I've been reading this book titled "The Case for the Welfare State". Basically it compares and contrasts the "welfare" systems of the U.S., U.K., and Sweden. While I was previously inclined to prefer the welfare systems of western Europe over that of our own, this book is really making me want to see something like the systems they use over there esteblished here. I know that's not very likely and a lot of you will disagree with me on this, but allow me to quote something from the book, concerning the U.K.'s health care system:
"The National Health Service, in terms of size, expenditure, and social impact, is the largest and most important undertaking of the central government, encompassing the services of over 60,000 doctors and 280,000 nurses, spending close to 6% of total national income, and providing an essential, and usually free, service to over 95% of the population. About 85% of the cost comes from general taxation revenues, 10% from "insurance" contributions (in effect a flat-rate tax), and 5% from special charges to individuals.
Any foreign visitor-particularly one from the United States-who ahppens to fall ill or have an accident must be impressed by the British system. No demand for pre-payment greet one at the hospital door; no"family doctor" hovers by the hospital bed in order to collect a later fee; no agonizing choices arise over whether one is actually so sick that seeing a doctor is worth the financial expense. In addition to these achievements, the National Health Service has sponsored important structural changes. The old duality between public and private hospitals has been ended; money has been provided for new construction; planning the spatioal distribution of physicians has been undertaken; and special, less "popular" services (especially mental hospitals) have been incorporated within a unified system.
Furthermore, all this has been accomplished wtihout exorbitant costs, coercion, "labor direction", or other evils hypothesized by critics at the time of the establishment of the service. As a percentage of gross national product, health expenditures are below those found in most other advanced Western countries, including the U.S. Administrative costs are about 2.5% of expenditures, 1/4 of the estimated total in countries such as Sweden with insurance-based health services. Only 2% of physicians have administrative work as thier primary activity compared with 9% in Sweden and 7% in the U.S. And although comparative health statistics are notoriously difficult to handel, most indicators place Britain slightly ahead of the U.S. and distinctly behind Sweden."
Now, this book is 30 years ago, so obviously somethings have likely changed. However, I still like th idea of everyone having access to health care. I also like other aspects of European welfare systems, like how some of them take steps to ensure that no one ever falls below a certain standard of living by providing extensive unemployemnt payments and other such programs. I really believe this explains why the crime problem in European countries is not what it is here. People never reach the point of desperation that they feel the need to go rob someone just to survive (of course there are still those who will commit crimes, but it sure cuts down on crime). I also like how some countries focus exclusively on rehabilitating drug addicts instead of throwing them in prison.
I could go on about this for a while, but need to log off and get back to work. I am curious to see what everyone else thinks. Please respond.
P.S. And before anyone calls me a Communist or something, allow me to make a pre-emptive strike: The Cold War is over and Communism is dead, so you can stop with that nonsense. Besides, we don't call people we disagree with Communists anymore; the appropriate term is Terrorist.
__________________
There is no God but the one that exists in your head, and I am not His prophet.
Write this on a rock: throw me at Jim Blassingame's face.
As much as I despise our current system of health care in this country if we do totally reorganize the way we receive health care we could do a ton better than Britain's system. It has a ton of problems and I don't think many British are happy with it today. Is it better than our current system? Hard to say. Probably not to anyone who already has insurance.
The cold hard fact is that most of the people who have major financial problems have them because they become overwhelmed with medical debt. Imagine if you don't have health insurance (or even if you do) and are hospitalized for any length of time. The hospital needs to be paid in order to stay in business.
This is not to mention that the rich have much more available to them in the form of medical care than the poor. I'm sorry, but your income level should not affect the type pf health care you receive.
Now, this book is 30 years ago, so obviously somethings have likely changed. However, I still like th idea of everyone having access to health care. I also like other aspects of European welfare systems, like how some of them take steps to ensure that no one ever falls below a certain standard of living by providing extensive unemployemnt payments and other such programs.
GOVERNMENT GOOD! MUST TAKE GOVERNMENT DOLE! TAX EVERYONE! I WANT TO LIVE IN AN UNFINISTHED HOUSE AND MAKE CHAIRS!
Competition is good.
Quote:
I really believe this explains why the crime problem in European countries is not what it is here. People never reach the point of desperation that they feel the need to go rob someone just to survive (of course there are still those who will commit crimes, but it sure cuts down on crime).
I really believe it is the education system which cares more about keeping teachers jobs than teaching students.
Quote:
I also like how some countries focus exclusively on rehabilitating drug addicts instead of throwing them in prison.
Threw that in there?
Quote:
I could go on about this for a while, but need to log off and get back to work. I am curious to see what everyone else thinks. Please respond.
k
Quote:
P.S. And before anyone calls me a Communist or something, allow me to make a pre-emptive strike: The Cold War is over and Communism is dead, so you can stop with that nonsense. Besides, we don't call people we disagree with Communists anymore; the appropriate term is Terrorist.
subsidiezed healthcare is noy economically dfeasible. susidizing healthcare creates a price ceilign which in turn creates shortages. how about eveyrvbody be responsible for their own healhtcare.
GOVERNMENT GOOD! MUST TAKE GOVERNMENT DOLE! TAX EVERYONE! I WANT TO LIVE IN AN UNFINISTHED HOUSE AND MAKE CHAIRS!
1)Competition is good.
2)I really believe it is the education system which cares more about keeping teachers jobs than teaching students.
3)Threw that in there?
k
4)No, the appropriate term is Socialist.
1) I never said competition was bad, I just brought up an alternative to our current health care system which is ripe with flaws.
2) Good point, but try backing it up with why you think this is our education system's goal. Also, this really has nothing to do with health care.
3) yup. It doesn't make much sense to throw addicts in prison. We don't throw alcoholics in prison (unless they repeatedly put the lives of others at risk by driving drunk over and over), nor do we throw smokers in prison , nor do we throw caffiene-drinkers in prison.
4) Thank you for seeing the distinction.
Thanks for contributing nothing of relevance to the conversation.
__________________
There is no God but the one that exists in your head, and I am not His prophet.
Write this on a rock: throw me at Jim Blassingame's face.
subsidiezed healthcare is noy economically dfeasible. susidizing healthcare creates a price ceilign which in turn creates shortages. how about eveyrvbody be responsible for their own healhtcare.
Want to tell me how someone making minimum wage (or slightly higher) can afford to take care of their own healthcare? They can barely put food on the table.
Healthcare shouldn't be a luxury. It's a necessity.
__________________
I am not a vegetarian because I love animals, I am a vegetarian because I hate plants.
- A. Whitney Brown
As much as I despise our current system of health care in this country if we do totally reorganize the way we receive health care we could do a ton better than Britain's system. It has a ton of problems and I don't think many British are happy with it today. Is it better than our current system? Hard to say. Probably not to anyone who already has insurance.
But we could do much better is the point.
You are correct about Britain's system. I would've quoted the book concerning Sweden's system as well, but I haven't read that far in the book. And yes, doing much better is the reason I brought up the topic. And we could do a ton better than Britain; one way would be to look at the problems they've had and the mistakes they've made and make sure we avoid them. Or just use another model. I'm not necessarily endorsing the U.K.'s system, just citing it as a possible alternative.
__________________
There is no God but the one that exists in your head, and I am not His prophet.
Write this on a rock: throw me at Jim Blassingame's face.
subsidiezed healthcare is noy economically dfeasible. susidizing healthcare creates a price ceilign which in turn creates shortages. how about eveyrvbody be responsible for their own healhtcare.
If by leaving everyone responsible for thier own healthcare system you mean doing away with partially employer-funded group health plans, that's kind of assinine. I f we did that no one would have health care except the VERY wealthy, and life expectancy would plummit to third-world levels (and we already have the lowest in the first world).
__________________
There is no God but the one that exists in your head, and I am not His prophet.
Write this on a rock: throw me at Jim Blassingame's face.
Want to tell me how someone making minimum wage (or slightly higher) can afford to take care of their own healthcare? They can barely put food on the table.
Healthcare shouldn't be a luxury. It's a necessity.
subsidiezed healthcare is noy economically dfeasible. susidizing healthcare creates a price ceilign which in turn creates shortages. how about eveyrvbody be responsible for their own healhtcare.
No, this current system is not economically feasible. We spend more money on health care per person (twice the amount of the next closest nation) and we can't even cover every single person in this country. And we don't have the best life expectancy, or infant mortality or patient satisfaction. We're not even close to the top. All that for the truckloads of money we pour into health care every single year.
Shortages? There are millions of people who would love to be on a waiting list because as of right now they will never be able to afford the tests, treatments or procedures they need. Don't fool yourself.
There's about a billion things wrong with our healthcare system here are a few of them:
Everyone should have coverage.
The current fiscal system does not work. Medicare type programs don't pay the bills for the provider network, so the government can't push that angle. If they gave everybody Medicare, the hospital systems would go out of business.
Large, multi-national corporations aren't doing their part. As an example, an average Wal-Mart gives healthcare coverage to 4 employees in their average retail locations. Now figure out how many people get screwed out of insurance where you work.
We as a society take horrible care of ourselves. Our inability to put down the Cheetos unnecessarily creates many very expensive health problems.
We won't accept death. I don't know the exact number but approximately 50% of the money we spend on healthcare comes in the last year of our lives.
Without basic primary care, we are raising the overall price of healthcare. Somebody gets sick, doesn't have health insurance so they don't go their doctor. Two weeks later they end up in the emergency room, which costs 10 times more. Big problem.
These are huge issues. Currently some states are *finally* starting to work on them. Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Senator, pushed thru a bill funding states to experiment with models as to how to fund healthcare. It will be interesting to see what works.
noone wants to take care of themsleve s anymroe. you know what weong 2ihr our helahtcare sysstem? it exists
im out itsparty time
Look, I know what you believe and in spite of your horrendous spelling which I will chalk up to getting an early start on partying I would still respect you if you came out and say it. You just don't want to pay for other people's health care, right? You don't believe in risk sharing. You want the money you earned, all of it, and if other people you don't know are less fortunate you flat out do not care. Am I right?
If I am, just come out and say it. Stop hiding behind this responsibility bullshit. Most people aren't responsible for their illness. Most did nothing wrong to cause it. Good, honest, hard-working people living a healthy life style get sick. They get into car accidents that weren't their fault. They get injured any number of ways and its not their fault. They develop a disease or condition that runs in their family and its not their fault. They are born with something and its not their fault.
And my view is that just because they aren't insanely rich and can't afford their treatments out of pocket or aren't part of the shrinking portion of the population with real health insurance that can cover the treatment they need that they still deserve to be treated. And even if they shared some blame in their own illness they still deserve to be treated.
If you believe otherwise just say it and stop hiding behind empty rhetoric.
I have over 11,000 posts and I bet 10,000 of them are in the Yankee thread.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Bayside, NY
Posts: 13,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jujubees2
Healthcare shouldn't be a luxury. It's a necessity.
So is food
So is housing
So is clothing
So is transportation to and from your place of employment
You want the government to provide all of that for you as well? Your argument ends up in Communism. It's been tried, and failed, many times.
As to the argument at hand, even supporters of the British Health Care system will tell you they privately hope that we don't follow their lead, since about 95% of all new drugs are developed in the US. And in a socialized system, why bother. No greedy, evil windfall profits to make, therefore no new drugs. The reality is (all) governments wont pay much for new drugs. Since research costs are so high, and the truly innovative drugs are even more speculative, companies will simply stop trying to make them without a big payoff down the line. Or they (more likely) will simply go elsewhere to do their business, and take their jobs, brains, money and tax revenue with them. It's 1959 Cuba, just without the shooting.
Also, look at how we ALREADY provide Government run health care in this country. Like the Veterans administration. Ask some of the people to who we owe our "freedom" what the health care they get is like. 6 month (or more) waiting lists are common, they give rubber stamped (and often erroneous) diagnoses, and if you have been watching the news you know what's been going on at Walter Reed. And thats the crown jewel of the system.
I'd prefer the freedom to make my own health care decisions, and that means I have to pay for it. Once you ask some one else to pay for it, you inevitably will give up the right to make your own decisions.
__________________
"Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything."-Toby Harrah MLB SS
I have over 11,000 posts and I bet 10,000 of them are in the Yankee thread.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Bayside, NY
Posts: 13,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by epo
There's about a billion things wrong with our healthcare system here are a few of them:
Everyone should have coverage.
The current fiscal system does not work. Medicare type programs don't pay the bills for the provider network, so the government can't push that angle. If they gave everybody Medicare, the hospital systems would go out of business.
Large, multi-national corporations aren't doing their part. As an example, an average Wal-Mart gives healthcare coverage to 4 employees in their average retail locations. Now figure out how many people get screwed out of insurance where you work.
We as a society take horrible care of ourselves. Our inability to put down the Cheetos unnecessarily creates many very expensive health problems.
We won't accept death. I don't know the exact number but approximately 50% of the money we spend on healthcare comes in the last year of our lives.
Without basic primary care, we are raising the overall price of healthcare. Somebody gets sick, doesn't have health insurance so they don't go their doctor. Two weeks later they end up in the emergency room, which costs 10 times more. Big problem.
These are huge issues. Currently some states are *finally* starting to work on them. Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Senator, pushed thru a bill funding states to experiment with models as to how to fund healthcare. It will be interesting to see what works.
I think we can all agree on two things:
Everyone deserves some form of healthcare.
The answers will not be easy.
Good post. The part about people piling up huge costs in the last year is very true, and I think its from the insurance system we have which insulate people from costs. If people had to spend out of their pockets for the end of life care they might make more rational decisions.
For example, most people don't understand why people have "DNR"s (do not recussitate) They think that some doctor will rush in with a cape on and save them, like on TV. The reality is the vast majority of people NEVER are revived, and those that are usually have massive brain damage. Its less than 1% that make it through safely.
Again, if people understood what they're spending $ on, they'll likely make more rational decisions. Where possible, of course. I'm not asking them to become doctors.
__________________
"Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything."-Toby Harrah MLB SS
Last edited by Bulldogcakes; 03-30-2007 at 08:37 PM.
if not being attractive to that makes me gay then im a big fag!!!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrPink
so yer ssaiyng tht soome people can onky get minmum wage jobs? theres always the mitary
I hate shit like this. It reminds me that everyone can do whatever it is they want. No this is not true. If everyone wanted to get better jobs then their would be no one doing these jobs you speak of. Not everyone can find better work, better healthcare, make more money.
There will always be rich and there will always be poor. The problem is the rich makes way too much money and keeps the poor down.
I fight with my brother about this all the time. He says everyone could change their lives if they wanted. No they cant, we all have the opertunity to do so, but if we all did where would it come from? Everyone has the opertunity to own a business but all the people that want to cant b/c there wouldnt be enough customers.
Anyway we need some kind of national healthcare and mental care system. Even if that means an increase in tax. Tax the rich a little more. They make enough off the bottom 1/2 of the country.
Also, look at how we ALREADY provide Government run health care in this country. Like the Veterans administration. Ask some of the people to who we owe our "freedom" what the health care they get is like. 6 month (or more) waiting lists are common, they give rubber stamped (and often erroneous) diagnoses, and if you have been watching the news you know what's been going on at Walter Reed. And thats the crown jewel of the system.
Incorrect point on Walter Reed. Walter Reed Medical Center is an Army hospital run by the Army. The VA has nothing to do with running the place. And most of the problems there were attributed to the outsourcing of service staff to an incompetent outside contractor.
As far as the VA its quality of care is the highest in the nation and its problems have mainly to do with the waiting lists, a problem exacerbated by underfunding and an ongoing war.
And I think you have some kind of weird, false idea about the "freedom" you have in choosing your health care, unless of course you are stinking rich and can afford to go anywhere. Otherwise you are limited to the doctors and hospitals to which your insurance company has deals with. Have a doctor you've been seeing for years but is out of network? You insurance company will pay less, or more often nothing for your visits. And now all of a sudden we're back to what you can afford which isn't much of a choice for a lot of people.
And you are limited to whatever treatments and procedures your insurance company will pay for, and where they will let you get them, and for however long they will let you use them. And they will cover whatever drugs they, and not your doctors, deem medically necessary. And of course you need their permission before going to some doctors and having some procedures (referals and pre-certification). And if you don't get that permission beforehand they won't pay, even if they themselves see it as medically necessary. And sometimes some of the worse companies will play games with you, at first refusing payment on bills they know they have to cover in the hopes people don't follow up and pay themselves.
The only people in this country who are truly free are the rich. And even some of them are vulnerable. The wrong illness at the wrong time could sap hundreds of thousands. That's how crazy out of control costs are.
Good post. The part about people piling up huge costs in the last year is very true, and I think its from the insurance system we have which insulate people from costs. If people had to spend out of their pockets for the end of life care they might make more rational decisions.
For example, most people don't understand why people have "DNR"s (do not recussitate) They think that some doctor will rush in with a cape on and save them, like on TV. The reality is the vast majority of people NEVER are revived, and those that are usually have massive brain damage. Its less than 1% that make it through safely.
Again, if people understood what they're spending $ on, they'll likely make more rational decisions. Where possible, of course. I'm not asking them to become doctors.
Another thing to keep in mind is the 80/20 rule. 80% of health care spending is used the sickest 20% of the population. The end of life stuff is a part of that, and is the only place where I buy this "insulation from costs" argument. Although it is a touchy subject. Nobody wants a third party coming in ordering doctors to pull the plug, whether it be an insurance company or the government. But they are a huge drain on resources.
But solve this problem alone and you won't come close to saving the current system.
the european heathcare/welfare state is whole inadequate for our needs. my parents lived in ireland for 12 years. in 2006, they moved back to the US. The reason, the heathcare over there just plain sucks. the doctors have become apatheic burocrats, where the system is more important than the patient. My father had a heart attack over in ireland. he was treated and told that he needed bypass surgry. so they scheduled the surgery for 2 FUCKING YEARS in the future (which would have been about now actually). why two years? the systems backed up.
At the same time, my mother complained about blood in her urine. they told her she probably had an infection and told her to drink cranberry juice (which is actually hard to find in ireland for some reason).
So my father left ireland and went to florida as soon as he was somewhat better and scheduled his surgery for a few weeks after he arrived. and he was just fine. But by this time, my mother's bladder burst and she almost died. infection.... right.
It should also be noted that my grandfather died in an irish hospital from neglect. he was suffering from head trauma, and died in the emergency room, because he went untreated for nearly 30 hours after being brought in. emergency not being the opertive word apparently.
Their neighbor, Mick died last winter. he need heart valve surgery. he was on the list to have the surgery for 4 years. that's how they clear the list, you die.
Our system is expensive, but you get care and are treated well, because they want your cash and/or insurance money. The welfare state is not the panacea some think it is. It is far more dehumanizing than ours.
National Health Care Debate
Linear Mode
