pirana 0 #51 April 5, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFrance, with universal health care, (socialism) is ranked #1 health care system by the World Health Organization. The USA, who spends more then anyone, is #37. That is one country I will never care to be compared to. You can have the attitude, taxes and all the other bs they have right along with the WHO rated health care systme You forgot about the hot chicks, superb wine, long holidays on the Riviera, and climbing in Chamonix and the Verdon gorge. And the Maginot Line. Don't forget that. And the Vichy regime." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #52 April 5, 2007 Quote[Where the US fails is being ranked 54 in "fairness of financial contribution" and on "Performance of Health Level" - which ranked the US as No. 72. http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_annex_en.pdf That's definitely weighting based on a value-driven agenda. A study designed to highly rate countries with a Socialist approach. Do a study which values free market attributes and France finishes outside the top 100." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #53 April 5, 2007 QuoteQuoteFrance, with universal health care, (socialism) is ranked #1 health care system by the World Health Organization. The USA, who spends more then anyone, is #37. Got a link for that? I'd like to see their criteria. Yes - WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs). http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #54 April 5, 2007 QuoteDo a study which values free market attributes and France finishes outside the top 100. Why bother with the study? You seem to have it all figured out. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #55 April 5, 2007 Quote If you count what I pay yearly for health care coverage + taxes, it is close to that now anyway. That is close to that for you. But if you earn more, it would not. I'm still in 35% tax bracket, at least, and health insurance payment were less than 4% of what I paid in taxes.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #56 April 5, 2007 QuoteThis is possible. The question is, do you want to pay 60% of your income to government? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you count what I pay yearly for health care coverage + taxes, it is close to that now anyway. But not for everyone. Hell, not even close for me or my GF. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #57 April 5, 2007 Billvon and I have very similar ideas. Billvon proposes a two-tiered system wherein basic healthcare will be provided by the government but other healthcare will come from the pockets of those who want it. My belief is that "basic" healthcare will run into problems of definition as "basic healthcare" will become so inclusive over a very short time that it will cover everything. Also, you will find there to be difficulty in keeping the doctors in government health care - the reason why Canada does not allow private practice outside of the system. Mine is that there would be, in effect, a debit card that would be issued onyly for health-related services on a sliding scale by age - not income. It will radically decrease costs because it is the same as cash, eliminating the need for billing codes, etc. - the standard back office things. Quote$3k per year for everyone under the age of 12 to cover doctor visits, shots, etc. Kids can get sicker easier and get boo boos more often. For teenagers through age 21, get them $1k per year, which should cover most things, i.e., physicals, mild injuries, birth control. It won't cover kids being stupid, for which the parents can get them insurance. You had them, you insure them for excess. Between 22 and 45? Hey, you are usually the healthiest and cheapest to privately insure. Plus, they are prime working years. Pay your way or get your own insurance. Health care will cost you. And your kids are covered. 46-55? Guys get $1,000 and gals get $1,500 - more things go wrong with women that age, so let's get that working. 56-65? $2,000. You've been able to save and have assets that you can use. After age 66? $3,000 per year. Your costs are higher. Also - emergency rooms will be authorized to charge 50% higher than the average rate for all non-ambulance visits that did not result in admission to the hospital or transfer to another hospital. This will cause patients to seek help through other practitioners and keep the ER's open for true medical emergencies. Anything extra, they can pay for themselves. They can also get insurance for any other purpose - catastrophic, greater needs, etc. Private insurers would, in a sense, provide an umbrella policy. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiver30960 0 #58 April 6, 2007 Quote Also - emergency rooms will be authorized to charge 50% higher than the average rate for all non-ambulance visits that did not result in admission to the hospital or transfer to another hospital. This will cause patients to seek help through other practitioners and keep the ER's open for true medical emergencies. Good idea, bad execution. I dig the idea of making it (somehow) financially more difficult to go to the ER, with the idea that people would be less likely to use it as a 24-hour primary care dispensary. But looking to ambulance vs. ambulatory to make the decision of an ER visit that is "worthwhile" is not the way to do it. I have to transport somebody that calls 911 for a stubbed toe just the same as I have to transport someone having a heart attack; if the above standard were in place you'd just have even MORE abuse of the 911 system. I still don't see an answer to what we do with the people who cannot (or, with ever increasing frequency, simply WILL not) pay. What about the illegal immigrant that walks into my ER with no insurance, no job, no social security number, in full term labor? She's never paid into the system, may very well never do so, and now has a kid on the way so we get to pay for her AND the young'un. What about the borderline people who are making enough that they can't qualify for Medicaid but don't make enough to pay the bills themselves and are obviously going to throw away the hospital bill as soon as it comes? I think that any attempt at a tiered system (which it feels to me like we're already trying) will end up being abused to the point of uselessness. I feel it's gotta be one or the other: you pay for everything (and sorry about your luck if you can't afford it) or WE pay for everything. Elvisio "either way, I have a job for a long time" Rodriguez Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiver30960 0 #59 April 6, 2007 More ramblings: As the Graying of America continues, a couple of things are going to happen at the same: 1.) More and older people consuming more and more resources to be kept alive, despite significantly reduced or nonexistant quality of life; and, 2.) The drying up of said resources available to pay for such care. This is going to push us to reevaluate our ideas of keeping mom and dad alive at all costs and in any way (even if it is unconscious, on a ventilator with a dozen IV meds and continuous dialysis at a cost to the system of thousands a day) because we feel "it's the right thing to do." We're already seeing it: living wills, DNR/DNI orders, and increasing opportunities for hospice care all signal that the change is coming. Is it due to the dawning of the idea that it's finally ok to die? Or is it because it's finally becoming too expensive to be selfish and keep our family members "alive" (in the loosest sense of the word) until we're ready to let go? Either way, the end result is the same. In my short time in healthcare, I've already seen the miserable end many meet when their loved ones aren't comfortable allowing them to die. As I move into my new job as a nurse in a Surgical Trauma/Burn ICU, I'm sure I'll see more. Hopefully, with time, I'll see a little less. Elvisio "too many tubes" rodriguez Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
