Warning About General Health Care Questions
|
Mahalo Answers is a great place to start your research into General Health Care questions, but it's not the final answer. Mahalo Answers is not a substitute for informed professional advice. If you desire or require professional advice, please consult a qualified provider who is licensed in your state or country. You should always seek independent professional advice before acting on any opinion, advice, or information available on Mahalo Answers. |
Answered Question
M$1.05
August 29, 2009 04:16 AM
Does Privatized medicine benefit from the ill? Is there more incentive to keep citizens healthy with Universal Health Care?
I don't think I've heard this angle on the debate yet in the States. When you attach profits to the sick, is there not less incentive in keeping people healthy?
When governments pay for health care they can't profit from regular people, so the only way to cut costs is to help people become healthier.
(That might be why cigarettes are up to 10 bucks a pack in Canada, taxed, the government doesn't want you smoking, cancer costs them money)
When governments pay for health care they can't profit from regular people, so the only way to cut costs is to help people become healthier.
(That might be why cigarettes are up to 10 bucks a pack in Canada, taxed, the government doesn't want you smoking, cancer costs them money)
- In General Health Care |
- Tags: health |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Decided by Votes
| August 29, 2009 06:58 AM |
For example, in the UK doctors are given huge bonuses based on the health of their patients. In Switzerland, supplemental care is allowed to be profitable. And both countries have health care systems rated far higher than the US.
When it comes to the old Private vs. Public argument I like to some it up like this, the UK has a state run health care system and they are able to provide high quality medical treatment to all its citizens. Switzerland has an entirely privatize health care system and they are able to provide high quality medical treatment to all its citizens. And both countries are able to do it at far less cost than the US. You have to recognize that how good a health care system is, is not based on whether or not the system is private or state.
There are right ways to examining health care, examining it on the basis of whether it is private or public is not one of them.
Permalink | Report
Reply
Other Answers (6)
August 29, 2009 05:17 AM
That makes great sense! And I bet if we had universal health care, suddenly we'd see schools bringing back P.E. (what a shock!) as well as educating people about how to live a healthy life (not just add and subtract) The worst problem I have with privatized health care is that it benefits them to NOT provide people with health care. They make more money and get rewarded with bonuses for denying people the coverage they need.
Permalink | Report
Reply
August 29, 2009 07:14 AM
I can't believe your schools don't have P.E? But exactly. The government might also start providing healthier school meals and providing more opportunities for extracurricular activities that encourage healthy lifestyles.
Why stop in school, tax breaks for companies that provide gym passes, breaks for companies that encourage employees to bike to work, tax breaks to companies who give workers mental health vacations once a year... 9 out of 10 doctors agree people should take breaks from stress... Or is there a pill for that now?
Report
Why stop in school, tax breaks for companies that provide gym passes, breaks for companies that encourage employees to bike to work, tax breaks to companies who give workers mental health vacations once a year... 9 out of 10 doctors agree people should take breaks from stress... Or is there a pill for that now?
August 29, 2009 07:03 PM
At the risk of taking this off topic..... Do US schools not have P.E?????
And yes, those tax breaks sound like a good idea
Report
And yes, those tax breaks sound like a good idea
August 29, 2009 11:09 PM
They technically do. For example elementary school teachers are *supposed* to take their kids out for X # of hours a week for PE. However with other things to do, PE does not take a priority.
High Schools and Middle Schools vary, but many do not require it (at all, or enough).
Report
High Schools and Middle Schools vary, but many do not require it (at all, or enough).
August 29, 2009 06:18 AM
If you go to the doctor, and say he prescribes some medicine, then it dosent work. You go back, he prescribes another medicine, it dosent work again. Do you go back? No. Asking if keeping you sick makes privatized medicine more profitable is like asking if the auto industry makes more money by selling cars that dont run.
Competition is a good thing. If I find a doctor that fixes me, I'll go back next time I am sick. If a doctor can't fix me, I wont go back. Which doctor makes more money?
Permalink | Report
Reply
August 29, 2009 07:03 AM
Crazy, so choosing a doctor is like choosing a car. I don't think I'd want to take my chances knowing there are lemon doctors out there. I think any certified doctor would know what's better for me. I couldn't see myself leaving a doctors office saying "he doesn't know what's good for me."
But then again, I haven't been to the doctors in a really long time.
Report
But then again, I haven't been to the doctors in a really long time.
August 29, 2009 07:35 AM
The market (people) reward good results. A doctor who heals people will have more work than one who keeps people sick.
Report
August 29, 2009 08:55 AM
Unfortunately, the doctor's decision can be overruled by the insurance company if they decide not to pay. Switching doctors won't help the patient (even if it's possible; many insurance plans restrict your choice of physicians); and since most private health coverage in the US is provide through employer plans, the patient's only recourse is to find an employer with a better health plan. There is no competition in health insurance; the employees have no choice.
Report
August 29, 2009 08:14 PM
Insurance companys can override your claim, but you do have the option of changing plans, I admit that it might not be easy, but it is possible.
What recourse would you have if your calim was denied under Universal Healthcare?
Or worse yet, what if you were put on an 18 month waiting list for something like a MRI of a brain tumor? (which is a regular occurance in canada, hence the lower cancer survival rates in canada)
Report
What recourse would you have if your calim was denied under Universal Healthcare?
Or worse yet, what if you were put on an 18 month waiting list for something like a MRI of a brain tumor? (which is a regular occurance in canada, hence the lower cancer survival rates in canada)
August 29, 2009 09:11 PM
Not sure how they are reporting it down south, but our survival rates aren't that bad...
--quote--
Canada has some of the best cancer survival rates in the world, and doctors are pointing to our much-maligned public health-care system as the reason.
In a report on worldwide cancer survival rates, Canada ranked near the top of the 31 countries studied with an estimate five-year survival rate of 82.5 per cent.
--/quote--
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716/cancer_statistics_080716/20080716/
Report
--quote--
Canada has some of the best cancer survival rates in the world, and doctors are pointing to our much-maligned public health-care system as the reason.
In a report on worldwide cancer survival rates, Canada ranked near the top of the 31 countries studied with an estimate five-year survival rate of 82.5 per cent.
--/quote--
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716/cancer_statistics_080716/20080716/
August 29, 2009 10:28 PM
That bad? How bad? I simply stated that cancer survival rates in canada are lower than in the USA.
Even though the U.S. health care industry has many problems, The results speak for themselves. We have the highest cancer survival rates in the world.
Check out the links.
Report
Even though the U.S. health care industry has many problems, The results speak for themselves. We have the highest cancer survival rates in the world.
Check out the links.
August 29, 2009 10:31 PM
Oops! Here are the links:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1885832/posts
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/21/most-cancer-survival-rates-in-usa-better-than-europe-and-canada/
Survival rates for all cancers:
USA men = 66.3%
England men = 44.8%
USA women = 62.9%
England women = 52.7%
Report
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1885832/posts
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/21/most-cancer-survival-rates-in-usa-better-than-europe-and-canada/
Survival rates for all cancers:
USA men = 66.3%
England men = 44.8%
USA women = 62.9%
England women = 52.7%
August 30, 2009 09:38 AM
Cancer isn't the only fatal disease, and the overall numbers say that the US isn't #1, or even #10. In terms of life expectancy, the US ranks 50th, 7 places behind Bosnia and Herzegovina (Australia is #7, Canada #8, followed by most of Western Europe, with the UK at #36).
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
For infant mortality, the US ranks 45th, just behind Cuba (the rates in Australia, Canada, and the UK are about 20% lower).
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
Report
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
For infant mortality, the US ranks 45th, just behind Cuba (the rates in Australia, Canada, and the UK are about 20% lower).
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
August 30, 2009 02:14 PM
Sure there are lots of factors that effect life expectancy. Things like diet, exercise, and risky lifestyles all change it. Americans are far from the healthiest as a whole, but a nationalized healthcare system will not change that.
Things like infant mortality are not treated by the health care industry. They just suddenly happen. I think one factor in infant mortality is the early age we begin immunizations, I mean is an infant really in danger of contracting Hepititus? No. I believe this also contrubutes to autism, but that is up for debate.
As far as treatable deseases go, the US health care industry is the world leader in almost all catagories.
Report
Things like infant mortality are not treated by the health care industry. They just suddenly happen. I think one factor in infant mortality is the early age we begin immunizations, I mean is an infant really in danger of contracting Hepititus? No. I believe this also contrubutes to autism, but that is up for debate.
As far as treatable deseases go, the US health care industry is the world leader in almost all catagories.
August 29, 2009 04:28 PM
It can be a problem, but incentives and motives aren't quite so simple in either the private or public sector. It's well understood that the problem you identify does actually apply to the pharma industry big time. And no disrespect to the pharma industry either, as a business they need to give returns to their shareholders.
What kind of products does the pharma industry like best?
Things that you need to keep taking for a long time, which suppress the problem, but don't cure it forever with a quick, cheap treatement.
Things that address the problems of people that have lots of money to spend.
The pharma industry would love to make pills that let people eat lots without putting on weight if they could figure a way to do it.
What does the pharma industry have no incentive to give a damn about?
Things like malaria and tuberculosis that only afflict poor people.
That is one reason why Bill Gates who, as you might suspect understands business strategy perfectly well, has put a pile of cash on the table to encourage research into those diseases.
Now are public sector incentives always aligned with patient interests?
Sadly, no. It depends on how things are structured. For example, it can be that doctors get ahead in their careers by doing complex things like heart surgery, and there is no kudos or budget for preventative medicine, which gets neglected by a health system that is more about curing people when they get very sick than making sure they stay healthy
.
Permalink | Report
Voted as best: christhomson
Reply
August 29, 2009 06:54 PM
Happened to see an article in this very theme...
-- Quote
There is even reason to think that pricing reforms may boost innovation. Britain and Germany are pioneering comparative reviews of drugs’ effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses aimed at reimbursing firms for new drugs based on how well they perform. Some firms have embraced this idea: Janssen-Cilag (owned by Johnson & Johnson, an American conglomerate) persuaded Britain’s health service to accept Velcade, its expensive cancer drug, by offering a money-back guarantee if it did not work as well as promised.
The American pharmaceutical lobby is violently opposed to making such an approach compulsory. Some suspect that its opposition stems from the fear that many expensive and profitable pills would be found to be of dubious value.
-- /Quote
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14327335
Report
-- Quote
There is even reason to think that pricing reforms may boost innovation. Britain and Germany are pioneering comparative reviews of drugs’ effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses aimed at reimbursing firms for new drugs based on how well they perform. Some firms have embraced this idea: Janssen-Cilag (owned by Johnson & Johnson, an American conglomerate) persuaded Britain’s health service to accept Velcade, its expensive cancer drug, by offering a money-back guarantee if it did not work as well as promised.
The American pharmaceutical lobby is violently opposed to making such an approach compulsory. Some suspect that its opposition stems from the fear that many expensive and profitable pills would be found to be of dubious value.
-- /Quote
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14327335
August 29, 2009 06:58 PM
Lets not start with the assumption that profits are bad. I think one big problem IS insurance. When doctors are getting guaranteed money from insurance companies, they'll charge as much as possible. If there was no insurance they couldn't do this. When you say the government cuts cost by making people healthier, why should anyone assume the government knows how to make anyone healthier.
Permalink | Report
Reply
August 29, 2009 07:16 PM
It would seem to me that Universal Health Care would keep more of the people reasonably healthy. However private health care does provide the best quality of health care but to a smaller amount of people. There seems to be two sides with easily understood concerns here, if you have health care insurance and are happy with the rate you pay and the care you get you will not want any sort of Universal Health Care program becoming law or practice because that would supposedly degrade the level of care you get and increase the cost by adding the cost of keeping everyone reasonably healthy too every ones bill. However if do not have any health care, limited health care or cannot afford health care the option of Universal Health Care is the best choice because it is the only option that allows the person or family with little to no health coverage a way to keep and maintain a healthy lifestyle.
In my opinion.
Permalink | Report
Voted as best: beast1oh1
Reply
August 30, 2009 07:31 PM
You have to make a distinction between heath *care*, and health *insurance*. You get better *care* if the doctors and hospitals are private and compete, but you get lousier access to that treatment if the *insurance* is private, because the incentive of the insurer is to deliver as little payment as possible.
Permalink | Report
Voted as best: keepontryin
Reply
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- nancybrown, December 15, 2009 07:30 PM
- thehotr0ck, December 15, 2009 07:25 PM
- milan96, December 15, 2009 07:22 PM
- nyslim7, December 15, 2009 07:22 PM
- maryanng, December 15, 2009 07:17 PM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
However if you say Switzerland is smaller thats why it works you would admit that we here in Switzerland have a better private sector, perhaps true but I wouldnt consider the USA to be lagging that far behind.
For me the USA is a developed country only in military and economic power, standards of living, health care etc., I as an idle Swiss, cannot view as developed. Some parts of your country have such ridiculous crime rates and low living standards that it is clearly still developing. Not to mention the catastrophe of public transport and the pollution the USA and its major cities are causing. I'm terribly sorry to be this blunt but I love a controversial opinion and this is mine :)