Which country has the best Health Care System?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not really. They don't really cost more than CD players anymore.

True but not really the point... I used it as an example of why consumer goods are generally a bad way to measure economic status

[minionofmidas]

Not really. They don't really cost more than CD players anymore.

True but not really the point... I used it as an example of why consumer goods are generally a bad way to measure economic status

Well prices of consumer goods don't compare at all well across economic borders, that's true.

In India, freshly pressed fruit juice costs less than packaged one - this is because labor is dirt cheap, petroleum cost almost as much as in Europe (and a lot more than in the US) and there's Western companies with patents on packaging techniques.

[Bono]

It is not.  It is a bunch of people voting to steal money from certain individuals and give it to other individuals.  That is criminal.  This is why I'm opposed to income tax and sales tax.

And then every other law on the books is practically criminal, too, by that definition - it doesn't just stop at money.

Look, Richius, I'm not going to argue with you about this any more; you're too stuborn and you would degenerate into name-calling and ridiculous arguments; I'm not in the mood for that.  I'm just more charitable-minded, I guess, and I happen to think that majority rules.  Congress and the rest of us should be willing to create a system to help the less fortunate. 

So 50% plus one could just vote to kill the other 49,9999999999999%?

[Richard]

It is not.  It is a bunch of people voting to steal money from certain individuals and give it to other individuals.  That is criminal.  This is why I'm opposed to income tax and sales tax.

And then every other law on the books is practically criminal, too, by that definition - it doesn't just stop at money.

Look, Richius, I'm not going to argue with you about this any more; you're too stuborn and you would degenerate into name-calling and ridiculous arguments; I'm not in the mood for that.  I'm just more charitable-minded, I guess, and I happen to think that majority rules.  Congress and the rest of us should be willing to create a system to help the less fortunate. 

So 50% plus one could just vote to kill the other 49,9999999999999%?

That is his basic principle.  The majority is voting away the rights of the minority.  This is what Hitler did, and what is currently happening with social security and national health care in Canada.

[David S]

There is a chat room at  http://ehealthforum.com/health/topic8529.html where people discussed their bills for an appendectomy.  This poor guy got stuck for $24,000. This is his post:


“I am in denver/littleton colorado and I just got the bills today.

The hospital (centura health) provided me with a "unitemized" bill for a emergency laproscopic appendectamy (arrived at 8:00 am and had surgery at 4:30 pm (doctor wasn't available until then) and was recovered and able to leave the next day at 11:00 am, so about 27 hours.

Anyway here goes
hospital bill (centura health): $21,987.28
pathology bill (blood testing): $96.00
radiology bill (catscan, I think): $376.00
anesthesiologist: 58 minutes - $920.00/ emergency condition $184.00 = $1104.00
surgone (sic): initial care - $141.00 / laproscopic appendectomy - $1101.00, minus -$44.00 approved write off/-$344.00 total: $854.00

My total bill is $24,417.28 for a routine appendectomy and very short hospital stay. With no itemized bill from hospital. “

The big zinger is the hospital bill which comes to $21,987 and is not itemized. Let’s put some realistic prices on it and see what it comes to. The surgeon and anesthesiologist each charged about $1100 per hour. That seems steep but we’ll use their numbers as well as the other itemized services and apply reasonable estimates for the rest.


Item   cost      Total
Surgeon         $1,101.00
Anesthesiologist         $1,104.00
pathology bill (blood testing):          $96.00
radiology bill (catscan "I think):          $376.00
OP room *   $500 /hr x 1 hr      $500.00
Op Room nurses*   2 nurses x $50/hr  x 1 hrs      $100.00
Recovery Room*   $200 per day at Holiday Inn x 2 days      $400.00
Private nurse*   $50/hr x 27 hrs      $1,350.00
Food 3 meals *   $30. per meal      $90.00
Grand Total*         $5,117.00

* indicates my estimate.
The total is less than ¼ of his bill.  My point is that in a competitive free market the hospital could not charge such ridiculous prices. Many changes would need to be made to make that happen, but among other things Hospitals should be required to have a “menu” showing approximate costs for various procedures. People could compare hospital A to hospital B and decide which one they would use if they needed an emergency procedure or other medical hospital procedure. This particular patient apparently does not have insurance so he is raving mad. But if he had insurance he would  just say “oh well, the insurance covers it” and then forget it. But the outrageous cost still gets passed on to the public via higher insurance costs.

[David S]

BTW Scorpiogirl, this turned out to be a good topic with lots of lively discussion. Got any more for us?

[J-Mann]

So 50% plus one could just vote to kill the other 49,9999999999999%?

That is his basic principle.  The majority is voting away the rights of the minority.  This is what Hitler did, and what is currently happening with social security and national health care in Canada.

OK, guys, help me out here; I'm a little confused as to why this is labeled "my basic principle".  We're talking about democracy - close votes happen!  Fifty-one percent of the voting population decided who would be president for 100% of us.  The Senate and the House often have close votes.  Forget money, taxes, etc. for a minute, and "my basic principle" applies to every vote we make and nearly every vote cast by the Senate and House.  My county voted for a half-cent sales tax increase in November; just because the ones who voted no on it do not like the increase doesn't mean they don't have to pay it - it came to a vote and they lost.

So why is this confusing?  It seems to me that it is the basic democratic principle, not "my principle".  We vote on things, the majority wins, the minority loses and hopes to change things the next time around.  And no one is proposing killing 49.9% of the population - that's an extreme and quite ludicrous comparison, and the comparisons to Hitler don't really belong in a conversation like this either.

[Gabu]

The majority is voting away the rights of the minority.  This is what Hitler did

Sorry, but you just lost the argument.  Try again next time.

[Bono]

So 50% plus one could just vote to kill the other 49,9999999999999%?

That is his basic principle.  The majority is voting away the rights of the minority.  This is what Hitler did, and what is currently happening with social security and national health care in Canada.

OK, guys, help me out here; I'm a little confused as to why this is labeled "my basic principle".  We're talking about democracy - close votes happen!  Fifty-one percent of the voting population decided who would be president for 100% of us.  The Senate and the House often have close votes.  Forget money, taxes, etc. for a minute, and "my basic principle" applies to every vote we make and nearly every vote cast by the Senate and House.  My county voted for a half-cent sales tax increase in November; just because the ones who voted no on it do not like the increase doesn't mean they don't have to pay it - it came to a vote and they lost.

So why is this confusing?  It seems to me that it is the basic democratic principle, not "my principle".  We vote on things, the majority wins, the minority loses and hopes to change things the next time around.  And no one is proposing killing 49.9% of the population - that's an extreme and quite ludicrous comparison, and the comparisons to Hitler don't really belong in a conversation like this either.

That's the point. Democracy is decivilizationg. property isn't safe when any idiot can vote it away from its owner. Imagine a world government based on one man one vote. what would most likely happend would be that we'd get a colaition of Indians and chinese, who would consider the western World was too propsperous, and would decide to take away resources from it to redistribute elsewhere. From the moment the people understand that they can vote for whoever is going to give them more treasury money, the will allways vote for the candidate who will, and that is why a democracy allways collapses due to a oose fiscal policy, followed by a dictatorship. Our rights aren't safe within a democracy. The founding fathers hled democracy in very little comtepm. What they envisioned was a republic governed by a sort of aristocracy, and even that wasn't ideal.

[J-Mann]

That's the point. Democracy is decivilizationg. property isn't safe when any idiot can vote it away from its owner. Imagine a world government based on one man one vote. what would most likely happend would be that we'd get a colaition of Indians and chinese, who would consider the western World was too propsperous, and would decide to take away resources from it to redistribute elsewhere. From the moment the people understand that they can vote for whoever is going to give them more treasury money, the will allways vote for the candidate who will, and that is why a democracy allways collapses due to a oose fiscal policy, followed by a dictatorship. Our rights aren't safe within a democracy. The founding fathers hled democracy in very little comtepm. What they envisioned was a republic governed by a sort of aristocracy, and even that wasn't ideal.

So, you're not a fan of the American system, then?

Yes, a one-man, one-vote principle in a theoretical one-world government probably wouldn't be great for the West, but that's a made up example that isn't going to happen.  No one is voting away our property to China, no one is killing anyone else; all I recommended was a slight tax increase to fund basic public health services for the poor in the US (and why this bothers either of you perplexes me a little - neither of you lives in the US). 

Wild confiscations of private property and/or monetary assets is not going to happen; we're not a straight democracy - the democratic republican system ensures (hopefully) that those who are dedicated to making such decisions will be careful and thoughtful about making them.  I happen to like this form of democracy - it's fair.  By being a citizen of the US, we agree to be "at the mercy of the vote" and subject to the laws and rules that come out of such votes.

[Platypus]

well, i know trhat here and in canada, and in the US, the system of liberal democracy exists./ basically, that means free speech, minority rights and the ability to vote anyone in or out. I;m happy with the system, at least at it's core; some of the periphery isn't perfect but overall it's better then anything else.

Churchill said it best: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It might be Japan.
Life expectancy of 81.3 years.
http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=18

[John Dibble]

It might be Japan.
Life expectancy of 81.3 years.
http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=18

I've argued this before, but life expectancy doesn't necessarily have much to do with health care(it's a factor, but there are much bigger factors). This single biggest factor is quality of life - do you get enough food, exercise, sleep, and not too much stress, things like that. The best way to live long is to not get sick in the first place, and the above help with that greatly. The Japanese are a very healthy people - their diet consists of lots of rice and seafood(fish is good for the brain, has lots of omega-3 fatty acids), they get decent amounts of exercise(for one thing, you are more likely to own a bike, it's too crowded to always use a car in the city), and various other things they do. Americans on the other hand are more likely to be obese, have higher levels of stress(longer work hours), and many other factors. Genetics can also play a factor in lifespan. Getting sick will generally knock off some of your potential lifespan, even if you get good treament, so living in a way that ensures you do not get sick often is the best way to increase lifespan.

[Bono]

That's the point. Democracy is decivilizationg. property isn't safe when any idiot can vote it away from its owner. Imagine a world government based on one man one vote. what would most likely happend would be that we'd get a colaition of Indians and chinese, who would consider the western World was too propsperous, and would decide to take away resources from it to redistribute elsewhere. From the moment the people understand that they can vote for whoever is going to give them more treasury money, the will allways vote for the candidate who will, and that is why a democracy allways collapses due to a oose fiscal policy, followed by a dictatorship. Our rights aren't safe within a democracy. The founding fathers hled democracy in very little comtepm. What they envisioned was a republic governed by a sort of aristocracy, and even that wasn't ideal.

So, you're not a fan of the American system, then?

Yes, a one-man, one-vote principle in a theoretical one-world government probably wouldn't be great for the West, but that's a made up example that isn't going to happen.  No one is voting away our property to China, no one is killing anyone else; all I recommended was a slight tax increase to fund basic public health services for the poor in the US (and why this bothers either of you perplexes me a little - neither of you lives in the US). 

Wild confiscations of private property and/or monetary assets is not going to happen; we're not a straight democracy - the democratic republican system ensures (hopefully) that those who are dedicated to making such decisions will be careful and thoughtful about making them.  I happen to like this form of democracy - it's fair.  By being a citizen of the US, we agree to be "at the mercy of the vote" and subject to the laws and rules that come out of such votes.

I'm not a fan of democracy. peroid. America is actually one of the least democratic countries, and one that manages to mantain individual rights as well. (which is a good thing).
I'm not sure if it's not that likely to hapen, but that's the logical conclusion of your train of thiught anyways. Democracy can be tolerable, as long as it respects property rights, ie, a means of trading office holders. But what you mean is absoulte democracy, one in which eveything is subdued to the will of teh majority. Even Rosseau, one of teh first advocates of democracy, knew it could only be practical in small jurisdictions, where everybody knew each otehr and knew that those better of were so because they so deserved, and the temptation to strip them away of their property would't exist.
But you defend that the majority be ale to take away people's property to give themselves ammenities, be it health care, education, etc, all paid for by sticking the guns of the government  to those better off.

[Huckleberry Finn]

The US has the most advanced medical care in the world.

Senator StatesRights, you used to have fairly liberal views on healthcare a few months ago.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=1430.0

I didn't mean offensively. It's a great thread.

Both US and European systems are in the end of the road. I think the best healthcare system would be a mix between market and welfare model. Let's use the healthcare vouchers!  My solution is a model where 1) healthcare is guaranteed for all by the government 2) private healthcare companies product most services 3) Consumers choose what service they use (works only in cities, though) 4) Government borders costs by competition and controls quality of the services.

I don't know how radical that sounds, but it's a very (right-wing) radical view in Finland. 

[??????????]

The US has the most advanced medical care in the world.

Senator StatesRights, you used to have fairly liberal views on healthcare a few months ago.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=1430.0

I didn't mean offensively. It's a great thread.

Both US and European systems are in the end of the road. I think the best healthcare system would be a mix between market and welfare model. Let's use the healthcare vouchers!  My solution is a model where 1) healthcare is guaranteed for all by the government 2) private healthcare companies product most services 3) Consumers choose what service they use (works only in cities, though) 4) Government borders costs by competition and controls quality of the services.

I don't know how radical that sounds, but it's a very (right-wing) radical view in Finland. 

What I meant to say was our technology is leaps and bounds above any other nation in the world.

[WMS]

And damnit...I'm posting this again.  I hate it when my posts are at the bottom of a page; no one sees them, then    Sorry to everyone who has seen it already.

I think the US has some good health care options, provided you have  a good job with a decent employer who offers you adequate benefits.  That said, work does need to be done to offer affordable insurance and medical care to those who currently can't afford it.  And yes, conservatives, there are those who can't afford it - telling them to "quit being lazy and get a job" doesn't help.  Take me, for instance:

Right now, I'm on my father's health insurance plan (go ahead, tell me I'm a drain on society for using someone elses money!), but if my parents weren't here, this is what my situation would be.

  --  I am a full-time college student because I want to get an education and have a chance for better employment.  My tuition is covered by a scholarship, so thankfully, that is out of the way.  There isn't any left over for books, which can easily run $600 per academic year.  I've got lots of bills on top of that: rent, water, electricity, phone, car (and unlike in cities, you really can't do much without a car in Kansas - so yes, I have to have it).  I have to buy groceries, and with my parents out of the picture, I'd have to pay for my car insurance (around $700 a year).

In order to make ends meet (as is), I have three jobs.  The state-owned research dairy that I work at pays me KS minimum wage: $6.00 an hour.  I write and do artwork for the school newspaper, which is a little under $20.00 for each submission.  I'm a substitute teacher on top of that, which pays $60 per day, but is hardly consistent and guaranteed work.

So there it is.  I can't afford health insurance.  Without my parents helping out, I'd be screwed.  That's when it would be nice for a basic public health system to be available - if I needed my appendix removed, I would be horrified to have to pay a $15,000 bill for them to slice me up and bed me down for two days.  This is how people get stuck in a rut; they quit school to work more and never are able to climb the class ladder and escape from poverty/lower-middle class status.  --

No, it isn't society's job to support those who can't support themselves - if you want to be insincere, cold, calculating, and strictly capitalist about it, it probably doesn't bother you to see a poor elderly person die alone.  It was their fault, right?  They should have worked.  They were a drain on society.

Other democracies, like the UK, have collectively voted to be more generous with their taxes, and I think that's fine.  They don't mind giving a certain part of their paychecks up to make certain that everyone receives basic medical care.  The US hasn't made that decision because we're still full of a lot of people who say, "that isn't my job."

They're right - it isn't their job.  I would hope, though, that at some point we could agree that some basic public health services might be necessary in the US, funded by a flat tax, perhaps.  Some call the public health system socialism.  That's fine - call me a socialist, too, if you want; I'm not big into labels, though, so it won't hurt my feelings any.  While some call it socialism, I call it charity - a society enlightened enough to give up a fraction of their earnings to make sure that everyone is given basic care.  It doesn't have to mean the demise of private practices; if you could afford the better care, then by all means, use it.  It would mean lending everyone a hand, and somewhere that logic has been lost on a lot of people in the US.

Well said! We can do better than what we have now. I think I said as much in that thread Huckleberry Finn just linked to...

[Huckleberry Finn]

The US has the most advanced medical care in the world.

Senator StatesRights, you used to have fairly liberal views on healthcare a few months ago.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=1430.0

I didn't mean offensively. It's a great thread.

Both US and European systems are in the end of the road. I think the best healthcare system would be a mix between market and welfare model. Let's use the healthcare vouchers!  My solution is a model where 1) healthcare is guaranteed for all by the government 2) private healthcare companies product most services 3) Consumers choose what service they use (works only in cities, though) 4) Government borders costs by competition and controls quality of the services.

I don't know how radical that sounds, but it's a very (right-wing) radical view in Finland. 

What I meant to say was our technology is leaps and bounds above any other nation in the world.

Oh, I have to agree with that generally, but probably not leaps...Most other Western countries and Japan have very advanced medicine too.

[Platypus]

the system you outlines Huck is very very similar to the Australian version.

[Huckleberry Finn]

the system you outlines Huck is very very similar to the Australian version.

I didn't know that. I have heard that Austria has fairly similar. In Finland we have a rather large private healthcare sector, but municipal health clinics and hospitals have main role. You can get care faster in the private sector, but government pays only about 10-20 percent of the bill. Meanwhile you can wait longer in the public system where there is only symbolic fee. Very unfair in my mind.

It's clear that a private company model is a more effective solution at least in cities, but it's useless to hope any change as long as the current centre-left government is in power.

[Richard]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/10271940?source=Evening%20Standard

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lovely.

[opebo]

The US has the most advanced medical care in the world.

Senator StatesRights, you used to have fairly liberal views on healthcare a few months ago.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=1430.0

I didn't mean offensively. It's a great thread.

Both US and European systems are in the end of the road. I think the best healthcare system would be a mix between market and welfare model. Let's use the healthcare vouchers!  My solution is a model where 1) healthcare is guaranteed for all by the government 2) private healthcare companies product most services 3) Consumers choose what service they use (works only in cities, though) 4) Government borders costs by competition and controls quality of the services.

I don't know how radical that sounds, but it's a very (right-wing) radical view in Finland. 

What I meant to say was our technology is leaps and bounds above any other nation in the world.

Not really.  Plenty of impressive drug companies in Europe, particularly Britain and Switzerland.  Anyway technology doesn't really have an address - for example with the primitive attitude towards stem-cell research prevalant in the USA, advanced research will move to Europe.  In general Luddism is not helpful to a nation's medical technology.

[David S]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/10271940?source=Evening%20Standard

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lovely.

This quote comes from the link Richius provided above.

" But hospitals say the £1 million (MRI) machines often lie idle due to lack of staff. "

This is a characteristic of socialist systems. Surpluses in one area and shortages in another, which render the system non-functional. Government planners can never match the efficiencies of a competitive free market system.

[Platypus]

I'd prefer a system with at least some social equity to none though. If you can have a fair healthcare system that works properly, do it. Australia's system isn't perfect, but it is better then America's and it works AND Australia has posted budget surpluses for something like 12 of the last 15 years.

[muon2]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/10271940?source=Evening%20Standard

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lovely.

This quote comes from the link Richius provided above.

" But hospitals say the £1 million (MRI) machines often lie idle due to lack of staff. "

This is a characteristic of socialist systems. Surpluses in one area and shortages in another, which render the system non-functional. Government planners can never match the efficiencies of a competitive free market system.

There is a free market concern with machines like the MRI as well. The machines are just affordable enough for most hospitals to acquire, so most do to be competitive. In order to recover their investment they need to be used a lot, but in many urban markets there are too many for the number of tests actually needed by the population. In many cases they become over used so that the hospitals get the needed return on their investamnet. This then raises the cost of health care to businesses supporting their employees and their families and to taxpayers supporting Medicare and Medicaid.