|
|
|
|
|
| |
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 8:29:39 AM | Sarita go back and read.
foxe
I think you got that backwards. in Canada hospitals are run by a board of governors answerable to the province. In the US your hospitals must make money.
Yes. I got that backwards. Thank you. The hospitals in the US are profit (private facilities) altho some are non-profit. | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 8:35:46 AM | I think I understood the question, and answered it. Some things are not privatization material, and the military is the prime example. The functions within the military that can be privatized have (for the most part) been privatized, the functions that work 'where the metal meets the meat' cannot and should not be, because of the nature of the job.
If you knew how much of our military functions had been privatized I think you would find it astounding, the only jobs/functions protected from this are those which must be deployable in the event of a conflict.
So to sum my answer: neither conservatives nor others are 'tripping' over themselves to privatize the military because what can be privatized has been, and they are smart enough to know when to stop.
MajMike | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 8:40:20 AM | Some things are not privatization material............................................................................... because of the nature of the job.
Gosh. Such an easy question, and the answer is always cryptically mysterious. Let me repeat with emphasis:
#1 Conservatives claim that privatizing results in efficiency. We want the military to be efficient, do we NOT? I think we want the military to be even MORE efficient than schools and social security. We NEED the military to be efficient. Nobody disagrees with that.
#2 Conservatives claim that the govt. couldn't run a lemonade stand. If that's the case, as conservatives say, then we CANNOT have the military in the hands of govt. Govt. is inefficient. Right?
#3 Conservatives claim that everything should be privatized, regardless of how much people depend on it: social security, schools, everything.
The question: Why are conservatives NOT rushing to privatize the military if all of the above are true. And explain in detail.
Sheesh. How much clearer can I make it? | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 11:27:44 AM | Universal Health Care (the norm in most "western" countries) vs Private Health Care (U.S.)
Despite spending more for health care, Americans do not have the best medical care in the world, according to researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and other institutions.
The study is the first to use a universal set of standards to compare the quality of health care in the five countries surveyed, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.. The researchers found that no country scored the best or worst overall and that each country was the best and worst in at least one area. The study is published in the May/June 2004 issue of the journal Health Affairs.
Peter S. Hussey, lead author of the study and a doctoral candidate in the Department of Health Policy and Management, said, “It is well known that the United States spends much more on health care per capita than other countries, and it is commonly assumed that we have the best health care system in the world. However, the results of our study show that the United States performs better than other countries in only a few areas, while performing worse in others. This raises the question of what Americans receive for all of the money devoted to health care.”
- "How does the quality of care compare in five countries?"
Hussey PS, Anderson GF, Osborn R, Feek C, McLaughlin V, Millar J, Epstein A.
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
- These numbers are from the World Health Report 2000
Per-capita cost:
Canada - $1938
United States. - $4,357
Per Capita Cost of U.S. system is about 220% that of the Canadian System.
"Despite spending more for health care, Americans do not have the best medical care in the world, according to researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and other institutions. "
Congratulations, .... U.S. health care is "just as good", ........at more than twice the price.
At least more of each dollar you spend goes to profits for insurance companies, redundant administrative costs, pharmacuetical companies, and investors, instead of, .......what were we talking about again??
Oh yeah, ..... Health Care.
| |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 1:51:41 PM |
Despite spending more for health care, Americans do not have the best medical care in the world, according to researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and other institutions.
^^^^ That's what happens when you have a health system that is for-profit only. The health system goes to hell in a handbasket.
My mom was in hospital to have her gall bladder removed. When the bill wet to my parent's house, it was astronomical. It was far, far higher than 2 (maybe 4) average Americans make in 1 year. Among the never-ending charges listed, were... blood drawn 4 to 6 times a day for no reason whatsoever except to run up the bill, the equivalent of 1 over-the-counter Tylenol tablet by-mouth, for $150.00, and 1 small black plastic hair comb (the kind you can get 20 for $1.00 at the Dollar store), for $35.00. | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 2:03:57 PM | In the private domain, health services are accountable to the share-holders first, patients second.
Universal health care puts the responsibility squarely on the elected govts, and health providers.
The "share-holders" are the end user.
Though the system (like any), is always in need of improvements, the issues of cost and services, have as their focus, the end-user.
Legislation limiting the profits that can be made by pharmacuetical companies are also an area where Canada puts the priority on patient before profit. | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 3:45:55 PM | In the private domain, health services are accountable to the share-holders first, patients second.
Universal health care puts the responsibility squarely on the elected govts, and health providers.
In Universal health care, you have some control over who runs it, as the ones who run it get voted on (govt.)
In for-profit health care like the kind in the U.S., the people have 0 control over anything. The patients are not only second, they are last, they are nobodies. They are victims. If we get treated at all, we get treated with a smile but incorrectly, overtreated, then fleeced (by the corporation) till we don't have a dime left. | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 6:53:43 PM |
The question: Why are conservatives NOT rushing to privatize the military if all of the above are true. And explain in detail.
Sheesh. How much clearer can I make it?
Short of spelling out each word in flaming, neon crayons, what do we need to do to get you to read a post. I think that both MajMike & myself addressed your question | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 6:59:43 PM |
In Universal health care, you have some control over who runs it, as the ones who run it get voted on (govt.)
In for-profit health care like the kind in the U.S., the people have 0 control over anything. The patients are not only second, they are last, they are nobodies. They are victims. If we get treated at all, we get treated with a smile but incorrectly, overtreated, then fleeced (by the corporation) till we don't have a dime left.
To a point, I agree with your statement. The people do have 0 control, but if the gov't is running it, the control is now out of the hands of the private hospitals and in the hands of the gov't. I don't know about you, but I feel that I have no control over what my gov't does, despite how I vote.
From the earlier post regarding your mother's surgery, it seems to me that the problem is more with unregulated spending by hospitals, much in the same way that the gov't spends well over $1000 for a toilet paper holder that goes in bombers, or $40 for a $5 hammer. Putting the gov't in charge, I don't think will help with the problem, rather it will compound it. I still feel that rather than putting the gov't COMPLETELY in charge of the health care system, the Gov't should place serious regulation on how much a hospital can charge and how much Insurance companies should charge from premiums. I would really like to see your comments on these ideas sarita. | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 7:15:06 PM | I still feel that rather than putting the gov't COMPLETELY in charge of the health care system
They aren't, they administrate it at the funding level.
unregulated spending by hospitals, much in the same way that the gov't spends well over $1000 for a toilet paper holder that goes in bombers, or $40 for a $5 hammer. Putting the gov't in charge, I don't think will help with the problem, rather it will compound it./quote]
How?
Unlike your govt. paying contractors to source toilet paper holders and hammers for your military, hospital supplies are sourced directly.
Seeing as how hospitals are run with patient care as a priority, not profit, what is the reason, (since the contractor/middleman isn't in the picture, as in military procurment), that:
"Putting the gov't in charge, I don't think will help with the problem, rather it will compound it"
? | |
|
| |
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 8:23:40 PM |
Short of spelling out each word in flaming, neon crayons, what do we need to do to get you to read a post. I think that both MajMike & myself addressed your question
Incorrect. Neither of you did. Major at least made an attempt to explain it, by saying that it's the "nature" of the thing that it not be privatized. You said nothing that could be construed as an explanation of any sort.
I'm still awaiting an answer. Why are conservatives not tripping over one another to privatize the military, in their zeal to privatize all things governmental. | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 8:31:33 PM |
To a point, I agree with your statement. The people do have 0 control, but if the gov't is running it, the control is now out of the hands of the private hospitals and in the hands of the gov't.
Uh.. yeah.. and? I was waiting for a conclusion to your thought process about this, but it just didn't get here.
From the earlier post regarding your mother's surgery, it seems to me that the problem is more with unregulated spending by hospitals, much in the same way that the gov't spends well over $1000 for a toilet paper holder that goes in bombers, or $40 for a $5 hammer.
Hmmmm! Maybe we should try privatizing the military to make it efficient, eh? Maybe the conservs are right and privatization is the way to go.
Putting the gov't in charge, I don't think will help with the problem
It's working elsewhere. Privatizing is not only not working, it's turned out health system to crap and put it out of the reach of something like 40% of our population. How much more proof do you need? The numbers have been posted, the arguments have been provided, and you're still holding fast. I'm not understanding where you're going with this private enterprise love of yours. Is it just the raw conservative philosophy without anything to back it that turns you on? The principle of loving private enterprise even if it's turning everything to crap?
the Gov't should place serious regulation on how much a hospital can charge
Don't be telling conservatives that. They'll come after you so fast! | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 8:34:39 PM | A direct quote from post #55
Now to answer your question. A privatized military has a name. It's called a mercenary force. A privatized military would only be answerable to it's owner, or whomever was paying it at the time. While I'm usually all about decentralizing the federal gov't (note: a very non-right wing ideal), the military is not part of that mix.
But I'll expand if it will suit you. A mercenary force is not a practical answer to a nation's military. The prime directive of any nation's military is to protect that nation and its interests. A nation's interests are usually defined by a nation's government. As such, the military must fall under the command of the nation's gov't if they are to protect said interests.
A mercenary force's first perogative would be to protect the interests of the corporation/company/entity that owns, thereby creating a situation where the mercenary force's interest could come into conflict with national interest.
I hope that this qualifies as an answer.
Likewise, I await you to answer my question posed earlier which you still have not answered. Do feel that gov't regulation of how much hospitals charge and the regulation of the price of insurance premiums may be a plausible answer to the healthcare problems that face America? | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 8:37:06 PM | Isn't that similar to what I was proposing?
The federal govt doesn't control how that money is spent. The hospitals and municipal boards, through the provincial govt. do this. The hospitals, clinics, doctors, etc. are responsible for care at the end-user level.
So the govt. doesn't have "complete" control over health care.
hence, per capita cost for the same services (according to the only in-depth study that compares western health care delivery), in the U.S. are 220% higher than Canada's.
If cost problems were "compounded", by govt. administrated health care, shouldn't that figure be a lot less?
Should an individual's health care be decided by corporateprofits, or the health care needs of the individual?
The prime directive of any nation's military is to protect that nation and its interests.
The prime directive of universal health care is to allow the citizens of a nation to have equal access to health care, the prime directive of a private health care is to earn profits for the corporation and it's share-holders.
While I understand the love of profit, ....I'd like to see you sell this priority to those who have equal access to health care as a right.
A hard sell, ..methinks.
Do feel that gov't regulation of how much hospitals charge and the regulation of the price of insurance premiums may be a plausible answer to the healthcare problems that face America?
Doesn't this go against the 'rights' of a free-market capitalist corporate personage?
| |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 8:57:45 PM | I at no time disagreed with the idea that healthcare is a right. My problem is handing yet another thing over to the federal gov't to handle. I just don't have much faith that the gov't will handle health care in a reasonable way that will cover all Americans. I do think the current system IS broken, and I'm not happy with it, but then again I'm not content to give up on the whole and hand it to the fed. There must be a happy middle ground somewhere.
Doesn't this go against the 'rights' of a free-market capitalist corporate personage?
You're darn tootin' it is. There is no such thing a true free-market anymore than there is a true utopian communism. They're interesting ideals that don't work in the real world. I think profit is nice, I think healthy children is better. | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 9:06:35 PM | There must be a happy middle ground somewhere.
Hmmmmm.... well, it seems to be the only system of it's kind in the "west". Since it is unique in this "health care for profit" mindset, ....I can't see the stake holders (financial) giving up their profitable business interests, I'm sure they have a powerful lobby in Washington to prevent this..
| |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 9:10:13 PM | | There's no doubt that both hospitals and insurance companies have powerful lobbyists in Washington, too be Joe/Jane America doesn't have a lobbyist. But, I'm not sure how regulating what Joe/Jane America gets charged for healthcare will raise the costs. | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 9:15:27 PM | Regulating such a system would mean even more administrative duplication, hence, higher costs....no?
Yours is already a "two tier" system with one health care service for the "haves" and another for the "have nots". The end-user is either penalized by a high cost system or a low quality one.
One that has been shown to not deliver better quality (overall) than the one we, or the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, etc, have.
.......and it still 220% more expensive per capita than our universal health care system.....
Hmmmmm.... anybody know what our relative ave. life-spans are, or infant mortality rates, ....these things should be a good indicator. No? | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 9:25:15 PM |
Now to answer your question. A privatized military has a name. It's called a mercenary force. A privatized military would only be answerable to it's owner, or whomever was paying it at the time. While I'm usually all about decentralizing the federal gov't (note: a very non-right wing ideal), the military is not part of that mix.
Incorrect. Mercenary militias have nothing to do with this.
Just as the suggested privatization of social security involves control of the govt., but a de facto running by private companies, a military that is privatized would be under the patronage and ownership of the govt, but run by private enterprise. In fact, right now, as we speak, the military is, in small part, privatized. The military has farmed out several of its former activities to private corporations. Isn't that, after all, what the scandal involving Cheney's corporation upon which he sat on the board, was about? Remember that? Corporations that were being paid to do military work? And how were they mercenary, if they were ultimately under the control of the U.S. Govt.?
So again, I ask. Why are conservatives, who will live and die by the belief that privatizing everything causes it to become far more efficient, refusing to privatize the military?
(I could answer this for you conservatives, but I'd rather see you sweat).  | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 9:28:36 PM | I live in a city with two major hospitals, both of whom cater to the rich (the haves) and the poor (have nots) equally. I do not see the poor being turned away for health care nor do I see a discernable difference in the quality. I like my doctor. He is a good man, who has given me wonderful advice. In his waiting room, I've met people who are quite well off, and people who live paycheck to paycheck. One great thing about the US system, is if I hate my doctor, don't like him, or disagree with him I can find another one. From my personal experience (being a have not) I feel that the only low quality healthcare I've ever received in my life was when I was in the army and went to an army hospital with military doctors. I didn't get to choose my doctor and my choices were always limited to "do what we suggest, or get kicked out"
Avg lifespan can be a good indicator, unfortunately (and this ties in completely with the point of our entire discussion) I think that the avg lifespan in America is not as high as it should be because there isn't enough access to the medical system. (I know this is sounding very cyclic). Which is why we are here talking about this. | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 9:31:15 PM |
So again, I ask. Why are conservatives, who will live and die by the belief that privatizing everything causes it to become far more efficient, refusing to privatize the military?
Hmmmm..... doesn't having one foot in the private realm and another in the socialist one, ....sorry public one, mean guaranteed profit for the military industrial complex on one foot, and a guaranteed paying customer on the other?
Why spoil a sure thing? | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 9:34:02 PM | I do not see the poor being turned away for health care nor do I see a discernable difference in the quality
Hmmmm..... what then, ....is the "need" for private health care?
Isn't this just a hidden tax?
A 220% per capita higher one,.....with a good chunk of that going to investors, and not back into the health care system?
| |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/21/2005 9:34:08 PM | MajMike already pointed out many responses ago that there is much in the military that is privatized. It's not a small part, I lived it. There's a lot. (BTW, I don't know anything about the Cheney scandal).
You continue to state "conservatives this" and "conservatives that" as if I'm conservative. I'm not sure what you're getting at with that but anyways...I do not believe that privatizing everything makes things more efficient.
You keep stating your question over and over and over again like you already have an answer that you want to hear, so why not just say it? You apparantly will not accept anything I say as an answer.
And I'm still awaiting you to address my question. | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
