The US has the best health care in the world?

[Evo]

Personally, I measure the success of a health care system by how it treats those least able to afford it. Affordable health care is a luxury in the US. It should be a right.

That's easy for someone to say when they aren't being asked to pay for that "free' medical care. I would be the one paying through the nose to provide this care and I don't think it's fair.

I already pay medicare taxes to pay for health care for the poor, I can't afford to pay any more. Where is this money going to come from?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

That's easy for someone to say when they aren't being asked to pay for that "free' medical care. I would be the one paying through the nose to provide this care and I don't think it's fair.

Lol. Then you really must not like Canada. My perspective is that health care, education and transit should be free (if not heavily subsidized) and for everyone. Farming subsidies to non-competitive farms, corporate bail outs, bloated public projects, keeping unionized sectors afloat? No go. I'm willing to do my part to front peoples hospital and education bills (says the grad student, although my family is quite wealthy) but stay out of micromanaging the economy. Let's face it Mr. Government, you suck at it.

 

[mheslep]

I went into hospital emergency room recently with sever pain in my abdomen. I was seen by a doctor within an hour and had an x-ray and scan within thirty minutes of that, results about another half an hour later and then discharged (although they were lining me up for having my apendix removed that week if required). It depends on what is wrong with you and what the current waiting times are. If people can't afford the operation in america, they don't have it (non-emergency room of course), whereas in the UK, you are queued up. If in that time someone more urgent comes along, they get priority...

I would hope that the NHS can offer some service, it is the http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article5941273.ece" and, under PM Brown, is breaking Britain's treasury.

 

[Evo]

Let's face it Mr. Government, you suck at it.

Exactly why the government should not be in charge of our health care.

And when I pay ~$10,000 a year in taxes to subsidize government medical care already, just where does it stop?

Medicare and medicaid are horribly managed government health programs, you think they should take over all public health care? Are you aware of the rampant fraud in these systems? Do you even pay taxes?

 

[Al68]

Affordable health care is a luxury in the US. It should be a right.

A person should have the "right" to the servitude of others? Seriously?

Any logic behind this?

 

[mheslep]

Lol. Then you really must not like Canada. My perspective is that health care, education and transit should be free (if not heavily subsidized) and for everyone.

Clearly nothing is 'free', certainly none of the items in your list are. In my opinion we'd raise the level of this discussion if that term were not used again in this thread. In this context, it appears you mean you want someone else to pay for those things for you.

 

[sylas]

It costs much less than you might think to spend money on basic health care for other people. Health problems are picked up sooner, and there is a real economic cost for a society when there are widespread health problems in society.

The strongly individualistic perspective, which trades off your own wealth against the basic health of people less fortunate than yourself is not a simple equation, even if self-interest is your only motivation.

There was a very interesting set of articles at the "denialism" blog (which looks at sloppy thinking on all kinds of science and health related topics: recommended) comparing health care in different countries. There are many different approaches used around the world. See: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/; there are a series of posts on this subject. The blog is part of the seed blog group "scienceblogs" and the authors are medical practitioners.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[russ_watters]

I also stated explicity that I don't know what health care is like in other countries. Please bother to read the post before responding. I also cited the WHO study that ranks the US as 37th in the world.

Um, maybe you should reread my post, Ivan - heck, while you're at it, reread your own! You're not asking and answering the same questions in the OP or with that statement - pointing out that you don't know about other countries doesn't address the flaw. Twice, now, you've asked one question and answered a different questions. Throw in a direct contradiction ('I don't know how how healthcare is in other countries - but we're 37th with respect to them') and you've got a tangled mess of illogic there, Ivan.

It is also made clear that the fallacy is in thinking that the system can't be vastly improved - that it's good enough.

Right - that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is the best in the world. And the corollary applies too: the fact that we are 37th in whatever that was does not imply improvement is necessary. They simply aren't the same question and can't be answered as if they are.

What you are doing is throwing up strawmen to make it easier to put down republicans.

Let me tell you what I think after nearly thirty years of close association with medical care in this country: I would rather drop dead now than be a victim of our health care system. That is no exaggeration. I know what goes on in hospitals. Recall for example the man at MLK in LA that called 911 from the ER because his wife was getting no attention. She died in a pool of blood that she vomited while waiting in the ER for someone to help her.

That is about as far removed from logical thought as you can get, Ivan - you've broken at least two rules of logical debate at once. First is citing one anecdote as being representative - obviously illogical, since I also gave a single anecdote that says the opposite, thus revealing the flaw in making judgements based on the anecdote. Second, um...if you drop dead, you don't need healthcare, you need a funeral.

While we're at it...

This claim is often made by those who oppose Obama's efforts to reform the medical system.

Is it? Could you cite an example of who says that sort of thing? Do politicians say it or just someone on the street who can't put together a coherent thought? In what context? (the statement can have more than one meaning). My point is, that platitude has no value and thus has no place as a starting point for a discussion on our health care system. If your goal is to have a reasonable discussion about how to improve our health care system (or what/if it needs improvement), don't start it with a cheap shot attack.

 

[russ_watters]

Your understanding of our system is severely misguided.
My first hernia was diagnosed by my family doctor, who had me into see a specialist two days later. With another day, I was in surgery.

How bad was the hernia? It is my understanding that the severity of the problem has a big impact on the wait time for care. My doctor told me I didn't even need the surgery if I didn't want it.

Wait time *is* a problem in Canada, acknowledged by the Canadian government in that they set up a program to deal with the problem: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acces/wait-attente/index-eng.php

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Clearly nothing is 'free', certainly none of the items in you list. In my opinion we'd raise the level of this discussion if that term were not used again in this thread. In the this context, it appears you mean you want someone else to pay for those things for you.

To answer you an Evo's questions; I've never worked a full tax year but I have certainly made enough (through coop in CS or medical physics jobs) to be taxed in a given year and yes I was living off that money and also my dad makes around 7 figures so I'm well aware how much money goes out the window (he probably pays $400,000 a year in taxes), one could say, god forbid, that that's my inheritance. However, gov't is a social contract and I am willing to sign on the dotted line because I believe the positive externalities to society as a whole (and ultimately, selfishly, to the average pay in my pocket) make it a good investment. Now yes, as I have previously said, the gov't runs a bawdy ineffecient ship but no one's life should be derailed by a curable injury or have their potential bottlenecked not at their merit but at their circumstances. And the fact of the matter is that, especially in a mother of a country like Canada, some people need the bank that is the federal gov't (not the national bank). For example, in Canada, all internet in the whole country runs through bell's infrastructure (I don't know if Bell is the phone/internet provider of choice in america) and you have companies like Cogeco that offer internet service with different stipulations but ultimately all they do is LOAN bandwidth from bell. This is very clearly a monopoly however the fact of the matter is that Canada is huge. it's ginormous. No major corporation, much less a start-up company, could afford to run a second internet line from east Canada to west Canada to compete with bell. The only reason that project got accomplished is that the gov't helped out. Canada has the same problem with railways. Private railway companies want to stop offering fares from east Canada to west Canada. They simply make more money by dropping those routes and focussing on transit between major cities that are less that 300km apart. But they're gov't subsidised and the gov't say you run that route or we stop picking up the slack. and i think that's a necessary evil.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

How bad was the hernia? It is my understanding that the severity of the problem has a big impact on the wait time for care. My doctor told me I didn't even need the surgery if I didn't want it.

Wait time is a problem in Canada, acknowledged by the Canadian government in that they set up a program to deal with the problem: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acces/wait-attente/index-eng.php

OH YAH! Wait time is most definately a problem in Canada. Although it's a somewhat recent problem not entirely unconnected with recent global economics

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'd say that these people would answer no!

http://www.harp.org/clinics.htm
List of free clinics in Southern CA. Pretty much where ever you live in CA you will be able to find a free clinic with decent care near by.

Recall for example the man at MLK in LA that called 911 from the ER because his wife was getting no attention. She died in a pool of blood that she vomited while waiting in the ER for someone to help her.

The wonders of modern medicine are truly amazing. The system is horrifying!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.-Harbor_Hospital
MLK was a nightmare of incompetence and mismanagement and was shut down for it. It would seem that it was actually a good hospital at some point since it was a teaching hospital and was around since the sixties.


I do support the idea of national health care though. Healthcare is a necessity more basic than education. I remember being a kid and deciding not to tell my mother anymore if I thought I might need to go to the hospital because I was afraid we couldn't afford it.

 

[Huckleberry]

That's easy for someone to say when they aren't being asked to pay for that "free' medical care. I would be the one paying through the nose to provide this care and I don't think it's fair.

I already pay medicare taxes to pay for health care for the poor, I can't afford to pay any more. Where is this money going to come from?

I don't know where the money should come from. Hopefully some clever solutions can be found that are somewhat fair to everyone. It's a conundrum to me. I suspect corruption, but I really don't know.

That woman I know that had a brain tumor had to pay through the nose. I just feel it is important that many millions of people have the care they need when they are ill without being impoverished by it. I can't accept the fact that there are people who are sick and aren't getting help based on their income. The wealth of the well-to-do is less important than the well-being af anyone. The fears you have are a reality for millions.

 

[Al68]

However, gov't is a social contract and I am willing to sign on the dotted line...

The real question isn't whether you are willing to sign the dotted line, but whether you are in favor of using force against those that choose not to sign it to force them to serve others against their will.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Well to toss americanism back at (I assume) an american "There are only two certainties in life; death and taxes". This isn't like the drug debate that I think we were on the same side of. You pay the taxes, you protest the taxes, or you leave the country. Option 2 doesn't seem to be a problem in Canada and option 3 is not related to this issues.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The real question isn't whether you are willing to sign the dotted line, but whether you are in favor of using force against those that choose not to sign it to force them to serve others against their will.

I really have no idea why anyone would desire to live in a community and receive the benefits of that community but not be willing to help out those people who make up that community.

 

[Evo]

To answer you an Evo's questions; I've never worked a full tax year but I have certainly made enough (through coop in CS or medical physics jobs) to be taxed in a given year and yes I was living off that money and also my dad makes around 7 figures so I'm well aware how much money goes out the window (he probably pays $400,000 a year in taxes),.

There are tax caps, the amount you pay in social security, for example, is capped on income over $106,800 for 2009. Any income earned over that amount is tax free. Actually, I was thinking of my total of social security and medicare tax.

If you make 10 billion dollars a year, the most tax that can be withheld for social security is $6,621.60 a year. Medicare is 1.45% of wages. If your dad makes a 7 digit income and doesn't itemize to get rid of most of the tax, I don't know what to say. But very little of it goes to health and welfare. He basically pays no more than someone making $100,000 a year. Someone that makes 1 million dollars a year only pays $14,500 towards medicare, and is way better off than the average American in being able to afford it. It's the American making less that $100,000 a year that is bearing the brunt.

I would like the rich to have an equal share of the burden.

 

[Al68]

I really have no idea why anyone would desire to live in a community and receive the benefits of that community but not be willing to help out those people who make up that community.

Me either. But I don't see how that's relevant to the post you quoted.

Being willing to help others isn't the same issue as being willing to force someone else to help others against their will.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

There are tax caps, the amount you pay in social security, for example, is capped on income over $106,800 for 2009. Any income earned over that amount is tax free. Actually, I was thinking of my total of social security and medicare tax.

If you make 10 billion dollars a year, the most tax that can be withheld for social security is $6,621.60 a year. Medicare is 1.45% of wages. If your dad makes a 7 digit income and doesn't itemize to get rid of most of the tax, I don't know what to say. But very little of it goes to health and welfare. He basically pays no more than someone making $100,000 a year. Someone that makes 1 million dollars a year only pays $14,500 towards medicare, and is way better off than the average American in being able to afford it. It's the American making less that $100,000 a year that is bearing the brunt.

I would like the rich to have an equal share of the burden.

<---- Canadian

Top tax bracket here is like 44% or some such.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529410,00.html"is the actual claim made Sunday by Senate Minority Leader Mitch Mcconnell, echoed by many others:

MCCONNELL: Well, listening to them, you wouldn't recognize that America has the finest health care system in the world. We have some problems with access and with cost, which can -- addressed without wrecking the best health care system in the world.

He's right. He's right in the first instance as to the quality of medicine, i.e, medical results and there is plenty of evidence to back him up. He's right about the cost and access problems. He does not say that US health care "cannot be significantly [dramatically] improved", but then nobody does.

This so called reform process is off the rails. It seems to me that having our health care tied to our job in the 21st century is just crazy. My health care should be tied to me, not my job. As an employer I should no more be providing health services than food or housing or sexual services. Getting rid of that system appears to be widely acknowledged by all of the health system experts on both sides, as clear a way to improve the cost and access problems. Senator Max Baucus (D) chairman of finance committee championed it for awhile. McCain ran on it. But Obama and http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=afAVl0OAFJAI" :

...The newly added language in the Thursday morning version of the health bill (for those following along, it’s Section 1620 on pp. 713-721) would greatly expand the scope of these suits against third parties, while doing something entirely new: allow freelance lawyers to file them on behalf of the government — without asking permission — and collect rich bounties if they manage thereby to extract money from the defendants...

 

[Al68]

Well to toss americanism back at (I assume) an american "There are only two certainties in life; death and taxes". This isn't like the drug debate that I think we were on the same side of. You pay the taxes, you protest the taxes, or you leave the country. Option 2 doesn't seem to be a problem in Canada and option 3 is not related to this issues.

The two options I was referring to were whether or not to force others to serve their neighbors, not whether or not we should do it ourselves. But I think you knew that.

 

[mheslep]

I do support the idea of national health care though. Healthcare is a necessity more basic than education. I remember being a kid and deciding not to tell my mother anymore if I thought I might need to go to the hospital because I was afraid we couldn't afford it.

But we know how to do that for the unfortunate: give them money! Not: have the government run the health system (or the auto industry, or the banking industry ...)

 

[maverick_starstrider]

But we know how to do that for the unfortunate: give them money! Not: have the government run the health system (or the auto industry, or the banking industry ...)

Health care is an entirely different bease then your standard, other, private industry. Healthcare has positive externalities.

 

[Evo]

<---- Canadian

Top tax bracket here is like 44% or some such.

But this is about US healthcare and taxes.

Medicare is the most mismanaged and corrupt government agency there is. The amount of bribery, kickbacks and corruption are phenomenal. That anyone would be in favor of this agency taking over national health is insane. If we can't even handle medicare, how the hell are we supposed to take on something on the scope of national universal healthcare? It's frightening beyond belief.

Nice to imagine, not realistic in practise.

I want something there incase I lose my job, but it's not realistic. Better that I save up my money and use the charities and dismissal of debt policies currently in place.

 

[Al68]

If you make 10 billion dollars a year, the most tax that can be withheld for social security is $6,621.60 a year. Medicare is 1.45% of wages. If your dad makes a 7 digit income and doesn't itemize to get rid of most of the tax, I don't know what to say. But very little of it goes to health and welfare. He basically pays no more than someone making $100,000 a year. Someone that makes 1 million dollars a year only pays $14,500 towards medicare, and is way better off than the average American in being able to afford it. It's the American making less that $100,000 a year that is bearing the brunt.

It should be pointed out that benefits paid out are similarly related to past income, and the income made over the cap cannot be claimed at retirement. The rich guy pays out a smaller percentage of his income, and receives a smaller percentage at retirement. This is insurance, after all, not welfare.

The cap is a limit on how much insurance can be "bought". It's also a limit on what is paid out at retirement.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

But this is about US healthcare and taxes.

Yes, and its bestatude (yes I know that's not a word). Which implies comparison's. So I don't see a discussion of, in many ways, a cultural neighbour and their system being off topic.

 

[Al68]

Yes, and its bestatude (yes I know that's not a word).

I think it's spelled bestitude. Or bestness.

 

[mheslep]

Health care is an entirely different bease then your standard, other, private industry. Healthcare has positive externalities.

Yes, so? That only has relevance to the question of mandated health coverage, not by who or how it is run.

 

[Evo]

It should be pointed out that benefits paid out are similarly related to past income, and the income made over the cap cannot be claimed at retirement. The rich guy pays out a smaller percentage of his income, and receives a smaller percentage at retirement. This is insurance, after all, not welfare.

The cap is a limit on how much insurance can be "bought". It's also a limit on what is paid out at retirement.

How dependent on that small stipend is a billionaire?

If I made that much money, I would refuse my social security payment. It would barely pay for a pair of shoes for someone that rich.

People in my tax bracket get killed, someone making twice what I do (like my ex-husband) pay the same as I do, but have twice the income. Who do you think feels it?

I feel I should pay something to help my fellow man, but I also feel that someone that makes twice what I do, with twice the disposable income should pay more, the more they make the less they are going to feel it. It's the only way we can afford a universal health plan. Us little people can NOT foot the bill. The rich get richer...

 

[Al68]

How dependent on that small stipend is a billionaire?

If I made that much money, I would refuse my social security payment. It would barely pay for a pair of shoes for someone that rich.

People in my tax bracket get killed, someone making twice what I do (like my ex-husband) pay the same as I do, but have twice the income. Who do you think feels it?

Many rich people don't bother applying for it. I agree with you there, I wouldn't apply for the benefits either if I were rich. And I think the SS tax burden on working people is preposterous. And forcing people to participate is just reminder of how bad of a deal it is.

I just thought the facts about what the cap is about should be pointed out. It's a limit on how much insurance coverage the rich can buy. The SS system is an insurance program, not a welfare program.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Me either. But I don't see how that's relevant to the post you quoted.

Being willing to help others isn't the same issue as being willing to force someone else to help others against their will.

My comment wonders at the necessity of needing to force people to help others.
Am I willing to force people to help others?
Why should I have to?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

How dependent on that small stipend is a billionaire?

If I made that much money, I would refuse my social security payment. It would barely pay for a pair of shoes for someone that rich.

People in my tax bracket get killed, someone making twice what I do (like my ex-husband) pay the same as I do, but have twice the income. Who do you think feels it?

I feel I should pay something to help my fellow man, but I also feel that someone that makes twice what I do, with twice the disposable income should pay more, the more they make the less they are going to feel it. It's the only way we can afford a universal health plan. Us little people can NOT foot the bill. The rich get richer...

I see. You think it's silly that you have to pay for the hobo but it's ok for the millionaire to pay for you... After all, they're rich, they can afford it.

 

[cristo]

To claim that this is representative of the US as a whole is ridiculous.

Note that I wasn't really making an argument, I was just presenting that clip since I found it pretty interesting. I'm not claiming that the situation in that clip is representative of the US as a whole, but still, the fact that there exist areas of the US that are in that much poverty is quite a surprise (at least to me).

At least in my opinion, a healthcare system that fails the very poorest of the population is not working, and is certainly not the "best in the world." Of course, as you say, to have a nationalised healthcare system would mean that the more well off people are subsidising even more for the less wealthy people. I think that's the way that healthcare should work, otherwise we get into a more and more elitist society where the rich get richer. However, I fully understand that you (and most other Americans) believe in healthcare, like other things in life, being earned by hard work. After all, this is pretty much the American dream.

 

[Huckleberry]

My comment wonders at the necessity of needing to force people to help others.
Am I willing to force people to help others?
Why should I have to?

When one benefits from their community but doesn't contribute to it fairly then it's just a matter of time before the community comes knocking at the door to collect, unless one controls the community through their basic needs. They aren't a part of the community, but its governors through force or deceit.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Note that I wasn't really making an argument, I was just presenting that clip since I found it pretty interesting. I'm not claiming that the situation in that clip is representative of the US as a whole, but still, the fact that there exist areas of the US that are in that much poverty is quite a surprise (at least to me).

At least in my opinion, a healthcare system that fails the very poorest of the population is not working, and is certainly not the "best in the world." Of course, as you say, to have a nationalised healthcare system would mean that the more well off people are subsidising even more for the less wealthy people. I think that's the way that healthcare should work, otherwise we get into a more and more elitist society where the rich get richer. However, I fully understand that you (and most other Americans) believe in healthcare, like other things in life, being earned by hard work. After all, this is pretty much the American dream.

Really, you (in the collective sense) consider healthcare part of meritocracy? I've always viewed disease as a kind of russian roullette from an economic perspective. Person X catches a cold, person Y doesn't. That's meritous selection (for lack of a better term) in action? I hate freeloading hobos as much as the next callous guy but I don't wish them a slow death from a curable disease. Even if they did bring it upon themselves (like alcoholism).