Socialist ends by capitalist means

[Balog]

This is why I asked DeSelby which countries he's thinking of that have more regulation on health care than we have in the states.

I don't think it's a question of regulation, or at least not fully. The larger distortion that fed.gov introduces into the market is via spending not regulations. A lot of healthcare regulations are driven by fear of private litigation more than by legislation.

[Firethorn]

Yes.  It's reasonable to ask when literally no government healthcare system in the world is more expensive than the US system.  If regulations increase price how come more regulated versions aren't more expensive?

I think you're mixing up the difference between regulation and "single payer". 

The USA has massively more regulation than most other countries when it comes to healthcare.  Consider, we have not only regulations for managing the actual healthcare, but we have regulations managing how health insurance companies are to operate, regulations on what services they can and will provide, and the insurance companies have their own regulations that healthcare providers must follow in order to be paid.

In single-payer countries, the government produces regulations on how healthcare providers are to operate, as well as how they manage paying said healthcare providers.  No insurance companies(in most cases) get involved.

The end result is, like I've said before, worse than both free-market medical care(present in many of the poorest countries), and government-single payer systems.

DO YOU REALLY THINK OTHER COUNTRIES COLLECT AND ANALYZE STATISTICS THE WAY WE DO IN AMERICA?

First, I'd suggest calming down.  Second, Yes, I do think other countries collect and analyze statistics the same way we do in America.  Not for every metric, and sometimes their internal use metrics are different, but generally speaking, they're capable of taking the raw data and producing comparable statistics, even if occasionally they need a disclaimer.

It's something to be careful about.

I don't think that minor differences in statistical collection is enough to counter our drastically higher medical costs.  Especially in light of generally equal to improved patient satisfaction and outcomes.

I don't think it's a question of regulation, or at least not fully. The larger distortion that fed.gov introduces into the market is via spending not regulations. A lot of healthcare regulations are driven by fear of private litigation more than by legislation.

I think regulation has more to do with it than you think.  It's the regulation that, in most cases, are preventing competitors from being able to provide superior service for less money.  The cost for entry into the medical field is ridiculous.

[Perd Hapley]

I think regulation has more to do with it than you think.  It's the regulation that, in most cases, are preventing competitors from being able to provide superior service for less money.  The cost for entry into the medical field is ridiculous.

No, greed is the problem. GREEEEEEEEEEEED!

[Balog]

I think regulation has more to do with it than you think.  It's the regulation that, in most cases, are preventing competitors from being able to provide superior service for less money.  The cost for entry into the medical field is ridiculous.

Setting aside insurance (which is obviously related to but separate from medical care) what specific regulation are you thinking of that prevents competitive behavior?

[TommyGunn]

Wow, you really don't see the logical contradiction in your own argument do you?

I'm not saying the data is or is not reliable. I am granting (for the sake of argument) that your point is correct and that the comparative data is not reliable, and then questioning how (in the absence of reliable data) you are arriving at your conclusion that care in America is superior. Feel free to keep dancing around that. I'm sure if you make your font larger that'll prove your point.

 

I DID NOT REACH THAT CONCLUSION.  PERIOD.  THAT IS IN YOUR MIND, tiny as it is.
And you're the jackwagon who's dancing -- with yourself. 

[TommyGunn]

First, I'd suggest calming down.  Second, Yes, I do think other countries collect and analyze statistics the same way we do in America.  Not for every metric, and sometimes their internal use metrics are different, but generally speaking, they're capable of taking the raw data and producing comparable statistics, even if occasionally they need a disclaimer.

It's something to be careful about.

I don't think that minor differences in statistical collection is enough to counter our drastically higher medical costs.  Especially in light of generally equal to improved patient satisfaction and outcomes.

First, I wasn't talking to you.

Second, as example, in England, if one person robs, say, 5 drugstores in one day, this is counted as one crime when Scotland Yard is accumulating their yearly crime data.  In America, the same thing would count as 5 crimes.   If you were comparing crime stats between Britain and America, and did not (or could not) account for this difference, could you not see how the comparison would be skewed?
In other realms of statistical comparisons, in some countries newborn babies aren't counted until their some months old.  If they're stilborn they are not counted at all.  In America we count as stilborn all babies who are -- in fact -- stilborn.  Can you see how this would skew comparisons if you didn't know it?


And if it appears I am pissed it's because I am.  I'm tired of 'splainin' to another website member that I did not do something he insists I did do...over......and over.....and over.... again.  So deal with it.
.....Or not......   

[Balog]

I DID NOT REACH THAT CONCLUSION.  PERIOD.  THAT IS IN YOUR MIND, tiny as it is.
And you're the jackwagon who's dancing -- with yourself. 

You are just adorable. Let me quote it again as you seem to be having some selective amnesia regarding what you said earlier in this thread.

Sorry, I will take good ol' U.S. of A. medicine everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.

[TommyGunn]

You are just adorable. Let me quote it again as you seem to be having some selective amnesia regarding what you said earlier in this thread.

Ya, so?    I don't want to have my appendix removed in Rwanda.

I also said THIS about the British system:

Let me get the one truly positive thing I will say about their medicine out of the way first:  My grandmother at the time was in her late 80s to early 90s, and had been prescribed a whole boatload of medicines by her American doctor.  One of the first things her Scottish doctor did was eliminate possible 3/4ths of those prescriptions as "unnecessary."   This had no effect on her physical health, but her mental acuity improved greatly.   We were left with the impresion her American doctor had over-medicated her.

I suppose if I wanted to be properly medicated I ought to go there, which would make some people here very happy, as they probably think I ought to be medicated.   

However, I really wasn't praising the British Government's healthcare system.   Just saying that not everything is bad there. 

[Balog]

Ya, so?    I don't want to have my appendix removed in Rwanda.

Lol. Sooooo intellectually dishonest, do you work for the FBI by any chance?

Let me recap.

TG: "I don't believe the statistics showing the US is inferior, and here's a personal anecdote, and the US is way better than that strawman, and I would totally take the US medical care!"

Me: "Why do you believe the US is superior?"

TG: "I NEVER SAID THAT YOU'RE AN IDIOT!"

Me: "Here's the quote where you said that."

TG: "So what?"

Like I said, just adorable.

[TommyGunn]

Redacted....see next post

[TommyGunn]

"Sorry, I will take the good ol'  U.S. of A medicine everyday of the week...."

 

Okay.....I think I get what got screwed up in translation--- and we're both guilty , me, of not being more clear on what I intended to mean by  that.....and you for infering something I did not intend to say.
I certainly WILL  take American medicine every day of the week, because we do have a good medical capability here....and I do not wish to have to go to Belize for an appendectomy, or to  England, France or elsewhere.  This doesn't mean that ours is truly the best in the world, only that there is also  a degree of practicality involved in making decisions that means there are other considerations.
For example, a Cadillac may be a better car than a Honda, but the Honda ---assuming both cars in good condition --- will get you there too.

I suppose if faced with a truly catastrophic diagnosis,  a consideration of the possibly superior capabilities of another country's medical capabilities may be be taken into account;  circa 1990 my father was diagnosed with a very rare  form of liver cancer.  In trying to locate a good surgeon, he looked into a place in Japan he'D heard had done some very advanced surgery on liver cancers.
He would later, however, locate a good surgeon in Pittsburgh who knew about this type of cancer and agreed to do surgery.   Ironically this surgeon was Japanese....but that was only a coincidence.
The treatment gave my father maybe a year of life he would not have had otherwise.

However, in what I said in that quote at the top of this post, I was not intending to mean that American Healthcare was  unquestioning superior,  just that I would truly prefer to refer myself to local experts should I require life saving medical help.....I do believe we have a good system, and, that it could be a lot better if the government wouldn't keep trying to fix it.

I apologize for my earlier insulting manner and intransigence.....we were truly talking past each other.

[Balog]

"Sorry, I will take the good ol'  U.S. of A medicine everyday of the week...."

 

Okay.....I think I get what got screwed up in translation--- and we're both guilty , me, of not being more clear on what I intended to mean by  that.....and you for infering something I did not intend to say.
I certainly WILL  take American medicine every day of the week, because we do have a good medical capability here....and I do not wish to have to go to Belize for an appendectomy, or to  England, France or elsewhere.  This doesn't mean that ours is truly the best in the world, only that there is also  a degree of practicality involved in making decisions that means there are other considerations.
For example, a Cadillac may be a better car than a Honda, but the Honda ---assuming both cars in good condition --- will get you there too.

I suppose if faced with a truly catastrophic diagnosis,  a consideration of the possibly superior capabilities of another country's medical capabilities may be be taken into account;  circa 1990 my father was diagnosed with a very rare  form of liver cancer.  In trying to locate a good surgeon, he looked into a place in Japan he'D heard had done some very advanced surgery on liver cancers.
He would later, however, locate a good surgeon in Pittsburgh who knew about this type of cancer and agreed to do surgery.   Ironically this surgeon was Japanese....but that was only a coincidence.
The treatment gave my father maybe a year of life he would not have had otherwise.

However, in what I said in that quote at the top of this post, I was not intending to mean that American Healthcare was  unquestioning superior,  just that I would truly prefer to refer myself to local experts should I require life saving medical help.....I do believe we have a good system, and, that it could be a lot better if the government wouldn't keep trying to fix it.

I apologize for my earlier insulting manner and intransigence.....we were truly talking past each other.

Huh, I very literally would never have guessed that was what you intended there. I believe we are discussing the relative merits of various systems for the citizens who live under them. I certainly wasn't thinking about cross border care. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[TommyGunn]

You can't be blamed; I did a remarkably poor job of expressing myself --- just an arbitrary statement that was very clearly open to multiple interpretations.
20-20 hindsight ..... I really ought to have simply left that statement out.  Mea maxima culpa. 

[MillCreek]

I hope this does not change the widely-held opinion of TG being adorable.

[TommyGunn]

   In order to solidify -- once and forever -- my reputation as APS's most adorable member, I have included a self portrait:

[Balog]

I hope this does not change the widely-held opinion of TG being adorable.

We may need to upgrade him to cuddly.

[MillCreek]

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs/KevinMD/59040

An interesting opinion piece by a physician who has worked in the UK, Australian and US medical systems.

[Perd Hapley]

At the end, he says "civilized society" shouldn't refuse anyone coverage for pre-existing conditions. Can someone explain this one to me? Doesn't that refer to a health insurance provider declining to start an insurance policy for someone who already has a chronic health condition that would make him a poor risk for a policy? If so, why do otherwise reasonable people think that insurance companies are morally bound to insure such? Wouldn't that be a good way to increase health care costs for everyone?

Or is he talking about some other kind of situation?

Or is health insurance not really insurance?

[makattak]

Or is health insurance not really insurance?

Ding ding ding ding ding!!

As evidenced by Obama, the left doesn't understand what "insurance" means. They think it means "someone else pays if anything bad happens."

[MechAg94]

Agreed.  With car insurance, the insurance doesn't pay you if your car is an unreliable junker.  It only pays to fix it after an accident or the fix medical/mechanical costs for other parties in an accident. 

Asking insurance to pay for preexisting medical conditions is not insurance.  That is just health care or charity.  You are asking someone else to pay for a high medical cost for a lower monthly payment which doesn't make any economic sense. 

[MechAg94]

At the other end of the spectrum, is the idea of caring for peoples' health from cradle to grave a noble one? Yes, it is. Should anyone be refused coverage because of a pre-existing condition or go bankrupt and lose sleep because of unforeseen medical bills? No, they shouldn't in any civilized country. Do many of the socialized healthcare systems produce better outcomes than us? Yes, they do. Is the high-cost system we currently have sustainable over the long term? No, it isn't.
Perhaps something in-between the two extremes would be best, like Australia, which gives tax breaks for people who take out private insurance, but still offers a public system as backup to anyone who needs it?

I think his conclusions are a bit flawed.  

1.  It isn't noble or at least that is in your own head.
2.  Asking the second question misses the point.  Making the person pay for it is the only way where everyone has a choice.  The other way someone is forced to either pay or provide a service.  
3.  How does he define outcomes and for who?  I think his answer only focuses on certain people based on his own message above.  
4.  The current system is sustainable, just painful for the people paying bills.
5.  Calling each side he doesn't like an extreme is just him framing the argument to suit his conclusions.  The current system is probably as extreme as anything.

Last, people tend to ignore the fact that many if not most hospitals in the US were built with private/charitable money not government dollars.  A lot of the hospital expansions and new wings are built with private donations.  If we went to a free market system, there would be quite a bit of charitable money out there looking for a place to go.  I don't think there would be any need for a govt safety net.

I guess I could have numbered his quote, but no will misunderstand what I am saying on this forum.   

[Perd Hapley]

I wouldn't argue against it being noble. I'm not a Randian. It can be noble enough, when done voluntarily. Done at gunpoint is less than noble.

[MillCreek]

http://www.heraldnet.com/business/new-peak-for-u-s-health-care-spending-10345-per-person/

I incur less than $1000 per year in medical costs, with my annual visit to the internist, labs thereto and $ 10/month for simvastatin.  So some of you must be really running up the bill, to reach a figure of $10,345 of healthcare spending for each man, woman and child in the USA.

[De Selby]

http://www.heraldnet.com/business/new-peak-for-u-s-health-care-spending-10345-per-person/

I incur less than $1000 per year in medical costs, with my annual visit to the internist, labs thereto and $ 10/month for simvastatin.  So some of you must be really running up the bill, to reach a figure of $10,345 of healthcare spending for each man, woman and child in the USA.

Most people pay more than that just for insurance cover - not to mention actual costs of treatment on top.

My total bill with private cover is about 1100, including dental, vision, and routine sports massage.

[makattak]

My total bill with private cover is about 1100, including dental, vision, and routine sports massage.

Is THAT what they are calling it, now?