I agree with you that the current government run healthcare in the US so far has not been high quality. At least that is what I have seen and heard. Obama may have been able to make it better though. I think that with a clean start, without the interference from lobbyists and extremists, there was a chance to do it right in the US. You can take a step back and check ALL the systems in the world and compare the quality of care to the amount of pay and the problems each country has. Then find the best compromise.
I am not saying that things are perfect in Austria, but it is working very well. As I said, EVERYBODY has health insurance. EVERYBODY has the highest quality care available. There are NO waiting times. We have more doctors per patient here than you have in the US. Yes healthcare in Austria is expensive in international comparison, but it is still waaaay cheaper than in the US. So it is a compromise. The quality is undenyably good here. I have two MDs in my family and I personally have talked to several MDs with international experience that will confirm that. The care here is very good and people know that they will get the best care, not just the best care that they can afford. That is a big difference. I mentioned the story of the lymph nodes before that the US cancer specialist left in because the patient had not paid for them to be removed. "He was informed about the potential necessity for this and the consequences as well as the extra cost. He did not want to pay the extra cost, in stay the lymph nodes". In Austria a doctor would loose his license for that, or worse.
Idaho Will Sue
The only way Obama can improve anything is by absenting himself from it. I simply cannot comprehend how anything will be improved by adding an idiot.Skipjack wrote:I agree with you that the current government run healthcare in the US so far has not been high quality. At least that is what I have seen and heard. Obama may have been able to make it better though.
Skipjack wrote: I think that with a clean start, without the interference from lobbyists and extremists, there was a chance to do it right in the US.
And when we leave the farm we'll all go to sugar candy mountain where there are rainbows and unicorns and money grows on trees.
Skipjack wrote: You can take a step back and check ALL the systems in the world and compare the quality of care to the amount of pay and the problems each country has. Then find the best compromise.
This would be a good approach if the entire world was Japanese. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it.) the World lacks homogeneity, and as a result, methods that might work for one group of people will not necessarily work for another group of people.
Skipjack wrote: I am not saying that things are perfect in Austria, but it is working very well. As I said, EVERYBODY has health insurance. EVERYBODY has the highest quality care available. There are NO waiting times. We have more doctors per patient here than you have in the US. Yes healthcare in Austria is expensive in international comparison, but it is still waaaay cheaper than in the US. So it is a compromise. The quality is undenyably good here. I have two MDs in my family and I personally have talked to several MDs with international experience that will confirm that. The care here is very good and people know that they will get the best care, not just the best care that they can afford. That is a big difference. I mentioned the story of the lymph nodes before that the US cancer specialist left in because the patient had not paid for them to be removed. "He was informed about the potential necessity for this and the consequences as well as the extra cost. He did not want to pay the extra cost, in stay the lymph nodes". In Austria a doctor would loose his license for that, or worse.
Yes, your government would force a man to work whether he wanted to or not. I understand that, and yes, the person getting the free work benefits from the man being forced to work.
Things are not so simple in America. The Nation had this conversation with itself and for a time, the side of "all men being free", won. Nowadays, the side of "making other men our servants" is winning.
The issue of Health Care in Austria so far has not been woven into the framework of all other considerations, such as the slavery question. Likewise the fact that money is fungible, meaning what you don't spend on defense might be spent instead on Health Care. Another issue is the fact that the Government creates the Monopoly on Doctors, and therefore is greatly responsible for the problems arising for doing this.
Austria further benefits from advanced technology for which the research and development were created and funded outside of the Austrian system. Major Drugs and medications are created by the For profit American system, then used by all the other socialized systems in the world.
What I am getting at, is the possibility that the socialist systems rely on the Capitalist systems to do the heavy lifting, and couldn't even exist in their current state without having had the benefit of the Capitalist system.
Did the Socialist system develop Computer Aided Tomography? Magnetic Resonance Imaging ? Endoscopes ? Defibrillators ? Organ Transplants ?
It could be argued that the Socialist systems are doing with Medical equipment and procedures what China does with Movies and DVDs. Producing much cheaper knockoff copies (but just as good in quality) of what Movie companies invested millions of dollars to produce.
We spent between 8% and 10% (depending on who you ask) of our GDP on healthcare. That number has NOTHING to do with the defense spendings.Likewise the fact that money is fungible, meaning what you don't spend on defense might be spent instead on Health Care.
Sir Godfrey Hounsfield, GBDid the Socialist system develop Computer Aided Tomography?
Sir Peter Mansfield, University of Nottingham, England.Magnetic Resonance Imaging ?
Discovery of HIV, Luc Montagnier, Pasteur Institute, France
Aspirin-> Germany
First Thorax surgery: Sauerbruch, Germany.
he first successful human corneal transplant, a keratoplastic operation, was performed by Eduard Zirm in Olomouc, Czech Republic, in 1905.Organ Transplants ?
Pioneers:
Alexis Carrel, France
Peter Medevar, GB
First successful heart transplant: Christiaan Barnard, South Afrika
China is world leader in stem cell therapy now.
I could carry this list on an on.
The price of pharmaceuticals only makes about 20% of the US healthcare spendings. The rest is cost of MDs (mostly) and other rates. MDs in the US simply make 4 times as much as an Austrian MD. In return Austria has twice as many doctors per patient than the US.
I am suitably impressed. For the first time in a long time someone has actually responded to me in support of their argument with some facts!Skipjack wrote:We spent between 8% and 10% (depending on who you ask) of our GDP on healthcare. That number has NOTHING to do with the defense spendings.Likewise the fact that money is fungible, meaning what you don't spend on defense might be spent instead on Health Care.
Money is fungible. You can't separate what the government spends in one area from what it spends in another area.
Sir Godfrey Hounsfield, GBDid the Socialist system develop Computer Aided Tomography?
Sir Peter Mansfield, University of Nottingham, England.Magnetic Resonance Imaging ?
Discovery of HIV, Luc Montagnier, Pasteur Institute, France
Aspirin-> Germany
First Thorax surgery: Sauerbruch, Germany.
he first successful human corneal transplant, a keratoplastic operation, was performed by Eduard Zirm in Olomouc, Czech Republic, in 1905.Organ Transplants ?
Pioneers:
Alexis Carrel, France
Peter Medevar, GB
First successful heart transplant: Christiaan Barnard, South Afrika
China is world leader in stem cell therapy now.
I could carry this list on an on.
Now it only remains to be seen for me to look into them to see if they are accurate. ( Some of them do not jive with my recollection, but I forget things from time to time.)
We have a market based system. The value of the service is what the market will bear. Doctors are trained by Universities, and the States grant them licenses. In my opinion, the system intentionally restricts the supply of Doctors to increase the value of their marketability.Skipjack wrote: The price of pharmaceuticals only makes about 20% of the US healthcare spendings. The rest is cost of MDs (mostly) and other rates. MDs in the US simply make 4 times as much as an Austrian MD. In return Austria has twice as many doctors per patient than the US.
Skipjack wrote:Sir Godfrey Hounsfield, GBDid the Socialist system develop Computer Aided Tomography?
The Nobel people recognized them both. Furthermore, was EMI Central Research Laboratories part of the NHS?The first commercially viable CT scanner was invented by Sir Godfrey Hounsfield in Hayes, United Kingdom at EMI Central Research Laboratories using X-rays. Hounsfield conceived his idea in 1967,[6] and it was publicly announced in 1972. Allan McLeod Cormack of Tufts University in Massachusetts independently invented a similar process, and both Hounsfield and Cormack shared the 1979 Nobel Prize in Medicine.[7]
Also
The first CT system that could make images of any part of the body and did not require the "water tank" was the ACTA (Automatic Computerized Transverse Axial) scanner designed by Robert S. Ledley, DDS at Georgetown University.
Did some checking. My memory wasn't wrong. MRI was developed by Felix Bloch at Stanford and Edward Purcell at Harvard. Sir Peter Mansfield simply improved the design. He was a Physicist, not a Physician. He wasn't part of the Socialized Medicine system.Sir Peter Mansfield, University of Nottingham, England.Magnetic Resonance Imaging ?
It's in dispute.Discovery of HIV, Luc Montagnier, Pasteur Institute, France
Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier, whose roles in identifying the viral cause of AIDS have been disputed over the years, came together Friday to commemorate the 25th anniversary of their discovery with a global call to action.
Was Luc Montagnier part of the National Health Service in France, or an independent researcher?
I think you are missing the point. The point is NOT whether any of this was developed outside of America, but whether it was developed outside of the Socialized Medicine system. If it's developed prior to, or outside of, it doesn't count.Aspirin-> Germany
The Germans and the french may very well have discovered acetylsalicylic acid, but i've always been told that the Indians knew about willow bark, which they use for the same purpose. In any case, Chemical Asprin was developed back in 1860. Well before the Socialist stuff came along.
First Thorax surgery: Sauerbruch, Germany.
When ? Before or after Socialized Medicine ?
he first successful human corneal transplant, a keratoplastic operation, was performed by Eduard Zirm in Olomouc, Czech Republic, in 1905.Organ Transplants ?
Pioneers:
Alexis Carrel, France
Peter Medevar, GB
First successful heart transplant: Christiaan Barnard, South Afrika
China is world leader in stem cell therapy now.
I could carry this list on an on.
China is about the only thing you've got left, and much of China's advantage is more the result of China's willingness to do things that this nation doesn't do without controversy. I shouldn't be surprised to discover that they experiment on prisoners, and that is a MAJOR advantage in terms of research.
How strange. Why would Austria have so many more doctors (and hence a lower cost in a market based system) than the US. when doctors here make 4 times as much as Austrian doctors?The price of pharmaceuticals only makes about 20% of the US healthcare spendings. The rest is cost of MDs (mostly) and other rates. MDs in the US simply make 4 times as much as an Austrian MD. In return Austria has twice as many doctors per patient than the US.
Could it be that the US system imposes artificial restrictions on the creation of new doctors, thereby improving their marketability? (a theory which I proffered previously.)
Perhaps the solution to health care costs has more to do with creating more doctors (thus a competitive market) than it does with the government running it?
I assure you, had we twice as many doctors, health care costs would be much cheaper here.
That may be, but Hounsfield units are still the standard scale for the absorbtion coefficient of Xrays in medicine when used with CT- scanners.The Nobel people recognized them both.
That is simply an improvement, not a invention.The first CT system that could make images of any part of the body and did not require the "water tank" was the ACTA (Automatic Computerized Transverse Axial) scanner designed by Robert S. Ledley, DDS at Georgetown University.
He got the Nobel prize for it.Sir Peter Mansfield simply improved the design.
It is not!It's in dispute.
Gallo stole it from Montagnier. It is a well known fact.
Montagnier worked for the Pasteur Institute.
I am sorry, I cant follow your logic. I thought you meant people working and researching in countries with socialized healthcare, but clearly you mean something else. I honestly dont quite get what you mean though.I think you are missing the point. The point is NOT whether any of this was developed outside of America, but whether it was developed outside of the Socialized Medicine system.
In any case, I cant follow your logic. You clearly do not know how most medical research is conducted, do you?
Also, I could drive this list on for a very, very long time. Even if you were not to recognize this.
Anyway, it does not matter. I personally think that this medical "penis length"- comparison is completely pointless in this discussion.
I do think that it is quite possible that one of the reasons why you have to few doctors is that the studies are difficult and expensive. I have also heard that a lot of people in the US do not want to become MDs anymore due to all the lawsuits. Insurance against those make quite a bot of the cost of the US system. It is also worth noting that many foreign MDs come to the US to work there, because of the lack of qualified personell in the US, they are in high demand.
I do want to add though that the medical studies in Austria are considered pretty tough as well.
Who says that he put it up there himself? Also, why would he react like that?Perhaps some doctors don't want to be socialized. What's next? Forcing them to work over threat of imprisonment?
Of course private, self paying patients are always preferable. They get worse conditions than insured patients.
Most research is done by Universities under government grants. Most products are produced by for-profit companies. I guess i'm simply not conveying the point clearly enough.Skipjack wrote:That may be, but Hounsfield units are still the standard scale for the absorbtion coefficient of Xrays in medicine when used with CT- scanners.The Nobel people recognized them both.
That is simply an improvement, not a invention.The first CT system that could make images of any part of the body and did not require the "water tank" was the ACTA (Automatic Computerized Transverse Axial) scanner designed by Robert S. Ledley, DDS at Georgetown University.
He got the Nobel prize for it.Sir Peter Mansfield simply improved the design.
It is not!It's in dispute.
Gallo stole it from Montagnier. It is a well known fact.
Montagnier worked for the Pasteur Institute.
I am sorry, I cant follow your logic. I thought you meant people working and researching in countries with socialized healthcare, but clearly you mean something else. I honestly dont quite get what you mean though.I think you are missing the point. The point is NOT whether any of this was developed outside of America, but whether it was developed outside of the Socialized Medicine system.
In any case, I cant follow your logic. You clearly do not know how most medical research is conducted, do you?
It is not the only point of discussion. It is just the one you chose to respond to from the previous discussion. I think you've pointed out a far more interesting line of inquiry. That of the difference in the Numbers of Doctors in Austria and the U.S.Also, I could drive this list on for a very, very long time. Even if you were not to recognize this.
Anyway, it does not matter. I personally think that this medical "penis length"- comparison is completely pointless in this discussion.
I do think that it is quite possible that one of the reasons why you have to few doctors is that the studies are difficult and expensive. I have also heard that a lot of people in the US do not want to become MDs anymore due to all the lawsuits. Insurance against those make quite a bot of the cost of the US system. It is also worth noting that many foreign MDs come to the US to work there, because of the lack of qualified personell in the US, they are in high demand.
I do want to add though that the medical studies in Austria are considered pretty tough as well.
A lot of CANADIAN doctors are here for sure. I wonder why they don't stay in their NHS wonderland?
Yes, Lawsuits and Lawsuit insurance is a major problem for doctors in the U.S. One of my Doctor Friends tells me his malpractice insurance is $120,000.00 / year.
So if a lack of Doctors might be the result of Lawsuits and Lawsuit insurance, and the Lawsuits and Lack of Doctors are driving up the costs to unreasonable amounts, why is the solution to add 16 million more deadbeats to the system?
Why doesn't the healthcare plan address Tort Reform, Interstate competition, etc?
It's because Lawyers are MAJOR contributors to the Democrat party, and they will never do anything to offend them. The Democrats are truly silly people with no idea of how the world really works, and as a result of their nonsensical beliefs, they will enact ideas which have no hope of working, but allow them to think they've "done something."
Look up the trillion dollar "War on Poverty". For an example of a similarly horrendous Democrat failure.
He Does.Skipjack wrote:Who says that he put it up there himself?Perhaps some doctors don't want to be socialized. What's next? Forcing them to work over threat of imprisonment?
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/loc ... 3120.story
You're kidding right ? Many doctors would react like that if they thought they could get away with it. Obviously this doctor owns his own practice.Skipjack wrote:Also, why would he react like that?
I don't think you realize how ANGRY people are at what is perceived as an attack on our freedom and our rights. Doctors have been told that they will have to work harder for less money for the benefit of freeloaders.
Many Doctors are simply going to quit.
Because until now, the easiest solution to get out of your medical bills if you are uninsured was to sue your doctor. Most will try to settle out of court in order to avoid bad publicity and maybe even the loss of the license. It is a very easy thing to do. We do have these kinds of lawsuits in Austria as well, but waaaaaaay less than you do. Most of this has to do with the fact that most patients here actually like their doctors and have no over exaggerated bills to be angry about.So if a lack of Doctors might be the result of Lawsuits and Lawsuit insurance, and the Lawsuits and Lack of Doctors are driving up the costs to unreasonable amounts, why is the solution to add 16 million more deadbeats to the system?
High bills are always a reason for anger and animousity towards a person, even if this person did you good and wanted to help you.
As I said, my father is an MD and is at conferences all over the world. Among those conferences in the US. One of the topics recently was that US doctors are affraid of their patients. They dont trust their patients either.
Oh well, a single swallow does not make a summer.He Does.
There are plenty of idiots out there.
Deliberately spread missinformation.Doctors have been told that they will have to work harder for less money for the benefit of freeloaders.
Ridiculous assumption. Even if they wanted to, they cant afford to. They will still be paying back their university loans for a few more decades, or so.Many Doctors are simply going to quit.
Because Canada and Great Brittain have about the worst health care systems in the world?!A lot of CANADIAN doctors are here for sure. I wonder why they don't stay in their NHS wonderland?
So the RNLA is an organisation without members?It's because Lawyers are MAJOR contributors to the Democrat party, and they will never do anything to offend them.
Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer and a Rep as well.
I am somewhat confused where this idea comes from?
Anyway...
As I said, public healthcare can work very well and good doctors know to appreciate it. In fact most Austrian doctors are quite happy to be here. That even though our government is putting pressure on them a lot. My dad does complain about some required equipment that he has to get from time to time (like the new e- card equipment), or the cost of database software that is overly expensive due to unnecessary certification and beaurocracy associated with that.
That is the way it is. Still, he never thought about moving to the US and working there, even though he likes the US for a lot of reasons.
Skipjack wrote:Because until now, the easiest solution to get out of your medical bills if you are uninsured was to sue your doctor. Most will try to settle out of court in order to avoid bad publicity and maybe even the loss of the license. It is a very easy thing to do. We do have these kinds of lawsuits in Austria as well, but waaaaaaay less than you do. Most of this has to do with the fact that most patients here actually like their doctors and have no over exaggerated bills to be angry about.So if a lack of Doctors might be the result of Lawsuits and Lawsuit insurance, and the Lawsuits and Lack of Doctors are driving up the costs to unreasonable amounts, why is the solution to add 16 million more deadbeats to the system?
High bills are always a reason for anger and animousity towards a person, even if this person did you good and wanted to help you.
As I said, my father is an MD and is at conferences all over the world. Among those conferences in the US. One of the topics recently was that US doctors are affraid of their patients. They dont trust their patients either.
Doctors are afraid of patients because patients will sue over anything they don't like, and lawyers will take their case for a cut of the award.
(Usually 50% or more)
The Legal system in this country doesn't prevent this because it is very badly screwed up. Why is it so screwed up?
Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman appointed Federal Judges to the Nation's courts from 1932 to 1953. That's 21 years. Franklin Roosevelt kept trying to enact policies that existing courts would declare "Unconstitutional" and therefore Null. As a result, Franklin would only appoint Judges that agreed with him, which required them to be Nutball idiot judges. As a result, he severely damaged the Federal Judiciary, and through them, the Law Schools of the nation. (law schools thereafter being required to teach the new idiotic "living constitution" theory. )
The fallout of 21 years of Democrat Presidents is the current mess of a legal system, and many other problems which are caused by it. (Like excessively high malpractice insurance.)
This is true. The idiots managed to pass that health care bill, but there are also a few sensible men as illustrated by that Doctor Posting that message on his office door.Skipjack wrote:Oh well, a single swallow does not make a summer.He Does.
There are plenty of idiots out there.
Skipjack wrote:Deliberately spread missinformation.Doctors have been told that they will have to work harder for less money for the benefit of freeloaders.
It is NOT misinformation. It is absolutely true. How can you deny the obvious truth of it? Which of the following are not true?
1. Doctors will have to work harder.
2. Doctors will receive less money.
3. Doctors will have to treat free loaders.
Not the older ones. Just the younger more inexperienced one's.Skipjack wrote:Ridiculous assumption. Even if they wanted to, they cant afford to. They will still be paying back their university loans for a few more decades, or so.Many Doctors are simply going to quit.
Skipjack wrote:Because Canada and Great Brittain have about the worst health care systems in the world?!A lot of CANADIAN doctors are here for sure. I wonder why they don't stay in their NHS wonderland?
And they are part of the Anglo-sphere. What makes you think this part of the Anglo-sphere is going to do better than Canada or Britain? Our idiots are just as stupid as their idiots!
In comparison to the Trial Lawyers association, yes. The lawyers who do the suing, or as Paul Harvey used to refer to them, the "Sewers" are pretty much all Democrats. (John Edwards is a prime example.) Republican Lawyers tend to be Prosecutors, or Contract lawyers.Skipjack wrote:So the RNLA is an organisation without members?It's because Lawyers are MAJOR contributors to the Democrat party, and they will never do anything to offend them.
And what a mess he made of things. 620,000 people killed. Federalism Destroyed. Suspension of Habeas Corpus. Economic wreckage that still persists today. All for an ego driven pissing contest! It was the worst Disaster in US history. Lincoln is the only Republican President responsible for a catastrophe on the same scale as the Democrats.Skipjack wrote: Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer and a Rep as well.
I am somewhat confused where this idea comes from?
The American Civil War was not Lincoln's Responsibility. Had the South avoided firing the first shot it might have all passed without incident.
Lincoln gave orders that Union Troops were not to initiate hostilities.
Things might have passed for a few years with both sides glaring at each other and then the storm might have blown over. Maybe.
But anger was high on both sides. And the future of agricultural mechanization was only a glimmer.
If anyone is to blame it is Jefferson. He put ideas in men's heads.
Lincoln gave orders that Union Troops were not to initiate hostilities.
Things might have passed for a few years with both sides glaring at each other and then the storm might have blown over. Maybe.
But anger was high on both sides. And the future of agricultural mechanization was only a glimmer.
If anyone is to blame it is Jefferson. He put ideas in men's heads.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
There will be more people with health insurance that means more clients. That means more work. I dont think that this is a bad thing. More work is always good.1. Doctors will have to work harder.
US doctors are overpaid as it is. If there were less lawsuits they would need even less pay. Still, overpaid.2. Doctors will receive less money.
Nevertheless, I dont get where the idea that they will have to work for less money comes from. Explain!
There are less of those than you might think and they are already benefitting from the current system that you have in the US (like it or not).3. Doctors will have to treat free loaders.
With the new system people that are working hard, but for some reason still can not get health insurance, will be able to get insurance. They will be new customers for doctors. More customers can not be bad...
LOLThis is true. The idiots managed to pass that health care bill, but there are also a few sensible men as illustrated by that Doctor Posting that message on his office door.
Noone will give up a well paid job that they studied for for quite some time, because they are upset about a new law, that to the best of my believe wont have any affect (or a minimal) on their salaries. If anything it will reduce the danger of getting involved in a lawsuit, because a client cant pay his medical bills. Trust me they wont, or my dad would have quit his a loooong time ago. For your notice: He is old by now too...Not the older ones. Just the younger more inexperienced one's.
And you think that our idiots are less stupid than yours? Geee, we even import new idiots from certain countries in masses. The system is still working and is still stable. I dont think it is the idiots in the system that make or break it, but the idiots running it.And they are part of the Anglo-sphere. What makes you think this part of the Anglo-sphere is going to do better than Canada or Britain? Our idiots are just as stupid as their idiots!
And the lawyers that are sueing for Idaho are what kind of lawyers?The lawyers who do the suing, or as Paul Harvey used to refer to them, the "Sewers" are pretty much all Democrats.
I think sewers is a pretty good word though. Gotta remember that one
Which shows that reps are not infallable too. But then, you know, slavery is not a great thing, is it? I mean you are already sharpening your weapons about what you are calling "slavery for taxes" here. This clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what slavery really means. I guess you are one of those missing the "good ol' days in the south"...Lincoln is the only Republican President responsible for a catastrophe on the same scale as the Democrats.
Two doctors and 10,000 casualties. A very good thing. Because more work is always good.There will be more people with health insurance that means more clients. That means more work. I dont think that this is a bad thing. More work is always good.
Or how about something less traumatic:
A two week deadline for 100,000 lines of aerospace code: But I have a deal for you: you fly first.
Or how about we exactly match the number of doctors to the average patient load. Queueing theory says the lines get infinite. Of course with humans we will have some luck. Some will die before they can be accommodated. Reducing waits and costs.
The profit motive gives the system reserve margins. Cut those margins enough and the system collapses.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.