American Health Care

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Perknose
Link it, and I shall come (and read it).

http://www.theobjectivestandar...versal-health-care.asp

The first two paragraphs say exactly what I was saying are WRONG about our yee-haw, cowboy system, "In short, there is a major disconnect between existing life-saving medical technology and the ability of Americans to afford it."

Yes, YES, Yes there is. This is what I said:

We, in our Cowboy, "manfully individualistic" way, have made health care a sadly scarce good in our nation.

So . . . how has this worked out for us?

Depsite, LAUGHABLY, spending twice as much per citizen, covered on not, in our health care sytem, we rank 37thamongst nations in overall in overall health care qualtity.

Our approach, overall, SUCKS. We chase the wondrous grail of premier, cutting edge procedures (also including plasitc surgery and multiple, unblievably espensive procdures to cover our over-litigous ass as the motherfucking END of life) at the expense of our citizenry's overall health. The NUMBERS speak for themselves.

Your article says, "The goal of ?universal health care? (a euphemism for socialized medicine) is both immoral and impractical. . ."

Your article is wrong on both counts, with the "immoral" part being laugh out loud, ridiculously and totally wrong.

Again, I say, affordable health coverage for everyone is not only the RIGHT thinng to do, morally (DUH), but is also the most efficent thing to do from the standpoint of a nation's bang for it's overall health care buck.

Damn, Bam, lookie here, what these puffed out retards said: "If you enjoyed this article, why not make objective journalism a staple in your life? Subscribe to The Objective Standard today!"

Not just STANDARD but OBJECTIVE! Yeeeeeeeeeee-hawwwwwwwww! By all that's sacred and NOT terminally insipid with Ayn Rand and her idiot clones, I SAY . . . Run Away, Run Away! 😛 :laugh:

 

[fallout man]

Just ignore the highly-paid incompetency...

IGNORE...

IGNORE...

IGNORE...

IGNORE...

IGNORE...

IGNORE...

IGNORE...

IGNORE...

YOU ARE NOW IN A TRANCE,

and any suggestions to the benefit of a state-run, fairly-distributed, accountable health-care system for all citizens of your state will cause you an allergic reaction.

If you experience the following symptoms:

-Calling the Rush Limbaugh radio talk show during your regular work hours
-Putting Rush Limbaugh themed ring-tones onto your cellular phone.
-Despising the fact that you can't chat-up your neighbors' gardener for a nasty, but discreet homosexual S&M session, simply because he does not "comprende el Ingles."

Call us! We will get you in touch with the right people to help you.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Perknose
Link it, and I shall come (and read it).

http://www.theobjectivestandar...versal-health-care.asp

The first two paragraphs say exactly what I was saying are WRONG about our yee-haw, cowboy system, "In short, there is a major disconnect between existing life-saving medical technology and the ability of Americans to afford it."

Yes, YES, Yes there is. This is what I said:

We, in our Cowboy, "manfully individualistic" way, have made health care a sadly scarce good in our nation.

So . . . how has this worked out for us?

Depsite, LAUGHABLY, spending twice as much per citizen, covered on not, in our health care sytem, we rank 37thamongst nations in overall in overall health care qualtity.

Our approach, overall, SUCKS. We chase the wondrous grail of premier, cutting edge procedures (also including plasitc surgery and multiple, unblievably espensive procdures to cover our over-litigous ass as the motherfucking END of life) at the expense of our citizenry's overall health. The NUMBERS speak for themselves.

Your article says, "The goal of ?universal health care? (a euphemism for socialized medicine) is both immoral and impractical. . ."

Your article is wrong on both counts, with the "immoral" part being laugh out loud, ridiculously and totally wrong.

Again, I say, affordable health coverage for everyone is not only the RIGHT thinng to do, morally (DUH), but is also the most efficent thing to do from the standpoint of a nation's bang for it's overall health care buck.

Damn, Bam, lookie here, what these puffed out retards said: "If you enjoyed this article, why not make objective journalism a staple in your life? Subscribe to The Objective Standard today!"

Not just STANDARD but OBJECTIVE! Yeeeeeeeeeee-hawwwwwwwww! By all that's sacred and NOT terminally insipid with Ayn Rand and her idiot clones, I SAY . . . Run Away, Run Away! 😛 :laugh:

Maybe you aught to read the rest of the article, which explains, and well I might add, that the system isn't anything resembling "free market," if that is what you are implying. The government has been intervening in the health care system for decades. Why do you think costs are so high? That's what you're complaining about, and rightfully so.

Like I said earlier, what we have needs changing. But if we don't understand why it is broken in the first place, we can't fix it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Perknose
Link it, and I shall come (and read it).

http://www.theobjectivestandar...versal-health-care.asp

The first two paragraphs say exactly what I was saying are WRONG about our yee-haw, cowboy system, "In short, there is a major disconnect between existing life-saving medical technology and the ability of Americans to afford it."

Yes, YES, Yes there is. This is what I said:

We, in our Cowboy, "manfully individualistic" way, have made health care a sadly scarce good in our nation.

So . . . how has this worked out for us?

Depsite, LAUGHABLY, spending twice as much per citizen, covered on not, in our health care sytem, we rank 37thamongst nations in overall in overall health care qualtity.

Our approach, overall, SUCKS. We chase the wondrous grail of premier, cutting edge procedures (also including plasitc surgery and multiple, unblievably espensive procdures to cover our over-litigous ass as the motherfucking END of life) at the expense of our citizenry's overall health. The NUMBERS speak for themselves.

Your article says, "The goal of ?universal health care? (a euphemism for socialized medicine) is both immoral and impractical. . ."

Your article is wrong on both counts, with the "immoral" part being laugh out loud, ridiculously and totally wrong.

Again, I say, affordable health coverage for everyone is not only the RIGHT thinng to do, morally (DUH), but is also the most efficent thing to do from the standpoint of a nation's bang for it's overall health care buck.

Damn, Bam, lookie here, what these puffed out retards said: "If you enjoyed this article, why not make objective journalism a staple in your life? Subscribe to The Objective Standard today!"

Not just STANDARD but OBJECTIVE! Yeeeeeeeeeee-hawwwwwwwww! By all that's sacred and NOT terminally insipid with Ayn Rand and her idiot clones, I SAY . . . Run Away, Run Away! 😛 :laugh:

Maybe you aught to read the rest of the article, which explains, and well I might add, that the system isn't anything resembling "free market," if that is what you are implying. The government has been intervening in the health care system for decades. Why do you think costs are so high? That's what you're complaining about, and rightfully so.

Like I said earlier, what we have needs changing. But if we don't understand why it is broken in the first place, we can't fix it.

:thumbsup:

That was a pretty good read.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Wreckem
It is not a lie.

The US Healthcare System has the best healthcare avalible if you can afford it. Almost all cutting/bleed edge advancements come from the United States.

Of course tons of people die from preventable causes. They couldnt afford care.

If you are rich, theres not a better place for healthcare. If you are poor you are fvcked. However simply nationalizing healthcare in the US doesnt help. Cost is the problem and getting it down isnt a simple task.

And nobody is entitled to free healthcare. Get off your lazy liberal asses and go work for a living.

Surely you're not such a dumbass that you think that the 46 million people who don't have healthcare insurance in this country are all liberal and don't work?

And you would also be a dumbass to think that those 46 million(by the most aggresive estimates) are the same 46M that are chronically uninsured and without any access to any care. The fact that health insurance is more often than not tied to employment, it should not be surprising the number is large. Change jobs for whatever reason, lose insurance coverage. But we can thank the government for the current setup(WWII wage controlls, brought heathcare as a bennie)

I am gainfully employed but don't have healthcare. The reason is three fold.

1. I am a contractor so I am not offered benefits through the company whose office I sit in 40+ hours a week

2. I live in Texas and the system is so tilted towards the corporation in almost every sector in this state that it would make your head spin

3. The insurance that is offered by the company that I am contracted through is a complete and utter joke. I would have to pay over $500/mo to cover my family for a plan that "offers" me $50 deductible, $2500 annual coverage limit (notice I said coverage and not out of pocket) per individual and a lifetime cap of $100,000.

So my choice is to take a lessor paying job with insurance, move to another state that is a little fairer in its decision making process between consumer and industry or to pay out of pocket at clinics for the little illnesses and pray to a God that I don't believe in that nothing major happens.

Let's not throw into the mix that my wife was in a car accident and had to have hip surgery and minor skin cancer (pre-existing conditions...not coverable), I have a daughter who has had the unfortunate fate of being a little clumsy which has resulted it two concussions (pre-existing conditions...not coverable) and i have a son that has been formally diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome (pre-existing conditions...not coverable).

Why in the name of everything intelligent and sensible would I spend $6000/yr for "insurance" that doesn't cover half of my family and requires that I have to pay for everything else over $2500 for a net loss of $3500 on top of the medical bills themselves?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Perknose
Link or links, please. Provide proof. Please show us the studies that prove your claim.

I would tell you to do your own legwork. But, even though you're so quick to point out your perceived flaws, it's obvious that you don't enjoy reading anything substantial on the subject. Here is much more information than you'll ever actually read:
All of WHO's World Health Reports

It's also amusing that you are so quick to jump on me for not "proving" my statements when you jumped to a completely unrelated conclusion in your OP. You're slipping. Big time.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Specop 007
We need to look closer at the statistics. If it includes people who dont have health insurance (Which I'm quite sure it does) then frankly its not a true measure of our healthcare.

We need to compare our health insurance carrying individuals to individuals in others countries who also have health insurance to paint a fair picture.

Now whether or not everyone should have healthcare is a different issue.

No, actually, I would submit it is one of the prime issues regarding a nation's health care -- how well are all of it's citizens provided for.

I contend healthcare is not the governments responsibility.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Specop 007
We need to look closer at the statistics. If it includes people who dont have health insurance (Which I'm quite sure it does) then frankly its not a true measure of our healthcare.

We need to compare our health insurance carrying individuals to individuals in others countries who also have health insurance to paint a fair picture.

Now whether or not everyone should have healthcare is a different issue.

No, actually, I would submit it is one of the prime issues regarding a nation's health care -- how well are all of it's citizens provided for.

I contend healthcare is not the governments responsibility.

Damnit, you've been reading that Constitution thing again!! :|

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Specop 007
We need to look closer at the statistics. If it includes people who dont have health insurance (Which I'm quite sure it does) then frankly its not a true measure of our healthcare.

We need to compare our health insurance carrying individuals to individuals in others countries who also have health insurance to paint a fair picture.

Now whether or not everyone should have healthcare is a different issue.

No, actually, I would submit it is one of the prime issues regarding a nation's health care -- how well are all of it's citizens provided for.

I contend healthcare is not the governments responsibility.

Damnit, you've been reading that Constitution thing again!! :|

Yeah. Imagine wanting my government to be formed and ran via the guidelines established for it? 😕

Imagine if everyone who thought <insert of country> was perfect would simply move there rather then trying to change where they are. Theres a new concept.....

I mean honestly. If you think the UK or Canada is the blinding light of freedom and social responsibility then MOVE THERE. If America is so damned bad why would one stay here?? 😕

A simple move and TA DA, the person is happy and has the government they want.....

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Specop 007
We need to look closer at the statistics. If it includes people who dont have health insurance (Which I'm quite sure it does) then frankly its not a true measure of our healthcare.

We need to compare our health insurance carrying individuals to individuals in others countries who also have health insurance to paint a fair picture.

Now whether or not everyone should have healthcare is a different issue.

No, actually, I would submit it is one of the prime issues regarding a nation's health care -- how well are all of it's citizens provided for.

I contend healthcare is not the governments responsibility.

Damnit, you've been reading that Constitution thing again!! :|

Yeah. Imagine wanting my government to be formed and ran via the guidelines established for it? 😕

Imagine if everyone who thought <insert of country> was perfect would simply move there rather then trying to change where they are. Theres a new concept.....

I mean honestly. If you think the UK or Canada is the blinding light of freedom and social responsibility then MOVE THERE. If America is so damned bad why would one stay here?? 😕

A simple move and TA DA, the person is happy and has the government they want.....

Wait a second....aren't you the same person that is stating that it was "Good" of congress to bypass the constitution to grant retroactive immunity to the telecoms so that the government could continue to break the 4th amendment?

Why yes, you are!

If the principles that the country was founded on aren't to your liking...why are you still here?

See how easy that game is to play?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Perknose
Rigorously compared to five other countries -- Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom - the US ranked dead last or next to last in all but one, while spending more than twice as much per capita (which includes ALL our citizens, if you didn't know) on health care (which also includes ALL our citizens, if you didn't know) than any of those countries except Canada, where we were spent just under twice as much.

Like I said, "Indefensible."

Oh, and CycloWizard, still waiting on your statistics. :thumbsup:

"Rigorously" compared? Do you know what that word means? They compared to only five other nations, and look at the conclusion. That, and they are essentially an organization working towards getting the US to implemet a universal healthcare system. Or didn't you read the "About Us" page?

The Commonwealth Fund is a private foundation that aims to promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults.

The Fund carries out this mandate by supporting independent research on health care issues and making grants to improve health care practice and policy. An international program in health policy is designed to stimulate innovative policies and practices in the United States and other industrialized countries.

And what does this obviously ideologically-based report conclude that the US really needs to work on?

Based on these patient and physician reports, the U.S. could improve the delivery, coordination, and equity of the health care system by drawing from best practices both within the U.S. and around the world.

Not quality of care, but things like equity. What a joke. If you had bothered to read with any critical eye towards the executive summary even, you would have seen that the entire report you cited as "empirical reality" is really a sham used to further the publisher's stated political agenda. What a joke. The WHO reports I cited above aren't much better (a quick googling of the report's title will indicate that I'm not the only one who found it ideologically driven), but at least they give some objective performance measures.

The bottom line is that you have an agenda. Just from your rampant disregard for the actual statements in the articles you're citing, I can tell that you support universal healthcare. As a result, you're perfectly willing to bastardize anything and everything to make it appear that the quality of healthcare in the US is terrible. Unfortunately for you, we have the best medical schools, best research, and best hospitals in the world. There's a reason that my school draws a lot of its students, faculty, and clinicians from around the world: they can't get the quality of education, experience, or deliver equivalent healthcare anywhere else.

So, my idealogical friend, I'll pose a question to you: if you needed a heart transplant, would you rather come to Washington U or go to the UK? If you said the UK, you're an idiot. And if you disagree with this assessment, I can give you as many numbers as you need.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Specop 007
We need to look closer at the statistics. If it includes people who dont have health insurance (Which I'm quite sure it does) then frankly its not a true measure of our healthcare.

We need to compare our health insurance carrying individuals to individuals in others countries who also have health insurance to paint a fair picture.

Now whether or not everyone should have healthcare is a different issue.

No, actually, I would submit it is one of the prime issues regarding a nation's health care -- how well are all of it's citizens provided for.

I contend healthcare is not the governments responsibility.

Damnit, you've been reading that Constitution thing again!! :|

Yeah. Imagine wanting my government to be formed and ran via the guidelines established for it? 😕

Imagine if everyone who thought <insert of country> was perfect would simply move there rather then trying to change where they are. Theres a new concept.....

I mean honestly. If you think the UK or Canada is the blinding light of freedom and social responsibility then MOVE THERE. If America is so damned bad why would one stay here?? 😕

A simple move and TA DA, the person is happy and has the government they want.....

Wait a second....aren't you the same person that is stating that it was "Good" of congress to bypass the constitution to grant retroactive immunity to the telecoms so that the government could continue to break the 4th amendment?

Why yes, you are!

If the principles that the country was founded on aren't to your liking...why are you still here?

See how easy that game is to play?

Damn right I was! The fact you dont understand the overall picture is no fault of mine. Theres also a few others who agreed with me as well.

Simple fact is money shuts people up. Your rights were violated? Give you a fat check and you wont care! Thats exactly what was going to happen. The government violated your rights and the telecomms were going to get stuck paying to make people shut up about it. As it stands now the only entity responsible is the rightful one, the government.

 

[Xavier434]

I would be a happy man if our health care system was changed to something similar to that of the French system. I don't think it would work the best if we used their exact same system, but starting off with it as a base and adjusting it to fit our needs is a good idea imo.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Specop 007
We need to look closer at the statistics. If it includes people who dont have health insurance (Which I'm quite sure it does) then frankly its not a true measure of our healthcare.

We need to compare our health insurance carrying individuals to individuals in others countries who also have health insurance to paint a fair picture.

Now whether or not everyone should have healthcare is a different issue.

No, actually, I would submit it is one of the prime issues regarding a nation's health care -- how well are all of it's citizens provided for.

I contend healthcare is not the governments responsibility.

Damnit, you've been reading that Constitution thing again!! :|

Yeah. Imagine wanting my government to be formed and ran via the guidelines established for it? 😕

Imagine if everyone who thought <insert of country> was perfect would simply move there rather then trying to change where they are. Theres a new concept.....

I mean honestly. If you think the UK or Canada is the blinding light of freedom and social responsibility then MOVE THERE. If America is so damned bad why would one stay here?? 😕

A simple move and TA DA, the person is happy and has the government they want.....

Wait a second....aren't you the same person that is stating that it was "Good" of congress to bypass the constitution to grant retroactive immunity to the telecoms so that the government could continue to break the 4th amendment?

Why yes, you are!

If the principles that the country was founded on aren't to your liking...why are you still here?

See how easy that game is to play?

Damn right I was! The fact you dont understand the overall picture is no fault of mine. Theres also a few others who agreed with me as well.

Simple fact is money shuts people up. Your rights were violated? Give you a fat check and you wont care! Thats exactly what was going to happen. The government violated your rights and the telecomms were going to get stuck paying to make people shut up about it. As it stands now the only entity responsible is the rightful one, the government.

If you think that the government is going to be in any way held accountable, you are completely stupid or ignorant. The only chance the government had for being held accountable was if they telecoms were taken to court and during the discovery process, evidence was found. As it is now, you will just see claims of "national security" and "executive privilege" thrown about as Congress gets stonewalled once again by this administration.

So to then make the next logical leap....

You really don't give a shit about the foundations of this country and whether the government is forced to abide by it as long as the few items that you feel personally effect you are not the topic of the violation.

Got it.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Maybe you aught to read the rest of the article, which explains, and well I might add, that the system isn't anything resembling "free market," if that is what you are implying. The government has been intervening in the health care system for decades. Why do you think costs are so high? That's what you're complaining about, and rightfully so.

Like I said earlier, what we have needs changing. But if we don't understand why it is broken in the first place, we can't fix it.

My only issue with going down the path of a 100% completely free market health care system is that every scenario I have read so far results in the lower class getting the short end of the stick and I do not believe that is the right thing do especially if they are working. However, I also believe that too much government is a very bad thing and mostly for the reasons you have provided. This is why I support the French's healthcare system or at least most of it. I believe they have hit the kind of middle ground that our country could really make great use out of even if a little tweaking is necessary.

Here is a good read on the French Healthcare system

 

[neodyn55]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Vic posted this article in another health care thread...
http://www.theobjectivestandar...versal-health-care.asp

It was ignored by many.

No matter what you believe, we absolutely cannot fix our health care system until we fully understand WHY it is broken in the first place.

