Disagree medical innovation has alot to do with the concept of universal healthcare in terms of quality of care. As the post above states we are the wealthiest nation on earth in part due to our wondrous innovations in healthcare. If we instituted a socialist program such as universal healthcare in our country it may not be desirable because we will severely limit competition and begin to degrade our healthcare quality Now to concede a bit in this argument the only benefit to universal healthcare is that it provides an inefficient/inferior quality of healthcare to everyone whereas the US provides the best healthcare in the world to the majority of its citizens while leaving a minority with the equivalent of unversal healthcare as seen in europe . The question of desirability for universal healthcare remains, should the majority of US citizens with the best healthcare in the world sacrifice that for inferior european style socialised care to meet some of their moral or ethical complaints or is there some way to avoid that and allow private charity to carry more of the burden to preserve our superiority in not just providing access to a "reasonable standard of health care" to all our citizens but access to the best healthcare in the world to all our citizens.
Pardon my French, but I think the title for the best healthcare system in the world to all its citizens is currently held by France.
The USA is the wealthiest nation on earth because of a number of factors - a huge and fertile land mass - a technologically developed society (due largely to the European heritage of its population) - the effects of two World Wars during which the competition's manufacturing sector was destroyed - and so on. Not, by any means, solely because of medical innovation - that is a nonsensical argument. Medical research is independent of universal health care systems, is largely carried out by privately owned corporations, what comprises the best health care in the world is a very subjective concept, and there is compelling evidence that your society does not provide that health care to all its citizens. To argue that the 46 million of your citizens who were without any medical cover enjoyed the standard of health care that the citizens of France (to take but one example) enjoy, is not borne out by fact. The WHO survey voted France as the number one health care provider in the world - the USA was ranked 37th. Americans do themselves no favours by mindlessly chanting "USA! USA! USA! We are the best!". Blind Nationalism is an unattractive trait, and I had expected rather better of a poster of your calibre.
That is a fallacious argument as the post states in part due to its innovations in healthcare the US is wealthiest, therefore universal healthcare would contribute to a poorer USA since those who take personal responsibility but happen to have complex illnesses would no longer have access to the innovative treatment they once did. It is not subjective health care systems are compared by what medical research they can avail themselves of for better treatment options. Since the US healthcare system is set up for privately funded care it has a much more aggressive profit model for medical research when compared over the pond to their universal healthcare systems. 46 million citizens out of 311 million American citizens do not have access to the best health care in the world but they do have a better standard of healthcare than many other countries with universal healthcare like India and Brazil. Maybe this could be improved for them to the standard of France without a big move toward socialized medicine. There is blind nationalism and then there is patriotism, a poster of this "caliber" is in the latter.
"As ye sow, so shall ye reap." Or something like that. So a view a couple of thousand years old is sufficient to justify a view of modern health care, particularly in the wake of Mendel's research. Strange, isn't it?
Devastating point. The idea of just deserts is based on morality. Last time I checked the health professional ethic was (thankfully) non-judgemental.
I was reading this article in the Globe and Mail today. It shows third-world style free clinics in the US. I couldn't stomach past the eighth slide. If that is the best medical care system in the world, I will take our system in an instant. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...s-flock-to-free-field-clinics/article4441674/
What was the point you are attempting to make in further accentuating your national inability to spell calibre correctly?
It just proves to me first off medical providers care. Next you can deliver care cheaply and efficiently with modest costs if you want to do so without fancy facilities. Last point it shows the critical need for universal health care in the US in some form its far more humane to see a dentist before you need mass extractions as one example.
We don't consider them real Americans they are second class citizens and therefore only have access to 'third world style' care. The majority of Americans however, of whom do take personal responsibility, have access to the best healthcare in the world. Why should the majority of Americans adopt universal healthcare and diminish their standard of care for that lot ?
Most of theose folks just seem to be poor, should that equate to no access to medical care and practical dentistry? I noted for what I assume are low costs they did provide lots of care and so logically you could replicate this principle into lower cost medical delivery models to more people.
I am really looking forward to leaving the US within the next 5 years for this reason alone. I just received the medical bill for my doctor's visit. I have to pay $180 out of pocket for speaking to a nurse practitioner about 3 medical issues, two of which she couldn't even help me with and referred me to specialists, for less than 30 minutes. And that is WITH health insurance. I cannot stand the United States when it comes to healthcare. I don't care if I have to pay extra taxes every single month for the rest of my life if it means I get to go in and see the doctor whenever I am truly ill and need help.
Specialized care is what makes our system best in the world, while most other countries with universal healthcare have general practitioners take on most of the duties in a privitized system the specialists are incentivized with considerably higher pay to take on those inherent responsibilities. This provides a higher level of care because specialists have more education to properly treat complex ailments. Of course those with PPO insurances who can afford out of pocket expenses benefit most from this model rather than those with HMO because this type of healthcare system allows for more competition while a universal healthcare system is similar to HMO insurance where there is only one set of physicians in a small network which presents no opportunities for second and third opinions which are vital for the best care.
You complain of a mere $180 bill, and yet if you took the NP's advice and something went wrong, you could sue the NP or physician for MILLIONS of dollars. The major problem in the US is not our healthcare system, which is the best in the world, but our absurd tort law and unwillingness of politicians to reform these laws.
Some of my friends and i are reading the Obamacare stuff. people 72 plus, will not be treated for a cancer cure. EVEN young mothers 35 years old, developing breast cancer will only receive limited treatment. They will die. They will be made comfy but they will Die. People in need of stints, pacemakers etc, after a certain age, you are not going to get it.
Real case me folks, I have due to lack of money untreated diabetes over a $4 drug from Target and diet which is not the best option. My left eye is now weak and I have double vision for life and could lose my sight in five years unless I get into a decent medical plan and I mean any Medical plan. If I go blind who do you think I will have to turn to for support yes the taxpayers the one thing I don't want to do. I will have to get SSI/SSD, Medicaid, housing assistance, food stamps and likely expensive lifestyle education depending on how bad it is. Or I can get into Obamacare and get care to not be that level of a burden for some time if ever. Don't worry if it gets that bad I plan to do myself in life will just not be worth living any longer. Maybe that is what critics and the Republicans want the poor to jus suffer and die but it seems cruel to me if that is the case?
It surprises me that Proton Therapy was used as an example of the success of a particularly capitalistic approach to healthcare. That is just not true. Proton therapy is brought to you by Harvard and the Office of Naval Research. It's a nice example of the benefits of doing basic research with public funding. http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/cyclotron/history.html
What are you saying here? If you are saying that you have tried monotherapy with a medication like metformin and an 1800 kcal ADA diet along with regular exercise, AND you diabetes is still uncontrolled, then you should see a general physician so they can prescribe a second oral hypoglycemic medication. If you fail dual therapy with oral hypoglycemic meds, you will probably be put on insulin. Again, your sentence is a fragment, and I had a hard time trying to understand it. I don't understand your point about $4 meds at Target. Isn't $4-a-month for potentially life-saving drugs a wonderful thing? What would be a better "option" in your opinion? How will Obamacare save your eyes? No to sound insensitive, but I didn't read any part involving magical eye implants in those 2700 pages, and I doubt that Obamacare would cover expensive laser corrective surgery. If you are having worsening vision secondary to uncontrolled blood sugars now, then I wouldn't hold out too much hope for Obama's convoluted bureaucracy of a healthcare system to save your sight. No. I'm sure Republicans merely want you to buy $4-a-month life-saving drugs at Target or Walmart to get your hyperglycemia under better control, and to follow up with a physician if monotherapy is not sufficient.
We all make stupid choices and we all make mistakes. It is what makes us human. Is death and disablement a good "punishment" for not eating right or not getting enough exercise or being poor or getting an STD? Someone's life shouldn't be ruined by petty mistakes.
I keep asking this what is the Republican plan for the low income people, you can put this anyway you want but if some would qualify under the ACA Medicaid expansion and most generous subsidized exchange plan they cannot afford insurance without help. I'm disabled and do have the ability to make an income of around $8-10,000 a year my best income working the most I can, I opt not to since I need to qualify for charity care status in my state. Many disabled are in poverty if one checked the numbers and not all of us are able to do college level work, I can't, so that leave low wage options or self-employment usually also near the low wage scale. For all the bluster and foot stomping it won't change the facts for people like myself to get routine care we need government help. I need a primary care provider even an LNP, insulin and blood testing supplies and proper care with certain medical issues and the reason I don't even if I worked maxing out my income I couldn't afford it. Many low income people are in my own situation we work and are law-abiding, do what we feel is right yet get zero consideration for health care until the ACA came along. So what is the Republican Plan we have the ACA where is the "replace" for the repeal and replace, and will this help people like me the ones that will cost the system the most at some point. I know its not perfect and needs work but even modest options here are better than nothing which is why I'm voting Democrat all the way in November.
This opinion will be very unpopular with certain of your compatriots, but I respectfully submit that any nation which does not care for the needs of its disabled and disadvantaged, is not yet a civilisation.
With all due respect there is a plan for the disabled and disadvantaged, health care isn't neccessarily a partisan issue many democrats don't want third world style universal health care for themselves or their children either. As of right now the poor can get government insurance which covers all of their basic needs, although if they want specialized care they will have to do without because specialists don't accept government insurance since it has low reimbursement rates. In conclusion the poor are taken care of, just not at the level at which the middle and upper classes are. A solution would be to have private charities take on more of a burden, if a poor person searches long and hard they have a reasonable chance at finding a private charity that will give them specialized care.
Problem is I have lots of ideas and none seem to be popular. For example this could be done grant any medical provider treating a patiant getting Medicaid under Federal law as immune from lawsuits unless they get a judge to authorize a lawsuit with a high bar of malpractice demanded. In return for every 1% of Medicaid patiance treated a doctor or practice gets a proportional reduction in Malpractice Insurance. If they opt to only take Medicaid Patiance you could have a very basic "optional insurance" since by law the Malpractice Insurance would default to 0% in cost. I would set the sue bar very simple - gross incompetance in treatment well outside of normal and expected care so as to be deemed unfit to professional standing. I would think if a doctor could get paid 55 cents on the dollar but had zero malpractice insurance to pay for or a small basic plan for say $100 a month they might opt to take Medicaid patiants. They could be sued but would have to be pretty bad doctors or other providers to have that happen. This would not rule out actions in a state to pull licenses or fine doctors just take out the Tort issues. And as Federal Law would be trumping state laws in these areas. There one idea and the Republicans should like it there would be minimal costs and doctors and medical provider networks can opt in or out freely.
The insurance companies will take a hit and that will harm free market health care and make it look more like universal health care if they took poor patients that way. Those increased malpractice premiums help to identify inferior physicians similarly to car insurance, bad drivers pay higher premiums as bad doctors do. If we allow lower premiums to all physicians who accept insurances from the lower classes it would corrupt the system in that instead of competition between health care providers and a race to the top, physicians will take advantage of those incentives of reduced liability and reduce their quality of care to the higher classes because they can always compensate for income loss by taking in more poor patients.
