Socialized Medicine

[ParanoiA]

The US government spends A LOT more than countries with "socialized medicine" on health care. The US spends about $2200 per person a year, countries like Canada and the UK, around $1500. We spend a lot more, 50% more.

 

But a lot of it never pays for any health care, it pays people to decide what to do with the money. Becuase we have all these little programs doing little things everywhere. It we just get rid of those people, and design a much more simple system, we'd have plenty of money to use. Get rid of all the little programs that use more money than they are worth, and make on big simple one.

 

In the US, with the amount of money we use, using a system similar to socialized medicine, we could have monkey butlers bring us drinks as we wait in the waiting room. (exaggeration ).

 

 

So are you saying our current system would be just fine if we got rid of these little programs and design a simpler system?

 

See, I don't like the "fend for yourself" mentallity about health care. I suppose that's a strange place to draw the line seeing as how we require everyone to basically fend for themselves in fetching food, clothing and shelter. But it seems silly to provide police protection to all - socialized - but you're on your own to find and pay for a doctor to deal with your liver disease.

 

And we don't have a tier system for fire or police either. We all get the same - well in theory anyway. Health care just seems like a natural progression from that.

[Pangloss]

The US has great healthcare for the privileged elite. Everyone else gets screwed.

 

That's an exaggeration, in my view. I'm hardly "privileged elite", but I have a great healthcare plan, and in fact my situation is hardly even atypical. I know it's hard for younger people (especially students or people just getting out into the workforce) to understand, but just as most Americans are able to adapt to higher oil prices, most Americans have some kind of handle on their healthcare situation.

 

Whether it's "great" or not is an absolutely debatable point, I agree. And of course tens of millions have nothing, which is clearly not great by anyone's definition.

 

We don't like it, it's not as good a situation as it could be, but it doesn't stop millions of Americans from, say, standing in line for several days to buy a PS3.

 

(They could catch a cold, see... I'm being witty....)

[bascule]

That's an exaggeration, in my view. I'm hardly "privileged elite", but I have a great healthcare plan, and in fact my situation is hardly even atypical.

 

Your view contradicts a number of comprehensive surveys of healthcare systems around the world in which Americans consistently rank their system lower than socialized medicine programs. I've linked one... can you link one which would contradict this assessment?

[john5746]

Your view contradicts a number of comprehensive surveys of healthcare systems around the world in which Americans consistently rank their system lower than socialized medicine programs. I've linked one... can you link one which would contradict this assessment?

 

He said you exaggerated, not that you are wrong about the statement above. I have worked in small companies and you see very quickly that medical insurance premiums take over any wage increase very easily, except managers. It is obvious to me that this cannot continue, I am just unsure as to the answer.

 

In America at least, I think public health would be much better served by trying to concentrate on general health, like diet, exercise, weight management, smoking, etc. Americans are sicker than others so they should have more costs. The big money is not in prevention, but in technology and pills. We may just have to target lifestyle changes to insurance rates. If you are overweight, lose it or pay $$.

 

Just expanding insurance to cover everyone with no incentive to change habits won't work, IMO.

[Pangloss]

I'm not disputing your reference, Bascule, I'm saying that proof of a lower quality of healthcare than other countries does not support the gross exaggeration that "everyone else is getting screwed". Do you really need me to track down some typical family budget information? Haven't you yourself posted that 38 million Americans (or some similar two-digit number) are without healthcare (implying that 262 million Americans have it)? Why can't you simply agree with me that the situation is bad? Why do you HAVE to insist that we're all living in the last gasoline refinery 30 years after the collapse of civilization, hoping against all hope that a crazy man in black leather tights will show up in the last of the V8 interceptors and save us?

 

Again, I'm not even saying that you're wrong in essence. I don't think the healthcare system is working either, and I think it needs our immediate attention. I also think that most people are managing to work with the system at the moment. That doesn't mean I don't think it needs fixing. I think my comparison with the fact that most families are dealing with the new reality of gasoline prices is apt -- they're doing the same thing when it comes to the cost of healthcare. People adapt to the changing situation as best as they can. And every year the situation gets a little worse. But we're not all living in the dilapidated streets of our abandoned cities just yet, and pretending like we are isn't helping.

 

John, that's an excellent observation of what happens; I've seen that a number of times as well. As a consultant and I mainly focus on small office environments, and one of the things I've told my students from time to time is that I've probably seen more companies fail than they will work for in their entire lives. The rising cost of healthcare is clearly on all of their minds. The amounts that they're able to cover for their employers seems to decrease each and every year, and some of them are simply not going to continue to be able to adapt forever.

 

I don't entirely agree with you -- what you're suggesting is what I'd LIKE to see happen, but, and maybe I'm just being cynical here, but I think we're going to find ourselves backed-into socialized medicine because of arguments like those being made above. The American public is no more capable of drawing a distinction between an ideological exaggeration and scientific studies than certain members of this forum are -- arguably less so, in fact. And they have zero experience at finding reasonable solutions, and absolutely nobody is leading them towards any. It's just a matter of time before the right demogogue hits the right note at the right time.

[bascule]

Roll up, roll up! Behold as the amazing magician Pangloss demonstrates his magical strawman powers. He will dazzle you as he transforms this statement:

 

everyone else is getting screwed

 

into this one:

 

we're all living in the last gasoline refinery 30 years after the collapse of civilization, hoping against all hope that a crazy man in black leather tights will show up in the last of the V8 interceptors and save us

 

Ladies and gents, there's really nothing quite like it! It must be seen to be believed!

[Glider]

An UK aunt had to pay for private hip surgery even when non ambulatory & delays in getting it under national health.

This would have been simply to speed things up, rather than to get the surgery to begin with.

I also understand no dialyisis is done under UK national health when patient is over 55 years old .

Not true. Anybody who goes into renal failure gets dialysis. The only age limit is for transplant, and that's variable as it depends on other factors such as general health, probability of recovery from surgery, ability to cope with anti-rejection medication and so-on.

Well, the privileged elite he's talking about is like half the freaking country. The rest are "illegal aliens" that apparently like being illegal and getting screwed on wages and benefits - but since no hospital can turn them away for lack of funds, the taxpayers get to pay for it. Or they're welfare recipients that are waiting for a job to knock on their door and provide them with everything they need. Or some other similar tale of bloodsucking consequence.

The UK is the victim of a large degree of what we call 'health tourism'. People coming to the country and 'suddenly' falling ill enough to require admission and treatment. Such people are admitted and treated.

 

Many, when presented with the bill (as people who do not pay taxes in this country are not eligable for free medical treatment) subsequently skip the country and go home.

 

The problem is so common that diagnoses are almost becoming redundent. We can look at where the tourist came from and it will give a good indication of what they have. We still treat things like tuberculosis, dengue fever, lhasa fever etc.. These are becoming demographics rather than diagnoses.

 

Strangely enough, we deal with many many cases from America, of women who fly to the UK whilst heavily pregnant. Stay here to give birth and then go back afterwards. Apparently it's cheaper to get a plane across the Atlantic and pay for an hotel than it is to give birth in the US.

[ParanoiA]

Roll up, roll up! Behold as the amazing magician Pangloss demonstrates his magical strawman powers. He will dazzle you as he transforms this statement:

 

into this one:

 

Ladies and gents, there's really nothing quite like it! It must be seen to be believed!

 

This is why I don't even respond to bascule anymore. His ego prevents him from reading and attaining depth, and presenting himself as anything more than a pimply teenager obsessed with looking cool in front of his peers.

 

 

Strangely enough, we deal with many many cases from America, of women who fly to the UK whilst heavily pregnant. Stay here to give birth and then go back afterwards. Apparently it's cheaper to get a plane across the Atlantic and pay for an hotel than it is to give birth in the US.

 

Really? I had no idea. My sister in law has used the Title 19 government handout for most of her births. It covers everything, before and after birth - like a year or so afterward.

 

But if you have insurance, it sucks because you have out of pocket co-pays and so forth for every visit. And if you have sucky insurance, I'm sure those out of pocket expenses get worse. I would be curious whether or not these women who fly to the UK have insurance or not.

[Pangloss]

Actually, "The US has great healthcare for the privileged elite. Everyone else gets screwed." is a pretty hard statement to misconstrue. Nope, that's about as straightforward as you can get -- there's really no way to distort that to a further extreme. Nice try though, and I'm glad you enjoyed my reply.

[-Demosthenes-]

So are you saying our current system would be just fine if we got rid of these little programs and design a simpler system?

 

See, I don't like the "fend for yourself" mentallity about health care. I suppose that's a strange place to draw the line seeing as how we require everyone to basically fend for themselves in fetching food, clothing and shelter. But it seems silly to provide police protection to all - socialized - but you're on your own to find and pay for a doctor to deal with your liver disease.

 

And we don't have a tier system for fire or police either. We all get the same - well in theory anyway. Health care just seems like a natural progression from that.

 

I'm saying that socialized medicine is cheaper.

[Severian]

I'm saying that socialized medicine is cheaper.

 

I am not convinced. The lack of incentives in socialized medicine lead to a lot of waste.

[Saryctos]

If Medical costs weren't so horribly inflated by near mandatory Insurance policies, there really wouldn't even be a debate for socialized medicine.

[Sisyphus]

If Medical costs weren't so horribly inflated by near mandatory Insurance policies, there really wouldn't even be a debate for socialized medicine.

 

Aye. The same for if we all had Wolverine-like mutant regeneration powers.

[Saryctos]

nano-bots perhaps?

[-Demosthenes-]

I am not convinced. The lack of incentives in socialized medicine lead to a lot of waste.

 

It's not subjective; look at the numbers. the U.S. spends half again (50% more) what countries like Canada and the UK who have systems based on socialized medicine.

 

And the U.S. only covers half what these other countries do.

 

It's a hell of a lot cheaper.

[ParanoiA]

It's not subjective; look at the numbers. the U.S. spends half again (50% more) what countries like Canada and the UK who have systems based on socialized medicine.

 

And the U.S. only covers half what these other countries do.

 

It's a hell of a lot cheaper.

 

Well now we're back to comparing how much countrys spend without looking at the quality and quantity we get in return. Remember, there are a number of things NOT done in the UK that are done here in the states regularly. Like some testing procedures, treatments, and I would think lawsuits and malpractice will play a role in excessive testing and care. America also attracts expensive talent - doctors that are running away from socialized systems. And, how much of that total cost reportedly spent by our respective nations is actually costs associated with R&D?

 

I'm just saying, without looking deep and picking at things a bit, you can't just look at the total money spent by each nation and assume the country that spent the least is the most efficient, better system.

[bascule]

When your system spends the most as a percentage of GDP and polls as one of the worst worldwide, something is wrong

[-Demosthenes-]

Well now we're back to comparing how much countrys spend without looking at the quality and quantity we get in return. Remember, there are a number of things NOT done in the UK that are done here in the states regularly. Like some testing procedures, treatments, and I would think lawsuits and malpractice will play a role in excessive testing and care. America also attracts expensive talent - doctors that are running away from socialized systems. And, how much of that total cost reportedly spent by our respective nations is actually costs associated with R&D?

 

I'm just saying, without looking deep and picking at things a bit, you can't just look at the total money spent by each nation and assume the country that spent the least is the most efficient, better system.

 

You can do the same things in Canada or the UK if you have the money. It only looks like you can get more in the US because most of the health care is paid for privately. You can get the same things other places, if you'll pay for it.

 

As for quantity, we get about 44% of our health care paid for publicly, while countries where medicine is socialized get 70% to 80% or higher. So we pay more and actually get less.

[Pangloss]

Aye. The same for if we all had Wolverine-like mutant regeneration powers.

 

Funniest reply of the month, right there....

[Severian]

I can only speak from my own experience. I have lived in the UK, France and Switzerland. Of these, the best healthcare was Switzerland, which was the least socialized, while the worst was the UK, which is pretty much completely socialized.

 

Basically it really doesn't get much worse that the UK's National Health Service.

[bascule]

Basically it really doesn't get much worse that the UK's National Health Service.

 

Ever met an American denied coverage for an organ transplant or cancer by their HMO?

[Pangloss]

No. And isn't that a rather obvious straw man? We don't want to throw out the current program because of individual cases, we want to throw it out because it's not what's best for the general public (i.e. "everyone").

 

The best healthcare system in the world will have people who fell through the cracks. I'm not going to make a decision on that basis, and I'm not going to allow that sort of thing to shape the debate here. Hint, hint.