A short rejoinder to Gordon's nonsens about healthcare - Page 2
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 142
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    3,822
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3339
    Likes (Received)
    3115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PDW View Post
    Bullshit. List the single payer systems be country and explain - with references, not something you pulled out of your arse - why they aren't successful.

    The USA system ranks No 1 on cost per capita and around No 32 on outcomes. It's such a marvelous system that every other First World country in the world looks on in amazement.

    Whether you can fix/improve it is, fortunately, your problem, but don't delude yourself about its efficacy on a cost basis.

    PDW

    PDW
    That supposed "fact", No 32 on outcomes, doesn't jibe with what I have seen and experienced personally. Recently a relative in his mid 90s died. He had been a very sick man for years and had numerous crises that required hospitalization. After each situation was dealt with he returned home and resumed his life, cheerfully dealing with the issues and glad to be alive and visited by relatives and friends. His situation was far from unique, and most people I know of advanced years required various interventions in their last decades but still managed to lead sustaining lives in between.

    I have also known people with VERY sick babies that survived into adulthood thanks to our "No 32" system. We as a society do not throw people away just because they are sick or disabled. I suspect that is not quite always the case in other modern countries.

    In summary, I suspect that "No 32" claim to be based on biased interpretation of data that makes health outcomes in the USA appear far worse than they really are. Our system is expensive, doesn't treat all the same with regard to paying costs, and is fragmented into several different systems but for OVERALL quality of care I would rank it against any in the world.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Near Seattle
    Posts
    4,253
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2201
    Likes (Received)
    997

    Default

    Since ScottL brought it up (very soundly):

    1. There's a now well known data point that past a certain (rather low level) of spending on healthcare, spending more doesn't actually affect life expectency. Turns out that not only does the return not scale for the US, it doesn't scale for various other places. But it does put money in a whole lot of pockets.

    2. Anyone paying attention can observe life saving or quality of life preserving procedures, often not cheap, but with obvious return. (Like, appendectomy rather than dying from appendicitus, or total knee replacement rather than being literally unable to walk - both happened to me.) Or, the very high cost of the neonatal ICU that allowed my preemie twin grandchildren to survive and thrive.

    The obvious paradox here has not been resolved. But there are other fun bits with statistics.
    (First, go look at this) [The Datasaurus Dozen] Same Stats, Different Graphs: Generating Datasets with Varied Appearance and Identical Statistics through Simulated Annealing | Autodesk Research

    Now, what does "32nd" mean? This is some ranking based on a particular life expectency data set I presume. The one I found shows the difference between the UK (with the vaunted NHS) and the US as 81.2 to 79.3. 1.9 years. Seems important. Except that for asians in the US it's more like 86 (I don't have asians in the UK data) but is longer than the life expectency in Japan.... For africans in the US it's 76ish. The shorter life expectency for africans in the US is hyper troubling. But it is better than anyplace I could find in africa.

    But wait, there's more. Life expectency is very heavily influenced by certain life events, like whether you die of an opoid overdose. Last year more americans died of opoid overdoses than died by gunshot or died in car crashes.

    By the way, last I checked, if you removed all firearms and related incidents from the US, our murder rate (via other means) would still be higher than the UK (though they count it differently.)

    Also, there are vast swaths of the US where the murder rate is effectively zero. (I presume this is true of Canada, Australia, as well) While it seems that EVERY region of the US is afflicted by some level of opoid fatalities.... (Has that hit Canada yet?)

    So, it appears Americans as a whole are more prone to opoid overdose deaths and to deaths by violent conflict. Do those things really inform health insurance policy? Saying that an NHS style (or German style) system would produce better life expectency is akin to saying that a national health care magically cures gang violence and opoid addiction.

  3. Likes Scottl, sfriedberg, John Welden liked this post
  4. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Australia (Hobart)
    Posts
    3,022
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    421
    Likes (Received)
    1933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steve-l View Post
    All the single payer systems everywhere suffer the issues stated in my last post.
    So, you actually don't have any checkable hard data. IOW you have a fixed belief without supporting facts, also known as pulling an assertion out of your arse.

    Which is what I thought so you're not worth wasting further time on.

    PDW

  5. Likes metlmunchr liked this post
  6. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bryan_machine View Post
    Now, what does "32nd" mean? This is some ranking based on a particular life expectency data set I presume. The one I found shows the difference between the UK (with the vaunted NHS) and the US as 81.2 to 79.3. 1.9 years. Seems important. Except that for asians in the US it's more like 86 (I don't have asians in the UK data) but is longer than the life expectency in Japan.... For africans in the US it's 76ish. The shorter life expectency for africans in the US is hyper troubling. But it is better than anyplace I could find in africa.
    Life expectancy is just one of many factors used to compile these rankings.

    But wait, there's more. Life expectency is very heavily influenced by certain life events, like whether you die of an opoid overdose. Last year more americans died of opoid overdoses than died by gunshot or died in car crashes.
    None of those crack the top 10 for cause of death in the U.S.

    By the way, last I checked, if you removed all firearms and related incidents from the US, our murder rate (via other means) would still be higher than the UK (though they count it differently.)

    Also, there are vast swaths of the US where the murder rate is effectively zero. (I presume this is true of Canada, Australia, as well) While it seems that EVERY region of the US is afflicted by some level of opoid fatalities.... (Has that hit Canada yet?)
    These factoids seem irrelevant to your argument.

    So, it appears Americans as a whole are more prone to opoid overdose deaths and to deaths by violent conflict. Do those things really inform health insurance policy? Saying that an NHS style (or German style) system would produce better life expectency is akin to saying that a national health care magically cures gang violence and opoid addiction.
    Again, deaths by opiate overdose and deaths by violent conflict don't even crack the top 10 list in cause of death in the U.S. Eliminating them by any means will not change life expectancy in the U.S. by a significant amount. On the other hand, reducing heart disease or cancer would have a significant effect on U.S. life expectancy.

  7. Likes Bobw liked this post
  8. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Australia (Hobart)
    Posts
    3,022
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    421
    Likes (Received)
    1933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bryan_machine View Post
    Since ScottL brought it up (very soundly):

    1. There's a now well known data point that past a certain (rather low level) of spending on healthcare, spending more doesn't actually affect life expectency. Turns out that not only does the return not scale for the US, it doesn't scale for various other places. But it does put money in a whole lot of pockets.

    2. Anyone paying attention can observe life saving or quality of life preserving procedures, often not cheap, but with obvious return. (Like, appendectomy rather than dying from appendicitus, or total knee replacement rather than being literally unable to walk - both happened to me.) Or, the very high cost of the neonatal ICU that allowed my preemie twin grandchildren to survive and thrive.

    The obvious paradox here has not been resolved. But there are other fun bits with statistics.
    (First, go look at this) [The Datasaurus Dozen] Same Stats, Different Graphs: Generating Datasets with Varied Appearance and Identical Statistics through Simulated Annealing | Autodesk Research

    Now, what does "32nd" mean? This is some ranking based on a particular life expectency data set I presume. The one I found shows the difference between the UK (with the vaunted NHS) and the US as 81.2 to 79.3. 1.9 years. Seems important. Except that for asians in the US it's more like 86 (I don't have asians in the UK data) but is longer than the life expectency in Japan.... For africans in the US it's 76ish. The shorter life expectency for africans in the US is hyper troubling. But it is better than anyplace I could find in africa.

    But wait, there's more. Life expectency is very heavily influenced by certain life events, like whether you die of an opoid overdose. Last year more americans died of opoid overdoses than died by gunshot or died in car crashes.

    By the way, last I checked, if you removed all firearms and related incidents from the US, our murder rate (via other means) would still be higher than the UK (though they count it differently.)

    Also, there are vast swaths of the US where the murder rate is effectively zero. (I presume this is true of Canada, Australia, as well) While it seems that EVERY region of the US is afflicted by some level of opoid fatalities.... (Has that hit Canada yet?)

    So, it appears Americans as a whole are more prone to opoid overdose deaths and to deaths by violent conflict. Do those things really inform health insurance policy? Saying that an NHS style (or German style) system would produce better life expectency is akin to saying that a national health care magically cures gang violence and opoid addiction.
    That's all good and fine. Now explain your ranking on this list.

    List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia

    Your country already pays 2X the most expensive next First World country per capita and you still can't get your infant mortality down. Ours is a touch over half of yours and ours is bumped up by 3rd World conditions in a lot of the remote parts of Australia.

    Are you really going to claim that this figure is because the parents of those kids dying early and pushing up your mortality rate are drug addicts?

    I think your other explanation was the correct one. You're selfish crazy assholes (who don't provide basic care to kids). The phrase that comes to mind is 'Fuck you Jack, I've got mine'.

    Do us a favour & stop cherry-picking the statistics. If you've a massive opoid problem, that *is* a health problem that's not being addressed. If you want to present a set of statistics broken down by region or race base, have at it. The fact remains that your world rankings per capita suck, and world ranking per capita weighted by *cost per capita* are a joke. Come on - you must be embarrassed by this.

    WRT your anecdote about a grandchild, we routinely save 26 week old premature babies here. Yes it's expensive but it's all covered by the single payer universal health cover. I know quite a bit about this and neonatal screening as my wife is a department head in one of our biggest children's hospitals and I wrote the neonatal screening software over 25 years ago.

    The USA has some of the top doctors, research institutes and hospitals on the planet. What you don't have is a decent system to provide average health care to the population overall. I frankly don't care a lot as it's not my problem, but I do like throwing rocks from the cheap seats at the apologists.

    Bored now. I'm going sailing.

    PDW

  9. Likes Bobw liked this post
  10. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Near Seattle
    Posts
    4,253
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2201
    Likes (Received)
    997

    Default

    First, all parties on all sides are cherry picking statistics.

    Second, I'm not particularly an apologist - I wouldn't set the system up the way it is. I merely point out some of the structural reasons it will be very hard to change. And a sampling of reasons to be incredibly skeptical of any claim that an *american* government can actually do it better.

    Keep the wet side down.

  11. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Mebane North Carolina USA
    Posts
    6,130
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    51
    Likes (Received)
    1612

    Default

    THing is, if we dont overhaul the healthcare system soon its going to crash. No way we can keep having the compounding price increases we are having. We will have to work a full time job to pay healthcare and another to live on. Though I do rather look forward to a collapse of the system and we go back to cash for service if we have it. I would love to pay the doctor with a live chicken.

    Why the U.S. pays more for health care than the rest of the world - YouTube

    Its from PBS so some will just figure its leftist dogma. But hey, watch it. Maybe you will learn something, if not it will give you something to call a lie and fabrication.

  12. Likes Bobw liked this post
  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,235
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    309
    Likes (Received)
    3895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bryan_machine View Post
    . . . US government has DEMONSTRATED OVER DECADES that it is utterly incapable of doing at least some of the things advocates for single payer health care wish for.

    If you bought 4 tools from a supplier and 3 of the 4 broke or caused a lot of problems, would you look to them for the next batch?
    The flip side of this argument is the US private system costs nearly 2x per capita most every other first world country, doesn't improve our outcomes like infant mortality and longevity, and (until recently) routinely had insurance companies that stiffed or slow-payed anyone who got seriously, expensively ill. Also a system with an abyssmal quality control record (about one third of illnesses and deaths in a hospital are caused by the hospital itself).

    I've personally had way too much of an up close and personal view of both our private (UHC and Blue Cross) and our public (Medicare) systems. Both are capable of occasional brilliance and stupidity. Overall, I've found Medicare to have less bureaucracy and overheads, sensible limitations, and essentially the same actual health care (same doctors, hospitals, etc.).

    We clearly need to fix our health care system, if only because of our aging demographics, soaring costs for pharma, soaring costs of end of life care, and relatively new and costly maladies like diabesity and the opioid epidemic. Simply framing the "what to do next" debate in terms of public vs. private care is foolish. Indeed, most every effective system in the world (as well as our own less effective systems) works as a combination of the two.

    There was a time when people went into the medical field to do good, hospitals operated as non-profits, and people were put first. That's less true today and the fault is every bit as much with corporate pharma/insurance/medical conglomerates as it with Federal bureaucracy.

    Might also add that my son is a veteran and thinks he gets excellent care.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,235
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    309
    Likes (Received)
    3895

    Default

    Might also be worth addressing the we're-so-politically-screwed-we'll-never-fix-this argument.

    Could be. But I also think we would do better thinking about healthcare somewhat along these lines:

    1) Health "Infrastructure." In 1900, the average white male lived to be about 45. Until recently, longevity went steadily up to over 75. Most of that increase wasn't due to medical care, but such things as clean water, sewers, refrigerated (and safe) food, etc. We should, I think, still see the foundation of our health as such things as clean water (sorry, Flint), sewers (a problem in many small towns, with rivers contaminated), decent food, exercise, and somewhat sane personal decisions (alcohol, tobacco, drugs, obesity, Darwin-award winning escapades). Investment in this sort of stuff (along with a culture that celebrates couch potatoes a bit less) is our best ROI in terms of health. Some of our basic infrastructure and habits (fast food, for example) are a mess and need fixing. Given a choice of a healthy environment and a cesspool with some brilliant and highly compensated doctors, folks will simply live longer (on average) where the water is clean, the food nutritious and safely prepared, the culture one that celebrates some physical activity, and the sewage and industrial crap properly disposed of.

    2) Routine care. Next there is preventative care and dealing with common ailments. Here we know the best practices and should follow them. There's also no reason this stuff can't be very cheap (experience curve) and very effective. IMO things like vaccinations, catching illnesses and epidemics early, fixing broken bones, sun cancer screening, etc. should be publicly funded with the most efficient suppliers getting the job. Even the most self-interested among us ought to be able to figure out that having a homeless dude walk around with the plague isn't in their own best interest. Right now we layer insurance companies, hospital overheads, required MD degrees, and an error-prone system for stuff that could be donefar better and cheaper.

    3) Major interventions. Next, there is the expensive stuff (cancer, heart bypass surgery) etc. where we may not yet know the best practices. Here we need incentives for R&D and can also expect higher costs -- but not for everyone on a routine basis (though the older we get the more likely we are to need this kind of major care). This is precisely what major medical insurance should be for. Personally, I think kids should be covered. It ought to be cheap for young adults (say 21-55) and they ought to either get it or understand and perhaps suffer the consequences of bad luck if not. The costs will start escalating (on average) for those over 55 or so. It seems, here, that we have the biggest debate.

    What do we do with those old and poor, the homeless veteran, the hard-working middle class person who lost their job? From retirement on, I actually think our Medicare system is working pretty well for those who've spent a lifetime paying into it and who can afford the small continuing insurance costs ($400 or so monthly for the basic @ $100, pharma @ $50, and supplemental @ $250). Biggest issues are rising pharma costs (we ought to open up the market), dementia (maybe an R&D issue), and hospitals using dying folks on Medicare as a way to pad their profits (we need to stop the political posturing and have adult conversations). Most folks would rather spend their last days at home.

    I do think Democrats and Republicans might have better luck focusing on some of the real cost drivers, while agreeing to provide some basic level of "coverage" for all our citizens, especially type 1 and 2 care for the young. Not only is this relatively cheap, but also far more efficient. That leaves us with mostly older folks facing adversity and a system that is inherently the world's costliest.

    Those lucky enough to have good insurance through their employer are generally OK even with our 2x costs. But good jobs are disappearing for a variety of reasons and more and more folks find themselves thinking they can't afford insurance right up to the point they realize what they really can't afford is to get sick.

    Right now what we have is Medicaid for the poor, the VA for our veterans (too many sent in harm's way on fools' errands), and maybe state exchanges and a promise of continuing eligibility for coverage if you lose your job. Changing this is a bit like wing walking -- better have a sensible idea of what we're going to grab next before we give up on fixing these.

    Personally, if our nation is going to decide to screw the poor (with blue collar and the middle middle class the new poor), I hope we still give all our young some chance of making it to a productive job and life.

  15. Likes bryan_machine liked this post
  16. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Near Seattle
    Posts
    4,253
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2201
    Likes (Received)
    997

    Default

    mebfab - my cynical reply to that sound thinking has two parts.

    1. human behavoir is hard to change, and heavy handed attempts sometimes fail outright - the repeal of prohibition being the textbook example. on the other hand, we have had rather more success reducing smoking, but even the cdc concedes that even in places like utah there is some irreducible level. and of course with vital freedom of speech comes celebrity wingnuts going on about vaccines. so this class of thing is very good and important, but i despair of anything like the progress we may hope for. then again just a little bit of exercise, mild restraint in eating, and so forth turn out to have big wins. i personaly do not expect changes in health system structure to have much effect.

    2. there is a Whole Lot of Rent Seeking going on - some level is necessary - being a real dr. is very hard and costly, so there will have to be market protections for them. some return on drug research is required. but our system could well have gone too far. but read up on things like the political power of dentists....

    also, we have to accept two other things

    a. luck, genetics, and the uncaring nature of reality limit how good it can be or how cheaply we can achive it - regardless of the structure of the health care and payment systems.

    b. there are enourmous vested interests in the current system - part of the success of medicare is the influential population it serves - and so "wing walking" is really "wing walking while under anti-aircraft fire"

    it is not really about health, it is about money, politics, power.

    in the mean time get exercise and take your blood pressure meds.

  17. Likes Monarchist liked this post
  18. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    80
    Likes (Received)
    534

    Default

    "it is not really about health, it is about money, politics, power."

    A big amen to that.
    I'm 68, so I'm on SS and Medicare, but the supplemental still takes a bite every month. And my meds for diabetes and heart ain't that cheap.

    But what about my stepdaughter, with MS? Where is her insurance going to come from? What's she going to do if the Republicans get their way, and nobody wants to cover her? Do we just stand her in the corner, and wait for her to die?

    Everyone in Congress who votes this through should get the same coverage as the oldest, poorest, and sickest individuals in their district.

  19. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    4,048
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2468
    Likes (Received)
    1251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mebfab View Post
    ... I do rather look forward to a collapse of the system and we go back to cash for service if we have it. I would love to pay the doctor with a live chicken.
    One of my grandfathers was a general practitioner in Indiana during the Depression. On occasion, he got "paid" in stuff as useless as canaries, because that's all his patients had to give. Nobody on either side of transactions like that was very happy about it. You can bet his medical suppliers didn't accept either IOUs or canaries. (He saw immense changes during his career. He started his career before antibiotics were widely available, when amputation was an all-too-frequent response to infected wounds, and initially got around in a horse-drawn carriage. By the 1970's, when he finally retired for good, he had an office filled with diagnostic equipment and a vast pharmacopeia to draw on. He also thought it modest to buy a new car no more often than every two years, which even as a child I found quite spendthrift.)

    We have created a system that, indeed, lines many many pockets, quite a few of them far removed from the point where patients receive care. In the name of controlling this monster, we have added incredible layers of accounting and paperwork, to the point where you can get 2-year college degree in the specific coding of the 10,000's of individual care procedures acknowledged, not by doctors, but by the bureaucrats. And even small doctor's offices have dedicated employees to do that form-filling, code-detailing work. Despite all the "control" measures, the entire process of identifying and paying for health care remains incredibly obscure, and we have no better way to compare care providers and expected outcomes in 2017 than we had in 1960, namely work-of-mouth, rumor, and occasional cautionary tales in Readers' Digest! For all that we end up paying, there is appalling little transparency to the process.

    It's already been clearly discussed in this thread, but the employment-based health care benefit is a huge impediment to making any changes to the system. Its value varies wildly, almost ludicrously so. It's absolutely not transferrable, and is only extensible (via COBRA) for a limited time and at considerable expense. I have benefited from it greatly throughout my career, due to my "choice" of employers, but I'd be among the first to say that this sort of coverage has to be decoupled from specific employers. And for all the ranting about ACA/Obamacare, it's just piss in a rainstorm compared to employer-based coverage.

  20. Likes PeteM, Gordon B. Clarke, Monarchist liked this post
  21. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Near Seattle
    Posts
    4,253
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2201
    Likes (Received)
    997

    Default

    And for all the ranting about ACA/Obamacare, it's just piss in a rainstorm compared to employer-based coverage.
    Plus Ten.

    words to make the message long enough

  22. Likes Monarchist liked this post
  23. #34
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    17,236
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3366
    Likes (Received)
    5320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bryan_machine View Post
    The front page of today's Wall Street Journal has a rather well supported article which can be summed up as "The Indian Health Service is a tragic disgrace, and indeed embarrassment"

    If you grovel around the web for stories on the veteran's administration, there's no shortage of stories of their issues, and it's a recurring political crises.

    Various studies of medicaid suggest most recipients value it at far less than it costs.

    (Medicare does have very broad support from those it covers.)

    So of the 4 "single payer" health care systems in the US (one of them among the largest in the world, medicaid for example covers more people than the population of Canada or the UK), 2 of them "single provider" - one can say:

    1 of the 4 is tragic disgrace and embarrassment - and since it's a program meant to serve some of the poorest residents, who have at least some rights due to treaties dating back a very long time, why would anyone have any faith at all that a national program would serve the poor or disadvantaged?

    1 of the 4 serves veterans, a generally esteemed group in our society, and its still quite problematic.

    1 of the 4 in theory covers the poor, but with rather mixed effect - and alarmingly, at least one large study suggests it has no positive effect at all on health or mortality.

    So, basically batting 0.250 and we can start arguing about medicare too if you want - WHAT SANE PERSON GOES BACK TO SUCH AN AWFUL PROVIDER FOR A NEW SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM?

    US government has DEMONSTRATED OVER DECADES that it is utterly incapable of doing at least some of the things advocates for single payer health care wish for.

    If you bought 4 tools from a supplier and 3 of the 4 broke or caused a lot of problems, would you look to them for the next batch?
    I'm not trying to bring back life into a sick thread but healthcare is relevant for machinists as well as all others. I often receive emails from PM members wanting to know more about how things are done here. I reply as best I can.

    The common misconception by several (look for example at who gave "likes" to the OP) is that I'm suggesting the USA do the same as Denmark. That's just plain stupid. No two countries have the same healthcare and none are perfect.

    The vast majority here are happy with what we have but it seems not many are happy with what they have in the USA.

    If, as an American, you like what you have then great. If not look at what other countries do and maybe, just maybe, get some ideas.

    Here it is very simple. We regard healthcare as a right for ALL and, for those that work, pay during sick leave.

    The Best Health Care System in the World: Which One Would You Pick? - The New York Times

  24. Likes JoeE. liked this post
  25. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    196
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    46
    Likes (Received)
    103

    Default

    When I ran a burn/wound unit in Missouri, I had a guy with some bad chronic ulcers who knew damned well that his medicaid wasn't going to pay the hospital much of anything, but out of general gratitude, he used to bring me butchered feral hogs as a "thank you"

    I thought that was one of the nicest things anyone ever did for me.

  26. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    8,458
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4493
    Likes (Received)
    3792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jonok View Post
    When I ran a burn/wound unit in Missouri, I had a guy with some bad chronic ulcers who knew damned well that his medicaid wasn't going to pay the hospital much of anything, but out of general gratitude, he used to bring me butchered feral hogs as a "thank you"

    I thought that was one of the nicest things anyone ever did for me.
    Probably better eatin' than domesticated Danish ham, too, those feral hogs!

    General health suffers once they get a keyboard in front of 'em, go all lard-arsed political trollish, no longer get enough exercise nor mental challenges in their day.

  27. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Country
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    35
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    9
    Likes (Received)
    24

    Default

    Being an Australian who works in the healthcare system and who has worked and lived in many places I think our system is as good as it gets. There is universal healthcare for everyone and for acute illnesses or accidents the treatment will be much the same no matter who you are or how much money you have. And of course this will be entirely free. For non acute problems the free system is basic and may require some waiting but is definitely adequate. If you want faster treatment, in a private hospital that may or may not be better you can take out private insurance to cover this. The government encourages people who earn more than a certain level of income to purchase private health insurance by applying a tax penalty if you do not. Most Australians are happy with this system and in fact if any politician tried to change this they would not be in power very long.
    To do this without breaking the bank you need to control costs. So doctors, pathology, radiology and pharmacy fees are controlled. They still do ok but not the outrageous figures you see in the USA.
    To implement this type of system you need bipartisan political support as a lot of powerful vested interests will be unhappy. It is great for the general population but not so great for the corporate healthcare businesses.
    Can’t really see any of this happening in the current political environment in the US at the moment

  28. Likes hanermo liked this post
  29. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Country
    CHINA
    Posts
    1,706
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    746

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PDW View Post
    're selfish crazy assholes (who don't provide basic care to kids). The phrase that comes to mind is 'Fuck you Jack, I've got mine'.
    Nah, it's religion. The fire and brimstone Calvinism that was such a stong part of the colonies lives on. Everything in the US now is a religion, they've totally forgotten how to get anything done, now they'd all rather climb on a soapbox and declaim about how the other guy is an idiot. "Socialism / Communism / Health Care Without Insurance Company Ripoff is a good idea but it just doesn't work !"

    btw, bryan_machine, I have no idea where you get the claim thaat "the vast majority of people are happy with the way things are." That is flat-out nonsense.

    China has 1.2 billion people or so, we have medical care, it has reasonable costs and from what I see around me, decent outcome. So the "size of market" stuff is demonstrably crap.

    I mentioned before, a friend was in Holland, wife fell down, broke arm, had emergency surgery on elbow, cost $900. They are not Dutch.

    I took a friend to Stanford Med Center, brought current x-rays and MRI (also ~ $100 in China, latest equipment), orderly chippered "Okay let's got take an x-ray !" so I asked how much ? (She's not wealthy.) No one, I mean no one in the fucking place could answer that question. Their reply was "The insurance pays for it ! We don't know !" So we declined.

    They recommended a procedure so I asked the billing lady "about how much ? roughly ?" She had no idea. After a good half hour of pestering her, the best she could estimate was $40,000 to $100,000. For a one or two hour outpatient non-life-threatening procedure. Super.

    And they did not find the problem, either. So much for US Miracle Medicine.


    I'm not going to propose an answer but I do know that ridiculous prices for shit service doesn't cut the mustard, and y'all standing around pointing fingers and reciting religious dogma doesn't fix anything either.

    'scuse me, I'll go back to reading my Gibbon ....

  30. Likes Bobw, digger doug liked this post
  31. #39
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    17,236
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3366
    Likes (Received)
    5320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    Probably better eatin' than domesticated Danish ham, too, those feral hogs!
    You just can't resist LOL

    Danish Pig Meat Industry

    Danish pork exports continue to grow

    You can find links that says something else but, unlike Trump; I don't scream "Fake news". It all depends on who is reporting what and why.

  32. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Country
    CHINA
    Posts
    1,706
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    746

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    You just can't resist LOL

    Danish Pig Meat Industry
    I see you've never had wild boar. Even Danish domestic pig meat is not on the same planet ...


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •