Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even if we did have waiting times, you're talking about healthcare for everyone, not just the people who can afford to get it. That alone is worth waiting a few days. And, from every report I've read on waiting times, they are pretty much in every case grossly exaggerated.
We have S-CHIP and MEDICAID for "the people who can't afford to get it" And these people also benefit from all the MRI scanners the rest of us have been paying for. But your point seems to be that it would be an improvement to the US health care system if we lowered the quality of health care for everyone.
We have S-CHIP and MEDICAID for "the people who can't afford to get it" And these people also benefit from all the MRI scanners the rest of us have been paying for. But your point seems to be that it would be an improvement to the US health care system if we lowered the quality of health care for everyone.
Do you want it lowered for only a few select groups? What basis do you want to use towards that effect?
We have S-CHIP and MEDICAID for "the people who can't afford to get it" And these people also benefit from all the MRI scanners the rest of us have been paying for. But your point seems to be that it would be an improvement to the US health care system if we lowered the quality of health care for everyone.
I think you can provide a good quality base level of health care for everyone. If you want a higher level of care then you pay for it either through insurance or by signing up for a concierge type arrangement. That, essentially, is what most UHCs already do.
Of course proponents of UHC cite the experience of other countries -- those are real-world examples.
No, they are not real world examples. It is very disingenuous and deceitful to cite such examples. First and foremost, in order to compare two systems, they must be alike. If they are not alike then you cannot compare them; you can only contrast and highlight their differences.
The US health care system is in no way, shape or form similar to the European system.
The Cincinnati Metropolitan Statistical Area has 3 Million people and 19 full-service hospitals. How many hospitals would their be if the US adopted the European-style UHC?
Somewhere between 3 and 6 hospitals.
For those who don't get it, you'd have to close 13 to 16 hospitals. What part of that do you people not understand?
All three of these cities, Paris, Berlin and Bucharesti each have 3 Million people and they have 6, 3 and 3 full-service hospitals respectively. What part of that do you people not understand?
Did it ever occur to any of you that the reason Europeans can have UHC is because instead of having 1 hospital for ever 157,000 people they have 1 hospital for every 750,000 people?
Hello?.....Bueller?.....Bueller?
Which costs more:
1] 1 hospital for every 157,000 people; or
2] 1 hospital for every 750,000 people?
Very obviously, having one hospital for every 157,000 people is quite expensive.
One reason Europe can afford UHC is because they closed all of the excess wasteful hospitals and replaced them with specifiably clinics. An example of a specialty clinic would be like a kidney dialysis clinic.
I've already explained why kidney dialysis clinics exist: because it costs too much to have that service in hospital. And I've already explained that the American Hospital Association -- AHA -- (one of Obama's biggest campaign donors) has repeatedly attempted to outlaw and ban kidney dialysis clinics. They want that money.
UHC and the AHA are not compatible. You can have one or the other, but not both.
Since the AHA wrote Section 6001 that outlaws and bans the European Clinic Model here in the US, I think it's only fair that we enact legislation that outlaws and bans the AHA.
If you want UHC like Europe, then you need to change, alter, adapt, modify, your current obsolete outdated grossly ineffective and inefficient Hospital Model to belike Europe. And to be like Europe, you need to be using the Clinic Model, like Europe.
What is so hard to understand?
And the most insulting thing is that if we had a Free Market Health Care System, the Market would have forced the shift from the Hospital Model to the Clinic Model decades ago.
Why in the world should **Insurance** companies cover pre-existing conditions?
They don't want any sick people, who might cost money, in their risk pool. This is why a National Healthcare plan is so vital to the citizens of our country.
Uhh...you havn't explained why a National healthcare plan is neccesary.
No, they are not real world examples. It is very disingenuous and deceitful to cite such examples. First and foremost, in order to compare two systems, they must be alike. If they are not alike then you cannot compare them; you can only contrast and highlight their differences.
The US health care system is in no way, shape or form similar to the European system.
The Cincinnati Metropolitan Statistical Area has 3 Million people and 19 full-service hospitals. How many hospitals would their be if the US adopted the European-style UHC?
Somewhere between 3 and 6 hospitals.
For those who don't get it, you'd have to close 13 to 16 hospitals. What part of that do you people not understand?
All three of these cities, Paris, Berlin and Bucharesti each have 3 Million people and they have 6, 3 and 3 full-service hospitals respectively. What part of that do you people not understand?
Did it ever occur to any of you that the reason Europeans can have UHC is because instead of having 1 hospital for ever 157,000 people they have 1 hospital for every 750,000 people?
Hello?.....Bueller?.....Bueller?
Which costs more:
1] 1 hospital for every 157,000 people; or
2] 1 hospital for every 750,000 people?
Very obviously, having one hospital for every 157,000 people is quite expensive.
One reason Europe can afford UHC is because they closed all of the excess wasteful hospitals and replaced them with specifiably clinics. An example of a specialty clinic would be like a kidney dialysis clinic.
I've already explained why kidney dialysis clinics exist: because it costs too much to have that service in hospital. And I've already explained that the American Hospital Association -- AHA -- (one of Obama's biggest campaign donors) has repeatedly attempted to outlaw and ban kidney dialysis clinics. They want that money.
UHC and the AHA are not compatible. You can have one or the other, but not both.
Since the AHA wrote Section 6001 that outlaws and bans the European Clinic Model here in the US, I think it's only fair that we enact legislation that outlaws and bans the AHA.
If you want UHC like Europe, then you need to change, alter, adapt, modify, your current obsolete outdated grossly ineffective and inefficient Hospital Model to belike Europe. And to be like Europe, you need to be using the Clinic Model, like Europe.
What is so hard to understand?
And the most insulting thing is that if we had a Free Market Health Care System, the Market would have forced the shift from the Hospital Model to the Clinic Model decades ago.
I think you are confusing the term, "Compare and contrast". Or you're hairsplitting again, to make us think you're so brilliant.
Population of metropolitan area is more. paris I think is about 12 million, berlin about 6 million and Bucharest about 2.2 million.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
No, they are not real world examples. It is very disingenuous and deceitful to cite such examples. First and foremost, in order to compare two systems, they must be alike. If they are not alike then you cannot compare them; you can only contrast and highlight their differences.
The US health care system is in no way, shape or form similar to the European system.
The Cincinnati Metropolitan Statistical Area has 3 Million people and 19 full-service hospitals. How many hospitals would their be if the US adopted the European-style UHC?
Somewhere between 3 and 6 hospitals.
For those who don't get it, you'd have to close 13 to 16 hospitals. What part of that do you people not understand?
All three of these cities, Paris, Berlin and Bucharesti each have 3 Million people and they have 6, 3 and 3 full-service hospitals respectively. What part of that do you people not understand?
Did it ever occur to any of you that the reason Europeans can have UHC is because instead of having 1 hospital for ever 157,000 people they have 1 hospital for every 750,000 people?
Hello?.....Bueller?.....Bueller?
Which costs more:
1] 1 hospital for every 157,000 people; or
2] 1 hospital for every 750,000 people?
Very obviously, having one hospital for every 157,000 people is quite expensive.
One reason Europe can afford UHC is because they closed all of the excess wasteful hospitals and replaced them with specifiably clinics. An example of a specialty clinic would be like a kidney dialysis clinic.
I've already explained why kidney dialysis clinics exist: because it costs too much to have that service in hospital. And I've already explained that the American Hospital Association -- AHA -- (one of Obama's biggest campaign donors) has repeatedly attempted to outlaw and ban kidney dialysis clinics. They want that money.
UHC and the AHA are not compatible. You can have one or the other, but not both.
Since the AHA wrote Section 6001 that outlaws and bans the European Clinic Model here in the US, I think it's only fair that we enact legislation that outlaws and bans the AHA.
If you want UHC like Europe, then you need to change, alter, adapt, modify, your current obsolete outdated grossly ineffective and inefficient Hospital Model to belike Europe. And to be like Europe, you need to be using the Clinic Model, like Europe.
What is so hard to understand?
And the most insulting thing is that if we had a Free Market Health Care System, the Market would have forced the shift from the Hospital Model to the Clinic Model decades ago.
Free healthcare? What is that and who pays for it?
Everybody pays into it and those who need it, use it. Kind of like Medicare - you know, that universal health care plan for senior citizens that paid for your heart surgery?
Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.
Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?
Insurance is a gambling game where you bet on what will happen in the future. You "bet" that you will get sick or injured, and the company "bets" that you won't. If you get sick or injured, the company pays you the stipulated amount (paying for a portion of your medical treatment etc.), and if you don't, you pay them (premiums). The purpose is to shield you from the "shock" of suddenly and unexpectedly getting hit with huge medical bills... which is why you agreed to the contract.
A pre-existing condition cannot be insured against. It's like betting on the outcome of a horse race that's already been run - there is no "chance" involved, and no "unexpectedness" to the outcome (any more).
Insurance companies are in the business of selling security - the assurance that you won't be suddenly bankrupted by huge medical bills, rehab bills etc. in the future. They do it by insuring huge numbers of people and getting them to each pay relatively small amounts (their premiums) each. They and their clients all know that most of them will never incur the huge medical bills they are worried about. But since no one knows which few people WILL incur them, they are all happy to pay the premiums, for the knowledge they won't have to pay the huge amounts if they turn out to be the unlucky ones.
Insurance companies sell safety from FUTURE possible disasters. And that's all they sell. Asking them to cover pre-existing conditions, is like asking a submarine designer to design a supersonic jet - it's got nothing to do with his business or his area of expertise, and he never volunteered to design jets in the first place, for good reason.
If you want to set up some kind of universal pool to pay for pre-existing conditions, fine, go ahead. But why drag insurance companies into it? It's got nothing to do with their areas of expertise, and they never volunteered to do it in the first place - for good reason.
Because our entire system is such that private insurance is the only way to get health care (unless you're a millionaire). As such, it has to be regulated to ensure it serves the public good.
No, they are not real world examples. It is very disingenuous and deceitful to cite such examples. First and foremost, in order to compare two systems, they must be alike. If they are not alike then you cannot compare them; you can only contrast and highlight their differences.
The US health care system is in no way, shape or form similar to the European system.
The Cincinnati Metropolitan Statistical Area has 3 Million people and 19 full-service hospitals. How many hospitals would their be if the US adopted the European-style UHC?
Somewhere between 3 and 6 hospitals.
For those who don't get it, you'd have to close 13 to 16 hospitals. What part of that do you people not understand?
All three of these cities, Paris, Berlin and Bucharesti each have 3 Million people and they have 6, 3 and 3 full-service hospitals respectively. What part of that do you people not understand?
Did it ever occur to any of you that the reason Europeans can have UHC is because instead of having 1 hospital for ever 157,000 people they have 1 hospital for every 750,000 people?
Hello?.....Bueller?.....Bueller?
Which costs more:
1] 1 hospital for every 157,000 people; or
2] 1 hospital for every 750,000 people?
Very obviously, having one hospital for every 157,000 people is quite expensive.
One reason Europe can afford UHC is because they closed all of the excess wasteful hospitals and replaced them with specifiably clinics. An example of a specialty clinic would be like a kidney dialysis clinic.
I've already explained why kidney dialysis clinics exist: because it costs too much to have that service in hospital. And I've already explained that the American Hospital Association -- AHA -- (one of Obama's biggest campaign donors) has repeatedly attempted to outlaw and ban kidney dialysis clinics. They want that money.
UHC and the AHA are not compatible. You can have one or the other, but not both.
Since the AHA wrote Section 6001 that outlaws and bans the European Clinic Model here in the US, I think it's only fair that we enact legislation that outlaws and bans the AHA.
If you want UHC like Europe, then you need to change, alter, adapt, modify, your current obsolete outdated grossly ineffective and inefficient Hospital Model to belike Europe. And to be like Europe, you need to be using the Clinic Model, like Europe.
What is so hard to understand?
And the most insulting thing is that if we had a Free Market Health Care System, the Market would have forced the shift from the Hospital Model to the Clinic Model decades ago.
You are making up your own assumptions and pedaling them as facts. Who says, besides you, that 19 hospitals would be reduced to 3-6? You pulled that out of the air and then use those bogus numbers as gospel in order to arrive at spurious conclusions.
I don't see why any hospitals would close if a single-payer universal plan was passed. Just like Medicare, treatment is performed by the same hospitals. The only difference is that the hospitals will definitely have patients whose bills will be paid, unlike today. I don't see that as forcing hospitals to close. On the contrary, more will be financial stable.
While you say that we can't possible compare costs between the U.S. and Europe because the two are so different, you neglect to outline how they are different and how those differences significantly change the cost structure. I personally think it's a deflection from the obvious -- a universal health insurance system would be remarkably less expensive and provide better care for more people -- just like it does everywhere else.
What I do find curious is why you would take up the side of the only losers in this plan, the insurance companies. Why stick up for insurance companies over people?
Last edited by MTAtech; 05-24-2012 at 05:42 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
