National Health Care

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Gee, let's talk specifics here ... Sorry, but the linked story is hyperbole and propoganda.

A little more info but again more hyperbole! I'm not trying to diminish the frustration of some of these people, however the reality is, despite potential long waits they have access to the care whereas 1 in 7 Americans don't have insurance. And, you failed to recognize that health tourism is equally on the rise in the States. You would rather deal in half truths and fear mongoring.

I am not "dealing" anything. You said all was well, and no one that you knew was denied care or waited long. I provided some counterexamples. These are just public articles I found in a quick Google search. They are real, but feel free to write them off as hyperbole and "half-truth", until its YOU waiting months in pain or worry for a procedure because you your or your family member's problem is not labeled "life threatening".

As I said, I know the situation in America has its own flaws. One good thing about the set-up in England is that you CAN get private insurance and with that you can get better care. Same with India. Sure, its a two-tier system but there is practically nothing in this world that is not. Buses are often provided subsidized by the govt, but if you can afford it, you can drive a car or take a taxi, etc. You can go to a JuCo or a University. UMass-Lowell or Harvard, etc.

One big problem with replicating what is done is Canada in the US is the cost. The disparity in pricing of prescription medications in the US vs Canada has been well covered in the US press. The disparity in the pricing of a lot of other products and services is often worse. What is happening is that the US with the strict (and often arbitrary) rules of the FDA, historical precedent as "the worlds richest country", and the tort situation in the US, all contribute to a situation where the US subsidizes much of the R&D costs of new drugs, procedures and devices for the rest of the world. At some point that cost has to be redistributed, at least among the developed countries.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What evidence do you have that thousands or any number die due to inability to pay?

From most data which I've seen, I can't any credible numbers to support this concept. It comes from alarmist camps, but doesn't seem supportable.

Here you go:

http://www.urban.org/publications/411588.html

From the abstract:

In 2002, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) estimated that 18,000 Americans died in 2000 because they were uninsured. Since then, the number of uninsured has grown. Based on the IOM's methodology and subsequent Census Bureau estimates of insurance coverage, 137,000 people died from 2000 through 2006 because they lacked health insurance, including 22,000 people in 2006.

[Jeff Lebowski]

As of 2006, 15% of Americans (43.6 million) without any health insurance,

http://www.cdc.gov/Features/Uninsured/

A person was defined as uninsured if he or she did not have any private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), state-sponsored or other government-sponsored health plan, or military plan.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

I have the source ... it would take some digging (I knew I kept my college notes for some reason

I'm with Mike. I call BS on that 96% stat. Let's see some substantiation.

[BarbaraGordon]

The bizarre thing is that we're paying far more than any other country for health care...over $4000 per capita. Canada is at $2300. The closest to our level of expenditure is Switzerland, at $2800 per capita. That cost is even more striking when you consider that we're paying that much more to cover only 85% of our population; whereas the other nations are paying considerably less to cover 100% of theirs.

But when compared to other industrialized nations, we fail at almost every quantifiable measure of health care system performance. It's really a pretty sorry state of affairs.

-

Gentlemen, I tried to track down the 96% stat. The closest I can find is that Medicare pays out an enormous percentage of each person's total payout in the last year of his/her life. It's possible that in one of the studies it came out as 96%, though I didn't find that particular one. If you think about it, that makes sense. Medicare is only available to the elderly, so they're only on it for a few years, and with the last year being so expensive with residential care, ICU stay, etc, it could end up being in the 90% range.

Anyhow, that's the only thing that I can find that would approximate MRD's claim.

[RockyBalboa]

Calling Michael Moore movies Documentaries is a slap in the face to real documentaries.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by hyrum

I am not "dealing" anything. You said all was well, and no one that you knew was denied care or waited long. I provided some counterexamples. These are just public articles I found in a quick Google search. They are real, but feel free to write them off as hyperbole and "half-truth", until its YOU waiting months in pain or worry for a procedure because you your or your family member's problem is not labeled "life threatening".

As I said, I know the situation in America has its own flaws. One good thing about the set-up in England is that you CAN get private insurance and with that you can get better care. Same with India. Sure, its a two-tier system but there is practically nothing in this world that is not. Buses are often provided subsidized by the govt, but if you can afford it, you can drive a car or take a taxi, etc. You can go to a JuCo or a University. UMass-Lowell or Harvard, etc.

One big problem with replicating what is done is Canada in the US is the cost. The disparity in pricing of prescription medications in the US vs Canada has been well covered in the US press. The disparity in the pricing of a lot of other products and services is often worse. What is happening is that the US with the strict (and often arbitrary) rules of the FDA, historical precedent as "the worlds richest country", and the tort situation in the US, all contribute to a situation where the US subsidizes much of the R&D costs of new drugs, procedures and devices for the rest of the world. At some point that cost has to be redistributed, at least among the developed countries.

The truth is I DID NOT say "all is well". You are making that up to bolster a weak argument that is not based in fact but rather hyperbole. Where are the facts in those articles you linked? They are mysteriously missing, why? Because, as I stated in my original response the stories ARE NOT as straight forward as you have made them out to be.

The reality is in the past I have offered personal stories about my experiences with each respective health system:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...ht=health+care

Beyond my own personal story I offer the experience of father in-law who survived prostate cancer. He was diagnosed when he was 75 and received the very best immediate care available to anyone in North America. There was no institution telling him he’s too old for this or that procedure. The one article you linked, I might ad, is not demonstrative of a fundamental breakdown of the entire Canadian system but rather some peculiarity in the way in which it is administered in a specific province … the person was in fact able to go to another province and have the procedure done

Furthermore, I do not, nor have not suggested that the US should adopt the Canadian system –that would be a mistake. But the point of this thread as started by Lebowski is not to suggest the US adopt the same system, but rather to learn from the system in the development of it’s own unique system. As an American who lives with the Canadian system I offer FACTUAL knowledge on the subject that should help dispell the myths and fear mongoring.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

True of false: nationalized healthcare would lead to a burst of entrepreneurial activity as more people are willing to let go of jobs that had previously guaranteed health insurance?

True -especially in the US with such vast resources of people and materials.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The delay can kill.

And your definition of emergent and elective is different than ours.

My point is that all systems make cost judgments and no system delivers all things to all patients. That simply is untrue; all systems ration and deny some patients some things.

We simply need to discuss the value systems for these denials and their related costs, not engage in debates about scare tactic anecdotes.

Now you are playing lawyer with your words ... you prefer the harshness of the word 'denial' to describe what occurs when in fact no one is denied anything. The system must carefully measure how quickly it adopts new treaments and proceedures and therefore is slower to change but it does not willfully deny proceedures.

Wait times are due to a shortage of doctors, staff and facilities not a scheme to 'deny' and cut costs.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

That's an awfully self-serving summary of the discussion on this thread.

It's arrogant and ignorant is what it is.