Health care has changed

[dnf777]

Every where that has gone to nationalized health care laments it's failure.

What makes all you progressive liberals think it will work here now??

It's a power grab!!

Road Kill,
I don't want to see nationalized health care, believe me. But unfortunately the argument you described does not hold water. I would love to be able to make that argument, b/c it's a good one....if it were true.

In Denmark, they have nat'l care, NO tort mess, and reasonalbe care for everyone. Reasonable, not perfect. Many of the things we hear long wait lists for, don't truly require immediate attention. We're just accustomed to that in America. (I"m no exception) but the true urgencies are treated in justa timely fashion.

If I were one of the people with the choice of forgoing needed care, or going bankrupt, you bet I'd settle for reasonable care, even if I had to wait a little longer than I"m used to.

I don't suspect a common sense approach or solution is in our near future. Too many of the players have their own agenda, which is not necessarily the best agenda for our country. As long as we have K-street in DC, don't look for honest answers.

[tpaschal30]

"The system has generally remained unchanged since the 1970’s, however its growing inability to meet the demands of the changing lifestyles of Danes and its inefficient allocation of resources has led to falling satisfaction levels from 4.3 in 1993 to 3.4 in 2000 on scale 1-5.1 This created the necessity to introduce reforms to improve the quality of the health system, increase consumer choice and improve both allocative and technical efficiency since waiting lists were considered to be too long."

Which have not worked BTW.

source
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a

[dnf777]

"The system has generally remained unchanged since the 1970’s, however its growing inability to meet the demands of the changing lifestyles of Danes and its inefficient allocation of resources has led to falling satisfaction levels from 4.3 in 1993 to 3.4 in 2000 on scale 1-5.1 This created the necessity to introduce reforms to improve the quality of the health system, increase consumer choice and improve both allocative and technical efficiency since waiting lists were considered to be too long."

Which have not worked BTW.

source
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a

It shouldn't be surprising to learn that they are constantly striving to improve quality and deliverance of care. That's what a good system does. It should also not be surprising that in a subjective "satisfaction" poll, numbers are down. We're in a global recession, and people in general, just ain't happy.

Let them come here, and have to declare bankruptcy due to a flu bug that requires a 3-day $10,000 bill, and see how we compare on their satisfaction poll.

Also, they do not have a tort system as we do, and therefore have billions more to spend on actual caring for patients, rather than caring for lawyers.

also, I'll paste the final line from the conclusion of the study you referenced:

Finally, we can conclude that the reforms made limited impact but were generally a step in the right direction. Furthermore, Denmark has learnt from the lessons of other countries such as the USA but it is Denmark that has the potential to teach other countries lessons on managing a successful healthcare system.

Let me re-emphasize, I am not for natioanal health care. I think eventually a two-teired system will evolve. Everyone can get a ford, but not everyone can afford a cadillac.

[road kill]

Road Kill,
I don't want to see nationalized health care, believe me. But unfortunately the argument you described does not hold water. I would love to be able to make that argument, b/c it's a good one....if it were true.

In Denmark, they have nat'l care, NO tort mess, and reasonalbe care for everyone. Reasonable, not perfect. Many of the things we hear long wait lists for, don't truly require immediate attention. We're just accustomed to that in America. (I"m no exception) but the true urgencies are treated in justa timely fashion.
If I were one of the people with the choice of forgoing needed care, or going bankrupt, you bet I'd settle for reasonable care, even if I had to wait a little longer than I"m used to.

I don't suspect a common sense approach or solution is in our near future. Too many of the players have their own agenda, which is not necessarily the best agenda for our country. As long as we have K-street in DC, don't look for honest answers.

Cite one source that says their Nationalized Healthcare is good.


So now we want to be like Denmark??
What happened to being like France??

[tpaschal30]

The only way socialized medicine can keep cost down is to ration. " its inefficient allocation of resources" is inherent in any nonmarket system. We mostly nonmarket now. Socialist want it totally nonmarket. We need to end both Medicare and Medicaid, at least for new entrants, and replace them by providing every family in the United States with catastrophic insurance(with high deductable) . Second, it would end tax exemption of employer-provided medical care. And, third, it would remove the restrictive regulations that are now imposed on medical insurance—hard to justify with universal catastrophic insurance.

[YardleyLabs]

Every where that has gone to nationalized health care laments it's failure.

What makes all you progressive liberals think it will work here now??

It's a power grab!!

That's a very broad statement. I would be interested in your basis for such a claim. The fact is that the US is the only industrialized country in the world that has not implemented some form of national health coverage. On one hand, I would expect to see some level of dissatisfaction with any such system. However, the real test is whether or not people in those countries would choose to abandon their national coverage and return to a primarily privately funded system. The track record is pretty clear that they do not make that choice. I believe in this country that five years after a national program is established, the only question for the majority of the population will be why didn't we do it sooner.

[dnf777]

Cite one source that says their Nationalized Healthcare is good.


So now we want to be like Denmark??
What happened to being like France??

Whoa!!! You're taking those comments WAY out of context. Read my first line. I DO NOT want nat'l health care. Nor do I want to be like France, although I wish Pennsylvania had better cabernets and merlots.

I won't restate my post, you can read it in it's entirety, and see what I said.

I will say again, and you can mark my words, that a two-teired system will likely evolve. Fords for everyone, Cadillacs for those who can/want to pay for it. (poor analogy, I'd rather have a ford anyday, but you get the point)

Waits will exist. And will probably get longer as more doctors seek employment outside of healthcare due to continuuing declining reimbursement. And, as I said before, our best and brightest are no longer going into medicine, nor people born and raised in the USA. (notice, you don't see Danish or French doctors here, but more and more from the middle-east and asia)

[WaterDogRem]

That's a very broad statement. I would be interested in your basis for such a claim. The fact is that the US is the only industrialized country in the world that has not implemented some form of national health coverage. On one hand, I would expect to see some level of dissatisfaction with any such system. However, the real test is whether or not people in those countries would choose to abandon their national coverage and return to a primarily privately funded system. The track record is pretty clear that they do not make that choice. I believe in this country that five years after a national program is established, the only question for the majority of the population will be why didn't we do it sooner.

Umm, the US has not done this, but Tennessee has tried and is failing. TN even tried instating a state income tax just to pay for Tenn Care.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=51238
So again the question is still, give one example where this works?

[kjrice]

After my last knee surgery, I went to PT three times per week. For an hour all I did was get electro-stimulated for 15 minutes, do some exercises according to a chart that was handed to me (super easy), and ice for 10 minutes. They charged my insurance $300 per visit. GIVE ME A BREAK! Since we have been forced down the road of "managed care", the costs have gone up and the service has gone down. The cost of prescriptions are insane too.

[Eric Johnson]

http://www.heritage.org/2009/07/21/m...Dhouse%2Dbill/

http://tinyurl.com/nl7ses

Morning Bell: Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill

Posted July 21st, 2009 at 9.16am in Health Care.

With the public’s trust in his handling of health care tanking (50%-44% of Americans disapprove), the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with leftist bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.

During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.”

-more-