FOR universal healthcare

[scrubswannabe]

Theres a lot of posts on this forum about how much everyone here is against universal health care and what not, and it seems to primarily stem from the lowering of future physician salaries. I was just thinking about it for a second though, how can anyone be against universal healthcare? It seems like pure evil to be against it. Am I buying into liberal media hype by saying this? Is there a reason I'm one of the few future doctors thinking universal healthcare is good?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Most people here are just against the single payer version of universal healthcare.

 

[LikeClockWork]

If from reading all the posts here you've concluded that the lowering of physician's salary is the primary reason people here don't like it, then I don't think you've read the posts very carefully.

 

[Nataliemay24]

I was until I got accepted to medical school, at which point I instantly became a Republican.

just kidding.

kind of.

 

[qtpai]

I'm for it in principle. I would certainly like to see reforms in that direction, at the least. I think it's very much in the details, and I think workable progress can be made in this respect, but we do certainly have to be careful. One only needs to look at our current health care system to see how improper execution can be the bane of any system.

Certainly many on here will speak as if it has nothing to do with physician's salaries but instead everything to do with how X would go wrong. Unfortunately, most here aren't experts (and many experts do support socialized health care and think it can be made to work), yet they for some reason (related to how X could go wrong) seem to feel very strongly against universal health care. As a previous poster mentioned that they became Republican after being accepted into medical school, I think that such hyperboles, while certainly exaggerated, aren't off the mark. Much of the physician resistance to universal health care is self-interested. Ironic, really, for the reason that most pre-meds seem to be all about helping people...except when their salaries are threatened. But of course, I'll hear about X again in response to my statements, a rebuttal to my argument which "is quite off the mark because it's really about X." There can really be no arguing this point.

And I mean that conclusion for both the meanings it entails.

 

[NYUM]

Im all for it as long as the goverment pays for my medical school tuition!🙂

 

[Nataliemay24]

Im all for it as long as the goverment pays for my medical school tuition!🙂

i'll support just about anything if it pays my medical school tuition...

 

[badasshairday]

No you are not alone. Even current physicians would like to see universal healthcare.

 

[hp540]

Theres a lot of posts on this forum about how much everyone here is against universal health care and what not, and it seems to primarily stem from the lowering of future physician salaries. I was just thinking about it for a second though, how can anyone be against universal healthcare? It seems like pure evil to be against it. Am I buying into liberal media hype by saying this? Is there a reason I'm one of the few future doctors thinking universal healthcare is good?

As a Canadian, I would take my current single-payer system of health care over the current US system any day.

Regardless, I am hoping there will be substantial US health care reform in the coming years, although I somehow doubt it'll happen.

 

[Dr.D-man]

Theres a lot of posts on this forum about how much everyone here is against universal health care and what not, and it seems to primarily stem from the lowering of future physician salaries. I was just thinking about it for a second though, how can anyone be against universal healthcare? It seems like pure evil to be against it. Am I buying into liberal media hype by saying this? Is there a reason I'm one of the few future doctors thinking universal healthcare is good?

Health care for everyone is a fundamentally good idea, nobody should disagree about that. The problem lies in how to go about implementing the it.

 

[Doublecortin]

As a Canadian, I would take my current single-payer system of health care over the current US system any day.

Regardless, I am hoping there will be substantial US health care reform in the coming years, although I somehow doubt it'll happen.

here is your beloved single-payer system in action:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300939,00.html

 

[hp540]

here is your beloved single-payer system in action:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300939,00.html

gee thanks 🙄 ...and what a crummy article from foxnews to boot.

You remind me of Creationists who claim all of evolutionary theory is false because it has yet to account for some obscure process.

Similarly, Canada's single-payer system isn't perfect, but the incidents of mothers being sent over to the US is being blown way out of proportion by the American media (it isn't even a blip in the Canadian media), and what's even more laughable is you take this as "proof" our whole system is a grand failure.

 

[novagirl2000]

here is your beloved single-payer system in action:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300939,00.html

I don't think we're going to find any system that is perfect. Longer wait times are something that would come with having a single payer system. But in my opinion that beats out having so many people with no insurance at all.

As for women having no place to deliver their babies...yeah, that's something that needs to be taken care of. For high-risk situations like that perhaps there could be some sort of priority scheduling or something.

 

[badasshairday]

🙄

here is your beloved single-payer system in action:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300939,00.html

LOL. Come on, every system has its share of bugs, but your going to link a fox news article which we all know is conservative biased. You swear like no babies are born in Canada, even though I bet most Canadian mothers have there babies in Canada, this article just shows a few.

I can show you tons of cases of our beloved "you better have money or we aren't treating" you system...

 

[Doublecortin]

I don't think we're going to find any system that is perfect. Longer wait times are something that would come with having a single payer system. But in my opinion that beats out having so many people with no insurance at all.

As for women having no place to deliver their babies...yeah, that's something that needs to be taken care of. For high-risk situations like that perhaps there could be some sort of priority scheduling or something.

I think there a lot of people in the U.S. who choose not to have insurance, e.g. young adults who don't want to spend the money and who think they're made of steel. Sure, there lots of kids who are uninsured, which sucks, and sick people who get screwed by insurance companies who don't want to take the risk.

I think the system needs to emphasize personal responsibility, and if you don't realize the importance of having the coverage, than whose fault is it?

i don't think healthcare is a right

 

[TheRealMD]

I think there a lot of people in the U.S. who choose not to have insurance, e.g. young adults who don't want to spend the money and who think they're made of steel. Sure, there lots of kids who are uninsured, which sucks, and sick people who get screwed by insurance companies who don't want to take the risk.

I think the system needs to emphasize personal responsibility, and if you don't realize the importance of having the coverage, than whose fault is it?

i don't think healthcare is a right

Young adults are not the people who actually "need" healthcare. Maybe a regular check up or two once a year, but it's the baby boomers that are wearing down the system.

 

[novawildcat]

I don't think we're going to find any system that is perfect. Longer wait times are something that would come with having a single payer system. But in my opinion that beats out having so many people with no insurance at all.

As for women having no place to deliver their babies...yeah, that's something that needs to be taken care of. For high-risk situations like that perhaps there could be some sort of priority scheduling or something.

AHHHH the classic "wait lists would be incredibly long" scare tactic. You do realize that there are MANY countries in the world with some form of socialized medicine don't you? If you are going to use the wait list argument against UH you better be sure it holds for every country with UH. Lots of countries have UH, some have better socialized forms of medicine than others. Why is it that anti-UH people always point to England and Canada as an example of why we should not have UH but completely ignore countries like Japan who have UH that is excellent? According to a study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Japan has UH and the waiting times are just as long as they are in the United States. Don't believe me? Read page 3 for yourself to see that Japan along with several other countries with UH have the same amount of waiting times as we do in the US.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/27/26781192.pdf


If you are going to criticize UH for long waiting times you better examine every country with UH to make sure that they all have incredible waiting times for health care. You will find that not all of them have a wait list problem which leads to the big question "What are they doing different than all the other countries with UH?"

 

[badasshairday]

👍👍👍

AHHHH the classic "wait lists would be incredibly long" scare tactic. You do realize that there are MANY countries in the world with some form of socialized medicine don't you? If you are going to use the wait list argument against UH you better be sure it holds for every country with UH. Lots of countries have UH, some have better socialized forms of medicine than others. Why is it that anti-UH people always point to England and Canada as an example of why we should not have UH but completely ignore countries like Japan who have UH that is excellent? According to a study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Japan has UH and the waiting times are just as long as they are in the United States. Don't believe me? Read page 3 for yourself to see that Japan along with several other countries with UH have the same amount of waiting times as we do in the US.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/27/26781192.pdf


If you are going to criticize UH for long waiting times you better examine every country with UH to make sure that they all have incredible waiting times for health care. You will find that not all of them don't have a wait list problem which leads to the big question "What are they doing different than all the other countries with UH?"

 

[alwaysaangel]

Theres a lot of posts on this forum about how much everyone here is against universal health care and what not, and it seems to primarily stem from the lowering of future physician salaries. I was just thinking about it for a second though, how can anyone be against universal healthcare? It seems like pure evil to be against it. Am I buying into liberal media hype by saying this? Is there a reason I'm one of the few future doctors thinking universal healthcare is good?

Yes, because you haven't looked at the logistics of it to understand how impossible it is.

The money to pay for the health care has to come from somewhere. And there is no current model that will work well for the US. Europe works because of the ridiculously high taxes. Americans already don't like income taxes - trying to get them to pay 50% is not going to happen. We can't use Canada's system because it just doesn't work - people wait way too long for care there. I had to do some research on it for a paper a few years ago - I can get a homeless person at my free clinic into the local county hospital for an MRI faster than the average Canadian citizen can get an MRI.

When it comes down to it - the US already has universal health care. Its called the ER. People go in for things that would typically be "primary care" all the time. If they need it they get their follow-ups. The hospital ups the charges to paying customers to cover all the people who don't pay.

We have "universal healthcare" just no one calls it that.

Am I saying our system is perfect? Not at all. But when people jump from what we have now to concluding we should have "universal healthcare" its laughable. Yes the system needs reform. But a single-payer model that is plausible in the US has yet to be found. And no matter how much Hilary wants to claim it will happen - its not going to happen any time soon.

 

[novawildcat]

Yes, because you haven't looked at the logistics of it to understand how impossible it is.

The money to pay for the health care has to come from somewhere. And there is no current model that will work well for the US. Europe works because of the ridiculously high taxes. Americans already don't like income taxes - trying to get them to pay 50% is not going to happen. We can't use Canada's system because it just doesn't work - people wait way too long for care there. I had to do some research on it for a paper a few years ago - I can get a homeless person at my free clinic into the local county hospital for an MRI faster than the average Canadian citizen can get an MRI.

Once again look at Japan. The Japanese pay roughly the same amount as we do in % income tax, have UH, no big problem with long wait lists, and spend only 6.6% of their total GDP on health care (compared to 15% of GDP like we do here in the US). So what is it that Japan is doing so well? Is it impossible to copy some of the ideas that Japan is employing here in America? I don't think so.


Also did you know that a reason for some of the problems in health care in the UK is because of the fact that private insurance companies compete side by side with public service? For example consultants work for the NHS but also have private practices with the result patients who offer to go private buy themselves a higher place on the consultant's waiting list. This means a public patient gets pushed down a notch seeing as how the time of the consultant is finite and his/her private patients get priority.

The ensuing longer public waiting lists leads to more patients going private and so the problem escalates. This practice was particularly prevalent under the last Tory gov't who are ideologically opposed to the NHS and so were happy to adopt policies and support practices which would lead to it's disintegration.

In Ireland too consultants have not been slow to grasp the opportunities afforded by a dual health care system and are not shy about using blackmail to bend the gov't to their will. Not only do they only work 3 days a week for the NHS which pays them an annual salary of ~€245,000 p.a. ($350,000), which btw a spokesman of theirs recently described as a 'mickey mouse' salary, they also insisted on having free use of public equipment and facilities in public hospitals to treat their private patients. They 'won' this concession by refusing to allow a new major hospital built in Dublin to open until eventually after 2 years of the hospital sitting idle the gov't gave in.

You will find many of the problems oft cited in relation to public health service are not because of flaws in the concept of free universal health care but because of damage inflicted on the service by allowing a private service to operate side by side, the resultant conflict of interests, and the archaic protectionism surrounding the medical profession.

 

[jochi1543]

gee thanks 🙄 ...and what a crummy article from foxnews to boot.

You remind me of Creationists who claim all of evolutionary theory is false because it has yet to account for some obscure process.

Similarly, Canada's single-payer system isn't perfect, but the incidents of mothers being sent over to the US is being blown way out of proportion by the American media (it isn't even a blip in the Canadian media), and what's even more laughable is you take this as "proof" our whole system is a grand failure.

Yeah, funny thing is, the reason why all these American beds are sitting empty could easily be that not enough Americans can afford to even be in a hospital.


On the same note, I have heard many times of Americans driving across the border to Canadian ERs to be seen for free, because they can't afford to go to the ER at a US hospital.

 

[League54]

Just wanted to throw it out there, has anyone read the AMA's proposal for universal health insurance? I'd be curious to know your thoughts...

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/363/ehi1012.pdf

 

[League54]

Here you go...

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/450/uninsured-overview.pdf

www.voicefortheuninsured.org

 

[alwaysaangel]

Once again look at Japan. The Japanese pay roughly the same amount as we do in % income tax, have UH, no big problem with long wait lists, and spend only 6.6% of their total GDP on health care (compared to 15% of GDP like we do here in the US). So what is it that Japan is doing so well? Is it impossible to copy some of the ideas that Japan is employing here in America? I don't think so.

What is it that Japan is doing so well??? And until you list them and explain why they will fit the US so well I will say that yes I do imagine its probably impossible for the US to copy Japan. Considering how different our cultures, land masses (US is over 26 times the size of Japan), and populations (US has twice as many people).

Also did you know that a reason for some of the problems in health care in the UK is because of the fact that private insurance companies compete side by side with public service?

Yes, I did know that. Did you know that that is why Canada did their system the way they did (private companies are not allowed to offer medical services that the government does). And that complete lack of competition led to the current issue of excessively long waits for basic treatments.

 

[alwaysaangel]

On the same note, I have heard many times of Americans driving across the border to Canadian ERs to be seen for free, because they can't afford to go to the ER at a US hospital.

I've heard the opposite. Canadians coming to the US to just pay for care because otherwise they would die before they ever got treated in Canada.

Anyone can go to an ER in the US. If you're THAT poor you'll haggle with the hospital (yes its done CONSTANTLY) or just claim bankruptcy. Anyone who can afford to drive across the border for care can afford to get seen in the ER. But for whatever reason they CHOSE not to have health insurance and have too much to lose if they declare bankruptcy so they are cheating the system by crossing the border. I guarantee you the people doing that are middle class, not poverty level.

 

[AsclepiusI]

100% for a universal health care system created by intelligent and educated people not politicians and bureaucrats. But alas... 🙄

There will never be a perfect system. Life is a collection of struggles, you know? But I think highly of a system that is created to attempt to give everyone access to the highest quality health care possible. A pipe dream? Yes, probably.

 

[hp540]

Did you know that that is why Canada did their system the way they did (private companies are not allowed to offer medical services that the government does). And that complete lack of competition led to the current issue of excessively long waits for basic treatments.

Alright, you've asserted in two different responses that a) the Canadian system doesn't work and b) we have excessive wait times for even the most trivial treatments and procedures.

You're wrong on both counts.

The system works, because if you consider what we put into our system and what we get out of it in return as "not working", then I sure as heck don't know what you consider the American system.

Wait times are less than ideal for some diagnostic tests and procedures, but the majority of Canadians are not dealing with massive line ups around the block to get a quick checkup or visit to a doc (contrary to what Fox news would have you believe). The fact is, the majority of Canadians get the care they need and they get it in a timely manner. This is why UH is so entrenched in our country and in our political culture: because it works and because we believe in it - any political party that would try otherwise would go quickly down in flames.

In cases where services aren't being provided in a timely manner, I'll refer you to efforts to improve the situation via focused investment of significant additional funds (>$600 million for the project) through the gov't "Patient Wait Times Guarantee" scheme
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/2007/2007_wait-delai-bk1_e.html

 

[alwaysaangel]

Alright, you've asserted in two different responses that a) the Canadian system doesn't work and b) we have excessive wait times for even the most trivial treatments and procedures.

You're wrong on both counts.

The system works, because if you consider what we put into our system and what we get out of it in return as "not working", then I sure as heck don't know what you consider the American system.

Wait times are less than ideal for some diagnostic tests and procedures, but the majority of Canadians are not dealing with massive line ups around the block to get a quick checkup or visit to a doc (contrary to what Fox news would have you believe). The fact is, the majority of Canadians get the care they need and they get it in a timely manner. This is why UH is so entrenched in our country and in our political culture: because it works and because we believe in it - any political party that would try otherwise would go quickly down in flames.

In cases where services aren't being provided in a timely manner, I'll refer you to efforts to improve the situation via focused investment of significant additional funds (>$600 million for the project) through the gov't "Patient Wait Times Guarantee" scheme
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/2007/2007_wait-delai-bk1_e.html

Look, I wasn't trying to insult your system. No system is perfect.

I just think that people who use Canada system to argue that US should have universal health care are dumb. Canada is no more perfect that the US.

And I don't get my info from Fox news. I've never watched TV news in my life - its a waste of time.

 

[badasshairday]

Did you guys forget that a bunch of Americans go to Canada to buy their Rx drugs because they cannot afford it in the states?

Also, sure the ER in the US can be used for primary care, but what if you have a chronic problem?

And no, I won't buy the "where will the money come from" argument because this country wastes way too much money on crap like unessessary wars and nobody is asking where the money for those fruitless efforts is coming from.

Healthcare is a right. Are we so inhumane that we can say that, "Oh you have cancer and no insurance? Too bad."

 

[Arjunsi]

I was until I got accepted to medical school, at which point I instantly became a Republican.

Hahahahah. Thats good stuff.

 

[Arjunsi]

Healthcare is a right.

A right based on what criteria? Just because everyone needs and and a lot of people go without doesn't make it a right.

 

[jochi1543]

A right based on what criteria? Just because everyone needs and and a lot of people go without doesn't make it a right.

Well, what criteria are the right to live or the right to free speech based on?

 

[Arjunsi]

Well, what criteria are the right to live or the right to free speech based on?

A social agreement based on the mutual understanding and desires of the majority of the population. In the USA, this means the constitution. We can certainly change things to include healthcare if the population deems this important enough for the government to secure for all citizens, but until that change occurs there is no inherent 'right' to healthcare.

 

[jochi1543]

A social agreement based on the mutual understanding and desires of the majority of the population. In the USA, this means the constitution.

You do realize the constitution has changed, right? For example, slavery was abolished, the right to vote was extended to women, etc. So where are you going with referring to the constitution to define "rights" here?

 

[Arjunsi]

You do realize the constitution has changed, right? For example, slavery was abolished, the right to vote was extended to women, etc. So where are you going with referring to the constitution to define "rights" here?

You asked what freedom of expression and the right to life were based on. I specifically said that the constitution can be changed to accord US citizens the right to healthcare if we so desired.

Does moral philosophy garantee the right to healthcare? Does that moral philosophy demand these rights only for Americans? If so, we should name this new theory of ethical philosophy Patriotismism.

 

[Rotinaj]

100% for a universal health care system created by intelligent and educated people not politicians and bureaucrats. But alas... 🙄

There will never be a perfect system. Life is a collection of struggles, you know? But I think highly of a system that is created to attempt to give everyone access to the highest quality health care possible. A pipe dream? Yes, probably.

Yep, same here. If it weren't for all the pork and pet projects of politicians, we'd be able to fund UH, Social Security and all education would be funded as well with money to spare at our current tax rates. Yet, that will never happen.

 

[BlackSails]

Universal health care will do nothing in America.


Our health problems have nothing to do with insurance. Americans smoke too much, eat too much and dont exercise. Doctors cannot do anything about this, since the public doesnt listen to them.

You want to increase life expectancy in America? 500% tax on high fructose corn syrup. That alone would have a greater impact than pouring all the money in the world into hospitals.

You wonder why the japanese live longer than us? Look at their diets and lifestyles. They have a healthier culture, not a better health system. The US health system is the best in the world. When people have XDR TB, or tumors wrapped around their brainstems, they come here to get health care. Our doctors, routinely deliver premies and save the elderly, doing as a matter of fact what would be heroic efforts in Europe. What America absolutely sucks at is taking care of itself. We are a fat, lazy people, and until we change our culture, we will never live as long as the japanese. Tax the corn syrup, mandate better health education in elementary schools, ban advertising targeted at kids for junk food and mandate more PE in schools. Then maybe, we might live 80-90 years on average.

 

[brsboarder]

BlackSnails: one would argue that it is because we don't have good access to health care that we engage in those activities as much as we do. We take 7th grade health class and thats it. In a better system, where we could go get "preventative care" we would be able to quickly stem these problems before they get out of hand

 

[NoUse4aName1286]

Did you guys forget that a bunch of Americans go to Canada to buy their Rx drugs because they cannot afford it in the states?
."

Way to randomly bring up an issue that is caused by the FDA and pharm. companies. You do know WHY Canadian drugs are sold cheaper right?

 

[novawildcat]

Universal health care will do nothing in America.


Our health problems have nothing to do with insurance. Americans smoke too much, eat too much and dont exercise. Doctors cannot do anything about this, since the public doesnt listen to them.

You want to increase life expectancy in America? 500% tax on high fructose corn syrup. That alone would have a greater impact than pouring all the money in the world into hospitals.

You wonder why the japanese live longer than us? Look at their diets and lifestyles. They have a healthier culture, not a better health system. The US health system is the best in the world. When people have XDR TB, or tumors wrapped around their brainstems, they come here to get health care. Our doctors, routinely deliver premies and save the elderly, doing as a matter of fact what would be heroic efforts in Europe. What America absolutely sucks at is taking care of itself. We are a fat, lazy people, and until we change our culture, we will never live as long as the japanese. Tax the corn syrup, mandate better health education in elementary schools, ban advertising targeted at kids for junk food and mandate more PE in schools. Then maybe, we might live 80-90 years on average.

Okay let's look at the Japanese lifestyle. Sure they may be less overweight than us which does help immensely, but they also smoke a lot more than Americans. Something like 60% of all men in Japan smoke compared to less than 30% of American men. Care to tell me what the leading cause of preventable death in the world is? Yep that's right, it is still smoking, not obesity. If you are going to pin the fact that Japan can get away with comparatively spending 2x's less than we do in America on lifestyle choice differences alone you have another thing coming. Middle aged Americans also have some of the lowest overall cholesterol levels, saturated fat intake, and alcohol consumption in the world. So please explain to me why we still have to spend the most in the world for health care that doesn't even provide service for our entire population? Poor lifestyle habits without a doubt contribute to the problem of poor health in America, but so does a horrifically run and ridiculously inefficient health care system run by a handful of insurance companies looking to maximize their profits as much as possible.

 

[Gut Shot]

I've heard the opposite. Canadians coming to the US to just pay for care because otherwise they would die before they ever got treated in Canada.

I've heard that as well, but the only study I know of that attempted to quantitate Canadian utilization of American healthcare found it to be insignificant.

You can read the narrative version here, in Health Affairs.

 

[MundaneMD]

Just thought I'd throw this out there for those of you concerned about funding UH. For the record, I don't necessarily support UH.

 

[Gut Shot]

You wonder why the japanese live longer than us? Look at their diets and lifestyles. They have a healthier culture, not a better health system.

I'd say they have both.

The US health system is the best in the world. When people have XDR TB, or tumors wrapped around their brainstems, they come here to get health care.

If you're definition of "best" is the country with the most advanced tertiary care then you're right, we probably do have the best. I think that definition is incredibly poor, however. We spend more per capita on healthcare than any other country (24% more than our closest OECD nation, Luxembourg), and costs increase at double digit rates every two years, we have the highest overhead costs in the world (by far), we have 47 million uninsured (and growing), God only knows how many underinsured, we retain fragmented, arcane paper-based record systems persist in an inordinate number of clinics and hospitals, the list goes on. The VA essentially solved its medication error problem almost ten years ago... why is it taking everyone else so long to follow suit?

For what we spend on healthcare in this country we could deliver "Cadillac care" to every man woman and child, and the providers could earn a healthy salary, to boot. But we don't.

 

[armybound]

This argument again?

If from reading all the posts here you've concluded that the lowering of physician's salary is the primary reason people here don't like it, then I don't think you've read the posts very carefully.

👍

Hey Gut Shot, I know you're a numbers guy, so could you (please) find the figures for how much we spend on healthcare in the US total, and how much goes to insurance overhead? I know it's something like 31%, but what's an actual dollar amount?

 

[NoUse4aName1286]

Once again look at Japan. The Japanese pay roughly the same amount as we do in % income tax, have UH, no big problem with long wait lists, and spend only 6.6% of their total GDP on health care (compared to 15% of GDP like we do here in the US). So what is it that Japan is doing so well? Is it impossible to copy some of the ideas that Japan is employing here in America? I don't think so.

Just incase you didn't know, the Japenese offer "Western' type medicine (ie., like they offer throughout the Western world) as well as traditional "Eastern" ype medicines, such as herbal medications, acupuncture, and a variety of other things. People are ABLE TO PICK BETWEEN THEM at their own discretion when they go to a hospital. While I doubt it is a 50-50 split, note that Eastern healthcare styles would significantly contribute to a decreased expenditure.

More importantly (and I'm not an economist, but the gist of it is fairly straightfoward) you have not recognized that GDP % is not a linear function; ie, you can't look directly between two countries and determine % expenditure. Why? Because we have a significant trade deficit, as do many other Western countries, with Japan. As such, the % GDP they are spending on healthcare is a por comparison b/c COUNTRIES HAVE DIFFERENT GDP'S! More importantly, if you do want to compare real costs of healthcare, find what the per capita cost is, then compare it against average income in the country, and use THAT % as a means of comparison.

No opinion is meant to be expressed here about Social Healthcare; I jsut want to get people to realize that a lot of comparisons (such as the one used here) are not really vallid when considering the different "incomes" of various countries.

 

[novawildcat]

Just incase you didn't know, the Japenese offer "Western' type medicine (ie., like they offer throughout the Western world) as well as traditional "Eastern" ype medicines, such as herbal medications, acupuncture, and a variety of other things. People are ABLE TO PICK BETWEEN THEM at their own discretion when they go to a hospital. While I doubt it is a 50-50 split, note that Eastern healthcare styles would significantly contribute to a decreased expenditure.

More importantly (and I'm not an economist, but the gist of it is fairly straightfoward) you have not recognized that GDP % is not a linear function; ie, you can't look directly between two countries and determine % expenditure. Why? Because we have a significant trade deficit, as do many other Western countries, with Japan. As such, the % GDP they are spending on healthcare is a por comparison b/c COUNTRIES HAVE DIFFERENT GDP'S! More importantly, if you do want to compare real costs of healthcare, find what the per capita cost is, then compare it against average income in the country, and use THAT % as a means of comparison.

No opinion is meant to be expressed here about Social Healthcare; I jsut want to get people to realize that a lot of comparisons (such as the one used here) are not really vallid when considering the different "incomes" of various countries.

What in the world are you talking about? Have you ever taken a basic course in economics? GDP is the same as income by definition.

GDP of Japan 2006=4.2 trillion USD. Population Japan ~123 million. 6.6% of 4.23 trillion= roughly 277 billion USD spent on health care. Divided by ~123 million= $2300 USD PER PERSON IN JAPAN SPENT ON HEALTH CARE. Hey guess what $2300 is roughly 6% of $34,000 (which is roughly the average income in Japan). So yes, you can compare the amount of % of GDP spent on health care between countries because when you do, all you are really comparing is how much in total income countries are spending on health care because GDP and income are the same thing.

GDP US ~13 Trillion in 2006. Population US ~300 million. 14.5% of GDP spent on health care. 14.5% of 13 trillion divided by ~300 million people= roughly $6300 per person in the US for health care. And the funny thing is not everyone gets health care in the US,so in reality, for those who do get health care the average cost for health care for them is actually greater than $6300!

 

[alwaysaangel]

Just thought I'd throw this out there for those of you concerned about funding UH. For the record, I don't necessarily support UH.

That is one of the most hilarious images I've seen in a long time.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[thRob]

As a Canadian, I would take my current single-payer system of health care over the current US system any day.

I'm actually not sure about this, but..

Isn't a big part of current socialized medicine implementations around the world the use of generic drugs rather than the real deal (I'm basing this off of all the 'going to Canada for generics' headlines I see and the bit in Sicko where the Cuban's had an expensive drug for like 0.5 cents)?

If so, I feel like the switch to universal health care will be more difficult for the U.S. than other countries. On one hand, the government could start offering the use of generics. That would work in the short run, but in the long run would have global implications as current drug companies would no longer have any sort of motivation to develop new drugs. On the other hand, our government could continue using brand name drugs, making our implementation of socialized medicine much much much more expensive than it is for foreign contries.

 

[thRob]

Just thought I'd throw this out there for those of you concerned about funding UH. For the record, I don't necessarily support UH.

I think a more appropriate chart would be a comparison of long term expenditures. Wars come and go but universal healthcare is forever.

 

[hp540]

I'm actually not sure about this, but..

Isn't a big part of current socialized medicine implementations around the world the use of generic drugs rather than the real deal (I'm basing this off of all the 'going to Canada for generics' headlines I see and the bit in Sicko where the Cuban's had an expensive drug for like 0.5 cents)?

If so, I feel like the switch to universal health care will be more difficult for the U.S. than other countries. On one hand, the government could start offering the use of generics. That would work in the short run, but in the long run would have global implications as current drug companies would no longer have any sort of motivation to develop new drugs. On the other hand, our government could continue using brand name drugs, making our implementation of socialized medicine much much much more expensive than it is for foreign contries.

Another common misconception.

The Canadian UH system does not cover the cost of drugs for individuals (at least to my knowledge from Ontario's implementation through OHIP). There are programs to cover the most vulnerable (seniors, the poor etc through the ODP/Trillium schemes) similar to the US. Canadians purchase or have job related insurance that covers their drug costs as well as other services not covered under UH.

What accounts for the price differences (whether for generics or "the real deal"), and I quote from wikipedia because they do a way better job of writing it and it's decently sourced as well:

"The Canadian system takes advantage of centralized buying by the provincial governments that have more market heft and buy in bulk, lowering prices. By contrast, the U.S. has explicit laws that prohibit Medicare or Medicaid from negotiating drug prices. In addition, price negotiations by Canadian health insurers are based on evaluations of the clinical effectiveness of prescription drugs [13], allowing the relative prices of therapeutically-similar drugs to be considered in context. The Canadian Patented Medicine Prices Review Board also has the authority to set a fair and reasonable price on patented products, either comparing it to similar drugs already on the market, or by taking the average price in seven developed nations. [60][61] Prices are also lowered through more limited patent protection in Canada. In the U.S., a drug patent may be extended five years to make up for time lost in development.[62] Some generic drugs are thus available on Canadian shelves sooner.[63]"

Furthermore, the outrageous drug prices in the US isn't about FAIR compensation to companies for innovation. It's about special interest groups, lobbying, and deplorable corporate greed.

Even in an environment where drug costs are forced downwards, drug companies will have every incentive to continue their work. I guess they'll just have to scale back their advertising budgets (which is where the majority of their money goes, not into basic R&D contrary to popular belief). As for innovation and drug development: most of the basic science and knowledge that goes into them have come from PUBLIC FUNDING SOURCES (I.E. THE NIH). It's not GlaxoSmithKline that's blazing the path in basic research. So no, cheaper drugs just means Americans stop getting ripped off, the same drug innovation and discovery continues, but Mr.Whoever from BigPharma has his $200 million paycheck scaled back a bit.