Good reason we stick to our system of healthcare for me, not for thee.
You can add Canadians to the list of foreigners who are healthier than Americans. Americans are 42 percent more likely than Canadians to have diabetes, 32 percent more likely to have high blood pressure, and 12 percent more likely to have arthritis, Harvard Medical School researchers found. That is according to a survey in which American and Canadian adults were asked over the telephone about their health.
The study comes less than a month after other researchers reported that middle-aged, white Americans are much sicker than their counterparts in England.
“We’re really falling behind other nations,” said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a co-author of the Canadian study.
Canada’s national health insurance program is at least part of the reason for the differences found in the study, Woolhandler said. Universal coverage makes it easier for more Canadians to get disease-preventing health services, she said.
Yeah, Yeah. But what about the cost in higher taxes to the upper 2% income bracket?
Interesting blog by a British National Health Service doctor -
http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/
I would rather have our “broken” system than the one the good doctor describes in the UK.
This is all typical bravo sierra. Steffie Woolhandler is - YOU GUESSED IT- a woman with a hard left political agenda.
“Woolhandler is an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard and co-director of the Harvard Medical School General Internal Medicine Fellowship program. She is a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), an organization that educates physicians, other health workers, and the general public on the need for a comprehensive, high-quality, publicly-funded health care program, equitably accessible to all residents of the United States. Equitable accessibility requires, in the view of PNHP, removal of the barriers to adequate health care currently faced by the uninsured, the poor, minority populations and immigrants, both documented and undocumented.”
Scientific, my *ss!
Dugger, Always suspect “studies” until you verify
I would rather have our broken system than the one the good doctor describes in the UK.
Our healthcare system is fantastic if you’re both wealthy and healthy.
It becomes broken when you’re not healthy and/or wealthy.
The problem with William’s comment is that the metrics don’t lie. British citizens are slightly more healthy and their healthcare costs represent about 7% of GDP. Meanwhile, we’re less healthy and pay over 14% of our GDP for healthcare.
I guess the question I’d ask William is why he’d pay more for something that offers less?
Because obviously one British hard right wing blogger who points out problems with the NHS is Britain discredits universal healthcare in a TOTALLY different country.
As much as I sympathize with the ideas behind socialized medicine, I would argue that you may be comparing apples and oranges here
Come now.
Are you suggesting the British and Canadian diet is much healthier than that of the US?
I’d suggest the Canadian diet is pretty much identical to ours and the Brits aren’t exactly known for health food (lots of fried foods). Bangers and mash?
As much as I sympathize with the ideas behind socialized medicine, I would argue that you may be comparing apples and oranges here. Perhaps we spend more of our GDP on health care and are less healthy overall because we’re fat and lazy, not because we lack adequate health care.
In reality, one’s health is better served by eating right and exercising than having an excellent health plan.
Diet definitely has something to do with it Joshua but with so many Americans not being able to see a doctor at all it probably contributes to obesity, heart disease and diabetes. The rich are, by percentage, much more obese than the poor and working class. Cause they have the time for exercise, the money to buy healthier foods, and go to doctors who guide them towards working out and helping them plan out healthy diets. Preventative health care is something that really should be stressed in America like it is in other countries but that’s hard to do when so many people can’t see a doctor at all.
And I am one of those people. I haven’t had a job that provided health care for many years. While attending University the options were really scarce until recently when I had the opportunity to sign on to a health care plan associated with my school. But the moment I graduated I was out of luck again. So the slight inconvenience that a single payer system might cause for the wealthy doesn’t make me feel to bad when it might save the lives of myself or those I love.
Tell me how the current system is working fine when my mother after 50 years of perfect health develops breast cancer and is kicked off her health insurance. After that she became a “high risk” and now can only have insurance at a ridiculous price.
Another option that I haven’t heard discussed much before and I’m curious if anyone has any links to an example like this: Health Care Unions. I’m currently a member of a credit Union and really appreciate the philosophy of a group of people banding together to provide each other economical opportunities. Why can’t a similar system be created for health care?
Non-profit, community oriented health care that allows many people to pay in to a) protect each other in case of emergencies and b) take advantage of their combined numbers to get discounts on health care and prescriptions. By removing the profit factor money could be saved to allow for cheaper rates and more coverage. If anyone can think of such an institution or a reason why it wouldn’t work I’d love to hear more information.
Bingo, Mr. Gaines. Among the innumerable freedoms Americans enjoy is the freedom to be a lardass. That doesn’t mean our healthcare is deficient: just our self-control.
Well, I am loathe to rain on the parade, because I am for universal health care coverage (not necessarily single-payer), but the examples you mention, arthritis, diabetes, and high blood pressure are complicated enough that it’s probably worth talking about other risk factors.
For example, one of the leading risk indicator for diabetes is diet and obesity. And of course, heredity.
I wonder if Canadians simply lead a healthier lifestyle than we do?
Let’s face it. The American diet is atrocious. I’m just as guilty of eating as much junk as the next guy, although I’m trying to do something about my lifelong “addiction” to fast food, and eat much more healthy. Many of us eat way too much of the wrong thing, don’t exercise as much as we should, and hold high-stress jobs.
(One problem. I really don’t like salad. Lettuce=vile weed. I’m only slightly more fond of vegetables.)
Now, on to lifestyle. Americans WORK more than their counterparts. If we get 2 weeks of vacation, we don’t always take it. I bet a good number of people that frequent this blog work two jobs. We’re running around like crazy people. Stress and high blood pressure, are, of course, related.
I bet there’s more “road rage” per capita in the U.S. than in Canada.
My point is that it can be a bit of a dangerous game to fall into the trap of blaming our health care system for our individual health issues, although I do agree that a greater focus on preventative medicine is worth its weight in gold.
We have to be realistic…no health care system in the world, can make up for a lifetime of treating your body like a garbage dump–whether it’s a bad diet, drugs, smoking, or alcoholism, we have to be kinder to our bodies. Most of us don’t have the genetic make-up of Keith Richards, who has done just about everything humanly possible to his body and lived to tell about it.
Having said that, “mental health” is another story. People who have mentall illness don’t always know that what they’re suffering from can be treated. I think our health care system does fail people with mental illness.
My two cents-
JK
Bingo, Mr. Gaines. Among the innumerable freedoms Americans enjoy is the freedom to be a lardass. That doesn t mean our healthcare is deficient: just our self-control.
Baloney.
Tell us what differences exist between the US and Canadian diets. And it’s not as if the Brits are health food nuts–fish and chips, bangers and mash. Lots of high cholesterol sweetmeats.
It’s pretty clear that there are NO unhealthy people who smoke, drink, and eat too much anywhere outside of the US. That must be the reason every other developed country has healthcare outcomes better than we do.
No British person smokes, they don’t drink any alcohol, and they don’t eat unhealthy garbage like fried food and sausages. That is how their healthcare system outperforms ours consistently.
Even the poor people in the U.S. are fat, they are probably the fattest.
When one considers that diabetes and high blood pressure are more of a result of healthy living (which can be accomplished whether one is poor or rich - you don’t need money to eat healthy and exercise), this survey really doesn’t prove anything.
I’d also like to know how Europe’s health care system is so much better than ours considering wait times over there for operations, unless life threatening, are at least 3-4 months. Canada is no better with 80% of 2.5 million adults in 2005 having to wait up to 3 months just to see a specialist.
The US healthcare has its problems, but lets not start hailing Canada’s system or Europe’s.
Look for this interesting fact about our “broken” health care system..
Where do people come when they want to train in the best possible system in the world? You guessed it…the U.S. of A. I have trained people from around the world, and once they train here, they go back to their homes as the uberspecialist.
We have a broken insurance system, our medical system is outstanding. I don’t think substituting one broken insurance system for another is a great idea.
Canadians are healthier because the weak are culled - by bears.
The NHS is the most obvious thing in the world and everyone should have one. In plain language, YOU DON’T HAVE TO PAY FOR BEING SICK.
And yes, I know blah blah taxes, that’s not the same thing as being charged hundreds or thousands for an operation you need.
Life expectancy is going up dramatically - just about everywhere, including the US. OWs answer is to look at this good statistic and “fix it”. Right. I would say most nations -US, Canada and UK- are all doing well and should keep on keeping on. The last thing we need is for a dictatorial know-it-all blunderbuss to come in and “fix it” for us. Arguably the population in the US is showing a greater life expectancy growth rate than either of the countries OW rhapsodizes about (http://library.thinkquest.org/10120/cyber/extended/life_expectancy.html.).
But don’t let statistics get in your way. Beilieve an agenda driven doctrinaire leftist if you wish - a favorite guest of the odious Amy Goodman and Democracy Now.
Dugger
It’s not just diet, jade & fact. There’s the other side of the equation: exercise. We’re not getting outdoors because we spend too much time playing with our cool toys.
*The US is #3 in TVs per capita. (Canada is #6, UK is #25)
*In PCs, the US is #2 per capita (Canada #11, UK #20).
*In Cinema attendance, US #2 pc (Canada #7, UK #16)
* Obesity: We’re #1!!! (Canada #11, UK #3)
(figures from NationMaster.com)
The US is going to need to have universal health care, as we are rapidly losing our competitive edge. Hear that sucking sound? That’s the Detroit auto manufacturers being sucked into Ontario to be freed from the burden of employee health care.
Not having universal coverage I believe also kills the entrepreneurial spirit-I know many people, myself included, that won’t start a new business because we can’t afford to lose our employee health coverage.
Virtually every developed country with universal health care has better outcomes than we do with less expenditure. Surely 1 or 2 can be explained away by cultural differences, but not every single case. As somebody said recently, I think it was Howard Dean, Americans are paying enough for universal health care, we’re just not getting it.
At some point the Social Darwinians will turn around- about a millisecond after their company drops health insurance because it is too expensive.
I will be watching the Massachusetts solution with interest- I am more in favor of single-payer, but a more market based solution, such as the one in Massachusetts, may work.
This is what should be part of the American debate, not non-issues like gay marriage and immigration. As usual, the demagogues and the press hijack the discourse away from issues that matter.
In the midst of Tom Greene’s annoying self-promotion of his testicle cancer ordeal a few years ago, someone should have asked Greene — a Canadian citizen — why he chose to PAY to have his cancer treated in California, rather than going home and have it treated for free.
I’m sure his answer would have been most enlightening.
It’s also worth noting that in both the UK and Canada, patients left state healthcare plans in droves after governments removed restrictions and penalties for seeking treatment outside the state system.
Dr. Pedro is right — we have a broken INSURANCE system in this country, not a broken HEALTHCARE system. It bugs me to no end when I hear people talk reforming “healthcare,” when “healthcare” isn’t the problem. It’s the financial system that accompanies it.
“Dr” Pedro says…exactly nothing.
His argument seems to be we have the best doctors but he can’t explain why US citizens pay more for worse outcomes.
Jay Caruso, as usual, decides that if he’s going to lie–he may as well lie big. He asserts high blood pressure and diabetes is caused by living a healthy lifestyle. Sometimes, parody writes itself.
SF tries to equate our relatively poor health to TV and a lack of exercise. Of course, SF ignores the fact that while 17% of the US and Canadian population are smokers–26% of the British are. And, of course, TV doesn’t explain why Canada and the UK have lower infant mortality rates than us.
What I don’t understand is why we pay for universal health care for Iraq, but we don’t have it here. Are Iraqi’s more important than Americans?
Our life expectancy has grown at a higher rate than either Canada or the UKs (they are still overall a little higher). But the startling diffrence is between japan and all of us. Explain that away. I doubt it will come from Democracy Now’s big friend Ms Woolhandler’s “study”.
I recently had strep throat. It cost me $800 to be diagnosed and treated. I’m a security guard with no health insurance options. 800 dollars is 3 weeks of pay! Something is broken.
I knew a guy who worked with me who had cancer. He could hardly afford food let alone chemo. Every morning he would come to the main office to get free donut and coffee, he relied on that one free meal per day. He got fired for talking to a client about how he had cancer and couldnt afford treatment. Hes probably dead by now from something that is treatable.
In the USA we leave poor people to DIE when they have medical trouble.
“Perhaps we spend more of our GDP on health care and are less healthy overall because we re fat and lazy,”
Why do you hate America?
“We re not getting outdoors because we spend too much time playing with our cool toys.”
Save, that is an objectively pro-terrorist statement.
“I have trained people from around the world, and once they train here, they go back to their homes as the uberspecialist.”
I’d have thought that, if the US has the “best possible system” in the world, these “uberspecialists” would want to stay and work within that system, not subject themselves (and their families) to what must be, according to you, an inferior healthcare system.
“But the startling diffrence is between japan and all of us. Explain that away.”
Dugger, Japan has had a system of universal health care coverage since 1961.
“Japan’s health care system is characterized by universal coverage, free choice of health care providers by patients, a multi-payer, employment-based system of financing, and a predominant role for private hospitals and fee-for-service practice. Virtually all residents of Japan are covered without regard to any medical problems they may have (so-called predisposing conditions) or to their actuarial risk of succumbing to illness. Premiums are based on income and ability to pay. Although there is strong government regulation of health care financing and the operation of health insurance, control of the delivery of care is left largely to medical professionals and there appears to be no public concern about health care rationing.”
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/rodwin/lessons.html#IV
frame,
Warning! Warning! The upcoming post requires something called “thought”. Vile curses and shrill name calling are not, repeat - not-, satisfactory substitutes for “thought”.
The point is that the difference between Japanese life expectancy and UK/US/Canada life expectancy - the latter, though provided via different systems, are all very similar. Whereas, Japan, with a three tiered combined national plan, has significantly higher life expectancy than these countries (whuich are, in turn, generally much higher than most of the rest of the world). Socialized medicine and/or a national plan would thereby NOT seem to explain the difference. See? Else, why wouldn’t UK or Canada be up there with Japan? Furthermore, Japan spends about 1/2 per capita versus the US on health care (most of the US expenditures are voluntary).
Dugger
And Dugs, here are actual life expectency rates for Japan, Canada, the UK and US in rank highest to lowest. Tell me, which country does not have universal health care and where does it rank in this list?
Japan:
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 81.25 years
male: 77.96 years
female: 84.7 years (2006 est.)
Canada:
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 80.22 years
male: 76.86 years
female: 83.74 years (2006 est.)
UK
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 78.54 years
male: 76.09 years
female: 81.13 years (2006 est.)
US:
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 77.85 years
male: 75.02 years
female: 80.82 years (2006 est.)
Per Jade, diet, education and universal health care coverage all contribute to the life expectancy of the Japanese (not to mention a generous pension system). You can’t simply take Japan’s health care system out of the equation by comparing Japan’s life expectancy to that of other countries.
It should be noted that not all of America’s obesity problem comes down to laziness.
I can’t speak for other cities, but here in Philly, if you go to West Philly or North Philly or SW Philly, you can find about three of every fast food chain in the galaxy, but not one decent supermarket.
Add to that the fact that a large portion of the people in those neighborhoods don’t have cars and public transit here sucks, and it’s kind of hard to have access to a wide range of healthy food.
that obviously doesn’t explain the whole problem because there are obese people in areas where they do have access to numerous supermarkets, but it does explain part of it.
Time for Duggy to think.
Let’s look at the Japanese diet–low in saturated fats, high in omega-3. Lots of veggies.
Better healthcare will always be more available to the people who can pay more.
So what? I would rather have adequate healthcare for all, and better care for some than no healthcare for some and adequate or better care for the rest.
Also, you people like to talk about people rushing here for the best doctors, but you ignore the phenomena of healthcare tourism, where people who have poor coverage go abroad, mostly to third world countries, for affordable care.
Even the AMA no fan of universal healthcare admits a strong correlation between healthcare coverage and life expectancy.
What are you arguing against? I said you cannot measure the effectiveness of the United States healthcare vs. the UK or Canada with regard to life expectancy when the average life expectancy of all three countries is about the same.
And more MDs per capita than the US.
If that is a measuring stick of success, why then do Japan and Canada have fewer MDs per capita than the US?
You re looking at an overall gap of a little more than 2 years between Canada and the US which is negligible when debating the effectiveness of universal health care coverage.
Get thee to Statistics 101, Jay Caruso.
Even the AMA–no fan of universal healthcare–admits a strong correlation between healthcare coverage and life expectancy.
Jay Caruso, as usual, decides that if he s going to lie he may as well lie big. He asserts high blood pressure and diabetes is caused by living a healthy lifestyle.
No dumbass, what I did was leave a word out. I’m sure those who have a brain larger than a flea understood what I was saying. But since you don’t fit into that category, I’ll revise the remarks:
When one considers that preventing diabetes and high blood pressure are is more of a result of healthy living (which can be accomplished whether one is poor or rich - you don t need money to eat healthy and exercise), this survey really doesn t prove anything.
Sheesh.
Factcheck, the life expectancy in Canada, the US and the UK is basically the same. You’re looking at an overall gap of a little more than 2 years between Canada and the US which is negligible when debating the effectiveness of universal health care coverage.
Exactly, the problem is the health insurance industry, not the healthcare industry…
Those countries with NHS all ration care. You want a kidney transplant but are older than 65? Sorry Charlie.
You want an MRI…machine is booked.
You need elective surgery….get in line.
EVERY nation that has NHS either seriously rations healthcare, or is bankrupting the system.
The real argument we should be having in this country is whether or not we are willing to ration healthcare.
The simple fact is, you can’t get a 7 series BMW for the price of a Hyundai.
You want top of the line care, come to the US. The reason those folks that train with me go back to their home countries?
They can’t get a visa to stay….(but we WANT to give visa’s to guys that pick grapes…)
Some may argue that it is a stretch to attribute the higher life expectancy of most countries to universal health care.
There can be little debate, however that these facts are inconsistent with the theory that universal health care is worse than fee for service as far as health care outcomes.
It always amazes me people can write about a system where more than half of the money goes to insurance companies and drug companies, and not pay attention to the obvious consequences of that. Here we have foxes in charge of the hen house, the results are quite destructive both to our individual circumstances and to the ability of US workers to compete worldwide, and we want to talk about Canadian and British anecdotes. Get real!
Cyrus,
Actually, I think it costs MORE money to eat healthy, which may be one of the reasons why people with LESS money eat less healthy, more processed food. Organic food ain’t cheap, for example.
But you can buy a Mama Celeste “Pizza for One,” for $1.19, that’ll tide you over till dinner.
McDonalds, Burger King…they all have the “Dollar Menu” these days…..the other day I saw a McDonald’s commerical that was clearly targeting urban youth.
Nobody’s forcing anyone to shove a frozen pizza down their throats, but in THIS country, people want it tasty, and they want it fast. That’s simply our culture. But instant gratification comes with a price.
At some point, I simply got tired of carrying around 25 extra pounds. I’m trying hard to do something about it for the first time. Maybe I’ll suceed, and maybe I won’t, but the point is that the Surgeon General himself could not “cure” me of my “dollar menu” habit.
If we all tried to lead healthier lifestyles, then presumably, our health care costs would decrease as well, right?
By the way…nobody addressed the problem that Maikaru did early in this thread about pre-existing conditions. What that company did to his Mom (increased her health care premiums after a diagnosis of breast cancer–in effect, throwing her off the plan) is grotesque. I thought that was now, supposed to be illegal?
THAT, is something I think we all can agree on.
JK
frame and Jade,
I saw slightly different numbers on Japan. I still don’t think its healthcare. Diet I agree could be a factor, but look at the French who eat lots of fat and smoke. And Mormons in this country have a longer life expectancy than the Japanese. What do they have in common with the Japanese - not diet, but a stable, ordered manner of existence - maybe less stress and greater communtiy cohesiveness.
Dugger
Sorry, the last comment was directed at Frameone, not Factcheck.
Just to pile on Dugs a bit more—here’s what each country spends as a percentage of GDP:
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?
look at the French who eat lots of fat and smoke.
The French also have a wonderful universal healthcare system. And more MDs per capita than the US.
JK,
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.
You may not be able to get a BMW for the price of a Hyundai… but having a Hyundai still gets you to work.
46 million Americans have nothing at all.
The US rations healthcare, but on ability to pay, not the need for the service.
Jade, as usual, doesn’t have the slightest idea what he is talking about.
With very few exceptions, all surgery is “elective”. Brain tumor….elective. Heart disease….elective. Gallbladder….elective. Etc, Etc Etc.
Let me help you understand what this means. You wait, you wait, you wait, suffering all along. Eventually, it becomes an emergency, then voila, front of the line! But the damage is done. And remember, no malpractice needed with government medicine! (Don’t tell that to the leftist’s best friend the trial attorneys!
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
“Dr” P issues a list of lies.
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.
Every American is free to acquire health insurance. Most do. Some can’t afford it, some choose not to. A free society ain’t always pretty or logical.
Dugger
Again, if you need an MRI for a critical injury, you ll get in just as soon as you would here.
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.
Another bunch of anecdotes from Jay Caruso. Proving ….nothing.
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.
Proving nothing? Let’s see some verifiable evidence from you that wait times in Europe are no longer than they are here for the same kind of operations. One of the largest problems with socialized health care in Canada and Europe is the wait time.
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.
Here’s a question. Why are most Democrats and liberals opposed to means testing for Medicare recipients?
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 totally agree quaker that we have more choices than them and us.
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
Those countries with NHS all ration care.
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.
Jay Caruso: You simply haven’t travelled and opt to learn the world from whatever Rush L. tells you.
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.
JayC,
I’m not completely sure but I believe that you’ve opted for secondary health insurance in many of these countries you would get faster treatment.
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.
Why are most Democrats and liberals opposed to means testing for Medicare recipients?
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.
Wow.
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.
“The thought of them taking over health care for hundreds of millions (or just a hundred) is quite scary to me.”
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.
No rationing? Not exactly.
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.