|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 15 2015 06:08 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +I wasn't the one who brought up waiting for pharmacies. People do wait for treatment. If you want elective surgery for a chronic problem, you're out of luck and must wait quite awhile. There is rationing. My mom had a chronic bad hip, which she never really cared much about until 3 weeks ago. She's now 3 days into recovering, waited roughly 2 weeks for the surgery (after years of not telling the doctors because she's stupid that way). If i have the choice between paying hundreds of thousands of monies, or wait 2 weeks.. Well, honestly, that's pretty simple. In fact, i do have a chronic condition too (cluster-headaches), and waited (i think) 8 days for my appointment for the brainscan. I do think that's reasonable, because it also allowed me to schedule work etc around it. Now, i can only talk about german (and nowadays also for the welsh) system, some people here (mainly/entirely americans) seem to have a very weird picture of it.
It's primarily the right wing echo chamber. They make European healthcare sound like bread and soup lines. There isn't really any counter narrative in our country.
Most Americans don't have a clue about how European healthcare tends to work at all. The closest thing we have to a counter narrative is anecdotes and such from people like Rick Steves. Not sure if anyone knows who Rick Steves is but he's a well respected traveler (particularly Europe) from the Northwest. But his quick take on healthcare gives you an idea of how little the average American planning to travel to Europe knows about even the most basic aspects of healthcare.
One person told me about how she sprained her ankle during a visit to Denmark. She was X-rayed, bandaged up, and given a pair of crutches to use. The hospital did not ask her to pay a dime — only to return the crutches when she left Denmark. And a staff member of mine, whose infant son received excellent care after a lung infection in France, came home to declare, "Anyone who says socialized medical care is subpar hasn't seen it in action."
Throughout Europe, people with a health problem go first to the pharmacy, not to their doctor. European pharmacists can diagnose and prescribe remedies for many simple problems, such as sore throats, fevers, stomach issues, sinus problems, insomnia, blisters, rashes, urinary tract infections, or muscle, joint, and back pain. Most cities have at least a few 24-hour pharmacies from which you can pick up what you need and be on the mend pronto.
A trip to a clinic is actually an interesting travel experience. Every year I end up in a European clinic for one reason or another, and every time I’m impressed by its efficiency and effectiveness.
Source
EDIT: A small point for the US medical system, If one had unlimited funds there is no better option than the American Healthcare system. Maybe US trained people operating elsewhere, so they can legally use experimental stuff, but if you're a billionaire trying to avoid your inevitable death, you're going to the US (or people trained/taught here at some point).
|
On April 15 2015 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:07 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2015 06:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 15 2015 06:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2015 05:55 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 05:37 Simberto wrote:The more we debate this, the more it feels as if americans basically have some sort of collective stockholm syndrome where they just can't accept how shitty their system is, and try to find something positive about it. And finally we have reached the point where the positive about it is how shitty it is, leading to them spending more than they have to, which is interpreted as "subsidizing the rest of the world". Basically, there are few positive things to say for the US healthcare system. It MIGHT be better for you if you are a millionaire. That is pretty much the only positive i can come up with. And for some reason you are stoudly opposed to any attempt at fixing it. The ACA is still shit. It is LESS shit than what you had before, though. And there does not appear to be a lot of political will of just accepting how shit your current system is, throwing it out of the window completely, and adopting a working system from another place (There are many options to choose from) and possibly changing that slightly so it feels a bit less socialist because americans really hate anything that involves being forced to care about other people.
The US spends more because we mandate bare minimum coverages from insurance companies. It's tough for insurance companies to negotiate with providers when said provides know the insurance companies are bound by law to cover said service. It's just like what you said earlier, that patients wouldn't choose to die instead of paying insane prices.
This is nonsense. We have insurance companies in Germany. They are bound by law to provide a lot of care (There are few things they DON'T have to provide). Can you explain why we don't have that problem? The problem with the ACA is that it works a little. It's reduced the political pressure to find an actually good solution. . Implying there was a will before. Besides, with all the shouting the Republicans are doing they make a very good show of wanting to find a good solution. Except everyone knows they don't actually give a fuck about the problems with the US healthcare because if they did they would have done more then just shout and made an actual solution.You might have a point that the ACA will reduce the incentive to fix more problems but I will tell you that without it nothing would be done either and your country would be in a worse state healthcare wise then it is now. Both parties have been making changes for decades and trying to do more. Then where is that Republican plan? Because that one thing is the ultimate arbiter of giving a fuck?
When you are as dedicated to repealing the ACA as the they have been and do not have a plan of your own to replace it with then yes I will say they don't give a fuck about the people it would effect.
|
On April 15 2015 06:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 15 2015 06:07 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2015 06:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 15 2015 06:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2015 05:55 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 05:37 Simberto wrote:The more we debate this, the more it feels as if americans basically have some sort of collective stockholm syndrome where they just can't accept how shitty their system is, and try to find something positive about it. And finally we have reached the point where the positive about it is how shitty it is, leading to them spending more than they have to, which is interpreted as "subsidizing the rest of the world". Basically, there are few positive things to say for the US healthcare system. It MIGHT be better for you if you are a millionaire. That is pretty much the only positive i can come up with. And for some reason you are stoudly opposed to any attempt at fixing it. The ACA is still shit. It is LESS shit than what you had before, though. And there does not appear to be a lot of political will of just accepting how shit your current system is, throwing it out of the window completely, and adopting a working system from another place (There are many options to choose from) and possibly changing that slightly so it feels a bit less socialist because americans really hate anything that involves being forced to care about other people.
The US spends more because we mandate bare minimum coverages from insurance companies. It's tough for insurance companies to negotiate with providers when said provides know the insurance companies are bound by law to cover said service. It's just like what you said earlier, that patients wouldn't choose to die instead of paying insane prices.
This is nonsense. We have insurance companies in Germany. They are bound by law to provide a lot of care (There are few things they DON'T have to provide). Can you explain why we don't have that problem? The problem with the ACA is that it works a little. It's reduced the political pressure to find an actually good solution. . Implying there was a will before. Besides, with all the shouting the Republicans are doing they make a very good show of wanting to find a good solution. Except everyone knows they don't actually give a fuck about the problems with the US healthcare because if they did they would have done more then just shout and made an actual solution.You might have a point that the ACA will reduce the incentive to fix more problems but I will tell you that without it nothing would be done either and your country would be in a worse state healthcare wise then it is now. Both parties have been making changes for decades and trying to do more. Then where is that Republican plan? Because that one thing is the ultimate arbiter of giving a fuck? When you are as dedicated to repealing the ACA as the they have been and do not have a plan of your own to replace it with then yes I will say they don't give a fuck about the people it would effect.
There are competing ideas out there for a replacement. None have been turned into a major proposed law yet, nor has the ACA been repealed yet. So maybe calm down a bit?
|
On April 15 2015 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:08 m4ini wrote:I wasn't the one who brought up waiting for pharmacies. People do wait for treatment. If you want elective surgery for a chronic problem, you're out of luck and must wait quite awhile. There is rationing. My mom had a chronic bad hip, which she never really cared much about until 3 weeks ago. She's now 3 days into recovering, waited roughly 2 weeks for the surgery (after years of not telling the doctors because she's stupid that way). If i have the choice between paying hundreds of thousands of monies, or wait 2 weeks.. Well, honestly, that's pretty simple. In fact, i do have a chronic condition too (cluster-headaches), and waited (i think) 8 days for my appointment for the brainscan. I do think that's reasonable, because it also allowed me to schedule work etc around it. Now, i can only talk about german (and nowadays also for the welsh) system, some people here (mainly/entirely americans) seem to have a very weird picture of it. It's primarily the right wing echo chamber. They make European healthcare sound like bread and soup lines. There isn't really any counter narrative in our country. Most Americans don't have a clue about how European healthcare tends to work at all. The closest thing we have to a counter narrative is anecdotes and such from people like Rick Steves. Not sure if anyone knows who Rick Steves is but he's a well respected traveler (particularly Europe) from the Northwest. But his quick take on healthcare gives you an idea of how little the average American planning to travel to Europe knows about even the most basic aspects of healthcare. Show nested quote +One person told me about how she sprained her ankle during a visit to Denmark. She was X-rayed, bandaged up, and given a pair of crutches to use. The hospital did not ask her to pay a dime — only to return the crutches when she left Denmark. And a staff member of mine, whose infant son received excellent care after a lung infection in France, came home to declare, "Anyone who says socialized medical care is subpar hasn't seen it in action."
Throughout Europe, people with a health problem go first to the pharmacy, not to their doctor. European pharmacists can diagnose and prescribe remedies for many simple problems, such as sore throats, fevers, stomach issues, sinus problems, insomnia, blisters, rashes, urinary tract infections, or muscle, joint, and back pain. Most cities have at least a few 24-hour pharmacies from which you can pick up what you need and be on the mend pronto.
A trip to a clinic is actually an interesting travel experience. Every year I end up in a European clinic for one reason or another, and every time I’m impressed by its efficiency and effectiveness. SourceEDIT: A small point for the US medical system, If one had unlimited funds there is no better option than the American Healthcare system. Maybe US trained people operating elsewhere, so they can legally use experimental stuff, but if your a billionaire trying to avoid your inevitable death, you're going to the US (or people trained/taught here at some point).
American emergency care is just as good. Sure you have to pay for it, but so do Europeans. Nothing is truly free. They pay higher taxes.
America does not have treatment rationing however. You want elective surgery? You can get it basically as quick as you like.
|
On April 15 2015 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:07 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2015 06:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 15 2015 06:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2015 05:55 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 05:37 Simberto wrote:The more we debate this, the more it feels as if americans basically have some sort of collective stockholm syndrome where they just can't accept how shitty their system is, and try to find something positive about it. And finally we have reached the point where the positive about it is how shitty it is, leading to them spending more than they have to, which is interpreted as "subsidizing the rest of the world". Basically, there are few positive things to say for the US healthcare system. It MIGHT be better for you if you are a millionaire. That is pretty much the only positive i can come up with. And for some reason you are stoudly opposed to any attempt at fixing it. The ACA is still shit. It is LESS shit than what you had before, though. And there does not appear to be a lot of political will of just accepting how shit your current system is, throwing it out of the window completely, and adopting a working system from another place (There are many options to choose from) and possibly changing that slightly so it feels a bit less socialist because americans really hate anything that involves being forced to care about other people.
The US spends more because we mandate bare minimum coverages from insurance companies. It's tough for insurance companies to negotiate with providers when said provides know the insurance companies are bound by law to cover said service. It's just like what you said earlier, that patients wouldn't choose to die instead of paying insane prices.
This is nonsense. We have insurance companies in Germany. They are bound by law to provide a lot of care (There are few things they DON'T have to provide). Can you explain why we don't have that problem? The problem with the ACA is that it works a little. It's reduced the political pressure to find an actually good solution. . Implying there was a will before. Besides, with all the shouting the Republicans are doing they make a very good show of wanting to find a good solution. Except everyone knows they don't actually give a fuck about the problems with the US healthcare because if they did they would have done more then just shout and made an actual solution.You might have a point that the ACA will reduce the incentive to fix more problems but I will tell you that without it nothing would be done either and your country would be in a worse state healthcare wise then it is now. Both parties have been making changes for decades and trying to do more. Then where is that Republican plan? Because that one thing is the ultimate arbiter of giving a fuck?
Hey, was that double entendre meant? Because arbiters cast stasis all over the place!
|
Here is a brief history of health care reform in the US
The general public is willing to give large amounts of money every year to insurance companies over any government system because of the general distrust of government. It's why our taxes are so low despite a high demand for services, yet we still complain about "high" taxes. Public Trust in the Government; see also Washington Post, America's Love Hate Relationship with Taxes
I don't think that's going to change yet; it doesn't matter what evidence to the contrary is gathered by scientific method because the method itself is discredited by many of those in power for some reason. This is despite a majority of Americans actually believing in the validity of the scientific method. YouGov Poll on Trust in Science, Scientists and Journalists
I'm hopeful that in 20 or so years we'll see the political spectrum shift a bit more left in the US, though not egregiously so. The Republican/Democrat positions of the post-world war era were far more progressive than where we are today.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price.
|
On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price.
That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed.
|
On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price.
Plus we have access issues that just aren't as common in much of Europe. Beyond the literal cost of the healthcare there are the perceived opportunity costs that prevent many people from getting the care they should/need. If it will cost someone a day of work because their job won't make scheduling arrangements, plus a couple days total wages just for the appointment, then you add between several hours and several days of pay for the prescription, plus an hour in pay for traveling expenses, and any other additional expenses you may occur as a result (basic healthcare maintenance equipment) one can see how it very easily becomes cost prohibitive to maintain or deal with even basic health issues.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed.
when you are no longer moralizing about rationing the problem becomess efficiency and welfare. rationing a limited resource is the basic problem of economics.
in thw case of healthcare the mkt as it stands now is empirically lacking in both objectives, not even considering the less welloff
|
On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/
It’s fairly well accepted that the U.S. is the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but many continue to falsely assume that we pay more for healthcare because we get better health (or better health outcomes). The evidence, however, clearly doesn’t support that view.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7AyDdJX.png)
forbes seems to rank the UK a better than the US when it comes to "timeliness of care", which seems to be what you're arguing to be really shitty in the EU and the UK in particular?
Maybe your example is right, maybe it's just one that works that way while the majority of stuff works the other way around. Idk, but do you have anything that states that it's better in the US?
I can only find sources that state it the other way around, like the forbes article linked above, or this from who:
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aLKFTkq.png)
|
On April 15 2015 07:04 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed. when you are no longer moralizing about rationing the problem becomess efficiency and welfare. rationing a limited resource is the basic problem of economics. in thw case of healthcare the mkt as it stands now is empirically lacking in both objectives, not even considering the less welloff
I am moralizing though. Cost-based rationing leaves the decision up to the person affected by the illness. It is up to them to decide how much this elective surgery means to them. It's not some bureaucrat telling them from on-high that they don't get to have that bone spur removed, or those cataracts corrected.
On April 15 2015 07:05 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/It’s fairly well accepted that the U.S. is the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but many continue to falsely assume that we pay more for healthcare because we get better health (or better health outcomes). The evidence, however, clearly doesn’t support that view. forbes seems to rank the UK a better than the US when it comes to "timeliness of care", which seems to be what you're arguing to be really shitty in the EU and the UK in particular? Maybe your example is right, maybe it's just one that works that way while the majority of stuff works the other way around. Idk, but do you have anything that states that it's better in the US? I can only find sources that state it the other way around, like the forbes article linked above, or this from who: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf
It's hard to deny this article.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/19/heal-o19.html
Being forced to wait 18 weeks before even starting the process of getting treatment is insane to me.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
as i've said, if you have rationing in boths ystems, then it becomes evaluation of the method of rationing (market vs healthcare system)
|
On April 15 2015 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Show nested quote +One person told me about how she sprained her ankle during a visit to Denmark. She was X-rayed, bandaged up, and given a pair of crutches to use. The hospital did not ask her to pay a dime — only to return the crutches when she left Denmark. And a staff member of mine, whose infant son received excellent care after a lung infection in France, came home to declare, "Anyone who says socialized medical care is subpar hasn't seen it in action."
Throughout Europe, people with a health problem go first to the pharmacy, not to their doctor. European pharmacists can diagnose and prescribe remedies for many simple problems, such as sore throats, fevers, stomach issues, sinus problems, insomnia, blisters, rashes, urinary tract infections, or muscle, joint, and back pain. Most cities have at least a few 24-hour pharmacies from which you can pick up what you need and be on the mend pronto.
A trip to a clinic is actually an interesting travel experience. Every year I end up in a European clinic for one reason or another, and every time I’m impressed by its efficiency and effectiveness. Source
It's interesting that people think that the bit about pharmacies and pharmacists is exclusive to Europe. Modern U.S. pharmacists are capable of diagnosis of common health care issues as well; they just actually hand you the product instead of giving you a prescription (I actually remember people with every single one of those conditions approaching me while I was on rotation at CVS and only a handful couldn't be treated OTC).
You also get random people from other countries looking to buy late-term abortifacients because they think they're over the counter in the United States sadly.
|
On April 15 2015 07:22 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 07:04 oneofthem wrote:On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed. when you are no longer moralizing about rationing the problem becomess efficiency and welfare. rationing a limited resource is the basic problem of economics. in thw case of healthcare the mkt as it stands now is empirically lacking in both objectives, not even considering the less welloff I am moralizing though. Cost-based rationing leaves the decision up to the person affected by the illness. It is up to them to decide how much this elective surgery means to them. It's not some bureaucrat telling them from on-high that they don't get to have that bone spur removed, or those cataracts corrected. Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 07:05 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/It’s fairly well accepted that the U.S. is the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but many continue to falsely assume that we pay more for healthcare because we get better health (or better health outcomes). The evidence, however, clearly doesn’t support that view. forbes seems to rank the UK a better than the US when it comes to "timeliness of care", which seems to be what you're arguing to be really shitty in the EU and the UK in particular? Maybe your example is right, maybe it's just one that works that way while the majority of stuff works the other way around. Idk, but do you have anything that states that it's better in the US? I can only find sources that state it the other way around, like the forbes article linked above, or this from who: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf It's hard to deny this article. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/19/heal-o19.htmlBeing forced to wait 18 weeks before even starting the process of getting treatment is insane to me.
yeah, and despite that the World Health Organization for example still seems to think that the UKs system is better in terms of "Responsiveness" (I'd guess, they don't state the scores for the stats, only the final ranking) as the UK ends up on
rank 18 as: United Kingdom 0.925
while the US is on
rank 35 as: United States of America 0.838
Same goes for forbes.
I'm sure there are horror storys in all countries about something no matter the system, but in general the US system just doesn't seem to be better despite being more expensive. And that's with different kind of measurements as both the studies I linked have different rankings
|
On April 15 2015 07:27 oneofthem wrote:
as i've said, if you have rationing in boths ystems, then it becomes evaluation of the method of rationing (market vs healthcare system)
Yeah and? You seem to be only valuing efficacy, while I also value the consumer having a say in whether or not they get treatment.
On April 15 2015 07:33 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 07:22 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 07:04 oneofthem wrote:On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed. when you are no longer moralizing about rationing the problem becomess efficiency and welfare. rationing a limited resource is the basic problem of economics. in thw case of healthcare the mkt as it stands now is empirically lacking in both objectives, not even considering the less welloff I am moralizing though. Cost-based rationing leaves the decision up to the person affected by the illness. It is up to them to decide how much this elective surgery means to them. It's not some bureaucrat telling them from on-high that they don't get to have that bone spur removed, or those cataracts corrected. On April 15 2015 07:05 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/It’s fairly well accepted that the U.S. is the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but many continue to falsely assume that we pay more for healthcare because we get better health (or better health outcomes). The evidence, however, clearly doesn’t support that view. forbes seems to rank the UK a better than the US when it comes to "timeliness of care", which seems to be what you're arguing to be really shitty in the EU and the UK in particular? Maybe your example is right, maybe it's just one that works that way while the majority of stuff works the other way around. Idk, but do you have anything that states that it's better in the US? I can only find sources that state it the other way around, like the forbes article linked above, or this from who: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf It's hard to deny this article. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/19/heal-o19.htmlBeing forced to wait 18 weeks before even starting the process of getting treatment is insane to me. yeah, and despite that the World Health Organization for example still seems to think that the UKs system is better in terms of "Responsiveness" (I'd guess, they don't state the scores for the stats, only the final ranking) as the UK ends up on rank 18 as: United Kingdom 0.925 while the US is on rank 35 as: United States of America 0.838 Same goes for forbes. I'm sure there are horror storys in all countries about something no matter the system, but in general the US system just doesn't seem to be better despite being more expensive. And that's with different kind of measurements as both the studies I linked have different rankings
I wonder what they mean by responsiveness? Is that like how long it takes an ambulance to arrive or perhaps how long you wait in an ER waiting room? Might also just be waiting in general. If it's just ambulance waiting time, that makes sense. The US is not as densely populated as the EU, meaning a lot more driving.
|
People mention the rationing and they have a point but if you can afford the operation in the EU (which is cheaper then in the US) you can still get it even if the insurance wont pay for it. So I'm not sure that is really a plus for the US.
Tho yes by not paying insurance you have more money to spare for the operation, in theory anyway,
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not sure what you are not getting militron. rationing exists in both, so if you don't like rationing morally speaking you would dislike both.
|
On April 15 2015 07:44 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 07:27 oneofthem wrote:
as i've said, if you have rationing in boths ystems, then it becomes evaluation of the method of rationing (market vs healthcare system) Yeah and? You seem to be only valuing efficacy, while I also value the consumer having a say in whether or not they get treatment. Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 07:33 Toadesstern wrote:On April 15 2015 07:22 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 07:04 oneofthem wrote:On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed. when you are no longer moralizing about rationing the problem becomess efficiency and welfare. rationing a limited resource is the basic problem of economics. in thw case of healthcare the mkt as it stands now is empirically lacking in both objectives, not even considering the less welloff I am moralizing though. Cost-based rationing leaves the decision up to the person affected by the illness. It is up to them to decide how much this elective surgery means to them. It's not some bureaucrat telling them from on-high that they don't get to have that bone spur removed, or those cataracts corrected. On April 15 2015 07:05 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/It’s fairly well accepted that the U.S. is the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but many continue to falsely assume that we pay more for healthcare because we get better health (or better health outcomes). The evidence, however, clearly doesn’t support that view. forbes seems to rank the UK a better than the US when it comes to "timeliness of care", which seems to be what you're arguing to be really shitty in the EU and the UK in particular? Maybe your example is right, maybe it's just one that works that way while the majority of stuff works the other way around. Idk, but do you have anything that states that it's better in the US? I can only find sources that state it the other way around, like the forbes article linked above, or this from who: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf It's hard to deny this article. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/19/heal-o19.htmlBeing forced to wait 18 weeks before even starting the process of getting treatment is insane to me. yeah, and despite that the World Health Organization for example still seems to think that the UKs system is better in terms of "Responsiveness" (I'd guess, they don't state the scores for the stats, only the final ranking) as the UK ends up on rank 18 as: United Kingdom 0.925 while the US is on rank 35 as: United States of America 0.838 Same goes for forbes. I'm sure there are horror storys in all countries about something no matter the system, but in general the US system just doesn't seem to be better despite being more expensive. And that's with different kind of measurements as both the studies I linked have different rankings I wonder what they mean by responsiveness? Is that like how long it takes an ambulance to arrive or perhaps how long you wait in an ER waiting room? Might also just be waiting in general. If it's just ambulance waiting time, that makes sense. The US is not as densely populated as the EU, meaning a lot more driving.
It states
Responsiveness in this context explicitly refers to the non-health improving dimensions of the interactions of the populace with the health system, and reflects respect of persons and client orientation in the delivery of health services, among other factors.
I highly doubt it's just ER waiting or abulance waiting as it's not a report about those two.
The thing you're arguing basicly boils down to:
Because the UK treats more people in general the bottleneck is staff and beds available (as stated in your article).
The US treats fewer people in general so that bottleneck doesn't exist and you can get treatment faster if you have the money (which forbes and WHO still disagree with btw).
And I'm fairly sure that that's a good thing according to you because you're all about that self determination but I don't consider "the UK should treat less people so that they have less waiting times" a good solution.
|
On April 15 2015 04:43 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Pharmaceutical spending is ~10% of healthcare spending. Even if we were subsidizing the rest of the world, you're talking small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. General medical equipment suffers from the same problems. Why does an X-ray cost hundreds? It takes seconds, and doesn't use anything up. The answer is the company that builds X-ray machines price gouges, and hospitals are forced to pass that cost on to the customer.
As someone said before, this price gouging has no relevance to European health care. It's not like Big Pharma/medical device companies keep prices in Europe low just because they get a profit in the U.S. They don't just say, "Oh, we're making enough money, let's be nice to Europe". They don't make nearly as much in Europe because the system doesn't allow them to. The U.S. just needs to get with the program instead of allowing itself to be owned by corporations to such a degree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
