Reply to Thread

Comparing Italy

In article ,
"Giusi" wrote:


Yet, the example was Sweden, in which tax does cover healthcare.

Regards,
Ranee @ Arabian Knits

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/

Comparing Italy

Dan Abel wrote:

And what percentage of these people who choose to not pay for health
insurance actually have such a "medical crisis" and file for bankruptcy,
0.001%?

Comparing Italy

In article ,
[email protected] says...


OK

Did they give in? how did you get home?

A friend of mine was taken (very) ill in Mexico. It was lifethreatening.
The insurers insisted she had to stay in hospital for weeks until their
medical legal advisers judged she was stable enough to survive the long
flight home to UK (with a doctor).
When they thought she might peg out in mid flight there was no way they
would let her on a medevac plane.

Janet.

Comparing Italy

Tom Del Rosso wrote:





This is an interesting argument, which states it is not good
to spend too little on health care. But it is also true that
it is not good to spend too much on healthcare, because beyond
a certain point you are killing more people due to the consumption
and pollution associated with excess spending, than you are saving.

The best numbers I have seen (I've posted the cites for these
here before, so I won't repeat them at this moment) is that
every $1 trillion in economic activity causes, on average, about
360,000 human deaths worldwide. Because the U.S. overspends
on healthcare (e.g. the U.S. expends 17% of GDP on healthcare
whereas all evidence indicates outcomes would be as good or
better with an expenditure of 9%), our excess uncontrolled
healthcare spending is killing 400,000 people annually. Similarly,
the U.S. expends 11% of GDP consuming food, but is consuming
about 80% more food than is dietarily necessary, so this translates
into another 200,000 people killed annually due to eating excesses.

Of course many Americans take the attitude that it's none
of anyone else's business how much they consume. This is known
worldwide as a wrong attitude, and the knowledge is sinking
in of late that in fact it's not just wrong, it's a homicidal attitude.

If one lived in Italy one would not only be happier, one
would be personally responsible for killing fewer people.
(And that's not even getting into all the other negative effects
of excess consumption, such as mortality of non-human species
and general environmental destruction.)


Steve

Comparing Italy

Dave Smith wrote:

In the US there is the county hospital system. Anyone can go and get
health care that is better than any available anywhere in the world a
few decades agao. In the US literally 100% of the population is covered
under this system. They don't even turn away illegal immigrants.

Any amount that it's below 100% is people who chose to go nowhere rather
than go to the nearest county hospital. Since the choice is hospital
visits or not rather than local doctor visits or not, that's probably
the difference between the 100% and the 95%. It has to be a guess.

But folks don't chose to go to the county hospital system when they have
a choice to go to a provider of better care. In the US that's the 86%
number that folks quote. The 86% number is the folks with private
insurance that gets them into a better hospital when they need to go.
It's not the percentage who don't have access. It's the percentage of
them that don't have "better" access. It's a discussion about better
not a discussion about at-all. Big difference.

As SF and others have pointed out plenty of the uncovered folks end up
in the emergency room of the local hospital because they don't have the
"better" access. And this is very expensive. This aspect of wider
access would decrease the total cost. There are other reasons that
folks end up off insurance. A lot of them have much more expensive
medical problems and no longer have access because it costs too much.
They now go to the county hospital system. Switching them to better
hospitals would increase the total costs.

Comparing Italy

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 20:21:04 -0400, Dave Smith
wrote:


The math is way off and has little to do with insurance but folks
arrive from all over the planet for medical care in the US... because
it's the best care and the least red tape... US doctors save lives
first and worry about getting paid later, and very often forget about
getting paid... there's more urgent medical care in the US given
gratis than in all the rest of the world combined. Medical care has
no value after death... Canada might have better undertakers and
funeral parlors. Lot's of people from Canada with serious illnesses
come across the border for medical help every day, especially heading
to NY hospitals... no one from the US even considers going to Canada
for medical care. Maybe I'll amend my will, can you recommend a
funeral parlor... Canada probably has better taxidermists. lol

Comparing Italy

On 20/04/2011 7:59 PM, Pete C. wrote:



I keep hearing that there are 40 million Americans with no hell
insurance, so I have no idea where you dug up that 86% more like 95%
figure came from. It sure doesn't add up.

Comparing Italy

On 20/04/2011 7:58 PM, Pete C. wrote:

That's okay. We don't really want to lower the average IQ by admitting
someone so ignorant about our rights and standard of living.

Comparing Italy

Dave Smith wrote:

That "portion" is 86%+ in raw numbers, and in reality more like 95% when
you account for those who choose not to participate.

Comparing Italy

Michel Boucher wrote:

I can assure you that I do not care to lower my standards of living or
freedom by moving to Canada.

As for "misinformation" left leaning NPR has run in depth stories which
have noted issues with Canadian health care do indeed exist, they had
similar reports on UK health care as well.