Recommended Posts
1969912 0
QuoteHere are some disturbing facts I found:
QuoteDespite the relatively high level of health expenditure in the United States, there are fewer physicians percapita than in most other OECD countries. In 2004, the United States had 2.4 practising physicians per 1000 population, below the OECD average of 3.0. There were 7.9 nurses per 1 000 population in the United States in 2002, which is slightly lower than theaverage of 8.3 across OECD countries. The number of acute care hospital beds in the United States in 2004 was 2.8 per 1 000 population, also lower than the OECD average of 4.1 beds per 1 000 population.
Why is that disturbing? The quality of treatment in the US fine, grouped within the top 10 country's. The US ranked #1 on the criteria that looks at promptness of service.
What some would call disturbing is the fact that fewer pysicians per capita means they will have higher salaries.
"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
Quote
The problem with that is you would have people dying because they can't get treated.
So what about the people who ARE treated, but still dying (and it takes 60% of the overall healthcare costs to cover that treatment)?
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
1969912 0
QuoteI'd leave that up to better men than myself. Obviously it's possible if it's happening elsewhere. One would have to take an indepth look at what prices were higher and why.......then work out a systematic way of getting our prices down.
What you are talking about is NOT happening elsewhere. I don't know if France has salary controls on doctor's or not, but if they do, it has been in place for years and years. What you are talking about is slapping salary controls on people who have been working without them for years. You will be requiring them to take a potentially large cut in pay, which is nothing like what's happening in France.
Not too far off topic:
If you have time, please read this book: Atlas Shrugged, by AYN Rand
"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
1969912 0
QuoteQuote
then work out a systematic way of getting our prices down.
Easy. Reduce demand. Take away subsidies and "rights" to health care. Watch prices fall as doctors and hospitals have to compete for patients, and patients become unwilling to overspend because it costs their own money to consume health care instead of coming out of some invisible gov't ledger.
If you kept the difference you'd see to it yourself that you got the $4000 knee surgery instead of the $100,000 one. Likewise if you got to keep the difference between the $1600 / mo insurance plan that gets you the $100k treatment and the $200 / mo plan that gets you the $4k job.
Seeing as $100,000 surgeries would go out of style quick, the health care industry would reorient itself towards the affordable and the effective. Like ordinary markets throughout the economy.
Have you ever seen a price chart when you discussed treatment with your doctor or at a hospital? Hospitals will often refuse to reveal their price structures in advance of treatment. Nobody asks anyway. If you were spending the same amount on a house or a car or a computer you'd walk out if you couldn't see the price. They know that patients don't care because patients have practically no incentives to care.
Bingo! I had a feeling you might have taken Econ 101 at some point
.
"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 2,026
QuoteQuoteRight, no big cities in Texas or Georgia, and in Nevada the population certainly isn't concentrated in cities like Vegas.
NH, Vermont, Minnesota and Maine, of course, are just asphalt jungles.
It has to do with average population densisty for the entire state.
Could you really not infer that from what people were posting?
No, it has to do with where the majority of the population live. Places no-one lives are irrelevant. Nevada is an excellent example - it has a very high population density where most Nevadans live (87% in just 2 counties), and almost zero elsewhere. Who cares if there are no MDs in a place 100 miles from the nearest resident?
You DO know how to take a weighted average, right?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Lindsey 0
Correct........except that when you're talking about large houses and private jets, you're talking about luxuries. When you're talking about healthcare, then you're talking about someone's life. If a government is supposed to take care of it's people then it needs to do something about that.
This argument always makes me go "Hmmmm." Why aren't we obligated to provide people with the basics of food, clothing, shelter? Seems people who scream about people having to pay to see their doctor would be equally up-in-arms about the cost of an apartment in a safe neighborhood.
This argument always makes me go "Hmmmm." Why aren't we obligated to provide people with the basics of food, clothing, shelter? Seems people who scream about people having to pay to see their doctor would be equally up-in-arms about the cost of an apartment in a safe neighborhood.
--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
Quote
This argument always makes me go "Hmmmm." Why aren't we obligated to provide people with the basics of food, clothing, shelter?
I need a car to get to work sometimes when I'm not working from home. Once I get into a government subsidy program I think I'll upgrade to a Lambo, even tho a $4k used civic would do -- once the money isn't coming straight out of my pocket it makes it easy to upgrade.
After all, rich people can afford Lambos because they were born into wealth. I deserve equal treatment. I want a red one.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
QuoteWhat about real availability of healthcare in France, could you come today to the doctor, and get MRI tomorrow?
Nope. It's August and they're on vacation. Recall the problems during the heat wave a few years back when doctors were not available to treat victims because they were all on vacation out of the country.
They may have been seeking medical care of their own, but that's just speculation on my part.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
sv3n 0
QuoteQuoteOne would have to take an indepth look at what prices were higher and why
See my first post:
1) End-of-life care - EXPENSIVE.
2) Drugs - Expensive
3) Variance in population creating more diversity of medical problems.
Now, how do we solve these problems?
Solving them through leaving people uncovered is not right.
You are right that end of life care is expensive, but I think our elders deserve better than "so gramps, get your ass out on the street" they helped build this country and many have faught for this country.
Drugs are expensive, but since our drug costs are higher than anywhere else in the world....one would assume you would take a look to see if things are "inflated" by the companies and deal with that appropriately. People need the medications and if they're cheaper elsewhere why are the not as cheap here.
Your theory on closing the borders to alleviate the diverse problems that we have because of the diverse population that already lives here is inane and pointless. Those people already live here.......closing the border will have no direct impact on the different number of medical conditions in this country.
...and you're in violation of your face!
sv3n 0
You can take a lot out of that.........to help to exist. So now you're helping the health of the population to exist. How would you do that? Through healthcare.
pro·mote /prəˈmoʊt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pruh-moht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -mot·ed, -mot·ing.
1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.
2. to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc. (opposed to demote).
3. Education. to put ahead to the next higher stage or grade of a course or series of classes.
4. to aid in organizing (business undertakings).
5. to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), esp. through advertising or other publicity.
6. Informal. to obtain (something) by cunning or trickery; wangle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME promoten < L prōmōtus, ptp. of prōmovére to move forward, advance. See pro-1, motive]
—Related forms
pro·mot·able, adjective
pro·mot·a·bil·i·ty, noun
—Synonyms 1. abet, back, forward, advance, assist, help, support. 2. elevate, raise, exalt.
—Antonyms 1. discourage, obstruct. 2. demote, degrade, abase.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source pro·mote (prə-mōt') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. pro·mot·ed, pro·mot·ing, pro·motes
To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank.
To advance (a student) to the next higher grade.
To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See Synonyms at advance.
To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment.
To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity: commercials promoting a new product.
To help establish or organize (a new enterprise), as by securing financial backing: promote a Broadway show.
[Middle English promoten, from Old French promoter, from Latin prōmovēre, prōmōt- : prō-, forward; see pro-1 + movēre, to move; see meuə- in Indo-European roots.]
pro·mot'a·bil'i·ty n., pro·mot'a·ble adj.
(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
promote
1387, "to advance (someone) to a higher grade or office," from L. promotus, pp. of promovere "move forward, advance," from pro- "forward" + movere "to move" (see move). General sense of "to further the growth or progress of (anything)" is from 1515. Promoter "one who promotes" is from 1450; financial sense of "one who leads in forming a company" is from 1876; sense of "one who organizes sporting or entertainment events" is attested from 1936.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source promote
verb
1. contribute to the progress or growth of; "I am promoting the use of computers in the classroom"
2. give a promotion to or assign to a higher position; "John was kicked upstairs when a replacement was hired"; "Women tend not to advance in the major law firms"; "I got promoted after many years of hard work" [ant: break]
3. make publicity for; try to sell (a product); "The salesman is aggressively pushing the new computer model"; "The company is heavily advertizing their new laptops" [syn: advertise]
4. be changed for a superior chess or checker piece
5. change a pawn for a better piece by advancing it to the eighth row, or change a checker piece for a more valuable piece by moving it to the row closest to your opponent
pro·mote /prəˈmoʊt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pruh-moht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -mot·ed, -mot·ing.
1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.
2. to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc. (opposed to demote).
3. Education. to put ahead to the next higher stage or grade of a course or series of classes.
4. to aid in organizing (business undertakings).
5. to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), esp. through advertising or other publicity.
6. Informal. to obtain (something) by cunning or trickery; wangle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME promoten < L prōmōtus, ptp. of prōmovére to move forward, advance. See pro-1, motive]
—Related forms
pro·mot·able, adjective
pro·mot·a·bil·i·ty, noun
—Synonyms 1. abet, back, forward, advance, assist, help, support. 2. elevate, raise, exalt.
—Antonyms 1. discourage, obstruct. 2. demote, degrade, abase.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source pro·mote (prə-mōt') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. pro·mot·ed, pro·mot·ing, pro·motes
To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank.
To advance (a student) to the next higher grade.
To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See Synonyms at advance.
To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment.
To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity: commercials promoting a new product.
To help establish or organize (a new enterprise), as by securing financial backing: promote a Broadway show.
[Middle English promoten, from Old French promoter, from Latin prōmovēre, prōmōt- : prō-, forward; see pro-1 + movēre, to move; see meuə- in Indo-European roots.]
pro·mot'a·bil'i·ty n., pro·mot'a·ble adj.
(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
promote
1387, "to advance (someone) to a higher grade or office," from L. promotus, pp. of promovere "move forward, advance," from pro- "forward" + movere "to move" (see move). General sense of "to further the growth or progress of (anything)" is from 1515. Promoter "one who promotes" is from 1450; financial sense of "one who leads in forming a company" is from 1876; sense of "one who organizes sporting or entertainment events" is attested from 1936.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source promote
verb
1. contribute to the progress or growth of; "I am promoting the use of computers in the classroom"
2. give a promotion to or assign to a higher position; "John was kicked upstairs when a replacement was hired"; "Women tend not to advance in the major law firms"; "I got promoted after many years of hard work" [ant: break]
3. make publicity for; try to sell (a product); "The salesman is aggressively pushing the new computer model"; "The company is heavily advertizing their new laptops" [syn: advertise]
4. be changed for a superior chess or checker piece
5. change a pawn for a better piece by advancing it to the eighth row, or change a checker piece for a more valuable piece by moving it to the row closest to your opponent
Quote>promote the general Welfare
Yes. We should promote the general welfare. Note that it says promote, not guarantee.
----------
pro·mote /prəˈmoʊt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pruh-moht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -mot·ed, -mot·ing.
1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.
-----------
...and you're in violation of your face!
sv3n 0
Sorry, you miss understood me............I wasn't implying that other countries put caps on pay for doctors....I was simply trying to state that if healthcare costs are lower in other countries like france which has a very well ranked system then it's possible here too.
QuoteQuoteI'd leave that up to better men than myself. Obviously it's possible if it's happening elsewhere. One would have to take an indepth look at what prices were higher and why.......then work out a systematic way of getting our prices down.
What you are talking about is NOT happening elsewhere. I don't know if France has salary controls on doctor's or not, but if they do, it has been in place for years and years. What you are talking about is slapping salary controls on people who have been working without them for years. You will be requiring them to take a potentially large cut in pay, which is nothing like what's happening in France.
Not too far off topic:
If you have time, please read this book: Atlas Shrugged, by AYN Rand
...and you're in violation of your face!
sv3n 0
QuoteCorrect........except that when you're talking about large houses and private jets, you're talking about luxuries. When you're talking about healthcare, then you're talking about someone's life. If a government is supposed to take care of it's people then it needs to do something about that.
This argument always makes me go "Hmmmm." Why aren't we obligated to provide people with the basics of food, clothing, shelter? Seems people who scream about people having to pay to see their doctor would be equally up-in-arms about the cost of an apartment in a safe neighborhood.
It's called welfare and it's already in place.
...and you're in violation of your face!
sv3n 0
QuoteQuote
The problem with that is you would have people dying because they can't get treated.
So what about the people who ARE treated, but still dying (and it takes 60% of the overall healthcare costs to cover that treatment)?
If they're getting treated, then they're covered............and your point is that people who can afford insurance can get treated and the people that can't afford it are just sol?
...and you're in violation of your face!
sv3n 0
I suppose the question would be how they came about with the ranking criteria, was it completed through surveys of what was important to the population or where did it come from?
What other tweaks did you make to get that list? One could leave out whatever they wanted and make their chosen country move to the top of the list.
What other tweaks did you make to get that list? One could leave out whatever they wanted and make their chosen country move to the top of the list.
QuoteQuoteObviously, France is able to have healthcare and they're ranked number 1........also their healthcare rates are those provided.
Yes, they were ranked #1. We were #37. Ever wonder why?
One of the ranking criteria "Fairness of Financial Contribution", accounts for 25% of the score used in the rankings. That criterion is essentially a test that asks "How much variation is there in the amount that households pay, as a % of income, for health care in the country?" If every household pays the same amount, as a % of income, each year, like France, they get a perfect score, guaranteed. Now, looking at the US, some pay for healthcare out of their pocket, and most have insurance, but NOTE THAT NOT EVERYONE USES THE SAME INSURANCE COMPANY OR PLAN, some use HMO's, some have high deductibles, some low, etc. This means that there will be considerable variation among households in the US, guaranteeing a low score. EVEN IF EVERY HOUSEHOLD IN THE US HAD INSURANCE, THEY WOULD ALL NEED TO PAY THE SAME AMOUNT TO GET A HIGH SCORE, EVEN IF THE COST WAS 99% OF THEIR INCOME. This pretty much requires that everyone use the same insurance company, and pay premiums based on income (perfect for a government income tax).
So what does the "fairness" criteria really test for? It determines if a country uses a government mandated and controlled healthcare system funded by an income tax. That's pretty much it.
So how important is it to WHO that every country use a government controlled healthcare system? It's 25% of the score. That is the same weight given to "quality" (ability to treat, #doctors/patient, safety, availabilty of hospitals, cleanliness, ...). So it's just as important in the WHO study to have a government controlled system as it is to get decent mediacal treatment. Which should be more important?
Just to show what WHO thinks is important, look at this: "Responsiveness" is the criteria WHO used to examine the following: dignity, autonomy, prompt attention, confidentiality, quality of basic amenities, and access to social support. What weight did WHO apply to "responsiveness?" They gave it a 12.5% weighting, half that of fairness. How would you weight "responsiveness" compared to "fairness". BTW, US ranked #1 on this.
Take the "fairness" score out of the equation for all country's and what happens? The US jumps to 15th. France moves to about 6th. Does the US system still suck? Is France still the best in the world?
Look at this: A country could have no doctors, no hospitals, etc., and every household spending 100% of their income on helthcare, they would have a perfect score for 25% of their total.
The point I'm trying to make is that relying on the WHO rankings without really knowing what they looked at is folly, and thus deserving of cavil.
Regarding the example tweak above where I removed the "fairness" criteria, by making a couple more tweak, none more unreasonable than that, the following will result:
1. United States
2. Switzerland
3. Luxembourg
4. Denmark
5. Germany
6. Japan
7. Canada
8. Norway
9. Netherlands
10. Sweden
Remember, WHO decided what should be important in healthcare. What is important to you?
...and you're in violation of your face!
sv3n 0
QuoteQuote
I don't disagree with you there......that's a hard road to follow. But if the reason our healthcare prices are so high is as plain as the prices are overinflated.
No, there are other reasons as well. The 60% spending on last three weeks of life seems much more reasonable.
Here's a good article on the overinflated price of medication in the US.....Link: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3987/is_200311/ai_n9320625......to my amazement I also found something else in it that everybody says is undoable and just too outrageous.
"While drug costs in the United States continue to spiral out of control, other countries have adopted policies to keep prices in check. One nation leading the way in price regulation is Canada, which had the second-highest average price for pharmaceuticals until 1987. Passage of the Patent Act that year established an organization known as the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB), which was charged with overseeing the prices of all patent drugs sold in the country. Since then, average prices for patented medicine have risen less than 1 percent per year - far less than the increases seen in the U.S. over the same time.
The PMPRB ensures that the prices of patented drugs are not excessive by controlling introductory drug prices. Specifically, it sets guidelines and reviews drug prices; tracks the price trends of patented drugs and the research and development investments made by pharmaceutical companies; and helps to inform and educate the general public about drug prices. Prices of non-patented drugs (such as generics) are not regulated by the PMPRB.
Before a patent drug can be sold in Canada, a pharmaceutical company submits the price of the drug to the board for review. The board uses several tests to determine whether the cost is excessive, including the Reasonable Relationship Test, which considers the association between the strength and price of a medicine in the same or comparable dosages; the Therapeutic Class Comparison Test, which compares the prices of drugs with those that are clinically equivalent and are sold in the same markets at prices the PMPRB considers not excessive; the International Price Comparison Test, which compares the average transaction price with the publicly available transaction prices of the same medicine sold in seven other countries (France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States); and the measurement in change of the consumer price index (CPI) over a specific period of time, which compares the average price of a drug with the CPI-adjusted price."
Wow! Somebody has done the impossible and it turns out to be Canada. Everybody bow down come on.........
No wonder people go to Canada to get their prescription drugs......the government finally went, "hey, you guys are ripping people off through overinflated prices....that's not good for the people" and bitchslapped them back into place. Poor company
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
, they're still only making billions and all people can now afford the medications. What a concept.
QuoteQuote
.........then how do you suggest we bring them down to a reasonable level?
I'd let you, and others, who complain about very high salaries of the doctors, to become doctors themselves, and provide the same services for less money. Then, after you have 10-20 years of successful practice, you will have every right to tell us that the doctor salaries are overinflated, and the doctors should be paid less. Before that the value of your words is close to zero.
Sounds like you're letting me have it..........are you gonna start soon?
...and you're in violation of your face!
No, there are other reasons as well. The 60% spending on last three weeks of life seems much more reasonable.
I'd let you, and others, who complain about very high salaries of the doctors, to become doctors themselves, and provide the same services for less money. Then, after you have 10-20 years of successful practice, you will have every right to tell us that the doctor salaries are overinflated, and the doctors should be paid less. Before that the value of your words is close to zero.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites