Bob

Not if your insurance is like most peoples, and it's a shite HMO, your stuck with either shite care, or no care.

AmerLisa

Me too.....

AmerLisa

You are so very full of it, its unbelievable! You're able to come up with $200 to $300 a month for health insurance if you're unemployed? If you had cancer , I don't think there would be a health insurance that would touch you with a ten foot pole.

And you live in California? And what perfectly good healthcare system???


I'm beginning to think you're delusional as well.

AmerLisa

Hey, I got stuck with that bill too.....but others didn't seem to mind. Perhaps "they" like getting stuck with bills.

AmerLisa

Wow is it? How cool that you know the medical answer to this case.....I bet they could have saved themselves thousands of dollars. Or am I being unnecessarily sensitive to this comment?

CalgaryAMC

The economics of healthcare are fairly well understood, but that doesn't mean that economists agree about how to run a healthcare system.

Basically it boils down to this: there is an infinite demand for healthcare and only a finite supply. In that sense, healthcare is like any other "good." Therefore it must be rationed.

There are two basic rationing models: ration by cost (free market), the same way you ration other goods and services in the economy, or ration it by need (command & control - socialism). Some countries, like the UK, do both - a full blown national health system complemented by private options.

The "free-market-is-always-best" argument is immature and economists never argue it without substantiation. We would never argue, for example, that national defence should not be a government managed endeavour. Or foreign intelligence gathering. Or domestic policing. Or public education. Or even disease control. These services are recognized as being special. And, so some people would argue (and, as it happens, most developed countries would agree), healthcare should be too.

How can policing or national defence be like healthcare? Well, if an alien force landed in the US and began torturing and executing thousands of citizens each year, that would be considered a national defence matter. What if that alien force was called HIV. Or cancer.

What about innovation? There are no studies that I am aware of linking level of medical innovation to type of health system. And that makes sense, because there is no economic connection between the two. The Swedish government, for example, does not appropriate drugs and technology - it buys them from whoever owns the rights to them. If the Swedish government acts like a big HMO and negotiates discounts, good for them, but that is irrelevant to the rate of innovation. There would likely be a correlation between innovation and patent enforcement, however. The free market in innovation is not impacted by a socialized system of health provision. Just as, despite the fact that no country on earth operates a private system of national defence, R&D for war-fighting systems remains steady.

And, one last thing I want to put the record straight on: Canada has no national health system. In Canada healthcare is a provincial matter. Ontario's health system is no more linked to Alberta's than it is to France's.

Sophia_S

I have to say,I know there's a lot of complaints about HMO's but ours is through the State of Ilinois,and I couldn't be happier with the care we've had everytime we go to see the doc or with any other of my 'hiccups' of life,in fact the State was going to cancel doing business with our healthcare provider 'Health Alliance',this summer,but so many State workers complained,they signed back up with them,we've been with other HMO's and they were REALLY awful,the care was terrible,waiting for an appointment was terrible,thank goodness when I did have my 'little heart hiccup' we were with Health Alliance,I hate to think what would've happened......and after the care I got when I was so sick was the encephilitis in the UK,THANK GOD for HMO's,the nurses were great in the UK,so were my doctors,but the rest of the care was horrible,especially in my local hospital in Frimley,Surrey,I just used to cry all the time,it was that bad,and I'm a very easily pleased,very patient, person,things REALLY have to be BAD to get me upset....and,yes,I do know how understaffed,underpaid and over worked hospital workers are in the UK,but it REALLY was a nightmare....Sophia(Illinois)

Brit Vic

There is no after care over here, no health visitors !!! Back home they drop in, unexpected just see if mother and child are doing well, Mid wifes call the first week back home with a new baby, every day, weekends included. We are very lucky with our mother and baby health care back home. Big shock for me over here with no surport!!! and hubbys in the Navy. Our child was my 3rd, so lucky for me and my Son, mummy knew what she was doing. Just would of been some more reassurance for me if we could of popped down to the baby clinks now and then, no such thing ere tho.

