WeAreTheKey

We don't yet have a Universal Healthcare thread, so here we go. Here today is even more evidence of the U.S.' failing Healthcare system and WHY we need to at long last get Universal care in this country. How much evidence does it take? Are the 'political ramifications' just too much for one party or another?! Probably. But hey - let's try caring about people for once and not political ideology, hmm?!?!?


updated 4:04 a.m. PT, Thurs., March. 12, 2009
WASHINGTON - If the global economy were a 100-yard dash, the U.S. would start 23 yards behind its closest competitors because of health care that costs too much and delivers too little, a business group says in a report to be released Thursday.

The report from the Business Roundtable, which represents CEOs of major companies, says America's health care system has become a liability in a global economy.

Concern about high U.S. costs has existed for years, and business executives — whose companies provide health coverage for workers — have long called for getting costs under control. Now President Barack Obama says the costs have become unsustainable and the system must be overhauled.

Americans spend $2.4 trillion a year on health care. The Business Roundtable report says Americans in 2006 spent $1,928 per capita on health care, at least two-and-a-half times more per person than any other advanced country.

In a different twist, the report took those costs and factored benefits into the equation.

It compares statistics on life expectancy, death rates and even cholesterol readings and blood pressures. The health measures are factored together with costs into a 100-point "value" scale. That hasn't been done before, the authors said.

The results are not encouraging.

The United States is 23 points behind five leading economic competitors: Canada, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and France. The five nations cover all their citizens, and though their systems differ, in each country the government plays a much larger role than in the U.S.


The cost-benefit disparity is even wider — 46 points — when the U.S. is compared with emerging competitors: China, Brazil and India.

"What's important is that we measure and compare actual value — not just how much we spend on health care, but the performance we get back in return," said H. Edward Hanway, CEO of the insurance company Cigna. "That's what this study does, and the results are quite eye-opening."

Higher U.S. spending funnels away resources that could be invested elsewhere in the economy, but fails to deliver a healthier work force, the report said.

"Spending more would not be a problem if our health scores were proportionately higher," Dr. Arnold Milstein, one of the authors of the study, said in an interview. "But what this study shows is that the U.S. is not getting higher levels of health and quality of care."

Other countries spend less on health care and their workers are relatively healthier, the report said.

Full: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29641091

Universal health coverage would be great, if done right, but we have to be very careful. The ideas and ways that it could be implemented are so broad and varying. The U.S. does have many of the latest and greatest technology and knowledgable specialists in the world. We don't want to lose that with a too-restrictive "government controlled" healthcare system. The fact is, when wealthy people all over the world are in need of the world's best healthcare to save their lives, they come to the U.S.

Our problem is that our costs are too high and our coverage too low. According to a recent article I read, about 18% of American under 65 are not covered. THAT is what has to change, as well as people going bankrupt or losing their homes due to prohibitively expensive treatments/surgeries that are necessary.

How do we bridge the gap between our top-notch medical technology and coverage/cost problems? I don't know the answer but the decision makers had better research and tread carefully.

Myself, I am not in favor of a British-style system of 100% government controlled healthcare. Their system is causing havoc and people suffer for it. People can't choose their own doctors, they have to wait months for care, the care is "rationed", care is refused based on cost, and the system is seriously in the financial hole. But, hey, they don't get a bill from the doctor's office (it just comes out of their paychecks every month).

France and Germany have systems similar to ours, where the government just sort of "fills the gap" of the uninsured, and has some doctor and drug price regulations. They also struggle with keeping the system financially stable, but overall it looks promising.

Also, in reference to the article, I have some issues with the direct links that they make between "how much we spend on healthcare and the performance we get back in return". Linking the "quality" of your healthcare system with some cultural "health scores" seems both faulty and subjective. The general health of our U.S. population is much more a matter of culture than healthcare quality. If a lot of people have cholesterol and heart problems, it's because they eat too much junk food and drink too much soda, and not because the hospital that treats them is providing inadequate healthcare. I don't think anyone would argue that Americans have some of the worst personal health/eating habits in the world. We eat too much crap food, watch too much TV and video games, and get too little excercise. But that does NOT mean that our hospitals are doing a poor job of treating patients. That's a poor, biased correlation, IMO.

I too wondered about the specifics behind that correlation, however I still believe that we could learn from whatever mistakes or error other nations make, and use that knowledge to avoid them as we cover everybody. I still believe we should, and must.

As far as people being denied care because of costs, I haven't heard of that being an issue, and in Sicko, they interview doctors who state how satisfying it is to be able to make medical decisions for their patients based purely on medical needs and NOT on costs at all... and think about in America how many medical decisions must be made based on costs! FAR more! Again, in Sicko they highlight the case of a man who had two fingers severed in an accident and was given a choice of attaching one finger for $7,000 or so, and the other for like $23,000. He was forced to reattach only one finger purely because of PROFIT and the desire to squeeze money out of people. If that guy had to make serious life decisions about a finger based on cost, then imagine how many other gut-wrenching decisions are being made every day on much more serious issues!
Decisions to get chemotherapy and possibly survive cancer, to get a bone-marrow transplant or simply accept death... to get expensive AIDS medication to keep it at bay, or let it bloom into a death-sentence....
people decide these things based on whether or not they're willing to become financially wrecked for what life they may have left. It's immoral and selfish to stack up people's ability to live on one side of the scale, and stacks of cash on the other side.
The cash always weighs more, and there is no question that prohibitive healthcare costs contribute to that "quality of health" scale in the article, even IF poor diet and such contributes as well.

If we can just learn to view the issue while temporarily suspending the nagging part of our brain that goes "But the monnnneyyyyyy!!!" then it becomes crystal clear what is the right thing to do. The future of so many things in the world will, just as healthcare does, boil down to the same simple clash that underlies so many major issues: Compassion or Greed, Caring or Indifference, Altruism or Misanthropy, Selfishness or Giving etc etc... We have to work on shaping the future, not just the present, and if other nations are healthier and happier then we ought to pull the American Flags out of our butts and acknowledge something that works better than what we're doing.

And if the costs of covering our citizens were really an issue that takes it off the table, then why aren't we hollering over throwing $10,000,000,000 A MONTH into Iraq?! How many citizens would that alone cover?!
We've just got our perspectives wrapped up with our opinions wrapped up with our patriotism wrapped up with our politics and before you know we're all looking at it through a twisted, cracked pretzel-shaped prism of foggy logic and self-righteousness... speaking of the country as a whole there, not you, Pras...

All my opinion of course....

You're right. The perspective is all twisted and skewed. We've killed, at a minimum, tens of thousands of people in the middle east, and spent trillions of dollars doing it, yet some people still fight against universal healthcare for monetary reasons? The logic is ridiculous. The other argument that gets me mad goes something like: "I don't want to pay for druggies or alcoholics to get detoxed". So, in our society, poor people that have substance abuse problems become sub-human and should not have medical help available to them? IMO, in our modern medical society essential healthcare should be a human right, regardless if you're a nice rich man who gives billions to charity or a grumpy, homeless heroin addict.

My hope is that we do implement universal healthcare, but my fear is that we do it the wrong way and sacrifice quality. I've never seen Sicko, so I can't comment on it, but in Britain doctors make about 1/3 of what doctors make here, and as a result are in short supply so people with terminal illnesses are having to wait six months to see a specialist because there are so few. It's scary stuff. We just need to establish a just and ethical system.

Here are some interesting articles that I found on the topic. The first is from a British publication and it references Sicko:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 51651.html

The second is from the L.A. Times and it fervently denies the benefits of universal healthcare:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la- ... -rightrail

Thanks for the links!

Surprised you haven't seen Sicko yet, though by now you know a lot of the stuff covered anyway. Still see it though!

Good discussioning with you!

Yeah, I want to see it, and its on our Netflix queue somewhere. I may have to get in there and bump it up towards the top.

Or you could come over and watch it with us.. and save the slot in your que for fast food nation.. or something fun..... eh?

That's be cool, too

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pwrudYlwxqE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pwrudYlwxqE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Doctors DO want Universal Healthcare article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNe ... 22&sp=true

wow that is a really intereesting and informative video..


Sweden or BUST!!!

I have become a strong advocate of a National Healthcare system. Every citizen should have unlimited access to medical care based on need. Now, THAT is something I would feel good about putting my tax dollars towards (unlike corporate bailouts or overseas wars).

At the very least, everyone should be covered and "Pre-existing condition" clauses by private insurance companies (which are pure evil ) MUST go away. Now, THAT is something I would feel good about putting my tax dollars towards (unlike corporate bailouts or overseas wars).

I agree, "pre-existing condition seems to completlyundermine the whole reasoning for needing healthcare in the first place.. Insurance only drives up the cost furthering the divide between those who have access to help and those who are incapable of affording help.

A country that thrives is one that cares for its people not one who eats its own.