Is Social security In USA as bad as "sicko" shows?

[InkofDeath]

Doesn't Canada have one of the top 5 best Health Care systems in the world, or am I misinformed?

 

 

 

And the movie portrays the main problems that need to be fixed in the American health care system as soon as possible.

[Ambassadar]

I would be curious to hear someone from Canada's take on this.

 

 

 

"Queuing

 

 

 

Queuing is a controversial measurement, not least because there may be many explanations for the queuing, many of them medically justifiable, so that aggregate queuing figures may conflate those whose waiting poses no health or other risk with those whose health may be impaired or may suffer pain while waiting.

 

 

 

That being said, in a system in which health services are free at the point of consumption, queuing is the most common form of rationing scarce medical resources. And since patient satisfaction plays no part in determining incomes or other economic rewards for health care providers and administrators in the public system, patients' time is treated as if it has no value. There are no penalties in the system for making people wait.

 

 

 

It is thus not surprising that the measures of queuing now available, including the Fraser Institute's annual report card, "Waiting Your Turn,"9 indicate a lengthening of queues for a great many medical services, including access to some specialists, diagnostic testing, and surgery. What is surprising is that those administering the system must rely on external studies, not having implemented modern information systems to monitor waiting periods and identify those who have had an excessive wait.

 

 

 

I would also like to point out that while we talk a lot about queuing in the Canadian health care system, and we talk as if we know how many people are waiting and how long they wait, in fact we do not know this at all. Ironically for the largest single program expenditure of governments in Canada, we know astonishingly little about what we get for our money. As my colleague David Zitner, Director of Medical Informatics at Dalhousie University in Halifax and Health Policy Fellow at my Institute, likes to say, no health care institution in Canada can tell you how many people got better, how many people got worse, and how many people's condition was left unchanged by their contact with their institution. None of them can give you an answer. No one knows how many people died while waiting for needed surgery. No one knows how many people are queuing for any particular procedure or how many people cannot find a family doctor. Mostly we have guesswork, anecdote, and subjective measures, not objective ones (such as the Fraser Institute reports mentioned earlier). We do not even know how long someone has to wait before he or she has waited "too long," because the health care system does not establish official standards for timely care--although presumably even Mr. Romanow would agree that someone who died while waiting for care may have waited a tad too long.

 

 

 

All of this is due, as I argued in a major paper I co-authored in 2002,10 to the conflict of interest at the heart of Medicare, in which the people who are the ultimate providers of health care services in Canada are also the people charged with regulating the system and quality assurance. Since no one is a competent judge of his or her own performance, and no one likes to be held accountable for his or her work, the result is that the health care system simply does not set tough standards or collect the information that would allow us to hold the system's administrators accountable for their stewardship of our health care and the billions of dollars that they spend. The people who would collect the information are also the people whose performance would be assessed if useful information were made available. There appears to be no legal obligation on governments actually to supply the services they have promised to the population as their monopoly supplier of health insurance. This is an appalling double standard, as no responsible regulator would permit a private supplier of insurance to behave in this way, as a recent background paper for my Institute makes clear.11

 

Access to Doctors and Medical Technology

 

 

 

Aggregate numbers of doctors per 1000 population do not give a good picture of access to physicians in, say, cities versus rural areas within countries, nor of proportions between scarce specialists and plentiful general practitioners, nor of the quality of medical training. On the other hand, it is a crude measure of the overall state of access to qualified practitioners.

 

 

 

On this measure, Canada performs badly. In 1996, this country had 2.1 practicing physicians per 1000 population, while of the comparison group only two (Japan and the UK) had a lower ratio: Australia (2.5), France (3.0), Germany (3.4), Japan (1.8), Sweden (3.1), Switzerland (3.2), UK (1.7) and U.S. (2.6). Thus, even in countries with lower per capita spending than Canada, there is greater access to physician services.

 

 

 

With respect to medical technology, Canada's performance is also unimpressive. In a study12 comparing Canadians' access to four specific medical technologies (computed tomography [CT] scanners, radiation equipment, lithotriptors, and magnetic resonance imagers [MRI]), with access by citizens of other Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, Canadians' access was significantly poorer in three of the four. Despite spending a full 1.6 percent of GDP more on health care than the OECD average, Canadians were well down the league tables in access to CT scanners (21st of 28), lithotriptors (19th out of 22), and MRIs (19th out of 27). Moreover, access to several of these technologies worsened relative to access in other countries over the last decade. "

 

 

 

The article is pretty long but if you want to read the entire thing here it is. I found it informative and insightful.

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/hl856.cfm

[BlueTear]

I agree, although I think in principle it would be lovely if everyone could have access to a perfect healthcare system regardless of financial background, in reality the costs of running such a system through the government are massive, and terribly inefficient.

... that an opinion based on analyzed facts and comparisions, or a knee-jerk ideological reaction stemming from the traditional american view of socialism?

 

 

 

As far as I know, after poking around wikipedia, in Sweden - highest taxes in the world - the state pays for far more of the healthcare than in the US, yet we spend a lower % of our GDP on healthcare. Higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate aside.

[Celt23]

FICA is slowly becoming obsolete IMO, and this generation is going to be paying hugely since the 'baby boomer' generation is starting to retire, which is a lot of money for social security. So poor us, lucky them.

 

 

 

There really hasn't been any other good solution that's been thought up yet IMO, though.

[meol]

Here, you get a 5,5% off your pay check for obligatory health insurance. Paying that, all state health services (including emergency attention, medicines, operations and preventive healthcare) are completely free. Even so, the wealthiest normally attend private clinics and hospitals where they have to pay the full fees.

 

 

 

Overall, the system works pretty well. Although the bureaucracy tends to be astonishing, and the services aren't as efficient as they could be without state healthcare, our average life expectancy is even higher than the US's, the free-market heaven.

[tryto]

I'm from Canada.

 

 

 

We have people coming here to get free/extremely cheap medcare/pharmaceuticals, and we also have people from here going to the States for speedy care. Frankly, our care sucks. I guess you get what you pay for. Unfortunatly, we are also heavily taxed for this crappy care. I heard it usually takes several weeks-months to get a MRI. Most people here blindly think we have the best med care in the world, sadly this is not the case, places such as France are also free and are much faster/better.

[Rebdragon]

As far as I know, after poking around wikipedia, in Sweden - highest taxes in the world - the state pays for far more of the healthcare than in the US, yet we spend a lower % of our GDP on healthcare. Higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate aside.

 

How is that physically possible o-O? Do you guys just not ever get sick or something?

[Kill_Thomas9]

well, living in Norway i don't know... but when Moore made the movie, he edited out the parts from Norway, because people in the US wouldn't believe how it could be so good in Norway; a socialistic country =P we got as good as free health-care ^^

 

 

 

 

 

(of course, we pay a bit more in taxes, but the only thing that comes out of that, is that the richer pays more, while the poorer less, which is a good thing)

 

 

 

btw: did you know that only 10% of the US population live at the same standards as the average norwegian??

 

 

 

(yeah, I'm lucky as HELL to be born in the country i am)

 

 

 

Do the americans still think socialism=communism= devil?

 

 

 

Assuming that was a serious question, yes.

 

 

 

 

 

I do believe that healthcare should be free for everybody. If we have to raise taxes by a small amount, then so be it. At least people who have millions upon millions of dollars would have to pay more the people who make 26,000 a year, and can hardly afford money for rice to feed them selfs.

[Utopianflame]

I think that what we have in this country would be fine if the NHS was run more efficiently. I suppose we could also do to cut down on the so called 'post-code lottery' scenarios but in general it is pretty good. There are private healthcare optionsif people can afford and feel the need but the basic healthcare is there when needed.

 

 

 

Thats my opinion anyway.

 

 

 

But the whole problem with the NHS, is that becuase it's a government run organisation it hasn't got the incentive to be efficient like a profit making business would be.

 

 

 

Thats an awful lot to chalk up to one reason, and in this case it isn't all that significant.

 

 

 

A great many of the current problems with the NHS come from the fact it is constantly being changed and reorganised by polticians who like to appear as if they doing something, take alook at how many regional body systems weve been through over the last decade. If you constantly restructure any organisation you cause yourself no end of problems.

 

 

 

A corrupt audit office doesnt help matters much either.

[das1330]

well, living in Norway i don't know... but when Moore made the movie, he edited out the parts from Norway, because people in the US wouldn't believe how it could be so good in Norway; a socialistic country =P we got as good as free health-care ^^

 

 

 

 

 

(of course, we pay a bit more in taxes, but the only thing that comes out of that, is that the richer pays more, while the poorer less, which is a good thing)

 

 

 

btw: did you know that only 10% of the US population live at the same standards as the average norwegian??

 

 

 

(yeah, I'm lucky as HELL to be born in the country i am)

 

 

 

Do the americans still think socialism=communism= devil?

 

 

 

Assuming that was a serious question, yes.

 

 

 

 

 

I do believe that health care should be free for everybody. If we have to raise taxes by a small amount, then so be it. At least people who have millions upon millions of dollars would have to pay more the people who make 26,000 a year, and can hardly afford money for rice to feed them selfs.

 

 

 

The problem is that tax rates would not be raised by a small amount. studies conducted by various government agencies into the cost of socialized health care put the cost EXTREMELY high. Current US income tax ranges from 10% to 35%, with the median falling around 16%. With a socialized health care system, to pay for it through income taxes, the median income tax would have to raise to something like 35-40% Just for health care. Its just too expensive to cover every one, and things like wait times and inefficiency that come with government owned hospitals jack up the price massively. Theres still a lot of holes in the system, but completely government controlled health care is waaay too expensive.

[BlueTear]

How is that physically possible o-O? Do you guys just not ever get sick or something?

Perhaps our socialist state-run system is not nearly as ineffecient as sheer ideology would suggest?

 

 

 

(Not saying it doesn't need a fair bit of improvement, quite frankly, considering what we pay in the form of taxes it should be even better, but at the same time... Considering what we are getting, we can't be losing that much money to ineffeciency compared non-socialist healthcare models.)

[assassin_696]

I agree, although I think in principle it would be lovely if everyone could have access to a perfect healthcare system regardless of financial background, in reality the costs of running such a system through the government are massive, and terribly inefficient.

... that an opinion based on analyzed facts and comparisions, or a knee-jerk ideological reaction stemming from the traditional american view of socialism?

 

 

 

Analysed facts and opinions. I'm not American, and I used to lean towards the socialist side of things anyway. I just now know that free markets are more efficient than government run ventures. Not more equal, not fairer, just more efficient. And when I live in a country which spends billions upon billions every year on health and still runs a lacklustre health service, I'm starting to think at least a partial free market solution might be the way forward.

[Varda]

 

(yeah, I'm lucky as HELL to be born in the country i am)

 

 

 

Pretty good for you, since you feel lucky. You probably don't read the news here?

 

 

 

Sorry for the off topic:p

 

 

 

Anyway, here in Norway, to get psychiatric help, someone needs to say that you are suicidal, then you will get help on the day or so. Which kinda suck, I got the stamp "SUICIDAL" over me, even thought I have never been like that.

[dsavi]

 

...Why not try living in a European country that's socialist for a bit? You have to see both sides of things, you know. I could have paid 2,600 USD for this computer in Finland, but I chose 900 USD in America instead. Listen: It would be less expensive to fly to America and back and buy the computer (Or car or whatever) in America than it would be to stay put an get it in Finland, thanks to our healthcare.

 

 

 

You're grossly over-exaggerating the 'cost-increase effect' of socialist democracies like Finland. The only thing that makes things more expensive is taxation. Your scenario is so unrealistic I had to respond and do research on that.

 

 

 

I browsed a few finnish computer retailers online now, such as this one since you mentioned that, the new computers in Euro prices are very near to those I see for sale in the US, in the 500-$1000 price range on average. Where exactly did you see a computer costing $900 in the US while costing $2,600 in Finland?

 

 

 

The logic that "socialist welfare systems mean nobody can afford anything" has no justification. At most, costs can be slightly increased in nordic countries due to their geographical isolation from mainland Europe and shipping costs.

 

 

 

Apparently Dell doesn't sell home computers in Finland anymore, so I can't get you a quote. But the one in Finland actually was less powerful.

 

 

 

Maybe the price has gone down that much in a year, I don't know. But I remember researching computers in Finland and that is one of them I saw.

 

You're right, of course I picked the worst case. But the fact remains that these cases exist, and I brought up this example just to make a point.

[assassin_696]

I think that what we have in this country would be fine if the NHS was run more efficiently. I suppose we could also do to cut down on the so called 'post-code lottery' scenarios but in general it is pretty good. There are private healthcare optionsif people can afford and feel the need but the basic healthcare is there when needed.

 

 

 

Thats my opinion anyway.

 

 

 

But the whole problem with the NHS, is that becuase it's a government run organisation it hasn't got the incentive to be efficient like a profit making business would be.

 

 

 

Thats an awful lot to chalk up to one reason, and in this case it isn't all that significant.

 

 

 

A great many of the current problems with the NHS come from the fact it is constantly being changed and reorganised by polticians who like to appear as if they doing something, take alook at how many regional body systems weve been through over the last decade. If you constantly restructure any organisation you cause yourself no end of problems.

 

 

 

A corrupt audit office doesnt help matters much either.

 

 

 

Insignificant? Not at all, I think you're very much underestimating the power of the incentive. I agree that the politics doesn't help it much either though.

[Ambassadar]

Politics is just part of the government bureaucracy that makes it more inefficient. You can't just say "well if politicians didn't mess with the government run program." That's living in a fantasy world.

[InkofDeath]

I'm from Canada.

 

 

 

We have people coming here to get free/extremely cheap medcare/pharmaceuticals, and we also have people from here going to the States for speedy care. Frankly, our care sucks. I guess you get what you pay for. Unfortunatly, we are also heavily taxed for this crappy care. I heard it usually takes several weeks-months to get a MRI. Most people here blindly think we have the best med care in the world, sadly this is not the case, places such as France are also free and are much faster/better.

 

I think it depends on where you get your treatment. It took me 3 days to get a MRI, and CAT scan done, and with the test where they measure your brainwaves, ECG or something? And there was no rush on these. I live in the southern Ontario area, and everything is fast down here?

[insane]

I'm from Canada.

 

 

 

We have people coming here to get free/extremely cheap medcare/pharmaceuticals, and we also have people from here going to the States for speedy care. Frankly, our care sucks. I guess you get what you pay for. Unfortunatly, we are also heavily taxed for this crappy care. I heard it usually takes several weeks-months to get a MRI. Most people here blindly think we have the best med care in the world, sadly this is not the case, places such as France are also free and are much faster/better.

 

I think it depends on where you get your treatment. It took me 3 days to get a MRI, and CAT scan done, and with the test where they measure your brainwaves, ECG or something? And there was no rush on these. I live in the southern Ontario area, and everything is fast down here?

 

 

 

I also live in Southern Ontario and it took me over a month to get into a dermatologist. But yes, all the appointments with the dermatologist were free once I got in.

[angryjoe]

[hide]

I think that what we have in this country would be fine if the NHS was run more efficiently. I suppose we could also do to cut down on the so called 'post-code lottery' scenarios but in general it is pretty good. There are private healthcare optionsif people can afford and feel the need but the basic healthcare is there when needed.

 

 

 

Thats my opinion anyway.

 

 

 

But the whole problem with the NHS, is that becuase it's a government run organisation it hasn't got the incentive to be efficient like a profit making business would be.

 

 

 

Thats an awful lot to chalk up to one reason, and in this case it isn't all that significant.

 

 

 

A great many of the current problems with the NHS come from the fact it is constantly being changed and reorganised by polticians who like to appear as if they doing something, take alook at how many regional body systems weve been through over the last decade. If you constantly restructure any organisation you cause yourself no end of problems.

 

 

 

A corrupt audit office doesnt help matters much either.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Insignificant? Not at all, I think you're very much underestimating the power of the incentive. I agree that the politics doesn't help it much either though.

 

I agree with you that it is significant, however there are incentives.

 

What about just doing a good job in the hope of a promotion? Or even just do well hoping to get a good job in the private sector.

 

 

 

I know it isn't as black and white as that but I don't think that there is no incentive.

[assassin_696]

[hide]

I think that what we have in this country would be fine if the NHS was run more efficiently. I suppose we could also do to cut down on the so called 'post-code lottery' scenarios but in general it is pretty good. There are private healthcare optionsif people can afford and feel the need but the basic healthcare is there when needed.

 

 

 

Thats my opinion anyway.

 

 

 

But the whole problem with the NHS, is that becuase it's a government run organisation it hasn't got the incentive to be efficient like a profit making business would be.

 

 

 

Thats an awful lot to chalk up to one reason, and in this case it isn't all that significant.

 

 

 

A great many of the current problems with the NHS come from the fact it is constantly being changed and reorganised by polticians who like to appear as if they doing something, take alook at how many regional body systems weve been through over the last decade. If you constantly restructure any organisation you cause yourself no end of problems.

 

 

 

A corrupt audit office doesnt help matters much either.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Insignificant? Not at all, I think you're very much underestimating the power of the incentive. I agree that the politics doesn't help it much either though.

 

I agree with you that it is significant, however there are incentives.

 

What about just doing a good job in the hope of a promotion? Or even just do well hoping to get a good job in the private sector.

 

 

 

I know it isn't as black and white as that but I don't think that there is no incentive.

 

 

 

I know there exist incentives for individuals within the organisation, but because there is no overall profit incentive for the NHS as a whole (it's got government backing, so there's no real concern for it if it was to go under) it isn't very efficient.

 

 

 

I agree it's not black and white, I agree there exist various incentives for individuals to get an even higher paying job (paid for by taxes), but for the NHS as a whole I can guarantee that it is not as efficient as it would be if it was placed on the free market. The fairness of that is another issue though.

[dusqi]

The UK system isn't perfect. I've worked with people in the NHS and it is a horrible place to work in, full of unwritten rules and power struggles between individuals and departments, which mean that change is almost impossible and everything is inefficient.

 

 

 

However, as a 'user' - I couldn't imagine having to worry about health insurance. I find it ridiculous that the US expects normal people (with no medical knowledge) to understand and make good decisions about it. If someone is hurt, then just get them treatment!

 

 

 

It might be more inefficient to have health in the public sector, but I can live with that, safe in the knowledge that people aren't being denied treatment because they can't afford it.

[venomai]

I'm from Canada.

 

 

 

We have people coming here to get free/extremely cheap medcare/pharmaceuticals, and we also have people from here going to the States for speedy care. Frankly, our care sucks. I guess you get what you pay for. Unfortunatly, we are also heavily taxed for this crappy care. I heard it usually takes several weeks-months to get a MRI. Most people here blindly think we have the best med care in the world, sadly this is not the case, places such as France are also free and are much faster/better.

 

I'm also from Canada, and our care doesn't suck.

 

Sure, it's slow as hell, but it's free. If you are desparate for speedy service you can use a private clinic, like MedCan.

 

 

 

Ask any Canadian if they would rather the American health care system -- most would say no.

 

 

 

 

 

Here's a clip of Moore's documentary which he never showed. It's about Norway's way of living... Makes me want to move there. :lol:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ0B2xDzSgg