Why's that?
not according to michael moore's last piece of infotainment. lol @ "sky bus drivers".
Socialized Medicine: Pro and Cons for residents of nations with such systems
- Thread starter jspun
- Start date
Why's that?
not according to michael moore's last piece of infotainment. lol @ "sky bus drivers".
being a dual citizen of both the US and Canada, i can tell u the system in Canada is great. I've lived on both sides of the border (living in Michigan now), and the health care system there is way better than what we got here in the US. It's an absolute disgrace (for a nation like the US) that people who are sick have to worry about paying medical bills that can be hundreds of thousands of dollars.
IAmJacksUserName
Bluelighter
Let me begin by saying that I support health care reform, and agree with many of the arguments toward socialized health care. That being said, there are many good reasons why Americans are reluctant to go down that route. It's not just a matter of right-winged propaganda.
For the record, I live abroad and have neither insurance or a local national health service to help me. Any treatment I get comes straight from my pocket. However, I grew up in an American middle class family with insurance. We weren't rich by any means, but my experiences with the private health care system were mostly positive. I showed up, I presented my insurance card, I was treated, and I received a (usually) small copayment bill the next month. My experiences weren't particularly atypical for insured families. I've never sought treatment from a British, Canadian, Australian, etc. public hospital, but hearing stories from my friends (one mother of a friend, a Fillipino nurse working in the U.K., says she will move back to the Philippines when she retires because she doesn't want to die under the care of the NHS), I can safely say that my health care growing up was just as good as theirs, if not better.
Consider this chart:
Despite the economic inequalities of the American system, it does appear that the private sector in America does provide a greater abundance of overall health care resources than Canada. The problem isn't that the private sector provides inferior medicine to foreign national heath services, but that the distribution of treatment is less fair.
Health care reform in the United States will primarily benefit those without insurance. For the majority of Americans who do have coverage, however, they do not stand to gain much. Sure, insurance companies screw over clients, but can anyone who lives in a country with universal health care honestly say they never get screwed over by the local NHS? Is it not true that people in those countries sometimes die as a result of inadequate treatment from the national health services? Some people will say that, as NHSs don't turn a profit and exist solely to provide medicine, they are naturally preferable, but as a patient, it's not going to help my condition any knowing the reasons why I'm being denied health care is out of incompetence as opposed to profiteering.
For all the problems with the American private health care system, it would be a mistake to follow the path of other industrialized countries. There must be a new system; one that expands coverage while retaining the quality of care currently provided by the private health sector. I have no idea what that would look like, but Europeans, Canadian, Australians, etc. should stop championing their systems as ideal models when they are in fact rife with problems that us in the U.S. (including those of us who want health reform) would be best to avoid. Forgive me for suggesting this, but I sometimes get the impression that non-Americans actually enjoy pointing figures at the problems of American health care. Distracts them from their own health care woes, perhaps?
For the record, I live abroad and have neither insurance or a local national health service to help me. Any treatment I get comes straight from my pocket. However, I grew up in an American middle class family with insurance. We weren't rich by any means, but my experiences with the private health care system were mostly positive. I showed up, I presented my insurance card, I was treated, and I received a (usually) small copayment bill the next month. My experiences weren't particularly atypical for insured families. I've never sought treatment from a British, Canadian, Australian, etc. public hospital, but hearing stories from my friends (one mother of a friend, a Fillipino nurse working in the U.K., says she will move back to the Philippines when she retires because she doesn't want to die under the care of the NHS), I can safely say that my health care growing up was just as good as theirs, if not better.
Consider this chart:
Despite the economic inequalities of the American system, it does appear that the private sector in America does provide a greater abundance of overall health care resources than Canada. The problem isn't that the private sector provides inferior medicine to foreign national heath services, but that the distribution of treatment is less fair.
Health care reform in the United States will primarily benefit those without insurance. For the majority of Americans who do have coverage, however, they do not stand to gain much. Sure, insurance companies screw over clients, but can anyone who lives in a country with universal health care honestly say they never get screwed over by the local NHS? Is it not true that people in those countries sometimes die as a result of inadequate treatment from the national health services? Some people will say that, as NHSs don't turn a profit and exist solely to provide medicine, they are naturally preferable, but as a patient, it's not going to help my condition any knowing the reasons why I'm being denied health care is out of incompetence as opposed to profiteering.
For all the problems with the American private health care system, it would be a mistake to follow the path of other industrialized countries. There must be a new system; one that expands coverage while retaining the quality of care currently provided by the private health sector. I have no idea what that would look like, but Europeans, Canadian, Australians, etc. should stop championing their systems as ideal models when they are in fact rife with problems that us in the U.S. (including those of us who want health reform) would be best to avoid. Forgive me for suggesting this, but I sometimes get the impression that non-Americans actually enjoy pointing figures at the problems of American health care. Distracts them from their own health care woes, perhaps?
Last edited:
IAmJacksUserName
Bluelighter
This is a case where conflicts of interest between the insurance companies and the drug companies remedy that problem, to an extent. Insurance companies don't like paying extra for brand name drugs, so they'll encourage doctors to prescribe drugs with generic brand alternatives. Whenever my doctor writes me a prescription in the States (I still have coverage there), he'll always write "Ritalin" or "Prozac," but it will always come out at the pharmacy as a generic brand name. It's a double-edged sword, of course; sometimes doctors will base their decisions on avoiding brands without generic alternatives.
Last edited:
satricion
Bluelighter
^^
Sure. And here the pharmacist will always offer you the cheaper generic option if one is available regardless of what the doctor has written on the script.
The problem with your earlier post is that in comparing the American private system to public systems elsewhere, you are assuming that the reason that the quality of health care in the American private system is so high is because it is private. This is not the case, or rather, privateness is not the issue. The issue is money. There is no reason a properly funded public health system would not be as good as the American public system. In health care, you get what you pay for. If a public health system is properly funded and administered (both of which are entirely within the powers of a government that cared to pay attention to providing decent health care) then there is no in principle reason why it should be inferior to private health provision.
Sure. And here the pharmacist will always offer you the cheaper generic option if one is available regardless of what the doctor has written on the script.
The problem with your earlier post is that in comparing the American private system to public systems elsewhere, you are assuming that the reason that the quality of health care in the American private system is so high is because it is private. This is not the case, or rather, privateness is not the issue. The issue is money. There is no reason a properly funded public health system would not be as good as the American public system. In health care, you get what you pay for. If a public health system is properly funded and administered (both of which are entirely within the powers of a government that cared to pay attention to providing decent health care) then there is no in principle reason why it should be inferior to private health provision.
Jamshyd
Bluelight Crew
For the majority of your post (including your chart), I refer you to everything that Cyc mentioned as I agree 100% and think that it answers a lot of issues you raise.
But I do think you present some serious misunderstanding with the statement I quote above.
It is not lack of competence that is the problem (I speak for Ontario - I cannot speak for the UK or even the other Canadian provinces). The real problem is, believe it or not, profiteering!
Allow me to clarify. The problem is most definitely not lack of competence. The problem is that a capitalistic government engaging in socialist activities has only one course of action in order to increase profit without explicitly compromising the very system it is being lauded for: by hiring less professionals.
You see, here we actually have a crisis in which there is a wealth of professionals in the country, but not a lot are being hired. The only reason I could imagine for this is the above. The problem masquerades as a lack of locally trained professionals, implying that immigrant doctors are not competent enough, where in fact these doctors are often even more competent than locally-trained ones.
There are of course other issues which I alluded to in my posts, but NONE of them has anything to do with "incompetence", but rather a tendency to not tap into available competence.
To me, this is the only way that the entrepreneurs ruling us can keep money in their pockets while still touting a socialist-esque system.
I can't speak for everyone, but I personally criticise ALL governments I happen to examine as to how well they live up to the standards in my first post in this thread. In the case of healthcare, the US happens to be the worst offender. I don't particularly "enjoy" criticizing the American system more so than I "enjoy" criticizing any other.
qwe
Bluelight Crew
from what i understand, this is indeed true of the big equipment, and with "third world" countries even small commodities like medicines are scarce. however i remember reading about the causes of this (or hearing, i think it was NPR) and it's more related to successful lobbying of medical industries or something like that. sorry my memory is hazy, but i remember twas explainediamjacksusername said:
not to mention how much wealth flows into the U.S. from other countries due to their "loans" not being able to be "paid"... resting on the third world's back, you'd exect america to have a bunch more gigantic expensive equipment
scottodoit
Bluelighter
Let me begin by saying that I support health care reform, and agree with many of the arguments toward socialized health care. That being said, there are many good reasons why Americans are reluctant to go down that route. It's not just a matter of right-winged propaganda.
For the record, I live abroad and have neither insurance or a local national health service to help me. Any treatment I get comes straight from my pocket. However, I grew up in an American middle class family with insurance. We weren't rich by any means, but my experiences with the private health care system were mostly positive. I showed up, I presented my insurance card, I was treated, and I received a (usually) small copayment bill the next month. My experiences weren't particularly atypical for insured families. I've never sought treatment from a British, Canadian, Australian, etc. public hospital, but hearing stories from my friends (one mother of a friend, a Fillipino nurse working in the U.K., says she will move back to the Philippines when she retires because she doesn't want to die under the care of the NHS), I can safely say that my health care growing up was just as good as theirs, if not better.
Consider this chart:
Despite the economic inequalities of the American system, it does appear that the private sector in America does provide a greater abundance of overall health care resources than Canada. The problem isn't that the private sector provides inferior medicine to foreign national heath services, but that the distribution of treatment is less fair.
Health care reform in the United States will primarily benefit those without insurance. For the majority of Americans who do have coverage, however, they do not stand to gain much. Sure, insurance companies screw over clients, but can anyone who lives in a country with universal health care honestly say they never get screwed over by the local NHS? Is it not true that people in those countries sometimes die as a result of inadequate treatment from the national health services? Some people will say that, as NHSs don't turn a profit and exist solely to provide medicine, they are naturally preferable, but as a patient, it's not going to help my condition any knowing the reasons why I'm being denied health care is out of incompetence as opposed to profiteering.
For all the problems with the American private health care system, it would be a mistake to follow the path of other industrialized countries. There must be a new system; one that expands coverage while retaining the quality of care currently provided by the private health sector. I have no idea what that would look like, but Europeans, Canadian, Australians, etc. should stop championing their systems as ideal models when they are in fact rife with problems that us in the U.S. (including those of us who want health reform) would be best to avoid. Forgive me for suggesting this, but I sometimes get the impression that non-Americans actually enjoy pointing figures at the problems of American health care. Distracts them from their own health care woes, perhaps?
Your chart seems to prove nothing more than in a socialised system those needing more than general care go to large centres more specific to their needs. Rather than every competing centre having to have everything. (Just one possible explanation of many). I know in my city their only a four hospitals. But they are massive and handle thousands of patients quite well. Australian Hospitals are not openly well known for great service (if some what slow for elective surgeries) We are also known for considerable medical breakthroughs for our small population. I have never had any bad experiences in Australia's or the UK's system. Nor anybody I know. As I said the ONLY complaint you here in non urgent care can be slow often.
Even if our system was falling behind and needed improving that wouldn't prove in any way that socialised medicine is a bad thing.
I was watching the Movie 'Repo Man last night. The storyline centres on two guys who's job is to repossess artificial organs from those that can't pay there payment plans for their organs. This obviously kills those left without their needed implants. I thought it was a good analogy of a system were if you can't pay - to bad so sad, six foot under for you. Besides the violent means employed. I fail to see the moral difference.
another thread where i can haughtily laugh at americans so brainwashed they - alone amongst the world's peoples - think that 'socialised' healthcare is (a) something distinct from their own insurance (socialised) system, and (b) somehow something they wouldn't actually want. LOLOLOLOL. So yeah, save :D