What is Healthcare like Outside the US...cost control issues?

As a healthcare professional in the US, one of the most important issues for me in the upcoming election is healthcare.





While I am not necessarily opposed to nationalized healthcare, I fear that in the US, it will have some serious limitations. I've seen Michael Moore's ';Sicko'; as he profiles the system in Canada and England and seems to show people who are happy with the system. But considering his extreme left wing position, I am sure he definetely left out people who are dissatisfied with the system. I know in other countries there are issues such as people dying before their chemotherapy ever gets approved.





I fear this would be a possibility in the US because most of the proposed policies do very little to address the real problem...controlling costs. Privatization of drug companies... fivilous lawsuits (both against the medical community and in personal injury claims).





So what I want to know is: what is health care like in other countries where (see more below)What is Healthcare like Outside the US...cost control issues?
In terms of your real question - ';what is healthcare like outside the U.S.'; - I can speak as a U.S. citizen who has had surgery in Costa Rica. I found the technology equal, and the patient care superior, with the cost of the surgery about 1/3 of what it would have cost in the U.S.





There is no health insurance in Costa Rica. The government provides care for the poorest of citizens. The rest of its citizens can afford health care because, again, there is NO insurance to either raise or determine pricing.





There is also no recourse for medical lawsuits. Which sounds scary, but has meaningful repurcussions for the cost of care. Instead of one person wronged in ';medical malpractice';, profitting at the expense of many via insurance lawsuit money (which does nothing to chastise the doctor making the mistake), it is incumbent upon the DOCTOR to right any medical wrong committed. Or his reputation in this small country - and his salary and credentials - are ruined. Placing the responsibility BACK on doctors to provide quality care - instead of leaving it to the insurance companies to dole out dollars on frivolous lawsuits - means lower costs for everyone.





In my opinion, the U.S. does not have the BEST healthcare system in the world...just one of the most EXPENSIVE.





This election is critical in changing our health care crisis. I blogged on the various candidates health care platforms on http://www.lowcosthealth4u.blogspot.com. We need to be informed and involved, so we can vote in the candidate we feel will bring about the most positive changes in our current system. Which BADLY needs reform.What is Healthcare like Outside the US...cost control issues?
Although many may disagree, my oppinion is that McCain does not have the qualities I am looking for in a leader. I think he does not have the business experience to run the country like Mitt Romney-only candidate to run a business nor the resoluteness to rid a city of crime like Juliani. Consequently he knows about health care costs more than McCain. I also believe that McCain lets his anger get away with him and really is not a good speaker. I saw him really deride a women in the plame case. As a result, I think his ability to deal with the high cost of everything including health care can neither be trusted to work in the white house nor for the good of our citizens.





Michael Moore is a sensationalist similar to Louis Farakan. He has a history of not qualifying his facts. He is far off with his points on health care as well as everything else. I live in Michigan and worked in the healthcare system. A lot of canadiens work in our detroit hospitals. Many canadiens look for care in the US and have to wait for the use of good equipment in Canada. That is the continuing criticism of national health care in Canada and Michael Moore.





Moore's criticism of Kmart for carrying bullets and indirectly supporting gun use is well not a fare burden Kmart had to carry. They were a supplier of hunting and fishing goods. Moore's criticism of GM was also geared toward promoting himself and selling his movies. GM for years had to cut down on some overpaid workers who (I have seen them) were sleeping on the job. Consequently, Moore has no background to profile anything.





I am sorry if I sound like a conservative but am tired of the left being allowed to commit crimes, whitewater, kennedy-chapequidick. Many of them are so interested in themselves above everyone they are not only a poor choice for leading but do not even commit enough understanding of the issues let alone do anything about them.





While I think that health care is definitely out of hand. I was charged twenty dollars by a doctor for giving me a referrel and not solving my problem. I think that health care is not better elsewhere. In addition to lowering health care costs we should reduce the amount of people that work for the government.
Health care has no regulations outside of the insurance companies. In the end it will take nothing short of a miracle to change this.





