okie wrote:I am still wondering why you guys there are so interested in reforming the system over here across the pond?
Missed that.
I did (and sometimes still) work for a non-profit organsation which runs a couple of hospitals in the USA (actually, this organisation provided my healthcare [besides dentist] from birth until became a conscript) plus about 100 other health and social welfare related institutions.
okie, if you're criticising the situation in Venezuela, does that mean you want to reform the Venezuelan political system - or are you merely stating your opinion?
The funny thing is that those arguing
against universal health care - like for example McGentrix - are just as quick to point out the flaws in the systems of other countries.
McGentrix even
started a thread with an article talking about how bad the health care system in Canada was.
In the same thread, McGentrix commented later
McGentrix wrote:You keep commenting as though people actually give a **** what healthcare is like in Germany. What could have possibly given you that thought?
Apparently, comparing health care systems and commenting on health care systems of other countries is okay as long as McGentrix is doing the commenting and comparing.
Funny how that works.
old europe wrote:Apparently, comparing health care systems and commenting on health care systems of other countries is okay as long as McGentrix is doing the commenting and comparing.
Funny how that works.
You keep commenting as though people actually give a **** that McGentrix is involuntarily funny.
Back to ... waiting time.
Dermatoligists have here in my town a truly long waiting time (if not for emergency cases), between 3 to 6 weeks .... or waiting in the waiting for up to six hours.
Quote:A study published online in the American Academy of Dermatology and reported in today's [= August 29] New York Times shows that patients seeking an appointment with a dermatologist for examination of a potentially cancerous mole wait longer on average than those who seek appointments for cosmetic botox injections.
The study, which examined requests for appointments in 12 US cities, reported that patients seeking botox injections waited an average of eight days for an appointment, while those seeking an appointment for examination of changes to a mole, which could indicate skin cancer, waited 26 days.
Full text (pdf) of above mentioned study (you have to register):
Short Wait Times for Patients Seeking Cosmetic Botulinum Toxin Appointments with Dermatologists
old europe wrote:okie, if you're criticising the situation in Venezuela, does that mean you want to reform the Venezuelan political system - or are you merely stating your opinion?
We can all comment on anything here. I was merely pointing out that McGentrix had as much ability to comment on universal health care as Walter did on U.S. health care. And I would think the politics of a country has more impact on the world than the health care system of some other country. I have not commented on Venezuela's health care system.
Quote:The funny thing is that those arguing
against universal health care - like for example McGentrix - are just as quick to point out the flaws in the systems of other countries.
McGentrix even
started a thread with an article talking about how bad the health care system in Canada was.
In the same thread, McGentrix commented later
Well, you guys are making plenty of comments on U.S. health care, so whats the difference?
Quote:Apparently, comparing health care systems and commenting on health care systems of other countries is okay as long as McGentrix is doing the commenting and comparing.
Funny how that works.
That argument goes both ways.
okie: That argument goes both ways.
It's funny how you and McG seems to have no support for your positions, and almost everybody else seems to agree about universal health care. From that context, your arguments against universal health care seems predicated on nothing more than ignorance.
There you go again, this from a guy that can't answer a simple question.
I believe this discussion is persistently missing a couple of essential points that, in my view at least, do bear on the matter.
1. Given the near 'universal' affection of the European and Canadian posters here on A2K for government mandated, sponsored, or managed 'universal' health care systems, what explains the reluctance of Americans to adopt such a system? Are they somehow backward, or in the grip of illusions that do not so affect their cousins in other developed countries? Or are there concrete historical factors that explain it. Alternatively (or additionally) , are there economic and social factors that alter the situation here as it might be evaluated by a rational observer?
2. Is it possible that the European experience is itself unique? A population beset by the memory of a century of war; mass destruction and murder; the contest between failed authoritarian political and economic systems (facist & socialist) and liberal democracies that were (mostly) unable to resist them; repeated redrawing of national borders and (after WWII) mass and widespread ethnic cleansing of wide areas - all left their mark on the affected population. The post WWII baby boom and economic explosion, followed by rapid demographic decline accompanied by economic "stagflation" and political unrest, were all symptomatic of these effects, - and it is likely there are other lasting ones as well. Europeans have rather consistently developed and demanded extensive social welfare and labor market regulatory systems from their governments, many of which can no longer be sustained with the evolving population profiles and economic conditions.
The many stresses noted in #2 above hardly touched the United States. It seems obvious to me that these different experiences could lead to lasting differences on many fundamental social, economic and political issues. "Universal truths" that seem "obvious" to one population may well appear very different to another.
The differences in social and economic welfare between Europe and America collectively, and the rest of the world are so great as to make this dispute somewhat laughable. I am reminded of the old adage concerning the way in which academic disputes are fought with tenacity and ferocity -- "Because the stakes are so low" is the punch line.
Actually, USAF, your question was answered several times already many pages back. Any sick person walking into an emergency room will be attended to whether they have insurance or not. The hospital is required to "stabilize" the patient before they are sent on their way.
That's another reason a universal health care system is better; the hospital will actually do more for that patient to make sure he/she gets the necessary care after stabilization.
I doubt okie knows how to read or understand what is written, so I'll repeat it here again.
cicerone imposter wrote:
okie, I did answer your question, but you completely missed it. Here', I'll repeat it for you: Obesity is one factor for bad health, but how about education, genes and environment?
okie:
You never answered yes or no. You continue to obfuscate. I will answer your question by saying education, genes, and environment are factors, but we would need to argue over their importance. Bottom line, in regard to the equation: health care = life expectancy, the equation should read:
Lifestyle + Health care = Life expectancy.
That's all I am arguing here, that's all. There was the suggestion that health care = life expectancy and it just is a basic point that needs to be understood as incorrect.
So imposter, are you going to continue to call names, the cowardly way out, or are you going to use common sense, if you have any?
Followed by:
You never answered yes or no. You continue to obfuscate. I will answer your question by saying education, genes, and environment are factors, but we would need to argue over their importance. Bottom line, in regard to the equation: health care = life expectancy, the equation should read: Lifestyle + Health care = Life expectancy.
That's all I am arguing here, that's all. There was the suggestion that health care = life expectancy and it just is a basic point that needs to be understood as incorrect.
So imposter, are you going to continue to call names, the cowardly way out, or are you going to use common sense, if you have any?
c.i.: That's not a "yes" or "no" question, but that's to be expected. This is not considered "obfuscation" by most people who understands the English language.
okie, You can't even get your equation right. It's not "lifestyle + health care = life expectancy." You just don't understand what's involved, and trying to talk to someone with very little knowledge only produces ignorant equations.
Imposter, give it up. I think I made a good point, and anyone that can understand it already has. George is trying to return the thread to a reasonable discussion.
georgeob1 wrote: Is it possible that the European experience is itself unique?
The idea of universal healthcare is founded in the health cary systems of the medieval guilds.
This was adopted by some "steel barons" during the time of industrial revolution in Germany (or sometimes, like with Krupp, by their wives).
Thus, it got discussed in conservative circles - and could be used by Bismarck as a "weapon" against socialist ideas.
Obviously it worked at least for decades so well that most countries worldwide adopted this system with the one or other national/cultural alterration.
Coming back to your quote: when it started in 12th/13th century it was known all over the world. The small world of the European centrist view, though.
georgeob1 wrote:1. Given the near 'universal' affection of the European and Canadian posters here on A2K for government mandated, sponsored, or managed 'universal' health care systems, what explains the reluctance of Americans to adopt such a system?
A political class that is unresponsive to the popular will.
According to Pollingreport.com, a substatntial majority of Americans does support universal health care. So Americans aren't reluctant about the system, American politicians are. Especially conservative American politicians.
georgeob1 wrote:2. Is it possible that the European experience is itself unique?
Maybe, maybe not. But for your speculation to work, the Canadian experience would have to be unique in the same way as the European's is. It isn't -- yet they do have a universal health care system, and it's more efficient than that of the USA.
Just adding to my above: 'healthcare' was discussed even in those medieval days.: as a result a lot of "free" hospital were founded in 12th/13th century .... by brotherhoods, as a kind of response to the "free healthcare" in the guilds.
Medieval Guilds were monopolistic exclusionary organizations. They certainly did not represent government, even as it was then. To claim this as a meaningful antecedant of Government mandated (as in Germany) insurance systems is more of a stretch than reason allows.
Thomas wrote:A political class that is unresponsive to the popular will....
A trite, but essentially meaningless, phrase that illuminates nothing. (even when "backed up" by a superficial and leading CNN poll).
The United States has adopted significantly diferent social welfare systems from those of Europe, and those differences persist. I believe the points I made above have far more to do with the truth of this situation than these rather superficial observations.
Canada's population is about 11% that of the United States - hardly a meaningful comparison.
georgeob1 wrote:Canada's population is about 11% that of the United States - hardly a meaningful comparison.
Only because you don't want the comparison to mean anything. You have given no reason why the size of a population should affect the efficiency of its health care system.
georgeob1 wrote:Medieval Guilds were monopolistic exclusionary organizations. They certainly did not represent government, even as it was then. To claim this as a meaningful antecedant of Government mandated (as in Germany) insurance systems is more of a stretch than reason allows.
Your opinion.
Give me a single source in the history of health insurances/health care which doesn't at least refer to the guild's health system.
Germany doesn't have a government mandated health health inurance system: the closest twould be a "blend of government-mandated financing by employers/employees".
cicerone imposter wrote:USAF, Your scenario misses one big point. That kind of emergency is taken care of by calling 911. If you call any hospital with symptoms of a heart attack, you don't wait to drive to the hospital; you call 911, and the medics will take you there - while treating you during the transfer.
When anybody calls 911, they don't ask if you have insurance.
No, it is you who is missing the point. The paramedics cannot preform a bypass surgery. And that surgery has to be paid for by someone.
The "efficiency of the health care system" is not the sole, or even the central, issue here. Neither is the term well-defined. I suppose you mean the relationship between measured costs and various measures of public health. While lots of data are circulated, I believe there are a host of unmeasured elements, particularly including the side effects on investment and related economic activity, and as well different adaptations to external facts, such as immigration.
You appear to be suggesting that the democratic process on this issue does not work in this country - even over long periods of time. What is your evidence for this? (certainly it is not the superficial poll you referenced.) One could equally well assert the same factor operates in Europe. I don't do this - I believe that in both regions the long term behavior of governments is indeed an accurate indicator of the public will.
cicerone imposter wrote:Actually, USAF, your question was answered several times already many pages back. Any sick person walking into an emergency room will be attended to whether they have insurance or not. The hospital is required to "stabilize" the patient before they are sent on their way.
That's another reason a universal health care system is better; the hospital will actually do more for that patient to make sure he/she gets the necessary care after stabilization.
I am well aware of the requirements. My question still stands. Who is going to pay for this $60K surgery? Remember that heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US. That's a LOT of money...
What about illegal aliens? Do they get this $60K surgery too ?
