US Spends more per person, covers less, gets less on health care.

[chestnut]

No matter how much the libs don't like hearing it, there are always going to be those people who will not take the handout from the government. They have pride, and confidence in themselves and take the right steps to keep themselves out .

Obama would like everyone to be indebted to him so he can have them as lifelong dem voters.

It's plain to see. Obama had to promise so much "leftists agendas" when running to make sure people would vote for him.

Weak people will vote for the person promising the most freebies. Result - Obama elected

 

[Pandora]

No matter how much the libs don't like hearing it, there are always going to be those people who will not take the handout from the government. They have pride, and confidence in themselves and take the right steps to keep themselves out .

Obama would like everyone to be indebted to him so he can have them as lifelong dem voters.

It's plain to see. Obama had to promise so much "leftists agendas" when running to make sure people would vote for him.

Weak people will vote for the person promising the most freebies. Result - Obama elected

Your right

And when people achieve more without government handouts it makes those who have less with the handouts mad, it also makes people like obama mad because it shows that there is a better way than his.

For obama and his way to succeed the rest of us with our way must fail

 

[BigRob]

well then you need to live in a bubble and do it, becuse there is no such number. Also lets see how many people dont have health insurance with no goverment help, no public hospitals, and they are free to turn people away.

At best you will have large amounts with no health care, and a large gap in quality in terms of income. I for one do not belive that health care is something you should only get quality if you have money.

So you just admitted to us that the large number could be due to government control and waste, and have little to do with actual private care? Unless you can show me that your number excludes government involvement, there is no reason to believe it is not so large due to government involvement.

And no, public ER's are bound by law to not turn people away who cannot pay, it is federal law.

 

[Andy]

Sure its easy to say but how do you know who does. Look around at those who wait for hand outs...... they dont bounce back then look at those who are living functional lives, they do.

almost everyone has been hit with something. I had cancer and after insurance over 8 thousand dollars of personal debt to the hospital... it took me a long while but I paid it, every single last dime. This came right after I broke my leg, missing a month of work unpaid and going to therapy for almost a year. That would have been enough for someone else to give up and stand on a street corner or go get thier SSI checks

Look at the people in New Orleans

They lost equally and some are still in government paid housing complaining of discrimination and others have their lives back to normal and in some cases even better off than they were before. Tragedy sometimes makes a person stronger if you have the character for it.

I understand exactly what you mean. I had my car blew up, and need $3,500 worth of repairs. Then I had an illness that left me unable to walk. Then I had to take drugs that made me woozy and in a near intoxicated state at work, which made work a zombie like hell with limbs hurting. I missed ten days worth of work in one month. After that, just as my illness was dissipating, I was laid off. The week that I was laid off, all the doctor bills not covered by the health insurance showed up. To top if off, I owed $250 in income taxes.

In short, in about 2 months time, I racked up $5,500 in debt, while my income went to half, and then zero.

Now, I'm nearly debt free. All I have left is a $2,000 student loan. That should be done by May. I have a better job than I've ever had, and I'm paid more than ever before.

So what did I do? Did I search out a government program for those who lost their job and had a screwy illness? Did I sit in a parking lot and hope other people who worked for a living, gave me some money? Did I complain on the internet about how unfair it was that I couldn't get everyone else in the nation to pay my doctors bills? Heck no.

First, I had faith in G-d. No doubt in my mind that G-d saw me through a troubled time. Second, I got off my butt, even though I was still recovering, found a job, even though I was still taking woozy pills, and worked hard.

Was it easy? Of course not. Was it fun? Duh, no it wasn't. But I sure didn't become a whiny complainy person, that wished other people went through what I did.

And as it relates to the health care issue.... I saw a doctor within an hour, both ER visits. When they said I need to see a specialist, I had an appointment within 5 days, both times. When they said I needed special tests to check my legs, they didn't schedule me for 6 weeks like the UK and cancel at the last minute. They didn't put me on a waiting list for 6 months like Canada. They set me up for 1 hour. 60 minutes later, they brought me to the scan lab whatever it was, and I got the test done. Did they charge me? You bet. Unlike other places, I didn't have to wait, in pain, for weeks and months on end.

This is what's called, first rate service. It's because I was a valued, paying, customer. Not a bothersome problem they need to take care of to meet government quotas.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I've already lost my job, gotten sick, been in the ER twice, and I didn't ask the government for help. I paid my bills. And no, I'm not a liberal, so I don't beg for change in the parking lot. I got off my butt, got a job, and worked hard to earn the money to pay my bills. Unlike some idiots, I don't sit around whining someone else should pay for what I need.

You come across as spoiled brat of a child, pocket. Grow up.

If my arguments and explanation are too far above your head to understand, perhaps you should find some toddlers to talk to.

Sometimes I hope we do socialize everything, and I'll move to another country. You can be the one to get sick, and sit in a waiting room for 36-hours and die there. Unlike your diatribe, that actually happened in Canada.

Anyone else, someone perhaps capable of intelligent conversation, please reply. Thanks.

guess what , that happens here as well. People die in waiting rooms here. People die here, in the homes, becuse there was no reason to go to the hospital, People die here in hospitals fighting with insurance companies trying to save a buck and not pay for operations that they should be covered for.
And you go tell the 22 year old with cancer, well pick up a 2nd job...and cover the cost ...do that right after you go look at the costs.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

So you just admitted to us that the large number could be due to government control and waste, and have little to do with actual private care? Unless you can show me that your number excludes government involvement, there is no reason to believe it is not so large due to government involvement.

And no, public ER's are bound by law to not turn people away who cannot pay, it is federal law.

because you cant, the system is mixed and you cant just take one out of the issue. And would you really want to see those numbers...the people in the US who have health care, but with no government help...who only went to private hospitals, who got no government help....who got treatments that had no gov help in developing....and then take that number and think it would actually mean anything if done for the whole nation? It would cost millions just to even start trying to separate off everything...and end up with a small meaningless number. At best you would find a sample that consisted of basicly rich people. And have no idea what it would do with poor people or even lower and middle class. The current system is a mix, and your not going to get good solid numbers by taking one element out and thinking that what is left would be the result good or bad, of having it the same accross the board.

 

[BigRob]

because you cant, the system is mixed and you cant just take one out of the issue. And would you really want to see those numbers...the people in the US who have health care, but with no government help...who only went to private hospitals, who got no government help....who got treatments that had no gov help in developing....and then take that number and think it would actually mean anything if done for the whole nation? It would cost millions just to even start trying to separate off everything...and end up with a small meaningless number. At best you would find a sample that consisted of basicly rich people. And have no idea what it would do with poor people or even lower and middle class. The current system is a mix, and your not going to get good solid numbers by taking one element out and thinking that what is left would be the result good or bad, of having it the same accross the board.

So if you openly admit that it is impossible to accurately figure out the true numbers of the cost of a private health care system, why are so many stating as fact that it does not work?

Further, if you came up with a sample, you could calculate it out based on a per capita amount, the same as your link did with the overall cost of care. It would be irrelevant if you have a sample of "rich" people because you could find an average cost.

So again, if we are unable to actually prove that the private market is the cause for expensive healthcare, why are we so opposed to anything that gets the government involvement out?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

So if you openly admit that it is impossible to accurately figure out the true numbers of the cost of a private health care system, why are so many stating as fact that it does not work?

Further, if you came up with a sample, you could calculate it out based on a per capita amount, the same as your link did with the overall cost of care. It would be irrelevant if you have a sample of "rich" people because you could find an average cost.

So again, if we are unable to actually prove that the private market is the cause for expensive healthcare, why are we so opposed to anything that gets the government involvement out?

you show me a market system with no goverment, that covers evryone fairly and I am game...I expect it when they find Unicorns though.

 

[BigRob]

you show me a market system with no goverment, that covers evryone fairly and I am game...I expect it when they find Unicorns though.

Well a market system by definition will not be "fair." Policy should not be created on the basis of "fair" in my view however.

My point is simply this. If we are unable to show any correlation between high costs in healthcare and a private market, why are we so quick to blame the private market and demand that government take over healthcare? Shouldn't we take the time to figure out if government is the cause of the high prices?

 

[Hobo1]

you show me a market system with no goverment, that covers evryone fairly and I am game...I expect it when they find Unicorns though.

Well, I can show you one country (Indonesia) that comes close to a pure market system. Here's how it works:
First, the every community has a health clinic. The system was started with government subsidies to build the facilities - but for many years now all of them have been self-sustaining (ie, capitalist) facilities. Similar to, but larger than some of our community medical clinics, these facilities are run primarily by nurses (5-year college degree) and assistant nurses (3-year college degree). A doctor is on-call 24-hours a day. With a small, but sufficient laboratory, an X-ray machine, and ultrasound scanner the community clinic can treat an estimated 80-90% of the patients. That includes delivering babies, putting a cast on broken bones, stitching up patients, etc. Many of the patients come to the clinic for minor injuries which prevents a problem growing too large before it is treated and also provides preventive treatment.

The normal charge for a visit to the health clinic is $25-$35 (adjusted for US purchase power parity). An ambulance is available on-call to take patients to the hospital if required. Genetic medicine is available on-site at a low cost, manufactured by companies that only produce generic meds and are sold under the company brand name.

The local area, with a population of 3 million people, has 4 hospitals - one public hospital (which is government subsidized) and three that charitable organizations (in this case religious) which are run as non-profits. Of course, the patient load on the hospital is much smaller (per unit of population) than in the US because of the ability of the community clinic to treat most patients without ever going to a hospital. Each hospital consists mostly of specialist doctors who can treat serious illnesses and injuries. Only one hospital has a MRI machine. None have advanced technology treatment beyond standard operating room techniques. The cost of a typical operation (ie, compound fracture, C-section, tumor removal, etc.) is about $400. The cost of staying at the hospital during recovery can cost between $20 and $100 per day depending on whether you want to stay in a dormitory in a single room.

One important point is government tort law does allow for law suits for malpractice.

Unlike hospitals in the US, you cannot get the following treatments (as advertised at this hospital web site).

• St. John First In State To Perform Unique Robotic Minimally Invasive Heart Surgery
• St. John Health Enhances Cancer and Cardiac Care with Roving PET/CT Scan
• Providence Tests a Potential Link to Finding Blocked Heart Arteries
• Providence is First in U.S. to Treat Patients for Aneurysm Coil Study
• SJH&MC is First to Offer Rectal Tumor Procedure
• Providence Surgeons Perform Area's First Brain Stent Procedure

So if you want a "new minimally invasive procedure for removing rectal tumors" you must travel to the United States where the operation will surely cost you $50,000.

I think this is the vital question. Do we want the vast majority of our illness treated at low cost - and forgo technologically advanced medical treatment? If we choose this route, then we do not need medical insurance and all the other overhead costs - we can pay medical costs from our bank account. Or do we demand the best and most modern medical techniques for a cost that no one can afford without carrying very expensive health insurance? It is a decision we, the American people must decide.

We do have choices. If we demand the very best for every American, then it is going to be very expensive whether we have a government run program or a private health care system. Personally, I choose to die a natural death in Indonesia - and forgo any Rectal Tumor Procedure. If this is the way God chooses for me to die, then let it be. Quite honestly, I never want to be an old fart like this old hag trying to look happy for the photographer just after dropping her life savings just to pay for an operation....

 

[Andy]

you show me a market system with no goverment, that covers evryone fairly and I am game...I expect it when they find Unicorns though.

lol... once again "fair" is the key word isn't it? Fair only happens when standards are so low, as to not allow anyone to get quality service.

You can not raise service up so that everyone gets high quality service, because high quality service costs money. So, you have to lower the quality of service.

Once again, this is what we see in every socialized system. In Europe, it's common to have massive waiting lists. Common to not get the newest latest medications. Common to not have the newest technologies and equipment.

In 1999, Dr. Richard F. Davies, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute and professor of medicine at the University of Ottawa, described in remarks for the Canadian Institute for Health Information how delays affected Ontario heart patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. In a single year, for this one operation, the doctor said, "71 Ontario patients died before surgery, 121 were removed from the list permanently because they had become medically unfit for surgery," and 44 left the province to have the surgery, many having gone to the United States for the operation.

But at least it's fair. Well... other than the 44 with money who got quality care by leaving the 'fair' system.

I personally, don't want fair at all. I want things to be unfair. It means I have freedom. Freedom to get more money, buy a better policy, pay for better service. I don't want to be forced into some socialist box where all my actions and conditions in life are controlled by some pathetic politician scumbag. And that includes health care.

 

[Hobo1]

I personally, don't want fair at all. I want things to be unfair. It means I have freedom. Freedom to get more money, buy a better policy, pay for better service. I don't want to be forced into some socialist box where all my actions and conditions in life are controlled by some pathetic politician scumbag. And that includes health care.

I happen to agree with you - this is America and I should have the freedom to spend my money on the best health care or the worst health care. However, I should be able to go to the doctors for a routine problem and be able to afford for the trip without having insurance.

Right now, I see this whole huge hospital bills - profit sucking insurance companies - biotechnology companies - employer paid insurance as another "bubble". The price of health care gets pushed up way beyond the rate of inflation, yet the system just keeps on paying the higher bills. There are no check and balances. Nobody in the chain has the power to bring competition into the equation.

So what is this bubble squeezing out? Local Medi-Quick clinics (for a lack of better name) is one victim. A local, low-tech, low overhead clinics that maximize the use of para-medics and nurses. Places that can treat an acute injury or illness on a walk-in basis. These types of places have tried to spring up, but the insurance companies bog them down with paperwork and insurance is sky-high because of the threat of mal-practice lawsuits. I read that 25% of the cost of our medical costs are spent doing extra tests or procedures just so a doctor can CYA against a law suit.

We need:
1) tort reform - the ability to sign a contract agreeing to no-fault health care in return for a lower price
2) get rid of health insurance companies - or at least they way they operate now. It is not logical that I need insurance to go the the doctor for a broken arm. The charge should be low enough that I can pay for it with a credit card.
3) employers should get out of the health care business. Give an employee a raise so he/she can choose to do whatever they want for their health care needs.
4) the right to negotiate with medical facilities - we already have that right, but insurance takes away the need for health care facilities to keep down the price.

When Obama says a lot is wrong with the American health care system, he is right. It is a monopoly and needs to be broken up. Let competition set the price of health care. We sure don't need the government in there taking the role of the insurance companies and allowing an terribly inefficient system to flourish. It should be just like going to a lawyer... I don't have lawyer insurance!! I negotiate the services and the cost - and go elsewhere if I even smell the hint of a rat (which is likely in a lawyers office)

 

[Dr.Who]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090312/ap_on_he_me/health_value_gap

Americans spend $2.4 trillion a year on health care. The Business Roundtable report says Americans in 2006 spent $1,928 per capita on health care, at least two-and-a-half times more per person than any other advanced country.

-------------------------------

but no natinal health care will cost to much...even though we spend more now then anyone who has it , on health care.

There are some problems with that data.

First as a percent of GDP including all expenses both public and private in Candada and the US - canada is at 10%. If the US spent two and a half that much we would be spending 25%. The reality is we are spending 15.3%.

Considering that we have far far more cosmetic and optional procedures than Canada does and that private citizens are allowed to spend millions for one procedure I am not surprised that we spend more. We spend more because we are buying more. Another thing we are buying more of is choice. Every American who chooses to take a ppo plan instead of an hmo plan spends more but gets to go to any doctor instead of to just the ones on the hmo list.

I would not take away the right of that person to have botox so our national average could go down. I would not take away that persons right to spend every last dime on futile life extension at the age of 89. I would not make everyone take a one size fits all insurance plan. As long as it is their money they can spend it however they want to.

Meawhile Canada has an average wait time of 18 months for a procedure. That must save them some money. I don't want to save money that way.

I think the 5.3% more we are paying compared to Canada is well worth it and it is after all (mostly) spent by individuals who have made their own choices.

one last point: that choice to get a PPO or an HMO or to buy the best or the worst or to be self-insured or to take a chance or to get a tummy-tuck or to go to a doctor that makes you wait 2 weeks for an appointment or 2 hours is called freedom. It is immoral to take away a persons freedom except to stop that person from taking away another persons freedom. Laws exist to stop one guy from hurting another, not to move money from healthy people to sick people. We have charities that can take care of the sick, by exactly the amount that we want to take care of them, and the charities move money from kind people to sick people in ways that are moral and build up our country rather than harming it.

 

[Andy]

Meawhile Canada has an average wait time of 18 months for a procedure. That must save them some money. I don't want to save money that way.

Yes it does save them money. Consider: Our doctors work hectic crazy schedules, and then are on call 24-hours a day when not there. This of course, is why doctors get paid the big bucks.

In Canada, they do not get paid the big bucks (not compared to our own doctors) and of course they are not going to work doctor schedules for Wendy's store manager pay.

Logically, this causes long waits.

Second, they have far fewer high tech equipment. MRIs and CT Scan machines in socialized care systems are far fewer and less available.

And course, since the government doesn't have money to pay over time, they are not available during off hours, unlike our own systems.

This means even in countries that are almost as well equipped, their machines are not as well utilized as our own.

Logically, the lack of equipment, and reduced availability of the equipment they do have, results in lower cost.

Third, and most horrible, the waiting list itself is a cost reducer. By having high wait times, it is more than certain that people will fall off the list. Either by A: having them give up in disgust, and fly to another country for treatment. B: Having them wait so long, that their condition become inoperable. C: They die.

Logically, in all three cases, this will reduce cost.

Of course all of these are horrible to the population, but normal for socialization.

An interesting thought just occurred to me...

Do you realize that in all these statistics about the US spending more on health care, that this includes people coming here from countries with socialized care, to get quality care from the US?

 

[Cookie Parker]

Yes it does save them money. Consider: Our doctors work hectic crazy schedules, and then are on call 24-hours a day when not there. This of course, is why doctors get paid the big bucks.

In Canada, they do not get paid the big bucks (not compared to our own doctors) and of course they are not going to work doctor schedules for Wendy's store manager pay.

Logically, this causes long waits.

Second, they have far fewer high tech equipment. MRIs and CT Scan machines in socialized care systems are far fewer and less available.

And course, since the government doesn't have money to pay over time, they are not available during off hours, unlike our own systems.

This means even in countries that are almost as well equipped, their machines are not as well utilized as our own.

Logically, the lack of equipment, and reduced availability of the equipment they do have, results in lower cost.

Third, and most horrible, the waiting list itself is a cost reducer. By having high wait times, it is more than certain that people will fall off the list. Either by A: having them give up in disgust, and fly to another country for treatment. B: Having them wait so long, that their condition become inoperable. C: They die.

Logically, in all three cases, this will reduce cost.

Of course all of these are horrible to the population, but normal for socialization.

An interesting thought just occurred to me...

Do you realize that in all these statistics about the US spending more on health care, that this includes people coming here from countries with socialized care, to get quality care from the US?

Funny...don't see a link to your "source"...care to provide where you got that propaganda from?