Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Health Care Reform
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 9:05 am Post subject:

Quote:

How long? In Canada, it depends on the province and the type of treatment. The median wait time for medical treatment in Canada in 2006 was 17.8 weeks. However, this doesn't tell the whole story. It's not hard to find Canadians who have waited months to get an MRI, and years for some types of treatments. There are multiple kinds of waits in the Canadian system: the wait to see a specialist, the wait to get a diagnostic test, the wait to get surgery - and then the wait for rescheduled surgery after one's initial surgical appointment has been cancelled - sometimes multiple times - a routine phenomenon. Waits for orthopedic surgery can be multiple years - and in the case of some elderly Canadians - forever. Waits for things like gastric bypass and sleep apnea treatment are routinely 4-5 years.

My short movie, A Short Course in Brain Surgery, highlights the plight of Lindsay McCreith, a Canadian with a suspected brain tumor who had to wait four months for an MRI. Instead, he crossed the border to the U.S and got it in two days. He then faced another four month wait just to see a specialist in order to schedule surgery which would represent yet another wait. Instead, he had the tumor removed in the U.S. - immediately. It turned out to be early stage brain cancer.

Another short, Two Women, chronicles the sad story of Janice Fraser who, unable to urinate, needed to have a pacemaker-type device implanted to control her bladder. Unfortunately, the hospital arbitrarily rationed the operation by doing only one per month. Janice was number 32 on the list - nearly a three year wait. She ended up waiting so long that she developed life-threatening infections, had to have her bladder removed in an emergency procedure, and will now wear a urine bag for the rest of her life.

The Lemon tells the story of Shirley Healey who was suffering from a near total blockage of her mesenteric artery which feeds blood to the bowels. She was slowly starving and risked death by waiting in Canada. She came to Bellingham, Washington where she got her life-saving operation immediately. The American surgeon who operated said that the Canadian patients are the worst, most dangerous cases he sees - due to the long waits.

In May, the Toronto Star ran a story about an Ontario man with a fist-sized hole in his head - due to an car accident - who had to wait one year for surgery to close it. Indeed, the newspapers of Canada, the UK, Ireland, New Zealand & Australia feature a constant weekly stream of horror stories about their nationalized systems. Two weeks ago, a study was released by doctors at Glasgow University showing that 464,000 deaths had been caused over the last 30 years by the NHS in Scotland and that "the vast majority of people - around 250,000 - who died due to inadequate or delayed treatment were heart or stroke patients".

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 9:18 am Post subject:

Quote:

To contain costs, governments restrict your access to life-saving treatment. In countries with such �universal coverage,� patients die waiting for treatment.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal reports that in one year, 71 Ontario patients died while waiting for coronary bypass surgery and over one hundred more became �medically unfit for surgery.� The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports that �109 people had a heart attack or suffered heart failure while on the waiting list. Fifty of those patients died.�

This week the Globe and Mail reported that

Inside Sylvia de Vries lurked an enormous tumour and fluid totalling 18 kilograms. But not even that massive weight gain and a diagnosis of ovarian cancer could assure her timely treatment in Canada.

She sought treatment in the United States, as do Canadians in need of intensive care and emergency cardiac care.

�Physicians across Canada are in an advanced stage of burnout due to work conditions� which �causes them to retire early�or simply leave,� a former Canadian Medical Association president told the New York Times. He �attributed much of the problem to technological shortages and the powerlessness doctors feel when patients complain about long waits for treatment.�

�Access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare,� wrote Canadian Chief Justice McLachlin when striking down legislation banning private insurance in 2005. Last year a New York Times headline read: �As Canada�s Slow-Motion Public Health System Falters, Private Medical Care Is Surging.�

And England? The BBC reports that �up to 500 heart patients die each year while they wait for potentially life-saving surgery.� The Times reports that a British woman �will be denied free National Health Service treatment for breast cancer if she seeks to improve her chances by paying privately for an additional drug.� A Daily Telegraph headline reads: �Sufferers pull out teeth due to lack of dentists.� �Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives,� reports another article.

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 9:21 am Post subject:

You're right DIsbel, it isn't scores and scores of people who die every year due to socialized medicine ... There are thousands of people who die every year due to socialized medicine. The evil, fascist-socialist dream of NHC is one of the world's leading causes of death.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 11:10 am Post subject:

DIsbell wrote:

wait, you guys actually believe that scores and scores of people in UHC countries die because of the dreaded Waiting List?

Yes, DIsbell, after reading ontheway's posts I actually believe it.

Quote:

I guess I often forget that this board is delusional.

At least if I were delusional, I could access a psychiatrist without waiting more than a day.

DIsbell

Joined: 15 Oct 2008

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 5:51 pm Post subject:

I hope you don't let a few anecdotes, which while some may be true/have some elements of truth, convince you of fringe lunacy. Those anecdotes plainly misrepresent the systems in place- don't you all recall the public outrage from Canada and Britain when the GOP mongrels started publicly bashing their healthcare systems? Not only that, both countries have higher rated healthcare than the US. And if you're looking for death statistics, the US has over 40k people dying every year due to lack of insurance, not to mention the suffering and lack of treatment that people who don't die go through.

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 5:55 pm Post subject:

DIsbell wrote:

I hope you don't let a few anecdotes, which while some may be true/have some elements of truth, convince you of fringe lunacy. Those anecdotes plainly misrepresent the systems in place- don't you all recall the public outrage from Canada and Britain when the GOP mongrels started publicly bashing their healthcare systems? Not only that, both countries have higher rated healthcare than the US.

And if you're looking for death statistics, the US has over 40k people dying every year due to lack of insurance, not to mention the suffering and lack of treatment that people who don't die go through.

I hate it when people say someone died through lack of insurance. It is stupid and imprecise. They died through lack of healthCARE not insurance. You can have care without insurance.

It's also a stupid tactic to write off something you don't agree with as "fringe lunacy".

DIsbell

Joined: 15 Oct 2008

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 7:01 pm Post subject:

if you can't get vital care, it's overwhelmingly because you don't have insurance. things that kill you aren't an in-and-out 200 dollar trip to the ER that most people could manage out of pocket, it's long term treatments or operations that exceed their typical purchasing power.... things that insurance is designed to cover. and yes, it is fringe lunacy to believe that the US provides better overall care than Britain/France/etc. Nowhere is there a perfect system, but it's damn clear who's doing it better.

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 7:58 pm Post subject:

DIsbell wrote:

Unfortunately, the current regulatory climate contributes to the high cost of medical care.

Quote:

and yes, it is fringe lunacy to believe that the US provides better overall care than Britain/France/etc. Nowhere is there a perfect system, but it's damn clear who's doing it better.

Whatever. It's more lunatic to believe that govt bureaucrats can solve all of our problems. They have a dismal record in doing even the simple things. Meanwhile, freer markets have raised the standard of living for EVERY person in the developed world. Yet we hear people saying things like "the market failed", "we need govt intervention" etc.

There are simple regulatory changes the US govt can make that would improve the situation almost over night. The govt increasing its influence over health will only worsen the situation. This is a fact in every other market. Where govt has interfered, outcomes have become worse. There is no reason to believe it will be any different here.

DIsbell

Joined: 15 Oct 2008

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 9:52 pm Post subject:

Those French bureaucrats are doing a much better job than our corporate-owned obstructionist elected officials. And it's amazing how markets have done no wrongs or had no shortcomings in your mind. Free marketeers like to take all the credit for the good, but always fall back on "well it's not a free market" when the bad comes out. You'd be surprised at the amount of government involved in our post-industrial revolution quality of life upgrades.

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:44 pm Post subject:

DIsbell wrote:

Those French bureaucrats are doing a much better job than our corporate-owned obstructionist elected officials.

And it's amazing how markets have done no wrongs or had no shortcomings in your mind. Free marketeers like to take all the credit for the good, but always fall back on "well it's not a free market" when the bad comes out. You'd be surprised at the amount of government involved in our post-industrial revolution quality of life upgrades.

The French system just like most other national health care systems is on the verge of bankruptcy. They offer care to "everyone" but in an incredibly wasteful and expensive fashion.

Would you like to give some examples of how govt action has made every person in society better off? Where markets have been allowed a freer rein, the price of goods in those markets have tended towards zero. The market for computer products and cars are a good example. We have to work exponentially shorter hours to be able to afford those items compared with 50 years ago.

Meanwhile the price per unit in heavily regulated areas such as health has remained stagnant rather than dropping like in other less regulated areas.

Markets are not perfect. Nothing in life is. But the fact remains thatGovts can only redistribute the amount of output in society. It is impossible for direct govt intervention to increase output.

DIsbell

Joined: 15 Oct 2008

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 11:22 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Would you like to give some examples of how govt action has made every person in society better off?

Satellites, education (primary through university), roads, computers, transportation, healthcare, creating safety/health standards for products and occupations, fire departments, libraries, scientific and medical research, etc and so on.

In the middle, negotiating trade deals, fostering diplomacy among nations to that same end, providing certain degrees of protectionism so that after a country rapidly industrializes and starts shifting out of a production/export economy there are still viable industries in place, providing contracts to private companies allowing them funds to do otherwise market-unfriendly R&D, correcting flaws/shortsightedness/oversights of markets, maintaining liquidity for fast-paced economies that serve growing populations, etc.

Now of course there have been mistakes in some of those areas, but just stop pretending government/collectivized efforts have never been responsible for anything good or worthwhile in the history of man.

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 11:33 pm Post subject:

Quote:

[quote="DIsbell"]

Quote:

Would you like to give some examples of how govt action has made every person in society better off?

Most of which would be provided by the market if only private competitors weren't squeezed out by a virtual monopoly operator who isn't compelled to charge market rates as they are subsidised by the tax payer.

Quote:

In the middle, negotiating trade deals,

Trade deals wouldn't be necessary if there were free markets between regions. Those trade deals need to be negotiated because of govt actions.

Quote:

fostering diplomacy among nations to that same end,

Again, dismantling govt erected barriers.

Quote:

providing certain degrees of protectionism so that after a country rapidly industrializes and starts shifting out of a production/export economy there are still viable industries in place,

Protectionism is bad in all its forms. If countries shift out of a "production/export economy", what do they shift into?

Quote:

providing contracts to private companies allowing them funds to do otherwise market-unfriendly R&D, correcting flaws/shortsightedness/oversights of markets, maintaining liquidity for fast-paced economies that serve growing populations, etc.

Private charities should fund "market unfriendly research". How can govts know which R&D projects will be a success? They can only mis-allocate capital by attempting to do this.

Quote:

Now of course there have been mistakes in some of those areas, but just stop pretending government/collectivized efforts have never been responsible for anything good or worthwhile in the history of man.

Of course govts pouring other peoples money into projects is going to yield results. Even the blind yak gets a drink sometimes.

Just wanted to change this to "Even the broken clock is right twice a day."

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:05 am Post subject:

DIsbell wrote:

if you can't get vital care, it's overwhelmingly because you don't have insurance. things that kill you aren't an in-and-out 200 dollar trip to the ER that most people could manage out of pocket, it's long term treatments or operations that exceed their typical purchasing power.... things that insurance is designed to cover.

and yes, it is fringe lunacy to believe that the US provides better overall care than Britain/France/etc. Nowhere is there a perfect system, but it's damn clear who's doing it better.

DIsbell, you're living in a fantasy land.

The US has far and away the best Health Care System in the world.

The US has the best technology, treatments, drugs, therapies ... decades ahead of every other nation. All evidence and every honest evaluation and study admits this. Wealthy individuals and government officials travel by the tens of thousands from every country of the world every year to the US to get this top health care.

When the statistics for life expectancy, infant mortality etc. are adjusted for demographic factors (Population age, sex, ethnic heritage, and cultural habits external to the provision of health care) the US comes out on top. The socialists have used phony numbers for years that did not reflect scientific reality.

Americans spend more per capita on health care for several reasons:

1) Government regulations have doubled the cost of health care. This alone accounts for the US having higher costs.
2) People in the US are wealthy by international standards and historical standards and many individuals have determined that they wish to spend their wealth on health care, even though the government has caused the price to be double what it should be. They choose high cost procedures and high cost insurance policies because that is what they want. The people want better health care and they are willing to spend their own money to get it. This is an essential element of a free society. Freedom to choose.
3) Some Americans do not want to spend as much of their wealth on health care. These comprise the majority of the uninsured. They can afford insurance but prefer to buy other things.
4) Since most Americans choose to spend a large amount on their personal and family health care and insurance, this outweighs those who do not so choose and so Americans spend more than other nations, for better care than people get in other nations, by choice.

Separate from the Health Care System is how to pay for health care:

US health care could be made less than half of its current price just by getting the government out of the regulatory business in HC. This alone would mean that HC would cost half of what it does and more Americans could choose to be insured. Insurance rates would fall by half.

But, more importantly, the insurance industry is regulated to the point of increasing the cost of real health insurance by 5 times its free market price. Insurance providers need to be allowed to offer catastrophic coverage only, and compete across state lines.

The Income Tax has also caused a massive market distortion in pushing insurance to be provided through employers. This is bad for consumers and has prevented the creation of what is needed: Whole Life Health Insurance from Birth to Death (of course, for catastrophic coverages). This is not available because of the Income Tax and government regulation.

The upshot is that Whole Life, non-cancellable, catastrophic health insurance policies could be available in the free market for less than 10% of today's insurance costs.

Allowing the free market to provide and price health care would cut the cost of health care in half (in constant dollars).

Allowing the free market to provide and price health insurance along with repeal of all taxes on income, would allow the cost of health insurance to fall 90% (in constant dollars).

Most people who currently choose to be uninsured would be likely to opt for insurance in a free market. Some would still choose to gamble. This, of course, is an essential element of a free society: people have the right to choose to smoke, drink, be fat, engage in high risk sports, or go uninsured. In the end the fascist-socialists want to tell us what to do. They want power, and they don't give a damn about the people.

Those few who are actually too poor to afford long term catastrophic health insurance at the free market price (10% of the current price) could easily be covered by private charitable institutions and free services offered by caring medical practioners.

Unfortunately, socialism prevents the market from providing what the people and the market want.

Thousands of scientific studies (many are summarized above in previous posts) show the NHC countries limit treatments, drugs, therapies and care available to their citizens to reduce costs.

NHC countries refuse to allow new and expensive health care to enter their system and ration care. Thousands of people are dying every year in the NHC countries. If they are poor or middle class, they have already been heavily taxed and have few resources left to seek their own care outside the system. And still, tens of thousands of them do, fleeing to America to get treatment.

At the same time, the Socialist NHC systems teeter constantly on the verge of bankruptcy - rationing service and preventing improvements to limit runaway costs.

They only survive due to the direct and indirect subsidies from the American people to the NHC countries in the tens of billions of dollars per year. If the US ever adopted NHC, or repealed its subsidies, all of the world's NHC systems would quickly collapse.

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:57 am Post subject:

DIsbell wrote:

Quote:

Would you like to give some examples of how govt action has made every person in society better off?

What socialist nonsense you believe DIzzybell.

Satellites: are built by private industry, other than military, most are owned and operated by private industry, and although NASA has spent a lot of taxpayer money, it was private people and private contractors who did the creation and construction. It all could have been done cheaper and more efficiently if the government had stayed out of space. In the next two decades, the private sector will outstrip NASA and earn a profit. If the government had stayed out, if we'd had no income tax, no socialism and no NASA, we'd be way ahead of where we are today.

Education (primary through university): government schools are terrible and teach little compared to what could be taught in the same number of years. Although US schools are somewhat better due to school district competition, this is limited and the lack of free market competition in education has caused sytemic lack of quality in education in America and every country of the world. The quality of education in the best hogwans in Korea far exceeds the quality of any public school system in the world.

Costs are vastly inflated, especially at universities due to government distortions in the market for faculty and students. Government taxes prevent individuals from earning enough to pay for themselves and families, and government subsidies cause overconsumption and price insensitivity causing higher than market rates for salaries and costs by the providers and higher tuition and fees for students.

Roads & transportation: are such a disaster that I've written extensively on this in the past. The massive misallocation of resources and malinvestment has caused trillions of dollars to be wasted on the wrong infrastructure. Pollution, long commutes, lost family time, high costs, lack of community, poor health, overconsumption of fossil fuels, overconsumtion of energy, overspending on unneeded transport, energy shortages, wars for oil - OMG this is one of the greatest failures in the history of the world - the Socialists have really screwed the pooch on this one.

Computers including the internet were nearly 100% created in the free market. The government contributed very little including little money. In fact, the government has been behind the curve in computerizing its own operations and if anything it their needed but inefficient operations had been transfered to the private sector (education or mail delivery for example) we would have seen even faster development of the computer and internet industries.

Healthcare: government has caused all of our problems. See previous post.

Creating safety/health standards for products and occupations: This is much better handled by quality competition, demand for greater health and safety by individuals as living standards rise, industry groups, private ratings groups, private quality guarantee organizations, liability insurance company incentives for health and safety, high litigation costs and damage awards against bad firms, and failure and bankruptcy for those who don't provide the levels of health and safety demanded by individuals in the market.

fire departments: Small potatoes in the whole marketplace, but a large percentage of fire departments are volunteer and nearly free market providers today. Studies done years ago showed that free market fire departments work better.

libraries: Really small potatoes, and just wrong. Free market libraries are much better. Donations and user fees will provide better libraries that provide services that match the desires of the public consumers of library services. Libraries will expand the areas that are valued by their customers, and become more efficient and more useful to the public. Remember that these can be non-profit entities and still be a part of the free market. When freed from the dead hand of government and politics they will avoid the government censorship that has plagued many public libraries as well.

scientific and medical research: is much better handled in the free market. Free market participants including: private individuals, private research institutes and universities, non-profit and for-profit firms can and do develop most new inventions, new products, scientific advancements, medical and drug advancements. By repealing all taxes on income, inheritance and property we can greatly expand this scientific advance without supporting the dead weight of government that is dragging down the advancement of mankind.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:43 pm Post subject:

A more healthy people would mean a much less expensive system:

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/jan2009_Millions-of-Needless-Deaths_01.htm

Quote:

Billions of Dollars in Health Care Savings

There are 920,000 heart attacks suffered in the United States every year.4 According to the American Heart Association, the annual cost of health care services, medications, and lost productivity related to these heart attacks is over $156 billion.4

The annual retail cost of all 300 million Americans (including children) supplementing with 1,000 IU of vitamin D per day is $6.6 billion.

So if vitamin D�s only benefit was to reduce coronary heart attack rates by 142%, the net savings (after deducting the cost of the vitamin D) if every American supplemented properly would be around $84 billion each year. That�s enough to put a major dent in the health care cost crisis that is forecast to bankrupt Medicare and many private insurance plans.
Sparing Countless Numbers From the Agonies of Cancer

The evidence supporting the role of vitamin D in preventing common forms of cancer is now overwhelming.2

Sparing Countless Numbers From the Agonies of Cancer

Vitamin D-deficient women, for example, have a 253% increased risk of colon cancer.6 Colon cancer strikes 145,000 Americans each year and 53,580 die from it.7 Based on these studies, if everyone obtained enough vitamin D, 38,578 lives could be saved and medical costs would be reduced by $3.89 billion.8,9

A study published in January 2008 showed that women with the lowest level of vitamin D were at a 222% increased risk for developing breast cancer.10 Most studies show that higher levels of vitamin D can reduce breast cancer incidence by around 30-50%.11-14

Each year, approximately 186,800 women are diagnosed with breast cancer and 40,950 perish from it in the United States.15 This needless toll of suffering and death caused by insufficient intake of vitamin D is unconscionable.

Prostate cancer will be diagnosed in an estimated 189,000 American men this year. Almost 30,000 will die from it.16 Men with higher levels of vitamin D have a 52% reduced incidence of prostate cancer.17

The first-year costs of prostate cancer treatment are approximately $14,540.18 If all aging men achieved sufficient vitamin D status, about $1.4 billion could be saved each year.

So as you can see, there is no real health care cost crisis. What the population suffers from is frighteningly low blood levels of vitamin D. During winter months in Canada, for instance, an estimated 97% of the population is vitamin D-deficient.19
Vitamin D Protects Against Stroke

Stroke is the number three cause of death in the United States.20 It is also one of the most feared diseases because of its high incidence of permanent disability.

In a study published in September 2008, blood indicators of vitamin D status were measured in 3,316 patients with suspected coronary artery disease. The subjects were followed for 7.75 years. For every small decrease in blood indicators of vitamin D status, there was a startling 86% increase in the number of fatal strokes.21

The doctors who conducted this study concluded: �Low levels of 25(OH)D* and 1,25(OH)2D* are independently predictive for fatal strokes, suggesting that vitamin D supplementation is a promising approach in the prevention of strokes.�21

*Note: 25 [OH] D and 1,25[OH]2D are blood markers that measure vitamin D status in one�s body.

If all that vitamin D did was to reduce stroke risk, it would be critically important for every American to ensure optimal blood levels.
Low Vitamin D Doubles Death Rate

Vitamin D deficiency is a worldwide problem. Yet no conventional medical organization or governmental body has declared a health emergency to warn the public about the urgent need of achieving sufficient vitamin D blood levels.
Low Vitamin D Doubles Death Rate

According to John Jacob Cannell, MD, founder of the non-profit Vitamin D Counsel: �Current research indicates vitamin D deficiency plays a role in causing seventeen varieties of cancer as well as heart disease, stroke, hypertension, autoimmune diseases, diabetes, depression, chronic pain, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, muscle weakness, muscle wasting, birth defects, and periodontal disease.

This does not mean that vitamin D deficiency is the only cause of these diseases, or that you will not get them if you take vitamin D. What it does mean is that vitamin D, and the many ways in which it affects a person�s health, can no longer be overlooked by the health care industry nor by individuals striving to achieve and maintain a greater state of health.�22

Vitamin D seems to reduce the risk of almost every killer disease of aging. In fact, a recent study shows that humans with low vitamin D status are twice as likely to die over a seven-year time period!5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GM0CnO6-ds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FMlQeH8RFA

Vids from UCSD. Not quacks. Vitamin d supplementation is cheap.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
Page 9 of 10

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe