Still want national health care?

[Bubba Wheels]

Up in Buffalo yesterday (quaint little burg) and was listening to a Canadian radio station. Apparently many Canadians are dying while awaiting the necessary surgery with waits as long as 2yrs. Private options are strictly out. Anybody still in love with this idea for the U.S.?

[Draft Dodger]

yeah, definitely a no go on that, because people down here don't die while waiting for surgery.

[Bubba Wheels]

The thing is, in both the Canadian version and in Hillary's failed attempt, in order for the national model to work the private option has to be made illegal. Not sure why this is, but seems to be can't have one without the other.

[Galaxy]

Always been against a national health care system. It will deter the brightest students from becoming doctors (it's already happening with the insane hours, the high debt load, and oppressive pay with federal/state health programs that pay very little, and free healthcare to those who don't pay-Illegial Aliens). Also, it will hurt the R&D of our medicine. I wish Bush had the balls to take the bull by the horn, and fix our health-care system.

[NoMyths]

I know I'm loving not having health care. :p

[Karlifornia]

Why give heart surgery to 80-year-olds? It's not like they're useful anymore. When it's your time, it's your time.

*ducks flying objects*

[Ben E Lou]

While I'm opposed to nationalized health care (or pretty much nationalized *anything*, for that matter), I fail to see the logic of those who point to Canada as a reason not to do it. Just because they can't do it right, doesn't mean it isn't doable, especially by the United States Of Dadgum America.

[vtbub]

The dadgum is important.

I have my health care subsidized, it's not as advertised.

[cougarfreak]

I wonder how long some people have to wait if they have to pay for their surgery out of pocket?

[Esquared1]

Up in Buffalo yesterday (quaint little burg) and was listening to a Canadian radio station. Apparently many Canadians are dying while awaiting the necessary surgery with waits as long as 2yrs. Private options are strictly out. Anybody still in love with this idea for the U.S.?

Yes.

[Klinglerware]

free healthcare to those who don't pay-Illegial Aliens

It isn't just Illegal Aliens who get free healthcare--they probably are a very small portion of the population receiving health care at little or no cost to the recipient. Not only are a significant percentage of the US population already receiving subsidized care; in many parts of this country, you cannot be denied urgent care based on your ability to pay.

And of course, many families have to resort to bankruptcy as the medical bills mount--which makes the cost to the recepients of the healthcare defacto "free" (or, at least, greatly reduced)...

[chinaski]

bubba heard something on talk radio! listen up people!

[QuikSand]

I am pretty ambivalent about most proposals for truly nationalized health care... but I also don't think there exists any public policy issue that has been more unfairly demonized.

By our collective resistance to "government" health care, we have a positively absurd system in place to provide health care of all sorts to people.

We have weird systems where large employers are obliged to grant benefit packages to professional employees that bear no particular connection to the employee's actual value to the company (if you have a family of ten sick kids you get a much, much greater benefit from health coverage than the single young woman hired on the same day as you and who does a better job).

We have decided that human dignity requires that people receive health care (it's not really that people go without health care, they go without health insurance or coverage) and so we provide a "safety net" propgram for the poorest among us. Which, in turn, creates a substantial disincentive for achievemtn for the poor -- who if they become more actively involved inthe economy by working and making income, will only find themselves losing their health care coverage and fending for themselves as the uncovered working poor -- an implicit "tax rate" that puts most matters of tax policy among the more well-to-do to shame.

We have programs to provide to indigent with long term care that now have become the vehicle for essentially everyone to receive free long term care -- spawning an enormous and morally repulsive industry of "wealth sheltering" for the exlicit purpose of convincing the government you are so poor as to require government-funded Medicaid coverage, while still maintaining the benefits and control over property and assets needed to provide a very comfortable and even luxurious lifestyle.

We have working people who don't receive coverage from their employers who therefore end up actual cash payors for immediate medical care, and therefore have an actual financial incentive to put off preventative treatment and care (which would cost them money) until it blossoms into a more acute (and expensive) problem, which providers will be duty-bound to treat independent of ability to pay.

And all these people who get treated "for free" do, of course, result in much higher payments made by you, me, our employers, and our government. Be clear -- what we seem to be happy with in this regard is that peopel get treated for free, the hospital then turns all this "uncompensated care" into its geenral overhead costs, for which it then gets compensated by jacking up the rates it charges the paying customers. You think you're getting a wonderful free ride, suckers, but really you're getting less in your paycheck because of it, you're paying higher taxes already because of it, and the care you are receiving is lesser because of it.


But, in the name of the "free market" (though let's not kid ourselves, the market for medicine in this country is so absurdly far from being free to make the very suggestion of it laughable) we absolutely reject the notion of "socialized medicine." Every sensible politician knows that to rail against this sort of thing (and the "higher taxes" that it would bring about) is a sure-fire way to win over all those people in the audience. Including the ones whose kids don't have any insurance from their jobs at Best Buy.

[Bubba Wheels]

bubba heard something on talk radio! listen up people!

Well, seems like a pretty important topic to me, considering that and the fact that Hillary is running in 2008 and she is best known for 1. A failed attempt at a national health care plan that would also have 2. Made it a felony for those attempting to go outside the system for something mundane like, oh, a second opinion maybe to not have your insides removed if possible....

But hey, sorry to disturb whatever it was that you were doing...like checking out threads that you find beneath your intelligence. But then, if you were so busy with your rocket science in the first place, why post here at all?

I would add that this is a freight train coming down the tracks and will happen. So the devil is in the details. Let others decide for you how its going to be and we could wind up with something worse than what Canada's got.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

We have weird systems where large employers are obliged to grant benefit packages to professional employees that bear no particular connection to the employee's actual value to the company (if you have a family of ten sick kids you get a much, much greater benefit from health coverage than the single young woman hired on the same day as you and who does a better job).


I think this is an important point. I find the employer-based health-care system to be very odd. It seems to create strange incentives for health service provision and use all around that defies any sort of normal market dynamic... I just don't see how it can lead to an efficient allocation of resources. There have got to be better ways.

[clintl]

Well, seems like a pretty important topic to me, considering that and the fact that Hillary is running in 2008 and she is best known for 1. A failed attempt at a national health care plan that would also have 2. Made it a felony for those attempting to go outside the system for something mundane like, oh, a second opinion maybe to not have your insides removed if possible....



Where did you get this from? Hillary's plan was basically a requirement that all employers had to provide health insurance coverage for their employees.

[ISiddiqui]

The thing is, in both the Canadian version and in Hillary's failed attempt, in order for the national model to work the private option has to be made illegal. Not sure why this is, but seems to be can't have one without the other.No it doesn't. European countries have national health care, but also private coverage for somewhat higher cost stuff or specialized stuff. You can definetly have one with the other.

Quiksand's post is a very good one which is spot on. Because of our messed up health care system the poor who don't have insurance avoid preventative care, which ends up costing us more because they develop much greater problems that hospitals are obligated to treat, even if they can't pay. This results in the US paying MORE than any other country's for healthcare on a per capita basis. Overhead really kills us in costs with the tons of insurance companies we have.

I'd wholeheartedly support a mixture of public and private healthcare systems as many European countries sport.

[Fonzie]

QuikSand 1, Bubba Wheels 0

[MrBigglesworth]

No it doesn't. European countries have national health care, but also private coverage for somewhat higher cost stuff or specialized stuff. You can definetly have one with the other.
France has a nationalized part, and a private part where you can pay for 'extra' things out of pocket. France's health care system might be the best in the world, top to bottom, it's too bad that prejudices will keep us from putting it into practice here.

[Galaril]

I , as mentioned in another thread I just got a job and am very relieve dto be employed again. I know this topic form first hand experience and thought I weigh in on it.
I served in the US Air force for over 8 years (including the first gulf war in the early 90's) and got out under honorable conditions while overseas. I will note that this was my choice and the subseqquent working overseas was as well. Being that I lived overseas and was not paying into state taxes per se I was not eligible for unemployment benefits. This situation was understood from the beginning and I had no problems with it. However, when I decided to relocate the family back to the US for a career change and better opportunities for my kids in relation to schools I met with a stark reality. We had been living off our savings for the last four months. Now, I had planned for a period of unemployment until I could find work in the IT field I was trying to get into so this was not to much of an unexpected situation. The one real scary thing though, was when my 2 year old daughter came down with a serious possibly life threatening illness and I might not have the means to see to proper care for her. In the end, she did recieve excellent care due in great part to the fact that here in Massachusetts they have something called Mass Health which will provide state funded insurance coverage for most medical care for those who are in need of medical care. I am happy to say my daughter Kelly is happy, healthy, if a bit precocious 2 year 9 month old child.
I thank God that I was able to get this state medical benefits when it was needed most. I know that there are many pros and cons to both sides of this argument and even I myself am not sure if I want to see national health care implemented. I certainly don't want private health care to become illegal. Anyways, I was reading this thread and wanted to let folks know that not everyone without medical care is crack head or "illegal alien".

[clintl]

No it doesn't. European countries have national health care, but also private coverage for somewhat higher cost stuff or specialized stuff. You can definetly have one with the other.



Yes. I have a friend in England who has private insurance to supplement national health insurance. As I understand the German system, the insurance providers are private companies, but the premiums are paid through payroll taxes. So there are lots of ways to mix government and private coverage successfully.

[Airhog]

My fiancee doesnt have medical covereage. She works part time for the hospital, and it would cost here nearly 400 dollars a month for coverage, which is only about 200 less than what she makes every month.

Now the hospital has a plan where you they will look at your sitaution and provide funds for those that cannot pay. This only coveres the cost of the hospital though. At this hospital, all of the services are billed seperately. You see a doctor for 10 minutes? That 200 bucks. You need to have an EKG done? Well the radiologist will charge you another 200 bucks.

Of course now they have changed their policy, I guess to discourage people that cannot pay coming into the emergency room. Your hospital only bill has to be at least 2000 bucks for them to pay it for you. If would be very difficult to be charged that much for anything less than an overnight visit.

[ISiddiqui]

I , as mentioned in another thread I just got a job and am very relieve dto be employed again. I know this topic form first hand experience and thought I weigh in on it.
I served in the US Air force for over 8 years (including the first gulf war in the early 90's) and got out under honorable conditions while overseas. I will note that this was my choice and the subseqquent working overseas was as well. Being that I lived overseas and was not paying into state taxes per se I was not eligible for unemployment benefits. This situation was understood from the beginning and I had no problems with it. However, when I decided to relocate the family back to the US for a career change and better opportunities for my kids in relation to schools I met with a stark reality. We had been living off our savings for the last four months. Now, I had planned for a period of unemployment until I could find work in the IT field I was trying to get into so this was not to much of an unexpected situation. The one real scary thing though, was when my 2 year old daughter came down with a serious possibly life threatening illness and I might not have the means to see to proper care for her. In the end, she did recieve excellent care due in great part to the fact that here in Massachusetts they have something called Mass Health which will provide state funded insurance coverage for most medical care for those who are in need of medical care. I am happy to say my daughter Kelly is happy, healthy, if a bit precocious 2 year 9 month old child.
I thank God that I was able to get this state medical benefits when it was needed most. I know that there are many pros and cons to both sides of this argument and even I myself am not sure if I want to see national health care implemented. I certainly don't want private health care to become illegal. Anyways, I was reading this thread and wanted to let folks know that not everyone without medical care is crack head or "illegal alien".Hey, thanks for sharing your story. And its stories like these that have convinced me that some form of national health care is needed. People shouldn't have to worry about getting wiped out because their kid gets really sick or something.

[sterlingice]

I love the post made by the Computer One. Great synopsis of the situation.

SI

[cartman]

Well, seems like a pretty important topic to me, considering that and the fact that Hillary is running in 2008 and she is best known for 1. A failed attempt at a national health care plan that would also have 2. Made it a felony for those attempting to go outside the system for something mundane like, oh, a second opinion maybe to not have your insides removed if possible....


1. It is interesting you infer that Hillary is to blame for the measure failing. If you remember, the initiative had bi-partisan support, one of the biggest proponents also being Newt Gingrich. What the two sides couldn't agree on was the final shape the health care plan would take.

2. I would like a source (not World Net Daily) that says seeking a second opinion or other medical help would have been a felony. That statement reeks of scaremongering, and causes reactionary responses, not honest debate.

It is obvious that our current system isn't going to work going forward. Two of the biggest government entitlement programs are Medicade and Medicare. These have both been expanded far beyond what they were originally conceived to address. Many of the points QS brings up are much more relevant topics to be discussed, rather than make statements that Hillary would have you put away for life if you request a MRI.

[Galaxy]

France has a nationalized part, and a private part where you can pay for 'extra' things out of pocket. France's health care system might be the best in the world, top to bottom, it's too bad that prejudices will keep us from putting it into practice here.

But isn't the welfare state killing France? I love the idea of a national health care system, but I have two fears:

1) The drop in quality of doctors, and the innovative research and breakthroughs we make. If doctors, surgeons, and researchers are limited in what they can earn and charge and make, with the rising debt loads they carry ($200,000-$300,000 of school), is it worth it? Med schools are having a tough time attracting bright talent.

2) Will this hurt our economic structure, that many other countries are struggling with?

[cartman]

But isn't the welfare state killing France?

There a lot more to the welfare state problem than simply medical care. As, I believe it was Fantasic Flying Froggie saying, while he was unemployed, he was receiving something like 80% of his former salary as unemployment insurance. It is also very hard and very expensive for an employer to fire someone. Another problem, that is affecting much of western Europe, is a greatly declining birth rate. This is causing a smaller and smaller pool of workers having to support a growing number of retirees and other state welfare recipients.

[Galaxy]

There a lot more to the welfare state problem than simply medical care. As, I believe it was Fantasic Flying Froggie saying, while he was unemployed, he was receiving something like 80% of his former salary as unemployment insurance. It is also very hard and very expensive for an employer to fire someone. Another problem, that is affecting much of western Europe, is a greatly declining birth rate. This is causing a smaller and smaller pool of workers having to support a growing number of retirees and other state welfare recipients.

Wouldn't that a big problem in 15-20 years when the Boomers are hitting retirement (and we seem to a bigger % of health issues)?

[cartman]

Wouldn't that a big problem in 15-20 years when the Boomers are hitting retirement (and we seem to a bigger % of health issues)?

It will be, but not as big a problem as it is in Europe. We are still growing as a population in the US, but most countries in Europe, especially Italy, are actually shrinking in population.

[Bubba Wheels]

1. It is interesting you infer that Hillary is to blame for the measure failing. If you remember, the initiative had bi-partisan support, one of the biggest proponents also being Newt Gingrich. What the two sides couldn't agree on was the final shape the health care plan would take.

2. I would like a source (not World Net Daily) that says seeking a second opinion or other medical help would have been a felony. That statement reeks of scaremongering, and causes reactionary responses, not honest debate.

It is obvious that our current system isn't going to work going forward. Two of the biggest government entitlement programs are Medicade and Medicare. These have both been expanded far beyond what they were originally conceived to address. Many of the points QS brings up are much more relevant topics to be discussed, rather than make statements that Hillary would have you put away for life if you request a MRI.

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=172&sortorder=articledate

Just one source. Note: $10,000 and 10 years for 'health care offenses' over $100, one year in jail for under.

[cartman]

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=172&sortorder=articledate

Just one source. Note: $10,000 and 10 years for 'health care offenses' over $100, one year in jail for under.

LOL!!! Did you even read the article? That was a change the Republicans added to the proposed legislation, not your evil Hillary!!! The fine was for an offense called "health care fraud", which I really have a hard time translating as getting a second opinion or asking for an alternative treatment.

Then: it was the Republican's turn at bat, and history quickly turned to farce. The leadership decided it needed to pass a health care bill before the November election. Democrat Ted Kennedy, a longtime proponent of socialist medicine, then cooperated with Republican Nancy Kassebaum to produce a bill in the Senate, while the House introduces its own version. The Senate bill covers mental health (in case the Senators have to reenter the private sector?), while the House bill offers some specialized tax breaks, but otherwise the bills are identical.

Incredibly, the core of this Republican-backed bill is exactly the same as the Clinton bill. Look at the section of the bill called "Guaranteed Availability of Health Care Coverage," and compare Bill Clinton's grandiose promises with the actual language from the Republican side:

"An insurer may not decline to provide whole group coverage to employers; and a group health plan (whether an insured health plan or self-insured health plan) may not establish eligibility, continuation, enrollment, or contribution requirements for participants or beneficiaries based on: health status, medical condition, claims experience, receipt of health care, medical history, evidence of insurability, or disability of a participant or beneficiary."

That's legislative language for a mandate to replace the market with a broad government demand for exactly what Bill Clinton promised: "We must--and we will--outlaw insurance company practices that discriminate...."

There's more that links the repudiated Clinton plan with the beloved Republican plan. There's "Guaranteed Renewability," mandated and state-certified "Health Plan Purchasing Coalitions," and vague insinuations of premium caps. A "study," for example, will assess "the need for Federal standards that limit the variation in health insurance premiums...."

There are criminal penalties for "federal health care offenses," as Jane Orient of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons discovered. It imposes fines up to $10,000 "for each instance" of what it calls "health care fraud"--meaning not complying with the new dictates--and prison terms up to 10 years. For violations involving less than $100, one year in jail is the penalty.

Are the Republicans attempting to legislate socialism? Of course, just like Clinton before them. As James Glassman has written, "Inevitably Americans will arrive at the destination they rejected when Bill and Hillary Clinton proposed it: government-controlled health care."

[Bubba Wheels]

LOL!!! Did you even read the article? That was a change the Republicans added to the proposed legislation, not your evil Hillary!!!

So what? Hillary pushed the plan, complete with secret, illegal meetings over it. Article is about the failed national health care plan pushed by Hillary, and all modification including those by 'Republicans' would have had the same effect on those being effected by the plan. Never made this out to be a "Hillary bad, Republicans good' deal like you presume in the first place.

"Incredibly, the core of this Republican-backed plan is the same as the Clinton plan."

[cartman]

Dola,

A closer look at the article also contridicts your statement about her "failed health initiative". The basic gist of the article is that the bill the Republican Congress passed on health care reform was just a copy of the initiatives she recommended. So if you are trying to say that the health care problem is all Hillary's fault, you need a better source to support your claim.

The Republicans were right to ridicule the Clinton plan, predicting that it would lead to high prices, fewer services, shortages, and generalized disaster. But the Republican version of the same passed it overwhelmingly in the House; the Senate passed it unanimously. Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal, which were on the warpath against Hillary's bill, have cheered the new version to the skies.

The only mystery is how the Republicans got away with this. The answer is that they guaranteed profits for the largest and most influential special interest groups while providing just enough favors to potential opponents of the bill to buy their support. They knew leftists would have no incentive to expose the plot; in fact, the left secretly cheered.

[cartman]

Never made this out to be a "Hillary bad, Republicans good' deal like you presume in the first place.

Well, based on your statement that she was running for President in 2008, and would try to keep pushing her failed health initiative sure made it appear that way.

[Bubba Wheels]

Dola,

A closer look at the article also contridicts your statement about her "failed health initiative". The basic gist of the article is that the bill the Republican Congress passed on health care reform was just a copy of the initiatives she recommended. So if you are trying to say that the health care problem is all Hillary's fault, you need a better source to support your claim.

Well, this is just basic history. Bill put Hillary in charge of creating a national health care plan, Hillary held illegal, secret meetings (that was what initially alarmed everyone) and regardless of whether or not Republicans attempted to 'jump on board' with there own version later the whole thing was for naught. That usually means it failed (both versions.) Or not?

[Bubba Wheels]

Well, based on your statement that she was running for President in 2008, and would try to keep pushing her failed health initiative sure made it appear that way.

She is running in 2008, and national health care will be an issue.

[cartman]

Well, this is just basic history. Bill put Hillary in charge of creating a national health care plan, Hillary held illegal, secret meetings (that was what initially alarmed everyone) and regardless of whether or not Republicans attempted to 'jump on board' with there own version later the whole thing was for naught. That usually means it failed (both versions.) Or not?

I have no idea where you are going with this. Nor do I really care.

I've got to go off now and continue my plans to run for President myself on the Libertarian ticket, and listen to some Enrique Iglesias.

[cartman]

She is running in 2008, and national health care will be an issue.

But if it isn't a Hillary bad/Republicans good thing, why even single her out? No matter who runs, national health care is going to be an issue, and the your source clearly stated that both sides are advocating the same solution. So no matter who is running for President, we are screwed.

[Bubba Wheels]

But if it isn't a Hillary bad/Republicans good thing, why even single her out? No matter who runs, national health care is going to be an issue, and the your source clearly stated that both sides are advocating the same solution. So no matter who is running for President, we are screwed.

Well, the article is dated 1996. In the time since, most Republicans that I hear do not want this model of national health care. Don't think you can say the same about the democrats. Just my opinion.

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm amazed at the irrational hatred that is heaped onto a woman who has had a nondescript one term as a Senator and a fairly uneventful term as first lady. Yesterday on some big conservative website (I forget which) the blogger was consoling everyone over the Miers pick, saying that if Kerry had won he would have nominated Hillary Clinton. Bubba Wheels is part of that fantasy world.

[Galaxy]

I have no idea where you are going with this. Nor do I really care.

I've got to go off now and continue my plans to run for President myself on the Libertarian ticket, and listen to some Enrique Iglesias.

Would you dance, if I ask you to dance?

[Bubba Wheels]

I'm amazed at the irrational hatred that is heaped onto a woman who has had a nondescript one term as a Senator and a fairly uneventful term as first lady. Yesterday on some big conservative website (I forget which) the blogger was consoling everyone over the Miers pick, saying that if Kerry had won he would have nominated Hillary Clinton. Bubba Wheels is part of that fantasy world.

Well, Ms. Clinton may personally be a warm, wonderful human being. But politically I think there is strong evidence that if not Marxist, she is one or two bus-stops down the pike from being one. BTW, this was covered before in another thread so I won't rehash it all again here.

[MrBigglesworth]

But isn't the welfare state killing France? I love the idea of a national health care system, but I have two fears:

1) The drop in quality of doctors, and the innovative research and breakthroughs we make. If doctors, surgeons, and researchers are limited in what they can earn and charge and make, with the rising debt loads they carry ($200,000-$300,000 of school), is it worth it? Med schools are having a tough time attracting bright talent.

2) Will this hurt our economic structure, that many other countries are struggling with?
The welfare state is actually working out really well for a lot of the Frenchmen. There system isn't perfect, and I don't like a lot about it, but it has its advantages.

1) Med schools have a tough time attracting talent because the arduous process of becoming a doctor. I was a premed major at PSU, score in the top percentile on my MCATs, and didn't go to med school because the whole process is crazy to go through just to end up with a decent job and to be hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. The AMA is what is artificially keeping doctors salaries high, because of their refusal to add aditional medical schools. But I digress...European countries pay their doctors significantly less, and still get better medical results.

2) As it is right now, our government spends more per capita on health care than any other government. Our government also covers less people, and has a lower score on almost every conceivable metric to measure health care performance.

[MrBigglesworth]

Well, Ms. Clinton may personally be a warm, wonderful human being. But politically I think there is strong evidence that if not Marxist, she is one or two bus-stops down the pike from being one. BTW, this was covered before in another thread so I won't rehash it all again here.
Marxist? See what I am talking about?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Debating BW is pointless. Canada's health system is not perfect, but way better than the U.S. for the middle class and lower. While people do have to wait 1-2 years for non-emergency surgery (i.e. hip replacement, knee damage), you can still get surgery for "life-threatening" issues fairly quickly. Of course, there are some exceptions, but it is a far cry from the incredible numbers of people in the U.S. with no healthcare coverage at all and thus little or no access to medical care.

Relying on a blurb of (what I will guess is a conservative radio station) in Buffalo is typical of BW. His misquote was even better. And calling Clinton a Marxist?????? I am moving on to another thread now; I spent too much time here already -- I am feeling a little dirty.

[Galaxy]

The welfare state is actually working out really well for a lot of the Frenchmen. There system isn't perfect, and I don't like a lot about it, but it has its advantages.

1) Med schools have a tough time attracting talent because the arduous process of becoming a doctor. I was a premed major at PSU, score in the top percentile on my MCATs, and didn't go to med school because the whole process is crazy to go through just to end up with a decent job and to be hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. The AMA is what is artificially keeping doctors salaries high, because of their refusal to add aditional medical schools. But I digress...European countries pay their doctors significantly less, and still get better medical results.

2) As it is right now, our government spends more per capita on health care than any other government. Our government also covers less people, and has a lower score on almost every conceivable metric to measure health care performance.

Aren't France and Germany struggling with GDP growth, unemployment rates, ect. and the bloated spending of a welfare state? What do you consider "better medical results"? What about research and technological advances here, compared to Europe/Asia? I think a big problem is that Americans wait to see a doctor before something is wrong, and we are terrible at taking care of ourselves. The hopsitals in Europe aren't much to write home about.

[Young Drachma]

I left the Air Force after my enlistement in 2002 and haven't had any decent health insurance since then. Since I've been in college for 3 of the 4 years since I got out (and I am now after taking last year off split between an internship and a job where I actually got coverage..) I've opted to do the school insurance twice (once because I didn't have a choice and now here at Wyoming because while it's not great, I can't find anything cheaper really) and I actually got a small policy from Blue Cross/Blue Shield back in '03-04.

The point of all this drivel, is really just to say that I think - like QS eloquently pointed out - people who work hard and have no interest in cheating the system or finding loopholes are the ones who get shafted in the status quo.

I don't know what the answers are, really. I mean, I'm an education policy guy - not an aspiring health care policy wonk - but...i do believe that we can come up with something a lot better than what we have now, that's for sure. Not because of some liberal wishy-washy reasoning (in case it sounded that way..) but more because the long-term increase in productivity would be worth the spending.

After all, how many more bridges to nowhere in Alaska do we need to build?

[Young Drachma]

Aren't France and Germany struggling with GDP growth, unemployment rates, ect. and the bloated spending of a welfare state? What do you consider "better medical results"? What about research and technological advances here, compared to Europe/Asia? I think a big problem is that Americans wait to see a doctor before something is wrong, and we are terrible at taking care of ourselves. The hopsitals in Europe aren't much to write home about.

We actually had a German girl in class today talking to us about the educational system there. In addition to that, she was talking specifically about the high unemployment rates, the high rates of taxation and all that. As high as 20% in some states, unemployment and losing half your check to taxes.

[MrBigglesworth]

Aren't France and Germany struggling with GDP growth, unemployment rates, ect. and the bloated spending of a welfare state?
Their GDP growth is lower than ours, but at a rate equal to the difference in how much work we do compared to them. They have shorter work weeks and more vactation time, the downside of that is lower growth. You could argue either side of that one. The unemployment is probably a condition of the labor laws, and I'm not a big fan of a lot of those, but to tell you the truth I don't know too much about them.

What do you consider "better medical results"?
Average life span, infant mortality, low-birth weight children, probability at birth of not living until age 60, etc, we rank at or near the bottom in all of them among western nations.

[Young Drachma]

Average life span, infant mortality, low-birth weight children, probability at birth of not living until age 60, etc, we rank at or near the bottom in all of them among western nations.

Isn't this largely because of the proportion of poor people we have though? In other words, if you controlled for that..it'd probably be about on par, no? Not to say I think we should ignore it, since I don't.

[KeyserSoze]

Aren't France and Germany struggling with GDP growth, unemployment rates, ect. and the bloated spending of a welfare state? What do you consider "better medical results"? What about research and technological advances here, compared to Europe/Asia? I think a big problem is that Americans wait to see a doctor before something is wrong, and we are terrible at taking care of ourselves. The hopsitals in Europe aren't much to write home about.

Spain is growing as fast as US and has a mixed system. For our mentality, if any governmet wants to close the public medical system will be wiped in a second.

[MrBigglesworth]

Isn't this largely because of the proportion of poor people we have though? In other words, if you controlled for that..it'd probably be about on par, no? Not to say I think we should ignore it, since I don't.
Poverty does not seem to correlate with health outcomes directly. For example, the USA's poverty rate is about 12%, France is 6%, and the UK is 17%. Both have better health outcomes than the US.

[Samdari]

We have weird systems where large employers are obliged to grant benefit packages to professional employees that bear no particular connection to the employee's actual value to the company (if you have a family of ten sick kids you get a much, much greater benefit from health coverage than the single young woman hired on the same day as you and who does a better job).

This is hardly true anywhere anymore. Most companies nowadays pay the same amount towards each employees' benefit package, and pass the rest of the cost on to the employee. While this "flat" per employee cost is not in relation to the each employees' value to the company, it is the insurance companies themselves who charge the same for a "family" plan, no matter how many . Don't blame the purchasers for what you consider a swcrewed up system.

[Klinglerware]

Poverty does not seem to correlate with health outcomes directly. For example, the USA's poverty rate is about 12%, France is 6%, and the UK is 17%. Both have better health outcomes than the US.

And don't forget the famed statistic of Cuba's infant mortality rate being better that the US'.

[ISiddiqui]

LOL! This thread is funny. Hillary a Marxist! I don't think BW knows what a Marxist is. And amazingly (I didn't think it possible), but Senator Clinton has positioned herself as a moderate (a NorthEastern moderate, but all the same). Wonderful politics.

Oh, and:

Hillary held illegal, secret meetings (that was what initially alarmed everyone)
Like when Dick Cheney held "illegal, secret meetings" on energy policy? ;)

What was so illegal about them (both Clinton's and Cheney's) anyway?

[albionmoonlight]

Great points as always, QS.

Here are a few facts which need to be put out there in order for any rational discussion to happen. First, we need to understand that the majority of health care in this country is tied to employment. That means that if you don't have a job, but you have a sick family member, you are S.O.L. There are a growing number of elderly people who have the resources to retire but who still need to put in their 40 hour weeks in order to have access to the health insurance that their sick spouse needs. You may consider that OK, but I don't think a lot of us picture scrimping and saving for retirement, only to be forced to work into our 80s just for the health insurance.

Retirees from big unions were promised health coverage as part of their retirement packages (which coverage they took in exchange for lower salaries than they could have otherwise gotten). Now, their employers are going bankrupt, leaving them holding the bag. They got paid less than they would have anyway AND they get no health coverage at retirment. Again, you may think that that's the way the cookie crumbles, but it is hard not to see it as part of the problem.

I'm not saying that socalized medicine is the answer to the above problem--it's more a criticism of the piss-poor American idea of linking work with health insurance.

Finally, our health care system is based on the idea that people consume too much health care--especially preventative health care. To me, this never jibed as a matter of personal experience. I have the day off. Do I go play golf and hang out with my kids, or do I go to the doctor for a check-up? I think that it is strange to think that the only thing keeping me from going to the doctor is the fact that I would have to pay a deductible. That if it were free, that I would want to consume more health care. Consuming health care isn't fun. I just never saw the logic behind the idea that people would rush their doctor's offices en mass only if it were free.

Also, consuming preventative health care SAVES MONEY IN THE LONG RUN. If people are not dissuaded from getting that tooth looked at BEFORE it becomes a full-blown gum infection, then we will be able to treat illnesses much more cheaply overall. When we make it so that people can't afford health care unless they REALLY REALLY need it--then they only consume it when they REALLY REALLY need it. And we all end up holding the bag for that.

Of course, from the perspective of you insurer, you should never go to the doctor. The hope is that they will save $100 by not paying for you to get your teeth cleaned, and that you will be on some other insurance carrier (be it private or Medicaid or a charity hospital) by the time you need $10,000 worth of dental surgery.

Any health care system based on the idea that people should consume less health care--especially preventative health care--is messed up.

(Also, I know that there are hypocondriacs (sp?) who will go to the doctor 30 times a month if we let them. The answer there is not to base the entire health care system around their mental illness--but to treat it.)

[flere-imsaho]

National Health Care is a Competitive Advantage (http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/050630/b0630102.html)

WOODSTOCK, Ont. (CP) - Ontario workers are well-trained.

That simple explanation was cited as a main reason why Toyota turned its back on hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies offered from several American states in favour of building a second Ontario plant.

Industry experts say Ontarians are easier and cheaper to train - helping make it more cost-efficient to train workers when the new Woodstock plant opens in 2008, 40 kilometres away from its skilled workforce in Cambridge.

"The level of the workforce in general is so high that the training program you need for people, even for people who have not worked in a Toyota plant before, is minimal compared to what you have to go through in the southeastern United States," said Gerry Fedchun, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, whose members will see increased business with the new plant.

Acknowledging it was the "worst-kept secret" throughout Ontario's automotive industry, Toyota confirmed months of speculation Thursday by announcing plans to build a 1,300-worker factory in the southwestern Ontario city.

"Welcome to Woodstock - that's something I've been waiting a long time to say," Ray Tanguay, president of Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada, told hundreds gathered at a high school gymnasium.

The plant will produce the RAV-4, dubbed by some as a "mini sport-utility vehicle" that Toyota currently makes only in Japan. It plans to build 100,000 vehicles annually.

The factory will cost $800 million to build, with the federal and provincial governments kicking in $125 million of that to help cover research, training and infrastructure costs.

Several U.S. states were reportedly prepared to offer more than double that amount of subsidy. But Fedchun said much of that extra money would have been eaten away by higher training costs than are necessary for the Woodstock project.

He said Nissan and Honda have encountered difficulties getting new plants up to full production in recent years in Mississippi and Alabama due to an untrained - and often illiterate - workforce. In Alabama, trainers had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech plant equipment.

"The educational level and the skill level of the people down there is so much lower than it is in Ontario," Fedchun said.

In addition to lower training costs, Canadian workers are also $4 to $5 cheaper to employ partly thanks to the taxpayer-funded health-care system in Canada, said federal Industry Minister David Emmerson.

"Most people don't think of our health-care system as being a competitive advantage," he said.

Tanguay said Toyota's decision on where to build its seventh North American plant was "not only about money."

"It's about being in the right place," he said, noting the company can rely on the expertise of experienced Cambridge workers to help get Woodstock up and running.

Premier Dalton McGuinty said the money the province and Ottawa are pledging for the project is well-spent. His government has committed $400 million, including the latest Toyota package, to the province's auto sector, which helped finance $5-billion worth of industry projects.

"I think that's a great investment that will more than pay for itself in terms of new jobs and new economic returns," McGuinty said.

The provincial funds for the auto sector were drawn from a fund set up to attract investments specifically in that industry. McGuinty said no similar industry funds are being planned for other sectors, but added the province wants to attract biotechnology companies - those working on multibillion-dollar advanced medical research.

"What we have done for auto we would like to be able to do for biotech," he said. "That's where we're lending some real focus to at the present time."

Similarly, Emmerson said Ottawa is looking to help out industries that create "clusters" of jobs around them - such as in aerospace, shipbuilding, telecommunications and forestry - where supply bases build around a large manufacturer.

[Bubba Wheels]

LOL! This thread is funny. Hillary a Marxist! I don't think BW knows what a Marxist is. And amazingly (I didn't think it possible), but Senator Clinton has positioned herself as a moderate (a NorthEastern moderate, but all the same). Wonderful politics.

Oh, and:


Like when Dick Cheney held "illegal, secret meetings" on energy policy? ;)

What was so illegal about them (both Clinton's and Cheney's) anyway?

Well, you actually swerve into the truth of it without realizing it. The reason the democrats hit Cheney so hard on his secret energy meetings is because they remember the lambasting they got over the Hillary healthcare meetings. Its just more tit-for-tat (insert joke here.)

As for the meetings being illegal, some seemed to think so.http://www.ndu.edu/library/n4/n035603f.pdf

And as far as Hillary being a Marxist, again explored in depth in a previous thread...for newcomers begin your searh with Hillary College Thesis Saul Bellows (her college advisor) and just fit her actions policies into the framework like the firing of ALL federal prosecutors and the replacement with ACLU lawyers right after Bill became President. ACLU was founded by communists to protect communist rights in America in original incarnation. That's just documented history. Baldwin was the guy's name (not Alec!)

[Fonzie]

Oh dear.

[ISiddiqui]

ACLU was founded by communists to protect communist rights in America in original incarnation. That's just documented history.
LOLOLOL!!

You were dropped on your head as a child, right?

The Bill of Rights are communist now. Hmmm... interesting view on our founding documents. I'll be sure to tell Bob Barr that he's thrown in with the commies (he works for the ACLU now, btw)

[John Galt]

just fit her actions policies into the framework like the firing of ALL federal prosecutors and the replacement with ACLU lawyers right after Bill became President.

This is an outright lie. Provide a cite.

[Klinglerware]

National Health Care is a Competitive Advantage (http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/050630/b0630102.html)

Interesting read--thanks for posting this, flere.

The implication I see here is that national health care systems are not the culprit for diminished economic growth and productivity. Labor and unemployment laws are more to blame in those developed countries showing sluggish economic growth.

The other point hammered home here is education, or lack thereof. Sources of cheap labor may be the US' competitive advantage (especially in the Southeast) relative to other industrialized nations, but when companies do the actual cost-benefit analysis, America seems to be hurt by the poor job it does preparing young people for joining the work-force.

[QuikSand]

I apologize if my contributions to this thread only served to feed its ultimate purpose, which was clearly not to talk about health care, but just to feed the forum troll's appetite for attention and conflict. That certainly seems to be the case.

It was getting late, I was tired, but I still should have known better. Sorry.

[flere-imsaho]

Actually, QS, your initial post provided a great starting point for what could be an interesting discussion on a complex topic. However, as you point out, attempting to have this conversation with BW around would be akin to talking about football in a bar and having a guy at the next table frequently shout "football sucks, it's for communists!"

[Fonzie]

I apologize if my contributions to this thread only served to feed its ultimate purpose, which was clearly not to talk about health care, but just to feed the forum troll's appetite for attention and conflict. That certainly seems to be the case.

It was getting late, I was tired, but I still should have known better. Sorry.
One must never apologize for a thoughtful, constructive post.

[Blackadar]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[sterlingice]

However, as you point out, attempting to have this conversation with BW around would be akin to talking about football in a bar and having a guy at the next table frequently shout "football sucks, it's for communists!"
Well, they do have a salary cap ;)

SI

[albionmoonlight]

I apologize if my contributions to this thread only served to feed its ultimate purpose, which was clearly not to talk about health care, but just to feed the forum troll's appetite for attention and conflict. That certainly seems to be the case.

It was getting late, I was tired, but I still should have known better. Sorry.
I liked your post. No need to succumb to the heckler's veto.

That said, I think that I will go gentle into that good night now and let Bubba rage rage against the dying of the Right.

[MO542]

2) As it is right now, our government spends more per capita on health care than any other government. Our government also covers less people, and has a lower score on almost every conceivable metric to measure health care performance.

I work in the Healthcare industry and I examine clinical outcomes.

I think that your statement is a little misleading. The reason that America spends more on Healthcare has more to do with being the leader in research / technology in healthcare than treatment cost. America develops more new drugs and techniques than any other country; because of this the cost is pasted on to the consumer. They can charge more for a new drug in the US because it is a free market and Canada pays a fixed amount at a lower price for the same drug. In effect, Americans are paying for other countries healthcare costs.

[MrBigglesworth]

ACLU was founded by communists to protect communist rights in America in original incarnation. That's just documented history.
It's science.

Seriously though BW, where do you learn this kind of stuff? I listen to conservative radio all the time, and it's not this bad. Is it from the Focus on the Family super prayer team email list? Some secret society you are a part of?

[MrBigglesworth]

I work in the Healthcare industry and I examine clinical outcomes.

I think that your statement is a little misleading. The reason that America spends more on Healthcare has more to do with being the leader in research / technology in healthcare than treatment cost. America develops more new drugs and techniques than any other country; because of this the cost is pasted on to the consumer.
No, those numbers do not include research. They are just health care spending for treatment and preventative care.

They can charge more for a new drug in the US because it is a free market and Canada pays a fixed amount at a lower price for the same drug. In effect, Americans are paying for other countries healthcare costs.
The US drug market is a FAR cry from a free market. Why would drug companies sell to Canada if they were paying artificially low prices? The fact is that in the US supply is artificially restricted by the FDA and government regulations, giving drug companies a monopoly in the US, the antithesis of a free market.

[MO542]

No, those numbers do not include research. They are just health care spending for treatment and preventative care.


The US drug market is a FAR cry from a free market. Why would drug companies sell to Canada if they were paying artificially low prices? The fact is that in the US supply is artificially restricted by the FDA and government regulations, giving drug companies a monopoly in the US, the antithesis of a free market.

The research numbers are included in the treatment cost. The treatment cost goes up because of the cost of the research behind the treatments. The company providing the new drug / procedure is going to charge more because they need to recoup the cost to develop it and make a profit or they are out of business.

For example, if you have end stage renal disease you need to get dialysis. The government negotiates a composite rate for Medicare. The dialysis companies will charge 3 to 4 times more for the same procedure to someone with insurance than someone on Medicare because of the composite rate. 80% of revenue for dialysis companies come from payors, hence without the payors the dialysis company goes out of business and nobody get the care. They are passing the price on to the insurers. They do this all over the board.

[cartman]

Another place where some reform is needed is medical malpractice lawsuits. The lawsuits and settlements themselves are only a piece of the problem. The biggest effect is the corollary damage from the steep increase in medical malpractice insurance. Doctors are either not practicing in a given field anymore, or they just pass on the higher costs to their patients.

I'm not a big fan of lawsuit caps, or limiting the awards granted. I am in favor of having malpractice suits heard before a knowledgeable panel that can understand the evidence that is presented during a trial. As was shown with the recent Vioxx verdict, the people are the jury stated that they didn't understand most of the medical arguements that were presented.

But this again is only a small piece of the puzzle. The biggest direct government parts that have to be addressed are Medicare and Medicade. If we don't, the holes they will leave in the budget are going to dwarf the one recently projected that Social Security will leave.

[MrBigglesworth]

The research numbers are included in the treatment cost. The treatment cost goes up because of the cost of the research behind the treatments. The company providing the new drug / procedure is going to charge more because they need to recoup the cost to develop it and make a profit or they are out of business.
The US will spend about $70 billion on medical research this year, or $260 per person in the United States. The United States in 2002 spent $5,267 per person on healthcare, while Switzerland came in second at $3,446. Healthcare costs per capita in Germany, France, and Canada were all around $2,700-2,900. Obviously, the money spend on medical research is a tiny, tiny part of the difference.

[MrBigglesworth]

Another place where some reform is needed is medical malpractice lawsuits. The lawsuits and settlements themselves are only a piece of the problem. The biggest effect is the corollary damage from the steep increase in medical malpractice insurance. Doctors are either not practicing in a given field anymore, or they just pass on the higher costs to their patients.
I used to think this two, but if you look at the data the medical malpractice problem is largely a fiction created by the insurance companies in order to jack up rates.

[Galaxy]

The US will spend about $70 billion on medical research this year, or $260 per person in the United States. The United States in 2002 spent $5,267 per person on healthcare, while Switzerland came in second at $3,446. Healthcare costs per capita in Germany, France, and Canada were all around $2,700-2,900. Obviously, the money spend on medical research is a tiny, tiny part of the difference.

But what is the "markup" on the drugs produced by research? I know it takes about $700-some million and 10 years to bring a drug from start to the market.

[MrBigglesworth]

But what is the "markup" on the drugs produced by research? I know it takes about $700-some million and 10 years to bring a drug from start to the market.
What do you mean?

[Klinglerware]

I used to think this two, but if you look at the data the medical malpractice problem is largely a fiction created by the insurance companies in order to jack up rates.

Actually, much of the costs of medical malpractice here in the US are caused by the costs of litigation. The Swedish system, where malpractice cases are resolved via an informed panel rather than by the judicial system, seems more fiscally sane. The result is a system where outcomes of cases are decided more competently (since cases are decided by an independent board of experts rather than a jury of your peers). High punitive damages to legitimate victims are still payed out, yet the Swedish model still ends up being more cost-effective, since legal costs never enter the picture.

Yep, since there is no involvement with the legal system, this will never fly in the US.

[Crapshoot]

What do you mean?

He means that the average drug costs somewhere in the region of $700 M and 10 years to produce. This may be the product of the "going for the blockbuster" strategic direction of drug production- the Economist,for one, hit upon the idea of spending more time on concentrated drugs. The problem is that the cost/risk tradeoff seems to encourage the blockbuster approach.

[albionmoonlight]

Yep, since there is no involvement with the legal system, this will never fly in the US.
If you can get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree to get rid of the Seventh Amendment (and its application to the States via the 14th), then it might. Otherwise, you are right--establishing an unconstitutional system is not the answer to the problem.

One solution may be to force plaintiffs to first bring their claims in front of an independent board of medical experts. Those experts can make a liability finding and set damages. The plaintiff is then free to either bring the case in court or take the damages. If the result of the judicial process gives the plaintiff more money than she would have gotten otherwise, then she keeps the money. If, however, she ends up with less, then she and/or her attorney can be hit with sanctions for bringing a frivilous suit.

This system should keep the panels honest because they know if they go too low then people will always go to court instead. It will also prevent people from taking frivilous claims, however, because there is the danger of sanctions that does not now exist.

That seems to me like it would pass 7th amendment muster, though someone with more knowledge can shed some light on that.

(I know I said that I was bowing out of this thread. And I am now. I just couldn't resist once y'all started debating con law, however.)

[MrBigglesworth]

He means that the average drug costs somewhere in the region of $700 M and 10 years to produce. This may be the product of the "going for the blockbuster" strategic direction of drug production- the Economist,for one, hit upon the idea of spending more time on concentrated drugs. The problem is that the cost/risk tradeoff seems to encourage the blockbuster approach.
But the annual expenditures on health care research covers the yearly costs of all drugs, which are at the time in all stages of development, so I don't get the point he is trying to make.

[MrBigglesworth]

Actually, much of the costs of medical malpractice here in the US are caused by the costs of litigation. The Swedish system, where malpractice cases are resolved via an informed panel rather than by the judicial system, seems more fiscally sane. The result is a system where outcomes of cases are decided more competently (since cases are decided by an independent board of experts rather than a jury of your peers). High punitive damages to legitimate victims are still payed out, yet the Swedish model still ends up being more cost-effective, since legal costs never enter the picture.

Yep, since there is no involvement with the legal system, this will never fly in the US.
That sounds like a good system, put it leaves a door open to corruption. Considering recent Bush appointees and his ties to corporate lobbyists, would you want him to appoint someone to this panel right before your case was about to go to it?

[HomerJSimpson]

If you can get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree to get rid of the Seventh Amendment (and its application to the States via the 14th), then it might. Otherwise, you are right--establishing an unconstitutional system is not the answer to the problem.

One solution may be to force plaintiffs to first bring their claims in front of an independent board of medical experts. Those experts can make a liability finding and set damages. The plaintiff is then free to either bring the case in court or take the damages. If the result of the judicial process gives the plaintiff more money than she would have gotten otherwise, then she keeps the money. If, however, she ends up with less, then she and/or her attorney can be hit with sanctions for bringing a frivilous suit.

This system should keep the panels honest because they know if they go too low then people will always go to court instead. It will also prevent people from taking frivilous claims, however, because there is the danger of sanctions that does not now exist.

That seems to me like it would pass 7th amendment muster, though someone with more knowledge can shed some light on that.

(I know I said that I was bowing out of this thread. And I am now. I just couldn't resist once y'all started debating con law, however.)

That's a good plan. When are you going to start lobbying for it?

[HomerJSimpson]

That sounds like a good system, put it leaves a door open to corruption. Considering recent Bush appointees and his ties to corporate lobbyists, would you want him to appoint someone to this panel right before your case was about to go to it?


Read albionmoon's American "refinement." They couldn't legally remove the court option, but this could be a fairer alternative. Of course, it makes sense so it could never happen.

[Bubba Wheels]

LOLOLOL!!

You were dropped on your head as a child, right?

The Bill of Rights are communist now. Hmmm... interesting view on our founding documents. I'll be sure to tell Bob Barr that he's thrown in with the commies (he works for the ACLU now, btw)

Maybe I was, but the difference between you and me is that, agree with them or not, I provide and cite sources. You, on the other hand, react like a college freshman in Sociology 101, doing nothing more than parroting the opinions of your liberal professor among others.

Roger Baldwin was the guy's name, founder of the ACLU and avowed communist. Now I'll do what you can't seem to, google some sources.

[albionmoonlight]

That's a good plan. When are you going to start lobbying for it?
If, by lobby, you mean officially lobby, then I cannot because of my job.

If, by lobby, you mean do things like post the idea on message boards and discuss it with my friends and try to change people's minds on a case by case basis--then I have been doing that for a few years (since I read the idea myself).

As an attorney, I have a stronger interest than most in making sure that the legal profession is both viewed with respect and deserves that respect. For most people, the frivilous lawsuit debate is about cheaper Viagra and Big Macs. For me, it is about making sure that my profession continues to function as a positive part of the greater American community. We need a lot more Atticus Finches and a lot less ambulance chasers. To the extent that plans like this can help starve the unethical lawyers out there, I am all for them. Lawyers are nothing if we are not--as a whole--working for the public good.

[MrBigglesworth]

Maybe I was, but the difference between you and me is that, agree with them or not, I provide and cite sources. You, on the other hand, react like a college freshman in Sociology 101, doing nothing more than parroting the opinions of your liberal professor among others.

Roger Baldwin was the guy's name, founder of the ACLU and avowed communist. Now I'll do what you can't seem to, google some sources.
:confused:

[Bubba Wheels]

http://harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html First up on the google search, 'Popular Fronter' used as label but clear extreme-left ideology with words like 'fellow radicals and liberals', 'visiting and supporting Soviet Union", more under Spartacus.schoolnet, ect...., look it up yourself not hard to do if someone dropped on their head can do it! :)

[MO542]

The US will spend about $70 billion on medical research this year, or $260 per person in the United States. The United States in 2002 spent $5,267 per person on healthcare, while Switzerland came in second at $3,446. Healthcare costs per capita in Germany, France, and Canada were all around $2,700-2,900. Obviously, the money spend on medical research is a tiny, tiny part of the difference.

The reason the US spends more on per person is the markup. If you are dealing with a government, they negotiate a composite rate; which is a fixed amount of money per treatment; a lot of the time it barely covers the cost. If a company develops a new procedure, their cost per treatment is going it rise, but the composite rate stays the same; thus they need to recoup that money. They do that by charging insurers more money than the government. Now if you are dealing with several governments that all have composite rates, you variable rate is going to be the insurers, thus charge them four times the amount of the composite rate. And a lot of those insurers are from are American companies.

[MrBigglesworth]

http://harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html First up on the google search, 'Popular Fronter' used as label but clear extreme-left ideology with words like 'fellow radicals and liberals', 'visiting and supporting Soviet Union", more under Spartacus.schoolnet, ect...., look it up yourself not hard to do if someone dropped on their head can do it! :)
At the time the ACLU was formed, the government was deporting people that had radical left views. The ACLU wanted to (rightfully) put a stop to that, as well as racial segregation and sex descrimination. They also worked to get hundreds of dissenters of WWI released from prison, jailed for expressing their antiwar beliefs. How you get from that to "the ACLU was formed for the purpose of protecting communist rights" is a bit of a dishonest stretch. It would be more apt to say it was started to fight fascism.

[Klinglerware]

If you can get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree to get rid of the Seventh Amendment (and its application to the States via the 14th), then it might. Otherwise, you are right--establishing an unconstitutional system is not the answer to the problem.

One solution may be to force plaintiffs to first bring their claims in front of an independent board of medical experts. Those experts can make a liability finding and set damages. The plaintiff is then free to either bring the case in court or take the damages. If the result of the judicial process gives the plaintiff more money than she would have gotten otherwise, then she keeps the money. If, however, she ends up with less, then she and/or her attorney can be hit with sanctions for bringing a frivilous suit.

This system should keep the panels honest because they know if they go too low then people will always go to court instead. It will also prevent people from taking frivilous claims, however, because there is the danger of sanctions that does not now exist.

That seems to me like it would pass 7th amendment muster, though someone with more knowledge can shed some light on that.

(I know I said that I was bowing out of this thread. And I am now. I just couldn't resist once y'all started debating con law, however.)

Albion, your suggestion is probably the best we can hope for if there are indeed constitutional issues at play (I'll have to defer to you on that issue, since I don't claim to have much knowledge in that area).

A few months ago, I posted a Slate piece on the Swedish system. The article mentions that the Swedish process is considered "no-fault". The piece also stated that malpractice law in the United States is devised mostly at the state level. How would these two bits of information affect questions of constitutionality?

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=36257

[MrBigglesworth]

The reason the US spends more on per person is the markup. If you are dealing with a government, they negotiate a composite rate; which is a fixed amount of money per treatment; a lot of the time it barely covers the cost. If a company develops a new procedure, their cost per treatment is going it rise, but the composite rate stays the same; thus they need to recoup that money. They do that by charging insurers more money than the government. Now if you are dealing with several governments that all have composite rates, you variable rate is going to be the insurers, thus charge them four times the amount of the composite rate. And a lot of those insurers are from are American companies.
The composite rate is brought on by the purchasing power of large groups instead of individual or small buyers, right? If the US goes to a national health care system, they would be able to negotiate as a group and get the lower price (though the composite rate would rise).

[albionmoonlight]

Albion, your suggestion is probably the best we can hope for if there are indeed constitutional issues at play (I'll have to defer to you on that issue, since I don't claim to have much knowledge in that area).

A few months ago, I posted a Slate piece on the Swedish system. The article mentions that the Swedish process is considered "no-fault". The piece also stated that malpractice law in the United States is devised mostly at the state level. How would these two bits of information affect questions of constitutionality?

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=36257
For reasons we need not get into, the 7th Amendment applies to both the states and the federal government, so that does not really affect the constitutional problem.

The fact that it is mostly done on the state level means that it will be hard to adopt a great system across all 50 states. You will always have one or two holdouts. The good news is that, if states were so inclined, they could all be experimenting with various ways to do things better and learn from each other. Unfortunately, in America today, the redstate/bluestate dynamic means that people will be for a national solution if their party is in charge of the fed and for state solutions if it is not. It also means that people will like things done in states run by their party and hate things done in states run by the other party. We are way too top down in our thinking to actually solve our problems right now.

As for whether the 7th Amendment would allow for "no fault?" I think so. The amendment "preserves" a jury trial for rights at common law. That, in simple language, means that you don't need a jury trial for rights that did not exist at the founding of the republic (which is why something like Workers Comp--a recent invention--can be done by commissions and not by juries). I don't think, though, that it forces a state to recognize all of the rights that existed at common law.

I think that if a state were to change its personal injury laws to go to a no-fault system--but still allowed juries to hear the claims (there would still be issues to be found--like whether you were really injured or not), it would be OK. I don't think that the courts would say that the Seventh Amendment forces the states to recognize personal injury law or to administer it in a certain way. It just says that, if you are going to have personal injury law, the claims need to be heard by a jury. I am far from a Seventh Amendment expert, however, so that is just my best guess.

[Galaril]

I am waiting to see someone use the word Pinko. I mean that won't surprise me after Marxist analogies and USSR stuff.

[MO542]

The composite rate is brought on by the purchasing power of large groups instead of individual or small buyers, right? If the US goes to a national health care system, they would be able to negotiate as a group and get the lower price (though the composite rate would rise).

You are correct in saying that the composite rate would go up if there was a national health care system, but that wouldn’t change the total cost of healthcare in the US because the companies would have to make the same revenue to stay in business. Thus, the average cost per person would remain the same. The US companies that supply services, technology, drugs etc… to other countries would have to raise the composite rate in other countries (to lower the cost in the US), but that is not simple because they are contracts and I don’t think that the other countries would play ball. Not to mention foreign companies that provide services in America for the sole purpose of making a profit because they cannot make a big enough profit in their own country.

[MrBigglesworth]

You are correct in saying that the composite rate would go up if there was a national health care system, but that wouldn’t change the total cost of healthcare in the US because the companies would have to make the same revenue to stay in business. Thus, the average cost per person would remain the same. The US companies that supply services, technology, drugs etc… to other countries would have to raise the composite rate in other countries (to lower the cost in the US), but that is not simple because they are contracts and I don’t think that the other countries would play ball. Not to mention foreign companies that provide services in America for the sole purpose of making a profit because they cannot make a big enough profit in their own country.
Those contracts aren't perpetual, though. The free market will bring all of the composite rates to roughly equal. If we are ineed subsidizing the rest of the world's healthcare, then if we start negotiating en masse our prices will go down and the rest of the world's will go up, unless there is some artificial restraint put on the market.

[ISiddiqui]

Maybe I was, but the difference between you and me is that, agree with them or not, I provide and cite sources. You, on the other hand, react like a college freshman in Sociology 101, doing nothing more than parroting the opinions of your liberal professor among others.

Roger Baldwin was the guy's name, founder of the ACLU and avowed communist. Now I'll do what you can't seem to, google some sources.
I'll bite... though Mr. Bigglesworth put you in your place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Nash_Baldwin

developed a lasting sympathy for the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) and Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) that lasted until 1939, when he was disillusioned by the Nazi-Soviet pact and broke off all radical ties.
the ACLU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU) formed after the war
And:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU

As Mr. Bigglesworth said:

In the year of its formation, the ACLU was formed to protect aliens threatened with deportation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation), and U.S. nationals threatened with criminal charges by U.S. Attorney General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Attorney_General) Alexander Mitchell Palmer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Mitchell_Palmer) for their communist / socialist activities and agendas (see Palmer Raids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids)). It also opposed attacks on the rights of the Industrial Workers of the World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World) and other labor unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_union) to meet and organize.
How that means it was formed to protect Communist rights is an incredible stretch. Backing aliens right to free speech and right to organize is communist to you? On what planet? I shudder to know that you consider protecting freedom of speech and right to organize to be 'Communist rights'.

Furthermore, if you actually in your delusions thought the ACLU was created to support communist rights, do you still think that's the goal? After all, you were railing against them because you thought Hillary Clinton wanted to appoint them to something. If you do, then Bob Barr should know, don't you think?

[Hoya1]

Being born and raised in Canada, I've never heard of anyone being refused surgery and dying because of it. Yes, sometimes you wait for it, but if life threatening it is dealt with right away. Don't scare people away from a healthcare system because you heard something on a talk radio station.

[bhlloy]

My two cents for what it is worth. Neither I or anybody in my family has found the NHS (UK) anything short of brilliant for what we effectively pay for it.

My mum has had breast cancer and is now battling a secondary and the staff at three different specialist centers (two in South Wales and one in Birmingham) have been absolutely first class. Her GP has saved her life twice now by reacting incredibly quickly to the warning symptoms and referring her on.

I can get a doctors appointment in two days for a non-emergency, and have made extensive use of accident and emergency for minor injuries which is more delayed, but I still get seen.

If I had the money or a better job, I could get better treatment going private, but I have absolutely no problems staying public.

Just my two cents... from my point of view I don't know what I would do without public health care. Actually, I would just have to pay a shitload to get (from what my fiancee tells me of American health care) a comparable/inferior service.

IMO it works over here. Whether it works with a country the size, the infrastructure and the huge wealth divide of the US I don't know. It almost certainly can't work if private health care is made illegal - that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Oh and Bubba, you're a moron. You heard it on a talkshow so it's gospel? Give me a break.

[Galaxy]

Whether it works with a country the size, the infrastructure and the huge wealth divide of the US I don't know. It almost certainly can't work if private health care is made illegal - that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.



That's an interesting thought. Doesn't Brazil employ a "two-tier" system for health care?

[Greyroofoo]

trout

[Bubba Wheels]

My two cents for what it is worth. Neither I or anybody in my family has found the NHS (UK) anything short of brilliant for what we effectively pay for it.

My mum has had breast cancer and is now battling a secondary and the staff at three different specialist centers (two in South Wales and one in Birmingham) have been absolutely first class. Her GP has saved her life twice now by reacting incredibly quickly to the warning symptoms and referring her on.

I can get a doctors appointment in two days for a non-emergency, and have made extensive use of accident and emergency for minor injuries which is more delayed, but I still get seen.

If I had the money or a better job, I could get better treatment going private, but I have absolutely no problems staying public.

Just my two cents... from my point of view I don't know what I would do without public health care. Actually, I would just have to pay a shitload to get (from what my fiancee tells me of American health care) a comparable/inferior service.

IMO it works over here. Whether it works with a country the size, the infrastructure and the huge wealth divide of the US I don't know. It almost certainly can't work if private health care is made illegal - that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Oh and Bubba, you're a moron. You heard it on a talkshow so it's gospel? Give me a break.

Well, this is where I know its a losing battle for any sense of reason. This clown lives in the UK, yet blasts me calling me a 'moron' because I talked about a 1.Canadian guy 2. Living in Canada 3. Talking about the CANADIAN health care plan. But this guy in the UK knows more than the Canadian radio guy so I'm the moron for restating it. Fantastic!

Then I cite sources for my critics, from places like the HARVARD LIBRARY, hardly a conservative bastion of propaganda, and those get ignored for more personal attacks because I don't take for granted the indocrinated wisdom of Jon Stewart and Comedy Central that my critics apparently get their info from.

Hey, you want to be lefty? Be a lefty! Be a happy lefty! Just don't delude yourself that you got some kind of 'clarity' because you can call me a name in this forum and get yourself stroked for doing it. Then again, maybe you just live to get yourself 'stroked' in this forum. Explains alot of it. :eek:

[John Galt]

I'm the moron...

Finally, we agree.

[dawgfan]

Arguing with Bubba is about like arguing with concrete. If concrete were less flexible and less capable of rational, logical thinking that is...

[MrBigglesworth]

Well, this is where I know its a losing battle for any sense of reason. This clown lives in the UK, yet blasts me calling me a 'moron' because I talked about a 1.Canadian guy 2. Living in Canada 3. Talking about the CANADIAN health care plan. But this guy in the UK knows more than the Canadian radio guy so I'm the moron for restating it. Fantastic!
I just want to point out how BW conveniently ignored the guy from Canada who talked about how he never heard of anyone dying waiting for a surgery, and instead attacked the guy from the UK, who said that the UK national system works just fine.

Then I cite sources for my critics, from places like the HARVARD LIBRARY, hardly a conservative bastion of propaganda, and those get ignored for more personal attacks because I don't take for granted the indocrinated wisdom of Jon Stewart and Comedy Central that my critics apparently get their info from.
First of all, your source was the "Harvard Square Library", not the Harvard Library. Harvard Square Library is actually a religious, utilitarian site. But most importantly your source didn't even bother to mention the point that you were trying to make with it. Which makes it not really a source at all, really.

[bhlloy]

Being born and raised in Canada, I've never heard of anyone being refused surgery and dying because of it. Yes, sometimes you wait for it, but if life threatening it is dealt with right away. Don't scare people away from a healthcare system because you heard something on a talk radio station.

Would you like to reply to this guy now Bubba? He's Canadian you know.

Don't take this as a defense of the Canadian health care system, or call me a lefty either. You know jack shit about me. If you'd actually read my original post, I think public health care without a private option is a stupid idea. Hell, I might even agreed with you if you'd provided some sort of proof or a link to an article or something.

And no, I don't get off on arguing or calling people names on messageboards. But your continued practise of starting threads (I believe most call it trolling) based on conjecture and things you read on your kookie websites just astounds me. I'm not going to post again in this thread, so knock yourself out.

[Bubba Wheels]

Would you like to reply to this guy now Bubba? He's Canadian you know.

Don't take this as a defense of the Canadian health care system, or call me a lefty either. You know jack shit about me. If you'd actually read my original post, I think public health care without a private option is a stupid idea. Hell, I might even agreed with you if you'd provided some sort of proof or a link to an article or something.

And no, I don't get off on arguing or calling people names on messageboards. But your continued practise of starting threads (I believe most call it trolling) based on conjecture and things you read on your kookie websites just astounds me. I'm not going to post again in this thread, so knock yourself out.

Well, just because I didn't respond to the Canadian guy doesn't automatically mean that I didn't think he made a valid point. Yet another example of my critics quick to jump on me with false presumptions.

That aside, the difference between him and you is...HE ACTUALLY LIVES IN CANADA UNDER THE CANADIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM! You, on the other hand, live in the UK, know nothing about living under the Canadian health care system and yet still deem yourself informed enough to basically say the CANADIAN RADIO GUY talking about it was WRONG and that I am 'a moron' for restating what he said.

In fact, restating what he said...listen now...BECAUSE HE IS CANADIAN LIVING IN CANADA...made his remarks a VALID STARTING POINT for this thread! Get it? No, your beyond the pale. You want to see moron, look in the mirror Gov'ner.

[ISiddiqui]

You want to see moron
Well, he sees it with every post you make.

[Blackadar]

Well, he sees it with every post you make.

Truer words were never spoken.

[Bubba Wheels]

BTW, my final say on this, the guy in question was on a Southern Ontario morning show...sounded conservative...so some already know who he is even though I didn't get the guy's name.

And the point of his rant was simply this: He wanted a private option included in the national health care plan and saw its exclusion as just another device for more control of government over the private citizen's lives. So maybe that is the answer right there, if national health care is inevitable make darn sure that a private option is open for those wanting to pay for it.

[Bubba Wheels]

Truer words were never spoken.

Strok-a-delic!

[Fidatelo]

As an average Canadian, here are my thoughts on this thread:

1) The Canadian system is far from perfect, but it is not as bad as some make it out to be. People are not dropping like flies waiting for surgery, and I like the idea that Joe Dirt can get the same priority as Daddy Warbucks. That said, the waits can be terribly long, and we do lose our best doctors to the states all the time. The system needs fixing, there is no doubt, but I don't feel we should look to the US system for our answers.

2) On the topic of drug prices, I am amazed that people are still brainwashed by the "Americans pay for the R&D so everyone can have drugs" hogwash that Big Pharma spits out. America pays higher prices because Big Pharma lobbyists are in the federal government's pockets. Pharmaceutical companies are still making profit selling to Canada and other countries, just not the obscene amounts of profit they make off of Americans. Until Americans stand up and demand that their government take action against Big Pharma the price gouging will continue.

[Yossarian]

Really quite good article / discussion by Adam Gopnik and Malcolm Gladwell on the very issue raised by the first post in this thread. Both make good points with Gopnick falling back often on the 'think of the kids / fairness' angle and Gladwell focusing on quality and innovation.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.gladwellgopnik.html

[kcchief19]

2) On the topic of drug prices, I am amazed that people are still brainwashed by the "Americans pay for the R&D so everyone can have drugs" hogwash that Big Pharma spits out. America pays higher prices because Big Pharma lobbyists are in the federal government's pockets. Pharmaceutical companies are still making profit selling to Canada and other countries, just not the obscene amounts of profit they make off of Americans. Until Americans stand up and demand that their government take action against Big Pharma the price gouging will continue.I don't know if that is the prevailing opinion in this country, but I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of the world saw it this way. That said, technically it's not true. Outside of countries with price controls like Canada, pharmaceutical companies largely follow the market -- they charge what they can charge to maximize profit. If that means the market can bear $3 a pill for Prilosec, that's that they will charge. I don't think American's are paying for R&D -- that's a finite amount. For many medications, the first pill may cost a company $100 million and it's the second pill that costs 3 cents. Once the pill is break even, the rest is pure profit regardless of the country of the sale.

Obviously where the market fails is that not everyone can afford the price set by the market. That's the wrap on providing AIDS drugs in Africa. Companies could provide them at a lower cost, but since so many are so poor they wouldn't make any more money. Thus, the price is set at a premium to extract as much money as they can from the few who can afford it.

Where lobbying and support for candidates comes in is preventing national health care and price controls from being implemented. Probably the biggest argument for national health care in this country is that the health care companies are so against it.

Interesting this should come up right now ... for sweeps a local station in town did a series of stories last week entitled "Death by Denial" that profiled a series of local cases where people died waiting for approval for payment on treatments and medications from insurers or were denied treatment due to cost. Our system has plenty of holes.

[Buccaneer]

we do lose our best doctors to the states all the time. The system needs fixing, there is no doubt, but I don't feel we should look to the US system for our answers.

Apparently your best doctors think otherwise.

[ISiddiqui]

Apparently your best doctors think otherwise.LOL! The 'best doctors' just want the money. Their leaving is no evidence of the quality of a health care system.

[st.cronin]

LOL! The 'best doctors' just want the money. Their leaving is no evidence of the quality of a health care system.

I would say that top doctors leaving (whether for higher pay or for any other reason) is a characteristic of a health care system that needs overhauling. I don't know how you can say otherwise - if you're losing your top talent, you need to change something.

[ISiddiqui]

I would say that top doctors leaving (whether for higher pay or for any other reason) is a characteristic of a health care system that needs overhauling. I don't know how you can say otherwise - if you're losing your top talent, you need to change something.Oh please! If Canada started offering lawyers 100% more money, I'd be there in a heartbeat, but I'd still think the US legal system was the better one.

There is a great difference in supply and demand of labor (doctors, here) and how good an entire health care program is.

[st.cronin]

Oh please! If Canada started offering lawyers 100% more money, I'd be there in a heartbeat, but I'd still think the US legal system was the better one.

There is a great difference in supply and demand of labor (doctors, here) and how good an entire health care program is.

Well, if your argument is that Canada has more than enough good doctors to meet it's needs, that's different. I have no idea if that's true. If there were a shortage of good lawyers in this country, that would be a problem.

[Warhammer]

There is a great difference in supply and demand of labor (doctors, here) and how good an entire health care program is.

I disagree, in the short term, there probably isn't much of a problem, but over the long term this will hurt the quality of the health care program.

[dawgfan]

I don't know if that is the prevailing opinion in this country, but I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of the world saw it this way. That said, technically it's not true. Outside of countries with price controls like Canada, pharmaceutical companies largely follow the market -- they charge what they can charge to maximize profit. If that means the market can bear $3 a pill for Prilosec, that's that they will charge. I don't think American's are paying for R&D -- that's a finite amount. For many medications, the first pill may cost a company $100 million and it's the second pill that costs 3 cents. Once the pill is break even, the rest is pure profit regardless of the country of the sale.

Obviously where the market fails is that not everyone can afford the price set by the market. That's the wrap on providing AIDS drugs in Africa. Companies could provide them at a lower cost, but since so many are so poor they wouldn't make any more money. Thus, the price is set at a premium to extract as much money as they can from the few who can afford it.

Where lobbying and support for candidates comes in is preventing national health care and price controls from being implemented. Probably the biggest argument for national health care in this country is that the health care companies are so against it.

Interesting this should come up right now ... for sweeps a local station in town did a series of stories last week entitled "Death by Denial" that profiled a series of local cases where people died waiting for approval for payment on treatments and medications from insurers or were denied treatment due to cost. Our system has plenty of holes.
I think the factor you're not accounting for is that pharmaceutical companies enjoy a long period of patent protection before "generic" versions of their drugs are allowed to be placed on the market (and thus drastically driving down the prices since there is now competition for that type of drug). Now, I don't know what the "sweet" spot is that would still allow pharm companies to make earn back their R&D and turn a reasonable profit before allowing the generics to come to market to drive down prices, but I think there's a definite argument to be made that the current period is too long.

This would be an area where fidatelo's point about pharm company lobbyists and Congress is spot-on.

[ISiddiqui]

I disagree, in the short term, there probably isn't much of a problem, but over the long term this will hurt the quality of the health care program.No doubt, but even then, the structure of the health care program would be better than the structure of the US health care system, where you may have the best doctors, but a good portion of society isn't able to afford them.

I'd prefer a hybrid system, but if I had to choose between the US and Canadian systems, I'd take the Canadian one. I've heard too many horror stories in my line of work with how insurance carriers and employers have screwed over people, that in good conscience, I cannot support the current system.

[WVUFAN]

I'm not up on the health care plans that were proposed, so I apologize in advance if I'm wrong about something. Anyone have a link to the the proposals that Clinton and the Republicans submitted?

Oddly enough, since I'm Republican, I'm all for universal health care, as long as it does not limit the money paid to doctors. That creates a downward spiral -- less money made = less qualified people who go to medical school.

I'm also all for limiting lawsuits for malpractice, too. Universal health care isn't much use if it lowers the quality of healthcare for everyone involved.

I'm also not a fan of requiring employers to provide healthcare. This is a death-knell to many small businesses.

[GMO]

I'm a Canadian who lives in Canada.
Canada has a public-only (i.e. government-run) health system.
The waiting time for surgery is too long. There are shortages. Costs are rising at a high rate.
Do not copy the Canadian public health system. You will run into the same problems as we're having. People have waited so long for necessary treatment that they have gone to other countries for surgery and successfully sued the provincial governments (who actually run the health care system) for the cost.
In fact a case was taken up to the Supreme Court who decided that the person from Quebec had waited too long for his medical procedure and that he had the right to get medical treatment from a private system.
The provincial governments have made some very stupid decisions. About 10 years ago, in a bid to cut costs, they restricted the number of doctors who could go through medical school. The result now is, of course, we have a shortage of doctors.

Health care costs have risen so much that it will soon consume close to 50% of the budgets of some provinces. The extra costs will have to be paid from somewhere i.e. taxes. Public health-care is not free. Companies like it because the ordinary citizen has to pay the extra cost, not the company as much (which is one of the reasons Toyota decided to built a plant in Ontario). Toyota pays less but the worker pays more.

A government-only run system does not work.
If it did, the USSR would still be around and the USA would be a colony of the USSR. Wherever government-only systems have been tried, they have failed. This is in health care, industry, agriculture etc. China is another example of a failed government-run economic system.

Canada is slowly beginning to get more private health care. It will take a long time, though, because of the entrenched interest groups in this country. They don't care if people die because of their intransigence. Their socialist ideology is more important.

Possibly the best system is a public system competing with various health-care private companies. Competition is great. People have a choice. If they prefer public health care, they can go to it. Those who prefer private health care can use a private company.

If the Canadian health care system is so great, why doesn't the government allow people a choice? If it's so great then people will flock to the public health-care system and the private companies will go bankrupt. But the government is afraid to give their own citizens a choice.

For now, if I have to wait a long time for a medical procedure, I have no option. I must wait.
Unless a person is rich enough to go outside the country.

Anyways, that's my 2¢ worth.

[Galaxy]

I'm a Canadian who lives in Canada.
Canada has a public-only (i.e. government-run) health system.
The waiting time for surgery is too long. There are shortages. Costs are rising at a high rate.
Do not copy the Canadian public health system. You will run into the same problems as we're having. People have waited so long for necessary treatment that they have gone to other countries for surgery and successfully sued the provincial governments (who actually run the health care system) for the cost.
In fact a case was taken up to the Supreme Court who decided that the person from Quebec had waited too long for his medical procedure and that he had the right to get medical treatment from a private system.
The provincial governments have made some very stupid decisions. About 10 years ago, in a bid to cut costs, they restricted the number of doctors who could go through medical school. The result now is, of course, we have a shortage of doctors.

Health care costs have risen so much that it will soon consume close to 50% of the budgets of some provinces. The extra costs will have to be paid from somewhere i.e. taxes. Public health-care is not free. Companies like it because the ordinary citizen has to pay the extra cost, not the company as much (which is one of the reasons Toyota decided to built a plant in Ontario). Toyota pays less but the worker pays more.

A government-only run system does not work.
If it did, the USSR would still be around and the USA would be a colony of the USSR. Wherever government-only systems have been tried, they have failed. This is in health care, industry, agriculture etc. China is another example of a failed government-run economic system.

Canada is slowly beginning to get more private health care. It will take a long time, though, because of the entrenched interest groups in this country. They don't care if people die because of their intransigence. Their socialist ideology is more important.

Possibly the best system is a public system competing with various health-care private companies. Competition is great. People have a choice. If they prefer public health care, they can go to it. Those who prefer private health care can use a private company.

If the Canadian health care system is so great, why doesn't the government allow people a choice? If it's so great then people will flock to the public health-care system and the private companies will go bankrupt. But the government is afraid to give their own citizens a choice.

For now, if I have to wait a long time for a medical procedure, I have no option. I must wait.
Unless a person is rich enough to go outside the country.

Anyways, that's my 2¢ worth.

How could you have a private and public system co-exist? Some type of voucher system to transfer to a private system? Why would doctors want to deal with the the government, who might pay less? Universal health care sounds like a great idea, but I don't think it's working to well for other countries, unless you want to tax the hell out of people to have a top-notch system like France, Sweden, ect.

[SFL Cat]

The more government sticks its nose into healthcare, the more expensive it gets. Market forces have pretty much been eliminated from the medical profession. Also, I know a lot of doctors who are quitting their practices or retiring early because it just isn't worth continuing due to the high overhead involved, a lot of which is tied up in medical malpractice insurance.

[Galaxy]

The more government sticks its nose into healthcare, the more expensive it gets. Market forces have pretty much been eliminated from the medical profession. Also, I know a lot of doctors who are quitting their practices or retiring early because it just isn't worth continuing due to the high overhead involved, a lot of which is tied up in medical malpractice insurance.

Yeap....Plus, you have patients who are stubborn, demanding that they know what's best, and think that the doctors owe them.

[flere-imsaho]

Wherever government-only systems have been tried, they have failed.

That's a patently false statement. Single-payer health care systems exist, and work, in many countries, including most of Western Europe, Scandanavia & Australia and New Zealand. There's a fair amount of variety amongst these systems, and they work to different extents, but to say they've all failed is just simply wrong.

Also, as you note, the system in Canada isn't failing because of the system, per se, but because of the ridiculously bad decisions made by the provinces administering the system.

Using that logic, I could say that energy brokerage is a failed enterprise simply because Enron went belly-up.

For now, if I have to wait a long time for a medical procedure, I have no option. I must wait.
Unless a person is rich enough to go outside the country.

If you can't afford health insurance in the United States, you're in exactly the same boat, except that you won't eventually get the procedure. That's a pretty big difference, if you ask me.

[MrBigglesworth]

A government-only run system does not work.
If it did, the USSR would still be around and the USA would be a colony of the USSR. Wherever government-only systems have been tried, they have failed. This is in health care, industry, agriculture etc. China is another example of a failed government-run economic system.
My government run national security is doing pretty well.

[MrBigglesworth]

The more government sticks its nose into healthcare, the more expensive it gets.
Why is it then that all of the western countries with national healthcare systems have lower costs and higher outputs?

[ISiddiqui]

How could you have a private and public system co-exist?Easy, have public for basic care and private for more advanced stuff. For enticing doctors, have the government pay off student loan debt for 5 years of work in the public health care system (or so).

The more government sticks its nose into healthcare, the more expensive it gets.Of course the US pays more per capita for healthcare than any of the 'socialized' health care states ;).

[SFL Cat]

Of course the US pays more per capita for healthcare than any of the 'socialized' health care states ;).

Exactly. Because there is no competition to drive down costs like there are in other professions and industries. If I'm a doctor and an insurance company or government healthcare program tells me they are going to pay $1,500 for a certain procedure, I am going to bill for that amount, even if the procedure only actually costs me $950.

It's the same as all those stories we hear about the military paying $200 for $5 bolt.

[sterlingice]

Exactly. Because there is no competition to drive down costs like there are in other professions and industries. If I'm a doctor and an insurance company or government healthcare program tells me they are going to pay $1,500 for a certain procedure, I am going to bill for that amount, even if the procedure only actually costs me $950.Yeah, because in the US, when a procedure costs $950, they're going to charge patients $950 :p


SI

[MrBigglesworth]

Exactly. Because there is no competition to drive down costs like there are in other professions and industries. If I'm a doctor and an insurance company or government healthcare program tells me they are going to pay $1,500 for a certain procedure, I am going to bill for that amount, even if the procedure only actually costs me $950.

It's the same as all those stories we hear about the military paying $200 for $5 bolt.
Then why do all western countries with government run health care have lower costs and better outputs?

[ISiddiqui]

Exactly. Because there is no competition to drive down costs like there are in other professions and industries.http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/confused.gif

I'm not sure how that explains how foriegn health care systems, with LESS competition costs less per capita than the US's. Maybe you can say that US has more expensive procedures, but the other health care systems cover every person, and most of the health care cost in the US is overhead, which are reduced with economies of scale.

[SFL Cat]

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/confused.gif

I'm not sure how that explains how foriegn health care systems, with LESS competition costs less per capita than the US's. Maybe you can say that US has more expensive procedures, but the other health care systems cover every person, and most of the health care cost in the US is overhead, which are reduced with economies of scale.

When you set artificial limits or caps on prices, you eventually shoot yourself in the foot. That's why a lot of doctors will leave these countries in search of greener pastures elsewhere, or students will steer away from medical careers for something more lucrative and a lot less stressful.

[ISiddiqui]

When you set artificial limits or caps on prices, you eventually shoot yourself in the foot. That's why a lot of doctors will leave these countries in search of greener pastures elsewhere, or students will steer away from medical careers for something more lucrative and a lot less stressful.Maybe, but most Western countries are not hurting with their national health care systems. You just have to do it intelligently, maybe mix private and public, or add other incentives in the public sector.

[st.cronin]

Health Care and Education in the US become the subjects of intense debate and noise, but what often gets overlooked is that they are, if not clearly superior to what the rest of the world does, at least among the best. Sure, there are aspects that can be improved, often by applying common sense where it has been abandoned, but I don't see that a radical new approach is needed.

[SFL Cat]

Then why do all western countries with government run health care have lower costs and better outputs?

They may have lower costs (see above post about artificial caps on prices), but whether they have better output is debatable. I know care is rationed in these countries, and that you often have to wait a lot longer for several medical procedures than you would in the US.

[ISiddiqui]

Health Care and Education in the US become the subjects of intense debate and noise, but what often gets overlooked is that they are, if not clearly superior to what the rest of the world does, at least among the best. Sure, there are aspects that can be improved, often by applying common sense where it has been abandoned, but I don't see that a radical new approach is needed.Depends on what you consider 'radical'. I'd think any program that covers the 40+ million uninsured Americans would be fairly radical.

[st.cronin]

Depends on what you consider 'radical'. I'd think any program that covers the 40+ million uninsured Americans would be fairly radical.

Uninsured Americans still recieve health care. It's a problem, but not on the scale that reformers would have us believe.

[sterlingice]

Health Care and Education in the US become the subjects of intense debate and noise, but what often gets overlooked is that they are, if not clearly superior to what the rest of the world does, at least among the best. Sure, there are aspects that can be improved, often by applying common sense where it has been abandoned, but I don't see that a radical new approach is needed.Ever tried *paying* for health care in this country, particularly if your company doesn't offer it and even if they do now, it's getting to be horribly expensive.

SI

[st.cronin]

Ever tried *paying* for health care in this country, particularly if your company doesn't offer it and even if they do now, it's getting to be horribly expensive.

SI

I do pay for my own health care. :confused:

[ISiddiqui]

Uninsured Americans still recieve health care. It's a problem, but not on the scale that reformers would have us believe.Not preventative health care. Yeah, if something bad happens, the emergency room has to treat them... but that isn't even close to optimal.

[dawgfan]

Not preventative health care. Yeah, if something bad happens, the emergency room has to treat them... but that isn't even close to optimal.
And don't forget, we've revised our bankruptcy laws to really stick it to all those shiftless bastards that have suffered a major medical issue and gone broke because of it.

[ISiddiqui]

Ever tried *paying* for health care in this country, particularly if your company doesn't offer it and even if they do now, it's getting to be horribly expensive.

SIThe worst is horror stories of individuals who have to go into bankrupcy because they can't afford the medical treatments that doctors say is necessary, but insurance REFUSES to pay for. And they don't have the money to sue the insurance company, so they have to try to pay for it themselves.

And yes, that situation happens WAAAYY more than most people realize. It's especially bad when the only thing you can tell them is that there is nothing they can do except to sue... and when they don't have enough money to hire a lawyer, frankly, they can only go into bankrupcy or die.

[ISiddiqui]

And don't forget, we've revised our bankruptcy laws to really stick it to all those shiftless bastards that have suffered a major medical issue and gone broke because of it.:(

In my job, I've heard plenty of participants who have been screwed by their insurance companies, who, if they can't declare bankrupcy, they can't afford procedures or medications... and really have to simply prepare to die.

[sterlingice]

And yes, that situation happens WAAAYY more than most people realize. It's especially bad when the only thing you can tell them is that there is nothing they can do except to sue... and when they don't have enough money to hire a lawyer, frankly, they can only go into bankrupcy or die.Or you could go up against an army of high priced lawyers that still cost less to hire than pay for one of those procedures.

SI

[sabotai]

Ever tried *paying* for health care in this countryYup.

[dawgfan]

:(

In my job, I've heard plenty of participants who have been screwed by their insurance companies, who, if they can't declare bankrupcy, they can't afford procedures or medications... and really have to simply prepare to die.
Yeah, it's a good thing that bankruptcy law revision was passed. Never mind that the heavy majority of the people filing for the type of bankruptcy that was made much more difficult were people who got to that point because of major medical events.

The politicians that allowed this to happen should be ashamed.

[MrBigglesworth]

Health Care and Education in the US become the subjects of intense debate and noise, but what often gets overlooked is that they are, if not clearly superior to what the rest of the world does, at least among the best. Sure, there are aspects that can be improved, often by applying common sense where it has been abandoned, but I don't see that a radical new approach is needed.
Actually that's incorrect. Our education and health care outputs are mediocre at best in the western world, and in some cases of health care near the bottom.

[larrymcg421]

Up in Buffalo yesterday (quaint little burg) and was listening to a Canadian radio station. Apparently many Canadians are dying while awaiting the necessary surgery with waits as long as 2yrs. Private options are strictly out. Anybody still in love with this idea for the U.S.?

Yes.

[MrBigglesworth]

They may have lower costs (see above post about artificial caps on prices), but whether they have better output is debatable. I know care is rationed in these countries, and that you often have to wait a lot longer for several medical procedures than you would in the US.
I don't understand your artificial caps point. Who are you saying have artificial caps? US or other countries?

On nearly every benchmark (infant mortality, average lifespan, etc) we rank mediocre at best and in most cases near the bottom of western countries, horror stories from the Gingrich's of the world of waiting forever for surgeries notwithstanding. The only thing the US is really good at is really high end care, the stuff that costs a ton of money that does relatively little. Other countries are starting to pass us in that regard though, with research into cloning and stem cells.

[GMO]

That's a patently false statement. Single-payer health care systems exist, and work, in many countries, including most of Western Europe, Scandanavia & Australia and New Zealand. There's a fair amount of variety amongst these systems, and they work to different extents, but to say they've all failed is just simply wrong.

Also, as you note, the system in Canada isn't failing because of the system, per se, but because of the ridiculously bad decisions made by the provinces administering the system.

Using that logic, I could say that energy brokerage is a failed enterprise simply because Enron went belly-up.



If you can't afford health insurance in the United States, you're in exactly the same boat, except that you won't eventually get the procedure. That's a pretty big difference, if you ask me.

Most of Western Europe has a mixed public-private system, not a government monopoly.

If a private company makes bad decisions, then it goes bankrupt, but there's other private companies still around that make good decisions. People have a choice. If the government makes bad decisions in a government-only system, then people have no other choice except to still go with the government-only health-care system.

[GMO]

My government run national security is doing pretty well.

If the government runs things so well, then perhaps we should give the government a monopoly to run all the stores and all the industries in the USA. Just like the old USSR.

[Galaxy]

Actually that's incorrect. Our education and health care outputs are mediocre at best in the western world, and in some cases of health care near the bottom.


I can agree with on the public education in compare with the rest of the world, but I not sold on that health care crap. One thing our country has is R&D and state-of-the-art technology, and higher medical standards in terms of qualifying doctors. As for health care, it does need reform. I think that the idea of a government and private system would be great. We need to fix our malpractice structure (Sweden's model could be good), placing hours on residents and doctors to prevent them from working on overload (which I believe we just put in place?), the high costs of becoming a doctor (college, medical school) and start seeing doctors not as greedy enemies, but as ours life-savers. Also, I've heard stories of insurance companies covering plastic surgery procedures (not referring to cases where patients have an actual need for plastic surgery-breast reduction, scar repair, ect.). Is this true?

I'm on the fence of a national health care system. I love the idea, but I don't want to see taxes skyrocket to cover it nor health care become cookie-cutter. Massachuttes, perheps the most "public health care system" in our country with Mass General, does a fanastic job in supporting it's hospital system (of course, having Harvard as its affilate might help) and is rated one of the top in the country.

[MrBigglesworth]

If the government runs things so well, then perhaps we should give the government a monopoly to run all the stores and all the industries in the USA. Just like the old USSR.
Strawman. Nobody is advocating that all stores and industries get taken over by the government. If a system of government healthcare is put into place that does not mean that every industry would be better off under the government.

[MrBigglesworth]

I can agree with on the public education in compare with the rest of the world, but I not sold on that health care crap. One thing our country has is R&D and state-of-the-art technology, and higher medical standards in terms of qualifying doctors. As for health care, it does need reform. I think that the idea of a government and private system would be great. We need to fix our malpractice structure (Sweden's model could be good), placing hours on residents and doctors to prevent them from working on overload (which I believe we just put in place?), the high costs of becoming a doctor (college, medical school) and start seeing doctors not as greedy enemies, but as ours life-savers.
You call our higher standards of qualifying doctors a feature, and then in the next sentence call them a bug and advocate for taking those standards away (money and resident hours). The US has a good system for high-end care, but fails on normal preventative care and intermediate care.

I'm on the fence of a national health care system. I love the idea, but I don't want to see taxes skyrocket to cover it nor health care become cookie-cutter.
Well, taxes will skyrocket, but there won't be any more health insurance or medicare costs for you or your place of employment. All in all it should be a net gain, since all signs point to the costs being decreased in the long run.

[Galaxy]

You call our higher standards of qualifying doctors a feature, and then in the next sentence call them a bug and advocate for taking those standards away (money and resident hours). The US has a good system for high-end care, but fails on normal preventative care and intermediate care.


Well, taxes will skyrocket, but there won't be any more health insurance or medicare costs for you or your place of employment. All in all it should be a net gain, since all signs point to the costs being decreased in the long run.

I said that we have high standards to become a doctor here. Medical school, residency, and the licensing process. You want your doctor to work on you when he's on 4-6 hours a sleep a night? That has nothing to do with what kind of health care system it is. How am I taking money away? Wanting to lower the costs of medical school and malpractice insurance?

As for Taxes, you want to become like France, economy-wise?

[MrBigglesworth]

I said that we have high standards to become a doctor here. Medical school, residency, and the licensing process. You want your doctor to work on you when he's on 4-6 hours a sleep a night? That has nothing to do with what kind of health care system it is. How am I taking money away? Wanting to lower the costs of medical school and malpractice insurance?
The limiting factors for med school are high cost, low medical school spots, and insane residency hours (which are kept in place by the AMA to artificially inflate salaries of doctors due to low supply). It doesn't really make for better doctors. Doctors from Canada or France have to learn just as much.

As for Taxes, you want to become like France, economy-wise?
France's GDP is right in line with ours, adjusting for their lower work-week. They work less and earn less proportionally, there are good and bad things about that. They do have high unemployment though, but do you have any research that shows that that is due to nationalized health care? Sweden, UK, Norway, etc., are all around 4-5%.

[MrBigglesworth]

How will paying less money overall but paying it directly to the government instead of your HMO ruin the economy??

[sabotai]

How will paying less money overall but paying it directly to the government instead of your HMO ruin the economy??Haw can you be so sure that everyone will be paying less overall?

[dawgfan]

How will paying less money overall but paying it directly to the government instead of your HMO ruin the economy??
Because that sounds COMMUNISTIC and shit...

[Eaglesfan27]

I said that we have high standards to become a doctor here. Medical school, residency, and the licensing process. You want your doctor to work on you when he's on 4-6 hours a sleep a night? That has nothing to do with what kind of health care system it is. How am I taking money away? Wanting to lower the costs of medical school and malpractice insurance?

As for Taxes, you want to become like France, economy-wise?
I strongly agree with the capping of hours on Medical Student's and Resident's shifts. Even though I'm done residency and medical school and there is an attitude among some of my colleagues that since they had to go through it, so should future physicians. I remember my relationship with my wife (fiancee at the time) almost falling apart during the 2 months I was on a surgery rotation. I remember making so many mistakes because I was sleep deprived. 4 hours of sleep was the max on a good night! I was on call every other night and even when I wasn't on call, I was in the hospital from 4AM to 11PM usually. The medical school I went to wasn't that atypical either. The long hours led to burnout, mistakes, and in no way made me a better doctor IMO. I'm just glad I only had to do that for 2 months. I can't imagine how the surgery residents who did that for 5 years. The only other rotation that was close to as demanding was OB/GYN.

Fortunately, we do have a cap of 80 hours averaged over any 4 week period on residents and medical students now. Of course, this is a self-reporting system.. At least it is somewhat of an improvement on previous situations.

[MrBigglesworth]

Haw can you be so sure that everyone will be paying less overall?
I'm not sure of it, but since we already pay something like twice as much as per capita as any country with nationalized health care, it's only logical that unless ours is the most lousy designed system ever (which may be the case if the people who drafted the Medicare Part D bill draft the universal health care bill) that costs will go down.

[sabotai]

I'm not sure of it, but since we already pay something like twice as much as per capita as any country with nationalized health care, it's only logical that unless ours is the most lousy designed system ever (which may be the case if the people who drafted the Medicare Part D bill draft the universal health care bill) that costs will go down.Where can I find really detailed information and stats on our health care costs and that of other countries with nationalized health care?

[Jesse_Ewiak]

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/health_stats1.jpg

[Eaglesfan27]

I wonder how much of our cost of care is driven up by the very expensive procedures which are more readily available here than in some other countries. For example, I believe we have one of the highest rates of Cardiac Bypass Surgeries if not the highest in the world. Of course, this is also affected by the fact that Americans (myself included) tend to be more obese than in most countries. This drives our average life span down despite the high rate of Cardiac Bypass Surgeries, because Americans as a whole are developing heart disease at younger ages than most countries.

[sabotai]

I wonder how much of our cost of care is driven up by the very expensive procedures which are more readily available here than in some other countries. For example, I believe we have one of the highest rates of Cardiac Bypass Surgeries if not the highest in the world. Of course, this is also affected by the fact that Americans (myself included) tend to be more obese than in most countries. This drives our average life span down despite the high rate of Cardiac Bypass Surgeries, because Americans as a whole are developing heart disease at younger ages than most countries.I wouldn't call myself OBESE, but yeah, I'm overweight. I wouldn't contribute that to a failed health care system though. That's just me eating more than I should and not exercising as much as I should. Both of which I am trying to correct.

And Jesse, I was looking for just a bit more than just a simple table (with 4-5 year old data). If I just wanted those numbers, I do know how to use google.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

We're more obese, but we smoke a lot less. So, the health thing is a wash I believe. At the end of the day, we don’t "purchase" more things such as doctors and hospital stays, we don’t have better health outcomes. In fact, we got the worst infant mortality and life expectancy numbers of all the industrial nations I examined. Plus, we’re neither more nor less intrinsically healthy than other countries. So, what are we paying twice as much per capita for?

[Jesse_Ewiak]

And Jesse, I was looking for just a bit more than just a simple table (with 4-5 year old data). If I just wanted those numbers, I do know how to use google.

Here's an overview of various countries (http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/health_of_nations/index.html), with links to more specific information.

[Eaglesfan27]

I wouldn't call myself OBESE, but yeah, I'm overweight. I wouldn't contribute that to a failed health care system though. That's just me eating more than I should and not exercising as much as I should. Both of which I am trying to correct.

And Jesse, I was looking for just a bit more than just a simple table (with 4-5 year old data). If I just wanted those numbers, I do know how to use google.
I wouldn't say that it directly contributes to a failed health care system. I'm just suggesting that the many complications of obesity lead to more costly procedures than other countries which cause a skewing of the statistics. The issue of smoking cancelling that out in other countries is an interesting one. I don't know the various smoking statistics, but I know I've seen statistics that we are more obese as a nation than most other nations.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Well, one could make the point that with a true national health care system, there'd be more preventative medicine done, and things like heart disease would get caught before people need quadruple bypasses. :-)

Yeah, we are by far the most obese country. :-)
Here's a link to comparison of smoking & obesity rates - http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2005/04/health-care-in-us-and-world-part-iii.html

[sabotai]

Ok, so Europe smokes more than the US. What is the rate of people getting lung cancer in England and France? (If the nonsmokeres are to be believed, then there's nothing you can do to prevent getting lung cancer if you smoke. That is, there's nothing you can do to reduce your risk of getting it). They smoke more, but do they have a higher risk of getting health problems caused by smoking? (If you ever smoked a european cigarette, you know there is a huge difference between a european cigarette and an american one. Wondering if they have a much lower rate of diseases caused by smoking because of the cigarettes)