Pros And Cons Of Healthcare

[hobbes]

Originally posted by vidcc+10 April 2004 - 20:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 10 April 2004 - 20:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@10 April 2004 - 11:08
Imagine if doctors were to start a media blitz?

"Do you have a small cancer which might be curable if you get a whole body CT scan now? Can you afford not to you know? Can your family?" /cut scene to girl crying at Daddys funeral.

we already kind of get that with prescription drug adverts on the TV...."if you get ******* (symptoms) ask your doctor if ****** is right for you" so your point is kind of scary [/b][/quote]
Drug companies are not doctors and anyway most of the ads say "if you feel like shit, ask your doctor if this drug may help", not "take this drug or you might just drop over dead".

What I find strange about some drug ads is that they never tell you just exactly what the drug is for. They never mention during the ad what is for, sour stomach, anxiety, depression, who knows?

Doctors are doing nothing to scare people, lawyers are filling the TV set and printed media with their "call to sue". There is no comparison.

[Rat Faced]

Ah, so im right.

If we Lynch the Lawyers everthing will fall into place.


Seems that is the answer to most of the western worlds problems

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@10 April 2004 - 15:48
Ah, so im right.

If we Lynch the Lawyers everthing will fall into place.


Seems that is the answer to most of the western worlds problems

not sure if it will work.....but it&#39;s worth a try

[hobbes]

Originally posted by vidcc+11 April 2004 - 01:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 11 April 2004 - 01:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@10 April 2004 - 15:48
Ah, so im right.

If we Lynch the Lawyers everthing will fall into place.


Seems that is the answer to most of the western worlds problems&nbsp;

not sure if it will work.....but it&#39;s worth a try [/b][/quote]
What do you call 10,000 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

A good start.

[{SHELL%SHOCKED}]

Obesity leads to increased medical problems that come on spontaneously like heart attack and stroke. Those unplanned medical procedures for saving life&#39;s cost many times more than preplanned medical procedure like for example angioplasty to increase blood flow in clogged arteries instead of on the spot open heart by pass.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by {SHELL%SHOCKED}@10 April 2004 - 20:18
Obesity leads to increased medical problems that come on spontaneously like heart attack and stroke. Those unplanned medical procedures for saving life&#39;s cost many times more than preplanned medical procedure like for example angioplasty to increase blood flow in clogged arteries instead of on the spot open heart by pass.

i can&#39;t deny your statement, however obesity and it&#39;s side affects is not unique to the USA so it would be included in both systems.
We are looking at the pros and cons of each system of healthcare

[{SHELL%SHOCKED}]

Originally posted by vidcc+11 April 2004 - 19:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 11 April 2004 - 19:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-{SHELL%SHOCKED}@10 April 2004 - 20:18
Obesity leads to increased medical problems that come on spontaneously like heart attack and stroke. Those unplanned medical procedures for saving life&#39;s cost many times more than preplanned medical procedure like for example&nbsp; angioplasty to increase blood flow in clogged arteries instead of on the spot open heart by pass.

i can&#39;t deny your statement, however obesity and it&#39;s side affects is not unique to the USA so it would be included in both systems.
We are looking at the pros and cons of each system of healthcare [/b][/quote]
Yah, that was more less a theory why the US spends a larger percentage of the GDP on health care, that&#39;s a result of having immediate spontaneous medical care supplied by the free market profiteering medical corporations. In countries were were medical care is more "socialized" or distributed uniformly from class to class or blind to socioeconomic status. A lot of medical care is not spontaneous or hard money "bribes" can&#39;t get you to the front of the line, individuals are more inclined to practice preventive medical care opposed to emergency medical care, using the "Heart Attack" example a patient caused that health crises that was years in the making in "Most" cases but not all.

[Biggles]

To me the main pro of a tax based system is that it is open to all and there are no exclusions should one develop an illness.

An insurance based system by definition involves an insurance company. These tend to limit their risks by not insuring those with poor health, dangerous hobbies and/or work etc.,

At the end of the day an insurance premium is no different to taxation - it is money you can&#39;t spend on anything else.

The difference in spending in the UK and the US is two fold.

Firstly, as has been pointed out, buying branded drugs is expensive (where possible the NHS uses generic ones) and..

Secondly, we have not bit the bullet and spent the amount needed to get up to speed with other NHS&#39;s in Europe; such as Germany and France. There needs to be a rise in taxation to do this, but "no increase" has become a sacred cow in the UK worshipped by al parties.

I have looked at private insurance and it is damned expensive - a tax based system is both fairer and keeps the "profits of doom" (apologies to Big Boab for this shameless pun) out in the cold.

Rat Face

The Purchasing Power Parity indicator for the US and the UK at 1999 figures were &#036;8.51m and &#036;1.25m. The EU, as an economic power, has about parity with the US (it just needs to get it&#39;s act together) and China is currently about 50% in comparison to both the latter (but rising fast).

The Parity indicators are better because GDP per head has small but incredibly wealthy places like Luxemburg and Bermuda as 1st and 3rd (which whilst interesting does not actually tell you much).

Edit: Found 2003 Total GDP figures,

US &#036;10,400,000,000,000
UK &#036;1,520,000,000,000

(Source: CIA World Fact Book - any errors take it up with them)

The UK is a bit behind the US but not bad when adjusted for population - so the original disparity in Health Care spend question stands.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by {SHELL%SHOCKED}+11 April 2004 - 21:00--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ({SHELL%SHOCKED} &#064; 11 April 2004 - 21:00)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by vidcc@11 April 2004 - 19:23
<!--QuoteBegin-{SHELL%SHOCKED}

@10 April 2004 - 20:18
Obesity leads to increased medical problems that come on spontaneously like heart attack and stroke. Those unplanned medical procedures for saving life&#39;s cost many times more than preplanned medical procedure like for example angioplasty to increase blood flow in clogged arteries instead of on the spot open heart by pass.

i can&#39;t deny your statement, however obesity and it&#39;s side affects is not unique to the USA so it would be included in both systems.
We are looking at the pros and cons of each system of healthcare

Yah, that was more less a theory why the US spends a larger percentage of the GDP on health care, that&#39;s a result of having immediate spontaneous medical care supplied by the free market profiteering medical corporations. In countries were were medical care is more "socialized" or distributed uniformly from class to class or blind to socioeconomic status. A lot of medical care is not spontaneous or hard money "bribes" can&#39;t get you to the front of the line, individuals are more inclined to practice preventive medical care opposed to emergency medical care, using the "Heart Attack" example a patient caused that health crises that was years in the making in "Most" cases but not all.[/b][/quote]
I have never heard of "free market, profiteering medical corporations". What are you talking about.

Most people without means us the E.R. as their "family practictioner" for even the most minor of injuries. Sometimes they are covered by Medicare or Medicaid and the hospital gets some compensation for its&#39; efforts, but most is a total loss.

To cover their asses, doctors order a slew of labs and imaging studies because although they may or may not be compensated for the treatment, they most certainly might get sued. This drives cost up considerably.

The irony is that people with nothing get the best care, and those who are able to afford insurance, pay out the ass because the hospitals are trying to get some money for all the people who can&#39;t pay.

That is the insanity of the American market, the middle class, through their insurance premiums is having to pay for all those who can&#39;t afford insurance, can&#39;t pay their bills, and essentially get their healthcare for free.

[Biggles]

Hobbes

It has to be said that the system you describe sounds awfully like a tax.

On the basis that, if looks like a tax and sounds like a tax, it probably is a duck. ( - or something like that).