Health Care for Everyone

[Omnis]

Michael Moore identifies problems but doesn't understand solutions. The anti-Michael Moore idiots identify solutions without understanding the problems.

 

[BAZZ]

Swedish Health Care in an International Context(PDF)

This report describes how the Swedish health care system performs in comparison to health care systems in other countries. Health care in Sweden is measured against health care in 16 other industrialised Western nations - the other EU15 member states plus Norway and the United States. The comparisons address care needs, costs, and outcomes. In other words, how much do various countries spend to provide for the care needs of their populations, and what are the results?

Reading some of the posts here almost makes me feel disgusted. Without "free" health care my life would be in a VERY different situation.

 

[Famine]

BAZZ - how so?

Michael Moore identifies problems but doesn't understand solutions. The anti-Michael Moore idiots identify solutions without understanding the problems.

*raises hand*

I'm anti-Michael Moore - or at least I am unless he says something that isn't really retarded.

Am I an idiot then?

 

[Omnis]

*raises hand*

I'm anti-Michael Moore - or at least I am unless he says something that isn't really retarded.

Am I an idiot then?

No, no, no, no, no, you missed what I was saying. I was just pointing out how some (the idiots) of the people vehemently against him are, at times, just like him in that they miss half the picture.

 

[BAZZ]

Famine - let's call it personal reasons. If I would be living in a country without universal coverage I'd be, A) Dead. Or B) In debt over my ears.

As for Michael Moore, well, he does have some points however, in my opinion there might be hard to find a worse way to present his points in.

 

[Famine]

Famine - let's call it personal reasons. If I would be living in a country without universal coverage I'd be, A) Dead. Or B) In debt over my ears.

Fair enough

Quick question - are there any people in the USA who suffer from the same disorder/affliction/ailment which required you to have treatment? Are they alive and solvent?

I only ask as I pay £19 a month for private health insurance and this covers me for an amount sufficient to personally pay for an entire course of radiotherapy, chemotherapy and a surgical resection - basically a diagnosis-to-cure regime for cancer. It's not exactly causing me debt.

As for Michael Moore, well, he does have some points however, in my opinion there might be hard to find a worse way to present his points in.

I haven't seen "Sicko" - I have no intention of wasting a minute of my time or a pennycent of my money on him (or Algore) - but the comments in this thread seem to say he's commenting on the loading of the US health system due to obesity caused by wealth.

That's Michael Moore:

commenting on obesity due to wealth.

That's Michael Moore, the filmmaker, producer and author whose films have grossed $200m worldwide, commenting on obesity due to wealth.

 

[BAZZ]

Quick question - are there any people in the USA who suffer from the same disorder/affliction/ailment which required you to have treatment? Are they alive and solvent?

Yes, I'd assume that there are but I wouldn't know what their situation would be like. I can only speak for myself.

I only ask as I pay £19 a month for private health insurance and this covers me for an amount sufficient to personally pay for an entire course of radiotherapy, chemotherapy and a surgical resection - basically a diagnosis-to-cure regime for cancer. It's not exactly causing me debt.

I was at the time unemployed and without insurance. Well only insurance I had was home insurance.

I haven't seen "Sicko" - I have no intention of wasting a minute of my time or a pennycent of my money on him (or Algore) - but the comments in this thread seem to say he's commenting on the loading of the US health system due to obesity caused by wealth.

That's Michael Moore:

commenting on obesity due to wealth.

That's Michael Moore, the filmmaker, producer and author whose films have grossed $200m worldwide, commenting on obesity due to wealth.

(Bloody nice picture there, lol.)
Oh dear. Yeah I've watched roughly half of the film sometime ago (I admit ) but ... I remember one scene in particular.
He got on this boat right, [SIZE=-1]sailed his shaky/nervous camera crew to [/SIZE](not sure of spelling or if the location is right) [SIZE=-1]Guantanamo Bay[/SIZE] with his ©-branded megaphone and started ordering some tower that was roughly halfway across the pacific, to allow some poor blokes to be admitted to some terrorists prison.. Because they had free health care there. Something along those lines any way. Point is, he's completely mad.

Couldn't have agreed more.

 

[Famine]

I was at the time unemployed and without insurance. Well only insurance I had was home insurance.

I've been there myself.

The thing is I value my health and opted to make cuts in other areas in order to maintain it. It's nice to have that option. It'd be even nicer if I didn't have to pay what someone else thinks I should, based on a sliding scale on how much I earn...

 

[Pupik]

I finally watched "Sicko". It wasn't quite what I'd thought it to be; he's railing on insurance companies for half the movie, which likely is one of the reasons why health care is so expensive at times. I agree with that; I'm sure the doctors get mired in paperwork and waiting for claims to be paid so they jack up the charges to make up for the "dead-time" between exiting patient and the credit/check in the mail/fax/account. Everything is accounted for, yet nothing is explained when you initially go to the hospital, but in most cases, the "ABC Insurance...they'll pick up the tab" attitude likely drives up the costs, not the other way around.

He also attacks the insurance companies for dragging their feet when people are in danger of losing their lives, while they make policy decisions. I agree, a life is more important than "how much can we stand to lose?". But here's where it gets tricky...If he have a national healthcare system, what happens if something goes awry, and people sue? Who are they suing? And for how much? And who's paying the damages? And where do you think the money is going to come from in this case?

Michael Moore wants the US to have free heath care, without explaining how it should be paid for, how it should be implemented, but he does say that around $100,000 is good enough for any doctor, which sounds nice, but then there would be "salary caps" in every profession. None of the pitfalls are explained of any other nation's heath care systems: It's all rosy.

Granted, I'm for a national heath care system only if:

1) It doesn't cost me anything more than I pay now.
2) Corruption, graft, and fraud will be eliminated so and a free-market economy can still occur.
3) We aren't mired in paperwork and forms in time of need.
4) There's no 4-hour wait when I'm sick or injured.

Of course, I'm living in a dream world if any of those things are to come true; yet, some politicians believe that they can make it happen. I'm a hopeless idealist at times, but I'm not that lofty...it isn't going to happen because no two of those criteria are going to be met at the same time, let alone 4 (or any others I may have forgotten).

 

[BAZZ]

I've been there myself.

The thing is I value my health and opted to make cuts in other areas in order to maintain it. It's nice to have that option. It'd be even nicer if I didn't have to pay what someone else thinks I should, based on a sliding scale on how much I earn...

I agree with you to some extent.
Problem I've got though is that (apart from health care, sorry for going OT) it can rather easily result in something like..
"I don't have any kids that go to school, i don't want to pay for someone else's kids to go there." Now, you've had your own education, true. But that could just as well have been payed for by yourself/your family.
"I don't support war, so i don't want to pay for.."
"I'm a criminal, I don't want to pay the police..." (Bad example, yes. Hehe)

See where I'm going with it though? I don't have any kids, yet I pay so that _everyone_ (in Sweden) can go to school.

At the end of the day, I still think that the problem is that health care is far too expensive. Some form of roof on how much it can cost would be a great place to start. Base that roof on income instead?

Edit:

1) It doesn't cost me anything more than I pay now.
2) Corruption, graft, and fraud will be eliminated so and a free-market economy can still occur.
3) We aren't mired in paperwork and forms in time of need.
4) There's no 4-hour wait when I'm sick or injured.

1) That depends of course on how much you make and if you are able to live a healthy life or not. (?) Not sure there in other words.
2) Can't tell for certain.
3) Paperwork? Doubt I've ever had any trouble with that.
4) I'm rather.. Let's say clumsy, longest wait time I've had in a emergency room was an hour and a half after initial examination. That was only because I had gotten my finger stuck between a door and it's frame. I've had no wait time what so ever when I broke my arm, dislocated my shoulder, broke me nose and when i just got quite dang sick.

 

[Famine]

I agree with you to some extent.
Problem I've got though is that (apart from health care, sorry for going OT) it can rather easily result in something like..
"I don't have any kids that go to school, i don't want to pay for someone else's kids to go there." Now, you've had your own education, true. But that could just as well have been payed for by yourself/your family.
"I don't support war, so i don't want to pay for.."
"I'm a criminal, I don't want to pay the police..." (Bad example, yes. Hehe)

See where I'm going with it though? I don't have any kids, yet I pay so that _everyone_ (in Sweden) can go to school.

Some things are necessary to be funded through taxation, but most things really would be better if funded and run privately. The police and the army are two of the things which must be funded by taxation. Schools... there's arguments for and against.

Healthcare isn't one of the taxation-funded necessities. Who else can decide what my health is worth to me, than me?


Pupik - Milford Cubicle works in an "ER" in the UK, in the public-funded National Health Service. She's better placed than I am to tell of these things, but the four hour wait of which you speak? That's the case here too - patients have a target time of four hours from admission to treatment, though they can sometimes, if busy, "breach" (go over the four hours). Don't think for a minute that a public-funded health service is any more efficient.

 

[BAZZ]

Some things are necessary to be funded through taxation, but most things really would be better if funded and run privately. The police and the army are two of the things which must be funded by taxation. Schools... there's arguments for and against.

Healthcare isn't one of the taxation-funded necessities. Who else can decide what my health is worth to me, than me?

I agree on that some parts just has to be payed through taxes.

No one can decide what your health is worth to you, but you. However, I'm rather sure that your friends, family, working associates, neighbors etc would _care_ quite a lot if (note, if) you wouldn't be able to afford your necessary medication/treatments for any given illness.

 

[Famine]

I agree on that some parts just has to be payed through taxes.

No one can decide what your health is worth to you, but you. However, I'm rather sure that your friends, family, working associates, neighbors etc would _care_ quite a lot if (note, if) you wouldn't be able to afford your necessary medication/treatments for any given illness.

And I'm sure they could judge what my health is worth to them.

"C'mon guys, Famine needs £5k for his operation. There's 20 of us - we could each dip in £250, surely?"
"I'd love to, but that's the exact amount HM Government stole from me for the NHS this month. I'm a smidge short. Sorry."

 

[Sureboss]

Can I point out that the 2 times I went to A&E I was seen in under an hour. [/beingdifferent]

 

[Famine]

Yep - 4 hours is the maximum. There's trouble if patients breach.

 

[Danoff]

GASP!! How did I miss all the socialist propaganda for so long? Quick, gotta make up time.

At the end of the day, I still think that the problem is that health care is far too expensive. Some form of roof on how much it can cost would be a great place to start.

Ok, this is just pure bad economics policy plain and simple. I can tell that you've never taken a structured course on market systems, because if you had there is no way you'd advocate that.

I'll try to give you a crash course instead of just telling you to read a book on economic theory (I recommend "Free to Choose" by nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman). Ever hear of supply and demand?

If you have a large supply of something and/or little demand for it, price will respond by dropping. If you have very little supply for something and/or high demand for it, price will rise accordingly. Now what do you think happens to the supply or demand when you cap the price from rising???

- Supply goes down (doctors leave the industry). I've already seen it happen in the US.
- Demand goes up

Let's take a look at one of the most famous examples of price fixing done in the United States. The administration was Carter, the time was the 1970s, the problem was oil. The price of gas was going through the roof (kinda like now). The Carter administration treated this as a national crisis and called for a cap on all gasoline prices. What happened? Suddenly gas stations ran out of gas. It had to be rationed. People stood in line for hours to get a tank full of gas. This is what you're proposing for hospitals when you ask for a cost cap.

 

[Duke]

At the end of the day, I still think that the problem is that health care is far too expensive. Some form of roof on how much it can cost would be a great place to start.

Ask someone from New Jersey how that worked with the automobile insurance industry. Go on, really.

I have two words for anyone who thinks the US needs a "free, universal health care system": Veterans' Administration.

The government cannot provide adequate health care for a small subset of US citizens, who have already got a well-documented personal and health history from their time in the military. What on earth would make you think they could do so for all US citizens?

That's totally aside from the question of why they should or should not provide socialized medicine.

 

[FoolKiller]

Toward the end of the film they say their governments are afraid of the people speaking out where as here the people are afraid of speaking out about the government.

People in the US are afraid to speak out about the government? Are you sure this isn't just Moore trying to make us all fear the great evil Bush? I disagree with some of the privacy violations (phone taps) but have yet to have a phone conversation with someone where we discussed politics and had them disappear.

So this must be what being afraid to speak out looks like:

Why do people feel the need to keep eatting even after they are full?

As someone who does this a lot: Because it is tasty.
<Hey look, taffy!>

Why do people feel they need or have to have cable?

What and get stuck with 5 channels? If I can afford it why not? I don't need cable, in fact I didn't have it until I got to college.

Why do people feel they need to have that much money?

I don't need it but as I earned it why shouldn't I have it? Why should anyone else get it against my will?

If I would be living in a country without universal coverage I'd be, A) Dead. Or B) In debt over my ears.

Funny, as I am in the first generation to survive severe pediatric cardiology conditions I often think I would be dead if not for private healthcare. But that is just because I don't see government controlled systems move as fast as private systems. I often wonder if the technology would have been available and if my surgeon would have been working to pioneer the field.

Having an experimental piece in my heart right now that is getting twice the expected efficiency makes me think private was the best thing for me.

And even when I was between jobs I managed to pay for insurance.

the comments in this thread seem to say he's commenting on the loading of the US health system due to obesity caused by wealth.

Which is odd considering a lot of research indicates that poverty in the US is a leading contributer to obesity because junk food is cheaper.

And living in a state with one of the highest obesity rates in the US I can vouch that we are not a rich state. I can find you more places that look like Deliverance than places that belong on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.

He also attacks the insurance companies for dragging their feet when people are in danger of losing their lives, while they make policy decisions. I agree, a life is more important than "how much can we stand to lose?". But here's where it gets tricky...If he have a national healthcare system, what happens if something goes awry, and people sue? Who are they suing? And for how much? And who's paying the damages? And where do you think the money is going to come from in this case?

Very good points. Another though: Do you know anyone that drags their feet even more than the government? Sure an insurance company may take time analyzing the cost effectiveness on certain cases, but the government would take longer on many more cases as they sit on the bottom of a stack.

Michael Moore wants the US to have free heath care, without explaining how it should be paid for, how it should be implemented, but he does say that around $100,000 is good enough for any doctor,

Is he saying doctors are greedy? So, how many quality doctors does he expect to stay around if they are all too greedy to be happy with $100,000? Yes, some people go into the medical profession because they care, but the world is not filled with a bunch of Patch Adams'. If it were this wouldn't be a discussion. No, some doctors do it for the money and some of those are extremely intelligent and skilled doctors who could do almost anything. What happens when they leave to go do something where they are paid for their worth?

I find it funny that people rant about how teachers aren't paid enough, but we think we should pay the guys that save our lives less. You know, a guy that can open up someone's chest, add and remove important bits, and not kill you deserves a helluva lot more than $100,000.

Granted, I'm for a national heath care system only if:

1) It doesn't cost me anything more than I pay now.

Considering to get the best care you will probably need a supplemental package.....

2) Corruption, graft, and fraud will be eliminated so and a free-market economy can still occur.

We are talking about government, right? No chance.

3) We aren't mired in paperwork and forms in time of need.

Done your taxes yet? Ever been in an HMO? HMOs were the government's plan to help. It only made things worse. I Was on an HMO and just checkups with a specialist required calls to the physician and the insurance company to verify before I was even discussing my co-pay. Now I walk in show my card and pay my co-pay. Look at an HMO and that was government light.

4) There's no 4-hour wait when I'm sick or injured.

Considering that right now I can go to the hospital, get an x-ray, get blood work done, get an EKG, get an echo-cardiogram, have a consult with my doctor, and be back in my car two hours after I parked it....

And I complain then about it taking too long.

Of course, I'm living in a dream world if any of those things are to come true; yet, some politicians believe that they can make it happen.

No they don't. They believe they can make the people think they can make it happen and then elect them. Notice, no politician has actually given a good explanation of how it will be done.

 

[Duke]

+ rep for that post. Too bad the idiots ruined the rep system for the rest of us.

 

[BAZZ]

Funny, as I am in the first generation to survive severe pediatric cardiology conditions I often think I would be dead if not for private healthcare. But that is just because I don't see government controlled systems move as fast as private systems. I often wonder if the technology would have been available and if my surgeon would have been working to pioneer the field.

Having an experimental piece in my heart right now that is getting twice the expected efficiency makes me think private was the best thing for me.

That is one of the strongest points in this discussion in my opinion. Experimental treatments are harder to get here. Not impossible, but harder.

And even when I was between jobs I managed to pay for insurance.

Here, it's not a cost about who can afford the insurance at all. Everyone has health care no matter what your income is.

Ok, this is just pure bad economics policy plain and simple. I can tell that you've never taken a structured course on market systems, because if you had there is no way you'd advocate that.

No, I have not, that much i can give yer.

People stood in line for hours to get a tank full of gas. This is what you're proposing for hospitals when you ask for a cost cap.

As I've said earlier in this thread. Longest time I've waited was an hour and a half before treatment.

The government cannot provide adequate health care for a small subset of US citizens, who have already got a well-documented personal and health history from their time in the military. What on earth would make you think they could do so for all US citizens?

Your government can't. Here it works it works just fine.

Might want to read up some on this awful, horrible thing called universal coverage. Linking this again.
Swedish Health Care in an International Context(PDF)

 

[Duke]

Your government can't. Here it works it works just fine.

Might want to read up some on this awful, horrible thing called universal coverage.

Sorry, I'm not interested in paying 60% of my income in taxes. What I have to pay now is bad enough.

 

[BAZZ]

60%? Haha and who is paying that if i may ask? All and all I pay roughly 32%.

 

[Pupik]

60%? Haha and who is paying that if i may ask? All and all I pay roughly 32%.

I think he's suggesting that someone who makes the money he earns is going to pay that much; I'm guessing by his profession he's making more than average, hence, he'd pay more in taxes on our/your "progressive tax" scale.

Cripes...32% is more than I pay now, but admittedly, I have a good health insurance plan. And I make more than average money.

It's a bad analogy, but The System is an old-car of a system, it breaks down at times, but it still runs and rewards those own it with some efficiency. It beats walking long distances and public transportation.

 

[BAZZ]

It's not based on how much you earn though. Well, not entirely true but it's never even remotely close to 60% no matter how much you earn. 31% income and.. Then i think it's 1.5% to the church on top of that.. Or it might be included in the 31%. Either way. It's not a high price (personal opinion) for knowing that I'm always "safe".

What i really was trying to say here was that just people that's saying "universal coverage is a load of crap" might not be informed on everything (not even i am, and i love not being needed to know) concerning an universal coverage plan.

 

[Omnis]

It's not based on how much you earn though. Well, not entirely true but it's never even remotely close to 60% no matter how much you earn. 31% income and.. Then i think it's 1.5% to the church on top of that.. Or it might be included in the 31%. Either way. It's not a high price (personal opinion) for knowing that I'm always "safe".

Oh that's lulz.

 

[Famine]

As do I - and Duke. But add on a social healthcare scheme and it must be funded somehow, manifesting as additional loading on Duke's salary.

Then i think it's 1.5% to the church on top of that

No offence, but that's a joke right?

If not, it'd better be voluntary...

 

[FoolKiller]

That is one of the strongest points in this discussion in my opinion. Experimental treatments are harder to get here. Not impossible, but harder.

It is because your government puts price controls, according to your link, and that causes new technologies to actually create negative profit. So, after I use the new technology and pay for it over a few years then you get it.

Here, it's not a cost about who can afford the insurance at all. Everyone has health care no matter what your income is.

My point is that you would not have died in a private health system.

As I've said earlier in this thread. Longest time I've waited was an hour and a half before treatment.

15 minutes is when I start telling my wife that I could streamline the process. 30 minutes is when I start to get angry and wonder if I shouldn't go to school for a masters in health administration so that I can streamline the process.

Your government can't. Here it works it works just fine.

Population of Sweden: ~9 million
US Military Veterans living: ~24-25 million

I can imagine it being easier.

Might want to read up some on this awful, horrible thing called universal coverage. Linking this again.
Swedish Health Care in an International Context(PDF)

It is all anecdotal. Why is obesity higher in some places? Why are mortality rates higher? They make an assumption that health problems means bad health care. What about lifestyle choices? To be accurate you would have to track people from birth to death and then throw out all possible lifestyle related issues. That would take too long and a politician can't throw those statistics out in the next election cycle.

It's not based on how much you earn though. Well, not entirely true but it's never even remotely close to 60% no matter how much you earn.

But we are just talking about income, and that is based on how much you own because Sweden, like the US, has a Progressive income tax.
And from http://www.heritage.org/Index/country.cfm?id=Sweden

Sweden has some of the lowest scores worldwide in fiscal freedom and government size. The top income tax rate of 60 percent is one of the highest in the world, and total government spending equals more than half of GDP.

You were saying?

And not all tax is based on income but your health care tax is. To quote your own article:

Most of the public financing comes from county council taxes (proportional income tax). This accounts for just over 70% of the health care costs.

The rest appears to be covered in subsidies.

 

[BAZZ]

No offence, but that's a joke right?

If not, it'd better be voluntary...

Nah it's not a joke. It's voluntary to pay though. Yups.

You were saying?

At first i got frustrated and thought "Hell no, I'll prove that b"%tard wrong.". Picked up my latest paycheck and yeah, you are entirely correct. I'm paying a higher tax then 32%. It's "only" by a couple percent but I've been convinced that I have been paying 32%. Sorry, I was wrong there. Mostly shocked though. I normally try to ignore the minus signs on my paychecks.

My point is that you would not have died in a private health system.

Neither did I. It was a bit overexaggerated to add it. I would be in debt though. And I'd most likely be in debt for quite some time.

Either way. My opinion won't change at all. Even if I'd be paying 50%+ in taxes I'm convinced that I'd be sleeping well at night because I'd still be making more money then what I need. Now I sleep well just knowing that IF someone get in the same situation I was in eight years ago, he doesn't have to worry at all about any medical bills. Or do i need any specific education to have that opinion?

I do understand your points though, but I don't agree with anyone saying that universal health care is _bad_ system considering how it might have looked for me if the same thing would have happened if I'd be living in a country without it.

 

[Sureboss]

Yep - 4 hours is the maximum. There's trouble if patients breach.

Especially in maternity wards...

I know it's double 'e'

 

[Danoff]

but I don't agree with anyone saying that universal health care is _bad_ system considering how it might have looked for me if the same thing would have happened if I'd be living in a country without it.

First of all, I don't think you properly understand what your experience would have been if you'd lived in a country without socialist health care. Secondly, even if you feel that you're better off in that system, that's not a very good argument for proving that your system is a "good" system. It's always going to benefit someone - no matter how bad the system is. As an extreme example, I'm sure Saddam Hussein enjoyed the system in Iraq quite a bit. Worked out very well for him. Just because Saddam says it's a good system doesn't mean it is - even if he can prove beyond a doubt that he's benefited from it.

What I'm trying to get across is this - benefiting from a system does not inherently make it good. You have to look at who's efforts that benefit was derived from and even... gasp... whether it's a moral system.

Some people in your country are paying gobs upon gobs of money to support socialist healthcare. There is almost no way whatsoever that they're getting any of that back. What you've done, then, is wronged one group in the name of the rest. Effectively though, it puts shackles on the economy of the entire country and helps ensure that innovation and wealth creation is slowed or even stopped. Not only that, but it damn near ensures that you can't even BUY top notch healthcare.