BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 09:09 PM

"Nationalizing the health care industry in Great Britain may have worked, but it is not the right thing for the United States."

possibly........ look to your neighbours America

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: Peace
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 09:00 PM

Well said, bobad.

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: bobad
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 08:59 PM

Americans spend twice as much on healthcare as other countries, but it turns out that they're not getting twice the quality for the price when they go to the doctor or hospital.

In the first international comparison of healthcare quality, researchers found that of the five countries studied, none is consistently the best or the worst. For instance, Australia had the best breast-cancer screening, but the worst survival rates for childhood leukemia. This was best in Canada, but that country had the worst heart-attack survival rates. And while the United States led the way in five-year survival rates from breast cancer, it was the worst for kidney transplants.

The conclusion: Each country has something to learn from the others

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0505/p02s01-uspo.html

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 08:57 PM

The overall performance of the United States health care system was ranked 37th by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000, but the same report assessed Americans' overall health at 72nd among 191 member nations included in the study.

The health care system in the U.S. has a vast number of players — there are hundreds, if not thousands, of insurance companies in the U.S........... "The Health Care Crisis and What to Do About It" By Paul Krugman, Robin Wells, New York Review of Books, March 23, 2006

This system has considerable administrative overhead, far greater than in nationalized, single-payer systems, such as Canada's. An oft-cited study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information determined that some 31 percent of U.S. health care dollars, or more than $1,000 per person per year, went to health care administrative costs, nearly double the administrative overhead in Canada, on a percentage basis..........^ Costs of Health Administration in the U.S. and Canada Woolhandler, et al, NEJM 349(8) Sept. 21, 2003

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: Peace
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 08:49 PM

"We ceratianly are the source of almost all new medicines and most new proceedures."

If you say so. However, . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: pdq
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 08:41 PM

By the way, the US is ranked 37th because of "fairness" and "distribution of financing" and not on the actual quality of care. In that department we are probably the best. We ceratianly are the source of almost all new medicines and most new proceedures.

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: pdq
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 08:24 PM

World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

"The World Health Organization has carried out the first ever analysis of the world's health systems. Using five performance indicators to measure health systems in 191 member states, it finds that France provides the best overall health care followed among major countries by Italy, Spain, Oman, Austria and Japan.

The findings are published today, 21 June, in The World Health Report 2000 – Health systems: Improving performance.

The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.

WHO Director-General Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland says: 'The main message from this report is that the health and well- being of people around the world depend critically on the performance of the health systems that serve them. Yet there is wide variation in performance, even among countries with similar levels of income and health expenditure. It is essential for decision- makers to understand the underlying reasons so that system performance, and hence the health of populations, can be improved.'"

                            continued here

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: bobad
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 07:51 PM

"Government and private health and public policy analysts have compared the health care systems of Canada and the United States.[1][2][3][4] In 2004, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was more than double that in Canada: in the U.S., it totaled US$6,096; in Canada, US$3,038.[5] Studies have come to different conclusions about the result of this disparity in spending. A 2007 review of all studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the U.S., in a Canadian peer-reviewed medical journal, found that "health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent."[6] Life expectancy is longer in Canada, and its infant mortality rate is lower than that of the U.S., but there is debate about the underlying causes of these differences. The World Health Organization's ratings of health care system performance among 191 member nations, published in 2000, ranked Canada 30th and the U.S. 37th, and the overall health of Canadians 35th to the American 72nd.[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 07:49 PM

Doctors would generally be better off in a free-at-the-point-of-use service.

Maybe the ones who are in it to make a killing, rather than make a living, might lose out - but what kind of doctor would it be who was in it to make a killing?

The people who would stand to lose would be some sections of the insurance business (others might stand to gain in fact), and the impression I have is that this is the source of massive propaganda aimed at persuading the public and the medical profession that they have something to fear in changes which would provide free health care for all.

The British National Health Service is a product of a particular time in a particular society, in a relatively centralised country. I suspect that for the USA the German model might be more likely to suit. Here is a short overview of Health Care in Germany Germany, which of course is a Federal Republic, has a system that is insurance based, with, I understand, a major part played by church linked medical services. All things that should translate readily enough to the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: Peace
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 07:45 PM

"Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th. More recently, the highly regarded Commonwealth Fund has pioneered in comparing the United States with other advanced nations through surveys of patients and doctors and analysis of other data. Its latest report, issued in May, ranked the United States last or next-to-last compared with five other nations — Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom — on most measures of performance, including quality of care and access to it. Other comparative studies also put the United States in a relatively bad light."

From

a New York Times editorial.

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 07:42 PM

Of course "medicine for profit" is going to cost a lot more too

I've tried to find comparative figures - I'm sure they're out there somewhere - but the best I can do to date is compare the expenditure per capita in Europe on health care in 2006 as £2348 compared to the US of £5711 in 2003.

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 07:22 PM

"Initially, there was some fierce opposition, including threats of non-cooperation from the British Medical Association (BMA) over issues of responsibilities and pay. But Aneurin Bevan, the Secretary of State for Health, pressed ahead and the NHS was introduced on July 5 1948." From Emma B's link

That's not surprising. Threat of change creates fear. But as some in the UK and in Canada have said, Just try to take it away from us now!

"We have over 80% of our population saying they are happy with their health care and do not want any major changes, expecting that things would get worse, not better." pdq

I really would like to see the documentation for that statement. I've been looking at the statistics tables for 2007 and they, without exception, show millions of Americans without adequate, affordable, available health care. The stats all show tremendous cost and without exception project that the costs will rise.

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 07:16 PM

I hope for the day but I fear the interim transition...these are the same types that run our schools, etc.

I would try to have safety nets started right now with public health nurses and public health hospitals...nurses put all over the place, visiting nurses, vaccinating nurses, nurses assigned to churches and neighborhoods and police stations and schools. They are some of the smartest people around and no-nonsense. They can do 95% of what is needed I bet...will miss some things that a doctor would have caught, and vice versa...but overall very helpful.

Numerous sliding scale clinics for routine and non-catastrophic things.

Mobile clinics for rural areas.

Remember, the most horrible things take place on a battlefield, and they are helped by medics...so we overdepend on way more education than is really needed for the usual bronchitis, broken arm, ear infection etc.

We also overprescribe. If we quit doing that, we could save money (and they know that they shouldn't prescribe antibiotics for some things, like viral illness..oh but the patient requested it..so what? )

We misunderstand diabetes and metabolic syndrome and hypoglycemia which is part of the progression. Much dietary advice is bad. People are going to have to divert some of their junk food money and other money (eventually prescription) into the diets that are good for their metabolisms, not that of the 24 year old dietician. Get a handle on what causes this (genetic factors, too many carbs especially white starches and insufficient exercise) and you can reduce heart problems, and all other sorts of chronic diseases.

Train prisoners who are smart enough etc. to be medical workers..they will have trouble getting jobs when out, and this will help, and they can serve the underserved and go where others are not willing to go perhaps to serve the most needy...you have to be sensible aobut this where drugs are concerned of course, but it can be done.

A good percentage of high school students should be earning medical licenses, such as CNA and be in TRACKS oh yes TRACKS so they can get a two or four year degree expiditiously. With more people getting services and not more servers, things could get bad really fast.

Assume people should pay what they can really pay...not 90% of their social security, but some sliding scale..enough to have the ouch factor but not too bad...people have to take responsibility for aspects of their care, but at the same time avoid the catastrophic things that can occur..a $10,000 limit or so on total amount owed might be OK...

Someone has to say when enough is enough...beautification procedures for good enough looking people...fertility treatments above and beyond pretty minimal corrective surgery etc. Heart transplants for 95 year olds...there will have to be a universal understanding of the fact that we will have limits.

Allow people to pay for what they can above and beyond or instead of. These plans that idiotically tie everyone into government and only government care are no good for anyone.

Lots of scholarships for those who go into public health programs.

Private health should not be killed though. The market should be allowed to have its say for a number of things, including medical advances, wiht public health taking up the slack. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 07:03 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 06:46 PM

"give everyone any kind of medical procedure that they wish as well as what they need."



Two points John, before you abandon the discussion.

1. This is not a case of elective as opposed to necessary surgery, but of necessary as opposed to emergency surgery, as I am certain you are well aware.

2. How dare you accuse a member of this forum posting under his proper Mudcat moniker of being a troll, simply because he asks whether something reported on an international news channel of considerable repute is true.

You are not noted for meanness of spirit, but this is unworthy of you.

I have copied this to this thread, not to derail discussion, but in the faint hope that it may reach the attention of the man who has falsely accused me of being a troll.

I don't suppose that it will result in the apology I feel is due to me, but it might just prick his conscience.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: bobad
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 06:55 PM

The first step to universal health care in the U.S. should be the elimination of the insurance industry in the process. Why should a significant percentage of money spent on health care go to increasing profits for the industry and it's investors? Cut out the middle man and put those monies into providing medical care to ALL citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 06:47 PM

I posted a few things on "that other thread" that more properly belong here. First of all, a few facts:

The World Health Organization ranks the U.S. health care system 37th in the world for quality and 55th for fairness.

The United States is the only industrialized country that does not have universal health care.

For a country that likes to think of itself as the moral leader of the world, I'd say we're not doing very well.

And second, a powerful advocate for Universal Health Care in the United States is Jim McDermott, Democratic Representative from the 7th Congressional District of Washington State. Jim McDermott, by the way, is a doctor

He has this to say about Universal Health Care:   CLICKY.

Obviously, McDermott favors Universal Health Care (sponsoring a bill in Congress), but his speech is well-laden with interesting facts and figures. Well worth reading as a primer on the subject.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: pdq
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 06:37 PM

From the Emma B site:

"The Act took into national public ownership the 1,771 English and Welsh local authority hospitals and the 1,334 voluntary hospitals. The overall administration of the system was the responsibility of a health minister through regional hospital boards. General medical and dental services were directed through executive councils, with other health services catered for by county and county borough councils.

As a result, from 1948, the NHS provided a wide range of medical services to the public, including: hospital and specialist services, general practitioner (medical, dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical) services, ambulance services and community health services.

Access to these was to be free of charge for UK residents, unless a statute declared otherwise."


Nationalizing the health care industry in Great Britain may have worked, but it is not the right thing for the United States.

We have over 80% of our population saying they are happy with their health care and do not want any major changes, expecting that things would get worse, not better.

We need to improve the system for the other 20%.

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: Peace
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 06:31 PM

The Official version in Canada.


"Canada's health care system has been a work in progress since its inception. Reforms have been made over the past four decades and will continue in response to changes within medicine and throughout society. The basics, however, remain the same - universal coverage for medically necessary health care services provided on the basis of need, rather than the ability to pay."

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 06:28 PM

Ebbie there are numerous websires - too many too list - about the organization of Health Care in Europe (encompassing a number of political systems) that Europeans, such as myself, find the arguements presented by Americans like John Hardley totally incomprehensible.

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 06:26 PM

I have a vested interest Along with over 60 million more of us.

That doesn't mean it's perfect of course. I imagine the French would say the same about their rather different system, and so would the Germans and Irish...

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 06:19 PM

I confess, I have a vested interest, this system saved my life (the first time) in 1949!

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 06:17 PM

Well, I'd like to get a dialogue going about cherry picking. So often the wheel gets reinvented when it isn't necessary. I'd like to study the systems that other industrialized nations use and pick from them the things that work...

Subject: RE: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 06:17 PM

From Cradle to Grave
A (very) brief history of the UK transition to a National Health Service

Subject: BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.
From: Peace
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 05:40 PM

Assume that it could become a reality. That it's possible. Don't get on the negative side of it for at least 100 posts. What can you come up with to get things rolling in that direction?