Public debate over 'public option' for healthcare

[Sigma]

like Romonini -- who were never even part of the Social Security system.

Surely you didn't miss the point.

[Lunican]

0.0192%

[Sigma]

You missed the point.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_cost_of_free_government_he_1.html

The Cost of Free Government Health Care
By David Gibberman

Proponents of government-run health care like to point out that countries with such a system spend a smaller percentage of their gross domestic product on health care than the United States. What they don't like to mention is how those savings are achieved. For example:


Patients Lose the Right To Decide What Treatment They'll Receive. Instead, patients receive whatever care politicians and bureaucratic number crunchers decide is "cost effective." 


Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence usually won't approve a medical procedure or medicine unless its cost, divided by the number of quality-adjusted life years that it will give a patient, is no more than what it values a year of life in great health - £30,000 (about $44,820). So if you want a medical procedure that is expected to extend your life by four years but it costs $40,000 and bureaucrats decide that it will improve the quality of your life by 0.2 (death is zero, 1.0 is best possible health, and negative values can be assigned), you're out of luck because $40,000 divided by 0.8 (4 X 0.2) is $50,000. 


There Are Long Waits for Care. One way governments reduce health care costs is to require patients to wait for treatment. Patients have to wait to see a general practitioner, then wait to see a specialist, then wait for any diagnostic tests, and then wait for treatment. 


The United Kingdom's National Health Service recently congratulated itself for reducing to 18 weeks the average time that a patient has to wait from referral to a specialist to treatment. Last year, Canadians had to wait an average of 17.3 weeks from referral to a specialist to treatment (Fraser Institute's Waiting Your Turn). The median wait was 4.9 weeks for a CT scan, 9.7 weeks for an MRI, and 4.4 weeks for an ultrasound.


Delay in treatment is not merely an inconvenience. Think of the pain and suffering it costs patients. Or lost work time, decreased productivity, and sick pay. Worse, think of the number of deaths caused by delays in treatment.


Patients Are Denied the Latest Medical Technology and Medicines. To save money, countries with government-run health care deny or limit access to new technology and medicines. Those with a rare disease are often out of luck because medicines for their disease usually cost more than their quality-adjusted life years are deemed worth.


In a Commonwealth Fund/Harvard/Harris 2000 survey of physicians in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the United Kingdom, physicians in all countries except the United States reported major shortages of resources important in providing quality care; only U.S. physicians did not see shortages as a significant problem. According to the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) Health Data (2008), there are 26.5 MRIs and 33.9 CT scanners per million people in the United States compared to 6.2 MRIs and 12 CT scanners in Canada and 5.6 MRIs and 7.6 CT scanners in the United Kingdom.


Breakthroughs in Life-Saving Treatments Are Discouraged. Countries with government-run health care save money by relying on the United States to pay the research and development costs for new medical technology and medications. If we adopt the cost-control policies that have limited innovation in other countries, everyone will suffer.


The Best and Brightest Are Discouraged from Becoming Doctors. Countries with government-run health care save money by paying doctors less. According to a Commonwealth Fund analysis, U.S. doctors earn more than twice as much as doctors in Canada and Germany, more than three times as much as doctors in France, and four times as much as doctors in Finland, Norway, and Sweden. The best and brightest will be encouraged to go into professions where they can earn more money and have more autonomy.


Is Government-Run Health Care Better? Proponents of government-run health care argue that Americans will receive better care despite the foregoing. Their main argument has been that despite paying more for health care the United States trails other countries in infant mortality and average life expectancy.


However, neither is a good measure of the quality of a country's health care system. Each depends more on genetic makeup, personal lifestyle (including diet and physical activity), education, and environment than available health care. For example, in their book The Business of Health, Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider found that if it weren't for our high rate of deaths from homicides and car accidents Americans would have the highest life expectancy.


Infant mortality statistics are difficult to compare because other countries don't count as live births infants below a certain weight or gestational age. June E. O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill found that Canada's infant mortality would be higher than ours if Canadians had as many low-weight births (the U.S. has almost three times as many teen mothers, who tend to give birth to lower-weight infants).


