The truth about America's "health-care crisis"...

[deuce6000]

i think money should not exist... is the main cause of the biggest problems of the whole world.... money and power

If money didn't exist there would be way more problems then there is now.

[ilw]

j2 wouldn't you personally be/have been better off if there was socialised healthcare?

[Septimus]

i think money should not exist... is the main cause of the biggest problems of the whole world.... money and power

If money didn't exist there would be way more problems then there is now.

camon

[j2k4]

j2 wouldn't you personally be/have been better off if there was socialised healthcare?

One could argue so, but my point is that, if we'd never begun our move toward socialized medicine, it would never have become so cumbersome and unaffordable to begin with.

A well-ordered and competitive system beats socialized medicine, hands-down.

The third-party payer system (which is merely a step along the road) has given us things like $50 band-aids, $60 cottonballs, and $70 aspirins.

Replacing individual care-entities with bloated bureaucracies only cancels accountability and aggravates the cost problem.

[Rat Faced]

j2 wouldn't you personally be/have been better off if there was socialised healthcare?

One could argue so, but my point is that, if we'd never begun our move toward socialized medicine, it would never have become so cumbersome and unaffordable to begin with.

A well-ordered and competitive system beats socialized medicine, hands-down.

The third-party payer system (which is merely a step along the road) has given us things like $50 band-aids, $60 cottonballs, and $70 aspirins.

Replacing individual care-entities with bloated bureaucracies only cancels accountability and aggravates the cost problem.

Evidence please?

The US Government pays huge amounts more per head of population than (as an example) the UK and the US people still need Health insurance on top of this.

How is this better than just having the Universal Health Care and refusing to allow the Pharmacutical to charge your own people 10 times the amount they charge other countries for the same thing?

The main (only) argument I could come close to accepting last time we debated, was the size:head of population ratio of the US vs European Countries. However no one was willing to come back to explain how Australia and Canada, which are far pooper countries with greater ratios, could afford it.

Fact:

Any civilised country should be providing at least basic Universal Health Care for its citizens. It is, after all a Governments ONLY job: Looking after it's citizens.

[Yoga]

health insurance has not nothing to do with health, it is a business that like any other that seeks to maximize profits. if the efficiency and cost saving measure you're talking about means having an entire division that seeks ways to deny claims (no waiting lists...try spending the next few months phoning and writing appeals)and finding errors in the initial application so you can drop their insurance in their most desperate hour.

never moved toward socialized medicine, what the hell do you think Medicare for individuals for over 65 is. Diagnosis-related groups are used by Medicare to cut costs, patients with similar conditions are grouped together and a set amount is pay adjusted to based on certain criteria. Hospitals must use the amount pay to best of their ability.

If what you worry about is the poor and indigent overcrowding our systems, the best course of action is to do what parts of China does. Which is require the relatives or family to pay up front or they just turn the patient away and leave him or her to die.

[j2k4]

[QUOTE=Rat Faced;2737266]

One could argue so, but my point is that, if we'd never begun our move toward socialized medicine, it would never have become so cumbersome and unaffordable to begin with.

A well-ordered and competitive system beats socialized medicine, hands-down.

The third-party payer system (which is merely a step along the road) has given us things like $50 band-aids, $60 cottonballs, and $70 aspirins.

Replacing individual care-entities with bloated bureaucracies only cancels accountability and aggravates the cost problem.

Evidence please?

The US Government pays huge amounts more per head of population than (as an example) the UK and the US people still need Health insurance on top of this.

That's only an indication of how wasteful government involvement is - due to the incredible, overlapping and redundant entitlements and programs our legislators have concocted.

The fly in the ointment of your argument is indicated by your phrase,"...the US people still need Health insurance on top of this..." - you are under the misapprehension that those whose medical is subsidized by the government require additional insurance to pay the bills.

It's one or the other, not both.

You have here (very generally defined) two segments of the population for whom the cost of medical coverage falls far from home, insofar as any real contribution they themselves make to payment is a drop in the bucket, relative to the cost.

In the case of those lucky enough to have coverage of their own, the costs are spread out among the common holders of such policies.

Those who fall under government auspices pay none of their bill whatsoever; rather, the costs fall into the laps of the taxpayer (poor people don't pay taxes, either).

Very simply, the tremendous amount of money the government pays on their behalf is due to the fact no single entity exists to make the taxpayer's case, and they are loathe to expend the effort in their own interest; they are left with their "vote", the impact of which is lost in the shuffle of electioneering and campaigning.

How is this better than just having the Universal Health Care and refusing to allow the Pharmacutical to charge your own people 10 times the amount they charge other countries for the same thing?

I've said this before, Rat:

If they didn't charge us 10 times the amount they charge other countries, other countries would have to foot the bill themselves.

Just consider it a case of government-enforced largesse.

The main (only) argument I could come close to accepting last time we debated, was the size:head of population ratio of the US vs European Countries. However no one was willing to come back to explain how Australia and Canada, which are far pooper countries with greater ratios, could afford it.

Far "pooper" countries?

Whatever.

From what I've heard, their (and your) systems are far from perfect in practice, and are running all of you to financial ruin.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Fact:

Any civilised country should be providing at least basic Universal Health Care for its citizens. It is, after all a Governments ONLY job: Looking after it's citizens.

1 - Define "basic" care.

I dare you to even try.

2 - Your understanding of a "Government's job" is somewhat different than mine.

I think my federal government should secure the borders and otherwise stay the fuck out of the way.

Our state governments can handle anything else their citizens consider them capable of.


On the whole, though, congratulations for constructing a sterling advert for the nanny-state.



As an aside, how are you, sir?

[Rat Faced]

pfft.

It was 4.30am when I wrote that, on a knackered keyboard and after an 18 hour day, Im pleased I had so few spelling mistakes etc

I'm fine thanks kev.

As to a Governments job, securing the borders is part of looking after it's citizens.

Think about it: the citizens are the Nation, not the Corporates. Unfortunatly the Corporates run the USA. Unfortunatly, that pattern is spreading.

Regarding the Drugs Companies, we've already debated this too. It's a myth that the US Drugs companies take a loss in the rest of the world, many of the companies are in Europe too.

Most of their research is paid for by the Government's of the country in which they are based (via various means including direct Grants, Use of facilities, University Funding etc etc etc) and Charities, and they then cash in on what the market will stand.

The US Government doesnt want to upset them, so they basically charge what the "market" will pay there. European countries are willing to give them a healthy profit, but are not willing to both pay for the research and then get fleeced on the market price of the drug.

The problem in the USA is caused by the Drugs Companies and the Medical Profession generally putting obsticals in the way of Universal Health Care.

It's much harder to compete with a free service (and yes, the NHS is far from perfect) however we have a healthy Private Sector too, this is MUCH cheaper than the USA regarding Insurance Premiums etc. Why cheaper? The "Market" created by competing with the social system.

The fact is that the US economy is so much bigger than the UK's that its off the scale, yet the population is only 6x the UK's. For every $1 per head of population we are paying, you must be paying at least $20-$30, without the benefits to the population.

Generally the US is far cheaper than the UK in most areas... It doesn't take a genius to see that there is something wrong.

I honestly believe that if they bring in a Universal Health System in the US and take the opportunity to learn from other systems around them and abroad, the cost of Health Care generally there will plummit. Personally, I think they should look to see how Germany, France and (don't have a heart attack) Cuba do things, not the UK.

[ilw]

j2 wouldn't you personally be/have been better off if there was socialised healthcare?

One could argue so, but my point is that, if we'd never begun our move toward socialized medicine, it would never have become so cumbersome and unaffordable to begin with.

A well-ordered and competitive system beats socialized medicine, hands-down.

The third-party payer system (which is merely a step along the road) has given us things like $50 band-aids, $60 cottonballs, and $70 aspirins.

Replacing individual care-entities with bloated bureaucracies only cancels accountability and aggravates the cost problem.

I'm glad to see you sticking to your principles even when they're hammering your wallet. You are the very personification itself of the phrase "better dead than red".Whether you take that as a compliment or as it was intended is up to you

[j2k4]

One could argue so, but my point is that, if we'd never begun our move toward socialized medicine, it would never have become so cumbersome and unaffordable to begin with.

A well-ordered and competitive system beats socialized medicine, hands-down.

The third-party payer system (which is merely a step along the road) has given us things like $50 band-aids, $60 cottonballs, and $70 aspirins.

Replacing individual care-entities with bloated bureaucracies only cancels accountability and aggravates the cost problem.

I'm glad to see you sticking to your principles even when they're hammering your wallet. You are the very personification itself of the phrase "better dead than red".Whether you take that as a compliment or as it was intended is up to you

Here's a question, Ian; please don't take offense...


What sort of tax rate do you pay, and/or what rate of government subsidy do you receive?