"'We do not have a single hospital as nice looking and as well-equipped
as this one,' Elinder said to the group of physicians."-----------Very interesting to note the impressions of doctors
from a country in which I've lived and which has, for decades, been
trumpeted as an example of a healthcare system that the U.S. should emulate.And, remember folks, the IHC is a NON-profit organization.Perhaps, rather than shoving Obamacare down our throats, more of the U.S.
legislators should listen to what these Swedish doctors, who know a great deal
about the practical effects of socialized medicine, have to say about some of
the possible down sides.
This has to be a mistake!Why did these doctors come to the U.S. to
see a top of the line medical facility? Should they not have gone to Cuba? Or
even the UK or Canada? Everyone knows that here in the U.S. we suffer under a
horrible healthcare system. That is why we are in the process of
"fixing" it.But seriously, it is a good thing they saw this
facility while they exist still. Because:"...doctors in the
socialized system have the pressure to keep treatment and cost of care low.
Sweden's physicians have the advantage of practicing in an environment that
is not quite as "litigious" as the U.S...".as we further
socialize our medical system we will have the worst of both worlds...doctors who
have to weigh every procedure and test against the bottom line and who have to
worry about being sued out of business!
It's not about whether there are top of the line medical facilities in the
US; there are plenty.It's about whether you can receive treatment at one of
them. Health care is a service to human beings, and facilities only a means by
which to deliver it. If outcomes for the average person matter at least as much
as the external or internal appearance of the facility, then yes, visit Canada
or Cuba. Besides, the Foothills Medical Centre or the new South Calgary Health
Campus look pretty good, too. Socialised medicine. Working for results. And
keeping up appearances.
@samhill, Let's Agree to DisagreeHealthcare system is a
completely different thing than healthcare treatment.No one doubts
the US has some of the best treatment facilities in the world, the thing is you
spend twice as much per person than countries like Sweden. You have 30 million
people who do not have health coverage and depend on the ER for treatment, you
also have 60% of the bankruptcies in your country caused by medical bills.Some of the healthcare centres are good, your healthcare system is bad.
To "UT Brit" did you read the article. The big problems that they saw
with the US system have to do with malpractice, and the lack of control that
congress or the states put on lawyers.You seem to forget that the
Swedish doctors don't have as nice of facilities. You probably didn't
notice that they also expressed concern for patients stealing equipment.Tell us, if you have only $20,000 can you buy the top end Corvette? If
you had the money would you buy the top end Corvette or the used Ford Fiesta?
You want the Corvette for the price of the Fiesta.Bottom line is,
you get what you pay for. You choose to live in a country where people suffer
or die at the hands of bureaucrats, and we want a system where you can get any
treatment you are willing to pay for.
@Redshirt1701If you had any clue about the way the NHS works I would
consider your words. How long exactly have you spend living in the UK Redshirt?
I only spent a few years in the US but your healthcare system is a complete mess
in comparison. Having been treated in some of the medical facilities in
the US I was questioning exactly where double the amount of money was going to.
I remember having to see 3 doctors to get a refill of my asthma medication and
it took over an hour. Here in the UK it takes me 5 mins with a GP to get a
refill.If you had actually spent anytime outside of the US you would
see you are not getting what you pay for. Thats the point and thats why so many
of you are clamouring for a better healthcare system.
To "UT Brit" I do have a clue about the NHS. I have known people who
grew up in England, and they were ashamed of the system.But, so
others in the US have a better idea of the NHS, lets review some headlines:"100,000 terminally ill 'do not get proper palliative
care'" Telegraph"British Socialized HC Official: Some
Premature Babies Should be Left to Die" The Blaze"Cataracts,
hips, knees and tonsils: NHS begins rationing operations" The Independant"'Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients
exposed" Telegraph"Lung cancer victims denied lifesaving
scans" Telegraph"Patients forced to live in agony after NHS
refuses to pay for painkilling injections" Telegraph"Patients 'denied intensive care'" BBC"Leading article: The real lessons of this NHS disaster" The
Independant"Two patients died after waiting in ambulance outside
'full' Oldham hospital unit" Manchester Evening NewsIt
seems that the headlines would contradict your claims. Is it easier to have a
bureaucrat deny you getting coverage than it is for you to say "I don't
want to pay for that"?