Still think we have the best Health care in the world?

[HM2VikingRN]

i heard this woman's story on npr http://thestory.org/archive 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 gynecologist on an urgent basis.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/15/132936/405

in april 2005, when i was still ignorant of endometriosis and living in the us, i was lucky enough to have health insurance (bad as it was) and decided to find a us doctor who could prescribe something for my nasal allergies. in singapore, my doctor had prescribed me "flixonase" (the foreign name for flonase) and i could buy it there for us$17 a bottle. without insurance. i would find out later that a bottle of flonase in the us would set me back us$70 a bottle with insurance.

.....

me: "how soon would you be able to operate on my cysts if i decided to have it done immediately?"

he: "anytime also can.* you want tonight, or if you want tomorrow, it can be done."

(* some singaporean style english for you. it just means "anytime.")

me: "what? really?"

he: "yah." at no point did he exhibit any expression on his face except concern, and he looked me in the eye.

me: "you'd be able to do it anytime i ask for?"

he: "ya, anytime. the sooner the better of course. just tell me, we can arrange it."

when i told my husband about the conversation, he was amazed, even with the other personal singapore healthcare experiences he's heard from me. among other things, my gynae's practice in singapore:

- is "private", as opposed to a government clinic in singapore, but still affordable. i can also get appointment with the doctor really quickly, within the same week whenever i call, if not the next day.

- never made me feel rushed. my first appointment with dr o lasted an hour. all my appointments with dr m in raleigh had never gone over 10 minutes.

- was the one who gave me a pelvic ultrasound on my first visit to him, and showed me my sonogram images, on screen during the ultrasound, and on paper after. this never happened with dr m.

comment: no waiting time for care or needed surgery.

cost for laprascopic ovarian cyst removal us: 16000

singapore: 2000-5000.

lupron us: 682 dollars

lupron singapore: 250 dollars

- quality of medical attention? as a female, and as someone who has had to get check-ups regularly for visa requirements, i haven't had the quality of healthcare in us that matches what i get in singapore yet.

if you explore the singapore ministry of health's website, read their mission statements. one thing i've always liked about their approach to health: when government is partly footing the bill, that government has a lot of incentive to keep its people healthy, and to educate the population on how to do so. singapore costs are kept affordable in two ways - the moh put it in their mission to keep healthcare affordable in singapore (and then they do it), and singapore has both public hospitals and private hospitals. both types offer competitive quality and price. competition can work - done right.

...

but the biggest tragedy i see here in the us is failure of education, philosophy and vision - many people still think, despite all worldwide numbers to the contrary, that american healthcare is the best the world can do. what perpetuates the failed system is the spoonfed bs is that no one can afford a system that tries to take care of everyone, not just the rich. and of course, the neocon myth that free market will make good healthcare system. as long as sheeple believe these falsities, bad legislation follows.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

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.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

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.....

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

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.

[NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN]

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.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

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.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

from healthleadersmedia.com:

new urgency in debating healthcare

large corporations will have a big say in how healthcare is shapped in the future, especially those associated with leap frog group.

i'm as equally opposed to neo-mercantilism as i am to socialism. both harm average americans. so, these companies want to create a competitive advantage for themselves at my expense. typical. in the interests of the consumer, let's stick it to the consumer.

i dislike companies that want to use gov't stormtroopers to allow them to be less competitive in the marketplace. that is how ceos can earn 10 million dollars a year: they have a buffer between the management and their consumers - and that buffer is gov't.

i also directly dislike gov't stormtroopers that promise me utopia, but only at the point of a gun. anybody that spends just a few seconds on the dichotomy of utopia, but only by gov't coercion, will see that something just doesn't add up. . . if it's so great, why does it have to be created by force?

~faith,

timothy.

[Simplepleasures]

Health Care Costs Hitting Middle Class

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070405/LIFESTYLE03/704050364/1040

"Premiums are absorbing a larger and larger portion of family budgets and the same is true for business. As a result, there are a lot of businesses that can't sustain health care coverage. More and more businesses are passing on costs to their workers."

Universal health care is not an attempt to turn this country toward socialism, our country can and will come up with a plan that most likely will combine single payer system with some sort of employer, private insurance plan.All this panic over "socialism" is in my opinion, an attempt by a ideological movement to hamper any positive change in our society, it looks like the followers of this ideology have bought this hook line and sinker, even if it cuts off their own nose to spite their face. SO FOOLISH.I am NOT trying to disparage ANY person here on this forum, but it must be said, that extremism in any form is not only foolish, but dangerous.

[Simplepleasures]

Why we must be aware of a movement to stop efforts at progress in our society, which includes positive reforms of health care, education, living wages, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc, etc.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=3147

"For over 25 years, People For the American Way Foundation has countered the Right Wing's efforts to roll back or stop social justice PROGRESS and reshape government and society to it's liking."

I am not saying that all of these organizations listed are extremists, BUT some are, it behooves us as Americans to be aware of what is afoot in this country of ours and how much potential harm it may bring to our society.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

All this panic over "socialism" is in my opinion, an attempt by a ideological movement to hamper any positive change in our society

Socialism will not be a positive change in our society. It has never been a positive change, for any society.

It is not compassionate. It denies the very opportunities to move up that its proponents so stridently advocate. It's very means completely undoes its ends.

While the ends rarely justify the means in any case, gov't restricted healthcare can't even reasonably bring about the ends. It amounts to selling both the means and the ends short.

~faith,

Timothy.

[pickledpepperRN]

Health Care Costs Hitting Middle Class

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070405/LIFESTYLE03/704050364/1040

...Universal health care is not an attempt to turn this country toward socialism...[/QUOTE]

Is someone being disingenuous by ignoring this?

Tired after a night shift?

Listening to alarmists on the radio?

Where does the fear come from?

I think we need to find a balance. I believe the people of America can create an American healthcare system.

[Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN]

Health Care Costs Hitting Middle Class

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070405/LIFESTYLE03/704050364/1040

...Universal health care is not an attempt to turn this country toward socialism...[/QUOTE]

Is someone being disingenuous by ignoring this?

Tired after a night shift?

Listening to alarmists on the radio?

Where does the fear come from?

I think we need to find a balance. I believe the people of America can create an American healthcare system.

Spacenurse - that is just someone's opinion - that universal health care is not socialism.

That doesn't make it true. That doesn't make me disingenuous if I don't believe it. I'm not tired. I'm not an alarmist - I'm a realist - I look at history and see the effects of "socialism". I'm not afraid - I'm mad.

steph

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

Gov't restricted healthcare is a plan by which the advocates say that by gov't taking over the administration of healthcare, costs savings can be had.

The effect of gov't administration is gov't central planning.

Central planning IS socialism.

And it never works.

You can call that extreme rhetoric if you wish. As for ME, I call instituting a gov't restricted health plan in order to accomodate a small minority of society AT THE EXPENSE of all society to be the extreme view.

It is the call for an amputation to treat a broken finger. In NO way am I suggesting that a broken finger should be left untreated. I am just opposed to amputation as a viable treatment.

~faith,

Timothy.