A serious look at Health Care in other countries

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
85% are covered, it is not a mess. I am without insurance. And I am against any government involvement WHATSOEVER. MMmmk got that?

There will be no investment in new medical care if we socialize it. Which is what will happen, Obama will subsidize the gov't program so that nobody can compete, they'll all die off, and then everybody will be on the gov't program. And then all the funds will go to curing issues, and absolutely none will be spent on curing new diseases or on new research. You can kiss your hopes of a cancer cure being implemented goodbye.

You really have no idea how research works in America.

Most research is funded fully or partially by the NIH and NSF, both government entities. Private companies spend a paltry amount of their own money actually conducting research.

And finally, zero insurance dollars go towards research, so "socializing" them would have almost no impact on research conducted in medicine.
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
85% are covered, it is not a mess. I am without insurance. And I am against any government involvement WHATSOEVER. MMmmk got that?

There will be no investment in new medical care if we socialize it. Which is what will happen, Obama will subsidize the gov't program so that nobody can compete, they'll all die off, and then everybody will be on the gov't program. And then all the funds will go to curing issues, and absolutely none will be spent on curing new diseases or on new research. You can kiss your hopes of a cancer cure being implemented goodbye.

You really have no idea how research works in America.

Most research is funded fully or partially by the NIH and NSF, both government entities. Private companies spend a paltry amount of their own money actually conducting research.

And finally, zero insurance dollars go towards research, so "socializing" them would have almost no impact on research conducted in medicine.

This is true. My wife works on various studies, and basically the vast majority of the funding comes from the federal government. And last time I checked the government doesn't make any money when insurance companies sell insurance or drug companies sell drugs.
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Btw, what I like from the audio is the card they use in France that has all your history on it. Great way to reduce the paperwork.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
medical care.

frankly i like what i've heard about the german and french systems. my biggest beef with them is that, iirc, you don't have the option to simply not get insurance. i don't like the concept of forcing people at gunpoint to purchase any product. i like the card system for history generally, but worry about people's info getting stolen easily.
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
medical care.

frankly i like what i've heard about the german and french systems. my biggest beef with them is that, iirc, you don't have the option to simply not get insurance. i don't like the concept of forcing people at gunpoint to purchase any product. i like the card system for history generally, but worry about people's info getting stolen easily.

The way I look at it is that you are already being forced to buy police, fire, construction, etc etc, services. You can't opt out of paying taxes, which in turn finances these necessary entities.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,101
5,640
126
Originally posted by: ElFenix
medical care.

frankly i like what i've heard about the german and french systems. my biggest beef with them is that, iirc, you don't have the option to simply not get insurance. i don't like the concept of forcing people at gunpoint to purchase any product. i like the card system for history generally, but worry about people's info getting stolen easily.

People should simply not be allowed to opt out. If/When something comes up,, many of those people will either be up shit creek or send others who have Paid up shit creek. Health is not a choice, people will need Care no matter what they do in Life.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
People should simply not be allowed to opt out. If/When something comes up,, many of those people will either be up shit creek or send others who have Paid up shit creek. Health is not a choice, people will need Care no matter what they do in Life.

whether to get medical care or not certainly is a choice.

now if you'd have said that people may decide not to buy medical insurance or prepaid medical and then (almsot always) decide when push comes to shove to go to the emergency room, then that is a different matter. and yes, because doctors and the society have determined not to turn anyone away from an ER, it does cost the rest of us money. but that isn't the only way of doing things.


Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

The way I look at it is that you are already being forced to buy police, fire, construction, etc etc, services. You can't opt out of paying taxes, which in turn finances these necessary entities.
iirc, the fire department bills you. police is necessary to be tax funded, as is the army, because those services inure to the benefit of all and it's impossible to figure out who really gained what from what. it's quite easy to tell who consumed what medical care.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
You really have no idea how research works in America.

Most research is funded fully or partially by the NIH and NSF, both government entities.

