Firstly i should say hi to anyone who is still here from the last time i was here
long time no see

Anyway as part of my paramedic's degree i am studying the health systems in different countries and i was astonished at the US health system.

In Australia we have 2 health systems, public and private
The public system is paid for both by tax and the medicare levy (ie another tax).
Medicare pay GP's and if they chose to bulk bill Medicare they are free to the public (some chose to charge above the Medicare rebate for different groups)

Public hospitals are banned by law from charging for services. This includes all procdures and all medication including medication they give you to take home

almost all A & E departments are in public hospitals as are all trauma units, they are also the teaching and resurch hospitals and they have the top staff.

Private hospitals are a bit of a joke (we took one patient back to a private hospital after she had just been discharged because she had a BP of over 200 and they told us she just had "high blood pressure")

We also have the PBS which subsides perscriptions to $30 for everyone and about $5 for people on a health care card

In comparision the US has NO universal health care system and when the Clintons tried to introduce one it was voted down. Now yes i know the politisions got pay backs by the stake holders for this but thats not my question. I want to know why the average american cizitizan doesnt FORCE your pollies to introduce universal health care. I am amazed about this when you can see what happens across the border in Canda, in the UK, Australia, New Zeland, even in cuba.

After all like education, universal health care helps the whole country especially business as all the people are treated early rather than living with treatable and preventable cronic health problems which also puts pressure on the unemployment services because people then cant work when in another contry it would be delt with straight away.

You are quite right; the healthcare system in the United States is bizarre. You are wrong in your assumption that Universal Health Care was vote down. It never got to a vote. Special interests put an end to it before it could even be introduced into congress. In the United States we as citizens have very little say in our fate. Our government is controlled by special interests…big business. We have the most expensive healthcare system in the world yet rate pretty low in terms of quality.
You have a parliamentary form of government, which I think is less subject to the influence of backroom deals. So that is probably why all of the other industrialized nations have universal healthcare and we do not.
Whenever we talk of universal healthcare in the United States, the healthcare industry and politicians start running advertisements about how bad socialized healthcare is, long waiting lines, etc. They basically scare the public into believing that universal healthcare is equivalent to the end of the world as we know it and that helps to quell any push for universal healthcare.
Prescription drugs in Canada, Mexico and virtually any where else in the world are a lot less expensive than in the United States and the drug companies want to keep it that way. The drug companies were very concerned when large groups of Americans began crossing the borders with Canada and Mexico to purchase prescription drugs. The drug companies put an end to that practice by making it illegal. Our president, President Bush, told us that prescription drugs obtained from Canada might not be safe. And until he could prove they were safe, we cannot buy prescription drugs from Canada and take them across the border.

my question is why, i could understand if they were some isolated little country but apart from the internet and travel how many of there citizans live across the border from canada and travel over there on a regular basis, im sure some of these (if not most) have turned up at a canadian GP or A&E and recived treatment and even if they had to pay (being non citizans) im sure they talked to the canadians. I just cant see why the public doesn't demand universal cover. Whats more i just dont get why Business doesnt demand one, after all if your worker has say, a melinoma (its the only thing i could come up with off the top of my head) and goes into hospital and has it removed the boss pays between a day and a week maybe sick leave. If thats untreated then he has an employee dying of canser who he must replace and pay for all the retraining. Or to take an example from "Sicko" a guy has his fingers cut off so he has them reatached and has a couple of months rehab or he doesnt have those fingers and cant work. Where is the sence in this?? and why dont americans fight for it??

Edit to add: I am begining to think i have my answer, i thought this would be flooded by replies today and there is nothing. Maybe its just a case that americans just dont care although i cant see why thats the case.

I don't want socialized medicine. I don't want the quality of healthcare to go down the toilet. I don't want to be forced to pay for other's healthcare. I don't want anything to do with it. It's bad for people. Bad for America.

The number of Canadians and Britons coming here for healthcare is astounding. They have to wait up to 6 months for emergency brain operations back home. The USA has the best healthcare money can buy. Let's keep it that way.

I have to say im baffled by your responce. Firstly if you look at statsical data on GDP spent on health care to goverment spending on health care greater the percentage spent by the goverment the lower the cost overall

secondly what makes you think that the quality goes down? look at mortality and morbitity rates. The US has the highest rate of infant mortality in the developed world compared to the countries with universal health care having quite low levels

thirdly it makes good economic sence to have a healthy and well educated work force. If your employee's are always out sick because of unresolved health issues then that lowers productivity which means goods and services are more expencive because the employer must cover the costs of replacing sick and injured staff. So you do end up paying for them just without any benifit to anyone

The USA has the best healthcare money can buy. Let's keep it that way.
And fuck-all to the huge numbers of hardworking people who either can't afford the INSANE insurance costs or work for small employers that don't provide any. Let em' suffer, right? Is that the christian way, sandy?

Fuck.

Yes, she is baffling. We spend more on health care than most countries and recieve far less for it. Notice the knee-jerk response of "socialized medicine". That's what our soldiers have! We are being held hostage by corporate interests that want to profit by keeping us sick. I won't even start on the lack of compassion or basic morality.

so why dont you fight for it?

after all pollies are poll driven, if enough people give them reason to fear for there jobs then you get what you want, well some of the time

Who has to pay for this healthcare? I do. So do all my friends. We have to pay for the healthcare GIVEN to people who choose not to have it. Sorry, but I don't want to pay for your healthcare. Just like I don't want to pay 70%
of my taxes for schooling your kids, but I have to. Socialized healthcare is bad. Bad for people. Bad for America. :(

I certainly hope to get a Democrat in office with a Democratic congress that will give us universal coverage of some kind. Sandy, you will pay your share of taxes just like everyone else. It won't cost any more than our folly in Iraq.

Yes, she is baffling. We spend more on health care than most countries and recieve far less for it. Notice the knee-jerk response of "socialized medicine". That's what our soldiers have! We are being held hostage by corporate interests that want to profit by keeping us sick. I won't even start on the lack of compassion or basic morality.

What compassion? What morality? The poor already get free healthcare. So do the 50 million criminal aliens. I'm already paying for them. I don't want to pay for able-bodied lazy/stupid people's healthcare. There is nothing moral in throwing money at people who choose not to have insurance.

so why dont you fight for it?

after all pollies are poll driven, if enough people give them reason to fear for there jobs then you get what you want, well some of the time

- Lobbyists
- "socialized medicine" stigma (them dirty commies!)
- etc.

I certainly hope to get a Democrat in office with a Democratic congress that will give us universal coverage of some kind. Sandy, you will pay your share of taxes just like everyone else. It won't cost any more than our folly in Iraq.

Iraq and socialized medicine are two different things. Iraq is worth it. The cost of the war on terror is priceless. The cost of giving free healthcare to lazy/stupid people is too high no matter what it is.

No they don't Sandy the Samaritan. Emergency care isn't the same as health care, and it's more expensive.

So killing and chaos is fine, giving people life saving care is abhorrent. I can't think of any philosophy more disgusting or basically immoral.

Hey, MY taxes will go up to pay for this sh!t. I have the right to my opinion to oppose it. The losers who pay little/no tax have nothing to lose. They LOVE entitlements.

http://www.pnhp.org/

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_s tates.htm

No they don't Sandy the Samaritan. Emergency care isn't the same as health care, and it's more expensive.

So killing and chaos is fine, giving people life saving care is abhorrent. I can't think of any philosophy more disgusting or basically immoral.

The war on terror is necessary. Rewarding losers/stupid people is poor business.

Sucker. You've been duped. Both views are designed to enrich the rich and keep the average person down, that's not what this country is about.

Hey, MY taxes will go up to pay for this sh!t. I have the right to my opinion to oppose it. The losers who pay little/no tax have nothing to lose. They LOVE entitlements.
There's a good little xian.

Sandy,

A serious question for you. Do you believe that individualism and free enterprise are a hallmark of what the USA stands for?

There's a good little xian.

This is not about Christianity, it's about smart business. You don't reward losers/stupid people. You make them learn personal responsibility. Like don't buy the booze, cigarettes, drugs, extra plazma tv's, new cars every year or so etc.... and then b!tch about how poor you are and how you can't afford insurance. And stop having kids you can't afford and expect the government/ winners/taxpayers to pay for them too.

This is not about Christianity, it's about smart business. You don't reward losers/stupid people. You make them learn personal responsibility. Like don't buy the booze, cigarettes, drugs, extra plazma tv's, new cars every year or so etc.... and then b!tch about how poor you are and how you can't afford insurance. And stop having kids you can't afford and expect the government/ winners/taxpayers to pay for them too.
Ok. Answer my post above if you would be so kind.

Thanks.

No. I'm not discussing ANYTHING with you. You and spidergoat have personally attacked me. I'm done here. Nice debate, boys. Resort to personal attacks and avatar desecration. If I did that I would be banned in a heartbeat. :mad:

Your attitude is selfish and greedy. We all pay for roads, disease prevention (CDC), all kinds of services, there's no reason we should let Americans die because some corporation wants a slightly bigger bottom line.

Ok.

Anyway, since sandy's out of here, what I was going to explain was this:

I was an engineering consultant for two years. Trying for the entrepenurial thing. Nothing grand mind you. I have a modest home, typical middle america lifestyle. BUt for those two years I was sans insurance. Why? Because, even with my modest lifestyle and perfectly reasonable consultants income, I could not afford the health costs! I would have had to sell my house. Literally. I had to all but force the company to hire me as a regular employee so I could taqke advantage of the bulk pricing of insurance that only large companies get!

You all can figure out what this means.

Your attitude is selfish and greedy. We all pay for roads, disease prevention (CDC), all kinds of services, there's no reason we should let Americans die because some corporation wants a slightly bigger bottom line.

HA! Exactly! Read my last post.

Who has to pay for this healthcare? I do. So do all my friends. We have to pay for the healthcare GIVEN to people who choose not to have it. Sorry, but I don't want to pay for your healthcare. Just like I don't want to pay 70%
of my taxes for schooling your kids, but I have to. Socialized healthcare is bad. Bad for people. Bad for America. :(

So the good Samaritan was a fool ?

"The United States spent $4,178 per captia on health care"

Figure one: health spending per capita shows that the UK only spends 1,461 per capita

Now on to infant mortalitiy rates 7.2 per 1000 live births in the US
Compared to 5.9 per 1000 in the UK

Sweeden on the other hand spent $1,746 per capita and has a infant mortality rate of 3.5 per 1000

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
University of Maine
2001

pritty conclusive results dont you think, the only thing i havent managed to find at the moment is exact figures for the percentage of spending by goverment compared to private but im sure you can guess what that will look like

pretty conclusive results dont you think, the only thing i havent managed to find at the moment is exact figures for the percentage of spending by goverment compared to private but im sure you can guess what that will look like
We are trying. It's hard to overcome the social bias and mythology surrounding "socialized" medicine and the very real corporate power that's behind it.

my question is why, i could understand if they were some isolated little country but apart from the internet and travel how many of there citizans live across the border from canada and travel over there on a regular basis, im sure some of these (if not most) have turned up at a canadian GP or A&E and recived treatment and even if they had to pay (being non citizans) im sure they talked to the canadians. I just cant see why the public doesn't demand universal cover. Whats more i just dont get why Business doesnt demand one, after all if your worker has say, a melinoma (its the only thing i could come up with off the top of my head) and goes into hospital and has it removed the boss pays between a day and a week maybe sick leave. If thats untreated then he has an employee dying of canser who he must replace and pay for all the retraining. Or to take an example from "Sicko" a guy has his fingers cut off so he has them reatached and has a couple of months rehab or he doesnt have those fingers and cant work. Where is the sence in this?? and why dont americans fight for it??

Edit to add: I am begining to think i have my answer, i thought this would be flooded by replies today and there is nothing. Maybe its just a case that americans just dont care although i cant see why thats the case.

We are getting to that point something has to be done. Because the condition continues to worsen. Our healthcare costs increase by more than 10 percent a year and the average income only increases a few percentage points.

Sorry Sandy, Sandy is a really good example of why we do not have universal healthcare services in this country. Billions of dollars have been spent by the healthcare industry not only on our elected representatives but on the citizens re-enforcing all of the notions espoused by Sandy. I have been in these kind of debates in the SciForums and with other Republicans outside the forum and there just is no convincing them...no matter how many facts you have, and no matter how logical you are, this sizable section of the electorate is convinced that socialized medicine is almost as bad as satan. These ideas have been very carefully re-enforced by the Republican Party and Healthcare Industry over the course of several decades. You can refute every single point with fact and they will not be convinced.

Sandy may not know that there are instances within the United States where socialized medicine is succefully in place and have been for decades.

Most notably, our Military and with our senior citizens in the form of a medicare program. Unfortunately, our Republican dominated congress and president Bush passed a prescription drug bill which gives medication to senior citizens at a reduced. This was one of the drug industry responses to keep people from leaving the country to get prescription drugs. This medicare prescription drug law forbids the government from negotiating price for the medications with the drug companies. Our government is bound by law to pay whatever price the drug industry demands for drugs covered under this program.

Earlier last year, the Democrats gained a slim margin of control over our Congress. Immediately, the drug companies begain flooding the air and TV waves with advertisments on the horors of allowing the the government to negotiate witht the drug companies for lower prices. I frankly was astonished with the quickness of the ad program and how they were justifying the restrictions on price negotiations. In the United States it is legal to lie (freedom of speech), especially with respect to politics. Republicans and corporations have learned that if you lie, you can confuse the heck out of the electorate and that is all you need to do to keep them from taking action.

This is not an argument of logic. It is an arguement of emotion...cultivated with with ads, and apeals to old fashioned values in our churches. Logic will get you no where with the Sandys and the rest of the Republican base that has been carefully cultivated over the course of decades. In their world, Non Republican sources of information are lies. They are always oppressed by evil liberals...all good strong emotional arguements, but not very logical.

What is amazing to me and what more Americans need to understand is that socialized medicine is not a bad thing. We have limited socialized medicne today for our military disabled veterans and our senior citizens. And it works very well. Whenever I hear folks from other industrialized countries talk about healthcare, they all seem very pleased with what they have and would not trade it for what we have in the United States. The arguements that Sandy and others provide against it just melt away, both the subjective and objective arguements.

Sandy references not wanting to pay for folks who do not have medical insurance. Suprise she is paying for it now if. Medical providers are required to provide emergency service anyone. So all of those uninsured folks are using our emergency services to get medical treatment. And of course they cannot pay their bills. So who pays for that cost. It is those who have insurance. Those costs are operational costs that are passed on to those who have insurance. As more and more folks cannot afford insurance this situation will continue to get worse. So something must change. As you know treating average folks through your emergency services is a very high expensive way of providing healthcare services.

What we should be doing is examining every aspect of the health care delivery system for efficiency and quality. For example, globally medical doctors globally only receive about six years of training. In the United States doctors are required at a minimum to train for at least eight years. Are those extra years necessary? Do they yeild a beter doctor? I think not. But that extra training adds to the cost of our healthcare system.

Now I don't want to hurt Sandy, because I like her. But she is misled as are many people here in the United States. Over the course of the last several decade we have seen the emergence of something refered to as Neo-Conservatism. This is a political philosophy orginated with a guy called Leo Strauss. It is very uggly. If you have a few moments I suggest you look up some info on Leo Strauss.

Will the American electorate get past this..God I hope so!

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Leo_Strauss

http://www.uregina.ca/arts/CRC/pdf/The%20making%20of%20a%20Straussian.pdf

Neocons divide the world into good and bad. It is a very easy concept to understand. The United States is good any thing or one opposing their leadership is bad…liberals are immoral. Any information not complimentary to their cause is heretical.. Information sources that are not putting forth party line cannot be believed and must be infected with liberalism. Neocon followers are carefully taught they can only believe information coming from sanctified Republican sources.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/coultertreason.php

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10587.html

By the way, I am a life long Republican. But I am not very happy with my party...have not been for more that two decades...since the Neo-Cons took over. Again, I do not want to trash or hurt Sandy. I value her, she is a good human being...just a wee bit misled through no fault of her own.

isnt the republican party in the pocket of big business like the librals are here?

if so wouldnt THEY be putting pressure on the republicans?

The way it seemed to me this should be a no brainer

for the left wing its about social justice and human rights but for the right wing its about ecernomics both of which say that a free top class education system and a free top class medical system including preventative primary health care are essential. otherwise you end up with either illierate uneducated staff that cost a lot to reskill and then on top of that they get to sick to work and cant afford to get better so the employer has to start again. They are both part of the essential infustructer of our econermie

It is a no brainer. But it is not about logic, it is about emotion and control. Our educational system has and continues to degrade. I am begining to think it is by design. With globalization, you do not need a large educated population domestically because you can reach out to other areas of the globe at lower cost. Educated folks are much more dificult to control politically. On the left, the labor unions are more interested in increasing their compensation that educating our children. So ironically both left and right wind up on the same side of the education coin in the United States.

And both parties are in the pocket of big business...but especially the Republican (Conservative Party).

What compassion? What morality? The poor already get free healthcare. So do the 50 million criminal aliens. I'm already paying for them. I don't want to pay for able-bodied lazy/stupid people's healthcare. There is nothing moral in throwing money at people who choose not to have insurance.

you haven't a clue to what your talking about. insurance that will accully cover you is expensive a lot of people cannot afford it. the economic benfits should be enough reason alone to get universal health care

No. I'm not discussing ANYTHING with you. You and spidergoat have personally attacked me. I'm done here. Nice debate, boys. Resort to personal attacks and avatar desecration. If I did that I would be banned in a heartbeat. :mad:

do you understand the difference between an economic good and a public good

in this case they are the same thing, well advocate the same outcome anyway

so why dont you fight for it?

after all pollies are poll driven, if enough people give them reason to fear for there jobs then you get what you want, well some of the time
When Clinton tried to pass her Rube-Goldberg Health Care Scheme, the result was the Democrats lost control of congress for the first time in forty years! The people do not want government run healthcare. Every interaction we have with the government is unpleasant. The DMV, the IRS, the Police. Dealing with the government means long lines, inefficient service, and surly, arrogant workers, it sucks.

As Jefferson said, the government that governs best, governs least. Allowing the government to take over 16% of the economy is hardly "governing least".

Now on to infant mortalitiy rates 7.2 per 1000 live births in the US
Compared to 5.9 per 1000 in the UK

Sweeden on the other hand spent $1,746 per capita and has a infant mortality rate of 3.5 per 1000

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
University of Maine
2001

pritty conclusive results dont you think
No, I don't. Direct comparisons of infant mortality between different countries can be very misleading. The US counts every baby, no matter how young, or how sick, or how premature. Many nations do not. Many of the deaths we report in the US are counted as "still born" in the rest of the world. From Wikipedia:
While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, many other countries do not. For example, a 2006 artilce in U.S. News & World Report states, "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country." [2]

For example, historically, until the 1990s Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union did not count as a live birth or as an infant death extremely premature infants (less than 1,000 g, less than 28 weeks gestational age, or less than 35 cm in length) that were born alive (breathed, had a heartbeat, or exhibited voluntary muscle movement) but failed to survive for at least 7 days.[2] Although such extremely premature infants typically accounted for only about 0.005 of all live-born children, their exclusion from both the numerator and the denominator in the reported IMR led to an estimated 22%-25% lower reported IMR.[3] In some cases, too, perhaps because hospitals or regional health departments were held accountable for lowering the IMR in their catchment area, infant deaths that occurred in the 12th month were "transferred" statistically to the 13th month (i.e., the second year of life), and thus no longer classified as an infant death.[4]

Another challenge to comparability is the practice of counting frail or premature infants who die before the normal due date as miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) or those who die during or immediately after childbirth as stillborn. Therefore, the quality of a country's documentation of perinatal mortality can matter greatly to the accuracy of its infant mortality statistics. This point is reinforced by the demographer Ansley Coale, who finds dubiously high ratios of reported stillbirths to infant deaths in Hong Kong and Japan in the first 24 hours after birth, a pattern that is consistent with the high recorded sex ratios at birth in those countries and suggests not only that many female infants who die in the first 24 hours are misreported as stillbirths rather than infant deaths but also that those countries do not follow WHO recommendations for the reporting of live births and infant deaths.[5]

Another seemingly paradoxical finding is that when countries with poor medical services introduce new medical centers and services, instead of declining the reported IMRs often increase for a time. The main cause of this is that improvement in access to medical care is often accompanied by improvement in the registration of births and deaths. Deaths that might have occurred in a remote or rural area and not been reported to the government might now be reported by the new medical personnel or facilities. Thus, even if the new health services reduce the actual IMR, the reported IMR may increase. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality

No, I don't. Direct comparisons of infant mortality between different countries can be very misleading. The US counts every baby, no matter how young, or how sick, or how premature. Many nations do not. So which countries does that make a difference in, and how much?

Sweden and the UK, for example - are they hiding their dead babies as stillbirths ? Canada? Israel? Netherlands ?

How are they rigging their height stats, disability rates, and prorated lifespan numbers, making the US look bad ?

The US has worse health care stats than most comparable countries in almost every general category possible. The US spends twice as much per capita on health care as most of these countries - often, even, more tax money and public expenditure (our taxpaid veterans', children's, and old folks health care is much more expensive due to lack of universal health care otherwise). Our taxes are higher, total for health care, than some of these systems.

It's theoretically possible that the US could establish universal health care on a single payer plan for about the same tax bill already being paid. Other countries have. The extra coverage would be essentially free, once the backlog of untreated illness and injury had been cleared up.

Clearly the US system is broken, and breaking further. The central problem seems to be basing health care access on employment, and setting up a market system for rationing it. There is no way to set up an efficient market for health care, and the need correlates negatively with employment. It's a stupid system - the problems and idiocies are completely obvious.

How are they rigging their height stats, disability rates, and prorated lifespan numbers, making the US look bad ? Many factors, other than the healthcare system, have a huge impact on issues such as life expectency. Llfestyle, overeating, lack of exercise, obesity. All of these factors influence those stats and are beyond the control of the "health care system". The health care system comes into play when dealing with specific diseases. And when you measure outcomes for specific diseases, the US outperforms all the socialist paradises out there.

People come from all over the world for treatment in the US. Most major medical advances originate here.

Of course the healthcare system is not perfect. But most of us would rather try to address specific problems rather than scrapping the whole system.

madanthonywayne FINALLY something i agree with health DOES require a whole of goverment aproch. For instance social housing, education, employment ect

madanthonywayne FINALLY something i agree with health DOES require a whole of government approach. For instance social housing, education, employment ect
While we agree that health is affected by all those factors, I would not consider that a justification for government intervention in all those areas. You'd have government controling every aspect of your life!

Government should be a neutral player, perhaps offering services to those unable to provide for themselves (the lame, the blind, whatever). It should absolutely not control every aspect of your life. It should only stick its nose into a situation when absolutely necesary.

you think providing housing trust homes to people on low incomes or unemployment benifts and rental surport is controling me? thats ridiculas

the us will eventually have universal health care the only question is will it be designed for the benifit of the people or for the benifit of the corporations

I think Mad further proves my point, confuse the issue with missleading and inaccurate arguements; create strawman arguements " scrapping the whole system". No one is proposing scraping the whole system. Ignoring facts, I suggest we use the United Nations standards for healthcare quality, which is consistent globably. And using that measure, the quality of our healthcare is still very low.
As for people knocking down our doors to get healthcare in the United States, I would ask Mad to provide some numbers and examples to back up that position. I can only remember a few heads of states coming to the United States for experimental treatments. They had advance cancers.
When we get out of the leadership classes and talk about regular folks, we have people in the United States traveling to places like India and SE Asia for medical treatment. Because treatment here in the United States is too expensive. There are even folks going to those locations for dental work.
By the way Mad, when it comes to the life style issues you mentioned, the French are pretty bad. They like smoking, drinking and fatty foods, much more than we do in the United States. And guess what, they have better heath quality than we do.
Now watch, Mad will comeback with something critical of the United Nations. Because neocons hate the United Nations. It goes against their basic belief system. Please see Straussian political philosophy.

While we agree that health is affected by all those factors, I would not consider that a justification for government intervention in all those areas. You'd have government controling every aspect of your life!

Government should be a neutral player, perhaps offering services to those unable to provide for themselves (the lame, the blind, whatever). It should absolutely not control every aspect of your life. It should only stick its nose into a situation when absolutely necesary.

I have never met anyone in Europe who feels like that. The only thing that's being controlled is disease.

As previously stated, Mad has proven my arguments. His response was a typical neocon response. It is a good example of what citizens in the United States hear from our leadership and the healthcare industry. The idea is to create confusion and fear which perpetuates inaction and the healthcare industry and their allies win at the expense of the people. Necons have learned they don’t need to win arguments, just confuse folks. He creates false arguments and fails to support his claims with evidence.

Since Mad challenges the Infant Mortality Rates referenced in the Word Health Organization documentation included in the article by the University of Maine and previously referenced by Asguard, let’s look at what the United States Government says its IMR rate is as it compares itself to the rest of the world. The information below is sourced from the World Fact Book published by the United States Government. Using these numbers, the United States ranks itself number 42 in infant mortality globally. It has the highest IMR of all industrialized countries falling behind South Korea and Cuba.
Country IMR
179 Croatia 6.60 2007 est.
180 United States 6.37 2007 est.
181 Korea, South 6.05 2007 est.
182 Cuba 6.04 2007 est.
183 Faroe Islands 6.01 2007 est.
184 Isle of Man 5.72 2007 est.
185 Italy 5.72 2007 est.
186 New Zealand 5.67 2007 est.
187 Taiwan 5.54 2007 est.
188 San Marino 5.53 2007 est.
189 Greece 5.34 2007 est.
190 Monaco 5.27 2007 est.
191 Ireland 5.22 2007 est.
192 Jersey 5.08 2007 est.
193 United Kingdom 5.01 2007 est.
194 Gibraltar 4.98 2007 est.
195 Portugal 4.92 2007 est.
196 Netherlands 4.88 2007 est.
197 European Union 4.80 2007 est.
198 Luxembourg 4.68 2007 est.
199 Canada 4.63 2007 est.
200 Guernsey 4.59 2007 est.
201 Liechtenstein 4.58 2007 est.
202 Australia 4.57 2007 est.
203 Belgium 4.56 2007 est.
204 Austria 4.54 2007 est.
205 Denmark 4.45 2007 est.
206 Slovenia 4.35 2007 est.
207 Macau 4.33 2007 est.
208 Spain 4.31 2007 est.
209 Switzerland 4.28 2007 est.
210 Germany 4.08 2007 est.
211 Andorra 4.03 2007 est.
212 Czech Republic 3.86 2007 est.
213 Malta 3.82 2007 est.
214 Norway 3.64 2007 est.
215 Finland 3.52 2007 est.
216 France 3.41 2007 est.
217 Iceland 3.27 2007 est.
218 Hong Kong 2.94 2007 est.
219 Japan 2.80 2007 est.
220 Sweden 2.76 2007 est.
221 Singapore 2.30 2007 est.

* Note this does not include territories claimed by the United States like Puerto Rico. The infant death rates in the territories of the United States are even higher. So the net effect of excluding them is to lower the over all reported IMR for the United States.

Note also Mad was kind of selective in his quoting of the Wikipedia article. Below is a portion he excluded:

The infant mortality rate correlates very strongly with and is among the best predictors of state failure.[1] IMR is also a useful indicator of a country's level of health or development, and is a component of the physical quality of life index. Some claim that the method of calculating IMR may vary between countries based on the way they define a live birth. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat. [Some claim] that some countries only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality. [cite needed]
In order to minimize this problem, UNICEF uses a statistical methodology to account for these reporting differences. "UNICEF compiles infant mortality country estimates derived from all sources and methods of estimation obtained either from standard reports, direct estimation from micro data sets, or from UNICEF’s yearly exercise. In order to sort out differences between estimates produced from different sources, with different methods, UNICEF developed, in coordination with WHO, the WB and UNSD,2 an estimation methodology that minimize the errors embodied on each estimate and harmonize trends along time.3 Since the estimates are not necessarily the exact values used as input for the model, they are often not recognized as the official U5MR estimates used at the country level. However, as mentioned before, these estimates minimize errors and maximize the consistency of trends along time."

Bottom line, what Mad did not say, the WHO adjusts it's infant mortalty numbers to compensate for the reporting variances Mad referenced in his previous posts.

It is interesting that even the French with all of their smoking, drinking and fatty foods, they are number six on the list!

Link to Article on father of neoconseratism and educator of our conservative leaders:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Leo_Strauss

Link to Site For Americans to Arrange Travel Overseas for Medical Treatment:
https://www.healthbase.com/hb/pages/customer-videos.jsp

I find the healthcare system in the US beyond belief. A student I know was working 2 hours away from campus when her appendix burst. She had the choice of going nearby and paying astronomical costs with a doctor who was not part of her student plan or be driven down 2 hours to get to one who was.

