Originally posted by King Kandy
Speaking of which, all three countries you named were ranked above the US by the WHO on Healthcare.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Do you have any proof the British system is that messed up? I have seen it said many times that it is terrible but every actual British person I have met has been fine with it. Recently 92% in a survey said they were quite satisfied with the service.
And you can take a poll now in America and get a majority saying the War in Iraq is good. Polls don't really tell you anything.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Canada is switching to a system that is commonly used in almost all Euro countries. How this is some kind of failure baffles me.
The argument that other countries systems fail because they have money problems, is not an argument at all when the healthcare they provide is superior in almost every category to the US's. So what if they have money problems? We have more and our healthcare is worse. 😐
I'll take money problems that are less than what we have now for better healthcare, any day. awesome
Now that's something I'd liked to see proof for. Life expectancy has less to do with medical care and more to do with lifestyle, our death rate at birth is worse than many countries, that's true, but we do have better cancer treatment than anywhere in the world and even with the absolute stupidity of our healthcare system, almost every medical innovation has been made by the United States.
And anyway, the idea that the government can fix it is naive. If regulation made the system better, than we would have an amazing system since half of law relates to medical practices. The problem is with the way the system is run at a local level, not overall.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Yup. Because our system is based more around higher earners and cancer research and treatment.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Non-essential surgeries have unbelievable wait times:
*cataract surgery – 8 months
*hip replacement – 11 months
*knee replacement – 12 months
*slipped disc – 5 months
*hernia repair – 5 months
Out of 1.4 million employees, the NHS employs almost half as administrators. I don't see how that's efficient or in any way good.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
And you can take a poll now in America and get a majority saying the War in Iraq is good. Polls don't really tell you anything.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
It's a failure of a single payer system, like France's or England's.
Originally posted by King Kandy
That type of thing nets the most money for the researchers, drug companies etc... this is a reason why private systems are self-destructive.
A private system isn't self-destructive. It only becomes so when government gets involved and starts pushing it in the direction it wants.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Do you have any stats showing that is in any way average? Because the stats I saw all proposed wait times of more like four weeks, three months max.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Of course you'd say that, it frees you from the burden of actually having to prove anything you say.
Originally posted by King Kandy
France has the best health care in the world. And for your information, both France and England allow private insurance, much like how Canada does.
And France has good healthcare because of the sheer amount of government spending that is thrown at it.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Now that's something I'd liked to see proof for.
SURE! No problem, man.
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Life expectancy has less to do with medical care and more to do with lifestyle, our death rate at birth is worse than many countries, that's true, but we do have better cancer treatment than anywhere in the world and even with the absolute stupidity of our healthcare system, almost every medical innovation has been made by the United States.
That's great n'all, but cancer treatment isn't the only measure of healthcare. Nor is life-expectancy, nor is infant mortality.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
And anyway, the idea that the government can fix it is naive.
The idea that a public option mixed with private options, however, is far from naive.
What's really naive is thinking the current system is fine. (I'm not saying that YOU think that, though.)
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
If regulation made the system better, than we would have an amazing system since half of law relates to medical practices. The problem is with the way the system is run at a local level, not overall.
Cool.
Do you have any "evidence"/links for those two points, though?
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
That type of thing comes from government involving itself. They give subsidies for these things which push people towards it.A private system isn't self-destructive. It only becomes so when government gets involved and starts pushing it in the direction it wants.
Do you have any evidence for those or is it theoretical?
We actually have "comparisons" with various healthcare systems and we do know that, overall, a public/private hybrid is the best system. Therefore, no matter what evidence you have, it will fail compared to the nicely executed public/private hybrid.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
And France has good healthcare because of the sheer amount of government spending that is thrown at it.
You do realize that our government spends more, per person, don't you? If France threw as much money at healthcare, per person, as we do, then they'd be doing Star Trek sh*t. lol
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
That type of thing comes from government involving itself. They give subsidies for these things which push people towards it.A private system isn't self-destructive. It only becomes so when government gets involved and starts pushing it in the direction it wants.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I can't get those exact stats to be honest. They're from a speech I heard a Parliament member gave.
Here are BBC articles on wait times:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/4555613.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wiltshire/6731887.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/southern_counties/4585692.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/5284646.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/6185628.stm
The following four links all refer to poor performances at specific hospitals (one of them being the worst hospital in all of the UK). The articles even mention the wait times as being sometimes up to 10x the national average. The average wait times mentioned country-wide in those articles did not seem bad at all. Additionally many of those articles are out dated, and could refer to problems that have already been fixed (I wouldn't know).
I avoid using these kind of individual accounts, for much the same reason I would never use "Sicko" in this argument... it's not statistically meaningful.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
But they control the healthcare being provided, which is a much bigger deal to me.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
And France has good healthcare because of the sheer amount of government spending that is thrown at it.
Originally posted by King Kandy
...we could be doing as well or better under single payer.
All good points with impeccable logic, except this one. You have to append "with private options" to "single payer" in order to be the most correct. I know that's what you meant but certain posters/people will zing you if you don't append that "with private options" or "private hybrid" to the end there.
Originally posted by dadudemon
All good points with impeccable logic, except this one. You have to append "with private options" to "single payer" in order to be the most correct. I know that's what you meant but certain posters/people will zing you if you don't append that "with private options" or "private hybrid" to the end there.
Anyway I've lived every day of my life in a Public system with private providers.
I can pick My own doctor or Not. And can change surgeries I can decide for instance If I want to see a consultant At Hospital A or Hospital B. Or leave it to the admin to hook me up with another specialist [that's if I have a disease difficult to diagnose]
I can choose where to receive treatment/surgery. or I can leave it for The Surgeons and admin to decide.
Or I can Call the private health company Work signed me up with and check into a private hospital then decide If I want to be treated by them or If I want them to check me into a government hospital and bank around US$1000 a week [in addittion to my ongoing salary/sick pay] . Or I can continue all the way private.
Either way the result is the same. Health through diagnosis treatment and aftercare.
I can also take out my own comprehensive care package. I could do this Immediately. There's nothing to stop me.
But I'd rather use that money for popcorn and gym membership.
I can also take out An insurance policy that pays out if I have an injury so for around us$10 a month, should I manage to lose an Arm in a Tiger wrestling/Jaywalking incident The policy will pay out us$20 000. which I would use to constantly add new software and apps to the govt stock prosthetic with gold plating and retractable grapppling hook funded by my private options.
Same with dentists I can go for a govt dentist or work's private dentist. However work doesn't pay for cosmetic treatment on healthy teeth. That's where the private dentist comes in.
Its cheaper to sign up to a private policy which includes dentistry than to go on a solo visit to a private dentist.
Prevention is better than cure. If you live in an area without a governmentt dentist and the private clinic is charging too much there is a clear incentive to adjust your lifestyle by brushing your teeth more often, getting involved in less fights, smoking less and cutting back on soda.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you have any evidence for those or is it theoretical?
Originally posted by dadudemon
We actually have "comparisons" with various healthcare systems and we do know that, overall, a public/private hybrid is the best system. Therefore, no matter what evidence you have, it will fail compared to the nicely executed public/private hybrid.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You do realize that our government spends more, per person, don't you? If France threw as much money at healthcare, per person, as we do, then they'd be doing Star Trek sh*t. lol
Originally posted by King Kandy
Here's a hint: no large company will be willing to take hits in profit for multiple quarters, for their shareholders will abandon them. This is why no health care company in the US will ever significantly undercut another's prices.
Originally posted by King Kandy
OK, this is pretty much the opposite of what I was asking for. The first link is about a lack of availability of a very recent technology with a lot of demand. This will happen whenever anything is released, from hearing aids to x-boxes.The following four links all refer to poor performances at specific hospitals (one of them being the worst hospital in all of the UK). The articles even mention the wait times as being sometimes up to 10x the national average. The average wait times mentioned country-wide in those articles did not seem bad at all. Additionally many of those articles are out dated, and could refer to problems that have already been fixed (I wouldn't know).
I avoid using these kind of individual accounts, for much the same reason I would never use "Sicko" in this argument... it's not statistically meaningful.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Newsflash-that's what the Canadian system will also be doing.
Originally posted by King Kandy
They spend less per-capita than the US does, so if all it takes is money our health care would be >>> theirs. So if you believe that France's system is good, that is admitting we could be doing as well or better under single payer.
I believe the French system is good at the expense of a stupidly high tax burden which pushes companies away.
Originally posted by inimalist
The thread is actually about how the American health system is going to cost more, no matter if it is state or market based.How quickly it devolved to the state v market debate I tried to render moot...
1. Like most Americans your understanding of taxes is ass backwards.
2. There is no competition in the free market because a. the US is the only country where for-profit private primary health care is legal and b. The health insurance industry is so deregulated that they're exempt from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, they have an insane amount of legal protections in terms of liability under the law, and there are recent court arguments that they should be exempt from the RICO Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act!!!! In other words, denial of service, theft, fraud, homicide by negligence and by proxy, price fixing, mail fraud, tying, discrimination are legal and happen all the time. FYI, health insurance companies are technically covered under a rider to the bankruptcy reform act passed in congress that means that in civil lawsuits, they are technically liable for no more than $10,000 in damage.
Cigna apparently has a policy of covering up serious illnesses in order to milk their clients out of money and then dropping them once they discover the truth.
In many states, companies won't provide coverage to women who are victims of rape, domestic assault, or child abuse, have delivered by C-section (unless they're over 40 or agree to be sterilized), police officers, expectant fathers, athletes, people statistically at risk for heart disease and cancer (i.e. blacks and jews), firefighters, air traffic controllers, construction workers, and people undergoing therapy or counseling. See, those are all preexisting conditions.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
1. Like most Americans your understanding of taxes is ass backwards.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
2. There is no competition in the free market because a. the US is the only country where for-profit private primary health care is legal
And through the regulations that within the system is a form of corporatism with the stranglehold of the AMA on any practitioner and the limits on insurance companies, ensuring large companies have almost complete control over the industry.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
In other words, denial of service, theft, fraud, homicide by negligence and by proxy, price fixing, mail fraud, tying, discrimination are legal and happen all the time. FYI, health insurance companies are technically covered under a rider to the bankruptcy reform act passed in congress that means that in civil lawsuits, they are technically liable for no more than $10,000 in damage.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Cigna apparently has a policy of covering up serious illnesses in order to milk their clients out of money and then dropping them once they discover the truth.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
In many states, companies won't provide coverage to women who are victims of rape, domestic assault, or child abuse, have delivered by C-section (unless they're over 40 or agree to be sterilized), police officers, expectant fathers, athletes, people statistically at risk for heart disease and cancer (i.e. blacks and jews), firefighters, air traffic controllers, construction workers, and people undergoing therapy or counseling. See, those are all preexisting conditions.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
If I tell you to make me blue chairs and red chairs, and I pay you more for red chairs, which one are you going to build more of?
You didn't address my request. Either post some legit data or your idea of an imaginary system are just that, imaginary.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
And that will fail compared to the best healthcare system the United States had, with good healthcare being available for a week's age during the turn of the century with lodge care.
*facepalm*
Dude, if you want to compare healthcare at the turn of the century, start a new thread. This isn't about healthcare at the turn of the century.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Our government doesn't spend more. We as a people spend more.
$3088 spent per person in the US, by the federal government as of the 2006 figures.
2005 figures put France's government healthcare spent per person at $3023.
So, even there, you're wrong.
When you add in money spent by the citizens, you get some wack booty differences.
$3926 for France, total per person.
$6714 for US, total per person.
FUUUU!
I lost the page.
Edit - Here they are.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You didn't address my request. Either post some legit data or your idea of an imaginary system are just that, imaginary.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Dude, if you want to compare healthcare at the turn of the century, start a new thread. This isn't about healthcare at the turn of the century.
Originally posted by dadudemon
$3088 spent per person in the US, by the federal government as of the 2006 figures.2005 figures put France's government healthcare spent per person at $3023.
Taxes and wages (meaning both the amount of money and the purchasing power of that money) in a market economy are directly related. Meaning that as taxes go up, wages go up, as taxes go down, wages go down. In a society with low taxes, inflation is driven by market prices whereas in a society with high taxes, inflation is driven by wages and prices can never keep up. How this works in practice: Basically, in a democratic society with a market economy and progressive taxation, the only people hurt by taxes in the long run are the mega rich. One need only look at all the studies of the Reagan wealthy tax cuts and shifting of the tax burden to the middle class which colored economic policy since 1980 that show that real wages (both amount and purchasing power/value of money) have either remained stagnant or fallen since. As taxes increase, the government is better able to fund and provide services which are considered natural monopolies and therefore should not be privatized such as national parks, roads, power, water/sewage, health care and in most western societies, things like employee benefits, unemployment insurance, and kurzarbeit (the german system which bails out companies and prevents layoffs based on market forces rather than arbitrary financial loans or gifts). This creates higher taxes which by the laws of the labor market forces employers to pay higher wages. At the same time, employers no longer have to bother with things like health insurance, workers' comp, maternity leave which freeze up an extraordinary amount of money that they can use to pay for hire wages and reinvestments that allow them to be more competitive in the market. Employees are also more productive because they are generally healthier and well rested. Improved product quality, efficiency, competitiveness, and trade lead to an increase in the value of currency and therefore purchasing power. So you get situations such as in Sweden where the poorest minimum wage workers pay more than half their income in taxes and what's left is still equivelant to earning $18 an hour in American terms which with all their social protections allows them to live relatively debt free and afford home ownership. This is why in industries other than financial services, most of the world is outcompeting the US. According to the Indian School of Economics (which thus far, has been most accurate in terms of economic predictors in the 20th century), a country with an income tax rate less than 50% will suffer great income inequity and will regress into a plutarchy. Income inequality is the number one cause of economic instability and collapse.
Another factor is the so called "free market". A laissez faire free market economy is worse than communism in the speed and way in which these systems destroy economies and countries. They encourage the buildup of monopolies and plutocratic families which collude with governments-themselves becoming kleptocratic, which leads to anarchic failed states or to crises which lead to the democratic election or uprisings leading to fascism.
The convergence of these two factors have been observed in many countries throughout history. One need only observe the factors leading up to the first great depression and the current troubles for an American example. More extreme cases include Chile, Argentina, and many members of the Commonwealth of Independent States and Soviet Sattelites during the 1990's. Russia, Ukraine, and Lithuania being prime examples.
If we were to use a metaphor with the (unfortunate and false) concept of corporate personhood, expecting an economy to survive and thrive as a free market is like expecting humanity to progress in a lawless, nihilistic state of nature, absent of society, law, value, or government.