National education & health care

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nereid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Education Health
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the availability and accessibility of education and healthcare in the United States compared to European countries. Participants explore the implications of socioeconomic status on access to these services, the effectiveness of government programs, and the differences in systems between the U.S. and Europe.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that healthcare programs exist for the poor in the U.S., but the middle class struggles due to ineligibility for assistance.
  • Others provide statistics indicating that a significant number of uninsured individuals are eligible for state and federal programs but have not accessed them.
  • One participant claims that education in European countries is generally more affordable or free compared to the U.S., where only the middle to upper class can afford higher education.
  • Another participant shares a personal experience of being unable to access grants for college due to family income, suggesting that financial aid is available but not universally accessible.
  • Some participants highlight the differences in social security and unemployment benefits between the U.S. and European countries, questioning the adequacy of U.S. support systems.
  • There is a discussion about the definitions of "poor" and "rich," with some suggesting that these terms are relative and have changed over time, complicating the understanding of poverty in the U.S.
  • One participant expresses a preference for a system where education is not free, arguing that those who pay for their education are more likely to value it.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the effectiveness and accessibility of healthcare and education in the U.S. versus Europe. There is no consensus on the adequacy of U.S. programs or the definitions of socioeconomic status, indicating ongoing disagreement.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on personal experiences and anecdotal evidence, while others reference statistical data. The discussion includes varying definitions of poverty and eligibility for assistance, which may affect participants' perspectives.

  • #31
Originally posted by Nereid

*~14% of $36k - ~7% of $27k (Monique's figures)

Huh? $3k/head? You wanta check that? I ain't got a horse in this race, but the numbers on the racing sheet are "sceereeewwwed up."
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Having friends and relatives in different parts of the world, I have to say that I am very happy that I live in the US!

My best friend lives in Sicily. The medical coverage is socialized there. Last year his father was very ill and needed an MRI for diagnosis. He was put on a waiting list for 6 weeks! I talked my friend into flying his father out of the country to get the MRI and pay for it himself. That would not have happened here in the US. I am terrified of my friend getting seriously ill in Italy, he will not get the treatment he needs in time. Socialized medicine is the worst.

Where I live, if I need to see the doctor, I can usually get an appointment within a couple of hours. When I get there, I am seen exactly at my appointment time, no waiting. It costs me $10. If I need medicine, generic prescriptions cost me $5. There is no waiting if I need a procedure like an MRI, it is done immediately.
 
  • #33


Originally posted by phatmonky

Does the Netherlands' have the queues that Canada, Australia, and England have for doctors visits and surgeries?

I live in Canada so I can speak from experience here.

1. Canada does not have queues to see the doctor. When something is sort of wrong and I have to see the doctor, I go to the private clinic where I have to wait maybe 30 minutes. If it's sort of an emergency (like I'm bleeding really bad), they'll treat me immediately.

2. Waiting line for surgery also depends on urgency. My friend shattered his arm once and he was under the knife within 50 minutes of arriving at the hospital (that's including time it took for them to determine that his arm was shattered and needed surgery). If you need surgery that is not too important, such as fixing carpel tunnel syndrome, you can expect to wait about 3 weeks or so.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by Bystander Nereid: *~14% of $36k - ~7% of $27k (Monique's figures)
Huh? $3k/head? You wanta check that? I ain't got a horse in this race, but the numbers on the racing sheet are "sceereeewwwed up."
Originally posted by Monique*SNIP
GDP per capita: $36300 (2002)
GDP per capita: $27200 (2002)
0.14 x 36200 = 5068
0.07 x 27200 = 1904
5068 - 1904 = 3164 ~=$3k
 
  • #35
Originally posted by Evo
Having friends and relatives in different parts of the world, I have to say that I am very happy that I live in the US!

My best friend lives in Sicily. The medical coverage is socialized there. Last year his father was very ill and needed an MRI for diagnosis. He was put on a waiting list for 6 weeks! I talked my friend into flying his father out of the country to get the MRI and pay for it himself. That would not have happened here in the US. I am terrified of my friend getting seriously ill in Italy, he will not get the treatment he needs in time. Socialized medicine is the worst.

Where I live, if I need to see the doctor, I can usually get an appointment within a couple of hours. When I get there, I am seen exactly at my appointment time, no waiting. It costs me $10. If I need medicine, generic prescriptions cost me $5. There is no waiting if I need a procedure like an MRI, it is done immediately.
This sort of thing happens in the US too, you know. It depends on where you live, and how busy the doctor is.
 
  • #36
Originally posted by Zero
This sort of thing happens in the US too, you know. It depends on where you live, and how busy the doctor is.
6 weeks for an MRI? My ass! Maybe somewhere in the middle of montana.
The fact is that we have more MRI's per capita than Italy.
We also treat out healthcare more efficiently.
I'm not sure what the rest of the country is doing, but I have viewed a growing trend throughout Texas (Houston, Austin, Dallas, Brownsville, and El Paso) of a hierarchial setup that allows a single doctor to handle 15 patient rooms. This is done through a 'stacking' of roles with a large number of nurses, a slightly smaller number of PA's, a nurse practitioner or two, and at the very top, a single doctor.
TO the patient, it looks like this:
Nurse runs you through triage and brings you into the exam room.
The PA comes in and does the diagnoses.
The Doctor comes in and makes sure that he concurs with the PA's findings, rights prescriptions, makes referal to another doctor, etc.

This setup is insanely efficient in moving patients through the process quickly. The down side, is as has been stated, it cost more for all that man power. However, it results in a much quicker program than the old process of nurse directly to doctor, in which a doctor would often only see 5-6 exam rooms at a time.
 
  • #37


Originally posted by ShawnD
I live in Canada so I can speak from experience here.

1. Canada does not have queues to see the doctor. When something is sort of wrong and I have to see the doctor, I go to the private clinic where I have to wait maybe 30 minutes. If it's sort of an emergency (like I'm bleeding really bad), they'll treat me immediately.

2. Waiting line for surgery also depends on urgency. My friend shattered his arm once and he was under the knife within 50 minutes of arriving at the hospital (that's including time it took for them to determine that his arm was shattered and needed surgery). If you need surgery that is not too important, such as fixing carpel tunnel syndrome, you can expect to wait about 3 weeks or so.


The research says different.
My girlfriend was misdiagnosed at Toronto General for having acute angular glaucoma. They couldn't get her in for 5 days. If they had diagnosed her properly, she would be blind right now.
Or when she had to have a splenectomy, she was given the option of almost 2 months later. Luckily, her doctor was able to find a doctor who had a patient cancel and she got in a week later, since her spleen was so far inflamed that docs told her to stay in bed for fear of rupture. The fact is, counting on someone cancelling should never be the only option to getting a surgery that your doctor deems vitally important.
 
  • #38
Are we going to pretend that American medicine is magical, and everyone else's healthcare system is horrible?
 
  • #39
Originally posted by Zero
Are we going to pretend that American medicine is magical, and everyone else's healthcare system is horrible?


Nope, but when it comes so efficiency and expiediancy we take the prize.
I've already outlined my wants in a healthcare system, and it doesn't match the US's system or a fully socialized one :)
 
  • #40
Originally posted by Evo
Where I live, if I need to see the doctor, I can usually get an appointment within a couple of hours. When I get there, I am seen exactly at my appointment time, no waiting. It costs me $10. If I need medicine, generic prescriptions cost me $5. There is no waiting if I need a procedure like an MRI, it is done immediately.
lol, are you serious? I required antibiotics for a gum infection in the US and I had to wait for TWO MONTHS! To see a $^#^&* doctor. I protested, they didn't care. If I required immediate attention, I should go to the emergency room in a hospital, they said!

That is not an isolated case, every single doctor visit was a disaster. Having to wait for three hours past my actual appointment time. Not getting to see anyone. Having to wait for TWO MONTHS to get the result from a simple blood test which I needed for work! Again I protested: get me a nurse to give me the results I said. No, you have to wait and make an appointment, which won't be until two months from now. Get me another doctor I said, no can't do. I stood there and argued for 30 minutes, until they finally gave up.

I could go on, but I won't :P
 
  • #41
Originally posted by phatmonky
Nope, but when it comes so efficiency and expiediancy we take the prize.
I've already outlined my wants in a healthcare system, and it doesn't match the US's system or a fully socialized one :)
uh huh... so, do you want poor children to get no health care?
 
  • #42
I don't think isolated cases are worth mentioning, on either side.

I also think that insurance companies are in the business of lowballing hospital care. Competition doesn't improve health care, it makes it worse, because the insurance companies real customers are, frankly, stockholders, not patients.
 
  • #43


Originally posted by phatmonky
I'll humour (;) ) you.

First answer this:
Does the Netherlands' have the queues that Canada, Australia, and England have for doctors visits and surgeries?

I'm trusting an honest answer here.

I live in the US with our marvelously quick health care system. It often takes over 3 months wait to see a specialist. We are not paying more to have better health care, we are paying more so that we can have lots of fraud.

Individual patients defraud insurance companies.
Medical providers defraud insurance companies, patients and the government.
Insurance companies defraud their customer base.
Pharmaceutical companies defraud everyone by manipulation of patent laws.

The theory in health care is that insurance companies will act to counter the health care providers to keep prices low. The truth is that they merely fight over who gets how much. Because we feed two pigs instead of one, the cost is actually higher, not lower.

When the Clinton administration took office, health care costs were 20% of GNP and had an annual inflation rate of 19%. After the Clinton health care initiative was proposed, the associated inflation rate dropped to 1%. This clearly indicated that competition was not working to keep costs down. The only thing capable of affecting costs was the fear that health care would be nationalized. Threats work for only so long. Eventually, you have to follow through with action.


Njorl
 
  • #44
Originally posted by Zero
I don't think isolated cases are worth mentioning, on either side.

*SNIP
Aw come on Zero, isolated cases are what gets our blood racing! :wink:
Originally posted by Evo
Where I live, if I need to see the doctor, I can usually get an appointment within a couple of hours. When I get there, I am seen exactly at my appointment time, no waiting. It costs me $10. If I need medicine, generic prescriptions cost me $5. There is no waiting if I need a procedure like an MRI, it is done immediately.
I have a friend, who's over 50, who was recently laid off ("force adjusted" in PC-speak), and has joined the 'transition' group in the language of the link which kat posted earlier (previous income >300% FCL (whatever), present income <200% poverty level). He has coverage, paid from his own savings (>$7,000 pa, annualised), provided by his previous employer, under something called COBRA (no, it's not snake oil). He pays $25 "copay" just to see the doctor, and recently paid $75 for a generic medicine (£6.80 in the UK), and *might* get a rebate of ~$40 when the health plan gets around to sorting out its records (by then his coverage will have ended, no doubt, and he'll get nothing). I suggested that he go work in China (his kids are grown) - plenty of jobs teaching English - but he says he can't speak Mandarin.

Maybe he should move to near where you live Evo.
Originally posted by Njorl *SNIP
health care costs were 20% of GNP
... even higher than what I recalled! (~14% of GDP)
 
  • #45
Originally posted by Monique
lol, are you serious? I required antibiotics for a gum infection in the US and I had to wait for TWO MONTHS! To see a $^#^&* doctor. I protested, they didn't care. If I required immediate attention, I should go to the emergency room in a hospital, they said!

That is not an isolated case, every single doctor visit was a disaster. Having to wait for three hours past my actual appointment time. Not getting to see anyone. Having to wait for TWO MONTHS to get the result from a simple blood test which I needed for work! Again I protested: get me a nurse to give me the results I said. No, you have to wait and make an appointment, which won't be until two months from now. Get me another doctor I said, no can't do. I stood there and argued for 30 minutes, until they finally gave up.

I could go on, but I won't :P
I would have gone ballistic if I had to deal with that. Health care in the US will vary greatly depending on where you are and who you see and what kind of insurance coverage you have. I know for you it was even worse being a foreign national.

I am a dual national, I have both US & French citizenship. My uncle and cousin are both doctors in Paris and they have to deal with the socialized medicine there. I have lived in Europe, and may live there again, but my personal experience with medical care has been much better here in the US. I'm not saying that there isn't superb medical care in Europe, it's just that it is not always easy to obtain. But that can be true in the US if you do not have adequate insurance.

I have never had difficulty in getting immediate medical attention for anything, but I also choose not to live in a crowded metropolitan area. I live 8 minutes from 2 of the finest hospitals in the region. I have had to go to the emergency room twice (once to each) and both times there were no other patients and I was seen immediately. If I lived in downtown Chicago or Detroit, etc...it would have been a much different scenario.

Nereid, yes, your friend should live here, I selected this area for these specific reasons.

COBRA was enacted to guarantee employees that lose employment the possibility to extend their previous employer's health insurance plan temporarily so that they are not suddenly left without insurance. He might be better off trying to buy health insurance himself.

Zero, you're absolutely right about insurance being the driving force behind many of the problems within the health care industry.