Guess which one she had to take. She could have died. :(

Its a horrible, inhumane system.

I find the healthcare system in the US beyond belief. A student I know was working 2 hours away from campus when her appendix burst. She had the choice of going nearby and paying astronomical costs with a doctor who was not part of her student plan or be driven down 2hours to get to one who was. Guess which one she had to take. She could have died. Its a horrible, inhumane system.

She should have pretended to be an illegal alien. Then it would have been free. For future reference, she should not have such a restrictive student plan. She could probably get Blue Cross/Blue Shield for about $40/month if she's fairly healthy.

[QUOTE=sandy;1699333]She should have pretended to be an illegal alien. Then it would have been free.



What a sick answer to a post about health

She should have pretended to be an illegal alien. Then it would have been free. For future reference, she should not have such a restrictive student plan. She could probably get Blue Cross/Blue Shield for about $40/month if she's fairly healthy.

its not free if the costs are passed on to another. not everyone is fucking rich like you and can afford healthcare. i know people who pay something like one fifth of their monthly wages to pay for health care.

She should have pretended to be an illegal alien. Then it would have been free. For future reference, she should not have such a restrictive student plan. She could probably get Blue Cross/Blue Shield for about $40/month if she's fairly healthy.
Sandy, you don't know shit. And if she's fairly heathy? Oh goody! I'm not quite as "healthy" as the next guy, so I'm less able to afford the health care that I need more than the next guy! Fuckin' A! What a GREAT system!

And you never even touched my post about how a typical middle income american who wants to be independent has no real hope of affording the all but impossible costs of health care.

all this is truly amazing, i had to go to hospital the other day and then my partner did few weeks later. I went to the closest public hosptial which is around the corner from my house. I wasnt very happy with the treatment so when my partner needed to go i took her to the hospital at uni (one of the 2 trauma centers in the state). My point is that my thoughts we only on which hospital gave the best clinical care and not on which i could aford or which i was alowed to atend.

Yes Asguard, our healthcare system makes no sense. I have very good insurance. But last year I had a pulmonary thrombosis. Being a paramedic, you know that is a serious life threatening event. This is not an uncommon condition. It is not a new condition. It is an easily treatable condition, and not hard to diagnose. I was taken to our regional trauma center (which is also a medical training center) where I laid for a 36 hours before they were able to diagnose and begin treatment for my afliction. That is scarry. I was starting to get very concerned laying the hospital bed as to why no one was treating me. It was a foreign born and trained doctor who finaly saw me and quickly diagnosed my condition. That week in the hospital cost in excess of $55,000 dollars. The hospital had lots of technology. But they were not able to use it very efficiently or effectively. Fortunately for me, my health insurance paid all but about $4,000 dollars of the expense

Thats amazing, if that happened here you would probably diagnosed by the ambo's who would have taken you to the royal adilade or flinders and treated at once. If you had ambulance cover (which only costs about $50 a year for a family) you would have paid nothing if not the cost would probably been around $200 for the emergency abulance and still nothing for the hospital

Interesting, the Ambulance was on top of the amount previously quoted. My Ambulance bill was $1,000. Here is an link to an article explaining the serious problem with the costs of our healthcare system. The author of this article runs an economic think tank. He is proposing that we give vouchers to our citizens which can be redeemed in countries with better healthcare quality number than those of the United States. So that would include Canada. The voucher would be 75 percent of the cost of the proceedure in the United States. He is proposing that our citizen would pocket any unused funds. Additionally we would pay a premium to the healthcare system of the foriegn country. In the end, the American government, foriegn government, and the citizen would all be better off in the end. Now we know that is not going to fly with our domestic healthcare industry! They are already claiming that drugs purchased in Canada are not of sufficient quality to be imported by citizens.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dean_baker/2007/11/outsourcing_healthcare.html

I've always considered healthcare as a service that should always be Government backed, and free.

I have never met anyone in Europe who feels like that. The only thing that's being controlled is disease.An old joke in the US is: "I'm from the government, I'm here to help". When we in the US hear that, we know we're in trouble.
Sandy,
A serious question for you. Do you believe that individualism and free enterprise are a hallmark of what the USA stands for?Let me answer, yes.

I was an engineering consultant for two years. Trying for the entrepenurial thing. Nothing grand mind you. I have a modest home, typical middle america lifestyle. BUt for those two years I was sans insurance. Why? Because, even with my modest lifestyle and perfectly reasonable consultants income, I could not afford the health costs! I would have had to sell my house. Literally. I had to all but force the company to hire me as a regular employee so I could take advantage of the bulk pricing of insurance that only large companies get!

You all can figure out what this means.
As a self employed person, I'm completely aware of this problem.

I had great insurance when I was in college thru 7-11. It cost me almost nothing ($100 a month, at most, for the whole family). It's the whole reason I worked there. I had a wife and child to support. I could have had a job paying much better, but without benefits.

So throughout my college career, I worked 2 ten hour shifts every Friday and Saturday nite (third shift) to meet the minimum 20/week requirement to get the insurance.

For the past few years I've been paying about $1,000 per month to insure myself and my family. I've recently switched to a high deductible policy (about $6,000 deductible) combined with a health savings account. So now I'm paying only about $350/month.

I completely agree it's bullshit that big companies should get a better deal than everyone else on insurance. But socialized medicine is not the answer. Perhaps a law requiring that insurance companies charge everyone the same price for the same coverage? Sandy, you don't know shit. And if she's fairly heathy? Oh goody! I'm not quite as "healthy" as the next guy, so I'm less able to afford the health care that I need more than the next guy!

And you never even touched my post about how a typical middle income american who wants to be independent has no real hope of affording the all but impossible costs of health care.I agree, that sucks. But I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater and go to a socialized system. As I said, what about requiring that insurance companies charge everyone the same rate for the same coverage?

Short of that, the high deductible/health savings account route is pretty good. Also, consider having your spouse get a part time job at some company that offers insurance.
I suggest we use the United Nations standards for healthcare quality, which is consistent globably. And using that measure, the quality of our healthcare is still very low. As I said, those stats are misleading, especially because lifestyle, demographic differences, and reporting differences account for much of the variance. To truly measure the quality of the healthcare system, you should judge the success rates for specific diseases.

By that measure, the US does quite well indeed. Rudy Guiliani recently noted in an ad that the prostate cancer he was recently treated for has a much higher survival rate in the US than in the UK. the five year survival rate for prostate cancer to be 98 percent in the U.S. and 74 percent in Great Britain.
And it's not just prostate cancer:
U.S. outcomes beat the U.K not just for prostate cancer, but for a wide variety of cancers and other diseases, where survivor time bias is not at issue. According to a study published this year in the British medical journal, The Lancet, for all types of cancer, the U.S. ranks number one among industrialized nations: 62.9 percent of women with cancer survive for 5 years, 66.3 percent of men. Britain ranked 16th for women (52.7 percent) and 15th for men (just 44.8 percent).
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/10/31/rudy-was-right/
So the US is ranked number one in survival rates for all types of cancer.
Thats amazing, if that happened here you would probably diagnosed by the ambo's who would have taken you to the royal adilade or flinders and treated at once. If you had ambulance cover (which only costs about $50 a year for a family) you would have paid nothing if not the cost would probably been around $200 for the emergency abulance and still nothing for the hospitalAmbulance service fees are decided on a local basis. I called 911 once when my wife passed out from severe abdominal pain. The ambulance rushed out and took her to the hospital, and the total bill was only $50. No ambulance cover required.

HHAHAHAH

what a silly idea rather than fixing your own system, not only that you would be putting aditional pressure on the strategic planning of those countries. You know the US wanted to take our goverment to the WTO to force us to get rid of the PBS? Only time i have felt happy about the way our former goverment delt with the US

oh and about ambulance costs, in queensland the ambulance service is covered under the emergency service levy so its free and in SA the ambulance service will send out 3 bills and then forget about it because it would cost them to much to take the debt to court. The ambulance service union wants to adopt the Queensland model country wide so ambulance cover is automatic

Mad, the numbers i got from the American Cancer Society do not jive with the numbers cited by Rudy. It appears, the United States maybe better at detecting prostrate cancers, but treatment results appear to be similar. The CATO Insitute is an conservative advocacy group. In fact it received an award for being the best advocacy group. So it is far from unbiased.
The United States can no longer afford it's current healthcare system. That is the point that conservatives don't seem to get! Our government has created a government run healthcare system that does not work well, and is unquestionalby the most expensive and inefficient healthcare system in the world. Through its regulation of our healthcare industry it has created a bloody mess, because of special interest legislation designed to prevent free market competition.
We need to do three things. First, we need to break up the healthcare monopolies...that means free markets...that means if I can get drugs from Canada cheaper; I should be allowed to get my drugs from Canada...that means that we allow more doctors to be trained. We take down the unnecessary barriers to entry into the profession.And we need improve the way we train doctors...too much time is spent on non-medical training. Second, since everyone has a healthcare risk, everyone should be paying a healthcare premium. In other countries, they do it through a tax. Everyone needs to pay a fair share of the healthcare expense we all pay now regardless if we have insurance or not. Third, we need a common and efficient administrative/information managment system that allows us to significantly cut back on unnecessary and inefficient administrative activities.

Well, yea Asguard! If we cannot fix our system, let's use yours! But even if your system would allow it. Our government would never allow it. It would take too much money out of the pockets of special interests here in the United States.
When our citizens tried to go to Canada for prescription drugs made by American manufacturers, the pharma industry leaned on our government to stop it. Our pharma industry has no interest in having its customers in the United States buying prescription drugs from Canada at lower prices than those offered in the United States.

I am in 2 minds as to wether you should be able to come here specifically to use our public health care system

My first thought is humanitarian. That is if you need help then we should give it

My second is political. that you should be putting pressure on your own goverment to fix your own rather than using ours and that if lots of you DO come here and use our system it makes it harder for the health departments to do the staigic planning nessary to plan for our own health needs.

As to the private system go for it, i wouldnt trust that system with a wart but if you want to use it go ahead

edit to add: just so you know im not just blowing smoke out my ass, for this subject we were required to study the SA health plan which shows what the predicted load on different services are expected to be so the state and federal goverment can fund those service that will be needed into the future

I understand. I used to be a paramedic in another lifetime. And you are right, we need to solve this problem ourselves. It is not an easy struggle. But freedom and democracy does not come cheap. Rigiht now in the United States we are struggling with special interests and the neo-conservative movement.
We do need universal healthcare in the United States, and eventually it will come. WE cannont continue to financially bear our current system of healthcare. It is a house of cards that will fall under its own weight if nohing is done to correct it.
All organizations need to have some incentives to be efficient. I am sure you have such incentives. I know the Brits do. And that is what competition does, incents good behaviors to produce better results.

By that measure, the US does quite well indeed. Rudy Guiliani recently noted in an ad that the prostate cancer he was recently treated for has a much higher survival rate in the US than in the UK.
“ the five year survival rate for prostate cancer to be 98 percent in the U.S. and 74 percent in Great Britain. ” That's a lie by Rudy. The stats are messed up, due to different diagnostic criteria and treatment regimes.

The US diagnoses a lot of rich old men with low grade early stage prostate cancer (most sufficiently old men have some cancer in their prostate) and treats them at large expense and hardship, then records them as "surviving" when they die of heart disease later.

There used to be a web site that tracked the history of personal anecdotes from US politicians, defending the current US system - there are big campaign contributions in that. They are often pretty blatant lies.

All US Congressmen and big city mayors have socialized medical care - the equal of Norway's or France's.

- -
So the US is ranked number one in survival rates for all types of cancer. You still have diagnosis bias, cause of death bias, income and age bias (old people in the US have socialized medicine, and are often rich as well) and more importantly lifespan bias: the US has shorter lifespans than almost any country with such fancy cancer treatment infrastructure.

out of intrest how did the movie "sicko" rate in the US, it coincidently came out at the same time we were studying UK and US health systems. I couldnt find many conflicts between the infomation reported in that movie and the matierial we were studying. I felt sick when i watched that poor woman who's husband had been denied treatment for kidney falure i think it was. Especially how they had paid to find a match and then denied the transplant, how sick can you be. To a hospital employee's husband no less

all this is truly amazing, i had to go to hospital the other day and then my partner did few weeks later. I went to the closest public hosptial which is around the corner from my house. I wasnt very happy with the treatment so when my partner needed to go i took her to the hospital at uni (one of the 2 trauma centers in the state). My point is that my thoughts we only on which hospital gave the best clinical care and not on which i could aford or which i was alowed to atend.

I admire you sentiments but Sandy does not. If a hospital's costs were higher than you could afford, she would castigate you for living beyond your means.

Your thoughts were in the right place but, sadly, those who run the show take advantage of your vulnerability. That's how it looks from here where no one is discrimated against. Every human life is valued.

...in countries with better healthcare quality number than those of the United States. So that would include Canada.

There are no countries with better healthcare than the USA. None.

I've always considered healthcare as a service that should always be Government backed, and free.

No thanks. ANYTIME the government gets involved in any of our business, it turns out to be a nightmare.

Our healthcare system is fine. Be responsible. Don't have kids you can't afford. Get a good job, invest well, pay your own way. Live a healthy lifestyle. Don't be a loser and depend on the government for anything. It always disappoints. And fails.

Firstly i should say hi to anyone who is still here from the last time i was here
long time no see

Anyway as part of my paramedic's degree i am studying the health systems in different countries and i was astonished at the US health system.

In Australia we have 2 health systems, public and private
The public system is paid for both by tax and the medicare levy (ie another tax).
Medicare pay GP's and if they chose to bulk bill Medicare they are free to the public (some chose to charge above the Medicare rebate for different groups)

Public hospitals are banned by law from charging for services. This includes all procdures and all medication including medication they give you to take home

almost all A & E departments are in public hospitals as are all trauma units, they are also the teaching and resurch hospitals and they have the top staff.

Private hospitals are a bit of a joke (we took one patient back to a private hospital after she had just been discharged because she had a BP of over 200 and they told us she just had "high blood pressure")

We also have the PBS which subsides perscriptions to $30 for everyone and about $5 for people on a health care card

In comparision the US has NO universal health care system and when the Clintons tried to introduce one it was voted down. Now yes i know the politisions got pay backs by the stake holders for this but thats not my question. I want to know why the average american cizitizan doesnt FORCE your pollies to introduce universal health care. I am amazed about this when you can see what happens across the border in Canda, in the UK, Australia, New Zeland, even in cuba.

After all like education, universal health care helps the whole country especially business as all the people are treated early rather than living with treatable and preventable cronic health problems which also puts pressure on the unemployment services because people then cant work when in another contry it would be delt with straight away.

G'day mate, yeah, this has been debated since the advent of sicko, My entire high school grade viewed that movie, and was astounded at the stupidity of the US heathcare system. The reason that they thought private healthcare would be better (IMO) was that they thought that privatisation, all the latest and high tech equipment would be brought in due to the interest of the consumer. they didn't count on the lack of preventitive medicine, the GP consultation charge, etc.

Don't worry about sandy, she thinks the sun shines out of America's Ass.

There are no countries with better healthcare than the USA. None.

Prove it.


Our healthcare system is fine. Be responsible. Don't have kids you can't afford. Get a good job, invest well, pay your own way. Live a healthy lifestyle. Don't be a loser and depend on the government for anything. It always disappoints. And fails.
Ha! Get a GOOD job(?). Don't have kids. be verrryyyy careful.

Because if you don't follow sandy's advice, and trim your lifestyle to the bare minimum, you won't be able to afford the health costs in the good ol' USA.

Sandy, why don't you just move back to your island where no one helps or gives a shit about anyone else.

The United States can no longer afford it's current healthcare system. That is the point that conservatives don't seem to get! Our government has created a government run healthcare system that does not work well, and is unquestionalby the most expensive and inefficient healthcare system in the world. Through its regulation of our healthcare industry it has created a bloody mess, because of special interest legislation designed to prevent free market competition.I'll agree there are problems. But the government is, as you noted, the cause of many of the problems. Medicare and medicaid are already way overtaxed and scheduled to go broke anytime now. If things continue as they are, medicare and social security will soon consume the entire federal budget!

Our government can not afford to provide healthcare. It can not afford to even continue to provide what healthcare it already provides! So whatever solution you propose, you need to keep that in mind.
We need to do three things. First, we need to break up the healthcare monopolies...that means free markets...that means if I can get drugs from Canada cheaper; I should be allowed to get my drugs from Canada...that means that we allow more doctors to be trained. We take down the unnecessary barriers to entry into the profession.And we need improve the way we train doctors...too much time is spent on non-medical training. Second, since everyone has a healthcare risk, everyone should be paying a healthcare premium. In other countries, they do it through a tax. Everyone needs to pay a fair share of the healthcare expense we all pay now regardless if we have insurance or not. Third, we need a common and efficient administrative/information managment system that allows us to significantly cut back on unnecessary and inefficient administrative activities.Surprisingly, I agree with a lot of that. Just keep the government out of it as much as possible. Pass a few, simple rules. Don't micromanage or require that the insurance include X, Y, and Z.

Require that insurance companies treat the whole country as the group they insure and charge the same fee for the same coverage to everyone. This would probably have to be combined with a requirement that everyone buy medical insurance (as we do with liability insurance for our cars) to avoid only sick people buying the insurance.

And if people want to buy drugs from Canada, fine. The net result of that would probably be prices rising in Canada. But it would probably help a little with drug prices in the US.
That's a lie by Rudy. The stats are messed up, due to different diagnostic criteria and treatment regimes.It's not a lie. He gave his source. It's just a bit out of date, but newer data still shows an advantage in the US.
All US Congressmen and big city mayors have socialized medical care - the equal of Norway's or France's. That's not socialized medicine. That's just a great medical plan thru their employer.
You still have diagnosis bias, cause of death bias, income and age bias (old people in the US have socialized medicine, and are often rich as well) and more importantly lifespan bias: the US has shorter lifespans than almost any country with such fancy cancer treatment infrastructure.With respect to prostate cancer, a very slow, usually not agressive cancer, early diagnosis may, indeed, create some bias. But with most cancers, early diagnosis is the key to survival. So I wouldn't call that a "bias".

[QUOTE=sandy;1699974]There are no countries with better healthcare than the USA. None.


No thanks. ANYTIME the government gets involved in any of our business, it turns out to be a nightmare.

Our healthcare system is fine. Be responsible. Don't have kids you can't afford. Get a good job, invest well, pay your own way. Live a healthy lifestyle. Don't be a loser and depend on the government for anything. It always disappoints. And fails.

Sandy, are you a broad who's never been abroad ? You seem to live in a bubble.

Sandy, why don't you just move back to your island where no one helps or gives a shit about anyone else.You advocate having the government take money from one person at the point of a gun and giving it to another. You call that "help". That's not help, that's extortion.

Help is when your neighboor has a problem and you, of your own free will, help them. Or when someone at your church has their house destroyed by a tornado and the whole congregation pitches in to help them out. That's help.

It's easy to spend someone else's money or to say the government should take care of it; so I can forget about it. Not being in favor of socialixm doesn't mean you don't care about people, quite the contrary. It means you don't think it's in anyone's best interest to put the goverment in charge of everything.

You advocate having the government take money from one person at the point of a gun and giving it to another. You call that "help". That's not help, that's extortion.

Help is when your neighboor has a problem and you, of your own free will, help them. Or when someone at your church has their house destroyed by a tornado and the whole congregation pitches in to help them out. That's help.

It's easy to spend someone else's money or to say the government should take care of it; so I can forget about it. Not being in favor of socialixm doesn't mean you don't care about people, quite the contrary. It means you don't think it's in anyone's best interest to put the goverment in charge of everything.

Is your government so desperate that it has to take money from you at the point of a gun ? I've heard of the Texas Rangers but not the Taxes Rangers.

Your definition of care is very narrow.As you appear to be a churchgoer, ask for an explanation of " Am I my brothers keeper ?", " Love thy neighbour as thyself "and " The Parable of the Good Samaritan"

By having the type of healthcare available in any civilized country, how would you be putting that government in charge in any way that would affect people's live other than for the better ?

I think your message means no more than you are unwilling to pay a few more dollars in tax every year.

medicare and medicaid are about to go broke?

how much tax is spent on them?
i am wondering because the medicare levy here is something like 2% of income maybe (could be lower than that) and that pays for most of our health system

oh and on regulating private health insurance, health insurance is regulated here in that they have to submit all there books to the regulater and when they want to increase there fees the regulater decides if they can or not. This is so they can never go bankrupt and yet keep it afordable. On top of that the biggest private insurce company is goverment owned (for want of a better word) so this keeps downward pressure on prices and upward pressure on services

You advocate having the government take money from one person at the point of a gun and giving it to another. You call that "help". That's not help, that's extortion.

Help is when your neighboor has a problem and you, of your own free will, help them. Or when someone at your church has their house destroyed by a tornado and the whole congregation pitches in to help them out. That's help.

It's easy to spend someone else's money or to say the government should take care of it; so I can forget about it. Not being in favor of socialixm doesn't mean you don't care about people, quite the contrary. It means you don't think it's in anyone's best interest to put the goverment in charge of everything.
Unfortunately mad, it's not that simple. I could just as easily respond that your approach advocates allowing the government, in partnership with massive corporations, to control and distribute wealth, opportunity, and essential services at their whim, and you with no say in the matter.

You may recognize this:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The government is already in everything. I'm not advocating putting the government in control of everything, I'm advocating forcing the government to do the job we gave it and provide for the general welfare of it's people.

Do you think that allowing the private sector to push healthcare costs to the point where no independent american could afford it is in the spirit of that run-on sentence up there? You really think that the the overall health and welfare of the nations people should be subject to the same market fluctuations as the price of gas or a gallon of milk?

Do you think it would be possible, without using the word socialism, to get the government out of all the fucking shit is involved in where it shouldn't be, and getting it involved in the few critical areas that it should? Like doing everything it can to make sure it's population isn't sick, starving or on the street?

I'm not a socialist. I'm a realist.

You really think, like sandy, that those who can take maximum advantage of the corporate system are more deserving of basic health care and services, while those that can't or don't (like millions of struggling single-income families who work as hard as you do except they haul your trash or paint your house) are losers?

I'll bet you don't.

If things continue as they are, medicare and social security will soon consume the entire federal budget! The US privatized system sucks, and is going broke, true.

Our government can not afford to provide healthcare. It can not afford to even continue to provide what healthcare it already provides! So whatever solution you propose, you need to keep that in mind. Then we should change our government to one of the many that can.
Surprisingly, I agree with a lot of that. Just keep the government out of it as much as possible. Pass a few, simple rules. Don't micromanage or require that the insurance include X, Y, and Z. And keep insurance companies out of it, too. All bureaucratic micromanaging is bad, right ?

Require that insurance companies treat the whole country as the group they insure and charge the same fee for the same coverage to everyone. This would probably have to be combined with a requirement that everyone buy medical insurance (as we do with liability insurance for our cars) to avoid only sick people buying the insurance. And, step two, combine them into one insurance company. The savings in bureaucracy alone would be a third of our current medical bill. That would avoid the miserable situation we have with car insurance, which is only prevented from bankrupting the poor by the fact that we can hire anyone to fix our cars, do without a car if necessary, and throw the cars away if they are too expensive to fix.

And if people want to buy drugs from Canada, fine. The net result of that would probably be prices rising in Canada. But it would probably help a little with drug prices in the US. Drug prices would not rise in Canada. They have socialized medicine in Canada.

"That's a lie by Rudy. The stats are messed up, due to different diagnostic criteria and treatment regimes."
It's not a lie. He gave his source. It's just a bit out of date, but newer data still shows an advantage in the US. His "out of date" BS was (and is, so far) still being quoted by him after he had been informed. He lied.
That's not socialized medicine. That's just a great medical plan thru their employer. It's government furnished medical care. It's not through their employer, it is by their employer - the government "self-insures".

“ You still have diagnosis bias, cause of death bias, income and age bias (old people in the US have socialized medicine, and are often rich as well) and more importantly lifespan bias: the US has shorter lifespans than almost any country with such fancy cancer treatment infrastructure. ”
With respect to prostate cancer, a very slow, usually not agressive cancer, early diagnosis may, indeed, create some bias. But with most cancers, early diagnosis is the key to survival. So I wouldn't call that a "bias". I listed several biases there. The ones that created the bias Rudy lied about apply to prostate cancer. Others apply to other cancers.

The most obvious general one is that cancer is a disease of old people - who have socialized medicine, in the US. So using cancer stats to criticise socialization is automatically dodgy. Then you have smoking, life span, etc etc etc.

The point is: The US provides second or even thrid world health care for 2/3 of its citizens - the uninsured and underinsured. The US spends twice as much as some other countries who provide first world health care for all of their citizens. That is failure. The US system is a failure.

But people must also realise that healthcare isn't a business, it's a human service that should be backed by the Government. It's like education, although education in this nation (America) is certainly terrible, in the sense that there is no competition among teachers.

However, if you make healthcare like a private business, then the middle and lower class people will probably get very few, if any visits to a doctor.

There are no countries with better healthcare than the USA. None.



No thanks. ANYTIME the government gets involved in any of our business, it turns out to be a nightmare.

Our healthcare system is fine. Be responsible. Don't have kids you can't afford. Get a good job, invest well, pay your own way. Live a healthy lifestyle. Don't be a loser and depend on the government for anything. It always disappoints. And fails.

but you want to get the government involved in peoples choice to get an abortion

But people must also realise that healthcare isn't a business, it's a human service that should be backed by the Government. It's like education, although education in this nation (America) is certainly terrible, in the sense that there is no competition among teachers.

However, if you make healthcare like a private business, then the middle and lower class people will probably get very few, if any visits to a doctor.

health care is a public good is what your trying to say

sandy, America doesn't have the best healthcare, but also not the best doctors either. I believe that's the French.

sandy, America doesn't have the best health care, but also not the best doctors either. I believe that's the French.

American hectare, in general, sucks (that's the mean average). However, my friend, the USA does have the best doctors. In our current day in age money buys the best, and the USA pays doctors more than any other nation on Earth. Moreover, doctors are also attracted to other perks like scientific equipment, which is in ridiculous abundance in the USA. College connections and peer contacts round out the overall fact that the worlds top universities and hospitals are all in the USA.

Tell me why the royal family of Saudi Arabia and Jordan (remember: King Hussein went to the Mayo Clinic for his cancer treatment, do you think a man with access to billions of dollars would have gone to "second best"?), the crown princess of Sweden (she came for Anorexia treatment) and the Sultan of Brunei all have come to the USA for treatment?

~String

So the best doctors are the one who want the most money?

MSF (http://www.msf.org/) probably consists of idiots then

Is your government so desperate that it has to take money from you at the point of a gun ? I've heard of the Texas Rangers but not the Taxes Rangers.All taxes are collected via the implicit threat of violence and incarceration should you fail to pay. Don't forget that Al Capone (famous US gangster) went to jail for non payment of taxes!
Your definition of care is very narrow.As you appear to be a churchgoer, ask for an explanation of " Am I my brothers keeper ?", " Love thy neighbour as thyself "and " The Parable of the Good Samaritan" Jesus was speaking of personal morality and charity, not government "entitlements". There is nothing charitable about paying taxes.

By turfing the care of the poor to the government, people feel relieved of the need to help themselves. "It's not my responsibility, I already paid my taxes."

Entitlement programs turn charity into a "right". It leaves its recipients dependent upon it, while creating a feeling of contempt among the rest of the population for the leeches sucking at the government tit.
I think your message means no more than you are unwilling to pay a few more dollars in tax every year.Right. A few dollars. Nationalized healthcare would cost untold billions of dollars and, no doubt, push our government into bankrupsy that much sooner. THERE SHOULD BE NO NEW ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS UNTIL THE NATIONAL DEFICIT AND THE NATIONAL DEBT ARE BOTH ELIMINATED!

You may recognize this:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The government is already in everything. I'm not advocating putting the government in control of everything, I'm advocating forcing the government to do the job we gave it and provide for the general welfare of it's people.
You've mistaken the word "promote" for the word "provide". The government is not to provide anything, it's supposed to promote it. I assure you, our founding fathers would roll over in their graves at the idea of nationalized healthcare.
You really think that the the overall health and welfare of the nations people should be subject to the same market fluctuations as the price of gas or a gallon of milk?Well, what about food? Surely you can't maintain good health without food! Should we allow the evil corporations to charge whatever they want for food! People could starve! Or what about clothing. How can you be healthy when you're freezing to death because the evil corporations have raised the price of clothing too high? The government should provide food, clothing, and shelter for everyone. And education. And..........

You really think, like sandy, that those who can take maximum advantage of the corporate system are more deserving of basic health care and services, while those that can't or don't (like millions of struggling single-income families who work as hard as you do except they haul your trash or paint your house) are losers?
I'll bet you don't.Is everyone, regardless of ability to pay, deserving of basic health care? Sure. Am I willing to throw us all into a collectivist gulag to achieve that goal? No. We have medicaid, various charities, I even provide free eyecare to the poor myself. The poor can be taken care of with resorting to a nationalization of healthcare.

doctors without boarders (which i think is the same organisation) is a brillant organisation. Wonder if they use paramedics, if they do i would love to do some work for them once im qualifide

So the best doctors are the one who want the most money?

MSF (http://www.msf.org/) probably consists of idiots then

Sam: read what you just wrote. You are extrapolating again and doing a pretty piss-poor job of it. It's so tiresome combating you utter ignorant statements.

MSF is a phenomenal organization that consists of great doctors, but MSF doesn't rank their doctors. Moreover, MSF doesn't really "pick and chose" the best-- they take what they can get. It's a volunteer organization that is dedicated to giving as much medicine to as many people as possible.

Again, the best doctors (on average: though there will always be altruistic individuals and/or those who seek other motives) will generally gravitate towards the greatest benefits.

Why do you think that so many nations (UK, Canada & New Zealand, come to mind) keep hiking doctor salaries in order to get them back into the country.

A personal experience: I've been in and out of the hospital a lot in the past two years. Half of my doctors are overwhelmingly from India, China, the UK and the M.E. Why do they all gravitate here? Simple: If you're going to provide a service that you love to provide, why not make $250,000 to a million a year?

~String

So the best doctors are the one who want the most money?

MSF (http://www.msf.org/) probably consists of idiots thenSam, there are always a few saints around. But they are few and far between. Not to mention that a lot of those guys probably have regular jobs where they make big bucks. I may even go on a mission like that myself one of these days.
Tell me why the royal family of Saudi Arabia and Jordan (remember: King Hussein went to the Mayo Clinic for his cancer treatment, do you think a man with access to billions of dollars would have gone to "second best"?), the crown princess of Sweden (she came for Anorexia treatment) and the Sultan of Brunei all have come to the USA for treatment?
~StringString, my dad just got back from the Mayo clinic. He's a retired steelworker, currently working as a school bus driver. Yet he can afford to go to the same doctor as the Sultan of Brunei.

Is everyone, regardless of ability to pay, deserving of basic health care? Sure. Am I willing to throw us all into a collectivist gulag to achieve that goal? No. We have medicaid, various charities, I even provide free eyecare to the poor myself. The poor can be taken care of with resorting to a nationalization of healthcare.
Ok then. What's the plan to fix our crisis in health care? And how can we help our european and other friends out of their respective gulags? The poor bastards.

Sam: read what you just wrote. You are extrapolating again and doing a pretty piss-poor job of it. It's so tiresome combating you utter ignorant statements.

MSF is a phenomenal organization that consists of great doctors, but MSF doesn't rank their doctors. Moreover, MSF doesn't really "pick and chose" the best-- they take what they can get. It's a volunteer organization that is dedicated to giving as much medicine to as many people as possible.

Again, the best doctors (on average: though there will always be altruistic individuals and/or those who seek other motives) will generally gravitate towards the greatest benefits.

Why do you think that so many nations (UK, Canada & New Zealand, come to mind) keep hiking doctor salaries in order to get them back into the country.

A personal experience: I've been in and out of the hospital a lot in the past two years. Half of my doctors are overwhelmingly from India, China, the UK and the M.E. Why do they all gravitate here? Simple: If you're going to provide a service that you love to provide, why not make $250,000 to a million a year?

~String

Do you know how difficult it is to gain admission to a medical college in India?

Mad your an idiot, there are VERY strong economic reasons for universal health care. Oh and BTW its almost imposable not to pay tax in Australia, it comes out of your pay before you get it and then you claim back what you over paid at the end of the finantial year. No threat of vilonce. Lastly, if you dont like paying tax then go and live in a cave in the wilderness, because tax is NEEDED to run a sociaty. So if you dont want to pay tax then you also dont want the protection of the army, police, ambulance, fire, legal system, unemployment benifits, health care, education, water, electricity, ect

Do you know how difficult it is to gain admission to a medical college in India?

Extremely! India and China will probably overtake the USA in medical advances in the next four or five decades. The only problem is: India is having trouble keeping their doctors in house these days. The various IIT's, the Tata Institute and the Deemed Universities are all top notch.

But, your statements don't negate the obvious facts: the USA currently has the best doctors and medical facilities. The only reason why we're having this argument is because it's such a distasteful fact for all you USA bashers. For you, it's not about the truth: It's about what you want to believe.

~String

Extremely! India and China will probably overtake the USA in medical advances in the next four or five decades. The only problem is: India is having trouble keeping their doctors in house these days. The various IIT's, the Tata Institute and the Deemed Universities are all top notch.

But, your statements don't negate the obvious facts: the USA currently has the best doctors and medical facilities. The only reason why we're having this argument is because it's such a distasteful fact for all you USA bashers. For you, it's not about the truth: It's about what you want to believe.

~String

Not really, I can be objective. ;)

Let me give you an example.

I had fatigue. I went to an Indian doctor, regular chap with a clinic next door. He asked questions, did a blood test. 5 minutes. Diagnosis anemia. Gave me a prescription. Problem solved.

I was having severe fatigue and dizzyness. Went to an American doctor. First nurse came, checked pulse, medical history, BP; asked questions. 10 minutes. Went to doctor. More questions, dietary history, looked in ears, listened to heart beat, checked throat. More questions. Filled out forms. Diagnosis: Stress. Recommended exercise; an anti-depressant. 30 minutes.

No effect. Went back again after two weeks. Still not recovered. Repeated entire above procedure with stronger anti-depressant. 25-30 minutes

Went back again after two weeks. Very weak. Unable to work. Did blood test. Mononucleosis. Recommended fluids and bed rest. Stopped all medications. I hour waiting time for blood test :rolleyes:

Not really, I can be objective. ;)

Let me give you an example.

I had fatigue. I went to an India doctor, regular chap with a clinic next door. He asked questions, did a blood test. 5 minutes. Diagnosis anemia. Gave me a prescription. Problem solved.

I was having severe fatigue and dizzyness. Went to an American doctor. First nurse came, checked pulse, medical history, BP; asked questions. 10 minutes. Went to doctor. More questions, dietary history, looked in ears, listened to heart beat, checked throat. More questions. Filled out forms. Diagnosis. Stress. Recommended exercise; an anti-depressant. 30 minutes.

No effect. Went back again after two weeks. Still not recovered. Repeated entire above procedure with stronger anti-depressant. 25-30 minutes

Went back again after two weeks. Very weak. Unable to work. Did blood test. Mononucleosis. Recommended fluids and bed rest. Stopped all medications. I hour waiting time for blood test :rolleyes:
sam, we already know this. Everything american sucks monkey dick. Just let me write the diatribe parts from now on. Give me the subject and I'll fill in the rest.

its results that count and the fact that ANYONE is dying because they cant access dialyisis or having to CHOSE which fingers they can have reatached puts your health care on third world level.

Oh and BTW i found both the med student and the resident who treated my partner to be exelent doctors. So was the indian doc who treated me (the triage nurse left a little to be desired though). The Indian doc i have as a GP is a great doc too and you know what?

not one of them cost me a dollor. Not even when i was refered for an ecco, stress ecco, ECG, chest x-ray, and whole set of blood tests. It was all covered

sam, we already know this. Everything american sucks monkey dick. Just let me write the diatribe parts from now on. Give me the subject and I'll fill in the rest.

The best joke?

Asked around to other students. Everyone is first treated with anti-depressants and counseling.:eek:

its results that count

yup.

Not really, I can be objective. ;)

Let me give you an example.

I had fatigue. I went to an India doctor, regular chap with a clinic next door. He asked questions, did a blood test. 5 minutes. Diagnosis anemia. Gave me a prescription. Problem solved.

I was having severe fatigue and dizziness. Went to an American doctor. First nurse came, checked pulse, medical history, BP; asked questions. 10 minutes. Went to doctor. More questions, dietary history, looked in ears, listened to heart beat, checked throat. More questions. Filled out forms. Diagnosis. Stress. Recommended exercise; an anti-depressant. 30 minutes.

No effect. Went back again after two weeks. Still not recovered. Repeated entire above procedure with stronger anti-depressant. 25-30 minutes

Went back again after two weeks. Very weak. Unable to work. Did blood test. Mononucleosis. Recommended fluids and bed rest. Stopped all medications. I hour waiting time for blood test :rolleyes:

Again, you're using one analysis.

In general "wellness maintenance" America sucks. Our entire health care system is geared towards cures and not preventative maintenance and the over-encumbered system is so obsessed with double and triple checking every last thing that sometimes the simplest things get lost in the process.

But, SAM, this does not negate that the best hospitals and doctors are in the USA.

You're confusing the system with individual doctors and hospitals.

Here's my point: hypothetically, the USA can have both the best and worst doctors/hospitals in the world. There are thousands of each, and I'd be willing to bet there are some hospitals in the USA that a third-world citizen wouldn't take their worst enemy to. That said, if you have a serious illness and need the best treatment and/or doctor: You come to the USA.

Again, I'm not defending an obviously broken system, just the odd fact that this dysfunctional system happens to have the best hospital and doctors available.

I'm lucky enough to live next to the USA's second best hospital (overall) and No. 1 ranked in the area I care about: urology.

~String

The best joke?

Asked around to other students. Everyone is first treated with anti-depressants and counseling.:eek:

Of all the things we've compared notes on, you have run afoul of the worst possible examples in every way. You must have some really bad luck. Or mine must be really good. Or, you're fabric... making thi... having selective memories. There. Whew! I almost was mean there. :o

Again, you're using one analysis.

In general "wellness maintenance" America sucks. Our entire health care system is geared towards cures and not preventative maintenance and the over-encumbered system is so obsessed with double and triple checking every last thing that sometimes the simplest things get lost in the process.

But, SAM, this does not negate that the best hospitals and doctors are in the USA.

You're confusing the system with individual doctors and hospitals.

Here's my point: hypothetically, the USA can have both the best and worst doctors/hospitals in the world. There are thousands of each, and I'd be willing to bet there are some hospitals in the USA that a third-world citizen wouldn't take their worst enemy to. That said, if you have a serious illness and need the best treatment and/or doctor: You come to the USA.

Again, I'm not defending an obviously broken system, just the odd fact that this dysfunctional system happens to have the best hospital and doctors available.

I'm lucky enough to live next to the USA's second best hospital (overall) and No. 1 ranked in the area I care about: urology.

~String

Probably, but from what I have heard, Indians in the US prefer to go to India for elective surgery. Not only is it cheaper (and they get a visit to India plus relatives to help with recovery) but they feel more assured of getting a good treatment.

...Don't worry about sandy, she thinks the sun shines out of America's Ass.

It does! :yay:

But people must also realise that healthcare isn't a business...

Uh, yes it is. A very big business.

but you want to get the government involved in peoples choice to get an abortion

Killing a baby is different from giving free healthcare to losers. :(

All taxes are collected via the implicit threat of violence and incarceration should you fail to pay. Don't forget that Al Capone (famous US gangster) went to jail for non payment of taxes!

He went to jail for tax for tax evasion because that was the only charge they could pin on him. Even non-Americans know that

Jesus was speaking of personal morality and charity, not government "entitlements". There is nothing charitable about paying taxes.

So how much did Jesus charge for healing the sick ?



By turfing the care of the poor to the government, people feel relieved of the need to help themselves. "It's not my responsibility, I already paid my taxes."

So you believe that some people would deliberately make themselves ill to get free treatment. I've seen no sign of that in Europe. What evidence have you got ?

Entitlement programs turn charity into a "right". It leaves its recipients dependent upon it, while creating a feeling of contempt among the rest of the population for the leeches sucking at the government tit.

We don't view it as charity which by definition implies giving to the poor. Everyone is treated equally, so the question of charity does not arise. We have some scroungers but that does not justify throwing out the baby with the bathwater


Right. A few dollars. Nationalized healthcare would cost untold billions of dollars and, no doubt, push our government into bankrupsy that much sooner. THERE SHOULD BE NO NEW ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS UNTIL THE NATIONAL DEFICIT AND THE NATIONAL DEBT ARE BOTH ELIMINATED!

Has anyone done a cost/ benefit analysis ? I can suggest some avenues to explore


You've mistaken the word "promote" for the word "provide". The government is not to provide anything, it's supposed to promote it. I assure you, our founding fathers would roll over in their graves at the idea of nationalized healthcare.

I'm sure they would but not for the reasons you imagine

Well, what about food? Surely you can't maintain good health without food! Should we allow the evil corporations to charge whatever they want for food! People could starve! Or what about clothing. How can you be healthy when you're freezing to death because the evil corporations have raised the price of clothing too high? The government should provide food, clothing, and shelter for everyone. And education. And..........


I thought America thrived on a free market. Are you saying there is no compettition to keep prices in check? If so, maybe you should think again. I smell corruption and price-rigging. Same goes for the other items you mention


Is everyone, regardless of ability to pay, deserving of basic health care? Sure. Am I willing to throw us all into a collectivist gulag to achieve that goal? No. We have medicaid, various charities, I even provide free eyecare to the poor myself. The poor can be taken care of with resorting to a nationalization of healthcare.


Yes , in a civilized society everyone is entitleed to health care.

PS I find your use of leeches and gulag interesting for what they say about your attitude

Probably, but from what I have heard, Indians in the US prefer to go to India for elective surgery. Not only is it cheaper (and they get a visit to India plus relatives to help with recovery) but they feel more assured of getting a good treatment.

"You've heard of". Well, so have I. I am well aware of Americans going overseas for "general internal" surgery-- it's simple: how hard is it to remove an appendix, get a nose job, or get a kidney transplant? These are simple and commonplace surgeries. Hell, I considered going to Costa Rica for my hernia surgery and my insurance would actually COVER the medical cost! $2500 for a one week stay! My surgery cost over twenty grand here and I didn't get a fun Costa Rican vacation.

What's more, is the hospital there was started by American doctors, funded by American medical research companies (C.R. has very lax regulations) and has some of the most advanced equipment available PLUS a beach front view! Damn... I shoulda' gone!

I'm well aware of the hemorrhaging of American know-how. There's a lot of shit in the USA that is making American doctors rethink their current jobs, but STILL, the USA is the place to be for cutting edge medicine and top-notch doctors.

~String

"you've heard of". Well, so have I. I am well aware of Americans going overseas for "general internal" surgery-- it's simple: how hard is it to remove an appendix, get a nose job, or get a kidney transplant. These are simple and commonplace surgeries. Hell, I considered going to Costa Rica for my hernia surgery and my insurance would actually COVER the medical cost! $2500 for a one week stay! My surgery cost over twenty grand here and I didn't get a fun Costa Rican vacation.

What's more, is the hospital there was started by American doctors, funded by American medical institutes and has some of the most advanced equipment available PLUS a beach front view!

I'm well aware of the hemorrhaging of American know-how. There's a lot of shit in the USA that is making American doctors rethink their current jobs, but STILL, the USA is the place to be for cutting edge medicine and top-notch doctors.

~String

If you say so: pretty pointless if the average person prefers to go abroad though.

An estimated half million Americans are boarding planes to take their "medical vacations." It's an appealing idea: combine elective surgery with travel to an exotic location. And India is frequently the destination, performing an estimated $700 million in "medical tourism" each year.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4190/is_20070629/ai_n19340205

Killing a baby is different from giving free healthcare to losers. :(
Yes. I'm rethinking my position on all of this. I'm anticipating a time when sandy may become terribly ill and I certainly wouldn't want any of my tax dollars going toward helping such a loser as her. Retroactive abortion also comes to mind.

American hectare, in general, sucks (that's the mean average). However, my friend, the USA does have the best doctors. In our current day in age money buys the best, and the USA pays doctors more than any other nation on Earth. Moreover, doctors are also attracted to other perks like scientific equipment, which is in ridiculous abundance in the USA. College connections and peer contacts round out the overall fact that the worlds top universities and hospitals are all in the USA.

Tell me why the royal family of Saudi Arabia and Jordan (remember: King Hussein went to the Mayo Clinic for his cancer treatment, do you think a man with access to billions of dollars would have gone to "second best"?), the crown princess of Sweden (she came for Anorexia treatment) and the Sultan of Brunei all have come to the USA for treatment?

~String

The French have the best doctors.

The French have the best doctors.

Quick, Norse... if you say it enough, it'll come true.

Tell me Norse: which country over the past fifty years has contributed the most towards medical technology (perhaps a good guide might be the number of Nobel Prizes for Medicine (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/) or Nobel Prizes by Nation (http://www.answers.com/topic/nobel-laureates-by-country)... funny, no Syrians... hmmm)? The French? Care to substantiate that claim.

Oh... nevermind. I forgot, you're still in elementary school mode: if you squeal something enough it seems true.

~String

BTW, Norse: more Brits have won than French. Lots of Germans, Brits and Americans (but mostly Americans). But, sure, Norse, the French. Hmmm... a little biased towards your former colonial masters?

What is medical technology without a diagnostician?

Not really, I can be objective. ;)

Let me give you an example.

I had fatigue. I went to an Indian doctor, regular chap with a clinic next door. He asked questions, did a blood test. 5 minutes. Diagnosis anemia. Gave me a prescription. Problem solved.

I was having severe fatigue and dizzyness. Went to an American doctor. First nurse came, checked pulse, medical history, BP; asked questions. 10 minutes. Went to doctor. More questions, dietary history, looked in ears, listened to heart beat, checked throat. More questions. Filled out forms. Diagnosis: Stress. Recommended exercise; an anti-depressant. 30 minutes.

No effect. Went back again after two weeks. Still not recovered. Repeated entire above procedure with stronger anti-depressant. 25-30 minutes

Went back again after two weeks. Very weak. Unable to work. Did blood test. Mononucleosis. Recommended fluids and bed rest. Stopped all medications. I hour waiting time for blood test :rolleyes:Doctors in the US are encumbered by fear of lawsuits, and insurance companies.

Insurance companies require we ask specific questions at each patient visit or we don't get paid (medicare, the government plan, is the worst, part of the reason for my aversion to a government takeover of healthcare). They also require reams of paperwork for each patient encounter. It's a major pain in the ass, and a huge waste of paper and time. It greatly slows down the process.

Fear of lawsuits requires that, rather than just trying to figure out the most likely problem, we rule out all the worst possible problems. So we must check for everything. Thus almost every doctor visit includes needless tests that the doctor is doing to prevent that one in 10,000 problem that might cost him millions of dollars.

This should not prevent your doctor from getting to the actual problem, but it does increase the cost of medical care in the US and decrease efficiency.

It does! :yay:



Uh, yes it is. A very big business.



Killing a baby is different from giving free healthcare to losers. :(

no it is not it is still government interference. and you have shown a complete lack of understanding about the costs of healthcare and how afforadable it is.

How many here live in a gated community?
Or in Mexico or about any Southern country where the winner/loser formula has always been the setup? Anywhere slums adjoin high-rises and big walls?

Taxes are supposed to be for a public good, including the taxpayer's.

medicare and medicaid are about to go