What we get to look forward to after 2014!

[makattak]

Here's a glimpse into our future:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7896737/Cash-crisis-in-NHS-leaves-patients-lying-on-operating-tables.html

Women in labour have been forced to wait while epidural equipment was borrowed from other hospitals, while other patients have been denied chest drains and radiology supplies, according to doctors at South London Healthcare Trust.

Minutes of a meeting between medical staff and the trust’s chief executive say “cash flow” problems at the trust which has a £50 million deficit, mean vital equipment is regularly not ordered.

A separate letter sent to managers of the trust, one of the largest in the country, says consultants have been misled into carrying out operations when it was not safe to go ahead because of bed shortages...

The document records: “The trust in different areas had run out of under water sealed chest drains, epidural packs, gynaecological disposables, radiological disposables, and the response to this was 'this was a cash flow issue’”.

Doctors told managers “again and again” that consultants were unable to know that equipment was missing until the last item had been used, when their patient was already lying on the table, according to the minutes of June 16 meeting.

Click the link for the full article.

And, for those who will respond with, "But you won't have government run healthcare", let me preempt your objection. Here's the effects of MassCare (which is our future as well):

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/07/18/firms_cancel_health_coverage/

The relentlessly rising cost of health insurance is prompting some small Massachusetts companies to drop coverage for their workers and encourage them to sign up for state-subsidized care instead, a trend that, some analysts say, could eventually weigh heavily on the state’s already-stressed budget.

Since April 1, the date many insurance contracts are renewed for small businesses, the owners of about 90 small companies terminated their insurance plans with Braintree-based broker Jeff Rich and indicated in a follow-up survey that they were relying on publicly-funded insurance for their employees.

Again, click the link for the full article.

Isn't the change great?!

[longeyes]

Welcome to Kenyanomics.

It's bad...but it's "fair."

[HankB]

Welcome to Kenyanomics.

It's bad...but it's "fair."

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.  - Winston Churchill

[taurusowner]

Really, who is in favor of what view/system tells a lot about the person.  People who believe in capitalism are generally one who have a lot of faith in themselves, and in others.  They want to succeed on their own, and keep what they earn, but also believe others can and should do this too.  Socialists tend to be run by jealousy.  They are not so much concerned with anyone being happy, but tearing down everyone to the same level.  Socialists would prefer universal destruction as long as it did indeed include everyone.

[kgbsquirrel]

They are not so much concerned with anyone being happy, but tearing down everyone to the same level.  Socialists would prefer universal destruction as long as it did indeed include everyone but them.

FTFY. Those pushing this crap consider themselves above the proletariate/plebeians/unwashed masses. Pick your preferred descriptor, but I seriously doubt those with seven+ figure bank accounts are going to be subjected to the same mal-care the rest of us will be.

[taurusowner]

FTFY. Those pushing this crap consider themselves above the proletariate/plebeians/unwashed masses. Pick your preferred descriptor, but I seriously doubt those with seven+ figure bank accounts are going to be subjected to the same mal-care the rest of us will be.

Perhaps for some.  But when you look at your typical "project" dweller; someone who has lived their whole life content with living in a s### hole, with rats and roaches and dirty diapers on the floor and no intention of ever lifting a finger to improve their own status, you see that 100% of their energy is bent towards anger towards others and a desire to bring them down to their level instead of raising themselves.

You're right that some socialists want to see themselves at the top.  But they are not true socialists.  The really depressing/scary ones are the ones that are truly more angry at others succeeding than they are motivated to succeed themselves.  These people see the destruction and robbery of others as a true goal.  Sheer unhindered hatred at the idea there might be others happier than themselves.

For those who know who I'm talking about, think "Jim Taggart".  Someone who sees beauty, achievement, and success as objects to be torn down.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Ragnar gets it.

[S. Williamson]

Something I remember reading from 1984:

THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF

OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM

by Emmanuel Goldstein

Chapter I

Ignorance is Strength

(2/3 to 3/4 down the page)

The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimetre nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.

[Jim147]

2014?

I thought the world was going to end in 2012.

jim

[De Selby]

Yet again anecdotes rule the debate over hard numbers. 

Shortages happen in America too - but they come at ten times the cost.

[MicroBalrog]

Time is also a cost.

[De Selby]

Time is also a cost.

Yes it is.  Unfortunately, the US medical system isn't that much better on time.  It is grossly inefficient in pretty much every category.  The main distinguishing feature is that medical services cost much, much more than in any comparable country.

[HankB]

Yes it is.  Unfortunately, the US medical system isn't that much better on time.  It is grossly inefficient in pretty much every category.  The main distinguishing feature is that medical services cost much, much more than in any comparable country.

1. There IS no comparable country.
2. The main distinguishing feature is that procedures are readily available HERE that are NOT readily available in other countries - even the civilized ones. (Note that people come from all over the world to be treated here, rather than in their socialized medicine paradise.)
3. You don't solve problems by making things worse, or trading current problems for bigger ones. Obamacare is like "solving" a fire by pouring gasoline on it.

[De Selby]

Well, certainly people with billions of dollars go there - for billionaires the prices don't mean much, and the technology is pretty good.  For people with under double-digit millions in liquid assets, there is no country in the industrialized world that has poorer and more expensive outcomes.

The US is not, however, a center of lifesaving procedures that don't exist in other places.  The "socialized medicine paradise" places meet or exceed the US in most measures of lifesaving and treatment.  No army of people is going to the US for medicine; Americans are leaving the US in large numbers for medical tourism though.  That's a big industry in Thailand and India.  Doesn't speak well of the system when people are turning in large numbers to Bangkok for heart procedures, which incidentally cost a tenth of the price for equivalent service.

In fact, tourists from other countries dread the possibility of being bankrupted by an injury or illness in the US, and have to pay insurance premiums that are triple their normal insurance costs just for short trips.

Obamacare isn't really socialised medicine; it's just increased cash for the current insurance/hospital pricing scheme, which is ridiculously inefficient.

It's bizarre - I live in one of these socialist medicine systems, and my wait times are no longer than they were in the US, and my PRIVATE coverage (which gets me off all the government wait lists) costs 64 dollars a month.  That gives me full dental, optical, physical therapy, a selection of natural therapies like acupuncture, along with the core hospital care coverage.

What exactly would the US medical system do better for me?

[makattak]

Yet again anecdotes rule the debate over hard numbers. 

Shortages happen in America too - but they come at ten times the cost.

Well, since your side loves to scream about people dying because "THEY CAN'T GET INSURANCE", I thought there should be some perspective.

You want to talk numbers? Look at the US survival rate for pretty much any major disease.

Look at the US survival rate for premature babies. (That'll be harder since other countries won't even try to save babies that we routinely save. They won't even count them as "premature".)

You want statistics? They are myriad. Search this forum for them. (Specifically, I'm fairly certain I have posted them multiple times.)

But, of course, the pro-socialism side has no ability to appreciate a dynamic system whose outcomes are already better than nearly any other country and whose most crucial feature is continual improvement in medical technology/techniques.

Funny how the statistics never include that. Of course that's because that other side likes to simply assume that is the natural state of things because they don't know history and the natural state of man (poverty, misery, famine, death).

I don't worry that they don't know this lesson, though. If they get what they want, we'll be back there soon.

[makattak]

The US is not, however, a center of lifesaving procedures that don't exist in other places.  The "socialized medicine paradise" places meet or exceed the US in most measures of lifesaving and treatment.

Bull. The other countries do take techniques and technologies pioneered in other places, but show me statistics that other countries save lives better than we do.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

[HankB]

Well, certainly people with billions of dollars go there - for billionaires the prices don't mean much,

Well, according to this - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300939,00.html - a LOT of Canadian doctors have billionaire expectant mothers as patients that they send to the USA.

[makattak]

Well, according to this - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300939,00.html - a LOT of Canadian doctors have billionaire expectant mothers as patients that they send to the USA.

Well, you know, if a few mothers have to die because they are high risk, that's just the cost of making sure everyone gets the same terrible care.

Suck it up and die, momma.

(Yes, I know they didn't die. But where are the high risk mothers in the US going to go once we have Canada's awful system? For that matter, where will the Canadians go?)

[De Selby]

Mak, this has been posted multiple times, but here it is again:  http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf

Ten times the price for marginally better results in some specific kinds of cancer treatments (and decidedly poorer results for people who can't access treatment because it's too expensive) isn't a bargain.

Again Hank, there're the anecdotes, but the overall numbers do not tell a story of the US being a "safety net" for other health care systems.

[makattak]

Mak, this has been posted multiple times, but here it is again:  http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf

Ten times the price for marginally better results in some specific kinds of cancer treatments (and decidedly poorer results for people who can't access treatment because it's too expensive) isn't a bargain.

Again Hank, there're the anecdotes, but the overall numbers do not tell a story of the US being a "safety net" for other health care systems.

Ahhh... so now you admit we get better care. It's just not better "enough" for you.

Now, if you want to argue about the price of that care- rather than the quality- let's start with basic economics.

What causes a price increase? Either a deficit of supply or an overabundance of demand. (Absent government meddling, but we'll come back to that.)

Obviously we don't have a large supply problem (unlike other countries, like, oh, say Canada). So, we have an overabundance of demand versus other countries.

WHY? Don't you think the question of why our demand is so high ought to be dealt with before we decide to meddle? (Oh look, it's that government meddling again.)

One reason is the seperation of pricing decisions from the point of sale. Doctors often have no idea what specific services they provide will cost. This argues for more consumer control, not more government control.

FURTHER, this decoupling of consumer choices at the margin was a result of government meddling that encouraged (and encourages) comprehensive insurance that covers EVERYTHING.

Add to this government mandates, malpractice insurance and the related (and higher) costs of defensive medicine, and a government granted cartel in medicine and you get higher prices.

But of course, this isn't really about the prices, it's about making it "fair" for everyone.

[makattak]

Also, ten times the price?

Uhh... we're not even ten times the price of care in MEXICO, but go ahead and push that faulty statistic.

[makattak]

Also, I wonder if there's a measure for lost productivity due to increased time waiting for care and increased time recovering from care...

[HankB]

Again Hank, there're the anecdotes, . . . care systems.

Here's another anecdote - Newfoundland's Premier came to the US for health care!

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2510700

Can this be a case of Canadian leaders saying "Good for thee, but not for me" when it comes to Canadian health care?

Talk is cheap - actions speak louder than words.

[Balog]

I'm always amazed that shootinstudent (excuse, it's De Selby now innit?) keeps pushing his BS "statistics" no matter how often they're shown to be invalid, misleading, or just downright wrong. I wonder if he's actually such a true believer he can't see the holes in his argumentation, or if he just lost all shame when he was at law school? Either way it gets tiring.

[MicroBalrog]

In fact, tourists from other countries dread the possibility of being bankrupted by an injury or illness in the US, and have to pay insurance premiums that are triple their normal insurance costs just for short trips.

Who are these magical 'people'?

I know for a fact that my University professors, who go to the US for their sabbaticals, have no such 'dread'.

In fact, one of my most anti-American profs had once told us: "America is a horrible country." (his words, not mine) "But if I ever get a heart attack, I want it to happen when I'm lecturing in Florida."