That is part of the problem. Medicare/Medicaid is understaffed and inefficient at what they do. They fail to help people that should be getting help because it is big government buracracy, whereas the individul doctor's assistant is only dealing with a smaller group. It is more efficient.
"France is healthcare leader, US comes dead last: study"
- Thread starter Tsukasa Buddha
- Start date
That is part of the problem. Medicare/Medicaid is understaffed and inefficient at what they do. They fail to help people that should be getting help because it is big government buracracy, whereas the individul doctor's assistant is only dealing with a smaller group. It is more efficient.
In a way, your body does tell you you can't have another heart attack - you don't have to worry about killing something that's already dead. Risk stratification is meant to answer those questions. Am I doing more damage by waiting? Will I take years off my life?
Linda
All you have to do to enter the market is go to school, which you pretty much have to do for any job these days. Effectivly there is no barrier to entry other than ability. As far as knowledge to use the system, how does socialized medicine help the ones with out the knowledge? Don't they still have to go by what the government appointed doctor says is best? What is the difference?
If Insurance companies are not interested in providing individual policies, how come i can get one now? When I changed jobs last time, I got a three month policy from Blue Cross/Blue Shield to cover till my new insurance kicked in, so that statement is demonstrable wrong. If they are available now, why wouldn't tehy be available then, when more people would want them?
When looking at technical knowledge and precision (leaving cost out of the equation) the US health care system is second to none, and head and shoulders above the rest. In the US I don't have to worry about a doctor shortage leading to poor quality health care>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/31/nhs.health
Ivor the Engineer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Messages
- 10,621
Incorrect. They are limited by peoples' ability to pay for them. I.e. health care inflation is ultimately limited by wage inflation in other areas of the economy.
How you provide and distribute health care does not directly impact how health care technology is developed.
Many companies would like a share of the market a nationalised health care system creates. I.e. the profit motive for technological development is maintained in a national health care system.
It's great for consumers of health care too, since a nationalised health care system has far, far more bargaining power than a few hospitals grouping together, thus they can obtain drugs and other medical supplies at a much lower price.
But the cost of health care does directly impact the development of health care technologies. If there is no money in developing health care technologies then people/companies will switch to making new widgets. Likewise a government monopoly on health care wields greater bargaining power at first, but eventually drives most of the providers out of business, which reduces the bargaining power.
If your risk stratification tells your that no damage is being done, what's the rush? For all you know, you may be better off doing nothing, since there are risks associated with the procedure.
Linda
What are you basing this claim on? I have worked in both the US and Canada and didn't notice much difference. And if the US is so fabulous, why doesn't that show up on any of the measures of health outcomes (i.e. the topic of this thread)?
Linda
So if no damage is being done (and I am pretty sure that this is not the case) and it doesn't matter if you wait or not, why do it at all?
Actually acording to the Mayo Clinic it may be useless to perfrom angioplasty if not done quickley.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/heart-attack/DS00094/DSECTION=8
Here is an article from Stossel. I am pretty sure this is covered deeper in his book.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html
Eskarina
Touched By His Noodly Appendages
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 637
Emphasis mine. Going to school, or rather university alone does not make a good MD and doesn't say anything about someone's abilities as an MD.
My German "sickness fund" regularly tries to educate me about healthy living via a monthly magazine etc. and reimburses me for taking preventative measures and the likes.
And btw, my government doesn't appoint doctors for me. I can choose them on my own.
They took your money after assessing the risk of you getting seriously ill during those three months and considered it worthwhile.
What use is the technical knowledge and precision of any health care system to me, if I can't afford it?
Ivor the Engineer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Messages
- 10,621
Really!? Ever applied to a medical school? Ever checked out how much it costs to train to be a doctor? In general, doctors control who can be a doctor.
Under socialised medicine a doctor does not have a conflict of interest. They are employed to look after patients, not to maximise profit. So you don't get doctors in the UK recommending their patients have treatment they don't need because they have a profit incentive to do so. This is not the case in the US.
You have misunderstood what I said. I was talking about adverse selection, which is where those who are bad risks can't get insurance (at least at an affordable price). For example, I doubt any insurance company would want to insure an individual who has a medical condition which would likely require $10,000's worth of medical treatment and carries a substantial risk of premature death for less than $10,000's.
In the US many people have to worry about getting health care they need.
In the UK and in other countries with socialised / single-payer systems, no one has to worry about getting the health care they need, though they may not be able to afford the health care they want.
BTW, the story you linked too is misleading. There is not a shortage of doctors per se; just a cock-up in the way junior doctors had to apply for training posts. There are more than enough people applying to medical schools in the UK.
Based on what?
Because we are talking about different lengths of time. It may not matter whether you do it now or three weeks from now, but it may matter a year from from now whether or not you had it done.
That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We are talking about an elective procedure, not one done to treat a heart attack. There isn't a difference in wait for emergency procedures.
Linda
That is why I said that the only real barrier to entry is ability.
In Germany today, you get to choose your doctor. What if tomorrow your legislature decides that from now own you can't?
The only way they had to assess my risk was age, race, and do I smoke. So not a very stringent vetting process.
Can you afford not to die? Even if I had to go bankrupt, I would want the best care possible to avoid death.
How would the cost of being a doctor, or getting into med school be effected by a changes to the health care system. It is the same barrier that every doctor faces around the world no matter what.
So on the assumption that some doctors would be greedy, we should destroy our health care system? That is good. Why do you assume that all these doctors would risk losing there medical licsenses that were so hard to get to do that? If they are prescribing unecessary procedures that is what will happen eventually.
Once again, in the US if you NEED health care, you will recieve it. If you go into the emergency room of any hospital and you need care they must give it too you, regardless of wether you have insurance or not. That means that 0.0% of the populationb cannot get health care if they need it.
The story clearly says that there is a shortage of doctors. Here is another story about how the UK is making up for the shortage by getting doctors from third world countries leaving them with a severe shortage.
http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EX...K:210083~piPK:152538~theSitePK:544849,00.html
What was it Volatile said about sacrificing poor peoples health care for your own greedy benefit? I believe he said it was abhorant.
Stossel is not an expert in this area and he simply gets it wrong. For example, I see you borrowed his line about whether people leave the US for healthcare, and that was already demonstrated to be incorrect. Even disease specific measures of outcome (in order to eliminate his claims about transportation accidents and homicides) don't show the US with a benefit (http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/viewFile/8/15). Money is paid by third-parties under universal systems, as well as the US. While the US pharmaceutical companies produce a lot of me-too drugs, useful new drugs are just as likely to come from elsewhere (http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...=print&ct=result&cd=2&cad=author-navigational).
Linda
I asked before so I may have just missed your answer in this fast moving thread.
My mother had cancer of the larynx (stage 2) diagnosed about 18 months ago. Would my mother have received her surgery, her radiotherapy, her drugs, her hospitalization and at home care treatment and her reconstructive dental work if she was in the USA? (Note she has no health insurance.)
Would you also claim that private enterprise could take over Medicare patients and run the system like an HMO providing care at a far lower cost?
In fact we already do this. Medicare patients have the option of signing up for privately administered HMO care instead of the classic pay for service plan. The companies running these plans can reject any patent that applies and in practice only accept the healthiest patients. The cost to the taxpayer of providing care for these patients ends up being about 15% higher than for those in the traditional Medicare plan.
In other words, the Government run system delivers care at lower cost.