Good movie review of "Sicko"

Eric5273 · #1 07-11-2007, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound

So where's the savings from nationalizing the private health care companies?

Looks like they need to raise taxes...

Gee... I wonder why there aren't more doctors? Could it be the market, i.e. a complete and total lack of incentive for anyone to become a doctor?

You do enjoy shooting yourself in the foot, eh?

Did you even look at the graphs I posted?

Most of the countries have far more doctors than we do, with France having 50% more per capita.

As for savings, the US spends by far the most money on health care of any country in the world. I personally spent $4600 last year so I can have lousy HMO coverage for myself (I'm single, no kids or wife included), and I went to the doctor once for a checkup.

You want to see the savings? Here you go:

http://www.who.int/whosis/database/c...indicators=nha

Total per capita cost of health care (same countries as above):

Australia: $3,123.30
Canada: $3,037.60
Finland: $2,664.30
France: $3,464.00
Japan: $2,823.20
Spain: $1,971.20
Sweden: $3,532.00
United Kingdom: $2.899.70
United States: $6,096.20

Well, obviously Britain and Canada do not spend as much as France does, so they have fewer doctors. And here in the US, we spend double what these other countries spend, and our results are far inferior to ALL of these other countries.

Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births):

Australia: 4.57
Canada: 4.63
Finland: 3.52
France: 3.41
Japan: 2.80
Spain: 4.31
Sweden: 2.76
United Kingdom: 5.01
United States: 6.37

Life Expectancy:

Australia: 80.62
Canada: 80.34
Finland: 78.66
France: 80.59
Japan: 82.02
Spain: 79.78
Sweden: 80.63
United Kingdom: 78.70
United States: 78.00

So rather than argue about this, let me just ask you this: If we spend so much more than all of these other countries (more than double some of them), then why are our results far worse than all of them? What is your theory?

rebound · #2 07-11-2007, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Did you even look at the graphs I posted?

Most of the countries have far more doctors than we do, with France having 50% more per capita.

Well, obviously Britain and Canada do not spend as much as France does, so they have fewer doctors. And here in the US, we spend double what these other countries spend, and our results are far inferior to ALL of these other countries.

hey - don't get bitchy at me. Here's what you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

If they had enough funding to hire enough medical personel, then there would be no waits for anything. The simple statistic to look at is number of doctors per capita. Regardless of the system (socialized or privatized), if there are higher numbers of doctors per capita, then waits will be less or non-existant. Same goes for other statistics like number of available hospital beds. If there are only a limited number, then there will be waits. If there are enough available, no waits.

So then I says:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound

Gee... I wonder why there aren't more doctors? Could it be the market, i.e. a complete and total lack of incentive for anyone to become a doctor?

What's hard to understand about that?

rebound · #3 07-11-2007, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound

hey - don't get bitchy at me. Here's what you said:

So then I says:

What's hard to understand about that?

Right back at 'cha.

Eric5273 · #4 07-11-2007, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

So rather than argue about this, let me just ask you this: If we spend so much more than all of these other countries (more than double some of them), then why are our results far worse than all of them? What is your theory?

bjo · #5 07-11-2007, 05:24 PM

Eric, if you spent $4600 last year just for HMO coverage and went to the doctor only once, you got ripped off. When I wasn't under my wife's PPO, I was paying $80/month for basic health insurance (assurant health) with a 2k max out of pocket. I was on that plan for almost a year and never made any visits. If I needed to I would pay the office fee.

In our economy there are other, cheaper options.

Eric5273 · #6 07-11-2007, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjo

Eric, if you spent $4600 last year just for HMO coverage and went to the doctor only once, you got ripped off. When I wasn't under my wife's PPO, I was paying $80/month for basic health insurance (assurant health) with a 2k max out of pocket. I was on that plan for almost a year and never made any visits. If I needed to I would pay the office fee.

In our economy there are other, cheaper options.

I paid $900 last year for car insurance, and I didn't make any claims. One could say I got ripped off there as well. That is the way insurance works. They are there to make a profit. Most people get "ripped off". If that wasn't the case, then they would not make any profit and would be out of business. Unfortunately, I cannot predict how healthy or unhealthy I will be in the future. I could get cancer or cut off my fingers like the guy in the movie, and I want to be sure that I am properly cared for, although after watching that movie, I wonder if having the insurance will even make much of a difference.

bjo · #7 07-11-2007, 05:59 PM

I don't know about NY, but in Texas it is mandatory to have auto insurance. Even if you didn't make a claim, you have to pay for it.

Besides, having health and car insurance is a good thing. You never plan on needing it, but its nice to know you have it when you do.

Eric5273 · #8 07-11-2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjo

I don't know about NY, but in Texas it is mandatory to have auto insurance. Even if you didn't make a claim, you have to pay for it.

Besides, having health and car insurance is a good thing. You never plan on needing it, but its nice to know you have it when you do.

Exactly my point. As for auto insurance, it is only required to have very minimal liability insurance. You don't have to get collision to cover damage to your own vehicle. But I would imagine that most X5 owners pay the extra money and do get collision and probably also get extended liability to cover their assets. And most years, you do get "ripped off".

How about life insurance. Now there is a kind of insurance that you hope to never make a claim for.

My point is that it would be nice if we didn't need to have insurance and if such services were provided profit-free by the government. We could all pay into a pool to cover everyone, and if there was a surplus one year, instead of that money going into the pocket of insurance company executives, it would be carried over to the next year and we would have lower taxes the next year.

bjo · #9 07-11-2007, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Exactly my point. As for auto insurance, it is only required to have very minimal liability insurance. You don't have to get collision to cover damage to your own vehicle. But I would imagine that most X5 owners pay the extra money and do get collision and probably also get extended liability to cover their assets. And most years, you do get "ripped off".

How about life insurance. Now there is a kind of insurance that you hope to never make a claim for.

My point is that it would be nice if we didn't need to have insurance and if such services were provided profit-free by the government. We could all pay into a pool to cover everyone, and if there was a surplus one year, instead of that money going into the pocket of insurance company executives, it would be carried over to the next year and we would have lower taxes the next year.

Fixed that for you.

Sigh.. With car insurance, it is a numbers game, but when you need it aren't you glad to have it? Have you ever had to file a claim? Life insurance is a gamble, but if you have a family with a wife a 2 kids, then pass away, wouldn't you feel comfortable knowing that they will have some financial support?

Socialized medicine sounds good in theory, but IMO not really practical.

rebound · #10 07-11-2007, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

So rather than argue about this, let me just ask you this: If we spend so much more than all of these other countries (more than double some of them), then why are our results far worse than all of them? What is your theory?

I notice you never factor in population, lifestyle, and regulation. Interesting.

Of course, to people like you, you can directly compare anything, from any period. It's all completely comparable.

Marxist healthcare isn't the way to go. You don't believe it. Not shocking. Like I've said before - I truly hope you never have to believe me, because that would mean we've never gone down that nightmare road to marxist healthcare. If we do go down that road, you'll believe me within five years. Our healthcare system will be a completely broken, costly (yes, more than now), corrupt nightmare. But hey, you'll be happy because it's "free."