|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 07/11/2007 : 04:27:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
From this link:
| Private for-profit hospitals result in higher payments for care than private not-for-profit hospitals. Evidence strongly supports a policy of not-for-profit health care delivery at the hospital level. |
Swedish universal health care insurance system has a 2,2% overhead.
This pdf document in Swedish, page 182. (From State Office)
|
That's very efficient. When you come to America, please bring your health care system with you, Mab!
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 06:04:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I am for any system that allows both the doctor and patient to profit from their medical choices. What is the need for a third party; be it private insurance or government, to intercede in the decision process?
|
The entire porcess is too costly to not have the cost spread and still have a quality of care. Sure, we could make it affordable, but that would cut the available MRI machines down to a few a state, instead of 3 or 4 a city. Ditto for radiation machines, CT scanners and every other piece of multi-million dollar equipment.
Technology marches on. No insurance would put a vast majority of us back. The trick is to raise the care for everyone without lowering for anyone. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 06:47:14 [Permalink]
|
Doc, looking at the study you linked, it seems there are some problems.
1. Corporate income taxes are not taken into account.
2. Competition is not accounted for. The largest study used even states lack of competition causes higher pricing.
3. The comparison is made between specific types of treatments to an entire health care system.
The study is nothing more than politics masquerading as science.
I bet you will only believe this happens when a politician you dislike is in charge.
Why is Canada having a shortage of doctors if this system of no profit is so great. I am pretty sure that without doctors health care will be horrible.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/11/2007 : 06:53:38 [Permalink]
|
Doc, are you saying that the 2.2% is the cost of government managing of the money and the system? And that 97.8% of monies are used to pay for things like the buildings, doctor salaries, hospital overhead costs (i.e. cleaning, air conditioning), medicine, medical equipment, and the like?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 12:24:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
The one that sticks out the most is Gorgo's belief that government control is the answer, to which I could not disagree more with.
The figure posted by Gorgo was 4% administrative costs for Medicare, while private insurance runs 10-20%. I have three problems with this figure.
1) The inherent waste of any money going to the government. Corporations have far better waste management systems in place then the government. The government can run a defecit, with someone getting fired on occassion (not re-elected). A corporation doing the same does not last, [tounge in cheek]unless you are an airline[/tounge in cheek].
2) Medicare does not need an army of lawyers and risk managers.
3) Profits. While profit is good, and the nation has to be very careful about where they stick their nose into it, profit for dividends/bonuses/salaries has to be limited in such a way as to not stifle advances.
|
Actually, I have no beliefs about the whole situation. I am willing to be swayed by evidence. If you get some, let me know.
And maybe there are better ways to deal with this. I've just started reading a book about how conservatives love the nanny state.
One point he makes there is how those that want to drive down the wages of poor and middle income people could also be working to drive down the incomes of people like doctors and lawyers. That would work to make health care more accessible to some.
The point is not that government can be wasteful, and that we need to make it accountable to the people. Hopefully, everyone knows that. Large corporations are accountable to no one anymore, and that's not a better system.
The point is that the present system serves to use the government and corporations to impoverish people, when we could be using it to our benefit, and could be making it more accountable to the people.
|
Not enough people are truley holding the current political process accountable. In the end, every Novemmber, they vote in droves for Democrat's or Republicans, then complain becuase things don't get fixed. They vote for candidate x's party, even though candidate x is full of shit because candidate y's party has a bit more shit. If candidate z came around, from an independent party, and had just a bit o' shit on his shoes from trying to climb out of the mess, they would still calim their vote to be strategic, and vote for x so y dosen't win. They vote against someone, instead of for someone. That is a bunch of shit.
So we know that the vast majority of them are full of it, and cannot live up to their curent resposnsibilities. They are looking after their own intrests, and in some cases the actual intrests of their individual constituents. Everything they touch has curoption and waste built in.
The curent system needs improvement, however to change a system that is flawed by giving the responsibility to government that proves it's curroptness continually is just assenine.
Look at the proof that says they can do a better job, and the evidence against it. |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 12:40:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
From this link:
| Private for-profit hospitals result in higher payments for care than private not-for-profit hospitals. Evidence strongly supports a policy of not-for-profit health care delivery at the hospital level. |
Swedish universal health care insurance system has a 2,2% overhead.
This pdf document in Swedish, page 182. (From State Office)
|
That's very efficient. When you come to America, please bring your health care system with you, Mab!
|
Nah, just let the Shriner's take care of it. Talk about a good track record.
Nice article. I again put forward that I would not mind limitations on administrative costs.
I still would like to know the total number of certain machines/procedures performed for a few difirent countries.
I am not a great "ggogler" aparently, because I mostly get bologna.. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 13:17:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Doc, are you saying that the 2.2% is the cost of government managing of the money and the system? And that 97.8% of monies are used to pay for things like the buildings, doctor salaries, hospital overhead costs (i.e. cleaning, air conditioning), medicine, medical equipment, and the like? |
Yes. Does that surprise you?
How much overhead does an private American health insurance company have? One that covers anything, from removing and sending odd-looking liver-spots for melanoma test, vaccination of your children for Poliomyelitis, rubella, Tetanus, difteria, among others, to my bloodtransfusion after my ulcer, and my broken neck of the femure. Including 80% of the loss of income during my sick leave. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 14:03:40 [Permalink]
|
Look at the proof that says they can do a better job, and the evidence against it.
|
They will likely vote in Sentator Clinton, who will turn it over to corporate America, who will make some short-term improvements, but will probably drive up prices even more. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 18:44:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Doc, are you saying that the 2.2% is the cost of government managing of the money and the system? And that 97.8% of monies are used to pay for things like the buildings, doctor salaries, hospital overhead costs (i.e. cleaning, air conditioning), medicine, medical equipment, and the like? |
Yes. Does that surprise you?
How much overhead does an private American health insurance company have? One that covers anything, from removing and sending odd-looking liver-spots for melanoma test, vaccination of your children for Poliomyelitis, rubella, Tetanus, difteria, among others, to my bloodtransfusion after my ulcer, and my broken neck of the femure. Including 80% of the loss of income during my sick leave.
|
Why are you trying to compare a government funded and regulated semi private system with a government run system?
I am for a patient doctor system.
Is 50% of the GDP in Sweden consumed by the government?
http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/Papers/sweden/sweden.shtml
Does half of your labor go to the government?
Edit:spelling
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
| Edited by - JEROME DA GNOME on 07/11/2007 18:46:11 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2007 : 02:49:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Doc, are you saying that the 2.2% is the cost of government managing of the money and the system? And that 97.8% of monies are used to pay for things like the buildings, doctor salaries, hospital overhead costs (i.e. cleaning, air conditioning), medicine, medical equipment, and the like? |
Yes. Does that surprise you?
How much overhead does an private American health insurance company have? One that covers anything, from removing and sending odd-looking liver-spots for melanoma test, vaccination of your children for Poliomyelitis, rubella, Tetanus, difteria, among others, to my bloodtransfusion after my ulcer, and my broken neck of the femure. Including 80% of the loss of income during my sick leave.
|
Why are you trying to compare a government funded and regulated semi private system with a government run system? |
No I'm not, because all hospitals in Sweden aren't government run, there are a number privatly run hospitals as well. It is the insurance system we are talking about. And the insurance system is far more better run by the government than any private company, just because of the efficiancy. Among the greatest things about it is that no one will be discriminated. It doesn't matter if you are grossly overweight and diabetic, you're still covered. Where would such a person get an health insurance in USA?
| I am for a patient doctor system. |
(I am too)
| Is 50% of the GDP in Sweden consumed by the government? |
Irrelevant to the discussion.
The mission of the organisation you quoted goes against everything about the idea of a socialistic state, your source is so biased it's comparable to Answers in Genesis vs Evolution.
I pee on you source. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2007 : 03:36:17 [Permalink]
|
O_I wrote:| Nah, just let the Shriner's take care of it. Talk about a good track record. |
They are good, very good, for needy crippled children. But I doubt even their heroic efforts could make much of a dent in the American health system.
Fixing that system -- and I do think it desperately needs fixing -- is not going to be easy. The problem is to find a system that has the advantages of the present American system (high quality and superb technology) along with really universal and affordable coverage.
One thing we don't need is an old-style ideological debate. We need whatever works, without concerning ourselves with whether the solution is capitalistic, socialistic, some mixture of the two, or something else. Anyone arguing from some ideological position is only delaying a solution. I don't claim to have the answers, but there must be some better way of doing things.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2007 : 06:44:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
O_I wrote:| Nah, just let the Shriner's take care of it. Talk about a good track record. |
They are good, very good, for needy crippled children. But I doubt even their heroic efforts could make much of a dent in the American health system.
Fixing that system -- and I do think it desperately needs fixing -- is not going to be easy. The problem is to find a system that has the advantages of the present American system (high quality and superb technology) along with really universal and affordable coverage.
One thing we don't need is an old-style ideological debate. We need whatever works, without concerning ourselves with whether the solution is capitalistic, socialistic, some mixture of the two, or something else. Anyone arguing from some ideological position is only delaying a solution. I don't claim to have the answers, but there must be some better way of doing things.
|
forgot the [tounge-in-cheek] tag for the Shriner's comment, except to show that private enterprise can work.
I agree that an old fashioned ideological debate is not needed, and I have earnestly tried to bring into this discussion some definitions to help formulate a reasonable course of action.
I see a lot of "the governemnt can do it" or "leave it alone," both of which are unsound. I even recieved a "I see no evidence that the government can't do it."
I see comparisoons to other countries that don't have our problems (violence, drug epidemic), our medical infastructure (20+MRI machines covering a little over a 1,000,000 in the Greater Cincinnati area alone), or the sheer numbers of the population that are kept alive by artificial means.
I would love to break it down, piece by piece.... Especailly the waste and administrative costs. 20+ MRI machines is a bit excessive, as all of them have scheduled hours of operations, with just the hospitol based ones open for "as needed". WOuld a 3AM MRI inconvienient, yes. There is a few million saved here, alone. It's still a helluva lot more convienient then waiting weeks or months, and would not lower anyones access.
Is the ability to set yourself, and your children out a few generation for life because they convinced a jury that someone without any fault caused you "pain and sufffering" ludicrous, yes.
Is 1,000,000 + bonuses a bit extreme for a salary a bit extreme, hell yes.
This is the converstaion that needs to take place.
The government permitting 15% + of the population withou adequate medical care is in no way fullfilling tyhe obligation to "promote the general welfare." For the "I want the government to handle it" people, notice it says promote, not provide.
I spent long years in both private and public EMS service. THe private service is in no way like the public. In the private service, the vast majority of the work was non-emergent cases.
People from hospitol/nursing home/home to hospitol/nursing home/home/Dr's appointments/Hemodialysis, etc.....
I watched MRSA go from being a concern (isolation) to a free-for all. I watched the third case of VRE in the Greater Cincinnati are spread through a hospitol, then to a nursing home, then to other places. I took patients to the first "wound care clinic" outside of a hospitol to open, then a second, then a third.
Mostly I watched a few goo-natured people slog through their day doing everything they could to support a patient, surrounded by an army of uncaring bitches and bastards that just wanted to make a buck while doing the absolute minimum required.
I have seen obvious payoffs and run-arounds to health departments and JHACO. But then, again, if JHACO and the health departments actually did their job, their wouldn't be but a few nursing homes.
And I also saw the medical infastructure spring up. No longer just large hospitol based MRI's. First a rolling MRI shared between two hospitols, then each their own, then a "radiology center", then another. Out-patient this, out-patient that. Surgical centers, etc......
I beleive that basic things needed to live should have a socialistic bend. But I am brutal with the rest. (Can't work, we will take care of you. Won't work.... Fuck you, starve.)
I also believe that ideally, this would be a good thing for the government to do. But we do not have anywhere near any ideal government, and government employees are not the one's I would want working on my behalf.
After I bailed for health reasons (physical, physical beacuase of mental, and bodily breakdown) I have gotten on with my life, not thinking about it too much. However, I just found out that my mother has lung cancer, and I am feeling a long suppressed responsibility to memories of patients I took care of and came to know. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2007 : 09:51:26 [Permalink]
|
I see a lot of "the governemnt can do it" or "leave it alone," both of which are unsound. I even recieved a "I see no evidence that the government can't do it."
|
I don't think the conversations is helped by saying that everyone knows that the "free market" and "competition" fixes everything, either. Obviously, with the system that we have, the so-called "free market" drives up prices and makes health care inaccessible to many people. Maybe the answer is not French-style health care. Maybe we can fix it some other way. I haven't seen anyone bring evidence that convinces me that it isn't a better way. I think at least we need to see what we can learn from those kinds of systems. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 07/12/2007 09:52:27 |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2007 : 11:31:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
I see a lot of "the governemnt can do it" or "leave it alone," both of which are unsound. I even recieved a "I see no evidence that the government can't do it."
|
I don't think the conversations is helped by saying that everyone knows that the "free market" and "competition" fixes everything, either.
Obviously, with the system that we have, the so-called "free market" drives up prices and makes health care inaccessible to many people. Maybe the answer is not French-style health care. Maybe we can fix it some other way. I haven't seen anyone bring evidence that convinces me that it isn't a better way. I think at least we need to see what we can learn from those kinds of systems.
|
How are you reading what I said as "the free market and competition fixes anything?" I specifically said "leave it alone (free-market where it mosty lies) is unsound. What sense does it make to switch to a system where there is no evidence that that system will work, and almost every reason to believe it won't work as well for everyone. Because A is not working efficiently, which it does not, does not mean B will work better, which the reality points to as fact.
Part of the problem is free market- medicine on demand, if you will; which leads to more resources that can be used with fiscal efficiency. There is no reason to have 10 MRI machines working 8-12 hours a day, when 3 to 4 could do the same job 24 hours a day. Ditto for the machines for radiation. Part of the problem is the lack of contraints and scruples by lawyers. Part of the problem is greed, part of the problem is waste built into the current laws/protocols, part of the problem is the drain in current dollars secondary to violence/drugs.
The primary concern is raising the level of care for all citizens, while lowering the level by noone. Please note I said level of, not convenience of.
I, having no reason to beleive other then my belief, would wager that if you did serious damage to lawyers with tort reform, companies would save a lot on lawyers and risk managers.
For the same reason, requiring some sort of administrative cost controls will save there.
For the same reasons, selling off 1/4 to 2/3'rds of the MRI machines, and other redundent systems in the United States would be a windfall.
Ditto for reworking the operating procedures to lessen unneccessary emergency room and doctors vistis for residents of nursing homes. i.e. Clogged G-tube = 1 can of Shasta and 1 60 c.c. syringe as oppossed to same material plus round-trip emrgency room transfer by ambulance, emergency room visit, doctors cost, etc. I am not sure, and I hope it has been changed, if this is still the case, but it was. Nurse not permitted to do it.
Answers are there, but they will not come from the current crop (crap) of party politicians more worried about what everyone but themselves are doing (and getting re-elected), while accomplishing very little. Too much stuff that is important is not getting taken care of as it is.
The answers have to come from the people, and imposed on the government and the businesses. The only way to go about it is to decide what the desired outcome is, and come up with steps to reach it.
[tounge in cheek]Seems simple enough.[/tounge in cheek] |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2007 : 12:37:56 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo said,
the so-called "free market" drives up prices |
This is false. A free market promotes competition which lowers prices in most cases. We do not have a "free market" health insurance system. The system we have consists of a government subsidized and regulated system.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Sicko