The NSF is explicitly for non medical research. The NIH accounts for roughly 28% of all medical research funded in the US, the other 72% being funded by private industry(based on 2003 numbers- most recent I could find).

US's GDP was $10.9Trillion in 2003, of that we spent just under 16% on health care, roughly $1.74Trillion. Of that money, industry spent $72Billion or just over 4% on research. By way of comparison, the US Government took in $3.67 Trillion and spent a whopping 0.7% of their take on medical research. Private industry spend a lot more on R&D looking at absolute numbers, and the rift is even larger if we take into consideration the percentages when comparing it to the government.

And finally, zero insurance dollars go towards research

This is straight idiocy when talking about a capitalist system. The insurance companies pay either the drug makers or the hospitals who in turn buy their equiptment and supplies from the companies who are spending the money. No, the insurance companies do no have their own R&D in place, but they absolutely fund research by their basic continued operation.

frankly i like what i've heard about the german and french systems

When the wealthy Germans or French get really sick, they come here. Much as those people that buy i7s today save us money tomorrow, the exact same situation plays itself out in the medical field.

when Americans get government run health care they really seem to like it, the VA, the Native American Health server, and Medicare are the three most popular health care systems all run by government

Hehe, a close friend of mine is a Marine(I'd like to say former, but he damn near rips my head off when I do, once a Marine, always a Marine) and he has full coverage at the VA. He gladly pays his $100 a week to get private insurance as the VA is a travesty and certainly is directly comparable to third world care. This is something I seriously think we need to address. While I have issues with a big push to insure those who have opted out of coverage through choices in their life, we should take care of our veterans and fulfill the deal we made with them when they volunteered to put their lives on the line in service of their country.

Health is not a choice, people will need Care no matter what they do in Life.

This simply is not true since you stated it as an absolute. My Grandfather lived into his 90s, never spent a day in a hospital in his life and went to the doctors twice during my life time(the last close to 30 years of his life). Conversely, his brother was in desperate need of constant medical attention and died due to lack of proper care, sadly there wasn't anything we could do as he lived in Canada(take a number, your life isn't as important as the number). Many people don't need medical care, or don't want medical care in their life. That isn't me, but since I want it I made sure to be in a position to have it. I could do contracting work as an independent doing the same thing I do now and probably make quite a bit more money, but instead I opted to work for a major corporation in large part because I wanted the benefit of a giant insurance company in case at some point a family member does need serious coverage.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,029
48,004
136
Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
You really have no idea how research works in America.

Most research is funded fully or partially by the NIH and NSF, both government entities.

The NSF is explicitly for non medical research. The NIH accounts for roughly 28% of all medical research funded in the US, the other 72% being funded by private industry(based on 2003 numbers- most recent I could find).

US's GDP was $10.9Trillion in 2003, of that we spent just under 16% on health care, roughly $1.74Trillion. Of that money, industry spent $72Billion or just over 4% on research. By way of comparison, the US Government took in $3.67 Trillion and spent a whopping 0.7% of their take on medical research. Private industry spend a lot more on R&D looking at absolute numbers, and the rift is even larger if we take into consideration the percentages when comparing it to the government.

And finally, zero insurance dollars go towards research

This is straight idiocy when talking about a capitalist system. The insurance companies pay either the drug makers or the hospitals who in turn buy their equiptment and supplies from the companies who are spending the money. No, the insurance companies do no have their own R&D in place, but they absolutely fund research by their basic continued operation.

frankly i like what i've heard about the german and french systems

When the wealthy Germans or French get really sick, they come here. Much as those people that buy i7s today save us money tomorrow, the exact same situation plays itself out in the medical field.

when Americans get government run health care they really seem to like it, the VA, the Native American Health server, and Medicare are the three most popular health care systems all run by government

Hehe, a close friend of mine is a Marine(I'd like to say former, but he damn near rips my head off when I do, once a Marine, always a Marine) and he has full coverage at the VA. He gladly pays his $100 a week to get private insurance as the VA is a travesty and certainly is directly comparable to third world care. This is something I seriously think we need to address. While I have issues with a big push to insure those who have opted out of coverage through choices in their life, we should take care of our veterans and fulfill the deal we made with them when they volunteered to put their lives on the line in service of their country.

Health is not a choice, people will need Care no matter what they do in Life.

This simply is not true since you stated it as an absolute. My Grandfather lived into his 90s, never spent a day in a hospital in his life and went to the doctors twice during my life time(the last close to 30 years of his life). Conversely, his brother was in desperate need of constant medical attention and died due to lack of proper care, sadly there wasn't anything we could do as he lived in Canada(take a number, your life isn't as important as the number). Many people don't need medical care, or don't want medical care in their life. That isn't me, but since I want it I made sure to be in a position to have it. I could do contracting work as an independent doing the same thing I do now and probably make quite a bit more money, but instead I opted to work for a major corporation in large part because I wanted the benefit of a giant insurance company in case at some point a family member does need serious coverage.

There are several serious issues with your post. First problem comes with your comparison of research funding. Why on earth would you use the entire federal budget as a basis for what percentage the government spends on medical research? That simply makes no sense when you are comparing it to the US health industry. If the US government's entire job was to provide for medical research that would be one thing, but it's not. You don't take into account an entire corporate conglomerate when measuring the performance of one of its subsidiaries. A better way to do it would to look at how much the government spent on health care in a year as compared to how much on research, wouldn't you agree? While there can certainly be some debate over what in the budget counts as 'health care', if you include Medicare, Medicaid and VA health services, you find that the government spent about 4% of it's health care budget on R&D in 2003. Crazy, I know.

Your Marine friend's experience with the VA system is unfortunate, but it is most certainly not representative. Customer satisfaction surveys for the VA system consistently rank it more highly than the private one. There are other contributing reasons for this like the low cost to the patient, but a 'travesty comparable to third world care' it most certainly is not. Furthermore I have personal, firsthand experience with the VA, and they literally saved my life. My experience with them was absolutely first rate for both inpatient and outpatient care. Your description of the VA simply doesn't hold up under the evidence.

The idea that insurance companies fund research by their existence is a stretch at best. That money that the drug companies or whoever gets isn't given to them by the insurance companies, it's given to them by the insurance companies' customers through copayments and premiums. There's absolutely no way that the insurance company is the one promoting the research there, if anything their overhead inhibits it.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
85% are covered, it is not a mess. I am without insurance. And I am against any government involvement WHATSOEVER. MMmmk got that?

Congrats on being part of the problem. Please stay the fuck away from my ER when you DO need us. MMmmk got that? No one likes to work for free on assholes who are too proud or too stupid to accept help because the evil goberment is involved.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
Originally posted by: ohnoes
His description of the french/swiss systems sounded interesting. Could it be as easy as forcing insurance companies to be non-profit entities?

Nope, they got too much clout and their CEO's are making like bandits. Imagine democrats trying to force insurance companies into a non-profit model, conservative scumbags will cry about the BIG BAD GUBMIT forcing private business to do what it wants.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
Originally posted by: ElFenix
medical care.

frankly i like what i've heard about the german and french systems. my biggest beef with them is that, iirc, you don't have the option to simply not get insurance. i don't like the concept of forcing people at gunpoint to purchase any product. i like the card system for history generally, but worry about people's info getting stolen easily.

It's cheaper when EVERYONE is into insurance.

There was a study more than a decade ago about car insurance that compared a few cities that had mandatory car insurance and those that didn't. Those that had mandated insurance had much cheaper insurance.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Why on earth would you use the entire federal budget as a basis for what percentage the government spends on medical research?

Because I had 100% faith that one of you would prove my point for me so I didn't have to be the one to say it, and you did :)

if you include Medicare, Medicaid and VA health services, you find that the government spent about 4% of it's health care budget on R&D in 2003. Crazy, I know.

Isn't it crazy though? That the noble government spent the exact same percentage on R&D that the evil corporations did?

Your Marine friend's experience with the VA system is unfortunate, but it is most certainly not representative.

Yes, it certainly is quite represenative. The VA system is horribly broken, it has been neglected for decades by both parties. Walk in to you local VA, if there is one close by, and talk to the people there. Yes, you can point to surveys, the only one that has any merit is for those that had access to both systems. I walk into Mass General and then the local VA, yes, it is very much like walking into a third world facility(as is the comparison a bit north comparing Dartmouth medical center to the VA there).

Furthermore I have personal, firsthand experience with the VA, and they literally saved my life.

Evil corporate ERs save thousands of lives every day. Third world ERs save thousands of lives every day.

The idea that insurance companies fund research by their existence is a stretch at best.

I said they did so by their continued operation. Have you ever had insurance? Because when I get a script filled or go to the doctors I show them my card, and that's it. The insurance company gives them money, I don't directly give them anything.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,029
48,004
136
Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Why on earth would you use the entire federal budget as a basis for what percentage the government spends on medical research?

Because I had 100% faith that one of you would prove my point for me so I didn't have to be the one to say it, and you did :)

if you include Medicare, Medicaid and VA health services, you find that the government spent about 4% of it's health care budget on R&D in 2003. Crazy, I know.

Isn't it crazy though? That the noble government spent the exact same percentage on R&D that the evil corporations did?

Your Marine friend's experience with the VA system is unfortunate, but it is most certainly not representative.

Yes, it certainly is quite represenative. The VA system is horribly broken, it has been neglected for decades by both parties. Walk in to you local VA, if there is one close by, and talk to the people there. Yes, you can point to surveys, the only one that has any merit is for those that had access to both systems. I walk into Mass General and then the local VA, yes, it is very much like walking into a third world facility(as is the comparison a bit north comparing Dartmouth medical center to the VA there).

Furthermore I have personal, firsthand experience with the VA, and they literally saved my life.

Evil corporate ERs save thousands of lives every day. Third world ERs save thousands of lives every day.

The idea that insurance companies fund research by their existence is a stretch at best.

I said they did so by their continued operation. Have you ever had insurance? Because when I get a script filled or go to the doctors I show them my card, and that's it. The insurance company gives them money, I don't directly give them anything.

Look, your numbers for your first point were just bad. What's with all this 'evil corporations' BS? Your post was simply deliberately misleading about funding levels. I was even nicer to your numbers than I needed to if we were going to buy your insurance company idea because the government supplies a significant portion of private health care industry revenues from the US (about 40%), thus contributing to their research as well. On your first point you were either bad with the numbers or you were purposefully trying to deceive people, not good either way.

I have personally have had access to both health care systems, and my personal experience is very different and certainly far more substantial than yours. I've been treated by both private medicine and the VA, have you? The VA's emergency room didn't save my life, their top notch surgical and oncology departments did. I find the private medical care around San Diego to be excellent as well. Apparently other people who visit the VA feel the same way I do. I'm sorry, but as I said before your point on the VA collapses in the face of evidence.

Of course I've had insurance. Do you know how insurance companies work? Do you know where the money is coming from that the insurance company is paying the doctor or pharmacist? It's coming from the premiums you (or your employer) pay on your behalf, copayments, and some investment income. Other than the investment income (which could just as easily come from the individual actors), they insurance company is simply giving the money of you and your fellow policyholders to the drug companies. They aren't funding them by their existence, YOU are funding the R&D. If I give you 10 dollars to give to someone else, who do you credit with doing it, the originator of the cash or the delivery boy?

I think you're trying to jam my posts into some sort of anti-corporate script that you have or something, why I have no idea. I was simply correcting some misleading information and unsupportable assertions in your previous post.
 

ohnoes

Senior member
Oct 11, 2007
269
0
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
85% are covered, it is not a mess. I am without insurance. And I am against any government involvement WHATSOEVER. MMmmk got that?

Congrats on being part of the problem. Please stay the fuck away from my ER when you DO need us. MMmmk got that? No one likes to work for free on assholes who are too proud or too stupid to accept help because the evil goberment is involved.

You know, I didn't realize how much doctors hated & loathed the ER till my friend did his residency. The stories he tells me from then & now as an attending are pretty ridiculous.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
85% are covered, it is not a mess. I am without insurance. And I am against any government involvement WHATSOEVER. MMmmk got that?

There will be no investment in new medical care if we socialize it. Which is what will happen, Obama will subsidize the gov't program so that nobody can compete, they'll all die off, and then everybody will be on the gov't program. And then all the funds will go to curing issues, and absolutely none will be spent on curing new diseases or on new research. You can kiss your hopes of a cancer cure being implemented goodbye.

Yea lets just skip over the fact that half of bankruptcies are from medical reasons and most of them HAVE insurance.

"most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness."

http://www.consumeraffairs.com...udy.html#ixzz0PTaKJZVR

The study I linked to was done by a Dr at harvard.

"Dr. David Himmelstein, the lead author of the study and an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard"
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,685
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Look, your numbers for your first point were just bad.

Why are you even wasting time with him? It was obvious right from the start with his deliberately misleading R&D statistics that he's a troll, not interested in anything but low level demagoguery.

Comparing the R&D allocation of the health care industry vs the medical R&D allocation of the entire Federal Government. :roll: Yeah, real hard to see through that one

 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: ElFenix
medical care.

frankly i like what i've heard about the german and french systems. my biggest beef with them is that, iirc, you don't have the option to simply not get insurance. i don't like the concept of forcing people at gunpoint to purchase any product. i like the card system for history generally, but worry about people's info getting stolen easily.

It's cheaper when EVERYONE is into insurance.

There was a study more than a decade ago about car insurance that compared a few cities that had mandatory car insurance and those that didn't. Those that had mandated insurance had much cheaper insurance.

well no shit it's cheaper. i still don't like forcing people at gunpoint to buy insurance.
 

davestar

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2001
1,787
0
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: ElFenix
medical care.

frankly i like what i've heard about the german and french systems. my biggest beef with them is that, iirc, you don't have the option to simply not get insurance. i don't like the concept of forcing people at gunpoint to purchase any product. i like the card system for history generally, but worry about people's info getting stolen easily.

It's cheaper when EVERYONE is into insurance.

There was a study more than a decade ago about car insurance that compared a few cities that had mandatory car insurance and those that didn't. Those that had mandated insurance had much cheaper insurance.

well no shit it's cheaper. i still don't like forcing people at gunpoint to buy insurance.

gunpoint? where's the gun? aside from at recent Obama appearances, that is...
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Originally posted by: davestar
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: ElFenix
medical care.

frankly i like what i've heard about the german and french systems. my biggest beef with them is that, iirc, you don't have the option to simply not get insurance. i don't like the concept of forcing people at gunpoint to purchase any product. i like the card system for history generally, but worry about people's info getting stolen easily.

It's cheaper when EVERYONE is into insurance.

There was a study more than a decade ago about car insurance that compared a few cities that had mandatory car insurance and those that didn't. Those that had mandated insurance had much cheaper insurance.

well no shit it's cheaper. i still don't like forcing people at gunpoint to buy insurance.

gunpoint? where's the gun? aside from at recent Obama appearances, that is...

Well basically everything that the government does is at 'gunpoint' using your analogy, ElFenix. All we can do is not re-elect them. I see many other government policies that are far worse than this healthcare proposal. The war in Iraq is one example.
 

bobsmith1492

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2004
3,875
3
81
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: ElFenix
medical care.

frankly i like what i've heard about the german and french systems. my biggest beef with them is that, iirc, you don't have the option to simply not get insurance. i don't like the concept of forcing people at gunpoint to purchase any product. i like the card system for history generally, but worry about people's info getting stolen easily.

It's cheaper when EVERYONE is into insurance.

There was a study more than a decade ago about car insurance that compared a few cities that had mandatory car insurance and those that didn't. Those that had mandated insurance had much cheaper insurance.

Isn't car insurance mandated by individual states?