Broken Record

[RJM2096]

I apologize for sounding like or broken record or a one issue contributor, but last night Frontline on PBS did a hour show on medical care in five democracies. Watching this may shape your opinion. Here is a link that allows you to view the program.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_2_frontlinebrsickaroundtheworld_2008-04-16

What amazes me is that we are such a powerful hard-working country, we spend over 16% of GDP on health care (which is more than double what other advanced countries spend), yet deny 25% of our population healthcare, have the highest infant mortality rates of these countries, and are generally unhappy with the system.

 

[jimfastcar]

Health care

At the risk of starting a tempest, and while we enjoy "free" healthcare in Canada, there are many structural issues that will need to be addressed by both our countries over the next couple of generations - Not just Healthcare, but add to the list:

Social inequity
Pollution
Competitiveness of the workforce
Resource usage
The cost to your economy to be the world's policeman

I could go on and on, but a lot of systemic issues that will some day need to be resolved in the face of the rise of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China)

 

[BeemerMike]

yet deny 25% of our population healthcare

This will probably quickly get political and be banned, but I would just note that we do not DENY HEALTHCARE to 25% of our population. The most recent figures I've seen are claims that 42 million people (or 14% of the total population) do not have HEALTH INSURANCE. I'm not saying there is no issue to address, but that is a big difference in how to frame the issue for discussion.

 

[belquar]

It is all a big racket...

My father-in-law's prescription for kytril (anti-emetic) used for chemo patients was 2k for 7 pills. Tell me there isn't something way wrong with that.

 

[Threeteas]

From a Brit's perspective, now living here, it does seem that the system is open to blatant profiteering. The abstraction of the real costs, via the intermediary insurance schemes, seems to enable this to thrive.

Our concerns are that even with medical insurance it's delusionary to believe that your medical expenses will be covered. Insurance is no insurance against fiscal dilemnas arising from illness.

Our feeling is, we'd have to move back to the UK, should either of us fall seriously ill, and use the National Health Service, which although much maligned, is still as good as the medical care available here.

 

[BeemerMike]

use the National Health Service, which although much maligned, is still as good as the medical care available here.

Really?! I wonder what the stats are on people throughout the world who travel to the UK for healthcare vs. those who travel to the U.S. for healthcare. Does anyone know?

 

[mika]

Really?! I wonder what the stats are on people throughout the world who travel to the UK for healthcare vs. those that travel to the U.S. for healthcare. Does anyone know?

I think your missing his point. In terms of patient outcomes the systems are comprable. They would move back in his example because they could access it in a way he is suggesting he could not in the US.

No matter how you slice it or rationalize the system is very expensive, profit driven, rationed either through expense or time, and focused on crisis management not patient health.

 

[The_Veg]

I saw that show and it was very enlightening. I found it very interesting at the end when the host illustrated the ways in which our system was similar to some of the other ones presented, and the things we could learn from them to fix ours. All of the systems presented had some great ideas that if carefully applied could really help us.
I also found it interesting that most of the countries they showed are much more mature societies than USA. Hmmmmm...

As an aside, I have a good friend who gets all of her news exclusively from Fox and she is convinced that Britons are getting sicker and dying left and right because of the NHS making them wait for care.

 

[BeemerMike]

I think your missing his point. In terms of patient outcomes the systems are comprable. They would move back in his example because they could access it in a way he is suggesting he could not in the US.

No matter how you slice it or rationalize the system is very expensive, profit driven, rationed either through expense or time, and focused on crisis management not patient health.

Possibly, but if I'm missing his point, maybe it is because he did define what he means by "good". Does he mean access (including the ability to pay for it) or does he mean the quality of care once you get access? The distinction is important. A high quality system that I cannot afford probably does me no more "good" than a low quality system that I have easy and free access to . . . but the solutions to the two situations are very different.

I was assuming by "good" he meant the quality of the healthcare. I figured one indicator of that kind of "good" would be which system do people choose when they have essentially equal access to both.

 

[mika]

My response was based on the pharse "medical care" being equally as good. Thus my focus on patient outcomes as the measure of acceptability, the rest of the post seems to imply the option would have to be exercised because expenses would be prohibative.

 

[darcym]

US Health care is profit driven by the insurance companies - and yes, they earn more money for denying care, so even if you have health insurance it doesn't mean you're going to get the care. At the risk of being labeled a left wing socialist, see Michael Moore's "Sicko". Sensationalist yes, but with nuggets of real world experiences that demand a long hard look at the way we handle health care here in the USA.

My ex worked as a mental health care facilitator for a major health care insurance company. His job was to talk to crazy people and decide if they needed care or if they had additional benefits ... over the phone ... he was supposed to make a decision on this ... he was not a psychiatrist.

 

[RIDERR1150GSADV]

"Free" health care is a myth. Just watch all forms of taxes go up when this gets implemented here. Look at Europe. Want to pay $ 8 for gas?? We will too, when this 'utopia' gets pushed through. Do you really want to wait 3 years for an operation, or will you go to another country to get medical attention like some Canadian minister did a few months back...
My cousin in New Zealand had to wait for an operation and now is on meds for life, because it took too long to get the treatment he needed.. Wonderfull isn't it all that 'free' stuff the government provides??? It is free for a fee folks, dream on

 

[BeemerMike]

My response was based on the pharse "medical care" being equally as good. Thus my focus on patient outcomes as the measure of acceptability, the rest of the post seems to imply the option would have to be exercised because expenses would be prohibative.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but what he said was the [U.K.] National Health Service was as good as the "medical care available here" [in the U.S.]. I read "available" as meaning the quality of the actual medical care (i.e., doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc.) that is available in the U.S. if you can pay for it compared the medical care provided by the NHS. Maybe he can clarify what he meant . . . i.e., the actual medical care itself or the combination of the actual medical care itself and the ability of the population to use it by being able to pay for it (via insurance, government-supplied, personal funds, or a combination) . . . so we don't talk across each other. We need to be clear if we are talking about the actual medical care by itself or if we are talking about the overall health care system (including how people access it and pay for it).

 

[BreadMan]

Let's stay un-political....

Thanks,
BM

 

[Bill Burke]

Let's stay un-political....

Thanks,
BM

You can't with a topic like this. It's a philosophical dilemma. Is healthcare a right or a privilege? If we live in a society that concludes it's wrong to have untreated sick humans stumbling around, healthcare is a right. If we live in a society that believes in "the survival of the fittest" healthcare is a privilege. As the woman on the way to her breast augmentation appointment drove her Cadillac Escalade past the tubercular bag lady, she remembered that her dinner engagement at the Ritz would conflict with her appointment at the psychiatrist's office. That's politics.

 

[BUBBAZANETTI]

As an aside, I have a good friend who gets all of her news exclusively from Fox and she is convinced that Britons are getting sicker and dying left and right because of the NHS making them wait for care.

believe it or not, i was able to have a doctor come to my apartment to take a look at me a few weeks after living in scotland (apparently, i was not resistant to whatever strain of flu northern irish girls carry ) within a few hours. got a prescription and paid a few bucks. as someone who currently does not have health insurance, that level of protection is comforting, even if its not always as efficient as our "pay" system. what really depresses me is the idea that i could get in an accident with my bike, break an arm and be out thousands and thousands of dollars which will nag me for years. you can't go on living in a bubble just because insurance costs are so high (i do get on the new job's insurance next month, thank god).

 

[kreinke]

What amazes me is that we are such a powerful hard-working country, we spend over 16% of GDP on health care (which is more than double what other advanced countries spend), yet deny 25% of our population healthcare, have the highest infant mortality rates of these countries, and are generally unhappy with the system.

I was instructed to edit the sentence that previously occupied this space out because a moderator was offended because I quoted a politician about sometning he said last week but can't be repeated because he didn't mean what he said. I on the other hand, meant what I said and stand by my original post but am deleting it so I don't get banned from this [most of the time] fine forum.


There's nothing denying these weiners health care. They can go get a job (pronounced yob) that provides health care.

I don't have a problem providing nationalized healthcare but if the government controls it there won't be any cost controls (who polices the government....no one).


OK I'll bite on the whole nationalized health care thing providing recipients have to pass a drug screen like I, and most people, had to pass to get a decent job and health insurance. That will eliminate some of the useless miscreants.

Smokers need not apply unless they want a larger co-pay.

 

[BeemerMike]

Let's stay un-political....

Hard to do with this subject . . . but we can at least be civil. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[RJM2096]

I am interested in this topic for several reasons:

My Aunt was laid off from her job at about age 45. While she was unemployed she found she had cancer. She had to wait until she finally found work to have the tumer removed and take chemotherapy. By that time it had clearly mastasized and she died a 2-years later a horrible dealth.

OK what I normally hear is why did not she buy COBRA. The premiums for COBRA were more than she being unemployed could afford (COBRA is way more than regular policy premiums???). Maybe she should have got the surgery and treatments and then made payments to the doctors. I can't answer that without being in her shoes.

I also have a friend that cannot retire until he is 65 (medicare) and prays he does not get laid off. He has had prostrate cancer and cannot obtain any health insurance now beyond what is provided beyond his job.

I have another friend that is self employed and 52. He buys single insurance at about $350.00 a month with a $5000.00 deductible. He just messed up his back and had to pay the $5000.00 while the insurance company paid out about $800.00. I understand a policy to cover him with $250.00 deductible is about a $800.00 per month.

So you know how I am personnally affected, I am semi-retired (57) and have a goverment pension and complete health care coverage at little cost. That is what I think everyone should have the opportunity to enjoy. I might add that any change in medical care laws might reduce my benefits or increase costs.

I think everyone should ask themselves, "Do I want to retire at age 60 (or younger) or am I going to have to work full time to keep my insurance (if I can find/keep that kind of job) until I can get Medicare at age 65 1/2.

 

[mika]

I'm one of these gun totin' small town people who supposedly cling to religion that B. Hussein Obama railed about last week.


There's nothing denying these weiners health care. They can go get a job (pronounced yob) that provides health care.

I don't have a problem providing nationalized healthcare but if the government controls it there won't be any cost controls (who polices the government....no one).


OK I'll bite on the whole nationalized health care thing providing recipients have to pass a drug screen like I, and most people, had to pass to get a decent job and health insurance. That will eliminate some of the useless miscreants.

Smokers need not apply unless they want a larger co-pay.

I can fit your description also and come to some different conclusions.

Are you implying that people are lying around and doing nothing and that is why they donÔÇÖt have health care coverage? What about people who have lost their jobs and their healthcare to foreign competition for example. They may not be able to readily find another job with health care in their current market and are unable to relocate for a variety or reasons even if they are willing.

As a sometimes small business owner, why is it a companyÔÇÖs responsibility to provide health care?

My view is shaded by reading the preamble to the constitution and what it says about why we formed ourselves into a nation and society. We can legitimately debate how health care is delivered (publicly funded, private pay in some form or a hybrid) and the goals of health care (preventative v remedial), but right now I do not believe the public or private sector are meeting the needs of the nation.