socialized Medicine, would you vote for it?

[SirStev0]

wow im kinda surprised its split... i thought for sure the no's would have it

 

[DeMeo]

The federal government can't even manage social security, why would you expect them to be capable of managing health care which would be huge project.

Several eyars ago when Bill Clinton held up that health care card (his prototype) and said every American will have one of these, I cringed. At that time I was paying about $12,000 a year for my family health plan - I asked "Will the government plan provide me with the same or better care for the same or less money?" Answer: NO WAY!

I'll pay for my own care thank you!

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Garuda
My Dad's a doctor and I'm in medical school right now. We left the UK in 1991 because the socialized health care system there SUCKED. If they socialize health care in this country, I don't know where I'm going to go, but I ain't practicing medicine that's for sure 🙁

I work at a hospital and I have heard a LOT of doctors say that very thing.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: shinerburke
I've said it before and I'll say it again....

Do you really want the same people who run the Post Office in charge of your health care?

Absolutely. The Postal Service is fabulous. It's socialized mail. You have to pay the same price to mail a letter across the street and you do from main to Hawaii. Ask your doctor how much he's charge to take that letter. The USPS is vastly more efficient and cost effective than any postal service in the world. It is a national treasure, that Rep assholes would like to dismantle so they can buy and gouge you with the pieces.

Funny how it was the Democrats who federalized the USPS and nearly destroyed it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: shinerburke
I've said it before and I'll say it again....

Do you really want the same people who run the Post Office in charge of your health care?

Absolutely. The Postal Service is fabulous. It's socialized mail. You have to pay the same price to mail a letter across the street and you do from main to Hawaii. Ask your doctor how much he's charge to take that letter. The USPS is vastly more efficient and cost effective than any postal service in the world. It is a national treasure, that Rep assholes would like to dismantle so they can buy and gouge you with the pieces.

Funny how it was the Democrats who federalized the USPS and nearly destroyed it.

Who, Ben Franklin?

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PingSpike
The healthcare would be for everyone, including the people who work. And no freedoms are being restricted. It isn't illegal to eat junkfood or smoke cigs or drink booze. It just costs more. Do you feel all sales taxes should be removed? How about income taxes? Do those also inhibit 'freedom'. Property taxes could argueably be in the way of freedom as well. What is your definition of freedom? Anarchy with a free market and no taxes?

There is fundamentally no difference between raising taxes on an item unnecessarily and restricting access to said item.
Your argument, however, where you believe that only 2 polar extremes can exist (and those not at the same time) without any compromise or rationality, demonstrates that you are completely lacking in common sense.

Define unncessarily. Doesn't that just prove my point that all taxes we have in some shape or form restrict freedoms already? If it doesn't, then I guess I'm missing your point. I'm sure you will come up with another way to insult my intelligence to respond, since that seemed to be your prefered way to discuss a topic. I personally would prefer it remain civil but of course I realize that is not always possible.

I find it some what ironic you lecture me on polar extremes however.

 

[AntiEverything]

Originally posted by: Vic
HELL NO.

Those who refuse to contribute to society forfeit all rights to receive the benefits of society. I am compassionate though. Those who are unable to contribute (i.e. through severe physical or mental disability) should be taken care of to some extent. But if you are able, then your freedom should include the freedom to starve and die.

Hmmm, never thought of myself as a compassionate libertarian... 😉

There are a lot of reasons beyond simple laziness that one might not have health care. I'm not one for handouts, if some bum doestn' work I'm not going to be sorry when they have to sell the overly expensive toys they bought on credit while they were working.

Say somebody quits their job and begins a new one. Or they go back to school and take a part time job. They're both productive members of society, but corporations almost always impose waiting periods on coverage, and part timers rarely get insurance. What about them? They're not the leeches you want to kill off.

Also, health care costs have a way of spiraling out of control. Get sick and don't take care of it immediately, the problem could be exacerbated and be far more costly and difficult to cure later.

I hate the welfare state we're breeding, but I've gotten soft over the years when it comes to health care.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: AntiEverything

Originally posted by: Vic
HELL NO.

Those who refuse to contribute to society forfeit all rights to receive the benefits of society. I am compassionate though. Those who are unable to contribute (i.e. through severe physical or mental disability) should be taken care of to some extent. But if you are able, then your freedom should include the freedom to starve and die.

Hmmm, never thought of myself as a compassionate libertarian... 😉

There are a lot of reasons beyond simple laziness that one might not have health care. I'm not one for handouts, if some bum doestn' work I'm not going to be sorry when they have to sell the overly expensive toys they bought on credit while they were working.

Say somebody quits their job and begins a new one. Or they go back to school and take a part time job. They're both productive members of society, but corporations almost always impose waiting periods on coverage, and part timers rarely get insurance. What about them? They're not the leeches you want to kill off.

Also, health care costs have a way of spiraling out of control. Get sick and don't take care of it immediately, the problem could be exacerbated and be far more costly and difficult to cure later.

I hate the welfare state we're breeding, but I've gotten soft over the years when it comes to health care.

Agreed. No one wants to encourage people leeching off the government...and therefore...all of us. But this issue isn't black and white. And I will agree with the point others have made that the federal government does not usually have a track record of running things efficiently. But to deny that their wouldn't be real benefits, both socially and financially just seems narrow minded IMO.

I don't think a completely socialized healthcare system would make sense for America, or at least not at this point in time. But I do think we would benefit from at least having the government take a top down perspective on some aspects of it and perhaps move to fill the gaps its creating and introduce some legislation to reduce some of its waste and abuses.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: shinerburke
I've said it before and I'll say it again....

Do you really want the same people who run the Post Office in charge of your health care?

It also works with "DMV".
As Weber said about bureaucracy, "It is horrible to think that the world could one day be filled with nothing but those little cogs, little men clinging to little jobs and striving toward bigger ones."

Few problems are so very, very bad we need the gov't to 'fix' them. I remember that grand effort to 'fix' poverty (the so-called "War on Poverty"), and poverty seems to have won.

You guys didn't fight the war well or hard enough.

Every other developped nation has a better record on relative poverty than does the US. Most have better records on absolute poverty.

Edit: Regarding the original post, I don't think that a Cnada-style system would work in the US. The transition would be too great, and damaging. Heck, I'm not sure it will work in Canada forever. You guys should look to European counrtries that have a mix of public/private systems. France's system is rated very highly. Denmark's system is run largely by private isrance providers, like yours, but they have regulations that decrease the number of employers that don't offer coverage. They have a small welfare safety net for the unemployed (as you do, IIRC) Overall, their medical system is run for the most part by private enterprise, and yet less than 1% of thier population lacks coverage. You guys shoulc take a look.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: AntiEverything

Originally posted by: Vic
HELL NO.

Those who refuse to contribute to society forfeit all rights to receive the benefits of society. I am compassionate though. Those who are unable to contribute (i.e. through severe physical or mental disability) should be taken care of to some extent. But if you are able, then your freedom should include the freedom to starve and die.

Hmmm, never thought of myself as a compassionate libertarian... 😉

There are a lot of reasons beyond simple laziness that one might not have health care. I'm not one for handouts, if some bum doestn' work I'm not going to be sorry when they have to sell the overly expensive toys they bought on credit while they were working.

Say somebody quits their job and begins a new one. Or they go back to school and take a part time job. They're both productive members of society, but corporations almost always impose waiting periods on coverage, and part timers rarely get insurance. What about them? They're not the leeches you want to kill off.

Also, health care costs have a way of spiraling out of control. Get sick and don't take care of it immediately, the problem could be exacerbated and be far more costly and difficult to cure later.

I hate the welfare state we're breeding, but I've gotten soft over the years when it comes to health care.

Agreed. No one wants to encourage people leeching off the government...and therefore...all of us. But this issue isn't black and white. And I will agree with the point others have made that the federal government does not usually have a track record of running things efficiently. But to deny that their wouldn't be real benefits, both socially and financially just seems narrow minded IMO.

Of course no honest person can deny more gov't control of health care wouldn't have real benefits, but it would also have real costs; that's just being realistic. And since large gov't programs have a tragic history of spiraling out of control (compare the current costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid now to their projected costs when they were first enacted), I don't think it's unreasonable to assume more meddling by gov't into healthcare would result in costs exceeding benefits, by a decent margin. And since, to quote Reagan, a federal program is the closest thing we have to eternal life here on Earth, I'm reluctant to support gov't meddling any more.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: AntiEverything

Originally posted by: Vic
HELL NO.

Those who refuse to contribute to society forfeit all rights to receive the benefits of society. I am compassionate though. Those who are unable to contribute (i.e. through severe physical or mental disability) should be taken care of to some extent. But if you are able, then your freedom should include the freedom to starve and die.

Hmmm, never thought of myself as a compassionate libertarian... 😉

There are a lot of reasons beyond simple laziness that one might not have health care. I'm not one for handouts, if some bum doestn' work I'm not going to be sorry when they have to sell the overly expensive toys they bought on credit while they were working.

Say somebody quits their job and begins a new one. Or they go back to school and take a part time job. They're both productive members of society, but corporations almost always impose waiting periods on coverage, and part timers rarely get insurance. What about them? They're not the leeches you want to kill off.

Also, health care costs have a way of spiraling out of control. Get sick and don't take care of it immediately, the problem could be exacerbated and be far more costly and difficult to cure later.

I hate the welfare state we're breeding, but I've gotten soft over the years when it comes to health care.

Agreed. No one wants to encourage people leeching off the government...and therefore...all of us. But this issue isn't black and white. And I will agree with the point others have made that the federal government does not usually have a track record of running things efficiently. But to deny that their wouldn't be real benefits, both socially and financially just seems narrow minded IMO.

Of course no honest person can deny more gov't control of health care wouldn't have real benefits, but it would also have real costs; that's just being realistic. And since large gov't programs have a tragic history of spiraling out of control (compare the current costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid now to their projected costs when they were first enacted), I don't think it's unreasonable to assume more meddling by gov't into healthcare would result in costs exceeding benefits, by a decent margin. And since, to quote Reagan, a federal program is the closest thing we have to eternal life here on Earth, I'm reluctant to support gov't meddling any more.

A very valid point against it, I agree. Yes, it would definately require more cost (taxes). And I would tend to favor our current system as well if it were working to what I considered acceptable levels. I feel its failing to many people at this point in time, and I don't see it getting any better unless we at least put some checks in place.

 

[sandorski]

I suggest that people checkout and compare: Taxes + Healthcare Insurance = Total and compare that figure against the Taxes paid out in other countries with "Socialized" Healthcare(note that many of those other countries have more than just "Socialized" Healthcare).

 

[freegeeks]

I don't understand the logic of "the BAD govt. running a healthcare system"
IMO it's much more scary that private companies outsource part of their business and that sensitive personal healthcare information ends up in another country. Who are you going to hold accountable if somebody f*cks up? Are you going to call to India and ask for a supervisor?

just my 0.2 eurocent

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
I don't understand the logic of "the BAD govt. running a healthcare system"
IMO it's much more scary that private companies outsource part of their business and that sensitive personal healthcare information ends up in another country. Who are you going to hold accountable if somebody f*cks up? Are you going to call to India and ask for a supervisor?

just my 0.2 eurocent

My fundamental problem with the gov't running the healthcare system (or much of anything else) is that it can't do so in the current fashion (the current fashion being bleeding rivers of red ink) indefinitely. One of these days, the bills come due. Except for a couple of lucky years in the late 1990's (lucky because an unforeseen speculative bubble led to a temporary spike in revenues), the U.S. as a nation has shown an absolute inability to live within its means since about 1969. This is not a good thing. Adding another massive new entitlement program ('free' healthcare) to the budget will result in a fiscal crisis sooner rather than later, but maybe that's a good thing? The sooner the system collapses, the sooner we can rebuild it (hopefully) better.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Define unncessarily. Doesn't that just prove my point that all taxes we have in some shape or form restrict freedoms already? If it doesn't, then I guess I'm missing your point. I'm sure you will come up with another way to insult my intelligence to respond, since that seemed to be your prefered way to discuss a topic. I personally would prefer it remain civil but of course I realize that is not always possible.

I find it some what ironic you lecture me on polar extremes however.

Taxes become unnecessary when they cease to benefit those who are being taxed. For example, the fairest taxes in the world are the gasoline taxes when they are levied properly and the revenues go directly to funding road construction and services. Those who pay the tax pay proportionately to their use and the taxes themselves go to fund their use.
OTOH, the various sin taxes are the opposite. Cigarette taxes are a great example. A supermajority of America does NOT smoke and thus does not have to pay the taxes, yet the taxes collected from smokers go to benefit even (or especially) those who do NOT have to pay it. In this fashion, I do not believe that a ballot measure to raise the cigarettes taxes has ever failed in America, because the vast majority of those voting for the taxes are not raising their own tax burden, but someone elses' tax burden. Does this make sense?
Now, I know you will argue that cigarette smokers use more health services and so such taxes are justified. However, when compared to the grand scheme, the amount paid far exceeds the amount of services used by those who pay, and thus is unfair or unnecessary. Think of it as the modern version of taxation without representation. The majority overtaxes a minority, and thus representation, while still present on the surface, is in fact denied. Symbol of a runaway democracy that has disregarded the rule of law and is devolving rapidly into the tyranny of the majority.

Other issues regarding socialized medicine are just some basic fallacies. For example, health care is not a right, but a for-profit business. Costs will ALWAYS exceed benefits -- to believe otherwise is to ignore the most basic rules of economics. Health care is not an exact science. Health care will not save your life -- you will eventually die (there is no avoiding that, no one gets out of here alive). In other words, there's a lot of mass delusion going on.

As for my arguing style... you attack me, I'll attack you. I have a clear point to get across that I attempt to do in as concise a manner as possible. If you fail to grasp the obvious, I will chide you for it as hard as possible until you do grasp it.
As for the rest of your whining, this is the internet. You don't like it, click all the X's in the top right corner until I go away. 😉

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: freegeeks
I don't understand the logic of "the BAD govt. running a healthcare system"
IMO it's much more scary that private companies outsource part of their business and that sensitive personal healthcare information ends up in another country. Who are you going to hold accountable if somebody f*cks up? Are you going to call to India and ask for a supervisor?

just my 0.2 eurocent

My fundamental problem with the gov't running the healthcare system (or much of anything else) is that it can't do so in the current fashion (the current fashion being bleeding rivers of red ink) indefinitely. One of these days, the bills come due. Except for a couple of lucky years in the late 1990's (lucky because an unforeseen speculative bubble led to a temporary spike in revenues), the U.S. as a nation has shown an absolute inability to live within its means since about 1969. This is not a good thing. Adding another massive new entitlement program ('free' healthcare) to the budget will result in a fiscal crises sooner rather than later, but maybe that's a good thing? The sooner the system collapses, the sooner we can rebuild it (hopefully) better.

Exactly. In any government-controlled system where providing "bread" becomes a fundamental right with the perceived dire consequences of life and death, no politician wishing to be re-elected would be able to dare oppose its unlimited expansion.

Thanks for reminding me that I forgot to include the mass delusion that socialized healthcare would "free" in my previous post. Or did I include when I mentioned that costs will always exceed benefits? There simply is no other way.
To be honest, I wish we could legislate "free" healthcare. Or legislate a "free" brand new car every year too (transportation should be a right! 🙂 ). But reality keeps getting in the way. And will continue to do so forever.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: freegeeks
I don't understand the logic of "the BAD govt. running a healthcare system"
IMO it's much more scary that private companies outsource part of their business and that sensitive personal healthcare information ends up in another country. Who are you going to hold accountable if somebody f*cks up? Are you going to call to India and ask for a supervisor?

just my 0.2 eurocent

My fundamental problem with the gov't running the healthcare system (or much of anything else) is that it can't do so in the current fashion (the current fashion being bleeding rivers of red ink) indefinitely. One of these days, the bills come due. Except for a couple of lucky years in the late 1990's (lucky because an unforeseen speculative bubble led to a temporary spike in revenues), the U.S. as a nation has shown an absolute inability to live within its means since about 1969. This is not a good thing. Adding another massive new entitlement program ('free' healthcare) to the budget will result in a fiscal crises sooner rather than later, but maybe that's a good thing? The sooner the system collapses, the sooner we can rebuild it (hopefully) better.

I just wanted to point out that some of the arguments used in this thread are just meaningless. I just want decent healthcare at the best possible price and I couldn't care less if it's the private sector or the govt.
Where I live (Belgium) we have a mixed system and it's working fairly well with 99% coverage of the population.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: freegeeks
I don't understand the logic of "the BAD govt. running a healthcare system"
IMO it's much more scary that private companies outsource part of their business and that sensitive personal healthcare information ends up in another country. Who are you going to hold accountable if somebody f*cks up? Are you going to call to India and ask for a supervisor?

just my 0.2 eurocent

My fundamental problem with the gov't running the healthcare system (or much of anything else) is that it can't do so in the current fashion (the current fashion being bleeding rivers of red ink) indefinitely. One of these days, the bills come due. Except for a couple of lucky years in the late 1990's (lucky because an unforeseen speculative bubble led to a temporary spike in revenues), the U.S. as a nation has shown an absolute inability to live within its means since about 1969. This is not a good thing. Adding another massive new entitlement program ('free' healthcare) to the budget will result in a fiscal crises sooner rather than later, but maybe that's a good thing? The sooner the system collapses, the sooner we can rebuild it (hopefully) better.

Exactly. In any government-controlled system where providing "bread" becomes a fundamental right with the perceived dire consequences of life and death, no politician wishing to be re-elected would be able to dare oppose its unlimited expansion.

Thanks for reminding me that I forgot to include the mass delusion that socialized healthcare would "free" in my previous post. Or did I include when I mentioned that costs will always exceed benefits? There simply is no other way.
To be honest, I wish we could legislate "free" healthcare. Or legislate a "free" brand new car every year too (transportation should be a right! 🙂 ). But reality keeps getting in the way. And will continue to do so forever.

then you guys have a politician problem and not a problem with a "socialized healthcare" system

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: freegeeks
I don't understand the logic of "the BAD govt. running a healthcare system"
IMO it's much more scary that private companies outsource part of their business and that sensitive personal healthcare information ends up in another country. Who are you going to hold accountable if somebody f*cks up? Are you going to call to India and ask for a supervisor?

just my 0.2 eurocent

My fundamental problem with the gov't running the healthcare system (or much of anything else) is that it can't do so in the current fashion (the current fashion being bleeding rivers of red ink) indefinitely. One of these days, the bills come due. Except for a couple of lucky years in the late 1990's (lucky because an unforeseen speculative bubble led to a temporary spike in revenues), the U.S. as a nation has shown an absolute inability to live within its means since about 1969. This is not a good thing. Adding another massive new entitlement program ('free' healthcare) to the budget will result in a fiscal crises sooner rather than later, but maybe that's a good thing? The sooner the system collapses, the sooner we can rebuild it (hopefully) better.

I just wanted to point out that some of the arguments used in this thread are just meaningless. I just want decent healthcare at the best possible price and I couldn't care less if it's the private sector or the govt.
Where I live (Belgium) we have a mixed system and it's working fairly well with 99% coverage of the population.

Sounds interesting. Links to an overview of your system, if you please? I'd just like to see how it works. Belgium doesn't get much press over here (but I do make a point of following the Belgian cycling scene!).
🙂

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
I just wanted to point out that some of the arguments used in this thread are just meaningless. I just want decent healthcare at the best possible price and I couldn't care less if it's the private sector or the govt.
Where I live (Belgium) we have a mixed system and it's working fairly well with 99% coverage of the population.

I'm happy that Belgium is closer to solving this problem for itself, but what works in your tiny country will not necessarily work in our large country.

The greatest difficulties facing the US in this area are its massively corrupt and bloated bureaucratic government and its intense and extreme bipartisan political environment.

To be fair, Kerry has proposed a mixed private/public system modeled loosely after America's highly successful mixed-system home financing structure, and while I wish to learn more about it before making final judgement, my initial response to it is quite positive. It appears to be voluntary (my biggest complaint against most of the proposed socialized healthcare schemes in the US is that they are decidedly involuntary), pay as you go, that it will exist at the same time as the current private system (and as such will be forced to be competitive), and will guarantee coverage to children and the disabled who are unable to pay for themselves.

Originally posted by: freegeeks
then you guys have a politician problem and not a problem with a "socialized healthcare" system

Well, more like the chicken and the egg problem, for on whom does the blame lie? The politicians who promise to provide everything for free or the voting public who will only elect the politicians who promise to provide everything for free?

 

[arsbanned]

We do a lot of shipping with USPS. They are the most reasonable, least amount of breakage, all around best carrier we use. UPS sucks.

 

[freegeeks]

Sounds interesting. Links to an overview of your system, if you please? I'd just like to see how it works. Belgium doesn't get much press over here (but I do make a point of following the Belgian cycling scene!).

the basic philosophy is that you always have coverage even when you are unemployed
the whole system is funded by employers and employees and you can not opt out.
everyone gets one of these cards. It contains a little chip with some personal information. Every doctor, hospital and pharmacist has a card reader and you just slam your card in it 😛.

you pay a little bit out of your own pocket (5 - 10% of the bill) and there is a maximum ceiling that you have to pay out of your own pocket on a yearly basis. This system exist to prevent that people with chronic diseases go bankrupt. When you exceed the maximum amount the govt. covers 100% of the cost for the rest of the year

a lot of people have additional private insurance. This insurance usually takes care of the 5 - 10% mentioned above and also is used a lot when you need surgery etc...

Doctors and pharmacists in Belgium are not govt. employees but have some sort of special "status". Hospitals are a mix between private hospitals and govt. run hospital. You can choose whatever doctor or hospital you want. There is a good read here on an expat site

Why Belgium is world's healthiest nation
You'd never think it, judging by the number of frites that are consumed, but Belgium has been revealed as the world's healthiest country. Michael Standaert finds out why.

The UK business intelligence provider, World Markets Research Centre, recently conducted a study of the health of nations, and Belgium topped the 175-country list with 98 points.

The study looked at things such as the health service - in terms of expenditure - and the outcomes, such as life expectancy and mortality rates.

"Our survey shows that Belgium - a high-income country with a small population - has taken its health seriously for some time," said WMRC Healthcare Research Manager, Michelle Perkins.

Private and state

Dr Marit Storset, a Norwegian general practice physician who has worked in Brussels since 1978 as well as for three years in Norway and Sweden, agrees with the findings.

"They are much more efficient here," Storset said of Belgium. "One of the best things is how state and private health care work together. For example, when I need to send a patient to a specialist I can do it almost right away, depending on the severity of the case. It wouldn't be that way in Sweden or Norway - there would be much longer waits."

Also heading the list closely behind Belgium were Iceland, the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Austria and Sweden - all scoring above 95. Sierra Leone, burdened under decades of war, poverty and disease, was the least healthy. While in Belgium life expectancy is 77.05 years (according to the latest World Health Organisation measure), life expectancy in many African states has now fallen below 30.

"Health care demand will always outstrip delivery, but at least those countries in the top categories are generally able to continue investing in developing services" Perkins said.

"This luxury is by no means afforded to the majority of nations analysed in this survey. Since many of the lower-ranked countries are struggling to even keep up with basic recurrent costs, let alone fund healthcare development, the gap between the healthiest and the sickliest is only likely to escalate further."

Doctors and patients

One of the major problems with health care in other countries that Storset does not find in Belgium is that establishing a long-term relationship with patients is much easier.

"In many countries the patients are shuffled around from one doctor to another. Here they make attempts to have people choose one doctor whom they see on a more regular basis and can gain trust in. The advantage is that I, as a doctor, feel useful. Doctors in many other places are often pushed into many different things they really don't want to do."

Prevention and cure

According to the survey, the United States ranks in the A level for average health with a score of 93.4, while the United Kingdom slipped into the B level with an 89.6 mark, "despite the (UK) government's pledge for reform," Perkins says. "Continental levels of health and healthcare are unlikely to be reached until the end of this decade at the earliest."

"It is interesting to note that those countries with the highest healthcare expenditure are not necessarily the healthiest," Perkins says.

"The main reason for this is that they tend to adopt a 'we can buy the cure' attitude, as opposed to concentrating on preventing the ailment in the first instance. The prime example of this is the US, where the vast amounts of cash injected into the latest drug developments and pharmaceutical technology fail to be reflected in the overall health of the nation."

Storset also said this was one of the reasons Belgium is highest on the list - it tends to take a more preventative approach to treating patients instead of waiting until they are very sick. "I'm better able to impart knowledge to patients in order to be proactive than I think I would be in other places."

Asked if certain factors such as suicide rates, mental health, pollution, drinking and smoking-related deaths and other ailments of post-modern industrial-technological societies were factored into the study, WMRC's specialist on Belgium, Jelena Markovic, says: "In short, no. We looked at 12 indicators across a wide spectrum, covering factors such as infant and maternal mortality rates, immunisation rates, and comparing those with health care expenditures, in which these factors would be covered on a broad scale."

While Belgium was rated the healthiest, and countries such as Norway and Sweden were also in the highest bracket, Storset still sees patients regularly coming from those countries - as well as the UK - to Belgium for even the simplest of procedures, since waiting periods are shorter and specialists readily available.

"Specialists here are of a very high qualification and seem to maintain and gain knowledge as they work, which is sometimes difficult in other places. When you want to find good doctors here, you can find them.

"I have also found it strange that some patients from Norway or Sweden sometimes say, 'I'm sorry to bother you,' which is something they don't say here. It is something in the culture and it makes people wait longer to seek help, until they are really sick and then it is almost too late. We should be helping them before they get really sick."

While nine of the top 10 rated countries were in Western Europe, there has been a change in the structure of the population due to demographic ageing and falling fertility rates. Older populations have led to increased incidence of lifestyle-related diseases, such as cancer and diabetes.

in no way am I saying that our system is perfect and I'm pretty sure that the USA has top quality healthcare. I just wanted to point out that you also have efficient socialized healthcare systems and a lot of the posters here just go beserk when they see the word socialism without a good reason

the fact that systems like the NHS in Great-Britain have such a bad reputation (and give a bad rep to socialized healthcare) has nothing to with the word "socialized" but everything with the neglect and the underfunding from the British govt in the last 25 years

a good read about our system is here
another read here about the British medical tourism to Belgium Text
cool to see another cycling fan :beer:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
We do a lot of shipping with USPS. They are the most reasonable, least amount of breakage, all around best carrier we use. UPS sucks.

USPS is only the best when you don't have to guarantee delivery date and time (or even delivery itself). For example, sending government-required disclosure paperwork to customers via USPS is best because you only have to prove attempt at shipment, not delivery itself, and USPS is cheapest by far.
But if you're shipping actual product, where time and date of delivery has to be guaranteed, then real business uses FedEx or UPS and no other.

 

[SickBeast]

People live to 76 in Belgium, but to 86 in Canada, yet Belgium is the "world's healthiest nation"? 😕

If the US adopts a mixed system that would be the best option by far IMO. I wish Canada would adopt such a system.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
People live to 76 in Belgium, but to 86 in Canada, yet Belgium is the "world's healthiest nation"? 😕

If the US adopts a mixed system that would be the best option by far IMO. I wish Canada would adopt such a system.

Where'd you ge the 86 from? That's nowhere near right.