Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

The Local _ International affairs _ 12 Year Old Dies Of Toothache In America

Posted by: SkyPilot 7.Mar.2007, 03:40 AM

More proof that America has the greatest healthcare system in the world - THE THIRD WORLD :shock:

I could not find the original article I read, but here are some other links:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/merrill_goozner/2007/02/toothache_gone_wrong.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/163856/child_dies_for_lack_of_dental_care.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/166483/12_yearold_dies_from_lack_of_dental.html


Before you pass judgment on the parent, remember that some people are born with incredibly poor teeth. So brushing 5 times a day would not have stopped the problems.

Regular checkups would have stopped the problems!

Now passing judgment on the parent for not getting the kid to learn better self hygienic practices, especially because they could NOT afford the dentist, blame the parent BUT the kid is still dead!

Regular checkups would have stopped the problems!

Moral of the story is that when you have NO MONEY and you must pay for health care, you have NO health care!

I get so tired of hearing American politicians give LIP SERVICE to FAMILY VALUES but when they actually have to do something about it, America DOES NOT in fact value families.

I saw this stuff ALL the time during my Sky Piloting in the USA.

This is why I have NO problems with Sweden and partly why I feel I live in paradise.

Posted by: Ezpen The Caveman 7.Mar.2007, 04:00 AM

It's only 1 case... can't judge the healthcare system because 1 incident. This could also happen in Europe...

Posted by: Swedeofile 7.Mar.2007, 09:28 AM

I am starting to really see with the media these days that the amount of hype and sensationalism is inversly proportional to how much truth there is to a story.

The same for the repoting of the whole story, the less context the greater its real significance.

Posted by: Americangal 7.Mar.2007, 09:33 AM

I think the Doctors are OK in American BUT if you dont havae Health Insurance YOUR FU**ked...its a shame and sad cos its the elderly and the children that suffer from lack of Doctor care...

Posted by: Ms. Moda 7.Mar.2007, 10:24 AM

QUOTE (Best Regards Espen)
It's only 1 case... can't judge the healthcare system because 1 incident. This could also happen in Europe...


True, it may only be one case, but it is VERY common that people aren´t treated because they have no health insurance.

Americangal is right. I would also add that adults are affected too...not just children and elderly. They show NO MERCY!

A few years a go, a guy in Chicago bled to death 5 meters from the hospital´s emergency room. Why? He did not have insurance! This stuff happens all the time :shock:

Posted by: RONALDINHO2K2 7.Mar.2007, 10:32 AM

I fully agree espen, you cannot judge one case and state that , hey look at the american helath care. It happened o one boy, and can, and could have happened anywhere else in he word.

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 7.Mar.2007, 10:36 AM

I don't see how anyone can defend not having a basic National Health service when you read about things like that. So your mum is dirt poor - what has a child done to deserve that, and why should they suffer for it?

Posted by: wellygirl 7.Mar.2007, 10:36 AM

This thread could be linked to the "Why people think that Americans are stupid" thread.

Don't get me wrong, I generally enjoy the company of any american but the country as a whole really needs to sort it's sh!t out!!!

The above article is a prime example... It is far too money driven and even if you are bleeding to death outside the door the hospital will simply say "SHOW ME THE MONEY!"

It's greedy, selfish and inhumane!!!!!

I can't believe that this sort of stuff is actually allowed, it should be a crime!

Posted by: Ms. Moda 7.Mar.2007, 10:37 AM

QUOTE (RONALDINHO2K2)
I fully agree espen, you cannot judge one case and state that , hey look at the american helath care. It happened o one boy, and can, and could have happened anywhere else in he word.


Ronaldinho, have you lived there? I was born AND raised in the United States. So I am fully aware of the health care situation there and qualified to speak out about it.

I have also lived in Europe for years. Not saying that the health care system here is perfect...but at least you CAN see a doctor if you need to.

Posted by: Paulo's Hilton Not Blond 7.Mar.2007, 11:00 AM

Don't forget that people in Europe usually pay a lot of taxes for it, so it's not totally free.

It's the minimal that the Governments must provide --- a National Health System coverage. One of the down sides of the States is either when you're unlucky to be born under the line poverty, or don't like to work that much and expect the dream day that welfare will support your needs. You are definetely screwed up.

Posted by: wellygirl 7.Mar.2007, 11:09 AM

I think the problem with the american health care system is that there acutally is none as far as I'm aware all the hospitals are privately owned... I may be wrong but that's how I thought it was... Ms. Moda?

So hospitals are seen as a buisness to make money so they can charge as much as they damn well please and not give a toss if someone can't afford it, they just won't be looked after.

IMO every human being should have access to medical care and the government should run it or atleast fund some of it. A matter of life or death should not be monopolised!

Sure if you want cosmetic operations such as straightning your teeth then that comes out of your own pocket but COME ON!!!!! Death by tooth decay!!!! :roll:

As I said before, this sh!t needs sorting!

Posted by: Mike 7.Mar.2007, 11:34 AM

QUOTE (wellygirl)
I think the problem with the american health care system is that there acutally is none as far as I'm aware all the hospitals are privately owned... I may be wrong but that's how I thought it was... Ms. Moda?


Yeah, actually, you're completely wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Posted by: wellygirl 7.Mar.2007, 11:36 AM

QUOTE (Mike)
Yeah, actually, you're completely wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth.


well it's a good thing that I mentioned that I could be wrong rather than insisting that I knew it to be the truth! laugh.gif

Posted by: Mike 7.Mar.2007, 11:37 AM

QUOTE (Americangal)
I think the Doctors are OK in American BUT if you dont havae Health Insurance YOUR FU**ked...its a shame and sad cos its the elderly and the children that suffer from lack of Doctor care...


Strange. Then how do people with no insurance and no money (illegal aliens for example) rack up billions of dollars in unpaid hospital bills every year?

Seriously, you people are clueless and have no idea what you're talking about.

Posted by: Elvis Has Left The Building 7.Mar.2007, 11:41 AM

What a shame a child has to die at the ignorance of a parent. Even the best healthcare system does not supersede a parents intuition. I was born and raised in the US and have two children myself. I know it does happen but hospitals are not to refuse service to the ill. I had friends that had no insurance and received free healthcare many times over including minor surgery. So to say if you don't have healthcare you are F'd is completely off the mark. Staying out of political agendas. I am not sure social healthcare would work in the US, the welfare system is a failure that has deceitful people taking advantage of it. I would imagine the healthcare would be abused also. No country is without issues. Here in Sweden I know of my wife's uncle who is in need of heart surgery, he has been on a waiting list for sometime and as his health improves he drops down on the list. My brother in law needed knee surgery and had to wait many months for his treatment.

Posted by: wellygirl 7.Mar.2007, 11:50 AM

Perhaps a lot of people in America are just not aware that they have the right to medical care?

And maybe here in Sweden a higer proportion of the population are asking for medical help or just that there are not enough doctors and nurses, or they are all off having a fika...

Posted by: Bender B Rodriquez 7.Mar.2007, 12:01 PM

Or, it could be that Sweden only spends 9% of its GDP on healthcare while USA spends 15%...

Posted by: wellygirl 7.Mar.2007, 12:07 PM

this is a really stupid question I know... But what exactly does GDP stand for? I guess the G is government?

But, 9% out of how much for 9 million people? vs. 15% of how much for 300 million people??

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 7.Mar.2007, 12:14 PM

Gross Domestic Product.

Posted by: wellygirl 7.Mar.2007, 12:20 PM

Thank you for answering that one in a straight forward manner!


But then again I think 9% of a smaller amount could be a lot larger than only 15% of a huge amount...

anyone have any idea on what the "GDP" of America is?

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 7.Mar.2007, 12:23 PM

QUOTE (wellygirl)
But then again I think 9% of a smaller amount could be a lot larger than only 15% of a huge amount...


I think I've found someone worse at maths than I am!

This is quite useful:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

Posted by: Mike 7.Mar.2007, 12:25 PM

QUOTE (wellygirl)
Thank you for answering that one in a straight forward manner!


But then again I think 9% of a smaller amount could be a lot larger than only 15% of a huge amount...

anyone have any idea on what the "GDP" of America is?


Ha ha welly, sorry, but you suck at math. There is no way 9% of a smaller amount can be larger than 15% of a huge amount.

Anyway, I'm not sure what the GDP of the US is, but it's 40% of the world's GDP, which is pretty amazing when you consider the US is only 5% of the world population.

Posted by: Arca 7.Mar.2007, 12:34 PM

GDP per capita is larger for the US than Sweden. That means the US should get the same quality of healthcare as Sweden with even less than 9% of their GDP. But for some reason they don't.

Posted by: wellygirl 7.Mar.2007, 12:36 PM

QUOTE (Mike)
Ha ha welly, sorry, but you suck at math. There is no way 9% of a smaller amount can be larger than 15% of a huge amount.

Anyway, I'm not sure what the GDP of the US is, but it's 40% of the world's GDP, which is pretty amazing when you consider the US is only 5% of the world population.


Oh shoosh you and get off your high horse!!! Stop trampeling my innocent questions..
SORRY I muddeled myself up with the percentages!!!!!!!!!! get over it!
:roll:

So, if America has 40% of the worlds GDP, has 300 million people and spend 15% of their moolah on the health system then Sweden has only 9 million people and only spend 9% of their funds on the health system... What I was trying to get at was the percentage of people to percentage of funds spent...

Posted by: wellygirl 7.Mar.2007, 12:38 PM

QUOTE (Arca)
GDP per capita is larger for the US than Sweden. That means the US should get the same quality of healthcare as Sweden with even less than 9% of their GDP. But for some reason they don't.


Thank you! This is what I was trying to talk about!!!




And yes, ok, I admit I'm not a human calculator!!!

I hope you all had a good laugh at my percentage muddle though!!!

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 7.Mar.2007, 12:40 PM

I think I see Welly's point - Sweden spends 1% per million inhabitants on healthcare while the US, er, doesn't (can't do maths either but 15% with 300 million is less than 1% per million as I see it).

Posted by: wellygirl 7.Mar.2007, 12:43 PM

Thank you!!!

now who's going to tell america to sort it out?!?

biggrin.gif

Posted by: Paulo's Hilton Not Blond 7.Mar.2007, 12:47 PM

QUOTE (Mike)
Ha ha welly, sorry, but you suck at math. There is no way 9% of a smaller amount can be larger than 15% of a huge amount.

Anyway, I'm not sure what the GDP of the US is, but it's 40% of the world's GDP, which is pretty amazing when you consider the US is only 5% of the world population.


It's really huge...they are not called super power by chance. It used to be greater than the whole European Union together when there were only 12 members, even considering more people on it!

It's approximately 13,122,000,000,000.00, anyway between 12 and 13 trillion dollars.

Swedish GDP, on the other hand is app. US$ 365 billions.

Posted by: Yendor 7.Mar.2007, 12:53 PM

I have lived and worked in California for many years and now live and work in Sweden. First, get over this idea that health care is free in Sweden! You pay for it through your sky-high taxes! Second, the health care system in the US is a big mess! I think the US should have a National Health Care System but that wont happen because there is to much money "in the game"! I ended up in the hospital in Borås about a year ago with cancer and i got FIRST CLASS CARE all the way. But before i landed in the hospital i was going "downhill fast" and went to my local doctor and he did not know what was wrong with me! So he sent me to another doctor and he could not find out what was wrong either! So he sent me to a third doctor and he told me i had a Colin infection and let me go taking a pill a day. After 10 days my friend drove me to the hospital, there i collapsed on the floor! When i came to in my hospital bed they told me i had Colin Cancer and that i was in "very bad shape"! Bottom line is that if your OUTSIDE the hospital seeing doctors its a "toss of the dice". So if you get sick GO TO THE HOSPITAL! Three idiot doctors almost cost me my LIFE!

Posted by: Mike 7.Mar.2007, 12:56 PM

QUOTE (wellygirl)
Thank you!!!

now who's going to tell america to sort it out?!?

biggrin.gif


OMG, it's like the deaf leading the blind in here. :roll:

Your formula lacks some vital numbers, like the GDP.

15% of the US GDP divided by the US population is greater than 9% of the Swedish GDP divided by the population.

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 7.Mar.2007, 12:59 PM

QUOTE (Yendor)
I have lived and worked in California for many years and now live and work in Sweden. First, get over this idea that health care is free in Sweden! You pay for it through your sky-high taxes! Second, the health care system in the US is a big mess! I think the US should have a National Health Care System but that wont happen because there is to much money "in the game"! I ended up in the hospital in Borås about a year ago with cancer and i got FIRST CLASS CARE all the way. But before i landed in the hospital i was going "downhill fast" and went to my local doctor and he did not know what was wrong with me! So he sent me to another doctor and he could not find out what was wrong either! So he sent me to a third doctor and he told me i had a Colin infection and let me go taking a pill a day. After 10 days my friend drove me to the hospital, there i collapsed on the floor! When i came to in my hospital bed they told me i had Colin Cancer and that i was in "very bad shape"! Bottom line is that if your OUTSIDE the hospital seeing doctors its a "toss of the dice". So if you get sick GO TO THE HOSPITAL! Three idiot doctors almost cost me my LIFE!


I think we are actually all aware that healthcare in Sweden is funded by taxes. The point though is that if you work for a crappy wage, you can still afford to see a doctor or a dentist.

Sorry to hear about your Colin infection, hope that's cleared up. Sounds nasty.

Posted by: Elvis Has Left The Building 7.Mar.2007, 01:00 PM

Pjrnunes is correct, GDP that I could find was
US 13 trillion dollars *15%= 1,95 trillion
Sweden 285 billion dollars *9%= 25,65 billion

Per person
US 1,95 trillion/300 million peeps = 6500
Sweden 25,65 billion/9 million peeps = 2850

I am most likely going to get myself in trouble because I may be worse at math then anyone else out there because there was a confusing amount of zeroes in the calculations. Bottom line wellygirl is that it will never be enough.

Posted by: lolly 7.Mar.2007, 01:03 PM

QUOTE (wellygirl)
Thank you! This is what I was trying to talk about!!!




And yes, ok, I admit I'm not a human calculator!!!

I hope you all had a good laugh at my percentage muddle though!!!


Regardless, why does the US have a suckier health care system than a country like sweden, if they, in theory spend more?

and maybe if there are unpaid medical bills it could be due to the fact that the cost might be a little high?

At least anyone here in AU can walk in to a public hospital and get treatment, and not turned away.

Mind you I have health insurance because if I don't, and I get it in 20 years time, it will be too expensive for me to afford.

Posted by: Streja 7.Mar.2007, 01:06 PM

Isn't it colon?

Hmmm...I think Sweden should clear up some mess in the health care system, especially here in Gbg as I have never been able to see a doctor at a vårdcentral in all the 4 years I've lived here...always have to go to Axessakuten or Backa läkarhus...why? Because my vårdcentral is always busy...you're supposed to call them for an appointment but the line is ALWAYS busy! it sucks...

Posted by: Paulo's Hilton Not Blond 7.Mar.2007, 01:07 PM

QUOTE (Brian18148)
Pjrnunes is correct, GDP that I could find was
US 13 trillion dollars *15%= 1,95 trillion
Sweden 285 billion dollars *9%= 25,65 billion

Per person
US 1,95 trillion/300 million peeps = 6500
Sweden 25,65 billion/9 million peeps = 2850

I am most likely going to get myself in trouble because I may be worse at math then anyone else out there because there was a confusing amount of zeroes in the calculations. Bottom line wellygirl is that it will never be enough.


I also calculated and got these results:
(values multiplied by 10^6)

USA = 6.50 per person
Sweden = 3.56 per person


So the USA spend more money on it.

Posted by: wellygirl 7.Mar.2007, 01:09 PM

QUOTE (Pjrnunes)
I also calculated and got these results:
(values multiplied by 10^6)

USA = 6.50 per person
Sweden = 3.56 per person


So the USA spend more money on it.


so the US may spend more money on it but they are possibly not distributing these funds fairly...

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 7.Mar.2007, 01:10 PM

QUOTE (Streja)
Isn't it colon?

Hmmm...I think Sweden should clear up some mess in the health care system, especially here in Gbg as I have never been able to see a doctor at a vårdcentral in all the 4 years I've lived here...always have to go to Axessakuten or Backa läkarhus...why? Because my vårdcentral is always busy...you're supposed to call them for an appointment but the line is ALWAYS busy! it sucks...


That must depend on where you live. The vårdcental I had at our previous flat was excellent, you just rang an automated line and keyed in your phone number, they always called back within half an hour and I never waited more than 2 days for an appointment.

Posted by: Paulo's Hilton Not Blond 7.Mar.2007, 01:11 PM

QUOTE (wellygirl)
so the US may spend more money on it but they are possibly not distributing these funds fairly...


It's possible. Not all these funds reach everybody. I think most of this is also invested in medical research(business and more money in the future) so not exactly in treatment.

Posted by: Yendor 7.Mar.2007, 01:14 PM

So if your seeing your local doctor for some problem and something does not seem or sound right and your getting "bounced around" from one doctor to another go to the hospital before its to late! A national health care system works more or less in Sweden with about 9 million people but would it work in the US with 300 million people? Or would it just be to HUGE to manage or work?

Posted by: FR 7.Mar.2007, 01:15 PM

QUOTE (Streja)
Isn't it colon?
...


a Colin infection, however, is far more interesting.

Posted by: wellygirl 7.Mar.2007, 01:16 PM

QUOTE (Pjrnunes)
It's possible. Not all these funds reach everybody. I think most of this is also invested in medical research(business and more money in the future) so not exactly in treatment.


Prevention is better than cure, in the case of the kid dying of a tooth infection this is definately a prime example as he is now dead from lack of simple prevetion methods...

here's a little more light hearted approach for ya:

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/bird-flu-prevention-p1.php

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 7.Mar.2007, 01:17 PM

QUOTE (Yendor)
So if your seeing your local doctor for some problem and something does not seem or sound right and your getting "bounced around" from one doctor to another go to the hospital before its to late! A national health care system works more or less in Sweden with about 9 million people but would it work in the US with 300 million people? Or would it just be to HUGE to manage or work?


It would probably be easier to manage if run by states rather than as a federal organisation.

Posted by: Streja 7.Mar.2007, 01:17 PM

QUOTE (VikingHumpingWitch)
That must depend on where you live. The vårdcental I had at our previous flat was excellent, you just rang an automated line and keyed in your phone number, they always called back within half an hour and I never waited more than 2 days for an appointment.


Yeah somethin that sucks in Kortedala...hmmm they closed it down now...opened up a new big one in gamlestad...closed down the angered one or something as well.. so we're all supposed to go there...I haven't tried yet...not been ill for a long time.

Posted by: Elvis Has Left The Building 7.Mar.2007, 01:17 PM

In the US Hospitals say they offset the costs of non-insured by raising their prices, insurance companies claim to raise their rates due to the hospitals costs. A vicious circle that is like the chicken or the egg question.

I have three friends; Brazilian, German and Brittish, all of whom have residency here in Sweden and all of whom returned to the home land for medical treatment because they could not get proper treatment or any treatment in Sweden. One of them even happens to be a doctor in their home land but are here because of a their spouse's situation. Like I said before every country has it's issues and can be cited many times over. Including the one you live in and think is great.

Posted by: Mike 7.Mar.2007, 01:18 PM

QUOTE (Yendor)
So if your seeing your local doctor for some problem and something does not seem or sound right and your getting "bounced around" from one doctor to another go to the hospital before its to late! A national health care system works more or less in Sweden with about 9 million people but would it work in the US with 300 million people? Or would it just be to HUGE to manage or work?


It would be as efficient, awesome, and successful as all the other government programs like... ummm... errr...

Seriously, if you want your health care to have the same quality and service as the DMV, vote for national health care.

Posted by: Paulo's Hilton Not Blond 7.Mar.2007, 01:20 PM

QUOTE (wellygirl)
Prevention is better than cure, in the case of the kid dying of a tooth infection this is definately a prime example as he is now dead from lack of simple prevetion methods...

here's a little more light hearted approach for ya:

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/bird-flu-prevention-p1.php


Definetely I agree with you, but even with that I think some fatality is impossible to prevent.
It's hard to find the responsibles for this kid death... Who the ignorant parents or the health system or lack of it?
:roll:

Posted by: Bender B Rodriquez 7.Mar.2007, 01:21 PM

QUOTE (Yendor)
I have lived and worked in California for many years and now live and work in Sweden. First, get over this idea that health care is free in Sweden! You pay for it through your sky-high taxes! Second, the health care system in the US is a big mess! I think the US should have a National Health Care System but that wont happen because there is to much money "in the game"! I ended up in the hospital in Borås about a year ago with cancer and i got FIRST CLASS CARE all the way. But before i landed in the hospital i was going "downhill fast" and went to my local doctor and he did not know what was wrong with me! So he sent me to another doctor and he could not find out what was wrong either! So he sent me to a third doctor and he told me i had a Colin infection and let me go taking a pill a day. After 10 days my friend drove me to the hospital, there i collapsed on the floor! When i came to in my hospital bed they told me i had Colin Cancer and that i was in "very bad shape"! Bottom line is that if your OUTSIDE the hospital seeing doctors its a "toss of the dice". So if you get sick GO TO THE HOSPITAL! Three idiot doctors almost cost me my LIFE!


I think the problem is that only a little fraction (12%) of our taxes go to healthcare...

Posted by: Yendor 7.Mar.2007, 01:21 PM

Your right its Colon, not Colin, sorry.

Posted by: Paulo's Hilton Not Blond 7.Mar.2007, 01:23 PM

QUOTE (Brian18148)
In the US Hospitals say they offset the costs of non-insured by raising their prices, insurance companies claim to raise their rates due to the hospitals costs. A vicious circle that is like the chicken or the egg question.

I have three friends; Brazilian, German and Brittish, all of whom have residency here in Sweden and all of whom returned to the home land for medical treatment because they could not get proper treatment or any treatment in Sweden. One of them even happens to be a doctor in their home land but are here because of a their spouse's situation. Like I said before every country has it's issues and can be cited many times over. Including the one you live in and think is great.


I agree with you at all. My partner is a doctor I see more closer his reality. In some cases I also prefer treating myself in Brazil my home land. laugh.gif Especially dentistry. It's very good and cheap compared to here.

Posted by: Mike 7.Mar.2007, 01:25 PM

QUOTE (Bender)
I think the problem is that only a little fraction (12%) of our taxes go to healthcare...


Which is grand larceny if you never use the service.

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 7.Mar.2007, 01:28 PM

QUOTE (Mike)
Which is grand larceny if you never use the service.


No it isn't. I don't use the education service in Sweden but I have no problem paying for it because it's clearly in the wider interests of society to have an educated population, even if children have the misfortune to be born to poor parents. Similarly it's in the wider interests of society to ensure that people can get access to healthcare even if they don't have the money to pay for it. The cost to society of people dying all over the place would be higher.

Posted by: Paulo's Hilton Not Blond 7.Mar.2007, 01:31 PM

QUOTE (Mike)
Which is grand larceny if you never use the service.


Guys I may confess you one thing. My partner is a medical doctor, a neurologist and last year we were likely to move to Sweden. He got many job offers and we went visiting these places. You would not believe that how public money is spent badly in my opinion.

1st) The neurologists at this hospital only used to see 4 patients a day!!! I couldnt believe it! And there was still a waiting list and why they are not able to optimize it? And then I believe more and more in my theory that the State usually is not made to be efficient. I have lived in many places, live with a doctor and used to have contact with doctors in my family and I have never seen in any country a National Health Care System that meets the quality of service that patients would expect.

In the end is a little bit like those who have got more money usually will likely to get the best treatments.

Posted by: Mike 7.Mar.2007, 01:35 PM

QUOTE (VikingHumpingWitch)
No it isn't. I don't use the education service in Sweden but I have no problem paying for it because it's clearly in the wider interests of society to have an educated population, even if children have the misfortune to be born to poor parents. Similarly it's in the wider interests of society to ensure that people can get access to healthcare even if they don't have the money to pay for it. The cost to society of people dying all over the place would be higher.


Good for you, but I have a problem with being forced to pay for something.

If the "greater good" is so great and important, why do you have to force people to pay for it?

Posted by: Mike 7.Mar.2007, 01:36 PM

QUOTE (Pjrnunes)
Guys I may confess you one thing. My partner is a medical doctor, a neurologist and last year we were likely to move to Sweden. He got many job offers and we went visiting these places. You would not believe that how public money is spent badly in my opinion.

1st) The neurologists at this hospital only used to see 4 patients a day!!! I couldnt believe it! And there was still a waiting list and why they are not able to optimize it? And then I believe more and more in my theory that the State usually is not made to be efficient. I have lived in many places, live with a doctor and used to have contact with doctors in my family and I have never seen in any country a National Health Care System that meets the quality of service that patients would expect.

In the end is a little bit like those who have got more money usually will likely to get the best treatments.


Good point, Pjrnunes, and this is exactly why the government should stay out of health care.

Posted by: Elvis Has Left The Building 7.Mar.2007, 01:37 PM

In the end is a little bit like those who have got more money usually will likely to get the best treatments.[/quote]

This is all too true even in socialized medicine.

Posted by: Paulo's Hilton Not Blond 7.Mar.2007, 01:41 PM

QUOTE (Mike)
Good point, Pjrnunes, and this is exactly why the government should stay out of health care.


Thanks Mike. you know what? My partner asked them why it took so long time to see a patient and why just quite a few?

They said because there's an internal bureaucracy in the Swedish health system that doctors have to spend a lot of time documenting the patients' visits, and also because Swedish people are used to it and will not complain because they have no alternative.

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 7.Mar.2007, 01:43 PM

QUOTE (Mike)
Good for you, but I have a problem with being forced to pay for something.

If the "greater good" is so great and important, why do you have to force people to pay for it?


Because some people are selfish, and it wouldn't be right to let the unselfish people shoulder all the burden while the selfish pay nothing.

You should note that most people don't have a problem paying tax, even if you do.

Posted by: Yendor 7.Mar.2007, 01:48 PM

The only problem with a national health care system is that many people dont take care of themselves and just say "im covered by the state"! Taking the Stena boat back from Denmark last week i overheard some Sweeds complaining about the high cost of dental care, next to them they had cases and cases of wine and beer! Its ALL about priorities in life!

Posted by: Mike 7.Mar.2007, 01:53 PM

QUOTE (VikingHumpingWitch)
QUOTE (Mike)
Good for you, but I have a problem with being forced to pay for something.

If the "greater good" is so great and important, why do you have to force people to pay for it?


Because some people are selfish, and it wouldn't be right to let the unselfish people shoulder all the burden while the selfish pay nothing.


So it's not fair if a few selfish people pay for nothing, but it is fair that the rich people pay for almost everything? You do realize that the rich pay way more than everything else, but at the same time they receive the least amount of benefits.

QUOTE (VikingHumpingWitch)
You should note that most people don't have a problem paying tax, even if you do.


BS. If taxes were optional, the vast majority would quit paying.

What is so wrong with people actually paying for the services they use, instead of being robbed by the government to pay for everyone else? Are you so afraid of failure?

The truth is, there aren't really that many poor people, and charity is more than able to take care of them.

Posted by: Mike 7.Mar.2007, 01:55 PM

QUOTE (Yendor)
The only problem with a national health care system is that many people dont take care of themselves and just say "im covered by the state"! Taking the Stena boat back from Denmark last week i overheard some Sweeds complaining about the high cost of dental care, next to them they had cases and cases of wine and beer! Its ALL about priorities in life!


That's another good reason. I'm in great health and take care of my body. I never go to the doctor. Why should I pay for cancer treatment for all the smokers, or heart surgery for all the fatties?

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 7.Mar.2007, 01:57 PM

QUOTE (Mike)
So it's not fair if a few selfish people pay for nothing, but it is fair that the rich people pay for almost everything? You do realize that the rich pay way more than everything else, but at the same time they receive the least amount of benefits.



BS. If taxes were optional, the vast majority would quit paying.

What is so wrong with people actually paying for the services they use, instead of being robbed by the government to pay for everyone else? Are you so afraid of failure?

The truth is, there aren't really that many poor people, and charity is more than able to take care of them.


1. Evidence? Although everyone moans about taxes, I don't think people would really prefer to not pay them and fork out for everything on their own. That's why we still have welfare states, and why every political party campaigns on a platform of keeping them. You're not in Kansas now Dorothy.

2. It is obviously fairer to let the rich pay for more because they can. A system funded by only the poor would be of a lower quality. And before you trot out the 'socialists are only so because they're failures' argument, I earn more than twice the average Swedish monthly wage. I still have no problem paying to educate your kids because it benefits me to have bright people around me instead of uneducated thickies.

3. Why expect charity to take care of poor people? What if no charity comes forward to help - we just let them die? Why not give my money to government instead of some charity?

Posted by: Yendor 7.Mar.2007, 01:58 PM

The only wine i buy in Denmark is for my own personal use to smash over the head of some cab driver should he refuse to drive me somewhere with my bag of booze because he is hung-up on some kind of religious bullshit!

Posted by: Mike 7.Mar.2007, 02:01 PM

QUOTE (VikingHumpingWitch)
2. It is obviously fairer to let the rich pay for more because they can.


Congratulations, you support slavery.

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 7.Mar.2007, 02:03 PM

QUOTE (Mike)
Congratulations, you support slavery.


laugh.gif Funniest Mike quote ever - I might have to bookmark this one.

Posted by: Mike 7.Mar.2007, 02:04 PM

QUOTE (VikingHumpingWitch)
laugh.gif Funniest Mike quote ever - I might have to bookmark this one.


Yeah, do it. It's funny and true. laugh.gif

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 7.Mar.2007, 02:06 PM

Do you know, I'd never thought it about before, but you're absolutely right. Me having to pay high tax because I can afford to is EXACTLY the same as being shipped off to a foreign country and forced to work for no money doing hard labour on a plantation or similar, being beaten and subject to sale to another owner at a moment's whim.

Where do I sign up to start demanding my reparations?

Posted by: Mike 7.Mar.2007, 02:10 PM

Slavery - The condition of control over a person against their will, enforced by violence or other forms of coercion.

How does that not apply to taxation?

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 7.Mar.2007, 02:13 PM

It applies to taxation in the way that it applies to the following situations:

1. I should be allowed to smoke anywhere I like - the smoking ban is controlling my actions against my will, enforced by violence or other means.

2. I should be allowed to drive my car anywhere I like, at any speed I like, because stopping me from driving down a pavement at 90 miles an hour is controlling my actions against my will, enforced by violence or other means.

3. I should be allowed to shag animals up the bum with a strap-on because stopping me from doing it is controlling my actions against my will, enforced by violence or other means.

and so on.

Posted by: Bender B Rodriquez 7.Mar.2007, 02:13 PM

QUOTE (Mike)
Slavery - The condition of control over a person against their will, enforced by violence or other forms of coercion.

How does that not apply to taxation?


To have laws is slavery...

Posted by: Bender B Rodriquez 7.Mar.2007, 02:15 PM

Gravity is slavery...

Posted by: Mike 7.Mar.2007, 02:22 PM

QUOTE (VikingHumpingWitch)
It applies to taxation in the way that it applies to the following situations:

1. I should be allowed to smoke anywhere I like - the smoking ban is controlling my actions against my will, enforced by violence or other means.

2. I should be allowed to drive my car anywhere I like, at any speed I like, because stopping me from driving down a pavement at 90 miles an hour is controlling my actions against my will, enforced by violence or other means.

3. I should be allowed to shag animals up the bum with a strap-on because stopping me from doing it is controlling my actions against my will, enforced by violence or other means.

and so on.


Except that all your examples involve direct and intentional harm of other beings.

If I don't pay taxes, I'm not actively, directly, or intentionally hurting anyone.

Now you'll probably say something like, "but people who can't afford health care could die because you didn't pay..." But 1) you can't prove that charity wouldn't have helped them 2) I'm still not actively hurting them. I didn't force them into their situation, nor did I run over them with my car or blow smoke in their face.

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 7.Mar.2007, 02:28 PM

QUOTE (Mike)
Except that all your examples involve direct and intentional harm of other beings.

If I don't pay taxes, I'm not actively, directly, or intentionally hurting anyone.

Now you'll probably say something like, "but people who can't afford health care could die because you didn't pay..." But 1) you can't prove that charity wouldn't have helped them 2) I'm still not actively hurting them. I didn't force them into their situation, nor did I run over them with my car or blow smoke in their face.


They do not all involve direct or intentional harm to others. You don't have to be in the same room as me if you don't like my smoke, you're free to leave. You can't prove the horse I'm taking up trap 2 isn't enjoying it. You can't prove that charity will help someone who needs it, come to that.

I could give other examples - not allowing me to have sex in public or walk around nude, for example, but I can't really be arsed to go on yet again with this same argument. Two things in life are certain, as someone once said, tax and death. You might as well get used to it or else move back to the states because you're views are very much minority here in Europe.

Posted by: Mike 7.Mar.2007, 02:31 PM

QUOTE (VikingHumpingWitch)
They do not all involve direct or intentional harm to others. You don't have to be in the same room as me if you don't like my smoke, you're free to leave.


If it's a private business or residence, I agree, but public areas should be free from smoke.

Anyway, it's sad to see that so many people are willing to be slaves of big government.

Posted by: Craptastical 7.Mar.2007, 02:33 PM

QUOTE (VikingHumpingWitch)
It would probably be easier to manage if run by states rather than as a federal organisation.


Watch out, you're starting to sound like a Libertarian wink.gif

Something that I think could be happening WRT mismanaged funds is that it's possible that the money is being directed to the wrong locations within the US.

Something that always makes me angry is the fact that my taxes are going to some hospital in NYC to get some crack whore treated rather than helping the community I live in.

Grrr. I really need to ignore this thread. It's going to give me an ulcer and then I'm going to have to use the healthcare system.

Posted by: Luke_j 7.Mar.2007, 03:22 PM

Healthcare costs in the US are higher than in European countries because

- Obesity and unhealthy lifestyle of many Americans, i.e. more patients.
- Much higher personal responsibilities of doctors and nurses which results in much higher salary costs.
- High drug prices due to government interventions.

And it's a myth that the US doesn't have any public healthcare.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_pub_per_cap-care-funding-public-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_pri_per_cap-care-funding-private-per-capita


QUOTE (Pjrnunes)
Swedish people are used to it and will not complain because they have no alternative.


There are alternatives. You are free to go to a private hospital.


QUOTE (Mike)
Anyway, I'm not sure what the GDP of the US is, but it's 40% of the world's GDP, which is pretty
amazing when you consider the US is only 5% of the world population.


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-nominal-per-capita

I assume you think Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark and Iceland are even more amazing.

QUOTE (Mike)
BS. If taxes were optional, the vast majority would quit paying.

What is so wrong with people actually paying for the services they use, instead of being robbed by the government to pay for everyone else? Are you so afraid of failure?

The truth is, there aren't really that many poor people, and charity is more than able to take care of them.


I'm libertarian and agree with you that no one should have to pay for services they didn't ask for.

However, as long as corporations have special privileges, such as no financial responsibility after bankruptcy, the government should have the right to tax them as much as they'd like. What I find strange is that the government can give such privileges. You shouldn't be able to buy immunity.

I'd say remove the privileges and remove the taxes. It would solve a lot of problems in today's bubble economies.

Posted by: Mike 7.Mar.2007, 03:35 PM

QUOTE (Luke_J)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-nominal-per-capita

I assume you think Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark and Iceland are even more amazing.


No, that's "nominal per capita". The US is 40% of the entire world's GDP. No other country comes even close.

Posted by: you've got to be kidding me 7.Mar.2007, 04:46 PM

Let's dispel of some myths about health care in the US as compared to "free" healthcare in the great socialist societies. When I first separated from the military, we had no healthcare coverage. I was starting a new job, and had yet to qualify for the company health plan. One day my three year old son had a seizure caused by a rapid rise in temperature. My wife rushed him to the hospital, where he was immediately taken in. He spent the next three days in the ICU (intensive care unit). After all was said and done, the hospital bills totalled over $17,00.00. Being in the financial situation we were, the State of South Carolina picked up the tab for the hospital bills. So let's stop claiming that the "poor" can't get healthcare.
Now let's look at the wonderful "free" healthcare here in Sweden.
1. My son needs braces. He's been placed on a three year waiting list.
2. A pregnant lady trips and falls face first. She breaks her fall with her arms, but still hits her stomach on the ground. The hospital takes no ultrasound to check the condition of her baby. She complains of sharp pain in both arms, but no x-rays are taken. The next day she returns, still complaining of pain in both arms. Finally x-rays are taken, revealing two broken arms.
3. Last January I had a wood chopping accident and struck my lower leg with an axe. My wife drives me to the hospital with blood spurting out with each heartbeat. When we arrive at the ER, the door is locked. After cleaning and stitching the wound, I'm expecting an x-ray since the only thing that stopped the axe from going through my leg was the bone. No x-ray was taken. They say if it still hurts in a week, come back. When we go back, an x-ray is taken revealing a fracture completely through the bone.
4. An American women is refused treatment by a doctor, who himself was of another nationality.

Uh, yeah. Thanks for the "free" healthcare. (That you still pay for, until you've paid enough times to get your "go to the doctor free" stamp.)

I'd much rather pay out of my AFTER TAX income for the quality and level of care that I feel is required, than have it taken out of my pay for a far inferior level of care.

I know that there are many cases pointing out the good and bad of both systems. I am of the opinion that the free market system provides a better overall quality of healthcare, as with many other aspects of free markets. My belief is, you get what you pay for.

Posted by: Luke_j 7.Mar.2007, 04:49 PM

QUOTE (Mike)
No, that's "nominal per capita". The US is 40% of the entire world's GDP.


If you would consider PPP adjustable GDP, it would make up a smaller fraction of the the world's total GDP since the cost of living is much lower in third world countries.

BTW, you're 40% figure is wrong.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp-economy-gdp-nominal

Nominal: $11,667,515,000,000.00 of $40,291,009,000,000.00 is 28.8 %

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_ppp-economy-gdp-ppp

PPP: $11,667,515,000,000.00 of $54,747,393,000,000.00 is 21.1 %

QUOTE (Mike)
No other country comes even close.


Luxembourg and Ireland still have higher GDP per capita after PPP adjustment.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_ppp_percap-economy-gdp-ppp-per-capita


Personally, I think the US, Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark and Iceland are all amazing in their own way.

My post was just to point out the fault in your logic. Basically all your posts are about the same thing, namely the awesomeness and supremacy of the US. You think you're libertarian, but you can't argue in favor of capitalism since you don't understand economics. A few weeks ago you said something like "Ööhh... the US drug prices are higher because we have a free market". I say how stupid can one be?

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 7.Mar.2007, 04:50 PM

QUOTE (you've got to be kidding me)
I know that there are many cases pointing out the good and bad of both systems. I am of the opinion that the free market system provides a better overall quality of healthcare, as with many other aspects of free markets. My belief is, you get what you pay for.


Exactly. For every bad story you can give about Swedish healthcare, someone else can give a good one. Ditto American (by the way I'm not disputing that American healthcare is brilliant. If you can afford it.)

The point is, as you say, you get what pay for. If you can't pay for it, you get...

Posted by: you've got to be kidding me 7.Mar.2007, 05:02 PM

QUOTE (VikingHumpingWitch)
Exactly. For every bad story you can give about Swedish healthcare, someone else can give a good one. Ditto American (by the way I'm not disputing that American healthcare is brilliant. If you can afford it.)

The point is, as you say, you get what pay for. If you can't pay for it, you get...


Again, not true. We had no healthplan when my son suffered his seizure, and yet he is alive and well today and we were never required to pay one red cent.
My wife works in healthcare with the elderly here in Sweden as she also did for a time in the States. She is Swedish, she grew up in the Swedish system, but yet she also believes from first hand knowledge that the private system is far superior to the "free" system that is in place here in Sweden. If providers aren't given an incentive (i.e., better pay) to provide better service, why should they? There is no incentive to do a better job when someone knows they will be paid (with no chance of malpractice lawsuits) when they provide inferior service. A desire to do the right thing should be enough for someone to do their job to the best of their ability, but the reality is, is that it's not.

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 7.Mar.2007, 05:10 PM

QUOTE (you've got to be kidding me)
Again, not true. We had no healthplan when my son suffered his seizure, and yet he is alive and well today and we were never required to pay one red cent.
My wife works in healthcare with the elderly here in Sweden as she also did for a time in the States. She is Swedish, she grew up in the Swedish system, but yet she also believes from first hand knowledge that the private system is far superior to the "free" system that is in place here in Sweden. If providers aren't given an incentive (i.e., better pay) to provide better service, why should they? There is no incentive to do a better job when someone knows they will be paid (with no chance of malpractice lawsuits) when they provide inferior service. A desire to do the right thing should be enough for someone to do their job to the best of their ability, but the reality is, is that it's not.


OK, well my one and only experience of not having a healthcare plan in America was when I was over there and my 10 year old cousin was rushed into hospital bleeding from the ear, and before anyone would see her they insisted on taking a credit card. I find this abhorrent but it's what you're used to I guess.

I absolutely disagree that pay incentivises doctors to do a better job. Certainly the UK NHS has plenty of malpractice suits against it, but so do private healthcare providers. My stepmother had major stomach surgery which turned out to be completely unnecessary, because she was misdiagnosed by a private doctor. I am really astonished that anyone who has even the most cursory knowledge of healthcare provision would believe that medical staff can't be bothered to do their job properly if they aren't working for a private institution.

I do think you should have the option to pay for private care if you want, but that shouldn't relieve you from paying for the national health service.

Posted by: you've got to be kidding me 7.Mar.2007, 05:24 PM

If I'm paying privately for my families healthcare, I should also pay for someone else? You've got to be kidding me!

As far as incentives go, I'm not refering to bonuses and such. What I'm referring to is the ability to build a private practice. If Dr. A and Dr. B both have private practices, but yet patients coming out of Dr. A's office are treated better and have their health problems addressed more efficiently, Dr. A is going to develop a better reputation. Maybe even take some of Dr. B's unhappy patients. Therefore he has the oppurtunity to build a bigger practice, see more patients and in the long run make more money.

This applies to anything. If my company makes a better widget than your company, eventually I have the chance to build a stronger, better, more profitable business than you. But if the government pays both factories the same amount for the same widget, there is no incentive to make a better widget.

Some people prefer "free", I prefer FREEDOM.

Posted by: Roger O. Thornhill 7.Mar.2007, 05:33 PM

QUOTE (wellygirl)
?

So hospitals are seen as a buisness to make money so they can charge as much as they damn well please and not give a toss if someone can't afford it, they just won't be looked after.

:roll:

!



Yes, you are wrong.

Insurance companies have much to say in determining what can be charged. If the insurance won't pay the hospital cannot charge.

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 7.Mar.2007, 05:33 PM

QUOTE (you've got to be kidding me)
If I'm paying privately for my families healthcare, I should also pay for someone else? You've got to be kidding me!

As far as incentives go, I'm not refering to bonuses and such. What I'm referring to is the ability to build a private practice. If Dr. A and Dr. B both have private practices, but yet patients coming out of Dr. A's office are treated better and have their health problems addressed more efficiently, Dr. A is going to develop a better reputation. Maybe even take some of Dr. B's unhappy patients. Therefore he has the oppurtunity to build a bigger practice, see more patients and in the long run make more money.

This applies to anything. If my company makes a better widget than your company, eventually I have the chance to build a stronger, better, more profitable business than you. But if the government pays both factories the same amount for the same widget, there is no incentive to make a better widget.

Some people prefer "free", I prefer FREEDOM.


Everyone should pay for a basic national health service, because everyone benefits from it (see previous posts). If you also wish to pay for private healthcare I don't think you should be stopped from doing so.

Your 'better' theory does not apply to healthcare. If your wife seriously would not bother to do her job properly because she won't earn any more from doing so then I'm sorry but she is in totally the wrong industry, and is possibly a danger to patients. I am sure this isn't the case and she's just making a political point, but caring professions are not like widget factories and it is just silly to suggest that they are.

Posted by: wellygirl 7.Mar.2007, 05:38 PM

QUOTE (And Now For Something Completely Different)
Yes, you are wrong.

Insurance companies have much to say in determining what can be charged. If the insurance won't pay the hospital cannot charge.




Well there ya go...

Posted by: Roger O. Thornhill 7.Mar.2007, 05:39 PM

Antidotally, I have experienced the US, UK and Swedish healthcare systems.

Hans down, US is superior capabilities.

From my own experience, socialized medicine is like elevator music. It is available to everyone and everyone is disappointed.

Posted by: you've got to be kidding me 7.Mar.2007, 05:50 PM

QUOTE (VikingHumpingWitch)
Everyone should pay for a basic national health service, because everyone benefits from it (see previous posts). If you also wish to pay for private healthcare I don't think you should be stopped from doing so.

Your 'better' theory does not apply to healthcare. If your wife seriously would not bother to do her job properly because she won't earn any more from doing so then I'm sorry but she is in totally the wrong industry, and is possibly a danger to patients. I am sure this isn't the case and she's just making a political point, but caring professions are not like widget factories and it is just silly to suggest that they are.


Please show me where I said that my wife refuses to do her job properly. What I said was that she believes the free market system is better than the "free" system.

They say that seeing is 80% of believing. Maybe you need to spend a few days at a state run retirement home and a private retirement home to see the difference.

And yes, my better theory does apply to all aspects of anything run by the government versus the private sector. If you don't belive so, tell me why not, not just that "it doesn't".
Just today, my wife informed me that all of the permanent workers at the home where she is working are considering calling in sick because they are under-paid, under-staffed and under-supplied when it comes to what they need to care for the patients. They are also considering going to the local newspaper. Now I compare this to a retirement home that my late uncle started from an old farmhouse outside of Baltimore. He grew that into a thriving business with over 200 beds, round the clock care and employees that were happy to work there. Where would I rather spend my last days? (other than Hawaii!). Take a guess.

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 7.Mar.2007, 05:55 PM

QUOTE (you've got to be kidding me)
Please show me where I said that my wife refuses to do her job properly. What I said was that she believes the free market system is better than the "free" system.

They say that seeing is 80% of believing. Maybe you need to spend a few days at a state run retirement home and a private retirement home to see the difference.

And yes, my better theory does apply to all aspects of anything run by the government versus the private sector. If you don't belive so, tell me why not, not just that "it doesn't".
Just today, my wife informed me that all of the permanent workers at the home where she is working are considering calling in sick because they are under-paid, under-staffed and under-supplied when it comes to what they need to care for the patients. They are also considering going to the local newspaper. Now I compare this to a retirement home that my late uncle started from an old farmhouse outside of Baltimore. He grew that into a thriving business with over 200 beds, round the clock care and employees that were happy to work there. Where would I rather spend my last days? (other than Hawaii!). Take a guess.


I was referring to this bit "if the government pays both factories the same amount for the same widget, there is no incentive to make a better widget" - i.e. if a doctor gets paid the same as every other doctor s/he has no incentive to do a good or better job. Surely you must realise this is shash? Doctors are not producing goods, unlike a widget factory they operate in the hope of never seeing their customers again, they are under oath to do their best for patients... I can't believe you need this explaining to you. I might just as well argue that private healthcare is bad because doctors have an incentive to make you sicker (repeat custom).

Underpaid healthcare staff is simply a reason to raise their wages, not an argument against a national health service. Good on your uncle - want to bet there isn't a privately owned retirement home that doesn't pay good wages and has demotivated employees? It has nothing to do with private or public ownership, but how something is run. I'm happy to agree that Sweden's healthservice could be better run, but that's a totally different discussion.

Posted by: you've got to be kidding me 7.Mar.2007, 06:17 PM

QUOTE (VikingHumpingWitch)
I was referring to this bit "if the government pays both factories the same amount for the same widget, there is no incentive to make a better widget" - i.e. if a doctor gets paid the same as every other doctor s/he has no incentive to do a good or better job. Surely you must realise this is shash? Doctors are not producing goods, unlike a widget factory they operate in the hope of never seeing their customers again, they are under oath to do their best for patients... I can't believe you need this explaining to you. I might just as well argue that private healthcare is bad because doctors have an incentive to make you sicker (repeat custom).

Underpaid healthcare staff is simply a reason to raise their wages, not an argument against a national health service. Good on your uncle - want to bet there isn't a privately owned retirement home that doesn't pay good wages and has demotivated employees? It has nothing to do with private or public ownership, but how something is run. I'm happy to agree that Sweden's healthservice could be better run, but that's a totally different discussion.


I only need to refer to my broken leg to argue against your point that doctors hope to never see their patients again. The best for this patient that night would have been to take an x-ray, as with the pregnant lady.
As it was, I pay through my taxes, then I paid that night of the accident, then I paid again when I had to go back a week later. I'm not the suing type, but if this had happened in the States, the would have been fear of a lawsuit. Another "incentive" for medical staff to do their best.

Posted by: Paulo's Hilton Not Blond 7.Mar.2007, 06:34 PM

QUOTE (Luke_J)
If you would consider PPP adjustable GDP, it would make up a smaller fraction of the the world's total GDP since the cost of living is much lower in third world countries.

BTW, you're 40% figure is wrong.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp-economy-gdp-nominal

Nominal: $11,667,515,000,000.00 of $40,291,009,000,000.00 is 28.8 %

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_ppp-economy-gdp-ppp

PPP: $11,667,515,000,000.00 of $54,747,393,000,000.00 is 21.1 %



Luxembourg and Ireland still have higher GDP per capita after PPP adjustment.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_ppp_percap-economy-gdp-ppp-per-capita


Personally, I think the US, Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark and Iceland are all amazing in their own way.

My post was just to point out the fault in your logic. Basically all your posts are about the same thing, namely the awesomeness and supremacy of the US. You think you're libertarian, but you can't argue in favor of capitalism since you don't understand economics. A few weeks ago you said something like "Ööhh... the US drug prices are higher because we have a free market". I say how stupid can one be?


Luke_J, I guess Mike wasn't mentioning GDP per capita of course many European countries overpass the US. Luxembourg is the top. But when you analize the total GDP the US come first. You cannot also deny the influence and power of the US(due to its economy as well) in the world over all of these other countries what certainly doesn't minimize their accomplishments.

And last, it is not politically correct classify countries as the 1st world and 3r world ones. They are either post industrial developed countries or developing countries. I think if you'd travel to some '3rd world countries' you wouldn't believe that there's much more of the first world in these places that someone could have ever imagined before! This simply doesn't make sense anymore, perhaps just right after the World War II.

Posted by: Craptastical 7.Mar.2007, 07:12 PM

QUOTE (Pjrnunes)
And last, it is not politically correct classify countries as the 1st world and 3r world ones.


http://emptybottle.org/glass/2003/03/because_i_love_the_man.php

I abhor this "please be PC" crap when it's not warranted. "3rd world" is not non-PC. It's only non-PC if you wish to take offense to it. To be honest, I don't usually hear 1st world and 3rd world, it's usually industrialized and 3rd world.

Posted by: Mib 7.Mar.2007, 07:50 PM

Thankfully, I've not had to call on the healthcare systems in the US or Sweden. However, I have relatives working in both systems. I've also had brief experiences of the UK NHS via relatives and friends.

Reality: In the US, people who do not have healthcare insurance are delaying going to the hospital if they experience chest pains or other serious health issues. The reason is that tests for chest pains etc can run into thousands upon thousands of dollars. This means that when they have no choice but to go to the hospital, there are a lot of cases where it's too late to treat those people or because of the delay, the road back to health is going to be hard emotionally and financially.

In Sweden, the healthcare system is experiencing the same problems as other similar care systems around the world ie. lack of resources, bad management, bad communication, fire fighting rather than preventative medicine etc etc. Sweden is unique in that because of their high taxes, some Doctors do not work enough overtime to help reduce the waiting lists. Why work an extra 10 to 20 hours a week and have most of your overtime pay taken away? Doctors work very hard and deal with situations that most of us would refuse to deal with.

In the UK, despite huge increases in funding, the NHS has had to cut services and make medical staff umemployed to reduce hospital debts. So, while overall, some areas have improved, the improvement is much smaller than what you would expect from huge increases in funding. The UK NHS system is very hierachal (sorry can't spell it), so some Consultants think they are God and don't acknowledge or communicate with what they regard as people below them. There appears to be more Managers/Consultants than medical staff who are earning huge salaries. Massive IT projects etc are way over budget and delayed. The Governement keeps changing things and have introduced targets, which have forced hospitals to use creative accounting to make the figures look better...

But, through my experience with the UK health system , despite all the bad publicity etc, my relatives have been treated very well. The service has brought them back to health thrugh the deication of the medical staff. So, I suspect that while we hear all the negative aspects about medical services throughout the world, I suspect that 90% of peole receive a great service...but the media very rarely report that...it doesn't make a good headline...

If you do suffer a delay in treatment/diagnosis, you have 3 choices, wait, take out private medical insurance or travel to France where medical treatments cost far less than in the UK and other places. In fact, it made me laugh that French Doctors had to visit the UK to strike/protest about their pay as it's illegal to do it in France.

Finally, the healthcare systems are dealing with an increase in demand from us. We're living longer, we're eating too much rubbish, we don't exercise enough and we expect more than our parents/grandparents did. Until we truly deal with these very difficult issues, the system will continue to disappoint 10% of the population.

Good health to all

Posted by: Elvis Has Left The Building 7.Mar.2007, 07:57 PM

A little humor I received in an Email today, very timely.
Having been an HMO member I can attest, some of these are not far from the truth.

MEDICAL INSURANCE EXPLAINED

Q. What does HMO stand for?

A. This is actually a variation of the phrase, "HEY MOE." Its roots go back to a concept pioneered by Moe of the Three Stooges, who discovered that a patient could be made to forget the pain in his foot if he was poked hard enough in the eye.

Q. I just joined an HMO. How difficult will it be to choose the doctor I want?

A. Just slightly more difficult than choosing your parents. Your insurer will provide you with a book listing all the doctors in the plan. The doctors basically fall into two categories: those who are no longer accepting new patients, and those who will see you but are no longer participating in the plan. But don't worry, the remaining doctor who is still in the plan and accepting new patients has an office just a half-day's drive away and a diploma from a third world country.

Q. Do all diagnostic procedures require pre-certification?

A. No. Only those you need.

Q. Can I get coverage for my preexisting conditions?

A. Certainly, as long as they don't require any treatment.

Q. What happens if I want to try alternative forms of medicine?

A. You'll need to find alternative forms of payment.

Q. My pharmacy plan only covers generic drugs, but I need the name brand. I tried the generic medication, but it gave me a stomachache. What should I do?

A. Poke yourself in the eye.

Q. What if I'm away from home and I get sick?

A. You really shouldn't do that.

Q. I think I need to see a specialist, but my doctor insists he can handle my problem. Can a general practitioner really perform a heart transplant right in his/her office?

A. Hard to say, but considering that all you're risking is the $20 co-payment, there's no harm in giving it a shot.

Q. Will health care be different in the next decade?

A. No, but if you call right now, you might get an appointment by then.

To Your Good Health (because as you'll see, you'll need it!)

Posted by: 7 7.Mar.2007, 08:22 PM

QUOTE (you've got to be kidding me)
Again, not true. We had no healthplan when my son suffered his seizure, and yet he is alive and well today and we were never required to pay one red cent.


i'm glad that in your case your son was treated and your debt was written off.

you listed a few cases where the system failed in sweden. do you not believe there might be an amazingly high number of anecdotal cases of americans being denied health care, or bankrupted because of medical debt?

don't fool yourself due to your particular experiences.

pre-existing conditions lock so many americans out of treatments. they might not die of a heart attack on the steps of the hospital, but the long term care they require can and is denied to nearly anyone without coverage.

i have to agree with you on the reception in ERs. i think emergency care in stockholm (can't speak for sweden --but it seems to be the case) needs a lot of work. your experiences of not getting a thorough check seem to be more the norm than the exception.

Posted by: Word Up 7.Mar.2007, 09:08 PM

QUOTE (Arca)
GDP per capita is larger for the US than Sweden. That means the US should get the same quality of healthcare as Sweden with even less than 9% of their GDP. But for some reason they don't.


When I hear some of the old folks complaining of the HIIIIIIIGH cost of medical care here, I just want to tell them to shut up. They complain because every time they go to the doctor it costs 80 mutha friggin crowns. I tell them just to park in the garage at the doctors office in America will polish off that 80 crowns. Then you walk through the door of Doc's office and you're already out of 700-1000 crowns. You need a test??? Oooooooh shit, now we're just getting started with the attack on your wallet. Special procedure?? Surgery?? How much do you have in your life's saving?

Hospital??? By now the med establishment is licking their chops. Their beds are made of rubies, pearls and gold and to stay in one for a single night is more expensive than a suite at the Waldorf ... WITH room service, complete with 2 bottle of champagne. ... and that's just the bed cost. You actually need a doctor to come check you in your hospital bed?? Well now nothing in life is free. Need an IV, bandages, catheter, a shot of this -- a shot of that? EVERYTHING in American hospitals are on the meter.

Then after you get out, the cost of prescription drugs will polish off whatever you have left in your wallet.

Health insurance. Yeah, right. Get any castastrophic illness, and that when the health insurance company will talk like Gomer Pyle - "surpriiize surpriize surprizze." That's when you learn for the first time they don't cover this and don't cover that and only cover a certain percentage of that.

Wanna know what the number one reason for personal bankruptcy in the US?? You guessed it -- http://www.medical-insurance-america.com/HealthInsurance-IndividualMedical-Introduction4U.php.

Yes, its a damn shame in the country that teaches its citizens to chant the great American mantra, "We're number one. We're number one" like robotic parrots. Number one in what?

Posted by: Arca 8.Mar.2007, 01:24 AM

Word Up,
that about sums up my limited understanding of US health care.

Someone mentioned freedom. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Freedom to me is not having to worry about the essentials in life.

I read that health care costs in the US have been rising more than 10% every year. That would have me worry even if I had a good income and a good insurance.

Posted by: Paulo's Hilton Not Blond 8.Mar.2007, 09:28 AM

QUOTE (Craptastical)
http://emptybottle.org/glass/2003/03/because_i_love_the_man.php

I abhor this "please be PC" crap when it's not warranted. "3rd world" is not non-PC. It's only non-PC if you wish to take offense to it. To be honest, I don't usually hear 1st world and 3rd world, it's usually industrialized and 3rd world.


I don't take offense to it. :wink: It also does not make any sense in the globalized economies we face today. The problem in the developing countries are much more social than technological and/or either the quality of services some part of this population(sometimes a few I know) is able to afford to get or a third way of doing things. That's why I agree more with the term "developing" that gives the idea of expansion and tendency to follow over and over a more industrialized model, and sometimes including in the model those who have been out of it.

Well, I still hear both "tags" :?

Posted by: Mike 8.Mar.2007, 10:18 AM

QUOTE (Luke_J)
A few weeks ago you said something like "Ööhh... the US drug prices are higher because we have a free market". I say how stupid can one be?


You must be confused. I never said that.

Posted by: Luke_j 8.Mar.2007, 12:21 PM

QUOTE (Mike)
You must be confused. I never said that.


Mike... my apologies if I was wrong about the "quotation" above. I think I might have confused your posts with someone else's.

Anyway, to whoever said that thing that I thought Mike said, I say "how stupid can one be?"

:wink:

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)