Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski
I watched Sicko last night. Mike mentioned that it was worth a watch, so I checked it out. Although some parts were over the top (loving adoration for all parts of the french social system for example), it certainly makes one think about health care. I recommend it.
I particularly was interested in the segments on the Canadian and British national health care systems. When asked about compensation, a British doctor explained that a large component of their compensation is based on outcomes. I.e., if they can get patients to quit smoking or reduce blood pressure, they get paid more. I think that makes great sense.
As for the Canadian system, for as long as I can remember I have heard Americans say "Socialized medicine is awful in Canada - people die waiting for operations due to equipment and doctor shortages." However, I have known lots of Canadians and I have yet to meet a single one that had anything bad to say about the health care system. Without exception, they have all been passionate advocates. Maybe I just haven't met the right people. Furthermore, it seems that there are far more Americans dying off due to lack of access to health care. Thousands of poor and uninsured die each year in the US due to the prohibitive cost of cancer treatments, heart surgery, etc. And Canadians and Brits are far healthier than we are in the US, on average. That could have multiple explanations, but it makes one think.
|
The one thing that universal health care proponents don't take into effect is the size of the USA WE have 350 million people here. Giving them all insurance will take a lot of money
England has 50 million people
Canada has 26 million people
France has 60 million people
Its a lot harder to give good healthcare with so many people. Look at brazil they are have half as many people as the US and their systems suck. Look at India and China. Conversely sweden has fantastic healthcare. The US is doing pretty good if you take its size into consideration