that medical debt will likely have to be discharged.
(In this sense, the insurance only helps the medical provider in that they would recover some money)

III. The money that would be spent becoming fully insured goes instead to those other necessities of health like--- oh, food, shelter, sanitation. We share a single very old vehicle which was given to my husband. We do not have cable, we do not own an Ipod or a cell phone. We do not even have a long distance provider on our home phone. Granted, we do have internet access, which costs just under $30/ month, but that is faaar less than comprehensive insurance and far more useful than the policy I am paying for now (which still costs over twice as much).

IV. There are no government health programs for the average adult. I live in Georgia, we have a plan for children and most cities have community health for women and children. This covers things like OB/GYN/birth control (I believe the most likely reason for it) and some STD testing for men and women. As I am unlikely to catch an STD and know how to prevent pregnancy, I have minimal use for government health programs. My husband, having no use at all for a gynecologist is completely left out.
Programs like TANF (temporary assistance for needy families) are for- families. That means you have to have children to qualify. We have to have children to qualify for welfare and all but a couple dollars in food stamps here, too.
I won't argue, it's great to protect children. It's not their fault their parents are drunks or have gambling problems, or are just unlucky in employment.
They just aren't the only ones in need and it is not always the fault of laziness or drug problems that a person does not make enough money to pay for insurance or to qualify for assistance.

Sure, you don't want anecdotes, but what else is there? Skewed research? Too small random sampling that doesn't include this particular instance? Data from government officials who would much rather line their pockets with the money that isn't being used to fix this problem?

Whatever, there you go.

I know exactly when they'll get it. When all those baby boomers hit the nursing homes almost simultaneously. Oh yay, looking forward to that tsunami.

Chances are I'd say the opposite will happen. The rest of society will give a big giant 'up-yours' to the senior population and announce that healthcare is too expensive and that it needs to be completely deregulated or else the government will go under with its debt burden. In the US, that is. I mean, how else can it turn out with the insane amounts of debt being racked up these days...

Chances are I'd say the opposite will happen. The rest of society will give a big giant 'up-yours' to the senior population and announce that healthcare is too expensive and that it needs to be completely deregulated or else the government will go under with its debt burden. In the US, that is. I mean, how else can it turn out with the insane amounts of debt being racked up these days...

True. And poor Canada will be innundated with hordes of aged Americans hobbling illegally across the border.

True. And poor Canada will be innundated with hordes of aged Americans hobbling illegally across the border.

Maybe in a few years, you'll all know how to say 'elderly care worker' in Spanish.

Maybe in a few years, you'll all know how to say 'elderly care worker' in Spanish.

LOL!!! Yep. :D

True. And poor Canada will be innundated with hordes of aged Americans hobbling illegally across the border.
And we will be forced into setting up Soylent Green machines to handle the inrush. :p

And we will be forced into setting up Soylent Green machines to handle the inrush. :p

Outsource that work to China. It works for us! *spreading the joy around*

I guess my point about Americans waking up to healthcare reality when the baby boomers hit the nursing homes was that they'll embrace reality at the point they always do, when their last coherent thought before their brain dissolves is "Oh, wait, this is about ME!"

Chances are I'd say the opposite will happen. The rest of society will give a big giant 'up-yours' to the senior population and announce that healthcare is too expensive and that it needs to be completely deregulated or else the government will go under with its debt burden. In the US, that is. I mean, how else can it turn out with the insane amounts of debt being racked up these days...

Actually - I see a potential reversal, if you will.

The US basically avoided succumbing to communism the 'last time around' by making a pretence at some kind of social conscience. In all probability that was largely an artifact, bolstered by shell-shocked benevolence, and a rebellion against fairly recent 'hard-times'.

Our careful excision of all the humanity is perhaps priming us for a red revolution of our own. After all - why not, when you've nothing to lose?

The bolded phrase is a solid gold, museum quality Give-Me-A-Fucking-Break (tm) moment. Thank you, Myrmidonisia, for erasing all credibility you may ever have had in just two simple words and relieving all of us of any nagging sense of obligation to take you seriously. 'Bye.

She came. She Saw. She Kicked Ass.

I love watching Muravyets in action.... such delicate destruction is a thing of beauty.

The bolded phrase is a solid gold, museum quality Give-Me-A-Fucking-Break (tm) moment. Thank you, Myrmidonisia, for erasing all credibility you may ever have had in just two simple words and relieving all of us of any nagging sense of obligation to take you seriously. 'Bye.
Go read a book. Fascist isn't an epithet, it's an economy. Any strong control of private enterprise by the government is a fascist economic system. Which is exactly what's being proposed when one desires price controls, presumably wage controls, and government financing of the nation's health care.

Go read a book. Fascist isn't an epithet, it's an economy. Any strong control of private enterprise by the government is a fascist economic system. Which is exactly what's being proposed when one desires price controls, presumably wage controls, and government financing of the nation's health care.
Canada has a universal healthcare system, and we don't have a "fascist" economy. :p

Canada has a universal healthcare system, and we don't have a "fascist" economy. :p
And wouldn't you know it, but Japan ALSO has universal healthcare and doesn't have a "fascist" economy either. But that doesn't stop Myrmidonisia since he never lets facts get in the way of a rant.

Actually - I see a potential reversal, if you will.

The US basically avoided succumbing to communism the 'last time around' by making a pretence at some kind of social conscience. In all probability that was largely an artifact, bolstered by shell-shocked benevolence, and a rebellion against fairly recent 'hard-times'.

Our careful excision of all the humanity is perhaps priming us for a red revolution of our own. After all - why not, when you've nothing to lose?
Especially if our US fat-cats keep importing their Cheap Mexican Labor (tm) to do all those jobs Americans refuse to do (*cough*for the shit wages they*cough*hardly ever*cough*pay*cough*).

Those poor working class Mexicans are red-hot Commies, every one of them, and revolutionary uprisings are a cultural tradition where they come from. Why do you think Mexico is so desperate to send them north? I say, open up that border, baby, let 'em in!! I'm polishing up that old guillotine of mine right now. It's party time!

Go read a book. Fascist isn't an epithet, it's an economy. Any strong control of private enterprise by the government is a fascist economic system. Which is exactly what's being proposed when one desires price controls, presumably wage controls, and government financing of the nation's health care.
Myrmidonisia = The Gift That Keeps On Giving.

I especially enjoy the way you defend your earlier unbelievably stupid throw-away remark with an even stupider argument that explains nothing except how you dress up your bias with deliberate ignorance.

Your remark was dumb and your defense of it is wrong. Now try to stay on topic. I remind you that the topic is not You.

Go read a book. Fascist isn't an epithet, it's an economy. Any strong control of private enterprise by the government is a fascist economic system. Which is exactly what's being proposed when one desires price controls, presumably wage controls, and government financing of the nation's health care.

Can you provide a source?

In other words, you just don't give a fuck about other people.

Fair enough. There's no rule that says you have to. I just amuse myself idly by wishing that people like you someday suffer the kind of bad luck that puts "responsible" people into the deep financial shit that has them ending up dying of preventable diseases, so I can exercise my right not to give a fuck as well.

My interest in universal healthcare is entirely self-serving. To me, it is simply a cheaper version of the same safety net I'm looking for in private insurance, and it's there to catch ME if I fall. The fact that it helps others as well is merely a side benefit.

Failure to look at someone else's misfortune and realize that it could happen to you as well, and that the systems that help them could also help you, is self-defeating in the long run.


It won't. Physically, may family is healthy well into old age; I've got the qualifications and ability to make enough money to provide myself and my dependants with excellent private insurance. Hence, why should do I support a system that so manifestly costs me more than I will ever recieve from it?

As for not caring, thats not strictly correct. I care about a lot of people, they just happen to be middle class.:D

It won't. Physically, may family is healthy well into old age; I've got the qualifications and ability to make enough money to provide myself and my dependants with excellent private insurance. Hence, why should do I support a system that so manifestly costs me more than I will ever recieve from it?


Did you sit and do the math before you started typing?

'Excellent private insurance' is more expensive than nationalised healthcare, on a per capita basis.

And, if the system keeps you healthy (which one assumes is it's goal), and you never require a big return on your investment (because the incrememntal care stops anything getting big and expensive) then you will ALWAYS find 'private insurance' (even 'excellent private insurance') costs you more than you will ever recieve from it. That's kind of the point - they wouldn't sell it to you, otherwise.

It won't. Physically, may family is healthy well into old age; I've got the qualifications and ability to make enough money to provide myself and my dependants with excellent private insurance. Hence, why should do I support a system that so manifestly costs me more than I will ever recieve from it?

As for not caring, thats not strictly correct. I care about a lot of people, they just happen to be middle class.:D

At least it's refreshing to see this candor. It's important to know that some of us are so polarized that there's not even any point in having a dialogue :D

At least it's refreshing to see this candor. It's important to know that some of us are so polarized that there's not even any point in having a dialogue :D
It does make our lives easier, doesn't it? I appreciate every opportunity to shorten the list of people I have to waste time on. ;)

Actually - I see a potential reversal, if you will.

The US basically avoided succumbing to communism the 'last time around' by making a pretence at some kind of social conscience. In all probability that was largely an artifact, bolstered by shell-shocked benevolence, and a rebellion against fairly recent 'hard-times'.

Our careful excision of all the humanity is perhaps priming us for a red revolution of our own. After all - why not, when you've nothing to lose?

There is some wishful thinking...

A cold war's worth of propaganda has the American populace pre-reflectively spit when they hear even commu-(insert ending here)... Community sounds too much like communism, goddamnit! It's just a few letters from a Red Dawn.

Over the top as it may be, its only partially facetious.

There is some wishful thinking...

A cold war's worth of propaganda has the American populace pre-reflectively spit when they hear even commu-(insert ending here)... Community sounds too much like communism, goddamnit! It's just a few letters from a Red Dawn.

Over the top as it may be, its only partially facetious.

Except... I look around and I see 'cooperatives'.

The Cold-War thing might actually turn out to be a hazard not a help... people have been programmed to hate the mere mention of 'communism' and 'socialism', but you could sell them on a concept like 'unity of vision', 'cooperation', 'True Christian living' or 'a compassionate economy'.

Except... I look around and I see 'cooperatives'.

The Cold-War thing might actually turn out to be a hazard not a help... people have been programmed to hate the mere mention of 'communism' and 'socialism', but you could sell them on a concept like 'unity of vision', 'cooperation', 'True Christian living' or 'a compassionate economy'.

There is a much better chance of a Christian socialist, like Canada's own Tommy Douglas, arising somewhere in the States and dragging what might otherwise be a Republican bunch to a fairly leftist position.

Possible. Perhaps plausible, but I am not holding my breath.

I don't think you will see much success though... Your average North American (Canada included) believes in the fundamental success and operation of the free market. Doesn't matter that we don't have much of a free market or that a lot of those same people advocate for and are adamant about having universal healthcare or social assistance, among other things.

People have always had that ability to have that dialectic within them, holding what are ostensibly contradictory positions.

Did you sit and do the math before you started typing?

'Excellent private insurance' is more expensive than nationalised healthcare, on a per capita basis.

And, if the system keeps you healthy (which one assumes is it's goal), and you never require a big return on your investment (because the incrememntal care stops anything getting big and expensive) then you will ALWAYS find 'private insurance' (even 'excellent private insurance') costs you more than you will ever recieve from it. That's kind of the point - they wouldn't sell it to you, otherwise.


Completely false. If one assumes that, of the taxes taken from each household, a certain percentage is allocated to the NHS, it stands to reason that at some point the contribution one is obliged surpasses the cost of private insurance. Hence, provided one is confident of earning this sum of money, the NHS then becomes a more costly enterprise than private healthcare.

Completely false. If one assumes that, of the taxes taken from each household, a certain percentage is allocated to the NHS, it stands to reason that at some point the contribution one is obliged surpasses the cost of private insurance. Hence, provided one is confident of earning this sum of money, the NHS then becomes a more costly enterprise than private healthcare.

Completely false.

Your logic is fallacious, at best. There is NO reason to assume that the contribution one makes through taxes is, according to you, necessarily higher than what one would pay for private insurance. Outrageous is what that claim is. Both contributions can be summed up as annual costs, and there is nothing inherent to one or the other that by necessity makes one more expensive than the other. It isn't hard to imagine how private insurance could be cheaper, and vice versa. In the real world, which capitalists seem to like talking about so much, it turns out that government 'insurance' is significantly cheaper than private insurance.

If you want to talk about those making a million dollars a year then yah... but what percentage of the population makes that much? And frankly, I don't care if they spend a few dollars subsidizing the healthcare of those lower on the totem pole than they. After all, without those people they could never enjoy that million dollars a year. Screw them.

Now, for a hypothetical model for fun.

If the taxes I pay are say, $4,000 and of that 20% is for healthcare, then we have an annual cost for universal healthcare of $800. Now let's say private insurance is $1,200 annually (if you compare costs Americans actually spend twice as much as Canadians on average for healthcare, but I will leave that be for the moment).

Cheaper. Yes. But you say!

Let's say some Canadians pay $8,000 in taxes, meaning they pay $1,600 in annual healthcare. This is, with our fictitious numbers, more expensive than private insurance. Victory you assume.

There are two responses to this. Firstly, even though it is more expensive than private insurance, as a percentage of disposable income it is far less for the person paying $8,000 than it is for person paying the $4,000 annually. The rich person will definitely not mind so much as the poor person who has to pay $400 more for private insurance will mind.

Secondly, and FAR more importantly... We Canadians have decided that we aren't interested in seeing our neighbours, our family, our friends, and our fellow countrymen and coutrywomen suffer under the financial burden that Americans who don't have insurance (and even a lot of them who do) have to suffer under when they experience a medical issue. This is what is called compassion and humanity. We have decided as a nation that we will not tolerate people whose lives are ruined by a medical issue, the sad irony being that they overcame the medical issue (that could have ruined their life) only to be ruined by a financial burden that we as humans have created. This financial burden is not something that exists independently of our society, whereas those medical things sure can be inflicted upon somebody quite independently of our social constructs.

We have decided that there are some things more important than a few dollars - life being one of them.

Completely false. If one assumes that, of the taxes taken from each household, a certain percentage is allocated to the NHS, it stands to reason that at some point the contribution one is obliged surpasses the cost of private insurance. Hence, provided one is confident of earning this sum of money, the NHS then becomes a more costly enterprise than private healthcare.

How much would that be?

Since you're so confident, that must mean you've already worked it out.

I want to know this because I was trying to figure out the math for myself. First, you'd have to calculate how much of the tax dollar goes to healthcare. I don't know about the UK, but here there are two sources of governemnt fnding: provincial and federal. Once you get that figured out, you would have to find an insurance program that is comparable. From there you could figure out what your income would have to be for you to be making a profit.

I'd like a number, please.

Completely false. If one assumes that, of the taxes taken from each household, a certain percentage is allocated to the NHS, it stands to reason that at some point the contribution one is obliged surpasses the cost of private insurance. Hence, provided one is confident of earning this sum of money, the NHS then becomes a more costly enterprise than private healthcare.

It seems others have already served you much more nimbly than I would have been able to.

I do have one question I have to ask, though... what makes you so sure that the contribution of earnings that goes towards NHS coffers... is of a penny-for-penny basis?

After all - if the NHS fund acts more like an invoice of a certain amount, then your contribution towards that one aspect becomes a percentage of your earnings that actually decreases as your pay packet enlarges.

How much would that be?

Since you're so confident, that must mean you've already worked it out.

I want to know this because I was trying to figure out the math for myself. First, you'd have to calculate how much of the tax dollar goes to healthcare. I don't know about the UK, but here there are two sources of governemnt fnding: provincial and federal. Once you get that figured out, you would have to find an insurance program that is comparable. From there you could figure out what your income would have to be for you to be making a profit.

I'd like a number, please.
Yes indeed it would be interesting to see Blessed Chris's financial breakdown.

Yes indeed it would be interesting to see Blessed Chris's financial breakdown.

You will not see a financial breakdown that makes any sense from Chris. This is because his position is based on "free market" type propaganda, not on reasoning. If he were to apply any rational critical thinking to the matter, all he would have to do is a side-by-side comparison of, for instance, the US and Canadian systems, and he would see, very obviously, that, on average, for at least basic care and emergency care, Canadians get more bang for their buck than Americans and for fewer bucks per patient. There is no sane way to argue that a system which costs individual users less is actuallly costing individual users more. So all the anti-national-healthcare crowd can do is keep repeating their commie-fascist-deadbeats-tax&spend-gah!-goblins-under-the-bed mantra, whether it makes any sense or not -- even to them.

You will not see a financial breakdown that makes any sense from Chris. This is because his position is based on "free market" type propaganda, not on reasoning. If he were to apply any rational critical thinking to the matter, all he would have to do is a side-by-side comparison of, for instance, the US and Canadian systems, and he would see, very obviously, that, on average, for at least basic care and emergency care, Canadians get more bang for their buck than Americans and for fewer bucks per patient. There is no sane way to argue that a system which costs individual users less is actuallly costing individual users more. So all the anti-national-healthcare crowd can do is keep repeating their commie-fascist-deadbeats-tax&spend-gah!-goblins-under-the-bed mantra, whether it makes any sense or not -- even to them.

Marry me?

Marry me?

Get back in line. :)

You will not see a financial breakdown that makes any sense from Chris. This is because his position is based on "free market" type propaganda, not on reasoning. If he were to apply any rational critical thinking to the matter, all he would have to do is a side-by-side comparison of, for instance, the US and Canadian systems, and he would see, very obviously, that, on average, for at least basic care and emergency care, Canadians get more bang for their buck than Americans and for fewer bucks per patient. There is no sane way to argue that a system which costs individual users less is actuallly costing individual users more.
Oh, I fully realize that we won't be seeing such a breakdown from BC for the simple reason that you stated, in that it would require "rational critical thinking to the matter", which would ultimately require him changing his tune. Of course he could continue with living in denial, and like Myrmidonisia, he can keep pumping out endless nonsense that the "for profit" healthcare system is somehow ultimately superior to the universal healthcare system.

So all the anti-national-healthcare crowd can do is keep repeating their commie-fascist-deadbeats-tax&spend-gah!-goblins-under-the-bed mantra, whether it makes any sense or not -- even to them.
No trademark on that one? :D

Get back in line. :)

*pouts*

*pouts*

*advocates polygamy*

Judging by a lot of the posts here, anything vaguely suggesting that government run healthcare would be a bureaucratic mess is simply dismissed as "free market propaganda". Nevertheless, I will remind people that simply taking per capita expenditure in the US and comparing that to the per capita expenditure of Canada is not a valid means of determining if private or public health care would be more cost effective and provide better service in the US. Per capita expenditure would only be a valid comparison if the exact same level of care was given in both countries. The US health care system is not, in any way, sufficiently similar to Canadian health care for bottom line spending to be a meaningful metric.

The high per capita expenditure in the US health system has a number of causes - these range from the costs of litigation, over consumption (due to avoiding litigation and simply making more money off more procedures), tax incentives favoring excess insurance rather than salary as employment compensation, import restrictions allowing an oligopoly in pharmaceuticals, and other factors which cannot be termed, in any sense, 'free market' causes.

Every bit of legislation is highly influenced by political machinations and greatly skewed by lobbyists - what makes you think health care will be any different? I would much rather have free market health care than have it dictated by whoever spends the most on lobbyists. Eliminate political interference in health care and you eliminate most of the problems - unless you can guarantee that a government controlled bureaucracy will be efficient, well managed, and free from political interference, I would rather not leave my health in the hands of politicians.

The claim that in free markets the government doesn't interfere is a silly proposition

The question whether the state should or should not "act" or "interfere" poses an altogether false alternative, and the term "laissez faire" is a highly ambiguous and misleading description of the principles on which a liberal policy is based. Of course, every state must act and every action of the state interferes with something or other. [...] The state controlling weights and measures (or preventing fraud and deception in any other way) is certainly acting, while the state permitting the use of violence, for example by strike pickets, is inactive. Yet it is in the first case that the state observes liberal principles and in the second that it does not.
Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom" pp 80-81 U of Chicago Press 1972

And Hayek had no fondness for laissez-faire. Quite the contrary. He abhorred the term and the principle, insisting instead that markets do not come from nature or fall from the sky. "In no system that could be rationally defended would the state just do nothing. An effective competitive system needs an intelligently designed and continuously adjusted legal framework as much as any other." On this view, markets are constituted by government and law. They depend for their very existence on legal rules allocating basic rights and saying who can do what to whom. And in some places Hayek suggested that the appropriate legal framework would contain and specify a great deal. In 1945, he wrote that he has always been "in favor of a minimum income for every person in the country," largely but not only in the form of social insurance. At various times he suggested that he would accept maximum-hour laws, laws banning dangerous products, and laws protecting against unsafe workplace conditions and environmental deterioration.
Cass Sunstein, reviewing Hayek's "The Road To Serfdom"

Free markets depend on governments setting property rights, liabilities, and various other "rules of the games". If one is against government healthcare because of lobbyists then one should be against free market healthcare as well. Free markets rely on property rights. Property rights are based on legislation. Lobbyists will simply shift gears to where they try to influence legislation.

The claim that in free markets the government doesn't interfere is a silly proposition
I never claimed that governments do not interfere in 'free market' operations, as the very nature of government is to interfere (for better or worse). Free market solutions are superior to socialism because of the level of government interference. People are far better at making choices for themselves than a committee of bureaucrats making a decision for everyone.

There is always the temptation to have someone else control your life and make all your decisions for you - it is easier if you do not have to think - but life is far better for everyone if people are allowed to make their own decisions. Sure, you have to take personal responsibility for your actions and the outcomes, but that is all part of being an adult.

I never claimed that governments do not interfere in 'free market' operations, as the very nature of government is to interfere (for better or worse). Free market solutions are superior to socialism because of the level of government interference. People are far better at making choices for themselves than a committee of bureaucrats making a decision for everyone.

There is always the temptation to have someone else control your life and make all your decisions for you - it is easier if you do not have to think - but life is far better for everyone if people are allowed to make their own decisions. Sure, you have to take personal responsibility for your actions and the outcomes, but that is all part of being an adult.

Part of my point was that "free markets" rely on government legislated property rights. Governments can theoretically alter property rights however they like making a single-payer system, social health insurance of countries like Germany, France, and Switzerland, the UK's government funded government, and whatever the US has all compatible with "free markets" as long as property rights are set to make them so.