 On Point Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes his On Point column most weekdays. He is also an author and freelance writer. Reach Vincent Carroll at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com. |
Carroll: Single-payer rationing
Leading backers of Health Care for All Coloradans deny that their single-payer plan will ration medicine. And since their proposal is one of only four chosen for refinement by Colorado’s Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform, it’s worth examining the credibility of this claim.
“How about rationing?” Health Care for All’s Fran Ricker and Kristen Hannum asked in a column published in Saturday’s Rocky. “American insurance companies ration care. Prior authorizations, limiting benefits and denials are examples of rationing under our current system. Europeans don’t have to worry about this. In fact, Europeans don’t worry about health care in general. A Belgian woman recently admitted to us that she had not realized that her country had public, universal health coverage. She just knew that if she ever got sick she’d be cared for.”
A woman who never wondered who paid for her health care is hardly the most reliable witness on rationing. Especially when her threshold for satisfaction appears to be so low.
After all, you can be “cared for” when sick and still be the victim of rationing if your doctors are barred from exploiting the latest technological and pharmaceutical breakthroughs.
Ironically, Health Care for All Coloradans seems to anticipate rationing in its own answers to questions posed by the Blue Ribbon Commission, which appear on the commission’s Web site.
“Does your proposal decrease or contain costs? How?” the commission asked. The answer (in part): “As new technology and treatment modalities are introduced, they must come under the scrutiny of the [Colorado Health Services] Board to determine future cost savings or health benefits. Patients and providers are free to pursue new treatment modalities that are not yet covered, but do so at their own expense.”
So some “treatment modalities” will not be covered, huh? Sure sounds like rationing to me.
Facing reality
Ricker and Hannum are correct, no doubt, that some health-care rationing already occurs today in Colorado. But under a public single-payer system, the rationing is likely to be both more systematic and severe, whatever some might like to believe.
“To date, other Western countries have been more successful in covering all citizens at a lower per capita cost, but they have done so only by limiting the availability of high-technology medicine.”
That’s an excerpt from former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm’s latest book, Condition Critical, A New Moral Vision for Health Care, which he co-authored with Robert Blank.
Lamm is not criticizing government health-care mandates or the rationing of high technology medicine. He is a longtime advocate of both. He simply has no patience with those who do not understand that the two are linked, given the inexhaustible demand for medical treatment and the inevitable pressure to contain costs.
“Interestingly,” Lamm and Blank write, “many of the proponents of a single-payer system are the strongest opponents of rationing. In fact, they argue that only moves to such a system will allow us to escape rationing. This is unrealistic because universal coverage is workable only when restraints on breadth of coverage are imposed . . . . Every single-payer health system has at its core some form of health-care rationing, including strict limits on expensive care, such as organ transplants, chemotherapy and bone marrow transplants, and long waiting lines for elective surgeries, such as joint replacements.”
No health-care system is ideal, and that certainly goes for the one we’ve got. But we’ll never be able to rationally debate whether we want to replace it — and with what — if we can’t come to terms with a few sticky facts.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
What Malarkey!
We have rationing in our current system. The ~50 million uninsured get nothing! Insurance companies won't insure those with pre-existing conditions. There is nothing just or rational about these systems except fealty to a "free" market system.
Vince decries rationing because it would deny some "the latest technical and pharmaceutical breakthroughs."
VC the putz ignores that much technological and pharmaceutical advancement is "gilding the lilly"; Very little improvement in outcome for huge increases in cost. Studies recently showed the oldest cheapest blood pressure medicines are more effective than the latest and greatest high cost drugs. Shouldn't the use of these high $ boondoggles be restricted?
A single payer system with the availability of supplemental insurance and private providers for those who want more than what the public sustem provides would be the best of both worlds.
Posted by Carroll's a putz on August 21, 2007 10:58 AMThe previous poster repeats (and embellishes) on a major liberal talking point regarding the number of the uninsured. The following blog dispells and greatly reduces his number:
Who are the uninsured?
As the Democratic candidates call for various versions of national health insurance, we will hear a familiar fact many times, namely how many Americans lack medical insurance. According to one estimate, it is over fifteen percent of the population, which amounts to about 43.6 million people.
But who are these people? In reality many of them are immigrants. Here are two simple facts:
Immigrants who arrived between 1994 and 1998 and their children accounted for an astonishing 59 percent or 2.7 million of the growth in the size of the uninsured population since 1993.
The total uninsured population is one-third larger (32.7 million versus 44.3 million) when the 11.6 million persons in immigrant households without insurance are counted.
Hispanics have by far the lowest rates of being insured, here are some visuals. 41 percent of adult Hispanics are uninsured, of course many of these are recent immigrants, Hispanics as a whole account for over 12 percent of national population.
I am all for a liberal immigration policy, but I do not feel we are obliged to offer health insurance to all comers. In fact I suspect that national health insurance would, in the long run, lead to fiscal pressures to limit immigration, thus damaging the health of potential immigrants.
Nor do immigrants rush to buy their own health insurance, in many cases I suspect they would rather send the money back home, where health care crises are likely more severe:
Lack of insurance remains a severe problem even after immigrants have been in the country for many years. In 1998, 37 percent of immigrants who entered in the 1980s still had not acquired health insurance, and 27.2 percent of 1970s immigrants were uninsured.
Many other Americans lack health insurance because they are out of work. True, a good health care system should be robust to macroeconomic disturbances, but with employment and productivity rising, these people do not represent much of a current case for reform.
It also turns out that many of the uninsured are uninsured for only part of the year. According to the CBO, those uninsured for the entire year amount to somewhere between 21 and 31 million, knocking a full 12 million off the original total.
Some of the uninsured are more accurately a counting error:
According to the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), [a] verification question lowered the estimate of the number of uninsured living in households with annual incomes of $75,000 or more by 16 percent. The verification question lowered by 4 percent the number of uninsured living in households with incomes under $25,000.
Many of the uninsured are in fact college students, who either rely on their parents, or are covered under their parents' policies, read here. One estimate suggests that one out of seven college students lacks insurance, but it is hard to believe that most of these people have no other resources supporting them.
Finally, the uninsured often have good access to medical care. Consider this:
15 million of the uninsured have incomes of $50,000 or more. The fastest-growing population of uninsured has incomes exceeding $75,000. About 14 million are eligible for Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan but are not enrolled.
The "entire year uninsured" receive about half as much care, in dollar-valued terms, as the fully insured. As a last resort, you can always show up at an emergency room and simply demand care. In the year 2001, uninsured Americans received at least $35 billion in health care treatments.
The bottom line: When you put all the pieces together, the crisis of the uninsured is not nearly as bad as it sounds.
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 21, 2007 12:02 PMSo what? Why is every argument about illegals? What if the true number of uninsured is only 5 million? That's still rationing nonetheless.
Posted by Carroll's a putz on August 21, 2007 12:18 PMAhhh...the chorus from the "head in sand" far right wing...you gotta love the misplaced desperation borne from corporate propaganda. Can you even feel the strings anymore?
The simple fact that US healthcare spending is nearly twice...for lower quality healthcare...that of the 5 other richest countries on the planet is testimony enough that forward thinking states like Mass and Colorado are fully justified, and indeed obligated, to begin to consider other options than the force fed ones offered up by the highest corporate bidder.
Posted by jay on August 21, 2007 01:09 PMSingle payer health care is THE WRONG ANSWER.
Carrol should do a quick investigation of the numbers and tax impact that a single payer healthcare system would impose. The estimates by these freakish leftist groups are grossly underestimated.
You should also assess the demographic of people who don't have health insurance. You will find a shocking number belongs to the group who does not want to pay for it - young, healthy, and stretching dollars thin.
Liberal Lunacy.
Posted by on August 21, 2007 01:48 PMHere's some lunacy for you.
The compnay where I work does not provide health insurance.
Premiums for my company's group health insurance run about $480 per month for a family of four.
This means that -- if taxes are less than $480 per month to fund a single payer system, then the people in my company would actully save money.
In my case, a single-payer system would be bad news. Since I'm retired from the Air Force, I only pay about $500 a year for family health coverage. We get to pick our own doctors. Co-pays for doctor visits are $12. Co-pays for prescriptions are $9.
If the rest of the country could get the same medical care that I get, I think it would be a great thing. Call me a glutton for punishment (or a bleeding-heart Liberal) -- but I'm willing to pay a few bucks more in taxes so that everyone can have the same peace of mind that I have.
Posted by Tree Hugger on August 21, 2007 03:32 PMHey, and while we're at it lets subsidize the "uninsured" people for living arrangements, for food, for telephone service, for transportation, for electricity, for heating utilities, for recreation centers, for educational purposes, for daycare, for etc, ,,,
Wait we already do all that. Hey, Jay and the other reflexible liberals know that Colorado's plan will be a giant step to reach the nirvana of European-style socialism. And we know how well that's working out for Europe, right? PS Out of the 20 lowest birth rate countries in the world - 19 are in Europe.
Posted by LiberalLunacy on August 21, 2007 03:43 PMTreehugger wrote "... but I'm willing to pay a few bucks more in taxes so that everyone can have the same peace of mind that I have."
That's great, Treehugger, please give us your address up there in Boulder so we know where we can send the bill. And you can pay my share too!
Posted by LiberalLunacy on August 21, 2007 03:46 PMTreehugger wrote "... but I'm willing to pay a few bucks more in taxes so that everyone can have the same peace of mind that I have."
That's great, Treehugger, please give us your address up there in Boulder so we know where we can send the bill.
Posted by LiberalLunacy on August 21, 2007 03:46 PMI heard that Canada has a great medical plan. Am I wrong?
Posted by Pete on August 21, 2007 03:52 PM"we know how well that's working out for Europe, right? PS Out of the 20 lowest birth rate countries in the world - 19 are in Europe."
If you did know those things...we wouldn't be having this discussion. Have you seen the figures on the US's ranking on infant mortality (the figure I think you were trying to quote)? Why don't you do a little research on where the US ranks in worldwide infant mortality and then get back to us. While you're at it, take a look at how our quality of care stacks up against the 5 other wealthiest countries on the planet...oh...and take note of annual healthcare spending per user in those other countries vs. our spending per patient. You'll find that our IMR is sadly a lot lower than you'd think...and we pay more for lower quality healthcare than those other 5 countries.
Why would you believe that the US couldn't adopt some of the best practices of those other countries? Do you believe the US to be too stupid? Too big? Too diverse? I'm curious why you think we couldn't improve our system by taking some cues from folks who are doing it better and cheaper than we are....
Posted by jay on August 21, 2007 05:03 PMFor a brief article on rationing in countries with government controlled health care, see David Hogberg's "Health Care, More or Less" at
tinyurl.com/3dketb .
HIs site, Health Hog (Google it) is also a good resource.
Re. advocates of "single payer," I wonder what else they want to be "single payer," where instead of dealing directly with people selling what we want, we hand over our money to the government as a monopolistic middle man. The want government to be the only insurance company in town - a monopoly.
For example, should we have "single payer" cars, where government is the single provider of cars? Or "single payer" barber shops?
People generally think monopolies have little incentive to provide a good product or service...unless it's a virtual government monopoly - like government run schools.
Sadly, most people do not understand that we do not have a free-market in health care, and government can't rescue us. As I described in my proposal to the 208 Commission (at WhoOwnsYou.org), government meddling is largly responsible for expensive insurance plans and our being stuck with our employer's insurance offerings.
"Liberals" should hate the employer-based system, created by a tax exemption for employer-paid insurance premiums. It gives insurance companies little incentive to compete, so it's in a sense a favor to big business.
Someone please tell me one thing the government does efficiently.
It does not matter which party is in control. The bigger the program the less efficient.
The liberal's view of how great things are in Europe does not match up with reality.
God help us if they get their way.
It is absurd for people who have insurance to declare bankruptcy when they have a medical crisis. It happens everyday. The current system sucks and needs to be changed. Only those with their head in the sand of hand in your pocket believe the current system is working. Carroll is a putz.
Posted by It's True on August 22, 2007 07:54 AMFor all of those in favor of "socializing" medical coverage under this Colorado plan, please tell me who will pay for it? Is it not just income redistribution by another name?
Posted by CC on August 22, 2007 08:09 AMWe already have government run insurance through Medicare, and rationing is most certainly part of it. My mom suffered a severe stroke, leading to paralysis of a leg and an arm, and severe pain from spasms in the leg. While neurologists around the country found that
extensive Botox and similar injections in spastic legs often relieved the severe pain, Medicare used "Local Coverage Decisions" to allow or deny the procedure based on where you lived in the US. There are hundreds of these LCDs -- government sponsored discrimination at its best. National Coverage Decisions were used for several years to deny more than a limited number of physical therapy visits to patients, resulting in Medicare patients being denied physical therapy post-stroke because they'd used up their physical therapy visits rehabbing a broken hip or a knee replacement earlier in the year.
The particularly nasty aspect of government rationing decisions is that they're effectively unappealable. Why do the procedures covered vary from region to region? Because that's our decision.
Our current system is broken, but nothing I've seen yet convinces me that the proposed solutions fix the underlying problems. And for those who think that a governmental system leads to less paperwork for patients and doctors, let me suggest that you talk to someone who has reconciled hundreds of Medicare statements, and had to spend dozens of hours on the phone with Medicare trying to figure out why they suddenly denied coverage for something after paying for it previously, or why they continue to pay for wheelchair rentals long after the wheelchair was returned and despite several calls and letters explaining that they shouldn't be paying any longer.
I'm good with computers, have taken accounting classes, worked in a doctor's office, and still found the entire process frustrating. Pity the poor senior citizen who may not have a computer or a child who can help wade through this mess.
Posted by bk on August 22, 2007 08:10 AMCC
That's exactly what Jay and some of the other posters want. They want European-style socialism where "Government" is the be all and end all of society to replace God. They want a socialized society where others pay while they rest. They yearn for "progressive" "visionaries" like John Reed and Rosa Luxembourg while listening contemplatively to old Weavers records.
Heh, heh
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 22, 2007 08:13 AMI have to wonder how socialists like Jay feel about our lax policy of allowing illegals into this country. I bet they are all in favor of it and then income redistribution will pay for the incumbent costs of medical care, law enforcement, education for these illegals. People, for socialists like Jay this is all part of the plan on the road to serfdom.
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 22, 2007 08:15 AMShout out to my socialist buddy Jay - Headline from today's news concerning one of your socialist utopias. And 25,000 of the people came here - to this "stupid" backward-thinking non-progressive country.
Record number of people leave UK
More people left the UK last year than in any year since current records began in 1991, statistics show.
Figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) indicate that some 385,000 people left the UK for the long term in the year to mid-2006.
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 22, 2007 08:19 AMAnd yet another article on the "brain drain" from Jay's socialist utopias of Europe ...
Sicko Europe
By DANIELE CAPEZZONE
August 3, 2007; Page A9
Rome
We live in an age of unprecedented medical innovation. Unfortunately, most of today's cutting-edge research is conducted outside Europe, which was once a pioneer in this field. About 78% of global biotechnology research funds are spent in the U.S., compared to just 16% in Europe. Americans therefore have better access to modern drugs. One result is that in the U.S., the annual death rate from cancer is 196 per 100,000 people, compared to 235 in Britain, 244 in France, 270 in Italy and 273 in Germany.
It is both a tragedy and an embarrassment that Europe hasn't kept up with the U.S. in saving and improving lives. What's to blame? The Continent's misguided policies and state-run health-care systems. The reasons vary from country to country, but broadly speaking, the custodians of public health budgets aren't devoting the necessary resources to get patients the most modern and advanced medicines, and are happier with the status quo. We often see news headlines about promising new cures and vaccines next to headlines about patients who can't get life-saving drugs as politicians impose ever stricter prescription controls on doctors.
The human toll can be measured in deaths and unnecessary suffering. It also costs us a lot of money. Prevention is cheaper than treatment. Modern medicine can prevent many medical complications that would otherwise require hospitalization and other expensive care. For every euro spent on new medicine, national health-care systems could save as much as €3.65 in later treatments, according to a National Bureau of Economic Research study.
This situation is especially dire in Italy. The government has capped spending on pharmaceuticals at 13% of total health-care expenditures while letting expenses for infrastructure and staff skyrocket. From 2001 to 2005, general health expenses in Italy grew by 31% while expenditure on medicines increased a mere 1.7%. Italian patients might well have been better off if the reverse was the case, but the state bureaucrats who make these decisions refuse to acknowledge the benefits of advanced drugs.
Also as a result, pharmaceutical research in Italy is falling behind even faster than in the rest of Europe. In 2004, pharmaceutical R&D spending was €3.9 billion in Germany, €3.95 billion in France and €4.78 billion in Britain, compared to only €1.01 billion in Italy.
Part of the problem is that regional authorities manage most of Italy's health-care spending. A strike by health-care personnel has an immediate impact on the region, but the consequences of cutting the budget for medicines are only felt in the long term and distributed across the nation. Hence, local authorities continue to focus on personnel and infrastructure in an age when medical research has become the most efficient way to improve public health.
Most recently, some Italian regions decided to drastically expand the scope of reference pricing, in open defiance of the central government. Reference pricing is used in most European countries to reduce government spending on medicine and is one of the reasons the Continent is lagging behind in pharmaceutical research. New drugs are grouped with existing drugs used to treat the same medical condition, and the government typically limits reimbursement to the cheapest price in the reference group. This way, patients are discouraged from using the most modern and more expensive medicine.
The Italian regions, however, are taking reference pricing one step further by grouping together drugs that do not necessarily have identical therapeutic effects. This way, the reference groups grow larger, and the regions can save more money. But patients are forced to choose between paying high out-of-pocket expenses or the risk of taking the wrong medicine.
This is a tragic state of affairs in a country with a higher natural demand for advanced medicine than most others in Europe. The older people get, the more likely they are to get ill, and today 20% of Italians are 65 years of age or older -- by far the largest percentage of any European country. The proportion is projected to rise to 24.5% by 2020.
Italian leaders have a responsibility to prevent parochialism from undermining public health and pharmaceutical research. But it is worth repeating that the combination of an aging population and an inefficient health-care system is a European, not exclusively Italian, problem.
It is time for politicians and regulators to confront our backward health-care systems and unleash the powers of medical research. Besides expanding drug budgets, European countries should work together to deregulate the pharmaceutical industry -- for instance, by speeding up the approval process for new drugs. The EU can better ensure that drug patents are adequately protected both in Europe and around the world against compulsory licensing and other infringements. Finally, we should give medical researchers tax incentives to slow the brain drain to the U.S. -- much like Ireland is attracting artists with favorable tax laws. We Europeans are getting older; we should be getting wiser, healthier and happier, too.
Mr. Capezzone is the president of the productivity committee of the Italian Chamber of Deputies.
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 22, 2007 08:22 AMAnd from another of Jay's socialist utopias ... Germany!
Sick of Bad Pay, Doctors Flee Germany
By Udo Ludwig Der Spiegel
German doctors are packing their scalpels and seeking their fortunes abroad, lured by the prospect of far higher pay and driven away by stifling bureaucracy in their country's health service.
A little tower adorns the roof, and ivy surrounds the entrance to the elegant manor house in the northern English town of Chorley. From outside, there is nothing to indicate that Euxton Hall is a working hospital rather than a place of contemplation, tea and bridge. If it weren't for the old man on crutches struggling to get into a taxi with the help of a nurse.
Fröhling has been working in England for over a year, he's one of 2,600 German doctors in Britain who escaped from the woes of their country's health service to greener pastures. Away from Germany, the land of bad pay, long working hours, all-encroaching bureaucracy and rigid organization.
Doctors taking to the streets
He operated on over 2,000 knees, hips and spines in Germany before he made up his mind. Like all guest workers, it was the money that initially lured him away. But escaping the insufferable self-importance of his superiors was almost as important, as well as fleeing the creeping loss of status of his profession in Germany. These days, the former demi-gods in white have to take to the streets like the steel workers to demonstrate for improved working conditions and better pay. In the old days, young doctors would allow themselves to be exploited during their training because they knew they could make big bucks later on. Now, it's no longer worth it.
Doctors used to tolerate the condescending treatment at the hands of their bosses because they hoped to be giving the orders themselves one day. But the chances of getting lucrative positions further down the line are steadily waning. That's why many trainee doctors end their careers before they even start. Only just over half of students starting medical degrees will end up as practicing doctors in Germany. Many become bureaucrats in the health service, find jobs in industry or emigrate.
Fröhlich comes from a family of doctors. When he started as an assistant doctor in a hospital in the northern city of Bremen in 1982, he still believed in "the healing function of my profession". But after just a few shifts he came to the sobering realization that in everyday hospital life, the interests of the patients come last -- that is seen as the job of the head physician who "rules like a monarch."
DER SPIEGEL
Germans come bottom of this international ranking of doctors' pay.
When Fröhling once alerted his superior to a mistake in how a patient was being treated, he was treated as if he had insulted royalty. He was yelled at. For the following three weeks his name did not appear on any operating timetables, and doctors who don't operate during their training fail to qualify for exams. Embittered, he came to terms with his superior's fantasies of omnipotence and went on to become senior physician at the orthopedic clinic at Frankfurt University.
He worked 60 hours a week, did mammoth shifts around the clock, fulfilled the demands of his superiors. That was reflected in his pay: alongside his standard salary he received additional payments for shift work, fees for medical reports and a share of the money from the treatment of private payments. But then his superior demanded a bigger share of the fees for medical reports and a row over money ensued.
The dispute says a lot about the unfair distribution of the €240 billion spent on the German health service. While most medical staff work like dogs, the profits are pocketed by the few. The medical law in the western state of Hesse, where Fröhlich was working, states that head physicians must distribute about 80 percent of proceeds from private patients to the clinic and to the doctors who treat them. But at Fröhlich's Frankfurt clinic the boss was paying them smaller amounts.
The doctors knew their superior wasn't keeping clean accounts. But they also knew that such bevavior was standard practice in the German health service. No one said anything. Until one day a woman complained that she had paid cash but been treated as if she weren't a private patient. The head physician had taken the money but the computer database claimed she was insured under the public system. Research showed what the Marburger Bund doctor's association has suspected at many university clinics but hasn't been able to prove: head physicians had pocketed around €1 million per year in this way. An auditor found that more than €10 million was missing. The doctors got back only a fraction of that, Fröhlich got around €155,000. He was the only one to leave.
When he got an offer from sweden's Capio group to work at one its 21 clinics in Britain, he jumped at the chance. Now he's steering his Audi through the northern English countryside, headed towards the village of Renacres where he conducts operations once a week. More and more colleagues from Germany are ringing him up to ask him about jobs in Britain because they are sick of mounting bureaucracy and the growing power of hospital managers.
Growing shortage of doctors
Most of the German doctors who emigrate go to the United States, which has taken about 2,700. Britain comes second, according to figures from the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians. Sweden, which has taken 700, and Norway, with 650, are becoming more popular. Special agencies lure doctors by placing advertisements in professional publications and doctors who want to supplement their income spend weekends working in Britain. After finishing their week's work in German practices they can earn up to €2,000 for a weekend shift in a British hospital.
Doctors' salaries have fallen steadily in the last three years. Many a young clinic doctor gets paid less than a long-serving nurse even if he puts in 70 hours a week. Because ever fewer people are applying for such jobs there's a growing shortage of doctors in parts of the country. Many rural doctors are complaining that they can't find successors to hand their surgeries to.
NEWSLETTER
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday.
The situation is disastrous for public health and a debacle for the economy. If the trend of recent years continues -- with only 7,000 of 12,000 medical students completing their training -- over €1 billion of university costs will have been wasted. The deficit will continue to rise the more qualified doctors decide to earn their money abroad.
Fröhling leans back in the chair of his office at Euxton Hall Hospital. His salary here is three times higher than it was in Germany. But his work has disadvantages too. His office is dark and tiny and his medical equipment isn't exactly modern. During operations he doesn't have two assistant doctors on hand to help him. He has to make do with a "leg holder," a semi-skilled helper. Unqualified assistants hand him the tools of his trade -- drills and hammers. Because of these limitations, he has had to change his surgical techniques to make sure he gets hips installed properly.
German doctors who come to Britain must accept that the British health system is by no means exemplary compared with the German system, says Fröhling. The National Health Service provides basic care but passes on orders to the growing number of private clinics. That is making health provision more efficient and patients are benefiting, he thinks.
Medicine men made in Germany remain in demand in Britain because of their solid training. But they aren't universally popular. Many local NHS doctors who treat private patients on the side have suffered big income losses as a result of the German competition.
Some of the guest workers are already encountering the same envy and disapproval they were trying to escape in Germany. "Soon not every colleague will be giving us a friendly welcome," says Fröhling.
I see a lot of folks setting up straw men arguments and disparaging "socialism"...but no one with the balls to answer my questions or recognize that the 5 other CAPITALISTIC, wealthiest countries on the planet are providing cheaper, better healthcare than we are.....so I'll ask again:
Why would you believe that the US couldn't adopt some of the best practices of those other countries? Do you believe the US to be too stupid? Too big? Too diverse? I'm curious why you think we couldn't improve our system by taking some cues from folks who are doing it better and cheaper than we are....
Posted by jay on August 22, 2007 09:02 AMGood points Slouch. No doubt that this Jay yahoo is a socialist. He reeks of it. Jay move to Norway.
Posted by CC on August 22, 2007 11:56 AMDoes anyone ever do any real research before they quote talking points?
Better Healthcare in Europe? Since when?
What criteria are you using? What standards do you apply?
Infant mortality rate? How do the European countries count infant mortality? Do they have the same criteria? Are pemature babies or still born counted like they are here? Or is it viable out of the womb and only then if it dies it is considered an infant mortality?
Living longer? If Iive 73 years instead of 72.5, what of it? Is that the fault of the healthcare system or is it my fault for my lifestyle?
Can anyone here really debate how much stronger socialist countries are compared to us?
The same people that say our government is incompetent with Katrina, social welfare, schooling ect. are the ones attempting to convince me to leave my healthcare coverage to this same incompetent government?
Wasn't the private sector at New Orleans with supplies to help before the government arrived? In fact, the government after it arrived was restricting those supplies from getting to the people that needed it!
We don't ration healthcare now, we ration types of treatment that are covered. You can still get the treatment...in parts of Europe and Canada that is NOT true, that's why people come here.....
Socialism has been proven to fail time and again. The people that post here that seem oblivious to that fact must think the rest of us are ignorant of those facts.
They make untrue assertions to propagate the myth that big government is a better answer than the private sector. I find that to be untrue when I study. Where do they get their info? I've searched..I can't find it....
Please define your terms before making statements...apples to apples or apples to oranges. From the socialist liberals here I find they tend to blur definitions, much like the do in other discussions.
Has anyone ever thought that possibly why their healthcare is so expensive is that state legislatures, thanks to the liberal mindset, has effectively outlawed the ability of healthcare insurers from providing catastrophic only healthcare?
What does that do to the ability of insurers to provide inexpensive coverage for everyone.
Does Sparky really need HIS massage therapist coverage for everyone that purchases healthcare?
I've got an idea, how about all the liberals here go out and start a business, hire some people and then tell me how efficient the government is...okay?
Wingnuts!!!
Posted by Father OMalley on August 23, 2007 07:05 AMThanks Father Bob...it's in additional to Slouch's personal attacks...the other widely predictable last gasp of a dying right wing argument is to attack the science and data.
Fantastic example of just that....well done.
Posted by jay on August 24, 2007 12:10 PMI work in hemodialysis. In Europe, their dialysis patients are much healthier than in the U.S. Some would use this fact to prove socialized medicine is thus better. And maybe their dialysis IS better if you are lucky enough they let you have it when your kidneys fail.
The average european dialysis patient is 10 years younger than the average american patient. If you are too old or have too many co-morbid conditions, some nice doctors will tell you dialysis is not an option for you. Limited resources, money and all that. In the U.S., even 90 year old broke, homeless, cancerous, illegal alien hospice patients can get dialysis. Thanks to our capitalist, profit driven motives, we are rich enough and able to provide care the socialists can't.
Similarly, many socialized medicine countries have lower birth mortality rates than in he U.S. Here we use extraordinary methods and resources to save those 15 oz. preemies, babies with heart defects etc., often futily. For socialized medicine its just another check in the miscarrage column.
Some people hate those greedy profit driven corporations so much, they would shut them down rather than let them make a profit. I would rather some investors get obcenely rich off of treatment for sick people (perhaps by curing their cancer) than having them remain sick .
Same old metaphor exists for health care as
as everything else capitalist vs. socicalized.
Do you want unequal shares of a nice big pie, or equal shares of a small crappy pie?
Actually jerry's myths allow us to realize that the five other richest countries on the planet (none "socialist" and several not in europe...but that's the way false talking points work) do a better job at reducing their healthcare costs by providing readible, higher quality preventative care to their citizens....just another in a long line of best practices that I'll challenge yet again the masses to give us an idea as to why we couldn't adapt some to our system.
Still waiting for an answer there....
Posted by jay on August 27, 2007 09:28 AMThis Jay guy is really pathetic. Whenever I visit these forums it's this yahoo writing and saying the same stuff over and over. Jay, buddy, get a life! More importantly, get a job and start paying taxes so that you can contribute something to society other than your incoherent babbling.
Posted by BooBoo on August 28, 2007 11:26 AMAhhh....the last breath of the purple spotted talking point hyena after being thoroughly beated into submission by facts and figures.....personal attacks.
I paid more money in taxes than you made last year my little cruton
After reading all of this I assess Jay the loser, devoid of any real information to offer. "When you believe you can create utopia on earth there is no lie you won't tell, no crime you won't commit."
Calling Commrade Lennin