|
United States43814 Posts
The rich in a private and a public system both get the same quality of healthcare, and both get it private. In a private system they save some tax money by not having to pay for public healthcare provision they will never use but they can afford it.
The middle class get about the same standard of care under both systems, although the upper middle class do lose out on the public system because (at the very least in the UK) you can't top up the public healthcare with private so they are limited to whatever provision they get on the state. How good this standard is varies from country to country but there will always be a few people on the cusp between middle class and upper class who will lose out.
The lower class benefit hugely from the public healthcare system. They cannot afford a full healthcare plan, no health insurance would cover them because it'd be a bad financial investment, their earnings will not cover the costs. That and the lower classes get sick more, generally due to environmental factors. Under a public system they are taken care of for free, paid for out of general taxation. Under a private system they are either left to die, treat the symptoms without treating the problem or trapped in overwhelming debt.
The reason you can find statistics both ways on the public-private healthcare argument is because the waiting lines are shorter in a private system and the mortality rates are lower. That's because the average patient gets about twice as much spent on him in private as in public, not because of some intrinsic magic in private practice medicine. More lives are saved by the public system though.
The costs of curing someone are less than the costs of treating the symptoms of a condition for years on end. Lower class people without insurance will have trouble paying for the treatment they need immediately and will instead spend far more money with worse results managing the symptoms over a long period of time.
Medicine has a diminishing return on investment, the improvement in healthcare is not proportionate to the increase in cost. To put that in context. Public takes X money and treats everyone with Y quality of health care. Private will take X money, treat half the people with only 1.5Y quality. Better for the people being treated but far less cost efficient.
Sick people are bad for society in general. Poor people who are ill with a contagious virus ignore it and infect those around them, perpetuating the problem. While that may not bother you, eventually one of those people getting paid so little he can't afford to take a sick day will be the guy coughing over your food. To use a crude analogy, you may not like your toilet on a personal level, you may not think it deserves your investment, but you still buy products to keep it hygenic because if you don't it'll be worse for you.
Public health challenges can be met with a co-ordinated, universal approach in a public system. From pandemics to obesity, public can invest (for example) in anti-smoking ads which pay for themselves and more in lower healthcare costs. The economics of healthcare change when the objective is to make a healthy society rather than to treat a lot of patients.
On a related note, it's actually advantageous for a private hospital for there to be a surplus of sick people, it increases demand and therefore prices. Basic economics. Whereas a public system is given a set amount of money and told to spend it as best they can on the sick people that year which means if there's anything it can do to save itself money it will. While one profits from a sick society the other does not. I'm not suggesting that private hospitals deliberately make people ill but equally they don't attempt to reduce the healthcare costs of society as a whole.
Avoidable money spent on healthcare is ultimately money wasted and is bad for everyone in society. You might think that if someone chooses burn their money that doesn't effect you but it does, its money not spent on goods or invested or put into a house. Having people without insurance burning money away treating symptoms of a condition they can't afford to cure and dying while still capable of work is a net loss for society which in turn means its a net loss for every member of society. It's an indirect loss but a 45 year old man dying of a curable condition still leaves society 20 years of productive labour worse off.
Oh, and one other point. People aren't cars needing mechanics. If they don't get healthcare they die. This is bad. If people are dying and we can stop it we probably should.
|
TL;DR on my post: BAAAWWWW. That's what you'll see if you disagree with me, and maybe if you don't. Sorry.
Chomsky D: Why a linguist thinks he knows about healthcare is a bit unknown. He is also super liberal, and his position on the matter is going to be pretty obvious without having heard him speak.
"If you take the socialized part of the system, medicare, its administrative costs are like a fraction of the privatized system"
That's partly because they pay a fraction of what they are billed. My dad sees a lot of medicare patients because the other oprthopods in town won't.
"there's constant talk about the problems Medicare's facing down the road ... yeah it's true. But the problems are because it has to work through the privatized system, which makes it highly inefficient, costly, bureaucratized"
Sure, because the government isn't notorious for bureaucracy. Whether it's DC or Brussels, you'll find it hard to convince me that government does anything efficiently.
"The public has wanted something that makes sense"
How about fewer lawyers dicking around in the process. I write a huge check each month for malpractice insurance. That cost gets passed to you. Lack of tort reform in my state has led to a drain, as the doctor population declines to head elsewhere. No one is going to want to work for pennies on the dollar for the government (after spending 13 years of higher education for the privilege) while having to fork over for insurance so they don't get ruined by a suit. Would nationalized health care address this? Maybe, but it could be addressed without putting the government in charge of everything.
"If it was part of an ongoing, lively debate or discussion, as would happen in a functioning democratic society"
LOLWUT. That in a nutshell is all one needs to know about Chomsky. Where is the Great Firewall of America preventing us from debating this here? Or newspapers not covering Hillary's efforts in the 90s? Democracy is not at its shining best here (though Obama is president, he is more of the same) but telling me that people don't debate whatever they want here? Has the man turned on a cable news channel? Has he listened to O'Really and Olbermann? To say there is no debate is ridiculous.
Speaking of the 2004 election, the NY Times and others point out that "Kerry never suggested any government involvement in the healthcare system because it is politically impossible and lacks political support"
You think? How does he reconcile this statement with his assertion that government run healthcare is demanded by most of Americans (who for some reason don't debate it because we are a non functioning democracy).
"the only support it had was from the large majority of the population"
..because I say so.
"pharmaceutical corporations didn't like it, and so on"
How about we neuter our pharma industry. Let's take away the incentive for discovering drugs that help people. Or let's turn it over to the government, who for sure could do it more efficiently. Yeah, stuff like Rogaine is dumb. But if vain people *cough* buy it and fund research on other stuff, welp I'm cool with it. What I'm saying is our pharma is doing pretty well at advancing medicine. People will disagree with that of course, people who are into natural cures and would prefer medicine (and life expectancy) to be like centuries ago. And they'll probably be likely to align with Chomsky's views on a lot of things.
On Obama's health care plan:
"The privatized health care system is complaining bitterly right now, because if there's an option of a public system, as is written into the program, they won't be able to compete on a level playing field. That's a way of saying 'we're so inefficient and costly that we can't compete with a national health care system'"
Again, governement efficiency? GTFO. There will be no level playing field because the government could, by fiat, pay less. Being cheapasses (and letting most of the people availing themselves of a government program be cheapasses too) is not efficiency.
There are still many Americans (though that number could be dwindling, in which case it's time for me to leave) who believe in self reliance, hard work, and small government. Increased government involvement in health care, when the government is already insolvent, just doesn't strike a lot of people as a good idea. Of course they'll just keep printing more of their paper fiat based currency and pay for everything!! woo.
Now, while I'm not sure Chomsky is qualified to talk about this stuff, I'm probably not either. Yet here we both are (no debate my ass). And I'm not too likely to be objective, given the field I am in. Mostly Chomsky just makes me so very very angry.
It's too bad for the OP he didn't have insurance to get him a CT scan or an MRI, but I'm pretty sure it would be a fallacy to think he'd get one elsewhere in a timely fashion for a non life threatening condition. See previous post about wait times for non essential procedures in Canada for example. I just don't think letting the government handle it would make everything better. That's not an uncommon attitude here (though I can't say if it's the most common), even if it's apparently pretty unbelievable for people living in places where the government does control a lot more.
|
If those wait times are true, that's ridiculous. I scheduled and completed an MRI and had 2 appointments with the orthopedic surgeon of my choice (within my insurance plan) all within a 3 month period of time.
|
I like how a thread about kidney stones has degraded into a debate about America's health care system..
Either way I drink 2-4L of diet pepsi a day... God I'm so not going to enjoy my future kidney stones...
How old is everyone who got a kidney stone anyway? I'm only 24 and have never once felt anything described in this thread.
|
United States43814 Posts
MamiyaOtaru, I read your post and I disagree. You show some fundamental misunderstandings about the public system (such as the malpractice insurance one, ofc they don't pay themselves).
Also your suggestion that everyone who believes in a public system also believes in herbal remedies is just an insult. On the contrary, a public system is even better equipped to deal with a pharmaceutical companies as they represent a large portion of the demand.
I believe a public system is more efficient for society as a whole (if you regard the preventable death of someone else as inefficient). Of course, if your only concern is yourself and your immediate family then private seems more efficient (paying for just yourself) but you are a member of society and when society loses out, you do too.
|
Sorry for bump but im in deep pain in my lower back, having signs of kidney stones, and im wondering if theres a certain age that people are usually when they get it.
Im really worried right now and i hope that its rare under a certain age, as im only 16. its a good chance of being severe back pain or some kind of other infection, but i just thought i would ask
|
On January 09 2011 01:52 Shrinky Dink wrote:
Sorry for bump but im in deep pain in my lower back, having signs of kidney stones, and im wondering if theres a certain age that people are usually when they get it.
Im really worried right now and i hope that its rare under a certain age, as im only 16. its a good chance of being severe back pain or some kind of other infection, but i just thought i would ask
Go see a doctor.
|
if you have insurance, see a doctor.
|
Kidney stones aren't AS common with younger people, especially still in your teens. Most males (if they get any at all) USUALLY experience their first or only stones in their late 30's-early 40's. With all that said, everybody is wired differently and it is absolutely a possibility, thought I doubt it. Definatly go see your doctor.
|
I got a kidney stone when I was 8 years old. It was ridiculously painful, but it was small enough to pass relatively easy (though I was obviously in tears the whole time). I was just told to drink a lot, not really that much else you can do. Best of luck!
|
Sucks to be an American lol. America is one of the few western countries where they wouldn't fix this due to your insurence. In most european countries, it is mandatory to have a health insurence. God Bless America!
On topic: all you can do is to take it easy and use some painkillers which also have a muscleweaking effect on the urinary system.
|
On January 09 2011 03:05 ScrubS wrote:
Sucks to be an American lol. America is one of the few western countries where they wouldn't fix this due to your insurence. In most european countries, it is mandatory to have a health insurence. God Bless America!
On topic: all you can do is to take it easy and use some painkillers which also have a muscleweaking effect on the urinary system.
Don't even start to bring that up ok?
One of my friends has had kidney stones since he was like 15, so I don't think there's a certain age. He has them repeatedly as well, not sure if something is wrong with him or what but it sucks.
|
I had one when I was 23. By far the greatest agony of pain I have ever experienced. Whenever I feel but the slightest sting of pain near my kidneys people around me can hear my heart beating. Go to the doctor asap, drink a lot of water and take painkillers to help your muscles to relax.
|
For anyone who has kidney stones, this herb is really good against it
Chancapiedra (the name of the herb literally means "stone breaker") you take it like a herb tea, and IT REALLY works, its from my country tho, but you can get capsules from this website
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.perunaturalproducts.com/la_chancapiedra.htm
It really did a wonderfull job with me, i had that problem, it hurts really really bad. But i started taking the herb and after one month i was totally fine.
|
I experienced some minor pain in my lower right back today. And of course someone had to bump this thread. Needless to say, i'm scared shitless. Only minor pain though, and I did sit in an uncomfortable position. But still...
|
dont you love it when you live in a country that would spend less on military and more on healthcare
NHS ftw
|
On January 09 2011 03:16 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 03:05 ScrubS wrote:
Sucks to be an American lol. America is one of the few western countries where they wouldn't fix this due to your insurence. In most european countries, it is mandatory to have a health insurence. God Bless America!
On topic: all you can do is to take it easy and use some painkillers which also have a muscleweaking effect on the urinary system. Don't even start to bring that up ok? One of my friends has had kidney stones since he was like 15, so I don't think there's a certain age. He has them repeatedly as well, not sure if something is wrong with him or what but it sucks.
Tell him to go to the urologist, any person below 25 with more than one episode of kidney stones MUST be studied further looking for urinary tract abnormalities. If it were his case, with the passing years the kidney scars and chalices dilate because of the increased pressure from repetitive obstruction (hydronephrosis/hydroureteronephrosis), and might get infected, causing a chronic pyelonephritis, maybe even losing a kidney.
All of this is, of course, somewhat farfetched, but it's a possible complication of repeated and untreated urolithiasis. He should definitely get more exams.
On Topic. The initial treatment for kidney stones is drinking lots of water and waiting for it to come out. Excruciating pain and blood in the urine is normal during this period. If it is not expelled in around a week the regular procedure is a catheter lithotripsy, then other procedures come, like ultrasound lithotripsy, and only in very complicated cases the treatment is surgery.
As far as prevention goes:
-Drink lots of water
-Reduce consumption of calcium-rich foods (though this is of less importance than hydration,and somewhat controversial)
-Proteins have only a light relation with kidney stones, they are, however, related to chronic kidney problems in long-term high protein based diets, if you add that up with damage from stones, it could complicate it more in older ages. In people who suffer from other metabolic problems they can increase kidney stones, but in this case the stones are made of other substances, derived from protein metabolism.
-Basically, diluted urine prevents kidney stones, since it prevents calcium and other mineral stones from crystallizing and precipitating into the urinary tract.
-Diet drinks and other caffeine based drinks have been strongly related to kidney stones. Basically, the kidney drops tons and tons of water, only water, thus concentrating mineral salts in the chalices or collector tubules, which makes them precipitate and form a stone.
|
On January 09 2011 05:08 Dropsonic wrote:
I experienced some minor pain in my lower right back today. And of course someone had to bump this thread. Needless to say, i'm scared shitless. Only minor pain though, and I did sit in an uncomfortable position. But still...
Unlikely to be a kidney stone, remember this:
-The pain is insanely high. (Women usually compare this to giving birth to a child, or worse)
-Characteristically, any person, particularly male, with lots of lower back or abdominal pain irradiating into the inguinal area and/or scrotum is suspect of having a kidney stone.
-A very important and common characteristic of kidney stones is that the pain makes the person VERY uncomfortable and makes him/her move around, squeal, scream in pain, and being unable to stay put. The patient is incredibly restless, I've seen many of these in the ER during my shifts and you can instantly recognize kidney stones because of this, it's an almost certain diagnosis.
Edit: Sorry for double post :S
|
I had this once about a year ago. Worst pain I've ever been in by far. (and I'm comparing this to broken bones, concussions, torn ligaments in my ankles, knife stab wound in the leg) It felt like there was a tiny blackhole in my lower left back and all my organs were being pulled through it at once... slowly. Basically imagine how it would feel if Incontrol grabbed your lower back on one side and crushed it with his kung-fu grip. It's also the only time I've ever nearly passed out from pain. I literally saw blackness closing in around the outside edges of my vision before I calmed myself down.
I was told by the doctors that diets that are high in sugar (drink much pop, nerd?) and protein (I was grilling with a friend at least 3-4 times per week that summer) were probably causes.
One good thing you can do during the whole ordeal is to move around as much as you can. It sounds crazy, but it helps the stone work it's way through to your bladder. Make sure you're already taking the pain meds before this step though...
|
Wow it sucks to be american, they cant even tell you if your dying or not unless you pay them thousands of dollars, wtf?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
