Nationalized Healthcare? Not In My Back Yard!

Or, maybe you dont want to the face the harsh realization the man is right? :lol:

I see you have drunk well and deep of the Michael Moore Koolaid.

As Al Gore said "A zebra does not change its spots". Are you trying to tell me that all of a sudden Michael Moore isnt Michael Moore anymore, but actually a decent human being?

Pardon me if I remain skeptical considering the mans track record of outrageous mistruths.
 
Well Masq, is the French system 'in trouble' or not? I have heard several opinions on this.

My opinion is that the French system is in dire needs of reforms to address the aging of the population and the consequent reduction of the workforce. While that issue is not as bad in France as in other countries, since the system is basically financed by taxpayers and thus workers, when the ratio of workers to non-workers gets past a certain point you run into trouble.
Note that this is actually a general problem facing pretty much all Western countries, and not only for healthcare, but for retirement and pensions...
I also think that the French are a bit too careless when it comes to healthcare discipline as the temptation to abuse the system is great. It's not unheard of to have people go see 3-4 doctors to get "second opinions" because they didn't like the first one (which is why the myth of the "government-assigned civil servant doctor" makes me laugh).

So basically what you have is a system that's doing its job of providing quality healthcare to the whole of the population at a decent price, but which needs to adapt to the global trends facing Western societies in the next 50 years.
 
Moderator Action: Sobieski and Bill3000 (and anyone I missed) either keep on topic and stop trolling the religious angle or I'll start throwing around infractions. Be warned.
 
So basically is your argument (unbacked by anything, mind you) that people in the US get far more treatments than anybody else on the planet?

Heart transplants:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tra_hea_percap-health-transplants-heart-per-capita
Since the US isn't included on the list, I figured it out manually to be about 7 per million (2125 in 2005 for population of 300 million), so only Austria and Belgium have a higher rate. France is at only 2, and Canada is 3.3 per million.

More comparison of transplant rates from Wiki:
transplants.jpg


Knee replacements:
http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content-nw/full/42/4/503/T1

Note it says the England figure may be overstated, and the US figure understated, yet the US rate is still 20% higher.

Prescriptions:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7503122/

If that was true, what would account for the gap? Americans are on the whole a lot less healthier and thus require more interventions?

Yes! Read up on obesity and the problems it causes. 15% increased risk for all kinds of cancers, increased need for hip and knee replacements, causes further complications with other problems, etc.

Or people in other countries do not get the treatments they need (something that would be contradictory with numbers like life expectancy which are higher in these other countries)?

Again, what I'm saying in this thread is that the US is paying WAY TOO MUCH for what it gets.

I do agree that prevention does reduce problems later on in life. I am merely trying to say that the system isn't entirely to blame for our health care costs or health, but much of it is because of our cultural lifestyle. Universal Health care isn't going to get us Americans to stop eating greasy cheeseburgers or get us off the couch. Europeans eat healthier than Americans, so that certainly helps them extend thier life expectancy.

Even if we copied a European health care system, we will still won't be as healthy as them because of our lifestyle.

18000 people die every year because they can't afford their medical treatment, that's like 3.5 911's that we are willingly allowing to occur every year. I'd really like for these people to get the help they need.

Now take the 15,000 who died in France from lack of air conditioners, and compare that on a per capita basis to the US, and that would be like if 75,000 died.

Don't you think the 125,000 who die every year from drug mistakes and being overmedicated should be a higher concern than the 18,000 who die from lack of medical treatment?
 
Crap happens. The odds of that happening are very low, but if I didn't take better precautions to put something in my tub to make it safer, then I still can't rightly expect someone else to pay for that.

Even if I am totally without fault for an accident and no one is liable, then I still believe that you just have to deal with it. I still don't expect the government to steal from someone else to pay for my misfortune.

You've never really experienced "crap happens" have you.
 
You're wrong, but I am not going to discuss it any further than that.
Either I was right or you're so numb to the idea of a real crisis you don't actually get why you're aloofness doesn't appropriately match the reality of "crap happens"
 
Either I was right or you're so numb to the idea of a real crisis you don't actually get why you're aloofness doesn't appropriately match the reality of "crap happens"

Very well, lets agree to leave it at that, then.
 
Personally, while I'm not at all in favor of the public healthcare system we have in Belgium right now, I do have my questions with the American one as well.

If I take a personal estimation of what I would pay in Belgium for healthcare taxations and what I'd receive in payout, I would most likely be paying a whole lot more than I receive. Certainly if I take into account that I'll probably be receiving an above-average wage given my university degrees and will be progressively punished by progressive taxation.
In general, it would be a fair estimate that I would pay a fair amount more than I should be.

Is the privatized version better ? Well, I'm not paying for others, that's for sure, but there are drawbacks as well. Firstly, in case you take private healthcare, you won't be paying for others that much, but you will be paying a certain profit percentage to the insurance company, while the state redistributes all. Also, in Europe doctors and hospitals have some governmental supervision, mainly by comparative studies and statistical analysis, to make sure doctors or hospitals wouldn't use too many unnecessary treatments to increase the personal profits. In the United States the medical institutes will use more drastic, more expensive, measures a lot sooner than in Europe, even when it's not really necessary... that makes both healthcare and healthcare insurance more expensive than it should be without helping national health or the economy whatsoever.

So the question I'm asking myself is : Who will be ripping me off most ? The state taking more than it's giving back to me, or the insurance agencies and the medical institutions applying costly treatments when a cheaper one would do just fine ?
 
I see you have drunk well and deep of the Michael Moore Koolaid.

As Al Gore said "A zebra does not change its spots". Are you trying to tell me that all of a sudden Michael Moore isnt Michael Moore anymore, but actually a decent human being?

Pardon me if I remain skeptical considering the mans track record of outrageous mistruths.

How do you know for certain what he said were mistruths? I do think he cherry picks what he uses, but I don't think he mislead anyone. Was Farenheight 9/11 propaganda? Sure, but so was the swift boat thing. I don't see you complaining about that in any of the threads here.

To get back on subject...

I've yet to see anyone make a reasonable argument against providing health care for all citizens of the USA. All I see is weak idealogical arguments with no hard facts to back them up.
 
I've yet to see anyone make a reasonable argument against providing health care for all citizens of the USA. All I see is weak idealogical arguments with no hard facts to back them up.

i know America has the more then enough money to do this, and if we could make a system that was much like the European one where i could choose my doctor and all that good stuff then maybe it would appeal to the middleclass. People in america don't like to be taxed, and what if let's say my views are against medcial treatment, aka intervention of gods plan. Would i still have to pay this tax when it goes agaisnt my beliefs.

So then if you made the system where anybody that wants to recieve free healthcare only has to give 20% more of his/her taxes, and if you don't want to pay the taxes you don't recieve the care. So if you did this you would not have enough if any middle and upperclass incomes to draw from to put into this fund, therefor it would be bankrupt befor it could even began.

also i think the side for free health care has already provide many facts, all that the side opposed to this can do is argue that america should keep as much independence as possible. There has been no facts provided that show me how such a massive undertaking could work in america, i don't see how at least in pressent date, america could create a universal healthcare system.

or maybe you think that everybody should be required to pay for free healthcare with thier taxes. Well i could argue it being uncostitutional, lets just say it goes against my right to pursue happyness. Im certain that if somebody wanted to that they could have any vbill passed for universal healthcare thrown out at by the supreme court because somebody can consider this uncostitutional.

i do think that it is a good idea to have free health care, i'd rather have better education and free colledge education though, but both are unlikely to happen.
 
Cancer and heart disease kill 2/3 of people (roughly). If your goal is to lessen death, then you'd think that a system dealing with these issues would be the best. Having a system that deals better with late-term diseases of these fashions is going to be fundamentally less useful or cost-efficient that a system that deals with the disease proactively. Why brag that your stage-four cancers live longer when the other system delays the arrival of stage-four cancer by a greater amount?

And since both cancer and heart disease are very much lifestyle and medical issues, then you'd want to realise what helps what. While American lifestyle is deplorable (on average) it doesn't explain the difference between American and Canadian lifespans. It's not like 1/2 of Canadians are magically immune to cancer.

Our cost of medical care is so much lower because we have a whole lot less bureaucracy to get any medical care. Additionally, our medical system has a greater element of prevention (which has lower costs and greater efficacy).
 
You know what this thread needs? A breakdown of American life expectancy based on wealth? I know there was a study that was based on race, recently. Someone please ping me if such information is brought in.

Additionally, the increase in life expectancy has contributed massively to America's wealth increase in the last 50 years (40% of the growth, in fact). This means that getting the poorer to live longer and healthier (if it can be done cost effectively) will have feedback benefits on the economy.
 
You know what this thread needs? A breakdown of American life expectancy based on wealth? I know there was a study that was based on race, recently. Someone please ping me if such information is brought in.

Additionally, the increase in life expectancy has contributed massively to America's wealth increase in the last 50 years (40% of the growth, in fact). This means that getting the poorer to live longer and healthier (if it can be done cost effectively) will have feedback benefits on the economy.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/51741.php

Chronic Disease Major Contributor To Life Expectancy Disparities Based On Geography, Race, Income, Study Says
Main Category: Public Health News
Article Date: 14 Sep 2006 - 5:00 PDT

email to a friend printer friendly view / write opinions rate article newsletters



U.S residents in eight groups based on geography, income and race have significant differences in life expectancy, according to a study published on Monday in the journal PloS Medicine, USA Today reports (Sternberg, USA Today, 9/12). For the study, Harvard University researchers analyzed population, mortality and health insurance statistics for 2,072 individual and merged counties nationwide from 1982 to 2001 (McKay, Wall Street Journal, 9/12). The eight groups, called the eight Americas, include:


Asian Americans, who have a per capita income of $21,566 and an average life expectancy of 84.9 years (Neergaard, AP/Detroit Free Press, 9/12);


Low-income rural whites in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Nebraska, who have a per capita income of $17,758 and an average life expectancy of 79 years (USA Today, 9/12);


Middle Americans, who have a per capita income of $24,640 and an average life expectancy of 77.9 years;


Low-income whites in Appalachia and the Mississippi Valley, who have a per capita income of $16,390 and an average life expectancy of 75 years;


Black Middle Americans, who have a per capita income of $15,412 and an average life expectancy of 72.9 years;


Western American Indians, who have a per capita income of $10,029 and an average life expectancy of 72.7 years;


Southern, low-income, rural blacks, who have a per capita income of $10,463 and an average life expectancy of 71.1 years (AP/Detroit Free Press, 9/12); and


Urban blacks in counties with homicide rates that exceed the 95th percentile, who have a per capita income of $14,800 and an average life expectancy of 71 years (USA Today, 9/12).


The study finds that some of the eight groups "have some of the longest life spans in the world, while others can be expected to live no longer than they would in a developing country," according to the Journal (Wall Street Journal, 9/12).
Reasons for Differences
According to the study, race, income and access to health care alone cannot explain the differences in life expectancy among the eight groups (USA Today, 9/12). Premature deaths of young and middle-aged adults, in large part from chronic diseases and injuries, account for most of the differences in life expectancy among the eight groups, the study finds (Wall Street Journal, 9/12). Christopher Murray, director of the Harvard Initiative for Global Health and lead author of the study, said that income did not account for the differences in life expectancy among the eight groups because whites "living below the median incomes in northern states have the best level of health among whites," adding, "That runs counter to everything we know" (USA Today, 9/12). In addition, the study finds "less variation among the eight Americas in the rate of health insurance coverage and the frequency of routine medical appointments than there was in life expectancy," an indication that access to health care "does not explain most of the differences in mortality," the Washington Post reports (Brown, Washington Post, 9/12). Murray said that many government health care programs focus on children and seniors and that few focus on at-risk young and middle-aged adults (AP/Detroit Free Press, 9/12). "Where we fall down is delivering health care for young and middle-aged adults," Murray said (USA Today, 9/12). He added, "This really requires a rethink about what is the focus of health care policy discussions in the U.S."

Additional Results
The study also finds that the difference in "life expectancy between the healthiest and most ill-prone in the U.S. is about 33 years," the Journal reports. According to the study, Asian-American women in Bergen County, N.J., had the highest average life expectancy in the nation at 91 years, and American Indian men in several South Dakota counties had the lowest life expectancy at 58 years. By county, seven Colorado counties, two Iowa counties and Montgomery County, Md., had the highest average life expectancy at 81.3 years, and six South Dakota counties had the lowest average life expectancy at 66.6 years, the study finds. By state, Hawaii had the highest average life expectancy at 80 years, followed by Minnesota at 78.8 years, and the District of Columbia had the lowest average life expectancy at 72 years, followed by Mississippi at 73.6 years, according to the study (Wall Street Journal, 9/12).

Reaction
Jonathan Skinner of Dartmouth College said, "There's no way that differences in the quality of health care can explain 20-year gaps in life expectancy." Skinner said much of the variation was caused by factors such as diet, exercise and smoking, adding, "Yet we spend much of our attention and 16% of our national income on health care" (USA Today, 9/12). Mitchell Wong of the University of California-Los Angeles said, "The magnitude of the life expectancy disparity is most striking and is perhaps a bit larger than I might have guessed. However, it is not surprising that by combining race and geography, disparities are even larger." Richard Cooper, chair of preventive medicine at Loyola University School of Medicine, said the "problem with these sorts of analyses is that they don't tell you anything very illuminating about the underlying social process" that account for differences in life expectancy (Washington Post, 9/12).

The study is available online.

NPR's "Morning Edition" on Tuesday included an interview with Murray (Montagne, "Morning Edition," NPR, 9/12). The complete segment is available online in RealPlayer. Expanded NPR coverage is available online.
 
I do agree that prevention does reduce problems later on in life. I am merely trying to say that the system isn't entirely to blame for our health care costs or health, but much of it is because of our cultural lifestyle. Universal Health care isn't going to get us Americans to stop eating greasy cheeseburgers or get us off the couch. Europeans eat healthier than Americans, so that certainly helps them extend thier life expectancy.

Even if we copied a European health care system, we will still won't be as healthy as them because of our lifestyle.

First, thanks for your very interesting posts backed up with figures and sources - a refreshing thing in that thread ;)

Second, as much as I hate to say it because it ruins the debate, I guess we agree then :)


Now take the 15,000 who died in France from lack of air conditioners, and compare that on a per capita basis to the US, and that would be like if 75,000 died.

Again, that was not a lack of A/C, that was a creative way to address the retirement and aging issue. :mischief:
 
Bam

You say more prescriptions are an indicator of better healthare, I say not true. I half live with someone who works high up for pfizer. She, along with every medico I know, says even the UK is wildly over prescribed. She keeps herself had her kids away from the script-culture.

One of the key drawbacks of the US system is that is over-prescribes which is not only bad for effiency but ultimately bad for outcomes.
 
Thanks for the link, Bam. I think that's the one I heard about. I didn't realise it included income. The disparity among races is pronounced. Anyway,
Middle Americans, who have a per capita income of $24,640 and an average life expectancy of 77.9 years
Canada's average life expectancy is better than America's 'middle class'. Our system is also much a lower financial burden on a per capita basis. Of course, we're serving our citizens much better than the American poor are being served.

http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm?countries=all&indicators=nha

The link was broken above, here it is again, plus I editted up there.

I'm not too sure what you're asking, but I'll try to answer. All figures are per capita:

US gov't: $2724.7 USD (18.9% of total gov't budgets)
UK gov't: $2501.8 USD (15.9% of total gov't budgets)

Head-to-head, more tax dollars are spent on health in the US vs. UK. If Americans could magically get their gov't to spend as much as the UK gov't, each American could get a cheque for $224 every year.

I had gotten the percentages flipped. Here are the correct percentages. As you can see, the health gov't budget is lower for the UK (as a %age of the budget)
 
I've yet to see anyone make a reasonable argument against providing health care for all citizens of the USA. All I see is weak idealogical arguments with no hard facts to back them up.
So the question I'm asking myself is : Who will be ripping me off most ? The state taking more than it's giving back to me, or the insurance agencies and the medical institutions applying costly treatments when a cheaper one would do just fine ?
Forget ideology and look at American reality and maybe that will help. Having been in two meetings this week with attorneys that tried to interpret the actions and politics of the Dept. of Labor, ERISA and SEC along with involved legislators you may not ever understand.

I can guarantee you not only would the rules be vague but often counterintutive. That's the fact of our federal government and the reality is state government's are better suited to make these types of decisions. I can't think of one federal politician that has the kind of charisma or capital to make significant change. The problem is not one concerning the desirability, the efficiency, the economic rationality, or the affordability of a universal health program. The problem is political, ideological, and social.

If you think this started with President Clinton (or his 2 for 1 deal Hillary) you'd be mistaken. Go back about 60 years and see the obstacles.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/anniversaries/healthprogram.htm

If change is happening imo it should come from corporate America and small business. The priorities should be everyone having insurance, simplifying and quantifying what's available and developing a sound prevention system (including Physical Education in our schools and further discussion of nutrition)
 
Back
Top Bottom