Let's have Health Care like the UK

There have been a couple of non-rhetorical questions that nobody has taken a stab at answering...

1) Twall asked, "What has the government ever taken over from the private sector and done a better job at?"

2) Hookset asked, "Are you ready to be taxed at French rates?"

Buehler? Buehler? Anyone? Buehler?

Some other random thoughts:

- The cost of medical malpractice insurance has risen dramatically and has an adverse effect on the costs and efficiency of our system. I wonder why the Democrats and their trial lawyer constituency never mention these costs when they wring their hands about health insurance accessibility? Now that's a rhetorical question. ;-)

- The fear of being sued also effects costs:

Quote:

---

Doctors in the state order at least $1.4 billion worth of diagnostic tests and hospital stays each year out of fear of litigation instead of a patient’s actual need, according to a report from the Massachusetts Medical Society. http://www.protectpatientsnow.org/si...ion_a_year.htm

---

- I read an article recently that the US leads the world in preventative medicine and diagnostics (eg, mamograms) precisely because our system is for-profit, and it is in the insurance carrier's financial interest that you stay well.

- It's amusing that Henry has twice poo-poo'ed a CATO Institute article that nobody has even mentioned or linked to (or is likely even aware of), yet pimps as the Holy Grail the highly subjective rankings of a 9 year old UN study as proof of our broken and inefficient healthcare system. I'm surprised we didn't rank lower than 37th given WHO's mission, "In the 21st century, health is a shared responsibility, involving equitable access to essential care and collective defence against transnational threats."

- Yes, Americans travel to Bangkok for their Addadicktome or Whackadickoffame surgeries, but I'm pretty confident what country 99% of the world would like to come to for treatment if their life depended on it.

"In designing the framework for health system performance, WHO broke new methodological ground, employing a technique not previously used for health systems. It compares each country’s system to what the experts estimate to be the upper limit of what can be done with the level of resources available in that country. It also measures what each country’s system has accomplished in comparison with those of other countries.

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

The majority of their indicators are measures of "fairness", not total health care quality. The U.S. can have the most highly trained doctors, the most advanced medical technology, and the cleanest and most comfortable hospitals...but still rank below a society where the shaman-physicians give the same voodoo to the tribal chief as they do to his subjects."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hookset

I notice you quoted but didn't answer the question. I've ridden the TGV numerous times, but I'm not willing to be taxed at the French rate to have bullet trains here.

---

Of course not. But the health care system is is not a a contributor to the burden of the consumer when you consider the actual out of pocket cost of their system vs. ours. I used the trains as an example of how the French use their public money vs. how we use ours.

I hate to pay taxes as much as anyone. But when you compare our tax rate with other countries, we don't have that much to complain about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...centage_of_GDP

I believe we should also pay as we go. There has been a culture some of our fellow citizens have adopted that says government owes them everything, but, they don't want to pay for it. If we really were serious about servicing our debt, our tax rate would be somewhat higher.

(By the way, if we wish to compare national debt, France's is 2.9 % of GDP vs. ours of about 16%).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tpaschal30

"In designing the framework for health system performance, WHO broke new methodological ground, ...
The majority of their indicators are measures of "fairness", not quality. The U.S. can have the most highly trained doctors, the most advanced medical technology, and the cleanest and most comfortable hospitals...but still rank below a society where the shaman-physicians give the same voodoo to the tribal chief as they do to his subjects."

---

Well there you have it. Let's start using witch doctors and voodoo! Let's train all the meth lab technicians to cook juju pots full of gris gris potions and addicts can sell them on the streets. Let's staff emergency rooms with shamans instead of physicians! Who needs government health care when we probably already have the talent right here! Just think of all the Haitian and Tanzanian immigrants we can put to work....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hew

- It's amusing that Henry has twice poo-poo'ed a CATO Institute article that nobody has even mentioned or linked to (or is likely even aware of),

---

What is really amusing is that you apparently did not read the first posting in this thread, click on the link posted there, and then note that the one and only other link referenced by that article is in fact a CATO report.

Given that the UN is the biggest anti-America body in the world, except when they want our $$$$ to waste on some idiotic project, I could care less where they rank anything American. We could save a fortune by getting the US out of the UN and booting the UN out of the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zeus3925

If we really were serious about servicing our debt, our tax rate would be somewhat higher...

---

If we were serious we wouldn't have created the debt in the first place. We wouldn't exacerbate the problem with a pork bill like the one scheduled for signing. We are a country that is moving rapidly to providing social services that will touch every aspect of our lives. We will become dependent on those services and taxes will rise to pay for them. Those onerous taxes will stunt start up business and innovation, (cost of entry and all that) and will effectively kill the goose that laid the golden egg, which is capitalism. Our GDP growth will slow to a crawl just like all the nations that have similar amounts of social programs. Those social programs commitment will do to the nation what the union benefit packages have done to GM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Gutermuth

Given that the UN is the biggest anti-America body in the world, except when they want our $$$$ to waste on some idiotic project, I could care less where they rank anything American. We could save a fortune by getting the US out of the UN and booting the UN out of the US.

---

I agree with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zeus3925

Of course not. But the health care system is is not a a contributor to the burden of the consumer when you consider the actual out of pocket cost of their system vs. ours. I used the trains as an example of how the French use their public money vs. how we use ours.

I hate to pay taxes as much as anyone. But when you compare our tax rate with other countries, we don't have that much to complain about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...centage_of_GDP

I believe we should also pay as we go. There has been a culture some of our fellow citizens have adopted that says government owes them everything, but, they don't want to pay for it. If we really were serious about servicing our debt, our tax rate would be somewhat higher.

(By the way, if we wish to compare national debt, France's is 2.9 % of GDP vs. ours of about 16%).

---

I wouldn't have a problem paying higher taxes if we were actually cutting spending and increasing revenues with the intent of paying off the national debt. However, I believe that raising taxes (especially for the evil, disgusting "rich" and those awful corporations) is counterproductive in that it will retard investment, but it doesn't matter. The truth is that politicians on both sides of the aisle buy votes with our money.
I also believe we should pay as we go. The problem as I see it is that many feel that government owes them everything and expect those who have been responsible enough to provide for themselves to also provide for those who have been irresponsible.
The underlying question in all of these political threads is this: do you want your government more involved in your life or less? I think that for the most part they are all a bunch of idiots interested primarily in reelection and party power and the less influence they have on my life and that of my family, the better.
Show me one program, department or administrative funtion run efficiently and effectively by the Federal government. There isn't one. I have one question for those who want the Fed more involved in our health care. Would you like it modeled after Medicare/Medicaid, the Department of Education or the Department of Homeland Security? Maybe you would like to take a page from that shining beacon of efficiency, the DOD.

Here's an idea: stop comparing the US with other countries. It's apples and bicycles. Pick any ten categories that you think we are particularly weak in, find a country that beats us in all ten, pack a suitcase and find your happiness.
Does the US have room for improvement? Absolutely! But the things that made this country great are the things that make us least like France or UK or any other country on the planet. We have true liberty and economic freedom and an environment that allows things like Microsoft and Apple and Starbucks and Google and the Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins and MIT and Coca Cola and Walmart to exist. Regardless of what the World Health Organization says, the highest quality health care is here in the US. More people try to emigrate (or is it imagrate?) to the US every year, legally and illegally than any other country. Many times more people travel to the US every year for health care than from the US for health care. If we suck so bad, move! There are several flights a day leaving the US for anywhere you want to go (thank you Boeing, McDonnel-Douglas, Delta, American, Continental, etc.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Henry V

What is really amusing is that you apparently did not read the first posting in this thread, click on the link posted there, and then note that the one and only other link referenced by that article is in fact a CATO report.

---

Ah, I see, you were referencing a link that was referenced by another link that nobody even commented on. Gee, how could I have missed something that obvious in the original article? BTW, I actually read the original article...something you couldn't have laid claim to when you asked, "Do people in UK that can afford private insurance buy it?. Yes, I am sure some do. What percentage, I don't know. Do you?"

pssssst....the answer is 10% (there, now you still don't have to read the article you're commenting on)