News Stories

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by iLney

You are talking as if health care is free.

No, he's not. He's talking about the simple fact that the earlier a problem is tackled, the less it'll end up costing.

Some cutting out of the middleman (the insurance companies) may help, though I don't know much about that.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by iLney

Bleh, if we have universal steel, GM cars will compete way better than Japanese cars!

You are talking as if health care is free. The government says it's free doesn't mean it will be free. Pharmaceutical companies make good medicine not because they love humanity.

Greater coverage?! I sneeze twice per day I must go see a doctor everyday! After eating so much, I must see a doctor too. Blah, I need someone to talk to... hmm how about a doctor! <Meanwhile, Joe who has serious problems with his heart must wait in line to see a doctor who is chatting with me about WoW> Who's freaking care? I PAID FOR THE SERVICE BY MY TAX.

Resources are not unlimited, you know. If I were, not just socialism, anything will work.

Wow, that's a lot of words to basicly say, "BAH! I dismiss your point completely and refuse to actually address it." The closest you come to an actual point there is an offhand remark about wait times with no context to it. There are lots of different kinds of heart problems, and not all of them require immediate action. If it required emergency treatment, there wouldn't be a wait time. However, there are wait times in the US too. Last year, in the US, my father had to wait for well over a month to get a rather large aneurysm removed, and that's with the doctor saying there was a risk of it rupturing. Sure I could have looked up some statistics on wait times from country to country, but I decided to respond you your anticdotal evidence with some of my own, not that it means much for either side.

The simple fact is the US pays more per person in healthcare than any other nation on earth. If the US healthcare system were say the best in the world, I couldn't complain about that. However, it isn't. Countries with socialized medicine pay less, some as little as half as much per person and are at the same level as the US in health coverage. Why is that? Could it be that many Americans are without health coverage or even when they have some it doesn't cover enough so they put off going to the doctor until there's a major problem that costs the tax payers a lot more to treat? The current system is broken, and it needs to be fixed. Socilaized medicine is the best way to fix it.

Getting back to the car industry specificly, even if the health care costs per employee stayed the same or even rose slightly, the car companies would still be paying less under socalized medicine because the expenses would be spread out among all people and corporations paying tax. Sure, other corporations that don't offer health coverage to their employees might be paying more, but the auto industry would be paying less.

[TooPurePureBoy]

If the US healthcare system were say the best in the world, I couldn't complain about that. However, it isn't.

If this were true we wouldn't have so many people coming from foreign countries to get their surgeries performed in the U.S.

Rich middle-east oil tycoons specifically come to the U.S. to get any complicated medical procedure done. With all the money and resources they possess I don't think they would choose anywhere but the best.

The point isn't some jingoistic response to say "USA USA USA" i'll leave that to good ol' Hacksaw Jim Duggan from the old school WWF. Maybe you can tell me a country that has more skilled surgeons or researchers but it would be by such a small margin that it would only be debate not a fact. It's like your kneejerk instinct to see America in a bad light which is fine that's certainly your opinion but on this subject your plainly being irrational. Maybe some country has a healthcare system which fits better to your personal ideology but if it came down to a surgery to save Jesus or Ghandi or someone that you just had to save...you would send them to the U.S. more than likely.

[OceanBlue]

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

If this were true we wouldn't have so many people coming from foreign countries to get their surgeries performed in the U.S.

Rich middle-east oil tycoons specifically come to the U.S. to get any complicated medical procedure done. With all the money and resources they possess I don't think they would choose anywhere but the best.

The point isn't some jingoistic response to say "USA USA USA" i'll leave that to good ol' Hacksaw Jim Duggan from the old school WWF. Maybe you can tell me a country that has more skilled surgeons or researchers but it would be by such a small margin that it would only be debate not a fact. It's like your kneejerk instinct to see America in a bad light which is fine that's certainly your opinion but on this subject your plainly being irrational. Maybe some country has a healthcare system which fits better to your personal ideology but if it came down to a surgery to save Jesus or Ghandi or someone that you just had to save...you would send them to the U.S. more than likely.

Don't know where all of your evidence comes from, seeing as this could be a kneejerk instinct to make up a claim if you were over-patriotic. You even said that there could be a possible country with better health care, but then just claimed that it would be a debate and "by a small margin" [Which, of course, is a ridiculous claim. How can you claim that when you don't even know if there's a country with better health care?]. How do you know that? The US having the best health care can be just as much of a debate as any other country having good health care.

But...

This might be outdated, but everytime someone says this, I have to remind them about the study by the World Health Organization in 2000. We were 37th in the world ranked according to countries' health care systems.

If this is already outdated or disproven or whatever, then my mistake. But realize that you're being just as irrational as the others are, making claims with no evidence to back them up. I highly doubt you know any rich oil tycoons from the Middle East who claim that the US health care system is the best in the world, which even this is only an appeal to authority.

[ClockWorkAngel]

The skill surgeons are only there because elsewhere doctors are controlled by the government; eg Nationalized Healthcare.

Being a doctor in Canada is worthless, everything including how much you charge and the days you works are government controlled. That's why they go to the US, because they can do and charge anything they want there, its all about the money.

Toopure, the US health system is worthless it takes away healthcare from the poor and makes health insurance a must if you don't want to be full of bills. Their doctors are good cause they have alot of them, but the system is utterly capitalist.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by OceanBlue

Don't know where all of your evidence comes from, seeing as this could be a kneejerk instinct to make up a claim if you were over-patriotic. You even said that there could be a possible country with better health care, but then just claimed that it would be a debate and "by a small margin" [Which, of course, is a ridiculous claim. How can you claim that when you don't even know if there's a country with better health care?]. How do you know that? The US having the best health care can be just as much of a debate as any other country having good health care.

But...

This might be outdated, but everytime someone says this, I have to remind them about the study by the World Health Organization in 2000. We were 37th in the world ranked according to countries' health care systems.

If this is already outdated or disproven or whatever, then my mistake. But realize that you're being just as irrational as the others are, making claims with no evidence to back them up. I highly doubt you know any rich oil tycoons from the Middle East who claim that the US health care system is the best in the world, which even this is only an appeal to authority.

Indeed. I'd like to add that that criteria is stupid to start with. The "best healthcare", for a country, isn't having the best doctors money can buy, or even the best doctors. It's keeping your population healthy. (And your workforce productive, if you really can't see anything but that particular bottom-line...)

[TooPurePureBoy]

My point was that if you want to get some kind of medical care that America has the most skilled surgeons and research facilities. Now if we are talking about "Healthcare" a buzzword that everyone uses that is usually preceded by Nationalized or Freeeee. Quality "Healthcare" is a debatable term because it means different things to different people.

Some people are concerned with whether it's egalitarian enough other people are more concerned with the health care being in the hand of actual doctors instead of some bureaucrat, that's why I said it would be debatable. I didn't word it properly before obviously because I didn't get across what I was trying to say.

The skill surgeons are only there because elsewhere doctors are controlled by the government; eg Nationalized Healthcare.

Doesn't that say something??

Toopure, the US health system is worthless it takes away healthcare from the poor and makes health insurance a must if you don't want to be full of bills. Their doctors are good cause they have alot of them, but the system is utterly capitalist.

I would argue that America's healthcare system is broken not because of capitalism but because of to much Government intervention. In Massachusetts where I live it is now illegal to not have health insurance... that isn't because of capitalism it's because of an overly large government. Health Care should be for emergencies. If doctors didn't have to cover there assess (with high fees for equipment use ) in case of someone suing them they would not need you to use your health insurance to pay for a simple doctor visit, it would be something you could afford out of pocket. If it was a pure capitalist exchange there would be no middle man. It would be doctor to patient and it would be much less expensive and much less constrained. The more freedom doctors have to treat patients as they see fit and to build up a reputation based on those choices is capitalist. The system we have had for a while is most certainly not.

This might be outdated, but everytime someone says this, I have to remind them about the study by the World Health Organization in 2000. We were 37th in the world ranked according to countries' health care systems.

So an organization that is pro-nationalized healthcare for all nations doesn't rank the U.S. high........wow that's a surprise.

But realize that you're being just as irrational as the others are, making claims with no evidence to back them up. I highly doubt you know any rich oil tycoons from the Middle East who claim that the US health care system is the best in the world, which even this is only an appeal to authority.

I'm not about to scan through a bunch of back dated newspaper archives but if you read the paper everyday for a week you are just about guaranteed to see some story about a Saudi oil tycoon or prince coming have some surgery done at Mass General or Brigham and Women's Hospital. See I live in Massachusetts it's like an everyday thing to hear about these types of occurrences.

What you mean by "only an appeal to authority" is beyond me sorry is this one of those "memes" that people use now a days? Sorry I prefer to speak to people like I'm speaking to a person (even if it is over the internet) not a search engine.

The "best healthcare", for a country, isn't having the best doctors money can buy, or even the best doctors.

That is entirely your opinion.

[Vexx]

Someone want to explain how a "faceless for-profit insurance company bureaucrat who only reports to their shareholders" is more interested in my health than a "faceless government bureaucrat who reports to people I elect"? Your doctor has to get approval from the former.

Sorry, but your sound bites lack meat -- they're just assertions. Your anecdotes are just that: anecdotes. How about some statistical data? Have you actually ever looked them up? Have you checked the state of small business and, for that matter, big business lately? They're buried under parasitical health insurance cartels. Or are you just shilling for the health insurance industry?

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

Some people are concerned with whether it's egalitarian enough other people are more concerned with the health care being in the hand of actual doctors instead of some bureaucrat, that's why I said it would be debatable.

Some people are concerned with whether it's profitable enough other people are more concerned with the health care being in the service of actual citizens instead of some capitalist fatcat, that's why I'm going to say your absolute faith in our system is thoroughly debatable if not a little disturbing.

I myself consider the Right to Life to be far more important than petty economic ideologies, and healthcare to be part of that "social contract." I don't believe in no Invisible Hand fairy tale to save my life.

Health Care should be for emergencies. If doctors didn't have to cover there assess (with high fees for equipment use ) in case of someone suing them they would not need you to use your health insurance to pay for a simple doctor visit, it would be something you could afford out of pocket. If it was a pure capitalist exchange there would be no middle man. It would be doctor to patient and it would be much less expensive and much less constrained. The more freedom doctors have to treat patients as they see fit and to build up a reputation based on those choices is capitalist.

Have you never heard of the concept of preventative care? It's the single best cost-saving and life-saving measure you could possibly find, and the US system discourages that. Without insurance, you pay through the nose for a simple check-up. And the insurance system is as byzantine as it gets and not always available to everyone...as Massachusetts' bandage solution demonstrates.

The US system is broken, extremely expensive without insurance, inefficient, unequal, and quite a bloody mess. Every year far too many people declare bankruptcies in the United States, and one of the leading causes by far is medical expense. You blame government, I blame litigations, short-term profit initiatives, byzantine business structures, complicated interest lobbies, and all the bullshit you can eat served in American-size servings. I am *not* happy with our system at all. Best doctors? I don't care. A decent society doesn't reserve its fundamental rights to just the rich and privileged.

[TooPurePureBoy]

Do I have to be an expert with all the stats and data to have an opinion? People who don't think anecdotes are worth anything have spent too much time looking at stats and forgotten the value of actual life experience. It's the typical world view of an elitist and believe me I know elitists, I've been bombarded by them my entire life (uh-oh another anecdote, cause the human experience is worth nothing to the truly enlightened) in the Massachusetts school system. I've heard this sort of knee-jerk reaction in any intellectual conversation that "U.S.A." or "Capitalism" equals bad and it's gotten really old. So I try to play the devil's advocate at any time and take up the side of a country that has afforded me a life that 99% of humans that have lived on this earth would only dream about. But I try to not be jingoistic about it which is more than I can say about people who will always just fall back to the old "the world has a problem? Blame America."

Or are you just shilling for the health insurance industry?

Did you not read my post Vexx? I see all forms of insurance that you *must* have as government backed extortionism. Honestly I'm dumbfounded by this one. Where did you get that from?

Have you actually ever looked them up? Have you checked the state of small business and, for that matter, big business lately?

I don't need to look up the state of small business. Unlike people who obsess about statistics and studies by supposed experts I live it everyday. I am the employee of a person who is a small business owner who also happens to be my father. Insurance is crushing him. Because of insurance a man who is aging into his late 50's is not even able to hire another employee to help because the insurance is so high that he would have to charge more per hour than he could ever justify to a customer. This is all because of Government enforced health insurance laws. That isn't capitalism's fault, it's big government.

A decent society doesn't reserve its fundamental rights to just the rich and privileged.

There is nothing in the constitution about an inalienable right to free health care. Health care is a privilege we enjoy because of our high standard of living. The human race 100's of years ago would have just been happy that there were people out there willing to try and save someones life but now we sue them if they make a mistake. Nevermind that you were simply lucky to have a chance.

The constitution does however speak about the rights of a man to enjoy the fruits of his labor so I have no problem with the richest people enjoying the quality that comes with the most expensive doctors.

Oh and I'd like to say that I've been saying Health Care when I mean to say Health Insurance. Any time you've seen me use the term Health Care I should have said Health Insurance. Sorry about the confusion my mind is not in one place right now. So if you are somehow getting the impression that I am pro health insurance companies because of that sorry but that's not my position at all.

Some people are concerned with whether it's profitable enough other people are more concerned with the health care being in the service of actual citizens instead of some capitalist fatcat, that's why I'm going to say your absolute faith in our system is thoroughly debatable if not a little disturbing.

Just because someone is a capitalist doesn't mean they are a fat cat. America was built on capitalism and despite what the popular opinion of most in the world today history will show years from now that when America was allowed to be capitalist it did more to advance the human race in 100 years than any other civilizations did in thousands. America is not capitalist today so I don't have absolute faith in anything. I don't get the reason you feel the need to infer that my opinions are disturbing not because you fully understood them but because you didn't like the feel of them, that is really nice thanks.

The US system is broken, extremely expensive without insurance, inefficient, unequal, and quite a bloody mess. Every year far too many people declare bankruptcies in the United States, and one of the leading causes by far is medical expense. You blame government, I blame litigations, short-term profit initiatives, byzantine business structures, complicated interest lobbies, and all the bullshit you can eat served in American-size servings. I am *not* happy with our system at all. Best doctors? I don't care. A decent society doesn't reserve its fundamental rights to just the rich and privileged.

The "government" is basically all lawyers so I think we might wanna get together and have a big blame party, because despite your seeming dislike for me and my opinions I have a feeling we'd be closer in beliefs than you might think.

I am *not* happy with our system at all.

I hope you didn't get the impression that I was.

Best doctors? I don't care.

You must not be sick or know someone you care about that's sick. You are lucky. I think your opinion would change if you did.

[iLney]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Wow, that's a lot of words to basicly say, "BAH! I dismiss your point completely and refuse to actually address it." The closest you come to an actual point there is an offhand remark about wait times with no context to it. There are lots of different kinds of heart problems, and not all of them require immediate action. If it required emergency treatment, there wouldn't be a wait time. However, there are wait times in the US too. Last year, in the US, my father had to wait for well over a month to get a rather large aneurysm removed, and that's with the doctor saying there was a risk of it rupturing. Sure I could have looked up some statistics on wait times from country to country, but I decided to respond you your anticdotal evidence with some of my own, not that it means much for either side.

How do you know if one particular case does not require immediate attention? How do you figure out how many of 300 millions people being taken care of need immediate attention? That is heart disease alone. How about lungs, stomach etc... And if by some godly means, you know, so what? Who will take care of them when all the resources are put into diagnosing the whole population?

Countries with socialized medicine pay less, some as little as half as much per person and are at the same level as the US in health coverage.

Which country is that? Cuba? They treat tourists for free, you know. Pay less, right. But even if one pays more, he must also wait in line while someone who has a stomach problem is seeking counsel with a heart surgeon.

Why is that? Could it be that many Americans are without health coverage or even when they have some it doesn't cover enough so they put off going to the doctor until there's a major problem that costs the tax payers a lot more to treat? The current system is broken, and it needs to be fixed. Socilaized medicine is the best way to fix it.

Why? Because Ma, who is covered by ....Care, loves to spend time with doctor X chatting about her golden times. She also routinely checks up 3 times a week for free. And while Dr.X spends time with Ma, he couldn't do anything else. As such, Joe who has more $$ than Tom is willing to pay extra to speak with X. And if X has just enough time to treat one patient, who will it be? Tom?

Of course, President O anticipates this. So he puts a ceiling rate of payment which X could receive.

X faces 2 options:

_Seeing Tom who, according to his experience, has a real problem. Exhausting himself to diagnose Tom and getting, say 5 bucks.

_Seeing Joe who is just paranoid. Chatting with him for sometimes, going fishing and getting 5 bucks.

What would he choose?

Getting back to the car industry specificly, even if the health care costs per employee stayed the same or even rose slightly, the car companies would still be paying less under socalized medicine because the expenses would be spread out among all people and corporations paying tax. Sure, other corporations that don't offer health coverage to their employees might be paying more, but the auto industry would be paying less.

In the beginning, why must GM pay for those employees welfare. Toyota and Honda also has factories here. People are still happy to work for them without those ridiculous benefits. And why must, say, the food industry must pay more tax to fund the auto industry?

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by iLney

How do you know if one particular case does not require immediate attention? How do you figure out how many of 300 millions people being taken care of need immediate attention? That is heart disease alone. How about lungs, stomach etc... And if by some godly means, you know, so what? Who will take care of them when all the resources are put into diagnosing the whole population?

It's called triage. Sorting patients by seriousness of their condition and how likely they are to respond to treatment. Every hospital in the world does it.

Which country is that? Cuba? They treat tourists for free, you know. Pay less, right. But even if one pays more, he must also wait in line while someone who has a stomach problem is seeking counsel with a heart surgeon.

Sorry, but your post is starting to go off the deep end here. Someone with a stomach problem is consulting a heart surgeon? If that's happening, odds are his general practioner misdiagnosed him. The heart surgeon is going to order some labs, find out that his heart is fine, then send him to a gastrowhateverologist for his acid reflux. That could happen in either system.

Why? Because Ma, who is covered by ....Care, loves to spend time with doctor X chatting about her golden times. She also routinely checks up 3 times a week for free. And while Dr.X spends time with Ma, he couldn't do anything else. As such, Joe who has more $$ than Tom is willing to pay extra to speak with X. And if X has just enough time to treat one patient, who will it be? Tom?

So a hypocondriac won't tie up resources under the current system? How does this even make sense?

Of course, President O anticipates this. So he puts a ceiling rate of payment which X could receive.

X faces 2 options:

_Seeing Tom who, according to his experience, has a real problem. Exhausting himself to diagnose Tom and getting, say 5 bucks.

_Seeing Joe who is just paranoid. Chatting with him for sometimes, going fishing and getting 5 bucks.

What would he choose?

Even if your little scenerio made sense, how is it any different than the current system? If the doctor in question is a general practitioner, the response would be about the same in both cases, order some tests done, then send them off, then see the other one and do the same. Rather than getting paid for one office visit, he gets paid for 4. Then he refers the first guy to a specialist.

If the doctor is a specialist, he probably won't even hear about the second guy in either system, because the guy's general practitioner won't refer him.

In the beginning, why must GM pay for those employees welfare. Toyota and Honda also has factories here. People are still happy to work for them without those ridiculous benefits. And why must, say, the food industry must pay more tax to fund the auto industry?

Because that's the deal they struck with the unions. Toyota and Honda can get away with not paying those benefits because they opened their planets in southern states that didn't have a union.

As for your last question, you're missing the point. They're not funding the auto industry, they're funding healthcare that benefits people in their industry as well. It's just that the auto industry gets a nice little break out of the deal.

[Slice of Life]

It's one of these discussions from the inside of the goldfish bowl again.

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

Do I have to be an expert with all the stats and data to have an opinion? People who don't think anecdotes are worth anything have spent too much time looking at stats and forgotten the value of actual life experience. It's the typical world view of an elitist and believe me I know elitists,

The existence of an all-purpose pejorative in the US-American discourse for anyone suspected to have risen above the lowest common denominator, be it by being better versed in the fine arts, having better manners, being smarter, better educated, or even just - as in this case - by appealing for *gasp* solid, objectively verifiable reasoning is clearly a sign of a deep-running socialist thread in the American psyche.

[TooPurePureBoy]

The existence of an all-purpose pejorative in the US-American discourse for anyone suspected to have risen above the lowest common denominator, be it by being better versed in the fine arts, having better manners, being smarter, better educated, or even just - as in this case - by appealing for *gasp* solid, objectively verifiable reasoning is clearly a sign of a deep-running socialist thread in the American psyche.

I don't speak for anyone else but myself so lets just deal with things i've actually said please, if you want to make generalizations like that fine but leave me out. The things I've bolded in your text are things that I value very highly, and they have nothing to do with the term "elitist". When I use the term elitist I speak of someone who work in academia, only socialize with fellow academics, only honor the opinions of those in life who have been judged by the consensus of their peers to be worthy based on esoteric social standards that nobody in the real world can live up to. They are the type of people who do not believe the life experience of those who haven't read the same books as them is even worth there notice. "It's jejune to the conversation as it cannot be backed up by statistics and research studies", is not enlightened, it's elitist.

Personally I think calling someone a "Renaissance Man" is one of the highest compliments a person can give another.

[yezhanquan]

My view is that in the US, you have to look out for yourself, alot. Wait, make that micromanagement. When it comes to financial matters, you have to comb through the fine print while others are enjoying their day in the sun. It is vital, if you don't want to be screwed by insufficient coverage, or things the fine print states. It is a life, yes. But, does it sound like it's worth living?

[iLney]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

It's called triage. Sorting patients by seriousness of their condition and how likely they are to respond to treatment. Every hospital in the world does it.

Suddenly, there are as many as 100 times more the number of patient. Scan that.

Sorry, but your post is starting to go off the deep end here. Someone with a stomach problem is consulting a heart surgeon? If that's happening, odds are his general practioner misdiagnosed him. The heart surgeon is going to order some labs, find out that his heart is fine, then send him to a gastrowhateverologist for his acid reflux. That could happen in either system.

In this age, the government can send stimulus money to the dead. Anything can happen. How can you know which person need which attention. A person thinks he has a heart problem will go to a heart surgeon for advice. And he only goes when it's absolutely necessary because it costs quite a bit. If it were free, he would also go for a prostate check just in case. BTW, how does he even know he doesn't have a prostate problem?

Now, there are 300 millions people in this country. To "warm up" the system, you must first scan those 300 millions people! That alone would bankrupt the country.

So a hypocondriac won't tie up resources under the current system? How does this even make sense?

With a price, of course. That's what economic all about.

Even if your little scenerio made sense, how is it any different than the current system? If the doctor in question is a general practitioner, the response would be about the same in both cases, order some tests done, then send them off, then see the other one and do the same. Rather than getting paid for one office visit, he gets paid for 4. Then he refers the first guy to a specialist.

If one has no problem and he demands a test, it would cost him something right?
Now suppose a test takes one day, if you are the doctor would you prefer to spend one hour to test the guy you know for sure has no problem then go fishing or spend the entire day helping the other guy. The catch is that doing either would get you 5 bucks no more, no less.

Because that's the deal they struck with the unions. Toyota and Honda can get away with not paying those benefits because they opened their planets in southern states that didn't have a union.

Then just get rid of the union. If not, "what a shame."

As for your last question, you're missing the point. They're not funding the auto industry, they're funding healthcare that benefits people in their industry as well. It's just that the auto industry gets a nice little break out of the deal.

Sorry. I thought that you want to save GM by nationalizing the health care system. Talk about drastic action... Anyway, above are the reasons why I am against universal health care.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by iLney

That alone would bankrupt the country.

The US is bankrupt anyway. Part of that is due to the staggering amount of money the government spends on Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

The pros and cons of capitalist vs social medicine can be debated forever, but I find it truly sad that people don't consider health care to be a human right. We spend exorbitant amounts on medical research and aid, but even in one of the most progressive countries in the world there are a substantial amount of people who either cannot afford or have significant trouble affording even basic health care.

The costs of propping up the system are out of control. Unhealthy people are either not working and "leeching" off the system or they are working but pose a risk to other members of society. Businesses and individuals pay through the nose for mandatory insurances and when people retire the benefits they get from the government can barely pay for anything.

Younger people don't realize it, but there's two major problems looming for health care in the US. First, we're about to have the biggest explosion of elderly in at least a century, and second, the programs designed to ease that burden are due to be completely bankrupt in a decade or two.

Even without socialized medicine, medical costs in the country are skyrocketing and will only get worse. This cycle is forcing costs up elsewhere and bankrupting programs, companies and individuals. *Something* has to be done, and the problem can't be solved by allowing insurance companies to gain even more power and money.

I should be able to handle a health issue without fighting my insurance company every step of the way, and not worrying about taking out even more loaned money or just bankrupting it all. Sadly for many Americans, this type of choice is all too common. Many just opt to wait until it truly is an emergency, simply because they cannot afford to pay for even basic preventative care.

[Zippicus]

National health care sounds really good on paper, but like lots of other things that sound good on paper they don't make the transition into reality quite as well as expected. I have relatives in England that absolutely hate their health care system there, they tell me it's wonderful ... as long as you don't need health care. One of the big problems they have is limited resources which translates to waiting lists for consultations and more waiting lists for procedures. Canada has problems with waiting lists as well, it's caused the creation of health care brokers that more often than not send their clients to the US to get around the wait times.

You know the old saying, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by iLney

Suddenly, there are as many as 100 times more the number of patient. Scan that.

And we scan that 100 times more. I went for a few BASIC (para)medic-level FA courses before, and that is the standard medical procedure across the world. In triage, it is important to know which is the part that requires IA, and there is a need to do complete treatment before going onto the next one to prevent complications.

For example, if a bomb explodes, and there are two patients : one with his leg below the knee blown off and another with fragmentation in his neck, rupturing the jugular, you treat the one with leg problem first because the there is little use of treating the other because he won't live more than 10-15 minutes. The other guy would just have 1 less leg for the rest of his life.

That is the hard truth of lifesaving. You can't save everyone.

In this age, the government can send stimulus money to the dead. Anything can happen. How can you know which person need which attention. A person thinks he has a heart problem will go to a heart surgeon for advice. And he only goes when it's absolutely necessary because it costs quite a bit. If it were free, he would also go for a prostate check just in case. BTW, how does he even know he doesn't have a prostate problem?

Now, there are 300 millions people in this country. To "warm up" the system, you must first scan those 300 millions people! That alone would bankrupt the country.

There is a reason why you CONSULT a general practitioner FIRST. The human body is bloody complex, it is theoretically impossible to straightaway diagnose cancer or heart failure.

Of course, the cost of going to a GP is mutually exclusive from the argument. That is a financial problem, not a medical problem.

With a price, of course. That's what economic all about.

If one has no problem and he demands a test, it would cost him something right?
Now suppose a test takes one day, if you are the doctor would you prefer to spend one hour to test the guy you know for sure has no problem then go fishing or spend the entire day helping the other guy. The catch is that doing either would get you 5 bucks no more, no less.

Then the doctor shouldn't even be a doctor in the first place. It is his duty to provide medical attention to those who need it.

IMO, the four toughest jobs in the world are doctors, lawyers, soldiers and teachers. Their responsibilities can result in the life or death, success or ruination of an individual in a single act.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Solace

The US is bankrupt anyway. Part of that is due to the staggering amount of money the government spends on Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

Social security actually runs a surplus, and it wouldn't be in the impending crisis it is in if the politicians didn't seem to think that putting their hand in the savings jar of the people to pay for other things was a good idea.

~~~

I too also find it sad that people do not see health care as a fundamental right in a society. I do not see why someone else in a society deserves to live longer just because he has the $$$. This is a dangerous ideology.