Universal Health Care in the US. Yea or Nea?

Universal Health Care in America?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 68 61.8%

  • No!

    Votes: 24 21.8%

  • Don't care.

    Votes: 2 1.8%

  • I don't know enough either way to answer right now.

    Votes: 10 9.1%

  • Universal Shemp Care.

    Votes: 6 5.5%
  • Total voters
    110
  • Poll closed .
Why are you assuming a single factor (i.e. infant mortality) is a better indicator of a health system's overall performance than several factors combined? It smacks of cherry picking more than the WHO report you are criticising.
Click to expand...

I'm not, Kelly B suggested comparing infant mort and life expectancy between the US and some developed countries.
 
Last edited:
The size of the population is only important with regards to healthcare delivery if the GDP per capita of the country is adversely affected.
Click to expand...

Says who? Don't you think it's just easier, logistically, for countries with equal or close to equal per capita GDP's to take care of a smaller, more dense pop? I seem to remember someone saying socialized programs work better on smaller scales. Either way that wasn't my point. My point is there is no way Columbias HC is better than the US and I was wondering if there was a similar ranking list to compare to the WHO rankings.
 
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
Says who? Don't you think it's just easier, logistically, for countries with equal or close to equal per capita GDP's to take care of a smaller, more dense pop?
Click to expand...

I think population density would not be particularly well correlated with the health outcomes of a medical system. A more relevant factor is the time between falling ill and receiving appropriate medical attention.

I seem to remember someone saying socialized programs work better on smaller scales.
Click to expand...

No, the bigger the better. Since each individual's risk is spread wider, this allows more of those individuals who need expensive medical treatment to access it without the system running out of money or bumping up premiums to cover their treatment.

Either way that wasn't my point. My point is there is no way Columbias HC is better than the US and I was wondering if there was a similar ranking list to compare to the WHO rankings.
Click to expand...

I think 'better' very much depends on what is being measured.
 
Less than half of NHS patients are receiving hospital treatment within the government's flagship waiting-time target of 18 weeks, new figures revealed today.
Only 48% of patients in England are treated within 18 weeks and 12.4% have to wait more than a year for treatment, according to figures published by the Department of Health today.
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jun/07/politics.health


It's waiting times like these that are a good reason to try and fix the free market system.
 
I think population density would not be particularly well correlated with the health outcomes of a medical system. A more relevant factor is the time between falling ill and receiving appropriate medical attention.
Click to expand...

Again, that wasn't my point. It does seem like it would be easier to run a Soc system on a smaller scale, logistically.

No, the bigger the better. Since each individual's risk is spread wider, this allows more of those individuals who need expensive medical treatment to access it without the system running out of money or bumping up premiums to cover their treatment.
Click to expand...

Smaller scale meaning only keeping track of 100K peoples diseases and not 303 million people.
 
Last edited:
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
Again, that wasn't my point. It does seem like it would be easier to run a Soc system on a smaller scale, logistically.
Click to expand...
When it comes to scale, consider the transportation system. The US has a huge land mass compared to Europe, but it's still easy to get from one coast to the other by road, rail, or air. The rail infrastructure has been growing since the 1800s, and the roads (by and large) since the 1950s. And the roads, at least, have been largely the result of a socialized system; i.e., built by the government with taxpayer's money.

Yes, it is a logistical challenge. But the US also has a well-educated population with a knack for innovative solutions. It's arguably your greatest strength. We in Canada and Europe are suggesting you put those strengths to work resolving this issue--and are puzzled that you seem to think you can't succeed.
 
Yes, it is a logistical challenge. But the US also has a well-educated population with a knack for innovative solutions. It's arguably your greatest strength. We in Canada and Europe are suggesting you put those strengths to work resolving this issue--and are puzzled that you seem to think you can't succeed.
Click to expand...

Okay, got it. Its just as easy to get HC from 5 miles as it is from 100, whatever? I'm sure it doesn't make that big of a difference. Now lets get to the issue of there being only this one WHO ranking list.

Anyone find a way that Columbian HC is better than the US??
 
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
18 weeks!?!?!?
Click to expand...

18 weeks to get TREATED. That's not the time to wait to see a doctor. And that's for ALL conditions, including the most serious, all done free at the point of use for EVERYONE.

How can you condone a system that is excellent for a few and non-existant for the many? Seems like a very selfish and self-centred ideology. As long as you're OK, it doesn't matter that your neighbour is suffering? And what happens when you get a chronic disease and your insurance maxes out?
 
I really liked the ideas in the 20/20 video about the employee's getting more involved with their health. The higher deductibles per visit were able to lower the insurance costs of the grocery store because people were less likely to abuse their medical care.

Something else interesting was when they said the cost of laser-eye surgery was down dramatically because of competition. Why shouldn't that principle be applied to all aspects of medicine to take the brunt of the burden off of insurance companies. Then we could have cheaper, more readily available health care, and higher quality because competition would demand it.
 
volatile said:
You realise that the waiting times for a large proportion of Americans is essentially "infinity"?
Click to expand...

Where, and for who?

How can you condone a system that is excellent for a few and non-existant for the many?
Click to expand...

Did I condone a system like that? Could you show me where? I could have sworn I said our system needed fix'n.
 
Last edited:
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
Where, and for who?
Click to expand...

If you're not covered by Medicaid or insurance, you don't get treated. Or, you do get treated, but at the price of bankruptcy.

How many Americans forego treatment for minor illnesses because they can't afford the treatments? 16% of Americans are uninsured, so it's definitely more than "Zero". Ergo, their wait time is infinite, correct?

ETA: The number is in fact "millions". (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/business/05health.html)

Good job, free market system! Infinite wait times for millions of people! That's way better than 18 weeks for everyone! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
volatile said:
If you're not covered by Medicaid or insurance, you don't get treated. Or, you do get treated, but at the price of bankruptcy.

How many Americans forego treatment for minor illnesses because they can't afford the treatments? It's definitely more than "Zero". Ergo, their wait time is infinite, correct?
Click to expand...

Lots - the emergency system is overrun precisely because uninsured people have no other choice than to wait for their condition to get so bad that they qualify for emergency treatment.
 
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
Name one way Columbian HC is better than US health care?
Click to expand...

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_ch2_en.pdf

Assessing how well a health system does its job requires dealing with two large questions. The first is how to measure the outcomes of interest – that is, to determine what is achieved with respect to the three objectives of good health, responsiveness and fair financial contribution (attainment). The second is how to compare those attainments with what the system should be able to accomplish – that is, the best that could be achieved with the same resources (performance).
Click to expand...

Probably the second question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom