Metal Reviews

I'm not sure exactly how they compare, but doctor's here get paid extremely well- this blog implies that some UK General Practitioners could be making as much as the most advanced neurosurgeons in the US.

http://mdsalaries.blogspot.com/2007/07/ ... icine.html

But I'm sure there is a lot of overlap with different roles getting more in different places.

I'd guess that an awful lot of money going into a healthcare system is spent on bureaucracy. The question is, does a private or national system generate more of that? It's kind of a stereotype to say that the latter does by far, but I think that may well be untrue. In a private system, the buyer also has to pay for the staggering profit of company shareholders, as well as advertising, and a whole team of lawyers and people to go over insurance claims. All roles that I believe have no place in a healthcare system, and it would make me extremely angry if the money I was paying towards my healthcare was going to them. All this can be cut out or at least controlled in a single-payer system.

Good points, it's just so tough to say how it would take in our strange economy. Here's a good pro/con list:

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm

The possibility of some of the cons put me of far more than saving on the $5K I spend a year on healthcare costs, which I might not be saving at all.

Well, some of the "no" reasons I think are misleading.

1. How many private companies are incompetent, just as much if not more so than the government? A great many. Besides, the government does not need to "run" the healthcare system, it just needs to underwrite it. If anything, power could be devloved into the hands of doctors and nurses in hospitals, who currently have to follow the instructions of their corporate overseers.

2. Like I said, the US spends more on healthcare already than anywhere else in the developed world. With UC, everyone shares costs and therfore for each individual it's vastly cheaper.

3. I'd like to see some concrete evidence of this claim, because I don't believe it.

4. "Flexibility" is corporate jargon. I have to pay vast sums of money for my healthcare, but hey that's ok because I can choose between 3 different hospitals and 4 different appointment times!

5. A good thing, surely? People will no longer be afraid to get checked up if they are worried about their health, leading to better health in the long run. Yes, longer lists are the clear downside, but consider that where lists are shorter in the US it may well be because people can't afford to go get checked up, even if they are ill. Longer waiting times are worth it, IMO.

6. Indeed, they can just go to the emergency room, as George Bush would say.

7. Again, that's ridiculous. No evidence for that whatsoever.

8. Ok but then you will lead to a society where people just say "I'm alright, fuck everyone else", which is not healthy. Plus, how is this logic: I live in the countryside, which is not going to be attacked by terrorists, so why should I pay taxes to the Dep. of Homeland Security? Why don'y New Yorkers foot the bill themselves?

9. Oh, sod the insurance industry.

10.


aaah... actually im going to be late for work... better run.

I agree, that point is pretty weak, and not one of the ones that put me off.



I still doubt I would be saving money under this scenario. For that to happen, they would need to hike taxes $2K or less per person, which shaves 2/3 off our healthcare spending. I would hate to see what that would do to our quality of healthcare.



I don't either, I actually snickered at that one when I read it.



Well, yes and no. It's not a dealbreaker, but I definitely like having the option to go see a different doctor if my current one is a knob. For a more personal experience, there are three hospitals near my house. One does not have a newborn ICU, and one just had a fiasco where a couple babies were incorrectly medicated and died. It was nice to be able to have the choice of the third one that had neither of those problems when choosing where to have our daughter delivered.



You would think so, but some friends of my parents moved to Canada, and they say that sometimes the waiting lists are so long that they end up having to come across the border. I think waiting lists are a HUGE downside, and I would have to think they would be longer here than they usually are.



Yeah, I didn't like that point either. It takes a "ain't broke, don't fix it" tone. I think the system is clearly broke, but I don't think UHC is the best way to fix it.



I don't know about that. You don't think the government would be pretty stringent on what is an elective procedure and what is not if they were footing the bill? That point didn't really bother me, but it is food for thought.



Unfortunately, our society is very close to that mentality already. This point didn't bother me either, though it is a tough pill to swallow to know that my tax dollars are going to pay for the care of people who CHOOSE to smoke and adversely affect their health.



I'm definitely no fan of the insurance industry, but it is definitely a valid point. A whole lot of jobs would be lost, and the whole process would be a colossal pain in the ass. Again, another point that doesn't really bother me, but is something to think about.

The last three points are pretty dumb also, but I will keep going to back to huge tax increases and the potential for long waiting lists as my two most glaring problems with UHC.

Obama, but I'm Canadian. He's the smartest. I'm sure his seemingly personal speeches, what with their anti-political-esque nature, are at least in part a meticulous and clever strategy. But either way, he's apparently quite smart--the smartest of candidates to be sure.

I like 'bama because he hasn't told Hilary to ''shut the fuck up, you stupid bitch'' yet - at least not in public - I woulve have ages ago.

On your main objections; like I mentioned I don't see why you couldn't just reshuffle some priorities and do it without raising taxes- I guess the US probably spends an awful lot on defence when it's already powerful enough to crush everyone else on the face of the earth already, for example. Anyway, I still suspect that overall the average household's bills would go down- ultimately health insurance is always more expensive for an individual than the tax required to fund a system if it is spread evenly.

The system doesn't become cheaper overall however, because the same amount of money goes in, just spread across the population and without having to also factor in profit margins and advertising costs. I don't see why quality would decrease- look at developed European countries,France, Germany, Scandinavia, etc... they all have extremely high standards of hospital and doctors, and they all have extremely long life expectancies. What would change for sure is the relationship between patient and doctor. In the US the relationship of patient to doctor seems to be like that of a customer, whereas in a UH system it is that of a user of a public service. I can understand why some people would prefer the former, but I really can't stand the idea. To me a doctor is a member of my community that I have a reciprocal relationship with because I consent to my taxes going towards his wages in return for the fact that he is always there when I need him regardless of whether I have money or not. He shouldn't be someone that has to attract my attention with adverts.

Finally, waiting lists are terrible, of course. But then there is another side to it. I stayed in the US for a few months a while back, and did some interviews with people there. They weren't terribly poor people, or chronically unemployed, or anything like that. They had full time jobs in a warehouse, and one of them was saying that they had felt ill, but had chosen not to go to a doctor about it because of the potential costs they would incur. Absolutely if you want to avoid people feeling like this then you do have to have longer waiting times. But then personally I just feel more comfortable with that.

Well, we can agree to disagree anyway

To your first point, obviously our government spending needs to be addressed, but that's a whole different bag of shit. If the circumstances were set up right, I would be all in favor of UH. If gov't spending were curbed first, which would reduce and/or eliminate the US national debt, then I might be in favor of it. As it is, it would be hard to "shuffle" anything, being that were somewhere around 10 TRILLION dollars in debt. I mean, what's the point of going through the hassle if it would just be a lateral move cost wise, which it sounds like it would be, for people like me. Someday, hopefully, we can unscrew our economy and then we can seriously think about instituting UH.

Also, I didn't mean to imply that European countries who have UH have poor healthcare. Actually, I've read that they have very good providers. What I'm saying is that a lot of doctors/surgeons who practice in the US come from other countries because they can make more $$$ here. If we have to reduce how much they're paid by putting in UH, then I would think some might leave and not as many would come here to practice, which definitely could have a negative effect on the quality of our healthcare. That's all I was getting at.

Of course we can agree to disagree , I enjoy the discussion in fact. You've made some valid points.

bump!

Looks like Clinton's chances are nil, hurrah, but Obama really will go to any lengths:



It's funny, the differences between US and UK political campaigning. Something like that over here would be suicidal.

Worth noting that this is a campaign ad for the KENTUCKY primary. In a lot of other primaries, this type of ad would do no good (New York, California, etc.)

The whole thing is getting rather ridiculous. I found this article pretty funny:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/opinion/15collins.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Skip to the paragraph that starts out "If Clinton wants to continue" to see an outline for scenarios that would lead to her getting the nomination.

Heh, true, but even our most redneck, hillbilly, Wicker Mannish regions wouldn't find that very impressive.

And can you copy-paste the relevant text from that article, it's asking for a log-in.

Shame on you, Obama, shame on you. American politics suck.

He has to print that after West Virginians still thought he was a Muslim. The Daily Show episode after Tuesday portrayed it well with exit poll interviews.

Hilary's Downfall.

Are there any well-known US politicians that would be prepared to say something like this in public? Because sometimes I think there's a wide open space that one would fit in very well...

He almost has to run ads like that unfortunately, since idiot Republicans keep planting the seed that he's Muslim. The Democrats aren't nearly as religious a party, but even for them that's a rumor you have to combat if it's not true, which is the case here.

Here's a portion of the text from that article I was referring to earlier:

Heheh, interesting.

Not really to do with the US elections, but I think I'll turn this into a general politics thread:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/ ... lresearch1

Scientists here can now create hybrid embryos and 'saviour siblings'. The real test comes today, though:



Some may feel the need to punish Brown by voting against him, but I hope not... if we let the Conservatives start eroding stuff like abortion limits without scientific evidence, who know's where they'll end up, especially if they get in again, Labour's at its lowest popularity since Thatcher's days.

Labour can fuck off, I will never vote for them again while the current setuip persists. The tories can get in: It's better to have a principled party in opposition rather than an unprincipled on in power.

Wat. Did you not read the news the past few days? The Conservatives were quite prepared to bugger the abortion limit up based on nothing other than the say-so of a few Catholics. I'm not happy with Labour either, but it's the lesser of two evils.

I think the problem with the high costs of healthcare is also insurance. Not for the people, but for the doctors themselves. If the hospital makes a mistake in the states, people will sue them and they will have to pay ridiculous amounts of money. I heard gp's have to pay big money for insurance on this. In europe, we don't have such a lawsystem that allows millions of compensation for a mistake.

Many people may be jobless with such a rigorous change in policy, but be sure to note that it's cheaper to just give people money because they are jobless than to have them occupying positions that are not necessary. This is a fake form of work and it will not stimulate the economy because the other people pay for a hollow service. Just like war, it's a thing that can be superficially good for the economy, but in the end will express itself in taxes that take away buying potential or state depts.