|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
We all know affordable healthcare in America do not exist and it's sad because America is suppose to be the land of the plenty, but yet we have people dying because they can't afford healthcare.
I appreciate the President for wanting to help the poor and middle class people that can’t afford healthcare for their families.
Did you know Canada, Europe and other countries provide "FREE" healthcare for the citizens? I don't have a problem paying more taxes if it will save a life. This country is dying a slow death because of the greed.....pharmaceutical companies scared they will go out of business or lose a dollar, republicans afraid they will not get the kick backs from the pharmaceutical companies.
I would be ok if healthcare was affordable, but free would be even better! Where is America's heart?
First off not Canada or any other country offers "free" health care, it's paid for in the form of higher taxes. Second, government controlled health care will certainly cost MORE not less then a free market solution, which few seem to talk about. One of the ways the government plans to control costs is by creating a data base and tracking treatments choosing the ones that are statistically most effective and not providing coverage for those treatments that may be very effective for some patients. This program has already been passed and signed into law by President Obama in the American Recovery Act (the stimulus bill).
Another lie in your post is that the Republicans are afraid they won't get kick backs from big pharma. The truth is the pharma lobby employs as many ex democrat congressman and staffers as republican and contributes to the campaigns of each!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 02770.html
The GAO has recently come out and has said the Obama plan will actually end up increasing costs rather than lowering them! Of course this makes sense when you add 50 million people to the roles and you don't provide enough revenue to pay for it.
Part of the reasons for the increased cost of healthcare is an aging population, but government regulation also plays a role. State insurance companies are required BY LAW to provide coverage the State MANDATES, so you pay for smoking cessation treatments even if you don't smoke and pregnancy coverage even if you're a single male. In addition state insurance companies prevent you from obtaining coverage from companies not licensed in your state that are licensed in other states. This again eliminates competition and drives up cost. Then too there is the high cost of malpractice insurance and doctors leaving the profession and becoming lawyers! We need tort reform.
Health care is an extremely complex issue and I believe everyone should have some sort of coverage but how much? Another reason for the high cost of health care is the increasing demand especially by our aging population. People with insurance go to the doctor for every little thing, every runny nose. With a government plan covering everyone you will see much more of this, rising demand leading to rising costs. I can guarantee the 1.5 trillion dollar plan proposed in the house now will likely cost 4 times that much!
Health care policy needs a lot of thought, consideration, and debate and should NOT be rushed through just because Obama wants it. If this isn't done right, it could bankrupt this country and lead to lower quality care!
Maybe I didn't make it clear..... I don't have a problem paying more taxes if it will save a life. Thank you for your comment!
I think Canada pays 35% income tax and has a VAT tax as well and their population is like a 1/10 of the USA!
I have worked on my job for 24 years and for 15 years I paid for healthcare and never had to use it and if my taxes have to go up 20-35%, then so be it! I'm paying taxes now that are not beneficial to me. I don't have children, but I pay taxes for education, etc. Lets not lose our hearts.....
This has been studied as far back as the 1970s...
So how come America spends more than twice as much of its GDP on health care than we do in the UK, with our evil, everyone covered, "socialist" system?
Because our supply of doctors is limited. That's what drives health care up in this country and why we have to spend so much money on it. You guys put price caps on what your doctors can charge so in many cases you have to put up with rationed care.
Not to mention, the thousands of dollars it costs to have a baby. When I started getting the bills, I was shocked. And, we have insurance! It is expensive enough to have the additional cost of a new family member to support. I had my baby nine months ago, and we are still in debt for it.
If you have insurance, what bills do you have to pay?
Insurance only covers a portion of the cost. We have a deductable and copay. These are difficult to explain in a short statement. Also, some places don't except our insurance, so we had to pay for labs, out of pocket. In essence, insurance only shares the financial responsibility, even though the insurance company makes several hundred times that from people who pay for their insurance and rarely use it.
WoW Maternity is free in New Zealand and midwife care ,and childcare for 6mths after baby is born.
There are also private hospitals if you have insurance,but care and specialists are evident at both hospitals.
New Zealand sounds like a nice place to which to emigrate. I have always thought the photos were beuatiful.
It is a beautifl place but its real estate has shot through the roof ,great if youre selling a property though.And petrol prices are so high that cycling or walking has become the national pastime you think gas is expensive in the U.S, it aint.
(though cutting back on consumerable products would help greatly in the U.S) so much excess waste in packaging alone!
Smokers and drinkers in NZ also are taxed heavily (since medical treatment for them is greater)..dunno ,user pays scenerio. I have been both , and I think it seems fair. For instance if I got cancer of the throat (God forbid) because I smoked ,than no ,my neighbour shouldnt have to pay increased taxes for my medical treatment.
There are Insurance companies who offer lower premiums for non-smokers, etc.
Sweden and possibly Finland have a good tax system (I think)...so that even less wealthy families , will still be able to acesss education, and medical! homelessness is not an issue for them.
USA have better Social Security for seniors ,from what I see though.
Commonwealth countries are more uniform , everyone gets the same amount (benefit) irregardless of their previous employment status.
There are further supplement payments geared to make housing or medical affordable, for the less endowed too.
I dont think any one country has "it all" but we need to be openminded and eager for change ,for the benefit of everyone.
Why arnt the Training hospitals providing free or reduced healthcare ?the same way as a Hair Acadaemy uses people off the street to train their Hair Sylists.
ps just read above posts ,might have to check out my facts more (just going on my inlaws ,so sorry bout that)...
I see nothing wrong with having free healthcare if you wouldn't have to wait a year for surgery and things like that. Free healthcare would be great if it was like the healthcare you pay for. There are people who have free healthcare that wait years for surgery and treatment. What is the point of free healthcare if you have to wait years to get what you need?
You can't have it both ways. You can either pay for healthcare and get speedy service or not pay for it and have to wait. Anyone who says anything else is either misinformed or lying.
At least we have healthcare, free at point of delivery and available to all here in the UK. What use is 'world class healthcare' if you are unable to afford it? In any case, the waiting lists in the UK and in other countries with socialised medical care are wildly mis-represented by those opposing Universal Healthcare. Serious illnesses such as cancer and heart disease are dealt with as a priority. Minor operations and investigations may involve a wait, but certainly not one 'years' in length. Quite aside from the debate over the validity of either system, here in the UK we have a flexible approach rather than all or nothing approach. If, for example, you require an operation and you wish to have it at your convenience, you are at liberty to pay for private healthcare on a one-off basis.
The NHS was put in place in 1948 and has served us well for over 60 years. It is a system that puts people first, something that is impossible to achieve when you're allowing 'market forces', and the 'laws of economics' to dictate the rules.
You're wrong about market forces Amanda. In a free market companies that don't please their customers, in this case health care providers, don't survive. They die and deserve to do so. Government health care has no such mechanism to control quality. I have had experience in this country working within the state controlled health care field and have seen first hand it's weaknesses. Can you say the same?
And it may be that you can enjoy the benefits of universal health care for your generation. It has after all worked for 60 years. But at what cost? You cannot even answer that question. What about the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. I understand things are better now, but how long will it be before they are forced to deny people coverage again? Or raise taxes? Who knows what would have been accomplished with those tax monies had they not been appropriated by the state.
I'm not worried too much about my generation as it concerns universal health care. We'll be covered. But, much like Social Security, it may not be around for my kids and grandkids. It's not ethical to spend the future to pay for today. If you cannot say what you're paying for health care, how can you know what you're doing to the future?
The situation with NICE is wilfully misrepresented in these debates. NICE approves medication and treatments for use within the NHS. Where treatments are prohibitively expensive in proportion to proven efficacy, then NICE has the right not to approve it's funding. The kind of coverage you are referring to is more likely to apply to Local Health Authority budgets, which have, on occassion, been under such pressure that exceptional and extremely expensive treatments have been denied. This doesn't mean that these patients were turned away without treatment, just that the expensive meds were not approved, and of course, these patients had the option of funding the meds privately.
What I am curious about regarding this debate, is why it is considered perfectly okay for people to suffer and die if they cannot afford healthcare in the USA, but it's apparently dreadful for someone in the UK to wait 12 weeks for a (free) operation?
That's what you don't understand. The fact that someone else will decide if I can get a treatment unless it's deemed too expensive is....I can't even adequately explain the depth of horror in which that is viewed in the States. We still are individualists, the liberal idiots in this country notwithstanding, and it is that spirit of individualism that rebels against such an idea.
Besides, sooner or later, you'll start to see more and more treatments denied due to costs. Not only that, you'll see less and less new treatments and procedures. The only reason you've been able to enjoy the fruits of new treatments is because we (consumers in the US) have taken all the risk in developing new systems and treatment. Without that, you'd find your healthcare stagnate pretty quick.
It's not OK for people to suffer and die while waiting for healthcare because they can't afford it any more than it's OK for a government bureaucrat to decide if a procedure is "too expensive" for a person to have. You're getting price confused with production. It's not price that is important but the supply of healthcare. The larger the supply the lower the costs of healthcare. That's what is missing in this debate.
The reason healthcare is so expensive in the US is because we limit the supply of doctors, make it hard for people to start up drug companies, increase licensing requirements for all sorts of medical professionals, etc. I worked in the mental health field and saw this stuff first hand. If people really knew what went on, they'd freak out.
Where are folks like girly_girly when the conservatives call liberals as "idiots". ...... Earlier she took offense .....naming an Individual Mr.George W Bush as "Moron"..... But then what do I know I'm a liberal "Idiot". ...These discussions are only meant for similar conservative views from others any contrasting views not welcome here..... I'm getting outta here.
Rationing is already happening, and "bureaucrats" are already deciding to deny procedures to the insured. The only difference is that these bureaucrats work for private insurance companies, where the profit incentive makes the denial all that much easier, and where they are not beholden to voters.
A year ago, my private insurance company, when I was looking at having an expensive back procedure done, tried to kick me out of their plan, citing some nonsense about billing paperwork for a test not being filed properly. I would have had NO recourse except that fortunately my state has a government-funded oversight board, the California Department of Managed Health Care, that I appealed to. They ruled in my favor. Where would I be without one of these "government bureaucrats"?
What I would like from all the conservatives that have gotten in the practice of scaremongering to provide is evidence from another wealthy market economy, preferably France or the Netherlands (since their model is more likely what we're looking at for the US than the UK or Canada's) that demonstrates that more procedures/treatments are denied there than in our system where no mandate of universal availability exists. I suspect if you make an honest effort at trying to find out, you'll see that certain "luxury" treatments will be covered by a few premium plans here in the US and denied elsewhere (like acupuncture, ED treatments, etc.) while necessary procedures (those needed to stay alive) are far more likely to be denied here than elsewhere. Just a hunch.
And please try to limit your bashing of "liberal idiots" - you are not going to get a spot on Fox & Friends, no matter how childish you attempt to sound.
Your argument might have more force if you were not from a state that has gone bankrupt. California has no money. That's the end result of socializing costs of programs across an entire state. Insurance is just another way to spread costs across a population. That's why sooner or later costs get out of hand. Why do you think you pay more for insurance every year? It's not just because you're getting older, it's because the subsidized costs are getting higher and higher.
The reason you were denied is because of healthcare costs. Even insurance companies with the billions they control are in danger of failing because of runaway costs. The only way to fix the cost problem is to increase the supply of something. In this case, healthcare providers. Yet the AMA will not allow state boards to increase the number of licenses they issue a year, because the greedy bastards want to ensure their wages at the cost of people going without healthcare. Who licenses doctors? State governments. So there's the culprit right there. On the one hand you have the state limiting doctors and causing prices to go up and on the other insurance companies are forced to make up the difference. Looks like wealth redistribution to me.
It's funny how many of you "liberal idiots" think that anyone who disagrees with you agrees with Fox. I don't. I actually think for myself and can understand that you cannot socialize things and expect things to be great forever. You might want to study up a bit on classical economics. It'll do you a world of good.
Finally there is no free economy anywhere in the world today. If you want to see how one worked, look up Hong Kong after World War II, that's the closest we've ever gotten to a free market economy.
Our state's insolvency has absolutely nothing to do with the state of health care in the state, which is generally just as abysmal as it elsewhere in the country. If you had studied the reason the state has a severe shortfall, you'd realize it has absolutely nothing to do with health care. You're speaking in broad platitudes that has no relation to the real world.
BTW Norway has a budget surplus and socialized health care. Of course they have nothing to do with each other, but I point this out in case you still don't understand correlation and causation and need a counter-example.
I don't think you even know what you're saying. This is akin to saying, "We're sending you to jail because of high prison vacancies."
Irrelevant platitude tacked on to a faulty argument.
An insurance company's sole responsibility is to deliver care and manage its own costs. You are making a huge, and wrong, assumption that there aren't enough health care providers, and that that is the cause of "runaway costs." If you were to pull yourself out of the world of conservative rationalizing, and examine data, you'd find that insurance companies are not good at controlling costs, except by going the easy route and simply denying care (even retroactively) when it costs too much. Because of the highly decentralized nature of health insurance, local providers force patients to undergo expensive, low-value tests when there is a profit motive to do so (i.e. when they own the MRI center, for example). This is why one jurisdiction (McAllen, TX) can have literally twice the costs of a similar one (El Paso) with absolutely no difference in health outcomes. Please, google it.
Please, provide evidence that there are too few health care providers, and that is causing costs to skyrocket. Don't just reason it - provide *proof*.
Haha, if you only knew... All I can say is be careful with your assumptions. And please stick to actual evidence and not on lofty conservative platitudes. (And avoid personal insults - they're against forum rules)
You're right and I apologize, it is difficult fighting the kind of mindset that makes people think that socialized anything is a good idea. Pleas do yourself a favor and read up on classical economics. Nothing I say will make sense unless you have a basic understanding of economics.
As for evidence that we have fewer doctors than we need. Well in 1900 we had about 500,000 licensed doctors in the US. In 2000, we had about 600,000. A 20% increase. Now this was at a point in time where people themselves paid for their own healthcare and doctors were still making a good salary for the time. In the same amount of time we went from a population of 100,000,000 to 300,000,000. If it took 500,000 doctors to serve a population of a hundred million, why do we now only need 600,000 to serve a population of three hundred million. It's actually worse than that when you consider the fact that there are dozens more specialties now than there were in 1900. So if half a million doctors were needed to serve a population of a hundred million in 1900, wouldn't we need at least 1.5 million doctors to serve a population of three hundred million? More when you consider the fact that we have all these new specialties to fill?
And yes, your state's insolvency has everything to do with it's support of unions, socialized costs and other Progressive trappings. Socializing healthcare will bloat your state's budget and force it to tax in ever higher amounts to make up the shortfall. For your own edification you might want to check demographic data on who exactly is leaving CA for greener pastures. I think you'll find many of them are the wealthiest and top producers in your state. That can't do good things to your tax revenues. The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money to spend. That, and you're left with a wrecked economy.
I've found this site to be invaluable in researching economic topics: http://www.rfe.org/ You may wish to have a look around.
I hope you're kidding. Ah, the perils of using reductive reasoning to support your point. In case you're Rip Van Winkle and have been asleep for the past 100 years, let me let you in on some of the changes that have occurred over the years:
- Doctors used to make housecalls, which increased the time in transit. Today they typically only see patients in the office, with appointments efficiently scheduled back to back.
- Doctors used to perform all the necessary tests themselves. Now they outsource it to specialists (x-ray technicians, lab technicians, etc.).
- Record-keeping is more efficient, with patients' medical histories getting new doctors up to speed without the need for lengthy patient interviews.
- We are a more urbanized, centralized population nowadays, so one doctor can serve a larger patient base, reducing downtime.
These are just a few major changes that I was able to come up with off the top of my head. They may explain why fewer doctors can treat a lot more patients now than before. (Stunned that this wasn't detailed at RFE.org!)
Yes, very well-substantiated points.
Thank you for the tip.
But that is happening all the time in America at the moment, with health care companies and insurers. Day in, day out.
With the NHS, it's not a question of it being too expensive, but of cost-effectiveness. Some very, very expensive treatments are funded by the NHS.
And the NHS isn't the only option, private medicine here is genuinely free-market and open to anyone.
I'd argue that your private medicine cannot be free market because is has to compete with the NHS. I would like to see your hubs when they come out, I'm particularly interested in seeing which version of your healthcare, private or public, is shown to invest more heavily in research and development.
Well if that is not a good reason for a national health care system I don't know what is.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think it is barbaric not to have a national health care system.
Now the Republicans are airing a propaganda commercial against a national health care system by using a Canadian, by the name of Shona Holmes that is complaining about our Canadian system. The propaganda commercial and an interview with Holmes is being aired on Fox News, obviously. I found it on YouTube, these are some of the comments left, mostly by Canadians.
"If I were the Canadian government I'd revoke her citizenship. If she likes "free market" health care so much why doesn't she just move here?" - clearly left by someone from the US.
"This is a lie and Shona Holmes is a lying hypochondriac."
"As a Canadian, I find this such a brutally incorrect bunch of BS. I have 4 close personal friends who have had to deal with cancer and not a single one has had to experience this. It would absolutely NEVER happen so don't believe this propaganda. My office mate was diagnosed 2 weeks ago with breast cancer and had her operation YESTERDAY. My dear friends to the south: This is propaganda!!"
"What a joke this is. How much did they pay Shona to lie? Maybe the amount she spent at the Mayo clinic? First of all, in her interview she stated that upon diagnosis at the Mayo Clinic they told her to go to Canada for the operation first...if she was in such urgent need, why would they tell her to go back to Canada for surgery, jeopardizing her health and wasting valuable time?
I don't believe ANYONE said she would have died. Doctors prioritize here based on urgency. Let's see the proof."
"she didnt even have cancer, she had a cleft cyst. which is a fluid field sac.....not cancer, not to mention you can go see as many doctors as you want. And the Canadian Health Care System does NOT leave people behind, even if they arnt citizens"
"Ignorance! It was a fluid filled RCC cyst, mainly benign & not life threatening. She didn't LISTEN to her doctor & fled to the Mayo clinic where they treated via a simple surgery, cyst was drained via her nose & sinus cavity. She survived. They published. People don't die from this. The cyst was drained, her symptoms disappeared, including vision problems & headaches & were not life threatening. Now she has $100,000 in UNNECCESARY debt & is looking for a handout. There is no cure for idiocy."
"This is a bunch of PROPAGANDA - I know how the Pharmaceutical & Insurance companies work I work in Healthcare and am all too aware of the ''back room'' deals and kickbacks these two agencies orchestrate with doctors. Some unscrupulous doctors will take advantage of it just for the money. This is only ONE woman's experience - lets hear what the MAJORITY say !" sounds like another comment from someone from the US.
It's not a national health care system that is the problem. It is the US free market system that has caused the increase in health care costs. And not just in the US. For decades now doctors, nurses and other health care providers that trained here in Canada have been systematically bribed to move to the US for more money. So the Canadian government have had to pay doctors, nurses and other health care providers more than they are worth to keep them in Canada.
The World Trade Organization seems to have a mandate to end national health care systems. Canada's national health care system has had increasing attacks against our system since we signed NAFTA. It's very clear who is running the show at the WTO. Maybe it's time that we repeal NAFTA.
You would think with this US born financial crisis that the world is in that the Republicans and the proponents against a national health care system would learn. We now know, or at least the rest of the world knows that the free market laissez faire economics is a complete failure. Not only should banks be regulated but the health care system should be as well.
Americans may opt for alternative medicines such as Ayurveda, Naturopathy and Homeopathy as Indians do. These are cheaper and have lesser side effects. Indian government also provides health care system based on Ayurveda and homeopathy viz a viz to Alopathy.
I totally agree with you, I'm in Canada. While our healthcare does have it's problems, I'm glad I have coverage.
Be prepared to be inundated by those who will disagree with you though...
There is a parallel health care systems in India. There are Government run hospitals those treat the poor patients for free through a BPL card. These hospitals also provide free treatment to senior citizens. For general people they charge nominal.
There are private hospitals, nursing homes and other health care institutes those charge as per their own tariff.
May US adopt the similar system.
Thanks for compliments to India. Do you think US should adopt similar system?
Jyoti, that sounds as though the medical care providers negotiate directy with their client base without insurance companies acting as an interface between the two. Would that be correct?
I am not qualified to say one way or another , but all systems could always do with reform or keeping pace with the peoples basic needs.
No, only because the costs will eat up the system. We may not see it in our lifetimes, but I liken the problem to Social Security in this country. We pay for people using the plan today without thinking of the future. Costs will increase in the future, that's pretty much a given due to inflation. Inflation makes everyone poorer. Money will have less and less value over time. So costs will go up, people's ability to pay into the system will go down. Sooner or later the plan will run out of money. It's our grandkids and their kids who will pay for all of this not us. That's not fair and it's not right.
America is a so called rich country. If a country like India can afford the system why not the US? The US has to revise its policy to have a health care system like India.
That's just it, we're not a wealthy country. Wealth is created in only one way. Saving and then investing that saving in productive endeavors. We haven't been doing that. We, or rather the Fed and government, have been trying to spend our way to prosperity for decades now. It looks like we're wealthy, but in reality we're becoming poorer and poorer every day. The reason we don't suffer as much is because our productivity has increased so much over the last century.
What we have to do is get government out of the economy and let things run on their own. The only way to fund a socialist health care system is to do so through debt. The American people cannot afford any more debt. The only way to become wealthy is not through spending and debt, but by saving and investing.
With you there - I'm another citizen of a country with proper health care!
its so sad, every being on the planet should be entitled to health care, we are so lucky in the UK, for the NHS at least.
I do wish our healthcare system had some major reforms, cuz it's really bad. But is your healthcare really free? Aren't you just paying for it through taxes?
Yes we are paying for it through tax, however its not just working people who are entitled to free health care, but its the workers that pay the taxes. But I don't mind, I just wish the long term unemployed would just get of their backsides and go look for a job.
Yes, we are. But it's free at the point of delivery, and a much fairer and more efficient system, too.
Yes, but I'm not sure we are paying that much more tax than Americans (our entire cradle-to-grave NHS costs 8% of GDP - US Medicare for only the retired costs 8% of GDP), it's just that the American system wastes a lot of money on administration.
Americans should really get behind Mr Obama and support him as he tries to reform, because the vested interests will do everything in their power to stop him.
People don't realise this but we in the UK had a similar battle when the health system was set up in 1948. The doctors were flatly against National Health, they didn't see the need, they thought people were adequately covered blah blah blah. There was a ferocious press campaign against the government and the doctors talked about boycotting the entire scheme. But the govt held firm, they knew they had the support of voters, and they simply announced the start of the system and told people to register with the National health GPs - and when the doctors found that people simply flocked to the few decent doctors who signed up immediately, they knew they would go out of business if they didn't join in, and caved.
Ironically, within weeks of the NHS starting the doctors changed their minds and decided it was the best thing since sliced bread. Why? Because they suddenly got a load of patients who'd been suffering for years with quite serious illness and it shocked them, and for the first time they realised that there really was a need.
Nothing worthwhile happens without a fight. You guys really need to get behind your president and help him - petitions, rallies, letters to the newspapers etc, to counter what the doctors and insurers will do. Otherwise your health system will choke the rest of your economy to death.
Well said Silver Rose. Trouble is that people either don't like change, haven't thought it through enough, or suspect that it will personally cost them more. I've seen many similar debates since I've been on HubPages, and it's just astonishing how many people simply deny that there's a problem needing solving.
I don't have a problem paying more taxes if it helps our healthcare system become more affordable!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_car … ted_States
Please read this wiki article. I would like to point out two facts. The US spends 3 times as much on research per capita as any European nation. The top 5% of health care consumers in the US account for 50% of the total spending. Form your own thoughts and opinions.
I would like the medical system and the insurance system to integrate alternative medicine. In Switzerland people voted not long ago to do just that.
Of course, I say this with the hope that almost nobody is reading these babblings, otherwise, if I disappear guys, you will know what happened, no? The big bad Ph.C. ... don't appreciate these type of dangerous ideas.
There should be a limit to how much 'free' health care you can get though. The system shouldn't encourage people to sit on their backsides as someone else put so delicately. Like un-employment benefits, if you aren't searching for a job you don't get them anymore, could be an argument for doing the same with health care (do not discriminate on health though!) if you are able to work and are not then you should not get the same benefit as someone who works hard and contributes to society.
Richard, You are the great! Exactly on the money! Why can't we have a reasonable system thats available to all hard working Americans!No free rides but no gets ruined over a illness!
If you can figure out a way to do it, let me know. I'm sure there are 300 million others of us who'd like to know too.
Canada and Europe actually have their act together when it comes to health care. Yes maybe they pay for it via taxation, but if people do not have insurance, or independent insurance it can cost more here in the US. I paid the entire five thousand dollar deductible for cortisone injections for my sciatica in 2004. All I can say is on my income that that was a big chunk of what I made at the time, and universal health care would be much better than that.
here in Ireland it is absolutely terrible.... you would not want to get sick here unless you had large insurance.... and it is getting worse by the minute..........
What is your point?
Are you aware that if you DO get sick without insurance in the U.S. you can lose everything--your house, your credit, your insurance (they actually cancel people who have the audacity to actually use the policy for something big like cancer or heart disease)? If you fall down the stairs and break your leg and have to go to the emergency room, you're looking at thousands of dollars and if you don't cough it up pronto many hospitals now garnish your wages. This happened to my son. He made payment arrangements, made regular payments, and within three weeks his paycheck was almost gone--they garnished most of it. He finally got it paid off but it took a year.
Wasn't it worth the money to get his leg repaired? I'm not being facetious, but the ER did provide him with a tremendous service. They deserve to be paid. Could your son have taken out a signature loan from a bank and paid back the hospital? Could you have loaned it to him? I do commend him for getting it paid off. You obviously raised him right.
Ive had alot of medical issues. Degentative joint disease. And after I had my last child about 6 years ago I had the beginning stages of cervical cancer. Had it removed but was suppose to go for checkups every 6 months. Here it is 6 years later and cant because I have no insurance.
OMG!!!Please take care of your health. Isn't there any affordable health insurance plan or at least some basic coverage (or is it more expensive due to some past health situation?). I have company health insurance which I never use and I wish I could trade it with somebody who really needs it. I feel so sad that I come from a developing country and now live in a developed country where I am blessed with a health insurance where as there are many who really need it don't have any or can't afford to have.
Health care is a basic human right. See a doctor, kmackey! Sign up for medicaid (see their website) if you cannot afford insurance.
It is a disgraceful shame that a nurse, who takes care of others, has to go through this.
Why do you say that? Ireland has national health care, correct? Please elaborate on your comment.
So, how would you deny health care to people?
"Sorry buddy, you don't have a job and you are lazy so you can just die now?"
It's actually getting close to that right now. We personally know more than one person with a serious illness who has been denied care because they can't cough up a five figure deposit payment up front. Of course they don't have it.
What frosts me just as much though is that the U.S. is 29th on the list as far as quality of care, yet we spend twice as much for our crappy disorganized care and only cover half as many people as all the other developed nations.
And, more than that, "sorry kiddo, your Dad / Mum doesn't have a job so you can die now."
Most states do have something called SCHIP that covers kids if their parents are unemployed, but here (and I'm sure lots of other places) only a fraction of the kids are covered because the parents see a stigma attached to it---like welfare. So SCHIP is always running these "please insure your kids" campaigns, but the parents are afraid so they stay away.
You are actually better off being indigent and getting your care "for free" from the Emergency Room -- where they have to treat you -- ethically they cannot turn you away. But if you are a working person whose employer doesn't offer insurance or if you are self-employed (and thus a "risk pool of one")you're SOL. The cost of coverage may be -- no, strike that, IS prohibitive.
Health benefits are something that if you have them provided for you you really take them for granted. It's difficult to imagine that other Americans live in fear every day of getting sick. Playing Russian roulette if you will. It totally sucks.
How can a country like Costa Rica have universal healthcare that includes plastic surgery for its citizens while someone like our own SweetiePie is paying $5K out of pocket BEFORE they'll even give her cortizone shots? Ludicrous.
When I could get a policy it was running around $800 a month. Now I can't get a policy because I've had heart incidents and depression.
When I had insurance it never paid for as much as we hoped, and it was the same for Bill. We were always paying on medical bills that never got paid off. We don't even go to the doctor because we can't really afford it, even he can't and he HAS insurance. We just paid off an emergency room visit for him from early 2007--just paid it off last month, and that was with insurance, and he had to go--his gallbladder was about to rupture. So it wasn't like we could say, oh well, forget it, it's too expensive, he'll just have to die now. I guess we COULD have said that, but we didn't.
I'm with you. How is it that COSTA RICA can do this but we can't? BTW I write articles about Costa Rica for a client and they have a longer life span than Americans too--one of the best in the world.
Oregon has worked with rationing:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl … rtid=81116
then, tried to expand in the midst of funding issues
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/co … l/26/1/w96
The result of policy changes were unforeseen and unintended. This illustrates the importance of sound policy decisions.
I just wanted to add that we appear to have gone so stark raving mad in the U.S. that now we are framing illness as a moral issue. You get sick, you probably deserved it. You shoulda been more careful, saved more money, whatever.
That's only one step away from the people who believe that if anything goes wrong in your life, it's because the youngest child in the family is a witch or a wizard, and your problems will disappear if the child is killed, tortured, or cast out.
In Australia, we are fortunate to have a free health care system that covers all residents.
Sure, there are problems with it, but they are nothing compared to the financial disasters that face many of the people who have posted here.
Eric- I hope Fierycj isn't around. Your example may upset him.
I love the 'you create your own reality' folks. They can't see how self-serving that view is. Yes, we all have responsibilities and attitude matters, but anyone can get hit by a truck or fall down the stairs or get cancer. People who don't even smoke get lung cancer all the time. If they live in the U.S. and they don't have insurance, they're screwed.
Thank you so much for your positive response and I totally agree with your comment. I appreciate the fact, we can disagree on issues and still be civil, but I'm having a hard time digesting some of these comments!
Turned on the TV this morning and I saw a very biased commercial against Canadian style health care coming to the US. The ad was so blatantly biased and slanted.
Yes and I've seen ads on TV by the political wing of the Obama administration equally biased. I question, why does the Obama administration need to pay for ads to sell their plan if it's what Americans truly want?
The truth is Americans do not want this plan, and for good reason. Yet there is a push to get this bill, nearly 1000 pages, and costing 1.5 trillion dollars, that no one has read, through congress by August!
Something this big should NOT be passed in such a cavaliere manner.
The issue isn't about providing people with health care, it's about the government running our health care system 18% of our GDP!
No one wants to see people die or thinks anyone deserves to die because they don't have health care coverage. The problem is the stated reasons for the government to run such a plan is to control rising costs and to insure those that aren't insured, while providing quality care.
I can promise you, if the government is involved none of their goals will be achieved, and this is evidenced by other countries that have implemented this and my own personal experience.
I challenge anyone to site me ONE government program in history that cam in below buget. Show me just one government estimate of a program cost that was in line with the actual cost.
When one looks at the government plan one can see that the government plans to control costs by controlling care, or rationing care. This is how it's done in other countries and that's how it will be done here. Sure if you have a fever or a broken bone you'll be seen, but if you need a hip replaced, well you might have to wait a bit, and you might not be allowed to elect laparoscopic surgery for an appendix and instead be subjected to a more invasive procedure. You could be denied the prescription of a drug as was my case with the VA, because their statistics showed and current medical recommendations were that the drug wasn't necessary, yet every cardiologist I met with after my heart attack has told me that I should never have been taken off that drug.
Another downside to the government plan is the fact that coverage will be MANDATED. Your choice to decide whether or not you wish to purchase insurance will be made for you, you will have NO choice! This is wrong on so many levels!
We can provide health care coverage for everyone that wants it and we can limit the rising costs by creating competition and giving people more freedom to choose what's right for themselves, and we can achieve this without a government run plan.
Being a lifetime serving in healthcare I have seen abuse in many ways. Those with insurance tend to get more diagnostic treatment than necessary either because the person demands it or the treating facility makes money off private insurances to cover the losses from treating those without insurance. This behavior simply increases the cost for everyone. Persons with no insurance, many times, have no options but to use our expensive emergency rooms for treatment because they are locked out of private practice where money must be paid up front prior to being seen. This really is a moral issue that will need time to set a national plan into effect for fairness, quality in deliverance, and affordable based on income levels.
Also because doctors feel they need to protect themselves from lawsuits. But you are so right. Increasing demand raises costs for everyone. Perhaps if doctors got paid in a timely manner and didn't have to deal with the insurance paperwork they could concentrate more on doctoring and less on billing to keep their offices afloat. That's the kind of regulation we need to cut costs.
I just read an interesting hub by Diogenes about Mexican Healthcare
http://hubpages.com/hub/Mexican-Doctors … r-at-Night
Everyone should be entitled to healthcare, and no-one should be terrified to go to the doctors for fear of bankruptcy. If the USA doesn't wish to adopt the Canadian/European model, perhaps they might like to consider the Mexican model, and each family pay a fixed (affordable)amount annually that covers all healthcare other than dentistry?
I am in Canada and I certainly don't pay 35% in taxes. You have to make over $250,000 to get taxed that much...and even then I doubt it's 35%.
I just found this on the govt website
15% on the first $40,726 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $40,726 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $40,726 and $81,452), +
26% on the next $44,812 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $81,452 and $126,264), +
29% of taxable income over $126,264.
Taxes are going to go up pretty much anyway. America should stop resisting and go that route of free healthcare.
Next stop the metric system...lets accept that like the rest of the world.
Just give all your money to government, and go die somewhere quietly. Don't forget to dig your grave yourself too.
But do you think a system where business is expected to act as social worker is better? In countries where they have socialised healthcare, business just concentrates on making profit and leaves the social stuff to government - which is exactly how it should be. And no, it doesn't cost business more in tax either - in the UK corporation tax for large companies is 28%, in the USA it's 35%. Even Germany has a lower corporate tax rate for large companies than the USA (33%).
There is a reason that this recession is affecting the US economy worse than any other developed country bar Japan. It's because you are forcing your businesses to be social workers and provide healthcare, and the healthcare providers are gouging and slowly choking the rest of the economy to death.
LOL First it's not me, I am not an American citizen. Second, I was not exactly talking of healthcare in this post, I was talking about attitude towards allowing unchecked government taxation. As for the ideal health care as I see it - those who are capable of providing for themselves, will provide for themselves. Those who are not will receive VOLUNTARY help from those capable. And those who don't want to provide will die. As easy as that
It's funny how people focus on the wrong thing. The price of healthcare is the symptom, not the disease. It's the supply of medical care that's the problem, not the cost. Anytime you increase the supply of something, price goes down. Anytime you decrease the supply of something, price goes up.
Here in the States, state medical boards limit the number of doctors they let practice in the US. In 1900 there were about 500,000 doctors in the US. The population of the US was around 100,000,000. Today we have about 600,000 doctors and a population of 300,000,000. The supply is not nearly enough to meet the demand.
If you try to control the price of healthcare without looking at the supply, all you'll wind up doing is creating shortages. Say what you will about US healthcare, but the average wait in the UK for emergency care can be several hours, as opposed to less than an hour in the US. There's a reason for that. Supply.
LDT- I am trying to understand your logic. In US Doctor to Patient ratio is 1:5. Do you think in UK Doctor to Patient ratio is better? If in case it is better then shouldn't UK have more Doctors and being able to provide required attention much sooner. Of course I am only considering Doctor to Patient ratio as per your statement and not the fact that everyone is eligible under NHS hence increasing the number of actual patients in UK compared to the many people in US (who are not/under insured) hence don't go to see any doctor.
The US and UK suffer from two different economic problems due to the types of systems each country has in place to provide healthcare to its citizens. My point was to illustrate the relative scarcity of doctors today compared with a century ago in the US. Back then, doctors had to make house calls and act in ways that few would today. Just yesterday, my fiance had surgery for her shoulder. The doctor, who was very good by the way, was an hour late. I can't imagine any other profession in which a person could be an hour late and still have a customer at the end.
It's a question of supply and demand. Demand in the case of healthcare is pretty inelastic. That means demand won't change much as the price goes up or down. In short, people will always demand healthcare. Doctors and their unions like the AMA know this. So you can pretty much restrict the supply of doctors without impacting the demand for their services. What you do when you restrict the supply of something like this is increase the price. That, in a nutshell, is why the costs of healthcare keep going up in this country. There are other factors, of course, but the supply of doctors is a major reason.
I'm not too sure about how the ratio is in the UK. What I think they have more problems with is waiting for certain types of care. Their emergency room waits are longer and certain types of treatment can be denied if some board decides that it's not "cost-effective" to get a certain treatment.
In the case of the UK, they've put price caps on the costs of medical care. What happens when you do that is shortages. Something similar happened to gas in the US during Carter's administration when he placed a price ceiling on gas. What you find is that providers will only work so hard and keep enough supplies on hand until their costs meet that ceiling, then they stop working or are out of that product. Hence you have a shortage and that extra demand is not met.
Now the NHS is still pretty new. I'm using Social Security as an analog to the NHS in the UK. It's going to take about a century for the SSA to become insolvent and go bankrupt. So using that as a yardstick, I'd say that the NHS is still pretty solvent, but I'd imagine that in a generation or two you'll really start to see problems with funding. Of course I'm not sure the effect Thacher had on the problem and if her reforms are still in effect, if so that may increase the solvency period of the NHS, but it won't cure the problem.
That's the problem with socializing costs. Sooner or later the costs grow far beyond what they would in a market that has not been messed with and the costs will be enough to destroy a market.
It's 61 years since the NHS was set up, new in what sense? Geological time?
Your facts are wrong.
The USA has 2.4 doctors per 1,000 people. The UK has 2.5. That doesn't remotely explain why your healthcare costs are more than twice ours.
Source - OECD Health Data 2009
http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3343, … _1,00.html
WOW!! That has been quite a discussion. One of the reasons for the high cost could be the Doctor salaries in US they hover around 200 K and that too they are not senior Doctors. I have heard of close to Million Dollars remuneration too. I really wish people like my friend kmackey32 who can't afford health insurance at least has some basic coverage if not expensive procedures. Why isn't basic health care a fundamental right even in a developed country like US?
Because healthcare is not a right. It's a market like any other. Doctor's salaries are so high here because the AMA has the power to limit the number of licenses that the various states issue each year and routinely block the building of medical schools. Are you aware that there has not been a new school of medicine opened in this country for over a century?
Why do you think Nurse Practitioners and Physician's Assistants are two of the top growing fields in healthcare? It's getting to the point where they can do pretty much what a licensed doctor can do. And you only have to go to school for six years as opposed to over ten for a doctor. Economics is going to break the monopoly the AMA has over primary healthcare in this country.
Then AMA is killing the goose. Sooner or later they would realize that the millions of people who have no/under insured will not be quite. If I choose a profession for the sole purpose of money then it is no longer purely my passion. I agree 10 years is a long time but then how much money should be charged for it needs to be questioned. At the end of the day being Doctor is a great service to humanity and I hope the Doctors remember there "Hippocratic Oath".
I think I've also mentioned that the UK puts price caps on what people can charge to provide health care to subjects of the UK. That would account for the difference in what we pay.
Waiting times in Casualty deparments aren't several hours for anything remotely serious.
Last time I went to A & E was 4 years ago, a week after my son was born. A minor post-op infection had worsened. I filled in the form, saw a nurse 10 minutes later, and a doctor 15 minutes after that.
I think that the max waiting time allowed is 4 hours now - vague memory, though.
Just like anything else, your mileage will vary. I've talked to people in the UK who have had relatives die due to waiting for doctors that had too much on their plate. I'm glad to hear that you were promptly seen and things went well for you. What are your thoughts on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence?
In addition, it would seem that some of your fellow subjects feel a bit differently about the availability of doctors in the UK. While you don't have problems with the bills that we do, problems with supply and demand manifest themselves in different ways. It would seem that I am correct about the rationing of services due to price caps. People will only work until their costs meet the price cap. Then they take a vacation.
It sounds like you're pretty healthy anyway, count your blessings, others are not so fortunate.
I am pretty healthy. OH and I are also both higher rate tax payers. So from a purely selfish point of view, the NHS costs us - we pay more than we get. And we do so happily.
Generally, I think NICE does a good job.
Your article was discussing a specific change a couple of years ago in the way out-of-hours GP care was run. The changes were generally not that popular, and the system has been refined since then.
I don't know what you mean about "price cap", sorry. I do note that your article says:
"Over half of those quizzed also said "fundamental changes" needed to be made to the system, with 15% saying it should be completely rebuilt.
These were similar figures to the other countries with the exception of the US which was much higher and the Netherlands which was lower."
Price caps are limits as to what you are legally allowed to charge for a good or service. I'll have to find a chart to illustrate, but price floors and ceilings have always had the effect of causing shortages. I'm sure there were reforms and things may work better for a while, but sooner or later, the same problem will crop up.
And yes, you do have caps to what providers can charge for services. That's what socialized medicine is all about. You don't personally see it but I'd imaging healthcare providers in your country do. It's one of the consequences of allowing "insurance" to pay for healthcare. We have much the same problem here. Nobody is quite sure what anyone pays for healthcare. Since nobody knows a price, people cannot make decisions regarding healthcare. That's one of the main problems I have with both the US and UK systems of healthcare. You cannot make rational decisions without knowing the cost of a thing. Ignorance of cost is one of the drivers of price. And yes, if I knew that a certain procedure would bankrupt me or my children, I'd elect not to have the procedure. The only right we really have is the one to determine how we will live and how we will die.
Sorry didn't know about the change from subject to citizen. How did that come about?
Ah, with you now.
I think you misunderstand how the NHS system works. It's not hospitals and GPs who claim the money back, the NHS runs the hospitals etc, buys drugs and kit, and employs doctors, nurses, anaesthetists, etc.
It's not an "insurance" scheme at all.
Awesome. But the NHS still tells suppliers what they will pay, tells doctors how much compensation they can expect and basically controls all aspects of cost for healthcare, correct?
So in a way it's akin to our HMO plans which is a form of insurance. In general insurance is a way to spread costs across a population. We discussed this fact quite a bit when I was studying for my life insurance examination. In that respect any type of insurance; life, health, auto, etc.; works that way. I'd also include the NHS, even though I realize this brands me as a heretic. Good thing we don't burn people at the stake anymore.
Yes, except no-one gets bankrupted by the NHS or kicked out of hospital against a doctor's better judgment.
The NHS does control costs in that way, you are right. But there is no shortage of doctors wanting to work in the NHS - far from it.
It's not a shortage of doctors I'm talking about with the UK. If anything there is a shortage of doctors in the US. One of the unforeseen consequences of allowing a government entity to determine what it will pay for something is that they ignore the pricing mechanism. Price is not just the cost of something, it's a way to make decisions about whether or not you are going to make one decision or another. When you mess with the price of things, you throw that sort of calculation off. That's why, I believe, few people can truly understand the costs of making healthcare decisions. This might do a better job of explaining what I mean: http://mises.org/story/3543
British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force in 1983. If you were or are born after that, you only become a British Citizen if your parents were lawfully resident in the UK on a long-term basis. Birth doesn't equal citizenship.
So, for example, when we applied for Isaac's passport, we had to show not only his birth certificate, but that we (his parents) were British Citizens.
HUH? We don't have insurers providing socialised healthcare in the UK. We have the Government. All the people in the National health Service are employed directly by government. That's part of the secret of why we are able to provide healthcare for the entire population from cradle to grave for the bargain basement price of 8% of GDP (lower than any developed country apart from Japan). It's because insurance doesn't play a part and there arn't gazillions chits of claims and bits of paper going back and forth. The government simply sends a cheque to the hospital or GP practice once a month - it probably takes the Department of Health no more than a team of five people to do the payments for the entire country now that they can automate the whole thing with computers. Whereas the American system has all this administration sucking up the money.
And what is it about the term "Socialized" don't you get? Socialization is the government! You brits have been so "socialized" that you have forgotten what it's like to have a free market it seems.
Which part of "we don't have INSURERS providing..." did you fail to read?
Nah. We have a true free market in the private sector because we don't expect businesses to be social workers and provide healthcare. Our businesses just concentrate on making a profit. That's why our unemployment rate is 7.5% and yours is 9.5%. A couple of decades ago it would have been the opposite way round. How you've let your economy get hurt by healthcare issues.
Mr Obama is trying to actually help you all and do a Good Thing, and you just can't see it.
In the US, 1 in 12 jobs is a "government" job. And we don't even have a nationalized health care system. If we did, those "government jobs" would probably double. Might sound good to you, but someone has to pay those salaries out of the "public" sector now...and that means guys like me. I have my own insurance, and I don't mind paying for it myself. I can afford to go to the doctor for rare incidental problems, and if anything "serious" happens to me, I have a $5000 deductible and then I'm fully covered for the balance, up to $2 million, then a stop-loss carrier kicks in to cover the rest. So if I rack up a multi-million dollar bill over the years ( due to on-going cancer or something), all I'm out is $5000 (plus my $89/month premium, and I'm a 47 year old smoker).
If a person taking home $50,000 a year were to use 2% of his cash for his own insurance with absolutely no help, he could have the same coverage. But instead, we choose to "penalize" the producers through taxation to cover the azzes of those who don't want, or don't think they need, insurance until the time comes.
I don't mind helping my brother out voluntarily...like through charitable efforts or what-not. But don't ever tell me it's my OBLIGATION to do so.
I think your hubs on this subject are also very useful LondonGirl . You should post the links here.
Twist my rubbery arm, then (-:
(1) The National Health Service in the UK: who pays, and who is covered
http://hubpages.com/hub/The-National-He … is-covered
(2) What the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK covers, and what costs patients extra
http://hubpages.com/hub/What-the-Nation … ents-extra
(3) From a patient's perspective - how the National Health Service actually works in practice
http://hubpages.com/hub/From-a-patients … n-practice
All I can say is that I have never been turned down for any type of medical treatment with socialized medicine. I hate to think how much I would have spent if I lived in the US. Even with having health insurance through work I doubt I would have been able to afford proper treatment.
You don't go into much detail about what sorts of treatment you've sought. While I respect your privacy and am not asking you to divulge if you don't wish to, the types of treatment you've sought help for may not have been the ones rationed. Chronic illnesses and illnesses that affect small numbers of people, I'd imagine, would be the first to be rationed.
And in our company I have heard from some colleagues that Doctors keep prescribing too many diagnostic tests/check ups since our company insurance covers 100%. Do the Doctors get some percentage from the insurance referrals? Anyway at the end of the day the company cost is going to be spread across all the employees. Isn't privatization supposed to make it cheaper not more expensive than government programs. If things are like this then probably we should apply for Canadian PR. Good place to be in old age.
Insurance companies spread costs across a population. In your case the cost is spread across your workforce. There's no reason to believe a "super" insurance company like universal healthcare will work any differently. Have you noticed how many doctors are being "indicted" on Medicare "fraud". This stuff has been winked at for decades, but now that cost control is a problem, they're going to sacrifice doctors when the administrators of Medicare have allowed this all along. The reason people don't realize the costs of socialized medicine is that the costs are hidden. As an example, can you tell me what it really costs to go to the doctor? Not the co-pay or deductible, but the cost for say a test for swine flu?
Private healthcare is just that, private. It's between you and your doctor. No insurance company or government entity involved. That way you can decide what sort of care you're willing to go through and can weigh options rationally.
I have no clue about the costs. But I don't understand how private health care works without insurance. Surely you didn't mean countries like India where mostly people pay in cash with little or no insurance at all coming into the picture.
Nobody knows the costs and that, in a way, is the point. And yes, I'm talking about a system in which you pay for your own care. Insurance is a relatively new phenomenon in the US. It wasn't until WW II that insurance companies were allowed to offer employee provided insurance.
One of the great bugaboos I'd like to dispel is the notion that if you were responsible for the cost of your healthcare, you'd be on your own. Speaking for the US, we tend to be one of the more giving nations in the world. Catastrophe and cataclysm around the world and, more likely than not, you'll find Americans and US dollars at the vanguard. This is not a boast and I realize that our brothers and sisters across the pond are just as giving, but I wanted to illustrate the depth of American's commitment to charity.
There is no reason to believe that Americans would leave the less fortunate to rot just because they couldn't afford a procedure. There would be resources and fund raisers, heck we have those now. I donated to a benefit for the husband of a co-worker that was diagnosed with cancer.
Also one thing you don't take into consideration is that absent laws limiting the number of doctors, we'd see more of them and thus price would go down. In addition there would be an incentive for doctors to control costs. If they did this by skimping on service, they'd soon find themselves without patients. They'd have to provide good service, otherwise the lean hungry new doctors would take custom from them. So overall you'd see competition slash the costs of medical care.
In the end you would have people making decisions on how much they personally want to spend on health care and that's as it should be.
@LG, ah that would explain it. I've talked with mostly older Brits and they seem to take a perverse delight in being subjects rather than citizens. I'll have to keep those changes in mind. Thanks for clearing that up.
I think you are thinking along the reality lines, and ask the questions that provoke real answers
Misha- I am not sure about both "reality lines" and "real answers". Can you please elaborate?
This is just my way of avoiding "you are right" and "you are asking right questions"
Misha- You don't have to be diplomatic with me. Please explain if my questions aren't right or my view isn't correct then help me learn. I am prepared to be wrong since I hardly know anything about all this.
Yet I am definitely more careful in my wording towards CW-girl, then say toward you
Eric- Misha is always nice towards me and always helpful providing links to general info or links to other hubs.
Misha- You have unique views which are understandable when you have experienced both the socialist and capitalist systems. I do realize that there are many things about which I have no or little understanding hence friends like you allow me to expand my perspective by seeing things from many angles.
He's like that to all beautiful ladies
Anyway, don't worry - Misha is a mate of mine - we get on well, and I saw a chance to get off a cheap shot at him. I'm sure he'll put your comment to good use on his next job application
Thanks you CW-girl. I have to say that relative to me you have quite unique views too, and I do learn a lot from you and your wisdom
You are very correct about this. As I shared earlier many employers do not even provide part time employees with insurance, which forces us to buy private insurance - with very high deductibles. I had to pay for my entire 5,000 deductible for back treatments awhile back. If someone has several part time jobs, they either have to buy overpriced private insurance or go without. Unfortunately, too many people have to go without proper medical insurance.
Education is not a right either, it's a choice. People choose to educate themselves, just like they can choose to lead healthful lifestyles. Choice, not right.
"Private healthcare is just that, private. It's between you and your doctor. No insurance company or government entity involved. That way you can decide what sort of care you're willing to go through and can weigh options rationally."
You are either very naive or are willfully misrepresenting how insurance companies in the U.S. dictate treatment and even time spent with patients. Doctors are being driven out of General Practice at an alarming rate because insurance companies make their lives a low paid, living hell. When I had insurance, I called about a dozen GPs before I found one who was even still taking patients and it was at least three weeks to get an appointment even for a serious issue. You'd get in and wait another 3-6 weeks for the specialist appointment which gets canceled because your records were lost en route.
Clearly you've not spent any real time in this system or you couldn't write this stuff and live with yourself.
What part of no insurance company don't you seem to understand. Do you know why GP's aren't taking new patients? Between the evil insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid cutting what they pay to doctors, they can't make a living. Right now you spend ten year racking up debt, unless you're lucky, just to be told how much you can charge for your services by either an insurance company or the Federal Government. Of course you're not going to become a GP, you'd have to be either dedicated or mad.
Again I ask, why do you think that Nurse Practitioners and Physician's Assistants are growing fields in the health care industry? They can better absorb the cuts in pay than doctors can because the amount of time they spend in school racking up debt is much less than a doctor. But you don't want to understand this stuff and you don't ask the hard questions. Because you don't do so, you're willing to back programs that will cause your great-grandkids to be buried under a mountain of debt because there is no other way to pay for all this welfare nonsense.
For your information, I have spent time in this field. I worked for seven years with the mentally ill. I understand that you worked for an insurance company and respect that, but I worked for the state and understand how they do things. I listen to you when you talk about insurance companies, you might listen to me when I talk about state-run enterprises.
LOL CW-girl, it has nothing to do with you, or with me being diplomatic. It has everything to do with me trying to escape the duality
LDT- The system you are talking about is similar to what happens in India. But unfortunately those who have money get the priority and those who can't afford to pay end up risking there lives either waiting or getting denied health care. And everybody wants to go to a reputed Doctor/Hospital whereas others hardly have any practice. At one end there is acute demand but still people don't want to risk there lives in the hands of less experienced or renowned Doctors/Hospitals. I don't know if this kind of system is an ideal one. Basic health care should be a fundamental right.
I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes, but from my understanding India still labors under a caste system and that may have an effect on the quality of care. I can go into the differences between a caste vs non-caste system if you want me to, but suffice to say that right now, in the US, there would be ways of ensuring quality care for even the "bargain basement" types of operations. Also you'd see private charity step in where government currently provides services. Given my experience with government provided services, I'd much rather have private charity involved. If a private charity makes a mistake, they go under. It provides an incentive to get it right that government doesn't have.
LDT- I would strongly like to differ about your bringing Indian "caste" system into health care. As far as I know most of the urban places it is the money that does the talking. If you want to end the conversation with me then fine I will stop right here. Have a good day everyone.
No need to end the conversation, I wasn't sure how much your caste system affected people in India today. What I know about India today I could inscribe on the head of a pin. In that respect it sounds like modern India is akin to the modern USA. We once had a sort of caste system through Jim Crow laws. Services were supposed to be separate but equal, they were anything but. Also I'm not sure how the caste system impacts charity, if at all. That could also account for differences between the US and India.
Another thing I'm unsure about is how and where the supply of doctors come from in India. I know we take a lot of foreign students here and while some stay to practice here, more and more are going back home to practice. Once I know that, I'll be in a better position to analyze the Indian doctor market.
"Free" healthcare is neither free nor affordable for the taxpayers who have to pay for it.
Free at the point of delivery.
I pay for it. I'm a higher-rate taxpayer, as is my Dad, and my other half. Between my family (me, OH, my parents, sisters, brother and brother-in-law) we pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in tax every year. The NHS is not financially the best option for us. We support it anyway.
Which just proves that UK Ministry of Truth is doing its job right, and also proves that Keynesian school of economics is dead wrong
Nope, I'm quite capable of independent thought.
Which is great and I applaud you for it, but the fact remains that you voluntarily chose to pay. All I want is the ability to make choices about my care.
@Silver. Sigh. You don't understand what I'm trying to get at. Yes the government pays for services using the tax money it gets from taking it from UKers who pay taxes. What you don't understand is that absent prices, you cannot really tell if you're making the right decision or not. The best you can hope for is to not piss too many people off.
The above like will take you to a book that can describe the problem better than I ever could.
Honestly, I would rather pay higher taxes than pay for insurance that doesn't cover 100%, and that I may never use. At least with the tax I know someone is getting taken care of, other than the CEO of an insurance company.
I say we all try to spend more time staying healthy rather than worrying about how we are going to pay for the help we need when we get sick.Focus on a healthy life style.It's a healthy attitude.It reminds of a auto mechanic who recommends that you change you oil regularly,or the guy who recommends using rid-ex for septic tanks.He says you can pay now or you can pay me later.It's always cheaper to prevent than it is to lament.
I've seen people's businesses collapse when their computer was stolen, because they didn't want to spend $200 for an external hard drive and a decent backup program.
I have 3 Indian doctors living on my street alone. They come here for one reason and one reason only...to make money. My sister is a Nurse Practitioner and has a Dr. Bong (who is Asian not Indian) as her over-seer. His personal GP practice was making him about $150K per year after insurance and expenses. Since he met up with my sister, they started getting contracts at several nursing homes in the area, and his net income has increased 5 fold...and he never even has to show up because my sister does all of his "rounds" at these places for him. Don't get me wrong...she's making a pretty penny too...about $20K per month and still rising, but this guy knows that he would never have made this money without her and without the market he was operating in.
If there was no incentive to becoming a doctor other than "the prestige and the money", believe me, we wouldn't have many people doing it for free. There are very few docs who will "donate" a day's worth of time at the free clinic unless they have a very lucrative business they can count on the rest of the week.
And as far as "free" is concerned...nothing is ever for free. That's probably the most important aspect of the whole debate...there is NO SUCH THING as FREE health care. Someone ultimately has to pay for it. If not, then you will experience the same "Brain-Drain" that is occurring everywhere else on the planet. Of course you will always have a "few" that will be in it "for the betterment of mankind", but believe me...most are in it for the cash.
*** I guess I should have clarified...I'm writing about the US.
No surprises there. When a system is set up to benefit those who are mainly interested in wealth and prestige, you will inevitably experience this kind of abuse. I read an article by Diogenes recently about Mexican Healthcare. Doctors are not so well paid 'over the border', so the ethos behind choosing medicine as a career has more to do with caring and compassion than being driven by financial considerations. If you want a caring medical profession, then you need to put a cap on earnings!
Something that hasn't been touched on in this discussion so far - but doctors working in socialised medicine feel happier. They don't have ethical conflicts. The goal of the patient is to get well as fast as possible, and in socialised systems the goal of the taxpayer is to get the patient well as fast as possible (to save tax money), and doctors can happily work according to their Hypocratic Oath and work to get people well too - so everyone has the same goal.
In the American system, the patient might want to get well as fast as possible, but it's in the interest of the doctor to keep him on medication, the better to make money out of him. Do you lot have any preventative healthcare strategy? Of course not, if fewer people got sick no one would make any money. Do doctors feel good acting like this? I don't think so. I think most would like to hold onto the ideals that took them into medicine in the first place, but they've got corrupted over time. In the British system, doctors resisted having the health service set up, but once it was in place, they felt relieved and liberated.
You don't seem to understand that if doctors don't cure their patients, they'll soon not have any. That is their incentive.
With all due respect, you are almost, but not quite, totally wrong. American doctors are overworked and have no shortage of patients. They shuffle patients in and out as quickly as possible, especially at the General Practitioner / Family Doctor level. They want you out of their office in a hurry so they can see more patients. They don't want you coming back for the same ailment. They know full well that the insurance companies won't pay for redundant visits and sooner or later they'll get caught.
Medication is typically doled out by a pharmacy in a grocery store; there's little motivation for a doctor to keep anyone on meds longer than necessary. Sure, some of the larger alliances of physicians have a pharmacy in their building, but every grocery chain has a pharmacy and there's a Walgreens pharmacy on almost every corner. Americans are extremely savvy when it comes to shopping for cheap meds. A doc might prescribe a particular med because he got a free cruise from a drug rep, but there's no direct kick-back for writing a prescription or keeping a patient on it for no medical reason.
A huge problem with our systems is the burden that insurance places on the physicians. They employ full time people, including nurses, who do nothing but interface with the insurance companies. These employees are cost centers. Obama care won't make things any better; the insurance companies won't go away and another avalanche of paperwork will be imposed by the federal government. Costs will increase for everyone.
I have yet to see any British / Canadian etc person on hubpages wanting to swap their despised health care systems for the American style one.
edited to say - I wouldn't be surprised if some newly-registered "British" person turns up shortly to say that, though (-:
Don't get me wrong I don't like our options either, but I don't think Socialized healthcare is the way to go. If socialism is so great, why not socialize food production? Arguably food is more important than even healthcare for without we starve. Yet if you look at collective farms, they all fail to keep people fed. Why? How is healthcare less critical than food supply and why does socialism work there when it doesn't work to feed people? My argument is that food is so critical that the weaknesses of socialized food is almost immediately noticeable. The weaknesses of socialized medicine are just as dire, but not as noticeable. I doubt, LG, that your son will have the level of care you currently enjoy. I would hope, for his sake, that he would, but I just don't see it.
Because the price mechanism works in food production but doesn't in healthcare. When people buy food, they compare prices, think about value and then make their purchase.
But when people are sick they become irrational. They don't compare prices, they make no cost benefit analysis, they will simply pay whatever it takes for even the most dubious medicines in order to get well. You have the additional problem that ill people don't fire on all cylinders, their illness makes them fuzzy and their thinking and decision-making capacities poor. They are therefore hugely vulnerable to being ripped off in a big way.
But in socialised medicine, though the ill person is fearful and irrational, the govt isn't and can step in to protect the individual, using the muscle of bulk-buy to negotiate down drug bills, testing treatments scientifically and deciding whether they work or not and whether to provide them or not. And above all they prevent the ill person from getting hurt by demanding standards from the healthcare practitioners.
In the American system, when the individual is at their most vulnerable (because they are ill) they are left to the sharks to get picked off.
You could make the same argument for a starving person. It still doesn't illustrate the difference. In fact, I claim that socialized medicine, since you don't know the price of care and cannot make rational decisions based on price makes it more likely that you'll be taken for a ride by the government, doctor, insurance company, what have you. The only way to make a good decision is if you can weigh the costs of a decision. Socialism of any stripe takes that ability away from you.
If it was really the case that socialised systems "took people for a ride", why do they cost less but provide better outcomes?
For instance, take infant mortality - in the UK there are 4.85 deaths per 1000 live births, but in the USA it's 6.26 deaths per 1000 live births. With life expectancy, in the Uk it's 78.7 years, in the USA it's 78.06 years.
If it was true that governments took people for a ride than socialised systems would have worse outcomes, but in reality it's the opposite way round. Govt has no incentive to take people for a ride at all (they want to be re-elected and angry relatives are a powerful force). Private profeteers however don't care if their practices mean that people (and babies) die before their times as long as they make money.
"Just as dire", but countries with universal health care have populations that live longer, spend less, and are happier with their system.
P.S. Another aspect that hasn't been touched on is the issue of "crowding out". When you are forced to spend 17% of GDP on healthcare which is dubious (infant mortality in the US is higher than in the UK, and life expectancy is lower), instead of spending just 8% of GDP, you have wasted 9% of GDP, which could have been spent by businesses on R&D or simply giving their employees a payrise or keeping people on the payroll.
It's kind of odd that so-called capitalists are in favour of squeezing their entire business sector by imposing mammoth healthcare costs on them, which means they have less room ro compete with the rest of the world. I'm interested to know why you think this is smart.
LOL You keep ignoring the fact that nobody here is really happy with the current American system. It is awful, we all are in agreement on this. The question is how to fix it, and this is where we diverge
So why is it that most medical treatments are pioneered here in the States?
What you don't understand is that rather than having free market healthcare or socialized medicine, what we really have is a health market more along the lines of a National Socialist model than anything else. We know it's broken, but National Socialism is still socialism. I oppose all forms of socialism.
For the most part, yes. That's not to say other countries don't develop treatments, it's just more likely to happen here because often times a researcher can capitalize on their new treatment here better than they can in a socialized country. MRI for example. It was first developed in the UK in 1973, but not used in a medial sense until 1977 in the States. There is only one reason that it wasn't capitalized on in the UK and that was due to the cost of R&D. Socialized medicine doesn't allocate R&D costs very well.
I thought a lot of medical research was done in universities, rather than in the NHS, but I could be wrong.
There are a lot of medical advances from the UK since the NHS kicked off, though, for example:
(1) IVF - the first IVF baby was born in Manchester, in the UK;
(2) Skin grafts - developed properly in the UK during the First World War and improved massively in the Second World War (pre-NHS, though);
(3) Diagnostic ultrasound - in the UK in the 1950s;
(4) First use of penicillin in a patient was in the UK.
Canada has also made many advances in medicine while under "socialized" medicine. Most of them made in the universities like in the UK and in the US. Too many to list here but here is a list:
http://www.canadianmedicinenews.com/200 … earch.html
I'd say that three of those predated NHS. IVF may have, but I'm sure it was done after the adoption of NHS. Like I said, other countries develop new medical techniques, but because the US has somewhat of a free market system, it's more likely to happen here than somewhere else. That's not the same thing as saying only the US develops new techniques. It doesn't.
Pam, what don't you seem to get about free markets and insurance companies? In a free market insurance companies either don't exist or would be way scaled back. Do you even know the history of insurance companies? One of the reasons they're so bad is because they're big and clunky. Just like the government. The only way you can make rational decisions about your healthcare is if you know the costs.
You cannot have even a "bare bones" basic plan. If you subsidize something, costs will grow. Look at college. People complain that the costs of higher education keep going up each year. Duh, the costs are subsidized by the Federal Government, so yeah costs are going to go up. There is no mechanism to control costs when you subsidize something. Likewise, when you take something over and run it by government fiat, you will get shortages. London Girl confirmed the need for "reform" in that area and I'm sure we'll be seeing more problems from the NHS about that in the future.
You don't care about the costs of implementing these things. All you care about is getting something for nothing. You don't. The world doesn't work that way. We can't even pay for the programs we have now, much less bloating that big clunky idiotic thing we call government programs. You've just as well as admitted that such a program would be wasteful and inefficient. There's a better way if you could just see past your prejudices.
They're not. For instance Tamiflu, the main antidote to Swine flu is made by Roche a swiss pharmaceutical company. No surprise there - If Americans don't believe in evolution and believe all flu viruses were set in stone 6000 years ago, they will struggle to get their heads around a flu virus that is mutating let alone come up with an antidote to it.
That's rather harsh...about American beliefs I mean. Granted, the FDA is WAY over-cautious in my book...especially when it comes to experimental drugs for treatment in terminal cases. But that isn't to say that our scientists are "backwater" hillbillies...
Do you have any indigenous American scientists? I thought you imported them from the rest of the world (I read that a third of the scientists at NASA were from India alone), and since the recession made politicians panic about visas, you arn't able to get your hands on the brains from the rest of the world any more.
No, most of the scientists in research are bought off and run by the big pHarma, military, governmetn, etc... to develop what they want in the way they want...I would really like to know the percentage that aren't in someone's pocket.
I don't think so. I just find it hard to credit that Americans can't get their heads round evolution, which is not a new idea, it was first established in the 19th century, and here we are in the 21st with people still struggling with it. Believe it or not the rest of the world doesn't "hate" America - if we did we wouldn't give you advice. We'd simply egg you on in your destructive practices and laugh about it.
I'm starting to agree with Misha, arrogant and ignorant.
Well I'm an American, I believe in evolution, and I'm also an Atheist. We "non-believers" in a religious sense may only constitute 14% of our population (in America), but I can pretty much guarantee you that there is a much greater majority (including the religious) that accept evolution. Heck even the Pope has admitted it as a probability (that's not to say that in his mind, there must have still been a God that created at the beginning).
One must use common sense, as well as decency in any analysis.
The whole "squeeze" on the private sector to provide benefits to their employees originated with the "unions"...another socialist movement...and is also the primary factor for jobs going over seas in this country.
I have a friend that owns 4 different manufacturing businesses in my town. As soon as ANYONE in any of those shops starts talking union, he closes the doors. He opens up a month or so later, under a new name, and if ANY of the union instigators comes in for a job, well guess what? They can go look at McDonald's, cause he isn't hiring.
And the funny thing is that he treats his employees really well. He contributes to their health-care premiums if they elected to join the plan, when he isn't forced to do so. He pays quite a bit more than the jobs are worth, and he's a very lenient boss as far as bosses go. He treats them like family...much like Henry Ford did back in the day, and they shite on him, thinking that he owes them more. Quite frankly...if I were to go into business myself and was only making a 20% profit, I would have to consider getting out of business. But corporations in this country operate on less than that.
You know people have lost the argument when they start to attack the person rather than the argument :-) I notice you don't dispute the assertion that Americans believe all flu viruses were set in stone 6000 years ago - but you still make the sweeping generalisation that Americans make all the scientific discoveries, which is a contradiction! Can unscientific people make scientific discoveries?
40 years ago when the Apollo landings took place, yes you were world leaders But you are not now. You know why? Because you are mis-allocating funds on healthcare (to get back on topic) which previously would have been spent on research.
If I don't argue with you it's because you've shown yourself to be ignorant and close minded. I have a policy not to feed the trolls.
"All Americans believe all flu viruses were set in somn (sic) 6,000 years ago..."
No one answers because it is simply a very ignorant statement. Ignorance comes in many nationalities.
I didn't say "all". But a fair amount. And the percentages matter. Can unscientific people really make "most" of the scientific discoveries as ledefensetech claims? It's a contradiction.
I never responded to the "6000 years" thing, because I really thought you were being facetious...
Lighten up on Silver Rose please. If you think someone's comment is not enlightened that is one thing, but implying she is a troll or ignorant is out of line.
It's not just the one comment, but several. Look at London Girl and I, we don't agree on much, but I think we have each others respect. Mostly it's because we don't attack each other personally and don't make cheap shots towards each other. In addition, she answers my questions and I endeavor to answer hers. It comes down to respect. Silver hasn't shown much.
It does not appear Silver Rose is making any cheap shots, simply expressing her opinions. If you want to disagree that is fine, but please do so in a nicer fashion.
I take it you don't believe in evolution, and never heard the word science, right?
I believe in evolution and science, just to let you know.
Although, according to the Rose, you shouldn't
I do not agree with all of her comments, just did not like her being referred to as a troll.
You do know that a troll is someone who "trolls" the forums looking for a fight, not a troll that lives under a bridge, right?
I know what a troll on the forums is and Silver Rose is not really doing that. Kind of silly to assume I do not .
Just making sure, dear, you never can be too sure these days.
"I notice you don't dispute the assertion that Americans believe all flu viruses were set in stomn 6000 years ago."
"40 years ago when the Apollo landings took place, yes you were world leaders But you are not now."
"I just find it hard to credit that Americans can't get their heads round evolution, which is not a new idea, it was first established in the 19th century, and here we are in the 21st with people still struggling with it."
"Believe it or not the rest of the world doesn't "hate" America - if we did we wouldn't give you advice. We'd simply egg you on in your destructive practices and laugh about it."
Those look like cheap shots to me.
Should all opinions be defended? Sometimes people are just wrong.
No, but telling someone they are ignorant and a troll will not win them over. Find a middle ground.
Why? I don't compromise with ignorance. I treat people the way they treat me. If they're respectful and engage in a conversation, I do the same. If they make ignorant and insulting comments, I do the same. It's a nice and simple way to live your life.
You give up an initiative this way. In other words, you are reactive, not proactive, and easily controlled. Give it a thought
In reality I don't see you behaving like that, but it's amazing that you think of yourselves in such terms
That's assuming that I want to talk to ignorant people and people who just want to argue. I don't. I'd much rather talk to people who have something interesting to say or who can teach me something new. Time is short and none of us get out of this place alive, why waste time dealing with people whom you'll probably not ever reach a middle ground with? Ignorance is their problem, not mine.
ledefensetech - you were the one who made the sweeping assertion that most innovations came from Americans (because of your supposedly wonderful healthcare), and then got abusive when proved incorrect.
When I said that Americans were world leaders 40 years ago, this was a statement of fact. You had a budget surplus, a trade surplus, lower unemployment than the rest of the world and most of the scientific innovations.
When I say that Americans are no longer world leaders, this too is a statement of fact. You have a gigantic trade defict, budget deficit, worse unemployment than the rest of the developed world and hardly any indigenous scientists.
This comes down to your healthcare system - you are spending about 9% of GDP more than you have to, with no discernable benefit and in previous times the money would have gone into research and job creation, but you simply can't do it anymore. No doubt I'm "hateful" for pointing this out.
There are quite a few things wrong with your assertion.
First I said: "That's not to say other countries don't develop treatments, it's just more likely to happen here because often times a researcher can capitalize on their new treatment here better than they can in a socialized country. MRI for example. It was first developed in the UK in 1973, but not used in a medial sense until 1977 in the States. There is only one reason that it wasn't capitalized on in the UK and that was due to the cost of R&D. Socialized medicine doesn't allocate R&D costs very well." You might have missed that.
Second, we were only world leaders 40 years ago because Europe and Asia were recovering from WW II. The rot here set in long before that.
Finally you seem to think that it's our spending on healthcare that's caused our deficits and other problems. Medicare and Medicaid are part of the problem, but it's far from that simple. I could write books about the economic problems of the US. I noticed you dropped the virus and 6000 year cheap shot.
I left a link several pages back about socialism in general. Check it out, read the book and see what you think. The reason I think you're being taken for a ride is because in socialized medicine you have no real idea of what all that money is being spent on, just that it's being spent. How do you know you're getting a good deal? Just as we don't know what our insurance companies are paying and being able to decide if we're getting a deal, neither can you. The agent is different, insurance companies in our case, the government in yours; but neither of us can say what we truly pay for healthcare.
This is an interesting assumption, and worthy of discussion/thought. You can see how it differs with a bald statement assuming a very high percentage of Americans don't believe in evolution, I assume, though?
There are several movements, most commonly in some Midwest states, to remove evolution from the curriculum of public schools. It can be difficult for someone who doesn't know the history of religion in this country to understand, but we basically took the hard-line Calvinist congregations from Europe and they settled here. This had consequences that have echoed down the years and has currently manifested itself as an attack on the scientific method. It's still ignorant to think that all Americans think this way.
Healthcare wasnt perfect in New Zealand but I seriously was shocked to learn the price to visit a regular GP here in the states....wow!! $32 (NZ) $140 (USA) maybe the USA price was because I wasnt a resident. Then again hubby was charged the same as me when he was in NZ(actually he was well ,looked after medically)
On the news a couple of nights back it showed resident sdoctors not happy with pay and switching to other specialities,which has caused a shortage in some areas too.
And charged me $800 for a 20 min consult and one xray is ridiculous!! daylight robbery.
I hope Pres Obama reforms well and efficently!
That's the main problem we have, a shortage of doctors. The reason doctors are switching specialties is because they feel they're not being paid enough. It'll only get worse with Obmamacare. If we had more doctors, we'd see less expensive medical costs. It really is that simple.
No theyre in New Zealand lol (Doctors)
Seriously many are doing alot of their training overseas.
Pres Obama is reforming ,that means making better than what was in place doesnt it?
And Im assuming its been not great for awhile now.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about doctors in the US. We do have a shortage here but that's because the AMA limits the number of licenses granted to new doctors. This has the effect of raising the wages of doctors by putting barriers to entry in the medical field.
Reform doesn't always mean better. Prohibition was a reform and look how that ended. He'll do what any politician does, his reforms will reward the people who voted for him, probably at the expense of people who did not.
Well the ones who seem to do the most protesting and trying to stall are the ones who have had the gravy too long anyway ,while the average joe didnt even get to lick the spoon.
I mean Im surrounded by people who wont go to a doctor because they simply cannot afford too.
Ok Im foreign ,but I just dont get that!(not for Americans)
There are free clinics ,but you need to be on welfare or whats that other thing , 'unable to work' a benefit ,yet they are driving cadilacs?
Something doesnt seem right , back to front somehow.
What would you like the U.S Govt to do Led?
( oh, back there I was making a joke , the USA doctors are leaving to work in NZ)...lol
Well first the government needs to get out of the healthcare industry and stop propping up insurers. The best way out of this mess is to let the free market do its work. We'll get more doctors, costs will fall. Drugs too, since they won't have that government sponsored monopoly period anymore. Plus you'd see R&D dollars put to better use. They'd go to treatments that affect the most people, since profits would only be assured for those treatments that would help the highest number of patients.
It'll never happen, that makes too much sense. Especially when people found out *gasp* they'd have to pay their own medical bills and not spread it out among the general population.
Will you also be getting rid of health insurance in this sweeping reform? THAT would go a long way towards solving America's healthcare issues. Just let people find a doctor they can afford, and allow them to negotiate the cost of their treatment with plainly explained cost schedules detailed up front. Sounds a million times better than what you have now, though I'd still prefer to stay with the NHS!
I tend to agree with everyone.Healthcare should be a fundamental right in every country.Goes to quality of living.If its free great.Can use some of the tax funds to support it.Healthy happy people = productive nation.Who says that the baby thats sick now is not the one to grow up and discover a cure for something.
My take on it all:
Firstly, many significant advances in medicine and medical research have been developed throughout the world, but Tamiflu was developed in the US by Gilead and is only marketed by Roche.
Secondly, the number of Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine from each country can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_No … by_country
In case no one wants to count: Canada has 3, the UK has 32, the United States has 89 (I may be off by one or two--it was hard to count while scrolling and watching TV).
Thirdly, the top 5% of health consumers account for more than half the spending and the top 1% accounts for 27% of all the spending. What is the cause for this? Eliminate that 5% of the spenders and the GDP spending is back to 9% which is in line with other developed nations with nationalized health care. Why am I not hearing that anyone is investing the causes for this? Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_car … ted_States
On a side note, I would point out that the costs for the OctoMom's babies were estimated to be more than $1 million. At the bloated per capita spending of $7,439, those funds could have been spent on 134 others.
http://newsblaze.com/story/200905260505 … story.html
Most importantly, the basic human needs we all learn from social studies are food, clothing, and shelter. Ethopia is still working on food. Developed nations have these 3 down and should move toward health care followed by education as so noted on this forum. I agree. The debate centers upon which system might be better. Personally, I feel each has pros and cons. It is interesting to read about and discover those pros and cons.
However, my commentary on a forum will not change anything. The elected officials are in place. Now, the only way for an individual to potentially have an impact is to contact those elected officials. Then what happens will happen. I have to live and adjust, prioritizing my expenses and provide for my family. If I don't like it, I emigrate. That's what happens. For the past several decades, the US has been a land of opportunity and many from every nation have come here. If that changes, people will leave just like the jobs have.
So the UK is punching above its weight - 60-odd million people, 32 Nobel prizes. The USA has about 307 million people, and 89 nobel prizes.
Our schools don't go back as far as yours do. I'd say give it time, but given the state of education in this country today, I actually expect people to be less educated as time goes on.
Very good, LG. I figured you would be the one to recognize the per capita aspect of those numbers. I like the anecdote about the profits from the Beatles allowing EMI to develop the CT scanner.
Every other developed nation in the world (and quite a few undeveloped nations) has managed to put some kind of affordable health care in place for its citizens but in the U.S. we can't manage it. It's just too scary and difficult for us. We can't help it, we're morons. And the whole world knows it. People in countries with decent health care look at discussions like this one and just shake their heads and thank God they don't live here.
lol. We morons are smart enough to know that waiting 9.2 weeks for an MRI is moronic.
The truly scary thing is giving over 17% of the economy to the same government that 'managed' the Katrina Hurricane rescue and the bailouts of GM, AIG, and Chrysler.
Right, but if you think the private market will sort this all out through normal market forces, think again. The problem isn't the government, as clunky and idiotic as government bureaucracy can be, it's collusion between insurance companies and government to keep prices high and services low. When health care is profit driven it ends up being bad for your health. As long as its all about the money these are the issues we will have.
My feeling is, if you take the politics out of it and the solution is fairly simple: a bare bones basic government plan for all with supplemental private insurance legal and available. That's how most countries do it and it works out better than what we have. When it comes to health care people will always complain and tell their terrible stories, but right now we spend twice as much for half as many and what they get is not very good.
Sure, let's give it to the same government that oversees a bankrupt social security system, that couldn't get water to people in NOLA, that mismanages billions of dollars of medicaid and medicare fraud.
What we already get is very good. We have the best health care system in the world. The delivery and cost systems are problematic.
You've got the talking points memorized alright. "We've got the best health care system in the world." No, no we don't. We're number 29 to be exact, and dropping. Just saying it over and over again doesn't make it true, but thanks for that confident assertion. It's been seconds since I heard it.
Nicely obfuscated! If more than once you hear something you disagree with, denigrate it as a 'talking point'. Much easier than attempting a rebuttal.
On second thought, conjure up a vacuum-packed factoid that can't be gainsaid; "29th" by what yardstick? Source, please?
Its not the delivery ( because most citizens know how its delivered)...its just not affordable!
i.e I made brownies this morning, I have no car,not known by many in this street ,but I know without a shadow of a doubt that if I stepped outside ,my product would sell or advertise itself in minutes.
Product was visible
Product was in demand (hungry people)
No permits required
Delivery: they came to me
Problems: ran out of product
Solution: Make more
New market plan: Charge more
Problem: Risk no more customers, hungry people
That's the free market in action. Gotta love it.
Cool , and $10 richer ,to write ,or to bake , decisions lol
But no I gotta ask
I like the idea of free markets ? but then how would government ever recieve enough taxes ,to fund education ,healthcare etc?
(just a thought)
I mean we cant all be selling a product tax-free now ,or can we?
Government wouldn't be involved. People would have the freedom to make their own decisions on things like healthcare, education, etc. This also means that you have to pay for things yourself. But people also want the most bang for their buck. This creates a downward pressure on costs. People who can lower the costs of doing business are rewarded with more customers, reinforcing the need to lower costs more. This is how thing become more efficient and how things become more affordable. It encourages production and increased production is what raises the standard of living, not simply having money. It's such a subtle point even economists argue over it.
Im not sure if I get it all ,but I have always believed you get richer by selling more products for $1 than a few products for $10.
Just how it worked for me anyway.
And since being in SC ,I have seen marketing ideas that just seemed senseless...anyway thats another topic!
Im off to the farmers market lol
Yes ,that is the downside of 'free healthcare' large waiting lists and sadly people suffering.
Upside, user pays, privatised hospital, all very well ,but reality bites , less an less are insured
Both systems suck
I have lived under one , and now learning about the other.
To tell you the truth , I need to stay healthy ,because either option is expensive ,in the long run.
Sorry, but our system doesn't suck. I have two children I didn't have to pay a bean to have either, despite complications and two ceasarian sections. A few years ago I had to have an operation to deal with something essential, but not life-threatening. My treatment was completed 12 weeks after my first hospital appointment. A wait, admittedly, but not an unreasonable one. And as I said before, there are private hospitals where I could have gone to get it dealt with sooner if I had chosen to spend the money.
Amanda I wasnt critising your system in particular and Im glad you had good treatment . I have similar treatment back in New Zealand.(Maternity ,AE all free) included in taxes etc.
But Im being openminded here , theyre have been many others not happy and have suffered unecessarily.
Im sure if you checked , you would find an equal number of disgruntled people there too ( since we use a similar system modelled on the U.K)
SO yes it had its advantages ,as well as disadvantages!
Strangely enough, I might have jumped up and down about waiting times once upon a time, but since reading some of the horror stories here on Hubpages I've learned to appreciate the NHS more and more. On one hub I read about a woman in America who died of treatable cancer because she couldn't afford treatment. I've also read any number of comments left by others in the USA who are literally terrified to go to the Doctor for fear of what it might cost, and yet others with confirmed, on-going medical conditions who can no longer afford the medication they need, and are having to struggle on without. None of this would happen here.
All this healthcare and stuff gets me thinking..(not wise) I just cannot see with a country like the U S that we cannot have wonderful healthcare and benefits for the people. Seems we help with too many things that are not needed. If all of those things were eliminated, we may be able to make all of these things work correctly. Seems to me we all have to help others stuff their pockets and get richer though (my opinion)
I agree the financial side of medical care and banking as well as the stockmarkets are just in it for the money ,and could care less about "our" financial as well as "our personal" health!
by ahorseback7 weeks ago
Italy will care for baby Alfie , And the U.K. will let Alfie die today why ?
by Judy Specht2 years ago
I have been listening to how the government has a billion dollars for getting people to sign up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. Would that money have been better spent training more doctors and building new...
by Judy Specht4 years ago
With 11 days until it takes effect, it would be a little bit helpful if there were some clear details. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/busin … 1&_r=0This article really concerns me since my cancer...
by Sue B.4 years ago
How is the Affordable Healthcare Act known as "Obamacare" actually raising healthcare costs?I have been hearing those arguing against the Affordable Healthcare Act state over and over again that this act is...
by Poppa Blues8 years ago
Under Obama's health care plan every American would be REQUIRED to buy health insurance, essentially you are being forced to trade your labor for something you may not need or want.At what other time in history were...
by Person of Interest5 years ago
Unless you KNOW that you are going to otherwise die."Lifeguard gets $2,600 bill after rescuing boy from surf"http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/lif … 32240.htmlI'm sure the kid's parents got equally...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.