A better measure of a country's health care is how well it actually treats patients. The CONCORD study published in 2008 found that the five-year survival rate for cancer (adjusted for other causes of death) is much higher in the United States than in Europe (e.g., 91.9% vs. 57.1% for prostate cancer, 83.9% vs. 73% for breast cancer, 60.1% vs. 46.8% for men with colon cancer, and 60.1 vs. 48.4% for women with colon cancer). The United Kingdom, which has had government-run health care since 1948, has survival rates lower than those for Europe as a whole.


Proponents of government-run health care argue that more preventive care will be provided. However, a 2007 Commonwealth Fund report comparing the U.S., Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom found that the U.S. was #1 in preventive care. Eighty-five percent of U.S. women age 25-64 reported that they had a Pap test in the past two years (compared to 58% in the United Kingdom); 84% of U.S. women age 50-64 reported that they had a mammogram in the past two years (compared to 63% in the United Kingdom).


The United Kingdom's National Health Service has been around for more than 60 years but still hasn't worked out its kinks. In March, Britain's Healthcare Commission (since renamed the Care Quality Commission) reported that as many as 1,200 patients may have died needlessly at Stafford Hospital and Cannock Chase Hospital over a three-year period. The Commission described filthy conditions, unhygienic practices, doctors and nurses too few in number and poorly trained, nurses not knowing how to use the insufficient number of working cardiac monitors, and patients left without food, drink, or medication for as many as four days.


Does Government-Run Health Care Provide Everyone Access to Equal Care? Proponents tout government-run health care as giving everyone access to the same health care, regardless of race, nationality, or wealth. But that's not true. The British press refers to the National Health Service as a "postcode lotter" because a person's care varies depending on the neighborhood ("postcode") in which he or she lives. EUROCARE-4 found large difference in cancer survival rates between the rich and poor in Europe. The Fraser Institute's Waiting Your Turn concludes that famous and politically connected Canadians are moved to the front of queues, suburban and rural residents have less access to care than their urban counterparts, and lower income Canadians have less access to care than their higher income neighbors.


Ironically, as we're moving toward having our government completely control health care, countries with government-run health care are moving in the opposite direction. Almost every European country has introduced market reforms to reduce health costs and increase the availability and quality of care.  The United Kingdom has proposed a pilot program giving patients money to purchase health care. Why is this being done? According to Alan Johnson, Secretary for Health, personal health budgets "will give more power to patients and drive up the quality of care" (The Guardian, 1/17/09). It's a lesson we all should learn before considering how to improve our health care system 

[Shwaz]

.0192%. error rate?

vs

12 dollar tylenol under the present system?

Yeah because big government never over spends riiiight?

Tell that to the tax payers who funded the millitary buying a box of 10 penny nails for $1200.

[Sigma]

Stephen - it's interesting you brought up that point.  My ex is a nurse. 

The reason a hospital charges atrocious prices for a tylenol, or gauze, or peroxide (u name it) is because they are bound by certain policies to discard a package after opening.  In other words, once you open and use an amount of the product, it is not allowed to be "consumed" again.  Tossed. 

If anyone on here can shed some light on that - please clarify.

That's what she told me anyway.  I wonder where those regulations came from.

And I doubt very seriously you pay that much at CVS.

[Doctor_K]

Why not?  The hospital, under that assumption, opens itself wide open to lawsuit if a patient discovers he or she has been given tylenol (or another drug) from an 'previously-opened' package.  The litigation would write itself at that point.  It's CYA.

[Doctor_K]

Well, you'll get no argument from me on that one.

[Sigma]

Stephen, it happens. It's not a fabrication.  I don't know why - but I can guess. It is a CYA, though, as Doctor K said.  My ex always referred to that phrase.  

That's why I asked for someone on this great site who has a close working knowledge of the hospital industry to please chime in and clarify.  Shed some light on this.

Maybe it's not just the evil insurance companies!  Maybe it's the "evil" drug companies too!  Come on Stephen, you can throw a bigger hissy fit than that!  It's the weekend, don't leave me hangin.

[CrysG]

Faye,

I don't know why you bother. Most, and I stress not all of these people, but most don't give a rip about the health care or the well being of any person other than themselves. That is until they have a love one get a serious medical ailment and then they see the sky rocketing prices, they get to hold the denial letters for that loved one's from other insurance companies and watch the loved one's life savings go up in smoke.

The gentle man who helped bring about Universal Health care to England said it came out of the rebuilding of their nation after being destroyed in WW2. They felt an overwhelming need to be and adult and help each other out. American's for the most part don't care about their fellow man. They care about houses they can't afford, more cars to drive and bigger tv's.

[Shwaz]

Stephen, why do you think the government (who constantly over spends for goods) will some how reform their ways when it comes to health care?

[BridgeTroll]

Most, and I stress not all of these people, but most don't give a rip about the health care or the well being of any person other than themselves.

That is quite an indictment.  Simply for disagreeing about universal healthcare.  WOW!

[Sigma]

Faye,

I don't know why you bother. Most, and I stress not all of these people, but most don't give a rip about the health care or the well being of any person other than themselves. That is until they have a love one get a serious medical ailment and then they see the sky rocketing prices, they get to hold the denial letters for that loved one's from other insurance companies and watch the loved one's life savings go up in smoke.

The gentle man who helped bring about Universal Health care to England said it came out of the rebuilding of their nation after being destroyed in WW2. They felt an overwhelming need to be and adult and help each other out. American's for the most part don't care about their fellow man. They care about houses they can't afford, more cars to drive and bigger tv's.

CrysG,

Sounds like some resentment that you need to deal with.  But I'll comment on your point that people "don't care".  People do care, but disagree how to fix the system.  This whole thing can be remedied with the government changing some of the ridiculous regulations that are currently in place.  Most of the problems with the current system would be solved. 

But those that endorse government control and intrusion want universal healthcare.  The rest of us want individual responsibility and want government out of it.

[CrysG]

Most, and I stress not all of these people, but most don't give a rip about the health care or the well being of any person other than themselves.

That is quite an indictment.  Simply for disagreeing about universal healthcare.  WOW!

And I'll stand by my statement since the bases for 95% of the reason's people don't like it boils down to money. If I some how waved a magic wand and said I would personally fund the universal health care for the rest of the history of the world and all of you would never have to pay a dime for it would any of you say no?

So your putting money over the basic right of people to be healthy and have access to medical services.

[BridgeTroll]

So your putting money over the basic right of people to be healthy and have access to medical services.

I suggested in a thread long ago that if this is truly a right then we should be willing to amend the constitution to do so.  A real national debate... with every section of the country having a real say in the matter.

It wont happen.   Because those who want uni care do not want the debate that goes along with it.

[Doctor_K]

Medical services that are supplied by the Government, that I as the taxpayer pay for.  Yes - I am putting money as *a* reason.  The fact that it's government-controlled is the primary reason.  Because look at how phenomenally every other government-run program is doing, in brief:  

Medicare?  Broke sooner than expected.
Medicaid?  Same thing.
Social Security?  Ditto.
Fannie and Freddie?  A+ Double-Whammy award, since the gov't deregulated itself here in the 90s, causing the bubble and current crisis.
AMtrak?  Jolly.
Bailout/stimulus?  Stellar.
Wars in Iraq/Afghanistan?  Brilliant.  I blame specific people within the government though, not so much as a whole.
U.S. Post Office?  Keeps raising the price of stamps and *still* can't remain economically viable.

All mis-managed.  Grossly.  All losing money almost as fast as the Fed can print it.  And you think they're "gonna do better" with UniCare?  Delusional.

It wont happen.   Because those who want uni care do not want the debate that goes along with it.

Precisely.  And those who are opposed to it in any way, shape, or form, are the uncaring bad guys.  Hey BT - how about another fist-bump?