superblue Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 4 hours ago, dairygirl4u2c said: It is not primarily that they have better nutrition They regulate health prices and cut out the insurance middleman . these r cited as the reasons for saving hundreds of billions big deal, what is the point of worrying ; if you got other things going on in the world that are screwing a populace over and needs more immediate attention and fixing. Not to mention how ones own government makes sure they have better health care than their citizens. You also have the Pharmaceutical industry to deal with not just insurance agencies, they are interlocked at some degree. Just like no one will ever see anything but a fossil fuel system , because the oil giants will never allow anything to beat them. Or here is a thought; pick your favorite nation that has the ideals you want to see in America and stop complaining and just pack up and move to there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictus Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, Anomaly said: My wife's family lives in the UK. The young like it and the old hate it. They save billions by limiting access and regulating the dispensing of services. Sure you may get a free heart transplant if you're under 60 and otherwise optimal health, but have a cancer and be over 70 and you face a wait of months for each oncologist appointment. Be in a "stressed" area like In the North and you cannot get the same medicines for Parkinson's they give in Surrey. Much of what is given in and to whom, is decided by politicians and bureaucrats, not doctors and it is NOT the equitable distribution we fantasize it is. They constantly have issues similar to how the US runs the VA. Long waits, lost paperwork, poorly run clinics with sorry administrators that just get transferred. Giving further control to the US Government is asinine. You think we will get a Walmart deal, but we will pay Waitrose prices for flea market quality. You already know which few will get the best, will make the money, while the working class pays for it and the welfare class is duped into giving votes for practically nothing while their plight is "championed" by politicians who are bright enough to be in the good side of the deal. There are better systems than Britain. However, Britain does better than the US on many performance and outcome indicators for less proportion of GDP. I lived in Britain for years and didn't see the problems as being major. My family and friends there are, on the whole, also happy with it. The majority of the British public also support the NHS provision and are defensive of any reforms to it, even where they should be made. Surrey isn't really a deprived area, and I'd guess most of it is Conservative leaning. They tend to always think they're hard done by. If anything their board can afford to provide more things at a faster pace than the north, which is far poorer. [The Conservatives helped make that worse since the 80's when they closed the main industry in all their towns and villages]. The system has problems, of course, especially in terms of differences between services provided by local health boards. Politicians do not decide what drugs are approved though. Medicines for public use are approved by NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence). They consider cost implications in relation to outcome benefits, but that's a given. All systems do that. The example of older people waiting longer than others isn't allowed, there are age discrimination laws in place to prevent that. Decisions have to be made on the clinical case and prognosis, not age. For cancer there is a two week turnaround from General Practice to seeing a Consultant for those thought to have cancer. Treatment starts within 30 days in most cases for Cancer. Where there are waits is on non urgent referrals, and there is a 16 weeks upper limit in some places. There are problems with General Practice too (which is privatized, but public funded) in that many doctors are retiring and or moving away to areas where they can get more money or work. In some communities, especially rural or poor, this makes it difficult to see a GP without waiting a week or two, or making a commute. Older people actually get a good deal under the NHS system: free hospital (emergency, acute and rehabilitation) and general practice care, free prescriptions from the age of 60, free eye and dental exams etc. They also get heavily subsidized costs towards glasses and contact lenses etc. The crux issue, and where it isn't so great, is on social care. However, that's because it's provided by local government. There can be costs involved in getting home support, personal care, meals etc. If you require residental or nursing facility care then you'd likely need to part fund or sell any owned property to a designated amount, as it's means tested. Britian is looking to improve by looking at the systems in Japan, France, Sweden and Germany for tips. I think that isn't such a bad idea. But nobody wants the US system, not if they care for the population as a whole. Edited January 21, 2016 by Benedictus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) you can criticize britian, but it is better than the USA and is only one of many healthcare types. as this poster acknowledges " There are better systems than Britain. However, Britain does better than the US on many performance and outcome indicators for less proportion of GDP. " to be sure, most of the wait times and rationing isn't something that's inherent in the system, it's just a way to save money and not all countires engage in this. if i had to pick a country to model, i'd pick france. they have less wait times than us, have more choice among doctors, and have less paperwork, all while paying closer to the ten percent of GDP goal that is more standard. they have supplemental insurance by insurance companies for ninety percent of the population. they are rated number one in the world according to the world health organziation. bottomline, you can find faults, maybe, sometimes in other countries. but they are still better than the US, and we can choose the best system to model. after all, no one is proposing any solutions. the best i see from nihil is the admission that the conservative minds don't have solutions.well, he said no one has solutions, but if we're pointing out systems that are cheaper and give everyone care with better quality and outcomes, i can't agree that no one is offering solutions. "Why I (a right wing economic libertarian) Prefer French Health Care" " For a dozen years now I’ve led a dual life, spending more than 90 percent of my time and money in the U.S. while receiving 90 percent of my health care in my wife’s native France. On a personal level the comparison is no contest: I’ll take the French experience any day. ObamaCare opponents often warn that a new system will lead to long waiting times, mountains of paperwork, and less choice among doctors. Yet on all three of those counts the French system is significantly better, not worse, than what the U.S. has now. " and more from that article http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/07/why-prefer-french-health-care with commentary on the above article....http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/december/reasons-matt-welch-on-french-health-care " They constantly have issues similar to how the US runs the VA. Long waits, lost paperwork, poorly run clinics with sorry administrators that just get transferred. " two points about the VA. they are run by the government, so of course it isn't going to be done optimally. single payer type situations are only replacing the insurance companies and controlling costs, not running hospitals. also, the wait lines with the VA only show why we should have single payer. VA hospitals are a limited commiddty, so they have to make wait lines. with singple payer, every hospital and doctor is open for business, thus reducing the lines at the VA. Edited January 21, 2016 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 People certainly have solutions. Nobody has perfect solutions. For those who pick apart the British or French or Canadian systems to justify the American status quo, they seem to argue that a solution must be perfect to justify abandoning the failed American system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superblue Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 1 hour ago, dairygirl4u2c said: you can criticize britian, but it is better than the USA and is only one of many healthcare types. as this poster acknowledges " There are better systems than Britain. However, Britain does better than the US on many performance and outcome indicators for less proportion of GDP. " Make sure to send Congress and the White House a memo on that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictus Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 41 minutes ago, superblue said: Make sure to send Congress and the White House a memo on that... They know, especially as they need to turn the page over to find the US performance rating. Who's going to say what should really be done when there are such big lobby groups for corporates and elections to win (that require lots of money from people who support the current system) All you need are a few fruit cakes running around screaming socialist or imposed state health care and it's game over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I have always been partial to the Singaporean system, because they achieve incredibly high outcomes with comparatively minuscule expenditures. However, IMO the Singaporean system would not function in a 'more free' (whatever that means) political system. Politics in Singapore are very much "hey, you have some freedom, life is pretty good, take it or leave it and keep your mouth shut." This ties in with their healthcare because it is a system built on pragmatism. Your average middle class Singaporean pays a reasonable amount (some or all of which is tied to mandatory HSAs) for simple, affordable care. Good quality care, mind you. Very good quality. But no frills. The philosophy is lower cost, proven treatments as opposed to expensive and more experimental treatments. There are several different assistance schemes for catastrophic costs and for lower income and the elderly. There is also a fairly effective mix of private and public delivery. The majority of primary care is private with a significant minority being public, and those proportions are reversed for acute care. Geography plays a role here as well IMO, since Singapore is very small and very densely populated, and essentially 100% urban. One of the bigger downsides is that more expensive treatment can be kind of left by the wayside, even in cases where a lower cost alternative is not necessarily available. Again, it is pragmatism, sometimes on a large scale. There are anecdotal stories of people being unable to obtain costly treatments because the Ministry of Health chooses not to subsidize them. They remain available privately funded, of course, but it is necessarily not cheap. Still cheaper than in the US, but you know... Quote from a paper I wrote, in turn quoting from a paper called Re-Making Singapore Healthcare: "The former Senior Minister of State, Balaji Sadasivan (as quoted in “Re-Making Singapore Healthcare) said: “Cancer treatment can be very, very expensive. This is something our health system will have to deal with. It is not surprising if some patients have to sell their house.” Singaporean health care, striving to be “cost effective and of proven value”, necessary cannot, and does not intend to “provide the latest and best of everything.” (Re-Making Singapore Healthcare)" I do not necessarily disagree with such an arrangement, although I do not expect it could function in the United States. Anyway, I am pretty off topic. I just like Singapore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 (edited) The doctors and nurses I've been exposed to are all hard working , dedicated, caring individuals the services provided saved the life of my loved ones, more than once... medical care is expensive, granted but it works for me and I would not change a thing im thankful for what we have. The changes like obamacae only benefit the big insurance cartels . Who are making record profits lately BTW Edited January 24, 2016 by little2add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictus Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 On 24/01/2016, 04:07:37, little2add said: The doctors and nurses I've been exposed to are all hard working , dedicated, caring individuals the services provided saved the life of my loved ones, more than once... medical care is expensive, granted but it works for me and I would not change a thing im thankful for what we have. The changes like obamacae only benefit the big insurance cartels . Who are making record profits lately BTW Yeah, it works for you but fails for millions. But glad you're OK Medical care has always been expensive and the insurance companies have always made money, as have many professionals and clinics etc. It's actually logcal that elements of the market increase their income, including profits, if they're dealing with more people than before. However, insurance should decrease over time if the system is allowed to function correctly. The problem is the current system is a reformed hybrid and far from ideal. That's the fault of the lobbyists and the politicians who prevent the changes that are necessary. However, they will keep up the mess because many voters still buy into a certain way of doing things. Politicians rarely lead, they simply wait for society to shift its gear and then they get pragmatic and try to be seen pushing things ahead. Personal views sometimes mean politically if they don't secure votes, as the Republicans may find in future years unless they refocus the ball game. Everyone needs a little damage limitation in the world of PR Obama was doing what he knew he needed to do for the country, but especially his voter base. I doubt he did all that he wanted to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 On 1/23/2016 11:07:37, little2add said: The doctors and nurses I've been exposed to are all hard working , dedicated, caring individuals the services provided saved the life of my loved ones, more than once... medical care is expensive, granted but it works for me and I would not change a thing im thankful for what we have. The changes like obamacae only benefit the big insurance cartels . Who are making record profits lately BTW Obamacare benefits the insurance industry and also millions of Americans who now have access to healthcare. I'm glad expensive medical care works for you. Not everybody has access to that medical care. 22 minutes ago, Benedictus said: Yeah, it works for you but fails for millions. But glad you're OK Medical care has always been expensive and the insurance companies have always made money, as have many professionals and clinics etc. It's actually logcal that elements of the market increase their income, including profits, if they're dealing with more people than before. However, insurance should decrease over time if the system is allowed to function correctly. The problem is the current system is a reformed hybrid and far from ideal. That's the fault of the lobbyists and the politicians who prevent the changes that are necessary. However, they will keep up the mess because many voters still buy into a certain way of doing things. Politicians rarely lead, they simply wait for society to shift its gear and then they get pragmatic and try to be seen pushing things ahead. Personal views sometimes mean politically if they don't secure votes, as the Republicans may find in future years unless they refocus the ball game. Everyone needs a little damage limitation in the world of PR Obama was doing what he knew he needed to do for the country, but especially his voter base. I doubt he did all that he wanted to do. Yepppppp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) We have wonderful medical professionals/ institutes/ facilities, that is worth every cent. Medical care in this day and age has a cost and if you think you're paying a lot now, just wait until it's (under Obamacare) free. Edited January 25, 2016 by little2add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 15 minutes ago, little2add said: We have wonderful medical professionals/ institutes/ facilities, that is worth every cent. Well, that is the debatable part. Is it really "worth every cent" if many other countries spend less and achieve better outcomes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) I don't know or care what healthcare costs are in the rest of the world but I am pretty sure that that most of the really complicated difficult surgeries are performed in the United States because it's the best most advanced healthcare in the world. 1 minute ago, Nihil Obstat said: Well, that is the debatable part. Is it really "worth every cent" if many other countries spend less and achieve better outcomes? Edited January 25, 2016 by little2add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, little2add said: I don't know or care what healthcare costs are in the rest of the world but I am pretty sure that that most of the really complicated difficult surgeries are performed in the United States because it's the best most advanced healthcare in the world. What flavour of koolaid do you prefer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now