Wikipedia

Talk:Publicly-funded health care/Archive 1

< Talk:Publicly-funded health care
Latest comment: 17 years ago by 82.109.66.146 in topic Old topics

Old topics

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I do not believe this article should be merged with Health Care System. Tkjazz 07:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone going to mention Louisiana's Charity Hospital system?

Erm... Any reason given why this article has suddenly had its neutrality disputed? Sievert 20:47, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

—--------

Probably due to it not being entirely neutral. The lines "Another possible criticism cites the fairness of paying for people's poor individual decisions (obesity, smoking, drinking, drugging, etc.) as they relate to health care costs. It is argued that these costs should be incurred solely by those making those poor decisions." while true fail to recognise how insurance works and that the cost to insurers of people with these problems is passed on to people taking out insurance (as otherwise they would not make enough return of money due to payouts to sick people). The net result is that in both systems, people who make good health choices pay for those that do not. Insurance companies are also in it to make money, whereas the govt. generally is not, so your insurance is also paying for the profit of your insurer also.

The article fails to mention these things.

82.109.66.146 13:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC) John.R

–--------


--

I am going to delete contents of National Health Service and move the contents of that page to this talk page for possible inclusion in this article, or Socialized medicine. There is an overlap between all three articles and I think that "National Health Service" is hardly ever used to refer to any other system other than the british one as the links to that page and the redirect NHS would attest. I also propose that the two articles Socialized medicine and Publicly funded medicine should be merged.

merge between Socialized medicine and Publicly funded medicine complete. -- Kowey 16:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Former contents of National Health Service

A national health service is a system of healthcare funded by mandatory taxes where every resident person in the country is automatically a member, and healthcare is free at the time of use.

It first appeared in the United Kingdom in 1948 and is sometimes called the Beveridge-Bevan model, after its founders there. National health services now exist in other countries, like Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Spain and Sweden.

See also :

NPOV?

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

Why not NPOV

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It appears to not be NPOV due to a "straw-man" fallacy of sorts--the arguments against publically funded-medicine aren't well-developed here--with crucial segments being omitted completely--and are knocked down by glib and sometimes equivocal counterarguments.

Additionally, there are (or were) blantant, propagandistic factual inaccuracies, one of which I removed, which claimed that only "wealthy" people can afford private healthcare--this may be true in places with socialized medicine, but it isn't true in places without--and that a "majority" is priced out of the healthcare market, which at the very least isn't true in the USA.

Bkalafut 00:24, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

The statistics that I am aware of state that over 60% of US residents are neither rich enough to afford full health insurance nor poor enough to qualify for free coverage. That sounds like a majority to me but no doubt you have access to more accurate figures. Please share them. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:37, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
Never mind. I have found some myself. http://www.kff.org/uninsured/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=29284 states that the (totally) uninsured rate is nearer 17%. It doesn't state the level of coverage of those who are insured though. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:49, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
Many wealthy people don't have full health insurance, so they get lower premiums, as they can pay for some things themselves --SodiumBenzoate 00:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Nota bene

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Seems neutral but...

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)

--- Wow, this article seems to be decidedly non-neutral. Almost every paragraph in the Arguments section follows the pattern of "Critics claim such-and-such, but they ignore the fact that..." Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the issues to correct the POV. --FleaPlus 02:19, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The "Role of the free market" section is decidedly non-NPOV. Very difficult to fix though. One of the problems is that the arguments could go on forever because there is no way to make a randomised double-blind controlled trial of two separate systems ... Alex.tan 15:44, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Public systems around the world

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)

Costed puzzle

A while ago I added the section "Difficulties of analysis" which includes the phrase

"It may choose to provide ... but this still has to be costed and funded..."

Recently this was changed to "has to be cost and funded" with a comment "irregular verb". But it no longer looks correct to me, so I reverted it. Now it has been changed to just "has to be funded" which is removing a crucial part of the meaning.

The meaning I intended to convey was "It may choose to provide... . Still, it is necessary to do a cost analysis in order to accurately budget, and to get the funding." Costing is actually the more important part of the sentence, since the whole section is about analysis.

My dictionary (Chambers, 2003) includes a definition of cost as "vt: to estimate the cost of production of". I observe this meaning is absent in Wiktionary. Is it really so obscure? Maybe it is. There is also the meaning "to be obtainable at a price of". The difference is crucial.

I estimated the cost of production of X -> I costed X. The charge for X was Y -> X cost Y

Can anyone suggest a rephrasing that would avoid the attention of people that don't know about this definition of "cost"? Or is something else wrong with the sentence?

"Costed"

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)

Advantages vs. Disadvantages

A minor point I suppose, but I draw your attention to the following lines: "Proponents of publicly funded medicine cite several advantages" and "Opponents of publicly funded medicine cite numerous disadvantages". This clearly implies that there are more disadvantages than there are advantages, which for one is NPOV, and secondly, it even fails to list any more disadvantages than advantages (3 each). If nobody minds I'll fix this. -- Joolz 22:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good observation, go ahead and make any changes you feel are necessary. - SimonP 23:03, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)


Medicaid in the US

There is no mention in the article about Medicaid, which is the health insurance program for the poor in the United States. I think that and Medicare should be included in the section on the United States under the health care in various countries section. While medicare and medicaid are not the same as total universal health care coverage they are smaller forms of socialized medicine. Orporg

Section entitled "Public systems around the world"

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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)

-

All developed countries except the US now have a universal system. Medicatd and Medicare in the US are categorical systems, not universal systems. The apartheid comment is certainly unnecessary, but it's equally inaccurate to create an impression that the US is not an outlier when it comes to healthcare systems. Alan 15:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

-

First of all, Medicare and Medicaid in the US are examples of "publicly funded medicine" according to the article's definition: (i.e. "Publicly funded medicine is a level of medical service that is paid wholly or in majority part by public funds."). There is a contradiction here, so either the claim that the US has "not [maintained] a publicly funded health-care system" needs to change or the definition of the article needs to change.

Secondly, I'm not sure what your comment (i.e. "it's equally inaccurate to create an impression that the US is not an outlier when it comes to healthcare systems") is supposed to mean. The article is about "publicly funded medicine" which, as defined in the article, is not the same as universal health care; therefore, the comment is inaccurate and the apartheid remark is irrelevant. Let's dispense with "creating impressions" and make the comment accurate. AED 04:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

- There is a difference between "publicly funded medicine" [refers to who pays for the service] and healthcare that provides for "universal access" [refers to who receives the service.]. These two properties are distinct and not interchangable and can exist within any healthcare system. Whilst no definitions per se for "universal access" was provided, it is generally though to represent "healthcare provided to "all" individuals within a specified area without regards for their ability to pay." From the definitions posited, Medicare and Medicare are indeed forms of "publicly funded medicine", but they are not "universal". Restricting the definition of universality will permit certain programs to satisfy both criteria; for instance Medicare for above 65 years old; Medicaid for indigent, etc..

Strictly speaking only systems such as NHS and Canadian Medicare can claim to be "publicly funded" and provide "universal access" AC..

Section entitled "Role of the free market"

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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)

-

Isn't this article supposed to be describing publicly funded medicine rather than privately funded medicine (as this section is doing)? Healthcare system would be a much more neutral ground to contrast the two. Thoughts? AED 05:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm adding the NPOV dispute banner, again. This article appears to be a thinly-veiled debate between those favoring nationalized healthcare and those opposed (especially in the sections entitled: "Parallel public/private systems", "Role of the free market", and "Difficulties of analysis".) Healthcare system would be more appropriate for listing advantages and disadvantages of the two. AED 06:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If there is controversy over publicly funded medicine, surely it is appropriate that this article reflect it? Of course, it has to be very sensitive in how it reflects that controversy to separate opinion from fact: this sort of article is notorious for partisan phrasing and selective evidence.

On the specific: I wrote the original text of "Difficulties of analysis" and, unusually, it hasn't been changed much since. This doesn't seem to be point of view at all, unless you feel the opposing point of view is that it is wrong to plan and analyse a healthcare system, or immoral to count how much it costs. The specific issue chosen, smoking, was deliberately high profile to engage the reader, but are any of the facts or conclusions suspect (unless you don't agree smoking can shorten life expectancy)? Or, to put it another way: if this section violates the NPOV rules can you answer either (a) which point of view does it favour or (b) which point of view does it omit?Notinasnaid 08:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I do not object to the article stating what are perceived to be benefits and drawbacks of "publicly funded medicine", but I think the article goes far beyond that. Regarding the section entitled "Difficulties of analysis", I really am having a hard time understanding what is the point of the section and its relevance to "publicly funded medicine". If the point is to let people know that cost-benefit analyses of various healthcare systems are difficult, then that point might be better suited in Healthcare system or Health insurance (where a "debate" between privately funded health insurance and publicly funded health insurance might be on neutral ground). With all due respect to the work you put into it, the presentation of the information (accurate or not) reads like a lecture and not an encyclopedia article with a detached POV. If you clarify the primary purpose of the section, that might help me. AED 09:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Partly the point is indeed to let people know that cost-benefit analysis and the definition of "best" is difficult, because arguments tend to take it for granted that "best" is well defined. I was disturbed in reading the article to find that it included debates about "best" without a definition of "best"; without such information how is the reader to understand the debates (except by application of their own existing opinion of what is best). Without a knowledge of analysis, we can be bamboozled by anyone producing selective justifications of things. Personally I think it belongs here because the discussion is specific to the analysis of publicly funded medicine. An entirely private system (does anywhere in the world have one?) would not have the same complications, though it may have its own different ones, and health insurance is only one system. Maybe healthcare system but that doesn't seem to be well developed.
Perhaps you are saying you really want to see this devoted to descriptions of public healthcare systems, and not any debates about them. I think that would be a pity. Every publicly funded medical service is likely to be constantly attended by debate and controversy, though I can only speak for what I see in the UK (where issues of the care of a single patient can become national election issues), and see reported about the US. I would however like to see more on debates and controversies and differences WITHIN public healthcare i.e. why countries have decided to adopt different models. "Role of the free market" does belong here,at least in concept; in the UK there is a constant and lively debate about whether it is "right" to use private medical companies to provide part of the free-at-the-point-of-delivery public healthcare service.
It may be valuable to reorganise the article so that uncontroversial areas (if any can be found) can be presented without the controversy. But I have read the article, and except for the phrasing of a few of the points, I think it affirms the NPOV idea rather than violating it. Notinasnaid
Regarding: “Perhaps you are saying you really want to see this devoted to descriptions of public healthcare systems, and not any debates about them.” I would like to see this article describe any relevant debate or controversy – not necessarily used as forum for debate. I think there is a difference.
In my opinion, the article presents an enormous POV (exemplified in the sections entitled "Role of the free market" and "Difficulties of analysis") in that it simply assumes whatever debate surrounding "publicly funded medicine" is whether or not it can provide higher quality or more cost effective health care to citizens than the free market. The POV that the controversy is something else entirely is touched upon in the second sentence, but then never again mentioned. Even you admit that what is "best" is not well defined, but seem to assume (by virtue of the fact that you support the lengthy section on cost-benefit analysis) that it must have something to do with a balance between cost and quality.
Let's keep discussing this. So I can get on the same page as you, how would you sum up the main controversy or debate involving "publicly funded medicine"? AED 04:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


Propose move to Healthcare system

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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)

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

Propose removal of adjective from fourth paragraph

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"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)

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)
I agree. Jinxmchue 18:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Section entitled "Difficulties of analysis"

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Socialized medicine

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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)
  • I think Universal healthcare and Socialized medicine deserve their own articles, and I agree with the above editor that linking them to Publicly funded medicine is POV. I compiled the following stats back in July and it indicates that "publicly funded medicine" is used much less in the real world than some of the other names that link to it in Wikipedia. I googled "publicly funded medicine" today and received only 812 hits; signficantly less than the 3,620 hits in July. If Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what information is available in the real world, this issue needs to be revisited. AED 07:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Various articles related to Publicly funded medicine

Posted here for future reference with number of Google hits as of July 18, 2005:

Support and opposition

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

I would like to see the term "medicare" switched to "healthcare" wherever Canada is being discussed in the article. Canadians do not call our services "medicare" - that's an American term/name. Ours is called "the healthcare system". I would also like to see articles throughout Wiki, which mention both Canada and the USA, to have less of personal commentary and stick to the facts. There is a blatant dissing of Canada going on and it's highly insulting. Not to mention the glaring errors in content. There are some even in this article but I'm tired of trying to fix these things. I can't edit all of Wiki for Canada. Somebody ought to be more factual and careful though. --CarrieD 11:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"Difficulties of analysis"

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

Back in October, the section "Difficulties of analysis" was reduced to a stub. (See note above, but there was no discussion). I've spent some time thinking about it, and I really don't see the article was improved. By eliminating examples and illustrations it is left which something which explains far less to the reader. There does seem to be some unease about the idea that analysis, rather than ideology, should underpin decision making; or so I conclude from the claim that almost all of this violates NPOV. Let's have a discussion here, especially in the light of all the notes at the top of the article: I have the entire text removed, numbered for convenience of discussion.

1. Cost-benefit analysis of healthcare is extremely difficult to do accurately. For instance, prevention of smoking or obesity is presented as having the potential to save the costs of treating illnesses arising from those choices. Yet, if those illnesses are fatal or life shortening, they may reduce the eventual cost to the system of treating that person through the rest of their life, possibly dying of an illness every bit as expensive to treat as the ones they avoided by a healthy lifestyle.

2. This has to be balanced against the loss of taxation or insurance revenue that might come should a person have a longer productive (i.e. working and tax or insurance-paying) life. The cost-benefit analysis will be very different depending on whether you adopt a whole-life accounting, or consider each month as debits and credits on an insurance system. In a system financed by taxation, the greatest cost benefit comes from preserving the working life of those who are likely to pay the most tax in future, i.e. the young and rich.

3. Few politicians would dare to present the big picture of costs in this way, because they would be condemned as callous. Nevertheless, behind the scenes, a responsible government must be performing cost analysis in order to balance its budget; it is not likely, however, to take the most purely cost effective route. It may choose to provide the "best" health care according to some other model, but the cost of this still must be estimated and funded, and there is no uncontroversial definition of "best".

4. In producing a definition of quality of healthcare, there is an implication that quality can be objectively measured. In fact, the effectiveness of healthcare is extremely difficult to quantify, not only because of medical uncertainty, but because of intangible elements like "quality of life". This is likely to lead to systems that measure only what is easy to measure, such as length of life, average waiting times, or infection rates, and may reduce the importance within the system of treatment of chronic, but non-fatal, conditions, or of providing the best care for the terminally ill. Thus, it is possible for personal satisfaction with the system to go down, while metrics go up.

Perhaps we can start with the simple question: is any of this factually wrong? If not can we move on to: if any of this violates NPOV, specifically what, and what is the counter-argument that should be presented. Notinasnaid 09:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • As written above, the article used up four rambling paragraphs attempting to support one assertion: "Cost-benefit analysis of healthcare is extremely difficult to do accurately." In the current version, all of that has been reduced to two factual and easily read sentences. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs to contain verifiable content that is not a new interpretation or fact not previously enunciated elsewhere. There is much unreferenced speculation in those four paragraphs that violates WP policy. AED 06:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's ignore the question of references for now (just for now) and look instead at the whole question of whether the current section Cost-benefit analyses of various health care systems are frequently mentioned by advocates and opponents of publicly funded healthcare programs. Others caution that these analyses are difficult to do accurately due to the multifactoral nature of health, healthcare delivery, and healthcare financing, as well as the lack of consensus on what is "best" for a nation or its people. or the version presented above are in fact best for Wikipedia. I would strongly assert that it is the long version.

Underpinning this is the whole question of how Wikipedia is targeted i.e. who it is written for. The long version seeks, through specific examples (carefully worded as is presented as) to explain this in such a way that the general reader comes away knowing not only that there is a controversy, but why there are no easy answers. The new version seems to me to be written at the level of a college textbook, and doesn't really leave any general reader any the wiser. Nor indeed a specialist reader, it seems to say that the arguments are familiar to the reader, so we won't bore you with them. I feel strongly that where an article can be comprehesible to a general reader then it should be, and this does mean including illustrations that a specialist might even consider offensively simplistic. I'd go so far as to say this article isn't likely to me much benefit to a specialist, yet it is a subject of great and vital interest to a general audience, who are not well served by reducing it to bare bones.

