A comparison of health care systems

[venomballistics]

I'm not convinced that longevity is directly related to how healthcare is delivered among the above nations. There are many factors that influence longevity.

For example: The rate of obesity for the countries listed above.

Percentage of total population who have a BMI (body mass index) greater than 30

US = 30.6%
UK = 23%
Japan = 3.2%
Taiwan = ??
China = ??
Germany = 12.9%
Switzerland = 7.7%

'I wonder' if those who support Obamacare believe that America's obesity rate will drop from 30% to that of Japan's 3%? Perhaps bankrupting this nation will result in a nationwide reduction of calories.... ? In any event, such longevity comparisons among nations are typically quite flawed.

Obesity statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

Also it is good to weigh the source of mortality statistics.
My UK Nurse friend has seen far more deaths in her career than have my known state side medical professionals combined.
Furthermore, the body count submitted to official record are considerably lower than what she has seen.
The numbers are sand bagged and the books are cooked to favor the image of the system.
How many other systems in this study do the same?

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Also it is good to weigh the source of mortality statistics.
My UK Nurse friend has seen far more deaths in her career than have my known state side medical professionals combined.
Furthermore, the body count submitted to official record are considerably lower than what she has seen.
The numbers are sand bagged and the books are cooked to favor the image of the system.
How many other systems in this study do the same?

I agree.

Skewed data and attempts to draw conclusions based on flawed comparisons reminds me of what hoplophobic gun-grabbers rely on to make their arguments.

 

[Bassamatic]

Frontline had a program concerning health care systems of Britain, Japan, Taiwan, China, Germany and Switzerland.

Here is a link if anyone is interested:

FRONTLINE: sick around the world: watch the full program | PBS

I've often wondered why we Americans feel that an education (free) and legal services (free if one cannot afford counsel) are considered rights but health care services are deemed socialism if they are provided in a not for profit manner.

It is no wonder that we have lower longevity, higher mortality and hundreds of thousands of our citizens (including veterans) doomed to bankruptcy because of our for profit system.

You obviously haven't read any of the 652,497,331 pages of this latest health care bill, have you?

It's not the charity I object to. It's the government intervention, low-bidder staffing, and utter waste that goes hand-in-hand with government contracts and government agencies.

Now that was good. Best thing I've read all day.

 

[kalei]

Socialism

I believe it was Margret Thatcher that said "Socialism is wonderful, until you run out of other peoples money to spend."

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

Secondary education in this country is "free", strictly speaking it is tuition free, in reality it costs a great deal of money and too often does not produce results commensurate with the outlay. A Princeton University professor reminded me that it is colleges and universities and professional schools, most of which, other than the service academies, charge tuition that produce the nation's scientists and researchers, its doctors, dentists, nurses, engineers, yes, lawyers that keep out society functioning.
My only experience with government run health care was in the Army. I note that:
1. The doctor-patient relationship with be replaced by a doctor-patient-bureaucrat relationship. Guess who will have the upper hand in THAT relationship.
2. If the government takes over health care, civilians will learn what is is like to be constantly accused of being a malingerer, a wimp, a wussy,
and being told "work is the best therapy".
3. 10% of the population will receive 90% of the benefits. The people who were always going on sick call were the smokers, the drinkers, the druggies, the fatties and the people trying to get out of PT-and the people with STDs.

 

[Mod10]

Interesting, thanks for the link.

 

[CJofWolfcreek]

I smoke and my lung capacity and physical endurance exceeds that of most of my younger nonsmoking coworkers who seem to take a lot more sick leave than I do. It was the same when I was in the Air Force, so that generalization doesn't fly.
It's more tied to a person's work ethic and whether they "need" antibiotics for their sniffles or painkillers for their sore backs from sitting on their butts so much.

They went after the smokers and everyone cheered, they went after the children's soda vending machines and everyone cheered... when they come after the lead poisoners and gunpowder residue polluters who's going to cheer?

I hiked through over 3 miles of heavy cat tails today. Most nonsmokers couldn't do it. Most hunters won't do it because it's just too hard. Now excuse me while I light a smoke.

 

[ladder13]

when they come after the lead poisoners and gunpowder residue polluters who's going to cheer?

That's an easy one...those celebrating the 2008 election.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Just kinda leaves a foul taste in ones mouth when it comes to some profitting off the misfortune of others.

If drug company profits are limited, development will be limited. Investors pour billions of dollars into R&D which often results in nothing... zero return... 100% loss. Then, when a highly effective new miracle drug is developed, there are some who complain that too much profit is being made. Who is going to invest in a high risk environment without the possibility of a high return?

While the price of certain drugs it out of reach for some consumers, less development results in fewer products coming to market for all consumers.

So.... what is the higher overall cost; A drug that extends life which some cannot afford, or having no drug at all? I think there are some in government who are chasing the later in the names of equality and compassion.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

You obviously haven't read any of the 652,497,331 pages of this latest health care bill, have you?

Sounds like the Senate must have slimmed down Pelosi's bill.

 

[m657]

...geez....I "need" MORE GOVERNMENT.....how can those heartless minions of mediocrity charge so much for such an essential????

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I smoke and my lung capacity and physical endurance exceeds that of most of my younger nonsmoking coworkers who seem to take a lot more sick leave than I do. It was the same when I was in the Air Force, so that generalization doesn't fly.

Generalizations are usually not trumped by an anecdote (your personal performance).

Now, if you have some data that showed obese alchoholic chain smoking drug addicts with the crabs are more reliable than their phyisically fit and drug-free counterparts, that would be a much more convincing argument.

 

[ohiobuckeye]

Now, if you have some data that showed obese alchoholic chain smoking drug addicts with the crabs are more reliable than their phyisically fit and drug-free counterparts, that would be a much more convincing argument.

Well said...

 

[DrewW]

I have a friend from England that was unfortunate enough to suffer an appendicitis attack while part of England's wonderful healthcare system, the Doctor who saw him informed him that the government was no long treating appendicitis and that my friend should stay close to the hospital so when it finally burst he would be close enough that he might not die. I am sorry but I would prefer to have the choice to have my appendicitis treated instead of waiting for it to burst possibly ending my life.

I agree that something needs to be done to our healthcare system but this government has already having a heyday with rights, this is not the answer, the government can't handle what the constitution allows them control of why do people continually insist we give them more things to screw up.

 

[CJofWolfcreek]

Actually my point was that generalizations suck, especially since we in the firearms community suffer from that very same thing. All data can and will be skewed to put the prefered spin on it. Is smoking healthy? No it's not the healthiest thing to be doing, nor is firing a 500S&W. While I don't want to punish my wrists, I dont begruge those that do or say they are going to be leeches on the health care system with hearing loss and nerve and bone damage.

 

[BarbC]

We have insurance. I have to pay for my office visits, plus an annual deductible and a co-pay for all else. I take care of myself and only go to the doctor if absolutely necessary because the last and only time I went for a cortisone shot, I paid over $200. We do have major medical for emergencies.

My daughter has no insurance. She stays away from the doctor unless absolutely necessary too because she has to pay out of pocket. If she has an emergency, which she has had, she goes to Robert Wood Johnson Hospital, which takes charity cases. She has no deductible and no copay.

My sister has multiple sclerosis. She and her husband own their own business and pay their own insurance. She can't afford to be sick but she is. Yet she has had every treatment she needs and simply makes low payments on the balance to the hospital and doctors. It is cheaper to make low payments than to try to afford routine medical insurance. They still have their house and business. Times are tight, but they are not out on the street, nor will they ever be. "Bankruptcy" is a protection, not a stigma, for those forced to file due to medical expenses.

I have yet to see someone turned away from necessary procedures. However, if you make routine medical free, the system will be so clogged and expensive, truly necessary procedures will suffer for all as well.

Go look at Dick Burg's thread. He was able to have an emergency bypass on the same day as admission. Even if he was a charity case, there still would be resources for the same procedure at the same speedy delivery.

Make it all free, and they will all come for every ache and pain. And absolutely there will be less for all as well.

 

[m657]

None of the official legislative change in provision of health care I've seen, limits the wages of the secretary, the rent or the utilities of the office, the liability insurance, the lawyers, bookkeepers, or those other supportive services to the provider. Overhead continues to rise, while payment for health care to the PROVIDER decreases.

The days of some faceless nameless cog in the cadre of the insurance apperatchik making the decision whether a procedure will be paid under the terms of the contract, or how many circles of paperwork hell must be navigated before authorization, is viewed by most patients as a type of control whether they can or will take a certain treatment.

It amount to practicing without a license, yet the carriers do it routinely, regardless of state/federal laws.

Certainly the carrier has the right to determine whether or IF it makes payment.

All too often, the delay and convolutions of securing payment for health care services becomes more expensive that providing the service in the first place.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Actually my point was that generalizations suck, especially since we in the firearms community suffer from that very same thing. All data can and will be skewed to put the prefered spin on it. Is smoking healthy? No it's not the healthiest thing to be doing, nor is firing a 500S&W. While I don't want to punish my wrists, I dont begruge those that do or say they are going to be leeches on the health care system with hearing loss and nerve and bone damage.

My post was just a tad tongue-in-cheek...


On a more sober note... I consider generalizations quite useful in my life. Without them, it would be more difficult to make informed personal decisions.

I completely agree with you about freedom of choice. To adults I say... Smoke 'em if you've got 'em. Life is short, and many people enjoy smoking. Who among us lives a life free of unnecessary risk? Not me... and I would not want to.

I disagree with government subsidies to tobacco farmers and special 'sin taxes' on the final product. Government should not dictate to private business whether or not smoking is allowed on their property. Let the free market discriminate against or embrace smoking, smokers and non-smokers as it sees fit.

Firearms are a bit different than cigs due to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. One of the pet peeves I have with some pro-gun rights advocates and legislators is that they allow themselves to get sucked into debates over gun related/involved crime statistics and such. It does not matter if crime goes up or down or sideways or anything.... as it has no bearing on my Consitutional rights. However, I believe a health insurance company should be free to discriminate against or embrace gun owners as they see fit.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

None of the official legislative change in provision of health care I've seen, limits the wages of the secretary, the rent or the utilities of the office, the liability insurance, the lawyers, bookkeepers, or those other supportive services to the provider. Overhead continues to rise, while payment for health care to the PROVIDER decreases.

The days of some faceless nameless cog in the cadre of the insurance apperatchik making the decision whether a procedure will be paid under the terms of the contract, or how many circles of paperwork hell must be navigated before authorization, is viewed by most patients as a type of control whether they can or will take a certain treatment.

It amount to practicing without a license, yet the carriers do it routinely, regardless of state/federal laws.

Certainly the carrier has the right to determine whether or IF it makes payment.

All too often, the delay and convolutions of securing payment for health care services becomes more expensive that providing the service in the first place.

Few things appear more convoluted, confusing and inefficient as capitalism and free markets. Socialism and communisim typically appear far more streamlined and efficient on paper. When Krushchev visited in 1959, he probably thought we were freaking nuts. History is rife with examples of failed government engineered efficiencies.

Breach of contract (automatic claim denials) should be vigoursly enforced and prosecuted by authorities.