Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
One of the most contentious issues of the U.S. presidential campaign will be how to fix what many agree is a malfunctional health-care system. Adding fuel to the fire is a study published last month detailing the shortcomings of U.S. health care when compared to the systems of other developed countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand.
The study, entitled "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care," released by the Commonwealth Fund in New York, finds that not only is the U.S. health care system the most expensive in the world (double that of the next most costly comparator country, Canada) but comes in dead last in almost any measure of performance.
Although U.S. political leaders are fond of stating that we have the best health-care system in the world, they fail to acknowledge an important caveat: It is the best only for the very rich. For the rest of the population, its deficits far outweigh its advantages.
For the Republican presidential candidates, health care hasn't become a major issue -- yet. The three leading Democratic candidates, however, are outspoken critics of the health-care system and argue for the need to increase coverage to most, if not all, Americans.
This new study not only confirms the findings of previous Commonwealth Fund studies, but also a previous analysis by the World Health Organization in 2000 that found the overall performance of the U.S. health-care system ranked 37th among the countries included in the analysis.
The Commonwealth study compared the United States with Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Although the most notable way in which the United States differs from the other countries is in the absence of universal coverage, the United States is also last on dimensions of access, patient safety, efficiency and equity.
The other five countries considered spend considerably less on health care, both per capita and as a percent of gross domestic product, than the United States. The United States spends $7,000 per person per year on health care, almost double that of Australia, Canada and Germany, each of which achieve better results on health status indicators than the United States. This suggests that the U.S. health-care system can and must do much more with its substantial investment in health.
The United States also lags behind all industrialized nations in terms of health coverage. The most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau indicate that 46.6 million Americans (about 15.9 percent of the population) had no health insurance coverage during 2005, an increase of 1.3 million over the previous year. It is no wonder, then, that medical bills are overwhelmingly the most common reason for personal bankruptcy in the United States.
According to the Children's Health Fund, 9 million children are completely uninsured in the United States, while another 23.7 million - nearly 30 percent of the nation's children -- lack regular access to health care.
Compared to the other countries studied, the United States lags behind in the adoption of information technology and other national policies that promote quality improvement. Up-to-date information systems in countries such as New Zealand, Germany and the United Kingdom enhance physicians' ability to monitor chronic conditions and medication use, including medications prescribed by other physicians. In other countries, experienced nurses are working to monitor chronic conditions, thus easing the physicians' burden.
The United States also ranks last among the countries studied, both in terms of efficiency and equity. The United States has poor performance on national health expenditures and administrative costs. In terms of equity, Americans with below-average income were more reluctant to visit a physician when sick, and more often did not get a recommended test, fill a prescription or undergo a needed treatment or seek a proper follow-up on a condition.
Only a thorough reform can solve the U.S. health care system's deep structural problems. It is imperative that everyone is adequately insured and has the possibility to afford good care. At the same time, the United States must make sure to incorporate the advantages of modern health information technology and to ensure an integrated medical record and information system.
Lessons from other countries' experiences could be applied and adapted to the U.S. situation. In a recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, from the Department of Clinical Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health stated, "The U.S. health-care system is considered a dysfunctional mess." Given the seriousness of the situation, this is an understatement.
César Chelala, M.D., Ph.D., is an international public health consultant for several U.N. and other international agencies.
This article appeared on page E - 5 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire
Last edited by wallyburger; June 4th, 2007 at 09:17 AM.
I really don't think you'll find anyone who wouldn't agree "something" needs to be done... But like most other issues, the "how" seems all too elusive.
You can lump Social Security into this bowl of dysfunction as well...
I really don't think you'll find anyone who wouldn't agree "something" needs to be done... But like most other issues, the "how" seems all too elusive.
You can lump Social Security into this bowl of dysfunction as well...
I agree with you, which is scary
The thought of this government getting it's hands on healthcare is frightening to say the least.
We're going to have some completely new ways of looking at these things which means not using the same tired broken patterns of our current system to bandaid and add more bloat in the hopes it'll work out, it won't.
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
The thought of this government getting it's hands on healthcare is frightening to say the least.
We're going to have some completely new ways of looking at these things which means not using the same tired broken patterns of our current system to bandaid and add more bloat in the hopes it'll work out, it won't.
The private system does not work and the public has little , if any, control over that. The only input the public might have is to demand that the government run a good system or have Congress and the White House held to the fire for not doing so. First step would be to disallow any political contributions from health care industry agents. Bar all lobbying by the same industry. The people's lives are at stake and no control measure seems too extreme. We gave them our trust and they effed us every chance. Prohibitive pricing, unsafe remedies, substandard care and facilities, et al are what we have. Almost every other country has a quasi/government run system, so it can work.
Here is the proof that the system we have sucks. Enabling corporate medicine must be ended and not remain a political football or a golden egg laying goose for the medical posers. Grave robbers , all of them.
__________________
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire
The private system does not work and the public has little , if any, control over that. The only input the public might have is to demand that the government run a good system or have Congress and the White House held to the fire for not doing so. First step would be to disallow any political contributions from health care industry agents. Bar all lobbying by the same industry. The people's lives are at stake and no control measure seems too extreme. We gave them our trust and they effed us every chance. Prohibitive pricing, unsafe remedies, substandard care and facilities, et al are what we have. Almost every other country has a quasi/government run system, so it can work.
Here is the proof that the system we have sucks. Enabling corporate medicine must be ended and not remain a political football or a golden egg laying goose for the medical posers. Grave robbers , all of them.
I known you won't address me anymore Wally since, while you're "scared of nuthin", I seemingly scare you...
But, who desires to be doctors these days? And more importantly, why do they choose to be doctors these days?? I happen to know many in the medical profession. And there are many older (in their 50's) doctors who are exiting their profession because they can't afford to stay.
I also know several younger doctors who are not in the business because they enjoy helping others, but because they have found ways to make significant bucks at the expense of insurance companies, hospitals and you & me...
It would be extremely beneficial if these issues can be addressed and fixed. How to get to the root of these problems is the biggest issue of all.
I don't know what the right approach is. I do know that comparing us to other countries is truly Apples and Oranges, as the other countries do not suffer from the sufficating affects of lawyers and lawsuits...
In a gov't run system, will the gov't allow themselves to be positioned to be brought to court, as are doctors and insurance providers are today? If so, how will they fund their defense and eventual settlements?? Higher taxes on you and me I suppose...
I known you won't address me anymore Wally since, while you're "scared of nuthin", I seemingly scare you...
But, who desires to be doctors these days? And more importantly, why do they choose to be doctors these days?? I happen to know many in the medical profession. And there are many older (in their 50's) doctors who are exiting their profession because they can't afford to stay.
I also know several younger doctors who are not in the business because they enjoy helping others, but because they have found ways to make significant bucks at the expense of insurance companies, hospitals and you & me...
It would be extremely beneficial if these issues can be addressed and fixed. How to get to the root of these problems is the biggest issue of all.
I don't know what the right approach is. I do know that comparing us to other countries is truly Apples and Oranges, as the other countries do not suffer from the sufficating affects of lawyers and lawsuits...
In a gov't run system, will the gov't allow themselves to be positioned to be brought to court, as are doctors and insurance providers are today? If so, how will they fund their defense and eventual settlements?? Higher taxes on you and me I suppose...
First of all the threat of lawsuits is ridiculous, you can't get a loved one back by suing the tar out of someone.
This should be replaced by a pretty tough peer review system that recognizes licensing should be the ONLY form of redress against the Doctor other than actual damages. They can't treat these guys as buddies anymore, they are very hesitant to 2nd guess and that's why they have to be sat down and told that absent this, the lawsuits will fly.
If a doctor makes a person an complete basket case then the suit should cover the money it takes to care for the person, but pain and suffering is part of life and suing people for millions isn't the answer at all, it's an expensive form of guilt buyoff.
The answer to that problem is again revoking their license once the peer review boards deem it necessary.
This alone would remove that obstacle and the next one is the insurance companies. In exchange for massive payments to them from the government a strict set of coverage requirements should be enforced along with univeral insurability.
There's going to be gigantic jockeying for the money, they'll be howls right and left that this or that isn't fair, basically you're going to have to have someone hammer this out with a team of accountants in the room to make sure the thing is financially beneficial.
This kind of problem works best when you set broad goals like achieving a system that meets all these requirements with the first requirement being universal coverage and the 2nd requirement being it must cost less than the current system, then hack away at things until you get there.
We need to come up with a real solution, we need to test a couple models of each type system in the real world, pick a few states that are close to the national average in health care needs and implement it there, don't just throw it out there untested, that's stupid.
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
~Abraham Lincoln Lyceum Address
Last edited by conraddobler; June 4th, 2007 at 12:07 PM.
The private system does not work and the public has little , if any, control over that.
I don't understand this at all.
A private system is the only chance we have for a system that actually responds to the public and serves the consumer over special interests, corporate fat cats, and moral busybodies.
Repeated government meddling has given us the system we now have. Not quite a socialized system and not really a market system. Just a heavily regulated worst of both worlds. Where insurance is tied to employment and there is little real choice.
We need a freer system, a system of choices. A system that allows for medical coops, savings accounts, individual pay, more insurance choices. Basically a free market system.
The private system does not work and the public has little , if any, control over that. The only input the public might have is to demand that the government run a good system or have Congress and the White House held to the fire for not doing so. First step would be to disallow any political contributions from health care industry agents. Bar all lobbying by the same industry. The people's lives are at stake and no control measure seems too extreme. We gave them our trust and they effed us every chance. Prohibitive pricing, unsafe remedies, substandard care and facilities, et al are what we have. Almost every other country has a quasi/government run system, so it can work.
Here is the proof that the system we have sucks. Enabling corporate medicine must be ended and not remain a political football or a golden egg laying goose for the medical posers. Grave robbers , all of them.
I'd prefer big tax heavy governement to stay out of it, looking to mommy and daddy to solve all your problems is lame. Not to mention stifle growth.
Like anything in a non socalistic society things need to be driven by oppourtunity and profit.
Providing incentives for companies to cover their employees and penalties for not would be a good first step. Right now this is killing corporations and a threat to people who actually work for a living.
Let people buy policies state to state increasing competition.
Allow importing of drugs, end the monopoly increase competition.
Force only children to be covered by law, adults can fend for themselves if they put the effort into it.
It's a complicated issue but big government programs is not the solution.
Also I am guessing that we can apply an 80/20 rule to heath care costs. 20% of the people with health issues contribute most of the costs. These are the people who need to handle the burden of costs in my opinion. Especially if you are lazy and fat and don't do anything to prevent health issues.
My corporation is offering health screenings and I think it's to ID the unhealthy people so they can get rid of them. I think it's great less cost for me. America is too fat and to unhealthy put down the cheesecake that makes you "feel good" and get on the treadmill. People like Jordan Sparks hurt this evenmore with thier comments I like to eat. You are unhealthy and fat of course you like to eat, that doesn't make you healthy, get on the treadmill fat ass.
Can't be done without some government involvement.
It doesn't have to be the provider but it will have to define the process and set the rules.
What you are ignoring is that private companies have zero incentive without pressure or incentives to insure high rick low income people.
Secondly universal health care is just that everybody should be able to get it. That doesn't mean you can't add extra coverage as you do now. Everybody should have easy access to good primary care and reasonable access to other services. That doesn't mean a blank check for the Mayo Clinic for everybody.
Yo attitude is great when you are young. wait until you are refused coverage when you get older. It isn't always about being fat and lazy and I'm guessing you aren't in your 60's or you would understand that.
So, I guess all " fat, lazy, old people" should just die. The only " civilized " country in the universe without a national health care system makes us immoral. Armament and corporate health ( greed ) is so much more important, right??????? Very selfish rationale on the subject.
__________________
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire
Linear Mode