I think, before moving to UHC, we should first create a proper free market solution. As many have mentioned, the current state of medicine is anything but a free market.

If that doesn't work, then we can consider UHC.

I mentioned this in the other thread. My only criticism of the article is that poor people have to rely on charity. I'm not confident of society stepping to to meet this need, especially NA society.

IMO, we should follow most of the recommendations in the article, but set up 'government hospitals' where you can get free treatment. Anyone who can afford healthcare will use private hospitals; those who don't can simply visit a government hospital. Naturally, treatment there will be more inefficient and slow, with waiting lines and so forth - but at least you won't be turned away if you don't have money.

Any charity can be used to supplement these government hospitals.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: neodyn55

Originally posted by: bamacre
Vic posted this article in another health care thread...
http://www.theobjectivestandar...versal-health-care.asp

It was ignored by many.

No matter what you believe, we absolutely cannot fix our health care system until we fully understand WHY it is broken in the first place.

I think, before moving to UHC, we should first create a proper free market solution. As many have mentioned, the current state of medicine is anything but a free market.

If that doesn't work, then we can consider UHC.

I mentioned this in the other thread. My only criticism of the article is that poor people have to rely on charity. I'm not confident of society stepping to to meet this need, especially NA society.

IMO, we should follow most of the recommendations in the article, but set up 'government hospitals' where you can get free treatment. Anyone who can afford healthcare will use private hospitals; those who don't can simply visit a government hospital. Naturally, treatment there will be more inefficient and slow, with waiting lines and so forth - but at least you won't be turned away if you don't have money.

Any charity can be used to supplement these government hospitals.

Read the article I posted about the French system. I have the same problem with the article you mentioned for the same reasons. I think you will like how the French do it because it is neither a 100% free market solution nor is it 100% UHC.

 

[maddogchen]

the french healthcare system has been in the red for many years

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

If you think that the government is going to be in any way held accountable, you are completely stupid or ignorant. The only chance the government had for being held accountable was if they telecoms were taken to court and during the discovery process, evidence was found. As it is now, you will just see claims of "national security" and "executive privilege" thrown about as Congress gets stonewalled once again by this administration.

So to then make the next logical leap....

You really don't give a shit about the foundations of this country and whether the government is forced to abide by it as long as the few items that you feel personally effect you are not the topic of the violation.

Got it.

WOW! I dont think a fresh pack of rubber bands has as much stretch as you just showed!

 

[ElFenix]

how much are french doctors paid?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
the french healthcare system has been in the red for many years

If this is true, I am not surprised. Anyone can run up a "good" program if you're not paying for it all. That's one problem with government, they can make their citizens real happy and pass on the problem of costs to the next politician years down the road.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
the french healthcare system has been in the red for many years

I tried to find proof of this statement but I could not find any. Do you have a link that you could provide?

However, I did find that the French spend almost half that the US spends per person. Even if that estimate is inaccurate, I cannot imagine it being way too inaccurate. So, when considering that information in addition to the difference in quality it is clear that the French way of doing things is much better than ours. If it is not the solution we need, then I would say that it is definitely a step in the right direction.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
how much are french doctors paid?

Well, I found a PDF file from a French government study website which provides some information about this question. Unfortunately, it is in French. 😛

There was some comments made in English regarding the file though which included the following:

At this address http://www.sante.gouv.fr/drees...sultat/er457/er457.pdf you will find what appears to be a French government study. It states that the "revenu libéral" in 2004 was 81,600 euros for all French physicians and 63,700 euros for general practitioners. "Revenu libéral" I believe means fee as opposed to salary income. Perhaps these numbers are gross income and the $55,000 is net income in some sense. 81,600 euros are $110,511 today.

So, I guess the generic answer to your question would be that they are still paid a lot but they do not make as much as the "richer" doctors in the US make.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: maddogchen
the french healthcare system has been in the red for many years

I tried to find proof of this statement but I could not find any. Do you have a link that you could provide?

However, I did find that the French spend almost half that the US spends per person. Even if that estimate is inaccurate, I cannot imagine it being way too inaccurate. So, when considering that information in addition to the difference in quality it is clear that the French way of doing things is much better than ours. If it is not the solution we need, then I would say that it is definitely a step in the right direction.

i heard it on NPR yesterday where they were talking about the French Healthcare system. It was very interesting to hear their medical care. Some guy out in the woods with colon cancer gets to have a nurse drive all the way to his house to check on him and take blood for tests and other services. Even on saturdays too.

Text

By 2003, under the succeeding Socialist government, the component of health-care funding that came from general revenues ? hobbling the government's ability to pay for anything else ? had grown to 40%, but the system still wasn't paying for itself. The French national insurance system has been running constant deficits since 1985; the deficit now tops $14.77 billion.

edit: things i have been hearing about why they are running in the red is because people are visiting their physicians too often and that they are taking too many medications. France consumes more prescription drugs than any other country in Europe.

Also interesting in the radio report was that they get access to drugs that are not even approved by their government agency. I thought that was really interesting. But i guess most people taking experimental drugs have no other option and would likely die anyway.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Text

By 2003, under the succeeding Socialist government, the component of health-care funding that came from general revenues ? hobbling the government's ability to pay for anything else ? had grown to 40%, but the system still wasn't paying for itself. The French national insurance system has been running constant deficits since 1985; the deficit now tops $14.77 billion.

edit: things i have been hearing about why they are running in the red is because people are visiting their physicians too often and that they are taking too many medications. France consumes more prescription drugs than any other country in Europe.

Also interesting in the radio report was that they get access to drugs that are not even approved by their government agency. I thought that was really interesting. But i guess most people taking experimental drugs have no other option and would likely die anyway.

You hit a point about their system which I was aware of and it does fall under the "tweaking" I mentioned. People in France not only have too much access to prescription drugs, but they can also go directly to see a specialist. I would like to change both of those parts and possibly a few others.

I will also further emphasize that I DO NOT believe that the French system in its current state is the 100% solution. It needs revision to fit our countries needs. However, it's a lot better than what we have now. A $14.77 billion deficit over the course of 23 years means they ran an average deficit of $642.17 million dollars per year. How much do we spend per day in our war against terror again?

So ya, the French system has some weaknesses, but I believe that the US is well prepared to plug up those holes and revolutionize it to work well for us.




***EDIT***

I realized that statement of how much France goes into deficit on average per year really doesn't say much when comparing it to an expenditure in the US such as the war due to population differences. Therefore, I looked up the current population of both France and US.

United States: 304,564,688
France: 61,875,822

As you can see, the United States has population which equates to about 5 times more than France's population. So, taking that into consideration, a new estimated figure should be taken into account when looking at the French Healthcare system and how it applies financially to the US.

$642.17 mil * 5 = $3.21 billion

However, even when taking that into account, I still feel that comparing that number with how much we regularly spend daily on the "War Against Terror" is reasonable. I'll take my health care please.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
It is likewise ridiculous to claim that our healthcare system is terrible when we rank at or near the top in most metrics, including perhaps the most important one: patient satisfaction.

Link or links, please. Provide proof. Please show us the studies that prove your claim.

I would tell you to do your own legwork. But, even though you're so quick to point out your perceived flaws, it's obvious that you don't enjoy reading anything substantial on the subject. Here is much more information than you'll ever actually read:
All of WHO's World Health Reports

And I WILL tell YOU that you need to back up your claim that our health care system ranks "at or near the top in most metrics" with specific links, which you still have not done.

Show us the chart, derived from the study, that proves your point. It is up to YOU to prove your points, not yell stupid, red-faced personal attacks. Get a grip, please.

Again, PROVE YOUR CLAIM that the US ranks "at or near the top in most metrics" of health care with SPECIFIC links! It's that simple, and it's on YOU to do so.