[scandium]

Originally Posted by Deathblow

Half of those "measures of quality" have nothing to do with access to healthcare. Last in the the leaving the doctors office with lingering questions? Last in weekend doctor's visits?

The measures in this study have everything to do with the quality of the healthcare and the public health as well. Its not a unique study, nor are its findings. If you look at any study that seeks to comprehensively measure the quality of healthcare and its cost, you will consistently find that its most expensive in the US, which despite that doesn't measure up well next to other industrialized countries - all of which have some kind of comprehensive national healthcare program. And I'm sorry but Medicare/Medicaid doesn't count as neither program has Universal access (which is a pillar of any national healthcare program). Not that they aren't helpful to the people who need them and qualify, just that when we're talking about national healthcare they don't meet fundamental criteria to be counted as such and are therefore not relevant to it.

What I've seen shows me that government funded healthcare are subject to constant waste and abuse. I would say that probably 50% of all the medicaid funded doctors visits are friviolus and really didn't warrant a doctors visit at all, but the fact that the bill is on the governement prompts many to come in for stuff that not even treatment worthy... waiting rooms are often packed with the insignificant and frivilous complaints and doctors constantly sorting thru what really warrents treatment and what's a waste of time. But heck even when the medical complaints don't warrant treatment, the doctors visit itself cost money (billed to the taxpayers), and what worse whenever the doctor comes around to figuring out that this "whatever medical complaint/ache/sore/etc" probably doesn't need any treatment at all, the fact that "heck they're already going to get charged for the doctor's appointment, might as well give them something... they're on medicaid" happens more often than not. The patient gets the satisfaction of getting something, the doctors get to charge for it, and the governement (and tax payer's) get stuck with the bill. Its a sad fact but its the reality.

It would be if it were reality. However I seriously doubt that it is. Just because one doesn't directly pay for something doesn't automatically equate it being abused. I live in a country with nationalized healthcare and I can tell you that I see a doctor no more than I absolutely have to, even though I'm not billed for the visits. Not to burst your bubble but people don't like visiting the doctor. Unecessary doctor visists rank up there with unecessary dental visits for unecessary tooth fillings.

And even when the program isn't being abused, half of the policies and bueracracy doesn't make sense... there are some medicare and medicaid policies that force doctors to provide X drug instead of Y drug... even when X drug is actually 3-4 times more expensive than Y drug and doesn't work any better. And as ridiculous as that sounds the doctors are actually forced to provide the more expensive drugs when the cheaper drugs are the smarter choice... not because it makes sense, but because the incredibly slow and cumbersome beuracracy can't change its policy, or even approve the use of paper clips, without what seems like an act of congress.

You're identifying a real problem but assigning the blame to the wrong culprit. Its a fact that generic drugs are often difficult to impossible to aquire in the US, even where available elsewhere, but that has rather little to do with Medicare/Medicaid and rather a lot to do with a powerful pharmaceutical lobby whose efforts (and campaign contributions, etc) to restrict consumer choice to more expensive brand-name drugs have been very successful.

Similarly, I might add, your undergoing medical training for a career in medicine makes you one of these same vested interests as doctors are part of another powerful lobby who, fearing their income may somehow be impacted, are vocal opponents of any national healthcare system. Which is probably what all of your arguements are really motivated by: you oppose national healthcare, along with the rest of your future profession, for one reason only and that is because you fear it would impact your future earnings. Which is fine, but it makes your other arguements rather disengenous.