My brother and his girl had been getting brainwashed into thinking NHI/UHC was the way to go, so we had a lively discussion over the weekend. One of my arguments against NHI/UHC is that in time, the private sector would take care of the lower class, much in the same way Walgreens (a national drug store) does now (to an extent.)
Think about it. Right now ANYONE can walk into a Walgreens and buy things that treat all kinds of ailments. I was telling him that in time, there will be cancer pills sold at Walgreens and that they’d have on site docs to take care of minor (perhaps even major) health issues.
It’s my belief (and I think research would back this) that medical prices are kept artificial high by restrictions that are in place that keep things from being market efficient. I’m positive that the Target and Walmart type corporations would LOVE to be able to provide more advanced medical procedures (and could probably have them done for 1/10th the price and double the service) but there are rules and regulations preventing them from doing so.
MTK -
I think a lot of factors will contribute to a major change in US healthcare.
The removal of quotas on new med school students would go a long way in that.
The slow change to a more pro-active personal responsibility for preventive medical care. That is, the person realizing that a lot of prevention is their personal responsibility, i.e. diet, nutrition and exercise. I see that growing in acceptance and understanding.
The shifting in status of the role of the MD from one of “hallowed Saint of Medicine” to a role of “Health Consultant” who works with their patient and actually involves them in their health regimen.
The growing use and acceptance of neighborhood clinics. These can go a long way in removing the burden on the local hospitals once people understand how they work and what their benefits can be.
The use of what were formerly considered ‘alternative’ methods along with Allopathic treatment procedures.
There a quite a few other items, but these just are some that come to mind. Its an evolving situation and I think its good that things are evolving.
I think it only applies to “emergency” situations. Which is why the ER is health insurance for the lower class.[/quote]
It has nothing to do with the Hippocratic Oath, and everything to do with federal law. Only a minority of American medical schools require doctors to take the Hippocratic Oath any more.
just let them sell generics… it would completely kill all the system…
In the middle of the movie, when they are in Cuba, they get a drug (don’t know if the same or a generic) that is sold in USA for 120USD at 5 cents… in a normal world, drugs would be more expensive in undeveloped nations…
anectdotal story:
my brother got hurt at work in downtown st.louis, about five minutes from the University Hospital. Co-workers called 911 for an ambulance. 30 minutes later a fire engine showed up. the firefighters confirmed that he did indeed need an ambulance. as fire engines aren’t to transport injured they called for an ambulance. 15 minutes later the ambulance arrived and took him towards the hospital. the father of two who was fully conscious after the incident died enroute.
why does the city send fire engines out on ambulance calls? to make sure that an ambulance is really needed. so what if people die? cities in such cases have immunity.
[quote=“Jack Burton”]Someone asked about the hippocratic oath, and not taking in patients etc. (Hospitals aren’t bound by the oath, individual doctors are)
Incidentally, in the news, two hospitals in LA were charged with dumping homeless patients in Skid Row.
this sounds right…when i worked in london i had an eye infection but discovered there was a 2 week wait to see a doctor…but i was told also that if you hang around a hospital and spot a doctor you can force him to see you; no doctor has the right to refuse treatment to a patient face to face…bizarre innit!
btw London (or at least west Ken., Hammersmith where i was) now gets around it’s chronicly overloaded health system by running Nurses clinics…they have staff nurses do simple diagnostics and prescription of medication…
In the States, they have to stop life-threatening conditions (i.e., stop bleeding, bring down your blood pressure if it’s skyrocketing, etc.) but nothing more, so people without insurance can find themselves “discharged” far before any sane person would agree to leave the hospital, or before most physicians would think of discharging them. That is, if they are ever admitted…most just hang out in the ER until they’re stabilized. There is some sort of law that hospitals cannot refuse to take ambulances bringing them in, but it’s widely variable what actually gets done when the ambulance unloads the patient.
Hans Rosling has what must be if not the only, certainly the most entertaining statistical presentation. If you watch this presentation, particularly around the 5:00 mark, it clearly shows a traditional bias in the US favoring economic growth over health care. It really is an excellent presentation. Ok, the Powerpoint’s a cheap joke, and the sword swallowing’s a throw away gag, but other than that…
[quote] Moore focuses on the private insurance companies and makes no mention of the U.S. government-funded health-care systems such as Medicare, Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Veterans Affairs health-care systems. About 50 percent of all health-care dollars spent in the United States flows through these government systems.
“Sicko” also ignores a handful of good things about the American system. Believe it or not, the United States does rank highest in the patient satisfaction category. Americans do have shorter wait times than everyone but Germans when it comes to nonemergency elective surgery such as hip replacements, cataract removal or knee repair.[/quote]
[quote] Moore focuses on the private insurance companies and makes no mention of the U.S. government-funded health-care systems such as Medicare, Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Veterans Affairs health-care systems. About 50 percent of all health-care dollars spent in the United States flows through these government systems.
“Sicko” also ignores a handful of good things about the American system. Believe it or not, the United States does rank highest in the patient satisfaction category. Americans do have shorter wait times than everyone but Germans when it comes to nonemergency elective surgery such as hip replacements, cataract removal or knee repair.[/quote][/quote]
I haven’t seen Sicko, but I saw a bit of MM interviewed by Larry King on CNN yesterday, and MM states that the US has some of, if not the, best doctors and health care in the world. I’m not sure what the point about patient satisfaction is meant to make - if the Larry King interview with MM is anything to go by, the film is not disputing that.
By that standard, our educational system is socialist as well.[/quote]
By that definition, public libraries, fire departments, the police and the military are socialist institutions too. It begs the question: does “socialist” (by this Libertarian definition, rather than the Marxist one) necessarily mean “undesirable”?
By that standard, our educational system is socialist as well.[/quote]
By that definition, public libraries, fire departments, the police and the military are socialist institutions too. It begs the question: does “socialist” (by this Libertarian definition, rather than the Marxist one) necessarily mean “undesirable”?[/quote]
While some things may be better off run by the government (like libraries, fire departments, police and the military.) I don’t believe health care is one of those things.
Although the idea of “Universal Health Care” is a great ideal, I don’t believe it’s one that is economically possible. I believe the plan that was proposed above (the link is missing) wasn’t a good one. I think that would lead to below average service for all.
I don’t think a system that shields the less fortunate from basic health misfortunes is a bad idea (if put together properly.) But I do think a totally government run health care system, with the doctors paid by the gov. and the hospitals run and owned by the gov., is a TERRIBLE idea.
I’m happy to explain why I that way if you’d like to know.
[quote=“miltownkid”]Although the idea of “Universal Health Care” is a great ideal, I don’t believe it’s one that is economically possible.[/quote]I’d like you to explain that belief, in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary.
You know, holding a belief in the face of evidence to the contrary is usually called ‘wishful thinking’.
[quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“miltownkid”]Although the idea of “Universal Health Care” is a great ideal, I don’t believe it’s one that is economically possible.[/quote]I’d like you to explain that belief, in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary.
You know, holding a belief in the face of evidence to the contrary is usually called ‘wishful thinking’.[/quote] Mountains of evidence? I doubt that. Why not show me this mountain of economic evidence?
And I apologize for not being clear. UHC certainly is economically possible. It can be duck-taped together and kept steaming ahead by burning tax payer dollars. I don’t think a 100% governmentally controlled health care system is something that will be economically sustainable in the long run because the people will not put up with it when the leaks become unbearable.
What is lacking in this discussion is what exactly people mean when they say Universal Health Care. I always tend to think about a 100% government controlled system. I’m really against that.
For example, in the article Vay posted above it refers to 5 different countries as having UHC, but they are all very different systems and shouldn’t just be bundled under the umbrella term of UHC.