Health Care: Which country has the best system ?

[steve2470]

Your vote and comments here, please.

[elehhhhna]

1. Netherlands. cradle to grave plus euthanasia and unlimited pain-control,

...I have a family member who required emergency abdominal surgery and after some complications they kept her in hospital for a MONTH (she needed it...) No charge, basically.

No real "rationing" and it doesn't BREAK your family financially. You're released when you're WELL.



That's why "right to die" procedures are workable and successful in Holland--the system doesn't motivate you to "check out" due to financail pressure, unmaneageable pain, or a growing inability to care for onesself (in the elderly and people with progressive conditions.) Several good reasons it WON'T work properly here...

[Deja Q]

2. The US! The US!!!! How dare you say we're not?!!!!

That's what the hypocricons would say.

Last I recall, we're not even in the top 10 list - when that report came out (2002?), all the hypocricons had a big hissy whiney fit over it.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

Meanwhile, we wait in lines, pay more for shit service, and the generally NOT 'liberal' media reports gigantic profits for health care companies as our prices go up.

Trial lawyers are not the problem. Their filthy uncompassionate greed is. And anybody who can't put 1+1 together or refuses to believe it is a * supporter who had a full frontal lobotomy at some point.

[oscar111]

4. france then italyWHO's THE WORLD HEALTH REPORT 2000

WHO is world health org of the UN.

we are thirty seven in system quality.

72 in population health. yes, 72 not a typo.

nationalize and cap doctor wages at the average... 50 thousand.. only way known to drive out the greedheads. Like senator Frist.

[Deja Q]

6. Yowzers!

What sort of drugs are the hypocricons on anyway, to think that were' the best?! :crazy:

[sandnsea]

34. France public/private

France does not have a complete public health care system. It is both. Everybody has national health care. BUT most people are also covered through private insurance. 50% of surgeries and cancer patients are treated in private facilities of some sort. I read that in the WHO report. It's important to know what really works so we can make the right choices here. Although I agree, no doctor needs to be a millionaire.

On edit:

But we really need to get the exorbitant corporate profit out of health care, which would leave plenty of money to pay doctors well anyway.

[TahitiNut]

3. France.

[Kellanved]

38. considering recent (subjective) experiences, I have to agree

cheap, fast service, spot on diagnosis - and that deep in the province.

[sweetheart]

5. I think germany

German care is comprehensive, universal and of tip top first world
standards.

UK is comprehensive and universal, but mediocre. Example, i had a
lump taken off my toe by a surgeon not long back. I was told that
such special surgeons were necessary to avoid cutting the nerves
that run up the outside of the toe. Now, after healing, i have no
feeling on that side of my toe... he cut the nerve. Hell, i coulda
done that with an Xacto knife!

I shoulda flown to germany and paid to have it done proper.

That said, the best athsma doctor i've ever visited was in the UK.
I think so much depends on the individual doctor.

[mr blur]

8. Different experiences...

I have MS and the treatment I get from our health service is excellent - do you know how much an MRI scan would cost if I had to pay for it? Well, I couldn't. The people I talk with in the US who need similar drugs to me have to pay a fortune for them. I asked my neurologist about some drugs that I knew people in the US were buying; wanted to know why I hadn't been offered them. She basically said, "Because we don't think they've been tested enough - I don't really want them tested on you, do you?". Nope, I'm not that desperate.

Sure I have to wait longer than I would if I was paying for expensive scans, but I get the same treatment, with the same equipment, by the same medical staff. It's not perfect but I'm very grateful it's there.

[sweetheart]

9. The NHS is dang good

I am thankful just to have anything, after having zip diddly for
so long in the USA... and like you say, the athsma medicaton i rely
on costs 100 pounds per, were it not available from NHS for 6.50.

Dental... not so sure about the NHS... and i use a private dentist.
I think so much it has to do with the postcode lottery. Up here
in north scotland, expectations are lower that what i experienced
in london.

That said, i din't mean to diss the NHS. I have great respect for
it and those who work in it. Little bummed about having no feeling
in a toe, but hey, just having a clean surjury is a priviledge
these days, whether they cut nerves or not. :-)

Do you smoke the standard MS treatment? I've heard cannabis can be
a great relief to MS sufferers, and truly believe they should just
let people get on with whatever herbal medications they feel
best alleviate the suffering of the malady.

[happynewyear]

11. IMO NHS sucks

I guess it doesn't suck if you don't mind waiting a year to have a tooth filled! Screw the NHS!!!

:dem: :kick:

[mr blur]

12. Well, odd you should say that,

I usually wait about 5 minutes to have a tooth seen to.

[sweetheart]

14. Funny those dentists

I went to an NHS dentist ONCE, in Thurso. He din't bother with
X-rays, and rather resorted to "tapping" on my teeth and pulling
my lips around like a horse. One filling was chipped, and he said
that no need to bother, and to let him know when it fell out.
He made me laugh in retrospect, reminding me of dental practices in
Nepal.

All my neighbors in their 50's don't have teeth, having gone for
the old "denture" solution so preferred in that dentist's generation.

On visiting a private practice in london, i had a computerized Xray
and immediate treatment. I have not heard yet a good account of
an NHS dentist.

Suprisingly as well, people with bad eyesight get no medical
treatment, as if having myopia is not a health problem.?? odd that.

[mr blur]

17. I seem to live a charmed life!

Well, apart from the incurable disease! Our dentist is wonderful and treats us no differently from his private patients. After all, he's still getting paid, just not by me.

[sandnsea]

35. Better than never

Don't know why people don't get that large portions of the US don't get anything at all. Until their teeth are so bad their lives are literally threatened.

[mr blur]

13. Dope on the NHS?

Well, they're working on it and tests are showing what some of us have known for years - it's a great muscle relaxant, which in itself brings relief from pain.

[Kanary]

20. what country are you in, mr blur?

Thank you for sharing your experiences!

And, having read further down, I see that you are in northern Scotland.

:hi:

Kanary

[mr blur]

30. Actually I'm in Southern England

[phylny]

52. Not trying to wave an American flag here at all

and I'm not trying to say there aren't many other countries that have superior healthcare, but I had an MRI yesterday and it cost me $20.00 for my co-pay here in New York State.

I'm one of the fortunate ones who have healthcare coverage from my husband's (GASP) big oil company. Yes, I know, they're wicked and awful and the cat's out of the bag ;). The truth of the matter is that we've had excellent healthcare coverage for 23 years, of which we pay a portion, and they pay the majority. We'll have that coverage until we die. They also have excellent retirement benefits.

My father used to work for New York State and when my mother (God rest her soul) was going through her cancer surgery, and subsequent treatment, my parents didn't pay one dime for any of it. It was all covered by his insurance. Even today, in his retirement, he has insurance through them. It's unfortunate that everyone in this country doesn't have coverage like this.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

7. Germany

[Cleita]

10. Any country that can cover all of its citizens with a least

basic care so they don't have do die, the like 18,000 in the USA a year who die unnecessarily because of lack of health care, is better than our patchwork for profit system. Also, our system costs more than $5,000 a year for each American as contrary to countries with national health care, who can provide the same care for around $2,500 per person. That is half of what we spend and we don't anywhere cover everyone like those countries do.

So most nations who care for their citizens and their health care providers, meaning doctors and other, not insurance companies have good health care. It may not be the Tiffany of health care that only a few can access, but at least it is accessible by everyone. So my vote is with the Canadian system.

[ghostsofgiants]

15. No, there are definitely better out there than the Canadian system.

Ours is nowhere near as good as it could be, sadly. And then with jagoffs like Ralph Klein trying to undermine the public system altogether, it could get worse. Not saying it will, and I hope it doesn't, but the possibility is there.

[Cleita]

18. IMHO if we adopted a system as good as the Canadian system,

no it wouldn't be the best, but it would be leaps and bounds ahead of what the ordinary working American, who gets health care from his employer, is getting now. Also, all the children, unemployed, middle-aged and elderly not presently covered would have access to the basic care they need.

Americans don't need the best but they do need adequate. Regardless of what the health propaganda mill tells you about how great our health care is, it's only great for a small percentage of elite Americans who can afford it.

[Kanary]

22. Great statistic, Cleita! Hadn't seen that before on per-person costs.

Y'know, we really need to write up some sort of legible "selling" points paper on this whole mess.

:hi:

Kanary

[Cleita]

24. True.

After the election, we should work on it.

:hi:

[Kanary]

29. What election?

How come there's no "laughing-myself-silly" emoticon here?

:) :hi: :)

Kanary

[Hutzpa]

16. Britain n/t

[Solon]

19. You know what I find funny...

the biggest critism of NHS or UHC systems is the waiting periods, when in the United States, it is worse than that. To give an example, I have a friend who has non-malignant tumors in her abdomen. They are so painful that she has to take a concoction of drugs to relive it. Codine is a must for an example, and the saddest part is that this is the THIRD year that she has to take these drugs.

The problem is this: Her insurance ran out, literally, it paid for the tests, then paid half for the first removal of them, but after that, when they came back, the insurance dropped her. She now owes the hospitals 20 grand in medical bills, and uses a significant chunk of her paycheck to pay for the pills. Since she is in debt to the hospital, they won't perform the surgery required to get rid of these until the bills are paid. And people bitch about waiting periods in Britian, hell my Auntie Joy's mother in Britian had HOME VISITS by an actual DOCTOR for checkups and stuff, and she died at the ripe old age of 98 last year. When was the last time Doctors performed home visits here in the US?

[Kanary]

23. Excellent point! We really HAVE to start putting all this together in a

coherent form, and start getting it out to people who need to be educated about Health Care right here inthe good ole US of A. Too many are buying the RW lies, because they haven't had access to actual INFORMATION.

It's time we get this together!

Kanary

[Solon]

28. Good point on how to present a solution, in a concise form...

Kinda Like this:

Health Care Problems:

First, make it clear and concise: up to 70% of the premiums paid to insurance companies go to, not care, but the stock market and CEO's along with all those investment analysts and stockbrokers.

Second, Overhead costs for the standard HMO,Insurance Companie+Private Hospital is around 30% of Costs, compared to Medicare which is 3%, or Canadian UHC, which is 4-5%. Which is the cheapest to run again?

Third, tort reform will affect less than 10% of health care costs, and in reality, will usually affect less than half of that.

Fourth, by its nature, For profit systems have to, in order to maintain their profit margins, keep costs as low as possible, while at the same time raising prices to an average of 20% more than the cost. Contrasted with non-profit systems who lack the profit margin and are generally more effecient.

More problems exist, these just popped in my head.

On to the Solutions:

First things first, stop drug makers from wasting money advertising perscription drugs(WTF is that all about anyways?)

Second, dismantle the hodpodge that is our current system and basically extend Medicare(Call it something else) for all medical neccessary procedures for EVERY CITIZEN from Birth to natural death.

Third, put price controls on prescription drugs to prevent the public from being fleeced by pharma industry.

Seems common sense to me, though number two in Solutions should be fleshed out a little more, maybe I can start a thread on it.

[Kanary]

31. EXCELLENT! You don't know how long I've waited for just this!

What a great beginning!

I'm bookmarking this thread.

I have to go to the library now, but when I come back, I'm going to look up the URL for all the threads previously on Health Care. Too much to go through all at once, but there has been some *very* good info put out here. One thread was started by a former insurance person, and has excellent info. The screen name was "Silverhair", so we can look for that. Just getting that much together, with what you have, would be a tremendous start! :toast:

I'm excited about this project!

Looking forward to your thread.... :hi:

Kanary

[Solon]

32. Going to start it in a sec, have to look up some stuff about it, refresh..

the facts first.

[Kanary]

33. You're terrific!

You don't know how much you've lifted my spirits!

Now then...... you don't by any chance know of a great video that would go with this, do you?

I know..... I pressed for one too many things. :)

Thanks so much :pals:

Kanary

[Cleita]

25. That is part of the health industry propaganda.

They project onto other countries' health systems what is really wrong with ours to deflect the truth. Too bad the average person doesn't dig under the blanket statements paraded in print as facts to find out the real truth.

[JanMichael]

21. The best what? Percent Covered? Emergency? Prevention?

If it's percent covered we suck.

If it's emergency we're probably #1.

If it's preventative we're close to the bottom.

Steve Kangas covered these issues here.


Big picture? Try the WHO for that:

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf

France rated #1. The US wasn't even on the chart. OK, I am kidding. 37th.

We suck.

[Cleita]

26. We rannk at 185 in a sample of 225 countries according to the CIA

if you measure by infant mortality rate. For a country that spends as much as we do in health care costs, this is abysmal. Not only that, the countries who have higher infant mortality rates are developing and third world nations. I thought we were number one in development. Apparantly not.

[Kanary]

36. Do you have a reference for this, Cleita?

No matter if you don't..... the sun will still come up in the east in the morning. :)

I just hadn't heard this was a CIA figure. That's powerful. I've just seen the WHO figures.

Kanary

[Cleita]

39. Yeah, I do.

May I email or pm you tommorrow though. It's buried underneath a bunch of new stuff I'm sloppily gathering together.

[Kanary]

41. Let me know when you shovel through and dig it out. ^_^

And, then you can do some of my shoveling, also.

:evilgrin:

This project is going to come together, yet. :)

Kanary

[TahitiNut]

46. According to the stats compiled by Nationmaster ...

... The US is 41st in infant mortality http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-B/hea_inf_mor_rat
... 48th in life expectancy http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_lif_exp_at_bir_tot_pop

But FIRST in per capita spending. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_spe_per_per

[RainDog]

27. We're Number...er...29th...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/opinion/24barlettsteele.html?oref=login

people in Washington have offered one plan after another that they said would provide health care for all Americans and rein in costs. Each plan has failed. Today more people than ever have inadequate coverage or no insurance at all. And still costs continue to spin out of control.

Notably absent from the rhetoric has been any mention of the existing system's inherent flaw - the inability of market-based, for-profit medicine to deliver on the political promises.

Two decades ago, when Washington embraced the for-profit model to curb escalating charges, health care spending represented 10.5 percent of gross domestic product. Now it is approaching 16 percent. We spend more per capita on health care than any other developed country. Yet on the important yardsticks, like life expectancy measured in healthy years, we don't even rank among the top 20 nations. In fact, according to the World Health Organization, we come in an embarrassing 29th, sandwiched between Slovenia and Portugal.

The explanation for this abysmal record is one that politicians decline to discuss. The market functions wonderfully when we want to sell more cereals, cosmetics, cars, computers or any other consumer product. Unfortunately, it doesn't work in health care, where the goal should hardly be selling more heart bypass operations. Instead, the goal should be to prevent disease and illness. But the money is in the treatment - not prevention - so the market and good health care are at odds. Just how much at odds is seen in the current shortage of flu vaccine, as men and women in their 80's and 90's line up for hours at a time, hoping to get the shot they have been told they need, but may not receive because not nearly enough has been manufactured.

[Mike Niendorff]

37. I can't tell you which one DOES, but I can tell you which one DOESN'T

And that one would be the one I live in, the good old U-S-of-A.


MDN

[steve2470]

40. kick

kick

[sweetheart]

42. liberals like christ asked me to post this in this thread

It is relevant to the discussion, and this poor chappie who
wishes skinner would reconsider his banning from DU, asked me
to post this on his behalf. Perhaps a selective amnesty for
some folks who were banned, might be in order.

http://liberalslikechrist.org/healthcare/index.htm

I'd love to see jiacinto again. He was such a tough nut. :-)

[schultzee]

43. Go to this site and check out info about American Health care and

comparisons and answers the question.
http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/healthcare/index.htm

[eridani]

44. November 3rd plan

Assuming the election doesn't get stolen, all health care activists need to get on the same page with a strategy. I absolutely don't want Kerry's bandaid approach as a first choice, but it's worth considering as a consolation prize. Michael Moore's next documentary is going to be on health care, and it's an organizing opportunity that we can't afford to miss. Who's on board here?

While you're thinking strategy over, let's spread some memes.

EVERYBODY IN, NOBODY OUT!!

We are already paying for universal health care, we just aren't getting it!

[Kanary]

45. I'm "on board", eridani. But, can't do it alone.

Quite a long time ago, Lars pulled together all the previous DU threads on Universal HC, with the idea that we would all work together to sort through it, and pull together the relevant parts (there is some STRONG info there!), and write up some positions, and focus on a plan. It hasn't gone any further than that.

I was hoping something would come out of this thread. :shrug:

I think people really want changes, but somehow they don't see that they have the power to make it come true. I guess they're waiting for someone else to do it.

I know that I can't take it on myself.

I think I need to stop looking at these threads, because it goes over and over the same track.

sigh.....

Kanary

[eridani]

47. Everyone is wrapped up in the election now

Actually, we have been for about a year and a half. I'm on for this in the couple of weeks after the election. Maybe Lars, Cleita and Rational Rose, etc. too? I'll start thinking about how things could be divvied up.

I talked with my LD Dem chair a couple of weeks ago about the Dems needing something to do with all the extra energy built up during this election, and recommended universal health care as the best project, mainly because real universal health care would not require actually spending more money than we are spending now, unlike all the bandaid plans. A big visible success here would really boost the party in 2006. She was quite amenable.

[Kanary]

50. I figured that would be the reply.

Some of that, probably most of it, is accurate. I hope you will also admit that there is a distinct hesitance here to take action. Especially action that is a bit....... different from what we're used to doing.

I also want to say that Lars did her part, and it was a HUGE part.

I will hope that you are correct. I suspect that the timing will be after the first of the year. How that fits in with your assssment of "extra energy" I don't know, as we all know that dissipates rather quickly.

But, realistically, the results aren't likely to be known for some time (would welcome a big surprise here!), and I doubt people will take on something new until the results are in.

Then comes Thanksgiving and the Christmas rush.

So, I doubt there will be a push to do much of anything until after the New Year.

I also want to say, that while I do think Universal Health Care is vitally important, and, as you say, would be a feather in the cap of the Dem Party, I'm going to have to say that it's certainly not the only issue that needs to be taken up right away.

In 2005, severe cuts will be made to the Section 8 Housing Program, which will put thousands more people out on the street. As far as I know, there are only a couple of us here on DU who even bring this up as an issue. If this is not fought for, and fought for hard, right away in the new year, it will be too late, and people will suffer greatly, and there will be deaths. There is already a shortage of housing, and there is simply no place for those to go who will lose their housing.

It remains to be seen if DUers will see this as important.

Kanary

edited to give link to collection by Lars:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=117x3831

[eridani]

51. The housing thing sounds like a good front also

We should probably pick 3 or 4 issues to hit hard--things that any idiot can see are relevant to economic survival. Maybe we could push Kerry's $7.00 minimum wage proposal higher as well.

[Kanary]

53. Thanks, eridani ^_^

Kerry and Edwards have made it clear that middleclass issue is their target. THere's a lot said about "working poor" now. But, those who are disabled or aged or too ill to work are just SOL. *SOMEBODY* has to make this an issue, or there will be many, many deaths.

And those deaths will be silent and unmourned.

Kanary
BTW, did you know that HUD has been cut 63% in 25 years??? Then we wonder why the US has such a homelessness "problem"

[lady raven]

48. Sweden

I've been told that Sweden has the most comprehensive, highest quality health care in the world and that it's free. This was about 8 years ago, but I doubt it would change much since then. I don't know much else other than what I was told, but it was from a source I trust.

[SOL]

49. Cuba

I think everyone has forgotten that Cuba's healthcare is the envy of all of South America.