[ingelein]

Originally Posted by ShaunES

Your point is what, that people are waiting for elective surgery? So? It's sub-optimal, but the alternative (your system) is non-workable.

I cannot understand why people defend the United States health system, it is illogical to on one hand be a patient advocate, and then on the other hand embrace your health care system.

Shaun, this illogical attitude stems from a misguided ultra conservative ideology,touted by radio talk show personalities such as Rush Limbaugh, Shaun Hannity,and others just as ridiculous. My opinion and most moderate and liberal Americans opinion, is that this is something that has brought our country to the shambles it is in now after almost 8 years of conservative rule by the Bush administration, and his conservative pundits. Hopefully things will change for the better in the November presidential elections.

[cuddlesrose]

Is there not something that is a balance of the 2 systems. Private sector and universal health care?* I can see both sides of the issue, also. But if this means that baby boomers do not have to work until they are to old to enjoy life then this might be the only answer?

[ShaunES]

Originally Posted by cuddlesrose

Is there not something that is a balance of the 2 systems. Private sector and universal health care?* I can see both sides of the issue, also. But if this means that baby boomers do not have to work until they are to old to enjoy life then this might be the only answer?

There are lots of different types of UHC.

These are the three main types:

In a fully public system, there is no or little private healthcare, and the health insurance industry is not a significant one. Medical service providers are government employees, and the education of doctors is also subsidised. The most well known example of a fully public system is the original English NHS, although a private sector is now developing in the U.K. as well.

In an optional public, the government provides the same services, but a private health services industry also exists (generally regulated), and . Sometimes health insurers exist, used by people who prefer private services. This is the most common, and examples include Australia and Sweden.

In a subsidised private system, the government pays for health care, but it is provided by private entities. Either the government acts as a health insurer for the populace, or it pays the fees for private health insurers to do so. This is done in Canada.

So yes, an optional public system is what you're looking at, and the system I am in, and I'm extremely happy with it.

[calidudlebug]

In some universal healthcare countries, Dr's get paid for so many procedures and when their quota is done they don't work the rest of the year. Thus the back log of so called elective procedures. Universal Health is good for preventive medicine, but lousy on developing new technologies and medications due to the lack of funds. There was also an article a local doctor was speaking about on the radio Sunday, which polled English doctors, I dont remember the exact amount but the gist was that many physicians were in favor of dropping the elderly, overweight, and smokers from the healthcare system as they were costing to much. The other alternative was to charge them more for their goverment sponcered care, of which they pay almost 60% of their taxes for. (I will look for a reference for Dr. Dean Addel's comments and post it)

[ShaunES]

Originally Posted by calidudlebug

In some universal healthcare countries, Dr's get paid for so many procedures and when their quota is done they don't work the rest of the year.

Please cite some sources for this, or retract it.

Originally Posted by calidudlebug

Thus the back log of so called elective procedures. Universal Health is good for preventive medicine, but lousy on developing new technologies and medications due to the lack of funds.

In 2000, U.S. research spending was $46 billion, but European spending was also $43 billion. And although U.S. research spending doubled in the last decade, the funding's efficacy has actually decreased.

Secondarily, if the option for private healthcare still exists - and there is no reason why it should not - there will still be people choosing to pay more for a higher quality of care, faster service, et cetera. Their profits will still be reinvested in the development of new drugs, equipment and understanding of the human body, as they still are in nations with UHC today. Even in the United States, private spending accounts for only 57% of research spending.

Originally Posted by calidudlebug

There was also an article a local doctor was speaking about on the radio Sunday, which polled English doctors, I dont remember the exact amount but the gist was that many physicians were in favor of dropping the elderly, overweight, and smokers from the healthcare system as they were costing to much. The other alternative was to charge them more for their goverment sponcered care, of which they pay almost 60% of their taxes for.

The highest tax bracket in the United Kingdom is 40%, and if you look at my earlier figures, is actually cheaper than your system.

Originally Posted by calidudlebug

(I will look for a reference for Dr. Dean Addel's comments and post it)

You're undoubtedly referencing this.

Now, use your critical thinking skills and let's think why someone who is obese, has PVD and type 2 diabetes is a poor surgical candidate.

The rest of that article is just peoples opinions, it has no basis on policies of the health system, and is universally decried.

[scottlgarrett]

All Australians can claim a rebate of at least 30 per cent of any premium paid to a registered fund for private health insurance.

Australians can claim a rebate of at least 30 per cent of any premium paid to a registered private health insurer.

Rebates cut the cost of being insured and are not means-tested. The Australian Government introduced rebates1 to help ease the burden on Medicare and the public health system.

Rebates are claimed either as a premium reduction from the health insurer, from a Medicare office or from the Australian Taxation Office2.. Of these, 94.4 per cent of rebates are claimed as reduced premium payments, 5.5 per cent of rebates are claimed through income tax assessments and 0.1 per cent of rebates are claimed through Medicare Australia offices.
Rebates totalling $3.18 billion were paid to Australians in 2005-06.

Key private health insurance initiatives by the Australian Government have included:

Higher rebates for older Australians. From 1 April 2005 the Private Health Insurance Rebate was increased to 35 per cent for people aged 65 to 69, and to 40 per cent for people aged 70 years and over. This helped more than one million mature-aged Australians with their private health insurance, increasing the rebates to individuals and families by about $150 to $300 per year.
Lifetime Health Cover3 was introduced by the Australian Government on 1 July 2000 to encourage people to take out hospital insurance earlier in life and to maintain their cover. People who take out hospital cover later in life are charged higher premiums than people who take out cover earlier. This encourages more people to join private health insurance at a younger age and to maintain their membership. The requirement to pay a loading is removed after 10 years continuous hospital insurance.
Prostheses and medical devices listing and benefit setting is determined by the Minister for Health and Ageing, based on advice from the Prostheses and Devices Committee. The government strives to ensure that, for every Medicare procedure, there is at least one no-gap item available to consumers, and usually there are many no-gap items for patients and their doctors to choose from. In June 2007, 91.7 per cent of the nearly 9,500 prostheses on the prostheses list were included as a no-gap item.


Private health insurance incentives: the benefits
The rebate has made private heath insurance more affordable and led to more Australians taking it up. A long-term downward trend had seen private health insurance coverage fall to 30.2 per cent at December 1998. After the rebate and Lifetime Health Cover were introduced, coverage increased to more than 40 per cent. The increase has been sustained since September 2000.

As a result, pressure is being taken off the public health system because more private health insurance means more people are opting for treatment in the private sector.

Key outcomes include:
Private hospital cover was held by more than 9 million Australians (43.6 per cent of the population) at March 2007. This was 3.3 million more people than in March 1999. This included an additional 1.8 million families, 780,000 single people and 607,000 couples.
In 2005-06, insurers paid $8.36 billion in total benefits and $6.13 billion for hospital benefits.
Ancillary benefits cover was held by over 8.9 million people (43.1 per cent of Australians) at March 2007. The largest proportion of benefits paid were for dental (51.5 per cent of all benefits), followed by optical (16.2 per cent), physiotherapy (7.7 per cent) and chiropractic services (7.2 per cent). In 2005-06, insurers paid $2.23 billion for ancillary benefits.
82.7 per cent of in-hospital medical services were provided to patients with no out-of-pocket expense in the March 2007 quarter.
A Lifetime Health Cover loading was incurred in March 2007 by 465,000 people (5.1 per cent of people with hospital cover).
Private hospital admissions increased by 4.1 per cent between 2001-02 and 2005-06, compared with a 2.9 per cent increase in public hospital admissions over the same period4.
When did it start?
The Private Health Insurance Rebate took effect on 1 January 1999.
Lifetime Health Cover loadings started on 1 July 2000,

Where do I find out more information?
For more information on this, please see http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wc...tent/private-1 , http://www.privatehealth.gov.au or phone 6289 9853/24 hour answering machine
1 Source - http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wc...ers-rebate.htm
2 Source - http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/co...tent/14882.htm
3 Source - http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wc...-whatislhc.htm
4 Source: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australian Hospital Statistics 2005-06Australian Institute of Health and Welfare



There are more people living in California than live in Australia, thus no way to make a fair comparison.

[ShaunES]

Instead of posting an article, try to make an argument and back it up with citations from the article, that way I know what exactly you're trying to say. As it is all I get is an article saying that a lot of Australians have some level of private health insurance, and then you go on to say that because of population differences they are incomparable, which not only isn't true, but isn't really relevant at all.

[scottlgarrett]

Originally Posted by ShaunES

Instead of posting an article, try to make an argument and back it up with citations from the article, that way I know what exactly you're trying to say. As it is all I get is an article saying that a lot of Australians have some level of private health insurance, and then you go on to say that because of population differences they are incomparable, which not only isn't true, but isn't really relevant at all.

Unfortunately I am unable to get much more information at the moment, due the the government change in Australia. Most all of the relevent information has been archived for review and difficult access. The news articles however are very accessable, but lack great detail.
As far as the truthfulness of the population, check the U.S. Census for California, and the Australian Census for all of their territories and you will see the difference. As far as relevence, comparing countries with vastly different populations, and cultures simply does not make sense.

[ingelein]

Originally Posted by scottlgarrett

Unfortunately I am unable to get much more information at the moment, due the the government change in Australia. Most all of the relevent information has been archived for review and difficult access. The news articles however are very accessable, but lack great detail.
As far as the truthfulness of the population, check the U.S. Census for California, and the Australian Census for all of their territories and you will see the difference. As far as relevence, comparing countries with vastly different populations, and cultures simply does not make sense.

Vastly different cultures? What is so different ?

[scottlgarrett]

Australia, and Canada not too different, but differences. England, France, Germany, Very differnet.



Thank you very much for being a Navy Mom.