Let's not forget the costs and issues created by out of control medical malpractice lawsuits in the US that have driven malpractice insurance through the roof. Now there are added costs from HIPPA.
 
  • #46
Now, let's not place the blame for malpractice on anyone but the doctors who are screwing people up. Plus, of course insurance companies blow the problem all out of proportion in order to justify rate increases above and beyond covering malpractice costs.
 
  • #47
Originally posted by Zero
uh huh... so, do you want poor children to get no health care?

Why don't you take the time to go read my posts instread of putting words in my mouth?[zz)]
 
  • #48
Originally posted by Zero
I don't think isolated cases are worth mentioning, on either side.

I also think that insurance companies are in the business of lowballing hospital care. Competition doesn't improve health care, it makes it worse, because the insurance companies real customers are, frankly, stockholders, not patients.


Hence the reason I spent all the time posting link after link from sources like the OECD showing average wait time for various countries and procedures.
 
  • #49
Originally posted by Zero
Now, let's not place the blame for malpractice on anyone but the doctors who are screwing people up. Plus, of course insurance companies blow the problem all out of proportion in order to justify rate increases above and beyond covering malpractice costs.

Just 5 percent of U.S. doctors are responsible for 54 percent of all malpractice. ( National Practitioner Data Bank)
The problem isn't with doctors in general. It is a very select few. I read somewhere (wish I could find the link) that the averag doctor in that 5% has settle 4 malpractice cases. Now the question is, when will their be a doctorial review board setup to remove these licenses?
Medicine is as much an art, as it is a science, and thus things can not always be predicted. There are legitiamte malpractice cases, but there are plenty that aren't.

Then you have people like john edwards who goes through 41 expert witnesses until he can find one that will say what is needed to win billions in law suits ...but that just pisses me off. I don't want to even get into it.
 
  • #50
Originally posted by phatmonky
Hence the reason I spent all the time posting link after link from sources like the OECD showing average wait time for various countries and procedures.
Average wait time isn't the only measure, though...wasn't it you who claimed that American doctors also call for unneeded procedures on a regular basis?(if it wasn't, just ignore that part)

Other measures would have to include infant mortality, missed work days, etc.
 
  • #51
Originally posted by phatmonky
Just 5 percent of U.S. doctors are responsible for 54 percent of all malpractice. ( National Practitioner Data Bank)
The problem isn't with doctors in general. It is a very select few. I read somewhere (wish I could find the link) that the averag doctor in that 5% has settle 4 malpractice cases. Now the question is, when will their be a doctorial review board setup to remove these licenses?
Medicine is as much an art, as it is a science, and thus things can not always be predicted. There are legitiamte malpractice cases, but there are plenty that aren't.
Then blame the AMA, not the victims.

Then you have people like john edwards who goes through 41 expert witnesses until he can find one that will say what is needed to win billions in law suits ...but that just pisses me off. I don't want to even get into it.
Good, don't bother getting into it, because if you think that the insurance companies don't have doctors on the payroll to say whatever will get them off the hook, you are fooling yourself.

But, it does bring up a good issue...blame the victim, blame the lawyers, even blame the doctors...can we not blame the insurance companies for dragging out the lawsuits to the point that no one can afford to sue for reasonable damages, they are forced to sue for millions upon millions in order to recoup any of their expenses? That's why the insurance companies want a $250,000 cap on lawsuits...because they can drag out a lawsuit until you run out of money and are frced to drop the case.
 
  • #52
Originally posted by phatmonky
Why don't you take the time to go read my posts instread of putting words in my mouth?[zz)]
Why don't you answer the question?
 
  • #53
Originally posted by Zero
Average wait time isn't the only measure, though...wasn't it you who claimed that American doctors also call for unneeded procedures on a regular basis?(if it wasn't, just ignore that part)

Other measures would have to include infant mortality, missed work days, etc.


No, it was me who said that overly beauracratic hospitals tie the hands of the doctor by telling them they are ordering too many tests (for the budget). My point is that I want more doctor autonomy, and I don't see that happening with a fully socialized system in this very political country.


The reason I mentioned the wait times agian, was that your post came in response to mine(mentioning specific incendents). In that post, I first mentioned the research I had posted earlier concerning the topic.
 
  • #54
Originally posted by Zero
Why don't you answer the question?

Because, as USUAL, you are unable to read the thread you wish to participate in. I'm tried of having to hold your hand, like a child, through all the big bad discussions...


FROM THIS VERY SAME THREAD:

Originally posted by phatmonky
I prefer a privatized healthcare system no matter what. When I say that, that doesn't mean I would be against looking at alternatives to the insurance setup. It means I am against having doctors and hospitals all put under government control,pay, etc.

I believe that doctors need to be given the autonomy to do what is best for the patient. Ask a doc who has worked in a heavily beaurocratic hospital, and you will know that they are told to stop ordering so many CTscans and other tests.

I also would like to see a revamp of our medicare/medicaid system. I believe that all children should have healthcare access,and I believe that for extremely high cost/income ratios there needs to be some sort of aide given.

With that all said, I don't support any system that will limit the patients ability to pay for the most superior service available, if they are so inclined. I also don't like the idea of a socialized healtcare because of the lack of incentives to NOT go to the doctor. I have spoken with Canadian doctors who tell me about abuse of the 'free' system. The nurses would chew people out because they come up there with mosquito bites wanting a benadryl shot to stop the itching. How can such a system work, when people are so obese and unhealthy here already? The answer is, that it can't. Not without raising costs evenmore.

Cover children and extreme cases. Give selection, incentives to stay healthy, and doctor autonomy. Then you have the perfect system.


EDIT- HOw funny, it's even the thread you referenced concerning doctors ordering tests.
 
  • #55
Originally posted by phatmonky
No, it was me who said that overly beauracratic hospitals tie the hands of the doctor by telling them they are ordering too many tests (for the budget). My point is that I want more doctor autonomy, and I don't see that happening with a fully socialized system in this very political country.


The reason I mentioned the wait times agian, was that your post came in response to mine(mentioning specific incendents). In that post, I first mentioned the research I had posted earlier concerning the topic.
Ok, cool...carry on. Of course, I don't see the difference between insurance companies screwing us over and the government screwing us over...with the possible exception that there should be more money for health care compared to private insurance, since a government program would be not-for-profit, and no CEO would be skimming off our premiums to but a home in Aspen.

(can anyone spell bureaucratic?!?)
 
  • #56
Originally posted by phatmonky
Because, as USUAL, you are unable to read the thread you wish to participate in. I'm tried of having to hold your hand, like a child, through all the big bad discussions...


FROM THIS VERY SAME THREAD:




EDIT- HOw funny, it's even the thread you referenced concerning doctors ordering tests.
Thanks for answering the question... You didn't have to be rude about it, though. You can stop being a poopyhead anytime you like.
 
  • #57
Originally posted by Zero


(can anyone spell bureaucratic?!?)

I can now.
 
  • #58
Originally posted by phatmonky
I can now.
So can I, now, thanks to dictionary.com...let's see how long it lasts, though.
 
  • #59
Originally posted by Evo
I would have gone ballistic if I had to deal with that.
I know, they run those places like it's a business and they don't need the customers.

Nereid, yes, your friend should live here, I selected this area for these specific reasons.
See, this is a major difference between the US and (western) Europe. In the US it is all privately owned and people flock to the areas that are most profitable and comfortable to live in. About a year ago I read about a research which showed that certain areas in the US have a grave shortage of doctors, while other areas are completely overcrowded by them. Ofcourse Europe consists of all small countries, so coverage is much more uniform.

Zero, you're absolutely right about insurance being the driving force behind many of the problems within the health care industry.
Oh, I agree here too, if doctors don't want to see you because the TYPE of insurance that you have, that is just rediculous and shouldn't even be on their mind.
 
  • #60
Originally posted by Monique

Oh, I agree here too, if doctors don't want to see you because the TYPE of insurance that you have, that is just rediculous and shouldn't even be on their mind.
Unfortunately, the free market leads to consolidation, uniformity of service, and a health care field run by accountants.
 

Similar threads

News Maine Health Professionals Working to Provide Affordable Insurance
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
16K
News Mcain's plan will decimate employer based health coverage
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
News Most US doctors now support a national health plan
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
20K
News Is the U.S. Healthcare System Overpriced and Underperforming?
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
9K
News Gap in life expectancy in U.S. growing
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
12K
US Statistics in 1905: Amazing Facts and Figures
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
News Some humiliating stats on the USA
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
News Is a Federal Sales Tax the Solution for a Fair Tax System?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
News Is the Tax-Cut Strategy a Con to Dismantle Government Programs?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
News Psssttt, the deficit's shrinking
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K