VENEZUELA : HEALTH CARE REVOLUTION.

POSTED BY: Howard
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 02:11
VIEWED: 8994
PAGE 2 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Monday, October 17, 2005 2:00 AM

Having spent many years working in the health care system, both private and public, I'd like to offer some perspective:

The US has the lowest life expectancy of any developed nation.

The US has the highest infant mortality rate of any developed nation.

The US has the highest per capita expense for health care of any developed nation.

But why stop there?

Andorra has the longest life expectancy in the world (83.51 years). Aside from the usual winners Japan, Sweden, Australia, Switzerland, Canada, Italy, France, Germany and the UK, surprising winners against the US are Macau (82.12), Iceland (80.19), the Cayman Islands (79.95), Aruba (79.14), Guam (78.40), Puerto Rico (78.29), and Bosnia/Herzegovina (77.83), with the US trailing (77.71).
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html Some of this is due to the unusually violent nature of US society, some of this is cultural (dietary preferences), and much, regrettably, is due to lack of access to medical care, lack of treatment for chronic conditions, and overall poverty rates that undermine health.

Singapore has the lowest infant mortality rate in the world (2.29/100). The Czech Republic (3.93/1000), Macau (4.37), Slovenia (4.45), Portugal (5.05), Aruba (5.89), South Korea (6.28) and Cuba (6.33) are among the many nations that do better than the US (6.50) on infant mortality. From the other side, the US is just barely ahead of Croatia (6.84), Lithuania (6.89) and Guam (6.94). http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html Now, you may be tempted to dismiss these numbers, but averaged over thousands of births, they represent a statistic that would be hard to change without large-scale investment.

The US spends 4,631.00 per capita on health care, Switzerland $3,222.00, Germany $2,748.00, Iceland $2,608.00, Canada $2,535.00, and so on. http://www.nationmaster.com/printable-T/hea_hea_car_fun_tot_per_cap&in
t=-1 But you have to remember that in the other countries ALL people are covered by national health care. In the US (in 2004) 59.8% were covered through some type of work-based insurance, 27.2% were on a government insurance program, and 15.717% had no insurance at all. (Don't ask me why the numbers don't add up, they are according to the US Census Bureau.) http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf Unfortunately, it is difficult to come by figures on those who are underinsured, but it is logical to assume that of those with insurance, there are those with marginal coverage.

So, when it comes to health care in the US, too much is being spent for too little. The cause is arguably the profit margin of the insurers and drug companies. But hey, that's what makes the free market system so great, eh?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, October 17, 2005 3:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Please do some research on the topic.

Dear, dear SignyM. I can always count on you to come up with a different way to say, "Canttakesky, you're ignorant" on just about every thread.

I am not unaware of the statistics you cited or the fact that some sections of the medical industry are more greedy and corrupt than others (i.e. pharma and insurance).

One way to bring health care costs down is to implement nationalized health care, to be sure. But there are other ways to bring down prices, such as simply not charging as much. All I'm saying is, I'm much more in favor of the latter method.

In normal market dynamics, if you charge too much for your product, people stop buying from you. They go to your competitors or they simply do without. At that point, you have to lower your prices or you go out of business. That's how you know you're charging too much. That's the way the market is supposed to work.

The American medical/pharmaceutical/insurance complex has circumvented the market by 1) virtually eliminating all competitors, and 2) hiding prices from consumers through insurance, and 3) convincing people to become dependent on insurance. At the risk of oversimplification, one way to fix this problem is to open up the market to competitors and eliminate insurance altogether. It is, of course, more complicated than that, but that is the thrust of it.

This is one out of many possible solutions. I happen to like it best, but am willing to entertain debate on it. If nothing else, I simply think it is a mistake to immediately conclude that nationalized health care is the only way, or the best way, to solve the crisis without examining less forceful alternatives.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, October 17, 2005 3:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But hey, that's what makes the free market system so great, eh?

There is nothing "free" about this market system.

Competition, a cardinal feature of the free market, is not allowed. Both govt and mass media are in the backpockets of the industry, which incidentally already receives generous amounts of taxpayer subsidies. It is one of the most extensive cases of corporate welfare we have in the country.

Cut them loose from govt apron strings, and let them try to stand on their own 2 feet. Then we'll see just what happens to unbridled greed and corruption in a free market.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, October 17, 2005 4:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:
The word UNIVERSAL is misapplied to and in Canada....While Americans who dream of a Canadian system do not seem aware of the black hole of health care that is Quebec.

I used to live in Vancouver briefly, and my father-in-law still lives there. We're not too impressed with them either. Their equipment is old and too few, their staff appears to be poorly trained, and there are of course, long wait times for services. Ironically, they've lost a lot of their personnel to better paying jobs in the US.

Quote:
I do agree that Western industrialized medicine is in itself a branch of the corporate system and that the resources are often spent on the wrong things while lacking for the right things...

Our lifestyle driven by corporations creates the problems just so other corporations can profit on a claimed solution. This is true in both the public and private health sectors as they both get their drugs and equipment from the same corporations and the latest science from University labs funded by those same corporations.

Yep, yep, yep. This is my beef exactly. I have a really hard time supporting a taxpayer plan to keep these people in business without seeing a major overhaul in this and related industries first.

Then, I imagine that such a major overhaul would make a national health care plan unnecessary. In other words, I would rather see the overhaul as a solution than a national health care bandaid.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Monday, October 17, 2005 4:40 AM

Whew! Good thing the opening of the BDM is behind us! I was getting so sick of us being united behind something. Sure is good that we can get back to squabbling amongst ourselves about the leaders of South American countries, socialism vs. capitalism, and the evils of the US government. I was so tired of all that good will...

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

KELLAINA

Monday, October 17, 2005 5:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:

One thing I wish to remark on the Canadian health care system. The word UNIVERSAL is misapplied to and in Canada. In Canada health care the propaganda is about a national universalm system but in practise it is not univeral. So in Quebec the health care sucks while in Manitoba the quality of care is superb. This reflects the amnount of corruption in the local culture. This has caused Americans on both sides of the arguement to be convinced that they are both right. If Canada just admitted that their health is in fact determined province to province it would enable Americans to understand the cause of the contradictions in regional terms. Americans opposed to public health care site Quebec as the horror story and presume the whole of Canada is just as bad. While Americans who dream of a Canadian system do not seem aware of the black hole of health care that is Quebec.

First off, I admit I haven't read the original article yet, I've just been skimming through the responses.

In Canada health care is administered province by province but the majority of the funding for it comes from the federal government which requires the provinces to conform to the Canada Health Act. That's where the universality clause comes in. I've never heard of anyone claiming it wasn't administered by the provinces.

The 'black hole of health care' is the one province that routinely disobeys the Act (by allowing private clinics) while the feds turn a blind eye. I'd argue that since Quebec is considered a special case by the Liberal government comparing it to any other province isn't really fair.

I don't mean to sound nit-picky here, I am genuinely curious as to what sources you have for Americans views of the Canadian health care system, in particular this part:

Quote:
Quebec as the horror story and presume the whole of Canada is just as bad. While Americans who dream of a Canadian system do not seem aware of the black hole of health care that is Quebec.

As I said, I'm curious, not attacking your opinion

.

If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. -"Angel"

Browncoat? Canadian? Join us:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/canadianbrowncoats/

HOWARD

Monday, October 17, 2005 5:53 AM

Kellaina:

Well I am a British guy who has lived in
the USA and has Canadian friends and I
listen to Radio Canada International via
satellite. In the constant arguement between
Americans both those who pour scorn on the
Canadian system and those who worship it as
a dream for the USA do use the term "universal
health care". I have also heard presenters on
CBC use the term and I have heard guests on
the CBC argue that it is not a true universal
system. In diregard of your federal
legislation I have heard of cases of Canadians
from other provinces walking into to a
hospital in Montreal on to have a verbal
fight and to threaten legal action just to
get the people on the otherside of the desk
to recognise their health care ID card.
I will say one thing for our flawed British
system and that I may live in Manchester but
I would be treated anywhere in the UK
without an arguement. obviously on-going
treatment would continue back in one's own
area but my immediate needs would be attended
to without question.

I wonder why sometimes my text ends up shifted
to one side in a narrow block on some but not
all my posts.

HOWARD

Monday, October 17, 2005 6:00 AM

Canttakesky:

A friend of mine has a sister who has been
going through cancer treatment in Winnipeg
and the care was/is superb. Manitoba does not
have the glamour but maybe they put their
emphasis on what really matters. Other places
in the world spend their money on showcase
architecture and Olympic Games and look where
that gets them!!

HOWARD

Monday, October 17, 2005 6:07 AM

citizen:

Firstly I did not attack anyone by name.
Secondly if you are so concerned about
offensive attacks against anyone then
please check out my other posts and see
how unlike the good and intelligent
responses on this thread, I have been
subjected to some very nasty name-calling.
Though I did my best to refrain as much as
possible and maintain a higher level of
discourse. It is interesting that those
who went straight into the nasty against
me, wrote nothing worthy. That they did so
in response to articles that I did not even
write but merely wanted to share with others.

HOWARD

Monday, October 17, 2005 6:14 AM

Rue:

Good stuff. Thanks for all the effort.
It is interesting that the UK, US, Canada
and France all have different systems but
in a short-term crisis they all start to
cave-in under pressure. On a daily basis
they suffer many of the same short-comings
and some different short-comings.

I think this implies that it is the
intelligence of individual people that
makes any system work. That systems in
themselves do not do the thinking.

Even if you remove the USA from the list
for the shortcomings you cited the other
countries still have constant failings of
their own. Just the US has more at more
cost.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE