|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:00 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| the fact is, there are many potentially lethal diseases and medical conditions that can be easily treated if detected early enough. There are many other conditions which can be treated at great expense, but which could have been treated more easily and cheaply if detected early. People without health insurance often don't get preventative medicine, routine health screenings and treatment of minor symptoms which could indicate more serious conditions. Ron Paul may be correct that hospitals can and do treat patients who don't have insurance or the ability to pay, but if the uninsured avoid medical treatment because of the expense, and only go to the hospital when they are forced to by the seriousness of their condition, the free treatment that the hospitals may provide is likely to be less successful and incredibly more expensive. Since the uninsured cannot pay for this expensive treatment, it ends up being paid for by the higher prices that everyone else must pay so that the hospital can stay in business. Providing free preventative medicine would be much cheaper than providing the free treatment of advanced conditions that hospitals often end up giving. And uninsured patients sometimes do die if the do not receive their free treatment soon enough. |
And in the meantime there are upwards of a million Britons waiting for access to NHS services, and in Sweden the average wait time for hip replacement surgery is 1 year (and for heart surgery it can take up to 25 weeks).
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/05/opinion/oe-tanner5 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
johnnyenglishteacher2
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
And in the meantime there are upwards of a million Britons waiting for access to NHS services, and in Sweden the average wait time for hip replacement surgery is 1 year (and for heart surgery it can take up to 25 weeks).
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/05/opinion/oe-tanner5 |
What are the figures for the USA? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| smee18 wrote: |
| To the OP: Don't be ashamed of humanity, be ashamed of America, the only country in the developed world to not have universal healthcare. |
This whole blog is forgetting one thing and misconstruing medical care in the US. Public and private hospitals are required to give medical care to patients if the patient is in risk of dying, being permanently disabled, or being permanently maimed by Act of Congress. Emergency care givers such as ambulances must attend to people based on the seriousness of the condition first, not on whether or not they can pay, or whether or not they look like their unable to pay, or they're bums, even though many of them are privately owned. This includes Air Ambulances. I have seen people with no insurance and probably no money get helicopters procured for them, immediately. I know for a fact that in the state that I lived in, if you needed a million dollar drug to possibly stay alive, the State University hospital procured the drug period, no questions asked about age or the individual or whether or not society thought it was worth it. They had to by law. I am not so sure this is the case in other western countries with free medical care like Britian, Sweden etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| catman wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Italy is #2, yet in 2006, Silvio Berlusconi travelled all the way to the Great Satan to receive heart surgery. Why was that? |
Because he is rich.
The US has the best healthcare in the world. Just not the best healthcare system. |
Correction:
The US has the best healthcare in the world. It would be even better if the government would butt out and stop trying to regulate and micromanage it.
The US has the best healthcare system in the world, other than the government portion.
The US healthcare system is open and accessable to all.
What confuses people is ability to pay. This is a separate issue. People are also confused by the concept of "insurance" and usually don't want insurance, they just want someone else to pay for something they can and should buy for themselves.
The overwhelming majority of the population can afford health care despite the deleterious effects of socialism in the US. Most choose to be covered by insurance, but others opt out due to the high cost and unnecessary coverages - the cost of insurance is also more than double due to government regulations.
Government regulation has also caused healthcare costs to be more than double what they would be in a free market. Government subsidies have driven up demand for unnecessary services causing demand increases (a shift in the demand curve) driving up prices even more.
Massive socialism (including taxation of incomes and property, regulation and minimum wage laws) has caused poverty, unemployment and reduced the US standard of living by 90% from where it would have been had the government stayed out.
All of these effects of the fascist-socialist government are in constant dollars. Of course the Fed has inflated the currency (the dollar has lost nearly 99% of its value since its inception) and this has had additional negative effects on the whole economy, including health care.
So, without the government:
Health care costs would be half of what they are.
This would make insurance half as well, but insurance regs also caused insuarance costs to be double, so in a free market, insurance for health care would be 1/4 of today's costs. And in a free market, US average income would be 10 times what it is today.
In a free market there are few who can not afford health care and more than enough private charity options to take care of them.
The problem with healthcare in the US is too much socialism. |
Tell me how does government regulation cause drug companies to spend more on advertisements than on medical research, how is it that European pharma is able to produce more new medications than [/quote]
US pharma? How is it that my friend is able to get two months supply of asthma medication for about $200, yet in the US one months worth of the medication goes for $850? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnnyenglishteacher2
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| catman wrote: |
| 3.Yet, the US ranks 26th in infant mortality and 24th in the number of healthy years a person can expect to live - putting America�s healthcare system in the company of Cuba and Slovenia rather than Canada and Western European nations. |
Homicide rates? Diet?
What ever criticisms one might have of Americans' love of hamburgers, or American gun laws, life expectancy has little to do with healthcare. |
A valid point, but then on the other hand there are far more smokers in Europe than the USA.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Italy is #2, yet in 2006, Silvio Berlusconi travelled all the way to the Great Satan to receive heart surgery. Why was that? |
Because he could jump the queue? If you ever go to Hungary, visit a town called Mosonmagyarovar. It's just over the border from Austria, and the high street is full of dentists - about 25% of the businesses. This doesn't mean that Hungary has a better health system than Austria. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
| smee18 wrote: |
| To the OP: Don't be ashamed of humanity, be ashamed of America, the only country in the developed world to not have universal healthcare. |
This whole blog is forgetting one thing and misconstruing medical care in the US. Public and private hospitals are required to give medical care to patients if the patient is in risk of dying, being permanently disabled, or being permanently maimed by Act of Congress. Emergency care givers such as ambulances must attend to people based on the seriousness of the condition first, not on whether or not they can pay, or whether or not they look like their unable to pay, or they're bums, even though many of them are privately owned. This includes Air Ambulances. I have seen people with no insurance and probably no money get helicopters procured for them, immediately. I know for a fact that in the state that I lived in, if you needed a million dollar drug to possibly stay alive, the State University hospital procured the drug period, no questions asked about age or the individual or whether or not society thought it was worth it. They had to by law. I am not so sure this is the case in other western countries with free medical care like Britian, Sweden etc. |
Right. So we are required by law to spend whatever it takes to treat near death patients, but we're too stupid and cheap to pay for a routine medical exam that could have prevented the medical emergency. Let's wait until gangrene has set in and the hospital has to amputate the leg for free instead of getting that simple infection treated immediately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnnyenglishteacher2
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| Right. So we are required by law to spend whatever it takes to treat near death patients, but we're too stupid and cheap to pay for a routine medical exam that could have prevented the medical emergency. Let's wait until gangrene has set in and the hospital has to amputate the leg for free instead of getting that simple infection treated immediately. |
Please say this to a Tea Partier. And film the response. Then put it on youtube. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| young_clinton wrote: |
| smee18 wrote: |
| To the OP: Don't be ashamed of humanity, be ashamed of America, the only country in the developed world to not have universal healthcare. |
This whole blog is forgetting one thing and misconstruing medical care in the US. Public and private hospitals are required to give medical care to patients if the patient is in risk of dying, being permanently disabled, or being permanently maimed by Act of Congress. Emergency care givers such as ambulances must attend to people based on the seriousness of the condition first, not on whether or not they can pay, or whether or not they look like their unable to pay, or they're bums, even though many of them are privately owned. This includes Air Ambulances. I have seen people with no insurance and probably no money get helicopters procured for them, immediately. I know for a fact that in the state that I lived in, if you needed a million dollar drug to possibly stay alive, the State University hospital procured the drug period, no questions asked about age or the individual or whether or not society thought it was worth it. They had to by law. I am not so sure this is the case in other western countries with free medical care like Britian, Sweden etc. |
Right. So we are required by law to spend whatever it takes to treat near death patients, but we're too stupid and cheap to pay for a routine medical exam that could have prevented the medical emergency. Let's wait until gangrene has set in and the hospital has to amputate the leg for free instead of getting that simple infection treated immediately. |
Well, I agree. Single-payer with some reasonable co-pays. The gov't is already in the business of healthcare, and it should go all in. We can't let people die, and the reality is we don't, medicare or medicaid picks them up. We would get more for the money if everyone was insured and everyone was paying into the system. Obamacare is a push towards this direction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Well, I agree. Single-payer with some reasonable co-pays. The gov't is already in the business of healthcare, and it should go all in. |
Socialist!
| Kuros wrote: |
| We can't let people die, and the reality is we don't, |
The reality is that the uninsured sometimes avoid medical treatment until it is too late and as a result sometimes do die.
| Kuros wrote: |
| medicare or medicaid picks them up. |
People on medicare or medicaid are insured. The uninsured have neither.
| Kuros wrote: |
| We would get more for the money if everyone was insured and everyone was paying into the system. Obamacare is a push towards this direction. |
Well, I agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Well, I agree. Single-payer with some reasonable co-pays. The gov't is already in the business of healthcare, and it should go all in. |
Socialist!
| Kuros wrote: |
| We can't let people die, and the reality is we don't, |
The reality is that the uninsured sometimes avoid medical treatment until it is too late and as a result sometimes do die.
| Kuros wrote: |
| medicare or medicaid picks them up. |
People on medicare or medicaid are insured. The uninsured have neither.
|
The poor, and especially their children (through SCHIP), are already eligible for medicaid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312009/watch.html) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blade wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| catman wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Italy is #2, yet in 2006, Silvio Berlusconi travelled all the way to the Great Satan to receive heart surgery. Why was that? |
Because he is rich.
The US has the best healthcare in the world. Just not the best healthcare system. |
Correction:
The US has the best healthcare in the world. It would be even better if the government would butt out and stop trying to regulate and micromanage it.
The US has the best healthcare system in the world, other than the government portion.
The US healthcare system is open and accessable to all.
What confuses people is ability to pay. This is a separate issue. People are also confused by the concept of "insurance" and usually don't want insurance, they just want someone else to pay for something they can and should buy for themselves.
The overwhelming majority of the population can afford health care despite the deleterious effects of socialism in the US. Most choose to be covered by insurance, but others opt out due to the high cost and unnecessary coverages - the cost of insurance is also more than double due to government regulations.
Government regulation has also caused healthcare costs to be more than double what they would be in a free market. Government subsidies have driven up demand for unnecessary services causing demand increases (a shift in the demand curve) driving up prices even more.
Massive socialism (including taxation of incomes and property, regulation and minimum wage laws) has caused poverty, unemployment and reduced the US standard of living by 90% from where it would have been had the government stayed out.
All of these effects of the fascist-socialist government are in constant dollars. Of course the Fed has inflated the currency (the dollar has lost nearly 99% of its value since its inception) and this has had additional negative effects on the whole economy, including health care.
So, without the government:
Health care costs would be half of what they are.
This would make insurance half as well, but insurance regs also caused insuarance costs to be double, so in a free market, insurance for health care would be 1/4 of today's costs. And in a free market, US average income would be 10 times what it is today.
In a free market there are few who can not afford health care and more than enough private charity options to take care of them.
The problem with healthcare in the US is too much socialism. |
Tell me how does government regulation cause drug companies to spend more on advertisements than on medical research, how is it that European pharma is able to produce more new medications than
US pharma? How is it that my friend is able to get two months supply of asthma medication for about $200, yet in the US one months worth of the medication goes for $850? |
1) The cost of meeting regulatory approval is the primary hinderance to bringing new drugs on the market. Many nations, including some in Europe, have much easier rules than in the US, which makes it more likely that new drugs will appear there first. Generally these are introduced by the European affiliates, partners or subsidiaries of US drug companies, or the European parent of an American drug company. In some cases, drugs are never introduced in the US because the cost of meeting FDA approval rules. In many areas, such as this example, the US is more socialistic than some or even all, European nations.
Ease of approval increases drug availability. National health care reduces drug availability. Which element prevails depends on specific details, country by country, company by company, item by item. Of course, this complexity also reduces drug availability for everyone.
2) Advertising expenditures commonly generate a large enough increase in sales to cause prices to be lower, not higher as you wrongly assume. Increased sales allows fixed costs and sunk costs to be spread over the larger number of items sold and thus results in both lower prices for the products advertised and higher profits for the business.
3) Some country's laws do set caps on prices. In many cases the cost is subsidized by the taxpayers of that country. In others, the drug company can sell there at the lower price because it sells at the marginal cost of additional production and lets the US market pay the fixed costs and sunk costs.
The fact that the medical market allows developers of new drugs and new medical devices to cover their full costs by not regulating price is essential to the entire market for these devices. Essentially, US citizens are subsidizing the socialize medical care of other nations. If the US adopted the same restrictions and same socialized medicine, the medical systems of the entire world would fester, cease to advance and eventually collapse.
As it is, the medical systems of the socialized health care countries have resulted in lower quality care, waiting lists and denial of treatment. As a result the US has a booming health care industry for the treatment of foreign patients. This adds to the total cost of medical care in the US statistics and makes the US costs look higher than they really are, because the US is treating tens of thousands of individuals denied care in their home socialized systems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lithium
Joined: 18 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
This is such crap - watch the whole response he gives (not the short clip, deliberately edited to cut him off right at the moment the heckler calls out). The attention the self-righteous Left is giving to this is total, stinking propaganda.
Ron Paul explains that when he was a doctor, they never turned people away. Doctors do pro bono work, just like other professionals. Worst case is you treat the person and send them a bill (expecting that a certain number will not pay it back) - you don't just leave them there to die  That the left is even using this as a talking point is asinine.
Here's the full response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4Am2bWQRNw&feature=related |
Well said, but why would non-republicans use logic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