How about drug companies charging whatever they want for meds? Advertising on tv to get common folks to ask their doctors to ask about their products? It is crazy.
Proffit is a good motor for evolution. Honesty and charity is not.





It`s easyer to manage a proffit-driven organisation than a non-proffit-organisation. A national health system can`t aim for any proffit, this is the goal of private corporations.





It is possible to have an efficient national healthcare system, in the utopian world of communism. The problem is that people are not equal, so they want proffit.





In Romania we have a NHS - it would still be working if the National Insurance Company would pay what they should to the system, but they don`t. The National Health Insurance House has great buildings as any other bank does... They have miriffic salaries, that a practitionar doctor (a family phisician) don`t even dream... athough they all are phisicians.





I am sure a NHS is viable. As a social partner to the 'real' one, the private. The prices in the NHS are very low. The goal is supposed to be social but actually it`s a mess. Too many of our coleagues are emigrating in the EU as Romania is now part of the comunity.





My net salary is 192euro. The car I need is 10.000euro and the gas is lower than motorine, about 1euro/liter (3,4euro/gallon)





Now let`s get down to business:





- in Romania most of the oncological pacients, do get chemotherapy in time; unfortunately they get too late the right diagnostic





- yes, malpraxis is possible to initiate, but quite difficult to finalize being extremely technical for a lawer. The Medical College has the last word on the matter. Maybe raven to raven don`t take the eyes, but onestly now, the Medical College Disciplinary Commision is the only institution able to judge technical medical isues.


+ an average malpraxis policy is 50-100.000euros at a yearly cost of 40euro, but the insurance company wouldn`t pay back if the case because they would reveal some inapparent conditions in the contract that the benefficiary doctor broke... it is a common practice that the bank don`t show you all the conditions when you sign - when you ask, they will tell you that ';it`s all in the contract';... :( shameless.





- some funny thing: you can sue for a lot of things, but you have to prouve you are right, not only the other is whrong. usually if you get hit on the pietonal passage, the guy gets it, but if you are not on a passage.. you pay for all the dammage.





- the foreign ';drug company'; paid the right amount to the right persons and won all the public auctions, so now we don`t have many romanian drugs. they have a huge amount of promoting agents, most of them are our colleagues, having a salary from 600euros to 4-5000(the regional directors)





- the only advantage in the statal management of the health insurance are stocs: the drug company bride the right autorities and win the auctions, the National Health Insurance House pays from public money some grotesque expensive drugs and put them in stoc. when a pacient needs them, they get it. if that drug is on stoc. simple. 17.000$ for a bag.. here are about 6000$. while 3weeks of hospitalisation cost about


1200$. but the only one that feels the costs is the hospital manager. none of the other care about costs. you may be wondering why I am so sure the auctions are bought.. because it is impossible to win the auctions all the most expensive drugs on the market. NB: in Romania the national health insurance system pays also for part of the drugs used in ambulatory and for all the costs of the hospitalisation, including drugs. sometimes, they say ';oops,we finished funds'; and if you are in real trouble, you have to collect/borrow to pay for your life.





In conclusion: in Romania the isue is not to control the costs, but to maximize them as the commission from public money gets greater :D





To get more ideas on the Romanian NHS, and specially the incredible in my oppinion 'free home healthcare', pls visit http://drsvoice.wordpress.com or for the romanian lecturers, our ';Together for health'; Foundation`s page, http://fips.uv.ro
Here in the Philippines, the problems are antiquated equipment. We have some good doctors but they have to wing it a lot because of the equipment. The hospitals and operating rooms in most hospitals are dirty. Malpractice suits are almost non-existent. It's almost impossible to open a lawsuit. The system is corrupt. Most of the medicines are leftovers and expired from the U.S. and other developed countries.