View Full Version : Obama Failed for Now
If you believe in single payer health care of course.
Since I am definitely a believer in "creeping socialism"-which is the only way to enact common good, social legislation in this country, single payer is a bit more achievable by the AFC.
Single payer-as practiced by all developed countries in the western civilized world is no doubt a better system, and in many cases includes the private sector.
http://pnhp.org/blog/2013/07/31/friedman-analysis-of-hr-676-medicare-for-all-would-save-billions/
Friedman analysis of HR 676: Medicare for All would save billions
Upgrading the nation’s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield over a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.
That’s the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.........
............................
Here is a rundown on how it's done covering other Civilized countries, none of which are communist or socialist, but mixtures of free markets and social legislation I WILL ONLY POST ONE. Many more are summarized in the wikki article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care#Worldwide_health_care_systems
Worldwide health care systems
Australia......
Health care in Australia is provided by both private and government institutions. The Minister for Health, currently Peter Dutton, administers national health policy, elements of which (such as the operation of hospitals) are overseen by individual states. The current system, known as Medicare, was instituted in 1984 and coexists with a private health system. Medicare is funded partly by a 1.5% income tax levy (with exceptions for low-income earners), but mostly out of general revenue. An additional levy of 1% is imposed on high-income earners without private health insurance. As well as Medicare, there is a separate Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that considerably subsidises a range of prescription medication
Tort reform and allowing buying across state lines - two obvious cost cutting measures that were never addressed - would have done a lot for HC costs.
The goal of ACA is NOT better health care for anyone - is is control over us by the government.
Pro-choice only applies to killing babies, not to saving them.
Btw, we are NOT Australia - apples and oranges....again.
dartman51
10-10-2013, 04:02 PM
I don't care which side your bread is buttered on, ANYONE, who thinks that the ACA (ObamaCare), has anything to do with those "poor 30 million uninsured Americans", is a F@&%*$g MORON. :ThmbUp:
Dave Schwartz
10-10-2013, 04:19 PM
LOL - HCP, I just love your new strategy, with these negative topic names.
Getting out in front of the bad news so that you can spin it before anybody else gets a chance to even talk about it also seems to be a good strategy for "your guy."
Clocker
10-10-2013, 04:20 PM
Since I am definitely a believer in "creeping socialism"
You misspelled "creepy".
Turn your spell check on. HTH.
highnote
10-10-2013, 07:25 PM
Tort reform and allowing buying across state lines - two obvious cost cutting measures that were never addressed - would have done a lot for HC costs.
The goal of ACA is NOT better health care for anyone - is is control over us by the government.
I don't know much about the Tort Reform issues, but I do know that being able to buy across state lines would definitely help lower costs by increasing competition.
I never understood why a capitalist country allows insurance and cable TV cartels/monopolies.
LOL - HCP, I just love your new strategy, with these negative topic names.
Getting out in front of the bad news so that you can spin it before anybody else gets a chance to even talk about it also seems to be a good strategy for "your guy."THNKS DVE!
Are you trying to head me off at the pass? :cool: :cool: That too is a good strategy.
You misspelled "creepy".
Turn your spell check on. HTH.I wanted to use "creepy, I would have started another thread about the TeePeers :lol:
Ocala Mike
10-10-2013, 07:46 PM
Jeez, hcap, when I saw a reference to Friedman, I thought Milton had risen from the dead to bless "Medicare for all"; fat chance!
Anyway, for those keeping score, it is apparent that the R's have thrown in the towel on defunding Obamacare and are about to come in from the cold on the debt ceiling issue. There remains the nasty little problem of getting the electricity turned back on for the government, which the D's are rightly considering a threshold issue. Prediction - crisis over by the 15th as the R's tally their losses in the polls.
If anyone thinks that there will be significant loss of blood at the ballot box for them in 2014, I further predict (in the words of one Harry Reid), "not gonna happen," thanks to gerrymandering.
Jeez, hcap, when I saw a reference to Friedman, I thought Milton had risen from the dead to bless "Medicare for all"; fat chance!
Anyway, for those keeping score, it is apparent that the R's have thrown in the towel on defunding Obamacare and are about to come in from the cold on the debt ceiling issue. There remains the nasty little problem of getting the electricity turned back on for the government, which the D's are rightly considering a threshold issue. Prediction - crisis over by the 15th as the R's tally their losses in the polls.
If anyone thinks that there will be significant loss of blood at the ballot box for them in 2014, I further predict (in the words of one Harry Reid), "not gonna happen," thanks to gerrymandering.Sorry, I just copied the title of the article and a few paragraphs. If M Friedman said it instead of G Friedman I would then be held responsible for an incalculable number of deaths here on PA off topic, not including exploding heads :cool:
Gerrmandering is a rethug strength, and mid term elections usualy go to the opposition, but the rethugs have damaged their brand even further, and although the numbers in both houses will probably be close to where they are now, the outcome I think will be an improvement for the Dems. And will make it easier for President Clinton to win in 2016.
Nice that Obama and hcap are to scared of what the real effects of nO-Care will be that it has to be delayed until after the elections. No balls.
How come you guys are CHICKEN to roll it out now, as the law calls for?
What is it now the official babble hour for orangutans? Please clarify what your latest post(whatever it is?) is babbling about. In English please and not shorthand Orangutese. :)
You are losing it....fast.
You meant of course Fast has already lost it. :) You are one dishonest monkey and a very poor debater.
How does one win a debate with a delusional opponent?
you are teflon to the truth. Facts bounce off you like bullets off Superman.
You fly off the handle faster than a speeding bullet.
You are able to leap to the wrong conclusions in a single bound.
Look, up in the sky.
It's a bird.
It's a plane.
It's.......reality, over your head!
Hmmmm, your red face paint seems to be on your chest!
Cheer up, you are still #1 in my book!
You still lose on the issues. No doubt
BlueShoe
10-10-2013, 11:07 PM
Cappy must be slipping. Seven posts so far in this thread and not even one chart. :eek: Somehow he is just not the same when all he posts is gibberish from liberaland without the chart gibberish that only he can understand. :( ;)
fast4522
10-12-2013, 04:38 PM
Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/10/11/tavis-smiley-black-people-will-have-lost-ground-every-single-economic#ixzz2hQqlEq3z
So you think all is well, good thing your in hiding in upstate.
Cappy must be slipping. Seven posts so far in this thread and not even one chart. :eek: Somehow he is just not the same when all he posts is gibberish from liberaland without the chart gibberish that only he can understand. :( ;)Already have. Probably dozens of times. For example
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/~/media/Images/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/jun/MM2010l.gif
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/Mirror-Mirror-Update.aspx?page=all
..Summary and Implications
The U.S. ranks last of seven nations overall. Findings in this report confirm many of those in the earlier three editions of Mirror, Mirror. As in the earlier editions, the U.S. ranks last on indicators of patient safety, efficiency, and equity. Australia and the U.K. continue to demonstrate superior performance. The Netherlands, which was included for the first time in this edition, ranked first overall. In the subcategories, the U.S. ranks first on preventive care, and is strong on waiting times for specialist care and nonemergency surgical care, but weak on access to needed services and ability to obtain prompt attention from primary care physicians.
Also lots of charts here....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/21-graphs-that-show-americas-health-care-prices-are-ludicrous/
Some of my conservative critics have extremely limited memories !:lol:
tucker6
10-15-2013, 07:22 AM
Hcap,
As with everything in life, it's in the definitions and details as to whether your chart accurately represents health care in those 7 countries. Having been to Europe many times and talking to the folks there, I suspect there is a disconnect from your chart and reality. I've heard dozens of stories about people coming to the US for treatment of serious illnesses. One executive retired so that he and his wife could move to the US for treatment of her cancer on his dime. Seems incongruous with the "facts" in your chart, which is why I suspect that the surveyors tortured the facts until they confessed.
Robert Goren
10-15-2013, 07:31 AM
Tort reform and allowing buying across state lines - two obvious cost cutting measures that were never addressed - would have done a lot for HC costs.
The goal of ACA is NOT better health care for anyone - is is control over us by the government.
Pro-choice only applies to killing babies, not to saving them.
Btw, we are NOT Australia - apples and oranges....again.While they would reduced premium cost, they would also lower the level coverage by the insurance companies and the level of care by doctors ending up costing the consumer in the long run. The ability to sue is the only way you have address a problem when someone screws you. If you allow insurance companies to sell across state lines, they will all move to one state, the one that makes it easiest for them to screw over the consumer.
Hcap,
As with everything in life, it's in the definitions and details as to whether your chart accurately represents health care in those 7 countries. Having been to Europe many times and talking to the folks there, I suspect there is a disconnect from your chart and reality. I've heard dozens of stories about people coming to the US for treatment of serious illnesses. One executive retired so that he and his wife could move to the US for treatment of her cancer on his dime. Seems incongruous with the "facts" in your chart, which is why I suspect that the surveyors tortured the facts until they confessed.And I have heard plenty of positive anecdotal stories. Canadians are very positive. Anecdotes however are not a substitute for the cold hard facts I linked to.
Post some contrary facts and studies. Showing we pay less and get better outcomes.
PS: You sound just as you do when debating climate Change :lol:
tucker6
10-15-2013, 08:49 AM
And I have heard plenty of positive anecdotal stories. Canadians are very positive. Anecdotes however are not a substitute for the cold hard facts I linked to.
Post some contrary facts and studies. Showing we pay less and get better outcomes.
PS: You sound just as you do when debating climate Change :lol:
likewise I'm sure. :lol:
likewise I'm sure. :lol:So, where are the competing studies and facts?
You could always drop Anthony Watts a line and see what he thinks :lol: :lol:
Saratoga_Mike
10-15-2013, 09:39 AM
Tort reform and allowing buying across state lines - two obvious cost cutting measures that were never addressed - would have done a lot for HC costs.
The goal of ACA is NOT better health care for anyone - is is control over us by the government.
Pro-choice only applies to killing babies, not to saving them.
Btw, we are NOT Australia - apples and oranges....again.
Good in theory - doesn't (generally) work in practice as managed care companies contract networks (e.g., hospitals/doctors) locally/regionally, not over huge swathes of the country. I guess over the long term that could change and your idea would be more feasible.
tucker6
10-15-2013, 10:40 AM
So, where are the competing studies and facts?
You could always drop Anthony Watts a line and see what he thinks :lol: :lol:
Since you asked nicely ...
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2009/6/v32n2-6.pdf
Since you asked nicely ...
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2009/6/v32n2-6.pdfIs there anything in this one paper that disputes the charts in this article from the WP?. Lets do it one step at a time. For instance ......
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/03/hospital-day-800x564.jpg
tucker6
10-15-2013, 06:52 PM
You asked and I answered. I note that you don't dispute the Cato report findings that people are overwhelmingly supportive of the current health care climate in the USA for themselves and their families. You simply bring up health care costs in rebuttal, which doesn't go to the core issues. A more unbiased observer might have asked whether the WP disputes anything in the Cato report?? I take it that you do but can't bring yourself to fib at this time. Good for you ...
Edit to add that you won't be seeing me fly to Argentina for health care treatment anytime soon. I doubt you'll be going either. Why you bring up cost as a metric for quality is beyond me.
A Canadian company installed the nO-Care computer system that has been a total embarrassment. Not only did Obama outsource the jobs, he picked a company with a history of utter failures. The Canadian government refuse to pay them for alleged "work" done after it failed.
Why you bring up cost as a metric for quality is beyond me.
1. It is all he has.
2. His email told him say that.
I have to admit I haven't really studied it yet, but just so you know Cato is unadbashedly a very conservative think tank. In fact if you do a google search the fist listing comed up as
"Cato Institute | Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace"
www.cato.org/
At least not as bad as The Heratage.org :cool:
Duh! Meanwhile a number of more neutral sites have said the opposite. And here is some proof that free markets may work indeed......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism#United_States
United States
A McKinsey and Co. report from 2008 found that between 60,000 to 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care.[79] The same McKinsey study estimated that 750,000 American medical tourists traveled from the United States to other countries in 2007 (up from 500,000 in 2006)
Costs are what is driving this trend. Although yes, Medical care is quite good here, it is expensive, and it is getting better around the world at much lower rates
The CDC does warn of the risks, but finding qualified doctors and institutions is doable.
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/page/medical-tourism
What You Can Do
If you are planning to travel to another country for medical care, see a travel medicine practitioner at least 4–6 weeks before the trip to discuss general information for healthy travel and specific risks related to the procedure and travel before and after the procedure.
Check for the qualifications of the health care providers who will be doing the procedure and the credentials of the facility where the procedure will be done. The Joint Commission International External Web Site Icon (US-based) certifies health care facilities according to specific standards.
They also list organizations that can help all who want to do this:
Guidance from Professional Organizations
Links on site
American Medical Association Guidelines on Medical Tourism Adobe PDF file [PDF - 20KB]External Web Site Icon
Organization for Safety, Asepsis, & Prevention's Travelers Guide to Safe Dental CareExternal Web Site Icon
The International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Guidelines for TravelersExternal Web Site Icon
Cosmetic Surgery Tourism Briefing PaperExternal Web Site Icon
CDC Yellow Book 2012 information on Medical Tourism
................................................
So without assuming everyone is so happy here , please explain by by free market principles (you gentlemen throw about as a religion), why the traffic away from the US to other countries is is approximately 12 x greater than vice versa, those coming here?
PS:http://www.jointcommission.org/accreditation/accreditation_main.aspx
Where one can resarch other choices
tucker6
10-15-2013, 09:26 PM
I have to admit I haven't really studied it yet, but just so you know Cato is unadbashedly a very conservative think tank.
You know HCAP, I baited the trap just waiting for you to go in for the free lunch, as is the wont of people on the left. You did not disappoint. :lol:
Let's not discuss facts. Let's discuss how they lean. :D
1. It is all he has.
2. His email told him say that.Actually my first graph rates ranking on quality as well
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/~/media/Images/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/jun/MM2010l.gif
You know HCAP, I baited the trap just waiting for you to go in for the free lunch, as is the wont of people on the left. You did not disappoint. :lol:
Let's not discuss facts. Let's discuss how they lean. :DMy,my, you sound just like JR who in his fervent imagination really thought he had played liberals here and they fell for his crock of 365/24/7 crapola posing madness here?. :lol: :lol: :bang: You baited what trap???? That I used the free market to cast serious doubt on how happy everyone is with their health care.? :D :D :D
And expect nO-Care to do nothing to improve any of that. nO-Care can do nothing but decrease quality of service. That is a fact, Jack.
And expect nO-Care to do nothing to improve any of that. nO-Care can do nothing but decrease quality of service. That is a fact, Jack.Short on facts, long on drooling today Tom :)
Another story on Medical tourism
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/health/for-medical-tourists-simple-math.html?_r=0
¶ Mr. Shopenn, 67, an architectural photographer and avid snowboarder, had been in such pain from arthritis that he could not stand long enough to make coffee, let alone work. He had health insurance, but it would not cover a joint replacement because his degenerative disease was related to an old sports injury, thus considered a pre-existing condition.
— Elisabeth Rosenthal, Reporter
¶ Desperate to find an affordable solution, he reached out to a sailing buddy with friends at a medical device manufacturer, which arranged to provide his local hospital with an implant at what was described as the “list price” of $13,000, with no markup. But when the hospital’s finance office estimated that the hospital charges would run another $65,000, not including the surgeon’s fee, he knew he had to think outside the box, and outside the country.
¶ “That was a third of my savings at the time,” Mr. Shopenn said recently from the living room of his condo in Boulder, Colo. “It wasn’t happening.”
¶ “Very leery” of going to a developing country like India or Thailand, which both draw so-called medical tourists, he ultimately chose to have his hip replaced in 2007 at a private hospital outside Brussels for $13,660. That price included not only a hip joint, made by Warsaw-based Zimmer Holdings, but also all doctors’ fees, operating room charges, crutches, medicine, a hospital room for five days, a week in rehab and a round-trip ticket from America.
.................................................. ......................
Just a few more facts for the liberal baiters to chew on. :cool:
Short on facts, long on drooling today Tom :)
Specifics - what will improve and how.
Specifics - what will improve and how.You post a few incoherent whines and never bother with any documentation.
I have already linked to factual documents from comprehensive articles in this thread and about 1/2 dozen other threads we have debated here before.
What about the discussion I just had with tucker6?
Pretty much uses the free market to demonstrate 12x as many go out of the country as come here as "medical tourists" and why. I have already posted 1 graph so far that ranks quality.
What have you posted? A whole lot of bitching and moaning :)
http://thehoopla.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/grandpa-simpson.jpg
You have posted hooey!
Limiting access to mammograms is an improvement?
I said specific things in nO-Care that will improve quality of health care.
I am saying there is nothing - in fact, the entire HC system will be degraded.
So forget your tourist graphs - maybe you can throw a life-line to Goren or Stinky.
What in the law will improve the quality of HC?
I agree that the AFC is not the ideal system. In fact I have already sid it was only the first step to a single payer system.
Post # 1
Since I am definitely a believer in "creeping socialism"-which is the only way to enact common good, social legislation in this country, single payer is a bit more achievable by the AFC.
Single payer-as practiced by all developed countries in the western civilized world is no doubt a better system, and in many cases includes the private sector.
So despite your complaining, about Obamacare, it will do until it gets a few work overs into "Medicare for all"
And despite all of the righties dire predictions about it's imminent demise it ain't going anywhere soon. Ted Cruz and buddies jumping up onto senate seats is worthless :)
tucker6
10-16-2013, 10:43 AM
I agree that the AFC is not the ideal system. In fact I have already sid it was only the first step to a single payer system.
Post # 1
So despite your complaining, about Obamacare, it will do until it gets a few work overs into "Medicare for all"
And despite all of the righties dire predictions about it's imminent demise it ain't going anywhere soon. Ted Cruz and buddies jumping up onto senate seats is worthless :)
so how many avoidable deaths are acceptable to you under ObamaCare until we get to the system you believe will be superior to the present system? Because really, that's what you are saying.
LottaKash
10-16-2013, 11:06 AM
So despite your complaining, about Obamacare, it will do until it gets a few work overs into "Medicare for all"
You are right again, we are "all" certainly, going to be "worked over", and very soon I think....
Then all your charts and stuff will quickly melt away, rendered meaningless....Leaving you wondering why you ever thought this would work to begin with...You trust the socialist too much hcap... I don't....Why would anyone believe that a person that never accomplished anything of significance while in public office, would suddenly turn that all around ?...Baloney !
tucker6
10-16-2013, 12:28 PM
Why would anyone believe that a person that never accomplished anything of significance since he was born, would suddenly turn that all around ?...Baloney !
fixed your post. You were giving waaaay too much credit to Obama. :)
There are plenty of anti-AFC threads on off topic already. This thread is about single payer and other well kn own similar plans throughout the civilized world.
LottaKash
10-16-2013, 02:32 PM
fixed your post. You were giving waaaay too much credit to Obama. :)
Thanks Tucker, I didn't want to say that he is a complete waste, even tho I think it....:lol:
There are plenty of anti-AFC threads on off topic already. This thread is about single payer and other well kn own similar plans throughout the civilized world.
And specifically, what will single payer do HERE to improve quality of health care? I reject the correlation to single payer and quality.
And specifically, what will single payer do HERE to improve quality of health care? I reject the correlation to single payer and quality.
I have posted that documented answer many time grampa.
http://thehoopla.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/grandpa-simpson.jpg
Thanks Tucker, I didn't want to say that he is a complete waste, even tho I think it....:lol:I wouldn't put too much faith in what tuucker has to say if I were you. He got taken out to the woodshed recently :cool: :lol:
Them again tucker I wouldn't put too much faith in what Lotta has to say. He was schooled there before you :D :D
tucker6
10-16-2013, 03:33 PM
I wouldn't put too much faith in what tuucker has to say if I were you. He got taken out to the woodshed recently :cool: :lol:
Them again tucker I wouldn't put too much faith in what Lotta has to say. He was schooled there before you :D :D
which woodshed was that??
Try answering the question. How many avoidable deaths is an acceptable outcome before Obamacare hits its stride in the transition from the high quality care we receive now? Don't be bashful. Just tell us.
You never told me how you trapped me into showing that by your own high-falutin' free market principles, 12 times as many US medical tourist seek out foreign medical facilities than foreign medical tourists seeking treatment here in the US
Answer that first. How was that a trap?
tucker6
10-16-2013, 04:04 PM
You never told me how you trapped me into showing that by your own high-falutin' free market principles, 12 times as many US medical tourist seek out foreign medical facilities than foreign medical tourists seeking treatment here in the US
Answer that first. How was that a trap?
I think you misconstrued my reference in that post. I wasn't talking about that. Now your turn ...
I have posted that documented answer many time grampa.
No, you have not.
Quality of care - improved care - improved new research and new products and medicines.
Or will we just limit mammograms and call it a day?
How about prostate exams - will we get more, will they be better technology?
How do we add 30 million people to a system and not increase the number of doctors or hospitals and improve care?
I think you misconstrued my reference in that post. I wasn't talking about that. Now your turn ...It was quite clear you said you "trapped me"
I had just finished a post giving evidence that Cato and you were wrong that all citizens agreed US health care system was so glorious and you would never go to Argentina for treatment.... :lol: :lol:
You asked and I answered. I note that you don't dispute the Cato report findings that people are overwhelmingly supportive of the current health care climate in the USA for themselves and their families. You simply bring up health care costs in rebuttal, which doesn't go to the core issues. A more unbiased observer might have asked whether the WP disputes anything in the Cato report?? I take it that you do but can't bring yourself to fib at this time. Good for you ...
Edit to add that you won't be seeing me fly to Argentina for health care treatment anytime soon. I doubt you'll be going either. Why you bring up cost as a metric for quality is beyond me.
I have to admit I haven't really studied it yet, but just so you know Cato is unabashedly a very conservative think tank.
You know HCAP, I baited the trap just waiting for you to go in for the free lunch, as is the wont of people on the left. You did not disappoint.
Let's not discuss facts. Let's discuss how they lean.So I was not commenting ONLY on CATO's bias, (which they are) but rather their claim that everyone was OVERWHELMINGLY happy with their health care here. NOT TRUE** Look at bottom of post!
Using the free market indicating 12 times of many seeking health care overseas compared to much fewer- coming here. And you also ignored my initial chart showing quality, as well as costs go to other foreign country systems.. Ultimately cost/effectiveness ratio is substantially better in other countries. So is the trap you purposely set about CATO's bias when I in fact was pointing out a definite inconsistency between Cato and health care happiness
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/23/us-usa-healthcare-oecd-idUSTRE7AM0NN20111123
..Meanwhile, Americans receive comparatively little actual care, despite sky-high prices driven by expensive tests and procedures. They also spend more tax money on healthcare than most other countries, the study showed.
An "underdeveloped" U.S. primary care system is plagued by shortages of family doctors and high rates of avoidable hospital admissions for people with asthma, lung disease, diabetes, hypertension and other common illnesses.
U.S. survival rates are the world's highest among breast cancer patients and the second highest, after Japan, for people with colorectal cancer - due in part to effective early screening, the study showed. The study also said Americans experience generally good acute hospital care.
"It's a very, very mixed pattern," said Mark Pearson, head of the OECD health division. "You get a very high quality of care for your money in some areas. Very poor quality, compared to other countries, in other areas."
