Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting lmoelleb:

Quote:
Skip

Since your redicilous "nobody helped the US after Katrina" post I thought you would have realized that the news coverage you based your international knowledge on was completely inaccurate. It takes freekin' five seconds on Google to find out that the health care system currently ranked the best in the world by the WHO is the French.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

I am sure you can find other ratings that meassure things differently that will change the order. I doubt you will find any serious rating that put the US above France.

All your ridiculous comment shows is how little comprehension yoiu possess.

Skip

Please show anything that documents the French health care system can be clasified as a failure. After all, you are the one saying it can never work.

And the reason I mentioned the other posts, is that again your are showing that your "international" knowledge is completely lacking. If you from that post did not realize just how lousy the international coverage done by the media you based your information on was - then I guess you simply do not want to see it.

I can accept an argument that a privatized system will work better (I do not agree, but it's certainly a valid viewpoint that you can argue for) but drop stupid statements like "it can never work" simply because you do not care to investigate if there is anywhere it does work. Sure even the French system isn't perfect, but it is working.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I do not believe that healthcare is a responsibility of the government and do not believe that anything that can be managed by the private sector should be run by the government.  Nothing in my experience has proven to me that the government can run anything more efficiently than private industry.

And there's nothing wrong with believing that.
I, however, don't believe that people's health should come down to a question of money. The NHS here in the UK only turned 60 this year and the transformation in the quality of life of the poorest citizens has been remarkable. I really don't like the idea of being treated by a doctor who is more concerned by my bank balance than my wellbeing.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I do not believe that healthcare is a responsibility of the government and do not believe that anything that can be managed by the private sector should be run by the government.  Nothing in my experience has proven to me that the government can run anything more efficiently than private industry.

And there's nothing wrong with believing that.
I, however, don't believe that people's health should come down to a question of money. The NHS here in the UK only turned 60 this year and the transformation in the quality of life of the poorest citizens has been remarkable. I really don't like the idea of being treated by a doctor who is more concerned by my bank balance than my wellbeing.

Providing affordable health insurance, even government subsidized health insurance where necessary, would provide coverage without turning over the health care system itself to the government.

Quoting Nortbloke:

Quote:
I, however, don't believe that people's health should come down to a question of money. The NHS here in the UK only turned 60 this year and the transformation in the quality of life of the poorest citizens has been remarkable. I really don't like the idea of being treated by a doctor who is more concerned by my bank balance than my wellbeing.

Northbloke,

The notion that in the UK cost plays no role in the system is absurd. It plays a major role in the limited availability of technology (like MRIs - we have a far greater # per capita than UK or France). The government also rations care on every level by deciding who gets treatment and how much for differing medical conditions. Your doctor may be more concerned about your "well being than your bank balance" - but the government bureuacrats actually deciding what you your doctor can and can't do - don't care about your well being -- they care about the bottom line of the government run system.

The reality of a government run system is that there has to be rationing of care to keep costs in check. Without government bureaucrats deciding what can be treated and how much treatment you can receive the costs of your "free" system would spiral out of control. Your system is "free" in the sense that you don't pay to use it but it is costly in terms of taxes and what options you have to get care -- if the government decides you shouldn't get that treatment you won't get it and you can't buy it.

What this all means in practical terms is that the government can't buy enough MRI machines to provide rapid MRI access to those who need it so you have waiting and more waiting.....in the US you can get an open MRI within a day - no waiting. So we spend more per capita but that's because those that can afford it can get what they need when they need it.

Let's be realistic about what a government run system really means - access for all yes but rationing and cost containment for all as well.

Brian

Quoting lmoelleb:

Quote:
Please show anything that documents the French health care system can be clasified as a failure. After all, you are the one saying it can never work.

Here is a prime example of the failures of a government run system -- a spike in deaths of the elderly can be expected during a heat wave but this was way beyond normal.

France heat wave death toll set at 14,802

Posted 9/25/2003 10:56 AM

PARIS (AP) — The death toll in France from August's blistering heat wave has reached nearly 15,000, according to a government-commissioned report released Thursday, surpassing a prior tally by more than 3,000.

Scientists at INSERM, the National Institute of Health and Medical Research, deduced the toll by determining that France had experienced 14,802 more deaths than expected for the month of August.

The toll exceeds the prior government count of 11,435, a figure that was based only on deaths in the first two weeks of the month.

The new estimate includes deaths from the second half of August, after the record-breaking temperatures of the first half of the month had abated.

The bulk of the victims — many of them elderly — died during the height of the heat wave, which brought suffocating temperatures of up to 104 degrees in a country where air conditioning is rare. Others apparently were greatly weakened during the peak temperatures but did not die until days later.

The new estimate comes a day after the French Parliament released a harshly worded report blaming the deaths on a complex health system, widespread failure among agencies and health services to coordinate efforts, and chronically insufficient care for the elderly.

Two INSERM researchers who delivered the report were to continue their analysis of deaths to determine what the actual cause was for the spike in mortality, the Health Ministry said.

The researchers, Denis Hemon and Eric Jougla, were also to recommend ways of improving France's warnings system to better manage such heat-related crises in the future.

The heat wave swept across much of Europe, but the death toll was far higher in France than in any other country.

Health Minister Jean-Francois Mattei has ordered a separate special study this month to look into a possible link with vacation schedules after doctors strongly denied allegations their absence put the elderly in danger. The heat wave hit during the August vacation period, when doctors, hospital staff and many others take leave. The results of that study are expected in November.

The role of vacations is a touchy subject. The National General Practitioners Union says that only about 20% of general practitioners were away during the heat wave.

Other European countries hit by the heat have been slower than France to come out with death tolls, but it's clear they also suffered thousands of deaths.

Environmental experts warn that because of climate change, such heat waves are expected to increase in number in coming years, meaning Europe — a continent that historically has enjoyed a temperate climate — will have to make adjustments.

Quoting bbursiek:

Quote:
So we spend more per capita but that's because those that can afford it can get what they need when they need it.

No, no. Your government spends more per capita on your current subsidy systems that only cover a portion of the population, than those countries with public systems spend on a system that covers the entire population.

As I said earlier, in terms of the quality of care concerns in a public system, allow a dual-tier system and you've got both bases covered. You'd still offer healthcare for everyone at a lower cost to the government than the government is spending now, and there'd be the private option for those that are concerned with the quality of care in the public hospitals.

Cheaper, better, more. Seems good to me. Unless, like hal9g, you're philosophically against public healthcare, in which case all you have to say is that, and not worry about giving any other reasons.

KM

Quoting Danae Cassandra:

Quote:

Quote:

Quoting bbursiek:

Let's be realistic about what a government run system really means - access for all yes but rationing and cost containment for all as well.

Brian

For those of us with no health insurance coverage access for all and rationing for all is still better than NOTHING. 

While I work full time, it is not offered by the small business I work for, and I do not make enough money to buy it on the open market.  Yes, I could get another job.  I intend to eventually, even though I really love my job and shouldn't have to choose between working at a job I love and taking a job I may hate for the benefits. 

Also, to everyone who may retort that I, and people like me, should visit low-cost health clinics, I have done so and you do not get ANY real treatment.  Such clinics are placebos to opiate the masses into thinking that there is health care available to the poor when there is not.  While the cost of the visit is low, they will still charge you for any tests they run, so that $15-20 for the yearly checkup may turn into $100s-$1000s from lab fees, if they even bother to run tests and give you a real diagnosis.  Or, if they simply do what they did with me and hand you a diagnosis they think sounds right with no tests to back it up and give you some pills that make you feel terrible and do nothing.  (I will explain if anyone wishes it)

So, you know what, I would rather have the care available and rationed, since I - and a number of the people I know - have NOTHING now.  If I got hit by a car crossing the street today I would simply go home, rather than the hospital, because I have no coverage and I cannot afford the hospital bill. You, with your insurance, do not have to make that choice, and for that be glad.

You are a bit misinformed on the health care system in Kentucky.

While you may not qualify for medicaid, there are state and federally funded hospitals which are required, by law, to care for you regardless of your ability to pay.

Under Medicaid, here is what is available in your state for acute care.

Quote:
Acute Care Hospitals

Acute care hospitals provide both inpatient and outpatient services, including emergency room services.

Inpatient services include: room and board (private and semi-private rooms); laboratory; radiology; pathology; cardiology; medical/surgical anesthesia; respiratory therapy; physical therapy; speech therapy; renal dialysis; and organ procurement.

Outpatient services include: emergency room services; drug therapy (administered while the patient is being treated in the emergency room or outpatient area); laboratory; radiology; pathology; medical/surgical anesthesia; respiratory therapy; physical therapy; speech therapy; and renal dialysis.

These services and related requirements are outlined in the following Kentucky Administrative Regulations:

907 KAR 1:012 and 907 KAR 1:013 for inpatient hospitals

907 KAR 1:014 and 907 KAR 1:015 for outpatient hospitals

Here is the site. http://chfs.ky.gov/dms/services.htm

Here is a site you might be interested in, if you do not qualify for medicaid. http://www.righthealth.com/Health/Indigent%20Care-s?lid=goog-ads-sb-8536643334

Hi Guys,

Sretims - Could you please change the title of this thread to perhaps "anything & everything."

Understand that hospitals cannot turn a patient away, because of an inability to pay. You will be stabilized, & transported to county hospital for care, if you can't pay for the services.

Wow! This is really breaking down into mine is better than yours type discussion, with absolutely no prospect of changing anything. What this means is comparing USA's health care, to another countries is fruitless.

If you want to make a difference, significantly improve health, reduce costs, etc.. It starts with the individual, a grass roots effort. Next time your out & about take a look at the fat Americans. Do you think an expanding waist line, has an impact on health, & health care spending? Many people still smoke cigarettes & consume excessive amounts of alcohol, I guess these vices have no impact on health & health care spending. Catastrophic diseases & accidents will still occur, but with a healthier (less fat) the system won't be as stressed. Many people are like I want this/that or the other, I'll bitch about the problem, but I won't do anything (other than bitch) to help. So today take a walk & do some of those healthy things we all know about, but tend to avoid, if you do you will avoid the doctors office. Health care starts at home, & takes a lifetime of effort.

Take Care
Rico