News The US has the best health care in the world?

[mheslep]

Thanks for grabbing the wheel and placing us back between the lines. My take below, perhaps redundant:

Many people do not think that this particular program is a good use of tax revenue.

This whole theft thing is a side-issue that obscures the main questions, to wit

1. Is health care a problem? Ivan started this thread with a reference to a WHO study that others have pointed out was deeply flawed.

1. 
   Quality of medicine for those who have access to it is not a problem. Cost (9-10% increase a year), and access (10-20million who really can't get it) are the US problems.
   
   

   [*]If it is a problem, is it one that government has any business solving?

   Very good question. Informed govt. plan advocates will concede that though we don't have free market heath care, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/" with health care because a) illness can't be planned, b) when catastrophic illness does occur almost nobody has the means to pay for it, and therefore c) the system requires insurers (third parties). To the extent the 3rd party is involved the buyer and the provider are separated there is no market, they would say, and bad things like adverse selection and moral hazard happen. There are some valid points in these arguments, though there are institutions (e.g. coops) that have evolved to counter these problems. But here's what those advocates miss: they don't provide a good argument that government solves these problems.
   

   [*]If a government takeover is appropriate, will doing that solve the problem?

   I believe the evidence is overwhelming that it will not. Edit: That is, it will not provide the same quality care for lower cost. Typically, single payer forces costs down and limits care (rationing: fewer specialists, less new equipment investment, wait lists, etc)
   

   Are there approaches that are more in line with our basic principles that could solve the problem?

   I believe so. The McCain plan during the campaign was a good articulation, and now Wyden Bennett has some good ideas.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I agree with the initial premise there - 'should', 'benefit', traditional practice - as this is the language responsibility. You lose me though in the indifference to labelling health care a right, since a right is a radically different thing from responsibility, most importantly in who owns which.

I was not intimating that health care may, or ought to be, labelled a right but responding to the post referencing a responsibility, or limititation, on the part of the government only to protect rights.

 

[mheslep]

I was not intimating that health care may, or ought to be, labelled a right but responding to the post referencing a responsibility, or limitation, on the part of the government only to protect rights.

Ok I suspect we're not far apart, though I wouldn't have used protect for the case of the federal government. In its charter, the language concerning rights is entirely about restricting how government may act. Its all about No. The Congress shall pass No law. As in, No, no, no, no, govt. shall not. The only original protection responsibility of the federal government was foreign defense. Since the 14th amendment that roll was extended to restriction of actions of state governments.

I indulged in a couple of sentences there to build the case that if government is used to provide healthcare, it should not do so on the grounds that it is protecting its citizens. That's is not its primary role (Federal).

 

[Count Iblis]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7420744.stm"

 

[Evo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7420744.stm"

No one is contesting the fact that the US has very remote, poor areas that have little in the way of medical facilities. But this is a miniscule drop in the bucket of people in the country. What, in all of these areas around the country we're talking about a few thousand people, out of a population of over 303 million?

 

[turbo]

Bill Moyers did a very interesting interview with Wendell Potter, who was once the top PR man at Cigna, regarding the tactics of the health insurance companies and the way that they will scuttle health-care reform. About 1/2 way through, Potter points out that of every dollar spent on Medicare, 3% goes to administrative costs and overhead, vs 20% on administrative costs and overhead for private insurers. He also explains how insurance companies deny claims, drop patients, and get rid of whole employer programs if someone in such a program gets a catastrophic illness, to keep the "medical loss ratio" at 80% or less. I have seen this stuff play out for years as a network administrator/programmer/IT guy in a large medical practice, but some folks here seem to pooh-pooh that experience. Here it is from a guy who was Cigna's top communications officer - please watch this. If you think that a public health insurance option is a horrible idea, then PLEASE watch this.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

To address the OP: The US has the capability of providing the best health care in the world, but only if you can get access to it, and there are about 50 million people who have no insurance, and many more that have plans that cover so little that their "coverage" is a joke. The two most profitable surgeons in our ophthalmic practice were the retinal surgeons because retinal procedures are tricky and $$$$. The two surgeons with the most expensive deferred or denied reimbursements were those same two surgeons. When someone had a retinal detachment, they operated (invasively, with lasers, a combination, etc) to try to save the person's vision. If the patient was uninsured or their insurance company dropped them or denied the claim, the practice had to eat those losses.

 

[j93]

Im slightly confused it seems like the thought seems to be that the level of medical care that those without insurance receive or in some cases do not receive is good enough yet at the same time people believe they would die if their was a government program ala medicare.

 

[mheslep]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7420744.stm"

Closing:

...He has heard his old country has a shortage of NHS dentists.

"I am sure we'll get just as large a crowd as we're getting here in the US," he says

.

 

[mheslep]

The 3% overhead Medicare numbers are bogus, as has been shown in this thread. They are propaganda that the Medicare staff like to encourage.

Yes, private insurance has some lousy service and denials, therefore the public option must be good? C'mon. Let's first nationalize all the paper mills and see how that works out. Or all the lawyers. Heck, effective legal representation is something the constitution actually does give us a right to.

I still have hopes that the '50 million' figure will vanish from the discussion: For the illegals and Medicaid eligibles included in that number, no public plan on the table is going to cover them any better than they are now.

 

[turbo]

Did you watch the interview, mheslep? Potter is credible, detailed and an insurance insider.

BTW, nay-saying Medicare's 3% overhead does not equate to proving the number wrong. Michelle Bachman is railing against a public health-care plan because she claims that it would be 30-40% cheaper than private plans. She's probably right, but that is no reason to reject a public plan, unless you are a sadist.

 

[mheslep]

...

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

For the Wise, WVa clip, how many people there all already eligible for the government Medicaid plan now? Why isn't that working now? Don't people understand that the government pays half of all health dollars, now?

 

[mheslep]

On Michael Moore's Sicko clip from Moyers: "I thought he hit the nail on the head". Good grief.

Here's another video on Canadian health care:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/pjtvs-hidden-camera-team-exposes-canadas-socialized-health-care/

 

[turbo]

Working people in low-paying jobs generally don't qualify for Medicaid, but they can't afford private insurance, either. Those are likely the people that drove from several states away to attend the Wise event. This is not a black-and-white issue. There are lots of people who can't get any coverage, and there are lots of people who are dropped like hot potatoes when they get sick. If my wife lost her job, I wouldn't qualify for any private health insurance due to some pre-existing conditions. As Potter said, it's easy to talk about number of policies and claims until you realize that they are people - men, women, and children who are being denied health care.

 

[Al68]

Michelle Bachman is railing against a public health-care plan because she claims that it would be 30-40% cheaper than private plans. She's probably right, but that is no reason to reject a public plan, unless you are a sadist.

That's a gross misrepresentation of what she said. She never said the total cost would be less. She said that since 30-40% of the public plan insurance premiums would be subsidized by taxpayers, an individual would pay 30-40% less for coverage (after subsidization) by switching from their employer's plan to the public plan.

The reason they would save 30-40% is not because the public plan actually costs less than the private plan, but because they would be forced to help pay (by taxes) 30-40% of the public plan whether they switched or not.

 

[mheslep]

Did you watch the interview, mheslep?

Yes, the entire thing.

Potter is credible,

On the insurance industry maybe, and in particular about health lobbying as PR was his job, but not on much else in my opinion.

detailed

On our public proposals, or on, say, Canada's plan, or on people in need in Wise, WVA, he provides absolutely none, not a word of detail. Instead he spews slogan's like "oh yeah, I think he hit the nail on the head".

and an insurance insider.

Yes. Another a guilt ridden rich guy. Yes the private insurance system is a broken, rigged game. It was the government that set it up that way post WWII and in the 70s. The only thing worse would be a broken, rigged, government plan.

BTW, nay-saying Medicare's 3% overhead does not equate to proving the number wrong.

I did not just simply nay say it, I provided references earlier, and I'm tired. The 3% numbers just reflect Medicare's internal, government employee costs. Medicare hires additional -guess who- private insurer help to administer those claims, and they do not include those costs in the 3%. Furthermore, Medicare is rife with fraud, up to $60B / year as reported by the US Attorney General, because in part they don't employ nearly enough staff to vet claims properly, and they don't want to do so. It is far better politically for the Medicare program to suffer losses blamed on random outside crooks than to risk having an adequate staff that properly vets claims, and then having rejected nose job complaints go back up the political ladder with a name on each end. Run a whole country that way and we'll break it.

 

[turbo]

On Michael Moore's Sicko clip from Moyers: "I thought he hit the nail on the head". Good grief.

Here's another video on Canadian health care:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/pjtvs-hidden-camera-team-exposes-canadas-socialized-health-care/

I have friends in Canada, since except for our western border with NH, we are surrounded by Canada, and lots of my family originally came from there. My wife and I are very close to a couple with a large brood of kids in Nova Scotia who are operating a gas-station, convenience-store, auto repair business near Truro and they LOVE the Canadian health-care plan. Same with the family who used to be our closest neighbors, but whose applications for permanent residency were turned down by the US gov't during the Bush administration. She is a medical technician, and he is a well-respected graphic artist. They moved here to get to a more temperate climate (central Ontario is pretty frigid) and they loved Maine. We got to be great friends. Their biggest complaint with the US was the limited access to health-care and the cost of insurance. The guy and his daughter were in good health, but the wife is epileptic, and her medications were very expensive here. The reason they bought a house in our neighborhood is that we were a 5-minute walk from the hospital so she could walk to work, and it was a nice quiet neighborhood on a cul-de-sac where their young daughter could spend lots of time outdoors with her dog, Moon. I hated to see them get refused residency. Both were very nice, hard-working people and their daughter was a joy to have around.

 

[mheslep]

And I love my plan(s), and the doctors, and the hospitals. Has taken good care of my family over multiple trips to the hospital; never had a serious problem w/ a payment. Some 70-80% of Americans say the same thing. I have friends in the UK, they won't touch NHS anymore. Had an American friend living in Belgium for awhile, got seriously ill, got right into see a GP, was told to she'd have to wait many months to get specialist help and she flew home.

 

[wildman]

There was a breakdown of how much each country's government spent on health care on physicsforums a while ago (maybe someone can find that breakdown and point a link to it). That breakdown showed that the US was no where near the bottom of the pile as far as spending on socialized medicine went.

Why do we apparently get so little for our socialized medicine as compared to other countries? Why isn't everyone covered one way or another when we are apparently spending more than enough to cover everyone?

 

[mheslep]

Timelymedical, a Canadian company that arranges for, among other things, Canadians to receive surgery in the US has this list (Canadian public vs Canadian private):

http://www.timelymedical.ca/waitlist-public-versus-private.html
#Wait to see a specialist for initial consultation
* Public: 6 - 12 months
* Private: 10 days

# Wait for diagnostic imaging (excluding X-Rays) after seeing surgeon

* Public: 4 - 8 months
* Private: 24 hours

# Wait for a biopsy (if necessary)

* Public: 2 months
* Private: 4 days

# Wait for pathological analysis of tissue

* Public: 14 days
* Private: 1 - 3 days

# Wait for follow-up visit to surgeon to discuss results of diagnostics

* Public: 1 - 3 months
* Private: 7 days

# Wait for a surgical/hospital date to be set

* Public: 6 - 18 months
* Private: 1 day

# Wait for surgery after date is set

* Public: 6 - 10 months
* Private: 7 days

 

[Evo]

There was a breakdown of how much each country's government spent on health care on physicsforums a while ago (maybe someone can find that breakdown and point a link to it). That breakdown showed that the US was no where near the bottom of the pile as far as spending on socialized medicine went.

Why do we apparently get so little for our socialized medicine as compared to other countries? Why isn't everyone covered one way or another when we are apparently spending more than enough to cover everyone?

Fraud. Incompetance in government run programs.

Supposedly the plan Obama is proposing will be a "no frills" alternative to private insurance. He said that Americans can still use their private insurance for the best care. Or they can buy the government controlled insurance options with lower quality care, maybe that's not fair, in his speech I believe that he used the words "not the most expensive care". He said the care won't be the best, but it will be adequate. I'm just wondering how much this adequate care will cost? Since it is an option and comes at a cost, I'm not quite getting where the poor get it free, but supposedly there is an option for them. I'm still waiting to see the details.

 

[lisab]

Timelymedical, a Canadian company that arranges for, among other things, Canadians to receive surgery in the US has this list (Canadian public vs Canadian private):

http://www.timelymedical.ca/waitlist-public-versus-private.html
#Wait to see a specialist for initial consultation
* Public: 6 - 12 months
* Private: 10 days

# Wait for diagnostic imaging (excluding X-Rays) after seeing surgeon

* Public: 4 - 8 months
* Private: 24 hours

# Wait for a biopsy (if necessary)

* Public: 2 months
* Private: 4 days

# Wait for pathological analysis of tissue

* Public: 14 days
* Private: 1 - 3 days

# Wait for follow-up visit to surgeon to discuss results of diagnostics

* Public: 1 - 3 months
* Private: 7 days

# Wait for a surgical/hospital date to be set

* Public: 6 - 18 months
* Private: 1 day

# Wait for surgery after date is set

* Public: 6 - 10 months
* Private: 7 days

Seems that if these wait times are correct, there should be a noticeable difference in life expectancy...but the https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html" that the US system results in longer life.

Obviously it's because so many of my fellow citizens don't have health insurance. Maybe the title of the thread should be, Insured citizens of the US have the best health care in the world (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567737" ).

I wonder if there are any data available that show life expectancy of insured vs. uninsured in the US, to compare to those who live with socialized medicine.

 

[mheslep]

There was a breakdown of how much each country's government spent on health care on physicsforums a while ago (maybe someone can find that breakdown and point a link to it). That breakdown showed that the US was no where near the bottom of the pile as far as spending on socialized medicine went.

http://apps.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm?countries=all&indicators=nha
US govt heath spending per cap: $2862 (PPP dollars)
US total health spending per cap: $6350 (most expensive in the world by a large margin)

France govt health spending per cap: $2646
France total per cap: $3314

Why do we apparently get so little for our socialized medicine as compared to other countries? Why isn't everyone covered one way or another when we are apparently spending more than enough to cover everyone?

Good question.

 

[Evo]

Seems that if these wait times are correct, there should be a noticeable difference in life expectancy...but the https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html" that the US system results in longer life.

Obviously it's because so many of my fellow citizens don't have health insurance. Maybe the title of the thread should be, Insured citizens of the US have the best health care in the world (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567737" ).

I wonder if there are any data available that show life expectancy of insured vs. uninsured in the US, to compare to those who live with socialized medicine.

My mother uses Medicare (no private insurance) and the "public" Canadian figures seem to mirror her wait times. Of course in the US if you have no insurance and don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, you get same day care for all of those things in ER, and it is covered mostly by charities. The Evo Child's ex-bf had no insurance and had a chronic condition that required him to go to the ER every 3 months and then costs were always covered by the hospital's alternative coverage plans.

Socialized medicine in Italy. They killed my ex-fiancee's father. Misdiagnosed him. Then put him on a 6 month waiting list to use 1 of the 2 MRI's in the country and he had to fly from Sicily to Milan, to boot (and this was only after I made him raise hell to get a SCAN, the Italian doctors didn't want to do it). By the time they properly diagnosed him the cancer was too advanced. First they almost killed him by administering the wrong chemotherapy at 20 times the dose. He died 6 months later.

 

[GeorginaS]

Timelymedical, a Canadian company that arranges for, among other things, Canadians to receive surgery in the US has this list (Canadian public vs Canadian private):

You don't think that a company that sells health services to Canadians to go out of country would have any sort of bias in their reporting, now do you?

I could give you a step-by-step account (But anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much, right? Except for the fact that I live here and live with the system.) of the time-line of a good friend of mine being diagnosed with colorectal cancer at the end of May as a result of a colonoscopy to the various further diagnostic tests he had, and radiation treatments performed, and surgery to remove the growth in the second week of July. There's no way a system could have moved any faster or better. And my friends didn't have to mortgage their home to care for him.

But, that's anecdotal from my home last week and the above are stats from a "company".

 

[wildman]

Of course in the US if you have no insurance and don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, you get same day care for all of those things in ER, and it is covered mostly by charities.

I thought that the ER costs in the end are mainly picked up by the government and that was one of the reasons of our out of control government health care spending. Or am I mistaken? That is what my wife has told me. Could someone in the health field give us some expert input?

 

[mheslep]

Seems that if these wait times are correct, there should be a noticeable difference in life expectancy...but the https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html" that the US system results in longer life.

Uncorrected numbers (CIA) include many things having nothing to do with health care. US has the highest health related life expectancy in the world by a slight margin.
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20061017_OhsfeldtSchneiderPresentation.pdf
Table 1-5

Obviously it's because so many of my fellow citizens don't have health insurance. Maybe the title of the thread should be, Insured citizens of the US have the best health care in the world (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567737" ).

I wonder if there are any data available that show life expectancy of insured vs. uninsured in the US, to compare to those who live with socialized medicine.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aei.org%2FdocLib%2F20071120_3522443OTIMankiw_g.pdf&ei=2n5uSt2JEJGCtgeRnKiKBQ&usg=AFQjCNH7WPvMC2We26sjZMYDbFzG7y_xNw&sig2=e6e0xs5JHU7PpPGpCQopSA" , 10m are illegals and no policy on the table will cover them socialized or otherwise. Millions more are eligible for Medicaid but don't sign up. 18m of the uninsured earn more than $50k/year but decline coverage.

We can get health care to everybody, but it doesn't require socializing everything to do it.

 

[Evo]

I thought that the ER costs in the end are mainly picked up by the government and that was one of the reasons of our out of control government health care spending. Or am I mistaken? That is what my wife has told me. Could someone in the health field give us some expert input?

It depends, in inner city trauma centers, it might be picked up by government, but out in the suburbs, it's customary that either the hospital write it off, and/or get the balance paid through local charities.

 

[mheslep]

You don't think that a company that sells health services to Canadians to go out of country would have any sort of bias in their reporting, now do you?

I could give you a step-by-step account (But anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much, right? Except for the fact that I live here and live with the system.) of the time-line of a good friend of mine being diagnosed with colorectal cancer at the end of May as a result of a colonoscopy to the various further diagnostic tests he had, and radiation treatments performed, and surgery to remove the growth in the second week of June. There's no way a system could have moved any faster or better. And my friends didn't have to mortgage their home to care for him.

But, that's anecdotal from my home last week and the above are stats from a "company".

As I understand it the wait lists work as follows: If you get hit by a bus and have immediate life threatening injuries, there's no wait to speak of at all, treatment is also essentially immediate. Same with Cancer. If you get hit by a bus and sustain severe injury but the injury is not immediately life threatening, i.e., your condition is stable, then regardless of how debilitating or painful the injury, the surgery is considered elective and you are placed on the queues, with numbers like the earlier post.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I was hit by a car and had knee problems. I did not have insurance but nor was I applying for assistence. Got an appointment to see a doctor in private practice, had to wait about a month to get in. All he did was take a look at my knee and order an MRI. Got an appointment for an MRI on a date about a month after that day. Got the MRI and waited for the doctor to call me and let me know when they received the MRI. I wound up calling them until they told me they had it about a month later. I was then able to set up another appointment to see the doctor slated for about a month later. I went into the office for my appointment and it turned out that the doctor decided to take the day off and I would have to reschedule for about a month later. When I got into see the doc again I waited hours to see him for him to breeze in, show me the MRI, say "you need surgery" and breeze out five minutes later.

Going to see a doctor in private practice just to get a scan and a diagnosis took approximately half a year. After that it only got worse. It was a year and a half after the accident before I was able to get my surgery and that was with a lawyer getting me into see doctors and setting up payment deals with them.

When anyone anywhere says they are able to get into see a doctor and get taken care of in a matter of weeks it blows my mind.

 

[j93]

I was hit by a car and had knee problems. I did not have insurance but nor was I applying for assistence. Got an appointment to see a doctor in private practice, had to wait about a month to get in. All he did was take a look at my knee and order an MRI. Got an appointment for an MRI on a date about a month after that day. Got the MRI and waited for the doctor to call me and let me know when they received the MRI. I wound up calling them until they told me they had it about a month later. I was then able to set up another appointment to see the doctor slated for about a month later. I went into the office for my appointment and it turned out that the doctor decided to take the day off and I would have to reschedule for about a month later. When I got into see the doc again I waited hours to see him for him to breeze in, show me the MRI, say "you need surgery" and breeze out five minutes later.

Going to see a doctor in private practice just to get a scan and a diagnosis took approximately half a year. After that it only got worse. It was a year and a half after the accident before I was able to get my surgery and that was with a lawyer getting me into see doctors and setting up payment deals with them.I think the long wait times are problem for most of the population either way for those with a long approval process it is stalled to a process and for those with decent HMO's it can be stalled by doctors trying to milk your insurance.
When anyone anywhere says they are able to get into see a doctor and get taken care of in a matter of weeks it blows my mind.

I had a similar experience with a cyst in a finger in which I was passed on from specialist to specialist for a few months with appointments where I would go to appointments where a specialist would just look at my finger in one appointment, take an x-ray and pass me to another specialist. I felt like they were passing me around because I had an HMO so that they could all get a piece of the pie.

 

[drankin]

I was hit by a car and had knee problems. I did not have insurance but nor was I applying for assistence. Got an appointment to see a doctor in private practice, had to wait about a month to get in. All he did was take a look at my knee and order an MRI. Got an appointment for an MRI on a date about a month after that day. Got the MRI and waited for the doctor to call me and let me know when they received the MRI. I wound up calling them until they told me they had it about a month later. I was then able to set up another appointment to see the doctor slated for about a month later. I went into the office for my appointment and it turned out that the doctor decided to take the day off and I would have to reschedule for about a month later. When I got into see the doc again I waited hours to see him for him to breeze in, show me the MRI, say "you need surgery" and breeze out five minutes later.

Going to see a doctor in private practice just to get a scan and a diagnosis took approximately half a year. After that it only got worse. It was a year and a half after the accident before I was able to get my surgery and that was with a lawyer getting me into see doctors and setting up payment deals with them.

When anyone anywhere says they are able to get into see a doctor and get taken care of in a matter of weeks it blows my mind.

In this country, you have to pay for a service rendered. If you get yourself runover, then you are responsible for your recovery. Which means that you either get yourself insured or have some money saved for the likelyhood that you might step in front of an icecream truck. Typically, a motorist is required to be insured in the event they runover someone, among other mishaps. That would be another avenue of compensation.

How can you complain about getting shoddy services from a business that you cannot compensate? Is a private business requried to give you a service based on YOUR terms of payment?? It sounds like they gave you some basic services to help you out figuring that they were not going to be compensated for their trouble.

Sounds a lot like my mother-in-law inviting herself over for a week and then complaining how poorly she was served, she may just quit frequenting our establishment (crossing fingers).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In this country, you have to pay for a service rendered. If you get yourself runover, then you are responsible for your recovery. Which means that you either get yourself insured or have some money saved for the likelyhood that you might step in front of an icecream truck. Typically, a motorist is required to be insured in the event they runover someone, among other mishaps. That would be another avenue of compensation.

How can you complain about getting shoddy services from a business that you cannot compensate? Is a private business requried to give you a service based on YOUR terms of payment?? It sounds like they gave you some basic services to help you out figuring that they were not going to be compensated for their trouble.

Sounds a lot like my mother-in-law inviting herself over for a week and then complaining how poorly she was served, she may just quit frequenting our establishment (crossing fingers).

I was hit while crossing the street in the cross walk by a guy in an oversized pickup who was probably busy talking on his cellphone. I refused the ambulance ride to the emergency room in hopes that I could just walk it off because I knew that I could not afford the medical bills.

I got money from the claim with the insurance company after they hassled me, tried to pressure me into a lowball figure, and even seemingly influenced a witness to call me a belligerent liar in her deposition. The bills were paid with that money.

I'll remember that next time though, that its really my fault for being a schmuck who can't afford medical insurance and deciding to get myself hit by a truck.

 

[Count Iblis]

No one is contesting the fact that the US has very remote, poor areas that have little in the way of medical facilities. But this is a miniscule drop in the bucket of people in the country. What, in all of these areas around the country we're talking about a few thousand people, out of a population of over 303 million?

Yes, but as long as the system is not fixed, this is the only help some people can get.

 

[Count Iblis]

I think fixing the health care system is a complicated issue, which requires a pragmatic debate. If you have a polarized debate on ideological grounds in Congress, where one side really does not want to do much at all and brings in bogus arguments to try to torpedo a health care bill, then you may end up with a bad compromize.

 

[turbo]

I think fixing the health care system is a complicated issue, which requires a pragmatic debate. If you have a polarized debate on ideological grounds in Congress, where one side really does not want to do much at all and brings in bogus arguments to try to torpedo a health care bill, then you may end up with a bad compromize.

One of the factors that is most overlooked in the polarized debates is a critical one. Preventive care can catch problems earlier, while they are more treatable and/or offer the chance of a better outcome. People with no insurance often are not diagnosed until their condition(s) have become serious, more expensive to treat, and often with more radical interventions. In one way or another, we all end up paying more for health care because so many people lack access to regular check-ups and preventative care. Another significant waste arises when patients do not have a primary care physician, and when they need to be seen by a doctor, the doctor is unfamiliar with the patient's medical history, responses to certain classes of drugs, etc. Having a long-established relationship with a doctor you trust saves him/her and you time and effort on each visit, and the doctor knows you well enough to know if you'll understand what he has to say about how a certain drug acts, how to monitor your progress, etc.

Letting uninsured people resort to ER visits for medical care is wasteful in many, many ways - not just lost or reduced income on the part of the providers.

 

[drankin]

I was hit while crossing the street in the cross walk by a guy in an oversized pickup who was probably busy talking on his cellphone. I refused the ambulance ride to the emergency room in hopes that I could just walk it off because I knew that I could not afford the medical bills.

I got money from the claim with the insurance company after they hassled me, tried to pressure me into a lowball figure, and even seemingly influenced a witness to call me a belligerent liar in her deposition. The bills were paid with that money.

I'll remember that next time though, that its really my fault for being a schmuck who can't afford medical insurance and deciding to get myself hit by a truck.

I apologize for being insensitive about your injury but my point is that ultimately we are responsible for our own welfare. If a particular private doctor does not give you the service that you expect, FIRE him/her. I've done it myself. I'll walk out of the office if a doctor does not attend to me within 20min after an appointment time. If the gov't begins dictating who we go to then we can't FIRE them for poor service.

 

[madness]

I actually laughed when i saw this thread. Even Cuba has better healthcare than America. In fact one of the American officials involved in the assassination of Che Guevarra recently went to Cuba to get medical treatment on his eyes. I find it really sad that a country like America is unwilling to provide healthcare for its poorer citizens. I suppose it's a kind of cultural difference that in America privatisation and completely free markets are seen as a good thing, whereas where I live they mostly aren't.

 

[mgb_phys]

Insured citizens of the US have the best health care in the world

I suppose you could claim that the US has the best public transport in the world - because it has a space shuttle and everywhere else just has trains.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I suppose you could claim that the US has the best public transport in the world - because it has a space shuttle and everywhere else just has trains.

If there were space shuttles for 250 million Americans, then yeah, it probably would be the best public transport system in the world. Admit it, you'd move just to ride one.

I actually laughed when i saw this thread. Even Cuba has better healthcare than America. In fact one of the American officials involved in the assassination of Che Guevarra recently went to Cuba to get medical treatment on his eyes. I find it really sad that a country like America is unwilling to provide healthcare for its poorer citizens. I suppose it's a kind of cultural difference that in America privatisation and completely free markets are seen as a good thing, whereas where I live they mostly aren't.

And there are stories of Canadians going to America to get treatment. Therefore...?

If you have a healthcare system that can't treat the wealthiest members of society well, how can it possibly treat ANYBODY well? Besides, it's not the poorest members of society who don't have access to medical coverage, it's the people who are just above the government subsidisation line that get screwed

 

[madness]

Unless you live in a communist society, then you will most likely have the option of going private if you aren't satisfied with your national health care. I don't think wealthy people ever have a problem getting good healthcare. At least with the NHS everyone can get a decent level of healthcare no matter how much they earn (and the NHS really isn't that bad). I once had a conversation with an American where I asked him what he thought about not having government healthcare, and he told me he liked the fact that if a homeless guy broke his arm who had contributed nothing to society then he wouldn't be treated. I really thought that was a terrible way to look at things and I hope it's not a common point of view in America.

 

[mgb_phys]

If there were space shuttles for 250 million Americans, then yeah, it probably would be the best public transport system in the world. Admit it, you'd move just to ride one.

I'd move to somewhere with the Holywood health care system where a team of 5 doctors is devoted just to me if I have more than one symptom.

I would also like the police system where half a dozen detectives, an entire forensic lab (and for some reason a mossad agent) + lots of helicopters are involved the next time my bike gets stolen.

 

[turbo]

And there are stories of Canadians going to America to get treatment. Therefore...?

Generally glossed over is the fact that much of Canada is VERY rural, and if there is more sophisticated diagnostic equipment, etc, available nearer in by crossing to the US instead of traveling the half-way across Canada, Canada's public health care system picks up the tab for the US medical care. The incidence of Canadians being treated in the US is NOT a clear case of rich Canadians choosing to come to the US. Very often (perhaps a majority - I don't know) are ordinary Canadians who live in very rural areas and the Canadian health care system willingly pays for care in the nearest US facility if there are no nearby Canadian facilities with equivalent resources.

This is not a reason to claim that the Canadian insurance system is inferior. It is actually more efficient and superior to a private carrier in that advanced diagnostics, etc, are not rationed by your location. We should realize that there are places in the US, as well, that can be many hours of travel from the nearest MRI facility, for example, and it doesn't make economic sense to set up MRI facilities in every little farming town of more than a couple of thousand people. Here in Somerset Country, in Maine, we have had to address that by contracting with a portable MRI service that brings a self-contained tractor trailer "lab" to the regional hospital on a scheduled basis. The hospital is located in the county seat - a "city" of less than 7000 and serves towns from at least 75 miles away, most of which have populations of several hundreds to a couple of thousand or so. There is no way that our regional hospital could finance and support a full-time MRI lab. I doubt that the population density in Canada's wheat-belt could support such advanced equipment either. US diagnostics can be the least-expensive and most effective option in that case.

 

[Count Iblis]

If you have a healthcare system that can't treat the wealthiest members of society well...

They can only get the same treatment everyone else can get, while they have the financial resources to pay for more. But I don't see this becoming a problem in the US.

 

[Count Iblis]

I'd move to somewhere with the Holywood health care system where a team of 5 doctors is devoted just to me if I have more than one symptom.

And then you'll die of cardiac arrest due to over-medication like Michael Jackson.

 

[madness]

I have friends studying political sciences who were told in lectures that America is in line with many third world countries in terms of health care. I imagine this refers to how much of the population can access good health care, since the rich in America do have access to good health care.

 

[drankin]

I have friends studying political sciences who were told in lectures that America is in line with many third world countries in terms of health care. I imagine this refers to how much of the population can access good health care, since the rich in America do have access to good health care.

I'm American, I'm not rich, and I get excellent health care. If I don't feel like I get good treatment at one facility I can go to another provider. The "rich" can pay for their health care and of course it's going to be as good as they are willing to pay for. If you are a bum on the street you will get basic health care but you won't much of a choice as to what you get. As it should be. Health care is free market service here, just like most everything else.

It's not typical in American towns but even the police where I live had to compete and win the contract to work in our town. If they didn't provide a good service we have the ability to hire different police when their contract is up.

 

[mgb_phys]

It's not typical in American towns but even the police where I live had to compete and win the contract to work in our town. If they didn't provide a good service we have the ability to hire different police when their contract is up.

So you collect money from everybody in the town, rich and poor, and force them to use the same single police force without any choice in which cop arrests them - sounds awfully socialist to me.

 

[madness]

Sounds anarcho-sydicalist to me haha

 

[mgb_phys]

Sounds anarcho-sydicalist to me haha

Only if you take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting--
By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
But by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major--

 

[drankin]

So you collect money from everybody in the town, rich and poor, and force them to use the same single police force without any choice in which cop arrests them - sounds awfully socialist to me.

It is, I don't need no stinkin poh-leese.

A free market system allows you to have the best services. When there is no competition the quality of a service suffers, of course.