many people are willing to volunteer information, but professionals must receive an income from their work. Most serious encyclopedias are written by professional writers, illustrators, and researchers who were paid for their work. Wikipedia is a collective contribution by amateurs from all over. Encyclopedia Brittanica is a product of paid professionals. Reading information in an encyclodepia is not piracy because the book has been purchased and its developers compensated. Copying and pasting that information into Wikipedia is piracy, just as sure as stealing the book itself. Linux is based on Unix, which is public domain because it was developed in well-funded university and government laboratories by well-paid professionals. They didn't give it away, they were paid for their work. Many amateur musicians give away music which is great, no one would buy it anyway. But professional musicians whose catalogs are for sale are being stolen from when you pirate music selfishly and criminally. You evaded the comment. Why would musicians and actors work for nothing just to provide you with something you don't want to pay for? You are Mr. Free market. If the music is not worth the price, then just don't buy it. Stealing it and then trying to justify it by saying all music should be free is like saying all gasoline should be free because we don't like paying for it. Don't you realize people could not keep making it? You insist that oil companies own the gasoline and we should respect it. What's the difference with music? None.
houtiger, Lets review and just some everything up. I said in the beginning of this thread that everything has to play a role when discussing the issues of healthcare. I also said I wasn't interested in percentages, I don't care to get that technical since we aren't the ones that are going to fix the problem. I also don't have that time and patience. Common sense tells me these things... If frivious lawsuits isn't a problem then why was there tort reform? You say poor can't get the same treatment as the middle class or rich however anytime one goes to the ER or doctor they receive treatment in this country by the same doctors. If you want to talk percentages we could discuss the ugly subject of who is rich and who is poor. Illegals are treated and hospitals are going broke because of treating poor people. I guess we would determine that the same way we would determine which cases go to court and which ones don't? I have said Americas health care is the best in the world but I was also talking about innovation, you take our healthcare and make it like Canada's or any other country and innovation goes out the window. People come to this country for treatments for a reason. I asked you if you were for government healthcare and the answer you gave me a generic, confusing answer. Why should I study this when its obvious you've done more homework that I have and its obvious you don't have the answer except for what works for the poor. I've said our healthcare isn't perfect but neither is Canada's that you are high on, the article and MM's movie probably doesn't have the following information included. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2117 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
America is one of the best health care systems in the world. America represents the best combination of these items: the best Doctors, the best facilities/products, and the best access for an average citizen. I think one primary problem with America's health care system is that we're very reactive, instead of being proactive. We focus on treating, not on preventing.
Follow da money. There was tort reform because that list of high dollar earning health care CEOs had to reliably collect their quarterly bonus payments, and to do that they had to better control their expenses. So they put their lobbyists on the problem, made 'trial lawyers' the bad guys, and got tort reform in Tex. for one. Capped awards for pain and suffering, which is what juries used to send messages to corrupt corporations for egregious abuses of the public. Can't have that, an expense category with no control over it. Now the CEOs have gained control over big punitive awards that they could actually 'feel' if imposed, so they are more free to pursue their profits and quarterly bonuses. My previous post shows that malpractice insurance premiums did NOT go down in Tex, they went up 19% in the next six months. This was about CEOs and lobbyists acting to control corp. expense levels on lawsuits. At the ERs, they receive treatment if they are in immediate danger of dying, and at a few public hospitals with long waiting lines, you can get treatment, but this is generally NOT true at private hospitals. If any followup care is needed, you won't be invited back to a private hospital, see below for an example: I agree the US healthcare system ranks high in innovation. What we can do at our best is amazing. If you can afford it. I don't think it is fair to say innovatoin goes out the window in other systems like Canada or England, I think England is very progressive in health care, and everyone is covered. At our best, we're great for rich folks, the middle class with employer sponsored insurance comes out pretty good, and the poor come out poorly. You get dumped downtown after the emergency physician looks you over. If you don't care about anybody but yourself, you don't have to do anything else. Have I thought this all out, no. Do I think the US system has some glaring problems that could be improved, absolutely. We are the only major industrialized nation in the world that does not provide universal coverage for its people. We can do better. Your wikipedia link is interesting, showing the US spends twice as much per capita on health care and comes up with the lowest life expectancy and worst infant mortality rate. Maybe its the huge inefficiency built into our system, with the insurance companies as third party payers? And the obscene compensation packages their CEOs take home, while doing nothing of direct benefit in delivering health care. Then there is this, a review of "The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It": http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Drug-Companies-Deceive/dp/0375508465 Any wonder why Bush and the repubs passed prescription drug coverage for Medicare recipients, and specifically put in the bill that the govt. cannot negotiate low cost volume purchase agreements with 'big pharma'? We are paying too much for health care because the politicians, and especially this Bush crew and the repub congress, is taking their lobbying money and handing them protective legislation.
Ok, so they shouldn't go to a private hospital, they should go to a public hospital. I'm still trying to figure out who is poor and who isn't. I probably differ than some here because people should get a job and earn their keep instead of mouching off the system except a few cases where they can't for various reasons. You keep talking about England and Canada but they have worse problems than we do IMHO. I wouldn't want to go to Enlgland or Canada for treatment would you? http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006785 http://www.physorg.com/news101408912.htmlA new report says one in four facilities operated by Britain's government-run National Health Service isn't complying with basic hygiene standards. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=9266 Dr. Anita Goraya, a GP in Friern Barnet, talks of patients’ rising expectations and her frustration with the NHS. “I had a patient who came to see me about depression. Unfortunately, I am unable to refer anyone suffering from depression for counseling because there is a 17-month waiting list to see a therapist. There are few services locally and the waiting list for the few that exist is preposterous.” Like we can do something anyway:lol: I don't disagree here but my problem is that you claim that healthcare is so much better in places like Canada and England when they have far worse problems than we do when I do the research. I'm not sure that I can take you for face value since in the beginning of this thread he said those things while ignoring the problems in those countries. I don't really disagree however I don't want a system like England and Canada where you have to wait in line for 3 to 6 months or die waiting. I don't want a system where you have a shortage of doctors either. You state this once again while ignoring the negative facts of the other systems, does that life expectancy include those dying in line for treatment? I'm sure Michael Moore didn't bring any of what I've said into his movie btw. A few closing thoughts... I wonder if you and Red would say the same thing if it was a democrat administration, Red, I doubt it, haven't seen him ever criticize the left. Keep in mind the only thing I disagree with you about is that these systems are better than ours for obvious reasons I found above. I also think innovation would take a hit, it might not die but it would slow. OK, things I totally agree on here that is across the board. Inefficiency which could also be linked to big government, I'm against. Lobbyists, this is another problem associated with the government and both sides. It seems to me to fix some of these problems we need government reform just as much as health care reform.
They spend about $3K per person per year and cover everyone in the country; we spend $6K per person per year, and if you're poor and have a life threatening event near a private hospital, we patch you up, put you in a cab and dump you downtown. The difference is that the other systems do treat everyone. Could the British system use some upgraded equipment, sure, its a matter of deciding how much you are willing to spend and how you manage the system. I've never said I thought healthcare was better in Canada, I showed articles that show that the US spends twice as much on healthcare per capita, and our longevity and infant mortality are both worse than Canada and England. That is just a fact. In systems where everyone is covered, yes you wait longer for diagnostic tests. Does that cause you to die sooner? In most cases, no. I am sure that the improved life expectancy numbers do include everyone dieing, including those dieing waiting in line. I haven't ignored the problems in their systems, nor stated they were superior, I only quoted statistics that their performance in terms of delivering long life expectancy and reducing infant mortality for everyone in their country is better, and that is significant. I have not heard of anyone in Canada or England having to declare bankruptcy because of any illness, but in America, a catastrophic illness is one of the most common causes of bankruptcy filing. In that sense, there system is better when you consider EVERYONE in their country. I've said our system is the best in the world if you're rich, its very good if you are middle class with average funds with a good job that provides health insurance, and it sucks if you're poor. I believe a medicare prescription plan that by law outlaws the govt. from negotiating discounts for volume purchases is bad legislation, regardless of who passed it. It just so happens Bush and the repub house and senate passed it, and it will cost all us taxpayers dearly while boosting big pharma's profits. Tort reform is a bone for the insurance and HMO industries, pure and simple. They needed to make their expenses more predictable. Malpractice expenses were no more than 1 or 2% of our total healthcare spend in this country. We can't compensate those in our system that are legitimately injured, but we can pay all the CEOs $5 to $50 mil. every year? A good summation! Are Canada/England better than our systems? Considering all people, they produce better longevity and improved infant mortality. That's where they are better, ALL PEOPLE. They don't bankrupt anyone in their middle class over illnesses. Their hospitals are older and not shiny and pretty, but everyone has access to them. If you're rich, you will be more comfortable and better cared for in America, if you're poor, you would be much better off in Canada or England. Could the Canadians and Brits improve their systems, absolutely, they only spend 1/2 per capita what we spend in the US, and they spread it evenly across all their residents that need care. We leave out a huge chunk of folks from receiving the high quality care our systems possess, resulting is lower longevity across our entire population. It all depends on whether you look at the whole population, or whether in the US you just look at the segments that can afford to pay, and that's not a fair comparison. I would be willing to go to a less shiny hospital if I knew that in return poor people were not dieing early without access so I could walk on a shiny floor. http://www.cha.harvard.edu/news/press_releases_06/060525_cross_national_health_survey.shtml The US system is about optimizing profits for the hospitals, drug and HMO companies, and to do that, you can only cater to "paying customers" and you need the govt. to pass some favorable laws one in a while. If you ignore the rest of the people that can't pay, and give them an over committed inadequate public health system, they probably won't complain too loudly.
I can't help but while we had this discussion I was thinking of the VA and the problems associated there. I would love to have a system you speak of but in reality I don't know if its possible. If we can't make our government that efficient how could we possibly make our health care system? I don't know if that would make up the difference? My bad, I just think we have to look at the big picture. It must be one hell ov a good system to have that much longevity and people dying or trying to receive treatment and whatever negative factors there are. I agree but anytime someone talks about a national healthcare system it scares the hell out of me. All I can think about is big government and the problems associated with it kinda like the VA plus problems in Canada and England. I understand that maybe we can make things better? Who knows? No problem, I believe all we get is bad legislation from either side most of the time.:dis: I don't disagree but I think we have to fix the problem across the board with CEO's, its not limited to healthcare. This creates another problem for myself, I trust the private sector more than the government because of lobbyists and corruption so I'm not comfortable with the government getting involved. I understand but there are still problems with their systems as well. People waiting in line to be treated, some dying, how frustrating it must be to need treatment if you have to wait even for minor things. Its a trade off, profits do hurt the system but I'm willing to bet that they also help the system in innovation. I wish we could have the best of all systems!
I thought of another point nobody has mentioned, declining US competitiveness. http://www.econstrat.org/blog/?p=26 Remember the statistic I posted about the US spending 6K per person per year while most of our industrial competitors spend around 3K. We are grossly inefficient, and much of that comes from the 3rd party payer (big insurance) that the US employs. How many people does a dr. have in his office to deal with insurance? Do you have to call your insurance and get 'pre-certified' before you and your dr. can have you admitted to a hospital? How much of your dr. bill goes to fund the obscene pay packages to CEOs of insurance companies and HMOs? A $1,4000 per car cost disadvantage is huge. Its not the only reason Detroit has been whipped by the Japanese, but it is a big one.
Healthcare is not just a problem in the auto industry, but also in computer chips. http://www.ihealthbeat.org/articles...ons-To-Improve-US-Health-Care-System.aspx?a=1 If healthcare costs continue to rise, employers will be forced to utilize resources outside the U.S. That's pathetic. If you don't think big pharma's lobby is hurting you, think again. You may hot lose your job, but if your neighbor loses his, that's one more to carry, and one less to pay for the load. We like those pretty hospitals we go visit, but how much longer can we afford them? This system can't continue.
