Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLetter to the Editor:
Imagine health care working like DMV
Monday, July 20, 2009 | 2:03 a.m.
The other day my wife and I went to the Sahara Avenue office of the Department of Motor Vehicles. After a half-hour or so of waiting in line just to check in, we joined several hundred people waiting to be served.
Then, after another two-hour wait, we spent about 10 minutes with a friendly government employee until we were finished.
On that note, for those of you who want it, when you think “single-payer health care,” think “DMV.” Do you really want the government to run the health care system?
Discussion: 72 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Police: 3 arrested in officer’s death have gang ties
- Corrections officer with Metro killed in U.S. 95 crash
- System fails to catch contractor’s family tie with county
- Fontainebleau contractors say sales process is flawed
- Where to watch UFC 106
- UNLV and Southern Illinois will be guarded tonight
- Findlay guard Joseph scores 33, talks about UNLV
- Bishop Gorman takes Sunset Region title in win over Cimarron
- Fighters make weight, Dana White talks Rampage/Rashad
- Reid clears major health care hurdle, daunting weeks ahead
Blogs
The Kats Report
For props, Lewis Black needs only his manic delivery and torrid material (6 Comments)
Elsewhere
Sands China raises $2.5 billion in Hong Kong IPO (1 Comment)
Marquardt v. Sonnen scheduled for UFC 109
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Will a fourth consecutive title by Jimmie Johnson be good or bad for NASCAR? (4 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The Jet Stream: And then there were four
Top Chef Episode 12: On keeping it simple
Miech Again
Chilly start for Chace, but Stanback says he'll warm up (2 Comments)
- Live chat
- Tuesday, noon PST
- Chat with Krista Creelman
- Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question
Calendar »
- 22 Sun
- 23 Mon
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
- 26 Thu
-
The Four Tops at The Orleans Showroom
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
The Chase at Downtown Cocktail Room
Downtown Cocktail Room | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Lady Gaga album release party at Revolution Lounge
Beatles Revolution Lounge | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Food drive at Christian Audigier
Christian Audigier The Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Above & Beyond at Moon
Moon Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Mr. Pursley is simply parroting the tired old untruths about prospective health care. I wonder what his stake in the current sickness industry is. Those who would deny the rest of us a choice in the name of free-market enterprise, are themselves speaking against the very principles that they proclaim to follow.
Dan, you hit it spot on. The progressives are going to lose on this one. They haven't yet dumbed down our population enough to transform the best system in the world into socialized medicine which does not stand out anywhere in the world.
Hey Dan >>>>> You forgot to mention how long it took you to find a parking space under or over an hour. LOL!
Does it work like this in the USA, that you have to go to the DMV to fix your car business, perhaps its some special things that have to be done.
Over here across the pond, we do all our business refering to cars etc electronically.
Lets say I have bought a 2nd hand car of someone private, all I need to do is to log on to our vehicle registrations, write in the vehicles Nr plate details, write in my name and my personal ID nr, and its done, 2 days later I get the new papers. If I want to take the car off the road for a week or a month or whatever, I do just the same log on to the vehicle registrations, and click on the "take off road" box and its done, they automatically inform my insurance co, that is stopped, it only takes a minute or so.
llanquihue,
I am more than please with our present government run healthcare system, absolutely no problems at all.
This Friday I shall be going for a health check, and I can travel by train or bus or my own car. If I go by bus or train, I just show my letter from the hospital, and the travel is free, or if I use my own car, then I get mileage allowance
Swede:
You're telling us that there is a free lunch, after all. I guess they need to take that Nobel Prize away from Milton Friedman.
Mr. Pursley was what is called a walk-in customer, some of the things he had to do may have been done in another way such as online registrations, I made an appointment with a doctor I've never seen it took 6 weeks to see her, and an appoint with my regular doctor for a physical it took 7 weeks to see him, right here in the USA and Mr. pursley complains about a 2 hour wait when he shows up without an appointment imgaine if you could make appointments with the DMV it would have taken mere minutes for him to complete his business.
udderboda-your healthcare system in just fine until you get sick. If you need some major surgery with rehabilitation, say something that costs half a million, I bet you won't get it.
jib101: It shouldn't cost half a million. That's the point!
Here's a more accurate depiction -- imagine health care working like the VA.
Imagine health care working like it does today. I take my elderly mom to the doctor for a 9:45 appt. I of course have to take the morning off from work. We arrive 15 minutes early. At 10 I ask when we'll be seen. I'm told the doctor is behind. At 10:30 I ask when will we be seen. At 11:30 we are escorted to a small room where we wait another 15 minutes for a 5 minute cursory review by the doctor. Then I'm told my mom needs multiple tests that will require more days off from work for me and more waits in offices. And more rudeness by doctor's assistants and doctors. And huge bills!
Dear Mr. Pursley. It ISN'T working now!
There's a lot more waiting involved with US healthcare than with "socialized" medicine. Assuming you can even make an appointment and have filled out extensive insurance paperwork, there is the guaranteed 30 minutes sitting in a cubicle as various nurses and orderlies check your basic information and vital signs before you get your two minutes with a doctor. In New Zealand and England you usually go straight to the doctor's office and have closer to 10-15 minutes with the doctor. I don't think I've ever even seen a doctor's personal office in the United States.
At least the US healthcare system provides employment for a vast army of billing and accounts payable clerks. Patient paperwork in socialized medicine is simply name, age, address, and medical history. This leaves more employment for people who actually provide healthcare.
"Then, after another two-hour wait, we spent about 10 minutes with a friendly government employee until we were finished."
Try going to a private hospital emergency room and see if you get served within 2 hours. Try getting a same day appointment with a doctor within 2 hours. Getting served within 2 hours with 100's in front of you seems pretty good.
What many seem not to get is that reforming healthcare SAVES money over the long run.
So better health care, faster, cheaper, with the government in charge. Sign me up.
jlb101,
I had a friend who neede a pancreas transplant, cost about $55000 in the early 80S, he got it no problem. This is how our system works, if you get ill, need surgery, long time medication and care, you get it at no cost.
Believe it or not, this is how these healthcare systems work over here.
amandaireland,
Here the normal time with your consulting doctor is 30 minutes, gives time to talk and discuss the problems one has, and should any sample be needed like blood, its just down the corridor, in, sit down, roll up your sleeve, and its done. If I should need any medication, my doctor uses the internet, and by the time I get to the dispensery my medication is ready to take out. Cant understand why everybody is so worried about a Nat healthcare system.
It is important not to over react to the nature and extent of the health care issues in this country. With reasonable time and attention, health care can be improved without nationalizing it. It is in our interest to formulate legislation that will extend the protection of coverage to every American and fix existing health care system problems, while keeping health care privately based.
At present 85% of all Americans have health care coverage. About 15% are not covered, and of those who are not covered about 50% can afford coverage but choose not to obtain it. That means that about 23 million Americans require health care coverage who cannot afford it.
The Obama administration's health care plan calls for a public component and a massive outlay of 1 to 1.5 trillion dollars over the next ten years, although there is still uncertainty over the exact amount needed to fund the plan. To pay for this the Obama administration intends to raise taxes on many small business owners who create badly needed jobs for the economy. In addition to raising taxes on the upper income levels, the administration will also make significant cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, which means that health care for the elderly and poor will suffer. These are not improvements,rather serious degradations in health care for millions of the elderly and the poor.
What is needed instead of these massive expenditures and increased taxes, and reductions in coverage for those on Medicare and Medicaid, is legislation to fix the current problems in the existing medical care system: require all employers to carry minimum levels of insurance on their employees, eliminate pre existing condition restrictions, require portability of insurance coverage and allow for competition among insurers in different states. In addition, minimum levels of insurance coverage must be mandated for those who are unable to afford their own coverage. This should all be accomplished using private market solutions.
The expertise and quality of heath care within in the American system are excellent. However, costs for care have been escalating significantly, and there are still many who are not covered by health care insurance. While legislation is required to remedy these conditions, this can be handled within the structure of the private health care market, while retaining the level of care available to all.
For all of the single payer proponents, lets have them plus all of the government workers including the President, all Mediaid and all Medicare be in one plan with no funding from the general fund. Their system would have to survive on its own financially using existing government medical facilities. Extra taxes can be taken out of the government workers paycheck to help pay for it. Give this experiment 5 years before even talking about taking over the whole system. I think you will find that people will be paying directly for services and not using the "free" services.
A great source of facts on why Nevada needs health care reform here http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/stat...
A source for what President Obama proposes for health care reform with costs here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fy2010_key...
If government healthcare is so great, why is Congress exempt from it??? If it's good for the sheople, why isn't it good enough for them??? I think to show the American people how good it will be, they should be the first to sign up and lead the way. I guess Congress isn't as completely stupid as I thought... they are smart enough to make themselves exempt from OBAMACARE.
The DMV is invalid example. DMV is a State entity and your illustrious Governor Gibbons is in charge.
Pick a Federal Entity. Say the Armed Forces. Best in the world, I'm sure you'll agree.
Try another. How about the much maligned US Postal Service? It too, is the best in the world. In fact, all improvements are accomplished here, and we then help other countries emulate our equipment and systems. Cost? Sure, complain that the price of getting your hand addressed letter, personally picked up at your house in Pahrump and hand delivered to your uncle Andy in the mountains of Appalachia in a day or two, has gone up 2 cents. Despite handling billions of pieces a day and how often have you, in your lifetime, had a letter or postcard fail to reach its destination? On the other hand, did a privately run airline ever lose one of your bags?
Counteroffer: Anyone who doesn't believe government can run health care must surrender their VA medical benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, or federal government policy (if they work for the federal government). They will then have to seek insurance in the free market.
KillerB,
Imagine health care running like medicare.
All the people who like to warn us of the evils of national health care and tell us that it won't work conveniently ignore the fact that the current system doesn't work.
Houstonjac, for instance, points out that 85% of Americans have health insurance. He forgets to tell you that about 30% of the American people have health insurance provided by the government (SCHIP, Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA). There are 46 million on Medicare alone.
Add the 30% covered by the government to the 15% who can't get covered at all, and that means that the free market in medical care hes led to a situation where 45% of the American population can't get medical care from the free market.
This is the system people want to defend?
uddeboda
People are afraid of NHC because they are being bombarded with the spin of the current for profit providers who don't want anything to change, especially their profits. Bill Moyers had a show devoted entirely to a man who after 15 yrs in upper managment of a major insurer saw the light and is now telling it like it really is.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/071020...
People should inform themselves and then your representatives in congress as to what we want and need.
Have you heard of any other developed country who want to switch from their current system to ours? Canada? England? Australia? France? If ours is the BEST, why aren't they all clamoring to emulate us?
Let's say you need mega bucks worth of care. Many insurance companies give handsome bonuses to employees if they can find a reason to not pay. They found a way to not pay an $8000 bill of covered services for my grandson. There was the documented case of a women looking at some expensive treatments and they cancelled her insurance because they claimed she lied on her application. She forgot to mention that far in the past she once visited a dermatologist for a skin problem. Something totally unrelated to her current problem but an opening for the insurance company to cancel her. If you read your policy closely there are loopholes where they can refuse to pay for covered treatment. In my policy if I don't call the insurance company shortly after I enter the hospital they can refuse to pay. Get hurt and be in a coma for a week and these greedos can refuse payment because you didn't call. We need to close these loopholes that are only put in place to enhance insurance compant profits.
The governmental boogeyman the republicans are so afraid of already exists. The long waits, deferred treatments, etc. already exist. The 3rd party making decisions on YOUR health care already exists.
And that 3rd party looks at you as one thing only - a profit center. Not a patient. Their goal is to give you as little treatment as possible, and thus, save money. And as soon as you come down with something that they'll have to make big payouts on, they'll cut your coverage or drop you altogether. Because you cost too much. That simple.
How this model is considered ideal is beyond me. How can anyone even attempt to defend a corporation deciding your health care based on their profits?
Your insurance company owns your health already. They decide what you get, when you get it and how much you get. Unless you are a cash patient, the personal choice which the Cons claim they have now, simply does not exist.
Wake up people.
there are too many fat people in america. health care will never work here.
dear hippie liberals...
please...
put down the bong and join reality.
"How can anyone even attempt to defend a corporation deciding your health care based on their profits?
Your insurance company owns your health already. They decide what you get, when you get it and how much you get. Unless you are a cash patient, the personal choice which the Cons claim they have now, simply does not exist."
Welcome to the free-market club. The "Cons" want health care on a cash basis so that they will have choice. They know the current system doesn't work, but they also know that turning it over to bureaucrats will be worse.
JahReb
Wake up people!!
You will have to shout much much louder, because they are not hearing you.
stevem, Too many fat people in the USA,
Only 64% of the population are obese
"The "Cons" want health care on a cash basis so that they will have choice."
Um, you do know how much most treatments cost out-of-pocket, right?
Magically eliminating the entire health insurance industry won't drop prescription drug prices enough to make them affordable to most middle-class people
the only way it will work is if there are rules on who can receive healthcare. There are too many people who choose not to take care of themselves in anyway. just because you have a pre-existing or genetic error doesn't mean you have to stop making better decisions for yourself. If you choose to be irresponsible for your health, you shouldn't get a free lunch. So if a lifelong pack a day smoker develops lung cancer (a lifestyle choice they made) why should those who choose to take care of themselves be forced to fit the bill. We have the freedom to be unhealthy in this country, I know this, but if you libs don't watch it, the government will start imposing on you what you can and can't eat, how you can raise your kids, if you can smoke, they want total control of you. Be careful what you ask for... you are opening a can of worms you don't want.
Most health care is routine and minor. It should be paid for directly, in cash. Free-market benefits of lower cost, more access, and better quality would be realized. Insurance should be for major medical needs, and it should be like auto, life, and property insurance: not tied to a person's employment. Finally, we need a government plan to handle everything that can't be handled by individuals or insurance companies. (Doug, this might mean you.)
The contention that "Cons" are heartless and want everything to be "free market" is bogus. But that is apparently the fiction Libs want to nurture so they can pursue their goal of government control of our lives.
As for eliminating the "entire health insurance industry," how many jobs will be lost when the government "option" wipes out private insurers?
And making drug prices "affordable" for you will make many of them "non-existent" for everyone. Drug companies won't develop new (expensive) drugs without the prospect of profits to make it worth the risk and effort. And governments won't do it: look at the countries with government-run health care.
"And making drug prices "affordable" for you will make many of them "non-existent" for everyone. Drug companies won't develop new (expensive) drugs without the prospect of profits to make it worth the risk and effort."
And then we're right back where we are now - if you can't afford health care, you don't get health care. And if you die, so what? Plenty more grist for the mill.
"if you can't afford health care, you don't get health care."
In your mind, is there a limit on how much society should spend to keep you alive?
"In your mind, is there a limit on how much society should spend to keep you alive?"
Irrelevant to the matter at hand - I'm talking about health care in general.
Question: How much does a 30-day supply of Lipitor cost without insurance? How about a 30-day supply of Diovan? These are two very common medications used to treat high cholesterol and high blood pressure, and generics are not yet available for either one.
Would you believe each costs well over $200 a month cash? That's at least $2400 a year for one medication, $4800 for both.
How many people who take these medications (and there are literally MILLIONS of them) can pay cash for them every month?
So spending limits are irrelevant? Do you suppose that society has unlimited resources?
Doug,
"In your mind, is there a limit on how much society should spend to keep you alive?"
you answer:
"Irrelevant to the matter at hand.."
you're trying to have it both ways. on EVERY discussion on these boards about socialized medicine, you play up your own situation again and again as justification for complete government control.
Please answer the question.
"Please answer the question."
The question was irrelevant to the discussion - lazyfaire's statement dealt with changing the system to a "cas-and-carry". My response was specific to that statement.
Here is how the question is relevant:
If society has unlimited resources, then we don't need to make choices. We can have everything we want. You get all the health care you want at no cost to anyone.
If society has limited resources, then we need to make choices. That means setting priorities, evaluating cost/benefit, allocating resources, and doing without some things we want. If we decide all health care needs are the top priority, then we do with less of other things. But if we decide that other things are equal priority with health care, then we have to set limits on health care. That means rationing, either by decree of governments or insurance companies, or by the price mechanism of the free market.
If you think the question is irrelevant, then you must believe the first possibility to be true. If you believe that, then you only make yourself irrelevant.
Douglas,
My neighbour is taking Lipitor, 40mgs, just how many I dont know, but here they cost 30x40mgs $68, but with a maximum of $240 a year for medication, on the Swedish health care system.
Doug,
Sweden is the exception to the rule. They have unlimited resources, so they can have everything they want. I suggest you look into moving there. Or Iceland, which you cited in another thread as having the highest living standards in the world.
"I suggest you look into moving there."
*eyeroll* Yes, that's the solution. Everyone with chronic health problems should just renounce their citizenship and leave the country. Then this will be a glorious paradise.
You are still avoiding the question.
"You are still avoiding the question."
You mean that dodge you put up about spending limits?
I won't answer it until you answer mine directly - how do people who can't afford the $200 a month for a medication like Lipitor or Diovan survive under the system you propose?
Sweden average tax rate is the 2nd highest in Europe.
Also Sweden has a problem with wait times for surgey which can be over 3 months.
It is one of the reasons why peolpe still have private insurance because they do not want to with the physical pain while waiting for treatment.
Doug,
u dismiss lazyfaire's question as irrelevant, because u disagree with a fundamental tenet of his opinions.
he (as do I and SgtRock) happen(s) to live in the REAL world. (as opposed to the magical fairyland where obama's government can wave a wand and fix all of mankind's problems with government spending - WITHOUT creating more problems.)
many of us are on record stating that with your very specific situation, something SHOULD be done to provide u with a safety net. HOWEVER, that does NOT justify completely dismantling the free market component of our heath care system, and recklessly spending untold trillions of dollars of our children's money.
"how do people who can't afford the $200 a month for a medication like Lipitor or Diovan survive under the system you propose?"
From my previous post: "Finally, we need a government plan to handle everything that can't be handled by individuals or insurance companies. (Doug, this might mean you.)"
Now, your turn.
Okay you want an answer?
It's about PROPER allocation of resources. Yes, resources are limited - but we have to redifine our priorities. I would prefer rational rationing (where cases are treated based on urgency of need, such as the case on most organ donation lists) as opposed to irrational rationing (where the ability of a person to pay supercedes the critical nature of their condition).
The system as it exists now is irrational - it's about the bottom line. Doctors don't practice medicine, they practice debate with insurance bean counters who say that treatment X isn't covered even though the doctor believes treatment X is the best course of action for the patient's quality of life.
It's also about efficiency - is it a better use of limited resources to assist an uninsured person with getting a prescription for high blood pressure, or to wait until they have a heart attack and then pay 10 times the cost for a worse outcome?
As long as Republicans don't run health care the way that Jim Gibbons runs Nevada DMV, I think I would be very happy with a single payer system.
Thank you for answering the question. If I understand you correctly, "rational" rationing is done by government bureaucrats (who are impartial and all-knowing, hence, rational), and "irrational" rationing is done by either the person paying for and receiving the care or an insurance company (who are not impartial or all-knowing, hence, irrational).
I look at it this way (compliments to Milton Friedman): When people allocate their own resources for their own benefit, they will ensure that they receive the most benefit for the least cost, so resources are allocated efficiently. When the government allocates other peoples' resources for still other peoples' benefit, no one cares about costs or benefits, so resources are mis-allocated and wasted. When insurance companies allocate their policyholders' resources, they care about costs, but not about benefits. Using your terms, I would call the first instance "rational" and the second and third "irrational."
"If I understand you correctly, "rational" rationing is done by government bureaucrats"
That pretty much proves you DON'T understand what I'm saying.
"Rational" rationing is like triage - you treat the most critical cases first, regardless of all other factors. Transplant lists work like this - those who are in the most urgent need are pushed to the front of the line over those whose condition is less serious.
"Irrational" rationing looks at the ability to pay for the treatment with little regard for all other factors (including urgency). Again, the bottom line controls and creates a situation where those with critical need are tossed aside because they can't pay. Remember, nearly 2/3 of all individual bankruptcies in this country are due to medical bills.
doug, don't waste your fingers on these selfish people. if they ever get national health care they'll love it.
You are applying the terms "rational" and "irrational" as value judgments. Whose judgment is rational? Who judges the need and does the pushing? Government bureaucrats. I understand what you're saying better than you do.
I apply your terms as reflective of the efficiency of the allocation of resources. Efficient use of resources raises standards of living. I think that makes it rational. Inefficient use is irrational.
u bet we will!!
just like we love how obama kept the unemployment percentage below 9% with his wonderful "stimulus" package!!!
"Whose judgment is rational? Who judges the need and does the pushing? Government bureaucrats."
Show me in the bill text where it says that.
This "government between you and your doctor" crap was old in 1994, and so far there has been NO evidence that it's true. All I hear are the same tag lines that were bandied about back then.
In other words - show me SPECIFICALLY where it says that or shut up.
I thought we were talking about the organ donation system. Sorry, I didn't know you switched to the health care legislation being debated in Congress. By the way, who does determine the priorities and make the decisions in the organ donation system?
Would you have Milton Friedman shut up, too? (I know he's dead.) Maybe we should burn his books. Then you could live in blissful ignorance of economic realities.
"By the way, who does determine the priorities and make the decisions in the organ donation system?"
The doctors make the determination - there's a rubric they all use to determine a person's "need" with respect to an organ. The more critical your case, the further up the line you go.
And you keep bringing this back to "economic realities". In other words, let's talk about cold and hard numbers instead of human beings that those numbers stand for because it goes down the gullet easier.
I've tolerated your slurs on my sense of values because I thought you might learn something. But you insist on remaining ignorant. Ignoring economic realities causes human suffering. Your way will cause more human suffering than my way. The only gullet you are concerned with is your own.
"But you insist on remaining ignorant. Ignoring economic realities causes human suffering."
And putting "economic realities" before HUMAN LIVES is horrific.
You don't like me? Fine. I don't like you either. Look up "sophistry" in the dictionary - you certainly have THAT style down.
"This "government between you and your doctor" crap was old in 1994, and so far there has been NO evidence that it's true. All I hear are the same tag lines that were bandied about back then."
I will offer a scenario.
Lets say starts this government health insurance program to cover people with kidney problems for drugs, dialysis and kidney transplants. The government forms this policy that is very strict and really could care less what the doctors say or how the patient feels. It is a cold hard calculating program.
Nah....the government would never do something like that.
"The government forms this policy that is very strict and really could care less what the doctors say or how the patient feels. It is a cold hard calculating program."
Considering the current system is a cold, hard and calculating program as well as a greedy one, I'll take my chances.
An old axiom comes to mind: "A bad solution now is better than a good solution 5 minutes from now if you're going to run out of air in 4 minutes."
"Look up "sophistry" in the dictionary"
Sophists, according to DouglasDemocrat:
Milton Friedman
F.A. Hayek
Ludwig Von Mises
Adam Smith
Ayn Rand
I would be honored to be in their company.
"Considering the current system is a cold, hard and calculating program as well as a greedy one, I'll take my chances."
You are on Medicare.
You got what you are wishing for.
Yet, you bitch about what they are and will do to you.
Yet, you want others to get that crap,too.
I guess misery loves company.
"Yet, you bitch about what they are and will do to you."
No.
I have explained it a dozen times. I'm done explaining it.
You don't get it. You never will.
As Republican after Republican told me after the 2004 election: elections have consequences.
We won. You lost.
Sgtrock,
Stop telling lies about Sweden. I live here and know how our health care system works, and waiting times are usually well under 1 month even for complicated surgery, and for more common problems, I can get to see my doctor within a day or two. You are wrong when you say that more and more people have private insurance, completely wrong. Some unions do however have a clause stating that they can get some form of medical treatment, but this is not necessary with our system, as everybody is covered, even visitors.
uddeboda
Forget it - Rock thinks his knowledge is superior to everyone else's about everything. Never mind that you're living it and experiencing it - he read about it somewhere and that makes him more of an expert (which of course he is - an expert at reading books about stuff).
"Stop telling lies about Sweden"
"Rock thinks his knowledge is superior to everyone else's about everything"
I cite experts who study, research and publish their findings.
So you can call them liars if you want to. You can call them superior if you want. You should write them an email and tell them off.
Like this, "waiting times are usually well under 1 month even for complicated surgery"....this is one person's personal experience as oppose to citing an actual study.
This statement has problems, too. "You are wrong when you say that more and more people have private insurance, completely wrong" Here he is making up stuff. I never said that more and more people were getting private insurance in Sweden. I said that some people in Sweden have private insurance which is a fact. uddeboda calls those people dumb because he can not understand why would buy private insurance.
Since uddeboda brought of the subject of more and more Swedes are buying private insurance (those dumb people). Here is an study that supports that.
http://www.swedishhealthcare.se/swedensh...
It says, "However, private insurance has risen by 50% from 2004 to 2007 as Swedish hospitals are now permitted to operate at a profit and Swedish companies begin to offer employees private health insurance policies."
And why do dumb people pay for private health insurance in Sweden?
This article says that those dumb people get quicker access to health care in Sweden.
http://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/S...
"Private health insurance is often provided by employers and may pay for faster access to treatment."
Here is a good report on Sweden health care written by Canadian Medical Association (you can call them dumb and superior, too). It talks about the rise of private health clinics and health services because the public or government ran ones can't keep with demand (rationing in other words).
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/article...
It says, "Earlier this year, the National Board of Health and Welfare found that nearly 45% of patients have longer wait times than are supposedly guaranteed by the health care system. This, despite a recent influx of 250 million Swedish kronor ($42 million) into reducing wait times." I guess the Sweden's Nation Board of Health and Welfare is dumb and superior, too.
Here is another good article written by a Ph.D who studies public policy and cites his findings (don't worry he is liar and the people his cite are liars too).
He talks about the nightmare stories of health care rationing in Sweden.
http://www.jpands.org/vol13no1/larson.pd...
Here is another story from Bloomberg (Liars and superior people, too).
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...
It says, "Waiting times for medical care in Sweden are the longest in Europe, according to the Health Consumer Powerhouse, which analyzes health-care systems in the region. About 33,000 people had been waiting more than three months for surgery or other major treatments at the end of August, an increase of 43 percent from May, a report by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions showed."
Well done, Rock.
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/canadi...
http://www.pnhp.org/
sgtrock
I read the article written by Dr Larsson of N York, where else. Still he did only mention TWO cases of malpractice, and then he talks about medication being without subsidies, truely wrong, the expensive medicines are not expensive, as medication costs are reduced over a time until they cost nothing, and anyway, medication is much cheaper than in the USA