Health Care [Merged]

Originally posted by KidRock
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Gareth-Anderson-Denied-Liver-Transplant-After-Weekend-Of-Binge-Drinking-Flown-To-Specialist-Unit/Article/200908415367783?lpos=UK_News_Top_Stories_Header_2&lid=ARTICLE_15367783_Gareth_Anderson%2C_Denied_Liver_Transplant_After_Weekend_Of_Binge_Drinking%2C_Flown_To_Specialist_Unit

[B]Gareth Anderson, 19, from Newtownards in County Down, suffered liver failure after a weekend of drinking and there are fears he could soon die.

Doctors said there was a strict NHS policy that potential transplant donors had to abstain from alcohol for six months.

Dumb **** for killing his liver in one weekend..but too bad he must die now because the government says he cannot get a transplant. [/B]

Do You have a free liver you're willing to donate?

Seriously, that's just the worst example ever, since transplant could NOT have been performed in any case - private or public health care has nothing to do with it.

Failure to launch.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Conspiracy!

it is only correlational evidence

Straight out of the heritage foundation's play book, details of the Blue Dogs' compromised health care reform (oh, and I guarantee this will kill medicare, medicaid, Schip, and the VA):

No public option.

No employer provided health insurance

All citizens and legal residents will be legally required to buy private health insurance

Those who can't afford to pay will be subsidized by the government to a point.

The industry will be completely deregulated, so no minimal standards of care.

The industry has no legal obligation to render any services in any situation.

The industry has the right to deny any procedure or treatment due to a preexisting condition.

The industry has the right to deny any and all care to those previously or newly deemed "uninsurable" even if they are required to pay.

Citizens may shop out of state for health insurance but this may incur higher fees.

Because most areas have only 2-3 insurance companies, these companies may form a local monopoly, however, no governments or public bodies may regulate their prices.

In other words: Under penalty of arrest and possible imprisonment (just like car insurance), every American will be forced to pay their taxes and wages to a giant private monopoly which is under absolutely no obligation to provide any service to them. And that my friends is a delightful blend of corporatism and kleptocracy which are the beginnings of fascism.

Have a nice day.

Wow. That's complete garbage. Screw america if we ever reach that phase, i'd get out of here as fast as possible.

Supposedly (according to the heritage foundation, who have been advocating something like this since the 1980's), if you take away employer health insurance and make everyone shop around and pay out of pocket, it'll lower prices through market forces.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work when you already have a virtual monopoly, you mandate consumers to buy insurance, and insurance is not legally required to provide any service for you in exchange for payment.

Originally posted by inimalist
which just happens to be isolated in the single Western nation with only private coverage

Plenty of people are against the substandard universal healthcare systems of Canada and Europe. People don't like being told by governments that even though they paid their taxes into the system all their life they have to die.

Why do you think people come from all over the world to get treated at our hospitals?

Originally posted by KidRock
Plenty of people are against the substandard universal healthcare systems of Canada and Europe. People don't like being told by governments that even though they paid their taxes into the system all their life they have to die.

you are correct. I looked up the most recent WHO standings, and Canada, with its substandard care, comes in at #30. I'm fairly disappointed about this, especially as we have been reforming our system a lot of late.

However, America is #37, behind all of the nations you just named as being substandard.

Why don't you describe what you think is the most important measure of the quality of health care, and research where America falls in a comparison of all nations for that characteristic.

Originally posted by KidRock
Why do you think people come from all over the world to get treated at our hospitals?

because the american system appeals to the rich?

wait, do you know what the criticisms of the American system actually are?

They come over here due to equipment availability and because their governments fully reimburse medical tourism.

Actually, many American companies are starting to look into medical tourism to avoid high healthcare costs. Basically, it's easier to pay for an employee to get a visa and a plane ticket if they get sick than it is to pay premiums.
Seriously, check the statistics for americans engaging in medical tourism either due to lack of access to care or lack of modern procedures (i.e. antibiotic treatment of periodontitis, irrigation of gangrene, organ and bone marrow transplants when insurance denies it, preputioplasty, etc.).

Originally posted by KidRock
Plenty of people are against the substandard universal healthcare systems of Canada and Europe. People don't like being told by governments that even though they paid their taxes into the system all their life they have to die.

Originally posted by KidRock
Why do you think people come from all over the world to get treated at our hospitals?

BTW, in canada they have problems with the number of border-americans coming in to try and use the free healthcare.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I think we're going to have a major crisis/epidemic with colossal loss of life before anything changes. I'm kind of worried that we'll have a single payer system by next summer, but only after the H1N1 vaccination plans fail, the virus mutates after spreading among crowded emergency rooms and (based on the 1918 epidemic) something like 80-130 million Americans die.

Prediction:
Health insurance in 2050 without major reforms to health care or the economic system-
For those that can't afford the $300,000 monthly premium and the $3 million annual premium set by the unnatural, unregulated health insurance monopoly, if you have a medical emergency, the hospitals will be more than willing to shoot you, provided your family can pay the $30 disposal fee and $10 for the bullet.

This year's internet oscar goes toooooooo....

Spoiler:
Dramatics dramatics.

😆

About this idea of profit motivation in healtchare being "bad".

You guys say it hurts the policy holder and doesn't help. That's wrong. In fact, the fundemental capitalist idea is that the best company will do the best. If they offer the best prices for the best coverage, they will have more customers, making it even easier to run their excellent health care system....because they are profit motivated. If they offered substandard services, they are less likely to attract customers and won't do as well as others. When companies compete, the customer wins. When they don't compete, the customers lose and the companies win.

However, don't let what I said change the fact that I think a non-profit "market" for insurance can also be excellent.

My current perspective on healthcare reform: IF I don't have to pay anymore for healthcare than I already am, AND the current healthcare system in the US improves significantly, then I don't care what happens. However, if we see marginal improvements in isolated areas with things remaining just the same, it will not have been worth it, imo.

I am definitely for change: I just want it to happen.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You guys say it hurts the policy holder and doesn't help. That's wrong. In fact, the fundemental capitalist idea is that the best company will do the best. If they offer the best prices for the best coverage, they will have more customers, making it even easier to run their excellent health care system....because they are profit motivated. If they offered substandard services, they are less likely to attract customers and won't do as well as others. When companies compete, the customer wins. When they don't compete, the customers lose and the companies win.

What competitive profit motive does a monopoly or oligopoly have? When companies collude and dominate markets, the only profit motive is theft and denial. There is no competition. Yes I've heard about unnatural monopolies and oligopolies collapsing eventually due to elements within the company or colluding companies cheating and underselling, it was a cornerstone of micro and macroeconomics in college. But that doesn't figure in the human element nor practical history. Has OPEC collapsed? Would the Sugar conspiracy have collapsed without an FBI bust? Did Standard Oil or US Steel collapse without Teddy Roosevelt trustbusting the crap out of them? What about AT&T and the resulting baby bells?

Originally posted by inimalist
you are correct. I looked up the most recent WHO standings, and Canada, with its substandard care, comes in at #30. I'm fairly disappointed about this, especially as we have been reforming our system a lot of late.

However, America is #37, behind all of the nations you just named as being substandard.

Why don't you describe what you think is the most important measure of the quality of health care, and research where America falls in a comparison of all nations for that characteristic.

America has the best 5 year survival rate for cancer patients. What is the point in having health care if it isn't good enough to keep you alive?

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/07/22/americans-have-the-best-cancer-survival-rates/

Originally posted by inimalist
y

because the american system appeals to the rich?

wait, do you know what the criticisms of the American system actually are?

But..it really doesn't appeal to the rich. It appeals to those who work. There is a big difference.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
What competitive profit motive does a monopoly or oligopoly have?

Well that's the criticism of public insurance. It's a monopoly.

Monopolies are bad unless it's a government monopoly apparently.

Originally posted by KidRock
Monopolies are bad unless it's a government monopoly apparently.

Originally posted by KidRock
But..it really doesn't appeal to the rich. It appeals to those who work. There is a big difference.

True, you can get rich without working.

But wait health care is based on what you pay not on how hard you work. Well looks like that theory's been shot to hell.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Gov. monopoly doesn't have a profit motive. That was the whole point.

Exactly, they can just operate in the red with no incentive to be efficient.

Low on cash? Raise taxes or just put us more into debt. It has happened time and time again with government programs.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
True, you can get rich without working.

But wait health care is based on what you pay not on how hard you work. Well looks like that theory's been shot to hell.

How do you make money to pay? By working hard...crazy theory I know, right? The government should just give us everything "for free".

Originally posted by KidRock
America has the best 5 year survival rate for cancer patients. What is the point in having health care if it isn't good enough to keep you alive?

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/07/22/americans-have-the-best-cancer-survival-rates/

Secondly, that article gives us no actual statistics. So we don't really know how large the difference is in the Lancet Study. But you immediately jump to "the Universal system can't keep you alive", when for all we know the difference could have been as little as 1%. Would you care to purchase the article for us and post the findings?

Originally posted by KidRock
But..it really doesn't appeal to the rich. It appeals to those who work. There is a big difference.