Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 55 of 55

Thread: Yeah, Americans LOVE their healthcare

  1. #41
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=fukushimajin;2677281]Actually, I've been wanting to get into a discussion with you about this for some time. I read your previous posts and I hear the frustration toward the apparently excessive administration doctors are faced with. Its funny, you sound exactly like I do when I talk about my past career in education. I look at medicine in a similar light in that the ideal is that expert practitioners should have the freedom to practice their craft as they see fit without the interference of a non-practitioner administrator.

    I support a single-payer system mainly because I think its unconscionable that an unaccountable company with huge overhead and lavish executive salaries may dictate care to doctors and patients. I also think it is fundamentally wrong that some working people (anyone really) is unable to seek medical care without potentially devastating financial consequences. That being said, interfering with how trained professionals do their work is anathema to me and that is certainly a risk of any new Government program.

    So what solutions, in your opinion, can improve the situation?[/QUOTE]
    I'll get back to you hopefully over the weekend- good questions that I don't have the time to rush an answer to.

  2. #42
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2677341]I'll get back to you hopefully over the weekend- good questions that I don't have the time to rush an answer to.[/QUOTE]

    Cool.

  3. #43
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2674587]For those who really believe that US healthcare is in sterling shape and doesn't need to be changed,
    I would suggest you pay attention to what the vast majority of your fellow citizens think....

    From Yahoo:

    Americans want overhaul of health system: survey By Julie Steenhuysen
    18 minutes ago



    More than 80 percent of Americans think the U.S. health system needs either fundamental change or a complete overhaul, according to a survey released on Thursday.

    Access to care, better coordination between different health providers and better flow of health information were among their chief complaints, the Harris Interactive poll found -- just as another poll found that health insurance costs have doubled for Americans since 1996.

    "It's clear that our health care system isn't giving Americans the health care they need and deserve," said Karen Davis, president of the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, which commissioned the survey.

    Both major presidential candidates, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, have pledged to address problems with the U.S. health system. About 47 million Americans do not have insurance.

    In the poll, which surveyed a random sample of 1,004 U.S. adults in May, 32 percent agreed the system needed complete rebuilding, while 50 percent thought it required fundamental change.

    These views were similar regardless of income and insurance status, with 81 percent of those who were insured for the prior year and 89 percent who were uninsured during the prior year calling for either fundamental change or complete rebuilding.

    Overall, 16 percent of adults said the health care system works relatively well and needed only minor reform.

    Most said health insurance needs to be simplified, and 9 out of 10 said they supported the wider use of health information systems that could improve coordination between health providers.

    PREMIUMS HAVE JUMPED SINCE 1996

    The nonprofit fund also released findings of a report suggesting ways to improve the U.S. system. It recommends rewarding health providers for high quality care, and offering patients incentives for seeking out health providers that offer the best and most efficient care.

    Much of the report focused on ways to improve efficiency and accountability among health providers.

    Inefficiencies and rising costs have resulted in a 100 percent increase in health premiums for private sector employers and their workers in just over a decade, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    Its national survey, released on Thursday, found the average premium for a family insurance plan rose to $11,381 in 2006, from $4,954 in 1996, while the average cost for a single premium rose to $4,118 from $1,992.

    Employers paid for most of the increases, but employees saw their share rise as well, climbing to an average of $2,890 for family coverage in 2006 from $1,275 in 1996, and an average of $788 per year for single coverage, up from $342.

    Americans spend double what people in other industrialized countries do on health care, but often have more trouble seeing doctors, are the victims of more errors and go without treatment more often.

    A Commonwealth Fund survey last year found that Americans spent $6,697 per capita on health care in 2005, or 16 percent of gross domestic product, compared to $3,326 in Canada, or 9.8 percent of GDP.

    (Editing by Maggie Fox and Stacey Joyce)[/QUOTE]wow one study or maybe a couple of more if you have time to surf for them.well that does it.case closed.they didn't call me.very happy with my health care coverage and doctors.

  4. #44
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2677362]wow one study or maybe a couple of more if you have time to surf for them.well that does it.case closed.they didn't call me.very happy with my health care coverage and doctors.[/QUOTE]

    Actually, I don't have to "surf" for them as I work in the business. But anyway, thanks for your learned comments.

  5. #45
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2677376]Actually, I don't have to "surf" for them as I work in the business. But anyway, thanks for your learned comments.[/QUOTE]so these facts just fall into your lap..lol...good one.and i don't try to split the atom with every post.by the way, you still down on the favre thing or are you warming to him yet?

  6. #46
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2677250]This unfortunately is too much of a trend these days in medicine- administrators bending over backwards to appease "clients" (note I did not say "patients"), no matter how outlandish their claims or complaints, at the expense of "providers" (note I did not say "physicians", as many administrators have the attitude that LIL has, that a PA or NP can do just as well and cheaper, because "most conditions don't require an Einstein").[/QUOTE]

    Now you're getting foolish, and I think you know it. You can behave any way you want if you're in a private practice... and of course see how long that lasts if you're an arrogant jerk. I would certainly be interested to hear some examples of how administrators defend those ungrateful "clients" from your wonderful, world-class services.

    Re the issue of PA's and NP's, in many rural areas the only way there would be ANY medical care is through these "lowly" imitation physicians. But you know as well as I do that they have to be supervised by an MD and that they can be excellent providers of care, just as most primary care physicians, who will refer to a specialist on anything out of the ordinary. Our medical system would be in a very serious crisis if it were not for the advent of NPs and PA's.

  7. #47
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2677389]so these facts just fall into your lap..lol...good one.and i don't try to split the atom with every post.by the way, you still down on the favre thing or are you warming to him yet?[/QUOTE]

    Warming to a fun year, whether the experiment succeeds or not. Fresh winds are blowing for the Jets and that's a good thing.

    Don't know what you mean about "splitting atoms." Just telling it as I see it from my vantage point.

  8. #48
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2677407]Warming to a fun year, whether the experiment succeeds or not. Fresh winds are blowing for the Jets and that's a good thing.

    Don't know what you mean about "splitting atoms." Just telling it as I see it from my vantage point.[/QUOTE]fair enough sparky...

  9. #49
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,710
    [QUOTE=sec.101row23;2676703]The point is they ARE recieving great care and still complaining. How is.. we are better than everywhere else not relevant? If we have the best quality care here what more can we give them? Our point was that peolple dont realize how good our care is here in the U.S....and should see what it is like in other countries before they complain.[/QUOTE]

    The best mode of transportation a thousand years ago was the horse, and it was pretty damn good at the time compared to walking. I guess in your opinion people should have never even thought about anything better because they already had the best at the time. Would be great having 2 horses per family in the US right now, that would be totally awesome. :rolleyes:

    Why should anyone argue your point, when your point is completely irrelevant to the argument?

  10. #50
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    You libs have convinced me.

    I want free healthcare even if my taxes double because I'm sure dems will make sure rich people's taxes triple (except their own).

    And since private industry is so evil and corrupt, I want it run by the government just like the IRS, social security, medicare/medicaid, food stamps and the Katrina cleanup.

    It won't improve my health care, but it will damn sure make me feel good!

  11. #51
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=Spirit of Weeb;2677811]You libs have convinced me.

    I want free healthcare even if my taxes double because I'm sure dems will make sure rich people's taxes triple (except their own).

    And since private industry is so evil and corrupt, I want it run by the government just like the IRS, social security, medicare/medicaid, food stamps and the Katrina cleanup.

    It won't improve my health care, but it will damn sure make me feel good![/QUOTE]

    Sadly, you're once again irrelevant because you don't bother to read. I'm not advocating nationalized healthcare. Another straw man... state the most extreme example and dismiss all possibilities in between. Cute. Makes you not even have to think...:rolleyes:

  12. #52
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,710
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2678147]Sadly, you're once again irrelevant because you don't bother to read. I'm not advocating nationalized healthcare. Another straw man... state the most extreme example and dismiss all possibilities in between. Cute. Makes you not even have to think...:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    You should just put him on ignore like everyone else. All of his posts are worthless. You just wasted your time replying to him.

  13. #53
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mendham, NJ
    Posts
    13,453
    [QUOTE=Sharrow;2677695]The best mode of transportation a thousand years ago was the horse, and it was pretty damn good at the time compared to walking. I guess in your opinion people should have never even thought about anything better because they already had the best at the time. Would be great having 2 horses per family in the US right now, that would be totally awesome. :rolleyes:

    Why should anyone argue your point, when your point is completely irrelevant to the argument?[/QUOTE]

    The argument was quality of healthcare. Can you not read?? What country has better quality of healthcare than we do?? That was the question...its very simple yet your simple liberal mind can not grasp this for some reason. You change the argument to fit your agenda in true lib fashion.

    So again...what other country has a better quality of care than we do???

  14. #54
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=sec.101row23;2678802]The argument was quality of healthcare. Can you not read?? What country has better quality of healthcare than we do?? That was the question...its very simple yet your simple liberal mind can not grasp this for some reason. You change the argument to fit your agenda in true lib fashion.

    So again...what other country has a better quality of care than we do???[/QUOTE]

    Well, the burden is actually on you to show us a study that indicates that the US has the best healthcare system in the world. Yeah, that's a problem already, because the US has no "systematic" approach to healthcare. It's a fragmented, bloated, top-heavy, inefficient, costly mess in the US. Here's a brief overview by a guy from the Wharton Journal that I think highlights the key problems, and the handful of virtues of our system:

    [I]The best healthcare system in the world?
    By: David Mes, WG'05
    Posted: 10/4/04[/I]

    If you've been following the presidential campaign recently, chances are you heard Vice President Dick Cheney claim that the U.S. has "the best healthcare system in the world". According to the World Health Organization's (WHO) last World Health Report though, the U.S. system ranks only 37th in the world, far behind other OECD countries and just slightly ahead of Cuba. While the WHO's study has some flaws, it does offer a balanced evaluation of healthcare systems' overall output (life expectancy, infant mortality, etc...) and costs ($ spent per person, % of GDP dedicated to healthcare). As such, it is extremely hard to believe that Mr. Cheney's declarations are grounded in reality rather than in shameless political exploitation of the population's ignorance about foreign healthcare systems. More importantly, the U.S.' poor showing in the WHO ranking raises some fundamental questions about a healthcare system that is costly, unfair, and of inconsistent quality despite its dynamic innovation.

    To start, U.S. healthcare coverage is one of the most incomplete and unequal in the developed world. Forty-five million people, (i.e., one in six Americans) are not covered by any health insurance. The richest 5% of the population account for 55% of total healthcare spending while the bottom 50% of the population account for only 3% of total spending. Furthermore, standard health insurance plans typically cover a lot less services than the most basic European health insurance schemes. Falling sick can quickly turn into a horrendous financial nightmare for most Americans and their families. For some people, taking care of one's health is simply not in the cards. As a result, life expectancy at birth is about a year shorter in the U.S. as compared to the OECD average, U.S. immunization rates against viral diseases are lower than average, and infant mortality is significantly higher than in other developed countries.

    Further, the U.S. healthcare system is the most expensive in the world, both in absolute and in relative terms. Costs have steadily risen quicker than in any other developed country since the early 1980's and worryingly spiraled out of control over the past few years. While U.S. healthcare spending per capita was in line with other OECD countries in the 1980's, it has now surpassed $5,000/person in 2003, (i.e., more than twice the OECD average). Healthcare costs have risen at a 7% annual rate during President Bush's presidency, or twice as fast as GDP. Healthcare spending now represents more than 14% of the U.S. GDP, far ahead of second and third-highest ranked Switzerland (11% of GDP) and Germany (10-11% of GDP). Despite Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush's optimistic beat, the U.S. healthcare system's high costs are particularly troubling considering that the U.S. population is significantly younger than the European population, a place where healthcare is comparatively cheaper.

    On the positive side, the U.S. is almost systematically at the forefront of medical research and high-end service provision. New technologies get developed and implemented at a faster rate in the U.S. than in Japan or Europe. If you are old and rich or have a rare disease, chances are that your life expectancy and quality of life will be better in the U.S. than anywhere else. The cost of developing new technologies needs to be subsidized through high initial prices, and one can validly argue that a free market provides the right incentives for innovation by tapping into the wealthiest people's wallets. Still, innovation tends to cater mostly to the richest Americans and leaves others by the wayside.

    If a healthcare system's success can be measured by its inputs, then the U.S. arguably has the best healthcare system in the world. More money is poured into healthcare here than in any other country, and more new technologies are developed and introduced in the U.S. market than anywhere else in the world. The U.S. has the most innovative, most reactive healthcare system in the world. If the true measure of success relates to a healthcare system's outputs though, then the U.S. clearly lags the rest of the developed world. Most of the U.S. citizens can only obtain partial healthcare coverage at prohibitive costs, a large portion of the population is simply uninsured and few can enjoy the system's great innovative qualities. Healthcare indicators are lagging, and the economic burden on the economy is increasing at a rapid pace. Americans are all paying, either directly or indirectly, for R&D that will only benefit the few.

    The two presidential candidates' healthcare plans present the American people with a stark choice: move towards more deregulation, furthering this unfair wealth transfer scheme; or reverse the trend and effectively expand health insurance coverage through Medicare and Medicaid reforms. This choice reflects the broader societal debate facing the country, opposing the virtues of individualism to those of solidarity.

    In case you wondered, France ranks 1st in the WHO study. Don't tell President Bush though or campaign speeches will soon sound like this: "God forbid we let Paris define our healthcare policy! After all, our pharmaceutical companies pay for the R&D that goes into government-priced pills the French love so much..." This is precisely the point: Should American citizens continue to foot the bill for R&D that will enhance socialist-country consumers' welfare more than their own?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Copyright 2008 Wharton Journal

  15. #55
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,710
    [QUOTE=sec.101row23;2678802]The argument was quality of healthcare. Can you not read?? What country has better quality of healthcare than we do?? That was the question...its very simple yet your simple liberal mind can not grasp this for some reason. You change the argument to fit your agenda in true lib fashion.

    So again...what other country has a better quality of care than we do???[/QUOTE]

    You're right it is very simple. But it's you who isn't getting it. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again like you're a robot. US health care compared to other countries [B]isn't[/B] the question; you and your ilk are just trying to make it the question because you want to politicize the issue.

    Why don't you go read the original thread post, probably for the first time. Note that not once does it mention ANY other country. Not one other country. The real issue has absolutely nothing to do with other countries. God you're such a hypocrite, its [B]you[/B] who is changing the argument to fit [B]your [/B]agenda.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us