single-payer system ... singled out

[ddt]

No, you read that into what I said.

Really? I'll repeat your statement from a previous post:

I have no reason to trust politicians with even more power, and every reason to think that putting even more of the healthcare system under their charge would be a complete mess.

and from another post:

but until I see Washington handling the health care they already control with competence, I have no reason to assume they won't, and every reason to think they will, make a similar mess of any universal health care system.

You've unequivocally said you considered your national politicians incompetent at running healthcare.

There are other possibilities. One is that since we're much larger than any individual European country, simple issues scale will exacerbate inefficiency problems we have compared to you (ie, a system twice as big will have more than twice the waste).

Medicare has 43 million beneficiaries. That's less than the population of the UK or France (both state-run UHC). Otherwise, you have these things called states. Canadian UHC is also executed by the provinces.

Another is that Americans will simply demand other things from our health care system than what Europeans demand, even if these are not productive in terms of standard metrics (for example, extensive and expensive end-of-life treatments).

Sounds like speculation. Evidence? See also: voluntary additional coverage.

There may be additional reasons beyond these. But regardless of the causes, there is simply no reason to believe that a major expansion of government coverage can occur without a major expansion of government costs. Has that ever happened in Europe? If so, nobody is pointing to it.

When the government covers more people's health care costs, it costs the government more, that's trivial - but I guess that's not what you mean.

 

[Ziggurat]

Really?

Really. I think European politicians may be just as corrupt and incompetent.

Medicare has 43 million beneficiaries. That's less than the population of the UK or France (both state-run UHC).

But they're not the same sort of population, are they? So in terms of a population of patients (meaning, the number of people being treated at any one time), I would say it's still significantly larger.

When the government covers more people's health care costs, it costs the government more, that's trivial - but I guess that's not what you mean.

That's part of what I mean, and yes, that part is trivial. And yet, it keeps getting ignored. Why do various other government-run health care system costs keep getting compared to our costs, when there's no chance in hell our costs are going to match those costs (or even come close) even if we try to adopt similar systems?

 

[elbe]

Really. I think European politicians may be just as corrupt and incompetent.

Ah, so universal healthcare must not be that hard. I think so too. I'm glad you've come around!

 

[Toke]

Really. I think European politicians may be just as corrupt and incompetent.

The drug pricing indicate that the european politicians are less beholden to drug companies.
Corruption, not incompetence could be the core problem of the high american healthcare costs.

 

[Ziggurat]

The drug pricing indicate that the european politicians are less beholden to drug companies.
Corruption, not incompetence could be the core problem of the high american healthcare costs.

Maybe. I don't claim to know. But I know enough not to believe anyone who claims that we can drastically expand a government program without a correspondingly large increasing in costs. Which is exactly what is being suggested by anyone who argues that we should adopt a government-run health care system based upon the idea that other countries who have them pay less than we do.

 

[Toke]

If it happens to corruption that is your core problem I would expect it to cause some unhappines, if not outright revolution. It is after all quite large amounts that goes missing, around 50%.

 

[balrog666]

Insert random lie here -[xxxx]. Repeat it often enough and some people will believe it.

Same as it ever was ...

 

[Architect]

I'm glad you realise the flaw in your position - it's remarkably honest of you.

 

[Bombastic Penguin]

My personal experience with the Canadian healthcare system has never been copacetic.
I had Chrohn's disease. I had to wait to see a specialist for over a month (imagine if I cancelled), who couldn't even decide if I should stay on the medication or undergo surgery.
I had to be driven to the emergency room. Oh ho, and you don't just wait for a few hours. It's matter of waiting in the emergency room, for a doctor, in the ward, and then for a doctor again.

Then there's the matter of having to undergo a second surgery.

Waiting time: eight months

Quite a good chance of being rejected your first time, if you suffer from a detrimental psychiatric ailment.

And if you're lucky you can end up this man:

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=c83de5bb-9e5d-4e1a-b966-0aafe5404fc9

It's not quite as free as some people think. Long-term care, physio-therapy, dentistry, optometry etc.. are privatized. We still have to pay for pharmaceuticals, which are subjected to price control.

Oh yes, and we can't forget the true burden of the working class, TAXES!

But I guess it could be worse. it could be like the scandal-ridden NHS.

As for our educational system well... no comment for now.

 

[Architect]

Fristly, Crohn's is rarely an immediately life threatening condition; one of my best firends has had it quite badly since he was about 15. He's hospitalised for more intesnive treatment and monitoring during bad attacks, roughly every two to 3 years, and as far as I know has never had to wait long to see his consultant. You may have had a bad experience, your local hospital may just be a bit crappy, who knows? But the national statistics say that your health is in at least the same general order as the US, so statistically it seems unlikely that you're a typical case.

Secondly, the Winnipeg case was completely unacceptable. However so was this, in the US:

http://cbs11tv.com/local/parkland.emergency.room.2.824805.html

And this:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06082009/news/regionalnews/er_nightmare_173084.htm

So the Canadian case is hardly a damning criticism of UHC, is it?

As for the scandal ridden NHS? Okay, I'll bite. What are you referring to?

 

[Bombastic Penguin]

You may have had a bad experience, your local hospital may just be a bit crappy, who knows?

Only if you believe in the relativist fallacy.

But the national statistics

linky

say that your health is in at least the same general order as the US, so statistically it seems unlikely that you're a typical case.

Ziggaraut already brought up the case of life expectancy, infant morality, and perhaps obesity. It's quite the leap of faith to judge a healthcare system by certain variables, in which measurements vary by country.

In other words: Plurium Interrogationum.

So the Canadian case is hardly a damning criticism of UHC, is it?

I'd say this polarizing issue extends far beyond me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Criticisms

As for the scandal ridden NHS? Okay, I'll bite. What are you referring to?

I shall chew tommorow. For now I shall dream of bloody revolution, and Thomas Jefferson is a sexy corsett.

 

[volatile]

Still no-one wants to explain what "freedoms" or "choices" Americans have that British people don't, in regards to healthcare?

Beerina? Balrog? Ziggurat? You've all made this claim, one way or another. Want to even try to back it up?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I would like to interject a comment.

The plural of ancedote is not data.

 

[Architect]

linky

It's covered earlier in the thread. In detail, with links.

Ziggaraut already brought up the case of life expectancy, infant morality, and perhaps obesity. It's quite the leap of faith to judge a healthcare system by certain variables, in which measurements vary by country.

The previously quoted links would indicate that we in fact enjoy better health by key indicators. Ziggy objected to the methods, without proposing his own "metrics", but posted a single reference suggesting that the US was "middle of the pack". We've therefore settled on simply saying that healtcare in comparable developed countries with UHC is at least equal.

But really, if you want to claim our healthcare standards are lower then do produce some linkys of you own.

 

[volatile]

Insert random lie here -[xxxx]. Repeat it often enough and some people will believe it.

Same as it ever was ...

Care to name some "random lies", and the evidence you think proves them to be so?

Or are you only talking about the stuff about "lack of choice" which you parrot so regularly, and which we all actually demonstrate to be false?

 

[Toke]

Insert random lie here -[xxxx]. Repeat it often enough and some people will believe it.

Same as it ever was ...

Sorry, I throught he was talking about the lobbying against UHC.

Why do people have a problem replacing the word incompetent with corrupt?


Becauce it makes UHC in the US a pipedream? or because it makes the US resemble some 3. world country?

 

[volatile]

My personal experience with the Canadian healthcare system has never been copacetic.
I had Chrohn's disease. I had to wait to see a specialist for over a month (imagine if I cancelled), who couldn't even decide if I should stay on the medication or undergo surgery.
I had to be driven to the emergency room. Oh ho, and you don't just wait for a few hours. It's matter of waiting in the emergency room, for a doctor, in the ward, and then for a doctor again.

Then there's the matter of having to undergo a second surgery.

Waiting time: eight months

Quite a good chance of being rejected your first time, if you suffer from a detrimental psychiatric ailment.

OK, so you feel that a UHC didn't give you the levels of care you believe you deserved.

How would a privatised system have been better? After all, as Rolfe has already pointed out, had you chosen to take private insurance, your overall costs would still have been lower than they would have been in the USA. This was an option available to you. If you couldn't afford privatised care, what makes you think you could have afforded it in a fully-privatised system, where premiums are necessarily higher?

I don't understand how you believe yours is an argument against socialised healthcare, rather than an argument for the specific care in your specific region to be improved. Rolfe's explained it well elsewhere - you're not entirely content with care you're entitled to. In the USA, you may not have been entitled to any care at all.

 

[Rolfe]

You aren't under the mistaken impression that a government takeover of healthcare is the only possible alternative, are you?

Correct. We're not.

As has been pointed out ad infinitum, the number of different ways to deliver universal healthcare is about the same as the number of countries operating it. Some are government-run, some are not.

The definition of universal healthcare is that every citizen has access to a good standard of healthcare at point of need, at a price he can afford - this price is often zero or nominal.

There are all sorts of different ways to fund it, just look around at all the different systems.

You're not happy with your current system, but you've become so frustrated by posters from other countries discussing what's wrong with it and why your objections to universal healthcare are based on dubious premises that you've now resorted to complaining that anyone outside the USA is even expressing an opinion!

Well, how would you fix the things you're not happy with?

Rolfe.

 

[ddt]

Really. I think European politicians may be just as corrupt and incompetent.

Still, they seem to be able to pull off some form of UHC, and either organize it themselves or at least organize oversight/regulation over the system.

But they're not the same sort of population, are they? So in terms of a population of patients (meaning, the number of people being treated at any one time), I would say it's still significantly larger.

My bad, you're right. Shouldn't just take the Medicare population and expand from that (has happened before on this thread).

That's part of what I mean, and yes, that part is trivial. And yet, it keeps getting ignored. Why do various other government-run health care system costs keep getting compared to our costs, when there's no chance in hell our costs are going to match those costs (or even come close) even if we try to adopt similar systems?

When you have 1 mn clients and 3 bn of costs, then you can expect with 5 mn clients to have 15 bn of costs (characteristics of the population remaining equal). Why should it suddenly then be, say, 20 bn? What would make the latter inherently more difficult to manage? And if that were the case, why not split it up regionally or along states?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

If Italy - with its famously corrupt polititians - can manage to have a universal healthcare system, I don't see why corruption would be a barrier.