Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: makattak on July 19, 2010, 10:44:37 AM
-
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?!
-
Welcome to Kenyanomics.
It's bad...but it's "fair."
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Ragnar gets it.
-
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 (http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/16.html))
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.
-
2014?
I thought the world was going to end in 2012.
jim
-
Yet again anecdotes rule the debate over hard numbers.
Shortages happen in America too - but they come at ten times the cost.
-
Time is also a cost.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?)
-
Mak, this has been posted multiple times, but here it is again: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf (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.
-
Mak, this has been posted multiple times, but here it is again: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf (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.
-
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.
-
Also, I wonder if there's a measure for lost productivity due to increased time waiting for care and increased time recovering from care...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
Anecdotes are useless, but when you just make up something and ascribe it to an amorphous group that's valid.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :mad:
-
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. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2012421988_housedemocratsresurrectthepublicoption.html?syndication=rss)
I am so happy now.
-
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!!!!! =D
-
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. :mad:
How many European countries have you visited?
-
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".
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
And you have no problem with that?
No problem with what?
-
No problem with what?
With the issue of 'limited care'?
-
This. I fully believe in charity and helping the poor and otherwise needy, but not at implied gunpoint.
What's implied? The cops will be wearing guns when they arrest you for failing to pay your share at tax time.
No problem with what?
I believe he is going past your statement about unlimited care at public expense and asking whether you have a problem with rationed care. Do you believe that healthcare will not be rationed?
-
With the issue of 'limited care'?
It must be limited somehow, either by the market or by policy. The US currently does neither, which is one reason why US health care spending as a % of GDP has almost doubled in the past 30 years. At that rate, the limit will be enforced when the system goes bankrupt.
-
What's implied? The cops will be wearing guns when they arrest you for failing to pay your share at tax time.
If you keep saying "no" long enough, they will eventually break out the guns.
-
I fully believe in charity and helping the poor and otherwise needy, but not at implied gunpoint.
What's implied? The cops will be wearing guns when they arrest you for failing to pay your share at tax time.
That's exactly what he meant. :facepalm:
-
Oh yeah, the US hospital system leaves no one out and denies no access to care, compared to those evil socialist systems that ration away time for premature babies.
Wait a second....last I checked, no one was seriously arguing that the US system is superior to others because it gives services to everybody. It doesn't.
-
why do so many of my relatives come here for health care and so few go abroad from here? even more telling is why do my doctor relatives send their family here when the shtf health wise
-
Oh yeah, the US hospital system leaves no one out and denies no access to care, compared to those evil socialist systems that ration away time for premature babies.
Wait a second....last I checked, no one was seriously arguing that the US system is superior to others because it gives services to everybody. It doesn't.
Hospitals in the US may not turn away people who need urgent care because the people don't have insurance. Once the urgent care is given, though, the hospitals are not required to treat followups at no charge.
Despite your hyperbole about premature babies, the fact remains that using infant mortality rates as a measure of the quality of health care is near impossible to do empirically, as the US includes premature infants who die in infant mortality counts, while other countries use different ages. Some don't include infants under nine months in infant mortality counts.
Why are you such an ass?
-
why do so many of my relatives come here for health care and so few go abroad from here? even more telling is why do my doctor relatives send their family here when the shtf health wise
Because those are anecdotes that you drudged up to make this point, but don't actually reflect a statistical trend or a hard measure. Hard measures and statistics are available, and they definitively establish 1) Care is much, much more expensive across the board in America and 2) The results are not across the board better.
The reason Americans don't go routinely abroad to the UK or Australia for care is that they generally aren't allowed - most of the socialist medicine systems only accept patients from countries with reciprocal arrangements. Lots of Americans do go abroad to third world countries for surgery, because they can't afford it in the states.
I could just as easily say "Why does everyone I meet in any other industrialised country scratch his head and wonder what the heck we accept the dismal US system for?" - which is true. I haven't met a single person who envies the US medical system and wants in his or her country.
Btw, the prices for entirely private care are lower in these countries too - it's not just the socialist medical system that is more efficient. Of course, private care in Australia is less efficient than state care on price; it costs more to do the same procedures. But the wait lists are shorter.
-
Hospitals in the US may not turn away people who need urgent care because the people don't have insurance. Once the urgent care is given, though, the hospitals are not required to treat followups at no charge.
Despite your hyperbole about premature babies, the fact remains that using infant mortality rates as a measure of the quality of health care is near impossible to do empirically, as the US includes premature infants who die in infant mortality counts, while other countries use different ages. Some don't include infants under nine months in infant mortality counts.
Why are you such an ass?
Yeah chief, I was responding to that line about letting premature babies die if they can't get airlifted to America for treatment. I would say that was a bit hyperbolic, as was the claim that the US private system somehow treats everyone where socialist systems don't bother?
Of course, if you review this thread, I'm mostly posting arguments and reports - but those don't square with your views, so that makes me an ass. Perhaps if I spent all my time cheerleading the more popular lines you wouldn't be so rude to me.
-
I'm mostly posting arguments and reports
talking points
-
talking points
Whatever you want to call them, you won't find me in these threads doing things like "ah, it's the lawyer and his bs'ing skills" or otherwise trying to relate the subject to folks personalities.
-
No, Shootinstudent/De Selby/Marcus Welby/whomever, I will grant that you post good information. The problem is that you also blend in slanted information presented as fact, which undermines your arguments.
You also have a way of presenting your arguments and posts that rubs people the wrong way, even though you probably don't mean to do so. I realize that you're arguing a minority point of view here, but that's all the more reason to be careful when debating. It's like going before an audience of moderately anti-gun people to explain the virtues of concealed carry.
-
I could just as easily say "Why does everyone I meet in any other industrialised country scratch his head and wonder what the heck we accept the dismal US system for?" - which is true. I haven't met a single person who envies the US medical system and wants in his or her country.
Got money for a couple of transcontinental tickets?
-
Btw, the prices for entirely private care are lower in these countries too - it's not just the socialist medical system that is more efficient. Of course, private care in Australia is less efficient than state care on price; it costs more to do the same procedures. But the wait lists are shorter.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
-
Why would any of this apply to you if you have private insurance? It wouldn't, just like it wouldnt in the UK or Canada. This would apply to people with nothing.
-
Why would any of this apply to you if you have private insurance? It wouldn't, just like it wouldnt in the UK or Canada. This would apply to people with nothing.
It wouldn't.
Here's the problem, though. Once you steal from people in order to pay for their "free" health care, many more people will be unable to afford private insurance.
Kinda like the "free" public schools.
It's a lot harder to home-doctor than it is to home school, though.
-
Because those are anecdotes that you drudged up to make this point, but don't actually reflect a statistical trend or a hard measure. Hard measures and statistics are available, and they definitively establish 1) Care is much, much more expensive across the board in America and 2) The results are not across the board better.
The reason Americans don't go routinely abroad to the UK or Australia for care is that they generally aren't allowed - most of the socialist medicine systems only accept patients from countries with reciprocal arrangements. Lots of Americans do go abroad to third world countries for surgery, because they can't afford it in the states.
I could just as easily say "Why does everyone I meet in any other industrialised country scratch his head and wonder what the heck we accept the dismal US system for?" - which is true. I haven't met a single person who envies the US medical system and wants in his or her country.
Btw, the prices for entirely private care are lower in these countries too - it's not just the socialist medical system that is more efficient. Of course, private care in Australia is less efficient than state care on price; it costs more to do the same procedures. But the wait lists are shorter.
really americans go abroad for surgery? where? how many?
-
really americans go abroad for surgery? where? how many?
Americans go to India and Thailand for surgery all the time, where surgery costs 1/4 to 1/10th the full cost here.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/27/india.medical.travel/index.html
-
we sent mom to japan but it was for a drug unapproved for use here.
-
We sent my older brother to Canada, but that was just so he wouldn't show up drunk when relatives from Michigan were coming to visit.
-
Oh yeah, the US hospital system leaves no one out and denies no access to care, compared to those evil socialist systems that ration away time for premature babies.
Wait a second....last I checked, no one was seriously arguing that the US system is superior to others because it gives services to everybody. It doesn't.
Health Care isn't a right. It is goods & service.
-
Why would any of this apply to you if you have private insurance? It wouldn't, just like it wouldnt in the UK or Canada. This would apply to people with nothing.
You realize Canada ended up banning private health care at one point (only at court intervention was it legalized again, and then only partially), right?
-
Americans go to India and Thailand for surgery all the time, where surgery costs 1/4 to 1/10th the full cost here.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/27/india.medical.travel/index.html
What is the general cost of living in those countries? I've some places in Mexico are a destination also.
-
Btw, the prices for entirely private care are lower in these countries too - it's not just the socialist medical system that is more efficient. Of course, private care in Australia is less efficient than state care on price; it costs more to do the same procedures. But the wait lists are shorter.
Are the wait lists for the private care shorter due to the cost or because the doctors treat more people since they have more incentive to do so?
How are you defining "efficiency" in this context?
-
That's exactly what he meant. :facepalm:
I'm not sure who you were addressing, but I meant that there is nothing implied about the threat of force against tax evasion.
I've some places in Mexico are a destination also.
This is true - many people here in Arizona go south, I understand it's predominantly for dental work.
I have to believe that one takes one's chances going to a foreign country - MEXICO, for crying out loud - for medical services of any kind.
I'd rather do business locally, thank you very much.
Also, can we not be snarky about De Selby's name? Maybe he's shootinstudent, maybe he's not; I don't know and don't care. An irritatingly large number of users here have changed their names at least once, and I don't see anybody bothering fistful(for instance) about it.
-
Yeah chief, I was responding to that line about letting premature babies die if they can't get airlifted to America for treatment. I would say that was a bit hyperbolic, as was the claim that the US private system somehow treats everyone where socialist systems don't bother?
Of course, if you review this thread, I'm mostly posting arguments and reports - but those don't square with your views, so that makes me an ass. Perhaps if I spent all my time cheerleading the more popular lines you wouldn't be so rude to me.
The Brady Campaign posts a lot of doctored, slanted, misleading, and outright false "statistics" too. We treat them with the same contempt we do you. I also note that there are a great many factors present in the US (paying market rates for drugs, the market rate for drugs being forced up by other countries refusing to pay market rates, massive illegal immigration, lifestyle choices etc etc) that are not corrected for in your precious report, not to mention the exceedingly dishonest way many of the socialist countries massage their stats to make their care look better.
-
http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2010/07/28/descriptionobamacarechart.pdf
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.nationalreview.com%2Fdest%2F2010%2F07%2F28%2Fdescriptionimage002.jpg&hash=341c0b38556fe9aff60451f9aade52affd750655)
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTM0NGZiNjk1NWNlMjhkYWFlNzczYWE0MzRmODA2ODQ=
"Do you trust your government to Be Competent to run this?"
(Aside: Is there a new rule for pics?)
-
Wait, De Selby is Shootin Student? And he's still posting that CRS study as evidence that socialized medicine is superior?
I thought we put a lid on that nonsense months ago.
-
ever do any home canning? there are several nasty little creatures that can pop the lids right off the cans. =D
P.S. no offense intended SS. just a funny image.