You Must Be A Liberal If...

[Bern80]

Its pretty evident that people took time to study the markers and get a full picture of health care performances in various nations. Each is explained in detail and trying to toss out so much information to bolster your debunked point of "quality will go down" is outright dishonest and anyone with any handle on logic and the dance of spin can see that.

There is no spin at all, though it's obvious why you need to think so. I'm not saying the other factors they measured are unimportant. But to me quality of care is the most important. You are simply wrong just as Larkin was wrong. None of the other factors are measures of quality of care. None of them in any way shape or form are measurements of how well or poorly you are treated at medical facility. The use the term 'healthcare system' for a reason. Because it is teh broadest term to describe all of the factors included in our healthcare industry. The study measures everything from actual care to how monetary contribution for it is paid for, to the health of our nation. The sum of all of those things is our healthcare system of which responsiveness/quality of care is just one factor. Admittadly I choose to focus opn that because I beleive it is the most important.

Life expectancy, health of the population etc DO factor into QUALITY of care, even if you want to pretend they dont.

The study doesn't measure life expectancy, it measure overall health. Though the statement you made is still untrue. Unless you honestly beleive your doctor has more control over how long you live than you do. I am not pretending anything. You are because you have to. The health of our population has very little to do with the care they receive at our medical facilities. If it was true that there is direct link between responsiveness and overall health than our score for responsiveness shoudl be lower. You have far more control over your health than a doctor does.

I am quite glad to live where we have socialized health care. I certainly wouldnt advocate somthing that I experienced and found to be lacking.

Wonderful. If it works there, great. What's the tax rate there, just out of curiosity. I disagree with UHC also in part because i disagree with giovernments trying to be all things to all people and taxing the hell out of it's citizenry and essentially breeding complacency. Instead of policies that encourage people to take responsibility for themselves.

I think the REAL problem is that many dont trust the US to be able to accomplish it while other nations can and do. I guess fixing the govt to do a good job is just impossible?

That's at least on thing your right on. Government run healthcare would be a beauracratic nightmare in this country. No it isn't impossible to change our government. But if we want UHC wouldn't be a lot wiser to make sure we have a system in place that actually accomodate UHC before jumping head long into it?

 

[Ruby]

There is no spin at all, though it's obvious why you need to think so. I'm not saying the other factors they measured are unimportant. But to me quality of care is the most important. You are simply wrong just as Larkin was wrong. None of the other factors are measures of quality of care. None of them in any way shape or form are measurements of you well or poorly you are treated at medical facility. The use the term 'healthcare system' for a reason. Because it is teh broadest term to describe all of the factors included in our healthcare industry. The study measures everything from actual care to how monetary contribution for it is paid for, to the health of our nation. The sum of all of those things is our healthcare system of which responsiveness/quality of care is just one factor. Admittadly I choose to focus opn that because I beleive it is the most important.

Quality of care isnt responsive to the nation if there are people who dont even have access to it. Thats why those other FACTORS do matter. Thats why we do need to measure the SYSTEM and not do what you are attempting to do... The US spends more per capita than any other nation on our SYSTEM and yet we arent performing as well as the others. Focusing on one aspect you try to claim is more important than all the rest {while you ignore how many other top performers in this marker there are}...dosent actually bolster your point.

The study doesn't measure life expectancy, it measure overall health. Though the statement you made is still untrue. Unless you honestly beleive your doctor has more control over how long you live than you do. I am not pretending anything. You are because you have to. The health of our population has very little to do with the care they receive at our medical facilities. If it was true that there is direct link between responsiveness and overall health than our score for responsiveness shoudl be lower. You have far more control over your health than a doctor does.

A society that has access to universal health care is better educated about their health *your doctor advises you on health*, will have better control over contagious diseases, and will recieve more preventative care.

I dont *have* to pretend anything. I have experienced both systems and I certainly wouldnt accept sub-standard care for me and my son to make a point!

Wonderful. If it works there, great. What's the tax rate there, just out of curiosity. I disagree with UHC also in part because i disagree with giovernments trying to be all things to all people and taxing the hell out of it's citizenry and essentially breeding complacency. Instead of policies that encourage people to take responsibility for themselves.

This nation is one of the most taxed in the world. The odd thing is, my lifestyle hasnt suffered at all. I can look around me and SEE where my taxes are going and feel that they are spent well. I truly benefit from my tax revenues now.

We provide many things on a community level...education, fire depts, police services etc. Health care is somthing ALL human beings need and its a very important need, why not make SURE ALL can access good quality health care?

Its nonsense that socialized or universal health care encourages complacency. Is providing an education also encouraging complacency? How bout the providing of a fire dept?

That's at least on thing your right on. Government run healthcare would be a beauracratic nightmare in this country. No it isn't impossible to change our government. But if we want UHC wouldn't be a lot wiser to make sure we have a system in place that actually accomodate UHC before jumping head long into it?

Govt dosent RUN health care in socialized settings, it FUNDS it. Health care professionals RUN it. Not insurance companies, not government... HEALTH CARE professionals do. Its the best way to run a health care system.

 

[Diuretic]

Govt dosent RUN health care in socialized settings, it FUNDS it. Health care professionals RUN it. Not insurance companies, not government... HEALTH CARE professionals do. Its the best way to run a health care system.

Go to the front of the class. That's exactly right.

 

[Bern80]

Go to the front of the class. That's exactly right.

I apologize, but you and Ruby are both extremely naive on that one. Then again neither of you live here. Our government manages to corrupt damn near everything it touches. And I woudl rather makes sure we have the system in place that will make UHC work before jumping headlong into it, knowing, based on history, our government tends to grossly over complicate things.

 

[Bern80]

Quality of care isnt responsive to the nation if there are people who dont even have access to it. Thats why those other FACTORS do matter. Thats why we do need to measure the SYSTEM and not do what you are attempting to do... The US spends more per capita than any other nation on our SYSTEM and yet we arent performing as well as the others. Focusing on one aspect you try to claim is more important than all the rest {while you ignore how many other top performers in this marker there are}...dosent actually bolster your point.

This is the exact same thing Larkin tried to argue. You're simply not listening. Quality of care and who can pay and how much are completely seperate issues. Quality of care is how well or poorly a medical facility treats you. You can't measure that if you were never seen. What your above statement really means is that you should be able to hold your doctor accountable for you health even though he never had the opportunity to treat you. Like it or not that is the result of your argument if you insist that your ability to pay is related to how well a physician treats you.

I have said time and time again that I am aware there are other factors and that the one most important to me is responsiveness. Quite simply because what good is free healthcare if the fullest resources aren't there to treat you? The report proves undeniably that quality of care is lower in UHC countries. Quality is not something that shoudl be sacraficed to make something cheaper ,especially quality of healthcare.

A society that has access to universal health care is better educated about their health *your doctor advises you on health*, will have better control over contagious diseases, and will recieve more preventative care.

Wrong also. You are assuming that those that didn't have access before now will. Given an increased rate of consumption now with no growth in supply that is uinlikely.

I dont *have* to pretend anything. I have experienced both systems and I certainly wouldnt accept sub-standard care for me and my son to make a point!

According to the WHO report that's exactly what you did.

This nation is one of the most taxed in the world. The odd thing is, my lifestyle hasnt suffered at all. I can look around me and SEE where my taxes are going and feel that they are spent well. I truly benefit from my tax revenues now.

Personally I like to keep what i earn instead allowing someone to take it from me.

We provide many things on a community level...education, fire depts, police services etc. Health care is somthing ALL human beings need and its a very important need, why not make SURE ALL can access good quality health care?

Still not listening. I no point have I stated that I don't want all people to have access to healthcare. What I am stateing is that UHC wont accomplish that because when you reduce price consumption/demand goes up. If supply doesn't go up when that happens then obviously supply declines. Thus all you have accomplished under UHC is makeing sure that a different group of people doesn't receive prompt healthcare.

Its nonsense that socialized or universal health care encourages complacency. Is providing an education also encouraging complacency? How bout the providing of a fire dept?

It encourages people to not take responsibility for there lives. If you come into this world realizing you are going to have to pay for your own healthcare than you choose or don't choose to make neccessary adjustments in your life to accomodate that. You decide to work hard in school and get a good job. All you do when you provide free services to people is eliminate incentives to achieve on their own.

That said there are things I believe government has a repsonsibility to and that we shoudl be taxed for. Infrastructre and protection of the citizenry immediately commiing to mind.

Govt dosent RUN health care in socialized settings, it FUNDS it. Health care professionals RUN it. Not insurance companies, not government... HEALTH CARE professionals do. Its the best way to run a health care system.

see response to diuretic.

 

[Ruby]

I apologize, but you and Ruby are both extremely naive on that one. Then again neither of you live here. Our government manages to corrupt damn near everything it touches. And I woudl rather makes sure we have the system in place that will make UHC work before jumping headlong into it, knowing, based on history, our government tends to grossly over complicate things.

I lived in the US for most of my life, I only moved out a few years ago!

Now you are going back to the point I made earlier, you seem to try to blame the system of socialized medicine for the inadequacies of the US govt. Socialized medicine as a system can and does work rather well and is outperforming the US system of health care. Lack of faith in the US govt is no reason to try and say the socialized medicine is a failed system or is unworkable.

The privatized system overcomplicates things more than the socialized one does. When I had my son, the nurses, doctor and finally the doctors secretary were on the phone a full day with my insurance company trying to get approval to keep me and my new born son a few more days due to complications I had. That was in the US.

When I needed a ganglion cyst removed it took 8 months because workmans comp and my insurance company FIRST needed to duke it out over which of them would be responsible for the bill!! No one would touch me until that was FIRST worked out. It was ridiculous and ADDED to the bureaucracy. That was in the US.

In a socialized medical situation all that paperwork and dealing with a multitude of providers is eliminated. I have no forms to fill out, no doctor has to check with the govt to see if he can give me a test they deem neccessary. So much red tape actually is gone.

The govt FUNDS it and medical professionals run it, whats so naive about that? I see it in its actuality here. I give my ID which has my picture and my personal number (social security number) and everything is billed under that number....very simple!

While there is no system without its problems and there is no perfect system, the particular worries you seem to have over a socialized system arent very well founded.

 

[Ruby]

This is the exact same thing Larkin tried to argue. You're simply not listening. Quality of care and who can pay and how much are completely seperate issues. Quality of care is how well or poorly a medical facility treats you. You can't measure that if you were never seen. What your above statement really means is that you should be able to hold your doctor accountable for you health even though he never had the opportunity to treat you. Like it or not that is the result of your argument if you insist that your ability to pay is related to how well a physician treats you.

I have said time and time again that I am aware there are other factors and that the one most important to me is responsiveness. Quite simply because what good is free healthcare if the fullest resources aren't there to treat you? The report proves undeniably that quality of care is lower in UHC countries. Quality is not something that shoudl be sacraficed to make something cheaper ,especially quality of healthcare.

You keep trying to spin that marker to mean that the US has the best quality care and thats not at all what the marker says. Responsiveness deals with PERCEPTIONS which may or may not match realities and may also reflect expectations. You also fail to deal with the fact that there are numerous top performers in that area as well and they are socialized medicine.

Its *almost* funny to watch you try to cling desperately to this ONE thing as if your life depended on it, but in the end its a serious issue so its not really that funny afterall.

Wrong also. You are assuming that those that didn't have access before now will. Given an increased rate of consumption now with no growth in supply that is uinlikely.

Yes people will now have access that didnt before. We already spend more than any other nation per capita, now we could actually spend that money on setting up a system that treats ALL and stop lining the pockets of some corrupt private entities....for instance, the pharmaceutical companies.

According to the WHO report that's exactly what you did.

Again, you try to interpert things as they arent. You cant just wish real hard and make it so. You try to equate responsiveness with quality of care when the truth is that responsiveness is a perception of those WHO GOT the care and may or may not reflect the reality.

I know I didnt decrease quality of care for myself or my son and am very glad to have the health care I do in this country.

Personally I like to keep what i earn instead allowing someone to take it from me.

Well taxes are a fact of life and we cant run our communities without it. The fact is that it costs money to run a society. The problems enter when you have a corrupt govt NOT spending your taxes as the public wishes them to be spent nor spends them for the public good. I now live in a situation where I ACTUALLY benefit from the taxes I pay, I cannot say the same for the taxes I paid in the US.

Still not listening. I no point have I stated that I don't want all people to have access to healthcare. What I am stateing is that UHC wont accomplish that because when you reduce price consumption/demand goes up. If supply doesn't go up when that happens then obviously supply declines. Thus all you have accomplished under UHC is makeing sure that a different group of people doesn't receive prompt healthcare.

Health care is not like any other commodity. Demand is not determined by supply....People dont get MORE sick because they have access to medical care. Health care is designed to MEET demand...thats it, period.

It encourages people to not take responsibility for there lives. If you come into this world realizing you are going to have to pay for your own healthcare than you choose or don't choose to make neccessary adjustments in your life to accomodate that. You decide to work hard in school and get a good job. All you do when you provide free services to people is eliminate incentives to achieve on their own.

That said there are things I believe government has a repsonsibility to and that we shoudl be taxed for. Infrastructre and protection of the citizenry immediately commiing to mind.

see response to diuretic.

So fire depts encourage to not take responsiblity? Schools encourage us to not take responsiblity? If what you said were true then Europe and Canada would have fallen apart and become 3rd world long ago.

We have many living models that prove that "lack of incentive" schtick being used is bullshit.

There are people all around me achieving, they live in a socialized system, socialized beyond medical care even and yet they arent lacking in incentive. This is seen throughout many developed first world nations...how can this be if what you say is true?

BTW, we all DO pay for our own healthcare, we pay for it via our taxes. Our taxes arent the GOVERNMENTS money, its our money. They dont PAY for us, they pay for it USING our money and in doing so, we can make sure ALL have it and all KEEP it throughout their life time. Its just more efficient and more humane and helps us build a better and healthier community.

 

[Bern80]

I lived in the US for most of my life, I only moved out a few years ago!

Now you are going back to the point I made earlier, you seem to try to blame the system of socialized medicine for the inadequacies of the US govt. Socialized medicine as a system can and does work rather well and is outperforming the US system of health care. Lack of faith in the US govt is no reason to try and say the socialized medicine is a failed system or is unworkable.

I have never stated that. I have stated that it won't work here. As I said before, if it works where you are, great. That country has an appropriate government and system in place to ensure that it will work. Our country doesn't. If we want to go down the UHC as well, we need to make the adjustements neccessary to make sure it will be successful instead of jumping headlong into it and dooming it to failure.

The privatized system overcomplicates things more than the socialized one does. When I had my son, the nurses, doctor and finally the doctors secretary were on the phone a full day with my insurance company trying to get approval to keep me and my new born son a few more days due to complications I had. That was in the US.

When I needed a ganglion cyst removed it took 8 months because workmans comp and my insurance company FIRST needed to duke it out over which of them would be responsible for the bill!! No one would touch me until that was FIRST worked out. It was ridiculous and ADDED to the bureaucracy. That was in the US.

Those are things that can be worked on before makeing the extreme decision to botch the quality we have now and jump into socialized medicine. Of course privitized medicine isn't perfect, no system is. Just because there are problems and inefficiences from time to time is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

In a socialized medical situation all that paperwork and dealing with a multitude of providers is eliminated. I have no forms to fill out, no doctor has to check with the govt to see if he can give me a test they deem neccessary. So much red tape actually is gone.

The govt FUNDS it and medical professionals run it, whats so naive about that? I see it in its actuality here. I give my ID which has my picture and my personal number (social security number) and everything is billed under that number....very simple!

And again your taxes are through the roof because of it. Personallt I don't don't see the morality in makeing an entire citizenry responsible for something they have no control, no stake in and little to no benefit from(your health).

While there is no system without its problems and there is no perfect system, the particular worries you seem to have over a socialized system arent very well founded.

They are extremely well founded. We have at least two major problems to get over in this country before we even contemplate UHC. One, how are we going to meet the increased demand. This is the economic side of it. Whenever price of something goes down, demand and consumption of it go up. It won't be just those that couldn't pay for it consuming more, it will be everybody. If the goal is access to healthcare such that everybody gets it when they need it, than UHC won't accompish that here. it will simply change who doesn't get it.

Instead of a somewhat monetaerily based system, now the system is based entirely on need. If supply can't meet demand, what happens? People get priortized. The worse the condition the sooner you are treated. What happens to the rest then? Obvioulsy while they wait their symptoms continue to worsen. That isn't preventative medicine.

If we want UHC in place we need to make sure the resources are in place first. Not just do it and hope they are.

Two, and the bigger problem is we need to make sure government can run it efficiently. The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior, thus there is no reason to think that this won't turn in to a govt nightmare like everything else they've touched. Hell, why do you think you had the issues you did in the U.S.? Part of it is because the government is already too involved in regulating the healthcare industry. Meeting government guidelines costs insureance companies money, which forces them to cut back on what they provide and raise their prices. If government would leave them alon they could provide a better product at a more reasonable price.

 

[Ruby]

You dont have the GOVT run it, health care professionals run it!

I think its downright HORRIBLE to advocate letting so many go without health care because we cant get control over the US govt.

The US already have the resources, the US currently spends more PER CAPITA than socialized systems do.

Your supply/demand argument is silly. The demand of health care isnt dependent on the availability of it, the demand exists due to HEALTH issues and is not affected by how good supply is or isnt. UHC is designed to meet DEMAND....thats it!

That last bit about if govt would leave insurance companies alone....you must be kidding me!! The problems I had with insurance companies is that they didnt want to pay. They fought my doctor on what was best for my health. They fought workmans comp because they didnt want to pay for my wrist operation to remove the cyst. That had NOTHING to do with the govt mucking up the works.

If need isnt being met, you make adjustments as best you can...you will always be reassessing and making adjustments. Its not a static thing, thats the same way in a privatized system as well. Currently it would be priortized according to how much money can be made (highest bidder scenarios) vs who is in most medical need. I would rather priortize on the latter which is how it would be with UHC.

 

[maineman]

I agree that this strict supply demand price theory application to Health Care is a bit flawed.

If the price of root canals goes down, I don't think that "demand" for them will skyrocket. If the price for dialysis goes down, I don't that I will go let myself get hooked up to a mechanical kidney and give my kidneys a break just because it's now a relative "bargain". Appendectomies cheaper? Hey, I think I'll go get mine cut out even though it has never been a problem.....just a preemptive deal that will avoid any future issues. Laser surgery to correct bad eyesight now less than a dinner and a movie? why not? my eyes are perfectly fine, but who cares, it's so cheap, I might as well have a doctor point a laser into my eyes just because it doesn't make sense NOT to...it's so cheap! Heck, if the price goes down far enough, I might just opt for a heart transplant!

 

[Bern80]

You dont have the GOVT run it, health care professionals run it!

I think its downright HORRIBLE to advocate letting so many go without health care because we cant get control over the US govt.

The US already have the resources, the US currently spends more PER CAPITA than socialized systems do.

Your supply/demand argument is silly. The demand of health care isnt dependent on the availability of it, the demand exists due to HEALTH issues and is not affected by how good supply is or isnt. UHC is designed to meet DEMAND....thats it!

No it's not designed to meet demand. It's designed to make it affordable, that is all it accomplishes. I'll telll you the same thing I told Larkin. Go draw yourself a supply and demand curve, come back and tell me what happened to quantity supplied when you reduced the price.

I guess we need to do some quick econ 101 with you since you don't seem to have a grasp on it at all.

Our medical facilities can only see so many people within a given period of time. A doctor can only see so many patients per day, per week, per month, etc. He only has so much time with which to treat people.. That is what's being demanded and consumed; the available time of our facilities and physicians. That free time is also our supply. Only so much of it can be supplied, that is quanity supplied reaches it's maximum when the most amount of hours are made available to be consumed.

Your belief is that price is, what is keeping all people who need healthcare from receiving it. Which is true.

No on Monday morning the doc has 8 hours of available time with which to treat people that day, 40 hours that week, 160 hours that month, and so on.
Now the question is how much of that avalable time was consumed under our current system? That is open for some debate, but anyone with any experience in doctor's waiting room should be able to figure out that a doctor's availalbe time is usually booked pretty solid.

But let's be generous and say that on Friday at 5:00pm the doctor had 4 unused available hours. Meaning the quanity supplied was greater than the quanitiy demanded, which in econ is called a surplus

Now same scenario, but now we have socialized medicine. Price has gone down so consumption and demand have gone up. they have to based on your ascertion is that price is preventing people from using the available time.
So, what do you think the chances are that those 4 unused availabel hours will still be there at the end of the week.

I mean come on. think about this just a little and you can see quite easily what is going to happen.

As I explained to Larkin these are the laws of supply and demand, when it comes to anything consumable there is no exception to them.

If need isnt being met, you make adjustments as best you can...you will always be reassessing and making adjustments. Its not a static thing, thats the same way in a privatized system as well. Currently it would be priortized according to how much money can be made (highest bidder scenarios) vs who is in most medical need. I would rather priortize on the latter which is how it would be with UHC.

Medical services don't go to the highest bidder in the U.S. Our physicians dont' say "I'm gonna treat you cause you'll pay me more." In your system if there is a shortage of available time and things are being treated on worst cases first bases all you are doing is prolonging peolpe's pain because they are being treated until someone deems their symptoms are severe enough to warrent attention. Sound moral to you?

 

[Bern80]

I agree that this strict supply demand price theory application to Health Care is a bit flawed.

If the price of root canals goes down, I don't think that "demand" for them will skyrocket. If the price for dialysis goes down, I don't that I will go let myself get hooked up to a mechanical kidney and give my kidneys a break just because it's now a relative "bargain". Appendectomies cheaper? Hey, I think I'll go get mine cut out even though it has never been a problem.....just a preemptive deal that will avoid any future issues. Laser surgery to correct bad eyesight now less than a dinner and a movie? why not? my eyes are perfectly fine, but who cares, it's so cheap, I might as well have a doctor point a laser into my eyes just because it doesn't make sense NOT to...it's so cheap! Heck, if the price goes down far enough, I might just opt for a heart transplant!

Those assertions are what is flawed. The whole point of this argument has been that people who need medical attention aren't getting it because they can't afford it. That being the case, consumption will increase because those same peolpe that weren't being treated are now seeking treatment. That's one part of the population that will increase demand.

Another part are people that may not neccessarily be in dire need of attention and thus chose to forgoe treatment to save money until their condition is more severe (i.e. corrective laser eye surgery, joint/bone replacements, common colds, flu, etc.)

Yet another group will be those now undergoeing routine screenings that may not have been peviously free (yearly eye exams, dental work, colonoscopies, etc.)

 

[maineman]

Those assertions are what is flawed. The whole point of this argument has been that people who need medical attention aren't getting it because they can't afford it. That being the case, consumption will increase because those same peolpe that weren't being treated are now seeking treatment. That's one part of the population that will increase demand.

Another part are people that may not neccessarily be in dire need of attention and thus chose to forgoe treatment to save money until their condition is more severe (i.e. corrective laser eye surgery, joint/bone replacements, common colds, flu, etc.)

Yet another group will be those now undergoeing routine screenings that may not have been peviously free (yearly eye exams, dental work, colonoscopies, etc.)

I think Ruby's point was that, while "demand" might go up at some level due to lowered cost, that it would not follow the strict economic supply demand price model because of the "need" issues. Cut the price of a cadillac in half and the demand will skyrocket. Cut the price of brain surgery in half, and you will not necessarily see a skyrocketing demand from the population to have their brains cut on simply because it is now a bargain.

 

[Bern80]

I think Ruby's point was that, while "demand" might go up at some level due to lowered cost, that it would not follow the strict economic supply demand price model because of the "need" issues. Cut the price of a cadillac in half and the demand will skyrocket. Cut the price of brain surgery in half, and you will not necessarily see a skyrocketing demand from the population to have their brains cut on simply because it is now a bargain.

So there is no validity to my last post at all? Did you even bother to read it? Those are the conditions under which consumption will increase. I would not be so ludicrous to propose that more people are gonna want brain surgery. Come on you guys. We have two or three people on this board who are saying we must have free healthcare so more people will be able to use it. Then you turn around and say more people aren't going to use it. Is this what it has come to to justify this?

The last two groups i mentioned are going to get screwed the most out of a socialized system because a socialized system in this country doesn't lend itself well to prevention. Instead we will only have the people who need to be treated being treated instead of people voluntarily comeing in for preventitive work.

 

[ReillyT]

So there is no validity to my last post at all? Come on you guys. We have two or three people on this board who are saying we must have free healthcare so more people will be able to use it. Then you turn around and say more people aren't going to use it. Is this what it has come to to justify this?

You are right. There will be an increase in demand.

The difference would be that the shortfall (lack of immediate medical care) would be determined on the basis of need as opposed to the basis of ability to pay.

 

[Bern80]

You are right. There will be an increase in demand.

The difference would be that the shortfall (lack of immediate medical care) would be determined on the basis of need as opposed to the basis of ability to pay.

Part of that is true and part of it isn't. First I think those who are pushing socialized medicine are grossly overstateing it when they say people are being treated based on whether they can pay or not. There isn't some epidemic in this country where only a few are are able to get healthcare when they need it.

the best numbers we have right now indicate that roughly 15% of American's don't have health insureance. Presumbably than 85% of the population can get healthcare when they need it. Also of note is that 15% of the population not haveing insureance does not translate into 15% of the population needing healthcare. Larkin provided that roughly 15,000 americans died mainly because they had no insureance. That would be the unmet demand. In other words that's 15,000 people that needed healthcare that didnt get it. So really our current system is meeting anywhere from 85%-95% of demand in healthcare services. All while makeing people pay for it.

You are right that things would be determined by need, but I don't think that is going to improve things either. If the only people who are being treated are those with immediate needs, then what is happening to those with less immediate needs. The obvious answer is their symptoms are becomeing more immediate. That is they're getting worse while they wait for someone to determine that their condition is sever enough be treated. Does that really sound like a better system?

What we have now is a pretty good balance of meeting need while not clogging the system. Which allows for more preventitive and/or maintenance based treatments. I would rather have than over a system that can't focus on prevention because all it has time to do is focus on the immediate.

Make no mistake there is no system that is going to be able to treat everyone when they need. All socialized medicine does is change who doesn't get treated.

 

[Larkinn]

Part of that is true and part of it isn't. First I think those who are pushing socialized medicine are grossly overstateing it when they say people are being treated based on whether they can pay or not. There isn't some epidemic in this country where only a few are are able to get healthcare when they need it.

the best numbers we have right now indicate that roughly 15% of American's don't have health insureance. Presumbably than 85% of the population can get healthcare when they need it. Also of note is that 15% of the population not haveing insureance does not translate into 15% of the population needing healthcare. Larkin provided that roughly 15,000 americans died mainly because they had no insureance. That would be the unmet demand. In other words that's 15,000 people that needed healthcare that didnt get it. So really our current system is meeting anywhere from 85%-95% of demand in healthcare services. All while makeing people pay for it.

You are right that things would be determined by need, but I don't think that is going to improve things either. If the only people who are being treated are those with immediate needs, then what is happening to those with less immediate needs. The obvious answer is their symptoms are becomeing more immediate. That is they're getting worse while they wait for someone to determine that their condition is sever enough be treated. Does that really sound like a better system?

What we have now is a pretty good balance of meeting need while not clogging the system. Which allows for more preventitive and/or maintenance based treatments. I would rather have than over a system that can't focus on prevention because all it has time to do is focus on the immediate.

Make no mistake there is no system that is going to be able to treat everyone when they need. All socialized medicine does is change who doesn't get treated.

It was 18,000 people who died...and that was every year...and that was who died directly as a result of no health insurance. Indirectly?...that is anyones guess.

 

[Bern80]

It was 18,000 people who died...and that was every year...and that was who died directly as a result of no health insurance. Indirectly?...that is anyones guess.

okay, I knew it was around that. thanks

 

[ReillyT]

Part of that is true and part of it isn't. First I think those who are pushing socialized medicine are grossly overstateing it when they say people are being treated based on whether they can pay or not. There isn't some epidemic in this country where only a few are are able to get healthcare when they need it.

the best numbers we have right now indicate that roughly 15% of American's don't have health insureance. Presumbably than 85% of the population can get healthcare when they need it. Also of note is that 15% of the population not haveing insureance does not translate into 15% of the population needing healthcare. Larkin provided that roughly 18,000 americans died mainly because they had no insureance. That would be the unmet demand. In other words that's 15,000 people that needed healthcare that didnt get it. So really our current system is meeting anywhere from 85%-95% of demand in healthcare services. All while makeing people pay for it.

You are right that things would be determined by need, but I don't think that is going to improve things either. If the only people who are being treated are those with immediate needs, then what is happening to those with less immediate needs. The obvious answer is their symptoms are becomeing more immediate. That is they're getting worse while they wait for someone to determine that their condition is sever enough be treated. Does that really sound like a better system?

What we have now is a pretty good balance of meeting need while not clogging the system. Which allows for more preventitive and/or maintenance based treatments. I would rather have than over a system that can't focus on prevention because all it has time to do is focus on the immediate.

Make no mistake there is no system that is going to be able to treat everyone when they need. All socialized medicine does is change who doesn't get treated.

Assuming that 15% of the population doesn't have medical insurance, that equates to approximately 45 million people in the United States. Of course, it will turn out that many of these people won't need it (I was uninsured for a little while once, and luckily, it didn't end up being a problem), but that is still a very large number. 15,000 people dying is a large number in a country as wealthy as the US, and that number doesn't factor in the many more thousands who suffer a measurably impaired quality of life.

At the end of the day, I come down on the other side than you. I would sacrific having my medical needs met exactly when I want them in order that those in greater need can get medical care when they need it.

 

[maineman]

So there is no validity to my last post at all? Did you even bother to read it? Those are the conditions under which consumption will increase. I would not be so ludicrous to propose that more people are gonna want brain surgery. Come on you guys. We have two or three people on this board who are saying we must have free healthcare so more people will be able to use it. Then you turn around and say more people aren't going to use it. Is this what it has come to to justify this?

The last two groups i mentioned are going to get screwed the most out of a socialized system because a socialized system in this country doesn't lend itself well to prevention. Instead we will only have the people who need to be treated being treated instead of people voluntarily comeing in for preventitive work.

I never said your point was without validity. I merely said that I did not think that the standard relationship between price and consumption holds true in healthcare.

I realize that increasing capacity will be a necessary element of any successful UHC system. I realize that there is the potential for enormous savings when the profit motive is removed from a large number of the levels and angles of today's system.

And bottom line: I just firmly believe that the world's richest and most powerful country ought to be able to provide a bare bones level of healthcare to its citizens. It is, for me, not a matter of if, but a matter of how and when.