TrophyHusband 0 #26 July 30, 2007 Quote Do only the wealthy count as people in your philosophy? since you brought it up, wealthy people can afford the best. if you would be so kind as to give us the breakdown of where all the wealthy people go for medical care, that should be a pretty good indication of which countries have the best health care. lets not confuse quality of healthcare with afforability. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carmenc 0 #27 July 30, 2007 QuoteQuote Do only the wealthy count as people in your philosophy? since you brought it up, wealthy people can afford the best. if you would be so kind as to give us the breakdown of where all the wealthy people go for medical care, that should be a pretty good indication of which countries have the best health care. lets not confuse quality of healthcare with afforability. "Quality" is not defined just for the wealthy. There are tens of millions of Americans who receive sub-standard health care in comparison with what is available in Canada, Germany, Sweden etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #28 July 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhy is the US responsible for most of the medical breakthroughs.........? Are we? In what time frame? What are they, and how do they compare with the contributions of the rest of the world? Many of the most important medical breakthroughs in history came from outside the USA. And we think the FRENCH are arrogant??! I'm wondering if a good description of your post might be "smugly ignorant". Each year, more dollars are spent on bio-medical research in the US than in the rest of the World. If we implement a universal healthcare program, we can kiss a good chunk of those profit-driven research dollars good bye. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #29 July 30, 2007 I understand that most doctors have their hands tied and that in order to keep their jobs they must abide by the rules given to them. I also understand that most doctors do disattach themselves so not become emotional. That tends to make them appear cold. In 12 years of dealing with doctors in the private sector and with doctors in the V.A. system, I've come to know how it operates and that the bottom line is how much money who have relates to the level of care you recieve. People are not viewed equally. The rich will be catered while the poor will get maybe an aspirin if they are lucky. I know that I come off sounding bitter about doctors. As I said, I realize that, for the most, their hands are tied. When my meds were taken from me it was most likely the decision of an administrator and not that of the doctor. Yet, the doctor plays the game and stops writing the scripts untill there is more money to pay for them. For that, I see that it is about money and not quality healthcare. Untill I have the money for care, I am just shit out of options."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #30 July 30, 2007 QuoteQuote Do only the wealthy count as people in your philosophy? since you brought it up, wealthy people can afford the best. if you would be so kind as to give us the breakdown of where all the wealthy people go for medical care, that should be a pretty good indication of which countries have the best health care. lets not confuse quality of healthcare with afforability. How does the fact that very wealthy people can obtain excellent health care in the USA relate to the standard of care available to the average American? The USA has an infant mortality rate comparable with Cuba's and other third world nations, and a life expectancy below that of many other nations. This reflects very poorly on the system as a whole and certainly makes a lie of any claim that our system is the best. Editted fur Spelin.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #31 July 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy is the US responsible for most of the medical breakthroughs.........? Are we? In what time frame? What are they, and how do they compare with the contributions of the rest of the world? Many of the most important medical breakthroughs in history came from outside the USA. And we think the FRENCH are arrogant??! I'm wondering if a good description of your post might be "smugly ignorant". Each year, more dollars are spent on bio-medical research in the US than in the rest of the World. If we implement a universal healthcare program, we can kiss a good chunk of those profit-driven research dollars good bye. Yes, it's just GREAT that the 44 million Americans with no health coverage are willing to go along so the drug company profits are maintained. All the major drug companies spend much less on R&D than they do on marketing and administration, and much less than they do on dividends to stockholders and compensation to execs.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #32 July 30, 2007 Quote Quote Of the six richest countries the U.S. has the most expensive and the worst healthcare on the planet. Which is why eveyone comes HERE to get the care they can't in their native countries, of course... You should argue with those who wrote the report on disparity in healthcare. http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhdr06/nhdr06.htm I suggest that you actually read it before screaming bullshit."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #33 July 30, 2007 QuoteThere is not a single thing that our government does more efficiently than the private sector. The Medicare program is a STELLAR example of what you say doesn't happen. If the Democrats manage to pass a national health care system, it will be modeled on Medicare, and rightly so. The rescumlicans will fight tooth and nail against this. Private, for profit organizations are always better run than any government entity, according to the rescumlicans. As proof to the contrary, take a look at the Lockheed Martin takeover of the Flight Service Stations. Worse service, higher costs, and major issues with the safety of flight. A private company took over a government function. According to the users of the system, it has been a DISASTER. According to the rescumlicans, it has been wildly successful. The MSM makes fat money from the for-profit medical industry, so you aren't going to see much useful info there. They whip out the "socialized medicine" bogeyman and the ignorant masses get all lathered up. Modern western societies provide a basic level of health care for their population. The USA is very backward in that regard. The brilliant ones among us are fine with forty percent (thats 40%) of the health care dollars being spent on administrative overhead. The current for profit health care system in the USA is seriously broken. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #34 July 30, 2007 Quote How does the fact that very wealthy people can obtain excellent health care in the USA relate to the standard of care available to the average American? The USA has an infant mortality rate comparable with Cuba's and other third world nations, and a life expectancy below that of many other nations. This reflects very poorly on the system as a whole and certainly makes a lie of any claim that our system is the best. Editted fur Spelin. as far as i know, the average american with health insurance goes to the same doctors that wealthy people go to. if there is some special upper tier of physicians (barring cosmetic surgeons) that don't accept health insurance and only cater to rich people paying cash, please enlighten me. as far as infant mortality rates, please provide some data to back that up, along with infant mortality rates of other industrialized nations and the third world countries you speak of and analysis as to the cause of the rates. so what that our life expectancy is below that of many other nations. we are fucking fat. we're eating ourselves to death. blaming the health care system for our unhealthy lifestyle choices is like blaming a professor for a student's poor grade when the student chooses not to study. i'm not saying that healthcare is the best it can be, far from it, but the quality is not in such a dire state that we need to overhaul that portion of is. lets work on making it more affordable so that the 44 million people without coverage can afford to buy it. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #35 July 30, 2007 Quote There are tens of millions of Americans who receive sub-standard health care in comparison with what is available in Canada, Germany, Sweden etc. how so? back that up please. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #36 July 30, 2007 Quote Quote Each year, more dollars are spent on bio-medical research in the US than in the rest of the World. If we implement a universal healthcare program, we can kiss a good chunk of those profit-driven research dollars good bye. Yes, it's just GREAT that the 44 million Americans with no health coverage are willing to go along so the drug company profits are maintained. All the major drug companies spend much less on R&D than they do on marketing and administration, and much less than they do on dividends to stockholders and compensation to execs. This whole business of sidestepping the obvious, main point... and going off on a tangent about an inferred minor point... and then going off on a tangent of that... Is it intentional? Or is a matter of just not being able to help yourself? I really like - "All the major drug companies spend much less on R&D than they do on marketing and administration, and much less than they do on dividends to stockholders and compensation to execs" WAAAAY off topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #37 July 30, 2007 Quoteas far as infant mortality rates, please provide some data to back that up, along with infant mortality rates of other industrialized nations and the third world countries you speak of and analysis as to the cause of the rates http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=6219&type=0 Not much has changed since that report; http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa_06/healthstat/infants/0307iimr.htm http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/43094.php"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #38 July 30, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Each year, more dollars are spent on bio-medical research in the US than in the rest of the World. If we implement a universal healthcare program, we can kiss a good chunk of those profit-driven research dollars good bye. Yes, it's just GREAT that the 44 million Americans with no health coverage are willing to go along so the drug company profits are maintained. All the major drug companies spend much less on R&D than they do on marketing and administration, and much less than they do on dividends to stockholders and compensation to execs. This whole business of sidestepping the obvious, main point... and going off on a tangent about an inferred minor point... and then going off on a tangent of that... Is it intentional? Or is a matter of just not being able to help yourself? I really like - "All the major drug companies spend much less on R&D than they do on marketing and administration, and much less than they do on dividends to stockholders and compensation to execs" WAAAAY off topic. So who brought up the topic of drug company profits and R&D expenditures? OH, IT WAS YOU.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #39 July 30, 2007 Quotelets not confuse quality of healthcare with afforability. Therein lies the crux of the dilemma. There are no clear definitions on quality and affordability; and many many opinions on the proper balance. And it still does not address where all the money will come from. Those that propose eliminating insurance companies as a matter of cost savings must be counting on the government to administer everything at little to no cost. Even if possible, that would buy a one-time savings of about 10% and does not address at all the fact that medical care, as billed by the health care industry, has been rising at about 4 times the rate of inflation. It also would eliminate, or at least drastically reduce) the competition for improvement. The insurance companies aggressively pursue outcomes studies to determine best practices and analyze performance variations from provider to provider (the variances are eye-popping). Those are the primary tools used when they negotiate settlement rates with providers. Most providers request double-digit annualized increases. That is unconscionable at a time when cost of living is only going up about 2 to 3% per year." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #40 July 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteas far as infant mortality rates, please provide some data to back that up, along with infant mortality rates of other industrialized nations and the third world countries you speak of and analysis as to the cause of the rates http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=6219&type=0 Not much has changed since that report; http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa_06/healthstat/infants/0307iimr.htm http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/43094.php Thanks for saving me the trouble. These facts have been so well known for so long that it surprises me that anyone choosing to debate about healthcare in the USA was not already well aware of them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #41 July 30, 2007 QuoteI really like - "All the major drug companies spend much less on R&D than they do on marketing and administration, and much less than they do on dividends to stockholders and compensation to execs" WAAAAY off topic. The greed of the pharm co, has much to do with the problem. Not way off topic."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #42 July 30, 2007 thanks for the links. it seems that there is a problem with infant mortality in the usa, but there's not a clear reason as to why, but it does suggest that its poor people who's babies die more often. it seems to back up my claim that affordability is a bigger problem than quality. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #43 July 30, 2007 Quote Quote There is not a single thing that our government does more efficiently than the private sector. Water Sewage Military Roads Air Traffic Control I guess you're right; not a single thing. Bill, I stand by my argument and you just enforced it . You know as well as I that the ATC system is overtaxed, understaffed, and causing half of delays in the commercial airline sector today. The military, as good as it is, is not an efficient system. Water and sewage is getting mixed and the water supply is not being well managed. Look up the communities that had to outsource the management of those in order to become compliant with federal regulations. Roads are only built after it's too late, and then, the actual labor is done by contract. The actual zoning work is horrific. Look at a federal housing development versus a commercial real estate development. It's no contest.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #44 July 30, 2007 Quote Quote Quote There is not a single thing that our government does more efficiently than the private sector. Water Sewage Military Roads Air Traffic Control I guess you're right; not a single thing. Bill, I stand by my argument and you just enforced it . You know as well as I that the ATC system is overtaxed, understaffed, and causing half of delays in the commercial airline sector today. Negative - the delays are primarily due to the airlines sheduling too many flights at certain times, and due to the hub-and-spoke design of the airlines' systems. And the worst delays of all are due to weather, not ATC. Bill is right, most pilots will tell you that compared to countries where ATC has been privatized, the US system is clearly superior. Quote The military, as good as it is, is not an efficient system. Water and sewage is getting mixed and the water supply is not being well managed. Look up the communities that had to outsource the management of those in order to become compliant with federal regulations. Roads are only built after it's too late, and then, the actual labor is done by contract. The actual zoning work is horrific. Look at a federal housing development versus a commercial real estate development. It's no contest. You have government health care. How do you like it?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #45 July 30, 2007 QuoteSo with some politicians trying to sell the Govt health care issue I would like to hear so different views on the subject. It depends. If the government health care is like that provided by the US Postal Service - universally available, affordable, high performance, and with commercial alternatives like Fed-Ex if want premium service I'll take it so I can spend less and still get health care without loosing my home and retirement if I become uninsurable. If the governemnt health care ends up being something like what they have at Walter Reed, means a 2 year wait to get an MRI if I don't fly to a neighboring country, or works like Social Security where I get 1/3 of the benefit if I'd paid my taxes into a private plan it'll be a tax sink with limited value. I fear that the later may be more likely. QuoteThe first question I have is how in the hell could we pay for everybodies health care? By reducing costs through not-for-profit insurance, reducing nuissance malpractice suits that need to be settled, having more doctors paid annual salries instead of by the procedure, etc. Our per-capita health care spending is nearly twice ($5300 vs. $2700 in 2002) the average among countries without waiting lists even though not everybody has insurance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #46 July 30, 2007 QuoteYou have government health care. How do you like it? I'd be careful with that generalization. Today, government employees have a health benefit (won't go into how comparable it is vs the private benefit) by their employer (in this case, the employer happens to be the gov). So it's more analogous to private industry benefit packages than the concept of "Government Health Care". "Government Health Care" is coverage for all via taxes. Or at least all citizens. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #47 July 30, 2007 Quotethanks for the links. it seems that there is a problem with infant mortality in the usa, but there's not a clear reason as to why, but it does suggest that its poor people who's babies die more often. it seems to back up my claim that affordability is a bigger problem than quality. http://fletchforfreedom.townhall.com/g/eaaafa73-ec1b-4f80-8222-ff2cf7cbbecc QuoteSadly, while the World Health Organization (WHO), the organization that compiles the data, defines a live birth as any human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, the reality is that calculation of infant mortality varies widely by country. While the United States adheres to the WHO standard, many European countries and Japan only count as live births those infants that independently breathe at birth – which might seem like a small distinction but it has a huge impact on the reported numbers. Still other countries in that group deliberately exclude certain high risk births from the calculation. Thus, for purposes of comparison, either the data for the U.S. is significantly overstated or the data from most European countries in the sample is significantly understated. What's that about sunlight being a good disinfectant? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #48 July 30, 2007 QuoteThe military, as good as it is, is not an efficient system. Water and sewage is getting mixed and the water supply is not being well managed. Look up the communities that had to outsource the management of those in order to become compliant with federal regulations. Roads are only built after it's too late, and then, the actual labor is done by contract. The actual zoning work is horrific. Look at a federal housing development versus a commercial real estate development. It's no contest. Yet how good do you think the private sector would handle water, sewage. The history of 'the market' shows that profit motives result in short term thinking with lots of environmental downsides. Likewise, a company will wait till the cost of pothole related lawsuits exceeds a threshold before they think about rebuilding the road. Just as we've seen many health management firms with a policy of rejecting all initial claims. The HMO concept has failed, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the government do a better job than it. Though that isn't a very high bar. I've fled to the higher costs of PPOs to ensure that I can take care of myself. When I crashed last year, the emergency care was pretty inhumane - definitely took care of keeping me stable, but awful on the patient management aspects. After that, I shopped myself for a decent surgeon to fix the shoulder. So I would have reservations on a system that only worked as a government run Kaiser. But I can look at what we have now and what's its doing to companies and can see that the status quo is a sinking ship. So those who are adamently opposed to a centralized medical system better come up with more useful suggestions than 'cut costs' or we'll dig a deeper hole for the day of reckoning. That GM might spend $1700 in health care costs for each car made says something about the extent of the problem. That sort of cost will cripple older companies with large employee bases. And if the model of companies providing evenly priced group insurance falls, skydivers will be in a bad place with even lower insurance levels. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #49 July 30, 2007 Quotethanks for the links. it seems that there is a problem with infant mortality in the usa, but there's not a clear reason as to why, but it does suggest that its poor people who's babies die more often. it seems to back up my claim that affordability is a bigger problem than quality. Affordability is the number one hurdle that a huge number of Americans cannot jump. As many companies seek out ways to deny healthcare for employees they must also share in the blame when employees begin to fail at their jobs due to poor health. Unless drastic change for the better comes about soon in another 10 years we will be in twice the bad shape we are in today. Just research any past report and compare it with a recent report and it clearly shows just how quickly we are falling further behind in overall health. It's not that quality suffered it's that the cost to obtain quality care is so wide that many people just throw up their hands and say to hell with it and go without while hoping not to get sick."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #50 July 30, 2007 "By reducing costs through not-for-profit insurance", great idea. "reducing nuissance malpractice suits that need to be settled", excellent idea. "having more doctors paid annual salries instead of by the procedure, etc." My wife is paid a salary (air force) and she averages 80 hours a week in the hospital. the OB chief (the one i spoke of in an earlier post) is lazy, so she dumps work on my wife. my wife did twice as many deliveries last year as her and spent many more nights in the hospital, but they made the same amount of money. also, since she is salary, she gets stuck doing administrative duties and coding that in the private sector would would be done by lower paid employees such as nurses, secretaries, and techs. this takes time away that she could be using to see patients, which in turn, limits access. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites