Healthcare Reform in the US of A

PB Forum :: Social / Political Issues
Healthcare Reform in the US of A
Author Message
flag gibson19
Posted: Apr 12, 2010 at 19:21 Quote
harriieee wrote:

When you're rich you don't have to believe in altruism.

I believe interesting stuff about altruism but you wouldn't like it Razz

As for a "Fat tax"... I'm all for it if we are taxing behavior and not stuff like food... I eat so incredibly unhealthy but I don't just sit on my ass all day so it doesn't get to me...

We should tax shitty drivers too

... oi I just proposed more taxes Confused
flag laurie1
Mod
Posted: Apr 12, 2010 at 19:22 Quote
gibson19 wrote:
I eat so incredibly unhealthy but I don't just sit on my ass all day so it doesn't get to me...

Just because you look alright on the outside doesn't mean that your arteries aren't clogged/clogging up.
flag gibson19
Posted: Apr 12, 2010 at 19:25 Quote
laurie1 wrote:
gibson19 wrote:
I eat so incredibly unhealthy but I don't just sit on my ass all day so it doesn't get to me...

Just because you look alright on the outside doesn't mean that your arteries aren't clogged/clogging up.

They aren't... I haz good cholesterol and all that stuff... and I do keep some moderation in mind when I eat...
flag harriieee
Posted: Apr 13, 2010 at 6:41 Quote
laurie1 wrote:
What are the concerns? The stereotype of socialized medicine -- long waits and limited choice -- still has some truth. In response, the British government has instituted reforms to help make care more competitive and give patients more choice. Hospitals now compete for NHS funds distributed by local Primary Care Trusts, and starting in April 2008 patients are able to choose where they want to be treated for many procedures.

I wonder if you know what these reforms actually involve? It involves hospitals and clinics meeting target after target in order to secure their funding. By any means possible. And for some reason, the government believes that this is the same thing as an increase in standards. Now one of British hospitals' prime aims is to get enough patients out of the door as fast as possible so their funding doesn't get slashed. Add to this the fact that the NHS is drowning in managers and bureaucracy - which must be costing our system a sizeable chunk of its available funds, seeing as they're all on upwards of 50k a year - pretty much solely to its detriment, and you have the magnificent process that is the 'competitivisation' of the NHS. My mother is a psychoanalyst. Her trust is going to be shut down next year because it isn't deemed to be cost-efficient enough. No replacement has been mooted. So an area of 140,000 people will be left with no psychiatric unit at all.

Modernisation baby.
flag theweapon52
Posted: Apr 13, 2010 at 7:19 Quote
It seems to me that the United States spends more on health care than most other industrialized nations yet the patients in the American system receive the fewest benefits. I think its a good idea that the system is getting an overhaul. However i also think that cramming another 50 million people into already crowded hospitals is going to create a fair amount of problems. Obama got the ball rolling but i can't imagine that its going to be easy pleasing a country that, for the most part is so afraid of "socialism". Therefore his execution strategies will be key to ensuring public health care is as widely accepted as possible, otherwise it's just going to fall apart. Its going to be interesting watching this play out over the coming years from across the boarder.
flag gibson19
Posted: Apr 13, 2010 at 7:36 Quote
theweapon52 wrote:
It seems to me that the United States spends more on health care than most other industrialized nations yet the patients in the American system receive the fewest benefits.

Where'd you hear that?... If there is a problem with American health care its that its expensive... The quality is great... much better than Canada...
flag theweapon52
Posted: Apr 13, 2010 at 7:47 Quote
gibson19 wrote:
theweapon52 wrote:
It seems to me that the United States spends more on health care than most other industrialized nations yet the patients in the American system receive the fewest benefits.

Where'd you hear that?... If there is a problem with American health care its that its expensive... The quality is great... much better than Canada...


I have lots of family living in Florida, Utah and Wisconsin so its really word of mouth, no hard evidence. Im talking about the amount of money that most people have to pay for insurance and then having to pay for extra things such as medication or medical supplies. Im sure this varies with the type of policy that the patient has. I never said the quality of care was bad, just commenting on how expensive healthcare can be when it is privatized, thats all.
flag laurie1
Mod
Posted: Apr 13, 2010 at 7:54 Quote
The US does spend the most on healthcare based on GDP. However, the amount of people that are uninsured or unable to get help when they need it, lowers their ranking substantially as it is a 'closed' system only accessible by a few and not everyone. Therefore, it lowers ranking since it isn't inclusive. However, lots of people still flock to the US for surgery or experimental treatment because they can get some of the best services if they can afford it. There is no shortage of Canadians going south to get surgeries done because of the excessive wait times in Canada. The US is a huge hub for research, medical innovation/technology, and grants. I guess this also contributes to the US spending the most on healthcare based on GDP. The private system perpetuates research as they know that the next breakthrough can lead to huge profits so it’s worthwhile to spend large sums of money on research and this attracts a lot of the best doctors and researchers worldwide.
flag theweapon52
Posted: Apr 13, 2010 at 8:16 Quote
laurie1 wrote:
The US does spend the most on healthcare based on GDP. However, the amount of people that are uninsured or unable to get help when they need it, lowers their ranking substantially as it is a 'closed' system only accessible by a few and not everyone. Therefore, it lowers ranking since it isn't inclusive. However, lots of people still flock to the US for surgery or experimental treatment because they can get some of the best services if they can afford it. There is no shortage of Canadians going south to get surgeries done because of the excessive wait times in Canada. The US is a huge hub for research, medical innovation/technology, and grants. I guess this also contributes to the US spending the most on healthcare based on GDP. The private system perpetuates research as they know that the next breakthrough can lead to huge profits so it’s worthwhile to spend large sums of money on research and this attracts a lot of the best doctors and researchers worldwide.


There is no if ands or buts about the U.S being a major center for research and development and the world owes a lot. However, when you talk about experimental treatments (this is purely speculation and without empirical support) i would imagine that because so much money is allocated towards research that those 50 million who are uninsured could be missing out. In my mind a healthcare system is there for those who need it and should not be exclusive to those who can afford it, so why not place some global emphasis upon research and focus on broadening services. There are plenty of good doctors around the world, this is speaking ideally of course but i would think that if the goal of this funding is to cure ailments then a broad perspective on how to do that may not be such a bad idea. Thus i don't think major drug companies should take issue with spending money over seas to help achieve their idealistic purpose. (Again this is just my speculation)

Through reading previous posts I realize that you and I do not see eye to eye in terms of health care should be distributed, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.

Also on a side note, I have never waited for more than an hour for medical services. I know this is a predominant problem in our system, i just never have experienced it. All of my surgeries took place on the spot and they were certainly not life threatening.
flag laurie1
Mod
Posted: Apr 13, 2010 at 8:37 Quote
Experimental treatments means that it has been approved by the FDA but there are limited clinical trials and long-term success and symptoms are not yet known on humans. However, most of the research has been done to the standards of the FDA to consider testing on humans. It isn't really experimental as there is a good idea about how a treatment will work. They call it experimental because there are some variables that can't be calculated to 100% accuracy. Point is, the experimental treatment needs to be approved to be used on a human by the FDA with enough empirical data/research prior to being used. Yes, a lab rat is not a human but there are still hypotheses about what will happen and risk is limited.

If there is no money to be made, why would anyone want to do research? People aren't going to offer their services for free. It isn't exactly pro-bono work being done. Research is so intensive that doctors usually have to choose between research or practicing. People need to recognize researchers’' contribution to the medical society and compensate them. The private sector does this best as they realize that the next medical breakthrough can be worth billions. They are essentially sitting on a jackpot once that eureka moment is discovered. The public sector doesn't care as much about research as it is less funded and researchers don't gain very much.

You don’t drive a car without insurance, why would you live without health insurance? People will say they can’t afford it. This is not true. There are many companies that offer health insurance at reasonable rates. When I go to the US, I buy health insurance and it is super cheap. Costs me $30 for 10 days, I am a foreigner, it isn’t consistent or consecutive coverage so I don’t get a price break, is all inclusive (includes ambulance rides, $2 million in coverage, emergency air transport back to Canada or to the nearest network hospital, $1000 for airfare for family to be at your bedside, $1500 maximum for bedside companion benefit, $2000 in emergency dental treatment). With all the privatization in the US, you can probably get insurance for $50USD a month. Insurance is a choice. Instead of buying a new pair of jeans, buy health insurance. It all comes down to priorities. People who have their ducks lined up in a row buy health insurance. People who don’t care, don’t. Health insurance is affordable. It is a myth that it isn’t. As Josh said, people are disqualified most of the time when they don’t declare a pre-existing condition.
flag ezekiel
Posted: Apr 13, 2010 at 8:41 Quote
theweapon52 wrote:
Also on a side note, I have never waited for more than an hour for medical services. I know this is a predominant problem in our system, i just never have experienced it. All of my surgeries took place on the spot and they were certainly not life threatening.

Out west I found the health care system to be in pretty good shape and I'd imagine that has a lot to do with a generally more active population and cleaner environment. I went to visit a friend in the hospital when I was in Calgary years ago and cracked a few jokes with the nurses because they were pushing all the empty beds into one area of the hospital.

Around here if you're brought in by ambulance, you can expect to wait 4-6 hours just to get to a bed.
flag laurie1
Mod
Posted: Apr 13, 2010 at 8:49 Quote
ezekiel wrote:
I went to visit a friend in the hospital when I was in Calgary years ago and cracked a few jokes with the nurses because they were pushing all the empty beds into one area of the hospital.

Calgary (Alberta) has the worst healthcare in a recent poll compared to other provinces. We have the longest waiting list/wait times for knee and hip replacements, fewest hospital beds (bed shortage attributed to funding shortfalls and not actual infrastructure problems), fewer doctors and nurses because of the above mentioned funding shortfalls (inadequately staffed to reduce costs), longest wait times to see a doctor because they are overworked and understaffed, longest wait times for elective procedures as most doctors only operate once a week as opposed to three times a week again, because they are overworked and understaffed. And, we’re supposed to be a ‘have’ province with copious amounts of money?!?!?!?!
flag theweapon52
Posted: Apr 13, 2010 at 15:48 Quote
laurie1 wrote:
ezekiel wrote:
I went to visit a friend in the hospital when I was in Calgary years ago and cracked a few jokes with the nurses because they were pushing all the empty beds into one area of the hospital.

Calgary (Alberta) has the worst healthcare in a recent poll compared to other provinces. We have the longest waiting list/wait times for knee and hip replacements, fewest hospital beds (bed shortage attributed to funding shortfalls and not actual infrastructure problems), fewer doctors and nurses because of the above mentioned funding shortfalls (inadequately staffed to reduce costs), longest wait times to see a doctor because they are overworked and understaffed, longest wait times for elective procedures as most doctors only operate once a week as opposed to three times a week again, because they are overworked and understaffed. And, we’re supposed to be a ‘have’ province with copious amounts of money?!?!?!?!


We also pay the least amount of taxes compared to any other province. As you say, people aren't going to offer their services for free... How can you have an elite healthcare system when the public refuses to pay for it. However as i said before, ive never had a negative experience with my doctor or when i need to go to the hospital.
flag spol
Posted: Aug 5, 2010 at 13:17 Quote
It was corporate care before the reform and it will be corporate care after the reform.
flag marty660
Posted: Aug 14, 2010 at 0:03 Quote
The healthcare in Newfoundland is f*cking horrid.


The stories I've heard about how they treated my late Aunt... well I shouldn't say treated, it's more them telling her bullshit or not telling her the anything.



But you know, health care in Canada isn't that bad. We don't have enough doctors, but I mean our population is growing so fast that it's not a surprise that our old stuffy system is out of touch with reality. That's really the problem, I think, is that we need to modernize our bureaucracy.


That said, the areas that need the most help our rural regions. No doctors want to work out in the boonies it seems (they'd rather work in a "sexy" atmosphere I guess). So lots of areas get more swamped by people from areas where there is no health care, or where it's very poor.

If our country can somehow get some more doctors and convince them they should work in cow country, we'd be a lot further ahead.

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.401395
Mobile Version of Website