>Ahem, I don't see the difference here. I'm living in a single payor system and I ALSO CAN GET ANY TREATMENT I WANT as long as I use my wallet. I fail to see the difference here. If a certain treatment is not provided in holland I can go abroad. Money buys all, even up here.

That's not single-payor then is it?!? Not to mention that if the US goes single-payor then that will remove one of those private options.

>>Would you like to compare cancer care in other countries to the US. First you need to be able to get the treatment in a timely manner, I guess that leaves the US.
>
>On what do you base that ?? Cancer treatments here are done in a very timely manner and I certainly do not agree here. I would even go further. I think that our care to prevent cancer and detect cancer in a timely manner is far superiour to that one of the US. There is a lot to do over here in the prevention and detection of medical problems over here, something that to my knowledge is not the case in the US.

I will agree that preventative care is not emphasized enough here. To say it doesn't exist is silly, but it definately is not a priority. Frankly I find this to also be a problem of the third-party payor system. More control should be given to the individual so they have a vested interest in the quality and quantity of their own health.

>>>The first IVF - baby was born in the UK.
>>>
>>>There is also a lot to say about ethics and lack of governmental regulations in health care as well, which leads to very unhealthy situations.
>>
>>I highly disagree here. Ethical concerns abound in single payer-systems as well. Abortion? Euthanasia? Cloning? Medical marajuana?
>
>You confuse your personal (religion based) ehtics with medical ethics.

I see you've chosen to exclude the following statement I made right after mentioning the ethical concerns in other countries:
"Please note that I have not stated a position on any of those items listed above, nor will I here, I am pointing out that there are numerous hotly debated ethical concerns in all health systems."

The above listed issues are being debated in the medical community. There are serious ethical concerns regarding each.

>Taking high risks for commercial gains is something that is violating medical ethics.

That's a silly statement. Many medical tests around the world are performed on people who are being paid. Hence, they are taking a medical risk for commercial gain.

>
>>>As an example, IVF treatments in the US regulary are transferring up to as many as 6 or 7 embryos just to give a higher pregnancy rate (it can be used commercially to gain more $$) but can lead to enourmous complications (a human is not build to carry 6 babies). The commercialisation of IVF clinics also has a negative effect on providing unbiased and reliable statistics (which can attract outsiders for false reasons). Most clinics in europe only allow for on or two embryos transferred because of decreasing the risks and decreasing the overall costs in health care (prevention).
>
>>This is a conversation for the parents to be and their doctor. It is their decision to make, not yours, not mine and certainly not the government's.
>
>Yep, and thats why you have so many lawsuits because the doctor did not tell the risks,

That is criminal

>or the patient did not listen.

That's their choice!

>Rules on healthcare need to be taken by the government, and actually are.

Rules regarding drug-approval, risk-knowledge, and other overarcing concerns should be in place. Decisions regarding an individuals treatment, drug choices, preventative care, etc should be decided by the patient and their doctor, not by a government regulatory buracracy.

>the FDA is a governmental body just doing this. The example above is something that problably will the taken care of in the future,

>>>Again, see definition of quality of care. Did you read the link??
>
>>First of all life expectancy is not an accurate measurement of health care. Too many other factors go into it, including but not limited to lifestyle, genetic makeup, environment, education etc.
>
>You wish to debunk the findings without a solid foundation, that is your choice.

I have provided an example to prove my point. Life expectancy is not an accurate measure becuase too many factors go into it. If it was in direct relation to health care then the Japanese men in the study would reflect the life expectancy of thier country, either USA or Japan. There are other studies that bear this out as well. Look at the numbers broken down by ethnicity, or by country of origin, or by which part of the country one lives in.

>>For example : http://www.stanford.edu/group/ethnoger/japanese.html
>>"The cohort of Japanese men in the Honolulu Heart Program studies has a life expectancy that is longer than their counterparts in Japan, and Japan has the longest life expectancy of any country in the world."
>>
>>Secondly, you are talking about coverage and I'm talking about care. We're using different metrics to measure. I am looking at medical advancements in technique, technology and drugs.
>
>And you again ignore that research is done all over the world, not only in the US. Besides that, research is one part of the puzzle, acceptance and general availability.

None is more available than in the US.

>>>I don't buy that. To be a excellent doctor, you have to have made that choice a long time ago, since you need many years of training. Even up here the salaries are well rewarding, but not so much that you can buy a villa of 10 million bucks. Good doctors are good doctors because they are very dedicated to their job and not for the money. The other side of the coin might be that it will attract less qualified doctors just being greedy.
>
>>Greed is a good motivator. I have met a couple of surgeons who definately fall into the greedy category. They have the bedside manner of a porcupine, but their surgical skills are top notch. If the monetary reward wasn't there they probably would've become lawyers.
>
>I take you're a true believer in the almighty buck, mac donalds and wall mart.

I understand that money is a wonderful motivator and the spread of free market capitalism has led to the greatest period of achievement in human history. The spread of freedom, and wealth will lead the world to even greater achievement in the future, once the obstacles to individual achievement (socialism, fascism, communism) are thrown on the 'ash heap of history'.

>>>You did not react, however on the statement that the big money is flowing into the hands of the insurance company (which probably is the biggest problem, as noted in the link above).
>
>>The highest quality medical research and development costs money. Lots of it.
>
>Sure, but I don't think that is different for single payer systems as well.

The difference is the profit motive doesn't exist as a lure for venture capital as it does in the States. That's billions(if not trillions) of research dollars that are not being spent on health research because the reward doesn't exist. Instead that money is flowing to oil. (Search 'oil sands' for more info)

>>>Any link to back that up? I don't see the effect of taxes here,
>
>>http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2005/121205a.htm
>>"But the rapidly rising cost of the health care system absorbs an ever larger share of budgetary resources, raises the price of labor and crowds out spending on education and investment"
>
>>The fact that you don't see it doesn't change the fact that it's occurring. Each year the costs get higher and the government has to spend a greater percentage of tax revenue. That means your costs are rising. It works similar to social security in this country. Most people have no idea how much they pay for SS. They see the amount deducted from their paycheck but never see their employers portion.
>
>Sure, but before our government spend as much as the average in the US, we would have a far superiour system than yours as no excessive amounts of money flows into greedy pockets.

You continue to throw out greed as if its bad. The profit motive has led to wonderful advances in our quality of life, in health care and otherwise.

>>>nor do I see the point of governmental waste as the government up here is not directly insuring the patient, but only makes the rules for the insurance companies. If you divide the governmental costs of making the policy by 16 million people (holland) the costs must be neglible. The same applies to the UK.
>
>>The costs are larger than most understand and rising each year. Those rising costs are the reason for the longer waiting lists also. As the costs rise, less care can be provided unless more tax money is allocated, hence more waiting for treatment.
>
>Waiting lists are getting shorter up here. So not a prove of your statement

About time. A quick search on 'Netherlands waiting lists' produces a study from 1994-5 describing how bad it was. People literally dying while waiting for treatment. The fact that costs are rising is a fact around the world.

>>>Ignore what? I did not stumble against anything that says that the US provides better general health care (not to be confused with emergency care) at lower costs.
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>I never said at lower costs.
>
>>>So how can I ignore something that is not there. Care to share a link?
>
>>You are measuring things differently. The care is exceptional. Anyone can access any number of doctors, specialists or have any number of tests they want right away. That is not true in the UK or Canada. The difference, of course, is that we pay for it out of pocket, and we know the costs. In a single-payer system you have to wait for treatments and have no clue of the costs.
>>
>>>Did you read the link?? I live in a country where public health care is a fact. Up here there are not many people doubting that is a service that the government should regulate, just like in other european countries. I know for sure that my expenses for insurances are much and much less than a comparable case in the US.
>>
>>Tell me if you still think the same when you need heart surgery and are put on a waiting list. Which is more valuable to you, your money or your life?
>
>I can tell you that currently I'm waiting for a certain type of treatment, and reading the patient stories from US patients I'm far better off compared to them, as they are restricted to having treatment in their area where they don't deliver their treatment of choice. I read a lot of stories of people struggling with their insurance, problems I do not have. I can have my treatment of choice.

There are definate problems with our system, but the answer is not single-payor. The answer is more power to the individual. After all noone cares more about your health than you. I may start another thread on this soon.

>>Neither the Canadian nor British systems are truly single-payer anymore. They are both allowing private clinic care paid out of pocket in addition to the government provided plan. Both still have very long wait times for critical tests and procedures and both are moving away from universal coverage rather than towards it.
>
>Sure, nothing prevents you to go to a private clinic and often insurance companies will pay for them. So I surely can't see the advantage of the US system. BTW, I have a colleage who would be dead if he was living in the US because he would not have the money to buy a transplant to survive. He was lucky he was born in a single payer country.

That is not a fact. There are wonderful charities that exist to help people with the excessive costs of major medical procedures.

>
>Walter,