These healthcare ranking-statistics are indeed rather misleading. The US cant do any good in them, because if your system does not provide universal coverage, you are the devil.

Having people die on year-long waiting lists is SO morally superior to having them die because they can not afford their treatment.


People really need to learn to understand the differences between insurance, saving, and redistribution. They are completely different things, and nothing good can come from lumping them in together under the guise of populist rethoric. If you want more redistribution, I guess there is no need for any arguments if you have 51% of the votes, but please be honest about it.

All these reforms and measures are nothing but covert ways of increasing redistribution, and in the process, perfectly functional systems of saving and insurance are rendered disfunctional.

You dont need to insure yourself for things you can pay out of pocket. You dont need your employer to buy your insurance plan. Most medical costs are to be expected later in life: guarding against that is a matter of savings, not insurance. Insurance companies are not in the busines of saving money for you: if such is your expectation, expect to be disappointed.

The least harmful way to achieve the intended effect of giving everyone access to basic healthcare, is to give everyone enough money to insure and save towards that effect. Its going to be freaking expensive, but far less so than when you do it by further contortions of an already kafkaian system.


Obama: lulz we are going to give everyone more care for less money and we are not going to increase taxes nor run up the deficit nor ration care omgwftbbq ill throw some pink unicorns in for good measure! No thats not a tax thats only fair! No critical questions mr reporter? Great!

Color me skeptical.

Quote: Having people die on year-long waiting lists is SO morally superior to having them die because they can not afford their treatment.

Quote: You dont need to insure yourself for things you can pay out of pocket. You dont need your employer to buy your insurance plan. Most medical costs are to be expected later in life: guarding against that is a matter of savings, not insurance. Insurance companies are not in the busines of saving money for you: if such is your expectation, expect to be disappointed.

A friend of mine was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at the age of 11. I don't know much about medicine, but as far as I know multiple sclerosis is neither a preventative ailment, nor a very inexpensive one: http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Multiple-Sclerosis/How-much-is-MS-treatment-costing-you-per-month/show/324830.

He spent the next year receiving treatment from the local state owned hospital, the government also subsidized his medication so that his family was able to comfortably afford it. He recovered quite well, and was able to live a happy and fulfilled life. Recently (After twelve years) he had a relapse, and he was taken back to hospital to restart his treatment. He was taken there immediately, and after a bed recovery period, he received physiotherapy, and affordable medication, for the next three months.

He didn't have to wait a ridiculous amount of time; He wasn't ignored; He received the treatment he needed without too much cost or hassle. He was nothing special to the state, he has no acquaintance to any minister, none of this was accidental, or a case of special treatment. And frankly I'm glad that my contribution to the National Insurance fund made that possible.

Fortunately, I never had the opportunity to visit our new state of the art modern Hospital. At the age of ten, I needed an emergency operation on my kidney from the old Victorian-esque hospital. My operation was prompt and professional. My recovery period was long and costly to the state. The only discomfort I can vividly remember was that the food was horrible, the atmosphere was creepy, and I didn't have a TV in my room. With private hospitals here you get cable, and a quick ride to the state hospital if your insurance doesn't cover the treatment.

No one dies waiting for emergency treatment, and if my little country, and most other Western countries, can sustain a State run health system, then so can the United States. Get real.

Quote: Original post by SticksandStones

Quote: Is it really a smart move to let the government control health care?

It's better than letting the insurance companies.

This.

Quote: Original post by laeuchli

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds

On page 425-426 it describes the "mandatory end of life counseling", which is indeed in the bill.

....Good catch with the google-fu on the mandatory end of life stuff, but as I said above, you need to take steps somehow to decide how much care is appropriate. What they'll decide in the required counseling however, I am unsure.

There is absolutely nothing about "mandatory end of life counseling."









Also, did anyone see the price gouging that the insurance companies got busted for just a few months ago?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2008-02-13-cuomo-healthinsurers_N.htm

Quote: ....the U.S. health insurance industry [reportedly] used a faulty database that overcharged patients for seeing doctors outside their insurance network, costing Americans billions of dollars in inflated medical bills.

The flawed database is operated by Ingenix, a subsidiary of health insurer UnitedHealth Group, which agreed in January to pay $350 million to settle allegations....

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on August 12, 2009 5:24:55 PM]

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds

">Can we even pay for it?

"Yes we can."




:oP

Quote: Original post by WazzatMan
No one dies waiting for emergency treatment

Not more or less than in the US. Emergency treatment is already free there, you know.

Quote:
and if my little country, and most other Western countries, can sustain a State run health system, then so can the United States. Get real.

Im not saying they couldnt, but the real cost of it is going to be high, no matter how you spin it. To present universal coverage somehow as a saving, a win for everyone, and get away with it, well, im amazed.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Im not saying they couldnt, but the real cost of it is going to be high, no matter how you spin it. To present universal coverage somehow as a saving, a win for everyone, and get away with it, well, im amazed.

Because you've studied the numbers, right?

Quote: To present universal coverage somehow as a saving, a win for everyone, and get away with it, well, im amazed.

I would think that any cost would be far outweighed by the benefits. And costs, at the end of the day, wouldn't be unsustainable high. There are several countries which already implement such systems. The G8 has seven of them.

Misleading statement, I know. Each public health care system is a completely different beast from the other. Some of them only go so far to provide for their people, some of them are in complete shambles, and require reform, while others (Such as the one in my country) would make Karl Marx proud.

You can't just say "I want to provide health care for my people", and pump billions of tax payer dollars into it. These systems require constant maintenance, and open-minded evolution--Which actually makes them the perfect target for centralization. They also need to be tailored to their host country's particular needs.

At the end of the day however, a public health care system provides the kind of peace of mind and plularistic financial security which every healthy state needs. I'd hate to pull heart string, but we are talking about sustaining life here, it's not exactly a luxury.

Quote: Not more or less than in the US. Emergency treatment is already free there, you know.

I'm not sure if that statement is true or not, but I mentioned my own case, and my friend's case for a very good reason. While they required emergency treatment (Which was prompt in both cases, no one had to die waiting), they also required recovery treatment. The kind of recovery which would have driven my family, and my friend's family, to financial ruin. If they had borne the brunt of the financial costs that is.

[Edited by - WazzatMan on July 25, 2009 7:51:18 AM]

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Im not saying they couldnt, but the real cost of it is going to be high, no matter how you spin it. To present universal coverage somehow as a saving, a win for everyone, and get away with it, well, im amazed.

Because you've studied the numbers, right?

Which numbers? You mean the ones that can be manipulated whichever way you want them to?

The money is going to come from somewhere. Part of it will be taxes increases, part of it will be deficit spending, part of it will be reduced coverage and rationing, and probably largely it will come from price controls.

No matter where the money will be conjured from, there will not magically be more doctors performing more procedures. Medical care is a limited good, and price controls will only decrease their total amount over time.

Price controls on medication are even more disturbing. Ive always thought americans were kind of crazy, paying for the drugs for the rest of the world, but thank you, it was great while it lasted. Drug development is going to be fun, when no single country in the world cares about honoring patents any more. The unintended consequences of socialized healthcare will be many. Slaughter the hen with the golden eggs -> profit! Why not, the effects will only be felt long after obama is out of office.

Quote:
At the end of the day however, a public health care system provides the kind of peace of mind and plularistic financial security which every healthy state needs.

Im glad you are happy with it, but speak for yourself

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Im not saying they couldnt, but the real cost of it is going to be high, no matter how you spin it. To present universal coverage somehow as a saving, a win for everyone, and get away with it, well, im amazed.

Because you've studied the numbers, right?

Which numbers? You mean the ones that can be manipulated whichever way you want them to?

I missed it. Did you answer the question I had there?