Everybody has access to healthcare. Whether or not they can afford it is the issue. Even with insurance, it is still expensive. People who pay for the healthcare should get the best service. Makes sense right? Options for healthcare should be available to everybody but if you don't pay anything into the system, expect to get the 2.0 gpa doctors to service you with a 6 month wait. You might lose a leg instead of having it fixed but you will still be alive.
Everybody has access to healthcare. Whether or not they can afford it is the issue. Even with insurance, it is still expensive. People who pay for the healthcare should get the best service. Makes sense right? Options for healthcare should be available to everybody but if you don't pay anything into the system, expect to get the 2.0 gpa doctors to service you with a 6 month wait. You might lose a leg instead of having it fixed but you will still be alive.
Thats a total lie Dave and you know it. Not even the politicians are stupid enough to use that line. Everyone has access to health care, its PRIVATE health insurance they don't have access too.
Dave doesn't need defending but . . .
1) There's actually tens of millions of American citizens that have no health insurance. These people do have access to emergency health care but anyone with a clue would tell you that the ED is the WORST possible portal of entry . . . except of course the coroner's wagon. Thousands of American CITIZENS will DIE this year because they did not have access to appropriate health care. And the ONLY reason they were denied access was their ability to pay.
2) The fact that a significant fraction of US citizens have access to exceptional health care does not mitigate #1. There is NO industrialized country that comes even close to the abysmal care of low to low-middle income Americans. Obviously, people in poverty (or near) have access to Medicaid but that program is likely to see major changes (reduced eligibility and reduced services).
3) There's no such animal as the federal Medicaid or Medicare doctor/hospital. Medicaid and Medicare are methods of FINANCING . . . just like SCHIP. The VA is technically both b/c IIRC you can get your care at a VA or the government will pay for you to be seen at other 'approved' facilities.
4) I'm an advocate for fixing BOTH how we pay for health care and the 'system' itself. But I'm not gung ho about a full-fledged system where doctors are all government employees and the gubment owns all the facilities. That's probably a mistake BUT it would be superior to our current profit driven model . . . in that it would be sustainable . . . if properly implemented.
1) There's actually tens of millions of American citizens that have no health insurance. These people do have access to emergency health care but anyone with a clue would tell you that the ED is the WORST possible portal of entry . . . except of course the coroner's wagon. Thousands of American CITIZENS will DIE this year because they did not have access to appropriate health care. And the ONLY reason they were denied access was their ability to pay.
2) The fact that a significant fraction of US citizens have access to exceptional health care does not mitigate #1. There is NO industrialized country that comes even close to the abysmal care of low to low-middle income Americans. Obviously, people in poverty (or near) have access to Medicaid but that program is likely to see major changes (reduced eligibility and reduced services).
3) There's no such animal as the federal Medicaid or Medicare doctor/hospital. Medicaid and Medicare are methods of FINANCING . . . just like SCHIP. The VA is technically both b/c IIRC you can get your care at a VA or the government will pay for you to be seen at other 'approved' facilities.
4) I'm an advocate for fixing BOTH how we pay for health care and the 'system' itself. But I'm not gung ho about a full-fledged system where doctors are all government employees and the gubment owns all the facilities. That's probably a mistake BUT it would be superior to our current profit driven model . . . in that it would be sustainable . . . if properly implemented.
CNN
I haven't seen the film. But anyone that REALLY works in the US health care system would acknowledge that it has it's pluses and minuses. The problem is that those +/- are determined almost exclusively by your income/insurance coverage and where you live.
Problem with financing model
How you get the best of both worlds . . .
The people that do the MOST to prevent disease and managed chronic illness (family med, pediatrics) get paid the LEAST.
It's an unsustainable model particularly as the population gets older and more sedentary. There will not be any dramatic collapse in life expectancy so people will live long enough to get multiple diseases requiring multiple specialists and likely a menagerie of boutique medications and procedures.
I haven't seen the film. But anyone that REALLY works in the US health care system would acknowledge that it has it's pluses and minuses. The problem is that those +/- are determined almost exclusively by your income/insurance coverage and where you live.
Problem with financing model
How you get the best of both worlds . . .
In essence, if you build a quality system of basic health care you then ALLOW market forces to operate on everything else. If not you wind up with a ridiculously bad model where profit-motive drives the system instead of maximizing health.
Technically, I'm one of those evil specialists (training in child/adolescent psychiatry) but there's currently a shortage so I have an excuse.
The people that do the MOST to prevent disease and managed chronic illness (family med, pediatrics) get paid the LEAST. It's an unsustainable model particularly as the population gets older and more sedentary. There will not be any dramatic collapse in life expectancy so people will live long enough to get multiple diseases requiring multiple specialists and likely a menagerie of boutique medications and procedures.
I generally lean pretty far to the conservative side. I am a registered Republican, pro-business, against big government etc..
First of all, don't we spend more per capita on health care in the US than most countries with "socialized" health care? If so, then I would think that providing true health care for everyone should actually bring the costs down if our politicians could actually put a decent system together (doubtful).
My biggest issue is that I actually LIKE my current health care. I pay a lot for it but when it comes down to it my service is outstanding. I have a messed up disc in my back that I have been getting treated for so I have some experience in the system. I get MRI's and cat scans SAME DAY if my doctor orders it before noon or so. I have gotten appointments with both of the specialists my doctor referred me to within 3 days. My neurosurgeon ordered a distography surgery and I had a bed in the hospital in 4 days which is outstanding for a non-emergency surgery in New Orleans (only 4 major hospitals are currently back open). I do not want to give up my current health care for something that our politicians come up with. Sure its selfish of me but its the truth.
With that said, I have read a bit on a public/private health care system that I believe could serve the public much better than it currently does while allowing people like me to purchase additional private insurance. Mostly, I do not trust the politicians we have today to manage my health care. On the other hand, if I did not have health care I would want any form of care for my family.
That is a total lie and YOU know it... you don't have access to healthcare IF YOU DONT HAVE THE MONEY... damn people.. go see the movie you FRIGGIN COWARDS!
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
Just watched one of insurance industry's hired liars on CNN telling us how these stories about doctors' decisions being overruled by insurance company doctors as being only 10 year old cases. I just went through the same BS where I had to wait 2 months for a CT scan that doctor ordered because the HMO was holding it up. Then after they approved it, I had to wait 4 months for them to pay for it while they were sending me notices that my claim was denied. So all these people complaining that people in Canada have to wait for months to get a CT, it happens in America too.
1) Emergent use of advanced imaging (CT, MRI) is NEVER delayed to the extent that it impairs health outcomes in industrialized countries with universal health care. The problem is that IGNORANT American consumers and duplicitous US physicians OVERUSE expensive modalities both diagnostic and therapeutic. In fact, quality medical schools have been addressing this issue for over a decade by explicitly emphasizing appropriate use of diagnostic/therapeutic technology. Granted, it's certainly helped to have Medicare looking over some shoulders. The difference with private insurers is they want to LIMIT use purely for financial reasons.
2) Insurance companies OPPOSE parity for psychiatric illnesses SOLELY b/c it would increase their costs by up to 3%. Here's the ridiculousness . . . if you have diabetes (fat, sloppy American), your HMO will pay for medications and ultimately pay for procedural interventions as you develop macro (heart) and microvascular (eye) diseases. But if you are diagnosed with bipolar disease and placed on olanzapine your yearly coverage limit might be as low as $1000 (a month's prescription). Now after you gain 1lb per week of semipermanent weight gain (all fat) and then develop type 2 diabetes . . the same insurance company would pay for your treatment with lifetime limits that are many times longer. Even more oddball, if I prescribed a drug to reduce the likelihood of gaining weight (or developing diabetes) while you are taking olanzapine . . . the insurance company would NOT pay for it!
3) The consumer model is unsustainable b/c hospital and doctor vists increase by 20% over past five years.
I don't care who you are. Unless you plan to die or move to Costa Rica in the next few years, our current dysfunctional health care system will impact your life:
a) higher taxes
b) higher insurance premiums
c) higher insurance copays
d) reduced health benefits (public and private)
e) closed facilities
2) Insurance companies OPPOSE parity for psychiatric illnesses SOLELY b/c it would increase their costs by up to 3%. Here's the ridiculousness . . . if you have diabetes (fat, sloppy American), your HMO will pay for medications and ultimately pay for procedural interventions as you develop macro (heart) and microvascular (eye) diseases. But if you are diagnosed with bipolar disease and placed on olanzapine your yearly coverage limit might be as low as $1000 (a month's prescription). Now after you gain 1lb per week of semipermanent weight gain (all fat) and then develop type 2 diabetes . . the same insurance company would pay for your treatment with lifetime limits that are many times longer. Even more oddball, if I prescribed a drug to reduce the likelihood of gaining weight (or developing diabetes) while you are taking olanzapine . . . the insurance company would NOT pay for it!
3) The consumer model is unsustainable b/c hospital and doctor vists increase by 20% over past five years.
I don't care who you are. Unless you plan to die or move to Costa Rica in the next few years, our current dysfunctional health care system will impact your life:
a) higher taxes
b) higher insurance premiums
c) higher insurance copays
d) reduced health benefits (public and private)
e) closed facilities
Thank you for one of the most honest genuine posts ever on P&N. :thumbsup:
You are on the good side of the fence and know it and you also know how you would feel if you wound up on the bad side of the fence.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>scientific evidence to the contrary. Dance and try to distract from the main point all you want, but socialized medicine simply works better and your crap has already been called out. </end quote></div>If we are going to talk numbers, let's talk waits to see specialists or have expensive procedures like MRIs. Wait in Canada to see a specialist in most cases and get an MRI can be measured in months or fractions of a year (like 1/2 of a year!). In the US, you're talking days or a couple of weeks.
This overwhelming scientific evidence you speak of does not exist. If we forget the lower class in the US who do not have health care (I am not one of them, so frankly don't care much about them at this point, since most of them do not care about their health enough to exercise/eat properly anyway, so they musn't look to me for sympathy on health coverage), those with private in the US (vast majority) make a mockery of Canadian health times, and please don't bring up any points such as life expectancy, as if it's entirely driven by one's access to health care (which of course it's not).
In Canada can a person who's not literally in two pieces on an operating table get an MRI today? Get an echocardiogram tomorrow? Consult with an orthopoeadic surgeon next week? Nope, enjoy your wait
So your argument is... that you don't give a f*ck about anyone but yourself. At least you are honest.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
I don't know what kind of crazy omnipotent knowledge you feel you've suddenly acquired, but that couldn't be further from the truth. I personally know people who've waited 2-3 months for imaging for rather serious issues that could have easily made a turn for the worse in the interim, and in one case did. When you've got a possible diagnosis of cancer and your MRI gets scheduled for two months hence, let's see how much you cheerlead public healthcare.
MRIs and the like aside, healthcare here is actually pretty respectable. I'd stay from making ridiculous and patently false claims to how superb it is up here, though.
Look, its not really all that difficult, there are LIMITED health resources in the world and not everyone can get all the best care in the most timely manor. The problem is trying to assign the limited resources to the population at hand. The USA is a capitalist country, that means that MONEY is what determines who gets access to the limited resources in this world, that is pretty much the basis of capitalism. France and others are socialist countries, that means they try to assign limited resources as evenly as possible. Now, this is really a discussion of capitalism vs socialism and yes, they both have pros and cons. Looking at healthcare under a capitalist system can be seen as a knock against capitalism since many people might get a gut reaction to seeing someone die just because they don't have enough money. On the flipside you could say bad stuff about socialism like how the hard working people get all their money taken away from them to help out the freeloaders. IT may well be best that the government does control something so vital as healthcare, but just remember there are downsides to it too, like the government taking even more of our money from us. Plus, you think its bad having healthcare companies decide who gets treatment, if the government is in control then its the politicians who make the policies of who gets treated, is that really any better?
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
Well i was just coming in here to make a point about Brittish healthcare not being up to the same standards as the rest of the EU and the US not being up to any standards at all but you people seem like a very angry bunch who want to scream "you said this, no you said it" (vic) or just shout you are wrong towards one another instead of actually debating the issue.
So i'll say this once, most of the EU has 0 waiting lines at any hospital in the ER and it isn't always governemt owned hospitals even if they are government funded, if you need a hip replacement and you have an "any hospital in the US" medical insurance in the state, which pretty much no one does then you don't have to wait in line, but in reality you will wait longer for that hip replacement in the US than in any EU country, except maybe for Britain.
We seriously need a reform and get up to date with the rest of the EU, IMHO.
That is all, you can go back to flinging poo now you silly monkeys.
So i'll say this once, most of the EU has 0 waiting lines at any hospital in the ER and it isn't always governemt owned hospitals even if they are government funded, if you need a hip replacement and you have an "any hospital in the US" medical insurance in the state, which pretty much no one does then you don't have to wait in line, but in reality you will wait longer for that hip replacement in the US than in any EU country, except maybe for Britain.
We seriously need a reform and get up to date with the rest of the EU, IMHO.
That is all, you can go back to flinging poo now you silly monkeys.
For one thing I think there is a HUGE lack of information on how the health care system in different countries work. Most of us probably have lived most of our lives in the same country, so there really is no way that we could speak all that intelligently to compare health care between so many different countries and systems. I see people posting these horror stories about American health care system and tbh in my own personal life that has not been correct at all. I can think of 3 times I have been to the emergency room, twice the wait was less than 5 minutes, the other time it was 30 minutes. I have only once had surgery, I had hernia surgery 2 days after it was requested. Actually the only doctor that I have had to wait in lines for was the stupid dermatologist who had like 2 hours waits just to get stupid acne medication. Now of course I do have health insurance so there was never any problem in that regard, never has any procedure that I or anyone in my family had not been covered by health insurance. My sister had open heart surgery when she was 3, this was apparently a very expensive surgery, but my parents only had to pay a small fraction of the cost due to insurance. I just thought I'd post that since we have so many stories of the system not working that maybe some people should go ahead and post stories when it works just fine. I'm sure in any country we go to we can find tons of stories that seem completely messed up, and thats because these countries have tens or hundreds of millions of people in them so of course there are many instances where things don't work.
mjrpes3
Golden Member
- Oct 2, 2004
- 1,876
- 1
- 0
Why turn this thread into an unscientific, biased thread of 'personal stories' when you have organizations like the WHO that attempt to give an objective ranking of US health care compared to other nations?
What I'm interested in hearing is an analysis of the WHO and its evaluation standards, and how accurate its ratings are. Supposedly it takes into consideration a variety of factors, including mortality rate, response time, and patient satisfaction, to get a good picture of a nation's health care system.
Unfortunately we don't have medications for ignorance nor arrogance. Knowledge just doesn't work on some people.
If you've got a possible diagnosis of cancer, you need a different physician. Hematologic cancers (leukemia) don't need imaging. Solid tumors will reveal themselves via symptoms. Imaging is necessary to establish extent of disease (local/distant mets, invasiveness), assess surgical options, and monitor response to chemo/radiation. Let me help you out to understand how it works . . . the TYPE of cancer will largely determine whether you live or die.
Pancreatic - dead
Lung - dead
Breast - live, unless extremely aggressive
Prostate - live, if caught early . . . but you all you need is an annual index finger.
Colon - live unless aggressive . . . most people will die of some type of cardiovascular disease. The same is basically true of old guys with prostate cancer.
Cervical - live, if caught early . . . but all you need is appropriate Pap action. And for future women . . . just a vaccine.
The problem with our ignorant society is that most people have no clue about what they should truly worry about and what they should be doing to reduce real risks. Preventable cardiovascular disease is the #1 threat to Americans. Two through four is likely preventable endocrine, gastrointestinal and respiratory disease.
It's not that advanced imaging has NO role in health care. The problem is it's overutilized. It's great that Americans have the option of vascular interventional radiology. But EVERY other industrialized country on the planet does VIR, too. The wait to get that stent placed in Canada has NO impact on outcomes.
Canadian ED will use CT for every head injury for which CT is appropriate. American EDs don't use CT for every head injury but we do use it more frequently . . . b/c we can . . . with no benefit for outcomes.
NIH is currently funding a 9-figure research study on the use of surveillance helical CT for early detection of lung cancer among ex-SMOKERS. Here's an idea . . . raise taxes on cigarettes and use the money to help people quit smoking . . . better yet keep kids from starting? Although the jury is still out, best evidence is that helical CT every couple of years for ex-smokers will not dramatically improve outcomes. Sure, some small fraction will benefit but the expense will be huge. Basically, insurance companies (and Medicare/Medicaid/VA) will have a $600 expense every other year for tens of millions of ex-smokers and current smokers. It's great if you own one of the radiology boutiques but horrible for a system that's already buckling under CURRENT demands.
Simply put, we have the resources for an exceptional health care system. Unfortunately, those resources are being squandered to provide inappropriate care to a few, inadequate care to many, and profits for those that want to feed at the trough.
Oh yeah, over half of the US population has PUBLIC-funded health care (Medicare, Medicaid, VA). The best informed advocates for a BETTER health care system are NOT talking about government health care that PROHIBITS private competition.
We're saying INVEST in health care:
1) Provide universal coverage to kids through SCHIP. It's cheap b/c pediatricians don't do it for the money. It's effective b/c pediatricians LOVE to prevent disease more than treat disease. Surgeons do it for the challenge (and the money). Pediatricians do it b/c they love children (and adolescents).
2) As part of #1 remove kids from Medicaid. In essence, all kids are served by health care INSURANCE plans that are state-federal partnerships where the states are given wide latitude to experiment. There's a floor on quality, though (for backwards states like TX).
Net expense is either going to be unchanged or DECREASE. Insurance companies LOVE family plans b/c kids don't get sick very often. So basically states will steal these kids from private insurers. A state that expands coverage to all kids (even Fred Thompson) gets to spread the risk across the entire tax base . . including people that can pay hefty premiums. No private insurer would be able to compete . . . except to offer boutique services (orthodontist). And those are the type of services the state has no business in anyways. Obviously, you would allow people to opt-out of the public system but they would still pay taxes so only the black helicopter tools would do it.
3) Universal vaccination regimes. The states (or feds) contract with private pharmaceutical companies to guarantee the purchase of vaccines we REALLY need. So instead of wasting money on a smallpox, anthrax or other BS, the states get as many doses of flu vaccine as they can use. The drug companies get a guaranteed profit source. And in case of a true emergency, they would have the infrastructure to rapidly produce vaccine.
We can do better for everyone but instead we continue with a disastrous system that serves to prove just how much the stereotype of the wasteful, selfish and conceited American is not far from the truth.
We're saying INVEST in health care:
1) Provide universal coverage to kids through SCHIP. It's cheap b/c pediatricians don't do it for the money. It's effective b/c pediatricians LOVE to prevent disease more than treat disease. Surgeons do it for the challenge (and the money). Pediatricians do it b/c they love children (and adolescents).
2) As part of #1 remove kids from Medicaid. In essence, all kids are served by health care INSURANCE plans that are state-federal partnerships where the states are given wide latitude to experiment. There's a floor on quality, though (for backwards states like TX).
Net expense is either going to be unchanged or DECREASE. Insurance companies LOVE family plans b/c kids don't get sick very often. So basically states will steal these kids from private insurers. A state that expands coverage to all kids (even Fred Thompson) gets to spread the risk across the entire tax base . . including people that can pay hefty premiums. No private insurer would be able to compete . . . except to offer boutique services (orthodontist). And those are the type of services the state has no business in anyways. Obviously, you would allow people to opt-out of the public system but they would still pay taxes so only the black helicopter tools would do it.
3) Universal vaccination regimes. The states (or feds) contract with private pharmaceutical companies to guarantee the purchase of vaccines we REALLY need. So instead of wasting money on a smallpox, anthrax or other BS, the states get as many doses of flu vaccine as they can use. The drug companies get a guaranteed profit source. And in case of a true emergency, they would have the infrastructure to rapidly produce vaccine.
We can do better for everyone but instead we continue with a disastrous system that serves to prove just how much the stereotype of the wasteful, selfish and conceited American is not far from the truth.
TheSlamma
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2005
- 7,625
- 5
- 81
Do you keep up at all with how bad government is constantly fumbling? From local police all the way to the oval office it's a complete cluster fvck. You think those same people should run HEALTH!! LMFAO.
And lets also get to the fact that Americans are complete gluttons. I am not going to hand over tax dollars to have people who eat at McDonalds 5 times a week who for some strange reason feel like sh!t and need triple bypass surgery every 6 month's. Why not also add the FACT that Americans are hypocondriacs and would be at the doc constantly on tax expense. It won't work in gluttonsville.
You also need to account that western medicine is about treatment, it's not about prevention.
I wish social medicine would work, I really do. But we have too many people that would sap it to the point we would be paying 60% of our wages in taxes just to get lousy health.
If you saw the movie you'd be reminded that the Government does fine supporting our firemen, school system, libraries, postal service, etc...
Our system costs more money per person than all of the socialized ones.. are you saying that Britain, France, and Canada's governments are better than ours because they are able to run health care without a problem and we can't?
It also would not cost us 60% in taxes, so stop making up numbers.
Go watch the movie before you troll threads ABOUT the movie.
TheSlamma
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2005
- 7,625
- 5
- 81
It's not pure facts it's loaded with opinions, know the difference before you claim it gospel.
Since you can't read I'll lay it out again. It's not the funding the gov screws up, it's the way it's ran. All the money in the world doesn't buy competence. 3 of the branches of gov you listed are ran like $h!t despite funding.
And third people from France, Britian and Canada do not have an obesity and hypocondriac prescription addicted society. All 3 of those countries have nothing CLOSE to the mentality of Americans.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter