More importantly, check the rate of increase in medicare funding. Check and see what percentage of doctors have stopped accepting medicare because they pay less than half of the customary fee.

Medicare: 45,000,000 recipients. With only 2-6% administrative costs compared to 15%-25% from private sector insurance. Oh, and no rationing.

I guess your butt has healed from the whipping you got last time you peddled RNC talking points here.

Just a couple of things here - I worked for the federal gov’t for a while, and let’s just say calling them “inneficient and wasteful” is an understatement.

The thought of them taking over health care for hundreds of millions (or just a hundred) is quite scary to me.

That would be the most bloated, inefficent, ineffective thing this country would ever seen in my opinion, and it would be people’s health that would suffer.

It’s not just those eeeevil libbbberals….it’s economists and actuaries. The fact is it’s very easy to hide or disguise assets. And what cost savings are you going to realize if you spend a ton of money trying to determine what bracket some retiree might fall into.

Same goes for mean-testing health–do we really want to stop coverage of someone who comes down with lung cancer because he or she lied about not smoking? And do we penalize those who may have genetic medical problems although they may otherwise live a healthy lifestyle? Small insurers obviously see some savings by limited means-testing but I seriously question whether a much larger program like MediCare would.

Thing is for the MILLIONS of Americans in America who can’t afford health care they have to deal with the longest waiting times of all: never being able to afford the surgeries they need. 3 to 4 months seems like a godsend to me when I can’t even afford to go see a doctor in the first place. Let alone be able to afford the post-op meds.

One would think, that in terms of being competitive, having a healthy work force would be something every America would agree would be a good thing.

The fact is, in Canada and the UK, if you need an operation right away–you’ll get it. Anecdote: a colleague of mine is in the CAF; his father-in-law went in for a routine checkup, the MD didn’t like what he examined and within 48 hours, FiL was on the table for the quadruple bypass. OTOH, this same colleague was having a knee problem and it took 5 months before he could get it ’scoped. He wasn’t immobile and it was ok to walk on (couldn’t do any running or sports).

Again, if you need an operation or some treatment because it’s critical–you’ll get just as fast as here in the states.

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact Canadians live longer than we do and are generally healthier–despite having the same diets and environment as we do.

No, peed’, every country rations care. We just have different ways of rationing.

Yes, there are waiting lines for surgery in NHS countries. There are waits for surgery right here.

There are more choices besides the system we have right now and the system they have right now. The point is, Americans pay a lot more for health care than other countries, but the extra expense doesn’t translate into better health.

I disagree agree that the expense doesn’t translate into better healthcare.

There are a number of costs that are hard to calculate in the equation. Better training and technology exist primarily because of the United States. The rest of the world gets off cheap because we do that heavy lifting ….(similar to the military, most expect us to protect them if the SHTF)

Again, the problem is with the insurance (and legal)system, not the healthcare system

For all their talk about “the rich”, they don’t seem to have a problem with very wealthy seniors living off the government teat for their healthcare. Why shouldn’t they contribute more? I just don’t get it. To them, it’s a horrible idea to cut capital gains taxes for the rich retiree, but it’s also a horrible idea for him to pay higher premiums on his Medicare benefits.

In addition, I think in order to save money for people that take care of themselves, employee health care plan premiums should take into account the health of the person. There’s no reason why some slob who eats at McDonalds everyday and smokes 2 packs of cigarettes should enjoy the benefit of paying for the same health care coverage as another guy that takes care of himself.

I’ll bet you have health care coverage. I guarantee you wouldn’t have to wait a year or even 3-4 months to have an operation if it were needed.

My second cousin’s wife’s dad once….

And note that “Dr” P doesn’t refute my claims about his prevarications. He claimed you’re outta luck if you’re over 65 and need a kidney transplant. His response: Coronary bypass surgery is performed less frequently in the UK.

Oh ..and the usual anecdotes.

Nonsense. For example, the EU and NHS were involved in a fight over who should pay for a woman’s critical hip operation she got in France because the year long wait time in England was reduced to ‘only’ 3-4 months.

An acquaintence of mine has a mother living in Portugal. She had to wait close to 2 years to have back surgery.

The notion that wait times in Europe are no longer than they are here in the states is bunk.

Dugger

You want a kidney transplant but are older than 65? Sorry Charlie.

Sorry, indeed. Kidney transplants are performed in England using the same criteria as here–depends on availability and patient’s condition.

You want an MRI& machine is booked.

It won’t stay booked forever. Again, if you need an MRI for a critical injury, you’ll get in just as soon as you would here.

You need elective surgery& .get in line.

Elective. Key word.

And let’s face it–if you absolutely need that nose job by next month—you can always pay for it out of pocket and get it done as soon as you like.

You want to argue for doing 4 times fewer coronary artery bypass/stents here than in britain, leading to a higher death rate from coronary artery disease…be my guest. But at least be honest about what you are asking for.

Here are a few tidbits for you

In a January 1999 survey of (British)GPs, conducted by Doctor magazine, one in five said they knew patients who had suffered harm as a result of rationing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/251988.stm

The most common surgical treatments for heart disease coronary bypass grafts and angioplasty are performed more than four times as often in the United States than in Great Britain. Physicians on both sides of the Atlantic regard this difference as not medically justified. Mortality from heart disease, once higher in the United States, is now lower than in Great Britain
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb148.htm

Ann Marie Rogers, a 54-year-old breast cancer patient and mother of two, went to the Court of Appeal this week as part of her fight to receive the drug Herceptin free of charge under the National Health Service (NHS).
Rogers described the decision as a  death sentence. She has already borrowed £5,000 for three treatments of Herceptin

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/canc-m31.shtml

46 million Americans have nothing at all.

The US rations healthcare, but on ability to pay, not the need for the service.

I was talking more about access than i was the cost. Obviously it’s cheaper to go dollar menu for dinner than it is to have salmon, which everyone agrees is one of the best things you can eat.

Like i said, i can’t speak for other cities, but even taking cost into account, in those neighborhoods i’m talking about, most of their access, excluding fast food, revolves around corner groceries where a half gallon of orange juice costs more than a gallon does at a major supermarket.

Plus, even with a dollar menu, a burger, fries and soda for a family of four, you’re looking at $12 for one meal, and everybody is probably gonna be hungry again two hours later.

The French also have a wonderful universal healthcare system. And more MDs per capita than the US.

Japan: 7.6
Canada: 9.6
UK: 7.6
US: 14.7

Oddly, the country that spends the most on healthcare doesn’t cover some 50M of its citizens.

I keep hearing about the “broken” healthcare systems in other countries–but is it really smart to keep a system that costs much more, produces less satisfactory outcomes AND doesn’t cover a significant number of its citizens?