Also, this article is interesting: five myths about healthcare overseas.
quote:
Which, in turn, punctures the most persistent myth of all: that America has "the finest health care" in the world. We don't. In terms of results, almost all advanced countries have better national health statistics than the United States does. In terms of finance, we force 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills. In France, the number of medical bankruptcies is zero. Britain: zero. Japan: zero. Germany: zero.
To me, this is the most retarded thing of all about our healthcare system. How is it beneficial to anyone to destroy contributing members of society just because they get sick? More to the point: how is it beneficial to do it 700,000 times a year?
Of course, one might be tempted to dismiss the above as liberal propaganda spewed out by Chairman Obama's Ministry of Truth. Don't want to listen to that commie pinko who hates American freedoms? Well, too bad. He's actually right, at least on the efficiency myth.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Blindy startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
I pointed out that the current system has the same type of problem as the one I propose we switch to to illustrate that your example is not a reason to stay the same.All things being equal, we pay 40-50% more per person as a country on health care than France. 16% of the GDP goes to health care. If we are able to get our health care down to similar costs and still have the same quantity of problems then we've improved our situation.
But I don't think we'd have the same quantity of problems. When people die because they can't get into a hospital on France, that's BIG NEWS. It causes protests! When people die because they can't afford health care here, that's not even in the local papers, because it happens all the time.
Not even a little bit, but feel free to keep drinking the Kool-Aide.
The point is that nationalized systems aren't better health care; it's simply a reduced standard of care given to a wider audience. If that's your idea of a good deal, then rock on. Our health care is no more broken than the ones you want to adopt; it's just a different set of problems.
This is always the mantra, though: I can't afford X, so everyone who makes more than I do shoud pay more taxes in order to give it to me. And make it a government program, because everyone knows that bureacracy is much better at providing cheap, easy solutions to problems than any other system. Just look at the VA! Or any other government-run program, for that matter.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Just look at the VA![/QB]
My husband is STILL waiting on his GI Bill benefits to pay up.
quote:
Bloodsage got served! Bloodsage got served!
Not even a little bit, but feel free to keep drinking the Kool-Aide.
And make it a government program, because everyone knows that bureacracy is much better at providing cheap, easy solutions to problems than any other system. Just look at the VA! Or any other government-run program, for that matter.
Actually, pretty much every single state-run healthcare solution has a more efficient bureaucracy than our health care system. Canada's system, specifically, is more than three times more efficient, in terms of dollars spent per capita on administrative overhead.
Sorry, you can't repeat the "free market is always better" mantra and make it true in spite of the empirical evidence.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
I'll go out on a limb, here, and guess that I'm probably the only person in this thread who's actually lived multiple of these systems, from socialized medicine in the military, to private care via insurance in the US and abroad, to the social systems in France, Germany, and now the dreaded NHS.
Each has good points and headaches. Even if the NHS has improved, for example, try moving to a new area and trying to find a primary care physician who isn't maxed with patients--almost guaranteed the best don't have room to take you on. Military medicine is great for routine things or grievous battle wounds...but, for a variety of reasons, fairly sucktacular if you've got any serious issues.
Even given other choices, however, we always end up going back to the insurance: it's more expensive, but the care is better and you get to choose your own doctors. Some things aren't covered, and then it becomes a choice of whether to foot the bill personally or stick with the standard course of treatment.
So how far down the welfare state road should we go? And as we go there, why should we do it by punishing success?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Karnaj startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
Actually, pretty much every single state-run healthcare solution has a more efficient bureaucracy than our health care system. Canada's system, specifically, is more than three times more efficient, in terms of dollars spent per capita on administrative overhead.Sorry, you can't repeat the "free market is always better" mantra and make it true in spite of the empirical evidence.
Point to where I said the free market is always better. I don't recall mentioning market forces at all, as a matter of fact. What I'm talking about is our government. What makes you think anything our government will put together will be the least bit efficient, or be radically different from all the other government-run programs we've got?
Putting words in my mouth just so you can casually brush them aside isn't much of a tactic.
Just for an anecdote, since you seem fond of them, when I had to see a doctor in Paris through their national system (even though it was paid by my insurance, it was processed through their national health care system), their administration was 2-3 months behind processing claims and paying the doctors. It's fairly uncomfortable to start each visit hearing about how hard it is for your doctor to make ends meet when the system won't pay her for the work she's doing.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage got served! Bloodsage got served!
So how far down the welfare state road should we go? And as we go there, why should we do it by punishing success?
We (possibly)should go farther down the welfare state road than we are right now, because ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and in turn, turning net contributors to society into net drains upon it just because they got sick or injured is monumentally idiotic.
I qualify the above statement because there are viable solutions which do not involve state-financed healthcare or insurance. Holland, Switzerland, and several other European nations use private models that force nationwide competition among insurers and mandate that all citizens purchase said insurance--these are quite efficient and exist entirely within the private sector. The government involvement is limited to the mandate of citizens to purchase insurance, the open, national marketplace upon which insurers compete, the mandate that all healthcare providers must accept all insurance, and that all care must be paid for by said insurance. A shit-ton more regulation than what we have now, to be sure, but is it a trip down Nanny State Lane?
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Dangerous shit, that flash photography.
I haven't seen the Saturday morning cartoons here, but presumably Battling Seizure Robots isn't allowed.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Quoth Karnaj:
We (possibly)should go farther down the welfare state road than we are right now, because ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and in turn, turning net contributors to society into net drains upon it just because they got sick or injured is monumentally idiotic.I qualify the above statement because there are viable solutions which do not involve state-financed healthcare or insurance. Holland, Switzerland, and several other European nations use private models that force nationwide competition among insurers and mandate that all citizens purchase said insurance--these are quite efficient and exist entirely within the private sector. The government involvement is limited to the mandate of citizens to purchase insurance, the open, national marketplace upon which insurers compete, the mandate that all healthcare providers must accept all insurance, and that all care must be paid for by said insurance. A shit-ton more regulation than what we have now, to be sure, but is it a trip down Nanny State Lane?
Interesting thoughts, but the question I see absolutely no one asking is if we want to pay the same tax burden as these presumably model societies. And suffer the ridiculous unemployment rates that go along with the guaranteed benefits and pensions.
There are trade-offs no matter what we do.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
And now, we sprinkle Bloodsage liberally with Old Spice!
Point to where I said the free market is always better. I don't recall mentioning market forces at all, as a matter of fact. What I'm talking about is our government. What makes you think anything our government will put together will be the least bit efficient, or be radically different from all the other government-run programs we've got?
Medicare seems to work pretty well, though like all single-payer systems, it has its problems and reform is needed. I don't think we have any senior citizens here on the board, but I'd wager that every single one of the older posters is going to sign up for Medicare when he or she turns 65. After all, what sane private insurer would cover an old person (after all, old people need expensive healthcare, and frequently) unless they were forced to?
Also, it sounds kind of defeatist(though it could be argued that it's realist) to claim defeat before we even attempt reform. If the rest of the first-world governments can do it (whatever the solution), why can't we? Seriously. Our government has done some pretty impressive shit; it should be able to create a path to affordable healthcare for its citizens.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
How.... Bloodsage.... uughhhhhh:
Not even a little bit, but feel free to keep drinking the Kool-Aide.The point is that nationalized systems aren't better health care; it's simply a reduced standard of care given to a wider audience. If that's your idea of a good deal, then rock on. Our health care is no more broken than the ones you want to adopt; it's just a different set of problems.
This is always the mantra, though: I can't afford X, so everyone who makes more than I do shoud pay more taxes in order to give it to me. And make it a government program, because everyone knows that bureacracy is much better at providing cheap, easy solutions to problems than any other system. Just look at the VA! Or any other government-run program, for that matter.
What do you suggest is a better system for large scale organization than bureaucracy, then?
quote:
Bloodsage screamed this from the crapper:
Interesting thoughts, but the question I see absolutely no one asking is if we want to pay the same tax burden as these presumably model societies. And suffer the ridiculous unemployment rates that go along with the guaranteed benefits and pensions.There are trade-offs no matter what we do.
Polls taken to answer that question tend to show that a growing number of people(myself included) would pay higher taxes for guaranteed health insurance. Dunno what the precise numbers are(probably a minority). After all, what nuts want to pay more taxes, besides godless liberal faggots like me?
Hell, I would pay more of my own money to a private insurer if it meant they were forced to pay benefits as long as I could pay the premiums. Right now, my insurer is legally empowered to tell me to go fuck myself if they discover a clerical error in my medical history--which is something completely out of my control. While all insurance is a gamble(I might not get sick), I'm literally paying to risk my house, car, and worldly possessions against the accuracy of my medical charts from years ago. It's no wonder I would want a guarantee of benefits.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
The net effect is that young, healthy people subsidize the health care costs of old or sick people. This would be no different under the public option.
The thought that this is somehow made acceptable only when the redistributing agent can skim some off the top is just dumb.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Blindy. gently hums:
Just to point a fact, the entire purpose of insurance companies are to redistribute the wealth- namely from everyone to those who need it.The net effect is that young, healthy people subsidize the health care costs of old or sick people. This would be no different under the public option.
The thought that this is somehow made acceptable only when the redistributing agent can skim some off the top is just dumb.
You really should know when to just keep your mouth shut. That's just dumb.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Pvednes absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
What do you suggest is a better system for large scale organization than bureaucracy, then?
You're not asking the right question. The question isn't if there's a better system than bureacracy, but rather which things should be entrusted to the bureaucracy.
Further, there are different kinds of bureaucracies. Organizations with incentives toward efficiency evolve very different bureaucracies than those without. Governments, notoriously, lack any incentive to efficiency. Worse, the agencies governments create have every incentive to expand, to grow, and to fight for ever more resources as part of the political game.
It's more than a little naive to assume that, just this once, the result of government reform will be increased efficiency.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage got served! Bloodsage got served!
It's more than a little naive to assume that, just this once, the result of government reform will be increased efficiency.
It's no assumption. We have evidence from other countries (just about all of the first world, in fact) that their bureaucracies are more efficient, because they get the job done for less money per capita.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Bloodsage stopped lurking long enough to say:
You really should know when to just keep your mouth shut. That's just dumb.
Please explain how that is in any way inaccurate.
quote:
Karnaj wrote this stupid crap:
It's no assumption. We have evidence from other countries (just about all of the first world, in fact) that their bureaucracies are more efficient, because they get the job done for less money per capita.
Just because they get the job done, doesn't mean they do it well.
It's not all doom and gloom, which is how most people who've never experienced the NHS system seem to think it is. Beds are ALWAYS in demand, yes, but they will also always find you an alternative bed (my mom for example was put into superb holistic care when a bed was not available in the cancer ward, with her treatments automatically forwarded to the hospice).
Just saying. 
quote:
Kinanik stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
If the five-year cancer survivor rate is 60% in America and 45% in Europe... I wonder who spends more money on treatment?
Very interesting report, but your blanket statement is inaccurate.
They admit that variance is mostly attributed to higher detection rates in the United States rather than quality of treatment. In fact prostate cancer alone accounts for most of the "gap" in survival rates, which is primary tied rate of detection.
Europe is also not a country, its member countries encompass a vast array of economic, technological, and social levels. In other words, it is not entirely in the "First World". A country by country comparison would be far more accurate and telling, especially for the arguments presented in this thread. Do the nations with single payer systems have a lower cancer survival rate when balanced by detection rate? Do the multiple-payer insurance mandated countries show the same trends? Do the survival rates in the United States and the compared countries cross social and economic lines equally (Do the poor get different or better treatment, etc)?
The report also concludes that the higher detection rate and higher survival rates are not really due to a superior health care system, bur rather a consequence of us here in the states living a very unhealthy lifestyle. We have to visit the doctor more often, very curable cancers are routinely detected while treating other, often chronic, diseases like diabetes or obesity.
quote:
Mortious got a whole lot of nerve:
Never had a problem with the NHS here, imho. They put my mom on extremely expensive trial drugs for her cancer that allowed us to have more years with her. They didn't quibble about if they should put her on or not, they immediately jumped into action and provided the very best care.It's not all doom and gloom, which is how most people who've never experienced the NHS system seem to think it is. Beds are ALWAYS in demand, yes, but they will also always find you an alternative bed (my mom for example was put into superb holistic care when a bed was not available in the cancer ward, with her treatments automatically forwarded to the hospice).
Just saying.
Same deal here in Canada. In an emergency situation, you will get the care you require. Just stay the hell away from the ER with a broken hand or concussion or you'll be waiting 4-5 hours.
quote:
Liam wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
In an emergency situation, you will get the care you require. Just stay the hell away from the ER with a broken hand or concussion or you'll be waiting 4-5 hours.
This (anecdotally) holds true in the US too.
quote:
At least Dr. Gee isn't Somthor:
This (anecdotally) holds true in the US too.
Only because of all the poor people who are clogging them up.
The reason given for this rationing: a shortage.
However, if you have an extra 10,000 to 20,000 gbp to spare, you could go to a private doctor off the NHS system to get treatment. So where's the shortage?
WTF?
My personal caveat: is this necessary treatment in a nationalized health care plan or should this be considered like a "cosmetic" treatment in the first place? Where do we draw the line in a nationalized health care system? How should we handle a woman wanting an abortion? What if it's a teen that wants an abortion?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
And people never put more resources into something if they can make money off of it. I know I would work just as hard if instead of getting paid the market price I get paid a third of it, and on top of it little shitheads living in a little hateful bubble villainize me for making a product that saves people's lives. Because god forbid anyone make money for helping people!
quote:
Blindy. had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
You're an idiot. They have a shortage because the virus is not reproducing at consistent rates. Vaccine makers bank on vaccines every year, and they produce well over demand as long as they don't get a complication in production. Giving them $180 more per shot won't do shit other than make some rich white guys richer and everyone else poorer.
Sounds like you should go into making vaccines if it is such easy money.
My friend Ryan worked for a vaccine producer as a ISO overlord for their QA process. He can tell you all about it.
