Party Politics aside......

[YardleyLabs]

Jeff, I'll have to rent the Michael Moore DVD and tell you if I agree on the Cuba to USA comparisons on health care. Backpasture, I measure quality/value of my health care by how much I spend on it/quality of care. Fair? My annual cost of monthy health insurance through my employer, meds/docotrs visit, dentist, annual physical, poison oak etc is $2,000. I find that wonderful and consider myself lucky. In 05, I had one stint inserted to clear a blockage. I entered the hospital of my choice and immediatly examined by an ER MD. That was $1,800. out of pocket. The fact that I was back on my feet in two days made me realize how good we have it!

My comment about Cuba was based strictly on health indices published by the WHO for all member countries. However, Cuba is relatively well known for the quality of its medical staff.

My own experience with our health system occurred a couple of years ago. I paid $750/month for health insurance for myself, which was the full cost since I owned the company. I had a very minor stroke while photographing a friend's wedding in Bellevue WA. Within 30-40 minutes I was in the emergency room where I told them I had suffered a stroke that caused partial blindness. They concluded that I might have a detached retina instead and that I should return to PA and visit with my normal doctor. No treatment was done and I was not seen by a neurologist or ophthalmologist.

I flew home the next day where it was determined quickly that I had suffered a stroke. Because I was not treated in the ER, my partial blindness became permanent while clot breaking treatment at that time would almost certainly have restored my vision. I spent three days in the hospital for testing. A couple of months later I had a prostate biopsy whch created enough swelling that I ended up in the emergency room for catheterization. My medical bills for the year were over $60,000 of which I ended up paying almost $5,000 out of pocket. Much of the care I received was great, but not where it counted most. The cost, whether paid by me or the insurance company (from an economic perspective it's the same) was at best questionable.

I believe we have a very good health care system for those that can afford to pay and a very poor system for those that cannot. As Hoosier indicated, some of our poor outcomes on health indicators says more about our diet than our health care. However, that is less valid when dealing with meausres of infant mortality where we do not look good compared to most of the developed countries and many of the third world countries. In those cases, poor distribution of services is more of a factor.

[YardleyLabs]

Where do you get your facts?

Oh I forgot...you're liberal and just make stuff up to fit your screeching.

P A T H T I C !!!

The data are readily available from the World Health Organization at http://www.who.int/whosis/en/. The facts are actually well known in public health circles. However, I forgot. You're a self-professed right wingers and don't need facts.....

[Patrick Johndrow]

I now have two on my ignore list

[IowaBayDog]

However, that is less valid when dealing with meausres of infant mortality where we do not look good compared to most of the developed countries and many of the third world countries. In those cases, poor distribution of services is more of a factor.

That is a false statistical comparison that has been propagated around for years to try to push the case for more socialized medicine. Most of those other countries don't even make an attempt to sustain life in babies that would likely survive in the U.S. system.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/030....men031105.asp

The U.S. counts any life signs at birth as a live birth and try to save it. Those other countries don't and throw out any births below certain weights and some don't even count babies that die within 7 days as an infant mortality.

My nephew was less than 500g at birth and his fathers wedding ring fit around his leg, he is now 14 years old and one of the best athletes in his class.

[YardleyLabs]

That is a false statistical comparison that has been propagated around for years to try to push the case for more socialized medicine. Most of those other countries don't even make an attempt to sustain life in babies that would likely survive in the U.S. system.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/030....men031105.asp

The U.S. counts any life signs at birth as a live birth and try to save it. Those other countries don't and throw out any births below certain weights and some don't even count babies that die within 7 days as an infant mortality.

My nephew was less than 500g at birth and his fathers wedding ring fit around his leg, he is now 14 years old and one of the best athletes in his class.

Actually, the statistics reported by the WHO are not necessarily the official statistics reported by the individual countries because of efforts by WHO staff to correct data to a standard definition of terms. The comment that "most of those countries don't even make an attempt to sustain life in babies that would likely survive in the U.S. system." is not at all consistent with my experience. Most of the countries that show up better than the US in the statistics are European nations that certainly share our own values in their commitments to preserving life. Switzerland, the country referenced in the article you cited, is a good case in point and one where I have a fair amount of personal experience. My younger sister was born there -- underweight, deformed heart, and deformed lungs. She was immediately transferred to a specialized neonatal care hospital and spent the next three days of her life under continuous physician and nurse care before finally dying.

With respect to the concern about "socialized" medicine, we have that now. Physicians as a group opposed the implementation of health insurance for many years because that would create socialized medicine. Patients would no longer be paying their bills and third parties would begin to interfere in the doctor patient relationship, questioning care, restricting services, etc. All that has in fact come to pass.

More than 90% of our population pays only a small portion of the cost of the medical services they consume. Insurance -- whether private insurance through an employer or purchased directly in a regulated environment, or government insurance in the form of Medicare or Medicaid -- pays the bills. Bureaucrats from insurance companies and, to a lesser extent, State agencies, review the services being provided and make decisions about what care will be paid or not. The prices charged to those few people who pay their own bills are dramatically higher than the prices paid by insurance companies.

If we wish to get rid of socialized medicine, let's get rid of health insurance altogether. If we still want insurance as a matter of personal risk management, have each person pay 100% of the cost and either provide no tax benefit or an equal dollar benefit to all people in the population.

The arguments over "socialized medicine" are primarily arguments over how to pay for medical care for the small percentage of people who do not receive coverage through an employer and do not qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. Virtually all of these people are employed or became unemployed relatively recently. They may work at Walmart, or McDonalds, or Burger King. If they were not working and had spent their assets, they would receive Medicaid. As it is, they receive nothing

[IowaBayDog]

Actually, the statistics reported by the WHO are not necessarily the official statistics reported by the individual countries because of efforts by WHO staff to correct data to a standard definition of terms. The comment that "most of those countries don't even make an attempt to sustain life in babies that would likely survive in the U.S. system." is not at all consistent with my experience.

Yes I would agree that the industrialized nations that are on the list may in fact have good neonatal programs, my comment was directed towards your comment that we are not as good as "many third world countries". Which is bogus. How many births/deaths are happening in those countries outside of hospitals that never get reported? How is the WHO correcting this data if it doesn't exist?

Most of those industrialized nations still use different criteria than the U.S. or the WHO, how is the WHO correcting data? Statistical guessing? If Russia or a soviet former soviet block country reports a <1000g baby as a still birth how does the WHO extrapolate that it was actually a live birth and count it towards the mortality rate?

[Henry V]

Do a search on "health care cost per capita". We're clearly #1. Yeah! In fact, we spend more than twice the median and spend almost 50% more more per capita than #2 Switzerland. All these other systems are universal health care. Funny, the data clearly shows that universal health care is far less expensive per person.

Do a search on "best health care system world". We are not near #1 in most all categories in any reports. Keep coming up with excuses and minutia to explain why these reports are flawed to make you feel better if needed.

It is always interesting when this topic comes up and the supposed fiscal conservatives would not be for a system that clearly has been demonstrated to save money worldwide.

Oh, I know, but if we go to a universal system we won't be able to choose our own doctors or clinic. Excuse me, but how many of you can really do that now? My insurer tells me which clinic/doctors I can go to, which medicines can be prescribed, and if a referral is needed there are many hoops to go through. Wake-up folks we have a restrictive system now, that far and away costs the most in the world, and does not give us a good return on the investment, unless of course you're in the health insurance industry.

[Eric Johnson]

Do a search on "health care cost per capita". We're clearly #1. Yeah! In fact, we spend more than twice the median and spend almost 50% more more per capita than #2 Switzerland. All these other systems are universal health care. Funny, the data clearly shows that universal health care is far less expensive per person.

The issue of cost of health care has to be balanced with access to health care and quality of it. We are repeatedly reminded that nations with "universal health care" also severely ration health care.

The best example of the politics of "health care is the figure of 45,000,000 Americans who don't have health care. In fact that's 45,000,000 who don't have health care insurance. For example....the military doesn't have insurance and are within the 45,000,000. As I recall, that's more than 13,000,000 military and retired military and their dependents. Cut out the folks who have alternatives to health care insurance and you trim the 45,000,000 significantly.

Eric

[badbullgator]

I'm glad to hear you are fan of Costa Rica's health care system. It does have a good reputation.

Did you know they have nationalized health care down there? Canada does, too. In fact, pretty much any first world country that you want to flee to when 'things get bad here' has a single payer health care system.

Are you sure you want to live in one of those 'socialist' countries?

Interesting that we have patients come to us form Canada (LOTS), Italy, Spain, England, France, and most of South America seeking our services which cost them about 20K plus travel expenses and a four to six week stay.
We must have something better than they have when they could get the same at home for free don’t you think?
Give a Florida orthopedic surgeon a call this time of year and schedule a hip or knee replacement and I promise you while you are being prepped for surgery you will hear a whole lot of Eh’s and abooots coming from all the Canadians that come down here because they can’t wait for it up in the great white north.
Hey BP I am sure that if they open up travel to Cuba you will be heading right on down there for all your treatments right…..

[YardleyLabs]

The issue of cost of health care has to be balanced with access to health care and quality of it. We are repeatedly reminded that nations with "universal health care" also severely ration health care.

The best example of the politics of "health care is the figure of 45,000,000 Americans who don't have health care. In fact that's 45,000,000 who don't have health care insurance. For example....the military doesn't have insurance and are within the 45,000,000. As I recall, that's more than 13,000,000 military and retired military and their dependents. Cut out the folks who have alternatives to health care insurance and you trim the 45,000,000 significantly.

Eric

Actually the 46 million uninsured (15.9% of the population) excludes all those receiving military health benefits (3.8% or the population), all those receiving Medicaid (13%), and Medicare (13.7%), as well as those covered by private plans provided through their employers (59.5%) or purchased privately (9.1%). (http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm)