Lou Dobbs on single-payer healthcare in Denmark

[bascule]

LgQj0tL-AjU

I've always thought that Lou Dobbs is a bit of a douchebag, but this was a surprisingly positive segment on single-payer healthcare. He notes that Denmark pays half of what the US pays for healthcare (as a percentage of GDP), yet has more doctors per capita than the US, and reports a higher level of satisfaction.

It's awesome to see attention being paid in the mainstream media to single-payer systems, especially showing that they don't have to be overly expensive, especially compared to what we're paying now.

[Dudde]

Nice,

 

I can honestly say that I've never expected to agree with that man, but he makes a good point. An interesting clip

[Pangloss]

That is surprising.

[John Cuthber]

I'm not sure what you find surprising; is it the fact that the man makes a good point, or the fact that properly organised socialised healthcare is cheaper than having someone make a profit from it?

[Pangloss]

I found it surprising for the exact same reason that bascule found it surprising -- Lou Dobbs is a die-hard, stalwart conservative.

 

Even if I disagree with him (which isn't at ALL a conclusion I've drawn at this point in time), I'd still respect his ability to look beyond his ideology.

[bascule]

He's normally making segments about how illegal immigrants are destroying America.

[iNow]

...or the fact that properly organised socialised healthcare is cheaper than having someone make a profit from it?

 

You're right. That is a fact. I just wanted to QFT your comment.

[ParanoiA]

I've always thought that Lou Dobbs is a bit of a douchebag' date=' but this was a surprisingly positive segment on single-payer healthcare. He notes that Denmark pays half of what the US pays for healthcare (as a percentage of GDP), yet has more doctors per capita than the US, and reports a higher level of satisfaction.

 

It's awesome to see attention being paid in the mainstream media to single-payer systems, especially showing that they don't have to be overly expensive, especially compared to what we're paying now.[/quote']

 

Yeah...Denmark is ranked 34th on the WHO study cited in another thread about America's system ranked at 37th. I hardly see why it should stand as evidence of anything but mediocrity, something we already have and I thought we established we didn't want...? Why are we suddenly so impressed with this? It's almost as if some are ignoring the same measuring stick used to assail America's current system. Surely we're going to measure each system with the same stick?

[padren]

He's normally making segments about how illegal immigrants are destroying America.

 

Honestly I suspect some personal experience has hit home in the health care issue. Sort of like Glenn Beck would be if it wasn't for the lobotomy. If Dobbs had fallen in love with some illegal immigrant who was dragged here as a kid by her parents and 'fell through the legal cracks' he'd probably take a different tact on immigration.

In short, I am skeptical this has so much to do with "enlightened objective debate about health care from a non-partisan perspective" and is really just that something hit too close to home for him to tow the party line on.

 

Still - glad to see it, it's gotta have a health effect, regardless of the cause.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Yeah...Denmark is ranked 34th on the WHO study cited in another thread about America's system ranked at 37th. I hardly see why it should stand as evidence of anything but mediocrity, something we already have and I thought we established we didn't want...? Why are we suddenly so impressed with this? It's almost as if some are ignoring the same measuring stick used to assail America's current system. Surely we're going to measure each system with the same stick?

 

It's not a linear metric. It's not like the US is only 3% behind Denmark, but even though they are only 3 rankings ahead the numbers in the report show they are remarkably more cost effective and have remarkably more doctors per person.

We also won't measure each system with the same stick - different people have different reasons and different perspectives on the issue, and as such they'll use different metrics. It's not like there are two simple "pro" and "con" camps that collate and organize their arguments before speaking to the "collective view" on their side.

[iNow]

Yeah...Denmark is ranked 34th on the WHO study cited in another thread about America's system ranked at 37th. I hardly see why it should stand as evidence of anything but mediocrity, something we already have and I thought we established we didn't want...?

Padren touched on this, but basically... They are ranked ahead of us while paying a whole lot less.

 

Also, if you're calling their higher rated system in Denmark "evidence of mediocrity," then your argument implicitly shows how poorly you view the current US system. Thanks for that. We're even more mediocre, and we pay twice as much to get there!

[ParanoiA]

Padren touched on this, but basically... They are ranked ahead of us while paying a whole lot less.

 

Also, if you're calling their higher rated system in Denmark "evidence of mediocrity," then your argument implicitly shows how poorly you view the current US system. Thanks for that. We're even more mediocre, and we pay twice as much to get there!

 

Oh we're definitely mediocre at accessibility, and I believe most of our poor downstream measurements come from that disparity. You're more than welcome my friend.

[John Cuthber]

If two totally different systems both achieve mediority it sugests that anyone claiming that one of the systems is particularly good isn't paying attention.

Also, if one of the two is significantly cheaper many people may prefer cheap mediocrity to expensive mediocrity.

[bombus]

The USA makes heart pacemakers which are sold to European healthcare systems/citizens for £5000 dollars each, but they are sold to US citizens for £35,000 each! Heard it today on Radio 4 (link below)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00m67vv/Peston_and_the_Money_Men_Jim_Chanos/

 

This is a good documentary - mostly about the credit crunch but mentions the US healthcare issue towards the end (at 26:00 mins - you can go straight there)

Edited August 24, 2009 by bombus

[padren]

If two totally different systems both achieve mediority it sugests that anyone claiming that one of the systems is particularly good isn't paying attention.

 

This is a very good observation, though I don't think that it's established that the ranking itself makes Denmark mediocre. If you raced 100 of the fastest humans on Earth, #37 will still likely be anything but mediocre - the runner is likely amazing and just not quite as fast as 36 others.

 

The reason I mention this is because we really don't have a true metric for what mediocre is. The numbers in the overall rating system seem to show Denmark doing far better in at least two categories even though ranking is only different by three. I would be curious to know what other factors went into the ranking.

 

Also, all that aside (Denmark I mean) chances are there are some very mediocre Single Payer systems out there - just that Denmark may not be among them. All that really says is that Single Payer isn't a magic bullet and it can be implemented poorly too. Corruption, technology, trade embargoes, or any other myriad of factors could come into play.

 

A better question may be to ask if there is anything resembling our system even vaguely that is not mediocre. We need to figure out what can work, not what can fail. Not saying that if no such system can be found that it proves our system is fatally flawed - just our chances of finding a way we can fix it without serious changes diminish significantly.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The USA makes heart pacemakers which are sold to European healthcare systems/citizens for £5000 dollars each, but they are sold to US citizens £30,000 each! Heard it today on Radio 4 (link below)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00m67vv/Peston_and_the_Money_Men_Jim_Chanos/

 

This is a good documentary - mostly about the credit crunch but mentions the US healthcare debate towards the end.

 

The interesting question there is whether or not we are subsidizing their health care indirectly - they negotiate better prices, so more profits on those items come from us, which goes into researching better products they buy at a bloc discount. The irony is while it may suggest that the European systems may be getting unfairly high marks, it also begs for the disparity to be closed, which pretty much requires we do more things the European way so we can get those prices.

Edited August 24, 2009 by padren
Consecutive posts merged.

[bombus]

I found it surprising for the exact same reason that bascule found it surprising -- Lou Dobbs is a die-hard, stalwart conservative.

 

Even if I disagree with him (which isn't at ALL a conclusion I've drawn at this point in time), I'd still respect his ability to look beyond his ideology.

 

Would you say he's a traditional conservative as opposed to a neo-conservative? If so that would probably explain it. Trad Cons like value for money as much as anyone!

[insane_alien]

perhaps the US price also includes the cost of the surgery to install it?

[bombus]

perhaps the US price also includes the cost of the surgery to install it?

 

Nope, I don't think so. Listen to the documentary. The implication is (I think) that the makers are able to charge almost what they like because they are in bed with the healthcare providers - or at least because there is too little accountability. It's the citizens that suffer via higher insurance premiums - and taxes as 50% of the US healthcare system is funded by the Government. Sounds like the other 50% is pure profit for private companies!!

 

You don't have to listen to the whole thing, go straight to 26:00mins.

Edited August 24, 2009 by bombus

[Pangloss]

So 34th is okay, and 37th is not okay? Seems kinda arbitrary. I'm thinking 47th would be okay and 48th would not be okay if that's where Denmark and US ranked. Never let logic get in the way of message, I guess.

 

Comparing systems directly is fine, I agree (e.g. they pay less but get better care). Nothing wrong with that.

 

 

Would you say he's a traditional conservative as opposed to a neo-conservative? If so that would probably explain it. Trad Cons like value for money as much as anyone!

 

It's possible; I don't know all that much about him.

[padren]

So 34th is okay, and 37th is not okay? Seems kinda arbitrary. I'm thinking 47th would be okay and 48th would not be okay if that's where Denmark and US ranked. Never let logic get in the way of message, I guess.

 

Can you quote when you challenge an assertion like that please? It's not clear who suggested that and I didn't see where it clearly was. If it was my comments I do want to be clear I did not suggest that and pretty much said the opposite - it' not a linear ranking, those numbers are entirely arbitrary and only rank the relative ranking between the systems based on a whole lot of esoteric metrics. What is telling, is the relative statistics for #34 and #37 in overall cost, access, speed of service and quality.

 

I'll go one further and say the statistical metric of how 'satisfied' a population is with their system is entirely subjective because no two populations can be assumed to have the same expectations out of their health care systems. A nation like Estonia for instance that has emerged from Soviet control into the free market to excel in the tech industry and such may be far more proud of what they accomplished in the subsequent years, and Denmark may have enjoyed gradual improvements themselves that they are proud of.

On the other hand - when one large group of Americans still feel 'cheated' by the fact the Clinton Administration failed on the promise of health care reform... combined with another large group of Americans feeling 'cheated' by liberals placing unfair restrictions on the private health care industry our expectations are skewed by the fact we feel it should be better and has been hampered up by political interferences.

 

In short we are a pretty hard population to find contentment with anything because about 51% of the population always feels the government hasn't done enough and 49% feel it has done too much the wrong way. We are a highly critical of government, and we at times seem to feel like we not only should have our cake and eat it, but we deserve more cake too. Asside from the little bit of 'cake entitlement' we also have a great quality of always feeling we can improve on what we already have.

 

 

Even with the ranking system being relative and approval ratings being holy subjective to the expectations of a people the cost and access issues remain. We are being beat by Denmark in terms of cost, accessibility, and number of doctors per person. I honestly don't think the Danes have it right though - I think we could have a much better system than they have by being far more free-market based than they are, and I don't think their system would necessarily fit here well and provide the same statistics they get at all.

 

The only real assertion is - they are beating our current system in terms of number of doctors and cost, and regardless of whether Americans will ever be satisfiedwith any system - the system currently is honestly and entirely unsatisfactory and appears to be financially unsustainable.

Edited August 25, 2009 by padren

[bascule]

So 34th is okay, and 37th is not okay?

 

For half the price and 50% more doctors? Sure!

 

Why are we paying more than anyone else to be 37th again exactly?

[John Cuthber]

This is a very good observation, though I don't think that it's established that the ranking itself makes Denmark mediocre. If you raced 100 of the fastest humans on Earth, #37 will still likely be anything but mediocre - the runner is likely amazing and just not quite as fast as 36 others.

 

 

 

The assertion of mediocrity was Paranoia's not mine.

I was just pointing out that paying a lot more for mediocre service is worse than paying less for it. (whatever deffinition of mediority you choose).

Of course the reallity is that, compared to a hundred years ago, both services are miraculous.

It's just that one is slightly more miraculous and also rather cheaper.

[bascule]

It's not only half the cost, it's universal. If you need care you will get it. That's not the case for everyone in America.

[Pangloss]

those numbers are entirely arbitrary and only rank the relative ranking between the systems based on a whole lot of esoteric metrics. What is telling, is the relative statistics for #34 and #37 in overall cost, access, speed of service and quality.

 

Ok, I'm confused. Are the numbers "entirely arbitrary", or do they represent a difference in "overall cost, access, speed of service and quality"?

 

 

 

It's not only half the cost, it's universal. If you need care you will get it. That's not the case for everyone in America.

 

I don't know about Denmark, but that's not always the case in single-payer systems. They get emergency care (as do Americans), but non-emergency (but still "needed") care is rationed, hence the waiting lists (and low costs).

[bascule]

I don't know about Denmark, but that's not always the case in single-payer systems. They get emergency care (as do Americans), but non-emergency (but still "needed") care is rationed

 

Honestly, why do you keep bringing that up? Non-emergency care is rationed under the present private healthcare system in America. To bring it up in the context of universal healthcare is a total red herring. Can you point to a healthcare system where non-emergency care isn't rationed? As far as I can tell, the rationing of healthcare is much worse in America than it is under universal healthcare systems like NHS. I have to wait a week to see a GP.

 

Also, this thread is about the Danish healthcare system, so to start a talking point with "I don't know about Denmark" then proceed on to a total non-sequitur is completly off topic and in especially bad form.

[Pangloss]

Truth is not a "red herring", bascule. The fact that they also have to wait in America doesn't mean they aren't waiting in your beloved single-payer countries. If you don't want me to correct you then don't say something that isn't accurate.