Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(46)
-
▼
July
(13)
- Health Care Systems (PP12)
- Alternative Medicine (PP11)
- Animal Rights Extremism (PP10)
- Should Healthcare Be Rationed? (PP9)
- Organ Transplants - Child Donors (PP8)
- Creating a Life to Save a Life (PP7)
- Right to Refuse Treatment (PP6)
- Stem Cell Research (PP5)
- Conscience Laws and the Rights of Individuals (PP4)
- Roe v Wade (PP3)
- Ethical and Religious Directives - Beginning of Li...
- Ethical and Religious Directives - Care for the Dy...
- Welcome Summer PHI213 Students!
-
▼
July
(13)
About Me
- dsm
- Biostatistician, Biology and Philosophy Faculty, Lacrosse Addict
Posts
7 comments:
I really like the Swedes way of health care. We need to help everyone get health care. We need to help everyone stay well and remain well. The economy is suffering do to so many people who are not healthy. I would rather be in a health care system like there’s than ours. People should be able to get treated when they are sick and not go bankrupt in the process. Our economy is so poor because so many are going bankrupt trying to stay well. I don’t understand why our government isn’t moving on this and changing our system. If they see it working in these other countries, why not change. People will be opposed but in what ever you do people will oppose something. Doctors shouldn’t get rich off of people going bankrupt, or going without care. People would probably be so much healthier if they could get better healthcare, and that would start a domino effect on our economy towards the better. It would be a great step in the right way.
Although all of the systems mentioned some sort of flaws, the U.S. health care system is most flawed of all. All four systems have the same commonality that is the best interest of society. They all strive to put the health of their people first and have found great systems for handling such issues. The Taiwanese had the best idea by integrating ideals from differing policies around the world, but the lack of funds causing the government to borrow from banks definitely is not the answer. The gatekeeper system in Germany is a good idea for common illnesses, i.e. cold, flu, minor infections, cuts, and sprains, but it hinders those in dire need of medical attention. A dislocated shoulder should not take 3-6 weeks to be treated. Japan has it the best, but the medical costs are too low, therefore making it almost impossible for anyone to profit. Health care should be a right, but someone has to pay for that right and people should profit from providing a service. Sweden had the best system, but one problem not mentioned is that the four countries discussed in the program are extremely small in population in comparison to the U.S., making universal health care a much easier task. With the U.S. having such a large population, there are many more obstacles to overcome when trying to universalize our health care system.
All the health care systems mentioned on the "sick around the world" except U.S has done a good job mostly to protect the public interest.The U.S system is somehow good but it is too private that there is no market control.Insurance companies,doctors and hospitals charge whatever price they think is suitable to maximize their profits.
Health care is not a one size fits all kind of thing.Many considerations has to be evaluated to come up with a system that works for everyone.I rated the Swedish system first and Taiwan's system second compared to others mentioned on the basis of cost of operation,lack of gatekeepers,and balancing both the public and private interests.
The government of Sweden and Taiwan sets all the prices for all the procedures and treatments,yet most hospitals and clinics are private.There is a healthy competition which boosts the quality of care.Taiwan has adopted the electronic medical record system,this is the future of health care.Like all electronic systems,this one is not without flaws and it is open for hackers and fraud.However,we once had no debit and credit cards in banking,and we explored that prospect and look where we are now,credit cards nowadays have become more secure than before,even though not quite 100% secure but somehow safe and i believe that if we pursue this now,electronic medical records will work for us.They save a lot of overhead costs,time and might even save lives.
Compared to the U.S health care system,these two systems operates on very small percentage of their GDP,yet they cover everyone.They have no gatekeepers and the wait time is too short or none.
Not one health care system is perfect,but i believe that there should be a universal health care for everyone.We have a universal transport system where we can go wherever we want whenever.The government spends money everyday to build new roads or improve the existing ones.The government also spends a lot of money on foreign wars.We have a universal and free education system for our kids up to high school.Still a lot of money is spent by the government everyday to make sure that the free education system runs smoothly.If the government can afford to run these systems,it can afford a universal health care for all.
To conclude therefore,Sweden and Taiwan have an almost perfect health care system,one that tries to balance the needs of the public and those of the private sector and at the same time operating on very low cost while maintaining competitiveness and quality of care.Health care should be free for all,it should be a right!
This documentary was entertaining, I’m a little skeptical about some of the statistics since the host was pretty much in the bag for a universal health care system in the United States. A follow up by someone who was a little more subjective about universal care might have balanced it out somewhat.
First, I’ll mention what I liked about each of these different types of health care. The United Kingdom’s approach to preventative medicine was good. I think that is key in keeping costs down and the overall health of population high. Japan has good technology. The German’s have the option to opt out of the government coverage if they wish. Taiwan advertised minimal wait times for its patients. And, the Swedish have supplemental coverage available at an extra cost.
I could write a book about what I didn’t like about each of these different types of care, but for now, I’ll limit it to the big hitters for each country. The United Kingdom and the use of a “gate keeper”, I would absolutely despise this approach. Too much governmental control and frankly it’s not for some bureaucrat to decide what level of care I need. Long waiting lines are also a problem with this system not to mention that great dental plan (sic). Japan, it’s cheap, ten bucks a night for a room at the hospital, that’s great! No wonder 50% of their hospitals are out of money. Germany’s “sickness funds” are having financial difficulties as well. They are looking to cut benefits. Germans also have less access to modern equipment compared to Americans. Taiwan, besides the fact that their healthcare is broke, I really am not a fan of the electronic information cards. It’s just too much information stored in one place. The Swedish system is pretty similar to ours, about as close to free market as you can get, 2nd most expensive in the world. However, the Swiss use a managed care system, this is the exact same system that is used in Massachusetts and they are having serious money problems. Employers do not pay for insurance here, so most Swiss opt for premiums that carry high deductibles.
In my opinion none of these systems have a good balance between private and public. None of them are out to make a profit, just survive. None of them pay their doctors well. 80-120K for a doctor in Germany working 12-16 hours a day, that’s a joke. Where is the competition amongst doctors? Is there any? Does the best doctor in a certain country make the same as someone fresh out of college? The best are just that, the elite, the cream of the crop, the ones you want opening up your heart. Is it unfair to think they should be paid more? Would one expect the same level of care at Tempe St. Luke as you would at Mayo or Cleveland Clinic?
It’s about quality not quantity when it comes to health care. For me, I would say we still have the best health care here in the United States. Fiscally speaking it needs some work, but the overall care is untouchable. If I had to choose health care from one of following countries discussed in the video; U.K., Germany, Taiwan, Japan, or Sweden, It would be the Japanese system. Although they are having a lot of financial difficulties they appear to offer the best overall quality of care with a high level of technology, which is most important to me.
I think its a good idea that we assemble a system that works better than what we have. I think that we should put together a panel of people to look at the many different systems that are in place and consider making a system that would work well for us. I liked several parts to different systems. I liked the compiled medical records accessed by any doctor with use of a card for you. I think that it could be a risk for identity. Maybe looking into finding something similar with less risk. I think that they didn't expand on some parts as much as they could have. they would cover the British and there preventive care. I would like to see that aspect in the other nations they visited. I think some of the dynamics of the system would change for us. I don't think we would have a system of doctors that are just interested in a check. there are lots of aspects that would change like that also.
Each system takes the approach that no citizen goes without health insurance, that it is the responsibility of the government to afford his or her citizens the basic right of coverage. Japan seems to have a system that promotes preventative care, negotiates aggressively with medical and pharmaceutical companies to keep costs low and there are no extensive waits or referral processes to see doctors or specialists. I did like England’s program but I did not like that the system promotes competition among hospitals, which could lead to closures and decreased access for patients. The Swiss model is by far the best example of a rich, fully developed country that can overhaul their healthcare system and be able to provide coverage to all citizens and be successful. What I found to be the most important factor in all these models was the power of the countries to compete with the free market, their bargaining power in regards to services, equipment and drugs. In this country it is the inflated costs of drugs, diagnostic tests, and procedures that lead our citizens into medical bankruptcy. Overall, each model emphasizes that coverage for all citizens is one of the basic rights that should be provided by government, government protecting its citizens. Citizens are not bankrupted, providers are paid, and services are paid without risk of coverage increasing in price because of millions of dollars of unpaid services that causes coverage costs to increase each year. Every year costs of medical coverage increases for those able to afford insurance to cover the costs of those not insured or medical coverage in default. The U.S. should take a page from Taiwan’s book and take a look at all of the healthcare models of these many countries with social healthcare. Take something from each model to make our own social healthcare coverage for all.
Which country has figured out a system that is the best for public interest and public good? I would have to say no country has done a good job in both areas. Britain uses a system NHS, it is said 90% think it is good, there are no co pays and no medical bills, higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates this makes the public happy but there are downsides to it long wait list, elective care can take 6 mo. to be addressed and there are gatekeepers that allow or disallow you to see a specialist. Japan, has a good system and maybe one of the best. Japan spends half as much as US on healthcare although people go to doctor 3 times more than US citizens. Private healthcare does not profit which represents 80% of doctors. Hospital stays are cheap, 10 dollars a night which hurts the system because they are not charging enough for the treatment rendered. Because of the Japanese not charging enough the hospitals are going broke. Germany has socialized healthcare and most pay into it although the rich can opt. out. Every year the sickness funds negotiate with hospitals and doctors which keeps everything competitive. The neg. about Germany’s healthcare is that the rich pays for the poor and the ill is taken care of by the healthy. Taiwan, in my opinion tried the hardest out of everybody in researching all healthcare systems and piece together their own by utilizing what works best. They allow the rich to opt. out, cut the administration cost to just 2% as compared to US 22% by using a smart card (it is cool but scary at the same time), another positive is there is no wait time, can see a specialist anytime the person feels they need to. The down fall to Taiwan’s healthcare system is that they are running out of money and have to borrow from banks, so obviously there system is not self abstaining. Switzerland, has a system called LAMal, everyone pays into the system (even the rich), they feel it is everyone’s basic human right to have healthcare, and there administration cost are 5.5 %. The negative is with LAMal is that premiums are on the rise and can do so every year, the drug companies have decided to cut cost but most likely because they make 1/3 of their profits from US. Again to say that one country has done well in the area of public interest and public good not one has achieved both. I would say Taiwan has done the best but for them to be borrowing from banks that tells me the system is not that great for public good.
Post a Comment