[Deathblow]

Originally Posted by scandium

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.

Read my wording. "The markers of quality have nothing to do with *access* to healthcare." You've read poorly. Also did you even look at the data in these studies? The US ranked #1 in the "effectiveness" of healthcare, the bottom line of medical care. The second largest spender in healthcare, Canada, is the 2nd best healthcare in "effectiveness". The country that spent the least in healtcare had the least effective healthcare. Interesting to note that the country that is the best and "patientcenterness" probably a rough measure in "bedside manner" was the 2nd worst in equity. Thank you for failing to provide that data and proporting half-truths.

http://www.cmwf.org/publications/pub...?doc_id=364436

But anyway, these types of data are often over-interpreted, and only so much can be assumed from rough, subjective estimates. Even more quantitated estimates of "quality of care" (for example life expectancy, death rates, etc) can be easility misskewed because they depend significantly on the characteristics of the population, cultural beliefs and lifestyles, environments, etc.

Originally Posted by Scandium

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.

No Scandium, your showing complete and utter igorance here,... child-like ignorance even. I *live* the reality of healthcare, I work the clinics, cure the sick, and listen to the complaints of the not-really-sick. I see their pain, and symptoms, or complete lack of it, and provide their treatments, working long 80+hour work weeks doing so. I'm not telling you what *might* be going on, I'm telling you *is* the reality. I hate to burst such child-like naivity, but you don't see what managing a doctors office is like, all the wasted doctor's visits, frivilous complaints, and probably never will. And reading a few poorly written newspaper articles won't inform you to the naunces of patientcare. Billions are wasted each year, that is fact. And expanding federal control over everything will amount to wasted sums many times greater. That is reality, and anyone that thinks otherwise is foolish.

Originally Posted by Scandium

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.

No, your failing to comprehend. I'm not talking about the *availability* of generic drugs, I'm talking about choices between drugs that are already equally available. Make sense? Your reaction will problably be... "But that doesn't make sense? Why would the government force doctors to use a more expensive drug when an equally effective, but cheaper drug is available?"...Exactly, it doesn't make sense at all. They are policies handed down by a large government agency that is so many ways is inefficient and inflexible and should not be in ultimate control of all things healthcare. Your assumption that giving beuracratics more control of healthcare will result in an improvement of trends like the ones reported about is like believing that the FDA should take direct control of all pharmacies and will do a better job. Maybe FEMA should take over local law enforcement?(j/k)

Originally Posted by Scandium

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.

No, your assumptions about my motivation are unfounded and incorrect. I like many doctors will probably pursue positions of healthcare that are already government funded and have been for years. I train at a large state hospital, in which the doctor's are state employees and hospital salaries are government controlled/state funded. My own personal aspirations are to work for a large state run hospital with a large indigent care program (something that's important too me); the institution of federal control will not likely effect my income much, whether my salary will be state controlled as they are already or become federally controlled is not particularly significant and is not the real issue. But thank you for your poor, unfounded assumptions about my character.

Originally Posted by Scandium

His facts ecompass many myths. They coincidentally are part of an agenda against a national healthcare policy that the American Medical Association is very much opposed to (and who coincidentally promote these very same myths).

No, the *greatest myth* is proported by those that believe giving federal government control of their healthcare won't be without detriment or consequences. Second, I don't know what the AMA's official policies and/or arguments are. (On a side note, the vast majority of doctors choose not to join the AMA, about 70-80%). And the assumption that the controversy over federally controlled healthcare is primarily over salaries is the second greatest *myth* perpetuated. It is not. The issue is over who will control the healthcare decisions, those that provide the care and treatments, or a federal agency that hands downs policies from Washington.

This issue has come up in the past..."who makes healthcare decisions?", in the private sector. The similar controversy began about 10-15 years ago when private health insurance companies began enacting policies geared at taking control of healthcare decisions more away from patients/doctors; policies that were handed down from their boardrooms and not from those patients and doctors that were ungoing/providing the treatments; often these policies were denying diagnostic test, medicines, or need treatments and it took years of law suits, cries of the patients, and doctors to curb these insurance practices. Now the issue rises again, "who will ultimately controls healthcare decisions". The man or woman standing in front of you that talks to you and hears your symptoms and complaints, or a large federal program and hands down policies from Washington, ultimately controlled by politicians in Congress. National healthcare programs will have expanded coverage, but definant pittfalls, that is fact....Ted Kennedy ultimately in charge of your healthcare.... ... ... ... I don't think so.