socialized medicine another failed experiment

<i>American health care system has numerous problems. However, it is by far the best system in the world. Unless of course you listen to Michael Moore.</i>

Just curious; how can we the best in the world when this happens:

<b>while the U.S. spends more on health care than other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the use of health care services in the U.S. is below the OECD median by most measures.</b>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States

So we are spending more than everybody else, but getting less out of it. Yet we are #1?

By the way, a close friend of mine has cancer. Under the current system in the US, she will NEVER be insured since it is a pre-existing condition. If she lived in Canada, she would have no problem.
 
If you split healthcare in to two parts you will understand the paradox.

1. Low hassle easy universal access at appropriate point of entry to healthcare system (ie usually NOT the ED), preventative, well patient, and chronic condition care (US does a very poor job, UK Canda do a good job)
2. Emergent and inpatient care (US has no equal)

For the money that we spend it is criminal that we are not tops in both categories. If you actually care about high quality healthcare for all and not just about uninformed venting then chcek this site out and see what you can do to be part of the solution. It will also save the country many trillions as we will be able to cut healthcare expenditure as a % of GDP and give our companies the competative edge those from other nations already enjoy.

http://www.pnhp.org/
 
Socialized medicine has been around long enough to compare numbers other than the cost per individual.
According to an August 2008 study published in Lancet Oncology, the renowned British medical journal, Americans have a better than five-year survival rate for 13 of the 16 most prominent cancers when compared with their European and Canadian counterparts.

With breast cancer, for instance, the survival rate among American women is 83.9 percent. For women in Britain, it's just 69.7 percent. For men with prostate cancer, the survival rate is 91.9 percent here but just 73.7 percent in France and 51.1 percent in Britain.

American men and women are more than 35 percent more likely to survive colon cancer than their British counterparts.

It's no wonder then that foreign dignitaries living in countries with socialized health care systems routinely come to this country when they need top-flight medical treatment.

When Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi needed heart surgery in 2006, he traveled to the Cleveland Clinic — often considered America's best hospital for cardiac care. When Canadian Member of Parliament Belinda Stronach, who had denounced a two-tier health care system for Canadians, needed breast cancer surgery herself in 2007, she headed to a California hospital and paid out of pocket.
More...
So much for the "free" health care they could have received at home.

But what about the cost advantages of socialized medicine?
True, other developed nations may spend less on health care as a percentage of gross domestic product than the United States does — but so does Sudan. Without considering value, such statistical evaluations are worthless.

And one of the primary reasons health care costs more in America is that we are a wealthy country that demands the best. And, we're investing a lot more in medical research.

The United States produces over half of the $175 billion in health care technology products purchased globally. In 2004, the federal government funded medical research to the tune of $18.4 billion. By contrast, the European Union — which has a significantly larger population than the United States — allocated funds equal to just $3.7 billion for medical research.

Between 1999 and 2005, the United States was responsible for 71 percent of the sales of new pharmaceutical drugs. The next two largest pharmaceutical markets — Japan and Germany — account for just 4 percent each.
More...
Look at the data and don't accept the socialist 'central planning' approach and the politically correct media.
 
<i>Look at the data and don't accept the socialist 'central planning' approach and the politically correct media.</i>

Yes, our system works great if you are insured. But, if you are not insured, it does not work very well.

Which insurance company do you think will touch anybody with a pre-existing condition?
 
<i>http://www.pnhp.org/</i>

The link you are quoting argues for single payer health care. I used to be for it until I noticed that Conyers, their main proponent in Congress, wants to fund it with a 0.25% stock transaction tax.

That is simply insane and may actually reduce revenue (and put a lot of discount brokers out of business) rather than pay for single payer health care.
 
The whole point of this plan is that it doesn't need to be paid for with a new tax, if done right it should result in a net savings. The idea of having to pay additional monies defeats the whole purpose which is to get better healthcare, for all in the US at less cost by reducing non healthcare related "overhead", currently at least 40%, with a medicare type administration of the program, which has an administrative overhead of between 3-7% depending on what you take in to account.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top