Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Dentist Will Be You Now
Say what you like about socialized medicine, it certainly encourages self-care:
"I snapped it out myself," said William Kelly, 43, describing his most recent dental procedure, the autoextraction of one of his upper teeth.
Now it is a jagged black stump, and the pain gnawing at Mr. Kelly's mouth has transferred itself to a different tooth, mottled and rickety, on the other side of his mouth. "I'm in the middle of pulling that one out, too," he said...
Mr. Kelly's predicament is not just a result of cigarettes and possibly indifferent oral hygiene; he is careful to brush once a day, he said. Instead, it is due in large part to the deficiencies in Britain's state-financed dental service, which, stretched beyond its limit, no longer serves everyone and no longer even pretends to try.
Whole thing here.
Big Book of British Smiles here.
|5.7.06 @ 9:03PM|#
He brushes only once per day?
Then he deserves tooth decay.
Brush more often,
And maybe even floss.
Even better,
Sonicare will eliminate the dross.
(Yes; I know that I'll never be a poet laureate.)
|5.7.06 @ 9:10PM|#
It must be in the water.
The French refuse to brush on religious grounds, yet they are
beeyootiful.
Or could it be the tangle of tongues of zee Fwench keese zat doos
zee twick?
Sign me ooop!
|5.7.06 @ 9:50PM|#
I'll bet British politicians and government officials can get all the dental care they need.
|5.7.06 @ 10:03PM|#
I'll bet British politicians and government officials can
get all the dental care they need.
As long as flights to the U.S. are cheap.
British dentistry has long been a standing joke. Then again, the
omnipresence of Cadbury vending machines probably doesn't help
matters.
|5.7.06 @ 10:05PM|#
NCDan,
Your point would be easy to believe were it not for the
counterexample of Prince Charles. The teeth that lunched a thousand
chips...
|5.7.06 @ 10:07PM|#
From the article
Britain has too few public dentists for too many people. At the
beginning of the year, just 49 percent of the adults and 63 percent
of the children in England and Wales were registered with public
dentists.
And now, discouraged by what they say is the assembly-line nature
of the job and by a new contract that pays them to perform a set
number of "units of dental activity" per year, even more dentists
are abandoning the health service and going into private practice �
some 2,000 in April alone, the British Dental Association
says.
Clearly, the only solution is to forbid dentists
form entering into private practice.
|5.7.06 @ 11:26PM|#
Well, looks like I get to start making fun of the Brits again, just as I was ready to admit that yeah, yeah, it's not really like that now. "Dental vacations to Hungary", Jesus H. Hopscotching Christ. Maybe Britain needs some, uh, "Open-wide-easies".
|5.7.06 @ 11:44PM|#
Reminds me of this:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050829fa_fact
|5.8.06 @ 12:20AM|#
Perhaps it's all of that dental self-care that has led to the
Brits living longer than Americans, and having fewer cases of heart
attacks, dabetes, high blood pressure, cancer...
Or maybe there ARE benefits to providing universal medical care,
even if there are waiting periods and the super rich have to go
elswhere to be treated in the manner in which they'd like to become
accustomed.
I teach school in a rural area of Idaho and see plenty of children
and parents in need of severe dental care. My own dental insurance
is relatively inexpensive because it provides strong incentives for
REGULAR care. They have found that it's a lot cheaper to keep teeth
healthy than fix them. Now, if we could just make this kind of care
avaiable to everyone...
|5.8.06 @ 12:46AM|#
Which reminds me, about three years ago I started with a new
dentist who was quite cute, single, and she was one of those gals
who just exudes sexuality, ya know, like without the slightest
effort. I had had interesting conversations with her and was
thinking about how I might ask her out, and of course the male mind
does tend to explore all the possibilities in these
matters...
So one time while I was waiting for her to work on my teeth, one of
the receptionists, who was from Belerus, said; "Rick, Dr.____ will
do you now"! As I got up I said; "So how did she read my mind?".
But I was too clever by half cuz although the foreign receptionist
didn't understand the import of the exchange, the other folks
behind the desk certainly did! Damn, I just wanted to be beamed up
and outa there.
|5.8.06 @ 1:05AM|#
I havent been to a dentist in 7-8 years and my teeth are perfect.Is it all genetics? My brushing regimine? Is US water healthier?.. I never cared for the dentist but I used to go every 6 months. Then one time they had to reschedule and asked me to change my appt and it would be 5-6 months until they could fit me in! So I never resceduled and forgot about, insurance ended, etc. I have a lot of friends who see the dentist 2x a year and have yellow crooked teeth. Perfect teeth and perfect health fpr me. JD- Docter Free since 2002 and Dentist-Free since '98
|5.8.06 @ 1:36AM|#
...Oh yeah, I left out that after I asked; "So how did she read my mind?" I then asked; "Does this mean that I don't have to pay for my dental work, or does it mean that I have to pay more?"
|5.8.06 @ 1:42AM|#
...perfect health for me. JD- Docter Free since
2002
Be careful, JD! If you haven't had any med tests since 2002, you
don't know if you're in perfect health.
|5.8.06 @ 2:22AM|#
Well considering the last few times I went to a doctor when I really WAS sick, he spent abou 3 minutes with me and asked if I smoked pot. I said "no". He said "hmm" and gave me some generic antiobiotic.. Not sure what I would do or say to a doctor now when I am not sick... My Teeth are Bangin' though!
|5.8.06 @ 2:24AM|#
rm2muv,
How exactly does having a socialized healthcare system help the
British have fewer cases of cancer than in the US?
Does it work in mysterious ways, through the communal virtue it
instills in the people?
|5.8.06 @ 2:26AM|#
Never had a hot dentist but did have a GF from Minsk,Belarus- She definitely knew what "Do you" meant...
|5.8.06 @ 6:21AM|#
rm2muv
Or maybe there ARE benefits to providing universal medical
care, even if there are waiting periods and the super rich have to
go elswhere to be treated in the manner in which they'd like to
become accustomed.
The problem with Health care in the UK is not that the government
provides basic health care for all, it's that it controls health
care for all, except of course for the very rich that can afford to
the costs of private care as well as the tax. Hospitals are owned
by the government, so even if you want to pay for the treatment you
need, you might find that you can't.
In many areas of the country it is simply impossible to find an NHS
dentist, so you have to pay for private care, but you don't get any
money from the NHS towards private care and you don't even get any
of your tax returned.
|5.8.06 @ 8:02AM|#
What a crock of shit. I have friends from Britian, and friends
from Americans who live there and have been there often, and I
regularly work with a pile of Brits, all who have used their
healthcare system and say it's just the same if not better than
ours.
It's a shame to see this sort of low-brow demogoguery in the name
of dogmatic, over-zealous ideology that flies in the face of the
proven benefits of national healthcare as seen in 36 countries and
every First World nation on Earth except ours.
And why is ours' so behind the times? What's the real "reason?" To
profiteer from the system with the lowest of lowest scumbaggery -
to profiteer from the uncertainties of mortality.
Makes me sick - and not the healthcare kind.
JMJ
|5.8.06 @ 8:18AM|#
I have friends from Britian, and friends from Americans who
live there and have been there often
JMJ, I'm just boggled that you've got friends.
|5.8.06 @ 8:30AM|#
Sy, I'm just boggled that Americans are so insipidly greedy as
to profiteer from the healthcare system.
JMJ
|5.8.06 @ 8:36AM|#
Those dentists/doctors probably "profiteer" for the same reasons you do Jersey. You know - food, shelter, kids, education. That kind of materialist crap.
|5.8.06 @ 8:37AM|#
There's a dentist shortage in the U.S., too, pretty severe in a huge swath of the Great Plains, southern Texas, much of Nevada, northern Maine, and poor, rural counties in many other states. The current system in the U.S. isn't all that much better in giving people access to dental care, but for cultural reasons we do so much better with preventive care than the UK.
|5.8.06 @ 8:53AM|#
Ironchef,
"Those dentists/doctors probably "profiteer" for the same reasons
you do Jersey. You know - food, shelter, kids, education. That kind
of materialist crap."
Those dentists could make even more if there weren't sleazy
profiteers in the way. Ask any dentist what it's like to get the
insurance companies to pay their bills and you'll see what I'm
talking about.
Only you, Ironchef, would be so off the point as to think that I
was referring to the actual service providers. Genius.
JMJ
|5.8.06 @ 9:03AM|#
Mark, there's nothing wrong with profit at all, per se. But
profiteering, extorting, taking advantage of bad things for money,
is disgusting. That you, like so many Americans, lack the insight
to see the inherent problem with todays private insurance system
shows the world what a bunch of dumb-asses Americans really
are.
JMJ
Dave W.|5.8.06 @ 9:07AM|#
In England the healthcare (non-dentistry) is basically
socialized and the dentistry is considered as private
(notwithstanding the tax for it). I already knew this by
frequenting the Unofficial Fall Board.
Weird to see the spin that gets put on these facts here at this
board.
My question:
If the gov't gets out of dentistry entirely in the UK, would dental
prices for private dentistry there go up or down do you
think?
If the answer is up, then maybe those taxes are best seen as a
price to pay to keep prices where they are now.
|5.8.06 @ 9:17AM|#
Yeah, I suppose I am... Though most people get a kick outta me.
Some find me obnoxious, but aat least I care about the world around
me, ya' know. That's why I love these sorst of sites. The
marketplace of ideas is my favorite place to shop... er, uh, I
guess "haggle" is a better word...
;)
Thanks man!
JMJ
|5.8.06 @ 9:32AM|#
Come on how can anyone be against Universal Heathcare? It's free!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|5.8.06 @ 9:36AM|#
Al, no one is so stupid as to think that "it's free" though the
geniuses on the right would have their debased base think so.
Look, can you show me a cost benefit analisys that shows the value
added to the healthcare system by private insurance?
Go ahead. I dare you. I've dared many a debator over the years to
show me this. Not one has ever come to the fore. Can you?
JMJ
Dave W.|5.8.06 @ 9:46AM|#
Look, can you show me a cost benefit analisys that shows the
value added to the healthcare system by private
insurance?
If there was no private insurance system (and no socialized
medicine to take its place), then old people would pay more and
young people would pay less. The value added is the shifting of the
burden from old people to young people. This is valuable because
old people are sympathetic and vulnerable, and young people have
their entire lives to make more money.
Besides the profiteering that you (correctly in my view) mention,
this is the other valuable thing the insurance system provides
us.
|5.8.06 @ 9:49AM|#
JMJ,
It's not about value added; it's about freedom. You damn control
freak.
The desire to control others is at the root of all evil.
Dave W.|5.8.06 @ 9:53AM|#
It's not about value added; it's about freedom. You damn
control freak.
You mean like the freedom to tak your $$$ and opt out of the
insurance system and to deal face to face, person to person with
your doctor or dentists about things like prices and payment
terms?
No. If the US has maintained this important freedom at all, it is
only in the theoretical and not the practical sense.
Dave W.|5.8.06 @ 9:57AM|#
Another value for McJersey:
Traditionally, by structuring health insurance as "insurance,"
rather than as a "amrket" effectively exempted this sector from
antitrust scrutiny. In today's climate that may not seem like a big
deal. However, historically doctors needed that structure so that
they could consolidate to the extent that they are now
consolidated.
So another value of the insurance structure was that it facilitated
freedom to consolidate business ventures at a critical time in the
development of the modern healthcare market.
Dave W.|5.8.06 @ 9:59AM|#
The Other Mark:
Not sure what your question is. The main reason that I can't as an
individual go out and bargain with an individual doctor or dentist
is that they have all been convinced to charge their non-insurance
patients many times what they charge the insured. That is why there
is a theoretical freedom to DIY, but not a practical freedom.
|5.8.06 @ 10:00AM|#
Dave,
If the government would get out of the healthcare business, we
might just see a functioning market.
Jersey,
Nothing is worth anything to you when you're dead. So what? Buy
your own health insurance and stop trying to steal it from others,
thief.
|5.8.06 @ 10:01AM|#
One thing I wonder:
If people in the UK have fewer cases of heart disease/cancer (I'm
assuming this is per capita) than people in the US... then what
exactly do people in the UK die of?
|5.8.06 @ 10:06AM|#
Dave,
Proof by counterexample?
I wish more doctors did this. I only need to go to the doctor every
few years, and I'd prefer to pay in cash and keep a smaller
insurance policy just in case of lukemia/motorcycle accident/bear
attack.
Plus, I wouldn't have to wait as long at the counter and deal with
those fucking rude-ass receptionists and their eye-watering
perfume.
|5.8.06 @ 10:09AM|#
Dave,
I forget what I was asking you "how do you figure?" about. I should
have been more specific.
Stupid brain. *smacks head*
Dave W.|5.8.06 @ 10:12AM|#
If the government would get out of the healthcare business,
we might just see a functioning market.
Getting government money out of the market might (or might not)
help. What the government does need to do is to deconsolidate the
cartel so that there are a multitude of truly independent
competitors *actually competing against each other* in the business
sector. If that happened, I would call it a market instead of a
business sector. i know that many independent competitors actually
competing against each oter are required to have a market because
Adam Smith told me so. What Adam didn't realize is that markets
don't spring up naturally under all conditions. You either need
physical / communications barriers to consolidation (Smith's time)
or antitrust law (in the post rr / telegraph era).
|5.8.06 @ 10:20AM|#
I have excellent insurance - but then, of course, I don't work
for Americans.
What I am still waiting for is proof of the value added to the
industry by the private insurance industry.
Dave points out, quite correctly, as usual, that in the early days
of the industry, insurance was a vital resource. Now, though, as
exemplified by the rate hikes immediately following the last market
crash and recession, the "insurance industry" has shown itself to
have become nothing more than an investment banking industry, as
exemplified by "Prudential Financial."
So, why couldn't the government contract out actuation to the
lowest bidder/highest quality actuators through a single payor
system?
JMJ
|5.8.06 @ 10:27AM|#
So, why couldn't the government contract out actuation to
the lowest bidder/highest quality actuators through a single payor
system?
Yeah! And we'll put Mike Brown in charge!
|5.8.06 @ 10:28AM|#
"Look, can you show me a cost benefit analisys that shows the
value added to the healthcare system by private insurance?"
Under private I don't die waiting for rationed care. Canada is full
of horror stories such as this, but they are too proud to admit
that they have created the largest HMO in the world. They acted so
haughty about it they can't admit they screwed up and that it
sucks. That is a shame. Go to Canada and break you leg or get
pneumonia and see what happens to you if you don't have the money
to pay up front as a foreigner.
I can also choose my doctor under private care. I can also opt out
of insurance and deal directly with the doctor as pointed out above
thus taking out some of the overhead.
I have no problems with looking for better solutions for the
underinsured, but not if the solution comes at the expense of
everyone else. I don't need a cost benefit analysis to tell me
this.
Dave W.|5.8.06 @ 10:32AM|#
So, why couldn't the government contract out actuation to
the lowest bidder/highest quality actuators through a single payor
system?
I think this is a 2d best alternative -- much, much preferable to
the current system. If you get rid of the market, you want to at
least have some kind of sanity check so that prices don't get too
far out in front of costs. Normally the invisible hand of the
market does this, but . . .
Not sure if you saw it McJersey, but in one of Bailey's posts a
month or two ago, he was pitching some kind of hopeful, future
(probably vaporware) medical treatment by saying "how much would
you pay for this?" How much would you pay? What kind of
unsophisticated customers does he think we are at HnR? The
appropriate question is how little will your associates being
willing to do this for? They have gotten so acclimated to
profiteering in US healthcare that I don't even think they know
what the word means anymore.
|5.8.06 @ 10:32AM|#
Lurker,
Why are you so naive as to believe such tripe? Did you know that
life expectencies in virtually every country with national
healthcare is longer than ours? Disease rates? Infant mortality
rates?
Why are you so ready to believe such a steaming pile of shit? Oh
yeah - post rationalization...
JMJ
|5.8.06 @ 10:35AM|#
Good point, Dave. There's a cognative dissonance at play with
this issue that seems almost insurmountable - and I still get get a
good answer on the value-added question. I'bve been asking that for
years...
Then there's the drag on our exports, then there's the drag on our
providers, and on and on. Yet no one has any answer but "Adam
Smith!"
Jeesh.
JMJ
|5.8.06 @ 10:42AM|#
Jersey,
I don't think anyone around here who believes that the current
system isn't an unmitigated clusterfuck. But really now, what makes
you believe that the US government, of all entities, would
suddenly find enough competence to fix it?
|5.8.06 @ 10:43AM|#
Jersey why are you so willing to believe the pie in the sky?
There is not a socialized healthcare system that is not groaning to
the point of near collapse. Especially with the generation that is
about to hit retirement age.
Why also are you willing to sell all choice down the river just so
you can have "guaranteed" care?
I certainly don't think the American system is a panacea. Most of
the problems and expenses come from litigation and legislation. As
your Doctor how much their office alone had to shell out for the
worthless and redundant privacy legislation from a few years back.
Who paid for that? All of us with increased costs.
Talk about believing in a steaming pile, have you checked out the
one you are standing in?
Dave W.|5.8.06 @ 10:46AM|#
There are other people out there besides me suggesting
antitrust-type deconsolidation action againt US healthcare
companies as a central mechanism of healthcare reform?!?! I want to
study these people. I want to give them contributions and vote for
them. Who are they?
I feel about the Adam Smith solution to healthcare the way Ghandi
felt about Western Civilization.
|5.8.06 @ 11:02AM|#
I think you have an excellent point there, Dave. Insurabce
premiums should be for insurance expenditures - not market
speculations...
JMJ
|5.8.06 @ 11:15AM|#
The reason why life expectencies in virtually every country with
national healthcare is trifle longer than ours has a lot to do with
the not so trifle fact that the USA are still IMPORTING POVERTY to
a much higher magnitude than these countries. Same with disease
rates and infant mortality (not to mention illiteracy and uninsured
drivers in junkers).
Abate illegal immigration, and life expectencies will grow (not a
lot but still)!
|5.8.06 @ 11:23AM|#
Kulm, or perhaps we run ourselves ragged working for the
corporatocracy that you libertarians workship like Baal....
JMJ
|5.8.06 @ 12:24PM|#
I think you have an excellent point there, Dave. Insurabce
premiums should be for insurance expenditures - not market
speculations...
That's the biggest problem with the insurance industry / companies
today. They speculate quite a bit in the financial markets, and
then jack up premiums when they lose money (or the economy goes
south).
Most people don't understand that the premiums they pay are taken
and invested in the financial markets, and then have no idea why
their premiums started to sky rocket when the "recession" started.
It's not as if people started getting that much sicker than the
90's -- its that the economy went to shit and and the insurance
companies had to recoop their market losses.
Dave W.|5.8.06 @ 1:19PM|#
I think you have an excellent point there, Dave. Insurabce
premiums should be for insurance expenditures - not market
speculations...
That's the biggest problem with the insurance industry /
companies today. They speculate quite a bit in the financial
markets, and then jack up premiums when they lose money (or the
economy goes south).
This gets us close to the nub of the problem, but not quite
there.
Of course any business ("insurance" or not) that takes in a bunch
of pre-paid money has to be concerned about getting a good return
on the big cash pot sitting there. Of course the performance of the
cashpot will have some affect on what they charge all those pre-pay
customers on an ongoing basis. That part is not an indictment of
the healthcare insurance sector, at least not as far as I am
concerned.
The problem is lack of competition. If there was true competition
among these companies, then they would speculate in different ways.
Some would speculate very conservatively to avoid any price spikes.
Others would speculate more wildly, perhaps achieving lower
premiums over the long run, but with lots more year to year
fluctuation (which might drive away customers despite the long run
cost savings). [i]Speculative companies would have to lower their
premiums when the investments paid off[/i] -- customers will not
appreciate the speculation if they don't take a pretty good share
in it. Specifically, the customers would go with companies that
speculated less and took more of the McJersey approach (insurance
premiums are for medical care, not investment).
So, to my mind, the problem isn't the speculation, but the lack of
competition in speculation. The attitude seems to be "we, the
health insurance co's, are all speculating, so we can feel free to
milk the smart investments and let the premiumpayers eat our loser
investment. This strategy only works if your customers are captive
because of lack of consumer choice. THAT is the real problem
here.
A great problem for antitrust law, but so many people have bought
into the current-US system (cartel) versus socialized medicine
debate that third choices are hard to get across, even here at
HnR.
|5.8.06 @ 1:23PM|#
Well Dave, there are investment rating systems that could be
regulatorily attached to the different plans for the sake of
disclosure. That sounds fair. You could score an insurance company
by it's investment ratings, for example, or you could restrict
different types of plans to types of ratings... hmmm...
JMJ
|5.8.06 @ 1:56PM|#
Under private I don't die waiting for rationed
care.
People in the U.S. die waiting for rationed care all the time. We
simply ration by ability to pay rather than by another
mechanism.
Dave W.|5.8.06 @ 2:02PM|#
Yeah, McJersey -- I mean I think even the US is headed to
socialized medicine (HnR notwithstanding) and I already moved to
Canada, so obviously I am not too put out by the prospect.
It is frustrating for me because the two options everybody has in
mind are centralized private control (the current system in the US)
and centralized public control (socialized med).
My option is decentralized control, and I think this missing option
has great advantages over each of the two options that everybody
considers. For example, decentralization can make the degree and
types of healthcare provider investment speculation more
intelligent because of its multitudinous, dynamic, trial and error
approach. I would much rather have Hillary ensuring
multitudinousness than monitoring the quality of speculation of
others. Even if she did make a bundle speculating at one time --
scratch that -- precisely because she made a bundle speculating at
one time.
Dave W.|5.8.06 @ 3:06PM|#
While McJersey and I seem to have some mutual respect going, our posts on this thread are in pretty profound disagreement. Bring me the dick of Adam Smith!
|5.8.06 @ 4:43PM|#
People in the U.S. die waiting for rationed care all the
time. We simply ration by ability to pay rather than by another
mechanism.
No they don't. Hospitals and doctors in the U.S. pretty much treat
everyone who comes in. My Canadian cousin, with no job, no
insurance, single mother, etc., chose health care in the U.S. to
her birthright in Canada, because even poor people with not a
single penny recieve better healthcare.
I know first hand, that hospitals in the "ghettos" of Detroit are
still a lot nicer that the hospitals I have visited in
Canada.
Any difference in life expectancy is because:
1. Americans eat shit and don't exercise.
2. The victims of 18th and 19th century racism of America, live in
America (African Americans and Native Americans), where as the
victims of 18th and 19th century racism of Europe live in Haiti,
the Congo, India, South Aftrica, India, etc., etc. Lets see how
efficient Europe's health care system is if they had to deal with
the racist past they pretend never happened.
3. America imports poverty, through immigration. The most "liberal"
immigration policies in Europe would give Pat Bucannan a hard
on!
Dave W.|5.9.06 @ 8:25AM|#
Any difference in life expectancy is because:
What do you reckon the US life expectancy would be if they didn't
have such great healthcare, Rex Rhino?
60?
55?
It almost seems like the US should re-channel some of its
healthcare spending into a more direct assault on the problems that
allow people in the more successful nations to live so much
longer.
Now, I wasn't considering Mexico as one of these more successful
nations, but, still, check the Wiki:
"Life expectancy in Mexico increased from 34.7 for men and 33 years
for women in 1930 to 72.1 for men and 77.1 years for women in
2002."
In light of this stat, I don't think I can buy into the "let's
blame immigrants for short life expectancy thing" that would be so
convenient to your viewpoint were it only true.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245