How to control healthcare costs in the United States

[sv3n 0]

I'm not saying there are not some countries out there that have problems catching cancer earlier and in this case it happens to be a country that has government run healthcare, but it's not sound logic. It doesn't add up.....1 out of however many countries that have government run healthcare has a problem catching cancer early, that doesn't mean that all countries that have government run healthcare have problems catching cancer early. Also think about all the uninsured people in the USA, that's just shy of 44 million people according to MSNBC (link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19416539/).......kind of hard without insurance unless you got a couple hundred thousand laying around to get cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Quote

Quote

So in cases from 1995 to 1999 the UK was behind most of Europe in spotting cancer sooner...........what's your point? It doesn't prove that a government healthcare system doesn't work........it just says that from '95 to '99 the UK, not all government run healthcare systems just the UK, was behind most of europe in diagnosing cancer at an early stage.

It says absolutely nothing about government run healthcare.........as a matter of fact sweden, which had the best survival rate in the article, is a country with government run healthcare.

You accuse everyone else of not reading your info and having a closed mind - you've been given PLENTY of proof to show that SHC countries ration care and you're refusing to look at it or even admit it exists.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

What does "SHC" mean?

Socialized Health Care

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Ouch...this is gonna leave a mark. Ties right back in to the fact that care gets rationed in SHC countries, I believe.

From the Beeb

Quote

UK 'lagging' on cancer survival

Cancer survival in the UK is still below the European average, despite recent improvements, a report says.

Five-year survival rates in lung, breast, prostate and colorectal cancer were lower in the UK compared with everywhere except eastern Europe.

The Eurocare studies of 23 countries looked at the outcome of 2.7m new cases diagnosed between 1995 and 1999.

Government cancer "tsar" Mike Richards said poor results in the UK had been due to delays spotting the disease.

And -

Quote

He added: "The poor results from the UK were attributable mainly to patients having more advanced disease at diagnosis than patients in other European countries."

What does "SHC" mean?

Either he means Spontaneous Human Combustion or Socialized HealthCare......or he might mean something completely different all together.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[mnealtx 0]

Again - you've been given info that shows care is rationed, and you ignore it in favor of your own thoughts. Your 'logic' is biased in favor of your own opinion.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[1969912 0]

Quote

I wonder what their idea of a viable healthcare system is, is that stated anywhere like in a mission statement?

I bet it's a ton of data, I'm sure they didn't just call the government health office and say "on a scale of 1 to 10 how do you rate your healthcare system"....."well it's 10 because they said so". At least I would hope not.

I appreciate you reading that and letting all of us know..........what a pain in the ass. I wish someone would just come out with a report that no one could argue about and then that way we could see where we're really at. I don't think their choice to put Fairness in Pricing in there is a bad thing......while 25% may be a little high, I could see why they would do it. It's a good way to see if everybody is paying equally and that it's fair for everybody so that everybody can afford healthcare.

Yes, their idea is stated very clearly. I don't have a way to convert pdf's to text, so i will grab a screenshot or two and post as jpg's. In the meantime, here is the entire report, including the statistical annexes. Look at the Director's Message and Chapter 1 for the stuff I'm talking about. http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/index.html

If you want a fair and balanced report, the UN or WHO is the last place to look.

I already told you that the "fairness" critera can allow ZERO healthcare and 100% of income to be used and still get a perfect score, and you still say that the criteria assures that everybody can afford care. Distributing costs evenly has nothing to do with making HC affordable to everyone. EDIT: If the US were to distribte HC costs evenly, the whole system would croak. Right now, the "rich" are already paying to care for the poor. Distributing costs evenly would require the poor to pay their fair share.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

What does "SHC" mean?

Socialized Health Care

Thanks, that's a lot easier to type.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[1969912 0]

Quote

Either he means Spontaneous Human Combustion or Socialized HealthCare....

Thanks. Those two rate about equally as things I'd like to experience

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

I wonder what their idea of a viable healthcare system is, is that stated anywhere like in a mission statement?

I bet it's a ton of data, I'm sure they didn't just call the government health office and say "on a scale of 1 to 10 how do you rate your healthcare system"....."well it's 10 because they said so". At least I would hope not.

I appreciate you reading that and letting all of us know..........what a pain in the ass. I wish someone would just come out with a report that no one could argue about and then that way we could see where we're really at. I don't think their choice to put Fairness in Pricing in there is a bad thing......while 25% may be a little high, I could see why they would do it. It's a good way to see if everybody is paying equally and that it's fair for everybody so that everybody can afford healthcare.

Yes, their idea is stated very clearly. I don't have a way to convert pdf's to text, so i will grab a screenshot or two and post as jpg's. In the meantime, here is the entire report, including the statistical annexes. Look at the Director's Message and Chapter 1 for the stuff I'm talking about. http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/index.html

If you want a fair and balanced report, the UN or WHO is the last place to look.

I already told you that the "fairness" critera can allow ZERO healthcare and 100% of income to be used and still get a perfect score, and you still say that the criteria assures that everybody can afford care. Distributing costs evenly has nothing to do with making HC affordable to everyone. You think costs are distributed evenly in the US right now? No way.

If the United Nations or the World Health Organization aren't good places to look for a non-biased, accurate healtcare report.......where would one look? Any private company could easily be stated as being biased or inaccurate.

You're right, forgot about the 0 or 100 percent thing.....was more concentrating on the everybody pays the same percentage thing. And no, I don't think that costs are distributed evenly in the US, neither are benefits.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Ok, so how is the following statement logically sound.............the uk had a problem from '95 to '99 in diagnosing cancer and has socialized medicine, sweden which has socialized medicine was on the exact opposite end of the spectrum, other countries with socialized healthcare did also not have problems, therefore socialized medicine has a problem diagnosing cancer.

That's not proof, that's one case. In a logical argument you lose.

Quote

Again - you've been given info that shows care is rationed, and you ignore it in favor of your own thoughts. Your 'logic' is biased in favor of your own opinion.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Either he means Spontaneous Human Combustion or Socialized HealthCare....

Thanks. Those two rate about equally as things I'd like to experience

Cute........just make sure you have healthcare incase a limb spontaneously combusts.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[mnealtx 0]

You've been shown the info, and your response is to quibble on technicalities and, in general, say that "it won't happen HERE!".

Not very logical.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[1969912 0]

Quote

If the United Nations or the World Health Organization aren't good places to look for a non-biased, accurate healtcare report.......where would one look? Any private company could easily be stated as being biased or inaccurate.

I don't know if anyone else has done a world survey, and I doubt that anyone who would perform such a silly task can be trusted. In general, anything that becomes a big "hit " in the media is not to be trusted. The best thing to do is analyze the WHO report and decide for yourself. I'm not saying that they are lying, but they are ranking systems based on what they think is best. If you agree with their ideas, great.

For general background information look here. There are some healthcare articles as noted.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

http://www.cato.org/

http://www.hoover.org/

http://www.nationalcenter.org/

http://www.mises.org/periodical.aspx?Id=1

http://www.nationalreview.com/

http://neveryetmelted.com/?cat=294 several healthcare articles

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21158 Healthcare article

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/hl1019.cfm Healthcare article

http://www.westandfirm.org/docs/Peikoff-01.html Healthare article

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5184.html healthcare article

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/news/tm_headline=462%2D000-deaths-caused-by-nhs--%26method=full%26objectid=19241847%26siteid=66633-name_page.html

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Either he means Spontaneous Human Combustion or Socialized HealthCare....

Thanks. Those two rate about equally as things I'd like to experience

Cute........just make sure you have healthcare incase a limb spontaneously combusts.

Burn my palm all the time

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[sv3n 0]

I appreciate the info, but that info is a decade old and the article even says that things have improved and are still improving.

I also have not said that we should copy the UK's healthcare system.

Wait, you start your argument with "Ouch...this is gonna leave a mark." like it's some sort of nail in the coffin for government run healthcare. And then when I note that it only regards one country, not all countries with government run healthcare, then it's quibbling about technicalities? It's fact......the article even states that other countries with government run healthcare were above the UK and the top country on the list also has government run healthcare. So it's not that government run healthcare is bad......it just states that a decade ago the UK had problems diagnosing cancer earlier.


Take the following facts:

Mike's ford is white
Bob's ford is blue

Your Logic: all fords are white
My Logic: while there may be other white fords, all fords are not white as Bob's is blue

Quote

You've been shown the info, and your response is to quibble on technicalities and, in general, say that "it won't happen HERE!".

Not very logical.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

You weren't flogging molly were you?

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Either he means Spontaneous Human Combustion or Socialized HealthCare....

Thanks. Those two rate about equally as things I'd like to experience

Cute........just make sure you have healthcare incase a limb spontaneously combusts.

Burn my palm all the time

...and you're in violation of your face!

[mnealtx 0]

Yeah, ok dude...you're right and I'm wrong. The *recent* info posted in this thread about rationing of care and people having to come to the US for diagnostic services and surgeries is all bogus. I guess I've just been BLIND to how good everyone else's healthcare is and how bad the US healthcare is...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[1969912 0]

Quote

I appreciate the info, but that info is a decade old and the article even says that things have improved and are still improving.

I also have not said that we should copy the UK's healthcare system.

Wait, you start your argument with "Ouch...this is gonna leave a mark." like it's some sort of nail in the coffin for government run healthcare. And then when I note that it only regards one country, not all countries with government run healthcare, then it's quibbling about technicalities? It's fact......the article even states that other countries with government run healthcare were above the UK and the top country on the list also has government run healthcare. So it's not that government run healthcare is bad......it just states that a decade ago the UK had problems diagnosing cancer earlier.


Take the following facts:

Mike's ford is white
Bob's ford is blue

Your Logic: all fords are white
My Logic: while there may be other white fords, all fords are not white as Bob's is blue

Quote

You've been shown the info, and your response is to quibble on technicalities and, in general, say that "it won't happen HERE!".



Not very logical.

Dude, grab a beer. He wasn't trying to mislead you. There are major problems with SHC, but they are not something you will read about in the typical newspaper. Ditto for news shows. Something you might consider very carefully is the fact that most SHC country's do not have a free speech guarantee like our FA. You think GB does? Nope.

Something to keep in mind: This healthcare situation is extremely political. If you really are interested in the truth, ya gotta work at it. SHC folks want you to see all the utopian greatshit free stuff. FreeMarket folks want you to see how important freedom and choice are.

Don't tune either side out yet.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[sv3n 0]

Sorry....the data used for the study isn't a decade old, it's 8 to 12 years old since the data was from 95 to 99.

It didn't say anything in the article about people coming to the US for diagnosis and treatment.

Quote

Yeah, ok dude...you're right and I'm wrong. The *recent* info posted in this thread about rationing of care and people having to come to the US for diagnostic services and surgeries is all bogus. I guess I've just been BLIND to how good everyone else's healthcare is and how bad the US healthcare is...

...and you're in violation of your face!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Sorry....the data used for the study isn't a decade old, it's 8 to 12 years old since the data was from 95 to 99.

It didn't say anything in the article about people coming to the US for diagnosis and treatment.

Again, you're only reading what you want to - Richard's post immediately below your FIRST post in the thread talks about they are having problems paying for care in Canada.

1969912 has refuted the money side of your arguments several times.

Billvon has shown several times how care IS available to to the poor under the system that we have now.

I've shown examples of how care is rationed or denied based on arbitrary standards on page 4.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[1969912 0]

Doctors Without Borders

"Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) works in areas of Africa, the Americas, Australia, Asia, and Europe where it has found services inadequate to meet a population's medical needs."

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/aboutus/where.cfm

-----------

So where might Doctors Without Borders have gone in the last ~10 years to provide medical services when a country is unable to meet a population's medical needs?

The list below covers the top 50 nations from the WHO Healthcare ranking with WHO ranking shown at left. Only nations where Doctors Without Borders found services unable to meet a population's medical needs are listed.

------------
#1 FRANCE YES http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/france.cfm

#2 ITALY YES http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/italy.cfm

#7 Spain YES http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/spain.cfm

#10 Japan YES http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/japan.cfm

#20 Switzerland YES http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/switzerland.cfm

#21 Belgium YES http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/belgium.cfm

#22 Colombia YES http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/colombia.cfm

#29 Morocco YES http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/morocco.cfm

#49 Malasia YES http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/malaysia.cfm
------------
Food for thought
-----------

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Royd 0]

Quote

I'd sooner die a couple years early than force the whole economy through 1000% inflation. And I'd wish the same on anyone.

I'm starting to suspect there's a numeracy issue here...

After all, aren't we talking about promoting the general welfare?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

The role of government (at least in the US) is not to "take care of its people." That's the role parents play for their children; we should leave it to them. They're better at it.

It really is.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."........remember this?

You should do a little research on what the Framers of the Constitution meant by "promote the general welfare". It certainly didn't mean health coverage for every American.

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Ouch...this is gonna leave a mark. Ties right back in to the fact that care gets rationed in SHC countries, I believe.

."

Since most of Europe has "SHC", your statement is clearly incorrect.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So what does the "fairness" criteria really test for? It determines if a country uses a government mandated and controlled healthcare system funded by an income tax. That's pretty much it.

I thought that was so obvious, that they all gave up on it once it was brought to light.

Nevertheless, that's a very good summary of that study. THANKS

...
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

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sorry....the data used for the study isn't a decade old, it's 8 to 12 years old since the data was from 95 to 99.

It didn't say anything in the article about people coming to the US for diagnosis and treatment.

Again, you're only reading what you want to - Richard's post immediately below your FIRST post in the thread talks about they are having problems paying for care in Canada.

Yes, this is solid proof and you're right. Does this say anything about having trouble paying for care in Canada? ---------->"Nationalized health care would not be as good as we have today. You can not come up with one example where a gov runs something better than the private sector. Canada, the UK and many others are not as good as we have today." ----------> Didn't think so.

Quote

1969912 has refuted the money side of your arguments several times.

where? I don't think you can deny that in the US we pay $5,300 per person per year on healthcare and that in France they pay $2,800 of which $2,100 is paid by the government. That's about half of what we pay and less than half for the government.

Quote

Billvon has shown several times how care IS available to to the poor under the system that we have now.

he has shown that emergency room "ow I broke my leg" treatment is available..........but were one to get sick from things such as cancer and could not afford insurance, then you would get no coverage. Thereby, making your US cancer stats pointless as it doesn't apply to the whole population and only to the well-off.

Quote

I've shown examples of how care is rationed or denied based on arbitrary standards on page 4.

Does this really show rationing? Or being denied on Arbitrary standard? -------->"Is this like that saw about "Socialism has never worked because the right people haven't been in charge"?

Here's some tidbits about socialized medicine:

* Breast cancer is fatal to 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain and New Zealand, both socialized-medicine havens, breast cancer kills 46 percent of women it strikes.

* Prostate cancer proves fatal to 19 percent of its American sufferers. In single-payer Canada, the National Center for Policy Analysis reports, this ailment kills 25 percent of such men and eradicates 57 percent of their British counterparts.

* After major surgery, a 2003 British study found, 2.5 percent of American patients died in hospital versus nearly 10 percent of similar Britons. Seriously ill US hospital patients die at one-seventh the pace of those in the U.K.

* “In usual circumstances, people over age 75 should not be accepted” for treatment of end-state renal failure, according to New Zealand’s official guidelines. Unfortunately, for older Kiwis, government controls kidney dialysis.

* According to a Populus survey, 98 percent of Britons want to reduce the time between diagnosis and treatment.

Add to all this the fact that, once government has control of it, *THEY* (as in gov't) will decide what is 'needful' and what isn't. There's already plenty of evidence out there about care being rationed in SHC countries. " ---------------------->

While we're at the top of the game on cancer treatment, it doesn't apply to those that are not wealthy enough to afford insurance. You can cherry-pick all the stats you want, but for instance colon cancer.........japan is slightly ahead of the US on that (link: http://coloncancer.about.com/od/stagesandsurvivalrate1/a/CCSurvivalCount.htm) and guess what they have government run healthcare, so it's possible to have government run healthcare and and not have a bad cancer survival rate. So 98 percent of the UK wants to have the immediacy of treatment and diagnosis improved...........but we have the same problem in the US (link: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042072.htm). Also there's a big call for change by the american people when the healthcare system is concerned........"90 percent of Americans say the health care system as a whole needs change -- 54 percent say "fundamental change" is necessary, and 36 percent say the system should be "completely (rebuilt)." Just 8 percent believe the system needs "minor changes."" We can't control New Zealand healthcare guidelines, however arbitrary they may be, but we can take hold of our own.

...and you're in violation of your face!