Time for "socialist" healthcare?

[zefrendylia]

US Health Care Expensive, Inefficient: Report
By Maggie Fox
Reuters

Tuesday 15 May 2007

Americans get the poorest health care and yet pay the most compared to five other rich countries, according to a report released on Tuesday.

Germany, Britain, Australia and Canada all provide better care for less money, the Commonwealth Fund report found.

"The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes," the non-profit group which studies health care issues said in a statement.

Canada rates second worst out of the five overall. Germany scored highest, followed by Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

"The United States is not getting value for the money that is spent on health care," Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis said in a telephone interview.

The group has consistently found that the United States, the only one of the six nations that does not provide universal health care, scores more poorly than the others on many measures of health care.

Congress, President George W. Bush, many employers and insurers have all agreed in recent months to overhaul the U.S. health care system - an uncoordinated conglomeration of employer-funded care, private health insurance and government programs.

The current system leaves about 45 million people with no insurance at all, according to U.S. government estimates from 2005, and many studies have shown most of these people do not receive preventive services that not only keep them healthier, but reduce long-term costs.

Davis said the fund's researchers looked at hard data for the report.

"It is pretty indisputable that we spend twice what other countries spend on average," she said.

Per capita health spending in the United States in 2004 was $6,102, twice that of Germany, which spent $3,005. Canada spent $3,165, New Zealand $2,083 and Australia $2,876, while Britain spent $2,546 per person.

Key Measures

"We focus primarily on measures that are sensitive to medical care making a difference - infant mortality and healthy lives at age 60," Davis said. "Those are pretty key measures, like how long you live and whether you are going to die before age 75."

Measures of other aspects of care such as cataract surgery or hip replacements is harder to come by, she said.

They also looked at convenience and again found the United States lacking - with a few exceptions.

"We include measures such as waiting more than four months for elective, non-emergency surgery. The United States doesn't do as well as Germany but it does a lot better than the other countries on waiting time for surgery," Davis said.

"We looked at the time it takes to get in to see your own doctor ... (or) once you go to the emergency room do you sit there for more than two hours, and truthfully, we don't do well on those measures," Davis said.

According to the report, 61 percent of U.S. patients said it was somewhat or very difficult to get care on nights or weekends, compared with 25 percent to 59 percent in other countries.

"The area where the U.S. health care system performs best is preventive care, an area that has been monitored closely for over a decade by managed care plans," the report reads.

The United States had the fewest patients - 84 percent - reporting that they have a regular doctor.

And U.S. doctors are the least wired, with the lowest percentage using electronic medical records or receiving electronic updates on recommended treatments.

----------------------------------------------------

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fund

What's even more disastrous are these expensive premiums (due to the profitability and inefficiency of HMOs) incur substantial costs on American employers. This increases the cost of doing business, degrades their worldwide competitive advantage, and because of NAFTA, FTAs and the like--American employers are packing up and moving overseas to places where its cheaper. As a result massive amounts of middle class and working class Americans are losing quality jobs. :coffee:

[Hobbit]

I somehow doubt those countries provide 'better' health care, especially with such vague, subjective terms as 'quality' and such meaningless terms as 'access' and 'equity.' Ranking low on the equity scale means people actually have to pay for their own health care.

And one of the reasons our health care costs so much is because those socialized systems force the price of medical products (drugs, prosthetics, etc.) artificially low by threatening to revoke the patents and making it themselves. Because of this, the United States bears nearly the entire burden of paying for innovation. If the U.S. adopted the Canadian and European health care systems, we'd stop seeing new drugs on the market, and the first time a bug gains resistance to all modern antibiotics, we have a death on our hands because freeloaders don't want to pay for their own health care.

Then there's tort reform. Did you know that 85% of all obstetricians have been sued? Do you have any idea how low the chances are of defending such a suit, or the costs of that defense? Did you also know that that cost is passed on to those who purchase services from those doctors?

Socialized health care in the United States, if enacted, will be an unmitigated disaster, worldwide. We have problems, but handing those problems over to the government will only make things worse. Do you really want the same people who run the DMV running the ER?

[Said1]

And one of the reasons our health care costs so much is because those socialized systems force the price of medical products (drugs, prosthetics, etc.) artificially low by threatening to revoke the patents and making it themselves. Because of this, the United States bears nearly the entire burden of paying for innovation. If the U.S. adopted the Canadian and European health care systems, we'd stop seeing new drugs on the market, and the first time a bug gains resistance to all modern antibiotics, we have a death on our hands because freeloaders don't want to pay for their own health care.?

I'd enjoy reading the study/report etc the above was taken from, got a link to the actual stats or the opt-ed with the links the info came from?

[Trigg]

US Health Care Expensive, Inefficient: Report
By Maggie Fox
Reuters

Tuesday 15 May 2007

Americans get the poorest health care and yet pay the most compared to five other rich countries, according to a report released on Tuesday.

Germany, Britain, Australia and Canada all provide better care for less money, the Commonwealth Fund report found.

"The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes," the non-profit group which studies health care issues said in a statement.

Canada rates second worst out of the five overall. Germany scored highest, followed by Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

"The United States is not getting value for the money that is spent on health care," Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis said in a telephone interview.

The group has consistently found that the United States, the only one of the six nations that does not provide universal health care, scores more poorly than the others on many measures of health care.

Congress, President George W. Bush, many employers and insurers have all agreed in recent months to overhaul the U.S. health care system - an uncoordinated conglomeration of employer-funded care, private health insurance and government programs.

The current system leaves about 45 million people with no insurance at all, according to U.S. government estimates from 2005, and many studies have shown most of these people do not receive preventive services that not only keep them healthier, but reduce long-term costs.

Davis said the fund's researchers looked at hard data for the report.

"It is pretty indisputable that we spend twice what other countries spend on average," she said.

Per capita health spending in the United States in 2004 was $6,102, twice that of Germany, which spent $3,005. Canada spent $3,165, New Zealand $2,083 and Australia $2,876, while Britain spent $2,546 per person.

Key Measures

"We focus primarily on measures that are sensitive to medical care making a difference - infant mortality and healthy lives at age 60," Davis said. "Those are pretty key measures, like how long you live and whether you are going to die before age 75."

Measures of other aspects of care such as cataract surgery or hip replacements is harder to come by, she said.

They also looked at convenience and again found the United States lacking - with a few exceptions.

"We include measures such as waiting more than four months for elective, non-emergency surgery. The United States doesn't do as well as Germany but it does a lot better than the other countries on waiting time for surgery," Davis said.

"We looked at the time it takes to get in to see your own doctor ... (or) once you go to the emergency room do you sit there for more than two hours, and truthfully, we don't do well on those measures," Davis said.

According to the report, 61 percent of U.S. patients said it was somewhat or very difficult to get care on nights or weekends, compared with 25 percent to 59 percent in other countries.

"The area where the U.S. health care system performs best is preventive care, an area that has been monitored closely for over a decade by managed care plans," the report reads.

The United States had the fewest patients - 84 percent - reporting that they have a regular doctor.

And U.S. doctors are the least wired, with the lowest percentage using electronic medical records or receiving electronic updates on recommended treatments.

----------------------------------------------------

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fund

What's even more disastrous are these expensive premiums (due to the profitability and inefficiency of HMOs) incur substantial costs on American employers. This increases the cost of doing business, degrades their worldwide competitive advantage, and because of NAFTA, FTAs and the like--American employers are packing up and moving overseas to places where its cheaper. As a result massive amounts of middle class and working class Americans are losing quality jobs. :coffee:

Gee, I don't know. After listening to my sister who lives in Finland talk about waiting a month for an MRI and working in Florida for years and seeing the Canadians who come here for faster health care. I don't think we have it to bad.


Liked this bit
"The area where the U.S. health care system performs best is preventive care, an area that has been monitored closely for over a decade by managed care plans," the report reads."

Again, after watching what my sister has gone through, the medical community over there waits until the problem is full blown to do anything about it.

Yes, the US can have expensive health care, but how is this any different than the extreme taxes the Europeans pay for their "free care"???

[Psychoblues]

Don't expect a link or any actual study that can verify any of what was said there, Said1.



I'd enjoy reading the study/report etc the above was taken from, got a link to the actual stats or the opt-ed with the links the info came from?

Another opinion piece from a non expert on the subject.

[avatar4321]

It doesnt take a rocket scientists to understand that if you limit the amount companies can charge for medication that they arent going to spend the billions they need to develop those medications because they will never recoup the expenses of the research. Nor does it take a rocket scientist to understand that when other nations force you price down for drugs in their countries the price is going to have to go up somewhere else in order to recoup those loses or no more research will be done. Do you really need a link to understand that?

[Psychoblues]

Long past time, zyfrendylia.




US Health Care Expensive, Inefficient: Report
By Maggie Fox
Reuters

Tuesday 15 May 2007

Americans get the poorest health care and yet pay the most compared to five other rich countries, according to a report released on Tuesday.

Germany, Britain, Australia and Canada all provide better care for less money, the Commonwealth Fund report found.

"The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes," the non-profit group which studies health care issues said in a statement.

Canada rates second worst out of the five overall. Germany scored highest, followed by Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

"The United States is not getting value for the money that is spent on health care," Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis said in a telephone interview.

The group has consistently found that the United States, the only one of the six nations that does not provide universal health care, scores more poorly than the others on many measures of health care.

Congress, President George W. Bush, many employers and insurers have all agreed in recent months to overhaul the U.S. health care system - an uncoordinated conglomeration of employer-funded care, private health insurance and government programs.

The current system leaves about 45 million people with no insurance at all, according to U.S. government estimates from 2005, and many studies have shown most of these people do not receive preventive services that not only keep them healthier, but reduce long-term costs.

Davis said the fund's researchers looked at hard data for the report.

"It is pretty indisputable that we spend twice what other countries spend on average," she said.

Per capita health spending in the United States in 2004 was $6,102, twice that of Germany, which spent $3,005. Canada spent $3,165, New Zealand $2,083 and Australia $2,876, while Britain spent $2,546 per person.

Key Measures

"We focus primarily on measures that are sensitive to medical care making a difference - infant mortality and healthy lives at age 60," Davis said. "Those are pretty key measures, like how long you live and whether you are going to die before age 75."

Measures of other aspects of care such as cataract surgery or hip replacements is harder to come by, she said.

They also looked at convenience and again found the United States lacking - with a few exceptions.

"We include measures such as waiting more than four months for elective, non-emergency surgery. The United States doesn't do as well as Germany but it does a lot better than the other countries on waiting time for surgery," Davis said.

"We looked at the time it takes to get in to see your own doctor ... (or) once you go to the emergency room do you sit there for more than two hours, and truthfully, we don't do well on those measures," Davis said.

According to the report, 61 percent of U.S. patients said it was somewhat or very difficult to get care on nights or weekends, compared with 25 percent to 59 percent in other countries.

"The area where the U.S. health care system performs best is preventive care, an area that has been monitored closely for over a decade by managed care plans," the report reads.

The United States had the fewest patients - 84 percent - reporting that they have a regular doctor.

And U.S. doctors are the least wired, with the lowest percentage using electronic medical records or receiving electronic updates on recommended treatments.

----------------------------------------------------

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fund

What's even more disastrous are these expensive premiums (due to the profitability and inefficiency of HMOs) incur substantial costs on American employers. This increases the cost of doing business, degrades their worldwide competitive advantage, and because of NAFTA, FTAs and the like--American employers are packing up and moving overseas to places where its cheaper. As a result massive amounts of middle class and working class Americans are losing quality jobs. :coffee:

Hang in there, Americans are becoming more responsible for their civilisation and obligations to it every day!!!!!!!!!!! It will happen!!!!!!!!!!!

[diuretic]

Why are so many Americans opposed to single payer health care? I mean, seriously, why?

[LOki]

Why are so many Americans opposed to single payer health care? I mean, seriously, why?I think Americans are opposed to the notion that government coercion has valid contribution towards establishing one's healthcare options. I think Americans are also opposed to the notion that the government should forcibly take one person's healthcare money (or beer money) and arbitrarily give it to someone else.

[Psychoblues]

Is your opinion collective or selective. You said, "Americans are opposed".



I think Americans are opposed to the notion that government coercion has valid contribution towards establishing one's healthcare options. I think Americans are also opposed to the notion that the government should forcibly take one person's healthcare money (or beer money) and arbitrarily give it to someone else.

I am an American and I am not one of those you of which you speak. Otherwise, you explain a lot. Thanks for the contribution to the conversation!!!!!!!!!!!

[Said1]

It doesnt take a rocket scientists to understand that if you limit the amount companies can charge for medication that they arent going to spend the billions they need to develop those medications because they will never recoup the expenses of the research. Nor does it take a rocket scientist to understand that when other nations force you price down for drugs in their countries the price is going to have to go up somewhere else in order to recoup those loses or no more research will be done. Do you really need a link to understand that?

It would be interesting to see how that system worked, from a legit source. Why is that so hard to understand? Subsidizing and price capping aren't the same thing, either sooooo I though Hobbit might like to share his info. It's not rocket science. :laugh2:

[loosecannon]

Why are so many Americans opposed to single payer health care? I mean, seriously, why?


Because most Americans have been trained to reflexively reject anything that smells of socialism.

The free enterprize kool aid is spiked.

[loosecannon]

I think Americans are opposed to the notion that government coercion has valid contribution towards establishing one's healthcare options. I think Americans are also opposed to the notion that the government should forcibly take one person's healthcare money (or beer money) and arbitrarily give it to someone else.

But americans defend social security as much as anything!

[diuretic]

Thanks for those responses. It appears that it's social conditioning - some might call it social engineering. I would think that it would be useful to describe or even list the desirable features of a heatlh system and then see which system provides those desirable features rather than any of us have a reflexive response.

[loosecannon]

Thanks for those responses. It appears that it's social conditioning - some might call it social engineering. I would think that it would be useful to describe or even list the desirable features of a heatlh system and then see which system provides those desirable features rather than any of us have a reflexive response.

We are ostensibly gearing up for that debate. But big medicine will undoubtedly pull the mighty wool over many eyes.

[diuretic]

We are ostensibly gearing up for that debate. But big medicine will undoubtedly pull the mighty wool over many eyes.

It's understandable that they'd try. What would be useful would be for people to critically think about the issues rather than let themselves be beguiled by slogans and by outright propaganda. One of the questions I like to ask myself about anyone's presentation on a topic is, "what's in it for them?"

[loosecannon]

It's understandable that they'd try. What would be useful would be for people to critically think about the issues rather than let themselves be beguiled by slogans and by outright propaganda. One of the questions I like to ask myself about anyone's presentation on a topic is, "what's in it for them?"


Well to big Pharma it is a monopoly over the legal drug trade.

Big Tobacco and Big Pharma: same tactics, different chemicals


Have you ever thought about the similarities between pharmaceutical and tobacco companies? They're striking. Both sell products that kill people when used as directed. The statistics are readily available for pharmaceuticals, which kill around 100,000 Americans each year according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, and Big Tobacco, which makes tobacco products that are partly responsible for hundreds of thousands of cases of cancer in the United States each year. These are the facts from industry. Industry critics (such as myself) would argue that those numbers are actually much higher.
But let's look at other similarities. Aside from marketing products that actually kill people when used as directed, both industries are engaged in the blatant distortion of scientific evidence in order to mislead regulators and the public.

With Big Tobacco we saw the suppression of studies that said nicotine was addictive, or of studies linking the inhalation of tobacco smoke to lung cancer. In the pharmaceutical industry, we see even worse distortions of clinical studies. We see studies that are designed to minimize the appearance of negative risks associated with these drugs, such as heart attacks, stroke, mental disorders, suicide attempts, and violent behavior. Even after studies are completed, the results are highly distorted as well. Drug companies pick and choose which studies they want to publish. They may do twelve different studies on a particular drug, and if six of them say the drug is safe and effective, while the other six studies say the drug is dangerous and useless from a medicinal point of view, they pick the six they want and bury the others. They forward the six they want to the FDA. The FDA looks at those six and says, "This sure is scientific!", and they approve that drug application. I'm not making this up.

In the late 1990's, drug advertising appeared on television. That is, of course, another similarity between Big Tobacco and Big Pharma: they both use direct-to-consumer advertising to create demand for their products. For many years, tobacco companies sponsored sporting events; in fact, they still attempt to sponsor many sporting events. In the pharmaceutical industry, we see heavy magazine and television advertising, and hundreds of millions of dollars spent lobbying doctors, buying them gifts, trips (to Hawaii, believe it or not), air tickets, and stays in luxurious resorts. All doctors have to do is show up, sign in, and act like they're attending a continuing medical education course. They then can leave for the entire day, and go on the beach, go fishing, go surfing, and do whatever they want. It's an all-expenses-paid vacation.

Some people say, "No, that's ridiculous. That doesn't happen." I've actually been in Hawaii, talking to doctors who were attending such an event. I saw the entire room of about four hundred MD’s, and these people just signed in, then they left to go surfing with me! So I know how the system works, I've seen it firsthand. All the doctors out there who might be listening to this, you know how it works too. A lot of these continuing medical education courses are really just a joke. (much more)

I think Big Pharma and insurance are the two big winners in not only our present health care system but the "reforms" that are enacted and being considered.

We now routinely allow big business to just take advantage of people by the millions with legislative licences to steal.

[Guernicaa]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8BJyyyRYbSk

Can't wait till it comes out.

[nevadamedic]

Because most Americans have been trained to reflexively reject anything that smells of so
The free enterprize kool aid is spiked.
LOL.

[LOki]

Is your opinion collective or selective. You said, "Americans are opposed".Having accepted the premise of diuretic's question, I probably should of said, "I think so many Americans are opposed..." My bad.

I am unsure of how you mean "collective or selective" in your question.


I am an American and I am not one of those you of which you speak.Do I understand you correctly then, that you are an American who supports the notion that government coercion has a valid contribution towards establishing one's healthcare options; and that you also support the notion that the government should forcibly take one person's healthcare money and arbitrarily give it to someone else?

If so, then perhaps I'm speaking selectively only for those Americans who think that they and their doctors have a better idea of how to make their own medical decisions than the government and that being bullied into medical options by the government is wrong; and that a person's healthcare money (or beer money) is their own product of their own life and is necessessary to their life and well-being, and taking that person's healthcare money by force is theft, and therefore wrong--even if it's then given to someone else.


Otherwise, you explain a lot. Thanks for the contribution to the conversation!!!!!!!!!!! You're welcome.

[LOki]

But americans defend social security as much as anything!Not this American. Social Security, as it is configured now, is simply theft.

[diuretic]

...................
I am unsure of how you mean "collective or selective" in your question.

Do I understand you correctly then, that you are an American who supports the notion that government coercion has a valid contribution towards establishing one's healthcare options; and that you also support the notion that the government should forcibly take one person's healthcare money and arbitrarily give it to someone else?

If so, then perhaps I'm speaking selectively only for those Americans who think that they and their doctors have a better idea of how to make their own medical decisions than the government and that being bullied into medical options by the government is wrong; and that a person's healthcare money (or beer money) is their own product of their own life and is necessessary to their life and well-being, and taking that person's healthcare money by force is theft, and therefore wrong--even if it's then given to someone else.

........................

That's interesting that you use the phrase, "...being bullied into medical options by the government is wrong..." If that were the case in our system in Australia I would be furious. I'm not because that isn't the case. True there are checking systems to make sure the medical profession isn't ripping off the system by requiring unnecessary and expensive diagnostic tests (MRI for example) but that's a long way from "bullying". Medical decisions are made by the doctor in consultation with the patient and whatever's needed is done.

As for the "healthcare money" - no need to worry about it when there's a single payer system, it's paid by the government (with a co-payment from the patient in some cases). We pay taxes to ensure we all get access to proper heatlh care. Is that a bad thing?

[LOki]

That's interesting that you use the phrase, "...being bullied into medical options by the government is wrong..." If that were the case in our system in Australia I would be furious. I'm not because that isn't the case. True there are checking systems to make sure the medical profession isn't ripping off the system by requiring unnecessary and expensive diagnostic tests (MRI for example) but that's a long way from "bullying". Medical decisions are made by the doctor in consultation with the patient and whatever's needed is done. You should be furious. If you and your doctor agree that you need an MRI, no government bureaucrat has any business preventing you from getting one. If they do, then they are bullying you and your doctor into decisions--decsions that mat not be in your best interest.


As for the "healthcare money" - no need to worry about it when there's a single payer system, it's paid by the government (with a co-payment from the patient in some cases). We pay taxes to ensure we all get access to proper heatlh care. Is that a bad thing?In the US, everybody has always had access to proper heathcare, except to the point that the government started making healthcare descisions for us. Access to the best heathcare is a right--getting it is not. These days if I were to need an expensive treatment, I might not be able to get it because I'm paying for someone else to get it, maybe two someone-else's. Those others are stealing from me, plain and simple. If you're accepting money, earned by others and taken from them forcibly by the government; that is a bad thing. Your co-pay might buy off your conscience, but it wouldn't buy off mine.

[KarlMarx]

Why are so many Americans opposed to single payer health care? I mean, seriously, why?
Because, in every country where it is implemented, the quality of health care suffers.

I have relatives in Italy (which has socialized health care) that can attest to that fact.

[diuretic]

You should be furious. If you and your doctor agree that you need an MRI, no government bureaucrat has any business preventing you from getting one. If they do, then they are bullying you and your doctor into decisions--decsions that mat not be in your best interest.

Nope, not the case. They only investigate obvious over-use that isn't necessary. No-one is prevented from having an MRI or any other procedure if they need it.




In the US, everybody has always had access to proper heathcare, except to the point that the government started making healthcare descisions for us. Access to the best heathcare is a right--getting it is not. These days if I were to need an expensive treatment, I might not be able to get it because I'm paying for someone else to get it, maybe two someone-else's. Those others are stealing from me, plain and simple. If you're accepting money, earned by others and taken from them forcibly by the government; that is a bad thing. Your co-pay might buy off your conscience, but it wouldn't buy off mine.


Not a question of conscience. I, like millions of other Australians. pay my taxes and contibute to our health care system that way. When I need to use the services of a hospital or doctor, I do. I know that in our country someone who is unemployed or is on some sort of supporting pension can also get heatlh care when they need it because I and millions of other Australians pay taxes. I'm happy about that. I'd have a fit of conscience if I thought someone who couldn't afford medical treatment wasn't getting it simply because they were indigent. To me that's offensive.

[diuretic]

Because, in every country where it is implemented, the quality of health care suffers.

I have relatives in Italy (which has socialized health care) that can attest to that fact.

Okay - but quality of health care hasn't suffered here. But we don't have a socialised system, we have a single payer system so I suppose there could be a difference. Anyway at least we don't go bankrupt if we get sick.

[Dilloduck]

Nope, not the case. They only investigate obvious over-use that isn't necessary. No-one is prevented from having an MRI or any other procedure if they need it.





Not a question of conscience. I, like millions of other Australians. pay my taxes and contibute to our health care system that way. When I need to use the services of a hospital or doctor, I do. I know that in our country someone who is unemployed or is on some sort of supporting pension can also get heatlh care when they need it because I and millions of other Australians pay taxes. I'm happy about that. I'd have a fit of conscience if I thought someone who couldn't afford medical treatment wasn't getting it simply because they were indigent. To me that's offensive.


How many Aussies do you have that are just sitting on their asses waiting to get housed and fed by the government and how does your population feel about them?

[diuretic]

How many Aussies do you have that are just sitting on their asses waiting to get housed and fed by the government and how does your population feel about them?

What's that got to do with health care?

[Dilloduck]

What's that got to do with health care?

because those very same people need health care.

[Said1]

Okay - but quality of health care hasn't suffered here. But we don't have a socialised system, we have a single payer system so I suppose there could be a difference. Anyway at least we don't go bankrupt if we get sick.

We have a single payer system in certain provinces here, too.

People with certain income levels (high income, no kids) have also recently begun to get taxed heavier on their paychecks in Ontario. This means that the government is now taking more money off their paychecks that is specifically for that individual's health care on top of what is already being deducted for that purpose, and being thrown into the provincial pot, for everyone. A socialized system such as the one in place in Canada can't keep up with population growth as well as an increasing elderly population - the demand is starting to exceed the supply, so to speak. Not too mention waste and mismangement etc, etc.

[Psychoblues]

You should have heard the whining, crying, and bullying during our debates in this country for Social Security Prescription Drug benefits legislation.



That's interesting that you use the phrase, "...being bullied into medical options by the government is wrong..." If that were the case in our system in Australia I would be furious. I'm not because that isn't the case. True there are checking systems to make sure the medical profession isn't ripping off the system by requiring unnecessary and expensive diagnostic tests (MRI for example) but that's a long way from "bullying". Medical decisions are made by the doctor in consultation with the patient and whatever's needed is done.

As for the "healthcare money" - no need to worry about it when there's a single payer system, it's paid by the government (with a co-payment from the patient in some cases). We pay taxes to ensure we all get access to proper heatlh care. Is that a bad thing?

As a result of all that we have a system that even attorneys can't figure out, Pharmaceutical Companies that are literally rolling in the dough and millions of Americans still in need of a prescription drug benefit, any benefit, even a thought of an actual benefit to them. As the millionaires become billionaires and the workers continue to lose to the point of even poverty income, our leaders rejoice in their inept accomplishments and apparently cannot weep for even the most abused of their constituencies.

Walk a mile in these shoes, dr, and promise me that you'll show me a real kangaroo.

[LOki]

Nope, not the case. They only investigate obvious over-use that isn't necessary. No-one is prevented from having an MRI or any other procedure if they need it.I'm sure that's your story, and your government regulator's story, but instead of me, tell it to the guy who's not getting an MRI or some other procedure--I'll bet he disagrees with you.


Not a question of conscience. I, like millions of other Australians. pay my taxes and contibute to our health care system that way. When I need to use the services of a hospital or doctor, I do. I know that in our country someone who is unemployed or is on some sort of supporting pension can also get heatlh care when they need it because I and millions of other Australians pay taxes. I'm happy about that.You should be paying your own bills, and not the bills of others unless you want to, and only to that point you want to--the same goes for other paying your bills. The government should not be forcing one set to pay the bill of another set. That is theft; and you should not be happy about that, unless you're a thief.



I'd have a fit of conscience if I thought someone who couldn't afford medical treatment wasn't getting it simply because they were indigent. To me that's offensive.I wouldn't have such a fit, because I know what indigent means. Not being able to pay for things is what it is functionally about. Yet I'll say it again so it's clear, access to healthcare is a right, getting it is not. Health care services are valuable, and it is appropriate that one should pony up appropriate value for recieving them. If you don't like seeing the indigent not getting the healthcare you'd like them to have, because they can't afford it, pay for them--just don't force others to do it for you.

[Psychoblues]

You represent the ignorant few that simply do not understand the premise or purpose of government.



I'm sure that's your story, and your government regulator's story, but instead of me, tell it to the guy who's not getting an MRI or some other procedure--I'll bet he disagrees with you.

You should be paying your own bills, and not the bills of others unless you want to, and only to that point you want to--the same goes for other paying your bills. The government should not be forcing one set to pay the bill of another set. That is theft; and you should not be happy about that, unless you're a thief.


I wouldn't have such a fit, because I know what indigent means. Not being able to pay for things is what it is functionally about. Yet I'll say it again so it's clear, access to healthcare is a right, getting it is not. Health care services are valuable, and it is appropriate that one should pony up appropriate value for recieving them. If you don't like seeing the indigent not getting the healthcare you'd like them to have, because they can't afford it, pay for them--just don't force others to do it for you.

If I were to audit your life, how much government would I find that positively or negatively effected your life. The fact that you are posting here is a positive influence of OUR government. I'll go on and blindly point out a few more positive influences that your government has had on your life but get back with me on only this one issue, Looney.

[LOki]

You represent the ignorant few that simply do not understand the premise or purpose of government.You represent the people who don't know what they're talking about.

You appear to be defending the brainwashed masses that believes the premise and purpose of government is to be your new mommy and daddy, who provides for you when you're parents are done doing so.


If I were to audit your life, how much government would I find that positively or negatively effected your life.Your audit of my life is irrelevent to the discussion.


The fact that you are posting here is a positive influence of OUR government.Irrelevent to the discussion, aside from that it illustrates a proper function of government--the protection of human rights.


I'll go on and blindly point out a few more positive influences that your government has had on your life but get back with me on only this one issue, Looney. You can do so, but I'll just bet it will still be irrelevent to the discussion, Poop-breath. :D

[Psychoblues]

I can already determine that any enlightenment by me would be unwelcome to you, looney.



You represent the people who don't know what they're talking about.

You appear to be defending the brainwashed masses that believes the premise and purpose of government is to be your new mommy and daddy, who provides for you when you're parents are done doing so.

Your audit of my life is irrelevent to the discussion.

Irrelevent to the discussion, aside from that it illustrates a proper function of government--the protection of human rights.

You can do so, but I'll just bet it will still be irrelevent to the discussion, Poop-breath. :D

I'll tell you what is and has been irrelevant to the conversation and that I have been somewhat a part of it, it is YOU. From this point on I'll do my best to stay on topic. I doubt if you can do the same. You never have.

[LOki]

I can already determine that any enlightenment by me would be unwelcome to you, looney.
Translation: Psychoblues
I have no game; only name calling and baseless denial--there's no hope of me avoiding getting owned here--I'll just avoid having my cozy paradigm challenged by asserting it's unwelcome.

No, please "enlighten" me, poop-breath. :D


I'll tell you what is and has been irrelevant to the conversation and that I have been somewhat a part of it, it is YOU.
Translation: Psychoblues
I don't have a single valid argument to support my assertions--by best hope is to make a baseless accusation and hope it sticks.

If I am irrelevent, I can't say I'm terribly upset about it. It still doesn't change the fact that your posts were irrelevent to the discussion. I'm coming to the conclusion though, that this is a favored substantive-argument-avoidance tactic of yours. Good luck with it.


From this point on I'll do my best to stay on topic. I doubt if you can do the same. You never have.

Translation: Psychoblues
I should also deny the reality that this little foray off topic was entirely my own doing; I'll try to pin responsibility on LOki. I'll also throw in another baseless accusation for good measure.

I've been entirely on topic until you just recently chimed in with your baseless accusations and unsupported assertions. But, yes, please do get back on topic.

[Psychoblues]

You have not commented on the subject at hand.



No, please "enlighten" me, poop-breath. :D



If I am irrelevent, I can't say I'm terribly upset about it. It still doesn't change the fact that your posts were irrelevent to the discussion. I'm coming to the conclusion though, that this is a favored substantive-argument-avoidance tactic of yours. Good luck with it.




I've been entirely on topic until you just recently chimed in with your baseless accusations and unsupported assertions. But, yes, please do get back on topic.

Do you know what it is or are you enjoying your fresh meal of poop? Dog poop? Cat poop? Makes no difference to you does it, looney? YOU just like POOP!!!!!!!!

[LOki]

You have not commented on the subject at hand.Setting aside this little excursion off topic that has been engineered by you, all of my comments have been on topic.


Do you know what it is or are you enjoying your fresh meal of poop? Dog poop? Cat poop? Makes no difference to you does it, looney? YOU just like POOP!!!!!!!!Baseless conjecture, poop-breath. You should be reminded that is your breath that smells of your last meal, poop-breath.

Now how about now, doing your best to be on topic?

[Psychoblues]

Well, knock me on my ass!!!!!!!!!!!



Setting aside this little excursion off topic that has been engineered by you, all of my comments have been on topic.

Baseless conjecture, poop-breath. You should be reminded that is your breath that smells of your last meal, poop-breath.

Now how about now, doing your best to be on topic?

When you finish eating all that shit you've been talking about can you comment on the subject of health care?

[LOki]

When you finish eating all that shit you've been talking about can you comment on the subject of health care?Specificly and precisely, what "shit" are you talking about?

And please, be specific and precise, to best get back on topic.

[Psychoblues]

simple discussion. You didn't get it. You tried to crash the party and start calling names.



Specificly and precisely, what "shit" are you talking about?

And please, be specific and precise, to best get back on topic.

What are you talking about, shit eater loonie?

[MtnBiker]

Ok guys, poop breath and shit eating are not contributing to the topic. You all are capable of much better than that.

[Psychoblues]

Dig it, MtnBiker.


Ok guys, poop breath and shit eating are not contributing to the topic. You all are capable of much better than that.

I'm clocking out of this conversation until more substantial information is provided. Please excuse my indescretions as previously demonstrated.

[MtnBiker]

We have touched on this topic before in other threads.

Is health care a right granted to US citizens?

[LOki]

We have touched on this topic before in other threads.

Is health care a right granted to US citizens?I've mentioned earlier that access to health care is a right, but getting it is not.

You should not be denied health care by coercive force or fraud--that such force or fraud should be initiated by the government on one's behalf is not justification for doing so. Yet healthcare still requires valuable equipment, valuable medicines, and valuable people with valuable expertise, and valuable time. If you intend to take possesion of all that value, doing so without contributing equal value to what you recieve is theft--just like it is in any other instance. Getting injured or sick does not entitle one to the lives and health of others.

[Trigg]

What would be useful would be for people to critically think about the issues rather than let themselves be beguiled by slogans and by outright propaganda. One of the questions I like to ask myself about anyone's presentation on a topic is, "what's in it for them?"

Many of us unenlightened americans have friends and relatives in European countries. We listen to them complain about the high taxes and waiting weeks/months for simple hopspital procedures, that would be done next day here in the states.

We have a gov. that is incharge of the VA hospitals and if you've ever worked in or gone to one of them you would know what a mess they are. Understaffed, old equipment and dirty, they offer huge bonuses to people willing to come work there. These are the people we DO NOT want in charge of public hospitals.

Socialized medicine is a mess in Europe. What we have here isn't perfect but it's better than the alternatives I've heard about.

[diuretic]

Many of us unenlightened americans have friends and relatives in European countries. We listen to them complain about the high taxes and waiting weeks/months for simple hopspital procedures, that would be done next day here in the states.

We have a gov. that is incharge of the VA hospitals and if you've ever worked in or gone to one of them you would know what a mess they are. Understaffed, old equipment and dirty, they offer huge bonuses to people willing to come work there. These are the people we DO NOT want in charge of public hospitals.

Socialized medicine is a mess in Europe. What we have here isn't perfect but it's better than the alternatives I've heard about.

I would think that where the health system, such as you've described above, is failing then it's due to under-funding by government. Under-funding a system will bring it to its knees for sure. But the principle of either a national health care system such as in the UK or the single payer approach as in Canada and Australia (just two examples) aren't damaged by incompetent government.

Where I live there's just been a report issued about the performance of our hospitals, the last on the list is a private one, the top several are government run. But that's just here. As soon as the contract for the big private hospital is out of time our state government is going to take it back again and build it up again. The profit motive is good for many things but not for a public health system.

The VA system is obviously underfunded as well. I keep reading about how bad it is, I can't believe that a government which seems to value its veterans can do them such ill.

[Hobbit]

I would think that where the health system, such as you've described above, is failing then it's due to under-funding by government. Under-funding a system will bring it to its knees for sure. But the principle of either a national health care system such as in the UK or the single payer approach as in Canada and Australia (just two examples) aren't damaged by incompetent government.

Where I live there's just been a report issued about the performance of our hospitals, the last on the list is a private one, the top several are government run. But that's just here. As soon as the contract for the big private hospital is out of time our state government is going to take it back again and build it up again. The profit motive is good for many things but not for a public health system.

The VA system is obviously underfunded as well. I keep reading about how bad it is, I can't believe that a government which seems to value its veterans can do them such ill.

Nothing run by the government is immune to government beauracracy, and the 'profit motive' as you call it, is the number one incentive to drive just about everything. Good will and charity are nice, but they're inconsistant. There is absolutely nothing that the government does well or efficiently, and putting politicians in charge of our health care will make it monolithic, innefficient, and poor, just like Social Security, the DMV, schools, VA hospitals, etc. etc.

Oh, and the 'lack of funding' excuse is just that, an excuse. No matter what the government does, it can typically be done both better and cheaper by the private sectore. Just look at schools. Atlanta city schools spend more per student than any other school in the state, but are also the crappiest schools in the state. They spend 2-3 times as much per student as private schools that are far better.

[Trigg]

Nothing run by the government is immune to government beauracracy, and the 'profit motive' as you call it, is the number one incentive to drive just about everything. Good will and charity are nice, but they're inconsistant. There is absolutely nothing that the government does well or efficiently, and putting politicians in charge of our health care will make it monolithic, innefficient, and poor, just like Social Security, the DMV, schools, VA hospitals, etc. etc.

Oh, and the 'lack of funding' excuse is just that, an excuse. No matter what the government does, it can typically be done both better and cheaper by the private sectore. Just look at schools. Atlanta city schools spend more per student than any other school in the state, but are also the crappiest schools in the state. They spend 2-3 times as much per student as private schools that are far better.

Exactly!!!!!

[diuretic]

Nothing run by the government is immune to government beauracracy, and the 'profit motive' as you call it, is the number one incentive to drive just about everything. Good will and charity are nice, but they're inconsistant. There is absolutely nothing that the government does well or efficiently, and putting politicians in charge of our health care will make it monolithic, innefficient, and poor, just like Social Security, the DMV, schools, VA hospitals, etc. etc.

Oh, and the 'lack of funding' excuse is just that, an excuse. No matter what the government does, it can typically be done both better and cheaper by the private sectore. Just look at schools. Atlanta city schools spend more per student than any other school in the state, but are also the crappiest schools in the state. They spend 2-3 times as much per student as private schools that are far better.

I have to disagree with the idea that private companies always do better than government. It's just not the case. I can't take up the schools in Atlanta issue because I know nothing about it so I'll take that as given. But you know we could cite case after case to try and make a point and in the end it's a bit pointless. I just happen to believe that there are some things that government should do and there are some things that private companies should do. The provision of health services in my country at least is done by government and the private sector. But we have a single-payer system like Canada (although it's federal here and not provincial). The federal government provides funding to the states to run the health system. We have a parallel private system that can be accessed by those who can afford it or who have private health cover. It's not perfect but it works pretty well.

I do think that private companies and government should stay out of each other's turf though. I don't want to buy a tv built by my government (bloody thing would probably watch me anyway). :laugh2:

Lack of funding isn't an excuse, it's a reason. If any system is underfunded, whatever it's role, it's not going to function properly. Isn't that the case with anything?

I don't know much about your social security system. Ours works okay but again we're a small nation just over 20 million people and not a complex society, so running it isn't a huge task. A number of years ago our then federal government knew that in the future our aged pension system wouldn't be able to fund the number of expected retirees so a compulsory superannuation scheme was introduced and personal superannuation encouraged. That's paying off now. It just takes a bit of planning by governments that actually govern.

I think in the US it seems to have been an article of faith that small government is the way to go. Well that's fine but if you allow your government, at whatever level, to shrink then things like crappy VA hospitals are going to happen. There's a need for balance between what government is there to do and what can be done by the private sector. Not much point in my banging on about it though, won't change anything and I'm only expressing a personal view out of interest, not trying to change anyone's mind.

[Hobbit]

Name one example, citing some sort of proof, that you truly believe the government does a better job at than the private sector. Law enforcement and the military don't count, as they require the use of force, a power strictly reserved for the government.

Edit: Remember, EVERY major medical advancement in the past 150 years has been discovered in the private sectors by people working for money. All in all this has extended the human life span by about 20 years. The biggest things the government ever did were space exploration and interstate highways, and in the case of space exploration, they wouldn't allow anybody else to even try.

[diuretic]

Name one example, citing some sort of proof, that you truly believe the government does a better job at than the private sector. Law enforcement and the military don't count, as they require the use of force, a power strictly reserved for the government.

Edit: Remember, EVERY major medical advancement in the past 150 years has been discovered in the private sectors by people working for money. All in all this has extended the human life span by about 20 years. The biggest things the government ever did were space exploration and interstate highways, and in the case of space exploration, they wouldn't allow anybody else to even try.

Okay. Melbourne has privatised public transport and it stinks.


LATE, cancelled, slow, dirty, second-hand trains. Trains almost bursting with commuters, while those who can't get on watch them trundle off. Meagre timetables and "Connex apologises for any inconvenience …" The train system is a mocking shadow of what it once was. The Liberal government blithely privatised it and the Labor Government has run it into the ground. Spin, buckpassing and dubious statistics are no answer to the daily frustrations inflicted on commuters.



That's a letter to The Age, a Melbourne daily newspaper, it's in today's edition.. The Connex privatised train system is a mess and Melburnians are cursing it daily. Why is it so? Because Connix is trying to make a profit and has cut back on the standard of service to make that profit.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/letters/just-spin-and-dodgy-stats/2007/05/29/1180205246781.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

You're wrong about the medical research, dead wrong. Let's take one advance. Pencillin? Fleming and Florey and the team? University-based research and nothing to do with the private sector. What you mean, I think, is that the big pharmaceutical companies have cranked up research so they can make money out of drugs. No problem there, they can do that. Problem lies where they choose to do it. Only in areas that make a profit. Non-profit areas have to have research as well, usually government funded.

[Hobbit]

Okay. Melbourne has privatised public transport and it stinks.



That's a letter to The Age, a Melbourne daily newspaper, it's in today's edition.. The Connex privatised train system is a mess and Melburnians are cursing it daily. Why is it so? Because Connix is trying to make a profit and has cut back on the standard of service to make that profit.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/letters/just-spin-and-dodgy-stats/2007/05/29/1180205246781.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

I'm guessing that they're a monopoly and that there's not a competing public transportation system in the same city? The system may now be privately owned, but it's still a government-enforced monopoly. Good find, though. I'll give you that. Still, it's more like the old Bell System in the U.S. than true private enterprise. The Bell System was privately owned, but the government made sure that it was the ONLY phone company. The phones sucked. The lines sucked. It was really expensive. Etc. etc.


You're wrong about the medical research, dead wrong. Let's take one advance. Pencillin? Fleming and Florey and the team? University-based research and nothing to do with the private sector. What you mean, I think, is that the big pharmaceutical companies have cranked up research so they can make money out of drugs. No problem there, they can do that. Problem lies where they choose to do it. Only in areas that make a profit. Non-profit areas have to have research as well, usually government funded.

It still wasn't government doing it. Most university research was privately, not publicly funded, unlike now, where there's so many government grants that just about everybody has one. I also take it that they, uh, sold their little invention to the public, rather than just handing it over to the government for distribution?

[Psychoblues]

You have taken the bait and swallowed it hook line and sinker.



Not this American. Social Security, as it is configured now, is simply theft.

Good Luck!!!!!!!!!!

[Psychoblues]

Yes.


We have touched on this topic before in other threads.

Is health care a right granted to US citizens?

Do corporations have a right to destroy the health of our environment, our economy and our citizens and walk away as if they did nothing at all to create the dilemmas as proposed?

[LOki]

You have taken the bait and swallowed it hook line and sinker.

Explain?

[Psychoblues]

You're hooked and caught.


Explain?

I can't help that for you. I worry about the other little fishes that might take the same bait. I am SUPER BASS!!!!!!!!!!

[theHawk]

Explain?


Think he forgot to take his meds again.

[LOki]

You're hooked and caught.Explain?

[DragonStryk72]

Thanks for those responses. It appears that it's social conditioning - some might call it social engineering. I would think that it would be useful to describe or even list the desirable features of a heatlh system and then see which system provides those desirable features rather than any of us have a reflexive response.

That is the way it should be, but currently isn't. We are too much becoming a rhetoric society, we base our opinions mainly on sound bites that we snatch from various places. This is evident by just how often we are bludgeoned with slogans, and how effective they are. There should be an enlightened debate on this, and those like Hobbit, who responded against the idea with actual statistical facts and figures, are joining that debate. But thanks to the Red Scare, with so many years of conditioning, alot of people instictively closed ears and minds to the subject.

[diuretic]

I'm guessing that they're a monopoly and that there's not a competing public transportation system in the same city? The system may now be privately owned, but it's still a government-enforced monopoly. Good find, though. I'll give you that. Still, it's more like the old Bell System in the U.S. than true private enterprise. The Bell System was privately owned, but the government made sure that it was the ONLY phone company. The phones sucked. The lines sucked. It was really expensive. Etc. etc.

You're right, it's a government-enforced monopoly. Good point. I believe govt calls for tenders. Personally I think it's a dumb idea in a situation where there's no natural competition. The state govt should simply take it back, corporatise it and hold its management accountable for performance.




It still wasn't government doing it. Most university research was privately, not publicly funded, unlike now, where there's so many government grants that just about everybody has one. I also take it that they, uh, sold their little invention to the public, rather than just handing it over to the government for distribution?

In the UK back then there were no private universities, they were government-funded. I believe that research became the property of the university and then the government, but I can't be totally sure about that.

[Psychoblues]

You are dead on, dr. But that is where the rub in America is all about.



You're right, it's a government-enforced monopoly. Good point. I believe govt calls for tenders. Personally I think it's a dumb idea in a situation where there's no natural competition. The state govt should simply take it back, corporatise it and hold its management accountable for performance.




In the UK back then there were no private universities, they were government-funded. I believe that research became the property of the university and then the government, but I can't be totally sure about that.

Most of us think that the corps should be accountable. The only ones that don't believe in accountability control the media, the government and ultimately what they agree that we, the peoples, should be told. And they are shameless about it and project their shamelessness onto unsuspecting voters that tend to post in predominantly right wing sites.

[diuretic]

I think that's right, the accountability aspect I mean. Sadly I think it's too late.

[LOki]

The bullshit of corporatism is not an argument for embracing communism--it an argument for the notion that the "economy" does not need government regulation.

[Hobbit]

The bullshit of corporatism is not an argument for embracing communism--it an argument for the notion that the "economy" does not need government regulation.

Well, there are externalities which lend credibility to small government interventions to correct the markets, but for the most part, yes. Governmental regulations hurt mostly small businesses, the backbone of our economy. That leads to a disproportionate amount of production in huge corporations, which attempt to use the government to regulate their opponents out of business. The less government interference, the better.

[diuretic]

An economy without regulation isn't just undesirable, it's impossible.

[Psychoblues]

Exactly, dr.


An economy without regulation isn't just undesirable, it's impossible.

It's there for the taking. Why not?

[diuretic]

Exactly, dr.



It's there for the taking. Why not?

I suppose I was thinking of current forms of economy. I would think that an argument could be made (by those more economically literate than me) that a fully anarchist society (if that's not a contradiction in terms - and anarchism in the sense of Proudhon) wouldn't need regulation of its economy per se.

[Psychoblues]

But per se is the problem. Don't you know?



I suppose I was thinking of current forms of economy. I would think that an argument could be made (by those more economically literate than me) that a fully anarchist society (if that's not a contradiction in terms - and anarchism in the sense of Proudhon) wouldn't need regulation of its economy per se.

I get my kicks on Route 66.

[stephanie]

Socialism......You all don't have to make no decisicions for your self...

Communism............

Give it up.......You will NEVER MAKE ANOTHER decision for yourself...

Yea....I chose........none of the above...

[diuretic]

But per se is the problem. Don't you know?




I get my kicks on Route 66.

Well I did drive along a little bit of the old Route 66 once :laugh2:

[CockySOB]

Think he forgot to take his meds again.

Or skipped breakfast....



from the start of 2007 to date....

[medical 2933]

A system that guarantees lowest-common-denominator health-care to all--as long as the denominator is not too low--and then allows the affluent to buy a higher level of care if they so desire (which is how things work in Australia and the U.K., if I understand correctly) would be a dramatic improvement over what we've got in the U.S. right now