National Health Service bashers make me sick

[ironsides]

I'm pretty sure that the right wing want to be just as healthy as the left. I do not care who say it as long as it is the truth. I am finding to many things wrong with National Healthcare as it now is being submitted. Someone or group is trying to ram it down our throats no matter what the cost.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I'm pretty sure that the right wing want to be just as healthy as the left. I do not care who say it as long as it is the truth. I am finding to many things wrong with National Healthcare as it now is being submitted. Someone or group is trying to ram it down our throats no matter what the cost.

Again, if you go about finding horror stories, anecdotes, you will find them about any system (including American). But that is not evidence.

 

[Machjo]

To be fair though, neither the Canadian nor US system is that bad. Canada ranks 30th, the US' 37th (not a big difference ranking wise). But this is out of a list of 190 counties!

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

Taking 30th, or even 37th, place out of 190 countries is not a bad showing.

Of course we should always try to improve the system. France's ranks first, though has also proven expensive. Singapores has ranked 6th, though has also proven much less expensive than the French one. Sweden's 23rd, though it has been closer to the top for decades previously and is currently undergoing changes. But its has proven not too expensive either.

One major difference between the US and Canadian ones besides universality is also cost. The US one is among the most expensive ones, if not the most expensive one, worldwide, highly inefficient. The Italian one ranked 2nd, but I don't know much about it, though that might be worth a look too if it should prove of nearly as high a quality as the French one but without the cost.

There are so many models out ther to choose from, based on universality, choice, cost, quality of service, etc. depending on the philosophical leanings of the population.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

France's ranks first, though has also proven expensive.

Machjo, I remember seeing a poll which said that a majority of the French are dissatisfied with their health care system. Just shows the foolishness of asking the users to rate their health care system, like the idiotic article in Investors Business Daily (and quoted by ironsides).

The US one is among the most expensive ones, if not the most expensive one, worldwide, highly inefficient.

It is not among the most expensive ones, it is the most expensive one. USA spends more in absolute terms and per capita than any other country in the world and has little to show for it.

 

[Machjo]

France's ranks first, though has also proven expensive.

Machjo, I remember seeing a poll which said that a majority of the French are dissatisfied with their health care system. Just shows the foolishness of asking the users to rate their health care system, like the idiotic article in Investors Business Daily (and quoted by ironsides).

The US one is among the most expensive ones, if not the most expensive one, worldwide, highly inefficient.

It is not among the most expensive ones, it is the most expensive one. USA spends more in absolute terms and per capita than any other country in the world and has little to show for it.

Like I said before. Even ranking 37th as the US has is not a bad showing when ranked on a list of 190 countries, so it does have something to show for its spending.

Indeed, all our systems always have room for improvement. That does not mean that the US system is necessarily bad though to be fair. But yes, it is a highly inefficient system none-the less. But Canada's can improve too. Instead of debating how the US can improve its system in a Canadian forum, why not discuss how Canada can imrpove its system. Not because I don't care about the health of my fellow Americans, but simply because there are plenty of sites for US issues anyway. I'd be more interested in discussing how we could improve Canadian healthcare in a Canadian forum. Perhaps our US counterparts could discuss those points where the US system does have advantages, and see if thwere would be ways of incorporating them into our system without sacrificing the advantages of our system. Always room for improvement.

 

[gopher]

2% ?

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Now compare that with the THOUSANDS of bankruptcies we have in the USA because of the lack of health care reform.

 

[ironsides]

Again, if you go about finding horror stories, anecdotes, you will find them about any system (including American). But that is not evidence.

Not looking for minor faults, just major ones in health systems that some are trying to push the U.S. into accepting. When you happy with your system you do not have to look for faults within it though they exist, you accept them. If something is wrong, you do not destroy it, you fix it. Much easier and cheaper to fix the U.S. health system than destroy and rebuild it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Not looking for minor faults, just major ones in health systems that some are trying to push the U.S. into accepting. When you happy with your system you do not have to look for faults within it though they exist, you accept them. If something is wrong, you do not destroy it, you fix it. Much easier and cheaper to fix the U.S. health system than destroy and rebuild it.

What you do with your health care is your affair ironsides, as a Canadian it does not concern me. We are simply discussing the merits of various health care systems (now that it is such a hot topic in USA).

 

[#juan]

It seems obvious that the single payer healthcare system is one that works. Great Britain has had this system since the end of WW2. Tommy Douglas introduced a form of health insurance in Saskatchewan in 1947 but we didn't have a national system until the mid fifties. All countries with a working healthcare system(those ahead of thirty seventh place) have a form of single payer system.

In the U.S. the term "socialised healthcare" immediately brings visions of socialism and communism and other boogeymen, and the right wingnuts scream bloody murder and the result is that the poor taxpayer gets hosed again.

 

[Machjo]

It seems obvious that the single payer healthcare system is one that works. Great Britain has had this system since the end of WW2. Tommy Douglas introduced a form of health insurance in Saskatchewan in 1947 but we didn't have a national system until the mid fifties. All countries with a working healthcare system(those ahead of thirty seventh place) have a form of single payer system.

In the U.S. the term "socialised healthcare" immediately brings visions of socialism and communism and other boogeymen, and the right wingnuts scream bloody murder and the result is that the poor taxpayer gets hosed again.

Not quite accurate. Few systems (if any) are purely single payer or purely private. Even Canada and the US are two-tier to varying degrees:

Two-tier health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it's probably more accurate to look at it along a spectrum from private to single-payer.

Evidence seems to show though that the most successful systems are the ones that find the right balance between the two. Canada's is far more single-payer than most European systems and also have longer waiting lines. The US system is far more privatized than the European systems doesn't cover everyone. In the end, if we're focussed more on ensuring quality health care for all and not on government power-tripping, then the only concern should be on ensuring quality universal access for all regardless of the system used. And like I said, the best systems according to rankings seem to be those that have found the right balance between the two extremes. So a balanced two-teir system is likely to prove more effective than an extreme single-payer system at one end of the spectrum and an extreme private system at the other. Canada's and the US' fall in those categories. Even Europeans have been shocked at our waiting lines.

 

[#juan]

Not quite accurate. Few systems (if any) are purely single payer or purely private. Even Canada and the US are two-tier to varying degrees:

Two-tier health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it's probably more accurate to look at it along a spectrum from private to single-payer.

Evidence seems to show though that the most successful systems are the ones that find the right balance between the two. Canada's is far more single-payer than most European systems and also have longer waiting lines. The US system is far more privatized than the European systems doesn't cover everyone. In the end, if we're focussed more on ensuring quality health care for all and not on government power-tripping, then the only concern should be on ensuring quality universal access for all regardless of the system used. And like I said, the best systems according to rankings seem to be those that have found the right balance between the two extremes. So a balanced two-teir system is likely to prove more effective than an extreme single-payer system at one end of the spectrum and an extreme private system at the other. Canada's and the US' fall in those categories. Even Europeans have been shocked at our waiting lines.

You will notice I said "a form of single payer system", which is what we have.

I raised a family during the time our healthcare system was evolving and I have no complaints about the system.

Waiting lines??? Where??

 

[Machjo]

You will notice I said "a form of single payer system", which is what we have.

I raised a family during the time our healthcare system was evolving and I have no complaints about the system.

Waiting lines??? Where??

I've never experienced waiting lines either, but have read about such experiences in the papers and on occasion on TV news. I remember one TV report where European leaders were surprised this was still a problem in Canada. Europe had undergone these problems a decade or so ago, and solved it by moving away from single-payer to a more two-tiered system to solve the problem, and for the most part it proved an improvement over single-payer.

But in Canada, we can't afford to admit that we have a somewhat two-tier system already, let alone actually move even further in that direction, out of fear of looking too American.

 

[#juan]

I've never experienced waiting lines either, but have read about such experiences in the papers and on occasion on TV news. I remember one TV report where European leaders were surprised this was still a problem in Canada. Europe had undergone these problems a decade or so ago, and solved it by moving away from single-payer to a more two-tiered system to solve the problem, and for the most part it proved an improvement over single-payer.

But in Canada, we can't afford to admit that we have a somewhat two-tier system already, let alone actually move even further in that direction, out of fear of looking too American.

What Canada doesn't want is a system for the rich and a system for the poor. How much money you have should have no bearing on the healthcare you get.

Never mind looking too American, I don't think we want any part of that profit driven system where accountants are making medical decisions.

The following is a brief history of our health care system. It has had setbacks but I don't think Canadians would settle for less than we have right now.

http://tinyurl.com/luktgn

 

[Machjo]

What Canada doesn't want is a system for the rich and a system for the poor. How much money you have should have no bearing on the healthcare you get.

Even if it improves healthcare for the poor? In many European countries, a two-tier system allows the rich to butt out of line so as to allow the poor to get their services faster. Seems like a win-win-situation to me.

Single-payer works only if it's sufficiently funded, otherwise two-tier works better. Another problem with single-payer is the risk of abuse with people going in because they have the sniffles. Having to pay at least a token amount eliminates that without pricing them out of the market, thus still guaranteeing universal access. Moderation in all things. There's no reason to treat the private sector as the enemy any more than there is to treat the public sector as teh enemy. The two can work in harmony, with us exploiting the strengths of each.

Never mind looking too American, I don't think we want any part of that profit driven system where accountants are making medical decisions.

The following is a brief history of our health care system. It has had setbacks but I don't think Canadians would settle for less than we have right now.

http://tinyurl.com/luktgn

And what about settling for more than we have right now?

 

[Machjo]

Here we have the ten best systems in the world according to the WHO:

1 France (two-tier, access to private health care at own expense, though leaning and very expensive at USD3,048 per person per year, or 11.2% of annual GDP)
2 Italy (two-tier, option to take out private insurance, and less expensive at USD3,314)
3 San Marino (I haven't found much info, but it appears to be single-payer, but can't be sure, and no cost estimate)
4 Andorra (two-tier, public and private insurance, no cost estimate)
5 Malta (two-tier, public and private options, no cost estimate)
6 Singapore (two-tier (perhaps the closest to the US' as far as universal access goes in terms of private invovement, but much better planned), 3% of annual GDP)
7 Spain (two-tier, similar to the UK one, no cost estimate)
8 Oman (two-tier, public and private parallel systems, no cost estimate found)
9 Austria (at least mostly single-payer, maybe two-tier, but unclear, no cost estimate)
10 Japan (two-tier, 8.2% of GDP or UDS2,908)

18 United Kingdom (two-tier allowing unrestricted private health care in conjunction with public, USD2,317)

23 Sweden (two-tier, leaning more towards single-payer, but undergoing reform as it allows more private-sector involvement, USD2,745)

30 Canada (two-tier, leaning much more towards single-payer, USD2,998)

37 United States of America (two-tier, much more privatized, not universal, and highly inefficient at USD5,711)

 

[Machjo]

So it would seem that while sngle-payer is superior to private, two-tier is better still. Moderation in all things as they say.

 

[Machjo]

At the end of the day, it's not ideology that matters, but what works, and if some private involvement improves the system and saves lives, I'd rather survive a two-tier system than be iffy in a single-payer system, and I'd rather be iffy in a single-payer system than be sure to die unless i"ve got cash in a private system.

 

[#juan]

Even if it improves healthcare for the poor? In many European countries, a two-tier system allows the rich to butt out of line so as to allow the poor to get their services faster. Seems like a win-win-situation to me

That is not quite the way it works. The rich but out of line to get in another line to another doctor who would be in the public system if the rich hadn't enticed him/her away. How ever you do it, the rich system would always take away from the poor system. The total number of doctors wouldn't go up so the poor system would suffer.

 

[L Gilbert]

So it would seem that while sngle-payer is superior to private, two-tier is better still. Moderation in all things as they say.

That's the way the evidence points.

 

[Machjo]

That is not quite the way it works. The rich but out of line to get in another line to another doctor who would be in the public system if the rich hadn't enticed him/her away. How ever you do it, the rich system would always take away from the poor system. The total number of doctors wouldn't go up so the poor system would suffer.

In the short-term yes, but not in the long-term. The rich man who butts out of line to hire a private doctor takes that doctor off of the public payroll (depending on the type of two-tier system, since many such systems exist of course). This means that the government can then consider training or hiring an additional doctor with the money saved. So over time, we actually see an increase in the availability of doctors in society overall, with the line-ups for private health care shorter than those for public, yet those for public shorter than before. Looking at it that way, in the long run, both rich and poor benefit.

Essentially what happens is that the money available for public health care doesn't necessarily diminish since the rich are still paying taxes towards it. As a result, the health care system can always hire the same number of doctors as before. But with the rich putting their own private money into the system, it means that they can then hire even more doctors in addition to the public ones. This naturally means an overall increase in funding and in the availability of doctors. In the short term, yes, there is a risk of competition for doctors. But this competition alone also provides funds to create more jobs for doctors, so more people will go into the medical field. So that disequilibrium is only temporary as the market woudl adapt to the new reality. It's straight logic.