When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
The Canadian system truly sucks. One system, truly socialized. No competition allowed.
On the other hand, the American system also sucks. It costs twice as much as practically everywhere else, with easily twice as much revenue-generating but otherwise unnecessary surgery, and where medical catastrophes are the number one cause of bankruptcy.
Let’s look, instead, on American style “socialized” medicine:
The most comprehensive study of patient satisfaction, comparing Medicare with private health insurance came up with the conclusions summarized below:
“Many policymakers have called for the remodeling of Medicare to more closely resemble private insurance, which is often assumed to work better than public programs do. However, evidence from this 2001 survey demonstrates that Medicare beneficiaries are generally more satisfied with their health care than are persons under age sixty-five who are covered by private insurance. Medicare beneficiaries report fewer problems getting access to care, greater confidence about their access, and fewer instances of financial hardship as a result of medical bills.”
Private insurance-based health care has seen steep declines in patient satisfaction since 2001, while satisfaction of Medicare beneficiaries has remained high. Overall costs of health care are lower in the Medicare sector than in the private sector, for comparable health problems. The reason for expanding coverage for children (the Democrats’ “S-CHIP” expansion) is that parents are too often negligent in purchasing health insurance to cover their children. Not providing health insurance for children is a serious form of child abuse, which the government traditionally has a legitimate interest in preventing.
The main people disadvantaged by Medicare are the health care providers, who’s reimbursement is capped. This has led to great dissatisfaction on the part of those doctors who entered medicine with the expectation that medicine would be a lucrative profession. Yet applications to medical school have never been more competitive, in part because of a great increase in applications by women, who are often attracted to medicine primarily for its non-monetary rewards.
As opposed to the Canandian (non-compete) system, there are the superior systems of Australia and Sweden, where there are co-existing public and private systems. The well run public systems provide health care for all. No one goes bankrupt if they get sick. But, for people who want a “concierge” level of service, they can always buy private insurance and use private doctors and private facilities. The overall cost of medical care, including both systems, is much less; health outcomes are at least comparable, and health care costs are not a competitive burden for businesses and individuals.
I certainly enjoy my healthcare coverage – I pay less now than 5 years ago when I switched companies. It was a welcome added perk and I don’t have to pay extra for ‘concierge’ level of service – it already is at or above that level.
Private insurance-based health care has seen steep declines in patient satisfaction since 2001
I’d like to see more recent data than 2002. You are supplanting opinion for fact.
Timothy
15 years ago
so, you want “socialism lite”. Gotcha.
Starts off as small, then the people get used to it, then it’s slowly racheted up, bit-by-bit.
Care to guess how high the taxes are in Sweden and OZ? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller, Bueller, Bueller????
The 2002 published study showed that Medicare patients were more satisfied with the overall quality of their health care than were patients covered by private health care plans. This is the largest and most recent study I could find, comparing the two systems in the USA. I made the statement that patient satisfaction with private health care plans has declined since then.
Here’s a reference:
“The American Consumer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) from the University of Michigan has shown that consumers’ satisfaction with healthcare has decreased significantly over the past several years,” says Melvin F. Hall, PhD, president and chief executive officer of Press Ganey. “Hospitals that partner with Press Ganey to continually measure and improve patient satisfaction challenge that trend.”
Someone else said that taxes were higher in Sweden and Australia. But this is only half the story. If you add up health care-related taxes and private sector costs for health care, these are much larger in the USA than in Sweden and Australia.
Of course, if you work for a great company, which provides a “concierge” level health care plan, you will be satisfied. But if you work for someone who gives you a cheap managed care plan, where you have no choice of health care providers and long waits for service, you will be less happy. Most people who go bankrupt from health care costs (which are the leading cause of bankruptcy) do have health insurance. But they go bankrupt, anyway. This doesn’t happen in other Western democracies.
We could also privatize police and fire and have people buy insurance to pay for police and fire services from competing private companies.
Medicare works. It’s been a great success, which has withstood the test of time. The financial problems it has are not that its costs are outstripping those of private health care, but, rather, the fact that health care costs as a whole are spiraling out of control. But Medicare is delivering a superior product for an overall lower net cost than purely private sector medicine.
To carry the analogy further: we can all receive public police and fire services, yet we are allowed, if we wish, to hire private detectives and bodyguards. With the Swedish and Australian systems, patients may avail themselves of the public system or pay for the private system, if and when they wish. The coexisting private/public systems compete with each other in certain ways, which improves overall quality of care.
The Canadian system truly sucks. One system, truly socialized. No competition allowed.
On the other hand, the American system also sucks. It costs twice as much as practically everywhere else, with easily twice as much revenue-generating but otherwise unnecessary surgery, and where medical catastrophes are the number one cause of bankruptcy.
Let’s look, instead, on American style “socialized” medicine:
The most comprehensive study of patient satisfaction, comparing Medicare with private health insurance came up with the conclusions summarized below:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12703587 (full text of study available at this web address).
Private insurance-based health care has seen steep declines in patient satisfaction since 2001, while satisfaction of Medicare beneficiaries has remained high. Overall costs of health care are lower in the Medicare sector than in the private sector, for comparable health problems. The reason for expanding coverage for children (the Democrats’ “S-CHIP” expansion) is that parents are too often negligent in purchasing health insurance to cover their children. Not providing health insurance for children is a serious form of child abuse, which the government traditionally has a legitimate interest in preventing.
The main people disadvantaged by Medicare are the health care providers, who’s reimbursement is capped. This has led to great dissatisfaction on the part of those doctors who entered medicine with the expectation that medicine would be a lucrative profession. Yet applications to medical school have never been more competitive, in part because of a great increase in applications by women, who are often attracted to medicine primarily for its non-monetary rewards.
As opposed to the Canandian (non-compete) system, there are the superior systems of Australia and Sweden, where there are co-existing public and private systems. The well run public systems provide health care for all. No one goes bankrupt if they get sick. But, for people who want a “concierge” level of service, they can always buy private insurance and use private doctors and private facilities. The overall cost of medical care, including both systems, is much less; health outcomes are at least comparable, and health care costs are not a competitive burden for businesses and individuals.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I certainly enjoy my healthcare coverage – I pay less now than 5 years ago when I switched companies. It was a welcome added perk and I don’t have to pay extra for ‘concierge’ level of service – it already is at or above that level.
Private insurance-based health care has seen steep declines in patient satisfaction since 2001
I’d like to see more recent data than 2002. You are supplanting opinion for fact.
so, you want “socialism lite”. Gotcha.
Starts off as small, then the people get used to it, then it’s slowly racheted up, bit-by-bit.
Care to guess how high the taxes are in Sweden and OZ? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller, Bueller, Bueller????
The 2002 published study showed that Medicare patients were more satisfied with the overall quality of their health care than were patients covered by private health care plans. This is the largest and most recent study I could find, comparing the two systems in the USA. I made the statement that patient satisfaction with private health care plans has declined since then.
Here’s a reference:
http://www.surgistrategies.com/hotnews/65h385942725.html
Someone else said that taxes were higher in Sweden and Australia. But this is only half the story. If you add up health care-related taxes and private sector costs for health care, these are much larger in the USA than in Sweden and Australia.
Of course, if you work for a great company, which provides a “concierge” level health care plan, you will be satisfied. But if you work for someone who gives you a cheap managed care plan, where you have no choice of health care providers and long waits for service, you will be less happy. Most people who go bankrupt from health care costs (which are the leading cause of bankruptcy) do have health insurance. But they go bankrupt, anyway. This doesn’t happen in other Western democracies.
We could also privatize police and fire and have people buy insurance to pay for police and fire services from competing private companies.
Medicare works. It’s been a great success, which has withstood the test of time. The financial problems it has are not that its costs are outstripping those of private health care, but, rather, the fact that health care costs as a whole are spiraling out of control. But Medicare is delivering a superior product for an overall lower net cost than purely private sector medicine.
To carry the analogy further: we can all receive public police and fire services, yet we are allowed, if we wish, to hire private detectives and bodyguards. With the Swedish and Australian systems, patients may avail themselves of the public system or pay for the private system, if and when they wish. The coexisting private/public systems compete with each other in certain ways, which improves overall quality of care.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA