Reform? Why do we need health-care reform? Everything is just fine the way it is.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Thank your father for me. Were it not for him, my life would suck.

Will do. Drink a bottle of wine and toast him for me.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I spent my rock on getting a toaster. Tomorrow's rock will get me bread. The wine will have to wait.

No one said being a liberal was easy.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I can only imagine.

[SpiritAlight 1]

Have you ever questioned your type of work ethic?

How about what your work is doing to others?

Does your corporation plunder and pillage other countries?

No?

Hmmmm....

Working hard does not mean working smart.

N'est pas?

Question everything!

[DEDixon 39]

There does seem to be a lot of opposition around here to health care reform. Its gotten me thinking.

Maybe there is something fundamental here in the USA that means we cannot run a cost-effective, healthcare system that delivers a high level of care to people in this country. Maybe it really is better that we pay twice as much of national income and get one of the worst (probably the worst) result of any developed, western democracy. Maybe, if we were to adopt something like the French, German, Australian, Japanese, or Canadian system of healthcare, our society would crash down around us. Maybe we just don't have the resilience, initiative, persistence, or creativity of people in those nations.

Maybe it is better for us to keep the terrible deal we have now.

But ... I don't think so.

Twice? You have a link to that "fact?"

Those other systems? Can you detail them for us, each of them. Are you a world health care analyst? I mean, the only way I'd know anything about ALL of those systems would be if it were my job. Do you know as much about the banking systems in each country? Why not? I mean, if you know the health care systems so well, why not the banking, or transportation or education. Maybe you are a world health care analyst. I doubt people who work in the US health system know the systems of the French, German, Australian, Japanese and Canadian so I wonder why/how you know so much.

How much of GDP does each of these countries spend on health care? Do they have a separate system for the elderly?

"According to the WHO, the United States spends 16.5% of its GDP on health care, or about $6,100 per person. This compares to an average of 8.6% in European countries."

Source

I'll try to dig back into WHO literature itself and see what I can find for you.

2*8.6 = 17.2 which is pretty close to 16.5.

DEDixon, you asked for a source. Here's a source, together with some more detailed data to support my point.

Here are total healthcare costs for different nations as % of GDP, together with life expectancy for men and women, as a crude surrogate for quality of delivered care. Of the nations listed here, the USA spends by far the largest amount on health care, and every other country listed has greater life expectancy for women. For men, all save Belgium and Finland have greater life expectancy for men and those two countries are tied with the USA at (only) 75 years. Belgium paid only 9.4%, and Finland paid only 7.4% of GDP for their healthcare. Here in the USA, we get a great bargain since in 2003 we paid 15.2% of GDP for healthcare, yet came in last in terms of life expectancy.

The data are for 2003, taken from a World Health Organization report dated 2006. Source

Sorry if the formatting in the table is dodgy. That's something VisasJourney doesn't excel at.

%GDP Men Women

Australia 9.5 78 83

Belgium 9.4 75 81

Canada 9.9 78 83

Finland 7.4 75 82

France 10.1 76 82

Germany 11.1 76 82

Luxembourg 6.8 76 81

Netherlands 8.1 77 81

Norway 10.3 77 82

Sweden 9.4 78 83

Switzerland 11.5 78 83

United Kingdom 8 76 81

United States 15.2 75 80

Where is that detailed comparison of each system? Do you know what makes each system better than the US system right off the top of your head. Why post that certain systems are better unless you know how each of them work?

Life expectancy alone can't define good or bad health.

[mendeleev 68]

There does seem to be a lot of opposition around here to health care reform. Its gotten me thinking.

Maybe there is something fundamental here in the USA that means we cannot run a cost-effective, healthcare system that delivers a high level of care to people in this country. Maybe it really is better that we pay twice as much of national income and get one of the worst (probably the worst) result of any developed, western democracy. Maybe, if we were to adopt something like the French, German, Australian, Japanese, or Canadian system of healthcare, our society would crash down around us. Maybe we just don't have the resilience, initiative, persistence, or creativity of people in those nations.

Maybe it is better for us to keep the terrible deal we have now.

But ... I don't think so.

Twice? You have a link to that "fact?"

Those other systems? Can you detail them for us, each of them. Are you a world health care analyst? I mean, the only way I'd know anything about ALL of those systems would be if it were my job. Do you know as much about the banking systems in each country? Why not? I mean, if you know the health care systems so well, why not the banking, or transportation or education. Maybe you are a world health care analyst. I doubt people who work in the US health system know the systems of the French, German, Australian, Japanese and Canadian so I wonder why/how you know so much.

How much of GDP does each of these countries spend on health care? Do they have a separate system for the elderly?

"According to the WHO, the United States spends 16.5% of its GDP on health care, or about $6,100 per person. This compares to an average of 8.6% in European countries."

Source

I'll try to dig back into WHO literature itself and see what I can find for you.

2*8.6 = 17.2 which is pretty close to 16.5.

DEDixon, you asked for a source. Here's a source, together with some more detailed data to support my point.

Here are total healthcare costs for different nations as % of GDP, together with life expectancy for men and women, as a crude surrogate for quality of delivered care. Of the nations listed here, the USA spends by far the largest amount on health care, and every other country listed has greater life expectancy for women. For men, all save Belgium and Finland have greater life expectancy for men and those two countries are tied with the USA at (only) 75 years. Belgium paid only 9.4%, and Finland paid only 7.4% of GDP for their healthcare. Here in the USA, we get a great bargain since in 2003 we paid 15.2% of GDP for healthcare, yet came in last in terms of life expectancy.

The data are for 2003, taken from a World Health Organization report dated 2006. Source

Sorry if the formatting in the table is dodgy. That's something VisasJourney doesn't excel at.

%GDP Men Women

Australia 9.5 78 83

Belgium 9.4 75 81

Canada 9.9 78 83

Finland 7.4 75 82

France 10.1 76 82

Germany 11.1 76 82

Luxembourg 6.8 76 81

Netherlands 8.1 77 81

Norway 10.3 77 82

Sweden 9.4 78 83

Switzerland 11.5 78 83

United Kingdom 8 76 81

United States 15.2 75 80

Where is that detailed comparison of each system? Do you know what makes each system better than the US system right off the top of your head. Why post that certain systems are better unless you know how each of them work?

Life expectancy alone can't define good or bad health.

DEDixon, I'll leave that exercise largely to you. I needn't do all the heavy lifting for you. As a strong American, I'm sure you can do some work on your own.

The biggest single difference between the healthcare systems of these nations and ours is that they have single-payer systems, while ours is run for the profit of big health insurance companies. The implications of that aren't so hard to work out, now are they? If you are truly interested, you ought to be able to learn about differences in how these various countries approach healthcare, but fundamentally they share a lot in common with each other and are quite separate from ours. There was a time when our system was better. That time is now past, and has been for quite awhile.

Edited August 3, 2009 by novotul

[SuperDuper! 230]

There does seem to be a lot of opposition around here to health care reform. Its gotten me thinking.

Maybe there is something fundamental here in the USA that means we cannot run a cost-effective, healthcare system that delivers a high level of care to people in this country. Maybe it really is better that we pay twice as much of national income and get one of the worst (probably the worst) result of any developed, western democracy. Maybe, if we were to adopt something like the French, German, Australian, Japanese, or Canadian system of healthcare, our society would crash down around us. Maybe we just don't have the resilience, initiative, persistence, or creativity of people in those nations.

Maybe it is better for us to keep the terrible deal we have now.

But ... I don't think so.

Twice? You have a link to that "fact?"

Those other systems? Can you detail them for us, each of them. Are you a world health care analyst? I mean, the only way I'd know anything about ALL of those systems would be if it were my job. Do you know as much about the banking systems in each country? Why not? I mean, if you know the health care systems so well, why not the banking, or transportation or education. Maybe you are a world health care analyst. I doubt people who work in the US health system know the systems of the French, German, Australian, Japanese and Canadian so I wonder why/how you know so much.

How much of GDP does each of these countries spend on health care? Do they have a separate system for the elderly?

"According to the WHO, the United States spends 16.5% of its GDP on health care, or about $6,100 per person. This compares to an average of 8.6% in European countries."

Source

I'll try to dig back into WHO literature itself and see what I can find for you.

2*8.6 = 17.2 which is pretty close to 16.5.

DEDixon, you asked for a source. Here's a source, together with some more detailed data to support my point.

Here are total healthcare costs for different nations as % of GDP, together with life expectancy for men and women, as a crude surrogate for quality of delivered care. Of the nations listed here, the USA spends by far the largest amount on health care, and every other country listed has greater life expectancy for women. For men, all save Belgium and Finland have greater life expectancy for men and those two countries are tied with the USA at (only) 75 years. Belgium paid only 9.4%, and Finland paid only 7.4% of GDP for their healthcare. Here in the USA, we get a great bargain since in 2003 we paid 15.2% of GDP for healthcare, yet came in last in terms of life expectancy.

The data are for 2003, taken from a World Health Organization report dated 2006. Source

Sorry if the formatting in the table is dodgy. That's something VisasJourney doesn't excel at.

%GDP Men Women

Australia 9.5 78 83

Belgium 9.4 75 81

Canada 9.9 78 83

Finland 7.4 75 82

France 10.1 76 82

Germany 11.1 76 82

Luxembourg 6.8 76 81

Netherlands 8.1 77 81

Norway 10.3 77 82

Sweden 9.4 78 83

Switzerland 11.5 78 83

United Kingdom 8 76 81

United States 15.2 75 80

Where is that detailed comparison of each system? Do you know what makes each system better than the US system right off the top of your head. Why post that certain systems are better unless you know how each of them work?

Life expectancy alone can't define good or bad health.

Plus, it's not the years of your life, but the life in your years.

What good is it to live to 99, if you only really lived life fully for one of them?

[SpiritAlight 1]

Ding ding ding!

We have a winner!

[mendeleev 68]

There does seem to be a lot of opposition around here to health care reform. Its gotten me thinking.

Maybe there is something fundamental here in the USA that means we cannot run a cost-effective, healthcare system that delivers a high level of care to people in this country. Maybe it really is better that we pay twice as much of national income and get one of the worst (probably the worst) result of any developed, western democracy. Maybe, if we were to adopt something like the French, German, Australian, Japanese, or Canadian system of healthcare, our society would crash down around us. Maybe we just don't have the resilience, initiative, persistence, or creativity of people in those nations.

Maybe it is better for us to keep the terrible deal we have now.

But ... I don't think so.

Twice? You have a link to that "fact?"

Those other systems? Can you detail them for us, each of them. Are you a world health care analyst? I mean, the only way I'd know anything about ALL of those systems would be if it were my job. Do you know as much about the banking systems in each country? Why not? I mean, if you know the health care systems so well, why not the banking, or transportation or education. Maybe you are a world health care analyst. I doubt people who work in the US health system know the systems of the French, German, Australian, Japanese and Canadian so I wonder why/how you know so much.

How much of GDP does each of these countries spend on health care? Do they have a separate system for the elderly?

"According to the WHO, the United States spends 16.5% of its GDP on health care, or about $6,100 per person. This compares to an average of 8.6% in European countries."

Source

I'll try to dig back into WHO literature itself and see what I can find for you.

2*8.6 = 17.2 which is pretty close to 16.5.

DEDixon, you asked for a source. Here's a source, together with some more detailed data to support my point.

Here are total healthcare costs for different nations as % of GDP, together with life expectancy for men and women, as a crude surrogate for quality of delivered care. Of the nations listed here, the USA spends by far the largest amount on health care, and every other country listed has greater life expectancy for women. For men, all save Belgium and Finland have greater life expectancy for men and those two countries are tied with the USA at (only) 75 years. Belgium paid only 9.4%, and Finland paid only 7.4% of GDP for their healthcare. Here in the USA, we get a great bargain since in 2003 we paid 15.2% of GDP for healthcare, yet came in last in terms of life expectancy.

The data are for 2003, taken from a World Health Organization report dated 2006. Source

Sorry if the formatting in the table is dodgy. That's something VisasJourney doesn't excel at.

%GDP Men Women

Australia 9.5 78 83

Belgium 9.4 75 81

Canada 9.9 78 83

Finland 7.4 75 82

France 10.1 76 82

Germany 11.1 76 82

Luxembourg 6.8 76 81

Netherlands 8.1 77 81

Norway 10.3 77 82

Sweden 9.4 78 83

Switzerland 11.5 78 83

United Kingdom 8 76 81

United States 15.2 75 80

Where is that detailed comparison of each system? Do you know what makes each system better than the US system right off the top of your head. Why post that certain systems are better unless you know how each of them work?

Life expectancy alone can't define good or bad health.

Plus, it's not the years of your life, but the life in your years.

What good is it to live to 99, if you only really lived life fully for one of them?

Of course, you're right, its quality of life that matters most. And maybe those who oppose reform here are truly correct. Maybe my perceptions that I've gained travelling Canada and through western Europe are incorrect. Maybe those people are all grievously unhappy there, because they don't get to benefit from the quirky, expensive, inefficient, ineffective health care system delivered here in the USA. Undoubtedly, all those people would trade the good quality, low cost care they have for ours in a heartbeat.

Or, maybe not.

[SpiritAlight 1]

Dear Novotul, thanks for all your posts.

Perhaps reason and logic does not belong here in these types of threads.

Just now I finished listening to an indepth program on a USian (a U.S. citizen) who married her German partner and moved to Germany. (ETA: on NPR.)

She was taken aback that not only did they not have to pay to have a baby, but the midwife she was too happy to have was with her for months before and did home visits for months after to check on her and the little baby boy.

She loved and appreciated the support and guidance.

Apparently it's the same in France.

She could take a year off with partial pay, just like in Canada.

So, let's not confuse everyone with the facts.

Let's allow them to think that the U.S. and everything within its borders is just dandy.

Edited August 3, 2009 by SpiritAlight

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Healthcare system is fine in US.

People under socialized health care just die in the waiting room...

Then why aren't life expectancies in Canada lower than those in the US?

Because they don't have drive-by shootings in Ottowa?

[scandal 951]

Healthcare system is fine in US.

People under socialized health care just die in the waiting room...

Then why aren't life expectancies in Canada lower than those in the US?

Because they don't have drive-by shootings in Ottowa?

Ottawa can be a very tough town. I left the violence there behind for the relative safety of Chicago.

And nothing riles me up like the intentional misspelling by VJers who I know, know better

http://www.metronews.ca/ottawa/local/artic...rd-murder-of-09

Shooting Ottawa’s third murder of ’09

Ottawa police major crime investigators combed the ByWard Market between George and York streets Thursday, looking through garbage receptacles, examining vendor cages and uncovering manholes after a 26-year-old man was shot dead just after 1 a.m.

TRACEY TONG

METRO OTTAWA

May 08, 2009 5:35 a.m.

A 26-year-old man was shot dead in the ByWard Market Thursday in the city’s second murder in three days.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Healthcare system is fine in US.

People under socialized health care just die in the waiting room...

Then why aren't life expectancies in Canada lower than those in the US?

Because they don't have drive-by shootings in Ottowa?

Ottawa can be a very tough town. I left the violence there behind for the relative safety of Chicago.

And nothing riles me up like the intentional misspelling by VJers who I know, know better

http://www.metronews.ca/ottawa/local/artic...rd-murder-of-09

Shooting Ottawa’s third murder of ’09

Ottawa police major crime investigators combed the ByWard Market between George and York streets Thursday, looking through garbage receptacles, examining vendor cages and uncovering manholes after a 26-year-old man was shot dead just after 1 a.m.

TRACEY TONG

METRO OTTAWA

May 08, 2009 5:35 a.m.

A 26-year-old man was shot dead in the ByWard Market Thursday in the city’s second murder in three days.

2 murders in three days? We had three murders overnight in the SF East Bay. Sorry about the spelling. I didn't know it's not OTT-TOE-WAH.

Where Ottawa had the second-lowest homicide rate out of Canada's nine major cities in 2005, it climbed two spots in 2006 to finish ahead of Montreal, Hamilton and Quebec.

Ottawa's homicide rate, which was 1.81 per 100,000 people, was the highest in over a decade, according to the report.

The rate is still slightly lower than last year's national rate of 1.85.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2007/10/...585184-sun.html

[_Simpson_ 250]

There does seem to be a lot of opposition around here to health care reform. Its gotten me thinking.

Maybe there is something fundamental here in the USA that means we cannot run a cost-effective, healthcare system that delivers a high level of care to people in this country. Maybe it really is better that we pay twice as much of national income and get one of the worst (probably the worst) result of any developed, western democracy. Maybe, if we were to adopt something like the French, German, Australian, Japanese, or Canadian system of healthcare, our society would crash down around us. Maybe we just don't have the resilience, initiative, persistence, or creativity of people in those nations.

Maybe it is better for us to keep the terrible deal we have now.

But ... I don't think so.

Twice? You have a link to that "fact?"

Those other systems? Can you detail them for us, each of them. Are you a world health care analyst? I mean, the only way I'd know anything about ALL of those systems would be if it were my job. Do you know as much about the banking systems in each country? Why not? I mean, if you know the health care systems so well, why not the banking, or transportation or education. Maybe you are a world health care analyst. I doubt people who work in the US health system know the systems of the French, German, Australian, Japanese and Canadian so I wonder why/how you know so much.

How much of GDP does each of these countries spend on health care? Do they have a separate system for the elderly?

"According to the WHO, the United States spends 16.5% of its GDP on health care, or about $6,100 per person. This compares to an average of 8.6% in European countries."

Source

I'll try to dig back into WHO literature itself and see what I can find for you.

2*8.6 = 17.2 which is pretty close to 16.5.

DEDixon, you asked for a source. Here's a source, together with some more detailed data to support my point.

Here are total healthcare costs for different nations as % of GDP, together with life expectancy for men and women, as a crude surrogate for quality of delivered care. Of the nations listed here, the USA spends by far the largest amount on health care, and every other country listed has greater life expectancy for women. For men, all save Belgium and Finland have greater life expectancy for men and those two countries are tied with the USA at (only) 75 years. Belgium paid only 9.4%, and Finland paid only 7.4% of GDP for their healthcare. Here in the USA, we get a great bargain since in 2003 we paid 15.2% of GDP for healthcare, yet came in last in terms of life expectancy.

The data are for 2003, taken from a World Health Organization report dated 2006. Source

Sorry if the formatting in the table is dodgy. That's something VisasJourney doesn't excel at.

%GDP Men Women

Australia 9.5 78 83

Belgium 9.4 75 81

Canada 9.9 78 83

Finland 7.4 75 82

France 10.1 76 82

Germany 11.1 76 82

Luxembourg 6.8 76 81

Netherlands 8.1 77 81

Norway 10.3 77 82

Sweden 9.4 78 83

Switzerland 11.5 78 83

United Kingdom 8 76 81

United States 15.2 75 80

Where is that detailed comparison of each system? Do you know what makes each system better than the US system right off the top of your head. Why post that certain systems are better unless you know how each of them work?

Life expectancy alone can't define good or bad health.

Plus, it's not the years of your life, but the life in your years.

What good is it to live to 99, if you only really lived life fully for one of them?

Of course, you're right, its quality of life that matters most. And maybe those who oppose reform here are truly correct. Maybe my perceptions that I've gained travelling Canada and through western Europe are incorrect. Maybe those people are all grievously unhappy there, because they don't get to benefit from the quirky, expensive, inefficient, ineffective health care system delivered here in the USA. Undoubtedly, all those people would trade the good quality, low cost care they have for ours in a heartbeat.

Or, maybe not.

Do happy people riot?

[SuperDuper! 230]

There does seem to be a lot of opposition around here to health care reform. Its gotten me thinking.

Maybe there is something fundamental here in the USA that means we cannot run a cost-effective, healthcare system that delivers a high level of care to people in this country. Maybe it really is better that we pay twice as much of national income and get one of the worst (probably the worst) result of any developed, western democracy. Maybe, if we were to adopt something like the French, German, Australian, Japanese, or Canadian system of healthcare, our society would crash down around us. Maybe we just don't have the resilience, initiative, persistence, or creativity of people in those nations.

Maybe it is better for us to keep the terrible deal we have now.

But ... I don't think so.

Twice? You have a link to that "fact?"

Those other systems? Can you detail them for us, each of them. Are you a world health care analyst? I mean, the only way I'd know anything about ALL of those systems would be if it were my job. Do you know as much about the banking systems in each country? Why not? I mean, if you know the health care systems so well, why not the banking, or transportation or education. Maybe you are a world health care analyst. I doubt people who work in the US health system know the systems of the French, German, Australian, Japanese and Canadian so I wonder why/how you know so much.

How much of GDP does each of these countries spend on health care? Do they have a separate system for the elderly?

"According to the WHO, the United States spends 16.5% of its GDP on health care, or about $6,100 per person. This compares to an average of 8.6% in European countries."

Source

I'll try to dig back into WHO literature itself and see what I can find for you.

2*8.6 = 17.2 which is pretty close to 16.5.

DEDixon, you asked for a source. Here's a source, together with some more detailed data to support my point.

Here are total healthcare costs for different nations as % of GDP, together with life expectancy for men and women, as a crude surrogate for quality of delivered care. Of the nations listed here, the USA spends by far the largest amount on health care, and every other country listed has greater life expectancy for women. For men, all save Belgium and Finland have greater life expectancy for men and those two countries are tied with the USA at (only) 75 years. Belgium paid only 9.4%, and Finland paid only 7.4% of GDP for their healthcare. Here in the USA, we get a great bargain since in 2003 we paid 15.2% of GDP for healthcare, yet came in last in terms of life expectancy.

The data are for 2003, taken from a World Health Organization report dated 2006. Source

Sorry if the formatting in the table is dodgy. That's something VisasJourney doesn't excel at.

%GDP Men Women

Australia 9.5 78 83

Belgium 9.4 75 81

Canada 9.9 78 83

Finland 7.4 75 82

France 10.1 76 82

Germany 11.1 76 82

Luxembourg 6.8 76 81

Netherlands 8.1 77 81

Norway 10.3 77 82

Sweden 9.4 78 83

Switzerland 11.5 78 83

United Kingdom 8 76 81

United States 15.2 75 80

Where is that detailed comparison of each system? Do you know what makes each system better than the US system right off the top of your head. Why post that certain systems are better unless you know how each of them work?

Life expectancy alone can't define good or bad health.

Plus, it's not the years of your life, but the life in your years.

What good is it to live to 99, if you only really lived life fully for one of them?

Of course, you're right, its quality of life that matters most. And maybe those who oppose reform here are truly correct. Maybe my perceptions that I've gained travelling Canada and through western Europe are incorrect. Maybe those people are all grievously unhappy there, because they don't get to benefit from the quirky, expensive, inefficient, ineffective health care system delivered here in the USA. Undoubtedly, all those people would trade the good quality, low cost care they have for ours in a heartbeat.

Or, maybe not.

Do happy people riot?

Yes. It happens all the time after Los Angeles Lakers Championship wins. Does this really surprise you?