American Health care reform protests

[Cassin]

Despite the rhetoric, illegal immigration in the US is something that the government has INTENTIONALLY turned a blind eye to.

As a matter of policy, the US treasury and Federal Reserve have been increasingly devaluing the dollar over the past few decades to counteract perennial trade deficits that are mostly driven by our ever-worseining dependence on imported petroleum. Normally, inflating a currency causes inflation, so to "mask" the inflationary effect the government has all but looked the other way on illegal immigration. Illegal immigration provides cheap labor, dilutes the labor base of the nation, and thus prevents the "wage/price spiral" that would have normally occurred.

Exactly...Its amusing how worked up people get over it. Its a needed part of our country. Good luck affording a house built by Union Labour.

 

[Bryan]

Good luck affording a house built by Union Labour.

You've spent so much time reading the posts from our British friends, you're starting to spell like them, too!

 

[Optimistic]

All civilised nations except for the USA have universal health care.

The USA is rated number 1 in health care expenses and number 17 in health care effectiveness.

Many US citizens go through the insurance company “death panel" and are denied their benefits. I think those people are ready for a public option. Does anyone really give a damn if it is socialist or anything else conservatives want to spin it with.

Do you want an insurance company to decide if it is more profitable for them to keep you alive.

The truly disgusting thing is that out of all the G20 nations' summit the US was behind all of them in providing health care to its citizens.

 

[Cassin]

All civilised nations except for the USA have Universal Health Care.

The USA is rated number 1 in Health Care expenses and number 17 in Health Care effectiveness.

It will happen...just a matter of time.

 

[ali777]

The truly disgusting thing is that out of all the G20 nations' summit the US was behind all of them in providing health care to its citizens.

That's actually not true. G20 includes countries like China, India, Argentina, Saudi, Brazil, Turkey, etc. I'm certain those countries have worse health care than the US.

However, the main point of your post is still valid. From all the wealthy nations, the US probably has one of the worst health care systems.

 

[The Gardener]

I disagree, the US does not have a bad health care system. The US system is a mixed bag.

GROUP A: About half of Americans have the best health care in the world
GROUP B: 25% of them have decent care
GROUP C: The remaining 25% get lousy "trauma only" care from state and local governments.

There are clearly two sides to this argument.

One side wants everyone to be covered in Group A and/or Group B. Those on the other side of the argument are afraid that if this occurs, what will REALLY result is everyone being forced into Group C. Frankly, that's a valid fear. The government already runs a health care system... for military veterans (the "VA"), and if anyone out there has read or seen "Born on the Fourth of July" or heard about the conditions at such places such as Walter Reed military hospital, there isn't a lot of confidence that the government has the ability to run a health service proficiently.

Don't get me wrong... I think that universal health care is a worthy goal. Some nations have the skill, dedication, and resources to run world-class government health care. My fear is that the US does not, because our government is broke, rife with corruption, and inept.

Perhaps a different model could be worked... where somehow universal coverage is provided but by doing so through the existing private (non-governmental) providers.

 

[ali777]

I disagree, the US does not have a bad health care system. The US system is a mixed bag.

GROUP A: About half of Americans have the best health care in the world
GROUP B: 25% of them have decent care
GROUP C: The remaining 25% get lousy "trauma only" care from state and local governments.

There are clearly two sides to this argument.

You are right to a certain degree. Until a generation or two ago, the US had one of the best health care systems in the world. The US had one of the longest life expectancies, and the general health of an average American was much better than the one of an average European. However, the tables have turned and now the Europeans are taller, healthier and live longer. Europeans get all that for half the money!!!

Statistics for "infant mortality rate" or "life expectancy" are widely accepted as the indicators of social development of a given country. Compared to the other wealthy countries, the US isn't anywhere near the top.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... expectancy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ality_rate

We have to acknowledge the fact that money brings research and new cures, and the Americans are best at that (with all the EU research funds, the EU has probably caught up in research, eg stem cell research in UK). So, spending 17% of the economy on insurance as opposed to spending 7-8% towards universal health care, may give someone an advantage over a patient under the universal coverage wouldn't get.

Basically, the decisions on life and death are based on statistics. The medical system weighs all the advantages, disadvantages, and cost of treatment for a given illness, and they may choose not to cure the patient. This is where paying money for the best available cure could buy the patient a few extra years. In reality these are rare cases, so the whole insurance is deduced to nothing more than an "insurance" against a rare illness.

However, the fact that universal health care is better for the country still remains, as proven by the stats.

 

[The Gardener]

You are right to a certain degree. Until a generation or two ago, the US had one of the best health care systems in the world. The US had one of the longest life expectancies, and the general health of an average American was much better than the one of an average European. However, the tables have turned and now the Europeans are taller, healthier and live longer. Europeans get all that for half the money!!!

Statistics for "infant mortality rate" or "life expectancy" are widely accepted as the indicators of social development of a given country. Compared to the other wealthy countries, the US isn't anywhere near the top.

I don't doubt the stats, but they need to be analyzed to be understood.

Using my "Group A, B, and C" example from above, its the folks in "Group C" that skew down the US stats.... a big driver of this being illegal immigration. No European nation has allowed an influx of illegal immigrants with the sheer volume that the United States has dealt with. These folks get NO pre-natal care, no gynecological care, and usually see a doctor the first time when they are already in the emergency room in the midst of birth labor. Additionally, there are folks in "Group C" who are obese, and because they have no health insurance, they aren't getting screened for such diseases as diabetes and cancer, and are dying at MUCH younger ages than those who do have a regular physician do. As for those in "Group A", I'd wager an educated guess that they have health stats that rival if not best those in Europe... well, perhaps with the exception of the obesity issue.

 

[ali777]

As for those in "Group A", I'd wager an educated guess that they have health stats that rival if not best those in Europe... well, perhaps with the exception of the obesity issue.

Affluent people are healthier and live longer, that's not a characteristic of the US only. It's the same in a country like the UK where the health service is universal... (On average, a college graduate lives 3 years longer)

You might have to revise your theory there.

What you say is true, group A people are healthier, but the Brits in the "imaginary group A" would compare to your group A.

If you take out some parts of Scotland and North England, the British health stats would go through the roof as well.

 

[oni]

Affluent people are healthier and live longer, that's not a characteristic of the US only. It's the same in a country like the UK where the health service is universal... (On average, a college graduate lives 3 years longer)

But this is not only to do with health care!

 

[thetodd]

If socialized health care is so wonderful, why do so many people from countries that have it come to the United States for treatment? I have relatives in Canada and they tell me their health care system is great until you really get sick.

 

[HughJass]

if it's so bad then why haven't the countries that have got it, scrapped it?

 

[The Gardener]

if it's so bad then why haven't the countries that have got it, scrapped it?

Many of them are. Increasingly allowing private health care programmes to coexist alongside state-provided insurance. Additionally, there has been a constant and dramatically increasing uptick in foreigners seeking medical care for serious illness in American hospitals. The data associated with this has been widely trumpeted here as a result of the current health care debate. American hospitals have been serving as an escape valve for many weaknesses and deficiencies in other Western nations' state health systems. If America goes to socialized medicine, then, where would the escape valve be?

This is MOST pronounced in cancer treatment (US survival rates are significantly higher than Europe) and for organ transplants.

 

[Bryan]

If socialized health care is so wonderful, why do so many people from countries that have it come to the United States for treatment?

To get the best possible treatment that lots and lots of money can buy. Does that seem like a contradiction to you? It isn't. Just because we have outstanding medical care for you if you're a millionaire with really deep pockets, that doesn't mean we have a good system for the average person of modest means.

 

[HughJass]

Many of them are. Increasingly allowing private health care programmes to coexist alongside state-provided insurance.

Having a two tier system isn't the same as scrapping an entire public health care program though

American hospitals have been serving as an escape valve for many weaknesses and deficiencies in other Western nations' state health systems. If America goes to socialized medicine, then, where would the escape valve be?

There are Americans who are travelling abroad for medical treatment due to failures in the American system too though.......

 

[The Gardener]

There are Americans who are travelling abroad for medical treatment due to failures in the American system too though.......

There is a difference. They aren't traveling abroad because a service isn't available in the US, or because the quality of the services in the US are inferior. They are traveling abroad because in the US, the service is TOO EXPENSIVE for them.

And it is the topic of EXPENSE for SERVICE that is the weakness of the US system, IMHO, and needs to be reformed.

The quality of the US health care system is outstanding, some of the best health care you can get anywhere. The PROBLEM is that not everyone can afford this.... and this is what is driving down some of the demographic health stats that were brought up earlier.

I'm not convinced that nationalizing the health care system is necessarily the solution to this. I think there are other strategies that could be employed to ensure universal health care, and do so at a reasonable price. First off, I think that the current pricing regime is ridiculous, and encourages overcharging for services, and over-prescribing services, in order for doctors to: A) cover their arses from malpractice, and B) run up the billables so they make more money. There's a lot of hocus pocus and chicanery going on with health care pricing in the US... malpractice insurance, doctors trying to bilk medicare, exhorbitant presciption drug pricing, over-prescription of drugs, etc...

This piece is describes some of the issues involved:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest- ... m-rig-game

I think nationalization might work in other countries that have more efficient and less corrupt governments... say, in Singapore or some western European nations... but in the US, government programs are all rigged to become money conduits for the entrenched interests who bribed the congressmen to write the details of legislation. US Congress isn't a public service anymore, it has become a racket. Maybe after the economy collapses we can kick all of the pigs out of the trough, and start over again with a leaner and more efficient legislative system.

 

[thetodd]

If socialized health care is so wonderful, why do so many people from countries that have it come to the United States for treatment?

To get the best possible treatment that lots and lots of money can buy. Does that seem like a contradiction to you? It isn't. Just because we have outstanding medical care for you if you're a millionaire with really deep pockets, that doesn't mean we have a good system for the average person of modest means.

No, it's because they don't want to wait months or years to get the treatment they need NOW.

 

[ali777]

Many of them are. Increasingly allowing private health care programmes to coexist alongside state-provided insurance.

I remember watching a programme about the British health system. The point the programme was making was that in European countries like France and Italy, where there is a larger private health sector, things are better than in the UK.

I do agree that they should coexist.

Additionally, there has been a constant and dramatically increasing uptick in foreigners seeking medical care for serious illness in American hospitals.

As Bryan already said, money talks!!!

I think when it comes to specialised services, you are way ahead of anyone else.

Would you spend $100 to save the lives of 100 people, or $1000 to save the lives of 3 people??? That's the difference.

I'm not convinced that nationalizing the health care system is necessarily the solution to this.

Hold on, who said anything about nationalising the health care system? Providing universal health care doesn't mean the government is going to take over the existing hospitals. That's what the Soviets did between 1920s and 1950s. (The bloody Bolsheviks still owe me some sheep. According to the records my great grandfather had some land and 50 or so sheep, my grandfather got the land and 5 sheep back in 1990s... I'm not joking)... My point is, do not misinterpret universal health care as nationalisation. That's where the opposition comes from, there is a misunderstanding there.

Even in the UK where the health care is universal, the hospitals and the practices operate independently and the GPs get paid according to the number of patients they have on their books. The system is full of loopholes, and they do make very good money right now.

So, the system is semi-private.

Do your universities get government money at all, but they are independent to do whatever they want??? That's how the health system works here. Well, obviously they have to follow certain procedures.

First off, I think that the current pricing regime is ridiculous, and encourages overcharging for services, and over-prescribing services, in order for doctors to: A) cover their arses from malpractice, and B) run up the billables so they make more money. There's a lot of hocus pocus and chicanery going on with health care pricing in the US... malpractice insurance, doctors trying to bilk medicare, exhorbitant presciption drug pricing, over-prescription of drugs, etc...

That happens everywhere, not just in the US. I know some doctors, and I know how they make their money. My sis-in-law is making 4 times more than me. It's disgusting!!!

The health care system is first and foremost about making money and then serving the ill. The whole system is very unethical.

This is MOST pronounced in cancer treatment (US survival rates are significantly higher than Europe) and for organ transplants.

That's an interesting one.... I know the UK is behind the times when it comes to cancer treatment. I guess the reason is that cancer research is expensive and there are other priorities, ie spending $1000 to save 3 lives is 10 times more expensive than spending $100 to save 100 lives....

PS: If nationalisation was to happen, do you think the Americans could get free hair transplant or propecia prescriptions :woot:? That on its own would be worth the hassle of applying for a Green Card :whistle:

 

[Bryan]

If socialized health care is so wonderful, why do so many people from countries that have it come to the United States for treatment?

To get the best possible treatment that lots and lots of money can buy. Does that seem like a contradiction to you? It isn't. Just because we have outstanding medical care for you if you're a millionaire with really deep pockets, that doesn't mean we have a good system for the average person of modest means.

No, it's because they don't want to wait months or years to get the treatment they need NOW.

Getting treatment in a timely manner would come under the heading of "best possible treatment".

 

[Bryan]

...That's what the Soviets did between 1920s and 1950s. (The bloody Bolsheviks still owe me some sheep. According to the records my great grandfather had some land and 50 or so sheep, my grandfather got the land and 5 sheep back in 1990s... I'm not joking)...

Hey, we're finally starting to get some idea of what country you're from, comrade!