65
   

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 05:59 am
McGentrix wrote:

What about the crack addicts living in the slums that is unemployed. Which insurance covers them and their children?


Either the one he/she has been in since childhood (via parents), or the one she/he had been in when employed or - when insured via some social aid - usually the AOK ("Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse) = origianally more than some hundred different regional/local health insurers, nowadays Germany's biggest health insurance company, caring for 26,5 million people - a third of the German population.

That is usually done by the social services.

If they really would get the money cash, which I doubt, and don't get insured, which is nearly 100% impossible - the town's/county's/district's social office pays the insurance.

(The minimum sum is about 115€/month - for all having no or only little income - which is about $155. [The highest possible rate is about 550€ = $750 per month.])
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 10:51 am
old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
More great news about universal health care programs around the world...



Luckily, we don't have to take the word of some blogger on the internet for it, but can have a look some numbers. The following numbers for the UK and the US are from the OECD Health Data 2007 report...

practising physicians per 1 000 population:

- USA: 2.4
- UK: 2.4

nurses per 1 000 population:

- USA: 7.9
- UK: 9.1

acute care hospital beds per 1 000 population:

- USA: 2.7
- UK: 3.1


And now let's look at this in relation to the total health spending per capita:

- USA: 6,401 USD
- UK: 2,724 USD


(source)

Statistics can mean different things. Maybe you get what you pay for? Maybe efficiency means shorter stays in the hospital? Hopefully I am more than a number to my doctor. Currently, I am.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 10:56 am
UK cancer survival rate lowest in Europe

By Nicole Martin
Last Updated: 3:58am BST 21/08/2007

Cancer survival rates in Britain are among the lowest in Europe, according to the most comprehensive analysis of the issue yet produced.

European cancer survival rates

England is on a par with Poland despite the NHS spending three times more on health care.

Survival rates are based on the number of patients who are alive five years after diagnosis and researchers found that, for women, England was the fifth worst in a league of 22 countries. Scotland came bottom. Cancer experts blamed late diagnosis and long waiting lists.

In total, 52.7pc of women survived for five years after being diagnosed between 2000 and 2002. Only Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, the Czech Republic and Poland did worse. Just 44.8pc of men survived, putting England in the bottom seven countries.

The team, writing in The Lancet Oncology, found that Britain's survival rates for the most common cancers - colorectal, lung, breast and prostate - were substantially behind those in Western Europe. In England, the proportion of women with breast cancer who were alive five years after diagnosis was 77.8pc. Scotland (77.3pc) and Ireland (76.2pc) had a lower rate.

Rates for lung cancer in England were poor, with only 8.4pc of patients surviving - half the rate for Iceland (16.8pc). Only Scotland (8.2pc) and Malta (4.6pc) did worse.

Fewer women in England lived for five years after being diagnosed with cervical cancer (58.6pc) despite a national screening programme. This compared to 70.6pc in Iceland. Dr Franco Berrino, who led the study at the National Cancer Institute in Milan, said cancer care was improving in countries that recorded low survival figures. He added: "If all countries attained the mean survival (57pc) of Norway, Sweden and Finland, about 12pc fewer deaths would occur in the five years after diagnosis."

His co-researcher, Prof Ian Kunkler from the Western General Hospital in Edinburgh, said waiting lists for radiotherapy were partly to blame.

"Although there has been a substantial investment in radiotherapy facilities, there is still a shortfall," he said.
advertisement

"We have good evidence that survival for lung cancer has been compromised by long waiting lists for radiotherapy treatment."

A second article, which looked at 2.7 million patients diagnosed between 1995 and 1999, found that countries that spent the most on health per capita per year had better survival rates.

Britain was the exception. Despite spending up to £1,500 on health per person per year, it recorded similar survival rates for Hodgkin's disease and lung cancer as Poland, which spends a third of that amount.

An accompanying editorial said the figures showed that the NHS Cancer Plan, published in 2000, was not working.

"Survival in England has only increased at a similar rate to other European countries and has not caught up with the absolute values seen elsewhere," it said.

Prof Richard Sullivan at Cancer Research UK said: "Cancer is still not being diagnosed early enough in all cases."

Telegraph.co.uk

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ALDQAF
HLW3BERQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/08/21/ncanc
er121.xml

Female:

Highest rate of survival= USA at 63%
lowest rate of survival = Scotland at 48%


Male:

Highest rate of survival=USA at 66%
Lowest rate of survival=Slovenia 37%

Looks like UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE tanks in terms of cancer therapies... Cool
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 10:58 am
okie: Statistics can mean different things. Maybe you get what you pay for?

From article:
The stats: And now let's look at this in relation to the total health spending per capita:

- USA: 6,401 USD - UK: 2,724 USD



Let's see; if you buy a car that's worth $2,800, but if you pay $6,400 it's worth more - to the dumb buyer.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 11:11 am
okie wrote:
old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
More great news about universal health care programs around the world...



Luckily, we don't have to take the word of some blogger on the internet for it, but can have a look some numbers. The following numbers for the UK and the US are from the OECD Health Data 2007 report...

practising physicians per 1 000 population:

- USA: 2.4
- UK: 2.4

nurses per 1 000 population:

- USA: 7.9
- UK: 9.1

acute care hospital beds per 1 000 population:

- USA: 2.7
- UK: 3.1


And now let's look at this in relation to the total health spending per capita:

- USA: 6,401 USD
- UK: 2,724 USD


(source)

Statistics can mean different things. Maybe you get what you pay for? Maybe efficiency means shorter stays in the hospital? Hopefully I am more than a number to my doctor. Currently, I am.



The bit you quoted supposedly offered evidence for just how miserable the British system is by citing the numbers of specialist beds.

So either bad numbers are an indication for how bad a system is, or they are not.


Saying that on the one hand, bad number are a damning critique of the British system, but on the other hand, bad numbers have to be seen in an entirely different light when it comes to the American system seems to be highly hypocritical.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 11:13 am
imposter, read Miller's post, which indicates we do better with cancer treatments here, just one example, so yes, perhaps we do get more. Cancer treatment is mighty expensive. I had heard the same thing about it, so thanks to Miller for posting it. Imposter, for a society that is supposedly 30+% obese, perhaps our health care system is performing fabulously, given the material given them. Has that ever occurred to you in the slightest?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 11:17 am
Miller wrote:
Looks like UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE tanks in terms of cancer therapies... Cool


Really? How's the cancer survival rate in Massachusetts?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 11:18 am
old europe wrote:


The bit you quoted supposedly offered evidence for just how miserable the British system is by citing the numbers of specialist beds.

So either bad numbers are an indication for how bad a system is, or they are not.


Saying that on the one hand, bad number are a damning critique of the British system, but on the other hand, bad numbers have to be seen in an entirely different light when it comes to the American system seems to be highly hypocritical.

oe, I posted information that indicated people had to wait a long time to get a bed. It was not a simple assumption that a certain number of beds was not enough. It was based on the effects, not the numbers, but when you see the effects, you then look at the numbers. Perhaps the beds are in the wrong place or types of hospitals, for all I know. I know of nothing like that happening here in the U.S. Statistics don't mean much until you look a bit deeper.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 11:27 am
okie wrote:
oe, I posted information that indicated people had to wait a long time to get a bed. It was not a simple assumption that a certain number of beds was not enough. It was based on the effects, not the numbers, but when you see the effects, you then look at the numbers. Perhaps the beds are in the wrong place or types of hospitals, for all I know. I know of nothing like that happening here in the U.S. Statistics don't mean much until you look a bit deeper.


Okay.

Let's look a bit deeper (sorry, I know I've posted this before):

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_img/MirrorMirror_FigureES1.gif


Quote:
Access:


source
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 11:34 am
okie wrote:
I posted information that indicated people had to wait a long time to get a bed. It was not a simple assumption that a certain number of beds was not enough. It was based on the effects, not the numbers, but when you see the effects, you then look at the numbers.



So yes. I think I'll have to agree with you.

Given the fact that the numbers of beds are equally low in the US and in Britain, it seems there are different ways of dealing with it. In Britain, in spite of the low number of beds, everybody has access to health care. That means rationing. That means that you will end up with higher waiting times.

In the US, millions of people simply don't have access to health care. That is a kind of rationing. That means that those people who do have some kind of health insurance will likely profit from shorter waiting times.


(I, personally, would prefer the combination of a universal health care system and short waiting times. Seems to be the way to go.)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 11:39 am
okie usually doesn't understand the nuances of what he posts are wrong, wrong, and wrong. His ability to misinterpret the simplist of information is daunting at best. It's probably my problem for not having too much patience for ignorance that he seems to portray on a2k.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 11:40 am
I have always believed that okie is a simple houseplant.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 11:41 am
Incapable of speech or thought, but, with nurturing, a vague communication is discernible.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 01:16 pm
CANCER CARE (from BUSINESS WEEK report posted earlier)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
In France, the sicker you get, the less you pay. Chronic diseases, such as diabetes, and critical surgeries, such as a coronary bypass, are reimbursed at 100%. Cancer patients are treated free of charge. Patients suffering from colon cancer, for instance, can receive Genentech Inc.'s (DNA ) Avastin without charge. In the U.S., a patient may pay $48,000 a year.


(sure hope i'll NEVER need it , but i know where i'd like to be if i needed treatment !)
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 01:23 pm
hamburger wrote:
CANCER CARE (from BUSINESS WEEK report posted earlier)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
In France, the sicker you get, the less you pay. Chronic diseases, such as diabetes, and critical surgeries, such as a coronary bypass, are reimbursed at 100%. Cancer patients are treated free of charge. Patients suffering from colon cancer, for instance, can receive Genentech Inc.'s (DNA ) Avastin without charge. In the U.S., a patient may pay $48,000 a year.


(sure hope i'll NEVER need it , but i know where i'd like to be if i needed treatment !)


First of all in the United States of America, when an idividual is covered by either Medicare or health insurance, the $48,000 would be paid by their health plan.

Next...if you want to survive CANCER...I hope you know, you'd have to be in the United States of America.
Cool
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 01:24 pm
The USA has the HIGHEST cure rates for CANCER in the WORLD... Cool
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 01:27 pm
okie wrote:
imposter, read Miller's post, which indicates we do better with cancer treatments here, just one example, so yes, perhaps we do get more. Cancer treatment is mighty expensive. I had heard the same thing about it, so thanks to Miller for posting it. Imposter, for a society that is supposedly 30+% obese, perhaps our health care system is performing fabulously, given the material given them. Has that ever occurred to you in the slightest?


You receive the best of cancer care here in the USA, because the top-drawer cancer research is performed here in the USA, not some cellar in the middle of no where. Cool
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 01:32 pm
In France:
Quote:
Cancer patients are treated free of charge.


So? Why the sub-optimal recovery rates ( in France ) from cancer, relative to the USA?

The French used to be hot-sh!t in research, but since the passing of Monod et al., it looks like they're lagging in progress... Cool
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 01:35 pm
There's never been a question that the people who have the money get high-quality treatment in America; but what about all those that don't?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 01:36 pm
Miller wrote:
Looks like UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE in non-USA countries tanks in terms of cancer therapies... Cool




Cool
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/19/2025 at 11:28:09