How to control healthcare costs in the United States

[1969912 0]

Quote

A very interesting example of garbled syntax. Representative of your thought process?

Does making statements like that make you feel better about yourself in some way? If not, then why do you do it?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In 2005 we spent 43% of our budget (some reports claim up to 51%) on the military, we're number one on the list....look at the pic. We could, notice I said could, get some money there. A lot of money disappears there to nowhere....but that's another issue.

Yes, it disappears into socialism. The US Military Budget for 2007 is almost $505 billion, down by over $5 billion from the 2006 Budget of a little over $512 billion.
.

Have you taken into account "black" budget items, special wartime appropriations, DoE research expenditures, and all the myriad other ways the government hides the real cost of the US war machine?

And even if spending on social programs is comparable, WHY does the US need some 50% of the entire world's military expenditures?

No, I haven't taken those into account any more than I took into account state and local spending on healthcare. California's health and human services budget for 2007 is 36.2 billion dollars. 35.1 billion is for Medicare.

I left out state and local funding. The federal budget iself really does not present a complete picture of all of the health spending done by our government.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Part of the high cost also comes states saying what will and will not be in a given health care system.

Example, some states require lasik be provided for and others force employers to cover plastic surgery.

(these are examples because at the moment I can not remember the most ridicules procedures they forced coverage on)

In any event, state to state varies so much that no insurance company can have a standard program.

Not the biggest reason but an impact none the same

Yes, there is a lot of interference going on. The government should be squeezed back down to size.


Here is what Milton Friedmand had to say about what really started the cost situation, and it makes sense to me:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3459466.html

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kallend 2,106]

Even if spending on social programs is comparable, WHY does the US need some 50% of the entire world's military expenditures? What advantage accrues the average US citizen from outspending the rest of the world on weapons? Would we be less safe if we only spent, say, 20% of the worlds military budget, instead of 50%? We'd still have by far the most powerful military. The savings would benefit everyone.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

So, in looking at the data, did you realize that the 2007 numbers defense numbers are STILL lower that the Health & Human Services Budget? Do you also realize that the HHS budget is just the FEDERAL side of things? If you add the states and counties into it, odds are that governmental health care spending would approach 1 trillion dollars. So the problem is not a lack of socialism.

Well here's the answer for you and some of this ties in together so bear with me.

"In 2002, the latest year for which comparable data are available, the United States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman and child in the population. Of this, $2,364, or 45 percent, was government spending, mainly on Medicare and Medicaid. Canada spent $2,931 per person, of which $2,048 came from the government. France spent $2,736 per person, of which $2,080 was government spending."

Putting a cap on medical treatment costs, which would be no different than putting a cap on malpractice lawsuits, would lower us to a reasonable level. It would be a difficult process, but imagine....you say it would be close to a trillion dollars, let's just say it's a trillion for ease of math. Using the 2002 comparison in costs of healtcare costs per person.....if we price capped our healthcare costs to that of france (which is ranked #1 for healthcare by the World Health Organization), that would put us down to half that price. So we're at 500 billion now. Since we currently spend about $1.9 trillion dollars on healthcare (url: http://www.cfr.org/publication/13325/), I would gladly take that 500 billion over the 1.9 trillion any day of the week. And guess what....everybody is covered, we don't leave people with a "FU you're not good enough to have healthcare".

And here's the reason why I say that everybody should get covered.....

"18,000 deaths blamed on lack of insurance

By Steve Sternberg, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday.

The 193-page report, "Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late," examines the plight of 30 million — one in seven — working-age Americans whose employers don't provide insurance and who don't qualify for government medical care.

About 10 million children lack insurance; elderly Americans are covered by Medicare.

It is the second in a planned series of six reports by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) examining the impact of the nation's fragmented health system. The IOM is a non-profit organization of experts that advises Congress on health issues.

Overall, the researchers say, 18,314 people die in the USA each year because they lack preventive services, a timely diagnosis or appropriate care.

The estimated death toll includes about 1,400 people with high blood pressure, 400 to 600 with breast cancer and 1,500 diagnosed with HIV.

"Our purpose is simply to deliver the facts, and the facts are unequivocal," says Reed Tuckson, an author of the report and vice president for consumer health at UnitedHealth Group in Minnetonka, Minn.

Among the study's findings is a comparison of the uninsured with the insured:

Uninsured people with colon or breast cancer face a 50% higher risk of death.
Uninsured trauma victims are less likely to be admitted to the hospital, receive the full range of needed services, and are 37% more likely to die of their injuries.
About 25% of adult diabetics without insurance for a year or more went without a checkup for two years. That boosts their risk of death, blindness and amputations resulting from poor circulation.
Being uninsured also magnifies the risk of death and disability for chronically sick and mentally ill patients, poor people and minorities, who disproportionately lack access to medical care, the landmark study states.

"The report documents the immense consequence of having 40 million uninsured people out there," says Ray Werntz, a consumer health expert with the Employee Benefit Research Institute. "We need to elevate the problem in the national conscience."

Calculating the cost in human suffering, he says, "is one way to get there.""

The link just in case you can't believe it's true....(http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm)


That's 18,000 deaths too many.....it's sad that you're not bothered by this.

Quote

Is that said to the lone sheep in a pack of wolves? "Quit thinking about yourself and think about the betterment of the group."

In the eyes of the wolves it's fair to say that the sheep should simply sacrifice itself. "Don't run or put up a fight. Just let us kill you and eat you."

Another way seeing things is that the sheep shouldn't have to submit to the will of the wolves. The sheep has the right to be upset that it is being commanded to bow to the will of the group. Perhaps it will die, but it will put up a fight.

As history demonstrates, the "will of the group" being enforced typically leads to the destruction of dissent. Castro did it. Stalin did it. Mao did it. Pol Pot did it.

What is "good for the group" is ALWAYS "bad for some individuals."

This is great because it proves my point.......we have 18,000 people dying each year because they can't afford insurance. And there a few people that fight for them to get insurance because they are not part of the "elite" or middle to upper class crowd. The people that are well off aren't concerned and they don't want to pay more or pay for someone else's problem....which isn't even an issue.

But you're only looking at it from two perspectives......if we lower the cost and cover everybody as a group and make sure it gets run well then we wont have to pay anymore, with your estimates it looks like we could pay less.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

California's health and human services budget for 2007 is 36.2 billion dollars. 35.1 billion is for Medicare.

I left out state and local funding. The federal budget iself really does not present a complete picture of all of the health spending done by our government.

But that doesn't include what the people actually spend on healthcare........so it's not accurate. If we're talking about putting it all into one then you have to include that as well. Because if we have a government healthcare system that covers everything then we wont need private insurance.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[1969912 0]

How would you put a cap on medical costs?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Here is what Milton Friedmand had to say about what really started the cost situation, and it makes sense to me:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3459466.html

I can't say that I agree with the guy.........I think privatizing insurance will just allow prices to raise. There's 4 or 5 major health insurance companies in the US that own smaller sub companies will different names........that's not really going to be a competitive market. That's like saying the price of rent will go down because there's so many different places to rent. Or a great example.........think of the oil companies. There's several different companies to compete..........does the price of fuel go down.....no. Because they know people will pay it. Now imagine that you're talking about peoples' lives with healthcare....will the pay it?

I found an awesome article that deals with everything....http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18802

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

How would you put a cap on medical costs?

Just like I said............create a panel consisting of a group of doctors and budget officials that would regulate healthcare costs to get us to a normal level. They would meet yearly to go over the list to cover inflation.

There may be better ways and if you have any ideas I'd love to hear them.

But it's ridiculous that we are paying twice as much as the #1 ranked country for healthcare.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[1969912 0]

So you mean the panel would assign caps to doctors, nurses, people who make medical supplies, and on down the line?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[sv3n 0]

Correct..........pretty much a we think this is a fair price, if you don't agree then go f. yourself and peddle it elsewhere. Business people do this all the time, why can't the government do it.

Just to make this clear......I'm not saying "make this a 99 cent special or no go". I'm saying fair prices......that's what the panel is for, the doctor's for one side and the budget officials for the other.

If they can accomplish having lower prices in medical costs elsewhere in the world, then I think we'll be able to do it here. Like I said, this may not be the best method.........I'm open to suggestion. But what's going on right now isn't working for everybody.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[billvon 3,073]

Both of you cut it out.

[1969912 0]

That writeup you posted used a figure of 1/2 for the cut.

Let's say that all physicians had their pay cut by 1/3, and 1/4 of them were forced into bankruptcy as a result. Same thing with nurses, etc. How could anyone consider that to be a moral act?

Another scenario: The remaining healthcare workers walk the hell off the job. What then?

Why not cut health care costs by shutting down Medicare and Medicaid? Would that be any less moral?

Would you be willing to give up everything you have, except just what's needed to live in a homeless shelter if it would help the problem?

Why cut the pay of doctors, nurses, etc? What about closing all federal parks and museums?

If you were assigned as the guy who had to make the decision, how would you distribute the pay cuts?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[billvon 3,073]

>Let's say that all physicians had their pay cut by 1/3, and 1/4 of them were
>forced into bankruptcy as a result.

Well, no one is "forced into bankruptcy." What would happen is:

-few people would choose medical school because they wouldn't make much
-doctors would get jobs as executives, scientists, RA's (medical school involves research training) etc
-a cash-based (or black market) medical system would develop

After a while doctors would become scarce. At that point the program would either fold or increase doctor pay.

[1969912 0]

Quote

>Let's say that all physicians had their pay cut by 1/3, and 1/4 of them were
>forced into bankruptcy as a result.

Well, no one is "forced into bankruptcy." What would happen is:

-few people would choose medical school because they wouldn't make much
-doctors would get jobs as executives, scientists, RA's (medical school involves research training) etc
-a cash-based (or black market) medical system would develop

After a while doctors would become scarce. At that point the program would either fold or increase doctor pay.

If all US physicians had a 1/3 pay cut all at the same time, there would be plenty of bankruptcies, and I will call them forced if they are the result of a 50% cut in HC costs.

What is your opinion on a price cap program like the one suggested in the article that the other gentleman posted?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[sv3n 0]

Quote

That writeup you posted used a figure of 1/2 for the cut.

Let's say that all physicians had their pay cut by 1/3, and 1/4 of them were forced into bankruptcy as a result. Same thing with nurses, etc. How could anyone consider that to be a moral act?

Another scenario: The remaining healthcare workers walk the hell off the job. What then?

Why not cut health care costs by shutting down Medicare and Medicaid? Would that be any less moral?

Would you be willing to give up everything you have, except just what's needed to live in a homeless shelter if it would help the problem?

Why cut the pay of doctors, nurses, etc? What about closing all federal parks and museums?

If you were assigned as the guy who had to make the decision, how would you distribute the pay cuts?

This is an invalid argument............obviously there's countries out there where doctor's live on the "reduced" income quite well. Also.....even a 1/3 pay cut isn't going to bring someone into bankruptcy court, look at the salaries (link: http://www.physicianssearch.com/physician/salary2.html) Otherwise there would be no doctor's or nurses in the countries that have lower healthcare rates.

If everything was covered by a US healthcare system then there would be no need for Medicare or Medicaid.

Closing federal parks and museums has nothing to do with healthcare.

As I said..........that's what the panel would be for, to determine fair prices and payrates.

I also said, that this may not be the best route.........but there's gotta be a way to get our inflated healthcare costs down. If the bills are too high, then they need to get lowered. Just like the over-inflated oil prices, the companies and doctors aren't gonna say give me less money.

What would you do to lower healthcare costs?

Getting rid of Medicaid and Medicare isn't a real solution as it leaves a lot of people uncovered unless it's replaced with something else. And special tax exempt healthcare savings accounts are pointless too.............what happens if you get colon cancer? you might as well kiss your ass goodbye cause your savings account wont contain the hundreds of thousands of dollars unless you're rich. Once again leaving a whole bunch of people uncovered. Oh then on top of the savings account you could sell private insurance for major procedures....right? Sounds like a great way to keep somebody's insurance buddies in business....but pointless cause you're not changing anything....the health insurance is still private and the government gets more taxes to play with...........oh and you leave a bunch of poor and elderly people uncovered.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Do you have any experience in Spain´s Helth System?

Probably as much as you have with the American military, but you seem to have no problems posting about them....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[1969912 0]

Quote

his is an invalid argument............obviously there's countries out there where doctor's live on the "reduced" income quite well. Also.....even a 1/3 pay cut isn't going to bring someone into bankruptcy court, look at the salaries (link: http://www.physicianssearch.com/physician/salary2.html) Otherwise there would be no doctor's or nurses in the countries that have lower healthcare rates.

If everything was covered by a US healthcare system then there would be no need for Medicare or Medicaid.

Closing federal parks and museums has nothing to do with healthcare.

As I said..........that's what the panel would be for, to determine fair prices and payrates.

I also said, that this may not be the best route.........but there's gotta be a way to get our inflated healthcare costs down. If the bills are too high, then they need to get lowered. Just like the over-inflated oil prices, the companies and doctors aren't gonna say give me less money.

What would you do to lower healthcare costs?

Even if the.. No, I don't care whether or not they would be bankrupt. Ain't the point.

Re: Medicare/Medicade being needed, they already are a US healthcare system. Do you think they operate any more efficiently than the private portion? I'd bet not.

Parks and museums have nothing to do with it. True, but what do doctors and nurses have to do with it? They are not the "problem", if there even is a problem.

----
There is no scenario that I can imagine where an immediate 1/2 reduction cost would be needed. It's totally nuts. Can't answer.

Like I said, I am not convinced that there is a crisis going on.

Do you think I have any health care coverage right now, and am just being uncaring? No, I have no coverage currently. Can't afford it. I could barely afford to go to the doctor tomorrow, but it is not the role of the government to take care of me, especially when it would actually be the rest of the country being forced under threat of arrest to pay for it. "Forced under threat of arrest" is just a realistic way of saying "taxes".

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What model/type is it biased toward?

I use the term "socialist", which may or may not be strictly true, but WHO believes that a system entirely controlled by the federal government and funded by taxes is the only viable model. Everybody pays their "fair" share, and everybody gets equal and probably far superior care.

Doesn't sound bad.....sounds like a good idea if it can be run correctly.

Is this like that saw about "Socialism has never worked because the right people haven't been in charge"?

Here's some tidbits about socialized medicine:

* Breast cancer is fatal to 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain and New Zealand, both socialized-medicine havens, breast cancer kills 46 percent of women it strikes.

* Prostate cancer proves fatal to 19 percent of its American sufferers. In single-payer Canada, the National Center for Policy Analysis reports, this ailment kills 25 percent of such men and eradicates 57 percent of their British counterparts.

* After major surgery, a 2003 British study found, 2.5 percent of American patients died in hospital versus nearly 10 percent of similar Britons. Seriously ill US hospital patients die at one-seventh the pace of those in the U.K.

* “In usual circumstances, people over age 75 should not be accepted” for treatment of end-state renal failure, according to New Zealand’s official guidelines. Unfortunately, for older Kiwis, government controls kidney dialysis.

* According to a Populus survey, 98 percent of Britons want to reduce the time between diagnosis and treatment.

Add to all this the fact that, once government has control of it, *THEY* (as in gov't) will decide what is 'needful' and what isn't. There's already plenty of evidence out there about care being rationed in SHC countries.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Keep it simple, everybody gets covered for everything. No, I'm not saying elective or cosmetic procedures like sex changes and breast implants. I'm talking medically required procedures.

This is not possible. So far no country in this world succeed in covering everyone for everything. Theoretically, yes. But practically - in what country with the government healthcare you could get an MRI next day if you think you need it (and your doctor agrees)?

Regarding your statement - sex change is basically a medically (mentally) required procedure, not something the person would do just to have extra fun. Liposuction in some cases may be medically required as well. But circumcision, for example, is definitely not medically required.

Quote

You shouldn't be crucified for your hobbies. Besides, if you break your leg skydiving or riding a bicycle the procedure doesn't change.

True, you shouldn't be crucified for your hobbies. However other people should not be forced to pay for your hobbies either. The procedure doesn't change, but the number of procedures does, and each procedure costs money.

Quote

And statistically I believe skydiving is safer than driving a car.........it's not like they're going to stop you from driving now are they.

That's where you are wrong. Try to get individual life or disability insurance, and tell them you're skydiving (which you have to). Then compare the rate you'll receive with the rates your buddies pay. You will be surprised.

Quote

You're right, that's a private choice and not for you to make for anybody. One should have all those choices available to them.

I don't make choice for anyone. I just say loud and clear that I do not want to pay MY money for THEIR choice. And if you make such a choice - be ready to pay for it. After all, should I have a choice what to spend MY money on?

Quote

False, there's enough doctor's to go around.....kids aren't gonna die because an older person is in hospice care.

The amount of doctors IS limited, as well as the amount of intensive care rooms. Regarding enough doctors around - there is enough patients around as well.

Quote

That's exactly what he's doing, "I'm not gonna pay for it why should you get it". Like I said it's fine if he doesn't want to, but other people should be able to make that decision for themselves.

The first part "I'm not gonna pay for it" is correct. The second, "why should you get it" is definitely not here. He is not gonna pay for it. I am not gonna pay for it either. If you want to make an expensive choice, and people do not want to pay for it - you should either pay for it yourself, or forget about it. You have all the rights to make any choice for spending your own money, but when you are spending the taxpayers money, you cannot just make any choice, and expect everyone to pay for it.

Quote

Chop some off the military funding and put it towards healthcare it's that simple.

Well, if this is the level of how you understand the situation, I don't think there is anything left to discuss. Could you please at least provide us with numbers - how much could we "chop" off the military funding (and please show us what it going to affect), and show us how it will help towards healthcare.

Just to provide you with a basic idea - the country population is 300,000,000; let's get the average health insurance cost as $300 per person per month - keep in mind we're talking about health insurance which covers everything without copays, deductibles or pre-existing conditions, so this number is probably too cheap, but I'm generous. So to insure everyone you're looking for $900 billion dollars a year, which is much more than the whole military budget. Obviously this is just a wild guess, and I'm sure that the real number will be much higher - but at least there is something to compare instead of "chop and give, and everything will be fine".

Quote

It's nice how you can just claim that's not true, but I'm required to give you proof.........that's a one sided debate. You haven't proven anything.

Yes, this is correct. If you make a claim, YOU have to prove it. And THEN if I want to challenge the claim, I'll have to prove it as well. So far it sounds like either you are not being serious, or you have no idea what are you talking about.

Quote

88
But just to prove I'm doing my part here you go.......

Sorry, but this is just bullshit. The only number, which could prove something, was healthcare costs per person. Which is basically useless to compare without comparing salaries and taxes - I'm sure you understand that paying $10,000 per year for health insurance in country X looks very expensive as long as you don't know that basic salary in country X starts from $200,000 a year. The rest of article is a mix of emotions, wild guess and non-documented "facts".

Actually the problem of such "articles" is that they provide a ready summary for lazy people. Most time this summary is biased, one-sided, and some time the person who provides it has no clue what he or she is talking about. It is better to get the real facts.

Quote

Stating that we could get money from excess military spending isn't making an assumption, I think we can all agree that we spend more on the military than any other country.

And we all see the results of this spending. It is not always obvious, for example, The Internet you're now using is the result of military spending those money as well as cell phone and GPS. The OPEC using U.S. dollar currency for selling the oil instead of Euro (and losing money on it) is another part. There is a lot of things which are hard to see.

Quote

Proof? False, read the article above...

Just check how much any country from your top list spent in healthcare 10 years ago, and how much they spend now.

Quote

it's lists the amount we spend compared to France which is ranked number 1. Also not if prices are regulated by a committee consisted of a panel of doctors and budget officials. That would keep prices fair for everybody and get rid of price gouging.

Ok, so now I think we get to the point. So you think the prices should be "fair", and therefore doctor salaries should be also "fair"? What about your own salary? Should it be fair too? What if Safeway cashiers will think your salary is not fair either, and should be cut in half? And just few paragraphs above you told us about the importance of personal choice - does it include the doctor salaries as well?

Quote

Just like now, if the procedures are cosmetic and not medically required.....they would not be covered. Therefore, that's an invalid point.

What about procedures which are only partially covered now? For example, if I complain about back pain, and want to have a massage every day - should it be covered completely? Now it is only partially covered (i.e. no more than 12 sessions in a year).

Quote

About 9.5 years worth.

You spent 9.5 years in the government-mandated healthcare facility?
It looks like you misunderstood the question, so I repeat it: how often had you been treated in your life by any government healthcare facility outside US?
I'm not asking how long have you lived outside US, as it is irrelevant.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

his is an invalid argument............obviously there's countries out there where doctor's live on the "reduced" income quite well. Also.....even a 1/3 pay cut isn't going to bring someone into bankruptcy court, look at the salaries (link: http://www.physicianssearch.com/physician/salary2.html) Otherwise there would be no doctor's or nurses in the countries that have lower healthcare rates.

If everything was covered by a US healthcare system then there would be no need for Medicare or Medicaid.

Closing federal parks and museums has nothing to do with healthcare.

As I said..........that's what the panel would be for, to determine fair prices and payrates.

I also said, that this may not be the best route.........but there's gotta be a way to get our inflated healthcare costs down. If the bills are too high, then they need to get lowered. Just like the over-inflated oil prices, the companies and doctors aren't gonna say give me less money.

What would you do to lower healthcare costs?

Even if the.. No, I don't care whether or not they would be bankrupt. Ain't the point.

Re: Medicare/Medicade being needed, they already are a US healthcare system. Do you think they operate any more efficiently than the private portion? I'd bet not.

Parks and museums have nothing to do with it. True, but what do doctors and nurses have to do with it? They are not the "problem", if there even is a problem.

----
There is no scenario that I can imagine where an immediate 1/2 reduction cost would be needed. It's totally nuts. Can't answer.

Like I said, I am not convinced that there is a crisis going on.

Do you think I have any health care coverage right now, and am just being uncaring? No, I have no coverage currently. Can't afford it. I could barely afford to go to the doctor tomorrow, but it is not the role of the government to take care of me, especially when it would actually be the rest of the country being forced under threat of arrest to pay for it. "Forced under threat of arrest" is just a realistic way of saying "taxes".

What do doctors have to do with healthcare....well for instance the provide the healthcare and send you a bill for their services.....I would say that alone puts them a little closer than the local park.

Here's a quote from an artice that gives some insight as to why we spend so much on healthcare and also a good thought on why the private tax free healthcare savings accounts would have a hard time working.......

"A survey by a large insurance company showed that prices charged by hospitals vary dramatically. For example, a hysterectomy ranged from $2,200 to $37,000, and a total knee replacement ranged from $3,000 to $119,400. Presumably, the cost of these procedures (what it actually costs a hospital to perform the procedure) are nearly identical. Of course, these are only the charges; the hospital receives only a percentage of these from an insurance company. However, if you are one of the 47 million Americans with no insurance, you are charged full freight." link:http://www.sacbee.com/health/story/317717.html

Do you have $119,400 laying around? Even if you do....you're making a system which only supports healthcare for the rich. And that's just one procedure. The simple fact is that we're more expensive than anyone else in the world....Switzerland is in 2nd place and they pay 44% of what we do. Lower costs.....lower healthcare prices..............maybe that alone would make healthcare affordable for everybody.

Here's a thought........if a government can't take care of the people that it works for, what good is it?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."........remember this?

welfare: "the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society." link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/welfare

...and you're in violation of your face!

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

France........rank number 1 link pleasein the world for health care, it's not private healthcare.....government health care. Remember, we're ranked number 37 and we have private healthcare........obviously the private sector isn't doing that good. And on top of that our healthcare costs are higher than anywhere else in the world. That says a lot.depends and how the ranking is done.

From Business Week last month:
France also demonstrates that you can deliver stellar results with this mix of public and private financing. In a recent World Health Organization health-care ranking, France came in first, while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba and one notch above Slovenia. France's infant death rate is 3.9 per 1,000 live births, compared with 7 in the U.S., and average life expectancy is 79.4 years, two years more than in the U.S. The country has far more hospital beds and doctors per capita than America, and far lower rates of death from diabetes and heart disease. The difference in deaths from respiratory disease, an often preventable form of mortality, is particularly striking: 31.2 per 100,000 people in France, vs. 61.5 per 100,000 in the U.S.

That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65% of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40% of U.S. residents. And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation.

To grasp how the French system works, think about Medicare for the elderly in the U.S., then expand that to encompass the entire population. French medicine is based on a widely held value that the healthy should pay for care of the sick. Everyone has access to the same basic coverage through national insurance funds, to which every employer and employee contributes. The government picks up the tab for the unemployed who cannot gain coverage through a family member.

Americans who think America is always #1 in everything are just kidding themselves.

Very misleading, and pretty much irrelevant to discussions regarding a health care system.

The study should be called a Health study, not a Health Care study. Many of the things effecting their ranking is about lifestyle, not the health care system. Much of what it has to say is that Americans are obese and lazy; that we smoke and drink and eat too much.

Another useless category is number of hospital beds. I'm assuming they would give us points for having more, which is absolutely assinine since we have too many as it is. Yeah, build more big white shiny buildings with empty beds so we can try to move up on the list.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Putting a cap on medical treatment costs, which would be no different than putting a cap on malpractice lawsuits, would lower us to a reasonable level.

Which is why I suggested that the way these costs can be controlled is to ban assisted living facilities and ban all extraordinary measures on geriatric patients. How do you think things get price capped? Guess what? That's "FU - you're not good enough to get health care."

Also note that thoughout history, price caps cause shortages of supply. Thus, "FU - it's not that you're not good enough, it's just that you don't have healthcare."

Your claim i that healthcre in the US is rationed by price. You are merely arguing to ration it in a different way.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[sv3n 0]

I'm not going over all this........I'm not ready to write a thesis on healthcare.

Quote

Just to provide you with a basic idea - the country population is 300,000,000; let's get the average health insurance cost as $300 per person per month - keep in mind we're talking about health insurance which covers everything without copays, deductibles or pre-existing conditions, so this number is probably too cheap, but I'm generous. So to insure everyone you're looking for $900 billion dollars a year, which is much more than the whole military budget. Obviously this is just a wild guess, and I'm sure that the real number will be much higher - but at least there is something to compare instead of "chop and give, and everything will be fine".

False.....if you for instance we're to take the amount from france of $2,736 and times it per population of 300,000,000 which would be $820.8 billion. But the thing you didn't read was that only $2,080 of that came from the government........that brings the amount required down to $624 billion. Right now we spend $1.9 trillion dollars on healthcare each year..........we just saved $1.276 trillion dollars. And then we have the excess from the cut military budget......we're now rich and can afford to put that money into other programs like public schools.

Plus one thing you didn't figure out.....somewhere around 60% of americans have healthcare through their job.....their emloyer pays half of that. If the average family of 4 pays $12,000 a year for insurance......that means you would get a payraise of $6,000 depending on how things worked out.

This is affordable and would be a positive thing for this country.....everybody has the right to be healthy, it shouldn't be a priviledge.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

But the thing you didn't read was that only $2,080 of that came from the government........that brings the amount required down to $624 billion.

{{Deleted - the whole thread is rehashed nonsense}}

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants