And there are beautiful fjords, too!
Great post. There is so much we could learn from other countries, if we were able to accept that they might have something to teach us.
Hope the rest of your trip goes smoothly. I've only been to Bergen, which I loved. Take the boat tour that goes out from Bergen if you have a chance.
Did you ask what the time frame for treatment would be if surgery were necessary (say she ripped the ligament instead of stretched it)? Just curious.
Jim, we asked other locals about that, not at the hospital. You're treated right away. Like any other ER, the wait depends on how busy they are, but we definitely were not the only people in this clinic, and everyone was seen right away, no matter what their issue was.
We asked what it would cost if, say, you needed cancer treatment. Same thing: no charge or very little charge, and you're treated right away.
I guess it was Michael Moore who educated me about the British National Health Service which was initiated in 1948. I certainly never would have guessed there was socialized medicine when we visited a doctor on London's famed Harley Street in 1968. Harley street remains today synonymous with private medicine in England. It is not unreasonable to suppose that many in the U.S. fear major changes in government administered health care would jeopardize the coverage they now pay for. In truth, socialized medicine would never entirely replace private practice or insurance.
Dennis Kucinich was the most visible of the Democratic candidates to embrace a single payer, not-for-profit system. I think Dennis was saying that it would save money not only by eliminating the bloated bureaucracy of the insurance companies, (which might be compared to the necessary governmental bureaucracies which would be required to administer such a program.) But it is the very profits that drive the prices skyward.
Sadly, the reforms being proposed by the candidates today resemble those put in place by Massachusetts. There is no sweeping change to any of the money-handling. The same health care providers and insurers provide the same services. Moderate income people are simply forced to buy insurance and the poor are provided with insurance they could not otherwise afford. It seems to me that they would still be looking at many of the same unreasonable costs that even the insured already face today. Interestingly, Massachusetts does have a shortage of available physicians who can see the sudden influx of newly insured patients.
I really hated Bill Clinton pushing to require employers to provide medical insurance. I mean it's a great stopgap measure and it makes some sense, but it places an unfair burden on business and does nothing for the general population. Anyway that it is done, it will cost. With the current system spiralling out of the reach of most Americans, maybe it is time to simply say that it is a right for every American. It can't cost more in taxes than it does now in premiums, co-pays, percentages of coverage and depleted benifits.
FJ: insurance companies and all of the add-on industries that just exist to suck up profits have made our system such a mess. I remember when I was a kid we had insurance coverage through my father's employer. I don't remember it being a big deal. These days you have these benefits administrators and bloated bureaucracies that don't seem to function to any purpose that I can see. Except, of course, skimming money off the top to pay executives' salaries.
America needs a radical change and you're right, we've all been told this lie that the way they do things in Europe is somehow less efficient or less quality care. But that's not been my experience. I needed to see a doctor in London in 1979 and got a house call at no charge.
Thanks for posting this. The more we hear about actual experiences people have when they seek medical care abroad the more we know the myth that European healthcare is lousy simply isn't true. Sometimes the news we get through the media makes me feel like I'm living in China. Thank god for the Internet.
Better-off Americans have been taking vacations abroad for cosmetic surgery or to buy a foreign luxury car at the factory at reduced prices.
How long til an American insurance company decides the best healthcare it can provide poor folks is a company-run tramp steamer to Europe?
But...but.. how can you criticize our country like this SB? And to foreigners too!
Can't you see if she had been under the cleverly designed preventive care of the American Health Care System instead of the tax-burdensome purgatory of Norway she never would have injured her ankle in the first place?
She'd have been too busy working to PAY the criminally high rates for lousy US health care to go on vacation in the first place!
Bada-bing!
After just returning from eastern and central Europe, I find it very difficult to compare European healthcare and economics with those of America. When you factor in the massive amounts of illegal immigration to the US and welfare (including medicare) abuse, we are nothing like Norway, or any of the scandinavian countries for that matter. Last I checked, Norway didn't exactly have a problem with immigration.
America is built on the pursuit and successes of capitalism, not socialism. The fact that there is no ceiling on what you can make...if you work for it...drives America. How is it fair to punish doctors and surgeons who spend 12 - 16 years of their lives along with hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition? After all, that is what you are suggesting. Socialized medicine regulates what doctors, surgeons, nurses, and other healthcare professionals are paid. It also regulates the organizational profit. You tell me...if healthcare is "free", what is to stop someone from going to the hospital for every small ailment they encounter? If hospitals no longer have to compete for your business, do you really think that quality will improve? The opposite is true. Not only will it be increasingly difficult to recruit healthcare professionals (since they will now be government employees and paid a fraction of what they are worth), it will be impossible to handle the demand on the overall industry. You, and most others will visit the doctor and hospital more frequently...after all, it is "FREE". So, fewer doctors + no competition among providers + more patients = ... better healthcare?
Of course you like universal healthcare in Norway - it was FREE...well, at least free to you. Someone, somewhere paid for it. In our case, the upper tax bracket and the middle class will pay. The upper tax bracket is currently taxed 38%. Add medicare, state income tax, social security, and a tax hike for universal healthcare, and they will be taxed MORE THAN HALF of what they make. Sounds a lot like socialism to me...after all, let's call it what it is...redistribution of wealth. Would you like to have 50% or more of your hard-earned pay redistributed to people who are taking advatage of the system? Would you go to school for 16 years after high school to have 1/2 of your pay taken and redistributed to those who do not work or contribute to the economy?
Universal healthcare is nothing more than repackaged socialism. Nowhere throughout history has socialism worked. Think about it.
I agree with you completely Sean. You sound like a smart person that has put a lot of time into your response to Southern Beale's ridiculous rant about "Socialized Medicine". It gave me great joy reading your thoughtful response to that terrible babble about Socialized Medicine in Norway.
Sean makes good points.
The fact that we have to pay for healthcare in America is one of the last remaining incentives to stay healthy and live a fit, healthy lifestyle.
Do we pay too much for medical cost? Yes, but that's due to various reasons outside the scope of this. Are we taxed to much as it is? YES! Do I want to pay even MORE taxes than I already do in order to fund some stranger's healthcare - some stranger else who may not even take care of their body like I do? NO!
Government interference has always been a bad idea. That's the only thing related to your post that has been proven ineffective because it sure ain't capitalism. HMO's and the marriage between employer and insurance providers was a bad idea? Guess what that came from?... government interference. It came from big government overstepping its bounds. However good our healthcare system is now, it was better pre-1973 before our government created "managed care".
It's ridiculous how so many liberal/socialists return from some temporary getaway at some small, largely homogenous country like Norway and try to make apples to oranges comparisons with the United States. Sure, we've got our problems, but increasing government dependency is like giving whiskey to a drunkard in rehab.
I ask this: What's the rate of immigration in Norway? What's the obesity rate? What's the rate of heart disease and Type II diabetes? I guess the feel-good emotions of receiving "free" healthcare from the sweat of somebody's else's labor outweighed your ability to think rationally when you suggested we adopt this socialist approach in the USA.
Sounds a lot like socialism to me...after all, let's call it what it is...redistribution of wealth.
Works for me. It's about time the super wealthy started toting their share of the load, instead of freeloading off of working people. Anyone who makes multi-millions of dollars is "taking advantage of the system."
And since I don't like sock-puppetry over here, I'd like my loyal readers to know that Tim and Sean are the same person. Or at least, they are using the same computer.
This stuff isn't that hard to track down, you know. Anyone who was really smart would know that.
Hale sounds like another incarnation of the same sockpuppet.
And Hale, if you're real, objective measures of health rank the people of Norway much higher than those in the US.
Let me address this 'sock puppetry' comment. First off, I am not reincarnating myself into different personas just to mess with your little blog. I shared this with some friends, and they are as disturbed as I am. If you would like to know how I came upon your blog, email me and I can share that with you.
Additionally - Tim works in the same office as I do (BTW - the DHCP client in our switches hand out IP addresses by family - check the MAC addresses. "anyone who was really smart would know that"). We work in IT and are not trying to hide from you. My email address is on this post.
I must also add that I am nowhere near the top tax bracket. I am in the 25% tax bracket and feel for those in the 38% bracket. I know fundamentally that hiking taxes on the producers of an economy is detrimental to its long-term success. I am also not defending multi-millionaires..., as I am not one. I do not feel that it is right to punish those who have spent a lifetime working to reach financial success. My wife is going into dental school and I certainly know firsthand how much it costs, and how difficult it is. She (we) deserves to be taxed at a fair rate along with the rest of the nation...especially given our sacrifice to get there.
So, in your opinion, the 'super wealthy' aren't toting their load? In 2005, the top 1% of earners paid 40% of the gross IRS revenue. The top 5% paid 60% of the gross. What did the bottom 50% pay? ONLY 3% OF THE GROSS! Yeah, sounds like they’re ‘not toting their load’.
Here are the facts.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php...ge.php?
PageID=6
Let me address this 'sock puppetry' comment. First off, I am not reincarnating myself into different personas just to mess with your little blog. I shared this with some friends, and they are as disturbed as I am.
Additionally - Tim works in the same office as I do (BTW - DHCP switches hand out IP addresses by family - check the MAC addresses. "anyone who was really smart would know that"). We work in IT and are not trying to hide from you.
I must also add that I am nowhere near the top tax bracket. I am in the 25% tax bracket and feel for those in the 38% bracket. I know fundamentally that hiking taxes on the producers of an economy is detrimental to its long-term success. I am also not defending multi-millionaires..., as I am not one. I do not feel that it is right to punish those who have spent a lifetime working to reach financial success. My wife is going into dental school and I certainly know firsthand how much it costs, and how difficult it is. She (we) deserves to be taxed at a fair rate along with the rest of the nation...especially given our sacrifice to get there.
So, in your opinion, the 'super wealthy' aren't toting their load? In 2005, the top 1% of earners paid 40% of the gross IRS revenue. The top 5% paid 60% of the gross. What did the bottom 50% pay? ONLY 3% OF THE GROSS! Yeah, sounds like they’re ‘not toting their load’.
Here are the facts.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php...ge.php?
PageID=6
sorry for the double-post
SB - what percent of taxes should the rich be responsible for? As you can see above, we already pay over 60% of the federal income taxes - how is that not "toting our load?"
What percent of the government services such as medicaid, social security, welfare, food stamps, etc. do you think we consume from the government? I do know this, when the government decided to give "every" taxpayer a stimulus check, they convienetly left out those of us that have paid the most into the system year after year. People that did not pay any federal income taxes got "Stimulus" checks while those that paid the most got nothing. And this was a Republican idea! Socialism will be the downfall of our economy. When taxes become so burdensome that it is easier to just not put forth the effort to make as much money, then you will see the decline of the US economy. Place a cap on someone's compensation and you will place a cap on how much they decide to work. Why work harder for no benifit?
I could not agree more, Jim.
SB, please, please read any book by Ayn Rand (Preferrably 'We the Living' or 'Atlas Shrugged'). It will certainly change how you view socialism.
This Republican seeded meme about "welfare fraud" and illegal immigration being the major problem with the high cost of our medical care is about as valid as a corn flake in a rainstorm.
I worked for the Dept. of Welfare and fraud was minimal. Most clients shockingly enough were only on welfare for a short time. Illegal immigration is a very complex problem that we need to resolve for national security reasons mostly. Immigrants have historically been great whipping boys, but they do work their butts off to build our houses, pick our food, mow our lawns (just ask Mitt Romney)and other assorted fun jobs.
The truth is the high cost of our health system largely comes from the big pharmacuetical companies. Who do you think pays for the multi-million dollar ads that are working hard to addict people to those profitable drugs? Whose paying for all the trinkets the sales people offer doctors? The trips, the free hotel rooms at conventions, the magazine and print ads that are splattered like graffitti in every magazine you pick up? And why in the world does it cost so much to go to medical school anyway? Are they expensive because of anticipated future salaries?
The anti-life, sheltered from REAL reality folks always seem to focus first on poor people (which have now become our working- class). It's always their fault that much of America is becoming a 3rd world nation.
The truth is there is a ton of money available in this country. It's just that we use it to fight wars and kill people rather than to insure our citizens have a healthy life.
Socalized medicine is not a term that makes my hair stand on end, but stories of people dying because they can't afford life-saving medical treatments does.
It's always a cheap shot to blame the poor. They may be flawed, but comfortable people are flawed too and they aren't above sucking the life-blood out of this country either.
At the end of the day, I'm not looking to the government to solve our problems. It cant. Only WE can. By giving more and more power to the government (i.e. universal healthcare, welfare, etc) we only increase the size of the parasite sucking the life out of this country. Speaking of welfare...the program is a disaster. Do you really want all healthcare run in the same way? Welfare hasn’t done a fraction of the good that the private sector (non profits, churches, individuals, etc.) have done for others in need.
America certainly has a problem with poverty and healthcare. However, there exists an even bigger problem at the hearts of many...a mentality of entitlement and laziness. When did so many people in this country feel that they are ‘entitled’ to free healthcare and welfare? What happened to hard work? Limitless opportunity is the foundation that America is built on…not entitlements. People immigrated to America long ago for an opportunity to work hard and earn a fair living…not to get ‘free healthcare and welfare’. As Jim said earlier – to increase spending on social programs by taxing the producers of a country only leads to the long-run decline in production. This isn’t good for anyone.
I've read plenty of Ayn Randian crap. Her "it's OK to be selfish" philosophy is immoral.
I must say, I don't agree with everything that Ayn Rand writes of (selfishness and atheism for two), but I was speaking to her writing on socialism and boundary of government.
Don't get me started on morality. That's another topic altogether.
I had a similar experience - I got conjunctivits on the flight over, and ended up going to a clinic in Oslo. It cost nothing! I got and exam, some pills and some eyedrops and I was good to go.
Very civilized. We loved Norway.
SB, please, please read any book by Ayn Rand (Preferrably 'We the Living' or 'Atlas Shrugged'). It will certainly change how you view socialism.
[giggle]
Uh, yeah. I've read "Fountainhead", "Atlas Shrugged" and bits of "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" and all it did for me is make me realize how childish a "philosophy" like Objectivism is. And that Rand is a really, really, really bad fiction writer.
Pfaugh. If Rand and her followers represent "capitalism" I'll stick with socialism, thenkyew.
Commenting by HaloScan
