How do socialized systems work

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

JoBlo

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
111
Reaction score
1
Points
4,531
  1. Medical Student
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I had a conversation with my research mentor the other day about socialized medicine versus the US current system. My argument was that a look at our neighbors to the North (Canada) shows us a system that most US citizens wouldn't chose to be a part of if given the choice and no US trained doctors would want any part in. His argument was that any socialized system that the US creates wouldn't have to be a replica of the Canadian system and we could create a system to work for us in the way we want it to. My inclination is that you have to be pretty darn optimistic to believe that the US government could ever come up with a system that wasn't FUBARed and fawled and wheter or not that optismism is founded is up to personal perception.

But the question arose... how ARE other countries structuring there socialized medicine system? I'm sure that different systems out there exist. There are probably some systems that are 100% government controlled and others that are hybrid.

Does anyone know of any insight to what types of systems are used by who?
 
I would suggest a quick google search on socialized medicine. Currently, one of the issues I'm trying to breach here on this forum is a list of links, on various topics like this, of reliable sources on the internet just not wikipedia. But I haven't had much response from users thus far so its been slow going.

Some links I think that might be able to start you off ...

This is wikipedia's "Publicly Funded Health" page, if you wanna read through it tells about different systems and has a linked to socialized medicine at the bottom as publically funded doesn't necessarily mean socialized medicine.

This is a site of physicians for a national health care programs FAQ.

This website has some information on websites for and against Socialized Medicine
 
Here's a GP blogger in Britain, with his thoughts on the socialist medicine he has to practice:

http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/

Here's another brit doc:
http://www.drrant.net/

Read the Frasier Institute annual report on health care in Canada:

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/health/index.asp?snav=he

And even the CBC (Canadian socialist news service) has the occasional article on how bad health care in Canada is...although they don't quite phrase it that way).

Of particular interest are the reports from Britain, which has arguably the best socialist medicine that we could hope for in the US. It has a two-tier system with the (free?) NHS system that offers substandard care by midlevels or less, very long waits for non-elective procedures and deplorable, unhygenic conditions in the hospitals. Patients fortunate enough to be able to pay get immediate service in clean, well run (and most assuredly non-NHS) hospitals, by real physicians.

The worst socialist system, the one that Hillary Clinton spoke so highly (and ignorantly) of during the Clinton administration, is virtually ALL socialist, with no opportunity to opt out and pay for adequate health care. The Supreme Court has ruled that a province cannot prohibit private health care, but few opportunities exist for it.

This has resulted in a disparity of health care from one province to another, incredibly long wait times for diagnostic procedures like CT and MRI (there are more CT scanners in Rochester, Minn, population around 120L than all of Canada, population 33-million), long wait times for non-elective procedures (so long that one province, in sending out appointment reminder cards, includes an appology if the patient has already died), and limited formulary for approved, paid-for drugs.
 
Of particular interest are the reports from Britain, which has arguably the best socialist medicine that we could hope for in the US. It has a two-tier system with the (free?) NHS system that offers substandard care by midlevels or less, very long waits for non-elective procedures and deplorable, unhygenic conditions in the hospitals. Patients fortunate enough to be able to pay get immediate service in clean, well run (and most assuredly non-NHS) hospitals, by real physicians.

This sounds very close to what we have currently. The county health system cares for the uninsured, there are long wait times for even urgent problems (appys, fractures, etc), elective procedures are rarely done. Wait times for MRI's and CT's is crazy unless you are admitted, and even if you are you might spend weeks in the hospital waiting for it just so you won't have to wait months for it if you leave the hospital. Why would we think the government could put together a system that would run effectively and efficiently when they show us so often that they can't do it (think about government efficiency next time you have to go in person to the DMV, or ask a soldier what happens when they try to get a pay issue resolved)? I am not saying our system is the best, I just don't want to see it made worse.
 
In the Netherlands, everybody has access to the system. If one earns more than about $35,000 per year they have to buy private insurance. When I lived there, it cost me about 850 euros per quarter. Sounds like a lot, but I never paid a copayment and an emergency surgery cost me nothing. I got a discount when I bought liability, house and auto insurance from them.

There is a waiting list for a lot of surgeries, but people don't drop dead usually from waiting. If it's an emergency, people go right in. Taxes in NL are high, mostly because of the welfare state. But the society is really healthy as a whole. Most Dutch people are very proud of what they've created and I tend to agree.
 
"My inclination is that you have to be pretty darn optimistic to believe that the US government could ever come up with a system that wasn't FUBARed and fawled and wheter or not that optismism is founded is up to personal perception."


Do a search on Veteran's Affairs healthcare. You will find many article about a recent study that found that VA provides better outcomes than private insurance, at a lower cost. So, in reality, the US already has a medical network serving millions of people proven to work better than private insurance. Skeptics ought to explain why it could not be scaled up to cover everybody.

Frankly, universal access to healthcare, whether achieved through single payer, a national health service, or some other model, is just the only sensible thing. All the facts, all the studies, whether about the dysfunction of the current system or the successes of other models, point firmly in that direction.

Debates about it now resemble the Darwin/Creationist merry-go-round, where the faith-based anti-government crowd will quibble endless over a minor point, ignore mountains of facts, and produce elaborate and unconvincing psudeo-theories, (e.g., "intelligent design") to pretend to a alternative to the truth.

I'm sure my fellow SDNers would be happy to provide examples of this sophistry.
 
You obviously have never tried to schedule care at the VA. There are long waits for appointments, and if you need a procedure you will wait again. The VA system has a tiered system for covered services, such that certain veterans will pay more than others for services and certain services may be unavailable. It is based both on service connected disability and level of household income. How would you expand this to cover non-veterans? How would you deal with the wait times for services that would dramatically increase unless you are able to increase the facility space and the staff. What makes you think that changing this from a system dealing mainly with people who are used to following orders (many of whom receive the majority of their care through their private insurance) to one dealing with all comers wouldn't affect the outcomes and efficiency of the system?
 
Someone told me a interesting tidbit about the VA system today. I've never worked at one so don't know much about them, but apparently there's shared records between all VA hospitals nation-wide... that would definantly make continuity of care alot easier and dissolve alot of the confusion and uncertainty that taints most care if that's the case.
 
Someone told me a interesting tidbit about the VA system today. I've never worked at one so don't know much about them, but apparently there's shared records between all VA hospitals nation-wide... that would definantly make continuity of care alot easier and dissolve alot of the confusion and uncertainty that taints most care if that's the case.

This free distribution of medical records across the country is actually kind of scary. I'm not sure I like the idea of the government openly posessing and distributing all of my health information in the name of efficiency. These sorts of things have a way of being misused.
 
This free distribution of medical records across the country is actually kind of scary. I'm not sure I like the idea of the government openly posessing and distributing all of my health information in the name of efficiency. These sorts of things have a way of being misused.

Gimme 3 good reasons to be scared please.. I am trying to keep an open mind to this topic.

I already scratched off "Healthcare providers might make me pay more cause I got XXX gene and YY family history" because if the government provides for everyone then it deserves to know who is susceptable to what disease so it manages them better not to mention that the VA system doesn't make the patients pay different amounts for their health (as far as I know).

What other reasons are out there to be scared of?
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
The VA does make different people pay different amounts for healthcare, but it is based on whether they are being seen for something which was service connected and also on how much money is made in their household.

On a different note, I could imagine people hacking the system to find out medical info on celebrities and politicians to put in gossip columns. Not that it can't be done now, but the risk would be greater with a centralized database.
 
Hospitals in Tory seats are 'targeted for closure'

COMMUNITY hospitals that lie in Conservative or Liberal Democrat constituencies will bear the brunt of the Government’s closure programme, re-igniting accusations of political interference in the NHS.

The revelation comes a month after The Times disclosed that ministers and Labour Party officials held meetings to work out ways of closing hospitals without jeopardising key marginal seats.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2405932,00.html


It's going to be awesome when the government controls medicine. You have the right to free health care... if you vote the right way.

But not to worry. You trust our political leaders not to do things like that, don't you?
 
Gimme 3 good reasons to be scared please.. I am trying to keep an open mind to this topic.

I already scratched off "Healthcare providers might make me pay more cause I got XXX gene and YY family history" because if the government provides for everyone then it deserves to know who is susceptable to what disease so it manages them better not to mention that the VA system doesn't make the patients pay different amounts for their health (as far as I know).

What other reasons are out there to be scared of?

Sure:
1. The "accidental" leaking of medical information related to political opponents or anyone who happens to cross anyone in power the wrong way.

2. Public Health Consequences. Do you think I'm gonna tell my doctor about that penile rash if It is permanently going in a "private" universal database.

3. Avoidance of the medical establishment after a few slip-ups, leading to disease presenting at later stages. (See #1, and #2).

4. The government may "start" by covering all of these disorders (Though Universal Records really is not related to Universal Insurance). However, any look at ANY National Health System in ANY other country will show a persistent decline in benefits over time to contain costs. Thus, the information is dangerous.

5. Non-Healthcare providers might care. Uh-oh, John Doe is on a statin, better not hire him for an important position, he might get heart disease. (See #1 for why this might be leaked).

I could keep going, but I've already passed #3. If you think that there is a prayer of the information staying safe, I would ask you to look at credit information, Social Security Numbers, Tax Info, etc... This stuff is leaked CONSTANTLY. Down here in Miami, they stole a bunch of this stuff out of the truck of some government official who was in a restaurant just a couple of months ago.
 
Sure:
1. The "accidental" leaking of medical information related to political opponents or anyone who happens to cross anyone in power the wrong way.

2. Public Health Consequences. Do you think I'm gonna tell my doctor about that penile rash if It is permanently going in a "private" universal database.

3. Avoidance of the medical establishment after a few slip-ups, leading to disease presenting at later stages. (See #1, and #2).

4. The government may "start" by covering all of these disorders (Though Universal Records really is not related to Universal Insurance). However, any look at ANY National Health System in ANY other country will show a persistent decline in benefits over time to contain costs. Thus, the information is dangerous.

5. Non-Healthcare providers might care. Uh-oh, John Doe is on a statin, better not hire him for an important position, he might get heart disease. (See #1 for why this might be leaked).

I could keep going, but I've already passed #3. If you think that there is a prayer of the information staying safe, I would ask you to look at credit information, Social Security Numbers, Tax Info, etc... This stuff is leaked CONSTANTLY. Down here in Miami, they stole a bunch of this stuff out of the truck of some government official who was in a restaurant just a couple of months ago.


Many of these things are already happening. Political ads have mentioned mental health admits for opponents; patients don't tell their doctors everything for fear that info will be passed on to another treating MD, the public already has a distrust for medicine, and pre-employment physicals are already in place - hence the statement in contracts about a company being able to fire someone without cause for the first 30-90 days (depending on the company). What would change with an electronic medical record that would follow a pt?
 
I don't know what's in those links so some of the stuff here might be repeated.

But, anyway, the three countries I'm most familiar with are America, Canada and the United Kingdom. In America, we have the "free market" system. Canada has a "single payer" scheme. The United Kingdom has a "direct provider" system. Those aren't official names, I just made them up.

Canada/National Insurance
In Canada, health care is still provided by private corporations. However, there is a single payer - the government. It is illegal to sell or buy private health insurance in Canada. Hospitals bill the government insurance company for all of their patients. You cannot pay out of pocket for health care either. This obviously, makes competition among hospitals almost impossible.

This is the major flaw in the Canadian system. The system is not built around quality. It's built around equality. Instead of setting up the health care system to ensure everyone gets at least decent health care, they set it up so everyone has to get the same level of health care.

Of course, this just isn't true. Like I said before, it's illegal to sell or buy private health insurance in Canada. The loop hole to this is a lump sum insurance. Lump sum insurance (once again, not the official name) will pay you a certain sum of money if you are diagnosed with a serious health condition, like cancer. Then you take the money and fly to the United States for treatment. Canadians (patients and the government) spend $1 billion dollars a year on health care in the United States.

United Kingdom/Direct Provider
The United Kingdom's system is different than Canada's. It is not based on equality and it's possible for patients to buy their way out of the NHS system. NHS is the government health care system of the UK.

So there are two systems. The public, or NHS, system or the private system. NHS can provide all health care on paper. However, NHS has problems in some specialties, especially dentistry. Its almost impossible to find an NHS dentist. Seven million Britons have private health insurance.

The system was originally set up so all NHS care took place in NHS facilities. This however, isn't true anymore. NHS now pays for some care in private hospitals. They also have contracted out some oncology treatment to HCA - Hospital Corporation of America.

Comparisons
Weeks Between GP Referral to Specialist Visit in 2003 (Canada)
Plastic Surgery: 28 weeks
Neurosurgery: 20 weeks
Urology: 13 weeks
Internal Medicine: 11 weeks

Patients Waiting More Than Four Months for Surgery
United States: 5%
Canada: 27%
United Kingdom: 36%

CT Scanners Per Million People
United States: 13.6
Canada: 8.2
United Kingdom: 6.5

Breast Cancer Mortality Rate
United States: 25%
Canada: 28%
United Kingdom: 46%

Prostate Cancer Mortality Rate
United States: 19%
Canada: 25%
United Kingdom: 57%

All of these facts are from Lives at Risk, published by the National Center for Policy Analysis.
 
Are these numbers for the general population or for those with insurance? Because for the 100 million US citizens who are uninsured or underinsured, it really doesn't matter how many CT scans there are per million people... and I let you imagine the mortality rates for breast or prostate cancer.
 
Are these numbers for the general population or for those with insurance? Because for the 100 million US citizens who are uninsured or underinsured, it really doesn't matter how many CT scans there are per million people... and I let you imagine the mortality rates for breast or prostate cancer.


And if somebody presents to an emergency room with prostate or breast cancer, they get stabilized....which means (usually) surgery. Thanks to EMTALA.

BTW, 25% of the people who have health insurance in Canada still lack health care since there aren't enough primary care physicians.

In England, old folk with broken hips die in their bed, because it can take two years or more to schedule replacements, and the bedridden (in the mean time) patients develop embolii, or decubitus ulcers and become septic...which is a win for NHS, since it's cheaper than surgery.
 
Are these numbers for the general population or for those with insurance? Because for the 100 million US citizens who are uninsured or underinsured, it really doesn't matter how many CT scans there are per million people... and I let you imagine the mortality rates for breast or prostate cancer.

So based on this theory that 100 million people do not have any kind of medical care in the USA. I guess among these people the average life expectancy is about 30 years, like it was back in the middle ages when health care didn't exist.

So we have an epidemic of people dying in their 20's and also women are dying while giving birth in the millions each year right?

No wait, maybe this figure of 100 million isn't very well thought out because obviously they also get some kind of medical care WHEN IT IS NEEDED.

My fiancee and I don't have insurance but as soon as we are about to start planning on having a family she's going to get insurance.

These figures are often used by politicians to make a point but they are really useless in real life because politicians are not smart enough to analyze data. Then people pick up this crap and think it means something; however, the condition of being uninsured is a dynamic system in which people go from being insured to uninsured to insured in their lives. Many decide when the best time is to start to pay for medical insurance. I'm uninsured by choice and I can afford to buy insurance though I would have to give up other things.

My point is that this figure of 100 million uninsured is useless but what can be useful is if we knew how many people were uninsured and were not able to get insurance despite the fact that they want it. These people should have medicaid or medicare extended to them.

The totally socialized medical system has been tried and it does not work well. We need to come up with a different solution.
 
Are these numbers for the general population or for those with insurance? Because for the 100 million US citizens who are uninsured or underinsured, it really doesn't matter how many CT scans there are per million people... and I let you imagine the mortality rates for breast or prostate cancer.

👍 EXACTLY!

I dont advocate socialized medicine.. but I am in no way convinced that electronic records should not be setup.... even with the reasons stated above so far.

My major beef is that your healthcare (not you personally, but the patient) is costing me (the physician) so many extra costs to keep track of you and yet you don't want to pay the price that I need to maintain it. I want to do it electronically and if you (the patient) don't like it... then find a private doctor who wants to do it on paper. This will only work btw if electronic records do drive down costs.... sooner or later they will... it's only a matter of time before multiple hospitals join on electronic records.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
👍 EXACTLY!

I dont advocate socialized medicine.. but I am in no way convinced that electronic records should not be setup.... even with the reasons stated above so far.

My major beef is that your healthcare (not you personally, but the patient) is costing me (the physician) so many extra costs to keep track of you and yet you don't want to pay the price that I need to maintain it. I want to do it electronically and if you (the patient) don't like it... then find a private doctor who wants to do it on paper. This will only work btw if electronic records do drive down costs.... sooner or later they will... it's only a matter of time before multiple hospitals join on electronic records.

sometimes I think the lack of insurance coverage is worse on physicians then on patients. :laugh:
 
👍 EXACTLY!

I dont advocate socialized medicine.. but I am in no way convinced that electronic records should not be setup.... even with the reasons stated above so far.

My major beef is that your healthcare (not you personally, but the patient) is costing me (the physician) so many extra costs to keep track of you and yet you don't want to pay the price that I need to maintain it. I want to do it electronically and if you (the patient) don't like it... then find a private doctor who wants to do it on paper. This will only work btw if electronic records do drive down costs.... sooner or later they will... it's only a matter of time before multiple hospitals join on electronic records.

I'll just point out that I never said private doctors shouldn't use EMR. I was opposed to a national records system, especially one that is imposed by the government on those that don't want to use it.
 
And if somebody presents to an emergency room with prostate or breast cancer, they get stabilized....which means (usually) surgery. Thanks to EMTALA.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Hurray for EMTALA. I just got surgery for that tumor that has been growing for several years in my breast, but I just couldn't afford to go to a doctor earlier so I waited until I couldn't take it anymore and went to the ER. They took real good care of me. The only thing is that I'm gonna have to give away half of my minimal wage pay to collections services for the rest of my life to pay for it. But really that's OK, since I'll be dead in 2 months.

Thanks, I haven't laughed so hard since my kid got his Tickle me Elmo.
 
These figures are often used by politicians to make a point but they are really useless in real life because politicians are not smart enough to analyze data. Then people pick up this crap and think it means something.

I could tell you the same thing. The anti-universal healthcare people always point out the Canadian and British systems as examples of failures.

They never talk about the systems that do work, like the German, Dutch, French, Scandinavian systems. I've either lived in or visited these countries extensively, and I can tell you that people over there are dumbfounded when they hear about the US system. They just can't believe we Americans put up with such crap. Life expectancy, infant mortality rate, immunization rates, and many other indicators are much better in those countries.

The dynamic argument doesn't hold either, because you can never predict when you'll get sick, and getting insurance after the fact is useless, as the condition will be excluded because pre-existing. Most of the uninsured healthy young will be OK, but have a car accident and you'll be in debt for the rest of your life. On a side note, make sure your fiancee gets health insurance well in advance of her planned pregnancy. Some insurances have long exclusion periods for pregnancy (mine is one year), or it would not be covered as a pre-existing condition. One year is a long time to wait when you're ready to conceive. That $1,000 copay was a hard enough pill to swallow for me, thanks to my wonderful HMO. Of course the 20K (for an uncomplicated delivery) would have been a different story.
 
They never talk about the systems that do work, like the German, Dutch, French, Scandinavian systems.

True, the Scandinavian systems (esp. Sweeden) are often held out as a model of the success of socialized medicine.

You say that you visit Sweeden all the time (or have lived there?) Must not have been recently, because although it is still a socialized system, the trend has been toward increased privatization, and guess what -- the trend in the quality of care is getting EVEN BETTER. Who'd a thunk it?
 
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Hurray for EMTALA. I just got surgery for that tumor that has been growing for several years in my breast, but I just couldn't afford to go to a doctor earlier so I waited until I couldn't take it anymore and went to the ER. They took real good care of me. The only thing is that I'm gonna have to give away half of my minimal wage pay to collections services for the rest of my life to pay for it. But really that's OK, since I'll be dead in 2 months.

Thanks, I haven't laughed so hard since my kid got his Tickle me Elmo.

Same thing happens in socialized systems - people in Canada find a lump, and have to wait years for diagnostic imaging. Then they die.

And the socialized system we have now (medicare) sucks...they'll happily pay for amputation of a diabetic foot, but not for close screening and management of diabetes.

OBTW, most of the uninsured in ED's, on EMTALA, don't pay anything at all - they either give false names/addresses, or simply don't pay.
 
I could tell you the same thing. The anti-universal healthcare people always point out the Canadian and British systems as examples of failures.

They never talk about the systems that do work, like the German, Dutch, French, Scandinavian systems. I've either lived in or visited these countries extensively, and I can tell you that people over there are dumbfounded when they hear about the US system. They just can't believe we Americans put up with such crap. Life expectancy, infant mortality rate, immunization rates, and many other indicators are much better in those countries.

The dynamic argument doesn't hold either, because you can never predict when you'll get sick, and getting insurance after the fact is useless, as the condition will be excluded because pre-existing. Most of the uninsured healthy young will be OK, but have a car accident and you'll be in debt for the rest of your life. On a side note, make sure your fiancee gets health insurance well in advance of her planned pregnancy. Some insurances have long exclusion periods for pregnancy (mine is one year), or it would not be covered as a pre-existing condition. One year is a long time to wait when you're ready to conceive. That $1,000 copay was a hard enough pill to swallow for me, thanks to my wonderful HMO. Of course the 20K (for an uncomplicated delivery) would have been a different story.



Yeah, and IMR is so good in those countries because they don't bother with the 1000 gram 24 week premies (in the US, it's counted as a live birth, and then a few hours later as a neonatal death), or they don't have 5 million illegals dropping anchor babies (without prenatal health care, which, btw, is funded by the federal government).

And in the socialist countries, the people have a lot less choice about vaccination than they do in the US. And the systems you're bragging about require a much higher level of taxation on the general population than in the US, which is why the economy of Sweden, ie, is so much worse off than the US.
 
/rant

The thing about comparing stats between the systems is that the populations and cultures are significantly different enough to make direct comparisons diffulcult.

For example, Americans are the fattest, most sedentary people in the history of planet earth. Rates of obesity, smoking, substance abuse, DM, HTN, and violent crime are way more than other countries, so comparing mortality rates and healthcare cost between the systems as a means of comparing which "systems" are better is impossible. The numbers of insured vs underinsured vs uninsured are impossible to quantify as well since what "adaquate insurance" for a 50 y/o who eats right, doesn't smoke, maintains an ideal body weight and excercises 4 times per week is completely different that what's "adqaquate insurance" for a drug addict thats 90lbs overweight, smokes, drinks a bottle of whiskey per day, and hasn't exercised since 1972 when he had to run to catch the ice cream truck....

My feeling is that if you indurate a lot of the European healthcare systems with our levels of obesity, substance abuse, violent crime, and poverty that you would quickly find those systems not optimal as they appeared to be...

Of course if the US REALLY wanted to make an positive impact on the healthcare of its citizens it would induce a calorie tax (one 1cent for every calorie over X) and a mandatory 30min of exercise per day (to be fitted into work schedules). Those policies would have a heck of a larger impact on American healthcare than any superbeuracratic healthcare system and wouldn't cost a dime to implement. If it wanted to take it to another level it would finally make smoking illegal and put tighter federal control alcohol production (alcohol only available thru you local DMV who keeps track of how much one person can get) to make it just a little more diffulcult for those DUI'ers and cirrhotics to get their drink on.

But of course that wouldn't be the popular thing to do...

/endrant
 
I could tell you the same thing. The anti-universal healthcare people always point out the Canadian and British systems as examples of failures.

They never talk about the systems that do work, like the German, Dutch, French, Scandinavian systems. I've either lived in or visited these countries extensively, and I can tell you that people over there are dumbfounded when they hear about the US system. They just can't believe we Americans put up with such crap. Life expectancy, infant mortality rate, immunization rates, and many other indicators are much better in those countries.

The dynamic argument doesn't hold either, because you can never predict when you'll get sick, and getting insurance after the fact is useless, as the condition will be excluded because pre-existing. Most of the uninsured healthy young will be OK, but have a car accident and you'll be in debt for the rest of your life. On a side note, make sure your fiancee gets health insurance well in advance of her planned pregnancy. Some insurances have long exclusion periods for pregnancy (mine is one year), or it would not be covered as a pre-existing condition. One year is a long time to wait when you're ready to conceive. That $1,000 copay was a hard enough pill to swallow for me, thanks to my wonderful HMO. Of course the 20K (for an uncomplicated delivery) would have been a different story.


Yeah, um, most of us refer to the Canadian and British Systems because we are most familiar with them. I could talk about the people dying of heat stroke in French ERs while the doctors were being sent home due to work restrictions or the fact that every country you mentioned has an opt out private system, but I don't think it would change your mind. Life expectancy is not significantly different between those systems, the British system, the Canadian system, and the US system. A couple of years can easily be explained by cultural differences, climate differences, and even genetic variation. All of these countries have life expectancy in the upper 70s.

I will also point out that the indicators that you use are easy to use as goals for political banter, but they are highly incomplete in terms of the quality of healthcare. A 2 year wait for a hip replacement may not be worth some of the indicators you've mentioned. Variations in definitions of these indicators also skews statistics as Flighterdoc already alluded to with infant mortality.

Your allusion to the dumbfounding of people in other countries is purely cultural. Most Americans would be dumbfounded by German Solidarity Taxes or the Swedish 80% tax bracket. They would also be dumbfounded by warm Coke and other purely cultural things that are prevalent in Europe. Many of us have seen and experienced European culture and haven't found it to be superior, just different.

Your planned pregnancy was a choice. You could have gotten insurance earlier, payed for the pregnancy yourself, or chosen not to get pregnant. My wife is ALWAYS covered by insurance. I pay cash for a high deductible policy with maternity benefits. I have managed to afford this on student loans and some side income from my wife who mostly stays home with the son I already have. This is doable. Why do you think you shouldn't have to pay for your pregnancy care? More importantly in a universal system, why should I have to pay for your pregnancy care? Your freedom of choice doesn't extend to my wallet. If you signed a contract with the HMO that allowed you to pay for $20k woth of medical care with only $1000, that seems like a pretty good bargain to me.
 
It is illegal to sell or buy private health insurance in Canada. Hospitals bill the government insurance company for all of their patients. You cannot pay out of pocket for health care either.
This is not entirely true. Most people have private health insurance through their employer which covers things not paid for by the provincial insurance plan (prescription meds, private hospital rooms, physio, optometry). You can also pay out of pocket for anything not covered and for anything that is deemed "not medically necessary". For example there are private MRI clinics and private surgery clinics. They walk a fine line between what is and isn't "medically necessary".

flighterdoc said:
Same thing happens in socialized systems - people in Canada find a lump, and have to wait years for diagnostic imaging. Then they die.
Have you had any experience in the Canadian system? In my (so far limited) experience, patients with cancer or suspected of cancer go to the front of the line for diagnosis and treatment. I just finished a urology rotation, and for patients who were referred for gross hematuria (query bladder ca), their wait from FP visit to surgery was about 1 month all together (1 week to see urologist, 1 week to get cysto, 2 weeks to TURBT). For people in remote areas, the initial specialist visit probably takes longer to get, but to say that they wait years is just blatantly wrong.

I'm not saying wait times aren't a problem, they certainly are, especially for MRI and many ortho surgeries. Yes care is rationed in Canada, but it is in the US as well, it's just rationed based on different criteria (ability to pay versus urgency of treatment).
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
It sounds like BOTH symtems SUCK. Thats it. One way or another we get screwed. Either you have to waid because there is not enough resources or you have to wait because you can't afford it. AND, if you don't wait then you get stuck with a bill so huge you can will be paying it for the next 50 years. That is if you can afford to.

Now, there seems to be to major kinds of health problems:

The avoidable and the non-avoidable.

EX: Cancer is not very avoidable in most cases.
But, Type II diabetes due to obesity is.

So, how do you tell a patient who smokes all his life, sorry sir, we are not going to pay for you lung cancer treatments because you brought this one on to yourself.

On the other hand, young lady, you have breast cancer that you had no control over and we will do everything in our power to help you.

Here is a good example: Mr x is a weekend warrior and while playing football with the buddies he blows his knee out. He needs acl surgery. at the same exact time junior Mr x finds out he has type one diabetes and will need a life time of care and medicines.

Problem is, for the cost of one knee surgery, you can treat Mr junior x for several years. You don't have enough money to do both.

WHO GET THE CARE? the one who chose to play and had an unfortunate accident or the one who had not choice.


Lets say this was car insurance. Would car insurance pay someone who was doing 90 in a 20 zone and ran into a wall. forget about the human injury, would they pay to fix the car and not raise his premiums?

Isn't insurance more for major, uncontrolable issues?

Wouldnt we best serve the system by eliminating insurance payment for things that we do to ourself and focous payment for problems we have no real control over?
 
This is not entirely true. Most people have private health insurance through their employer which covers things not paid for by the provincial insurance plan (prescription meds, private hospital rooms, physio, optometry). You can also pay out of pocket for anything not covered and for anything that is deemed "not medically necessary". For example there are private MRI clinics and private surgery clinics. They walk a fine line between what is and isn't "medically necessary".


Have you had any experience in the Canadian system? In my (so far limited) experience, patients with cancer or suspected of cancer go to the front of the line for diagnosis and treatment. I just finished a urology rotation, and for patients who were referred for gross hematuria (query bladder ca), their wait from FP visit to surgery was about 1 month all together (1 week to see urologist, 1 week to get cysto, 2 weeks to TURBT). For people in remote areas, the initial specialist visit probably takes longer to get, but to say that they wait years is just blatantly wrong.

I'm not saying wait times aren't a problem, they certainly are, especially for MRI and many ortho surgeries. Yes care is rationed in Canada, but it is in the US as well, it's just rationed based on different criteria (ability to pay versus urgency of treatment).


Yes, as a matter of fact, I do have some familiarity with the health care system in Canada. My wife is Canadian, works for the DND in health services, lives in Ottawa (now), and I've been studying the situation there for some years.

When my wife was working in Kingston, ON, she was unable to obtain basic health care for well over a year - despite having provincial insurance. There were no primary care physicians (the required gateway, other than ED's, to all health care in Canada) who would accept additional patients. For more than a year, for routine health care she had to take a day off from work and go to Ottawa to see her PCP.

When I visited Kingston in December, 2003, I developed a sinus infection, and decided I needed abx. I was on my way to the emergency department at Hotel Dieu (the closest ED to where we were) when I passed a GP's office. I stopped in, and the physician was sitting at the front desk (it was pretty late in the afternoon, just before Christmas, and she was closing the office for the holiday). I explained that I was from the United States, visiting, and had a sinus infection, and asked if she could write me a script for azithromycin.

She did, I was able to pay cash for the office visit (CDN 40), and we talked for about an hour - about the difficulties she had with provincial pay, capping her ability to make money, and all the rest of her difficulties. I realize that an anecdote is not data, but I've seen many similar stories reported in the press (including CBC, and the CMA) and in blogs.

The Fraser Institute documents many of the shortfalls of the Canadian System. Their annual report is a must read for me.
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=782

They document the delay in diagnostic services with hard numbers, yours are quite different from the averages for all medical specialties, the advantage of your limited experience in one of the least impacted specialties. The median wait time between referal by a GP to the first appointment with a specialist was 8.3 weeks in 2005 (table 2) and from an appointment with a specialist to treatment (not counting any delays that may have occurred while the specialist diagnosed the condition) is an additional 9.4 weeks (table 4)
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/WYT2005pt2.pdf#

BTW, those numbers do not include whatever the number of non-referals by PCP's is because the PCP knows that there is no chance the patient will actually see a specialist, due to scarcity....How many specialists (especially surgeons) max out in Canada every summer and work the rest of the year in Britain or the US?


Also, in New Brunswick the province sends out appointment reminder cards with a pre-printed appology if you've already died. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705

As far as the delays, heres what the Canadian Supreme Court found:
A long wait for hip replacement surgery was what prompted the Quebec case that wound up before the Supreme Court.

George Zeliotis argued his yearlong wait for surgery was unreasonable, endangered his life, and infringed on the charter's guarantee of the right to life, liberty and security. The second plaintiff, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, wanted the court to overturn a Quebec provision preventing doctors who don't operate within the medicare plan from charging for services in public hospitals.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/

Here's some more about Canadas health care: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006813

The new head of the Canadian Medical Association is pro-private health care:
http://www.healthcoalition.ca/cma-2006a.pdf at page 2

In any system that rations health care, the state decides that line between medical necessity and not. The average waiting time for referal for orthopedic surgery in Canada (table 2, above) is 25.3 weeks, and an additional wait until surgery of 40! weeks, for a total of 65.3 weeks. You may not think that a hip replacement is important until you or a loved one needs it, but after a year in bed they're generally so debilitated that recovery is unlikely. Keep in mind thats just the MEDIAN wait, half are longer than that. Even a less critical (say, knee replacement) after a years wait is still significantly deblitating with poor outcomes compared to rapid interventions.

In 2001 an older friend of mine (he was 64) fell and broke his R femur at the head. He lacked insurance, a PCP, etc. He was able to walk on the fracture (at least at first) for a couple of days but the pain finally made him go to an emergency room. He received a surgical repair within 48 hours of admission, nursing and rehab care, PT, the works and was back to normal within 12 weeks of his initial injury. In the US, without insurance, and without payments (the insurance company of the store he fell at finally paid his medical bills, of some $12K total). OBTW, he was treated at Harbor-UCLA hospital, a county hospital in Los Angeles with UCLA residencies, and the quality of his care was excellent.

In 2004 I developed a nerve entrapment in my shoulder - I was able to get seen (that day) by a PCP, with x-rays, and a CT scan and MRI of my shoulder the next morning....All within 5 miles of my home, in a suburb of Los Angeles. But, there are more CT scanners in California (population ~33mil) than all of Canada (population ~33 mil), in fact there are more scanners in Rochester, Minn (population ~135K) than all of Canada. BTW, once the problem was diagnosed, fixing it was a few physiotherapy treatments.

Who do you want deciding if your mother gets a new hip or dies from septicemia secondary to decubitus ulcers? A nameless bureaucrat who is unaccountable to anyone?

Yet, Canadians pays an unknown, hidden, amount for their health care...I have many Canadian fellow students and of the ones that actually have a clue about Canadian taxes (the ones that have had serious jobs or owned businesses) they are as sure as my wife and her family are of how much Canadians pay for their rationed health care: Much more than the official government figures indicate. My wifes tax rate is somewhat more than 50% of her income, by the way, including federal and provincial taxes.
 
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do have some familiarity with the health care system in Canada. My wife is Canadian, works for the DND in health services, lives in Ottawa (now), and I've been studying the situation there for some years.

When my wife was working in Kingston, ON, she was unable to obtain basic health care for well over a year - despite having provincial insurance. There were no primary care physicians (the required gateway, other than ED's, to all health care in Canada) who would accept additional patients. For more than a year, for routine health care she had to take a day off from work and go to Ottawa to see her PCP.

When I visited Kingston in December, 2003, I developed a sinus infection, and decided I needed abx. I was on my way to the emergency department at Hotel Dieu (the closest ED to where we were) when I passed a GP's office. I stopped in, and the physician was sitting at the front desk (it was pretty late in the afternoon, just before Christmas, and she was closing the office for the holiday). I explained that I was from the United States, visiting, and had a sinus infection, and asked if she could write me a script for azithromycin.

She did, I was able to pay cash for the office visit (CDN 40), and we talked for about an hour - about the difficulties she had with provincial pay, capping her ability to make money, and all the rest of her difficulties. I realize that an anecdote is not data, but I've seen many similar stories reported in the press (including CBC, and the CMA) and in blogs.

The Fraser Institute documents many of the shortfalls of the Canadian System. Their annual report is a must read for me.
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=782

They document the delay in diagnostic services with hard numbers, yours are quite different from the averages for all medical specialties, the advantage of your limited experience in one of the least impacted specialties. The median wait time between referal by a GP to the first appointment with a specialist was 8.3 weeks in 2005 (table 2) and from an appointment with a specialist to treatment (not counting any delays that may have occurred while the specialist diagnosed the condition) is an additional 9.4 weeks (table 4)
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/WYT2005pt2.pdf#

BTW, those numbers do not include whatever the number of non-referals by PCP's is because the PCP knows that there is no chance the patient will actually see a specialist, due to scarcity....How many specialists (especially surgeons) max out in Canada every summer and work the rest of the year in Britain or the US?


Also, in New Brunswick the province sends out appointment reminder cards with a pre-printed appology if you've already died. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705

As far as the delays, heres what the Canadian Supreme Court found:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/

Here's some more about Canadas health care: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006813

The new head of the Canadian Medical Association is pro-private health care:
http://www.healthcoalition.ca/cma-2006a.pdf at page 2

In any system that rations health care, the state decides that line between medical necessity and not. The average waiting time for referal for orthopedic surgery in Canada (table 2, above) is 25.3 weeks, and an additional wait until surgery of 40! weeks, for a total of 65.3 weeks. You may not think that a hip replacement is important until you or a loved one needs it, but after a year in bed they're generally so debilitated that recovery is unlikely. Keep in mind thats just the MEDIAN wait, half are longer than that. Even a less critical (say, knee replacement) after a years wait is still significantly deblitating with poor outcomes compared to rapid interventions.

In 2001 an older friend of mine (he was 64) fell and broke his R femur at the head. He lacked insurance, a PCP, etc. He was able to walk on the fracture (at least at first) for a couple of days but the pain finally made him go to an emergency room. He received a surgical repair within 48 hours of admission, nursing and rehab care, PT, the works and was back to normal within 12 weeks of his initial injury. In the US, without insurance, and without payments (the insurance company of the store he fell at finally paid his medical bills, of some $12K total). OBTW, he was treated at Harbor-UCLA hospital, a county hospital in Los Angeles with UCLA residencies, and the quality of his care was excellent.

In 2004 I developed a nerve entrapment in my shoulder - I was able to get seen (that day) by a PCP, with x-rays, and a CT scan and MRI of my shoulder the next morning....All within 5 miles of my home, in a suburb of Los Angeles. But, there are more CT scanners in California (population ~33mil) than all of Canada (population ~33 mil), in fact there are more scanners in Rochester, Minn (population ~135K) than all of Canada. BTW, once the problem was diagnosed, fixing it was a few physiotherapy treatments.

Who do you want deciding if your mother gets a new hip or dies from septicemia secondary to decubitus ulcers? A nameless bureaucrat who is unaccountable to anyone?

Yet, Canadians pays an unknown, hidden, amount for their health care...I have many Canadian fellow students and of the ones that actually have a clue about Canadian taxes (the ones that have had serious jobs or owned businesses) they are as sure as my wife and her family are of how much Canadians pay for their rationed health care: Much more than the official government figures indicate. My wifes tax rate is somewhat more than 50% of her income, by the way, including federal and provincial taxes.

Yes, all good points, But like I said, neither system is working. Your argument is correct for one side. The other side has a similar argument that is correct for their side. Neither is correct.

There has to and will be a better alternative.
 
Yes, all good points, But like I said, neither system is working. Your argument is correct for one side. The other side has a similar argument that is correct for their side. Neither is correct.

There has to and will be a better alternative.

Which is? Where is this miraculous alternative?
 
Which is? Where is this miraculous alternative?


It is our job as physicians (if you are one) to come up with one. To do that we need more control over the whole process.
 
Which is? Where is this miraculous alternative?

The reason everyone can't have all the healthcare they want, is because healthcare is a service and responds to scarcity. Like all things that are scarce (from food to wide screen TVs), a capitalist approach seems to repeatedly get the best results. Let people pay for things themselves. This eliminates all middle men, makes physicians compete with better care for their patients, and creates an understanding of cost on the part of the patient. Insurance should be catastrophic, as was put so eloquently by erichj. This system of private pay with catastrophic protection repeats itself over and over on the most free markets in the world.

Of course, would everyone have everything they want? Of course not. That CAN NEVER BE. You will bankrupt the system. However, repeated increases in efficiency and quality that follow a capitalist system will make conditions repeatedly improve, and that will trickle down to all classes of people in time. I'm just trying to fend off the upcoming attack about how we should sacrifice every person in the country for the sake of the poor. The screw the middle class person is never far behind any mention of capitalism.
 
It turns out the German system isn't working too well, either:


Merkel forced to delay health reform plans

By Bertrand Benoit in Berlin

Published: September 8 2006 03:00 | Last updated: September 8 2006 03:00

Opponents of plans for a sweeping reform of Germany's health system won a significant concession yesterday when the government of Angela Merkel, chancellor, said it would delay introducing the controversial measures.

In the latest setback for Ms Merkel in her efforts to hasten reform, the government said it would postpone implementing reforms by three months until April next year. This sparked jubilation among opponents such as doctors, trade unions as well as private and public-sector health insurers, who said the chancellor should use the time to rethink her plans.

The delay follows widespread rejection outside Ms Merkel's "grand coalition" government of a cursory reform blueprint published in July after months of fraught closed-door horse-trading between her Christian Democrats and their Social Democrat partners.

The reform project, which would introduce a central fund to collect and channel contributions to the country's myriad health insurers, is also opposed by hospital managers and pharmacists as well as opposition parties. For some, the plans do not go far enough to fix the health system's financial problems; for others theproposals are excessively bureaucratic and may put jobs at risk.

Economists, meanwhile, have slammed the plan as an awkward and impractical compromise between the starkly different models advocated by the two ruling parties. The plan is also controversial within Ms Merkel's own party, particularly among the 11 CDU state premiers who have been pressing for a longer parliamentary debate on the bill. Under the initial, fast-track timetable, the Bundesrat, the upper house in which the regional states are represented, would have had two weeks to approve the bill now being drafted by the health and finance min-istries and a small group of MPs on the basis of the blueprint.

Conservative-ruled states led by Bavaria, however, have asked for the Bundesrat to be given as much time as the lower house to debate, and possibly modify, the bill.

Ulla Schmidt, health minister and an SPD member, put a positive gloss on the delay agreed by thecoalition's top politicians yesterday. She blamedthe postponement aboveall on the complexity of the bill. "This should certainly not be seen as an indication that the reform is not coming," she said. "We can live with a three-month delay, and it should give the Bundesrat enough time."

The CDU-led states fear the reform as it stands could disproportionately undermine the private-sector health insurers, which they see as more efficient than their public-sector counterparts.

Some, such as Bavaria and Hesse, are also concerned that the planned overhaul of the generous but cash-strapped health system could trigger an outflow of funds from the more affluent south to the economically depressed former East Germany.

"Quality comes before speed," Volker Kauder, the CDU's parliamentary floor leader, told the FT in an interview, saying a delay would also give parliament more time to conduct proper hearings with experts and interested parties and to reflect their views in the final bill.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3354e406-3ed6-11db-b4de-0000779e2340.html

In Germany, physicians work twice as many hours as the national average, and yet receive on average half or less of what physicians in the US do (for similar hospital based work). Germany spends almost 11% of it's GDP on health care, but there has been a loss of 20% of hospital beds from 1991 to 2004.

I'd be very happy to comment on good socialist systems, I just can't find any that are good for the patients, the physicians and other healthcare providers, adn the taxpayers.
 
AND all those so called great systems are failing what does that tell you.

Lets make a comparison,
In the United States we have over the past 30 years inched our way closer and closer to the socialist medicine pathway. Isnt it intresting that in about the same time frame we have taken a great medical system in the USA that used to work under the capitalist system and turned to crap.

Since we started to deliver medicine like our european friends, we have demonstrated how not to run a healthcare system and how not to fall in the trap of socialized medicine.

It does not work. It does not work in part or whole.

The whole concept of "Medical Neccessity" came from the insurance industry.

Who chooses what is needed and what is not. It should be doctors right?

So, you have a patient that walks into your office that may need several hundred dollars of care (pick you disease). She has her nails done, she has 80 dollar jeans on, she has hair extension that cost 300 dollars.

She has no health insurance. You tell her she needs a procedure and that it is going to cost 500 dollars. She turns around and asks if you have a payment plan.

Do I look like a bank?
Did she ask the hair, nail and jean store if they had a payment plan?

If she can afford all that, we no where her priorities are. This could just as well be a guy or anyone.

She expects you as her doctor to feel sorry for her and help her out.

Why, do I have sign on my head that says stupid?

Isnt is true that she needs the procedure more than the 80 dollar jeans?

I SAY, STOP BEING A VICTIM.

See if this patient actually pays her bills, then maybe, just maybe you can use some of that compassion on the 80 year old lady who needs to have her diabetes controled.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND.
 
It is our job as physicians (if you are one) to come up with one. To do that we need more control over the whole process.

Way to state the obvious. What every single person in healthcare has been trying to figure out for the past 50 years is the actual "how"
 
Way to state the obvious. What every single person in healthcare has been trying to figure out for the past 50 years is the actual "how"

Try getting 10 doctors in a room and having them agree on anything. good luck.

We need to get organized, So as long you can be negative, it won't happen.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Well, the WaPo printed a hell of a good idea wrt healthcare in the US:

Make it more capitalism, and less socialism.

For Health Care Woes, a Capitalism Prescription

By David Gratzer
Special to washingtonpost.com's Think Tank Town
Wednesday, October 25, 2006; 12:00 AM

Amid the Congressional page scandal, the most important pocketbook issue of the election is getting lost in the noise of the campaign season. Health care costs are not just soaring, they're reaching unaffordable levels, meaning that we'll have to look to managed care (again) or find a government solution, a prescription for rationing. With spiraling costs projected to continue, thereby doubling spending in the next 8 years, that choice will be made by 2014 unless we find a third option. What's the cure? Congress needs to administer a strong dose of capitalism.

Businesses struggle to pay for health premiums, which have nearly doubled since 2000. It's not simply corporate giants like GM that have trouble -- only 61% of American companies offer their employees health insurance, down from 69% in 2000. Even insured Americans feel the pinch -- though labor costs are up, median family income has dropped 2.6% over the past half decade, the largest decline since the last recession, in large part because soaring health premiums have swallowed up new money.

The situation will precipitously worsen in the next seven years as health spending is projected to rise to $4 trillion dollars a year, up from $2 trillion. Former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson declares this unsustainable, noting that as a percentage of GDP, US spending will soar from 16 percent to 21 percent. 2013 holds more problems: Medicare will start drawing dollars from the U.S. Treasury.

But for employers, employees, and government officials already fretting the cost of health care, beware: you haven't seen anything yet.

For years, the debate has been about 2 options for dealing with the cost crunch.

First, embrace HMOs. The idea faltered in the late 1990s but managed care held costs relatively stable in the mid-1990s (rising, for example, just 2 percent in 1996). But HMOs turn basic decisions over to bureaucrats, a paternalistic philosophy at odds with American values.

Second, convert to some type of government health care, an approach every other Western country has adopted. Though the idea grows in popularity -- California legislators recently passed single payer legislation -- socialized medicine is built on rationing care, forcing the sick and elderly to wait for even the most basic care in countries like Canada.

Is there another option? Look to capitalism, which governs the other five-sixth of the economy. Ultimately, we must choose market reforms.

That may sound easy enough, but for more than 60 years, government policy has drifted fitfully in the opposite direction. In the rest of the economy, we have moved away from regulations, price controls, and overreaching government agencies. Yet in health care, we have distorted the tax code, bulked up the Medicaid rolls, and let a million regulations bloom. Medicare alone has more than 100,000 pages of them. Price controls are endemic to Medicare and Medicaid. The result is a half-broken, semi-socialist system, low in satisfaction and high in cost.

How to employ market reforms? Here are five simple steps.

# Make health insurance more like other types of insurance. Health savings accounts, which passed as part of the Medicare reforms of 2003, were an important first step, separating smaller expenses from high-deductible insurance, for catastrophic events. However, the legislation is overly rigid. Congress must expand and revise the structure of HSAs, and level the tax playing field for those not covered by an employer plan.

# Foster competition. American health care is the most regulated sector in the economy. The result? A health insurance policy for a 30-year old man costs four times more in New York than in neighboring Connecticut because of the multitude of regulations in the Empire State. Americans can shop out-of-state for a mortgage; they should be able to do so for health insurance. Likewise, many laws intended to promote fairness end up reducing competition and thus innovation. Congress should reconsider such laws, beginning with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).

# Reform Medicaid, using welfare reform as the template. Medicaid spending is spiraling up, now consuming more dollars at the state level than K-12 education. Like the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children, part of the problem stems from the fact that the program is shared between both the federal and state government -- and is thus owned by neither. Congress should fund Medicaid with block grants to the states, and let them innovate.

# Revisit Medicare. Back in the late 1990s, a bipartisan commission approved a reasonable starting point for Medicare -- junking the price controls, and using the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan as a model. Elderly Americans would then have a choice among competing private plans. Given that the unfunded liability of Medicare is four times greater than that of social security, the time is right to experiment with this idea.

# Address prescription drug prices by pruning the size and scope of the FDA. It costs nearly a billion dollars for a prescription drug to reach the market, and roughly 40% of that is due to safety requirements. This is effectively a massive tax on pharmaceuticals. With new technology and focus, it would be possible to update the FDA, drawing from President George H. W. Bush's experiments with contracting out certain approval steps to private organizations, which boasted lower costs and faster approval times.

None of these steps would be dramatic but all are important. Congress also slowly needs to weigh bigger issues: how to shore up Medicare, create portability of health insurance, and foster a market for medical innovation.

Of course, in today's political environment, this seems implausible. Just last year, Congress spent months negotiating a budget that called for Medicaid growth to be trimmed back to 7.5 percent a year, not the forecasted 7.7 percent -- an inauspicious start on a difficult journey. But the political need to act is growing, literally, on a daily basis.

America has been at the forefront of medical innovation: death by cardiovascular disease has plummeted by two-thirds in the last fifty years; polio is confined to the history books; childhood leukemia has gone from a death sentence to an eminently treatable condition. If we have achieved so much with medicine, the task of health care reform seems relatively modest. The patient is fading; Congress must act.

David Gratzer, a physician, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. He is the author of The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care (Encounter Books).
© 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102401002.html
 
Try getting 10 doctors in a room and having them agree on anything. good luck.

We need to get organized, So as long you can be negative, it won't happen.

What we need is a lot less lip service and and a lot more concrete ideas.
 
What we need is a lot less lip service and and a lot more concrete ideas.

Well If you look at my other post you will see that I've given several ideas.

What are your ideas?
 
Top Bottom