Canadians? Britians?

Who do you want determining what is an excessive profit? I assume you don't want the government to do so.

 

Permitting Washington, D.C., to manage health care simply means that billions of taxpayer dollars will be spent on "overhead" by clerks who are less than knowledgeable about their duties. In countries with a single-pay system it is taxpayer dollars that keep it going. To say that a service is "free" is simply inaccurate. Check out the western democracies for what percentage of one's annual income goes to taxation. That same money, wisely invested, would more than offset every medical expense, except the major ones in the USA. A system for major expenditures seems appropriate here. Asking folks to invest, however, is met with indifference in the USA. When I think of the amount of money we have spent on insurance and taxes over the years, I shudder. We've paid into an ambulance service for 40 years, never once using it. That money, wisely invested, would be a gold mine now.

As to "who is the greatest," that's a nowhere debate. I'd rather hear that the majority of a population in any country acknowledged and honored Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

I encountered a Canadian soldier the other day ~~ first time since my military service. I approached, smiled big, said "Canada, eh?" "Yes!" he replied. I then asked God to bless him for his service to Canada and the so-called "free world." He thanked me. Canada has been there, along with Australia and Great Britain, when the world needed them. Never mind numbers, or battles. They've been there. SA-lute! :thumbs:

 

I have a mixed opinion on this.

On the one hand, frivolous malpractice suits and ridiculous awards drive up the costs. On the other hand, if we actually had a free market system then malpractice awards would be a quality assurance check against careless providers.

Who is to say that they are excessive. If consumer forces are introduced, they will find their equillibrium...

... Except for one thing. We will have to apply export tariffs against nations with price caps on drugs and medical technologies. The US consumer pays for most of the R&D for American discoveries that benefit the whole world. This is another example of Americans subsidizing the European and Canadian socialized medicine schemes. If they actually paid their "fair share", the costs and rationing would be even worse.

 

Gallipoli largely invoved Australians. Don't think there were any Canadians in the fight at Gallipoli.

Suffice to say, Canada sent its share of troops to both world wars, and they did well, indeed.

Which has nothing to do with the health care problem. If you want to evaluate which is better, you'd have to go look up infant mortality, longevity, and other indicators of health.

I'm not sure what they look like exactly, these days, but you might find that they tell you something you don't want to know.

 

I don't think those numbers would be meaningful for a comparison of health care effectiveness. One need only look at the population mixture of, say, the U.S. and Canada, to understand why.

 

Or it might not be quite that simple. Americans are excessive by world standards and we have greater disposable incomes. We drive more and walk less. We eat more fast food. You could also look at the demographics of health in America and find even more complications to the simplistic interpretation that 'socialized medicine' = 'good health'.

In fact, I would predict that the recipients of America's gov't provided healthcare drag our numbers in all those categories down even though they have free or low cost access to the same health care providers those of us in employer plans have.

 

One thing for certain is that the current health care system in the U.S. needs a total overhaul. And it will have to be done or the system will collapse.

My wife recently got a shot for back pain - it cost over $1,700.

 

I think America has the extremes, yes, we have some great doctors who work long hours and invest their entire life in their career. At times the cost is a family.

Then we have money seekers who can careless about you, just bring your insurance card and checkbook.

A doctor in a country with flat basic pay or hardly any pay (3rd world) is in it for their love of people and medicine. I'd prefer a doctor who would shed a tear if I died than one who would step over me because he doesn't take my insurance.

 

Introducing the consumer back into the market would likewise hurt these guys. You wouldn't go to a grocery store that sold marginal products at a premium price. And if given a choice, you wouldn't go to a doctor that consistently failed to give value... unless the basics of supply and demand were interferred with by insurance and gov't rules.

Personally I don't have a problem seeing people make what their labor is worth... Why would any Christian be so envious?

Further, those countries have no where near the number of doctors per capita as we do... so no thanks on that one.

BTW, you have attempted a false dichotomy. A doctor getting paid doesn't mean that he doesn't care any more than a policeman getting paid means he doesn't care.... or any other profession you might mention.

 

Do you have any reason why it costs that much?

I am all but certain that it isnt' because the market said that was what those chemicals and service were worth...

 

Evidently, it is. If it wasn't for the modicum of good sense I still have it would have pushed me over the edge to agree with those calling for national health insurance with government as the single payer.

 

But you pointed out that you think the VA system provides good care. The government certainly manages that. Maybe the problem is in having a mix of gov. and private interests. In that case the private companies invariably try to steal from the gov. as was the case with Halliburton in the Iraq war.

 

Most the R&D is subsidized by the taxpayer, not the consumer. The costs of that pales in comparison to the amount spent on marketing.

 

It has never made sense to me why prescription drugs are marketed to consumers when doctors are the ones who are supposed to be up to date on these drugs and making the diagnoses and writing the prescriptions.

 

Private companies "invariably" try to steal from gov't? That's a laugh... you can't call it stealing to take back something someone stole from you in the first place.:love2:

Concerning the VA, my dad has been involved with them for years and they have improved due to very significant political pressure. One thing that the Republican majority apparently should've gotten credit for since 94 but hasn't.

The VA is a very poor predictor though. First, it is a narrow demographic that is more than likely more self-reliant/responsible than the public in general.

Second, even now its services come at a premium. Remember that this is a group that justifies this care as a reward for their faithful service... and demands more funding. Politicians are "heroic" in both parties if they "support veterans". Support is synonomous with funding more veterans programs and especially the VA.

Third, these are folks who are characterized by their sacrifice to country. They are less likely to abuse the system than the average citizen and much less so than the entitlement class.

 

Problem is you don't know the doctor sucks until he tries open heart surgery to cure your heartburn. You know you have chest paid, he's a doctor so you say ok.

Not sure how you got that impression of me, I could never work the hours good doctors work and think they deserve every penny if not more.

My point was the dedication of the doctor while receiving so little compensation. This is a great thing!

My statement was not against good doctors. That is why I don't want socialized medicine because I want doctors who excel in the medical community. Now what I call a good doctor won't step over a dying man because of his insurance either. He'd at least stablize the man even if he got no compensation.

 

The irony is, we have the mess we have, because of government interference. In WWII, there were wage controls, but because there was a labor shortage, this set up a very unstable market for employees. Unable to compete in wages, employers offered lucrative benefits (thus obeying the law while completely violating the intent of the law). One of those was health care.

As a result, almost all Americans had good health insurance at very little cost. But that was a bonanza for the health care industry, which milked the system for all it was worth. Insurers therefore introduced copayments, and all the other ways they limit payments. So the system went after medicare, and that led to controls there. And then they went after worker's compensation cases, with the same results.

And now we have very poor health insurance for most people, and none at all for some. At some point, a plan such as exists in every other first-world nation would have been cheaper and more effective. But now, I don't know how to make it happen.

It's one of the few things government actually does well.

 

Originally Posted by Scott J
Personally I don't have a problem seeing people make what their labor is worth... Why would any Christian be so envious?

The market should decide wages for a given job or profession. One might ask what is wrong with a market where teachers, who produce lots for this nation, get $40,000 a year with a Master's degree, and ball players, movie stars, and lawyers get at least six figures and usually millions and produce nothing.

 

I dunno. Living a long time, and surviving past infancy seem like healthy things to me.