www.ditl.org

IanKennedy wrote:Does this take into account the number of available machines in each case? It would make a massive difference in these figures.

I don't see how. Maybe I don't get what you're asking.

I presume the Canadians and Birts aren't just leaving machines sitting around while long wait times pile up. Though I suppose machines at isolated hospitals may go through rush and lull times.

Lazar wrote: That's a good thing - as it is, many people are subject to exorbitant and variable prices. Another problem is that Medicare is uniquely prohibited from negotiating prescription drug prices.

There is a large difference between identifying a problem and that proving your solution is correct. I can assure you there is a subset of the population (American Libertarians mostly) that actually feels the solution is full on capitalishm, where the increase in overal wealth and the generosity of the rich will ensure all have access to schooling and health care.

In this case there is a problem with price gouging when people are out of network. There are already laws about price gouging in other situations (like raising shovel prices after a blizzard). Sounds like maybe that needs to be expanded.

Imagine if there was, I dunno, nationalized food plans. Everybody gets to eat at any resturant they want to, and order anything on the menu, but the resturants can only charge $2 per meal. Think of what the menus will look like. Same basic idea here.

The difference is that food is a regular, predictable, low cost need. People don't buy food insurance, and they don't have to worry about suffering a catastrophic craving where they need to buy tens of thousands of dollars worth of food to stay alive. And your example is hyperbolic because no one is proposing making all medical procedures anywhere near the same cost. Reduce crazily inflated medical prices, yes.

As I understand it they are proposing fixed prices for specific medical procedures, which are invariably lower than what is currently charged. I hear about hospitals suffering budget shortfalls more often than windfalls, so think what you will about insurance companies, but this means hospitals will have to reduce their higher tech kit and/or rush their own efforts.

I have no idea about how to even go about researching doctor quality and time per patiant between nations. But I think the journal articles I linked a while back demonstrate what can happen to the tech stuff.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01778.html?

Haven't I been saying we're more like Germany than England in the public option?

It's a shame that Canada and the UK are the only countries that ever get mentioned, when the reality is that every developed country in the world has its own distinct system. Even semi-developed countries like Taiwan and Costa Rica have got good systems.

The United States is the only developed country that lets insurance companies profit from basic health coverage.

Big surprise.

Which, in turn, punctures the most persistent myth of all: that America has "the finest health care" in the world. We don't. In terms of results, almost all advanced countries have better national health statistics than the United States does. In terms of finance, we force 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills. In France, the number of medical bankruptcies is zero. Britain: zero. Japan: zero. Germany: zero.

Hey, but bankruptcy is a good thing, right?

The US also pays more in terms of costs, IIRC.

Cuba is one of the best places for medical health care in the world. How can you reasonably tell me that Cuba has more money to afford healthcare than the US?

To be more accurate, Cuba is one of the best places in terms of coverage. Due to the fact that they don't have the latest equipment over there, I'd be cautious of saying that they're the best in terms of healthcare.

One of the. Better than America.

Thats because when the guy in charge wants to do something, it usually gets done.

stitch626 wrote:Thats because when the guy in charge wants to do something, it usually gets done.

yeah, lest the public get in the way. Oh the horror!

Ok, by measuring things in terms of medical coverage cavement had the best coverage in all history. Everybody had equal rights to essentially nothing.

Wich is sort of the deal with Cuba. Though it's a little different in that everyone there is equal, except that some people are more equal than others, as is common in many communist countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociolismo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blat_(Russia)

And I think that's the key sticking point we've got here.

At this point it seems people have generally accepted that, if you've got the insurance/cash, the US system is certainly a contender for best in the world, and whups the UK and Canada in all the areas I've been able to find research on, and I bet the disparity is much higher compared to countries like Cuba in terms of high tech equipment and procedures, it's just that the studies aren't out there, or at least I can't find them.

However if you don't have good insurance the US systems gets continually worse both in terms of access to care and especially in terms of odds of bankruptcy.

I think the reason that people are going apeshit at town hall meetings over the issue is that it is literally a life and death question. Even middle class and upper middle class people are put in a position of choosing between some people they don't know and their kids.

I think this would be an entirely different discussion if it was made just a matter of money. I.e. Obama says that he's going to raise taxes on everybody in order to ensure the funds are there to support many more hospitals to cover the increase in volume of treatments and not gimp our ability to have the best tech and doctors. Or something like that. But he isn't, which sets the stage for an overall worse solution.

sunnyside wrote:At this point it seems people have generally accepted that, if you've got the insurance/cash, the US system is certainly a contender for best in the world, and whups the UK and Canada in all the areas I've been able to find research on

Source on that? In what way is US private healthcare better than UK or Canadian private healthcare?

sunnyside wrote:I think the reason that people are going apeshit at town hall meetings over the issue is that it is literally a life and death question. Even middle class and upper middle class people are put in a position of choosing between some people they don't know and their kids.

Care to elaborate there? In what way are they being forced to choose between their kids and strangers?

Rochey wrote: Source on that? In what way is US private healthcare better than UK or Canadian private healthcare?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it UK/Canadian private healthcare is a totally separate thing, and you can't just take your little ID card there and get anything. It's for pure out of pocket health care, using it is like not having any health insurance at all, which I don't think you're arguing for, so that seems a bit like a bait and switch.

In any case what I did find is evidence that the US system one average beats the UK and Canadian systems on average (at least for what they'd track).

Since so far all evidence anyone has found indicates a superior American system (at least for the 85% of the population with access), I'd say the onus is on you to show some high tech procedures or somesuch where UK or Canada wins out.

The kids vs strangers comment is because of that. Even if you wouldn't admit the US system is better if we had a cure for all cancers, nobody in any of these discussions, Republican, Democrat, or reporter, is claiming that the Canadian or UK system of hospitals are better equipped or even equally equipped compared to US hospitals. Probably because they'd get totalled by the fairly easy to find MRI and other studies.

Therefore the choice many Americans feel the government is about it make is between the uninsured getting better care or their child getting rapid care instead of waiting weeks for treatments which may result in them dying when they otherwise wouldn't.

Again I'm done finding sources for you as you seem apt to simply ignore them. You find something where the UK or Canada comes out ahead. And no I'm not just talking about money. Cavemen have you beat there, and even in the US everybody has free access to caveman treatments (a little mud and leaves perhaps).

sunnyside wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it UK/Canadian private healthcare is a totally separate thing, and you can't just take your little ID card there and get anything. It's for pure out of pocket health care, using it is like not having any health insurance at all, which I don't think you're arguing for, so that seems a bit like a bait and switch.

"Private insurance" in Canada is used to cover things like prescriptions, massage therapy, certain mental health expenses, etc. It's not like the US where private insurance is your health care as we get most things covered and drugs are actually subsidized (and generic drugs have to be offered by law) to an extent.

*snippy snippy*

One thing that's been nagging me about this whole row down there and the Republicans screams of death panels and kill grandma, why do you need immediate and quick access to things like MRI's? If it's an emergency, no argument but most things you see a doctor for are not all that urgent or even things that can develop into problems later on down the road do not need you to "go to the front of the line".

I don't care to compare Canada and America's systems but it seems like certain folks down south have a massive sense of entitlement.

sunnyside wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it UK/Canadian private healthcare is a totally separate thing, and you can't just take your little ID card there and get anything. It's for pure out of pocket health care, using it is like not having any health insurance at all, which I don't think you're arguing for, so that seems a bit like a bait and switch.

I'm not sure how Canadian or British healthcare works. You'd be best asking Kendall.

sunnyside wrote:In any case what I did find is evidence that the US system one average beats the UK and Canadian systems on average (at least for what they'd track).

And exactly what evidence is that? That's what I was asking for earlier.

sunnyside wrote:Since so far all evidence anyone has found indicates a superior American system (at least for the 85% of the population with access), I'd say the onus is on you to show some high tech procedures or somesuch where UK or Canada wins out.

Sorry, no. You've yet to provide any evidence at all that the US system is superior. You made the claim. You back it up. What can you get in the US that you can't in Canada?

sunnyside wrote:The kids vs strangers comment is because of that. Even if you wouldn't admit the US system is better if we had a cure for all cancers, nobody in any of these discussions, Republican, Democrat, or reporter, is claiming that the Canadian or UK system of hospitals are better equipped or even equally equipped compared to US hospitals. Probably because they'd get totalled by the fairly easy to find MRI and other studies.

What? What does this have to do with "choosing between some people they don't know and their kids"?

sunnyside wrote:Therefore the choice many Americans feel the government is about it make is between the uninsured getting better care or their child getting rapid care instead of waiting weeks for treatments which may result in them dying when they otherwise wouldn't.

If the treatment is important, the kid gets shoved to the front of the line. Very few people die while waiting.

sunnyside wrote: Again I'm done finding sources for you as you seem apt to simply ignore them.

You've not provided anything of substance. Your links all concerned waiting time, and many of them were suspect in their wording, as was pointed out earlier.

So, yet again, what treatments can you get in the US that you can't get anywhere else?

sunnyside wrote:You find something where the UK or Canada comes out ahead

Burden of proof.