We have not been an unfettered market based medical care nation in over a century, even back in the day states funded with cities local public hospitals for the poor and hired the staff overseen by local boards to control costs. The sole issue was for paying for services could the patiant afford it. I want to go back to a movie ,old one, I Remember Mama it was accurately set in early 29th Century urban America the family had a sick child. They insisted the child go to a private hospital and paid cash for the care in payments doing working class work with one earner, a union carpenter. They had a public hospital. I will note however the low cost childrens ward had around twenty patiants overseen by one nurse and others that could come. I would assume non-infectious disease cases. And oddly they still created new drugs, devices, procedures and other things since there was profit in the system and the Polio Vaccine was created and given free to the world when developed an act of service to the world we don't see now. But out system has been socialized for many decades so wherre do you get this utopia of medicine free of the government?
Propaganda requires no rights, just as it requires no honesty. Indeed it rejects honesty and right. In America health care has been commercialised to the nth degree. The wealthy who benefit from this have no desire to see their particular gravy train go off the rails. They will fight to keep what they have and the use of propaganda is one of their weapons. Appeals to emotion work well for them, many Americans pick up on the buzzwords "freedom", "liberty" and the like which out of any context are almost meaningless. But sadly many Americans have been conditioned to respond to those cues, those words that elicit emotional reactions rather than rational analysis. So, let them bask in the warmth of their own comforting illusions I say, like the warmth of a stream of pee along one's leg, warming and comforting until the cold reality sets in.
Socialised? Not it hasn't. That's why the car park of a football stadium can be filled with people desperately seeking health care. You have a commercialised system. Enjoy it by all means. Close your mind to any hint that it could be better than it is. Feel that warmth as you tell yourself that the US has the best health system in the world because the world's wealthy can access it. It's like a hobo pushing his nose against the window of a very up-market restaurant. He will feel a warm inner glow knowing that the wealthy can afford to dine in splendour.
AAAAND for proof we have a link to an American website called Da Da!! "Selectusa.commerce hmmmm - biased much?? Yes you do have innovation - where there is profit in it, But how about those things that have less profit? Those disorders where there is only a few people in the world? How about vaccines for third world countries?? Or the best one - guess why there is no male contraceptive - because it would cut into the market for female contraceptives. Now Australia is the country that brought you the cardiac pacemaker, the bionic ear, the HPV vaccine, the influenza medication "relenza" etc etc etc You DO know what "elective" means don't you? It means "non-urgent". Our actual wait times http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/elective-surgery
We have a universal health care law you know the ACA or what its affectionately called Obamacare, its just an Americanized version but that could be good with a profit motive it forces new ideas and changes in practice and innovation the one thing we do well in this nation. I like to look at it this way what if Walmart ran a medical system under the ACA for Medicaid people could they make a profit, I would bet they could if they wanted to do this. They did introduce the now all over low cost drug option with many needed generics at low prices so they can get creative.
The link comes from the guardian a uk media outlet, a trusted european reference was used since europeans are defending universal healthcare which is indeed inferior to the US Capitalist based healthcare in terms of Innovation. The reason why socialised medicine may not be desirable to Americans is because it does not promote advancement in medical research and technology as superiorly as the US healthcare system presently does... Now to counter the above post we will revisit the link to provide proof that a profit driven medical market does not neccessarily advance medicine for illnesses that are not prevalant in the market since the british boy was treated for a brain tumor. and could only be saved by American innovation found in the proton therapy machine. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...care-haven-nhs
Interesting article: PWC Medical Technology Innovation Scorecard: US Falling Behind in the Race for Global Leadership: http://www.policymed.com/2011/01/pw...behind-in-the-race-for-global-leadership.html And the official study: http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/PWC-Medical-Technology-Innovation-Scoreboard.pdf
I too can cherry pick innovations from Australia and claim that only the Australian system could have produced it.
They dream according to the article which is a ridiculous prediction it won't happen until 2020 and that is dependent if the USA adopts universal healthcare which will ruin their leadership in medical innovation around the world... The fact of the matter is that Universal healthcare discourages innovation because it leaves nations complacent rather than competitive like in a free market capitalist environment.
We are the world leader in medical innovation because we don't have universal healthcare. http://www.policymed.com/2011/01/pw...behind-in-the-race-for-global-leadership.html
Yeah, because an Australian company could easily compete with a huge nation like the US and yet many innovations have come from Australia. Your logic is flawed. Nothing to see here.
"The study, which was published by PwC, formerly PricewaterhouseCoopers, explored the changing nature of healthcare innovation and noted that the way we assess value in medical technology is changing radically. For example, the report indicated that companies today are recognizing that the old dynamic of the physician being the arbiter of value is giving way to a new one: Government and private insurers and self-pay consumers increasingly determine what sells and at what price. These entities refuse to pay for incremental innovations that add bells and whistles but do not significantly improve health or reduce cost. As a result, the faster, better, smaller, cheaper advances portend the future of medical technology. Consequently, the report shows that the gap between innovation leaders and emerging economies is rapidly narrowing and todays innovation leaders will find their position slipping during the next decade. The report indicated three trends: - The innovation ecosystem for medical device technology, long centered in the U.S., is moving offshore. Increasingly, medical technology innovators are going outside the US to seek clinical data, new-product registration, and first revenue. - US Consumers are not always the first to benefit from advances in medical technology and may eventually be last in line. Innovators already are going first to market in Europe, and by 2020, likely will move into emerging countries next before entering the U.S. - The nature of innovation is changing, as developing nations become the leading markets for smaller, faster, more affordable devices that enable delivery of care anywhere and help bend the healthcare cost curve downward."
If you are the world leader in medical innovation, it is because you are the wealthiest nation on earth, and because there are big bucks to be made in that field. But your overall medical services are quite lowly ranked by world standards (largely because they are not available to all Americans). Medical innovation has nothing to do with the concept of universal health care. The medical research companies are not the primary providers of health care, nor do they have any interest in providing it to those in need - their primary interest is commercial. To anyone with a brain and a moral compass, it is better that everyone be given access to a reasonable standard of health care, than for only a select and wealthy few to be afforded a higher standard, and let the devil take the hindmost.
One doctor of great reputation discovered the polio vaccine then gave the entire process away free to mankind, I would say he was an innovator. As for all this tech and science what good is this if you can't afford to access it?
My sister is a british citizen, and will never leave the country to move back to America for just this reason. True story. My sister was visiting me here in Chicago for 2 weeks. While she was here, she broke her arm. We went to the ER. The bone was broken in such a way that it was causing nerve damage. Because she didnt have health insurance, they wouldnt do much for her other than put a sling on it. When asked about the out of pocket cost would be, it was in the 10's of thousands of dollars to have the operation to fix the bone to stop doing nerve damage. Their advice was this. Get on a plane back to England, and let them take care of it. So my sister had to fly home with a broken arm, because she could not afford the needed medical procedure in America. Within one day of being home, she had the needed operation. She still suffered some permanent nerve damage in her arm. After her operation, she had a doctor make several house visits to check up on her. When it was time to start physical therapy. The therapist came TO HER HOME. and worked with her there in that setting. Her follow up care was both personal ( home visits ) and quick in nature. Her out of pocket cost? $0.00
I believe that MOST ( not all ) conservatives real problem with universal health care is that it removes "personal responsibility" from the equation. For example. That guy over eats and is fat. He should be punished medically for making poor health desicions. Either through denied care, or having to pay more into the system. That guy drinks to much. That guy doesnt get enough exercise. That girl had with too many people, and has an STD. Whatever the case may be. They want those type of people to suffer a penalty. And maybe they should to some extent I guess. I dunno. I DO believe in personal responsibility. But I cant see an easy way to reflect that into a UHC system either. But the bottom line is this. Being poor should never be a death sentance when it comes to health care.
I had an idea for this under the Medicaid expansion just give states the right for those not in it for disability or being in the joint Medicare-Medicaid program for poor seniors to charge more for these people to access the system. I would recommend a simple one a annual premium of 8% of their income, for a single person earning $10,000 that would be just $800 paid quarterly quite reasonable then something for the care. Doctors visits $10, drugs $8-12 (with a focus on sending patiants to get generics at big retailers like Walmart for $4 drugs over this), a hospital stay say $100 a day and so forth. This could be simple enough and bring in personal responsibility since for a poor person these are still not costs they could desire to pay. You could also encourage special programs for people with medical issues to get focused care and make that cheaper if they enter into them to encourage getting better care.
That is almost universally the opinion of the conservatives. If a person smokes, eats too many Big Macs, sits on a couch all day, doesnt use a seat belt, doesnt wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle, drinks too much, then he should pay for the consequences. If he paid, then he would act more responsibly. Instead the govt makes everyone pay for the consequences. Make people responsible for their own actions, and provide a STATE RUN safety net for those that truly cannot help themselves.
The trouble with that line of thinking is that no-one IS perfect. So where do you draw the line on who "deserves" health care and who does not?
Really? Again - who decides? After all you are in all probability sitting down at your computer to type this - that increases your risk of a Deep Vein Thrombosis - your fault?? Hypertension is one of the biggest killers in the Western world and comes from eating too much salt - do you ensure that nothing you eat has salt on it? What IS the main cause of obesity? It is not as simple as "too much food too little exercise" because often it is the wrong food and the wrong exercise. Some one who is underweight can be at a greater health risk than someone overweight.
I agree with you. I personally wouldnt draw a line. I would offer care regardless. The conservatives however do not like that answer. So to them, lines must be drawn to seperate the winners from the loosers per say.
If I get sick or injured, I have catastrophic insurance and an emergency fund set aside. I've done that all my life. I have prepared for those situations. If I eat too much salt or develop some illness, I'll handle the consequences, I wont ask other people to handle it. Some things are "acts of God", thats just life. As to a safety net and who decides who gets benefits, the people in a state decide when they setup their program. There will be criteria, and as always there will be a few who abuse the system and a few who fall through the cracks. No system is perfect, but a state run system will be better than a federally runsystem. The main cause of obesity is too much food and too little exercise. "Wrong food" is a choice. "Wrong exercise" is a choice. Some may need to be educated but all can make the right choices. The exceptions are the people with thyroid problems etc. They are an exception and should not drive the entire health care debate.
This is why under a UHC system I wouldn't be opposed to putting a little bit of tax on items that are seen, with SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, that cause an increase in cost to the UHC system.
