78$ for what.

I don't know what 'we' stands for.

7/11/2007 2:44:12 PM

78 bucks for something that is apparently 'needed to maintain your health' is expensive. why should i have to pay to be healthy if i otherwise take care of my health? there is no need for checkups and basic medical care to be so expensive, especially medicine.

7/11/2007 2:46:50 PM

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 2:49 PM. Reason : ^^^]

7/11/2007 2:48:07 PM

Quote :

"there is no need for checkups and basic medical care to be so expensive, especially medicine."

It is that expensive because we demand the very best care. A similar checkup could be performed by a nurse, but our society doesn't allow for cost-cutting measures like this.

Do you really think that doctors in Cuba spend 10 years in school and go through the rigorous training that American doctors do? Or that Cuban citizens can sue the system if they are misdiagnosed?

The training, equipment, quality of care and safeguards in place all cost money. We could make the system cheaper by cutting corners, but we choose to get the best care money can buy. Our society frowns on "discount care" when it comes to health, so we make practicing medicine prohibitively expensive.

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 3:05 PM. Reason : 2]

7/11/2007 3:02:58 PM

As far as results go, we have almost nothing on Cuba. Life expectancy is only barely higher here. Their infant mortality rate is better (officially, anyway).

7/11/2007 3:24:23 PM

Those statistics just show that you don't need absolutely first-rate doctors, drugs and equipment in order to get good results. You do need those things in order to make American consumers happy, however.

7/11/2007 3:34:45 PM

78 bucks is alot of money to you? I imagine you spend more on beer a month. It is a bargain, but it still doesnt help people whose priorities are out of whack. Its the typical I have money for things I want..not things I need...those should be free. haha. People spend alot more to get thier hair done, and thier education was a year or two and a pair of clippers? We have one piece of equipment that cost over 100k in office. Our chairs cost over 15k each. Why? bc they they are medical equipment and so they jack up the price considerably.

7/11/2007 3:37:44 PM

FREE HEALTHCARE!

7/11/2007 3:40:35 PM

Quote :

"Those statistics just show that you don't need absolutely first-rate doctors, drugs and equipment in order to get good results. You do need those things in order to make American consumers happy, however."

So you're saying Americans are stupid, basically? The reason we, as a country, spend more for less, is because we're stupid?

Why aren't the Europeans and Japanese also stupid?

7/11/2007 3:47:17 PM

Thats not what I'm saying at all.

I am saying that

a) Our system is inefficient

b) there are diminishing returns when it comes to doctors, equipment and drugs

c) American consumers won't settle for anything less than the very "best" care, i.e. the most expensive

d) Americans have unhealthy eating and exercising habits



Those factors all contribute to why we "spend more for less" as you put it. There are many more factors at play. In fact, too many to put in one post.

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 4:00 PM. Reason : 2]

7/11/2007 4:00:27 PM

Quote :

"78 bucks is alot of money to you? I imagine you spend more on beer a month. "

You imagine incorrectly.

Even when I was in my drinking 'prime' I didn't spend that much.

7/11/2007 4:03:43 PM

Quote :

"Are you serious? We charge 78 bucks for an exam. People pay more to get thier hair done. Routine visits are not that expensive and are actually a good value when you consider the skill, staff, and cost of equipment used in medicial offices."

We need socialized hair care. There's no reason someone should have to pay $400 for a haircut.

7/11/2007 4:06:22 PM

Quote :

"American consumers won't settle for anything less than the very "best" care, i.e. the most expensive"

That only applies to the people who can afford the very best. Or do you believe people are demanding more expensive care even when they can't pay for it?

7/11/2007 4:06:24 PM

The haircut made laugh. kudos

Golden, there is an over demand for healthcare esp when we provide unlimited healthcare to the poor and elderly, with them usually having little financial consequences. I have a 86 year old patient who decided that her 90 year old husband shoudl have chemo. They want to do all that is possible. You should just flush 20k down the toliet. If it doesnt kill him, whats the best possible outcome? I dont really blame them, after all if it doesnt cost you anything..why not?

THere are alot of elderly who LOVE to go to the hospital. They like the attention. Ask a nurse, they will usually be able to tell you the name of their revolving door patients.

7/11/2007 4:34:07 PM

Quote :

"The haircut made laugh. kudos"

ZOMG SLIPPERY SLOPE TA SOCIALISM!!1

7/11/2007 4:40:22 PM

^^ Are you suggesting we just let old people die instead of providing them with healthcare?

7/11/2007 4:46:42 PM

Well, they don't work anymore and aren't contributing to society, isn't the answer obvious?

7/11/2007 4:49:41 PM

What I am suggesting is when something is essentially free, you tend to abuse it. Look at buffets, no way people would eat as much if they had to pay for each plate. So, you often hear do all that is possible..which is fine.. but when you are dealing with medicine and people living to be alot older now, it gets really expensive. We need to set some guidlines. If they want to pay for it, fine its thier money. But its alot easier to spend other peoples money.

And if you think that 90 yr old gets chemo under socialized medicine, let me know how your small intestines look, bc your head is really far up there.

7/11/2007 4:51:14 PM

Quote :

"What I am suggesting is when something is essentially free, you tend to abuse it."

Well, countries with socialized health care manage to keep costs down.

7/11/2007 4:57:55 PM

yes, they ration. Once that number of procedures are done that year.. you wait until next year. Thats why the wait times are so high, and canadians come over the border for procedures.

Its just human nature. People dont have money for things they need, but do have money for things they want.

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 5:03 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 5:01:25 PM

and why couldn't a free market system be in place for those people who don't want to wait? i mean that seems only natural.

7/11/2007 5:02:46 PM

In canada its illegal for docs to perform the procedures on someone wanting to pay cash. There is a doc from canada at our hospital. He actually comes down for a couple months to help his income. He told my stepdad he pays close to 60% in income taxes. So he and his partners rotate between working the in the states and working thier practice in canada. Wonders why in the world are we even discussing putting it in here. But acknowledges that american tourists LOVE thier system, bc they get "free" healthcare, but return before they have to actually pay for anything.

7/11/2007 5:07:25 PM

Quote :

"Thats why the wait times are so high,"

They are?

Quote :

"and canadians come over the border for procedures."

They do?

7/11/2007 5:08:27 PM

who said we should base our system on canada's exactly?

and also: i'd like some examples of "rationed" procedures.

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 5:10 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 5:09:00 PM

Actually almost all the ideas thrown around here such as "Canadians come to to the US for care", "We get the best healthcare" and things like "UK residents wait 10 years for flu shots!!1111" aren't entirely true when investigated further.

I suppose though, for you to truly understand you needed to have gotten care in another country. Had most american's the opportunity to do that, our system would likely be different.

Peacin out o dis thread.

7/11/2007 5:14:04 PM

^^^ Yes and Yes

^, ^^, ^^^ You people are truly unfamiliar with the long wait times associated with socialized care in Canada, the UK and other countries?

Honestly?

Please educate yourself on these health care systems in these countries beyond WHO numbers of life expectancy and infant mortality rates.

Quote :

"and why couldn't a free market system be in place for those people who don't want to wait? i mean that seems only natural."

The problem is that it violates the premise of the single-payer system. The end result is that people who opt out end up having to pay for their care as well as the socialized care of everyone else.



[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 5:39 PM. Reason : 2]

7/11/2007 5:28:35 PM

Quote :

"The end result is that people who opt out end up having to pay for their care as well as the socialized care of everyone else."

well, there's a price to jumping ahead in line.

also, if it's so apparent that what you claim is true about wait times and rationed procedures, then throw out some examples.

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 5:33 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 5:32:25 PM

UK wait times are already discussed in this thread; Here is a blurb about wait times in Canada:

Quote :

" most Canadians agree that current wait times are not acceptable. The median wait time between a referral by a family doctor and an appointment with a specialist has increased to 8.3 weeks last year from 3.7 weeks in 1993, according to a recent study by The Fraser Institute, a conservative research group. Meanwhile the median wait between an appointment with a specialist and treatment has increased to 9.4 weeks from 5.6 weeks over the same period. Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery, according to the study. Last December, provincial health ministers unveiled new targets for cutting wait times, including four weeks for radiation therapy for cancer patients beginning when doctors consider them ready for treatment and 26 weeks for hip replacements."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=cb1fc68347405791&ex=1145505600

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 5:39 PM. Reason : 2]

7/11/2007 5:34:23 PM

Quote :

"You people are truly unfamiliar with the long wait times associated with socialized care in Canada, the UK and other countries?"

They're hotly debated and almost certainly exaggerated in US media. It's not as if wait times aren't a problem in the United States.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=76295

7/11/2007 5:41:21 PM

Quote :

"They're hotly debated and almost certainly exaggerated in US media."

How do you figure? Especially when most people in America aren't even aware of this problem?

I'm sorry, but wait times in America just don't come close to the wait times in Canada.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753

7/11/2007 5:53:22 PM

Quote :

"How do you figure? Especially when most people in America aren't even aware of this problem?"

Ever watch FOX News?

And of course the Fraser Institute thinks Canadians have extremely long wait times. Reports from the Canadian Institute for Health Information tell a very different story. Believe what you want.

7/11/2007 6:04:58 PM

re: long wait times in socialized healthcare countries

I lived in Japan for a year. Got really nasty sick. Went to a doctor and was treated in under an hour, given medicine at the same time and recovered fully. It cost me nothing. I got a 'bill' in the mail later saying 'you went to the doctor this day and we were charged this much, have a nice day.'


HORRIBLE EXPERIENCE.

7/11/2007 6:21:15 PM

YAY for anecdotal evidence!

7/11/2007 6:38:51 PM

Here's what I want to know. If monopolies are bad and the massive conglomeration of companies into mega corporations is bad, how in the word does anyone think that giving the government a monopoly on health care is good?

7/11/2007 7:05:53 PM

Quote :

"If monopolies are bad and the massive conglomeration of companies into mega corporations is bad, how in the word does anyone think that giving the government a monopoly on health care is good?"

Because it seems to work in other countries. Evidence before theory.

Completely opening up the market might also work. Especially if we allowed foreign doctors to come here and work more easily.

7/11/2007 7:17:57 PM

Those wait times are based on elective, non-critical procedures.

And I have no problems with someone having to wait 8 weeks for a knee or hip replacement, if it means the people with critical care needs are addressed first.

That's the misleading part of the "long wait times" in other countries. Unlike in the US where the wait time is determined by how quickly you can get HMO approval, or how much cash you have.

I have to say that watching SiCKO really caused me to look into universal healthcare, and I really think it is the way to go. But I think there are some major differences we can implement to make the system operate much more efficiently than the ones in France and Canada. Basically make the system a non-profit, somewhat based on the UK system, but privately run versus government controlled.

You remove the profit incentive on wall-street and I think a non-profit HMO whose revenue comes from taxes that are distributed based on positive performance incentives, rather than on patient turnover as in Canada. It would allow several things to happen. It would still allow for competition within the system as multiple non-profits can open to provide tailored care for different regions and groups while still meeting the need for basic universal healthcare.

And for the people who say "OMG 60% income tax in Canada, France et al", we already pay more than DOUBLE per capita what any other country pays to health care. That includes the current medicaid/medicare and private health insurance. The reason these other countries have such insanely high income tax is because of the ridiculous number of other social welfare programs they institute.

It would raise the TAX cost on American citizens, but it would LOWER the overall income loss from the average american being paid to healthcare. Most of you are men, who don't realize that when a woman gets married, her insurance SKYROCKETS because of the potential for having a baby, regardless of her age or desire to have children. The average 50 year old in this country pays 5-10 times what a 25 year old does. And it only goes up year after year.

When you are 50 or 60, are you prepared to pay 1000-2000 dollars a month for healthcare?

Also under most of the social systems, the tax rate is scaled to lessen the burden considerably on the lower income households instead of being a flat percentage or a flat fee.

7/11/2007 7:21:14 PM

Quote :

"You remove the profit incentive on wall-street and I think a non-profit HMO whose revenue comes from taxes that are distributed based on positive performance incentives, rather than on patient turnover as in Canada. It would allow several things to happen. It would still allow for competition within the system as multiple non-profits can open to provide tailored care for different regions and groups while still meeting the need for basic universal healthcare. "

See, here's the problem with that. Define a "positive performance". How do you measure this? In a system where I pay for my own health care, there is one and only one metric to determine who gets my money. My satisfaction. If I'm happy, the insurance company or the doctor gets my money. If I'm unhappy, they don't. And if I'm an unreasonable customer (as so many people are) that's OK, I'll just bother someone else.

By comparison, you can't measure "satisfaction" in any real objective way as an outside party, as a result, you waste money and time coming up with and measuring other metrics to determine how to dole out this money and to which companies. In the end, every company becomes identical because you're better off fitting the lowest common denominator and gettign more funding and you just leave everyone with a choice that's no choice at all.


One last point:

Quote :

"And I have no problems with someone having to wait 8 weeks for a knee or hip replacement, if it means the people with critical care needs are addressed first. "

I don't know about you, but if I need a knee or hip replaced so that I can get back to work, I consider that pretty damn critical and non elective. Just because you think I should wait 8 weeks before I even get seen about that doesn't mean I do. And that is the inherrent problem with this system. What you consider critical, I don't, and what I consider critical you don't. Under the current system, you and I can pay our respective doctors and have them treat us right away. Under a government controlled system, you may find that we're both being turned away.

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 8:13 PM. Reason : kjhkj]

7/11/2007 8:04:39 PM

It's not as hard as it sounds. The UK has a system for this that works (although of course it COULD be better).

Basically a doctor gets a base salary, somewhere in the range of 100-120k a year. The doctor is then offered "performance incentives".

For instance, a patient comes in with a lump in her breast. The doctor identifies it as a benign tumor, no cancer and discharges the patient. If that patient decides to go back to a doctor a month later still feeling ill, and doctor #2 diagnoses it as malignant (the proper diagnosis in this hypothetical situation) and she begins treatment, doctor #2 would recieve a bonus for proper treatment.

If a patient comes in and has problems breathing and the doctor diagnoses the person with Asthma and the person doesn't return having the same problems (aka proper diagnosis and treatment) then the doctor is rewarded with a bonus.

If a patient is severely overweight and the doctor recommends the person to eat better and exercise, and the patient has lost weight and increased their health at their next checkup, the doctor is rewarded.

It's a system where proper diagnosis and better health is rewarded instead of patient turnover and direct recourse cost effectiveness is.

In the short term it means a lot more money into the system, because doctors would have the ability to use all of their available resources to ensure proper diagnosis of ailments (which is where the buffet argument comes in) and it allows patients the ability to get essentially unlimited opinions on their diagnosis. However in the long term, it GREATLY decreases the likelyhood that a patient will have to make multiple expensive return visits for the same conditions and over time it greatly decreases the desire for 2nd and 3rd opinions on a diagnosis as people become more trusting that the system will really explore every option it can for their benefit.

In this way, patient satisfaction is measured by the ACTUAL medical result, not by the system's interpretation of it. If a patient isn't satisfied, they can go to another doctor, and seek another diagnosis. Under a universal scheme it gives a patient MUCH more leeway to seek out experimental treatment if they so choose and allows doctors much more flexibility in their treatment options.

Quote :

"I don't know about you, but if I need a knee or hip replaced so that I can get back to work, I consider that pretty damn critical and non elective. Just because you think I should wait 8 weeks before I even get seen about that doesn't mean I do. And that is the inherrent problem with this system. What you consider critical, I don't, and what I consider critical you don't. Under the current system, you and I can pay our respective doctors and have them treat us right away. Under a government controlled system, you may find that we're both being turned away."

Do you even know what a hip replacement is? It's not like you go in for a replacement because you all of a sudden can't walk one day. It's an elective procedure for a degenerative condition. You can still work and carry on about your life with a bad hip, it just means taking medication in some cases or dealing with the pain. The average age for hip replacement is well beyond retirement, making your scenario even less likely. And finally, your arbitrary definition of critical versus elective surgery is completely wrong. If you FALL and break your hip, then it becomes a critical care issue, entirely different.

And in either case you don't recieve a different LEVEL of care for an elective versus critical procedure, its just at a different TIME. You can't be "turned away" under a universal system, that's the entire point.

Quote :

"you and I can pay our respective doctors and have them treat us right away"

And it's apparent from this statement you haven't ever had to deal with getting a procedure like this, because that ain't how it works. You have to get approval from your HMO first, it's not like you can just walk into the hospital and get your new hip. And guess what the MINIMUM acceptance time is for most elective procedures from an HMO is? 2-6 weeks. You are living in a dream world man.

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 8:32 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 8:22:43 PM

Well, it's better than waiting over a year:

Quote :

"John Carvel, social affairs editor Friday June 8, 2007 The Guardian One in eight NHS hospital patients still has to wait more than a year for treatment, the government acknowledged yesterday in its first attempt to tell the full truth about health service queues in England. A Department of Health analysis of 208,000 people admitted to hospital in March showed 48% were wheeled into the operating theatre within 18 weeks of a GP sending them for hospital diagnosis. But 30% waited more than 30 weeks and 12.4% more than a year."

http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,2098276,00.html

7/11/2007 8:40:38 PM

^ from your article

Quote :

"Most of the long waits were for orthopaedic surgery, ophthalmology, gynaecology, ear nose and throat, and general surgery."

Again no mention of the specific waits and for what. This is for elective and non-critical treatments. Although I absolutely admit there is a huge problem right now with the NHS in Britain. Which stems from the recent reforms that have been introduced trying to institute immediate cost savings rather than long-term reductions.

Which, if you had read what I said, is one of the key things I would change, should we institute a universal system. One whose standards of effectiveness are measured by medical outcomes rather than financial outcomes.

7/11/2007 8:53:39 PM

Quote :

"Respondents in Canada and the U.S. were significantly less likely than those in other countries to report same-day access and more likely to wait six days or longer for an appointment. At the same time, majorities of patients in New Zealand (58%) and Germany (56%), and nearly half in Australia (49%) and the U.K. (45%), were able to get same-day appointments. Waiting times for elective surgery or specialists were shortest in Germany and the U.S., with the majority of patients in both countries reporting rapid access."

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=313012

7/11/2007 8:53:58 PM

Again, we are talking about ELECTIVE SURGERY.

This is not about waiting in line if you have a cold, or you get injured. For GP visits, you are looking at completely normal wait times, if not less. Which is like 90% of people's visits to the doctor. If you have a cold, or the flu, or any ILLNESS that needs to be diagnosed, you are seen immediately.

For CRITICAL CARE, you are looking at faster response time in a universal system.

Quote :

"e`lect´ive sur´ger`y n. 1. surgery that is not essential, especially surgery to correct a condition that is not life-threatening; surgery that is not required for survival. See also cosmetic surgery. "

We are talking about things like laser vision correction, cosmetic dentistry, cataract surgery, gynecological surgery (hysterectomy, tubal ligation etc), angioplasty, pacemakers, knee and hip replacements, acl/mcl reconstruction etc.

These are not critical procedures. And they are procedures that CURRENTLY can take anywhere from a couple of weeks to months to get approved in the current system.

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 9:09 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 9:00:27 PM

Quote :

"Basically a doctor gets a base salary, somewhere in the range of 100-120k a year. The doctor is then offered "performance incentives". For instance, a patient comes in with a lump in her breast. The doctor identifies it as a benign tumor, no cancer and discharges the patient. If that patient decides to go back to a doctor a month later still feeling ill, and doctor #2 diagnoses it as malignant (the proper diagnosis in this hypothetical situation) and she begins treatment, doctor #2 would recieve a bonus for proper treatment. If a patient comes in and has problems breathing and the doctor diagnoses the person with Asthma and the person doesn't return having the same problems (aka proper diagnosis and treatment) then the doctor is rewarded with a bonus. If a patient is severely overweight and the doctor recommends the person to eat better and exercise, and the patient has lost weight and increased their health at their next checkup, the doctor is rewarded. It's a system where proper diagnosis and better health is rewarded instead of patient turnover and direct recourse cost effectiveness is."

So you essentially create a system which encourages over testing (sure, that headache is probably nothing more than stress, but let's run some extra test just to be sure it isn't a tumor), encourages doctors to downplay symptoms so that patients don't return, and effectively, only rewards the last doctor a patient sees, leaving all the others in the dirt (even though, it may not have been a bad diagnosis). You also encourage doctor shopping on both the demand and the supply side.

Quote :

"Do you even know what a hip replacement is? It's not like you go in for a replacement because you all of a sudden can't walk one day. It's an elective procedure for a degenerative condition. You can still work and carry on about your life with a bad hip, it just means taking medication in some cases or dealing with the pain. The average age for hip replacement is well beyond retirement, making your scenario even less likely. And finally, your arbitrary definition of critical versus elective surgery is completely wrong. If you FALL and break your hip, then it becomes a critical care issue, entirely different. "

Yes. The better half's mother has a bad hip. It has kept her out of work for months before. Surgery to fix or correct that helps better than pain medications which only go so far.

As far as critical vs elective, who are you to tell me that the single mother with the bad hip looking for some corrective surgery is less critcal than the housewife who slipped and broke her hip while cleaning?

Quote :

"And it's apparent from this statement you haven't ever had to deal with getting a procedure like this, because that ain't how it works. You have to get approval from your HMO first, it's not like you can just walk into the hospital and get your new hip. And guess what the MINIMUM acceptance time is for most elective procedures from an HMO is? 2-6 weeks. You are living in a dream world man. "

Or you have the option of finding a better HMO, not using an HMO at all or paying for your own surgery. Can't do that under a single payer system.

And let's talk about your elective surgerys. The better half recently had to have a few teeth removed surgically. The long story short is that they either came out now, or she would be in pain until they came out, and run a much higher risk of further health issues including needing surgery on other teeth or even her jaw. Now, this bad tooth problem in no way shape or form affected her day to day life other than some pain, nor did it prevent her from doing or work or performing her job and it was admittedly her own fault. One week later (and ~$800 including 3 office visits, anesthesia and pain medication, all without insurance) the teeth are out, she's pain free and healthier because of it.

Under your system, how long would she have had to wait for this elective surgery?

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 9:28 PM. Reason : asdfakjsdh]

7/11/2007 9:22:30 PM

Quote :

"So you essentially create a system which encourages over testing (sure, that headache is probably nothing more than stress, but let's run some extra test just to be sure it isn't a tumor), encourages doctors to downplay symptoms so that patients don't return, and effectively, only rewards the last doctor a patient sees, leaving all the others in the dirt (even though, it may not have been a bad diagnosis). You also encourage doctor shopping on both the demand and the supply side."

Yes, it encourages over testing. I have NO problem with this. Doctors are qualified and extremely highly trained, and I would trust THEIR judgement in what warrants a test or procedure MUCH more than I could any financial institution, private or government.

It absolutely does not encourage them to downplay symptoms, because the patient WILL return if the diagnosis isn't correct.

And no, it rewards a doctor for proper diagnosis and treatment. If a person goes to three doctors and they all diagnose the same problem, even with different treatment options (especially experimental treatments) then they would all potentially be rewarded for the proper diagnosis. This system also encourages doctors to get second opinions from other doctors without the need for a patient to seek secondary opinions.

And yes, it encourages doctor shopping. I also have no problem with this either. It acts a check and balance for good care. A doctor who consistently mis-diagnoses, who isn't personable, who has a record of mishaps and problems would be much more easily identified and removed from the system. A patient with a rare condition has a much better chance of being properly diagnosed in an open treatment system.

Quote :

"Yes. The better half's mother has a bad hip. It has kept her out of work for months before. Surgery to fix or correct that helps better than pain medications which only go so far. As far as critical vs elective, who are you to tell me that the single mother with the bad hip looking for some corrective surgery is less critcal than the housewife who slipped and broke her hip while cleaning?"

on the same subjective basis, my father was denied by 4 different HMO's over the course of 6 years for a hip replacement. He has had to walk with a cane for almost 40 years and has needed a hip replacement since the mid 1980's.

I am the one with common sense. One is a degenerative condition, the other is a result of accidental trauma. One person can still walk, the other one can't. One person can live through it, the other will likely die of infection and will never heal without immediate treatment. Do I REALLY need to go further?

Quote :

"Or you have the option of finding a better HMO, not using an HMO at all or paying for your own surgery. Can't do that under a single payer system."

Yes you can. In EVERY social system, there is still supplementary insurance that a significant portion (15-20%) of people purchase for exactly the reasons you are arguing for. And you are also once again in dreamland with this mythical "find a better HMO or pay out of pocket" argument.

Once, god forbid, you do come down with a major medical condition, there is NO OPTION. You can't get other insurance, you either pay whatever rate your HMO determines or you are dropped. That's the reality. And you tell me how many people can afford to pay the average 12-20 thousand dollars a general surgery costs out of pocket? VERY few.

Quote :

"Under your system, how long would she have had to wait for this elective surgery?"

She could either wait it out, or purchase a supplemental plan / pay out of pocket and go at her own leisure to a private practice or a dual system pracitce. The beauty of a universal system is that IF she did deteriorate while waiting, aka the pain goes up, the other teeth or jaw becomes a real potential problem, she would then be considered a critical care patient and would make this a non-issue again.

The institution of a universal system doesnt eliminate private care.

7/11/2007 9:45:13 PM

Quote :

"They're hotly debated and almost certainly exaggerated in US media."

So look to overseas media.

wait times, making progress:
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/9096

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/news/tm_headline=462-000-deaths-caused-by-nhs--&method=full&objectid=19241847&siteid=66633-name_page.html

Rationing:
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=995812007


Next excuse?

7/11/2007 9:48:20 PM

Look that the study I linked to earlier. Wait times in both Canada and in the US were worse than in the UK, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand.

7/11/2007 9:51:57 PM

1) I've already addressed the huge problems with the recent policy reforms to the NHS system. The reforms were fucking awful in the first place, the implementation of them has been even worse, and the whole system is a giant clusterfuck right now.

There's more than one way to implement this, the UK is one of dozens, but good job hand picking your data.

2) 462,000 in 30 years. In the US it's 195,000 a year. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=11856

Next retarded comparison?

^I was addressing the critical care wait, sorry I wasn't clear about that It's a very good article to show the benefits of universal care for General Practioner visits.

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 10:00 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 9:59:51 PM

Its comparing apples to oranges.

According to a Canadian Medical Association Journal article, "U.S. Hospitals Use Waiting-List Woes to Woo Canadians" (2/22/2000), "British Columbia patients fed up with sojourns on waiting lists as they await tests or treatment are being wooed by a hospital in Washington state that has begun offering package deals. A second U.S. hospital is also considering marketing its services." One of the attractions is that an MRI, which can take anywhere from 10 to 28 weeks in Canada, can be had in two days at Olympic Memorial Hospital in Port Angeles, Wash. Already, Cleveland is Canada's hip-replacement center.

The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute has a yearly publication titled, "Waiting Your Turn." Its 2006 edition gives waiting times, by treatments, from a person's referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist. The shortest waiting time was for oncology (4.9 weeks). The longest waiting time was for orthopedic surgery (40.3 weeks), followed by plastic surgery (35.4 weeks) and neurosurgery (31.7 weeks).

Believe what you want to. But no way it takes 10 months to see an orthopedic, or almost nine MONTHs to see a nuero. I could get someone into a neuro in a matter of days. You guys are seriously kidding yourself. Yes it might take weeks to get a primary care appointment, but emergency patients always get worked in.

Ever heard of these little things called prime care? You can get seen in a matter of hours. These of course arent as popular since they require you to pay for services. Those silly bastards.

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 10:07 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 10:08 PM. Reason : grammer]

7/11/2007 10:05:44 PM

Very good points. For people with money, they can get care immediately. For the rest of us, it allows us to GET treated at all.

7/11/2007 10:15:14 PM

poor people are given insuance and can get treament. However, the wait times are long bc its pays shitty, so few doctors take it in some areas. People who choose not to have insurance run the risk of having to pay an assload if something bad happens. I do think there should be less regulations with insurances and allow people to shop for it, just like auto ins.

Listening to some of your kids make me wonder, how do you think doctors offices are run? They are no different than a hardware shop. There is overhead that has to be paid, SOMEONE has to actually PAY for the services. Even though the insurances want to pay us less, we arent given the same option to pay less in salaries, insurance, rent, electricity, etc. We have a very poor insurance that pays us 27 bucks for an exam. We lose money on these patients, however its our way of helping people. My boss works the free clinic. Its one thing to choose to do charity, its another to force you to.

7/11/2007 10:27:25 PM