• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

"Sick Around the World"

Haven't seen it, but here's a synopsis...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/etc/synopsis.html


In Sick Around the World, FRONTLINE teams up with veteran Washington Post foreign correspondent T.R. Reid to find out how five other capitalist democracies -- the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland -- deliver health care, and what the United States might learn from their successes and their failures.

Reid's first stop is the U.K., where the government-run National Health Service (NHS) is funded through taxes. "Every single person who's born in the U.K. will use the NHS," says Whittington Hospital CEO David Sloman, "and none of them will be presented a bill at any point during that time." Often dismissed in America as "socialized medicine," the NHS is now trying some free-market tactics like "pay-for-performance," where doctors are paid more if they get good results controlling chronic diseases like diabetes. And now patients can choose where they go for medical procedures, forcing hospitals to compete head to head.

While such initiatives have helped reduce waiting times for elective surgeries, Times of London health editor Nigel Hawkes thinks the NHS hasn't made enough progress. "We're now in a world in which people are much more demanding, and I think that the NHS is not very effective at delivering in that modern, market-orientated world."

Reid reports next from Japan, which boasts the second largest economy and the best health statistics in the world. The Japanese go to the doctor three times as often as Americans, have more than twice as many MRI scans, use more drugs, and spend more days in the hospital. Yet Japan spends about half as much on health care per capita as the United States.

One secret to Japan's success? By law, everyone must buy health insurance -- either through an employer or a community plan -- and, unlike in the U.S., insurers cannot turn down a patient for a pre-existing illness, nor are they allowed to make a profit.

Reid's journey then takes him to Germany, the country that invented the concept of a national health care system. For its 80 million people, Germany offers universal health care, including medical, dental, mental health, homeopathy and spa treatment. Professor Karl Lauterbach, a member of the German parliament, describes it as "a system where the rich pay for the poor and where the ill are covered by the healthy." As they do in Japan, medical providers must charge standard prices. This keeps costs down, but it also means physicians in Germany earn between half and two-thirds as much as their U.S. counterparts.

In the 1990s, Taiwan researched many health care systems before settling on one where the government collects the money and pays providers. But the delivery of health care is left to the market. Every person in Taiwan has a "smart card" containing all of his or her relevant health information, and bills are paid automatically. But the Taiwanese are spending too little to sustain their health care system, according to Princeton's Tsung-mei Cheng, who advised the Taiwanese government. "As we speak, the government is borrowing from banks to pay what there isn't enough to pay the providers," she told FRONTLINE.

Reid's last stop is Switzerland, a country which, like Taiwan, set out to reform a system that did not cover all its citizens. In 1994, a national referendum approved a law called LAMal ("the sickness"), which set up a universal health care system that, among other things, restricted insurance companies from making a profit on basic medical care. The Swiss example shows health care reform is possible, even in a highly capitalist country with powerful insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

Today, Swiss politicians from the right and left enthusiastically support universal health care. "Everybody has a right to health care," says Pascal Couchepin, the current president of Switzerland. "It is a profound need for people to be sure that if they are struck by destiny ... they can have a good health system."
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for that Bob.

I would have loved to have seen the program. reading that snippet it is truly amazing how many different health systems are out there. On the surface, of the five talked about, Japan seem to have the best system (personal belief). I personally don't like systems that are paid for from taxes, except for those under privileged. I know it goes against the grain of many but compulsory insurance of some sort for those that can afford it is a must. It is simply unfair for the rest of the community to be expected to pay for those that can afford it that chose not to cover themselves. Denial of this fact is being blind, we the community will pay in some way or another.

I know that many of you will state that Japan does not have an alien problem like the USA, granted, but the alien problem has nothing to do with what sort of health system you have as citizens, because you as good people will look after them anyway.

Did anyone watch the program? I'd love to hear your views.
 
I didn't watch it. I just now read it. I agree Japan sounds like they have a good system.
I May be wrong, but I think their's is what Clinton is trying to push in the US. It's hard to tell because of the circles she talks in. Switzerland sounds happy with their's too.
 
I have to wonder what their tax rate is. People hear FREE health care. It is not free. It comes in the form of taxes.

"a member of the German parliament, describes it as "a system where the rich pay for the poor and where the ill are covered by the healthy."

That is what our democratic candidates for president want to do. Unfortunatelty they consider me rich. They try to convince the more ignorant out there that they are talking about the Bill Gates type of rich, but they aren't. Anyone not on wellfare is rich in their minds.
 
I saw it and it was a joke.

They focused on the upsides but glossed over the negatives.

Here's what they didn't point out or didn't emphasize:

50% of the Hospitals in Japan are going bankrupt because the government has set the fees too low to cover the costs.

Taiwan's "great" system is also going bankrupt and it is less than 10 years old.

Germany's great system has seen Doctor's salaries drop by 50% in the last 20 years.

They minimized the wait time issues and showed no negative coverage of the long wait times in the NHS of Britain.

The theme I saw in every one of these so called "better" systems was that they have been put in place at the expense of the Doctor's and Hospitals. Many of them are getting paid less and less and I suspect they will gradually be squeezed to death.

These systems are in most cases only 20 years old. Many doctors are "locked" into their professions (spent a long time training and don't want to retrain) and are forced to ride out this bad treatment. Eventually, the good doctors will leave and you will be left with the bad. Same with Hospitals.

These "free" systems are not economically viable over the long term. You can't give people free access to anything or else they will keep taking advantage of it until it is all gone.

Finally, the doofus they had doing the interview was clearly biased and this was just another Frontline liberal propaganda hit piece. Basically, another waste of our tax dollars.
 
Here's a snippet I got in an email just yesterday from a friend that lives in the UK:

Otherwise, all well, though shoulder still not better after last year's crash. Had an MRI which found nothing really bad - which is encouraging - but didn't diagnose the problem. Next month I've got keyhole arthroscopy under general anaesthetic (!) so they can look at the join while it's moving. Good thing about being married to a lawyer is her corporate health cover's way better than mine. I'm not used to doctor's saying, without talking cost, saying "OK, let's try this [expensive] procedure next...".
Click to expand...
 
PBinWA said:
Here's a snippet I got in an email from a friend that lives in the UK:
Click to expand...

Otherwise, all well, though shoulder still not better after last year's crash. Had an MRI which found nothing really bad - which is encouraging - but didn't diagnose the problem. Next month I've got keyhole arthroscopy under general anaesthetic (!) so they can look at the join while it's moving. Good thing about being married to a lawyer is her corporate health cover's way better than mine. I'm not used to doctor's saying, without talking cost, saying "OK, let's try this [expensive] procedure next...".
Click to expand...
This is the same as all systems including your own system. The US for example has something like 50 million people with no cover and about 50 million others with inadequate cover.


Interesting that you watched a biased liberal program on your PBS. It is good to see you are open minded enough to to do this.
 
daedong said:
This is the same as all systems including your own system. The US for example has something like 50 million people with no cover and about 50 million others with inadequate cover.
Click to expand...

The only answer to the problem is: "No free ride"! People need to stop expecting to get something for nothing.

I don't know what I was doing watching that PBS drivel. It's like it's blasted through the airwaves at me or something. :sick:
 
Thanks for that Bob.

I watched it all, unlike PBinWA I thought it was relatively unbiased. Over all I rate the report fair and balanced. It did point out many of the pitfalls, that PBinWA claims they didn't point out or didn't emphasize or omitted.

What surprised me is that not one of those countries have a system like we have here.
 
daedong said:
I thought it was relatively unbiased. Over all I rate the report fair and balanced. It did point out many of the pitfalls, that PBinWA claims they didn't point out or didn't emphasize or omitted.
Click to expand...

The doofus reporter guy started off every interview basically saying the US system was broken and didn't work and then asked the foreign person how they thought their system was better.

In Taiwan he stuck a stupid prayer sign up that said something like "I wish the US healthcare system was fixed"

How is that "unbiased". To be unbiased requires the reporter to make no assumptions regarding either side of the story. This reporter was clearly under the opinion that the US healthcare system was broken and didn't work and that there must be a better system elsewhere. It was clearly a case of "the grass is greener on the other side" reporting.

This is the standard modus operandi of Frontline and PBS. They pick their "angle" (typically a liberal view) and then cherry pick the content to support their view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top