Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

its an academic argument Tut and an ideological one. smoothy is convinced the level of service in his country is superior (isn't everything in the US, except their knowledge of the other 95% of humanity). he may be right but by any measure of cost effectiveness the US fails to deliver. The most expensive system in the world that doesn't deliver to a large percentage of their population and the strange thing is they don't want to change it, when you can see them chasing cheap goods and services all over the world and beggaring their own nation in the process. if medicine could be deliverd from India they would go for it

---

Everyone in the USA has acess to health care in an emergency... even the cheap SOB's that refuse to make sacrifices in other areas to pay for it so they can buy less important luxuries.

The same can't be said about healthcare in other countries where if you aren't a citizen there or have money you will be refused treatment.

The claims that a large percentage of people have no acess to healthcare is pure propaganda by the people that think they should have everything for free.

The FACT is no hospital in the USA can legally turn you away from treatment if you show up in need of it.

If you want a boob job... lipsuction or a face lift... you will have to pay for that yourself... as it should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Smoothy,

Leaving the other things aside for the moment. You given an account of what you call a mix of first hand experiences. As near as I can make out you then go on to say that all of this leads us to a simple comparison of things. Can't disagree with that. In fact it is an extraordinary simple comparison. So simple that as a methodology it is of no value when it comes to comparing European countries.

What does the availability of services in the United States have to do with a comparison between European countries? Would it not be be helpful to compare services between European countries?

But why have you switched to talking about services when your original statement was about systems and models of health care. Now you seem to be talking about availability of services based on geography. You have already told us about how geography plays a role in the level of services in Europe and the USA. So why have you introduced services in the equation?

Tut

---

Because it IS a matter of importance when showing who's system is truly superiour. If you don't, you are comparing apples to oranges. Like compairing a KIA or a Nano to a Mercedes-Benze... they both are cars.. have four wheels an egine and doors and get you from point A to point B. What differentiates them the most beyond who builds them is what you get for your money.

What is your own personal experience with healtcare systems outside of your native country Australia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

The FACT is no hospital in the USA can legally turn you away from treatment if you show up in need of it.

---

So why would anyone ever need to buy medical insurance if that were the case?

Yes karma it is strange so the facts on the ground might be different to the law and that would be because people are ignorant of their rights and giving you treatment then asking you to pay for it might be a different issue.

This has always been the nub of the debate level of cost and the ability to pay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Because it IS a matter of importance when showing who's system is truely superiour. If you don't, you are comparing apples to oranges. Like compairing a KIA or a Nano to a Mercedes-Benze....they both are cars..have four wheels an egine and doors and get you from point A to point B. What differentiates them the most beyond who builds them is what you get for your money.

What is your own personal experience with healtcare systems outside of your native country Austrailia?

---

Smoothy, to date you have presented me with a hotchpotch of different ideas that have little coherency.

OK, so now we are talking about countries of the world that offer superior health care.

Just to make it clear we are no longer talking about the sameness of countries in Europe offering universal health care. Ok?

Please let's stick to one issue as long as possible and not go off onto a tangent. I'm not use to that sort of thing.

As far as superior health care is concerned I don't think there is any comparison. The U.S.A. is a long way ahead of everyone else. The more money you have to spend on health care the better the service. Would you agree or disagree with that?

In answer to your question. I have no experience of health care outside of Australia.

If I want a comparison of European health care system then I would consult scholarly articles on the subject. In doing so I would hope to look at the methodologies employed by the various studies and perhaps look at the data presented and see what (if any conclusions) I can draw.


When it comes to these matters my experience is worth about as much as the next persons. Very little.

Sorry about the tangent, but I think this is where your question is heading

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

No one said that . I just don't buy into the socialized solution.
I think more free market consumer choice is the direction we should be going . You see it in services that are not traditionally covered by the insurance industry like Lasik surgery . Prices are dropping as it has become a more competitive elective procedure.

---

Tom,please spare us the invisible economic foot putting the boot into health care.

Tut

The facts support my position .Competition reduces costs . Government monopolies or government supported monopolies do the reverse .

So if one has a broken femur or a burst appendix they should start shopping for the best deal in town? It would seem to me that when one party is under emotional and physical stress then the other party has quite the unfair advantage. Will the lowest bidder have your health in the best interest?

Obviously you do your shopping before you need to purchase. However , as Smoothy has pointed out already ;NO ONE is denied emergency care in this country .

Providers in competition are also being judged on the quality of their care ,as well as the price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

However , as Smoothy has pointed out already ;NO ONE is denied emergency care in this country .

---

So, as I asked earlier, why does one need to purchase any health care at all?

Seems to me that the left has the idea that lowering the cost of healthcare will increase the quality of healthcare. It won't, but it will be "fair" and after all fairness is the endgame, right? I mean when faced with the facts in a 2008 debate that even though lowering the capital gains tax increased revenue Obama said he would raise it anyway "for purposes of fairness."

So who cares if we have quality health care or increased revenue or more jobs or whatever as long as everything is "fair," right?

In my ideal world one would have that choice. I would advise people to get catastrophic care . But much of the costs of healthcare is wasted on services could be handled at point of service fees and negotiations between patient and provider . Given that we have this insurance system ,I would free people from the constraints of having to purchase within their state plans that are designed by the state in cooperation with the selected insurance monoplies that the state approves. Yes ,even health insurance should be subject to uncartelled competition. .

Speaking of competition, MSNBC did a nice edit to make Romney look like he was having a Bush "scanner" moment instead showing the very valid point he was making.



In reality Romney was contrasting the efficiency of the private sector to the inefficiency of the public sector.



Competition works, the government doesn't.

You would think after they got caught editing the Zimmerman 9-1-1 call they'd be a little more careful.. Now she is scrambling to make a excuse for herself... No doubt she will use the Dan Rather defense (the edits could've been accurate and I believe that the story is true despite the deceptive edit) . These members of the dinosaurs haven't yet come to grips with the fact that they aren't the sole gate-keepers of "truth".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Competition works, the government doesn't.

---

Hello again, Steve:

I'm for that.. Who needs meat inspectors, anyway? Competition will keep 'em honest, won't it? Who needs to make sure you have clean water to drink? Nobody, that's who. Corporations wouldn't dump poisons that seep into our water supply, would they?? Competition will stop 'em, won't it?

excon

You just jump from one straw man to another don't you, buddy? Favoring limited government is not the same as favoring no government. Now, no more diversion - what about MSNBC's flat out deception and the point Romney was making?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

what about MSNBC's flat out deception and the point Romney was making?

---

Hello again, Steve:

The bastards... I'm a FOX guy.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

So why would anyone ever need to buy medical insurance if that were the case?

---

If you want more than basic level or emergency services... you will. No different than buying a minimal level liability insurance on your can.. vs buying a full covereage plan with rental car coverage etc. You get what you pay for...

OR... getting a public defender rather than going out and hiring a really good lawyer. There are people that get upset that its not fair the guy that pays a lot for his lawyer gets a better one than the guy that gets a free one too.

Nobody can be legally turned away from an emergency room, with or without insurance. Get refused treatment and you will get rich on the lawsuit you would be winning.

And the uininsured YOUNG choose to spend their money in iphones. starbucks... and partying than buying stuff like health insurance that cuts into their descretionary spending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

If you want more than emergency level services....you will.

---

What's the definition of "emergency level services"? Is there a policy statement link somewhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

If you want more than emergency level services....you will.

---

Our insurance-less library homeless guy had a bad case of cellulitis (skin infection), went to the ER, and was admitted to that hospital for IV treatment. After a week or so of that, he was transferred to an area rehab facility where he stayed for about four weeks. He told me he was always treated well by medical staff.