So for those of you who haven't seen Sicko, the US is the only "western" nation that doesn't have socialized health care. As a result, our health care costs exceed 15% of our GDP (expected to increase to 20% GDP by 2017). That equates to over $6,000 per person every year. In…
Originally posted Monday, June 29, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "nugby"
Quote the US is the only "western" nation that doesn't have socialized health care. As a result, our health care costs exceed 15 of our GDP (expected to increase to 20 GDP by 2017). That equates to over 6,000 per person every year. In countries like Canada, UK, France, Australia, Germany, etc, their socialized health care systems cost 3,000 or less per year per person . . . while also boasting higher life expectancies, better quality of life and care, and lower infant mortality rates.
This is a load of whooey, as is any argument that we should do something because that's how Europe does it. Europe depends on the US for everything, including its very existence. It's only a pervasive inferiority complex that keeps this argument afloat. The way we do things, by definition, should be the primary way.
As far as comparing life expectancies, etc, also whooey. We Americans work harder, do more, produce more and achieve more. That takes a lot out of people. Maybe it's that, and not the healthcare system, that accounts for the marginal differences in life expectancies. Of course, there's plenty of data to suggest that America's racial diversity is the main contributor to that difference, but that's another story.
As far as better quality of life and care in Europe, you've got to be kidding. Ever been to Canada (located here, but with a European soul)? Everyone limps. Ever been to England? Austin Powers' teeth were parodied for a reason.
And how about this. You can guarantee that when social medicine comes to the US, the government will restrict or limit malpractice suits against doctors working for or accepting government insurance. Those same doctors are likely to be the least qualified and least able physicians, as the more able and more qualified will eschew the public system and accept only private patients (as is happening in Canada now). So you'll have more people, mostly poorer people, getting hurt by their doctors, and no system to compensate them.
If I recall, you're a civil litigator, yes? Do you happen to represent plaintiffs in med-mal suits?
Originally posted Monday, June 29, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "YellowSchoolBus" I'm totally for socialized health care, but have no grand illusions about it. If it all gets approved, and you use socialized health care, you'll probably get all the Mexican med-school students telling you to take your clothes off to diagnose your headache.
All the top U.S. school MD's will have to work for private sector still. They have to. With the kind of education costs for med-school in the U.S., any new doctor would be stupid not to try to earn more money to pay back their mountains of schooling debts. It would be financial ruin for them otherwise. Of course, this means that if we want to use decent doctors on the universal health care plan, our education system has to change as well. Very few folks are going to be willing to go through 8 years of hard schooling/hospital work plus hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition costs just to earn 50k coming out.
I know many friends of mine that are in the medical field (doctors, med students, nurses, techs) that are in favor of socialized healthcare.
Why do you think that socialized health care will be subpar, or pay physicians less? In other systems, doctors get paid more based on how good of a doctor they are, i.e. if they can get their patients to quit smoking, lose weight, or get their cholesterol down.
A lot of what you are saying is BS publicized by Fox News.
Originally posted Monday, June 29, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "fiddletree"
Also, I have a question: Is the pay for people in the medical profession going to change? Because there is is significant pay difference in people working for the public health care system in Europe vs. the US. Its not that I don't think many doctors are overpaid here (because many of them are... not all, but many), but for the new system to work, I imagine there will be pay cuts. And people don't like pay cuts. Keep in mind that this is coming from a person who is taking a more than 50 pay cut to work in the public health care system in Italy vs what I could make in the US. So I'm not thinking 'poor overpaid doctors/other medical people who are only now slightly less overpaid", I'm worried about the reactions and what impact it will have on healthcare.
Are doctors who treat the elderly paid less because of elderly have Medicare?
Originally posted Monday, June 29, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "Capt Morgan"
Quoted from "fiddletree"
Also, I have a question: Is the pay for people in the medical profession going to change? Because there is is significant pay difference in people working for the public health care system in Europe vs. the US. Its not that I don't think many doctors are overpaid here (because many of them are... not all, but many), but for the new system to work, I imagine there will be pay cuts. And people don't like pay cuts. Keep in mind that this is coming from a person who is taking a more than 50 pay cut to work in the public health care system in Italy vs what I could make in the US. So I'm not thinking 'poor overpaid doctors/other medical people who are only now slightly less overpaid", I'm worried about the reactions and what impact it will have on healthcare.
Are doctors who treat the elderly paid less because of elderly have Medicare?
No, instead they give each patient a smaller time slot and see more patients in a day = worse care. There's a reason only some doctors accept medicare.
After reviewing the report entitled Premiums Soaring in Consolidated Health Insurance Market, David Balto, former Policy Director of the Federal Trade Commission and now a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, sent a letter -co-signed by HCAN - to the Department of Justice Antitrust Division asking for a comprehensive investigation into the health insurance marketplace.
"The HCAN report provides a much needed spotlight on health insurance markets, and what it found is a toxic marketplace where competition and consumers suffer, said Balto. Unfortunately, antitrust enforcers have been asleep at the switch for the past several years and have permitted health insurers to acquire monopolies in dozens of markets. Consumers have paid a steep price for this merger mania in higher prices, deceptive and fraudulent practices, and ultimately assembly line health care."
In the past 13 years, more than 400 corporate mergers have involved health insurers, and a small number of companies now dominate local markets but haven t delivered on promises of increased efficiency. According to the American Medical Association, 94 percent of insurance markets in the United States are now highly concentrated, and insurers are thriving in the anti-competitive marketplace, raking in enormous profits and paying out huge CEO salaries. Profits at 10 of the country s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007. In 2007 alone, the chief executive officers at these companies collected combined total compensation of 118.6 million an average of 11.9 million each. That is 468 times more than the 25,434 an average American worker made that year. Moreover, the health insurance industry invests more in buying back its own stock and rewarding its shareholders than in improving system operations, reducing premiums, or in developing ways to pay doctors and hospitals fairly.
Originally posted Monday, June 29, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "asane"
No, instead they give each patient a smaller time slot and see more patients in a day = worse care. There's a reason only some doctors accept medicare.
Do you have a source to cite to support that statement?
Since it's creation in 1965, Medicare was regarded as a secondary system, but with the increasing retirement of baby boomers, the system has become the primary health care provider for people over the age of 65. Specifically the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 provided a national standard of health care that applied to private insurers and programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
I know that my Grandmother is on Medicare, and at 84 years old, she has weekly doctor check ups and physical therapy to keep her mobile. I think that's pretty good care.
Originally posted Monday, June 29, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "Capt Morgan" So for those of you who haven't seen Sicko, the US is the only "western" nation that doesn't have socialized health care. As a result, our health care costs exceed 15 of our GDP (expected to increase to 20 GDP by 2017). That equates to over 6,000 per person every year. In countries like Canada, UK, France, Australia, Germany, etc, their socialized health care systems cost 3,000 or less per year per person . . . while also boasting higher life expectancies, better quality of life and care, and lower infant mortality rates.
A recent NY Times/CBS poll showed that 72 of Americans want a public option, yet it appears that Republicans and some Democrats are refusing to accept any form of a public option.
What are you doing to have your voice heard?
I've called my Senator and Representative, how about you?
Originally posted Monday, June 29, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "Capt Morgan"
Quoted from "asane"
No, instead they give each patient a smaller time slot and see more patients in a day = worse care. There's a reason only some doctors accept medicare.
Do you have a source to cite to support that statement?
Originally posted Monday, June 29, 2009 (3 years ago)
RubyMae wrote:
Quote If I recall, you're a civil litigator, yes? Do you happen to represent plaintiffs in med-mal suits?
Or is your post tongue in cheek?
I am a medical malpractice defense attorney. Sure, I see plenty of frivolous suits. But I see plenty of meritorious suits too. I hate talk of limiting malpractice awards, usually offered by overpaid or otherwise wealthy legislators and doctors. Young people who are hurt by negligent doctors often do deserve very significant awards. But that's an aside to this discussion.
My post is not tongue in cheek. I am vehemently against most types of medical insurance, and certainly for socialized insurance. Recently, there was a health insurance commercial here in New York where the speaker was the mother of a young girl who kept hurting herself falling out of a tree. The overt message was we need more insurance to cover ourselves when we fall out of trees. Apparently the advertisers missed the message that we need to stop falling out of trees, or more generally, that we need to manage ourselves so that the medical industry doesn't have too.
Providing unlimited health insurance to everyone here will only make people less accountable, leading to more medical treatment, and higher costs. Some will say that didn't happen in Europe, but there's really no way to know since most of those countries have had social systems since before such statistics could have been obtained. And I'll admit I haven't gone though the WHO whooey, but I would be truly surprised if that organization addressed some of the issues I raised in my initial post, such as our comparatively higher productivity and racial diversity.
Ask yourself, would you rather drive in a city where everyone had unlimited car insurance?
Additionally, there is the added problem of the shortage of primary care physicians. This is a problem for all health care, not just medicare.
Again, while this is very important for us to know, I'm not here to defend Medicare. It is an imperfect system that has constantly had to be reformed. The fundamental problem is that the ratio of workers paying Medicare taxes to retirees drawing benefits is shrinking at the same time that the price of health care services per person is increasing. Prices set by private health insurance companies with no oversight or regulation (see mousethief's post above). A universal system would be much more balanced, as it would provide a check against private health care.
The issue being missed is that since 1965, seniors and the disabled have had some access to health care. While maybe only 58 of doctors will accept Medicare, that's still better than 0 .
Originally posted Monday, June 29, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "nugby"
Providing unlimited health insurance to everyone here will only make people less accountable, leading to more medical treatment, and higher costs.
I believe Taiwan's system has an official visit people when they use too much health care superfluously and try to straighten things out.
We could do something similar here. If you are clearly wasting resources, you can be fined.
Quote
Ask yourself, would you rather drive in a city where everyone had unlimited car insurance?
Have you seen the way people drive? I would argue that most people drive as though they have unlimited car insurance right now!
Originally posted Monday, June 29, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "nugby"
Providing unlimited health insurance to everyone here will only make people less accountable, leading to more medical treatment, and higher costs. Some will say that didn't happen in Europe, but there's really no way to know since most of those countries have had social systems since before such statistics could have been obtained. And I'll admit I haven't gone though the WHO whooey, but I would be truly surprised if that organization addressed some of the issues I raised in my initial post, such as our comparatively higher productivity and racial diversity.
Preventative health care is what makes the difference in the other countries.
Quoted from "nugby"
Ask yourself, would you rather drive in a city where everyone had unlimited car insurance?
Does your metaphor work if people only get one car their whole life? It doesn't work because we only get one body, and not everything can be fixed.
Alternatively, would you want to live in country with no public police department? No public fire department? Would you want to have to pay for them to come to your home if it was broken into or on fire?
Originally posted Monday, June 29, 2009 (3 years ago)
Capt Morgan wrote
Quote
U.S. Productivity Growth Still Trails Europe
The US may "work harder" but we aren't more productive, besides, why would working ourselves to death be something to be proud of?
You're talking about productivity growth, not productivity. We are more productive, and any authoritative study will back that up. Our rate of increase in productivity may have been slower as of that two year old study, but we are still more productive.
Should working harder kill you? No, probably not. But working harder than others is likely a contributing factor in comparing life expectancy. And I stand by my statements that we work harder and that our hard work kept and keeps Europe the entity that it is.
Originally posted Monday, June 29, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "nugby" Capt Morgan wrote
Quote
U.S. Productivity Growth Still Trails Europe
The US may "work harder" but we aren't more productive, besides, why would working ourselves to death be something to be proud of?
You're talking about productivity growth, not productivity. We are more productive, and any authoritative study will back that up. Our rate of increase in productivity may have been slower as of that two year old study, but we are still more productive.
Should working harder kill you? No, probably not. But working harder than others is likely a contributing factor in comparing life expectancy. And I stand by my statements that we work harder and that our hard work kept and keeps Europe the entity that it is.
US is 1 because we have a longer work week. Technically, Norway is more productive, if you attribute output per hour worked.
Quote When productivity was measured by the hour rather than by the total number of hours worked, however, Norway, an oil nation, was the most productive, followed by the United States and France, the organization said in a report released over the weekend and published every two years. It mostly used 2006 data.
The difference in rankings can be explained by the fact that annual working hours per person employed are considerably higher in the United States than in the majority of European economies, the report said.
I remember reading a report a few years back that also said that (aside from Norway) France was also more productive, but it might be from using old numbers.
Originally posted Monday, June 29, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "mrz"
Quoted from "nugby" RubyMae wrote:
Providing unlimited health insurance to everyone here will only make people less accountable, leading to more medical treatment, and higher costs.
Originally posted Monday, June 29, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "RubyMae"
Quoted from "mrz"
Quoted from "nugby" RubyMae wrote:
Providing unlimited health insurance to everyone here will only make people less accountable, leading to more medical treatment, and higher costs.
Originally posted Monday, June 29, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "nugby" ...addressed some of the issues I raised in my initial post, such as our comparatively higher...racial diversity.
So we're more racially diverse than many European countries. What's wrong with collecting excess wealth/income from those who aren't using it for their health and putting that money towards improving the health of less-healthy-than-the-average-white non-white people, Nugby?
Originally posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "kitkat" What's wrong with collecting excess wealth/income from those who aren't using it for their health and putting that money towards improving the health of less-healthy-than-the-average-white non-white people, Nugby?
Is your argument here against giving social care to non-whites or for forcing social care on all Americans?
Example: If you and your spouse were saving up to have a child, and some dude just came and took that money since you are not using it "for your health", and gave it to the Octo-mom, you would be okay with that? I mean, I know we are already doing that to a degree, but there has to be a line...
Originally posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "kitkat"
Quoted from "nugby" ...addressed some of the issues I raised in my initial post, such as our comparatively higher...racial diversity.
So we're more racially diverse than many European countries. What's wrong with collecting excess wealth/income from those who aren't using it for their health and putting that money towards improving the health of less-healthy-than-the-average-white non-white people, Nugby?
Well, putting it like that for starters.
The first question would be "how much is excess?" The average income is under 30K. Should it be anything above that?
Second is who gives two [bleep!]s about racial diversity? The goal is universal coverage.
Originally posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "kitkat" What's wrong with collecting excess wealth/income from those who aren't using it for their health and putting that money towards improving the health of less-healthy-than-the-average-white non-white people, Nugby?
Originally posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "YellowSchoolBus"
Example: If you and your spouse were saving up to have a child, and some dude just came and took that money since you are not using it "for your health", and gave it to the Octo-mom, you would be okay with that? I mean, I know we are already doing that to a degree, but there has to be a line...
So I take it you don't know anyone who was diagnosed with cancer and forced to have fund raisers, or sell their home to pay for chemo? Again, with universal health care, people pay within their means and receive within their needs. The benefit is that if you or your loved one, or someone you know comes down with a serious illness, they are covered. Obviously, with any social program there will be people who will take advantage of it, but I think the benefit far out ways those who abuse it.
Originally posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "Capt Morgan" ...I think the benefit far out weighs those who abuse it.
To YellowSchoolBus...this is how I also feel about governments collecting money and using it to provide healthcare to everyone in the country. Maybe you disagree...but that's how I feel. The person you provided included (though I don't like the name you gave)--and understanding, of course, that the money isn't just coming from my bank account, but from the bank accounts of multiple people with excess wealth/income.
Cuz, y'know...I'm an un-American commie. :spineyes:
h/t Rubymae
Quoted from "mousethief" Second is who gives two [bleep!]s about racial diversity? The goal is universal coverage.
Beats me. I'm trying to figure out why nugby has brought it up as an obstacle to universal coverage, myself.
Originally posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "kitkat"
Quoted from "mousethief" Second is who gives two [bleep!]s about racial diversity? The goal is universal coverage.
Beats me. I'm trying to figure out why nugby has brought it up as an obstacle to universal coverage, myself.
I believe he brought it up because a we have a lower life expectancy than other countries with socialized health care, and he believes that it's partly because of the US having more racial diversity.
Offhand I believe the statistics show that minorities in general have a lower lifespan, but I believe that's also because of a general corresponding lower economic status. This was one of the reasons affirmative action was implemented to begin with (I don't defend it, I'm just saying this is was one of the reasons why it came about).
Regardless of said statistics, the 2006 WHO survey demonstrated that the poorest individuals in the UK had higher life expectancies, than the wealthiest individuals living in the US, which has the lowest of minorities, so I don't think nugby's logic applies.
Originally posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009 (3 years ago)
Capt Morgan wrote
Quote the 2006 WHO survey demonstrated that the poorest individuals in the UK had higher life expectancies, than the wealthiest individuals living in the US
Can you provide a link to that? I couldn't find it.
What I did find in looking at life expectancies is that across the board, women live longer than men. Since a good portion of the argument for social medicine in the US is the longer life expectancy in countries with social medicine, do I hear any support for allocating more of those social medicine resources to men? Some in this thread are clearly in the "take from those who don't need and give to those who do" camp. Should men be the priority in redistributing medical wealth based on their lower life expectancy? Or are those people only social enough that they want to be on the taking, rather than giving, end.
Originally posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009 (3 years ago)
Don't get me wrong... I'm all for socialized coverage. It's just that I know what to expect. As a sickly child, I was the product of socialized medicine... meaning that I wouldn't be alive if I didn't spend weeks in the hospital paid by socialism. I also know for a fact that a lot of countries with socialized medicine develop practices of doctors recieving under the table "tips" to treat patients. In the end, it all balances out. The rich still receives the best care, the poor receives at least some care, and everybody loses a little bit of freedom to choose. I just don't believe that it will make that much difference in the long run...
Originally posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009 (3 years ago)
I think it would make A LOT of difference in the long run. That people who now can't afford health insurance can go to the doctor is going to save and improve the quality of many many lives.
I'm finishing up my graduate program in a radiation medicine clinic that services much of rural central and eastern Kentucky- which has many many many people living in poverty. They can't afford to go to the doctor when they think something is wrong. They go to the doctor when they start bleeding uncontrollably from every orifice or because the tumor on their neck is so big they can't turn their head anymore. At which point cancers that would have been so easily cured if they had been caught early (many of which would have, if they went to the doc at first symptoms or had regular checkups) are now a death sentence. And all we can do is give them radiation and meds to reduce the pain, not to cure them. If they could afford to go to the doctor when they first needed to, they wouldn't be coming to us on their deathbeds, and leaving their family in debt or without a house to cover their end of life medical care. Sure, part of this is fear of doctors/lack of education, but most of it is lack of access to affordable health care.
Also, socialized medicine does NOT equal socialism. And the people who can afford quality health care now will not lose any freedom to choose where they are treated, as there will always be private health care available.
follow my adventures at www.AppalachianToAlpine.blogspot.com!
Originally posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "nugby"
Can you provide a link to that? I couldn't find it.
What I did find in looking at life expectancies is that across the board, women live longer than men. Since a good portion of the argument for social medicine in the US is the longer life expectancy in countries with social medicine, do I hear any support for allocating more of those social medicine resources to men? Some in this thread are clearly in the "take from those who don't need and give to those who do" camp. Should men be the priority in redistributing medical wealth based on their lower life expectancy? Or are those people only social enough that they want to be on the taking, rather than giving, end.
Quote The World Health Organization ranks France's health care as the best in the world for a reason . . . life expectancy, infant mortality rate, and expenditures on health care as percentage of GDP are better in Canada (78 male/83 female; six deaths per 1,000 births under 5; 9.8 percent), France (77/84; five per 1,000; 10.5 percent), and the United Kingdom (77/81; six per 1,000; 8.1 percent) than they are in the U.S. (75/80; eight per 1,000; 15.4 percent). It's hard to argue with the fact that, according to WHO, the poorest Britains are healthier than the richest Americans.
Originally posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "YellowSchoolBus" Don't get me wrong... I'm all for socialized coverage. It's just that I know what to expect. As a sickly child, I was the product of socialized medicine... meaning that I wouldn't be alive if I didn't spend weeks in the hospital paid by socialism. I also know for a fact that a lot of countries with socialized medicine develop practices of doctors recieving under the table "tips" to treat patients. In the end, it all balances out. The rich still receives the best care, the poor receives at least some care, and everybody loses a little bit of freedom to choose. I just don't believe that it will make that much difference in the long run...
18,000 Americans die each year in the US because they have no health care. Private Health Care costs Americans 6k per year (other countries 3K or less), which equates to 15 of our GDP and is expected to increase to 20 of our GDP by 2017.
We're trying to make a difference in the long run for people in need and for the economy.
Listen 24 hours a day! Weekly updated shows
National Public Health Care Option Activism Thread
So for those of you who haven't seen Sicko, the US is the only "western" nation that doesn't have socialized health care. As a result, our health care costs exceed 15% of our GDP (expected to increase to 20% GDP by 2017). That equates to over $6,000 per person every year. In…
Page(s): < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 30 31 Next > (919 items total)
If I recall, you're a civil litigator, yes? Do you happen to represent plaintiffs in med-mal suits?
Or is your post tongue in cheek?
I know many friends of mine that are in the medical field (doctors, med students, nurses, techs) that are in favor of socialized healthcare.
Why do you think that socialized health care will be subpar, or pay physicians less? In other systems, doctors get paid more based on how good of a doctor they are, i.e. if they can get their patients to quit smoking, lose weight, or get their cholesterol down.
A lot of what you are saying is BS publicized by Fox News.
Website and Blog: ickeroo.com
Are doctors who treat the elderly paid less because of elderly have Medicare?
Website and Blog: ickeroo.com
No, instead they give each patient a smaller time slot and see more patients in a day = worse care. There's a reason only some doctors accept medicare.
This is revealing and disgusting:
http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/content/new_report_private_insurers_consolidate_and_control_prices
After reviewing the report entitled Premiums Soaring in Consolidated Health Insurance Market, David Balto, former Policy Director of the Federal Trade Commission and now a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, sent a letter -co-signed by HCAN - to the Department of Justice Antitrust Division asking for a comprehensive investigation into the health insurance marketplace.
"The HCAN report provides a much needed spotlight on health insurance markets, and what it found is a toxic marketplace where competition and consumers suffer, said Balto. Unfortunately, antitrust enforcers have been asleep at the switch for the past several years and have permitted health insurers to acquire monopolies in dozens of markets. Consumers have paid a steep price for this merger mania in higher prices, deceptive and fraudulent practices, and ultimately assembly line health care."
In the past 13 years, more than 400 corporate mergers have involved health insurers, and a small number of companies now dominate local markets but haven t delivered on promises of increased efficiency. According to the American Medical Association, 94 percent of insurance markets in the United States are now highly concentrated, and insurers are thriving in the anti-competitive marketplace, raking in enormous profits and paying out huge CEO salaries. Profits at 10 of the country s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007. In 2007 alone, the chief executive officers at these companies collected combined total compensation of 118.6 million an average of 11.9 million each. That is 468 times more than the 25,434 an average American worker made that year. Moreover, the health insurance industry invests more in buying back its own stock and rewarding its shareholders than in improving system operations, reducing premiums, or in developing ways to pay doctors and hospitals fairly.
Do you have a source to cite to support that statement?
Since it's creation in 1965, Medicare was regarded as a secondary system, but with the increasing retirement of baby boomers, the system has become the primary health care provider for people over the age of 65. Specifically the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 provided a national standard of health care that applied to private insurers and programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
I know that my Grandmother is on Medicare, and at 84 years old, she has weekly doctor check ups and physical therapy to keep her mobile. I think that's pretty good care.
Website and Blog: ickeroo.com
Does Britain correct itself?
::IGNORE BUTTON:: :crash:
Website and Blog: ickeroo.com
I've heard it over and over from various sources that medicare results in lower pay for doctors. A few first hits from a quick Google search using the line "Fewer Primary Care Physicians Take Medicare Patients" http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/3/w222 http://www.providence.org/alaska/media/coverage/021807.htm http://www.enquirer.com/extremechoices/loc_extremehavenots.html http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/114519.php http://www.allbusiness.com/health-care/medical-practice-internal-medicine/8917756-1.html
RubyMae wrote:
I am a medical malpractice defense attorney. Sure, I see plenty of frivolous suits. But I see plenty of meritorious suits too. I hate talk of limiting malpractice awards, usually offered by overpaid or otherwise wealthy legislators and doctors. Young people who are hurt by negligent doctors often do deserve very significant awards. But that's an aside to this discussion.
My post is not tongue in cheek. I am vehemently against most types of medical insurance, and certainly for socialized insurance. Recently, there was a health insurance commercial here in New York where the speaker was the mother of a young girl who kept hurting herself falling out of a tree. The overt message was we need more insurance to cover ourselves when we fall out of trees. Apparently the advertisers missed the message that we need to stop falling out of trees, or more generally, that we need to manage ourselves so that the medical industry doesn't have too.
Providing unlimited health insurance to everyone here will only make people less accountable, leading to more medical treatment, and higher costs. Some will say that didn't happen in Europe, but there's really no way to know since most of those countries have had social systems since before such statistics could have been obtained. And I'll admit I haven't gone though the WHO whooey, but I would be truly surprised if that organization addressed some of the issues I raised in my initial post, such as our comparatively higher productivity and racial diversity.
Ask yourself, would you rather drive in a city where everyone had unlimited car insurance?
...and guess who is to blame.
Additionally, there is the added problem of the shortage of primary care physicians. This is a problem for all health care, not just medicare.
Again, while this is very important for us to know, I'm not here to defend Medicare. It is an imperfect system that has constantly had to be reformed. The fundamental problem is that the ratio of workers paying Medicare taxes to retirees drawing benefits is shrinking at the same time that the price of health care services per person is increasing. Prices set by private health insurance companies with no oversight or regulation (see mousethief's post above). A universal system would be much more balanced, as it would provide a check against private health care.
The issue being missed is that since 1965, seniors and the disabled have had some access to health care. While maybe only 58 of doctors will accept Medicare, that's still better than 0 .
Website and Blog: ickeroo.com
I believe Taiwan's system has an official visit people when they use too much health care superfluously and try to straighten things out.
We could do something similar here. If you are clearly wasting resources, you can be fined.
Have you seen the way people drive? I would argue that most people drive as though they have unlimited car insurance right now!
U.S. Productivity Growth Still Trails Europe The US may "work harder" but we aren't more productive, besides, why would working ourselves to death be something to be proud of?
Preventative health care is what makes the difference in the other countries.
Does your metaphor work if people only get one car their whole life? It doesn't work because we only get one body, and not everything can be fixed.
Alternatively, would you want to live in country with no public police department? No public fire department? Would you want to have to pay for them to come to your home if it was broken into or on fire?
Website and Blog: ickeroo.com
Capt Morgan wrote
You're talking about productivity growth, not productivity. We are more productive, and any authoritative study will back that up. Our rate of increase in productivity may have been slower as of that two year old study, but we are still more productive.
Should working harder kill you? No, probably not. But working harder than others is likely a contributing factor in comparing life expectancy. And I stand by my statements that we work harder and that our hard work kept and keeps Europe the entity that it is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/business/worldbusiness/04output.html
US is 1 because we have a longer work week. Technically, Norway is more productive, if you attribute output per hour worked.
I remember reading a report a few years back that also said that (aside from Norway) France was also more productive, but it might be from using old numbers.
Website and Blog: ickeroo.com
I didn't write that.
Sorry. Cut and paste error.
Fixed!
So we're more racially diverse than many European countries. What's wrong with collecting excess wealth/income from those who aren't using it for their health and putting that money towards improving the health of less-healthy-than-the-average-white non-white people, Nugby?
Is your argument here against giving social care to non-whites or for forcing social care on all Americans?
Example: If you and your spouse were saving up to have a child, and some dude just came and took that money since you are not using it "for your health", and gave it to the Octo-mom, you would be okay with that? I mean, I know we are already doing that to a degree, but there has to be a line...
Well, putting it like that for starters.
The first question would be "how much is excess?" The average income is under 30K. Should it be anything above that?
Second is who gives two [bleep!]s about racial diversity? The goal is universal coverage.
Kalman
That's just un-American.
So I take it you don't know anyone who was diagnosed with cancer and forced to have fund raisers, or sell their home to pay for chemo? Again, with universal health care, people pay within their means and receive within their needs. The benefit is that if you or your loved one, or someone you know comes down with a serious illness, they are covered. Obviously, with any social program there will be people who will take advantage of it, but I think the benefit far out ways those who abuse it.
Website and Blog: ickeroo.com
To YellowSchoolBus...this is how I also feel about governments collecting money and using it to provide healthcare to everyone in the country. Maybe you disagree...but that's how I feel. The person you provided included (though I don't like the name you gave)--and understanding, of course, that the money isn't just coming from my bank account, but from the bank accounts of multiple people with excess wealth/income.
Cuz, y'know...I'm an un-American commie. :spineyes: h/t Rubymae
Beats me. I'm trying to figure out why nugby has brought it up as an obstacle to universal coverage, myself.
I believe he brought it up because a we have a lower life expectancy than other countries with socialized health care, and he believes that it's partly because of the US having more racial diversity.
Offhand I believe the statistics show that minorities in general have a lower lifespan, but I believe that's also because of a general corresponding lower economic status. This was one of the reasons affirmative action was implemented to begin with (I don't defend it, I'm just saying this is was one of the reasons why it came about).
Regardless of said statistics, the 2006 WHO survey demonstrated that the poorest individuals in the UK had higher life expectancies, than the wealthiest individuals living in the US, which has the lowest of minorities, so I don't think nugby's logic applies.
Website and Blog: ickeroo.com
Capt Morgan wrote
Can you provide a link to that? I couldn't find it.
What I did find in looking at life expectancies is that across the board, women live longer than men. Since a good portion of the argument for social medicine in the US is the longer life expectancy in countries with social medicine, do I hear any support for allocating more of those social medicine resources to men? Some in this thread are clearly in the "take from those who don't need and give to those who do" camp. Should men be the priority in redistributing medical wealth based on their lower life expectancy? Or are those people only social enough that they want to be on the taking, rather than giving, end.
Thanks for the clarification, CaptMorgain & Nugby.
But Nugby, in your last post, I do think you've conflated different sub-topics w/ each other.
There's been talk about income/wealth redistribution. There's been talk about comparative indicators of health.
But I haven't yet seen any posters combine the two in quite the way you just implied.
Don't get me wrong... I'm all for socialized coverage. It's just that I know what to expect. As a sickly child, I was the product of socialized medicine... meaning that I wouldn't be alive if I didn't spend weeks in the hospital paid by socialism. I also know for a fact that a lot of countries with socialized medicine develop practices of doctors recieving under the table "tips" to treat patients. In the end, it all balances out. The rich still receives the best care, the poor receives at least some care, and everybody loses a little bit of freedom to choose. I just don't believe that it will make that much difference in the long run...
I think it would make A LOT of difference in the long run. That people who now can't afford health insurance can go to the doctor is going to save and improve the quality of many many lives.
I'm finishing up my graduate program in a radiation medicine clinic that services much of rural central and eastern Kentucky- which has many many many people living in poverty. They can't afford to go to the doctor when they think something is wrong. They go to the doctor when they start bleeding uncontrollably from every orifice or because the tumor on their neck is so big they can't turn their head anymore. At which point cancers that would have been so easily cured if they had been caught early (many of which would have, if they went to the doc at first symptoms or had regular checkups) are now a death sentence. And all we can do is give them radiation and meds to reduce the pain, not to cure them. If they could afford to go to the doctor when they first needed to, they wouldn't be coming to us on their deathbeds, and leaving their family in debt or without a house to cover their end of life medical care. Sure, part of this is fear of doctors/lack of education, but most of it is lack of access to affordable health care.
Also, socialized medicine does NOT equal socialism. And the people who can afford quality health care now will not lose any freedom to choose where they are treated, as there will always be private health care available.
follow my adventures at www.AppalachianToAlpine.blogspot.com!
Disease and Disadvantage in the United States and in England
From Baltimore City Paper:
Website and Blog: ickeroo.com
18,000 Americans die each year in the US because they have no health care. Private Health Care costs Americans 6k per year (other countries 3K or less), which equates to 15 of our GDP and is expected to increase to 20 of our GDP by 2017.
We're trying to make a difference in the long run for people in need and for the economy.
Website and Blog: ickeroo.com
Page(s): < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 30 31 Next > (919 items total)
BBCode is no longer supported. Use Markdown instead: