![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
The Economist praises the Swedish health care system over the American on issues of incentives.
Article linked here:
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedsta tes/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.
Article linked here:
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedsta
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.
(no subject)
Date: 13/8/09 20:44 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 13/8/09 20:55 (UTC)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).
(no subject)
Date: 13/8/09 22:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/8/09 22:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/8/09 22:51 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 13/8/09 23:45 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 14/8/09 14:44 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 14/8/09 20:32 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 14/8/09 05:45 (UTC)How progressive of you.
(no subject)
Date: 14/8/09 09:46 (UTC)Ever been to a clinic in any of those countries? Jus' curious.
(no subject)
Date: 14/8/09 11:26 (UTC)Besides that, though, I know better than to treat my own personal experiences as predictive. That goes for US healthcare, too.
(no subject)
Date: 14/8/09 17:11 (UTC)Besides, Wikipedia is always there.
(no subject)
Date: 16/8/09 18:25 (UTC)