talkpolitics | This is when you know reform is needed:

Entry tags:

health care

This is when you know reform is needed:

The Economist praises the Swedish health care system over the American on issues of incentives.

Article linked here:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13899647

Also....an image worth keeping in mind for defenders of the broken system:

Now, there's something wrong with this picture. See if you can tell me what it is.....

X-posted from my own LJ.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

insurance - paying for coverage
but quality coverage is available to the whole population

available != affordable

Er....yes, available = affordable.

Did you get your math from Sci-Fi?

as I said available != affordable

Yes, availabe = affordable in the USA.

Person with $0 can come to almost any ER in USA and get high level care.
Person in USSR with lots $$$ would have to seek high level care.

USA = available
USSR = affordable

available != affordable

uh... ER care may be expedient, but it is not "high level care". High level care includes things like, you know, regular examinations and preventative care.

that a ton of people get in ER

also did you notice how little medicaid pays for regular check-up, anyone can afford that, they just need to explain to doc their situation

PS: In Philly there are free clinics as well.

none of that is comprehensive, and you can't just walk into an ER and say "I'd like a yearly checkup". No, you cannot.

And you, the tax payer, and I the tax payer, pay for it anyway.

you say: I cough - you get a checkup (usually after the people with more serious conditions are taken care of, but they cannot throw you out).

Still the care is there.

Yes, and I blame my government for legislating in a way that the costs to the taxpayers have exploded without little real benefit to taxpayers.

If your life is not in distress, actually they dont have to treat every cough and sneeze.

A hospital is only responsible for stabalizing you, and giving a cursory exam (as in basic of basic to ensure you're not in distress) to ensure they weren't negligent -- not for *having* to treat every cough and sneeze.

I would argue that regular examinations and preventive care are what drive up the cost of insurance. At my age I am glad(?) that is included in my insurance program, but 20 years ago I would have prefered "catastopic" insurance, and paid for the other stuff myself....using the moderately decent example of car insurance. Would I have saved and invested the difference, probably not.

You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. Preventative care and regular checkups are what keep costs DOWN, because they find problems early.

Which is cheaper, regular checkups of diet and acid-reflux medicine, or surgery for ulcers?

Which is cheaper, regular out-patient mental health checkups, or commitment to a state institution?

Which is cheaper, regular treatment of asthma symptoms or emergency room treatment of asthma attacks?

What's cheaper, regular treatment for the symptoms of heart disease, adjustments to diet and cholesterol drugs, or quadruple bypasses?

Probably.

Er.....person in USA have to pay, person in USA fucked if have to pay without insurance.

Now, understand intelligent-speak, Tarzan?

THEY STILL GET CARE

BUT NOT VERY GOOD CARE

What do you consider "good care"?

comprehensive systematic medical care, including real well visits (not just cheating the ER), prescription coverage, dental coverage, etc, etc, etc, at a price that doesn't crush the american dream.

Oh, so we've succeeded already. Good.

Why the clamoring for an overhaul, then?

cute, but untrue. We have not succeeded already. But you know that, and you don't give a shit.

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2009-08-13 20:53 (UTC) - Expand

Had that in USSR, still trying to recover.

(no subject)

dwer.livejournal.com - 2009-08-13 20:44 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

redheadrat.livejournal.com - 2009-08-13 20:44 (UTC) - Expand

Picture this:

I enact a scene from SAW with you as my victim. I place you in a room with food on a table...but you can't reach it because your leg is chained to the wall. Several days go by and you feel sick and hungry.

There is a saw next to you -- you'll have to remove a foot if you want to reach what I'm offering.

By *your* logic, I could turn around and say: "Hey...food was AVAILABLE. Sure he had to lose a foot to reach it, but it was THERE! He COULD reach it if he wanted it bad enough".

And the people who can only get their care in the ER DRIVE UP THE COST FOR EVERYONE ELSE.

Jesus Christ, why is that talking point acceptable still when it is obvious that people having to use the ER for their care is part of the set of problems bankrupting us????

even MORE amazing -- the same people who object to Obama's plan are arguing that costs would *go up*.

But then turn around and DEFEND scenarios that drive up the costs even more AND provide less care.

If it's not affordable then what's your point?

Are you arguing that it's good we can treat people physically
and then break then financially instead?

If not, then it's not REALLY available since most people
wont use the health care if they can't afford it -- thus it's not available.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only