I don't agree that the long version "waffles". Waffling implies repetition, including material outside the target area, circumlocution, or unnecessarily wordy writing. I don't see evidence of any of these, just a reduction of a large and complex area with many salient points, which I would argue is vital and relevant to the article topic. Notinasnaid 04:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, after allowing plenty long enough for discussion, I reinstated it, to have it reduced backto a stub. What does it take to have a civilised discussion, rather than an edit war, here? Notinasnaid 07:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I observe there seems to be only one other participant in this: User:AED, who put forward one view, but never continued discussion. Surely there are more than two editors involved in this page? Notinasnaid 08:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all, there is some irony in this in that it was you who ignored my request for continued discussion on this point in July of 2005 (see above). Secondly, all you did was restate your opinion that you think the entry was appropriate while disregarding comment on Wiki policy that articles need to contain verifiable content that is not a new interpretation or fact not previously enunciated elsewhere. Thirdly, I never said your long version "waffles"; I said that it "used up four rambling paragraphs attempting to support one assertion: 'Cost-benefit analysis of healthcare is extremely difficult to do accurately.'" -AED 17:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I missed an earlier opportunity to follow this up, and I'm sorry if you don't consider ramble and waffle as synonyms. Let's recast the question. You seem to have taken great exception to this section and/or how it was written, and I still struggle to understand why. As I previously said, to keep the discuission on one subject as a time, "Let's ignore the question of references for now (just for now)". So, what is your objection? Sometimes you seem to challege this on lack of sources, sometimes for NPOV, sometimes for rambling. Can we pick just one of the latter two, and focus on a discussion of this point: if it is NPOV, what is the point of view it is pushing? Or, if it rambles, please I would welcome some reply to the paragraph above starting "Underpinning this is the whole question of how Wikipedia is targeted.". Notinasnaid 12:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all, “ramble” means “to speak or write at length and with many digressions” and “waffle” means “to speak or write evasively.” I’m sorry if you don’t appreciate that they are not synonyms, or disagree with my particular evaluation of your edit. Secondly, regarding “So, what is your objection? Sometimes you seem to challege this on lack of sources, sometimes for NPOV, sometimes for rambling.”: All of the above! Although you indicate that you “struggle to understand why” I “challenge”, “object”, or “take great exception” to your version, you’ve managed to relatively accurately summarize the problems I see. Your version lacks sources, contains a new interpretation of facts not previously enunciated elsewhere (which is directly linked to WP:OR and often to WP:NPOV), and it rambles. It is your contention that your longer version helps elucidate some point to the target audience, but this is simply not so. It clearly comes across as one person’s take on the issue:
1. Cost-benefit analysis of healthcare is extremely difficult to do accurately. [Says whom? Such analyses have been done frequently, and whether or not it is done accurately is subject to opinion. Whether they are important is also subject to opinion.] For instance, prevention of smoking or obesity is presented as having the potential to save the costs of treating illnesses arising from those choices. [Needs source]. Yet, if those illnesses are fatal or life shortening, they may reduce the eventual cost to the system of treating that person through the rest of their life,[Says whom?] possibly dying of an illness every bit as expensive to treat as the ones they avoided by a healthy lifestyle. [Doesn’t make sense as a sentence.]
2. This has to be balanced against the loss of taxation or insurance revenue that might come should a person have a longer productive (i.e. working and tax or insurance-paying) life. [Says whom? Whether or not one factor must be balanced against another is subject to opinion.] The cost-benefit analysis will be very different depending on whether you adopt a whole-life accounting, or consider each month as debits and credits on an insurance system.[Says whom? How is a reference to “whole-life accounting”comprehensible to the target audienc?.] In a system financed by taxation, the greatest cost benefit comes from preserving the working life of those who are likely to pay the most tax in future, i.e. the young and rich. [Says whom?And who says this factor is even important?]
3. Few politicians would dare to present the big picture of costs in this way, because they would be condemned as callous [Says whom? Who is to say that they wouldn’t be cheered for presenting an honest assessment of what they believe, and who is to say that they share the same “big picture”?]. Nevertheless, behind the scenes, a responsible government must be performing cost analysis in order to balance its budget; it is not likely, however, to take the most purely cost effective route. [Says whom? Some libertarians might say a responsible government doesn’t rob Peter to pay Paul. Others may say a responsible must do whatever it takes to provide healthcare to all.] It may choose to provide the "best" health care according to some other model, but the cost of this still must be estimated and funded, and there is no uncontroversial definition of "best". [Says whom?]
4. In producing a definition of quality of healthcare, there is an implication that quality can be objectively measured. [Says whom? There is an implication in this sentence that it cannot.Who is to say?] In fact, the effectiveness of healthcare is extremely difficult to quantify, not only because of medical uncertainty, but because of intangible elements like "quality of life". [Says whom? Such analyses have been done frequently, and whether or not it is done accurately is subject to opinion.] This is likely to lead to systems that measure only what is easy to measure, such as length of life, average waiting times, or infection rates, and may reduce the importance within the system of treatment of chronic, but non-fatal, conditions, or of providing the best care for the terminally ill. [Says whom? An encyclopedia article is not the place for speculation.] Thus, it is possible for personal satisfaction with the system to go down, while metrics go up. [Says whom? Depends upon what was speculated previously.]
-AED 20:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm away for most of the next week, and I will return to this. Thank you for your detailed analysis. I have to admit I'm puzzled why
(a) the other parts of the article that need sources have been flagged as such, but this part was deleted, and
(b) why your shortened summary, which seems to reflect the same points, is acceptable, while the long version is not.
Notinasnaid 14:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
(a) Although much more could be done, I've already made changes to the other parts of the article. This particular section was probably the worst. I attempted to explain why above.
(b) First of all, if it's a shortened summary, then it wasn't deleted as you suggested in (a). Secondly, the shortened summary is acceptable to me only because it reflects the same points (i.e. preserves the essence of your work) while removing the POV and attempting to attribute the statements to someone. Frankly, I don't care if what remains is removed due to lack of sources, but then nothing would remain of the point you were attempting to make.
I may be away, too, but I hope to work with you on building this article. In my opinion, everything in the article that is unsourced should be stripped away and a new article built upon the ashes.
-AED 17:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

General Problem

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

No way for a merge, this is something completely different.

Bias

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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)
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)
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)

Swedish Healthcare

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

This debate would be improved by reference to the vast amount of material available in VERIFIABLE SOURCES, such as the Working Papers series of the Economics Department of the OECD. Go to www.oecd.org choose departments, choose economics, choose related topics = health and take in from there. Or try

http://www.oecd.org/findDocument/0,2350,en_2649_34587_1_119684_1_1_1,00.html

In relation to Sweden, tehre is a recent one: " Getting better value for money from Sweden's healthcare system (English) 26-Sep-2005 / David Rae/ Economics Department Working Paper 443."

Word or PDF version from http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2005doc.nsf/linkto/ECO-WKP(2005)30

The "very privatized" assertion seems to be quite wrong. I quote: "Health expenditure is financed mostly through income taxes, with the private funding share (around 15%) below the OECD average but in line with the other Nordic countries. Out-of-pocket spending is well below the OECD average.2 Private health insurance is almost non-existent, covering less than 1% of healthcare costs. Overall, the financing of the system is close to proportional, i.e. neither pro-rich nor pro-poor.3" [and see below]

"Sweden has an integrated public healthcare system in which the majority of financing and almost all the delivery is provided by the public sector. The main responsibility lies with the 20 county councils and one local authority (for convenience, they will be referred to as the 21 county councils in the rest of this paper).

"These county councils own and run most hospitals and are responsible for the delivery of primary and hospital care, including public health and preventative care. ... The counties also regulate privately run but publicly financed healthcare providers. They control the establishment of new private practices and the rules about the number of patients that private practitioners can see each year and set the fee schedule that must be adhered to if a private provider wants to be reimbursed by the social insurance system. Most primary care is publicly provided. Only a quarter of outpatient consultations are conducted in private facilities, and most of those are in the larger cities and have contracts with the county council. Purely private primary care is rare.

In relation to the problems of interpreting population health statistics in relation to "quality of health care" statistics, try this:

"One recent analysis, which modified the World Health Organisation’s well-known ranking of health systems, looked at standardised death rates from causes that health systems can do something about; in that study, Sweden ranked first out of 19 OECD countries.6 It also performed well in the OECD’s three disease-based comparisons of health-sector outcomes (which looked at survival rates for stroke victims, for example).7"

Ref 6 says: "See Nolte and McKee (2003) and WHO (2000). The World Health Organisation study ranked health systems according to the level and distribution of health attainment, system responsiveness and the fairness of financing, taking into account a country’s economic and educational attainment. The Nolte and McKee study, by comparison, looked only at amenable mortality – i.e. conditions that are amenable to treatment by the healthcare system. Sweden ranked fourth rather than first if ischaemic heart disease is also taken into account, although the authors argue that it is unclear whether that condition should count as “amenable”.

the Nolte & Mckee paper is: Nolte, Ellen and Martin McKee (2003), “Measuring the Health of Nations: Analysis of Mortality Amenable to Healthcare”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 327, No. 15."

Planner1 11:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Military healthcare

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)
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)

Page move

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Requested move

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Publicly-funded health care → Publicly funded health care – No hyphen between adverb and adjective. Tried to move it myself, but a redirection page is in the way. — President Lethe 22:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

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)
  • I fixed this incomplete move request. I also changed Lethe to President Lethe (User:Preslethe) in Septentrionalis's comment. There is a user with the name of Lethe, so the shorthand was confusing, particularly since President Lethe's name was not mentioned above before I completed the nomination. In the future, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves, President Lethe. Thanks for trying to fix the request, Septentrionalis. However, the move notice goes at the top of the talk page and it is recommended that the area for discussion be copied from Wikipedia:Requested moves, which I have done. -- Kjkolb 09:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Opposition to publicly funded medicine

Latest comment: 18 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

I find this section to be very strange. Many of the various things that are claimed have no foundation at all. The countries with public health care are proof enough. I have deleted some things that are dubious and whatnot. --Blackfield 22:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. Whether these have foundation is of no relevance. Counter examples are nothing. What matters is whether people (who oppose publicly funded medicine) say them. So I have reinstated your change. Neutral point of view means presenting all the major points of view, right or wrong (in your opinion). Notinasnaid 16:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I somewhat doubt that people who oppose public health care say those things, because it would be stupid and taken out of the air. For example claim 2, 3 and low salaries etc.: if they were true then our health care here in Sweden would suck. I doesn't, and Sweden is leading country when it comes to medical development, also doctors are very (very) well paid.--Blackfield 15:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that in Sweden there are not very many people who are opposed to publicly-funded healthcare. Things are not the same everywhere in the world. I suspect you would find many such statements in the US media and campaigns from vested interests and people with particular viewpoints. Clearly, they should be sourced in this article, but I have no trouble believing that people say such things, and you cannot delete things just because you think the people saying them are idiots, wrong, or both. Notinasnaid 18:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I just did a search, and I found this article [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1229567/posts The Case Against Socialized Medicine]. Quotes include "Doctors will then be government employees, and, as such, have far less accountability, as well as lower pay." You don't have to agree with this stuff at all, and if your natural instinct is to argue here with the points in those articles, you may need to do more work on how Wikipedia interprets "neutral point of view". A much more balanced article is On Doctor's Salaries "The ratio of the average income of U.S. physicians to average employee compensation for the United States as a whole was about 5.5. Germany’s was the next highest, at only 3.4; Canada, 3.2; Australia, 2.2; Switzerland, 2.1; France, 1.9; Sweden, 1.5; and the United Kingdom, 1.4." I draw no conclusions from this, but some on one side of the argument would seek to. Notinasnaid 18:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that do I carry a point of view and that doctors do not receive an equal amount of money all over the world (even though it might not be relevant to discuss such a thing because doctors, at least in west, generally make plenty of money, so it's basically comparing which countries doctors are rich and who are filthy rich), but are you implying that the factual basis for an argumentative statement is not relevant just as long as people make them? For example 2, 3, 5 and medical research (again): there is basically proof that these arguments are wrong (as I said above). Should they still be included as counter arguments just because some people believe that they are true and use them to debate against public health care even though there are no factual sources, to make it appear more NPOV? I agree that there should be arguments for and against, but these are just silly. I propose deleting 2, 3, 5 and the medical research stuff until there are sources enough to include them.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want this article to be restructured to be pro public health care, but I react to the things I consider silly. There are for example stuff in the "Go public healthcare!" section (2. "better health care"(?)) and elsewhere in the article that should be changed. Besides, the for and against sections are VERY contradictory in relation to one another.
On a side note, there are in fact lost of people in Sweden who are against public health care. We have indeed been ruled by the Social Democratic Party for a very long time (with some interruptions) but I would say that it's roughly about a 70/30 ratio (for/against), but it is constantly shifting as various political winds and trends blow by.--Blackfield 20:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
You write "but are you implying that the factual basis for an argumentative statement is not relevant just as long as people make them." Yes, exactly that. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, especially "If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false" and the section Writing for the "enemy". Notinasnaid 21:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Notinasnaid. First of all, if we are going to remove items in the "against" section because they are lacking citations, then we need to remove items in the "for" section for the same reason. Personally, I would not object to deleting every statement in the article that does not include a citation Secondly, what is absolute fact in debates regarding publicly-funded health care systems may not always be self-evident. What is an absolute fact is that opinions differ as to whether they operate "better" or more efficiently or more effectively or even "morally". (Obviously, the nature of opinions is that they may contradict each other.) Referencing specific statistics will help show why people hold the opinions that they do, but it will not decidely resolve such a complex issue. With this in mind, the article should be clear that it is representing points-of-view, as Notinasnaid has suggested. -AED 21:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The bottom line is then that invalid criticism and pro-propaganda becomes valid, am I right?--Blackfield 21:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
No, you are not. It is merely your opinion that the criticism is invalid propaganda.-AED 22:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Would you consider "less motivation for medical innovation and invention" or "a greater likelihood of lower-quality health care than privately funded systems" to be valid criticism then? Also, I was speaking in general, you might have misunderstood: my question is does invalid criticism or pro-propaganda, for example criticism or propaganda for something that is based upon incorrect or false facts like in this case, become valid when more than a few people think that it is true, because that's what's being implied.--Blackfield 22:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your first point: Yes, I would consider "less motivation for medical innovation and invention" or "a greater likelihood of lower-quality health care than privately funded systems" to be valid criticism. Regarding your second point: The article implies nothing of the sort. What you have inferred is based upon a false premise. You are holding the premise that your view is based upon a correct interpretation of the facts, but that the views of others are based upon an incorrect interpretation of the facts. -AED 04:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I was not referring to the article. I was referring to what is said above. If pros and cons sections are to consist of arguments that have popular support instead of factual foundation, It would appear to me that they are there just to provide an illusion of NPOV by making the pros and cons sections weight equal in terms of argument quantity. That would also be unfair to the reader. Also, why do you consider point 2 and 3 to be valid criticism? Is it because people agree with them?
I would very much like to delete stuff from both the proposed pros and cons sections, but I suspect that I would not be able to do that without people reverting.--Blackfield 10:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I still think you are missing the point: these sections are to report opinions, not facts. Wikipedia cannot tolerate things being deleted because someone "knows" they are not factual. Consider Genesis and evolution. Many people "know" that Genesis is not factual, and many other people "know" that evolution is not factual. But neither group is allowed to delete large parts of the other article because of this. It is utterly irrelevant to us whether we consider particular points to be valid criticism, so there is no point trying to drag us into justifying other people's opinions. In fact, I would say: if you can tell the opinion of an editor from what they contribute, they are not doing their job correctly. Notinasnaid 12:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Notinasnaid has summarized the issue correctly. Per WP:NPOV: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." -AED 16:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Publicly-funded_health_care/Archive_1&oldid=1089786653"