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall--An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx
Among the six nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2006 and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, efficiency, and equity. The 2007 edition includes data from the six countries and incorporates patients' and physicians' survey results on care experiences and ratings on various dimensions of care.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/In-Brief/2013/Apr/Survey-Data-from-11-Countries-Finds-That-Satisfaction.aspx
What the Study Found
In the 11 countries studied—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the authors found that perceptions of affordability and effectiveness of care, as well as ratings of one’s regular doctor, were important factors in respondents’ overall satisfaction with the health system. There was also some evidence that waiting times for appointments and diagnosis were associated with discontent.
**Of any country, the U.K. had the greatest percentage of respondents who said that only minor changes to the health care system were needed (61.3%). The U.S., meanwhile, had the highest percentage of respondents who believed that their health system was in need of complete rebuilding (25.4%).
One more from Fox...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/10/29/us-trails-others-in-health-care-satisfaction/
U.S. Trails Others in Health Care Satisfaction
Americans are more dissatisfied than citizens of other nations with their basic health care (search) even while paying more of their own money for treatment, a five-nation survey released Thursday notes.
The study shows that people in the U.S. face longer wait times to see doctors and have more trouble getting care on evenings or weekends than do people in other industrialized countries. At the same time, Americans were more likely to receive advice on disease prevention and self-care than others.
One-third of Americans told pollsters that the U.S. health care system should be completely rebuilt, far more than residents of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the U.K. Just 16 percent of Americans said that the U.S. health care system needs only minor changes, the lowest number expressing approval among the countries surveyed.
And specifically, what will single payer do HERE to improve quality of health care? I reject the correlation to single payer and quality.
I have posted that documented answer many time grampa.
No, you have not.
Quality of care - improved care - improved new research and new products and medicines.
Or will we just limit mammograms and call it a day?
How about prostate exams - will we get more, will they be better technology?
How do we add 30 million people to a system and not increase the number of doctors or hospitals and improve care?One more time I am talking about comparisons with other countries with a more socialist single payer type system. And my first chart here did cover quality.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/~/media/Images/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/jun/MM2010l.gif
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/Mirror-Mirror-Update.aspx?page=all
Among the seven nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last overall, as it did in the 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, coordination, efficiency, and equity. The Netherlands ranks first, followed closely by the U.K. and Australia. The 2010 edition includes data from the seven countries and incorporates patients' and physicians' survey results on care experiences and ratings on various dimensions of care.
...But even when access and equity measures are not considered, the U.S. ranks behind most of the other countries on most measures. With the inclusion of primary care physician survey data in the analysis, it is apparent that the U.S. is lagging in adoption of national policies that promote primary care, quality improvement, and information technology.
Key Findings
Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other six countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. However, its low scores on chronic care management and safe, coordinated care pull its overall quality score down. Other countries are further along than the U.S. in using information technology and managing chronic conditions. Information systems in countries like Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K. enhance the ability of physicians to identify and monitor patients with chronic conditions.
Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the seven countries, with the U.K. and Australia ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of the use of information technology, rehospitalization, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in Germany and the Netherlands are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.
Long, healthy, and productive lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of long, healthy, and productive lives. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2003 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Canada and Australia. Overall, Australia ranks highest on healthy lives, scoring in the top three on all of the indicators.
tucker6
10-16-2013, 05:49 PM
HCAP,
So how many avoidable deaths are acceptable to you under ObamaCare until we get to the system you believe will be superior to the present system?
I will keep posting this question in this thread until you answer it. Just as an example, cutting down on mammograms WILL necessarily lead to more deaths. There are likely countless other examples great and small.
Stupid question, and I will keep ignoring it until you tell me how you trapped me.
PS: DO you still think Cato has got it correct that an OVERWHELMING majority are happy? My last post said approx 25% are not.
tucker6
10-16-2013, 06:42 PM
so you never thought that in your experiment with Obamacare that people would die? So you have no problem if your mother dies of cancer because she didn't get her mammogram like she could under the horrible system we have now? Sorta sounds like Obama and the dems are making life and death decisions for doctors and their patients. No??
Do you still beat your wife?
FantasticDan
10-16-2013, 07:04 PM
What mammogram limitations are you folks talking about? :confused:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/free-mammogram-screenings-are-part-of-obamacare/2145276
http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/09/25/fox-hosts-anti-obamacare-activist-to-rehash-fal/196077
What mammogram limitations are you folks talking about? :confused:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/free-mammogram-screenings-are-part-of-obamacare/2145276
http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/09/25/fox-hosts-anti-obamacare-activist-to-rehash-fal/196077Obviously Obama is out for blood. In addition to death panels pushing granny off the cliff, now ignoring our mothers health is part of the plan :sleeping: :rolleyes: :eek:
tucker6
10-16-2013, 07:42 PM
Do you still beat your wife?
No, I stopped beating her just after Labor Day. Now, how about giving an honest answer to the question. Support of Obamacare WILL cost lives. The fact that you refuse to answer the question speaks volumes. That can only mean that you already knew this and support Obama anyway. You accuse Republicans of being callous when your kind actually implements plans that kill people. Hypocrisy to the highest order.
PaceAdvantage
10-16-2013, 07:44 PM
What mammogram limitations are you folks talking about? :confused:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/free-mammogram-screenings-are-part-of-obamacare/2145276
http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/09/25/fox-hosts-anti-obamacare-activist-to-rehash-fal/196077Over the past few years, as Obamacare has built up steam, various gov't health agencies have been rolling back recommended testing by either upping the age at which tests should begin, to eliminating the number of tests per year(s), etc.
I always found that interesting...is the gov't trying to cut their expenses at the expense of the health of the Obama-insured?
Sure seems like it if you view it with a cynic's eye, which I always do.
delayjf
10-17-2013, 11:22 AM
No discussion regarding healthcare and a espcially single payer system is complete without discussion the Tax rates required to maintain a single paper system. For example Belgium has a tax rate of 50% plus a 21% VAT.
Comparing the Us to any other country is ridiculous.
We have cities larger than many countries.
Libs avoid details.
No discussion regarding healthcare and a espcially single payer system is complete without discussion the Tax rates required to maintain a single paper system. For example Belgium has a tax rate of 50% plus a 21% VAT.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/~/media/Images/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/jun/MM2010l.gif
Per capita costs are listed. Bottom row
.
Was that supposed to answer his post?
Where are the tax rates for those countries.
Do you live in Dodge City?
Do you know what per capita costs mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita
Taxes cover many different things, that many different countries pay for. I would say that most accept the trade offs. But that's another topic.
Direct comparisons of health care costs Per Capita are the proper way to get at the essence of costs.
delayjf
10-17-2013, 08:26 PM
So the real issue is costs. Did you know the avg doctor in France makes 70K a year, nurses in CA make more than that. I know doctors that work part time that make more than that.
Are you telling me that the only way to get costs under control is single payer? Like Tom asked before, how does single payer get the hospitals and doctors to stop charging so much?
Consider that the Belgians will get taxed at 71% for their entire lives, How long is the avg person going to spend in the hospital in their life, you can buy a lot of insurance here in the states for that kind of money.
Do you know what per capita costs mean?
Yes.
Not tax rates.
Try again - your dreidel tipped over.
So the real issue is costs. Did you know the avg doctor in France makes 70K a year, nurses in CA make more than that. I know doctors that work part time that make more than that.
Are you telling me that the only way to get costs under control is single payer? Like Tom asked before, how does single payer get the hospitals and doctors to stop charging so much?
Consider that the Belgians will get taxed at 71% for their entire lives, How long is the avg person going to spend in the hospital in their life, you can buy a lot of insurance here in the states for that kind of money.I did say "Taxes cover many different things, that many different countries pay for. I would say that most accept the trade offs. But that's another topic."
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/the-myth-of-low-tax-america-why-americans-arent-getting-their-moneys-worth/274945/
On the one hand, yes, we pay less. The share of our total national income captured by the government in taxes is small compared to most developed economies. On the other hand, we get less. Americans pay out nearly as much as some European countries, Canadians, and the Japanese. But we receive a lot less for our money.
Look at high-tax Sweden, which has the fourth-most competitive economy in the world, ahead of the U.S., according to the World Economic Forum. In return for paying their taxes, Swedes have access to a generous support system for families and individuals that most Americans can only dream about. That includes not only quality health care but also child care, a more generous retirement pension, low-cost college education (most Swedish universities charge no tuition fees), job retraining, paid sick leave, paid parental leave (after a birth or to care for sick children), ample vacations, affordable housing, senior care and more.
..................................
BTYW, Re: Belgium. Employees and self-employed individuals pay progressive income tax. The top rate is approximately 53.5%
http://belgium.angloinfo.com/money/income-tax/tax-rates/
"As will be seen throughout this article, most of the world’s highest tax rates can be found in western European nations. Belgium tops the list, with a marginal tax rate that goes as high as 54%."
http://www.businesspundit.com/12-countries-with-the-highest-lowest-tax-rates/
So? How come the TeePeers are not causing 3-cornerd hat tax revolutions in Europe?
"Citizens in most European countries pay much higher taxes than we do in the United States, but virtually no substantial tax revolt movements exist in these countries. They should be marching in the streets by the millions demanding large tax cuts – but they aren’t. Why is that the case? The answer probably has much to do with the fact that people in Europe can recognize more easily the inherent connection between the taxes they pay and the benefits they receive. The benefits of government programs in these countries are much more obvious than they are in the United States – and so the taxes that pay for them are not resented as much. The European social welfare state is so much more extensive than what we have in the U.S. that it is impossible for citizens to not notice all the valuable things they are getting for their taxes."
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Americans-pay-fewer-taxes-than-Europeans-NOT-3275154.php
Do Americans really pay fewer taxes than Europeans? Contrary to conventional wisdom, the answer surprisingly is: not really. That's because in return for their taxes, Europeans - even those unemployed during these tough times - have access to a generous support system for families and individuals that most Americans can only imagine. That includes not only quality health care but also child care, a good retirement pension, inexpensive college education, job retraining, paid sick leave, paid parental leave (after a birth or to care for sick children), ample vacations, affordable housing, adequate senior care and more. In order to receive the same level of benefits as Europeans, most Americans have to fork out a lot of out-of-pocket payments, in addition to our taxes. These payments often are in the form of fees, surcharges, higher tuition, insurance premiums, co-payments and other hidden charges.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-quality-of-life-map.html
Countries by Standard of Living (Highest Quality of Life)
rank Developed Country
1 Norway
2 Australia
3 Netherlands
4 United States
5 New Zealand
6 Canada
7 Ireland
8 Liechtenstein
9 Germany
10 Sweden
http://www.ibtimes.com/switzerland-tops-list-worlds-strongest-economies-2012-2013-according-world-economic-forum-1406412
Despite continued economic woes, European economies are still the most dominant in the world, according to the Global Competitiveness Index 2012-2013 produced by the World Economic Forum.
The list is based upon 12 pillars, including institutions, infrastructure, microeconomic environment, health and primary education, higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labor market efficiency, financial market development, technological readiness, market size, business sophistication and innovation, which all help to weight a score out of seven.
Top 15
1. Switzerland: 5.72
2. Singapore: 5.67
3. Finland: 5.55
4. Sweden: 5.53
5. Netherlands: 5.50
6. Germany: 5.48
7. United States: 5.47
8. United Kingdom: 5.45
9. Hong Kong SAR: 5.41
10. Japan: 5.40
11. Qatar: 5.38
12. Denmark: 5.29
13. Taiwan, China: 5.28
14. Canada: 5.27
15. Norway: 5.27
5 posts full of BS.
You can't answer Jeff - we get it.
No discussion regarding healthcare and a espcially single payer system is complete without discussion the Tax rates required to maintain a single paper system. For example Belgium has a tax rate of 50% plus a 21% VAT.A high sales tax that is also factored into the per capita cost of health care and all the other social programs. Sales tax cannot be added to income tax as a representation of total taxes. Different scales and the Vat in Belgium is calculated on different levels. And different purchases affect different consumers.
https://www.cfe-eutax.org/taxation/VAT-taxation/belgium
Tax rate
The rates in Belgium are 21 %, 12 %, 6 % and 0 %.
• 21 % is the standard rate
• 12 % is applied for instance for plant-protection products, margarine, tires and tubes for wheels of agricultural machines and tractors, certain solid fuels (coal, brown coal and coke), pay television and social housing…
• 6 % is applied for instance for agricultural services, transport of persons, establishment for culture, sports and entertainment, hotels, social housing, services supplied by institutions fro social promotion, services rendered by undertakers, work on real property, repair of bicycles, repair of footwear and leather-ware…
• 0 % is applied for newspapers and certain weeklies
Tax exempt
The turnover tax law provides an extensive list of goods and services exempted from turnover tax. For example, the following are exempted from Belgium VAT:
• services provided by the medical and certain paramedical professions
• services provided by certain sports establishments
• services provided by hospitals and similar establishments
• services provided by notaries
• insurance operations
• betting, lotteries and other chance and money games
5 posts full of BS.
You can't answer Jeff - we get it.
Actually I answered Jeff and you quite well. All you can do is yell at the sky.
http://roadkinguk.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/garmpa.jpg
Hey Gramps, I forgot one other point
PNHP has more than 18,000 members. That is Doctors for Single Payer.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq#income
Under single payer, won't physician incomes go down?
Not necessarily. Canadian physicians have done well under their single payer system - as documented in a recent, careful study. In addition, streamlined billing under single payer would save US doctors vast amounts in overhead, and free up additional physician time to see a few more patients. Hence, even if doctors' gross incomes declined slightly (a questionable assumption if they're freed up from insurance paperwork and able to devote more time to patient care) physicians' average take home incomes wouldn't change under single payer. Of course, some doctors' incomes would go down - e.g. those who currently enjoy a particularly rich payer mix. On the other hand, some would see an increase - e.g. those currently caring for many Medicaid or uninsured patients.
http://pnhp.org/blog/2011/07/25/impact-of-single-payer-on-physician-income-in-canada/
The Impact of Single-Payer Health Care on Physician Income in Canada, 1850–2005
By Jacalyn Duffin, MD, PhD
American Journal of Public Health, July 2011
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.