I consider that a national health service as we have in the UK is the best and cheapest way to achieve decent health care for all but I'd be interested in hearing opinions on how the US one may differ and possibly be an improvement. The massive inefficiencies of the US system in terms of bureaucracy have been well documented but I recently saw a film starring Denzil Washington called 'John Q'. In it, his young son is refused a new heart, essentially, because his father isn't rich enough to buy one for him although it's 'dressed up' as being that he has insufficient health insurance. I also intend watching this programme tonight... others might do likewise if they're in the UK or have access to any of it's programmes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/4038375.stm 'But that, as I was to discover, was central to the choice of location and subjects, because to be free in New York City (America?), you need money.' This appears to show that multi-million dollar pharmaceutical companies are experimenting on poor children in New York with the connivance of the local authorities child protection dept. I feel this sort of thing is inevitable when you introduce the profit motive into an area such as health care at the point of consumption. I can't tell from the brief description on the BBC website if the local authorities are receiving any money for allowing the drug companies to carry out these experiments on poor children - I'll know more after the programme.
Yes there is a "massive bureaucracy." But only because the G'ment can't keep their hands off of anything. ANd when they do, look out, because they are going to waste, lose, steal or otherwise missmanage billions of dollars and some dude whose cousin is a Senator is going to get filthy rich. And oh yeah, the problem won't get any better. I hope we never have socialized medicine simply because I don't want The Man to have that much power/authority/control/etc. over me. ***** THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT OUR SYSTEM CAN"T BE IMPROVED***** (with a little less govenment) PS: I heard that was a terrible movie.
Here in Holland, you wouldn't even be offered the possibility of a new heart (unless you have private money and can go to the US for the heart & for the only physicians that can do this sort of operation). But this kind of story does not news make in Holland, because if something isn't even a remote possibility (the technology and cost of a new heart). Here, most likely the JonQ type story would revolve around whether we should euthanize the child, because it is the most affordable "health care."
Well our president said that the US healthcare system is the envy of the world, so there! USA! USA! USA!
You probably mean some place named Holland, Alabama. Heart transplantation in the Netherlands; costs, effects and scenarios Netherlands Society of Cardiology - Resources & Activities First heart tranplantation in the Netherlands in 1984.
Very misleading given that American health care insurers are hardly slouches when it comes to bureaucracy.
No, I mean Holland, Europe. Those two links are nothing. How about this, which talks about the reality of this situation in Holland: Surgical treatment for Heartdisease not a matter of course There have only been 47 heart transplants in Holland--ever. In the US, there are several hundred a year. So yes, we might could do it, but, back to the point of the thread, we can not in any practical sense make this, because of money, and by extension, our health care system can not afford to do this.
http://www.cmj.hr/1998/3903/390316.htm A good summary of Dutch system. Interesting controversy here, in that Dunning said personal reponsibility factors into who get major treatments. So, if you are obese, smoker, bulemic, or such, they refuse you that treatment because you brought it on yourself, and thus is not cost-beneficial.
I had a high quality operation today for a $15 copay. The US system worked out just fine for me. Can I be straight. The way to increase the quality/availability of American healthcare is to... 1) get it out of company hands and open the maket to the people. I am not able to change my insurance because my employer provides it. Unamerican. 2) Put individuals in charge of their own medical records. A whole new industry of personal medical record storage would be able to flurish in this environment. 3) Government catastrophic re-insurance. 4) Health plans priced by the health of a patient. Encourages wellness.
Yep and let Americans shop. Right now we really can't shop for health insurance. If one has a pre-existing condition then one is stuck. Moreover a low cost, highly intrusive government subsidized healthcare system should be created that encourages wellness, much like welfare reform encouraged work. Americans who eat out of a bag while sitting in their cars should be held accountable. We pay more for car insurance when we get a lot of speeding tickets, why isn't it that way with healthcare? Because insurance companies love the high cost of health care. It's the biggest scam out there.
I have colleagues who have transferred to the Netherlands and their experiences are similar to "Dutchoven's". The unspoken rule is: get any possible medical problems fixed in the US, because Dutch health care is so bad. Not that the US can't be improved. And what's with English dentistry?
Same here People get sent south because certain procedures can't be done here in Canada due to a lack of equipment and/or staff.
The average family's health insurance costs $7000 a year. That's $7000 your company would be paying you if they weren't paying it to an insurance provider. That operation cost you a bit more than $15.
I didn't thing the situation was so dire in Holland... here we do 250 heart transplants a year. Personally, I wouldn't change my socialized healthcare by anything in the world. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=101169
"Might could?" Definitely an American phrase, one I heard in Texas on the regular. Dutch my ass. Sockpuppet, outed. My family's relationship with the NHS stomps the dogsh!t out of anything we ever got from any insurance, other than my parent's insurance we had growing up; that was called "Master Comprehensive," and was exactly what it was called (no copay ********, every single thing covered), but we got that only because dad's union was no joke in Philadelphia, period. Lessons learned. You keep on keepin' on. Enjoy. My parents are also of that "real pension" generation. They've got three full ones between them. You'll see the spread of pensions about the same time you see a real rise in wages (not since 1973) and a real universal health care system (uh, never). In the meantime, we'll continue to try and help our midwife and doula get paid from our former insurance for a pre-approved home birth of my daughter...who just turned TWO. In wonder, is that how these insurance companies stay in business? Off the interest, over two years, of all the little people they can fvck over who aren;t possessed of medical group/hospital legal teams to get their money in a timely fashion? What an implosive, crippled "system."
I was thinking along the same lines. Anyone that right-wing in Holland would be locked up in an asylum for not being quite right in the head.
Just to put things into perspective: Holland has one of the highest life expectancy figures in the world, lowest infant death rates, THE lowest teenage pregnancy rate in the world, plus we're the tallest people in the world. Facts that don't exactly underscore DutchOven's opinion on Dutch healthcare.
i've found the health care in the netherlands to be excellent and very affordable - i think a few of my fellow americans are confusing "i have good insurance" with "the US health care system is totally like awesome!"... not the same thing folks
I that's true what you're saying about Dutch health care I wonder how you explain the Dutch population's excellent health statistics.
It's not so dire. Please know that DutchOven most probably isn't Dutch and has taken on this persona to slag off the Netherlands as much as possible. We too have an income-dependent healthcare system. The majority of the population (I'm guessing about 60%) receives public healthcare. People partly pay for this monthly directly to the health insurer, and partly through their employer or the organisation they receive benefits from. On average I'd say that the Dutch (whether they get public or private healthcare) pay about 60 Euros a month. For that they get free medical treatment for almost every ailment. The only thing that's wrong with the Dutch healthcare system is that its administration is too slow, and that in turn makes it too expensive. Overall it is not by any means the best health system in Europe, but I dare take a guess that it's still A LOT better than that in the US. More affordable in any case.
In Italy it is (1994-2003) ITALIA 300 389 345 368 337 337 181 194 312 317 Heart transplantations in Italy by regions But one should consider the population and make it n. transplantation/country population to make correct comparisons with other countries.
How is the number of heart transplants relevant to the quality of healthcare? Surely if there is quality healthcare, the necessity for heart transplants goes down?
No doubt about it, JN. I was one of the first to reply to Dutchoven idiocies if you noticed. That was just curiosity. Anyway italian healthcare system usually ranks high in WHO reports.