ext_36450 ([identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics2009-08-13 02:55 pm
Entry tags:

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.

[identity profile] fizzyland.livejournal.com 2009-08-13 08:44 pm (UTC)(link)
Which countries on that list have shitty care?

Your opinions are mostly very well thought out but on this point you are in error. Statistics on infant mortality, etc. bear out that the U.S. only has good health care for people who pay for premium service and those other countries beat us by pretty much every benchmark, including cost efficiency.

[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com 2009-08-13 08:55 pm (UTC)(link)
Which countries on that list have shitty care?

Most of the ones listed below the US on the list.

Your opinions are mostly very well thought out but on this point you are in error. Statistics on infant mortality, etc. bear out that the U.S. only has good health care for people who pay for premium service and those other countries beat us by pretty much every benchmark, including cost efficiency.

So what's the international standard on infant mortality again? Because you know that there isn't one, right?

It's the same with a lot of these statistics - our life expectancy is hurt by our homicide rate, which health care has little to do with. Our cost efficiency doesn't take into effect our innovations, which, of course, cost more.

We may spend more, but we get more bang for our buck when the chips are down, and most people don't pay anything close to $6000 per capita out of pocket (as the graph notes).

[identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com 2009-08-13 10:45 pm (UTC)(link)
and you continue to miss the point. The people who have insurance are mostly ok -- they at least have SOME level of care. It's all the expenses for uninsured people who have to resort to the ER who get charged tens of thousands of dollars for their care.

[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com 2009-08-13 10:49 pm (UTC)(link)
So, again, why blow up the whole thing and make the care worse to solve that alleged problem?

[identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com 2009-08-13 10:51 pm (UTC)(link)
if only Obama really was "blowing up the whole thing" and junking the dysfunctional system we have. Single Payer really is the way to go, and it's because of wingnuts like you that it's not happening.

Nevertheless, improvement is needed. Obama isn't "blowing the whole thing up", he's suggesting that the government should be making improvements.

I realize that for someone who thinks that government can never work, it's a difficult concept, but hey, it's never nice to point at the retarded kids.

[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com 2009-08-13 11:45 pm (UTC)(link)
ingle Payer really is the way to go, and it's because of wingnuts like you that it's not happening.

Opposition to single payer is broad. To blame it on the "wingnuts" (who are, by the way, correct) is to deny the reality.

I realize that for someone who thinks that government can never work, it's a difficult concept, but hey, it's never nice to point at the retarded kids.

The times government does work is rare. Health is too important to entrust to the government.

[identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com 2009-08-14 02:44 pm (UTC)(link)
well, this is what you get for looking into that mirror.

Health care is too important, so it cannot be entrusted to the government, but NATIONAL DEFENSE is entrusted to the government?

No. Health care is too important to be left to profiteering robber barons.

[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com 2009-08-14 08:32 pm (UTC)(link)
Health care is too important, so it cannot be entrusted to the government, but NATIONAL DEFENSE is entrusted to the government?

Correct, mostly because of the diplomatic power and international role the government plays. If it was possible to create a situation where privatized homeland defense could exist with all the other other countries involved, I'd be all for it.

No. Health care is too important to be left to profiteering robber barons.

It's a good thing we leave it to private insurers instead, then.
ext_20124: Vivien Leigh (Default)

[identity profile] typewriterking.livejournal.com 2009-08-14 05:45 am (UTC)(link)
... it's never nice to point at the retarded kids.

How progressive of you.

[identity profile] abomvubuso.livejournal.com 2009-08-14 09:46 am (UTC)(link)
Most of the ones listed below the US on the list.

Ever been to a clinic in any of those countries? Jus' curious.

[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com 2009-08-14 11:26 am (UTC)(link)
No, thankfully.

Besides that, though, I know better than to treat my own personal experiences as predictive. That goes for US healthcare, too.

[identity profile] abomvubuso.livejournal.com 2009-08-14 05:11 pm (UTC)(link)
Ah. Its got something to do with preemptive non-traveling. I mean, why visit those places? They suck anyway. Or so they say on the TV ;)

Besides, Wikipedia is always there.

[identity profile] ghoststrider.livejournal.com 2009-08-16 06:25 pm (UTC)(link)
Actually, infant mortality statistics just point out that other countries like to kill babies.