What we get to look forward to after 2014!

[Balog]

Anecdotes are useless, but when you just make up something and ascribe it to an amorphous group that's valid.

[De Selby]

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.

Yeah, you should read the report at the link before accusing me of having no statistics.  It's pretty easy to understand, and there's not much in the way of contradiction out there.

Micro,

That's great that your prof likes medicine in Florida, but unless he purchases relatively expensive travel health insurance, he'll be spending his entire retirement savings on that single heart attack. 

If you go to a travel agency in this country (or in the UK), there are frequently warning signs about the costs you will have to incur.  An example is this:http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/United_States_of_America#Health_Issues

The standard of medical facilities and care throughout the United States compares favourably with that available in Australia. Medical costs in the United States are, however, extremely high. A visit to a doctor in the United States for even minor complaints can cost several hundred dollars, excluding laboratory tests or medication costs. In the absence of accepted health insurance (or proof of ability to pay), payment would generally be required up front.

This is why foreigners from developed dread getting sick in the US.

The service levels are equivalent, and the cost is much higher. 

[MicroBalrog]

That's great that your prof likes medicine in Florida, but unless he purchases relatively expensive travel health insurance, he'll be spending his entire retirement savings on that single heart attack.  

No. He won't. His healthcare is covered by the universities that host him in Florida.

My healthcare package covers being flown to the US for treatment if need be. Or treatment if I visit.  It's not even that expensive.

And that's in a country where our average life expectancy is greater than in the UK. Not exactly an undeveloped country, you know.

[De Selby]

No. He won't. His healthcare is covered by the universities that host him in Florida.

My healthcare package covers being flown to the US for treatment if need be. Or treatment if I visit.  It's not even that expensive.

And that's in a country where our average life expectancy is greater than in the UK. Not exactly an undeveloped country, you know.

Certainly the universities that cover him pay a high premium for the privilege - medical costs are one of the leading expenses for businesses of all kinds.

Your healthcare package is likely subsidized in some fashion if it offers treatment in the US at a reasonable fee.  Health insurance is generally cheaper in countries with socialist medicine systems, because costs are not as great.  They deliver services much more efficiently than the US does.

[BMacklem]

  Health insurance is generally cheaper in countries with socialist medicine systems, because costs are not as great.  They deliver services much more efficiently than the US does.

So all those horror stories we've heard about the long waits (sometimes months long) for just seeing a doctor in Canada are "more efficient"?
Or the horrible conditions in most of the UK's hospitals that are public knowledge (NHS is the biggest joke in the UK that I hear from those living there) are just a few disgruntled people? These are more efficiently run?

I'm finding that hard to swallow.

[makattak]

So all those horror stories we've heard about the long waits (sometimes months long) for just seeing a doctor in Canada are "more efficient"?
Or the horrible conditions in most of the UK's hospitals that are public knowledge (NHS is the biggest joke in the UK that I hear from those living there) are just a few disgruntled people? These are more efficiently run?

I'm finding that hard to swallow.

"More efficient" means cheaper. It's not more efficient.

It also confuses costs with price. The prices are lower. The costs, not so much. Part of the reason is they don't pay the costs associated with developing new lifesaving treatments and drugs. Instead these socialized countries just free ride off the few relics of the free market.

No worries, though. We'll be killing those last vestiges soon.

[De Selby]

So all those horror stories we've heard about the long waits (sometimes months long) for just seeing a doctor in Canada are "more efficient"?
Or the horrible conditions in most of the UK's hospitals that are public knowledge (NHS is the biggest joke in the UK that I hear from those living there) are just a few disgruntled people? These are more efficiently run?

I'm finding that hard to swallow.

Look at the numbers - outcomes, wait times, all of that are things you can record and document.  There's a report that gathers those things on this very thread.  So yes, all those horror stories you hear are just anecdotes, just like all the horror stories you hear about people dropping dead in emergency room wait lines in America, or having the wrong body parts amputated.

Mak,

More efficient means lower prices for the same item, which pretty much every single industralised country in the world has achieved over the United States.

[makattak]

Mak,

More efficient means lower prices costs for the same item, which pretty much every single no industralised country in the world has achieved over the United States.

I highlighted where you've missed it.

[Monkeyleg]

Your healthcare package is likely subsidized in some fashion if it offers treatment in the US at a reasonable fee.  Health insurance is generally cheaper in countries with socialist medicine systems, because costs are not as great.

Our health insurance policy here in AL is $520 a month for my wife and me, compared to $1100 a month in WI. The one in Wisconsin had dental and eyeglass coverage, which this one doesn't. Otherwise it's the same coverage. I know that Alabama isn't a socialist state, so there's something else reducing the cost.

Why can Blue Cross of Alabama sell into Wisconsin at lower rates? Even if some costs in Wisconsin were higher, the larger pool of premiums would likely offset the costs.

[BMacklem]

Simple Dick, because Democrats won't allow inter-state selling of insurance, you know one of the main points the republicans said right after tort reform.

[De Selby]

Our health insurance policy here in AL is $520 a month for my wife and me, compared to $1100 a month in WI. The one in Wisconsin had dental and eyeglass coverage, which this one doesn't. Otherwise it's the same coverage. I know that Alabama isn't a socialist state, so there's something else reducing the cost.

Why can Blue Cross of Alabama sell into Wisconsin at lower rates? Even if some costs in Wisconsin were higher, the larger pool of premiums would likely offset the costs.

I'm not sure why, but compared to zero deductible private hospital coverage with dental, optical, and alternative therapy at $64 a month for one, I'd say $520 for two seems a bit excessive.

[Marnoot]

I'm not sure why, but compared to zero deductible private hospital coverage with dental, optical, and alternative therapy at $64 a month for one, I'd say $520 for two seems a bit excessive.

If the $64/month is your premium in Australia, you're not taking into account the amount you (and others) are paying in taxes for your health insurance/care.

[Jamisjockey]

I'm not sure why, but compared to zero deductible private hospital coverage with dental, optical, and alternative therapy at $64 a month for one, I'd say $520 for two seems a bit excessive.

Rob Peter and pay Paul.  That money comes from somewhere: YOUR HEALTHCARE PEOPLE DON'T WORK FOR FREE.  So either you, or someone else, is paying higher taxes to an inefficient beuracracy for that health care.

[Balog]

Actually, Australia is an interesting model.

The thing is, America already has socialized healthcare. Medicare/caid, SCHIP, COBRA etc are screwing the free market good and hard. In Oz, the socialist and free market systems are totally separate. Different hospitals, different doctors, everything. In reality, by divorcing the socialist and free market systems, they've powerfully demonstrated the fact that free market systems are better.

Of course they still sponge off the US by refusing to pay market price for drugs so that we end up footing the massive R&D bills.

[stevelyn]

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.

Yeah.......... So we need to crawl down into the gutter with the rest of them. 

Just remember that when those with the means in other countries need the highest standard of medical care they come to the USA to get it not some Euro-trash socialist cesspool. 

[RocketMan]

Don't worry, everyone.  DeSelby's socialized medicine is coming to America.  Our healthcare will be just peaches and cream very soon.  Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., has introduced legislation to bring us all a wonderful single payer public option plan next year.  The story is here.
I am so happy now. 

[millard52english]

2014?

I thought the world was going to end in 2012.

jim

Either the world will end by then or hypothetically....Aliens will rule us!!!!!

[wquay]

Yeah.......... So we need to crawl down into the gutter with the rest of them. 

Just remember that when those with the means in other countries need the highest standard of medical care they come to the USA to get it not some Euro-trash socialist cesspool. 

How many European countries have you visited?

[makattak]

How many European countries have you visited?

Here's the problem with socialized medicine.

So long as you don't get really sick, it's not that bad. You wait a little longer, you put up with a little more pain, but it seems a fair trade-off for "free" healthcare.

Once you get so sick that they decide it's too expensive to pay for you to get well, that's when it lets you down. AND, you can't complain anymore because you're dead.

It's the most heartless system in the world because it decides the weakest and most vulnerable in society just aren't "worth it".

[Jamisjockey]

Me, I don't even care if socialized medicine is better.  It is immoral to take from someone at the point of a gun and give to someone else. Period.

[wquay]

Here's the problem with socialized medicine.

So long as you don't get really sick, it's not that bad. You wait a little longer, you put up with a little more pain, but it seems a fair trade-off for "free" healthcare.

Once you get so sick that they decide it's too expensive to pay for you to get well, that's when it lets you down. AND, you can't complain anymore because you're dead.

It's the most heartless system in the world because it decides the weakest and most vulnerable in society just aren't "worth it".

I'm not sure how you went from that question to that answer, but... you don't like socialized medecine because it fails to provide unlimited care at public expense?

[Marnoot]

Me, I don't even care if socialized medicine is better.  It is immoral to take from someone at the point of a gun and give to someone else. Period.

This. I fully believe in charity and helping the poor and otherwise needy, but not at implied gunpoint. Coercion turns the noble act of charity into common robbery.

[MicroBalrog]

I'm not sure how you went from that question to that answer, but... you don't like socialized medecine because it fails to provide unlimited care at public expense?

And you have no problem with that?

[wquay]

And you have no problem with that?

No problem with what?

[MicroBalrog]

No problem with what?

With the issue of 'limited care'?