Ron Ruff said:On Nov 25, 2:06 am, "[email hidden]"
Quoted message said:Indeed there are debating points, and surely something should be done.
But it would be wise for folks to be wary of Scandinavian or UK style
universal care systems.
Don't know that I wish for that sort of thing... but it is probably
the least evil of the alternatives. It makes sense that they would
make you wait for something that isn't life threatening... since it is
free and all, they need some deterant... yes? In the US if you have
"good" insurance (which increasingly few people do) then you can get
in whenever you want to and have all the most expensive procedures
performed... whether you need to or not. And all sorts of drugs that
may or may not do more harm than good. And of course I am paying for
those people's "great" coverage even if I don't have any at all... we
all do.. via taxes and the higher prices that companies who provide
such insurance must charge for their products and services. Wasteful
spending on things we don't need drags down wealth of the entire
society... and I won't go into the incredible waste of spending a
trillion dollars on a war for no good reason.
This is an old study (~1998) but some good info... and things have
surely only gotten worse since then.http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
Compared to 13 other high income countries, the US was by far the most
expensive and more than double the median. As a percentage of GDP, the
US was 13.6% compared to the median of 8.2%. A satisfaction rating
wasn't given for Norway, but in Denmark it is 91%, Finland 81%,
Sweden 58%, the UK 57%... and the US 40%. The US gets a very low
"health and well being" score as well.
If I had a choice, I'd vote to emulate Denmark and Finland. Either
that or disband the AMA completely, and allow unregulated medicine.
Certainly having folks run to the doctor every 5 minutes is a problem,
and unfortunate that folks who don't go often end up subsidizing them.
But that's no justification for waiting lists. I did have a $300 co-
pay for my procedure here, and while in the US folks may wonder what
they get for their taxes, at least nobody is claiming they get health
care for it. Here people pay taxes for this care, and it is lousy.
That's frustrating.
I've had experiences in California and here in Norway with health
care, and I think the American emphasis on technology skews the costs
somewhat. And perhaps a higher percentage of unnecessary procedures
"to be on the safe side". So direct per-capita expenditure comparisons
are somewhat apples and oranges. Using my experience last year with
appendicitis as an example, the hospital chose to have me wait through
the night because they didn't want to call in a doc on OT, and there
was a chance it would pass. It burst during the night and my
subsequent surgery and recovery were much more involved. A US hospital
would have cut me open right away rather than risk having my appedix
burst on their dime. I'm sure some number of uneccecary prodeures are
performed as a safeguard which of course is expensive. Also later I
had a stomach drain which was just a tube with a bag and gravity did
the trick. In the US I would have been hooked up to a (expensive, or
more so than a rubber tube!) machine to do more or less the same
thing. This machine raises the costs, and I suppose provides
marginally improved service. But I suppose that's just it, where are
the marginal returns, and who should decide what is worth it or not.
Without having spent too much time thinking about it, I think I'd like
to see some sort of government coordinated basic insurance with
payouts that perhaps are just low or no interest loans, and tax
credits for private insurance for those who want (and can afford) more
and opt out of the basic plan. So people don't fall through the
cracks, but at the same time the level of available service isn't
compromised.
Joseph
