I can say the same thing about India, with concern to healthcare, majority of physicians have been trained in USA or UK.
Yikes. Where do you get your facts? For starters, do you know that India had more than 150 medical colleges? Where do you think most of the Indian doctors in the US, UK, Australia, and the Middle East got their basic medical training? Hint: Not the US or the UK.
Moreover, comparing the US (per capita income: $47,000) health care system to the Indian (per capita income: $1200) health care system is comparing apples and oranges. Valid comparisons would be between countries of (broadly) similar income levels. There, the US does not do well.
See, for instance, the ranking on health care outcomes (from WHO):
Before making broad-reaching statements, could the Americans in the forums who have convinced themselves that "the government will run health care into the ground" research health care systems in other countries before commenting further?
Thanks!
We already have by looking at everything the government is currently in charge of; social security, medicare, post office, Senate's cafeteria, department of motor vehicles, public education, the VA hospitals, tax code, etc... All failures.
I know this is probably going offend most of you with socialized healthcare but do you honestly think your program offers or invents more life saving techniques and cures than America's current system? Sorry, I lived the government system when I was in the military and I am thankful I can go to a free market system now that I'm out.
Yes, there are some changes that need to be made, i.e. open competition between insurance companies is a biggie, there is nothing that requires government to step in and take it over from the ground up. You accuse us of being closed minded, but if you think a government system addresses the patient's needs better than what we have, your the one living life with blinders on.
Yikes. Where do you get your facts? For starters, do you know that India had more than 150 medical colleges? Where do you think most of the Indian doctors in the US, UK, Australia, and the Middle East got their basic medical training? Hint: Not the US or the UK.
Moreover, comparing the US (per capita income: $47,000) health care system to the Indian (per capita income: $1200) health care system is comparing apples and oranges. Valid comparisons would be between countries of (broadly) similar income levels. There, the US does not do well.
See, for instance, the ranking on health care outcomes (from WHO):
when you quote someone make sure you do not just take the part, YOU want and start a rant, which has nothing to do with what I was addressing,I was not comparing, you look damn silly, I was showing that you can not compare due to the standard of income. SO buddy, stop misquoting me, it not nice and actually little silly!!
My orginal post below:
Stop name calling and get your facts right with concern to comparing healthcare systems with US. Firstly not US citizen, but lived there for over 5 years. Secondly lived in Asia-Pacific for over 7 years off and on.
The cost of living, wages etc are completely different to US, so you going to Thailand earning a US wage and spending your US dollars, it would seem much cheaper. To average Thai person their cost of Healthcare is still high in their country.
I can say the same thing about India, with concern to healthcare, majority of physicians have been trained in USA or UK. The standard of care in private/big public hospitals is very good and the cost is much lower than western countries.
Now If I tell you that only 10-20% of the country can afford such level of healthcare that I have access to, then you understand that in population of 1,147,995,904.
So before you start comparing Thailand's healthcare with USA, just remember what you are comparing, since poor Thai people are NOT getting a good deal, but hey as long as you are happy thats great.
Read people's post before properly before you reply, okay!
Yes I do know that India has more than 150 medical colleges, do you know that over 85% of the consultants and senior physicians get trained in US/UK. They initial training is in India, but they complete their training in US/UK. Majority of consultants/surgeons are trained in US/UK. My statement is still correct.
Now to make your life easier, so you don't misquote people, I was stating that the standard of care in India is very good, but only 10-20% of people can actually afford the costs. To USA the costs are low, but for Indian there are high.
P.S. READ the comments from other their understood my post
As a conservative, former republican, the use of the S word in this debate offends me. Was it socialist when the government backed and largely financed the intercontenental railroad? how about the interstate system? and airports, sure the airlines are not government companies, but the airports are run by their respective cities, with massive support from FAA.
As a great nephew of one of the people who helped found the GOP and later when on to become Chief justice (Morrison Remick Waite) I would say Roosevelt (Teddy) was that last true example of the ideals Lincoln believed in. Ever since McCarthy and his Red scare the GOP has pulled out the Socialism/Communism card so many freaking times you wonder if that is the only card in their deck.
There is one factor in medical equipment that needs to be understood, and that is the costs of getting someone established on it, support in addressing problems and time to ensure they are compliant.
I have sleep apnea (OSA) and started on a cpap machine in 1998 as it is the gold standard. I was lucky in that I had no problems going onto treatment, but often the respiratory therapist has to work with the patient many times to get a "rig" that will ensure compliance.
Since that time I have purchased 2 autopaps - avoiding costly sleep studies and get all my supplies off of the web. But you need to be a compliant and an informed patient before that's a viable option.
So not all providers are "bad". They charge to cover their costs and profit margins for the product they sell. When new products come out (like my autopaps) they also have to adjust to markets - just like any other business.
[QUOTE=Neruda;1485528]Way to jump to conclusions. What makes you think that I was/was not opposed to the government bailouts (I made no mention of this)? I was against it (for similar reasons). But at least there is a better chance that government will get its money back from the TARP bailouts.[/QUOTE
Sure, with $$$$ that are worth a lot less (or should I just say worthless) than they are now, thanks to the relentless printing of money needed to support bailouts.
Did we get our money back from any other big bailout in history .. isn't this Chrysler's second visit to the corporate welfare line? \
Riiiiiiight. It really is that simple. Belittle whomever you disagree with. There are legitimate arguments on both sides of this debate, pro & con. That does not mean that one side is stupid and the other is rational (based solely on your ideological predilections). I don't agree with all of the healthcare reform proposals that are being suggested by Congress and the President, but there are things that I do agree with. It is not all black and white.
I think you just put people on the defensive when you started off by suggesting that functional universal healthcare requires socialism. That's a big jump that will always rub supporters the wrong way.
A single payer system is the way to go. People shouldn't have to worry about health care. It should be a right. Society would be much better off.[/QUOTE]
While I agree with your statement, I do think that we need to acknowledge that we need to pay for it and that may include tax money. We also need to acknowledge that we already pay for the health care of others. Costs for doctors/hospitals go up because they end up treating those with no $$$ and they pass the cost on to us through insurance companies. The costs are just hidden. I would rather that the costs be out in the open so that we understand them better.
We need a lot of change . Including incentives for behavior that improves health and disincentives for bad behaviors.
The costs of treating the uninsured aren't passed along simply in the form of higher insurance premiums for the insured, they are also passed along in the form of taxes. We do pay for the uninsured, but in the most massively inefficient way possible. If you're for fixing that, then you're obviously opposed to liberty though, so I can see where that's a problem.
Congrats on a truly relevant and topical article that steps partially outside the "Apple" sphere of things, but not too far. This is the best AI article I've seen in months, if not years.
I only hope that AI readers don't confuse this Medicare problem with what Gov't insurance *should* be. Stuff like this has to be ironed out before we can make it work right.
What people fear is gov't running private insurers out of business. And there's plenty of audio and video out there that vaildates those fears. Medicare is in such bad shape because Gov't can't run programs effectively, period. All the mandates and regulations are what brings down the system. To quote a wise man, "Everyday Congress meets we lose a little bit more of our liberty."
>Inventing ghost stories to scare the slow brained does no one any good at all
,everyone should be insured with a least amount of restrictions
Medicare does a very good job helping the sick and poor
but as this article shows it is not very flexible or wise.
This is a complex issue. The first part of the article points out a huge spending flaw in Medicare. Doesn't look very well run. But then we are to fall behind and cheer a Medicare on steroids...bigger, more complex, and more expensive than any entitlement program in history.
Obama ironically tries to promote the new health care plan by pointing out that there are 100s of billions of spending abuses and wasteful practices in the existing version. If we merely realize some of those savings, we are nearly there.
Why aren't we doing this now? Why don't we do this first?
There are a lot of legitimate questions and concerns to be voiced without demonizing each side.
My favorite part of the article is when it points out that Apple, a private company that was honed via intense competition, offers a far better, less expensive solution.
Maybe the free market, competition and capitalism are on to something?
We need reform. This issue is very complex. Both sides are leaving huge holes in the debate. Both sides have interests to protect. Whatever we end up with, we should always strive to have as small as govt. as possible that performs the functions asked of it. And taxes should be as low as possible to pay for it.
What people fear is gov't running private insurers out of business. And there's plenty of audio and video out there that vaildates those fears. Medicare is in such bad shape because Gov't can't run programs effectively, period. All the mandates and regulations are what brings down the system. To quote a wise man, "Everyday Congress meets we lose a little bit more of our liberty."
Oh, come on!
I really doubt Americans care about the bottom lines of insurance companies. We've been gouged by them for decades, and that isn't going to stop if they can't sell their overpriced health insurance policies. Furthermore, there are plenty of other opportunities for them to make money.
The average person just wants coverage at an affordable price. We are the only developed country to fail at this, plus we are #37 in health care quality.
I would agree with you that congress is a wasteland of lobbyist-controlled flesh. But that doesn't mean that we can't have a decent public health insurance option provided by the feds.
And don't give me this "private sector can do it better" nonsense. We've seen how the unregulated financial sector pissed away investment capital. We've seen how the biggest US insurer (AIG) took their clients premiums and threw them away on bad investments.
Let's not forget that that number 1 reason health care costs are so expensive in the US is because of the huge liability issues that every doctor, hospital, clinics, and other health provider entities have to manage. The insurance companies PROFIT from all those malpractice policies, then profit again from the health insurance policies that have to pay for the inflated costs.
So, mourn not for the insurance companies. They don't care about you, they only care about the excessive profits they derive from the US health care system.
Comments
I can say the same thing about India, with concern to healthcare, majority of physicians have been trained in USA or UK.
Yikes. Where do you get your facts? For starters, do you know that India had more than 150 medical colleges? Where do you think most of the Indian doctors in the US, UK, Australia, and the Middle East got their basic medical training? Hint: Not the US or the UK.
Moreover, comparing the US (per capita income: $47,000) health care system to the Indian (per capita income: $1200) health care system is comparing apples and oranges. Valid comparisons would be between countries of (broadly) similar income levels. There, the US does not do well.
See, for instance, the ranking on health care outcomes (from WHO):
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
or, ranking of "preventable" deaths:
http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/pr...2003_2008.html
or, if you'd like to see what the evidence looks like item-by-item:
http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2009/en/index.html
Before making broad-reaching statements, could the Americans in the forums who have convinced themselves that "the government will run health care into the ground" research health care systems in other countries before commenting further?
Thanks!
We already have by looking at everything the government is currently in charge of; social security, medicare, post office, Senate's cafeteria, department of motor vehicles, public education, the VA hospitals, tax code, etc... All failures.
I know this is probably going offend most of you with socialized healthcare but do you honestly think your program offers or invents more life saving techniques and cures than America's current system? Sorry, I lived the government system when I was in the military and I am thankful I can go to a free market system now that I'm out.
Yes, there are some changes that need to be made, i.e. open competition between insurance companies is a biggie, there is nothing that requires government to step in and take it over from the ground up. You accuse us of being closed minded, but if you think a government system addresses the patient's needs better than what we have, your the one living life with blinders on.
Yikes. Where do you get your facts? For starters, do you know that India had more than 150 medical colleges? Where do you think most of the Indian doctors in the US, UK, Australia, and the Middle East got their basic medical training? Hint: Not the US or the UK.
Moreover, comparing the US (per capita income: $47,000) health care system to the Indian (per capita income: $1200) health care system is comparing apples and oranges. Valid comparisons would be between countries of (broadly) similar income levels. There, the US does not do well.
See, for instance, the ranking on health care outcomes (from WHO):
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
or, ranking of "preventable" deaths:
http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/pr...2003_2008.html
or, if you'd like to see what the evidence looks like item-by-item:
http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2009/en/index.html
when you quote someone make sure you do not just take the part, YOU want and start a rant, which has nothing to do with what I was addressing,I was not comparing, you look damn silly, I was showing that you can not compare due to the standard of income. SO buddy, stop misquoting me, it not nice and actually little silly!!
My orginal post below:
Stop name calling and get your facts right with concern to comparing healthcare systems with US. Firstly not US citizen, but lived there for over 5 years. Secondly lived in Asia-Pacific for over 7 years off and on.
The cost of living, wages etc are completely different to US, so you going to Thailand earning a US wage and spending your US dollars, it would seem much cheaper. To average Thai person their cost of Healthcare is still high in their country.
I can say the same thing about India, with concern to healthcare, majority of physicians have been trained in USA or UK. The standard of care in private/big public hospitals is very good and the cost is much lower than western countries.
Now If I tell you that only 10-20% of the country can afford such level of healthcare that I have access to, then you understand that in population of 1,147,995,904.
So before you start comparing Thailand's healthcare with USA, just remember what you are comparing, since poor Thai people are NOT getting a good deal, but hey as long as you are happy thats great.
Read people's post before properly before you reply, okay!
Yes I do know that India has more than 150 medical colleges, do you know that over 85% of the consultants and senior physicians get trained in US/UK. They initial training is in India, but they complete their training in US/UK. Majority of consultants/surgeons are trained in US/UK. My statement is still correct.
Now to make your life easier, so you don't misquote people, I was stating that the standard of care in India is very good, but only 10-20% of people can actually afford the costs. To USA the costs are low, but for Indian there are high.
P.S. READ the comments from other their understood my post
AND ALL—IMMA LET YOU FINISH—BUT AUTOTUNERS
THE BEST ELECTRONIC VOICEOVERS THIS YEAR.
As a conservative, former republican, the use of the S word in this debate offends me. Was it socialist when the government backed and largely financed the intercontenental railroad? how about the interstate system? and airports, sure the airlines are not government companies, but the airports are run by their respective cities, with massive support from FAA.
As a great nephew of one of the people who helped found the GOP and later when on to become Chief justice (Morrison Remick Waite) I would say Roosevelt (Teddy) was that last true example of the ideals Lincoln believed in. Ever since McCarthy and his Red scare the GOP has pulled out the Socialism/Communism card so many freaking times you wonder if that is the only card in their deck.
I have sleep apnea (OSA) and started on a cpap machine in 1998 as it is the gold standard. I was lucky in that I had no problems going onto treatment, but often the respiratory therapist has to work with the patient many times to get a "rig" that will ensure compliance.
Since that time I have purchased 2 autopaps - avoiding costly sleep studies and get all my supplies off of the web. But you need to be a compliant and an informed patient before that's a viable option.
So not all providers are "bad". They charge to cover their costs and profit margins for the product they sell. When new products come out (like my autopaps) they also have to adjust to markets - just like any other business.
Sure, with $$$$ that are worth a lot less (or should I just say worthless) than they are now, thanks to the relentless printing of money needed to support bailouts.
Did we get our money back from any other big bailout in history .. isn't this Chrysler's second visit to the corporate welfare line?
great article. This is an awesome example of why cost-effectiveness studies are incredibly important.
You and me may be the only two people in this entire thread that get the original story.
[CENTER]YO ROGER EBERT I KNOW YOU GOT THROAT CANCER
AND ALL?IMMA LET YOU FINISH?BUT AUTOTUNERS
THE BEST ELECTRONIC VOICEOVERS THIS YEAR.
Well done.
Riiiiiiight. It really is that simple. Belittle whomever you disagree with. There are legitimate arguments on both sides of this debate, pro & con. That does not mean that one side is stupid and the other is rational (based solely on your ideological predilections). I don't agree with all of the healthcare reform proposals that are being suggested by Congress and the President, but there are things that I do agree with. It is not all black and white.
I think you just put people on the defensive when you started off by suggesting that functional universal healthcare requires socialism. That's a big jump that will always rub supporters the wrong way.
The solution is LESS GOVERNMENT, just ask Dr. and Congressman Ron Paul...
Check out http://campaignforliberty.com and http://lp.org
Yea, well, just more proof of why government doesn't work. Check out http://campaignforliberty.com and http://lp.org
Nice to see another advocate for liberty here.
A single payer system is the way to go. People shouldn't have to worry about health care. It should be a right. Society would be much better off.[/QUOTE]
While I agree with your statement, I do think that we need to acknowledge that we need to pay for it and that may include tax money. We also need to acknowledge that we already pay for the health care of others. Costs for doctors/hospitals go up because they end up treating those with no $$$ and they pass the cost on to us through insurance companies. The costs are just hidden. I would rather that the costs be out in the open so that we understand them better.
We need a lot of change . Including incentives for behavior that improves health and disincentives for bad behaviors.
I can say the same thing about India, with concern to healthcare, majority of physicians have been trained in USA or UK.
Now, I am compelled to call you out on another ridiculous assertion:
... do you know that over 85% of the consultants and senior physicians get trained in US/UK.
Provide a credible cite for that claim, and I'll apologize to you. Otherwise, stick to facts that you can back up.
I only hope that AI readers don't confuse this Medicare problem with what Gov't insurance *should* be. Stuff like this has to be ironed out before we can make it work right.
What people fear is gov't running private insurers out of business. And there's plenty of audio and video out there that vaildates those fears. Medicare is in such bad shape because Gov't can't run programs effectively, period. All the mandates and regulations are what brings down the system. To quote a wise man, "Everyday Congress meets we lose a little bit more of our liberty."
>Inventing ghost stories to scare the slow brained does no one any good at all
,everyone should be insured with a least amount of restrictions
Medicare does a very good job helping the sick and poor
but as this article shows it is not very flexible or wise.
The waste and graft in medicare is staggering.
9
Obama ironically tries to promote the new health care plan by pointing out that there are 100s of billions of spending abuses and wasteful practices in the existing version. If we merely realize some of those savings, we are nearly there.
Why aren't we doing this now? Why don't we do this first?
There are a lot of legitimate questions and concerns to be voiced without demonizing each side.
My favorite part of the article is when it points out that Apple, a private company that was honed via intense competition, offers a far better, less expensive solution.
Maybe the free market, competition and capitalism are on to something?
We need reform. This issue is very complex. Both sides are leaving huge holes in the debate. Both sides have interests to protect. Whatever we end up with, we should always strive to have as small as govt. as possible that performs the functions asked of it. And taxes should be as low as possible to pay for it.
What people fear is gov't running private insurers out of business. And there's plenty of audio and video out there that vaildates those fears. Medicare is in such bad shape because Gov't can't run programs effectively, period. All the mandates and regulations are what brings down the system. To quote a wise man, "Everyday Congress meets we lose a little bit more of our liberty."
Oh, come on!
I really doubt Americans care about the bottom lines of insurance companies. We've been gouged by them for decades, and that isn't going to stop if they can't sell their overpriced health insurance policies. Furthermore, there are plenty of other opportunities for them to make money.
The average person just wants coverage at an affordable price. We are the only developed country to fail at this, plus we are #37 in health care quality.
I would agree with you that congress is a wasteland of lobbyist-controlled flesh. But that doesn't mean that we can't have a decent public health insurance option provided by the feds.
And don't give me this "private sector can do it better" nonsense. We've seen how the unregulated financial sector pissed away investment capital. We've seen how the biggest US insurer (AIG) took their clients premiums and threw them away on bad investments.
Let's not forget that that number 1 reason health care costs are so expensive in the US is because of the huge liability issues that every doctor, hospital, clinics, and other health provider entities have to manage. The insurance companies PROFIT from all those malpractice policies, then profit again from the health insurance policies that have to pay for the inflated costs.
So, mourn not for the insurance companies. They don't care about you, they only care about the excessive profits they derive from the US health care system.