Talk:Publicly-funded health care/Archive 1

message: I do not believe this article should be merged with Health Care System.  Tkjazz 07:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: merge between Socialized medicine and Publicly funded medicine complete. -- Kowey 16:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old topics

message: If nobody explains why the article isn't NPOV, I'll remove the NPOV notice. David.Monniaux 07:46, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: NB:  I'm not the one who initially disputed the neutrality of this.
Bkalafut 00:24, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nota bene 

message: The article seems fairly neutral (compared to so many periodical articles on this topic) but it suffers from mixing up too many types of private/public health care systems together while trying to separate everything in two sides.  For instance, it confuses countries with an entirely publicly based and funded system like the United Kingdom or Sweden with countries with only a public non-exclusive (private companies offer addional health insurance for things not covered by the public insurance and compete in an open market) insurance system like Canada, where doctors are (with a few exceptions) not employees of the government and can practice where they want to (which creates shortages outside cities and towns since doctors like to party and send their kids to the best schools) and form clinics and large corporations to administer their services.  AlainV 15:31, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
----
I think it'd be a good idea for a knowledgable person to add something about Cuba's healthcare system (I don't really know enough but could try researching it.) Kingal86 19:27, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Seems neutral but...

message: I propose that we move this section to its own page (Health care around the world?) to reduce clutter here and to allow for more growth and in depth discussion there.  Thoughts? -- Kowey 10:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public systems around the world 

message: I think that the whole funding description is getting way too technical.  I think that both "cost" and "costed" sound improper in this situation (even if they turn out to be gramatically correct).  Perhaps it is common terminology in certain circles (accounting, etc..), but it sounds incorrect and out of place to the average person.  It seems like you are trying to convey an estimation process then funding, which may be the best solution for this.  I personally think this goes a little far beyond the main point being made here, but it may be a solution around the "costed" issue.
:Strange. I would expect "costed" to be a commonly used phrase, especially in business. Certainly not limited to accountancy circles: every business must cost all of its activities. Does that really look an obscure and technical phrase? If so, I have learned something and happy to see the article made more accessible. Notinasnaid 20:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Costed" 

message: The article opens with this definition: "Publicly funded medicine is a level of medical service that is paid wholly or in majority part by public funds."  Later it reads: "The United States has been virtually alone among developed nations in not maintaining a publicly-funded health-care system since South Africa adopted one after toppling its apartheid regime,..."  First of all, I believe Medicare and Medicaid are levels of medical service that are paid in majority part by public funds.  That would make the statement false.  Secondly, the mention of apartheid in that sentence is irrelevant and an underhanded way of poisoning the well... South Africa treated her citizens terribly and even they implemented a nationalized health care system.  The US must be even worse! AED 06:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section entitled "Public systems around the world"

message: Regarding:  "Whether the free market can adequately deliver health care is the key question with regards to health care."  Doesn't that statement sound circular to anyone? AED 05:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section entitled "Role of the free market"

message: I propose that this article be moved to healthcare system (and largely replace the existing content there). The article as it now stands is actually not about publicly funded healthcare, but rather is a comparison of the combined private and public features of existing healthcare systems worldwide, and a discussion of relative merits of various health care approaches. Ironically (am I using that word right?), more than half of the article is direct discussion of issues in privately funded health care. IMHO, this is an article about healthcare systems.
By contrast, healthcare system is nearly useless as a resource on healthcare systems, as well as having serious factual errors (e.g., "In Canada the lack of private care is notable, and pride is widespread in their one-tier system of only government-provided healthcare, largely coordinated at the provincial level.") In an encyclopedia, readers would have the right to expect an article discussing health care systems in relation to each other under "healthcare system".
But I don't want to move it without asking everyone's opinions first. Any thoughts?
Dryman 00:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is an excellent idea, however, I don't think most others will share that view. AED 01:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should stay here, readers looking for this specific issue will find what they want easier here than in healthcare system--Silverback 18:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It's been nearly a year, so I'm going to remove the header. -AED 00:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose move to Healthcare system 

message: "Proponents of publicly funded medicine cite several advantages"
vs
"Opponents of publicly funded medicine cite several purported disadvantages" [emphasis mine]
Why are only the disadvantages described as "purported?"  Both either should be or should not be referred to as "purported." Jinxmchue 01:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am OK with removing "purported", but I'm wondering if it would read more accurate to have "Proponents claim publicly funded medicine has several advantages" or "Opponents claim publicly funded medicine has several disadvantages". Edwardian 04:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Jinxmchue 18:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose removal of adjective from fourth paragraph 

message: This section is currently wrought with POV claims presented as fact. I've made a major change to reflect the general sentiment of those remarks. Edwardian 05:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section entitled "Difficulties of analysis"

message: I would dispute the neutrality of merging "socialized medicine" with "publicly funded medicine". Pretty much every industrial nation in the world has publicly funded health care but only some of them have socialized health systems (where the government ownes the health care resources and directly employes physicians).  Even in the U.S. nearly half of all health care spending is publicly financed.  For all other industrial countries public spending makes up between 83%-99% of total health spending.  The article hints that there are many systems which have not socialized the health care system.  They have socialized insurance but not socialized health care.
I apoligize for making edits before making myself fully aware of the procedures that go along with it.
ser 15:08, 19 Oct 2005
*I thought your edits were good. I agree with your argument and would support changes reflecting it. AED 04:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Socialized medicine

message: I moved the paragraphs regarding to support and opposition. I think the article should describe publicly funded medicine and various examples prior to discussing what advocates and critics have to say about it. AED 21:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support and opposition

message: This article seems to be in favor of private insurance. Just read the "Opposition to Publicly Funded Medicine"-part
and you get to see some statements that do not hold true against the reality (for instance "lesser quality of healthcare
provided in a public financed system"). Another point is that a lot of the negative aspects of private healthcare ("adverse selection",
"higher administrative costs of private insurers", "cream skimming", "information asymmetries") aren't mentioned here.
And sometimes the article even mixes up "financing" (public or private) and "delivery" (also public or private) of healthcare.
*The section you mention first doesn't seem to be a problem. It is about opposition, so that is what it will report. It begins "Opponents claim publicly funded medicine has several disadvantages...", so it must report what these opponents say, whether you think it is factual or not. Notinasnaid 13:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Problem 

message: All the Anti US statistics are not right, for example, prostate cancer mortality in the US is between 14-16%, not 25 or what ever. All those statistics are old as well. The maternal mortality thing, have they though of minority adjusting this, because some ethnic minorities ARE MORE CONGEITALLY PRONE to complications. I recently viewed an article on ICU mortality. In France, at their 5 "best" university medical centers, in patients ages 40-71, mean age of 52.3, the mortality in 4 Surgical ICU's and 6 Medical ICU's was 33.6% (this being from an article written by an inept French physician); compare that to the Medicare National Average of 15.5% for Medical ICU's and 2.5% in Surgical ICU's( this according to an article in JAMA and one with AARP). When you risk-adjust it, We live far longer than any other countries, with maybe the exception of Sweden.
:That last claim is a popular fallacy among Americans. See List of countries by life expectancy – the US ranks 48th. If you look only at the richer industrialized countries it ranks behind Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, Iceland, Canada, France, Spain, Norway, Israel, Greece, Austria, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Germany, Belgium, the United Kingdom, and Finland. Behind Jordan, too. John FitzGerald 14:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that it is a fallacy to state that Americans live longer than citizens of other nations, it is also a fallacy to imply that life expectancy reflects the quality of care within a particular health care system. The anonymous editor makes a reasonable point regarding "risk-adjusted" statistics in that the United States is often compared to countries that do not share the same racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic breakdown. -AED 04:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I read the anonymous poster's last sentence a little hastily, and apologize for misconstruing whoever he/she may be. On the whole I agree with both of you. I'd also go farther and say there really aren't anywhere near enough data to draw conclusions about quality of care for most individual medical procedures, let alone entire health care systems. I went off half-cocked because I just get tired of the popular American delusion about American life expectancy, which is often then used to justify a claim (unjustified, as you and the anonymaous poster point out) that the American health care system is the best in the world. Even people who should kow better claim this – for example, Robert Novak made exactly this claim and drew exactky this unjustified conclusion a couple of years ago on his TV show. John FitzGerald 13:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: The Swedish healthcare is very privatized, with most hospitals, including one of Stockholm's largest, St. Goran's Sjukhus, being private. Most of Sweden is private or undergoing privatization at the moment, and theres competition with health insurance companies starting to develop.
Swedish healthcare is not "very privatized".--Blackfield 22:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish Healthcare 

message: This article would be enriched if there were mention of the very large separate (and publicly funded) health care systems set up for the military in most OECD countries, particularly the US and France. This is a topic that would (I hope) help remove the article from hysterical debates about private/public systems and simply give greater information on the public systems that exist. Military (as well as veterans and some police force) healthcare systems are large and, more importantly, set aside from civilian systems because they have different objectives, namely operational readiness rather than just improved health. In the US, for example, the military health care system (Tricare) is about a third of the known military budget. This is an often overlooked area of healthcare finance and policy that should be given more attention on Wikiepedia.
Any thoughts?
:TRICARE and Veterans Health Administration could get someone started on this topic. -- Argon233 T C @ ¶  22:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no consensus. --liquidGhoul 04:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military healthcare 

message: I'm going to move Publicly-funded medicine to Publicly-funded health care. First of all, "Publicly-funded health care" receives 117,000, whereas "Publicly-funded medicine" receives only 9,310 Google hits (many of which are mirrors). Secondly, "health care" more accurately describes the topic in that dentistry, optometry, and other services that do not directly fall under the field of medicine are applicable to the subject matter. -AED 07:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*I oppose this on two grounds:
*President Lethe has proposed moving this article as above, on the grounds that the hyphenation is not English. I oppose this on two grounds:
**This is exactly the sort of trivial change between national dialects in English that is deprecated. 
**It is a perfectly reasonable usage, and Fowler's Modern English Usage would support it. Publicly modifies funded and therefore should be grouped with it to avoid ambiguity. Septentrionalis 21:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey