The greatest health care system in the world

[Skeptik]

has come to this:

"I don't want to die. I shouldn't have to die. This is a county hospital. This is for people that, like me, many people have lost their insurance, have not any other resources. I mean I was a responsible person. I bought my house. I put money away. I raised my two children. And now I have nothing. You know my house isn’t worth anything. I have no money. And I said 'What do I do, but what do all these other people do after me?' 'And they said we don't know,'" Sharp told 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley.

Sharp, 63, has been fighting lymphoma since July. She's not working because of her illness and has no insurance. Last year, she received charity care at the county hospital, University Medical Center. She was one of 2,000 patients who got the letter.

"Dear patient, we regret to inform you that the Nevada Cancer Institute will no longer provide contract oncology services at University Medical Center," Sharp read.

People who worked, raised their children, put money away, tried to be responsible, now have nowhere to turn to. Those who are on welfare, of course, can still get medical care.

What a sorry situation. There has to be a better way.

 

[sealybobo]

has come to this:

"I don't want to die. I shouldn't have to die. This is a county hospital. This is for people that, like me, many people have lost their insurance, have not any other resources. I mean I was a responsible person. I bought my house. I put money away. I raised my two children. And now I have nothing. You know my house isn’t worth anything. I have no money. And I said 'What do I do, but what do all these other people do after me?' 'And they said we don't know,'" Sharp told 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley.

Sharp, 63, has been fighting lymphoma since July. She's not working because of her illness and has no insurance. Last year, she received charity care at the county hospital, University Medical Center. She was one of 2,000 patients who got the letter.

"Dear patient, we regret to inform you that the Nevada Cancer Institute will no longer provide contract oncology services at University Medical Center," Sharp read.

People who worked, raised their children, put money away, tried to be responsible, now have nowhere to turn to. Those who are on welfare, of course, can still get medical care.

What a sorry situation. There has to be a better way.

The Canadian Healthcare System has been demonized for over a decade by the US Healthcare industry. They are sooo afraid that we are going to adopt a similar solution.

We need to start listening to Canadians on how they like their healthcare. Stop listening to the GOP and US Healthcare giants. Of course they like the status quo.

And we don't have to do it exactly like the Canadians did it.

But we need to fix the system we have.

Single-Payer FAQ | Physicians for a National Health Program

 

[xsited1]

Without reading the 4 pages in the article, can't she apply for Medicaid? Was that mentioned?

 

[RoadVirus]

The Canadian Healthcare System has been demonized for over a decade by the US Healthcare industry. They are sooo afraid that we are going to adopt a similar solution.

I have only 2 problems with Universal Healthcare.

1. The government sucks at running things
2. The cost

 

[Skeptik]

has come to this:

"I don't want to die. I shouldn't have to die. This is a county hospital. This is for people that, like me, many people have lost their insurance, have not any other resources. I mean I was a responsible person. I bought my house. I put money away. I raised my two children. And now I have nothing. You know my house isn’t worth anything. I have no money. And I said 'What do I do, but what do all these other people do after me?' 'And they said we don't know,'" Sharp told 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley.

Sharp, 63, has been fighting lymphoma since July. She's not working because of her illness and has no insurance. Last year, she received charity care at the county hospital, University Medical Center. She was one of 2,000 patients who got the letter.

"Dear patient, we regret to inform you that the Nevada Cancer Institute will no longer provide contract oncology services at University Medical Center," Sharp read.

People who worked, raised their children, put money away, tried to be responsible, now have nowhere to turn to. Those who are on welfare, of course, can still get medical care.

What a sorry situation. There has to be a better way.

The Canadian Healthcare System has been demonized for over a decade by the US Healthcare industry. They are sooo afraid that we are going to adopt a similar solution.

We need to start listening to Canadians on how they like their healthcare. Stop listening to the GOP and US Healthcare giants. Of course they like the status quo.

And we don't have to do it exactly like the Canadians did it.

But we need to fix the system we have.

Single-Payer FAQ | Physicians for a National Health Program

I have never yet seen a post from a Canadian, a Brit, or anyone else who lives in a nation with universal care, saying that they wished that their nation had the same kind of system we have in the US, never on this or any other forum.

Maybe I just missed it. There must be one, somewhere, who would ditch their universal care for a US style health care system.

 

[Diuretic]

Nor an Australian. Your system sucks, sorry, but that's how it's seen from here. Now before heads explode, I said, your health system sucks.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

The Canadian Healthcare System has been demonized for over a decade by the US Healthcare industry. They are sooo afraid that we are going to adopt a similar solution.

I have only 2 problems with Universal Healthcare.

1. The government sucks at running things
2. The cost

Cost wouldn't necessarily be higher. Uninsured people largely miss out on preventive care, which saves money for the whole system in the long run. Until we start letting irresponsible people die in emergency rooms (I am opposed to that), universal healthcare will be cheaper. The private system may be good at generating profit for its shareholders, but it is not ideal for improving health outcomes. A lot of the efficacy of universal healthcare hinges upon it being done right. The VHA was held up as an example of government ineptitude for many years, but for the last decade or so has done significantly better than the private sector after implementing electronic medical records, evidence-based formulary, etc.

That said, I think we should draw on the experiences of all of the relatively successful countries of the world in revamping our health care system. I don't think I'd rate Canada's as anywhere near the best. If I had to pick a few to get started I'd look at the French and Japanese.

 

[editec]

We have numerous national models for a HC system that work better than our system currently does.

We do not implement any of those superior system because the vested interests idominating HC (and HC insurance) have enough influence in Congress to prevent it.

We pay more money for our failing HC delivery system than any people in the first world pay for their systems which give their nations far better outcomes.

Any of you who think this system is working are NOT paying attention to our national health care statistics.

Our system STINKS to high heaven because the MARKET cannot, will not do a agood job.

Supply/demand market forces do not work in the efficient way in HC delievery systems like they do in the case of widgets.

 

[xsited1]

We have numerous national models for a HC system that work better than our system currently does.

We do not implement any of those superior system because the vested interests idominating HC (and HC insurance) have enough influence in Congress to prevent it.

We pay more money for our failing HC delivery system than any people in the first world pay for their systems which give their nations far better outcomes.

Any of you who think this system is working are NOT paying attention to our national health care statistics.

Our system STINKS to high heaven because the MARKET cannot, will not do a agood job.

Supply/demand market forces do not work in the efficient way in HC delievery systems like they do in the case of widgets.

You've got backwards. The system STINKS to high heaven because the GOVERNMENT is putting too many restrictions on the system AND out-of-control malpractice lawsuits drive the costs sky high. The MARKET can do a better job, but CONGRESS is too involved.

 

[Diuretic]

We have numerous national models for a HC system that work better than our system currently does.

We do not implement any of those superior system because the vested interests idominating HC (and HC insurance) have enough influence in Congress to prevent it.

We pay more money for our failing HC delivery system than any people in the first world pay for their systems which give their nations far better outcomes.

Any of you who think this system is working are NOT paying attention to our national health care statistics.

Our system STINKS to high heaven because the MARKET cannot, will not do a agood job.

Supply/demand market forces do not work in the efficient way in HC delievery systems like they do in the case of widgets.

You've got backwards. The system STINKS to high heaven because the GOVERNMENT is putting too many restrictions on the system AND out-of-control malpractice lawsuits drive the costs sky high. The MARKET can do a better job, but CONGRESS is too involved.

There are some places that market forces shouldn't be allowed to operate and health care is one of those places. The reason is that health care shouldn't be treated as a commodity.

If it's treated as a commodity then it means that it will be subject to the laws of supply and demand and when the laws of supply and demand operate it means that some people will miss out on the benefits of the commodity.

Since health care should be available to all it shouldn't be treated as a commodity.

 

[xsited1]

We have numerous national models for a HC system that work better than our system currently does.

We do not implement any of those superior system because the vested interests idominating HC (and HC insurance) have enough influence in Congress to prevent it.

We pay more money for our failing HC delivery system than any people in the first world pay for their systems which give their nations far better outcomes.

Any of you who think this system is working are NOT paying attention to our national health care statistics.

Our system STINKS to high heaven because the MARKET cannot, will not do a agood job.

Supply/demand market forces do not work in the efficient way in HC delievery systems like they do in the case of widgets.

You've got backwards. The system STINKS to high heaven because the GOVERNMENT is putting too many restrictions on the system AND out-of-control malpractice lawsuits drive the costs sky high. The MARKET can do a better job, but CONGRESS is too involved.

There are some places that market forces shouldn't be allowed to operate and health care is one of those places. The reason is that health care shouldn't be treated as a commodity.

If it's treated as a commodity then it means that it will be subject to the laws of supply and demand and when the laws of supply and demand operate it means that some people will miss out on the benefits of the commodity.

Since health care should be available to all it shouldn't be treated as a commodity.

That's a nice idea, but it won't work here. Somebody has to pay for it. If society doesn't provide enough money for government-run healthcare and/or if the program is run inefficiently, that means less for everyone. You'll then see delays, shortages and rationing. Pretty soon the government will have to impose even more controls on citizens to make heathcare affordable. And old people who cost too much? Don't need them.

No, the trade-off is too great. The only way it will work is if you have a very homogeneous society who can march in lock-step with one-another and are willing to give up some of their freedoms so the government can control their behavior. That might work in countries like Germany, but not in the US.

 

[Diuretic]

You've got backwards. The system STINKS to high heaven because the GOVERNMENT is putting too many restrictions on the system AND out-of-control malpractice lawsuits drive the costs sky high. The MARKET can do a better job, but CONGRESS is too involved.

There are some places that market forces shouldn't be allowed to operate and health care is one of those places. The reason is that health care shouldn't be treated as a commodity.

If it's treated as a commodity then it means that it will be subject to the laws of supply and demand and when the laws of supply and demand operate it means that some people will miss out on the benefits of the commodity.

Since health care should be available to all it shouldn't be treated as a commodity.

That's a nice idea, but it won't work here. Somebody has to pay for it. If society doesn't provide enough money for government-run healthcare and/or if the program is run inefficiently, that means less for everyone. You'll then see delays, shortages and rationing. Pretty soon the government will have to impose even more controls on citizens to make heathcare affordable. And old people who cost too much? Don't need them.

No, the trade-off is too great. The only way it will work is if you have a very homogeneous society who can march in lock-step with one-another and are willing to give up some of their freedoms so the government can control their behavior. That might work in countries like Germany, but not in the US.

Since it works elsewhere why wouldn't it work in the most technologically advanced nation in the world? What is it about the US that makes it incompetent to run a health care service for all?

Any universal health care service has to be properly funded. The horror stories are caused by deliberate under-funding, where there is proper funding the system works well. The US has the biggest economy in the world, of course it can fund a universal health care system. What's stopping the US doing so is a combination of very powerful vested interests and lily-livered politicians.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nor an Australian. Your system sucks, sorry, but that's how it's seen from here. Now before heads explode, I said, your health system sucks.

And we're interested in how our health system looks to people on the other side of the world who've never had any contact with it because why?

 

[Cecilie1200]

We have numerous national models for a HC system that work better than our system currently does.

We do not implement any of those superior system because the vested interests idominating HC (and HC insurance) have enough influence in Congress to prevent it.

We pay more money for our failing HC delivery system than any people in the first world pay for their systems which give their nations far better outcomes.

Any of you who think this system is working are NOT paying attention to our national health care statistics.

Our system STINKS to high heaven because the MARKET cannot, will not do a agood job.

Supply/demand market forces do not work in the efficient way in HC delievery systems like they do in the case of widgets.

You've got backwards. The system STINKS to high heaven because the GOVERNMENT is putting too many restrictions on the system AND out-of-control malpractice lawsuits drive the costs sky high. The MARKET can do a better job, but CONGRESS is too involved.

There are some places that market forces shouldn't be allowed to operate and health care is one of those places. The reason is that health care shouldn't be treated as a commodity.

If it's treated as a commodity then it means that it will be subject to the laws of supply and demand and when the laws of supply and demand operate it means that some people will miss out on the benefits of the commodity.

Since health care should be available to all it shouldn't be treated as a commodity.

I do love it when people start throwing around the words "should" and "shouldn't" and thinking those words convey a sense of self-evidence and therefore relieve them of ever backing up their assertions with proof.

EVERYTHING is subject to the laws of supply and demand, no matter how hard to you try to circumvent them. All you accomplish is to change their application.

 

[Diuretic]

Nor an Australian. Your system sucks, sorry, but that's how it's seen from here. Now before heads explode, I said, your health system sucks.

And we're interested in how our health system looks to people on the other side of the world who've never had any contact with it because why?

I don't care if you don't care - but someone reading this might get the point and they might tell someone else

 

[Diuretic]

You've got backwards. The system STINKS to high heaven because the GOVERNMENT is putting too many restrictions on the system AND out-of-control malpractice lawsuits drive the costs sky high. The MARKET can do a better job, but CONGRESS is too involved.

There are some places that market forces shouldn't be allowed to operate and health care is one of those places. The reason is that health care shouldn't be treated as a commodity.

If it's treated as a commodity then it means that it will be subject to the laws of supply and demand and when the laws of supply and demand operate it means that some people will miss out on the benefits of the commodity.

Since health care should be available to all it shouldn't be treated as a commodity.

I do love it when people start throwing around the words "should" and "shouldn't" and thinking those words convey a sense of self-evidence and therefore relieve them of ever backing up their assertions with proof.

EVERYTHING is subject to the laws of supply and demand, no matter how hard to you try to circumvent them. All you accomplish is to change their application.

You think you can read my mind C?

I chose my words carefully. "Should" is an indicator of a normative approach.

No, not everything is subject to the laws of supply and demand, only commodities are subject to those laws. And what is treated as a commodity and what isn't to be treated as a commodity is up to any legislature to decide.

Health care is exactly one of those things that can be treated as a commodity or not. I contend - hence my use of the word "should" - that health care shouldn't be a commodity and therefore shouldn't be subjected to the laws of supply and demand.

In some market economies, such as France, health care is not a commodity, hence it's not subjected to the laws of supply and demand. It is a public service, a public good, not a commodity. That's evident that it can work to benefit society without being subject to the mechanism of the market.

 

[editec]

If you have a heart attack and you need a bypass to live, please tell me what market decisions you'll be making regarding purchasing that service3.

Those of you who imagine that supply demand works in exactly the same way it works in most cases where we're buying peanut butter are pretty obviously not thinking too deeply about this issue.

Now I am NOT saying there isn't some supply demand effects.

What I am saying is that the power of the consumer to effect those supply demand curves is nothing like it is in MOST other things we buy.

Oh yeah...one more thing I think you might want to ponder.

There was a time when market forces and market forces ALONE effected the cost of health care.

And way back in those days (pre 1930s) DOCTORS were the lowest paid profession in AMERICA, and nobody ever wanted to go to the hospital because that was where you went to DIE.

Doctors REALLY started to get rich after the AMA began limiting the number of doctors being trained, and then their incomes REALLY took off post WWII when private insureance cam ewith MOST people's jobs and then their salaries took off even more AFTER Medicade and Medicare went into effect.

Doctors, folks didn't used to be the richest working class people in America.

Nursing used to a job which only women of low class took, and polite society basically thought of nurses as bearly better than prostitutes.

That's what it used to be like when market forces ALONE controlled HC.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nor an Australian. Your system sucks, sorry, but that's how it's seen from here. Now before heads explode, I said, your health system sucks.

And we're interested in how our health system looks to people on the other side of the world who've never had any contact with it because why?

I don't care if you don't care - but someone reading this might get the point and they might tell someone else

The point that Australians have their heads up their asses and listen to too much propaganda? I think we got that, thanks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are some places that market forces shouldn't be allowed to operate and health care is one of those places. The reason is that health care shouldn't be treated as a commodity.

If it's treated as a commodity then it means that it will be subject to the laws of supply and demand and when the laws of supply and demand operate it means that some people will miss out on the benefits of the commodity.

Since health care should be available to all it shouldn't be treated as a commodity.

I do love it when people start throwing around the words "should" and "shouldn't" and thinking those words convey a sense of self-evidence and therefore relieve them of ever backing up their assertions with proof.

EVERYTHING is subject to the laws of supply and demand, no matter how hard to you try to circumvent them. All you accomplish is to change their application.

You think you can read my mind C?

I chose my words carefully. "Should" is an indicator of a normative approach.

I don't have to read your mind. I'm just reading your posts. And big-word-smokescreens only work on people who don't know what they mean. Saying, "should indicates that I'm assuming a unversally accepted standard that I don't have to prove" doesn't actually negate what I said about you using should to indicate that you think everyone just accepts your premise and you therefore don't have to prove it.

No, not everything is subject to the laws of supply and demand, only commodities are subject to those laws. And what is treated as a commodity and what isn't to be treated as a commodity is up to any legislature to decide.

EVERYTHING is subject to the laws of supply and demand, because everything is a commodity. Supply and demand is a statement about how human nature functions, and it functions that way for ANYTHING that people want. You can't simply arbitrarily choose what those things are going to be or not.

Health care is exactly one of those things that can be treated as a commodity or not. I contend - hence my use of the word "should" - that health care shouldn't be a commodity and therefore shouldn't be subjected to the laws of supply and demand.

It's amazing how you simply saying, "You can choose whether or not to treat health care as a commodity" in no way convinces me of that fact. Maybe you should make a note somewhere that you saying so does not constitute proof. It didn't when I said so to your last post, and it doesn't now. Your word for it will NEVER prove anything to me except that you don't know what you're talking about, so why are you wasting time writing a post saying, "No, really, I'm right, you just didn't understand how brilliant I was the first time"?

In some market economies, such as France, health care is not a commodity, hence it's not subjected to the laws of supply and demand. It is a public service, a public good, not a commodity. That's evident that it can work to benefit society without being subject to the mechanism of the market.

Wrong. Health care is most certainly a commodity in EVERY economy. Just because you change the market forces applied to it doesn't change what it is. If you're really dumb enough to think that calling something a "public service" makes it any less subject to universal laws of supply and demand, you're even dumber economically than I thought you were the first time you started making blanket statements about "should" and "shouldn't".

Do me a favor and include some actual substantiation in your next post, okay? If your next one is more of, "No, you don't understand, it's THIS way, no really, it's THIS way", I'm just going to assume you know you're full of shit and don't want to admit it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you have a heart attack and you need a bypass to live, please tell me what market decisions you'll be making regarding purchasing that service3.

For starters, you're going to decide that getting that bypass trumps everything else on your priority list. If you don't have insurance to cover it, you're going to decide that getting it is more important than having your house entirely paid off, and you're going to take out a mortgage to pay for the surgery. If you have investments or retirement accounts, you're going to decide the surgery takes precedence over THAT financial security, too, and you're going to sell them. If you have any brains, you're going to shop around for the best surgeon, and you're going to be weighing skills against cost. This guy charges more, but look at his success rate, that sort of thing.

Some people, though, actually do decide that the odds on their survival aren't good enough to warrant putting their family in that kind of debt, and choose to just put their affairs in order and die. You should know this, because the "death with dignity" movement has been a big story in political circles for a while now. That's a market decision, too.

Those of you who imagine that supply demand works in exactly the same way it works in most cases where we're buying peanut butter are pretty obviously not thinking too deeply about this issue.

Supply and demand applies to EVERYTHING that exists in limited amounts. If air wasn't readily available in any amount you want, IT would be subject to supply and demand, too.

Now I am NOT saying there isn't some supply demand effects.

What I am saying is that the power of the consumer to effect those supply demand curves is nothing like it is in MOST other things we buy.

Wrong. You're just not looking the real primary consumer in this case.

Oh yeah...one more thing I think you might want to ponder.

There was a time when market forces and market forces ALONE effected the cost of health care.

They still do. If you don't see them, it's because you're not looking in the right place. You can change where and how the pressures of market forces are applied. What you can't change is the fact that they WILL be applied.

And way back in those days (pre 1930s) DOCTORS were the lowest paid profession in AMERICA, and nobody ever wanted to go to the hospital because that was where you went to DIE.

It's amazing how learning stuff that makes you more valuable to people makes them more willing to pay for what you know.

Doctors REALLY started to get rich after the AMA began limiting the number of doctors being trained, and then their incomes REALLY took off post WWII when private insureance cam ewith MOST people's jobs and then their salaries took off even more AFTER Medicade and Medicare went into effect.

Oh, yeah. It had NOTHING to do with the fact that doctors and hospitals starting having a much, MUCH higher rate of effectiveness in saving lives and health, or anything.

Doctors, folks didn't used to be the richest working class people in America.

Why would people bother paying for a doctor if they're going to die anyway, and they know it? They don't do that NOW.

Nursing used to a job which only women of low class took, and polite society basically thought of nurses as bearly better than prostitutes.

Do you have some kind of real point to make, to which the fact that nice girls didn't get jobs in the 19th century is somehow related?

That's what it used to be like when market forces ALONE controlled HC.

Congratulations. Your record of sounding like a dumbass continues unblemished.