• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A question for Canadians, Australians, Britons,

Dittohead not! said:
Agree with most of the above, if only it could get past the insurance lobby. As for the public option becoming a dumping ground, that won't happen if the patient makes the choice, which is as it should be.

As for patients paying more per procedure, the problem is the total cost, paid for by insurance, government, and the patient. The cost per procedure may or may not be going up, I'm not certain, but it is quite a lot higher than it is on other countries.

Solve the inefficiency problem, bring more competition to the industry, and the cost per procedure may not be so much of an issue after all.

I'm not sure where I read it, and can't find it now, but I did read that a patient could fly to Spain, have a hip replacement surgery, stay in Spain for several weeks, and fly home for the cost of a hip replacement in the United States. That cost, from the point of view of the patient, seems pretty unbalanced.
Click to expand...

It could get past the insurance lobby.. but it will take a focused effort. Right now.. its either "single payer".. which is to the advantage of the insurance companies.

Or obamacare.. with subsidies which is to the advantage of the insurance companies. As I see it.. the major problem is deciding what people want. Do they REALLY want lower cost healthcare?

Seriously.. do you pay the bill for healthcare? No.. you insurance does. So when you lower the cost of healthcare.. who really benefits.

OR do you want lower PREMIUMS for people? So they can have affordable healthcare insurance so they can go to the doctor of their choice.. when they need it and get the care they need?

and we have already discussed costs and why they are different than in other countries..

You mentioned Spain and other countries. I can go to other countries.. and have.. and have had products made for pennies on the dollar. Because the average wage is much lower. Check out spain's average wage.

Shall we state that cost is unbalanced because it costs less to make a product in China, than the US?
 
jaeger19 said:
It could get past the insurance lobby.. but it will take a focused effort. Right now.. its either "single payer".. which is to the advantage of the insurance companies.

Or obamacare.. with subsidies which is to the advantage of the insurance companies. As I see it.. the major problem is deciding what people want. Do they REALLY want lower cost healthcare?

Seriously.. do you pay the bill for healthcare? No.. you insurance does. So when you lower the cost of healthcare.. who really benefits.

OR do you want lower PREMIUMS for people? So they can have affordable healthcare insurance so they can go to the doctor of their choice.. when they need it and get the care they need?

and we have already discussed costs and why they are different than in other countries..

You mentioned Spain and other countries. I can go to other countries.. and have.. and have had products made for pennies on the dollar. Because the average wage is much lower. Check out spain's average wage.

Shall we state that cost is unbalanced because it costs less to make a product in China, than the US?
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure we could get much of anything past the insurance lobby that doesn't increase their profits.
What do we want? We want to be able to afford health care, that's what we want. What we need is a control on runaway costs, overall costs, including insurance premiums.

Here's an example, from the point of view of the patient: My son was born in 1969. Insurance did not cover a normal childbirth. so we had to come up with $250 to cover the cost of a normal childbirth and an overnight stay in the hospital. Insurance was there in case of complications (good thing, there were complications).
When my first grandson was born in 2001, the cost had gone up to $10,000, now covered by insurance.
A great niece was born a couple of years ago. The cost, $23,000. That's what, 90 times or so what my son cost? Sure, things cost more than they did in '69, but not that much more.

And, costs continue to climb. How much will it have to cost before neither the insurance company nor the family can afford to have a child born in a US hospital? Is $50,000 too much? $100,000? It's getting there, and, sooner or later, costs will simply be unaffordable.

Insurance premiums have more than doubled since I retired back in '04. Nothing else has gone up that much. People like to blame "Obamacare" for the increase, but the fact is that premiums have been going up by double digits for years. So, how much must premiums cost before only the very wealthy can afford them? Is $2000 a month too much? $3,000? They'll soon be there, and higher. Employers won't be able to afford them, and neither will individuals.

What we want is to have access to health care at a reasonable price. What we need is to control costs before the whole system collapses.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Here's an example, from the point of view of the patient: My son was born in 1969. Insurance did not cover a normal childbirth. so we had to come up with $250 to cover the cost of a normal childbirth and an overnight stay in the hospital. Insurance was there in case of complications (good thing, there were complications).
When my first grandson was born in 2001, the cost had gone up to $10,000, now covered by insurance.
A great niece was born a couple of years ago. The cost, $23,000. That's what, 90 times or so what my son cost? Sure, things cost more than they did in '69, but not that much more.

Insurance premiums have more than doubled since I retired back in '04. Nothing else has gone up that much. People like to blame "Obamacare" for the increase, but the fact is that premiums have been going up by double digits for years. So, how much must premiums cost before only the very wealthy can afford them? Is $2000 a month too much? $3,000? They'll soon be there, and higher. Employers won't be able to afford them, and neither will individuals.

What we want is to have access to health care at a reasonable price. What we need is to control costs before the whole system collapses.
Click to expand...

exactly.. you say you want affordable healthcare. Yet you don;t pay for the majority of your healthcare, nor does anyone else. the insurance company pays for it. And when you lower the cost of healthcare.. they make more profit. And the medical system makes less money and responds accordingly.

insurance premiums are not "cost of healthcare"..

Here's an example, from the point of view of the patient: My son was born in 1969. Insurance did not cover a normal childbirth. so we had to come up with $250 to cover the cost of a normal childbirth and an overnight stay in the hospital. Insurance was there in case of complications (good thing, there were complications).
When my first grandson was born in 2001, the cost had gone up to $10,000, now covered by insurance.
A great niece was born a couple of years ago. The cost, $23,000. That's what, 90 times or so what my son cost? Sure, things cost more than they did in '69, but not that much more.
Click to expand...

but that's because medical system works different. Number one.. when your son was born in 1969.. there was little in the way of neonatal care. So if your son was born a seriously premature.. he would likely have died. Today he would have survived most likely. they would have had a neonatal unit, a they would have neonatal specialists.. special ventilators all a host of equipment available if he needed it.

Now.. that equipment and staff all have huge costs.. and your nieces 23,000 covered that cost to some degree. That's because you pay for that equipment to be available when and if you need it. Now the number of people that use that equipment? Too few to actually pay for that cost. the 6 or say patients a month.. that need that equipment could not afford all that cost.. so that cost is shifted to the rest of the hospital patients.

That means that if you need that equipment its available even though the very few that need it... aren't enough to sustain it on their own.

That goes the same for MRI, and all sorts of other technology. In other countries... to cut down on costs.. they don't have that equipment available. If you need it... you might be lucky enough to be shipped to a facility and hope its in time. (of course.. having such rural states makes us have more trouble than more urbanized Europe when it comes to this).

So that's just one factor of cost shifting. Its how a hospital system can have high tech/high cost lifesaving options for people when the number of people that need it at any one time simply don't justify the cost. In America.. we value the individual.. more than the whole. So if everyone has a higher cost so that little jimmy with no insurance can get lifesaving treatment.. we are okay with it.

The second part of cost shifting is the insurance factor. Number one.. I doubt that 23,000 actually was paid by the insurance.. it was probably much much lower. In fact it would not surprise me that the actual allotment was LESS than it was in 2001.

Secondly.. its very possible that the insurance company is more willing top pay for births..and pays better.. than for other procedures. And therefore more of the bill is placed on that service to make up for lower reimbursement on another service.
 
jaeger19 said:
exactly.. you say you want affordable healthcare. Yet you don;t pay for the majority of your healthcare, nor does anyone else. the insurance company pays for it. And when you lower the cost of healthcare.. they make more profit. And the medical system makes less money and responds accordingly.

insurance premiums are not "cost of healthcare"..



but that's because medical system works different. Number one.. when your son was born in 1969.. there was little in the way of neonatal care. So if your son was born a seriously premature.. he would likely have died. Today he would have survived most likely. they would have had a neonatal unit, a they would have neonatal specialists.. special ventilators all a host of equipment available if he needed it.

Now.. that equipment and staff all have huge costs.. and your nieces 23,000 covered that cost to some degree. That's because you pay for that equipment to be available when and if you need it. Now the number of people that use that equipment? Too few to actually pay for that cost. the 6 or say patients a month.. that need that equipment could not afford all that cost.. so that cost is shifted to the rest of the hospital patients.

That means that if you need that equipment its available even though the very few that need it... aren't enough to sustain it on their own.

That goes the same for MRI, and all sorts of other technology. In other countries... to cut down on costs.. they don't have that equipment available. If you need it... you might be lucky enough to be shipped to a facility and hope its in time. (of course.. having such rural states makes us have more trouble than more urbanized Europe when it comes to this).

So that's just one factor of cost shifting. Its how a hospital system can have high tech/high cost lifesaving options for people when the number of people that need it at any one time simply don't justify the cost. In America.. we value the individual.. more than the whole. So if everyone has a higher cost so that little jimmy with no insurance can get lifesaving treatment.. we are okay with it.

The second part of cost shifting is the insurance factor. Number one.. I doubt that 23,000 actually was paid by the insurance.. it was probably much much lower. In fact it would not surprise me that the actual allotment was LESS than it was in 2001.

Secondly.. its very possible that the insurance company is more willing top pay for births..and pays better.. than for other procedures. And therefore more of the bill is placed on that service to make up for lower reimbursement on another service.
Click to expand...

I doubt that the insurance company paid $23,000 too.

I've seen more than one EOMB that lists the amount billed to the insurance at more than double what was actually paid. That makes me wonder just what the bill is for the uninsured patient.

We keep going back to the cost of insurance vs. the cost of care. It seems to me that there needs to be a requirement that a high percentage of the money collected in premiums is paid out to providers. I really thought there was such a requirement built into "Obamacare", but maybe not.

And, if costs go down, then premiums need to go down as well.

We tend to think that the cost of premiums is born by someone else usually the employer, but the fact of the matter is that the employer could pay better wages if they didn't have to pay for outrageous insurance premiums.

It seems to me we've just scratched the surface of medical care reform. From your posts, I'd also conclude that reforming the medical care system is complex and, like so many issues, not to be addressed by simplistic fixes.

Now, here's a question: Obamacare, a step in the right direction, a setback, or neither?
 
Dittohead not! said:
I doubt that the insurance company paid $23,000 too.

I've seen more than one EOMB that lists the amount billed to the insurance at more than double what was actually paid. That makes me wonder just what the bill is for the uninsured patient.

We keep going back to the cost of insurance vs. the cost of care. It seems to me that there needs to be a requirement that a high percentage of the money collected in premiums is paid out to providers. I really thought there was such a requirement built into "Obamacare", but maybe not.

And, if costs go down, then premiums need to go down as well.

We tend to think that the cost of premiums is born by someone else usually the employer, but the fact of the matter is that the employer could pay better wages if they didn't have to pay for outrageous insurance premiums.

It seems to me we've just scratched the surface of medical care reform. From your posts, I'd also conclude that reforming the medical care system is complex and, like so many issues, not to be addressed by simplistic fixes.

Now, here's a question: Obamacare, a step in the right direction, a setback, or neither?
Click to expand...

Hmmm... that's a tough question about Obamacare.

In some ways.. a step in the right direction.

1. It sure has heck gotten healthcare insurance into the forefront politically and that's a good thing. People now research their insurance before they need it a lot more than before.

2. the mandate for everyone to have health insurance was a step in the right direction

3. Getting rid of pre existing conditions was a step in the right direction.

4. The exchanges were a step in the right direction.

(almost all republican ideas by the way.. despite the fact that we are running from it)

Moves in the wrong direction.

1. Huge mistake was subsidizing healthcare. BAD BAD BAD. Putting the government on the hook puts the insurance companies in the drivers seat. Now the insurance companies can extort the government for money or threaten "or we pull out of coverage".. leaving thousands of uncovered and pissed off voters.

2. Requiring businesses to provide healthcare or be fined. We should be moving away from employer sponsored healthcare ,, not toward it.

3. Taxing insurance policies that cost "too much". the Cadillac tax... which is nothing but Cadillac since its based on cost not actually what the coverage is.. is absurd. Why tax people more because they have expensive healthcare insurance?

4. Expansion of Medicaid? Hmmm.. I'll call that a push.

5. There have been unintended consequences of the reforms directed at the healthcare industry. Currently we are seeing real problems with whats called "bundled payments".. Now hospitals are being paid a bundled payment based on where the patient ends up. Its intended to reward the hospitals for providing better care and getting patients to lower levels of care appropriately.

Unfortunately.. what has been happening is that the hospitals are pushing patients to lower levels of care.. like assisted living (which medicare DOES NOT pay for)... rather than discharge to more appropriate levels of care like a skilled nursing facility. AND they are pushing other entities like SNF's to discharge patients regardless of their needs to meet certain time frames.

I just had a meeting in one of our facilities where the hospital gives the area SNF's a "report card" .. and we rank among the bottom.. (though we are the facility of choice and have the best outcomes in the area). and that's because they feel our length of stay is too long. But that's because we get patients to the highest levels that they can attain.. (which is their right under medicare). rather than meet an artificial discharge date regardless of their home situation, medical condition or potential for recovery.

I just saw a patient that should have had full on rehabilitation.. just after a stroke.. who instead was sent to an assistive living place by the hospital and languished there for months getting home nursing without therapy.

He finally said enough.. and demanded therapy.. and now he is walking again.. and using his hand.. but he will probably never reach the level he could have if therapy had been done from the get go. (studies show that early intervention in CVA with therapy is the number one indicator of full recovery)..
 
jaeger19 said:
Hmmm... that's a tough question about Obamacare.

In some ways.. a step in the right direction.

1. It sure has heck gotten healthcare insurance into the forefront politically and that's a good thing. People now research their insurance before they need it a lot more than before.

2. the mandate for everyone to have health insurance was a step in the right direction

3. Getting rid of pre existing conditions was a step in the right direction.

4. The exchanges were a step in the right direction.

(almost all republican ideas by the way.. despite the fact that we are running from it)

Moves in the wrong direction.

1. Huge mistake was subsidizing healthcare. BAD BAD BAD. Putting the government on the hook puts the insurance companies in the drivers seat. Now the insurance companies can extort the government for money or threaten "or we pull out of coverage".. leaving thousands of uncovered and pissed off voters.

2. Requiring businesses to provide healthcare or be fined. We should be moving away from employer sponsored healthcare ,, not toward it.

3. Taxing insurance policies that cost "too much". the Cadillac tax... which is nothing but Cadillac since its based on cost not actually what the coverage is.. is absurd. Why tax people more because they have expensive healthcare insurance?

4. Expansion of Medicaid? Hmmm.. I'll call that a push.

5. There have been unintended consequences of the reforms directed at the healthcare industry. Currently we are seeing real problems with whats called "bundled payments".. Now hospitals are being paid a bundled payment based on where the patient ends up. Its intended to reward the hospitals for providing better care and getting patients to lower levels of care appropriately.

Unfortunately.. what has been happening is that the hospitals are pushing patients to lower levels of care.. like assisted living (which medicare DOES NOT pay for)... rather than discharge to more appropriate levels of care like a skilled nursing facility. AND they are pushing other entities like SNF's to discharge patients regardless of their needs to meet certain time frames.

I just had a meeting in one of our facilities where the hospital gives the area SNF's a "report card" .. and we rank among the bottom.. (though we are the facility of choice and have the best outcomes in the area). and that's because they feel our length of stay is too long. But that's because we get patients to the highest levels that they can attain.. (which is their right under medicare). rather than meet an artificial discharge date regardless of their home situation, medical condition or potential for recovery.

I just saw a patient that should have had full on rehabilitation.. just after a stroke.. who instead was sent to an assistive living place by the hospital and languished there for months getting home nursing without therapy.

He finally said enough.. and demanded therapy.. and now he is walking again.. and using his hand.. but he will probably never reach the level he could have if therapy had been done from the get go. (studies show that early intervention in CVA with therapy is the number one indicator of full recovery)..
Click to expand...

That's a great analysis from someone with first hand knowledge of the results of the ACA. I think I'll bookmark it to show to the people with simplistic ideas like, "Repeal every word of Obamacare" or "Thanks, Obama, for giving us medical insurance."

It's a mixed bag that still needs work. Our medical care system was far from perfect before, and it's far from perfect now.

Now, if only we had a functioning Congress that could actually address the issues without resorting to simplistic answers and partisan ranting, but alas.
 
Dittohead not! said:
That's a great analysis from someone with first hand knowledge of the results of the ACA. I think I'll bookmark it to show to the people with simplistic ideas like, "Repeal every word of Obamacare" or "Thanks, Obama, for giving us medical insurance."

It's a mixed bag that still needs work. Our medical care system was far from perfect before, and it's far from perfect now.

Now, if only we had a functioning Congress that could actually address the issues without resorting to simplistic answers and partisan ranting, but alas.
Click to expand...

So true.

Honestly.. if I think that solutions are not that hard. Start small.

1. repeal the mandate on employers providing healthcare, repeal the Cadillac tax. That's will give the republicans a bone they can sell to their constituents.. and frankly.. Democrats have not been too fond of these two provisions.. its why there has been a moratorium on then anyway. Unions aren't happy to now get taxed on healthcare benefits that they have fought hard for.

2. Expand the federal exchange so anyone can purchase.. whether their employer offers coverage, whether they have a state exchange etc.

3. I don't know exactly how to cork the genie of subsidies that has been let out. That's a political loser for democrats and republicans. Perhaps do it by offering a public option..instead of a subsidy to a private company?

Set up HSA plans so employers can pay into the plan and let their employees purchase their own healthcare plans.
 
Why not just switch to a national healthcare system as every other developed country has done. The average costs half as much per capita what ours does. http://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/0006_health-care-oecd-full.gif

The costs it would save include high CEO and officer compensation agreements, profits, advertising costs, legal departments, and marketing costs. It would also eliminate what insiders say is one of the greatest contributors to high medical costs and that is the absurd situation of having a different price for different ways of paying for the same service. What do I mean? I mean that when you go to a doctor for a treatment or exam or other service and you ask what it will cost, the first thing that happens is that the office personnel asks if you have insurance. The price is different for an insured patient, a medicare patient, and a self-funding patient. And this prevents price competition between facilities.

National healthcare would eliminate this.

I believe the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic do not participate in "fee for service". Their doctors are paid a salary. If they do not charge for each x-ray and each blood draw and each MRI, but receive a facility percentage per patient or some other arrangement that avoids itemized charges for each thing used, done, provided, or consumed, it would eliminate much of the fraud that plagues Medicare today.

And personally I don't relish the idea of wading through a list of alternative medical plans by different companies offering different coverage, different co-pays, different deductibles, different annual out-of-pocket maximums, for different premiums. National healthcare would mean there's no question: you're covered. Just go the the doctor when you need to and it is paid for by taxation.

Now, why doesn't congress do it? Why don't they change us to national healthcare? The answer is that they are not "incentivized" to do it because insurance companies and medical entities "incentivize" them to keep it expensive and keep it profitable for them.
 
Senter said:
Why not just switch to a national healthcare system as every other developed country has done. The average costs half as much per capita what ours does. http://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/0006_health-care-oecd-full.gif

The costs it would save include high CEO and officer compensation agreements, profits, advertising costs, legal departments, and marketing costs. It would also eliminate what insiders say is one of the greatest contributors to high medical costs and that is the absurd situation of having a different price for different ways of paying for the same service. What do I mean? I mean that when you go to a doctor for a treatment or exam or other service and you ask what it will cost, the first thing that happens is that the office personnel asks if you have insurance. The price is different for an insured patient, a medicare patient, and a self-funding patient. And this prevents price competition between facilities.

National healthcare would eliminate this.

I believe the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic do not participate in "fee for service". Their doctors are paid a salary. If they do not charge for each x-ray and each blood draw and each MRI, but receive a facility percentage per patient or some other arrangement that avoids itemized charges for each thing used, done, provided, or consumed, it would eliminate much of the fraud that plagues Medicare today.

And personally I don't relish the idea of wading through a list of alternative medical plans by different companies offering different coverage, different co-pays, different deductibles, different annual out-of-pocket maximums, for different premiums. National healthcare would mean there's no question: you're covered. Just go the the doctor when you need to and it is paid for by taxation.

Now, why doesn't congress do it? Why don't they change us to national healthcare? The answer is that they are not "incentivized" to do it because insurance companies and medical entities "incentivize" them to keep it expensive and keep it profitable for them.
Click to expand...

A few points.

As has been pointed out.. their costs are really not that much less than ours. For a variety of reasons. But one is because other countries shift costs from medical to other areas in that calculation..

for example.. those countries pay for their physicians education.. so the cost is put under education.

In America.. the consumer ultimately is paying for that education.. so it gets put under cost of healthcare/.

Second. Studies show that physicians that are in hospital settings tend to order more services than those in private clinics. That's because the hospital wants to maximize its reimbursement and therefore it encourages its employees to "be more productive".

Third.. national healthcare DOES NOT.. mean that "your covered". It means that certain things are covered. In many countries.. their national healthcare is the same or WORSE than our worst insurance which is Medicaid... for the vast majority of americans.. to get the savings you want,,., their coverage would have to decrease.. not increase.
 
jaeger19 said:
A few points.

As has been pointed out.. their costs are really not that much less than ours. For a variety of reasons. But one is because other countries shift costs from medical to other areas in that calculation..

for example.. those countries pay for their physicians education.. so the cost is put under education.

In America.. the consumer ultimately is paying for that education.. so it gets put under cost of healthcare/.
Click to expand...

in many of those countries, all education is paid for by taxes, --not just medical education. Here, it is hoped that employment will enable the new doctors to pay off the new, higher loans incurred these days.


Second. Studies show that physicians that are in hospital settings tend to order more services than those in private clinics. That's because the hospital wants to maximize its reimbursement and therefore it encourages its employees to "be more productive".
Click to expand...
Right. And it happens in non-hospital settings too. Maybe we should look into how other countries prevent or minimize that practice. One similar problem is doctors pushing drugs because a pharmaceutical company made a deal with the administrator who told his staff to push the drug. That could be ended if government had the desire to end it. [/QUOTE]


Third.. national healthcare DOES NOT.. mean that "your covered". It means that certain things are covered. In many countries.. their national healthcare is the same or WORSE than our worst insurance which is Medicaid... for the vast majority of americans.. to get the savings you want,,., their coverage would have to decrease.. not increase.
Click to expand...
What about the countries that have near-equal or better medical care under their national healthcare program? Canada is quite good according to Canadians. Heck, Cuba is even better by all accounts. You're saying we can't do any better and we should just stay with the mess we have. I don't agree.
 
Senter said:
in many of those countries, all education is paid for by taxes, --not just medical education. Here, it is hoped that employment will enable the new doctors to pay off the new, higher loans incurred these days..
Click to expand...

Exactly which means that these countries are incurring the same costs.. they have shifted medical costs into education. As I already pointed out.

Right. And it happens in non-hospital settings too. Maybe we should look into how other countries prevent or minimize that practice. One similar problem is doctors pushing drugs because a pharmaceutical company made a deal with the administrator who told his staff to push the drug. That could be ended if government had the desire to end it
Click to expand...

Well actually most other countries actually have more problems with corruption than we do. That can happen when its put all under one basket.

What about the countries that have near-equal or better medical care under their national healthcare program? Canada is quite good according to Canadians. Heck, Cuba is even better by all accounts. You're saying we can't do any better and we should just stay with the mess we have. I don't agree
Click to expand...
.

That's meme is so tiresome.
You're saying we can't do any better and we should just stay with the mess we have. I don't agree
Click to expand...

I defy you to find anywhere I say we can't do better. In fact.. if you bother to read this thread you will see multiple times things that we can improve.. from insurance.. to actually healthcare.. for example preventative medicine.

but we need to UNDERSTAND healthcare and how healthcare systems work. The advantages and disadvantages. For most people in America.. if they were to receive Canada quality care.. they would be pissed because it would be a downgrade from what they have.

I don't agree that we need to make 89% of americans healthcare WORSE.. to improve healthcare for the other 11%. I think it makes more sense to improve healthcare for the other 11%.
 
Dittohead not! said:
, anyone else from a country that has universal health care:

Would you trade your nation's system for that of the United States, either pre or post "Obmamacare"?

Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Dual citizen, and like hell I'd trade in UHC for the staggeringly over-costed, inhumane and wasteful abomination that is the US healthcare system, whether pre or post ACA.
 
Dittohead not! said:
, anyone else from a country that has universal health care:

Would you trade your nation's system for that of the United States, either pre or post "Obmamacare"?

Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Born in the communist ex-YU. Many DP posters won't believe this, but we did OK under that system.

Grew up in the UK with the NHS, in which I trained and worked.

Now in France with our Sécurité Sociale and I also work in the system.

All three systems fantastic, providing excellent care, accessible to all. Wouldn't ever swap for the US system - many above have articulated very well why but in a nutshell for me, it's the fact that nobody has to worry about being ill as a financial burden, nor are we tied to jobs we hate just for the health insurance that comes with it as some I know in the US are.

When WHO used to publish health system league tables, France and Sweden consistently jostled for first place. Two socialised systems.

Health for profit breeds inequality and exploitation.
 
jaeger19 said:
Exactly which means that these countries are incurring the same costs.. they have shifted medical costs into education. As I already pointed out.



Well actually most other countries actually have more problems with corruption than we do. That can happen when its put all under one basket.

.

That's meme is so tiresome.

I defy you to find anywhere I say we can't do better. In fact.. if you bother to read this thread you will see multiple times things that we can improve.. from insurance.. to actually healthcare.. for example preventative medicine.

but we need to UNDERSTAND healthcare and how healthcare systems work. The advantages and disadvantages. For most people in America.. if they were to receive Canada quality care.. they would be pissed because it would be a downgrade from what they have.

I don't agree that we need to make 89% of americans healthcare WORSE.. to improve healthcare for the other 11%. I think it makes more sense to improve healthcare for the other 11%.
Click to expand...

You know not whereof you write.
Canadians live longer than people in the United States. Specifically, women in Canada live an average of 83 years, compared to 80 in the U.S.; men live more than 78 years on average compared to 75 in the United States. Why is this the case? There are clear links between mortality rates and the way countries invest in health care and improving social conditions.

(. . .) For every additional hundred dollars spent on health care in Canada, per capita, life expectancy was extended by nearly two months. The same expenditures were only associated with less than half a month of increased life expectancy in the United States.
Click to expand...

For those who bother to click thru, please note the title of the article.

Here's the kicker - well, it is for those who have a clue that "free market capitalism" should not be the controlling factor in healthcare.
it’s not only how much money is spent, but how the money is spent that matters. And it’s not only spending on health care that makes a large difference to health outcomes. In our study, a country’s social investments contributed to significant increases in longevity.
Click to expand...
 
Somerville said:
You know not whereof you write.


For those who bother to click thru, please note the title of the article.

Here's the kicker - well, it is for those who have a clue that "free market capitalism" should not be the controlling factor in healthcare.
Click to expand...

Yawn.... I know of what I speak.

I just pointed out that we should do better with preventative medicine. That's an area where we could improve greatly. Of course that is also a cultural component as well.

And yes.. Americans would be pissed if they had Canadian healthcare.. because things like waiting times for specialists.. the ability to choose your specialist,., the ability to get certain procedures when you want them and not because of government protocol.. matters to americans.
A study by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonpartisan research foundation that promotes improved health care access and quality, showed that 57 percent of adults in Canada who needed a specialist said they waited more than four weeks for an appointment, versus only 23 percent who said so in the US.
Click to expand...

Wait times for elective and non-emergency surgery were even more disparate: Thirty-three percent of Canadians reported a wait time of more than four months, but only 8 percent of Americans had to wait that long. In another study, 27 percent of Canadians said that waiting times were their biggest complaint about their health system, versus only 3 percent of Americans.
Click to expand...
 
jaeger19 said:
Yawn.... I know of what I speak.

I just pointed out that we should do better with preventative medicine. That's an area where we could improve greatly. Of course that is also a cultural component as well.

And yes.. Americans would be pissed if they had Canadian healthcare.. because things like waiting times for specialists.. the ability to choose your specialist,., the ability to get certain procedures when you want them and not because of government protocol.. matters to americans.
Click to expand...

If you knew you wouldn't be posting such garbage.
 
Manc Skipper said:
If you knew you wouldn't be posting such garbage.
Click to expand...

Sorry.. but other than insults.. can you bring any support to your claims....

Cause I have posted a LOT of evidence on this thread. A LOT.. and in fact just did.


A study by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonpartisan research foundation that promotes improved health care access and quality, showed that 57 percent of adults in Canada who needed a specialist said they waited more than four weeks for an appointment, versus only 23 percent who said so in the US.
Wait times for elective and non-emergency surgery were even more disparate: Thirty-three percent of Canadians reported a wait time of more than four months, but only 8 percent of Americans had to wait that long. In another study, 27 percent of Canadians said that waiting times were their biggest complaint about their health system, versus only 3 percent of Americans.
Click to expand...
 
jaeger19 said:
Sorry.. but other than insults.. can you bring any support to your claims....

Cause I have posted a LOT of evidence on this thread. A LOT.. and in fact just did.
Click to expand...

I think Manc Skipper has first hand knowledge of how single payer universal health care works.

You would think that he could have had his wrinkly member fixed by now, though.:mrgreen:
 
Dittohead not! said:
I think Manc Skipper has first hand knowledge of how single payer universal health care works.

You would think that he could have had his wrinkly member fixed by now, though.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Well.. the question is whether Manc Skipper is an authority on how all single payer universal healthcare works in all countries.

and whether he is also an authority of how the American system works.

He demonstrates that he is neither. But certainly if he can bring some objective evidence that I have not already brought up or discussed.. he is welcome to the party.
 
Don't just take my word for it.


CpXJLOBWEAAYLFo.jpg:large
 
Manc Skipper said:
Don't just take my word for it.


CpXJLOBWEAAYLFo.jpg:large
Click to expand...

Yawn... already been over this.

A study by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonpartisan research foundation that promotes improved health care access and quality, showed that 57 percent of adults in Canada who needed a specialist said they waited more than four weeks for an appointment, versus only 23 percent who said so in the US.
Wait times for elective and non-emergency surgery were even more disparate: Thirty-three percent of Canadians reported a wait time of more than four months, but only 8 percent of Americans had to wait that long. In another study, 27 percent of Canadians said that waiting times were their biggest complaint about their health system, versus only 3 percent of Americans.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that rather than lower our healthcare down to the level of our poorest without insurance.. we should raise our poorest up to where the rest of americans are.

Which is better on average than other single payer countries. for most americans. single payer like Canada or the UK would be a downgrade.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yawn... already been over this.



I would suggest that rather than lower our healthcare down to the level of our poorest without insurance.. we should raise our poorest up to where the rest of americans are.

Which is better on average than other single payer countries. for most americans. single payer like Canada or the UK would be a downgrade.
Click to expand...

Sez you. The thing about healthcare is that there's no choice, you need it, whether rich or poor. The other thing about averages is you have to include all the population, not just the ones that make your shonky "system" look better.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Sez you. The thing about healthcare is that there's no choice, you need it, whether rich or poor. The other thing about averages is you have to include all the population, not just the ones that make your shonky "system" look better.
Click to expand...

Not just "sez me".. I have presented tons of links proving my points.

And I don't think you get the irony of your post.

The other thing about averages is you have to include all the population, not just the ones that make your shonky "system" look better
Click to expand...

I don't think you realize that the data you presented did NOT include all of the population. The data you presented was "Percentage of Respondents with Below Average Income"

Right there in the title Dude. Oh the irony. :lamo

Meanwhile.. the information I presented was taken as a whole population.

YOU sir cherry picked a population to try and make our "shonky system" look worse.. and then have the temerity to claim I need to "include all of the population"

Too Funny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom