Notices
Results 1 to 32 of 32
Like Tree7Likes
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By babe
  • 3 Post By Ascended
  • 2 Post By Ascended

Thread: Would public and Private health work better than just one?

  1. #1 Would public and Private health work better than just one? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I've been looking at Canada. Their public health system, of course, leaves much to be desired. But the ability to cross into the USA and make use of America's private health system supplements it, so wealthy people can still get premium care.

    In all reality, I don't believe it is possible to give everyone in any country premium care. The costs just become insane. There has to be rich and poor if the system is a capitalist system. Otherwise only the dumbest, most generous, or most naive people would work hard. The rest would bilk the system.


    So,... why can't we have both? We could keep the ER public (for practical reasons of geographic coverage), but all non-ER care could be sorted into free public, and not free private, categories. Why not? Canada has both.


    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    As far as I know, every country has both. The differences are in how private and public services are funded and allocated.

    In Australia, private health insurance attracts a very generous tax rebate for the individual. But all services provided by medical practitioners receive standard payments from the government. It's up to patients whether they choose a doctor who charges nothing, a bit more or a lot more than that standard fee. Hospitals are a different matter, some private hospitals do provide ER services - but major trauma, brain injuries, heart attacks usually go to the big teaching hospitals anyway. Public hospitals are strictly a state government function whereas the rest of the health system is a federal government responsibility. (Stupid problems arise because of this, but no one's ever come up with a solution that everyone will live with.)

    By contrast, in England it's simply one or the other as I understand it. Everyone has a NHS doctor allocated. If you want to go private, the government provides subsidies for neither the services themselves nor for the insurance premiums. Presumably it's more complicated than that but I don't know the details.

    We could keep the ER public (for practical reasons of geographic coverage), but all non-ER care could be sorted into free public, and not free private, categories. Why not?
    Why not let consumers and patients decide for themselves? If you can afford an insurance policy that gives you access to hospitals that provide private ER services, why shouldn't you do that? A lot of sportspeople prefer this - they go to a hospital that their medical and surgical practitioners are accredited to rather than take pot luck in a general ER when they are injured. The government's role in this kind of arrangement is simply to set standards that hospitals and practitioners must meet, the way people choose their doctors and hospitals is up to them.


    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    The US is doing both. Also most doctors in Canada as well as the US work for private companies or their own practice. The big difference is how the insurance is set up, most health insurance Canada gets vetted and coordinated via one agency, while even under Obama/HeritageFoundation care, most insurance will continue to be through private companies. The exception of course is medicare, medicaide and tricare which in large part resemble the single payer insurance system prevalent in Canada.
    babe likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    So, really what we'd need in the USA in order to complete the transition, is for some medical centers to be exempt from being required to honor the government health plan (and also therefore barred from receiving it when patients stiff them)? Then they'd be free to charge as much as they wanted, and rich people could go to them.

    Poor people would be stuck going to the centers that do accept the government plan.


    Is it really that simple? Does Obama Care really need only one adjustment in order to become a solid, workable model?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post

    We could keep the ER public (for practical reasons of geographic coverage), but all non-ER care could be sorted into free public, and not free private, categories. Why not?
    Why not let consumers and patients decide for themselves? If you can afford an insurance policy that gives you access to hospitals that provide private ER services, why shouldn't you do that? A lot of sportspeople prefer this - they go to a hospital that their medical and surgical practitioners are accredited to rather than take pot luck in a general ER when they are injured. The government's role in this kind of arrangement is simply to set standards that hospitals and practitioners must meet, the way people choose their doctors and hospitals is up to them.
    If you get hurt badly, then you need to go to the nearest ER, period. No "if's", "and's" or "but's". The only exception would be if a hospital only slightly further away has facilities that are better suited to your kind of trauma.

    That's why.

    And it's un-economical to have redundant ER's set up in every region where a person might get hurt. If there's only one in your region, then it enjoys a "geographical monopoly", and must therefore either be price regulated (in order to avoid highway robbery), or part of the free system.


    I suppose if a region has such high population density that both a free ER and a private ER were occupying the same region, then maybe it would be a good idea to offer a choice. Otherwise if you live in a rural area, there probably won't be two choices.

    I guess we mostly just need to make sure there are free ER's everywhere. Then a person could decide case by case whether they want to go to the free one or pay for the premium one (if there is one).
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    lobbyist will be pecking away at and tweaking "obamacare" with every new congress
    this is only the first battle in a very long war
    (justaguess)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    And probably expanding into single payer insurance if the current leveling of prices doesn't continue.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    And it's un-economical to have redundant ER's set up in every region where a person might get hurt.
    Absolutely. The maximum range of options is only available in large cities. But that's always true - and not just in healthcare.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,438
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I've been looking at Canada. Their public health system, of course, leaves much to be desired. But the ability to cross into the USA and make use of America's private health system supplements it, so wealthy people can still get premium care.

    In all reality, I don't believe it is possible to give everyone in any country premium care. The costs just become insane. There has to be rich and poor if the system is a capitalist system. Otherwise only the dumbest, most generous, or most naive people would work hard. The rest would bilk the system.


    So,... why can't we have both? We could keep the ER public (for practical reasons of geographic coverage), but all non-ER care could be sorted into free public, and not free private, categories. Why not? Canada has both.
    Daughter lives in Zurich, Switzerland. She gets sick they have a clinic (ER) to go to. I think most all countries have both.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    And probably expanding into single payer insurance if the current leveling of prices doesn't continue.
    which is not a bad thing IMHO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Daughter lives in Zurich, Switzerland. She gets sick they have a clinic (ER) to go to. I think most all countries have both.
    Which is exactly where the Australian system breaks down. Anyone with any sense would think that a lot of ER visits would be better taken care of by directing people to associated/ suitable/ outreach/ outpatient medical clinics. Not here. The states run the hospitals, the national govt pays for doctors' consultations - so any idea of making one service take more of the other's business to make the whole thing more sensible overall gets hung up on accusations of cost-shifting or abandoning responsibility or impinging on states' rights/ responsibilities. A similar thing happens with patient transfers/ funding allocations within and between hospital (state) and aged care (commonwealth) and hospice (state) facilities.

    And nothing gets done.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,438
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Daughter lives in Zurich, Switzerland. She gets sick they have a clinic (ER) to go to. I think most all countries have both.
    Which is exactly where the Australian system breaks down. Anyone with any sense would think that a lot of ER visits would be better taken care of by directing people to associated/ suitable/ outreach/ outpatient medical clinics. Not here. The states run the hospitals, the national govt pays for doctors' consultations - so any idea of making one service take more of the other's business to make the whole thing more sensible overall gets hung up on accusations of cost-shifting or abandoning responsibility or impinging on states' rights/ responsibilities. A similar thing happens with patient transfers/ funding allocations within and between hospital (state) and aged care (commonwealth) and hospice (state) facilities.

    And nothing gets done.
    I'd be screaming. Have to have a second ultrasound when I get back on island. They schedule me immediately. When I wound up with my neck freezing.....I went was driven, thank you Michael) to ER..it wasn't even a question. Sometimes you have to wait, but when you have no doctor available....an Urgent Care Center is a valuable asset to any community in ANY country
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    And it's un-economical to have redundant ER's set up in every region where a person might get hurt.
    Absolutely. The maximum range of options is only available in large cities. But that's always true - and not just in healthcare.
    It's always true, but it's only a problem for ER. ER is time sensitive.

    For any other situation, you can move to wherever the best hospital is. Like if you get cancer or something. If the best cancer doctor lives across the country, and you have the money to pay for his/her services, then you would probably be willing to move your residence to get the care you need.


    This is where having both private and public options starts to matter. If you're extremely poor and you get cancer, then you'd have to go to a public doctor who may not be at the top of his/her field, but who meets certain minimum criteria. We can't realistically give everyone the best care, but we can ensure that the poor get at least a basic minimum of care.

    It's silly to try and make everything "one size fits all". Or rather, "one pocketbook size fits all".
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    If you're extremely poor and you get cancer, then you'd have to go to a public doctor who may not be at the top of his/her field, but who meets certain minimum criteria.
    Funnily enough, in Australia, one of the large - public - teaching hospitals is the place you are most likely to find the people at the very top of these specialised fields.

    But our system is flexible. These doctors can run private practices and also be one of the senior specialists working at a teaching hospital. My husband has just been treated in the gastroenterology clinic at our closest public hospital. The flexibility of our system means that the doctor who treated him uses the same facilities for treating both public and private patients.

    This also leads to efficiencies and economies. There is one set, or a limited number of sets, of the required equipment rather than one, or some, in the public hospital and others in private hospitals. If the population size only justifies a single gigantic, unbelievably expensive, whiz-bang modern gizmo, there is only one - and it's usually in the public hospital. Not like the expense of the inefficient, we-have-to-compete-so-we-have-to-have-one-of-those-too arrangements in the US. That's where a lot of unnecessary costs arise in the USA.

    Privately insured patients here get private rooms,and pay for them with their insurance, in public hospitals. Generally, for long-stay treatment, such patients will move to a private hospital as soon as they can after one of these only-in-one-place procedures. Not like the USA and not like the UK either.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,438
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    And it's un-economical to have redundant ER's set up in every region where a person might get hurt.
    Absolutely. The maximum range of options is only available in large cities. But that's always true - and not just in healthcare.
    It's always true, but it's only a problem for ER. ER is time sensitive.

    For any other situation, you can move to wherever the best hospital is. Like if you get cancer or something. If the best cancer doctor lives across the country, and you have the money to pay for his/her services, then you would probably be willing to move your residence to get the care you need.


    This is where having both private and public options starts to matter. If you're extremely poor and you get cancer, then you'd have to go to a public doctor who may not be at the top of his/her field, but who meets certain minimum criteria. We can't realistically give everyone the best care, but we can ensure that the poor get at least a basic minimum of care.

    It's silly to try and make everything "one size fits all". Or rather, "one pocketbook size fits all".
    I have to disagree with that.

    Nephew was on his way to John Hopkins. THE ONLY REASON they were going to see him is that he has a very close friend at John Hopkins. They don't see "everybody" from around the country.

    Also....moving there, entails, money, uprooting family, job issues, etc, not to mention your own medical insurance if your company is unable to transfer you, IF you are stlll able to work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    And it's un-economical to have redundant ER's set up in every region where a person might get hurt.
    Absolutely. The maximum range of options is only available in large cities. But that's always true - and not just in healthcare.
    It's always true, but it's only a problem for ER. ER is time sensitive.

    For any other situation, you can move to wherever the best hospital is. Like if you get cancer or something. If the best cancer doctor lives across the country, and you have the money to pay for his/her services, then you would probably be willing to move your residence to get the care you need.


    This is where having both private and public options starts to matter. If you're extremely poor and you get cancer, then you'd have to go to a public doctor who may not be at the top of his/her field, but who meets certain minimum criteria. We can't realistically give everyone the best care, but we can ensure that the poor get at least a basic minimum of care.

    It's silly to try and make everything "one size fits all". Or rather, "one pocketbook size fits all".
    I have to disagree with that.

    Nephew was on his way to John Hopkins. THE ONLY REASON they were going to see him is that he has a very close friend at John Hopkins. They don't see "everybody" from around the country.

    Also....moving there, entails, money, uprooting family, job issues, etc, not to mention your own medical insurance if your company is unable to transfer you, IF you are stlll able to work.
    Good point. It's not just about money. It's about connections too.

    My point is that health care can't always be of uniform quality. There's no practical way to achieve that. A public option should be concerned with getting people basic care, of whatever quality is practical to obtain. It shouldn't limit people who are wealthy or connected from finding better care.

    Imagine if your nephew had to get in line and wait for a public health system, like in Canada? You'd kind of feel like all your efforts to succeed in life had been for nothing if they couldn't be of use to help out in such a dire situation, wouldn't you?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Imagine if your nephew had to get in line and wait for a public health system, like in Canada?
    Clearly you don't know a lot about how most public health systems run. The way it goes is that highest priority cases are constantly displacing lower priority matters.

    People's frustrations with public hospital waiting times are that a lot of quite important conditions and problems keep being delayed because funds and personnel and resources always get allocated to the most serious, urgent, imminently lethal matters. It's the chronic problem of the urgent always taking precedence over things that are just as important but not yet desperately urgent. (And there are associated issues with certain kinds of surgery, for instance, being classified as "elective" and therefore less important/urgent when in fact they're really vital. The patient may not be in danger of imminent / certain death but their potential surgery is not cosmetic or optional or trivial which is what using the term 'elective' tends to imply.)

    It's trivially obvious that some public health systems are better than others. It's also obvious that some hospitals within any system will be better than some others - or better at handling some issues than others. But there's no good reason to presume that people with serious life-threatening conditions won't get prompt, appropriate care in a public hospital.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Fellow I talked to in Canada said the downside was the waiting list.
    His wife needed a hip replacement. She was in a chair for 6 months waiting her turn.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_H...health_systems
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Yeah. Hip replacements and knee surgeries - especially for those not in the workforce - are prime waiting list casualties.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,438
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    And it's un-economical to have redundant ER's set up in every region where a person might get hurt.
    Absolutely. The maximum range of options is only available in large cities. But that's always true - and not just in healthcare.
    It's always true, but it's only a problem for ER. ER is time sensitive.

    For any other situation, you can move to wherever the best hospital is. Like if you get cancer or something. If the best cancer doctor lives across the country, and you have the money to pay for his/her services, then you would probably be willing to move your residence to get the care you need.


    This is where having both private and public options starts to matter. If you're extremely poor and you get cancer, then you'd have to go to a public doctor who may not be at the top of his/her field, but who meets certain minimum criteria. We can't realistically give everyone the best care, but we can ensure that the poor get at least a basic minimum of care.

    It's silly to try and make everything "one size fits all". Or rather, "one pocketbook size fits all".
    I have to disagree with that.

    Nephew was on his way to John Hopkins. THE ONLY REASON they were going to see him is that he has a very close friend at John Hopkins. They don't see "everybody" from around the country.

    Also....moving there, entails, money, uprooting family, job issues, etc, not to mention your own medical insurance if your company is unable to transfer you, IF you are stlll able to work.
    Good point. It's not just about money. It's about connections too.

    My point is that health care can't always be of uniform quality. There's no practical way to achieve that. A public option should be concerned with getting people basic care, of whatever quality is practical to obtain. It shouldn't limit people who are wealthy or connected from finding better care.

    Imagine if your nephew had to get in line and wait for a public health system, like in Canada? You'd kind of feel like all your efforts to succeed in life had been for nothing if they couldn't be of use to help out in such a dire situation, wouldn't you?
    He was unable to work. His insurance ran out. He died June 21st, pancreatic cancer. He leaves a now 4 and 8 year old and a grieving wife, mother and extended family.

    Talk to many people from Canada and they swear by it. Others the opposite. I often with our own personal health care (which we pay for, and we also pay for each of our employees.....) am unable to get to see a doctor.

    I would imagine, that if it is priority, they will be seen, in Canada.

    I don't live there. I can't speak as to how good/bad their health care is. I do not know.

    And no one should go broke dying, or left in insurmountable debt. Period.

    All people should be able to get basic medical care Period.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post

    All people should be able to get basic medical care Period.
    I would really have to agree with that, ok it's fine to say that health care has to be payed for, but it's not much comfort to those who find they need it arn't entitled and can't afford it.

    We Brits are pretty lucky as we get free health care, well it seems that way. In reality we all pay for the National Health Service through our taxes, but this works well because it's a fair system in that anybody who needs treatment gets it. They just don't have to worry about health insurance running out, which lets face it is a position that nobody wants to be in if they're sick.
    This is our public system, but also as adelady alluded to there is also a private system that's pretty similar to other countries, either you just pay for the care you recieve or you have private health insurance. Now generally speaking there isn't that much of a need for private health, not with a free NHS, but it exists and is used, mostly by the wealthy because it allows them to be seen quicker. But in terms of real advantage I can't see private healthcare being any great benefit here at least since many of the doctors and nurses are coming from the NHS and medical companies are more and more frequently paying to use NHS facilities and hospitals to treat their private patients, so no real advantage or incentives to pay for medical treatment.

    But back to the idea of basic treatment for all, well it seems that in a modern civilised society this certainly is a necessity, because what's the alternative? Just letting people without insurance get sick and die? Surely no country could honestly find this acceptable.
    But that doesn't mean that private medical companies should all suddenly go out of business either, it seems that you could run a 'luxury' private health service, a bit like luxury hotels, alongside a more basic need oriented system. This meet the needs of those able and willing to pay privately for 'luxury' healthcare, whilst also ensuring that people unwilling or unable to pay privately are still treated, just perhaps in a more cost effective manner.

    But what I think may prove to be somewhat of an obsticle with concept of state funded healthcare is that their will be groups in certain countries who just would not accept that their tax money should help fund other people's healthcare. You honestly have people in the world that would rather someone died from a treatable medical condition than allow a single penny of their tax money used to fund the prerequisite treatment to save them. This kind of attitude is also promoted by medical companies who view state funded medicine as an 'evil' that would seriously effect their profit margins. Probarbly because no government would pay out for the exorbitant fees being charged privately.
    Last edited by Ascended; October 9th, 2013 at 11:00 AM.
    JonG, Bad Robot and babe like this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    56
    Natural selection works better. Close em all down, and let people go...it's their time.



    Don't get your panties in a bunch I'm joking.

    Halfway joking, there are times when I believe our prolonged medications cause more suffering than repair (but these are exceptions not the rule...at least I hope).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhokie View Post
    Natural selection works better. Close em all down, and let people go...it's their time.



    Don't get your panties in a bunch I'm joking.

    Halfway joking, there are times when I believe our prolonged medications cause more suffering than repair (but these are exceptions not the rule...at least I hope).
    Well if it realistically becomes more profitable for drug companies to find ways to actually cure people rather than just 'managing' or treating conditions for years with expensive drugs then prolonged medications for most people might quickly become a thing of the past. But at the moment where is the incentive for companies to find cures when they are making a fortune from repeat drug sales, unfortunately profit again goes before people in the world of big business.
    sculptor and Bad Robot like this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,438
    Quote Originally Posted by ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhokie View Post
    natural selection works better. Close em all down, and let people go...it's their time.



    Don't get your panties in a bunch i'm joking.

    Halfway joking, there are times when i believe our prolonged medications cause more suffering than repair (but these are exceptions not the rule...at least i hope).
    well if it realistically becomes more profitable for drug companies to find ways to actually cure people rather than just 'managing' or treating conditions for years with expensive drugs then prolonged medications for most people might quickly become a thing of the past. But at the moment where is the incentive for companies to find cures when they are making a fortune from repeat drug sales, unfortunately profit again goes before people in the world of big business.

    very well put!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    I'm hoping one advantage to the standardization of healthcare is more common sense approach towards efficiency that doesn't always put drug makers at the forefront--things like a doc putting you on fish oil tablets for a couple months for pennies a day to see if it will reduce triglycerides, before they put you on costly (and potentially liver damaging) drugs that do the same thing; Or running with what they are 90% sure of instead of using an expensive test from a company that will give him some equipment to get to the last 1% of certainty; or just being a bit more honest when time will likely heal the problem, instead of doing something expensive that most likely won't hasten recovery just because the patient thinks something must happen.

    But we'll see.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I'm hoping one advantage to the standardization of healthcare is more common sense approach towards efficiency that doesn't always put drug makers at the forefront--things like a doc putting you on fish oil tablets for a couple months for pennies a day to see if it will reduce triglycerides, before they put you on costly (and potentially liver damaging) drugs that do the same thing; Or running with what they are 90% sure of instead of using an expensive test from a company that will give him some equipment to get to the last 1% of certainty; or just being a bit more honest when time will likely heal the problem, instead of doing something expensive that most likely won't hasten recovery just because the patient thinks something must happen. But we'll see.
    Ya think?I don't know that that will happen!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    236
    I suspect that there are many people in the UK who are mystified by the American system, and many in the US who are similarly puzzled by the publicly funded National Health Service (NHS) that we have in the UK.

    The future of the National Health Service in the UK is a matter of current political debate, as the present UK government clearly has doubts about its long term sustainability. The underlying reason for this concern is people living longer and requiring increasing levels of medical care. A suggested solution is a greater involvement of private sector health service providers which, it is claimed, would increase competition and drive down costs. However, there is a simple statistic that seems relevant to the comparison between the US and UK systems which appears to contradict this above market forces argument:

    "The USA spends 17.9% of its GDP on health care (half of which is public expenditure), and cannot insure one sixth of its population, while England spends 8.5% of GDP on health and everybody is covered."

    from here: US And UK Health Care - Opposites Can Learn From Each Other
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I've been looking at Canada. Their public health system, of course, leaves much to be desired. But the ability to cross into the USA and make use of America's private health system supplements it, so wealthy people can still get premium care.

    In all reality, I don't believe it is possible to give everyone in any country premium care. The costs just become insane. There has to be rich and poor if the system is a capitalist system. Otherwise only the dumbest, most generous, or most naive people would work hard. The rest would bilk the system.


    So,... why can't we have both? We could keep the ER public (for practical reasons of geographic coverage), but all non-ER care could be sorted into free public, and not free private, categories. Why not? Canada has both.
    Hey Kojax,

    I don't understand why you believe there has to be both rich and poor in a capitalist system [economy]. You should look at the nationalized healthcare systems of Norway and the Netherlands.
    [Analyst/Engineer/Independent]

    "SPEAK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Imagine if your nephew had to get in line and wait for a public health system, like in Canada?
    Clearly you don't know a lot about how most public health systems run. The way it goes is that highest priority cases are constantly displacing lower priority matters.

    People's frustrations with public hospital waiting times are that a lot of quite important conditions and problems keep being delayed because funds and personnel and resources always get allocated to the most serious, urgent, imminently lethal matters. It's the chronic problem of the urgent always taking precedence over things that are just as important but not yet desperately urgent. (And there are associated issues with certain kinds of surgery, for instance, being classified as "elective" and therefore less important/urgent when in fact they're really vital. The patient may not be in danger of imminent / certain death but their potential surgery is not cosmetic or optional or trivial which is what using the term 'elective' tends to imply.)

    It's trivially obvious that some public health systems are better than others. It's also obvious that some hospitals within any system will be better than some others - or better at handling some issues than others. But there's no good reason to presume that people with serious life-threatening conditions won't get prompt, appropriate care in a public hospital.
    I tend to agree with what you said, but I also think people should be entitled to a speedy treatment of a legitimate medical problem. If that isn't happening then there is a shortage of doctors and supporting personnel on staff.

    I'm for everyone paying for insurance according to their income within reason. But what about the able bodied person who refuses to work. They are not being productive when they are able. Why should they get the same medical treatment as the rest of us who are living a productive life? I don't want my tax dollars paying to support deadbeats. I don't like watching the news and seeing how easy it is for people to scam the system.

    The way things are now or have been is when uninsured people need medical care they have to go to the emergency room at a hospital which is the most expensive health care there is for ordinary non-emergency health issues. Somebody has to pay for that over priced health care for the uninsured. Do I need to speculate who that might be?

    Getting more people to pay for health care and have a primary doctor seems like it would be a lot more cost effective than our current way of doing things.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    The way things are now or have been is when uninsured people need medical care they have to go to the emergency room at a hospital which is the most expensive health care there is for ordinary non-emergency health issues. Somebody has to pay for that over priced health care for the uninsured. Do I need to speculate who that might be?
    I think you'd surprised who that is..mostly people working full time in low-income jobs, living rather meagerly but still not having enough to make ends meet.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    But what about the able bodied person who refuses to work. They are not being productive when they are able.
    Who are these people?

    With unemployment rates as they are in all the countries I'm most familiar with, people are far more likely to be unable to get a job rather than actively refuse one. And I'm pretty sure there are more than a few without a job who adopt the braggadocio of claiming to refuse to work or enjoying not having a job rather than the depressing admission that they can't get a job.

    (There's also an underlying problem arising from poor education. Far too many people unable to work or unwilling to apply for jobs are in that position because of inadequate literacy skills for certain jobs, or being functionally illiterate generally. Australia ranks fifth in literacy and 13th in numeracy, says OECD | World news | theguardian.com )

    Of course, the whole US thing of linking medical care/ insurance to employment rather than to the need for care is a bit of a problem.

    A big bit.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Imagine if your nephew had to get in line and wait for a public health system, like in Canada?
    Clearly you don't know a lot about how most public health systems run. The way it goes is that highest priority cases are constantly displacing lower priority matters.

    People's frustrations with public hospital waiting times are that a lot of quite important conditions and problems keep being delayed because funds and personnel and resources always get allocated to the most serious, urgent, imminently lethal matters. It's the chronic problem of the urgent always taking precedence over things that are just as important but not yet desperately urgent. (And there are associated issues with certain kinds of surgery, for instance, being classified as "elective" and therefore less important/urgent when in fact they're really vital. The patient may not be in danger of imminent / certain death but their potential surgery is not cosmetic or optional or trivial which is what using the term 'elective' tends to imply.)

    It's trivially obvious that some public health systems are better than others. It's also obvious that some hospitals within any system will be better than some others - or better at handling some issues than others. But there's no good reason to presume that people with serious life-threatening conditions won't get prompt, appropriate care in a public hospital.
    I tend to agree with what you said, but I also think people should be entitled to a speedy treatment of a legitimate medical problem. If that isn't happening then there is a shortage of doctors and supporting personnel on staff.

    I'm for everyone paying for insurance according to their income within reason. But what about the able bodied person who refuses to work. They are not being productive when they are able. Why should they get the same medical treatment as the rest of us who are living a productive life? I don't want my tax dollars paying to support deadbeats. I don't like watching the news and seeing how easy it is for people to scam the system.

    The way things are now or have been is when uninsured people need medical care they have to go to the emergency room at a hospital which is the most expensive health care there is for ordinary non-emergency health issues. Somebody has to pay for that over priced health care for the uninsured. Do I need to speculate who that might be?

    Getting more people to pay for health care and have a primary doctor seems like it would be a lot more cost effective than our current way of doing things.
    Interesting point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Environmental Pollution and Public Health (EPPH2009) Call fo
    By wanshun1818 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 24th, 2008, 08:34 PM
  2. Public Talk
    By geniusjames in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 4th, 2008, 12:58 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 9th, 2007, 01:36 AM
  4. Public Schools
    By Mathwiz8390 in forum Education
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2006, 05:57 PM
  5. Public or Charter?
    By Sesshomaru Girl in forum Education
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 27th, 2005, 06:45 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •