Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I was referring to a recent case of a woman who died because of clear negligence.
Ah, so socialized medicine eliminates negligence...got it.
People should not be sentenced to death because of poor choices.
Depends on what the choice is about. Choosing to commit genocide warrants a bit more than a few months probation, imo.
And people are very, very different than cars. True enough
It is a balancing act, but I don't think the US does it well. We have the highest expenditure on healthcare per capita in the world and the 37th best healthcare system. Somewhere along the line, we are fucking up.
Government is inefficient because its government, not because its the American government. Do you have any reason for thinking that government is more incompetent in America than in other nations?
Yes, demand will go up in the short term. But once we correct for the last minute surgeries that we need massive amount of doctors for, overall demand will stay the same or go down. Again it is vastly more efficient to remove a small tumor than it is to remove a large one last minute.
Again...any reason to think that we can't?
Nope, it wouldn't require a tax increase. If we managed to make our system as efficient as Britains, we would lop off half of the overall price of healthcare today. Know how much the feds pay today for healthcare in the US? Around 50%. Hey guess what...it about evens out.
Addressing quality, two points. First of all quality is useless if 1/3 of Americans can't afford to get it.
You remember that from a British propaganda rag that never backs up its sources. Funny how that was the only place that reported it.
By the way, if the US one is so great why are people dying in ER rooms?
Ah, so socialized medicine eliminates negligence...got it.
Depends on what the choice is about. Choosing to commit genocide warrants a bit more than a few months probation, imo.
I think the real point would be that u just admited government is inefficient
This is pure speculation and that coupled with admitted government inefficiency it is highly unlikely we will see any improvement over the current system.
Past performance is the best indicator of future performance
Again pure speculatin. There is no reason to what so ever to believe that our govenment is magically going to become efficient in running itself.
And the exact opposite can be said as well. healthcare for all is useless if said quality sucks. Which is what would happen.
Part of a govern,ent solution will invariably entail most doctors taking a pay cut which will make the profession less attractive, which will lead to lower standards.
Why not? You can't save everyone. My uncle was an ER doc. Your statement is ridiculous.
I was referring to a recent case of a woman who died because of clear negligence.
It was negligence that stemmed from the hospital staff being continually overworked.
Yes it is. That does not mean it is more inefficient than the private sector in all things.
Not really. I explained to you how I came to that conclusion. If you have a different one feel free to make an assertion and explain it.
It is irrelevant that government is inefficient. What matters here is which is MORE efficient...government or private healthcare? And if you look at how much each country spends on healthcare and how good their healthcare is, the anwser is clearly, obviously, government is more efficient.
Which isnt what I claimed. I said AS efficient as Britain. Or do you think the American government is somehow vastly more incompetent than the governments of most European nations?
Now who is speculating? Oh and the facts disagree with you.
invariably entail? Bullshit.
and that would end with government control of healthcare how, exacltey?
Again the only inefficiency that our system has, which really isn't an inefficency at all, is the price of healthcare. Our government has shown that it is more inefficient than the private sector in almost everything. Hell, when the government wants to build a road, who do they hire? private contractors.
One, you have cited nothing to back any of this up. However i have spent considerable time in Canada which does have socialized medicine and no one that I have talked to from there has anything good to say about it.
And I will explain to you why your conclusion is extrememly flawed. As i understand you believe our healthcare system and health of our nation will improve if we move to a more preventetive style of medicine. Well first off most of the major ailments that kill Americans can be prevented without haveing to ever see a doctor. So again a large chunk of this prevention battle is getting people to make the right choices in terms of their health. that aspect of it has absolutely nothing to do with the healthcare system. You can change the hospitals the doctors and the prices all you like, but it will not change the choices people make. the only way to do that is to legislate teh choices you allow people to make and to do that is wrong.
You mentioned one aspect of prevention though that if healthcare was free more people would have regular doctor visits and more illnesses would be caught earlier. that will be true for some, however it also brings up my economic argument. By making healthcare free you have increased demand for it, when price goes down, demand goes up. We have all been to the doctor before and know what the wait is like. Now consider that instead of 50 people trying to see the doctor each week (because only 50 people can afford it) 75 people are trying to see the doctor each week (that would be the 1/3 that currently can't pay for it according to you). You can see the math, with more people there are going to be longer waits.
This is the main complaint of the Canadien population and it makes perfect sense. It's easy in Canada to have the rare illnesses treated quickly by a specialist because the rarity of the condition means means there is less demand for the specialist. Price doesn't figure that heavily into demand because of the rarity of teh condition. In that instance it is on par with the U.S. But when you get to things like the everday cold or in the specific case my friend had, a knee replacement, You will have to wait a very long time, 2 yrs in his case. that is the flaw of socialized medicine. And is also the reason why your prevention scenario is unlikely. The increase in demand for medical services will in effect prevent your prevention aapproach, because the increased demand will put us at teh least right back where we are now, where people end up haveing to wait to long and their conditions not be caught in time
It's speculation based on economic models that have proven to be accurate almost every time.
Then you will have to explain to me specifically how see it that the government will be able to:
pay doctors what they currently make,
AND
maintain the quality we have today and/or improve it
AND
not raise taxes to do it
The government does not need to make a profit.
No, it is inefficient to have a system where it is so expensive that many people cannot afford routine doctor checkups...but yet they can afford to go to the ER room at the last minute.
Yes I have. WHO reports and per capita healthcare spending. They point to a severely flawed system in the US whereas these socialist systems do much, much better.
Yes I have. WHO reports and per capita healthcare spending. They point to a severely flawed system in the US whereas these socialist systems do much, much better.
And I have spent considerable time in Australia and everyone liked the healthcare system there.
A large part of it is ALSO getting people to go and see doctors, which they won't do unless they can't afford it.
Do you honestly think its not a problem that people can't afford to go to the doctor? Do you honestly think its more efficient for us to try and operate on people when they come into the ER room, as opposed to doing it years earlier?
You may have to wait for non-emergency surgery, but it is much much better than having to wait when you are bleeding to death in an ER room.
Just because you have a socialized system does not mean it will be perfect. If there is a 2 year wait for him, thats a problem. I'm unaware of any procedure in Britain that has a 2 year waiting period at this point.
NOT in healthcare. Look at the facts Bern. We spent more per capita than any other country and we fall far below most of the socialized countries in our healthcare standards.
Britain (which is a government, if you didn't know) has managed to do all of those things. If they can, why can't we?
so profit motive caused negligence? That's a little counter intuitive. Company's make profits based on performance. So a hospital that has negligent workers is going to have a hard time makeing a profit.
A checkup every two years because that's how long it takes to see the doctor is hardly routine. You can't deny the basic economics of what you are proposing.
Then we simply have a difference of opinion. You seem to believe the price of healthcare is more important than teh quality of it. I don't. The maount of time one has to wait to see a physician is an aspect of quality and in most countries with socialized medicine that aspect of quality suffers greatly in comparison to the U.S.
where? I never saw any links or anything. What does WHO reports have to do with it?
per capita spending isn't a very good indicator that a countries health care system is a poor one because it doesn't take into account tech advantages that a country has over another nor does it take into account quality.
You're telling me your primary decison makeing factor is price in being treated? You do that you'll get what you pay for.
Are they happy about how much they are taxed for it? Diuretic, if your around I would love to hear your take on this.
You may like to think that is a significant factor but it really isn't. People's over all health is far, far more influenced by teh health decisions they make, not by a doctor who happens to detect a tumor early in 1 out fo 100 patients.
Of course not being able to afford it is a problem. I also believe a government solution is far from the best solution to that problem.
To think that the condition in your second question will magically go away if health care is free simply isn't likely.
And i belive it is more imperfect to sacrafice quality for cost.
Taht doesn't mean we have flawed healthcare
It simply means it's expensive and as with most things your going to pay more for better quality
I'm going throw out a guess and say they pay more in taxes than we do.
Why must you constantly lie? The UK's healthcare is in damned good shape. They have better numbers on most indicators than America does.
When will it become clear to you that hospitals aren't like other companies?
Ever been in an ambulance? They don't exactly ask you which ER you'd like to go too.
It does NOT take 2 years to get a checkup in countries with NHS systems.
gar...The US healthcare system is ranked 37th in the world...BEHIND Canada. Yes, you have to wait longer to see a doctor in Canada, or Britain, or countries with NHS, but the overall level of care is better because everyone gets to see a doctor. I don't consider it high level quality care if we increase the quality by shutting out half of the population.
You didn't ask for any. But since you seem to want one http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
The WHO ranks the worlds healthcare systems. Other organizations also do it, but the WHO generally is recognized to have the legitimacy to do it. But don't worry, other organizations don't put the US near the top either.
The price per capita is a response to people who claim that socialized medicine is so much more expensive than our current system.
They spend less on their healthcare than we do, so I don't think they should have any complaints.
Ahh, I guess all the public service announcements to get checked for breast cancer, prostate cancer, etc, etc are just kidding then?
Please tell me a non-government solution to people not being able to afford healthcare.
What? We spend DOUBLE the amount that Britain spends on healthcare, but yet their system works much better than ours.
You don't think thats flawed? You don't think its flawed that 1/3 of Americans don't have health insurance?
Except that, but almost all standards, these other countries have BETTER systems than we do.
Do ER visits account for all, or even half of, hospital visits?
Perhaps not but it takes longer than it would here under our current system.
Fine let's work with the premise that everyone gets to see a doctor. One, they aren't going to get to see a doctor as soon as they would under our system. Economic principles assure that
Two, how does everyone getting to see a doctor correlate to quality of care? it doesn't.
Thirdly you miss understand then what quality care means. Quality of care has nothing to do with who or who doesn't have access to it. You can only measure quality of care if someone is actually cared for
Responsiveness: (which in my humble opinion is measure of quality) the U.S. is listed first.
Of particular interest is the detailed table. As you note the U.S. is also first in per capita helath care expenditure. Which is also something to work on, but I think one should explore many other options before resorting to government.
the above is link to map of countries with universal healthcare (in blue) again the higher the nubmer the better as far as per capita spending on health care:
Based on the countries you cited however in previous posts and in light of the fact that this is out of 191 countries Australia at 17 and the UK at 26 and France at 4 are not exacltey shining beacons of affordable health care.
As a point of fact then the of the 10 cheapest countries per capita, none of them use a universal health care system. To be perfectly honest that's a little mis leadng as well because they are almost all 3rd world african countries.
Our second worst score is in overall level of health, 72 out of 191 countires. This is most likely again a direct result of our level of freedom. If your going to be for freedom you need to allow people to make bad choices as well.
The report also does not endorse state run health care. the most it says is that it is in a countries best interest to provide insurance to as many people as poossible, nor does it suggest that government is the best way to accomplish taht goal.
Also of note is that the rank is partially based on effective use of resources. how well are the resources the country has utilized. This obviously will move the U.S. down the ranks as well. It is fair to say that the U.S. probably has the most resources available to it of any country in terms of technology and quality of physicians. So we are going to have a more difficult time than other countries effectively using all of those resources. The other misleading thing is that even though are resources are relatively under utilized which reduced our score, the lvl at which they are utilized is still greater than that of almost any country
realatively speeking comapared to 191 other countries they are ranked 6th in per capita. so realitvely speeking no they don't pay that much less then us.
A public service announcement is a little different than a doctor visit.
I have a better idea, challenge yourself a little and see if you can figure one out instead running to the government.
according to the the table from your link that is false. they rank behind us in repsonsiveness as wlll as attainment of goals.
As I hope your beginning to see your link has a lot more factors then just cost. Many of which the U.S. surpasses almost everyone else in.
In terms of cost per capita, yes. In terms of respivness in our system, according to your link no one is better than the U.S. And the U.S. is right near top in almost every category. ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN LINK THIS ASSERTION IS PATENTLY FALSE.
The monopoly of basic health insurance has led to a single, homogeneous public system of health care delivery. In such a public monopoly, bureaucratic uniformity and lack of entrepreneurship add to the costs. The system is slow to adjust to changing demands and new technologies. For instance, day clinics and home care are underdeveloped as there exist basically only two types of general hospitals: the non-profit local hospital and the university hospital.
No idea, but one would suspect that ER visits are the ones that you really don't want a wait for, yes?
It does...because more people can do it.
They may if pay is increased, or other incentives for people to become Doctors are introduced.
It correlates to average quality of care.
Say 10 people need to see a doctor otherwise they will die. 5 can't afford it, so they die. Now say 10 people need to see a doctor but there is a wait. So 3 of them die. I would claim that the second scenario has a higher quality of care, because the system kills less people.
It is. The US isn't the worst at every single indicator, but overall it falls rather short of the mark.
The US does not just spend the most per capita...it far,far, far exceeds the country that spends the 2nd most per capita. I believe its Switzerland now and they pay about 70% of what Americans pay, per capita.
Despite our greater technology, I don't think we use what we have very well considering a lot of people can't pay for the great technology that we have.
They pay approximately half of what we do per capita. So yes, they pay a LOT less than us.
The point is that it is much more efficient to get people in to see the doctor sooner rather than later. Hence the psa's about going to see your doctor sooner rather than later.
I have and it don't work. And I'm not "running to the government", I am saying that the government will run the most efficient and least costly form of healthcare in this country. Hell, they already do.
They aren't better in every single indicator, just much better overall.
Responsiveness is the only one that the US got in the top ten for. Overall, which is a combination of all 5 marks, we scored 37th.
Near the top in almost every category? It is at the top at one, and only one, category. That is responsiveness, and that is the only one that it is in the top 10 for.
Is that what Jesus would have done?
Are you not your brothers keeper?
Jesus was a capitolist xenophobe, eh? Indeed, didn't you start this thread out talking about the plight of christianity? 'fore you accuse me, take a look at yourself.
