Still think we have the best Health care in the world? - page 5

i heard this woman's story on npr the other night. read the diaries and make your own decision about whether our system needs reform. this patient had an 8 day wait to get in to see a us... Read More

  1. by   pickledpepperRN
    I wish we had a healt system in the United states.
    We have a sick care non system.

    I will work for all Americans to have excellent healthcare when we need it. And work so we need it less because we have access to education and preventative care.

    Of course it is OK to disagree.
  2. by   Fuzzy
    The access to affordable and available preventive care would be a good start but alas it's not so unless of course a person has health insurance. Even than health insurance isn't necessarily a guarantee of good health care AFAIK.
    I do know that people would think differently about this matter if health insurance wasn't such a job perk.

    Fuzzy
  3. by   Shamira Aizza
    It was a long thread to read, so I might have missed something, but Singapore uses a Western-style system that places the majority of the responsibilty for health on the individual, and the system is largely privatized...maybe even more so than the US system. BTW, Singaporeans are taxed at a much lower rate than we are, and are REQUIRED to save personal funds for future medical expenses.

    Singapore is also heavily subsidized by the US (economically, militarily), freeing up funds for other programs...and their population is about the same as the Atlanta Metro area.

    I don't see how folks are using Singapore as any kind of support for a socialized health failure system.

    "The key to Singapore's efficient health care system is the emphasis on the individual to assume responsibility towards their own health and, importantly, their own health expenditure." (my bold).

    http://www.watsonwyatt.com/europe/pu...2.asp?ID=13850
  4. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Universal healthcare's dirty little secrets
    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...nion-rightrail

    "Simply saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that "access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare."

    "You may think it is self-evident that the uninsured may forgo preventive care or receive a lower quality of care. And yet, in reviewing all the academic literature on the subject, Helen Levy of the University of Michigan's Economic Research Initiative on the Uninsured, and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago, were unable to establish a "causal relationship" between health insurance and better health. Believe it or not, there is "no evidence," Levy and Meltzer wrote, that expanding insurance coverage is a cost-effective way to promote health. Similarly, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year found that, although far too many Americans were not receiving the appropriate standard of care, "health insurance status was largely unrelated to the quality of care."


    (Emphasis mine)

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  5. by   HM2VikingRN
    The correlational data linking enhanced life expectancy and decreased infant mortality for OECD countries vs US results are a compelling argument.
  6. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from HM2Viking
    The correlational data linking enhanced life expectancy and decreased infant mortality for OECD countries vs US results are a compelling argument.
    It would be, if you were comparing apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.

    The key: the data is the voluntary submission from the participating gov'ts.

    In other words, Cuba's health care successes are reported EXACTLY as Castro submits them. Of course, he wouldn't have any cause to misrepresent the status of his paradise . . .

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  7. by   Tweety
    Interesting Timothy. I'm too tired to read it and find out who they are talking about, but it does contradict some other studies I read when I researched this topic last year. Guess as in all research it depends on who is asking who what questions.

    I think part of the reason is the uninsured do get care in the ER thanks to those laws. If someone has a trauma or a heart attack our society takes care of them. We already are paying the cost.
  8. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Tweety
    Interesting Timothy. I'm too tired to read it and find out who they are talking about, but it does contradict some other studies I read when I researched this topic last year. Guess as in all research it depends on who is asking who what questions.

    I think part of the reason is the uninsured do get care in the ER thanks to those laws. We already are paying the cost.
    As the LA Times article I linked points out, yes, we ARE paying the costs. Currently, the average costs hospitals write off for uninsured is about 3%. A huge amount of money, to be sure. However, it is a problem to be managed and it is NOT 'breaking the system'. Nor, do advocates of government restricted healthcare suggest such, because, in order to do so, you'd have to translate the cost of this 'free rider' problem to the gov't. And of course, the gov't, if we'd just cede over our rights to it, can create utopia on Earth.

    Everybody puts in an equal amount and everybody gets back an equal amount. Except. Neither would be the case.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  9. by   HM2VikingRN
    except that the oecd countries are countries such as france, norway, the uk etc.....

    http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/23/34970246.pdf

    resources in the health sector (human, physical)

    despite the relatively high level of health expenditure in the

    united states, there are fewer physicians per capita than in most other oecd countries. in 2002, the united states had 2.3 practising physicians per 1000 population, below the oecd average of 2.9. there were 7.9 nurses per 1 000 population in the united states in 2002, which is slightly lower than the average of 8.2 across oecd countries.
    ...
    most oecd countries have enjoyed large gains in life expectancy over the past 40 years. in the united states, life expectancy at birth increased by 7.3 years between 1960 and 2002, which is less than the increase of 14 years in life expectancy in japan, or of 8.4 years in canada. in 2002/3, life expectancy in the united states stood at 77.2 years, below the oecd average of 77.8 years. japan, iceland, spain, switzerland and australia were among the top 5 countries registering the highest life expectancy among oecd countries.

    infant mortality rates in the united states have fallen greatly over the past few decades, but not as much as in most other oecd countries. it stood at 7 deaths per 1 000 live births in 2002, above the oecd average of 6.1.1 among oecd countries, infant mortality is the lowest in japan and in the nordic countries (iceland, sweden, finland and norway), all below 3.5 deaths per 1 000 live births.

    Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Apr 6, '07
  10. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    As the LA Times article I linked points out, yes, we ARE paying the costs. Currently, the average costs hospitals write off for uninsured is about 3%. A huge amount of money, to be sure. However, it is a problem to be managed and it is NOT 'breaking the system'. Nor, do advocates of government restricted healthcare suggest such, because, in order to do so, you'd have to translate the cost of this 'free rider' problem to the gov't. And of course, the gov't, if we'd just cede over our rights to it, can create utopia on Earth.

    Everybody puts in an equal amount and everybody gets back an equal amount. Except. Neither would be the case.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Way too much money is being spent on Administration costs by the "efficient" private sector health insurance companies.....
  11. by   Tweety
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    As the LA Times article I linked points out, yes, we ARE paying the costs. Currently, the average costs hospitals write off for uninsured is about 3%. A huge amount of money, to be sure. However, it is a problem to be managed and it is NOT 'breaking the system'. Nor, do advocates of government restricted healthcare suggest such, because, in order to do so, you'd have to translate the cost of this 'free rider' problem to the gov't. And of course, the gov't, if we'd just cede over our rights to it, can create utopia on Earth.

    Everybody puts in an equal amount and everybody gets back an equal amount. Except. Neither would be the case.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    There are plenty of hospitals, where it's greater than 3%. Plus there are public hospitals, city run and county run that provide indigent care greater than 3%. So the insurance premiums and the taxes you pay are providing care, that yes isn't breaking the bank I agree.

    We practically have a social welfare health care system anyway, why not take it to the next level.

    I know too our health care system does work well enough for the average person not to walk around saying "gee this crises needs to be addressed". They have other concerns, because in traumatic events they are getting the health care they need. Workers are able to afford the high premiums, a percentage of which goes to the indigents. I have my premiums dedeucted from my paycheck without much though to the "crisis".

    Neither system is perfect. For every story in Finland, Germany, or Canada of nightmarish care, there's a story here as well.
  12. by   NRSKarenRN
    from healthleadersmedia.com:

    new urgency in debating healthcare
    since hillary rodham clinton's effort to overhaul the nation's medical system was rejected in 1994, most big employers have stayed out of the debate on healthcare reform. but with medical costs ballooning, top executives of large companies are starting to speak up again--and many are calling for a national approach to fixing healthcare.
    new york times, apr. 6, 2007



    large corporations will have a big say in how healthcare is shapped in the future, especially those associated with leap frog group.
  13. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Tweety
    There are plenty of hospitals, where it's greater than 3%. Plus there are public hospitals, city run and county run that provide indigent care greater than 3%. So the insurance premiums and the taxes you pay are providing care, that yes isn't breaking the bank I agree.

    We practically have a social welfare health care system anyway, why not take it to the next level.

    I know too our health care system does work well enough for the average person not to walk around saying "gee this crises needs to be addressed". They have other concerns, because in traumatic events they are getting the health care they need. Workers are able to afford the high premiums, a percentage of which goes to the indigents. I have my premiums dedeucted from my paycheck without much though to the "crisis".

    Neither system is perfect. For every story in Finland, Germany, or Canada of nightmarish care, there's a story here as well.
    There are two issues here, Tweety.

    1. Creating a social health system safety net.

    2. Creating a gov't restricted healthcare system in order to use it as a proxy to promote socialism.

    The first is interested in ensuring access to most or all citizens.

    The second is interested in using healthcare as a means to ensure equality of outcome.

    The first doesn't require any effectual change in the way 85% of Citizens get coverage: instead, in is interested in helping the 15% in the gap.

    The second wants to change healthcare for everybody, bringing it to an equal, if dismal, level.

    I'm not against, per se, creating a safety net. I'm AGAINST the concept that I have to be bled dry, in terms of taxation AND access to my own care, to bring that about.

    See, the first is about helping people.

    The second, that's about political ideology.

    Design a system that helps the 15% without impacting the care of the 85%, and you'll have no problems getting it passed. Americans are generous, but not to a fault.

    The problem: "Progressives" will NOT give up on socialism for healthcare, even if it means being able to pass a program that would ensure access by all. The ISSUE is socialism. Healthcare is just the proxy.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.

close