"The concept of medical progress means saving lives and health of people who could not be saved just a dozen years ago. Of course keeping people like Terri Shiavo on life support for years is an absurd waste of financial resources but it has nothing to do with Univeral Healthcare." congrats on contradicting yourself in just two consecutive sentences. Of course people like you will be the ones to decide what is a waste and what isn't... The objective of medicine is not to cure all sick people, never has been since it can't be done in this day and age. You might be correct to say that is the objective of medical research however. Last I checked we are all mortal and sometimes doctors stop trying for everyone's sake. Medical care is a scarce commodity, therefore it is subject to the laws of supply and demand whether you like it or not. If you think universal health care is better at 'curing all sick people' you just haven't a clue. Universal health care works best for healthy people having routine and relatively cheap procedures done, not sick people. The problems of universal care almost always can be traced to the thinking of people like you- free lunch idealists.
This is not free lunch idealism if it's extremely successfully implemented in lots of countries that are in every other respect poorer and less efficient than the USA. Blind and baseless belief in free markets as ultimate solution to absolutely all world problems is indeed idealism not based on reality, history or common sense. The real problem is with people like you - totally divorsed from reality free market fundamentalists who fail to see that 36 relatively poor nations with various forms of Universal Healthcare significantly outperform American free market healthcare, people like you who can't point to a single semi-successful implementation of free market based Healthcare ever in the world, yet they keep their blind, baseless religious faith in free market. France heads WHO's league table of health systems Among major countries, France was followed by Italy, Spain, Oman, Austria, and Japan, with several small countries (including San Marino, Andorra, Malta, and Singapore) rated among the top 10 healthcare providers. The analysis, which used five performance indicators to measure health systems, showed that it is not what you spend on health care but how you spend the resources available to you that is important. Despite spending more of its gross domestic product on health than any other country (13.7%), the United States ranked only 37 out of 191 WHO member states; the United Kingdom, which spends just 6% of gross domestic product on health services, came out 18th. France spends 9.8%. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/320/7251/1687
the WHO stats wash out a lot of factors that should be normalized out. For instance if you compare similar populations like minnesota and canada/sweden, then the life expectency is identical within statistical error. Infant mortality rates do not normalize to factors like percentages of crack babies or FET babies, which have nothing to do with medical care. In fact crack babies in the US recieve the best medical care in the world all courtesy of the US taxpayer. These kids cost millions to save then millions to support (taxpayer dollars) as typically they are profoundly retarded. The idealists like you insist we do this, which severly distorts our medical care spending. The fact is that people in canada (worlds only singe payer/ single provider) are not happy with ther medical care no matter what your stats say. If you get something really serious you will wait and wait and some come to the US for care. The French recently took to the streets (as they do whenever anything bothers them) to protest quality of nursing home care and shortages of nurses. Also however economically speaking these nations have all had to cut back services or face massive budgets debts (like france now) because they ignore economics. The US medicare system is headed that way, medicaid is already there (bankrupt). It's simple- tell everyone that they have a right to all the medical care they need and make it law and bingo, instant financial crisis. Take any scarce commodity and do the same, make a law that provides 'free' housing since it is the right thing to do. Overnight there would be shortages and the quality would decrease. There is a deeper reason though that socialism fails, it is that rational self interest trumps 'the common good' most everytime. If any scarce commodity is competed for, then in that competition people will always look after themselves and their families first. There is no other way to explain why 80 year old people or 4 lb FET babies recieve costly and heroic procedures. I am much closer to medical care reality than you are- my wife is a county social services supervisor and I hear about it every day.
For your information: socialism - a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=socialism&x=0&y=0 Nobody's talking about socialism even with one payer system - private doctors, private hospitals, private research facilities, drug companies etc. The only public entity is the single payer - in essense one universal HMO. The WHO statistics may not be perfect but it's good enough and universally accepted, besides it's confirmed by lots of other statistics and researches. You claim that the french don't understand the economy. That's you who don't understand a very simple economic fact - their collective healthcare bill is 50% less than ours and they get significantly more services. Why is it so hard to understand is beyond me, I guess you are not going to let facts interfere with your convictions. I'll try again: THEY PAY LESS AND THEY GET MORE. You don't go broke paying less money and getting more services, do you?
you have not presented the facts. why does europe produce so few new drugs? why are lines so long in europe. what is the average time wait for medical procedures. why do canadians cross the border for medical treatment? what is the trend? etc.
We already have nationalized healthcare. Have you ever been to an ER in a city (or the country for that matter). The uninsured pile in and we all pay for it because they rarely do.
It is so funny. Capitalism taken to it's extreme, produces just the opposite. What we are seeing is the last of this rotten to the core, medical system's meltdown. It will take a little more time, but it is a sure bet. Drug company's and HMO's got too greedy. But it is such a much larger problem. Food that tastes great, but will kill u, sure as we are sitting here. An FDA that is bought and paid for. Yep we get the national heath system, and then we swing all the way the other way. We did as the Romans did. Drink up. Keith
Why indeed? What kind of argument is that? Why are we not producing electronics or clothing or good cars any more and they are not producing new drugs? Maybe they are just not specializing in drugs and prefer to buy them from the USA just like we are not specializing in electronics and buy toshibas and sonys. What does it have to do with our discussion of healthcare anyway, I am not advocating nationalization of drug industry, drug industry is not healthcare even thought it's related. Healthcare - The prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical well-being through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=health care Waiting lists are bad, the problem is not nearly as severe in Europe as it is in Canada but it does exist. Everybody is covered in Europe though, 15-20% of americans have no coverage. If they stopped coverage of 20% of their population they would not have lines either. Nobody's claiming that their systems are flawless, it will always be a compromise and trade off but we can certainly do better then France or Malta. A couple of thousand wealthy canadians not willing to wait for a non-life threatening procedure are crossing the border to get it immediately. What exactly does that prove, did I ever claim that american healthcare is not working for the rich? It is working for the rich extremely well, it's not working for the rest of americans. 45 million uninsured americans would gladly go to Canada for medical treatement if they had a chance.
In my opinion, this is a simple supply and demand issue. On one hand, you have the AMA and other such groups limiting the supply of Doctors. Then you have 3rd party payer plans offered by a good number of employers. Those that have the plan pay their $15 copay when they see the Doctor. Because they only pay $15 out of pocket, they are much more inclined to go to the doctor for little shit (a cold). Let me give a personal example. A couple of years ago I was suffering from panic attacks. however i did not realize what they were panic ATTACKS at first. I thought there was just something screwed up with my breathing. The doctor I saw ordered a battery of allergy tests. I realize now I should have asked how much they cost. I wound up paying $100 out of pocket. The true cost of the tests was $1300. I had to find out on my own what I was suffering from. If I had to pay the $1300 up front, I would have done my own research before forking over $1300. If companies would stop providing insurance for their employees, and instead, give them cash they can put in a Health Savings Account, demand would drop because people would see just how much they are really paying. I like this quote: "You think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it is free." fan27