Quote:
Originally Posted by dotti105
Golfing Eagles, I appreciate the negative information you have presented on the ACA and it's management by our mega insurance companies.
As I understand it, the US is one of the few developed nations that does not have a single payer system. Are they all wrong? I worked in the bay area with RNs from Canada who would not get US citizenship because they do not want to give up their excellent medial insurance in Canada. Why would that be?
While traveling in Australia, the people we met were all very happy with their universal health care.
No "death committees" in either country. Health care is considered a right in those countries as well as in the many other developed countries who rank above us in quality and outcomes.
I don't understand how that works. If universal health care is such a bad idea, why has it been so successful and well received in so many other nations? And why have we consistently ranked so low in outcomes?
Costs have increased dramatically during my years working as a RN, the
pay....not so much. The Hospital corporations are flush with cash, HCA for example, (Governor Rick Scott's former "ATM card") where I worked for the last 10 years has made record profits year after year. Their hospitals are 12 of the top 25 in profits year after year.
Some one is making a lot of $$ on the back of the health care industry, it's healthcare providers, and patients alike.
Please enlighten me? No sarcasm intended. I really want to hear your reasoning for the situation here compared to the other 1st world countries.
I do enjoy your posts and respect your opinions.
|
Wow, there's a lot in there, I could write a book! So I'll try to be short and answer point by point---but while I back this with facts, it is still only my opinion and I'm sure others will disagree.
Golfing Eagles, I appreciate the negative information you have presented on the ACA and it's management by our mega insurance companies.
Actually, I believe the only negative part (that I mentioned) was the cost and how it was misrepresented as well as the lack of scope in addressing the true problems in healthcare
As I understand it, the US is one of the few developed nations that does not have a single payer system. Are they all wrong? I worked in the bay area with RNs from Canada who would not get US citizenship because they do not want to give up their excellent medial insurance in Canada. Why would that be?
I guess the tongue in cheek answers would be yes, and dementia. However, part of the problem is comparing apples and oranges. At the risk of the ire of the right, I would have developed a single payer system in the US as well, but I just wouldn't let our government run it. There is a big difference between how our government works and that of Luxembourg. What "works" there might not work here for a whole array of reasons, more on that later. As far as the Canadian system being "excellent", for some things it is. They are very good at preventative care, prenatal care, immunizations and simple problems. I assume your nurse friends never had a serious problem. They might think differently if they needed an MRI or open heart surgery, as they got sicker and sicker on a long waiting list. Seattle, Detroit, Buffalo, Albany, and to a certain extent Boston has a thriving business providing advanced care to Canadians who cross the border to utilize these services
While traveling in Australia, the people we met were all very happy with their universal health care.
Again, they tend to be happy as long as they don't get seriously ill.
No "death committees" in either country. Health care is considered a right in those countries as well as in the many other developed countries who rank above us in quality and outcomes.
I think "death committees" was a fear tactic of Sarah Palin and the far right. But you can only pay for universal health care either by higher taxes or rationing. European socialist republics do it with a little of both, something that Americans probably would not stand for.
I don't understand how that works. If universal health care is such a bad idea, why has it been so successful and well received in so many other nations? And why have we consistently ranked so low in outcomes?
Now here is the real fallacy with the arguments we hear all the time in the media. How successful is it, really. In Scandinavia, their 80% income tax is "well received"? And just ask the Greeks how it is working out for them. Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland are right on the same precipice. But more importantly, let's take a close look at the "low rank" of the US in health care
These so called rankings are generally based on life expectancy---the CIA World Fact Book ranks the US 43rd in this category. However, life expectancy to a large degree is a function of infant mortality, which the CIA ranks the US 57th in. But why? Almost every other country reporting infant mortality only counts live births after 34 weeks, some 36 weeks. We count every live birth---25 weeks, botched abortions, miscarriages--as long as the baby took 1 breath, we count it, therefore skewing the statistics.
There is also probably a genetic component to life expectancy as well. Japan is #1 or 2 on all the lists. The following is not racist, repeat that to all liberals, NOT RACIST, but fact--40 of the 42 lowest life expectancy countries are in Africa (the other 2 are Haiti and Afghanistan). Yes--- war, poverty, HIV and other disease and starvation are huge factors, but I wonder if some genetics is at play as well, as noted below
Even within the US, there is a large variation from state to state---from 81.3 years down to 75.0. Guess which state is #1----Hawaii, coincidentally a state with a high percentage of Japanese DNA. Which state is #50?---Mississippi, which in addition to some poverty and lack of access to care has a high percentage of African DNA (again, to liberals, fact, NOT RACIST)
Now let's look at the criteria by which the WHO rank the US system 37th in the world:
The rankings are based on an index of five factors:[2]
Health (50%) : disability-adjusted life expectancy
Overall or average : 25%
Distribution or equality : 25%
Responsiveness (25%) : speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities
Overall or average : 12.5%
Distribution or equality : 12.5%
Fair financial contribution : 25%
So, you can see how ridiculous this ranking is---every statistical factor works against the US and works in favor of small, genetically demographically homogenous populations that all pay high taxes.
I prefer the following test of the quality of the US health system:
When world leaders, royalty and billionaires get really sick, do they flock to NY City and Boston, or do they flock to "Luxembourg"?
Costs have increased dramatically during my years working as a RN, the
pay....not so much. The Hospital corporations are flush with cash, HCA for example, (Governor Rick Scott's former "ATM card") where I worked for the last 10 years has made record profits year after year. Their hospitals are 12 of the top 25 in profits year after year.
Some one is making a lot of $$ on the back of the health care industry, it's healthcare providers, and patients alike.
Well, it certainly wasn't me! But the last figures I saw 4 years ago showed 78% of all US hospitals were in the red. And doctors only account for 9% of every health care dollar. And if it's the "mega insurance companies", let's all go out and buy Humana stock. Remember, it's possible to take in tremendous amounts of money and still lose--just look at the federal budget!!
Well, "that's all folks"
My arm is tired
