| |
| Health Bill |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| marcusclayman |
 Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:12 pm Post subject: Health Bill |
 |
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 1729
|
I saw an ad today against the health bill. I don't have much of an opinion on the health bill, but I noticed some logical errors in the propaghanda against it.
It was said "look at Canada and England... patients wait up to a year for vital surgeries..." implying that in Canada and England, many people die because of delays in surgery, caused by government control of health care. But do more people in these places, die because of delays, than people in non-socialized nations die because they can't afford treatment?
I'll be doing research, if anyone can please add their two cents: Try and be specific with your opinions, and provide citations for your facts.
_________________
Dick, be Frank.
Ambiguity Kills. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| inow |
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1795
Location: Austin, TX
|
Short answer? More people die in the US due to lack of coverage than people in England due to delayed care... by SEVERAL orders of magnitude.
I loved this program. It explores 5 different countries who all offer universal care, and they all do it somewhat differently. Well worth the 45 minutes if you've got 'em.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=frol02p101&continuous=1
(homepage)
Also, FWIW... several of my colleagues are from England. They ALL (each and every single one of them) find their system FAR superior to the US system, and they each comment frequently about how screwed up the US is for not caring for it's people like every other advanced nation... and worse, how scared they are to get sick when they have to come here (due to the problems in our approach). They have also commented on more than one occasion that those comments about waiting are far exaggerated, and it's hardly as bad as the conservatives keep claiming.
_________________
iNow
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ Pale Blue Dot ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition."
~C. Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| raptordigits |
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 134
|
In Canada all political parties are 100% in favour of universal health care. There may be a few differences in the details but not with the concept. If our prime minister even hinted at doing away with universal access, he'd be tossed out in a nano second by his own Conservative party.
Surveys for years have shown 95% in favour of our Health Care. Folks bitch about some aspects but not about the government (through taxpayers) picking up the tab. Canadians would have a revolution if we thought someone had to hesitate taking their child or senior parent....or themselves.. to the doctor because of what it would cost. If someone needs heart surgery, cancer care, etc. then the last issue they want to think about are dollars and cents.
Most important are wellness clinics for expectant mothers and their new borns, parental leave to take care of the little one for the first year and walk in facilities if there is any issue. I don't know how societies can break cycles of poverty and violence unless poor, minority or teenage mothers get top knotch health care and then quality education for their children. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| inow |
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1795
Location: Austin, TX
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| raptordigits |
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 134
|
| inow wrote: |
Raptor - Can you comment at all about the wait times claim mentioned in the OP?
| Quote: |
| look at Canada and England... patients wait up to a year for vital surgeries. |
|
Never had a problem. Four years ago I did a '360' while skiing. woke up in the hospital...they had already done a CT scan....felt a it fuzzy-headed....gave me an MRI and kept me in for 3 days....then a follow up MRI 3 weeks later...all was well. No issues. I saw 2 neurologists during that time and a cardiologist (don't know why a cardiologist) but, again all fine after tests.
Re wait times. Nothing stops anyone from paying out of pocket for procedures. 80% of Canadians live within a couple hour drive of the US border. I personally don't know folks who have had to wait any great length of time. My father-in-law was in his doctor's office one day and open heart surgery the next day. I suppose with millions of people visiting doctors every year that there are always bad experiences to cherry pick.
Having said all this, we lived in Elko, Nevada for 10 months and rec'd good coverage through our employer. Folks from there tended to go to Las Vegas for anything other than a doctor's visit and all seemed fine.
I have to admit that I would find private insurance a hindrance in life. It seemed to tie some American workers to their jobs. It's difficult for some to take a chance on relocation, going back to school, etc. One geologist in the USA we are still friends with has a wife with MS and a son with some 'issue'... He's more or less stuck in his job because of health insurance. He's had to turn down some good contracts here in Alberta because he won't be able to get coverage when he returned to the USA. In contrast our family has picked up sticks a half dozen times and never even thought about health care. The only issue is being near good medical facilities as we get older. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| inow |
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1795
Location: Austin, TX
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1594
|
marcusclayman; Those promotions for or against US Health Care reforms are primarily based on anecdotal or extreme cases, which can be found to support either side. Further IMO, most have absolutely no understand of where these ideas have evolved from (SS Act of 1936, Johnson's Medicare/Medicaid 1965/7) where it would eventually lead to, for the US with 307M people and the current QUALITY would have to lead to...
Cost for a perceived best of anything is going to be higher, but cost in this case may not be related to the service itself, rather the 50 separate States imposing both legal rights through tort regulations or lack of, there particular mandates required to SELL insurance in a particular State or multiply other issues.
For a perspective of a British/EU Politician and Conservative, Daniel Hannan, you might google his name + US Health Care or for a brief outline of both views and qualification;
| Quote: |
| Hannan made national news headlines in August 2009 by criticizing the National Health Service on the Fox News Channel in the United States.[2] Amongst other comments, Hannan stated on US TV that he "wouldn't wish" the NHS "on anyone". The comments sparked criticism and controversy from some quarters in the UK.[3] |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Hannan
Here is a summery of one of my viewpoints on your topic...
Death Rates per 1,000/year can very greatly by Country, with the World's Average said to be about 8.6/1000/year. Most Industrialized Nations are around the 8-10/1000, with the 27 member states of the EU at 9.6 per and the US at 8.00/1000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_death_rate
The latest figures on population, list the World at 6,789,300,000, the US at 307,658,000, the EU 499,794,855 and for this discussion the UK at 61,634,599.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
Most all deaths in the industrialized world are health related, failure of the Heart or respiratory system and cancer leading the list, by far. In 2006, 2,426,264 American died, on average 6648 per day and in the UK about 610,000 or 1688 per day.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/deaths.htm
Now the figure most often thrown around for uninsured deaths in the US each year is 45,000 by proponents of a UHC System for the US.
| Quote: |
| WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday. |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090917/hl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_deaths
That means 1.8% of the people who died in that one year had 'NO INSURANCE' (up to 46 Million are said to have none today in the US), said another way of those nearly 2.5M others, 98.2% had insurance at the time of death or that insurance would not have played a roll in the death (suggesting preventative care, unenforceable and costly). Even the strongest and most expensive proposal TODAY, still does NOT include a percentage of folks (25M). I'll assume, life can be prolonged to some degree by immediate attention, that in the US this at worst means a few days from Family Doctor, to specialist to diagnosis and to an attempted repair of the problem, with or with out insurance. That the lack of insurance means nothing to the actual death rates (system), but where the lack of Medical Personnel and permission of a third entity (Government) and those suggested delays involve more deaths, while waiting than where little wait is involved. For the record, in both the US or any Country with UHC, no person in dire need of service is DENIED attention, in cardiac arrest, snake bites, having had an accident and so on, whether the person is from that Country or not, which in itself should defeat the argument for a US National System, one main cause for claimed for a US overhaul of the system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 3034
|
| jackson33 wrote: |
For the record, in both the US or any Country with UHC, no person in dire need of service is DENIED attention, in cardiac arrest, snake bites, having had an accident and so on, whether the person is from that Country or not, which in itself should defeat the argument for a US National System, one main cause for claimed for a US overhaul of the system. |
No, but often they will voluntarily forgo it in order to save money. What's worse is that people will gamble by not seeking early care in the hope that their symptoms will go away, and they'll turn out to be fine. Sometimes they end up waiting until it's too late and nothing can be done.
The key to lowering the price of health care is convincing people to focus on prevention, which simply won't happen if a person is having to pay out of pocket for their yearly checkup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| iceaura |
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 05 Oct 2008
Posts: 432
|
Not only do more people die of lack of treatment, in the US, than die of delays elsewhere,
but more people die of delays, in the the US. (The category "lack of treatment" includes delays, notice).
The idea that people just walk right in and get treated, in the US, is misinformed. I recall a chart showing the average delay in treatment for common complaints in the US as half again as long as in, say, France, which means the occasionally more serious diagnosis that results is also worsening for that much longer. And that's for people with insurance, in the US. (Everyone has health insurance of above average US quality, in France).
One common source of death by delay, in the US, is the overcrowded emergency rooms common in lower income neighborhoods - often crowded with people who in First World medical systems would have taken their complaints to a regular doc weeks or months earlier, or overloaded with trauma victims all brought to the one remaining open late night ER in the area (they lose money, and they are closing all over), occasionally they overlook somebody who doesn't seem that hurt, sitting in the corner quietly dying of internal bleeding or the like.
A case like that (a 90 minute delay in treating a stroke) made the news in my town just last week - made the news because the victim was white, wealthy, male, insured, had personal connections to news media, and had relatives who sued. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marcusclayman |
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 1729
|
My only problem with socialized medicine is that different people have different paradigms and different levels of conscientiousness when it comes to their lifestyle decisions.
There is a certain culture that is interested in nutrition, but even(if not especially) they are subject to propaghanda in the media, when some studies are unduely focused on, and other studies are completely ignored.
For the most part people are guided by popular opinions, like "eat whole wheat not white bread" but why? "because whole flour is better than white flour" but why? what is missing, the germ and bran, but what is in those that you need? etc etc
People accept the simple answer, and that is ok, what makes our society so efficient is specialization; but so many refuse to accept help from experts for so many biased reasons.
Should I have to pay for those who are missing information because they care more about their stories on the telly, the rising cost of tobacco and who's partying tonight?
I suppose in some bigger scheme of things, they are helping the economy in some ways, and breeding future generations of consumers.
_________________
Dick, be Frank.
Ambiguity Kills. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1594
|
| Quote: |
| No, but often they will voluntarily forgo it in order to save money. What's worse is that people will gamble by not seeking early care in the hope that their symptoms will go away, and they'll turn out to be fine. Sometimes they end up waiting until it's too late and nothing can be done. |
And others for many reasons, will neither seek or accept any Health Care (often for religious reason). At any rate, if saving money is the persons main goal in life and an adult (legal right) and the likely reason he/she has no insurance in the first place, in the USA (at this time) it's that person right.
Many times the systems do go away on there own and statistically what usually happens. There is another breed out there, millions of folks that will go to the Doctor for any sycosematic induced fear of illness, my neighbor got sick, I touched a raw egg and heard this or that or today, I must have Swine Flu, because I woke up feeling this morning, feeling different. I've heard many hospital emergency rooms and clinics are flooded with runny noises or mild coughing or temperatures, yet no signs of flu or even a cold.
| Quote: |
| The key to lowering the price of health care is convincing people to focus on prevention, which simply won't happen if a person is having to pay out of pocket for their yearly checkup. |
I totally agree, if every person, did everything said to be healthy, they MIGHT remain healthy for an additional period. Two problems; What's been classified unhealthy far more often than should be, has later been deemed incorrect, even in some cases healthy. Both my parents in hearing salt could be bad for them, went salt free. With in a few years both contracted inner eye problems for lack of iodine (in salt), having to take very expensive pills daily for their remaining 20 years each. Second; People are going to be people and do what they wish to, regardless the consequences. Jump out of airplanes, clime mountains, eat hamburgers, milk shakes, drink soda, beer, alcohol, smoke cigars or cigarettes, chew tobacco and the thousands of things seen as unhealthy by one activist group or another. Maybe meat is unhealthy, many think it is, would you like to see a veggie-politician in the position to make meat eaters, ineligible for medical care, add a 20% sales tax on meat or just outlaw the sale of meat altogether. It may appear I am exaggerating, but with paid for health available to every person will allow people to do things they wish MORE and to eliminate that Government would have to penalize the activity in some way.
Why in the world would any healthy 18-50yo, maybe 60yo even want to get an annually physical even a general quicky. To properly prevent things 5 10 or 30 years down the road, your talking about a battery of very costly procedures. If this is available to every person each year, my guess is your talking about 500.00 per 306M people, your talking about a mostly added 153B$ expense per year and I have no idea what kind of chaos in the clinics and Doctor Offices in the US. By the way an MRI, the best diagnostic test available for current and future problems can cost from 1 to $4,000 per test.
I have to be just plain mean here, but what about genetics. If you are truly interested in creating a healthy population, don't allow certain people to mate at all or pick out their mates, see how that floats. We already have the ability to detect certain defects and future health problems while the fetus forms, would you suggest those that are born be made ineligible for health care or forced to abort that child, don't think that would fly. How about the elderly, strange as it may seem, were all going to die, once past 60-65 the odds get greater as do the cost to keep living, for many folks. Would you suggest an age limit for medical care, would it be 65-70-80 or maybe 100? Talk about riots, that would start a good one. Half the kids being born today are expected to live to 100 and it's already the fastest growing demographic (percentage wise) in the US, under age.
kojax, I understand the cost are high and I understand they are higher for those with pre-existing condition and I try to understand why every person should have access to equal care. It's just my belief, all this talk is just political rambling. There are ways to reduce cost, I mentioned a few, but if any individual really wants to reduce their personal cost, most already have the means and ability to do just that, having in many cases chose not to. As for equal care, it's just not possible, your going to get the care you can pay for, what the government or your insurance company will pay but there are just so many high quality facilities and/or medical personnel available, frankly many of them are already past 50/60 and will retire in 2013, with any additional government involvement.
You do understand, regardless of the political rhetoric, the seemingly rush to institute a program or a Congressional vote for a program in hours of release from committee are ALL for a program that will not begin until 2013, don't you??? It's not the time required to set up either, this could be started in 30 days, very much like Medicare/Medicaid. It's simple political timing and it's not going to work.
| Quote: |
| One common source of death by delay, in the US, is the overcrowded emergency rooms common in lower income neighborhoods - often crowded with people who in First World medical systems would have taken their complaints to a regular doc weeks or months earlier, or overloaded with trauma victims all brought to the one remaining open late night ER in the area (they lose money, and they are closing all over), occasionally they overlook somebody who doesn't seem that hurt, sitting in the corner quietly dying of internal bleeding or the like. |
iceaura;
You are correct, but the premise may be faulty; Why are those Emergency Rooms crowded and you could include most Clinics, in the first place? Correct, in their minds it's free health care. In addition to those and the countless millions that have deductible Health Insurance (some cost), would then flood the Doctors offices for trivial ailments, creating the same problem and definitely effect waiting times for an appointments.
No doubt a few do fall through the cracks and I recall that lady that made news, dieing while waiting for attention. However the vast majority of trauma victims are attended to on arrival and the ambulance crews are generally in contact with a hospital in advance, if too busy and another available, going there.
With out picking on Countries, both France and Germany have higher death rates than the US per thousand, boiling down to .2%. (see my last post). Insignificant as it is, the US System cannot be worse than others for speedy treatment, rather slightly better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marcusclayman |
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 1729
|
ERs are crowded because many people don't have regular doctors -- because they can't afford them -- and an ER is the only way they know of getting help: when symptoms go beyond what they can tolerate.
I've gone to the ER multiple times for things that I could have just made an apointment for if I had a family practicioner... But I can't afford one. If I could afford one, I would much rather opt for the docter better aquainted with my peculiarities to make decisions about my health.
Also, last time I checked, ER visits are and have never been free. In America, payment is not required by law, but the hospital will still try to contact you to make a payment plan. I will pay all my debts to hospitals when I can, as would everyone who cares about their role in a quality health care system.
________________________________________________________
I think that things shown to cost the socialized-medical-system, should be taxed. For example in America this would include but not be limited to meat, tobacco, alcohol, fast food, television beyond a certain limit, etc etc
_________________
Dick, be Frank.
Ambiguity Kills. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| inow |
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1795
Location: Austin, TX
|
1 out of every 2 bankruptcies filed in the US are the result of medical costs. That's 50% of every single bankruptcy filed... people going bankrupt just because they got sick and couldn't afford their care.
Now... that's not even the worst part. Just wait until you read this...
Out of that 50% of all bankruptcies... you know, the people who went bankrupt due to medical costs alone... 7 out of every 10 of them HAD existing healthcare coverage. 70% of people going bankrupt from medical costs actually had medical insurance, but despite that insurance they still were responsible for exorbitant fees and costs.
It's just disgusting. When you couple that with the fact that between 25 and 50 million people (depending on your source and parameters) are without insurance at all, and with the fact that those people often end up in the ER where their treatment costs are absorbed by the rest of us, and also the fact that most people with existing coverage are actually UNDER-covered (like my sister who is a lawyer and has a $3,000 deductible so can't afford to take herself or her kids to the doctor unless it's a real emergency), I find it disgusting that ANYBODY could argue that what we have is okay.
We are ranked 37th out of 191 countries in terms of healthcare outcome, yet we pay almost 4 times as much as the others... both per capita AND as a percentage of GDP.
It's embarrassing that we're in this state of affairs, and disturbing that there are people out there who think everything's fine.
Sources for the above:
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html
_________________
iNow
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ Pale Blue Dot ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition."
~C. Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 1854
|
| Since no one is proposing a health system for the US that remotely resembles the Canadian or British ones the question, while interesting in itself, is actually irreleveant to the debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marcusclayman |
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 1729
|
well, since the debate has nothing to do with the health care bill and in fact is about an ad against the health care bill which mentions the Canadian and English health care systems, your point, although wrong, is based on a premise that ads a lot to the discussion. Thanks
_________________
Dick, be Frank.
Ambiguity Kills. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
