Would this Fix Healthcare?

[Phatscotty]

For the buildings we would have to start from scratch, but I am pretty certain the government can turn over some of their buildings or open up some places in foreclosure or take advantage of distressed properties.

I haven't read any other replies, so forgive me if this has been mentioned already.

Starting from scratch would not be necessary. Since your system is deemed for public use, immanent domain can be invoked to acquire property and such.

Okay, so here it goes. Overall, the general idea is a public healthcare system, totally free for anybody who needs it. Public hospitals and doctors offices which are run by students, trainees, interns, volunteers, as well as professionals who are more interested in helping than making money.

There are already teaching hospitals. Lots of them. In Richmond is one and is about one of the best hospitals in the nations for juvenile diabetes care.

Now, as for who is going to staff these facilities. Many of you know I am favor of closing ALL loopholes in the tax system as it exists today. However, the reality that this is highly unlikely to happen must take precedent and it's important to realize that we have to work with the tax system we have, not the tax system we want. The point about the loopholes is that doctors and nurses and specialists would be incentivized to volunteer by earning a write offs or credits or any number of different things that could be considered a benefit. Students would need serve a certain amount of time in an array of different ways as part of their graduation program. Trainee's and interns would serve time as well.

The government controls virtually the entire student loan business now. Students could work in such facilities and be compensated against the money owed on their loans.



The biggest problem is becoming overwhelmed. There is just not enough doctors. Let me amend that, there are too many specialists and not enough general practitioners.

The real way to fix healthcare and the costs related, or should I say, the most important first step, is having a sound currency. Without that, everything else is doomed to never meet goals and fall behind as the value of what everything (including healthcare and everything related to it) is priced in keeps falling. That is as the unstable fiat currency keeps losing value it requires more and more of in relatively short order. Once there is a sound currency for which a solid, and stable, foundation can be built on then the rest of what needs to be done becomes much easier. And doable. IMO.

Money, fix the money system, the rest will fall into line.

I know there aren't enough doctors, which is why there will be a wait for non-emergencies. I suggested removing the government, insurance on both sides patient and provider. That really should drop the costs. I don't have any numbers but I think we all know insurance and government underpayments for compensation are big factors in driving up the cost. So is tort law, and that could be handled by patients signing a waiver that they understand they are getting care for free but cannot sue. The sound currency, as you know that is a whole other beast, but.....if this worked and healthcare came under control, that would be a positive (albeit a small one) to the currency since we would not need to borrow/overspend money that we do not have, and healthcare along with medicare/aid is actually a major driver of our debt if not thee biggest driver. Good one though I did not think about the currency.

[Phatscotty]

It's doable with the Canadian dollar. How is the US dollar so much worse that it can't do what the Canadian dollar has been doing for decades?

wait, what has the Canadian dollar been doing for decades?

[Woodruff]

Okay, so here it goes. Overall, the general idea is a public healthcare system, totally free for anybody who needs it. Public hospitals and doctors offices which are run by students, trainees, interns, volunteers, as well as professionals who are more interested in helping than making money.

There are already teaching hospitals. Lots of them. In Richmond is one and is about one of the best hospitals in the nations for juvenile diabetes care.

There's a vast difference between getting care in a teaching hospital, and getting care from trainees without necessarily having oversight.

The government controls virtually the entire student loan business now. Students could work in such facilities and be compensated against the money owed on their loans.

Now that's a good thought. But I don't think it corrects for the lack of non-students in the facilities.

[Phatscotty]

Okay, so here it goes. Overall, the general idea is a public healthcare system, totally free for anybody who needs it. Public hospitals and doctors offices which are run by students, trainees, interns, volunteers, as well as professionals who are more interested in helping than making money.

There are already teaching hospitals. Lots of them. In Richmond is one and is about one of the best hospitals in the nations for juvenile diabetes care.

There's a vast difference between getting care in a teaching hospital, and getting care from trainees without necessarily having oversight.

The government controls virtually the entire student loan business now. Students could work in such facilities and be compensated against the money owed on their loans.

Now that's a good thought. But I don't think it corrects for the lack of non-students in the facilities.

But, everyone has access to free healthcare!

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey guys, would this fix healthcare:

show

[PLAYER57832]

First off, let me say this is just a crude idea. I have been thinking about it for some time, but never talked about it publicly. Before the usual a-holes come in here and start calling me dumb and insensitive, let me just say I am asking for people to shoot holes through these ideas. In fact just forget you know anything about me for one second, and just listen to what I am saying and respect the spirit in which it is said. I know a lot of this is very radical, and there are questions about where the money is going to come from and many many other questions as well. I am asking for your help.

Okay, so here it goes. Overall, the general idea is a public healthcare system, totally free for anybody who needs it. Public hospitals and doctors offices which are run by students, trainees, interns, volunteers, as well as professionals who are more interested in helping than making money. Yes for this system you will have to wait a while, much like most of the other public systems around the world. But hey, it's free and it will solve the healthcare crisis!

First off, this system would be for people who do not have insurance, and would cost nothing out of pocket. Users can make contributions if they like, or they can serve in the community if they like.

Off hand, this sounds fairly similar to the system they have in France... a system you have very much decried in the past.

You are smart, as the ideas show, but why don't you actually go out and look at how systems in other countries actually work as a starter, rather than just boxing it all into "socialism- bad" and "free market--good"


Per the tax bit... we have taxes because people don't just, of their own free will, donate to the places we really need. People will pay $5.00 for 5 bites of cookies from a smiling girl in a uniform... but complain about paying $1 more to fix potholes in their roads or $5 to provide healthcare to kids who lack insurance.

Geisenger has played with the responsibility bit, with some success.

However, the real bottom line is that we need to have limits on healthcare. No one likes that idea.. it springs up visions of granny getting told "no surgary" and such. But, the first truth is that limits are already happening.. just not in a sensible way or a way that is meant to benefit patients. The current limits are structured to give insurance companies the most profit they can take and not violate the law/piss people off so much they demand a system change (though they failed in that.. maybe they need to go back and reread the Prince?).

We need limits that are based on evidence AND humanity. Some people were/still are afraid of Hospice when it first started, but a lot of people were already doing that in a less formal way. Really, its about not fearing death when it does eventually come. If you have not dealt with a loved one who was dying, then you don't really understand all the emotions and pressures involved. Hospice provides a means of dealing with things sensibly, per the PATIENT's wishes...a nd, to some extent, the family.

Oh, yeah.. and one thing that tends to happen when a family member is dying. More often than not, the people who live with and tend the family member are OK with the death. That is, they are not happy about it, but recognize that "the time has come"... and move from "getting mom better/as healthy as possible" to "its time to say goodbye, and keep mom as happy and peaceful as possible in the process. BUT.. in comes relative from timbuktu, estranged, who (it seems) is now trying to make up for lost time by demanding that "more be done". THAT is a big part of why so many fights happen. The lesson there is to have a clearly written living will/revocable medical trust (the exact names and details vary by state, but those are roughly the documents you need to specify what YOU want done if the worst happens) AND to remember, always that no matter how angry you are with your loved one, temper it with -- "they may be gone tommorrow". There are absolutely cases where you have to distance yourself, but be at peace with that. Do try to reconcile when appropriate, leave some kind of "channel" open in all but the most serious/dangerous situations, but be at peace with your actions.

[Phatscotty]

First off, let me say this is just a crude idea. I have been thinking about it for some time, but never talked about it publicly. Before the usual a-holes come in here and start calling me dumb and insensitive, let me just say I am asking for people to shoot holes through these ideas. In fact just forget you know anything about me for one second, and just listen to what I am saying and respect the spirit in which it is said. I know a lot of this is very radical, and there are questions about where the money is going to come from and many many other questions as well. I am asking for your help.

Okay, so here it goes. Overall, the general idea is a public healthcare system, totally free for anybody who needs it. Public hospitals and doctors offices which are run by students, trainees, interns, volunteers, as well as professionals who are more interested in helping than making money. Yes for this system you will have to wait a while, much like most of the other public systems around the world. But hey, it's free and it will solve the healthcare crisis!

First off, this system would be for people who do not have insurance, and would cost nothing out of pocket. Users can make contributions if they like, or they can serve in the community if they like.

Off hand, this sounds fairly similar to the system they have in France... a system you have very much decried in the past.

You are smart, as the ideas show, but why don't you actually go out and look at how systems in other countries actually work as a starter, rather than just boxing it all into "socialism- bad" and "free market--good"


Per the tax bit... we have taxes because people don't just, of their own free will, donate to the places we really need. People will pay $5.00 for 5 bites of cookies from a smiling girl in a uniform... but complain about paying $1 more to fix potholes in their roads or $5 to provide healthcare to kids who lack insurance.

Geisenger has played with the responsibility bit, with some success.

However, the real bottom line is that we need to have limits on healthcare. No one likes that idea.. it springs up visions of granny getting told "no surgary" and such. But, the first truth is that limits are already happening.. just not in a sensible way or a way that is meant to benefit patients. The current limits are structured to give insurance companies the most profit they can take and not violate the law/piss people off so much they demand a system change (though they failed in that.. maybe they need to go back and reread the Prince?).

We need limits that are based on evidence AND humanity. Some people were/still are afraid of Hospice when it first started, but a lot of people were already doing that in a less formal way. Really, its about not fearing death when it does eventually come. If you have not dealt with a loved one who was dying, then you don't really understand all the emotions and pressures involved. Hospice provides a means of dealing with things sensibly, per the PATIENT's wishes...a nd, to some extent, the family.

Oh, yeah.. and one thing that tends to happen when a family member is dying. More often than not, the people who live with and tend the family member are OK with the death. That is, they are not happy about it, but recognize that "the time has come"... and move from "getting mom better/as healthy as possible" to "its time to say goodbye, and keep mom as happy and peaceful as possible in the process. BUT.. in comes relative from timbuktu, estranged, who (it seems) is now trying to make up for lost time by demanding that "more be done". THAT is a big part of why so many fights happen. The lesson there is to have a clearly written living will/revocable medical trust (the exact names and details vary by state, but those are roughly the documents you need to specify what YOU want done if the worst happens) AND to remember, always that no matter how angry you are with your loved one, temper it with -- "they may be gone tommorrow". There are absolutely cases where you have to distance yourself, but be at peace with that. Do try to reconcile when appropriate, leave some kind of "channel" open in all but the most serious/dangerous situations, but be at peace with your actions.

I don't know anything about France's healthcare system. I was not decrying their healthcare, I was generally disagreeing with the way in which they achieve it (SOCIALISM!). But if it works for them and they are happy I don't care what they do, it's none of my business. However I want to ask, in what ways is my example similar to France?

And one thing you miss in your tax bit, it's not that people are bitching about the city asking for an extra dollar to fill potholes, it's that the city that just wasted a million dollars on a new garden in front of their city hall, a dog walking park, and radio commercials reminding people to wear helmets when they are skateboarding......and THEN the city comes and says it's broke and needs more money. Context is everything player.

[Symmetry]

First off, let me say this is just a crude idea. I have been thinking about it for some time, but never talked about it publicly. Before the usual a-holes come in here and start calling me dumb and insensitive, let me just say I am asking for people to shoot holes through these ideas. In fact just forget you know anything about me for one second, and just listen to what I am saying and respect the spirit in which it is said. I know a lot of this is very radical, and there are questions about where the money is going to come from and many many other questions as well. I am asking for your help.

Okay, so here it goes. Overall, the general idea is a public healthcare system, totally free for anybody who needs it. Public hospitals and doctors offices which are run by students, trainees, interns, volunteers, as well as professionals who are more interested in helping than making money. Yes for this system you will have to wait a while, much like most of the other public systems around the world. But hey, it's free and it will solve the healthcare crisis!

First off, this system would be for people who do not have insurance, and would cost nothing out of pocket. Users can make contributions if they like, or they can serve in the community if they like.

Off hand, this sounds fairly similar to the system they have in France... a system you have very much decried in the past.

You are smart, as the ideas show, but why don't you actually go out and look at how systems in other countries actually work as a starter, rather than just boxing it all into "socialism- bad" and "free market--good"


Per the tax bit... we have taxes because people don't just, of their own free will, donate to the places we really need. People will pay $5.00 for 5 bites of cookies from a smiling girl in a uniform... but complain about paying $1 more to fix potholes in their roads or $5 to provide healthcare to kids who lack insurance.

Geisenger has played with the responsibility bit, with some success.

However, the real bottom line is that we need to have limits on healthcare. No one likes that idea.. it springs up visions of granny getting told "no surgary" and such. But, the first truth is that limits are already happening.. just not in a sensible way or a way that is meant to benefit patients. The current limits are structured to give insurance companies the most profit they can take and not violate the law/piss people off so much they demand a system change (though they failed in that.. maybe they need to go back and reread the Prince?).

We need limits that are based on evidence AND humanity. Some people were/still are afraid of Hospice when it first started, but a lot of people were already doing that in a less formal way. Really, its about not fearing death when it does eventually come. If you have not dealt with a loved one who was dying, then you don't really understand all the emotions and pressures involved. Hospice provides a means of dealing with things sensibly, per the PATIENT's wishes...a nd, to some extent, the family.

Oh, yeah.. and one thing that tends to happen when a family member is dying. More often than not, the people who live with and tend the family member are OK with the death. That is, they are not happy about it, but recognize that "the time has come"... and move from "getting mom better/as healthy as possible" to "its time to say goodbye, and keep mom as happy and peaceful as possible in the process. BUT.. in comes relative from timbuktu, estranged, who (it seems) is now trying to make up for lost time by demanding that "more be done". THAT is a big part of why so many fights happen. The lesson there is to have a clearly written living will/revocable medical trust (the exact names and details vary by state, but those are roughly the documents you need to specify what YOU want done if the worst happens) AND to remember, always that no matter how angry you are with your loved one, temper it with -- "they may be gone tommorrow". There are absolutely cases where you have to distance yourself, but be at peace with that. Do try to reconcile when appropriate, leave some kind of "channel" open in all but the most serious/dangerous situations, but be at peace with your actions.

I don't know anything about France's healthcare system. I was not decrying their healthcare, I was generally disagreeing with the way in which they achieve it (SOCIALISM!). But if it works for them and they are happy I don't care what they do, it's none of my business. However I want to ask, in what ways is my example similar to France?

And one thing you miss in your tax bit, it's not that people are bitching about the city asking for an extra dollar to fill potholes, it's that the city that just wasted a million dollars on a new garden in front of their city hall, a dog walking park, and radio commercials reminding people to wear helmets when they are skateboarding......and THEN the city comes and says it's broke and needs more money. Context is everything player.

You can always look at the international comparisons from the WHO and OECD, and other sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_system#International_comparisons

If you want a system that costs less, performs better, and covers everyone, you could always look at the figures for France and decide for yourself if you're dismissing an effective outcome out of hand.

[PLAYER57832]

Ok, a couple problems I see with this...

1) If you could get free healthcare if you needed it, the rest of the system would implode. No one would buy insurance, and companies wouldn't provide it. Just go on down to the free clinic.

2) One of the problem with free clinics today is donations... there are just not enough of them. Complicated/expensive procedures would still not be able to be handled in this system... such as cancer treatments or transplants, or a lot of other things.

3) The amount of providers you would need to volunteer would be staggering. I have a few doctors/nurses that I know. They sometimes work 24-36 hour shifts... by the time they are done they are exhausted and it takes a full day to recover... there often is not a ton of time to volunteer (although a lot still do, but they can't afford to spend the amount of hours you would need to make this work).

Just my 2 cents, but kudos for thinking out of the box.

to your #1. I don't really think so. Anyone who can afford insurance is not going to want to go through the public system.

In France, they don't. They feel they get BETTER care from the public system.

If a facility is understaffed, the person getting the free health care is going to have to put their name on a list, but this is pretty much how it works anyways for all non-emergencies in all the "free" HC systems right? .

It is how it happens in PAID systems, as well Phattscotty. You keep missing that point.

And a major reason why hospitals have a hard time staffing is that people don't want to work for the low wages available for the hours they need to work. How, exactly will your system suddenly change that?

[GreecePwns]

In France, doctors' wages are less than half than what they are here, but the state pays for all educational expenses past high school.

Just thought I'd throw that in here to see what people think of it.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't know anything about France's healthcare system. I was not decrying their healthcare, I was generally disagreeing with the way in which they achieve it (SOCIALISM!). But if it works for them and they are happy I don't care what they do, it's none of my business.

It is OUR business when you constantly decry a system (actually, France is just ONE example of the multitude of options mentioned to you), without even bothering to investigate.

See, there is an old saying about "let's not reinvent the wheel". If you want REAL alternatives... a good place to start, the FIRST place would be to see what actually happes in other systems... not to just flat out criticize any other system as "not working" becuase some guy in the UK or Canada had to wait for care or was harmed by malpractice.

However I want to ask, in what ways is my example similar to France?

Its a loose comparison. The similarity is that they have a public system, which you can then supplement with private insurance.

EXCEPT.. contrary to your model, people generally feel they get better care in the public system than in the private system.

And one thing you miss in your tax bit, it's not that people are bitching about the city asking for an extra dollar to fill potholes, it's that the city that just wasted a million dollars on a new garden in front of their city hall, a dog walking park, and radio commercials reminding people to wear helmets when they are skateboarding......and THEN the city comes and says it's broke and needs more money. Context is everything player.

I find your list interesting. Given that the city will spend millions if they lose a lawsuit when a kid gets hurt in a skatepark... those are cost-effective measures.


Similarly, a LOT of people own dogs and, well, even people who don't have dogs would rather see things "contained" to specific locations. So, again... not the waste you like to claim.

Even the garden -- though that I something I would prefer to have a local volunteer group handle, it is also cost-effective in various ways. How people see their city hall, including the "attractiveness" of the area do actually matter to business and people's attitudes.

BUT... the real issue is that you (and others) will point out whatever their, personal pet peeve is and then ignore the other, even more serious issues that somehow benefit them. The dog walker might complain about your business tax break, for example. Small businesses may complain that the city put up a nice new parking garage, but complain about parking meters or other issues.

Which, whether you wish to admit it or not, is pretty much exactly my point. We need taxes because we cannot just go by what each individual person wants to pay.

[PLAYER57832]

In France, doctors' wages are less than half than what they are here, but the state pays for all educational expenses past high school.

Just thought I'd throw that in here to see what people think of it.

Wages are only one aspect of a standard of living. A LOT of people like to ignore that.

A person living in a log cabin in the woods may make almost nothing, but be happier and live better in many ways than someone living in an apartment building, working 40-60 hours a week and barely paying bills. Yet.. most statistics will show that person in the log cabin as being "poor" (except possibly for land value, IF they own the land).

[Phatscotty]

I don't know anything about France's healthcare system. I was not decrying their healthcare, I was generally disagreeing with the way in which they achieve it (SOCIALISM!). But if it works for them and they are happy I don't care what they do, it's none of my business.

It is OUR business when you constantly decry a system (actually, France is just ONE example of the multitude of options mentioned to you), without even bothering to investigate.

I have never said a single thing about France's healthcare system, so just shut up about it. Someone else brought it up out of nowhere.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't know anything about France's healthcare system. I was not decrying their healthcare, I was generally disagreeing with the way in which they achieve it (SOCIALISM!). But if it works for them and they are happy I don't care what they do, it's none of my business.

It is OUR business when you constantly decry a system (actually, France is just ONE example of the multitude of options mentioned to you), without even bothering to investigate.

I have never said a single thing about France's healthcare system, so just shut up about it. Someone else brought it up out of nowhere.

hmmm... let's see, perhaps technically correct ( still checking), but its perfectly clear that you have IGNORED and DISMISSED any such reference...

and gone on to trot your old "socialism is bad"... based primarily on some of the worst examples from the UK and Canada

To quote greenspwn, for example:

Re: ObamaCare vs. the Supreme Court
Until anyone, literally ANYONE, can give an empirical argument that a free market healthcare system will be more efficient or effective than those in France or even the Netherlands (not UK or Canada; stop cherrypicking the worst of the worst), then it's really not worth arguing.

The following argument:

1. Switch to free market
2. Automatically more efficient

Is bullshit.

or this, from me (colorization added):

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
jj3044 wrote:
So... nobody had a problem with what I wrote 2 pages ago? I was honestly anticipating having to defend my position a little more! And was kinda looking forward to it...

One note here... everyone against the law seems to be against it in principle ... but I have yet to see a feasible ALTERNATIVE being proposed here (at least in the last 20 pages) that would change an unsustainable system into something with better medical outcomes and improved access to care.

If someone did post an alternative a hundred pages or so back, then I apologize!

Going on memory alone, I believe several people made reference to France's system. However, basically any other country has a system that works better for most people than ours.

I thought that the US had 85-90% of its citizens currently covered by health insurance.

Close, but not correct. Census showed 16.3 people were uninsured in 2010 -- and that would have been higher if CHIP programs had not largely expanded. In other words, tax payers were picking up more of the insurance costs that insurers had dumped already.

Interestingly, 85-90% of those without health insurance also are without a Social Security number....

by Phatscotty
Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:57 am

Forum: Where the Wild Things Are
Topic: ObamaCare: Reactions
Replies: 4062
Views: 29206

AAAH.. here we are getting closer!

Re: Repealing ObamaCare: Jan. 12th
GreecePwns wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Were the taxpayers of Greece subsidizing your relatives surgery? The building? The doctors taking side money? any more details?Being a citizen and resident of Greece here on vacation here he is included in those subsidizing his treatment. In Greece (whose system ranks 11th in the world as opposed to the US's 37th) everything is subsidized, except accessories like dentures and glasses and non-essential/cosmetic treatments.

and...where did that overall concept get Greece? Last I heard you guys needed a bailout, blood is running in the streets, politicians are being stoned, there are strikes everywhere and harsh austerity measures are being enforced by foreign powers while they make cuts to this glorious systems while simultaneously raising taxes.

Where am I wrong there?And where has that concept gotten Scandinavia? or France? or Germany?

That's a dodge, but you are a good sport. and please don't dismiss population realities. So sick of people saying "yeah but this country of 28 million people can do it!" Not to mention, to do a lot of these things goes against American culture.by Phatscotty
Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:16 am

Forum: Where the Wild Things Are
Topic: ObamaCare: Reactions
Replies: 4062
Views: 29206

and closer yet:

I haven't studied the budgets of every country on the globe. I can pick maybe three countries to review their budgets and projected budgets but I don't have the time to go over every one. So maybe I can look at the UK, Spain, and Canada or if you have other suggestions lets hear them.

Nice, pick the countries who's systems have nothing at all to do with the bill. France or Germany are much better parallels.

But, even if you do center on those countries, they have a higher level of overall health, lower costs per person AND a higher satisfaction rate than here in the US. So, even when you try to "cream off" the worst-case countries, our system still pales.

So, we are in the end game for health care reform. With the debate being about over, What do you guys think will happen (not how do you feel about it)?

Pass it? Trash it? reconciliate? Is American Health Care going to go socialist or not?

Yep, as stated above, you are technically correct that you have not specifically said much about France. You have, however, done a great job of avoiding any real challenge to your vaulted ideas.

Except, see, if you want to have your ideas have value.. you need to consider more than just your ideolized vision. You need to check on reality.. and real alternatives.


As an aside, here is another bit you ignored earlier that gets more directly at your claims:

Here, from Dollars & Sense, Real World Economics
Paying more, getting less:

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives ... rison.html

here are the first three paragraphs. (coloration added to emphasize a key point) The article is a bit long to post, but very readable:
By any measure, the United States spends an enormous amount of money on health care. Here are a few of those measures. In 2006, U.S. health care spending exceeded 16% of the nation’s GDP. To put U.S. spending into perspective: the United States spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in 2004, while Canada spent 9.9%, France 10.7%, Germany 10.9%, Sweden 9.1%, and the United Kingdom 8.7%. Or consider per capita spending: the United States spent $6,037 per person in 2004, compared to Canada at $3,161, France at $3,191, Germany at $3,169, and the U.K. at $2,560.

By now the high overall cost of health care in the United States is broadly recognized. And many Americans are acutely aware of how much they pay for their own care. Those without health insurance face sky-high doctor and hospital bills and ever more aggressive collection tactics—when they receive care at all. Those who are fortunate enough to have insurance experience steep annual premium hikes along with rising deductibles and co-pays, and, all too often, a well-founded fear of losing their coverage should they lose a job or have a serious illness in the family.

Still, Americans may well underestimate the degree to which they subsidize the current U.S. health care system out of their own pockets. And almost no one recognizes that even people without health insurance pay substantial sums into the system today. If more people understood the full size of the health care bill that they as individuals are already paying—and for a system that provides seriously inadequate care to millions of Americans—then the corporate opponents of a universal single-payer system might find it far more difficult to frighten the public about the costs of that system. In other words, to recognize the advantages of a single-payer system, we have to understand how the United States funds health care and health research and how much it actually costs us today.

by PLAYER57832
Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:49 am

Forum: Where the Wild Things Are
Topic: ObamaCare: Reactions
Replies: 4062
Views: 29206

and this, also ignored by you:

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Repealed in the House
i wish i had time to read this whole thread... but ill just start by saying the last post by stahrgazer was pretty spot-on.

also, somewhere on the first page or two someone said something about people from other countries wouldn't admit it if they didn't like their healthcare. Well, i travel quite a bit, and since im in the medical profession i always ask people 2 questions:
1) which country do you think has the best healthcare system in the world?
2) would you trade your countries system with the one we have in USA?

the most common answers to #1 are "France", "Cuba" and "I'm not sure, but probably one of the Scandanavian or European countries"
the answer to question #2 is almost always "hell no", but occasionally it is just "no" and i have had 2 or 3 people say "yes" but they were from Guatemala, El Salvador and The Solomon Islands, so their systems are third world.

I've only asked 50 or so people so far, from about 30 different countries, so I'm not claiming its scientific. but i am surprised at how different the response is compared to what politicians told me it would be.

[GreecePwns]

One thing I'd like to bring up that I'm sure has been discussed elsewhere: using % of GDP is not a good measure of spending. $ per capita is a much better measure, despite it yielding similar results.

[Woodruff]

In France, doctors' wages are less than half than what they are here, but the state pays for all educational expenses past high school.

Just thought I'd throw that in here to see what people think of it.

That seems like a pretty good tradeoff.


(SOROS!!!!!)

[Symmetry]

One thing I'd like to bring up that I'm sure has been discussed elsewhere: using % of GDP is not a good measure of spending. $ per capita is a much better measure, despite it yielding similar results.

Link to source data:

http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3746,en_2649_33929_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html

[Phatscotty]

There is a difference between Europe and America, and we intend to keep it that way. We can take care of our people our own way. It just so happens our people prefer top notch healthcare and don't want to wait for it to the point we are willing to pay for it. People never talk about this reason that makes prices go up (just one of many reason), but it also drives delivery concepts and innovation and jobs and profits and tax revenues and economic growth.

[Woodruff]

It just so happens our people prefer top notch healthcare and don't want to wait for it to the point we are willing to pay for it.

It's funny that you say this when so very many of "our people" don't have access to that top notch healthcare.

People never talk about this reason that makes prices go up (just one of many reason)as well as drives delivery concepts and innovation and jobs and profits and tax revenues.

If it were more applicable, then it might be...applicable.

[Symmetry]

There is a difference between Europe and America, and we intend to keep it that way.

Japan, Canada and Australia are not in Europe. Try again.

[BigBallinStalin]

One thing I'd like to bring up that I'm sure has been discussed elsewhere: using % of GDP is not a good measure of spending. $ per capita is a much better measure, despite it yielding similar results.

Link to source data:

http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3746,en_2649_33929_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html

Don't the US expenses include Medicare and Medicaid (i.e. government spending on healthcare)?

[GreecePwns]

I'm sure all of those include government spending.

[PLAYER57832]

There is a difference between Europe and America, and we intend to keep it that way.

When the "we" consists of people who flat out refuse to even truly CONSIDER other systems...
you are no different from any other blind bully that refuses to consider what people REALLY think.

We can take care of our people our own way.

I see, so you consider millions without insurance and a far, far greater number who have "insurance" that does not really cover enough to allow them to get effective health care to be "taking care of people"?

It just so happens our people prefer top notch healthcare and don't want to wait for it to the point we are willing to pay for it. People never talk about this reason that makes prices go up (just one of many reason), but it also drives delivery concepts and innovation and jobs and profits and tax revenues and economic growth.

Too bad your information is just fiction.... and that you cannot even be bothered to find out that fact.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm sure all of those include government spending.

Well, think about it. If relatively high per-capita-expenditures on health care are undesirable, and if the graph includes government expenditures (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security), does the US have a health care problem, or does it have a social security and Medicare/Medicaid problem?

And how does Obamacare address those two?

(if you don't want to lump SS in there, then that's fine. We'll be down to Medicare/Medicaid which amounts to roughly 22% of total government expenditures.)

[jj3044]

There is a difference between Europe and America, and we intend to keep it that way.

When the "we" consists of people who flat out refuse to even truly CONSIDER other systems...
you are no different from any other blind bully that refuses to consider what people REALLY think.

We can take care of our people our own way.

I see, so you consider millions without insurance and a far, far greater number who have "insurance" that does not really cover enough to allow them to get effective health care to be "taking care of people"?

It just so happens our people prefer top notch healthcare and don't want to wait for it to the point we are willing to pay for it. People never talk about this reason that makes prices go up (just one of many reason), but it also drives delivery concepts and innovation and jobs and profits and tax revenues and economic growth.

Too bad your information is just fiction.... and that you cannot even be bothered to find out that fact.

Well said. And might I also add that we don't have a HEALTHcare system, we have a SICKcare system. People only care once they are sick, that they can get good care (if they are fortunate enough to be able to afford insurance or have a good job that has benefits). Again one of the reasons I like the law is that it includes provisions to change the model, to incent consumers to take better care of themselves, and incent doctors for better OUTCOMES.