Topic: Health Care (split from I am very confused.) - page 3. (Read 4538 times)

You realize that the U.K. recently had a whole government upheaval based upon health care solvency concerns. Hello, Mr Cameron. Here are a few random links from the first google page that came up. There seem to be some current issues.

http://www.sourcewire.com/releases/rel_display.php?relid=67094
http://www.ournhsinshropshireandtelford.nhs.uk/viewpoint/110224-capsticks.aspx
http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/workforce/dh-seeks-solvency-assurances-from-nhs-employers/5014860.article

Canada in in the midst of health care reform as well. More random google results.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/08/10/pol-cma-report.html

The majority of respondents said they are not getting good value for money, especially compared with European countries, and they based that assessment on long waiting times for the care they need, the report said.

Discussions over private versus public health care were frequent, the report said, and support for a publicly funded system was widespread. Turnbull noted, however, that some expressed openness to private sector assistance to help alleviate some of the immediate pressures on the public system.

Participants in the dialogue agreed that Canadians need to take responsibility for their own health, but they said there is a need for "healthy public policy" to help people make healthy decisions. Better health education and support for economically disadvantaged groups were among the suggestions made and some said tax incentives should be introduced to encourage healthier choices.

We do have a mixture of public and private services, yes. So why blame the public part of that equation when countries with entirely public systems pay so much less?

The US has an extreme amount of government-involvement. The regulations, subsidies and provisions going towards the medical industry are of the same capacity as Europe.

I am just making one thing clear: the United States does not have private healthcare. It hasn't had it for a long time.

We do have the some choice in which government-provisioned corporation we can go to for insurance. We can fortunately choose somebody who meets our desires and accommodates our schedule albeit with a higher cost.

We all don't have to use cesspool public clinics that take weeks to get an appointment with -- yet.

Even if no system is perfectly efficient, it should be apparent from the data that the most efficient systems have the most government involvement. And the least efficient system is the one clogged with private insurance and out-of-pocket spending.

Wait times in UHC countries are comparable to the U.S., as well. Some slightly higher, some slightly lower, but all in the same ballpark.

I am not contesting anything of what you are saying. The American system sucks. All of the systems suck. They are all horribly inefficient and customer service is non-existent. If I want luxuries and extra care, I have to pay an excessive amount to get what I desire in the name of entitlement. My main problem is people can't pay fair market value for care they desire and at the time they want it. There's horrible wait-lists and it's all one-size-fits-all. It looks good on paper but they all leave a lot to be desired.

Cuba can pay whatever is necessary. Again, they have oil reserves.

Either you are conflating me with someone else, or you haven't bother to read what I've written above. Perhaps something more that three lines is TL;DR.

But to clarify, I think the concept of entitlement is one of the two root causes of the problem. (See above) I don't think healthcare is a luxury. Healthcare is a service. The people who provide the service are not slaves nor are they beneath us. We have no right to compel them to work if they don't feel they are being adequately rewarded for their time. Currently, many doctors are leaving their field. They find their time better spent in other pursuits. If it continues that would cause healthcare to become a luxury. That would be a bad thing.

Clearly, I explained why US healthcare is too expensive (see above). And why that is a horribly stupid thing we should all be working to fix. It is fixable.

I don't think a mentioned Cuba at all. I did mention Europe. Both should make decisions as they see fit and be held responsible for their decisions. In Germany doctors have protested in the streets about harsh working conditions and low compensation. (see Frontline documentary on universal healthcare) Maybe Cubans are awesome. I have no idea.

The only thing I said was, I don't think "universal healthcare" guarantees "optimal healthcare". And when folks in my family get sick, I demand optimal healthcare. You are welcome to not make the same demands for yourself. But you may not deny that choice to me. I am Pro-Choice. You seem to be Pro-Meh. "You get what you get but at least we all get it together!"

Any questions?

And this has to do with the fact that they currently pay half of what we do how exactly? We even pay more in public funds than they do and their whole damn system is public.


Cuba pays $1200 per capita to insure their people. Their life expectancy is tied with the U.S. at 78.3 years.

Yes because they have massive oil reserves. They have disposable income to throw at a socialized healthcare system that runs at a loss. The US doesn't have such capacity.

Speaking about accountability, do you know that Cuba has one of the highest (if not the highest) life expectancy rates in both Americas? Why average lifespan in Cuba is the same (or slightly better) than the average lifespan in the U.S. and how is that corresponding to your statement about the superiority of current U.S. medicare system?

Heh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday

You know the U.K. has had the NHS since WWII and Canada has had UHC since the early '60s, right?

It seems you're right but not at competitive prices. It's amazing what oil exports can do.

Also, to address rainingbitcoins, they'll be healthy for now; however, the systems aren't financially sustainable.

I already linked the study that shows they did right here in this thread in response to one of your posts.


What part of half-price do you not understand here?



(Also note that American health care costs have gone up significantly even since 2008)

I'd imagine that if all of those countries had this horrible substandard care you keep rambling on about, they'd have lower life expectancies than us, but they don't. They're higher.

You keep changing accounts Atlas. First Ragnar, now I.Goldstein?

Actually you'll find that Cuba has a healthcare system and health infrastructure that would put lots of 'rich' countries to shame. Also, regarding that Cuba is the only place he can go, that is incorrect. The UK has been a safe haven for 'undesirables' to receive healthcare for years. The UK has been a safe-haven and ally to many a 'dictator'.

You almost have it right.

All those countries that insure their whole populations don't report how many died because their care was substandard to known best practices. Quite frankly, the medical establishment here discovered that problem (in the US) and it shocked the fuck out of them. Some common medical procedures had a 30% different mortality rate among different facilities. However, they all thought their rate was the common best-practice rate. Other countries later discovered the same thing.

Choosing a competent doctor is a life critical choice that I wish to retain the right to. Relinquish your right to that if you choose. If you wish to sacrifice your own care to save a buck, you have the freedom to do so. Your bad decisions do not make themselves my responsibilities.

Quite frankly I'm appalled if 45,000 people die unnecessarily. However, I don't believe that to be the case. We do have a safety net in this country. I see it work everyday. (see above) It provides health CARE like it should. It doesn't provide health INSURANCE which would be STUPID! (see above for my treatise) Yes, the existing safety net costs all of us too much. (see above for my other treatise)

But nothing you suggest seems even an attempt to solve that problem. You just seem to be advocating more steps down the road toward Greece.

Health care for all is a solvable problem. However, it does require everyone to attempt to be responsible. You cannot both require me to relieve someone of responsibility for their own actions and compel me to respect their opinion.

And here we get to the heart of what you believe. It doesn't matter if 45,000 people die as long as a wealthy prince can get the best care in the world.

All those countries that insure their whole populations for half the per capita price? Fuck 'em. I like it here where I can pay extra to ensure the poor die.

Risk without accountability fallacy.

What point do you think I was making? How is needing to hold Doctors responsible for being bad at their job, and different from holding pilots responsible for being bad at theirs? I'm clearly saying, "Some doctors are good at doctoring. Some doctors suck at doctoring. You serve no one by making them go to a doctor who sucks. Even if it's for free." I'm pretty sure the head of medicare/medicaid agrees with me.

You cannot both require me to relieve someone of responsibility for their own actions and compel me to respect their opinion. There has got to be a fancy Latin name for that logic fallacy? Anyone?

He is a good figure for the people of Venezuela. This is why they vote and elect him for President. He is a bad figure for those guys that want to control the oil fields of Venezuela like they do with Iraq and Libya.

Except when you don't get what you pay for...

"You get what you pay for," Mark B. McClellan, who runs Medicare and Medicaid, told me. "And we ought to be paying for better quality." ...We just are not using the power of incentives to save lives....

Joseph Britto, a former intensive-care doctor, likes to compare medicine's attitude toward mistakes with the airline industry's. At the insistence of pilots, who have the ultimate incentive not to mess up, airlines have studied their errors and nearly eliminated crashes.

"Unlike pilots," Dr. Britto said, "doctors don't go down with their planes."

----

This is probably the single best explanation of Consequences driving Responsibility that I have ever read!
The second is, "An electrical lineman's pencil does NOT come with an eraser."

Yes, Bankers should go down with their planes.
Yes, Dictators should go down with their planes.
No, Politicians should not be issued pencils with erasers.