|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 21, 2005, 4:20 PM
Post #26 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: You don't want National Healthcare, trust me. It's not working for anyone else, It's working pretty well for britain, reno.
Do you think it could be implemented today?
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 21, 2005, 4:35 PM
Post #29 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
Are you trying to prove my point with that chart??
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 21, 2005, 4:38 PM
Post #30 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: In reply to: You don't want National Healthcare, trust me. It's not working for anyone else, It's working pretty well for britain, reno.
S'pose it depends on your point of view, tradman. I'm friends with three paramedics, three nurses, and a couple of physicians who work or have worked in GB and the USA.
To a person, they voice the same concerns: Things that would get done in a day, maybe two, here take much longer... sometimes MONTHS... in the UK.
Things like surgical removal of tumors, PTCA (angioplasty) for coronary artery blockages, vascular bypass grafts for vascular insufficiency, prescription eyeglasses, medications, etc.
I've not worked in GB's healthcare system, so I've no reason to dispute these claims.
I'm also friends with several paramedics, nurses, doctors, pharmacists, etc in Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, Israel, etc. Similar systems, similar stories.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 21, 2005, 4:48 PM
Post #31 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: S'pose it depends on your point of view, tradman. I'm friends with three paramedics, three nurses, and a couple of physicians who work or have worked in GB and the USA. To a person, they voice the same concerns: Things that would get done in a day, maybe two, here take much longer... sometimes MONTHS... in the UK. Things like surgical removal of tumors, PTCA (angioplasty) for coronary artery blockages, vascular bypass grafts for vascular insufficiency, prescription eyeglasses, medications, etc. I've not worked in GB's healthcare system, so I've no reason to dispute these claims. I'm also friends with several paramedics, nurses, doctors, pharmacists, etc in Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, Israel, etc. Similar systems, similar stories.
And you think things work better here. My son when to the E-room. Got two advil, got looked at by a nurse and then got a bill for $1,300. My mother is on medi-care and still pays out the ass for some of her prescriptions. Not very fair to a woman who works her whole life and is now on a fixed income.
Some numbers on the unisured in this country. I think the number is higher.
Data that the Census Bureau released today show the number of people who lacked health insurance coverage throughout the year rose to 45.0 million in 2003. This is the largest number of uninsured people ever reported since the Census Bureau began issuing data on the number of uninsured in 1987.
The number of uninsured people was 1.4 million higher in 2003 than in 2002, when 43.6 million were uninsured. This represents the third consecutive year in which the number of uninsured Americans has climbed, with a total increase of 5.2 million since 2000, when 39.8 million were without insurance.
In percentage terms, 15.6 percent of Americans — almost one in every six people — were uninsured in 2003, an increase from 15.2 percent in 2002. Although the economy has been slowly recovering since 2001, health insurance coverage has deteriorated, and as a result, more Americans have been unable to get needed medical care because they are uninsured.
The principal reason for the further decline in health insurance coverage is the continued erosion of employment-based insurance coverage, spurred by continued escalation in the cost of health insurance, sluggish job growth, and the relatively high unemployment levels that persisted in 2003. The percentage of people with employment-based insurance dropped from 61.3 percent in 2002 to 60.4 percent in 2003. Despite the signs of economic recovery, this is the lowest level of employment-based insurance coverage in more than a decade.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 21, 2005, 4:58 PM
Post #32 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: Are you trying to prove my point with that chart??
I'll spell it out so even you can grasp the significance of these charts.
Other major countries provide public health care for the entire population. Approximately 6.5% of their GDPs is spent on public health care.
The US provides public health care for 25% of the population. Approximately 6.5% of their GDPs is spent on public health care.
Here's the tricky part. Try to keep up. If all of the US provided public health care for everyone, the number of people treated would quadruple. Using simple logic, it's fair to assume costs would also quadruple. Ergo, the cost of public health care would account for 26% of the GDP.
And you think this is a good thing?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 21, 2005, 5:19 PM
Post #33 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: Are you trying to prove my point with that chart?? I'll spell it out so even you can grasp the significance of these charts. Other major countries provide public health care for the entire population. Approximately 6.5% of their GDPs is spent on public health care. The US provides public health care for 25% of the population. Approximately 6.5% of their GDPs is spent on public health care. Here's the tricky part. Try to keep up. If all of the US provided public health care for everyone, the number of people treated would quadruple. Using simple logic, it's fair to assume costs would also quadruple. Ergo, the cost of public health care would account for 26% of the GDP. And you think this is a good thing?
That extrapolation is, of course, absurd. If other "major countries" can provide universal health care for all of their citizens for 6.5% of their GDP, why cant we? After all, we have more people, but our GDP is also much larger.
I also find it interesting that people always claim that the quality of healthcare in the US would go down if we adopt a socialized medical plan. Why is it then that several of those countries with universal government health plans have statistically better medical outcome rates than the US does? Something to think about.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 21, 2005, 5:29 PM
Post #34 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: And you think things work better here. My son when to the E-room. Got two advil, got looked at by a nurse and then got a bill for $1,300. My mother is on medi-care and still pays out the ass for some of her prescriptions. Not very fair to a woman who works her whole life and is now on a fixed income.
~ Yeah, I do: In some places, your son wouldn't have been seen until some 24 hours later, depending on what was wrong.
~ That $1300 is helping cover the costs of various things, like malpractice insurance, people who refuse to pay, etc. As a business man, I'm sure you know that the cost of services is far more than the goods provided.... why else pay $7.95 for a burger and fries, eh?
~ I'm sorry to hear about your mother's difficulties with her medications. Lemme know where she lives (state only... CO? NM? PA?) and I'll help suggest some resources where she might get some help with those medications.
~ The ER is now viewed as the convenience clinic of choice by many. Even more folks go there rather than their family practice doctor.
~ One of those costs, as mentioned, is covering people who don't pay, for whatever reason: Refusal is one of the most common. One local hospital wrote off $50 million in unpaid bills last year. How many business can swallow 50 million a year and stay open?
~ Don't blame the workers, blame the suits of administration.... million dollar salaries, bonuses, etc.
~ Name one entity that is required by the Federal Government to provide service, regardless of the recipients' ability to pay. Walk into a resturaunt, tell 'em you have no money, but you want a meal. See what happens. Ditto for a hotel. Tailor's shop. REI. Anywhere else, any other industry, and you get what you pay for. Yet healthcare professionals are obligated by morality, ethics, and law to provide for anyone/everyone. Then we can get sued for millions if that person doesn't like his free healthcare. Think that's fair?
~ I see people immigrate to the US at age 59 1/2, work for 2 years, and qualify for Medicare and Social Security. Maybe you should take your fight to them, rather than us working stiffs who are trying to provide healthcare for an increasingly old, ill, and unhealthy society.
|
|
|
|
|
traddad
Jul 21, 2005, 5:31 PM
Post #35 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 7129
|
In reply to: That extrapolation is, of course, absurd. If other "major countries" can provide universal health care for all of their citizens for 6.5% of their GDP, why cant we? After all, we have more people, but our GDP is also much larger. I also find it interesting that people always claim that the quality of healthcare in the US would go down if we adopt a socialized medical plan. Why is it then that several of those countries with universal government health plans have statistically better medical outcome rates than the US does? Something to think about. Curt
Communist......and I mean that in a good way.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 21, 2005, 5:33 PM
Post #36 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
Let me spell it out to you. On a federal level, we spend more and give less. The system needs to be fixed. The cost of health care in this country is way too high. Any honest doctor, nurse etc... will tell you that this system is hurting and needs a major overhaul. Is that simple enough for you...if not read Curt's post. You are a little thicker than I thought. :D
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 21, 2005, 5:34 PM
Post #37 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: That extrapolation is, of course, absurd. If other "major countries" can provide universal health care for all of their citizens for 6.5% of their GDP, why cant we?
Because we don't protect our medical providers from stupid lawsuits like other countries do.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 21, 2005, 5:42 PM
Post #38 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
Reno you too are proving my point. Thanks, Bob
Thorne just thinks he so cool with his little charts and links. Anyone with half-a-brain would realize that the current way of doing business is broken and needs a major overhaul.
Thorne read this. We spend 14-per-cent of GDP on health care, we only cover 28 per-cent of the population. Other countries spend 6.5 per-cent and cover almost 100-per-cent of the population. And you see the other countries system as bad??
What the feck!
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 21, 2005, 5:55 PM
Post #39 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: Thorne just thinks he so cool with his little charts and links.
In reply to: Anyone with half-a-brain would realize that the current way of doing business is broken and needs a major overhaul.
Obviously. The big question is how. It sounds like your solution is let the Federal government handle it. Does anyone have an example where a US program has improved efficiency and cut costs?
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 21, 2005, 6:00 PM
Post #40 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: That extrapolation is, of course, absurd. If other "major countries" can provide universal health care for all of their citizens for 6.5% of their GDP, why cant we? After all, we have more people, but our GDP is also much larger.
Why is it absurd? Do you think we could quadruple the coverage and keep costs fixed?
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 21, 2005, 6:04 PM
Post #41 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: Let me spell it out to you. On a federal level, we spend more and give less. The system needs to be fixed. The cost of health care in this country is way too high. Any honest doctor, nurse etc... will tell you that this system is hurting and needs a major overhaul.
Nobody saying otherwise, Bob, but let me spell this out for you:
Socialized medicine ain't the solution. Any honest doctor, nurse, etc. will tell you that.
And I could go on for years on why the costs are so high... the biggest two being (1) increased median age of the population; and (2) a country full of pussies who can't take a little discomfort.
But I've already blown my blood pressure too high for the day... I'm going to get a triple espresso and calm down a bit.
We're still on for the Sandias this Monday, right?
|
|
|
|
|
traddad
Jul 21, 2005, 6:11 PM
Post #42 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 7129
|
In reply to: In reply to: That extrapolation is, of course, absurd. If other "major countries" can provide universal health care for all of their citizens for 6.5% of their GDP, why cant we? Because we don't protect our medical providers from stupid lawsuits like other countries do.
See: http://www.eurekalert.org/...7/uoia-mlw071505.php
Read:
Contact: Jill Yablonski
Journalnews@bos.blackwellpublishing.net
781-388-8448
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
The myth of the medical malpractice claims crisis
New research published in the latest issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies examines Texas medical malpractice claims and finds no tort crisis. Instead, the study's authors find that, over a 15-year period, the system was largely stable and generated few significant changes in claim frequencies, payments, or jury verdicts. "Average payments on medical malpractice claims rose because small claims were squeezed out of the system over time, not because payments on larger claims increased," the authors explain.
The authors used a comprehensive database of insured closed claims maintained by the Texas Department of Insurance since 1988. The data presented a picture of stability in most respects and only moderate change in others. Their research also revealed a weak connection between claims-related costs and short-to-medium fluctuations in insurance premiums. "Our hope is that better understanding of the claims process will lead to reforms that address real shortcomings in the malpractice litigation and claims payment systems, rather than respond to anecdotes or the rhetoric of crisis" the authors Bernard Black, Charles Silver, David A. Hyman and William M. Sage conclude.
This study is published in the July issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. MEDIA wishing to receive a PDF of this article please contact journalnews@bos.blackwellpublishing.net
The Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (JELS) is a peer-edited, peer-refereed, interdisciplinary journal that publishes high-quality, empirically-oriented articles of interest to scholars in a diverse range of law and law-related fields, including civil justice, corporate law, criminal justice, domestic relations, economics, finance, health care, political science, psychology, public policy, securities regulation, and sociology.
Bernard S. Black practiced corporate and securities law at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City, and served as Counsel to Commissioner Joseph Grundfest of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He has also been Professor of Law at Stanford Law School (1998–2004) and Columbia Law School (1988–1998). Professor Black is available for questions and interviews.
Charles Silver currently serves as Associate Reporter on the American Law Institute's project on Aggregate Litigation. He has published widely on class actions and complex lawsuits, attorneys' fees, the professional responsibilities of lawyers, insurance, and health care law and policy. Professor Silver is available for questions and interviews.
David A. Hyman, who received degrees in law and medicine from the University of Chicago, teaches health care regulation, civil procedure, insurance law, law & economics, professional responsibility, and tax policy. He has published articles on a wide variety of issues, but focuses his research on the regulation and financing of health care. Doctor Hyman is available for questions and interviews.
William M. Sage, who earned degrees in both law and medicine at Stanford University, teaches courses in health law, antitrust, regulatory theory, and the professions. He currently serves as principal investigator for the Project on Medical Liability in Pennsylvania, a 3-year program of medical malpractice policy research funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Doctor Sage is available for questions and interviews.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 21, 2005, 6:16 PM
Post #43 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: Thorne read this. We spend 14-per-cent of GDP on health care, we only cover 28 per-cent of the population.
How'd you reach that conclusion, Einstein?
If you're talking about the chart on page 2, the 14% applies to ALL health care and the 28% has to do with the population receiving PUBLIC health care.
In reply to: And you see the other countries system as bad??
I never said anything of the sort. You seem consistently unable to base your statements in reality.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 21, 2005, 6:23 PM
Post #44 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: Nobody saying otherwise, Bob, but let me spell this out for you: Socialized medicine ain't the solution. Any honest doctor, nurse, etc. will tell you that. And I could go on for years on why the costs are so high... the biggest two being (1) increased median age of the population; and (2) a country full of pussies who can't take a little discomfort.
Again Reno thanks for proving my point.
Other countries spend 6.5 per-cent of thier GDP on health care and almost 100-per-cent of the population have access to health care.
Why can't we do this.
Let hit Tres Peidas near Taos. May be a little cooler.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 21, 2005, 6:41 PM
Post #45 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: Other countries spend 6.5 per-cent of thier GDP on health care and almost 100-per-cent of the population have access to health care. Why can't we do this.
Do you have any evidence that we could.... based on how our government works.
I know quite a few 5.13 climbers. This has absolutely no bearing on the prospect of me ever climbing at that level.
|
|
|
|
|
traddad
Jul 21, 2005, 6:50 PM
Post #46 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 7129
|
In reply to: In reply to: Other countries spend 6.5 per-cent of thier GDP on health care and almost 100-per-cent of the population have access to health care. Why can't we do this. Do you have any evidence that we could.... based on how our government works.
Or based on how our government doesn't work.......
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 21, 2005, 7:01 PM
Post #47 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 21, 2005, 7:06 PM
Post #48 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: Again Reno thanks for proving my point.
I'm not sure how you think I'm proving your point, unless your point is simply that the healthcare system in the US is broken. On that, we agree, but IIRC your original point was that Socialized medicine was the solution. Nothing I've said can be remotely construted to show support for Socialized medcine.
In reply to: Other countries spend 6.5 per-cent of thier GDP on health care and almost 100-per-cent of the population have access to health care.
And again, the term "access" is a huge issue. Life saving treatments that get performed within minutes of the condition here in the US will take WEEKS in a socialized medicine industry.
Lemme ask you this: What will happen when, say, a woman needs an abortion because of rape, and the socialized system says "Sure, we can do that... in 5 months." ??
What do you think will happen when an elderly person with chest pain goes to the hospital, and the administroatrs say "Well, sorry, but you're too old for us to treat this, so you'll have to suffer." ??
These are not far-fetched scenarios... they will be reality if we get socialized medicine. Why do you support the idea of the Federal Government making your healthcare decisions for you?
In reply to: Let hit Tres Peidas near Taos. May be a little cooler.
Deal. I'm bringing harness and shoes and nothing else (don't want to bring everything for one day,) so you get the rest. I'll buy beer. Call ya Sunday evening.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 21, 2005, 7:28 PM
Post #49 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: Do you have any evidence that we could.... based on how our government works. I stated a number of times that our system need major help.
It is up to the elected officials to improve the quality of life for all Americans. They have dumbed down the people so low that they are happy with a President when he completed a sentence and a American Idol shows up on boob-tube once a week. I know quite a few 5.13 climbers. This has absolutely no bearing on the prospect of me ever climbing at that level. Elected the officials that can make it happen and get rid of rift-raft. Raise our expectations of those officials and hold them accountable! What ever happened to "Contract for America' and term limits???
This god-damm America man. We used to be good at things. We invested in great minds and we made things happen. |
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 21, 2005, 7:34 PM
Post #50 of 287
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Hey Bob! Quit bogartin' that joint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