Sophia_S

I absolutely agree!,thank goodness for the mid wives!,especially with a first baby,just knowing that someone will pop in and let you know you're doing ok with caring for a new baby is a huge weight off your mind,I'd hate to have had a baby over here,I was married to a British soldier with my first,and in Germany well away from any family,the SAAFFA(?) sister was just wonderful,so reassuring,my baby 'shuffled' his way up to the top of his cot all the time(from the day he was born) and scared me to death,as well as sleeping all the time,all my friends kept telling me there was something wrong with him,I swear they would've had me in a 'funny farm' if it wasn't for the SAAFFA sister telling me not to worry,especially as the ex husband went to NI when the baby was only 26 days old,that was scarey.....but all turned out just fine!!.....I wonder if we realised how lucky we were?!......Sophia (Illinois)

supernav

In order to debate this topic properly -- one must have an argument based upon facts and figures, not mere opinions.

That said -- don't assume anything will be resolved in this thread. Don't get your hopes up.

All i can add is: Healthcare is NEVER free. _Someone_, _Someplace_, has to pay for it.

Either you can have a Canadian system which taxes everyone to death, and then shortchanges doctors and patients due to be the grandmaster of the mighty wallet, and all doctors and hospitals must abide by it's commands.

Not to mention, _free_ healthcare available to all, is also a free ticket to abuse of that very system by select somes (eg: immigrants coming to canada hiding whatever diseases they have).

Or you can have the market need set the price and demand for those services. With a provision put in by the government to ensure those in need w/o money don't unnecessarily suffer.

-= nav =-

NC Penguin

Well, let's see your facts and figures. Er, I checked through the thread and found that you have not produced any yourself.

I think many people posting on this thread have based opninions based on their personal experiences of using American healthcare. I think that's pretty valid.

Plus many of the aforementioned posters have had experience of using healthcare services in countries other than the US. Have you had any such experiences?...

<<snip>>-= nav =-[/QUOTE]




NC Penguin

fatbrit

I provided some facts and figures for you. It seems US healthcare scores an ‘F’.
I, on the other hand, am still awaiting some basis to the 99.99999% figure you initially quoted.

Don’t think anything will ever be resolved in an argument with a total prat. However, it does provide some momentary amusement for spectators.

A startling conclusion! You’ve obviously been considering this topic in great detail.

Here you go again with your black and white, absolute view of the world: it’s either or. Try looking for the grey areas in between. For each topic, make a list of the good and the bad points before you draw your conclusion.

There’s that terrible anger coming out again. Try taking your meds more regularly or a bit of masturbation – it’ll reduce the tension.

Do I detect a softening of your previous hard line here? Salvation is obviously possible….

AmerLisa

I don't think anyone ever said it was "free healthcare" Of course you have to pay for it somewhere. BUT.....the difference is over in the UK you're not going to go into debt to pay for it and you will get healthcare. Over here.....people are denied healthcare - plain and simple - because they don't have health insurance.....gee its a no brainer to me.

supernav

Which figures are those you request?

The average budget of a US hospital compared to a Canadian or UK or Mexican hospital?

The financial crisis articles of Canadian hospitals?

The availability of advanced technology in US hospitals compared to the Philippines, or Russia?

I don't tango with those who quote and reply line by line. It's an annoying trick to disintegrate a discussion into a whole argument of petty semantics and details. Completely ignoring the whole basis of what the discussion was really about.

The _original_ post was about heart surgery and why it costs so much. I believe i answered it pretty well.

Very few people come out of these discussions with anything to be proud of. Mainly it's a chest-pounding rhetoric of tightly-clenched agendas by two sides. Someone already proved it by admitting many how people judge a trillion dollar health system "by THEIR experiences".

It's akin to me proclaiming Chrysler cars the best cuz in the world cuz _I_ had one for 1 year and it worked pretty good _for me_.

-= nav =-

AmerLisa

So, again its down to survival of the fittest....in the broadest sense of course. Its still ok to deny basic medical to all humans? I really liked what Calgary wrote....I would think its more to the heart of the situation.