Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That article mentioned Sweden. Here's some info on how people in Sweden are adapting to having private options with their public system.
Quote:
Long queues are one of the main complaints for consumers of Sweden's public healthcare services, with patients sometimes forced to wait as much as fifteen times longer for treatment compared to private options.
Do Americans who are for a single payer system for all Americans recognize that things like this in Sweden would be even worse in a country of 300 million people? If Sweden was having issues with wait times with just their 9 million just imagine what things would be like with America's 300 million.
Do Americans who are for a single payer system for all Americans recognize that things like this in Sweden would be even worse in a country of 300 million people? If Sweden was having issues with wait times with just their 5 million just imagine what things would be like with Americas 300 million.
Ehm - economy of scale should make it easier to lower waiting time, not harder.
Most healthcare in Canada is publicly funded and provided by the private sector. Most people have private supplemental healthcare insurance to pay for things not covered by public healthcare.
It is my understanding that Canada does not prohibit private pay healthcare. Some of the provinces do however, prohibit or limit private healthcare.
That article mentioned Sweden. Here's some info on how people in Sweden are adapting to having private options with their public system.
Do Americans who are for a single payer system for all Americans recognize that things like this in Sweden would be even worse in a country of 300 million people? If Sweden was having issues with wait times with just their 9 million just imagine what things would be like with America's 300 million.
In the U.S. healthcare is rationed by a person's ability to obtain adequate healthcare insurance and/or the ability to pay out of pocket at the point of service.
As I understand it, the AMA rations MDs to ensure that a surplus does not dilute income potential.
Healthcare in the U.S. has been consolidating for the past 20 years. Hospitals use their profits to create and sustain branding to eliminate or acquire the competition and medical practices. Wall Street's involvement is not to be underestimated.
In the U.S. healthcare is rationed by a person's ability to obtain adequate healthcare insurance and/or the ability to pay out of pocket at the point of service.
And in Sweden, it is rationed by bureaucrats and the ability of the taxpayer to fund a politically run system.
Apparently to you, the dictates of politicians are holy, and individuals deciding for themselves is evil.
Quote:
As I understand it, the AMA rations MDs to ensure that a surplus does not dilute income potential.
You understand incorrectly. The federal government, thanks to failed "hillarycare" started rationing funding for teaching university hospitals, in an effort to reduce the number of doctors, on the theory it would reduce overall costs. The AMA has little influence on the ability of someone to get into medical school.
Quote:
Healthcare in the U.S. has been consolidating for the past 20 years. Hospitals use their profits to create and sustain branding to eliminate or acquire the competition and medical practices. Wall Street's involvement is not to be underestimated.
That's because government regulations impose massive costs, preventing or discouraging price and efficiency competition in the markets.
It's the free market that has gotten the U.S. to the current situation.
Absolutely, 100% wrong. We do not have a free market. We have a very distorted market brought about by government interference. THAT is to blame for everything that's wrong.
Quote:
Hospitals use their profits to create and promote their brands to squash or acquire the competition.
Same, too, with grocery stores. Funny how you think that works.
Quote:
Hospitals use their profits to acquire medical practices and referral systems.
Perhaps you should try to understand why competition is limited, often by state governments.
Quote:
Patients are free to sue their MDs/hospitals on a whim.
And you vote for the very people who keep making this the order of the day - lawyers as politicians.
Quote:
Big Pharma is free to charge whatever they want for patented meds.
It is theirs, they invented it and market it. If you don't want it, don't buy it.
Scale decreases efficiency in providing individual services.
Not really, no.
In medicine, scale is what makes it possible for specialists to build higher proficiency. We had this very debate in my own (small) country, in fact - medical professionals would plateau, competence-wise, due to lack of patients within their specialized field. A really good cardiology radiologist needs to spend X number of hours looking at chest imagery (stop that giggling) per day, or he stops progressing. If the cardiology patient pool isn't big enough to allow him to do that, treatment efficiency suffers.
Scale also makes for efficiency - high-price items MRIs and radiation treatment facilities can be scheduled so as not to stand idle.
As for generalists - the friendly family sawbones fixing coughs and aches - scale makes no difference, of course.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
