ACCBoards

^ That's a figure of health care expenditures as a % of GDP. The remarkable thing is that we pay more from THE GOVERNMENT than Canada, the U.K., Japan, the Aussies, Italy, and even the Swiss. Unreal. Only in America.

Klein: The hard truth about health care

"Think about that for a minute. Canada has a single-payer health-care system. The government is the only insurer of any note. The United Kingdom has a socialized system, in which the government is not only the sole insurer of note but also employs most of the doctors and nurses and runs most of the hospitals. And yet, measured as a share of the economy, our government health-care system is the largest of the bunch.

And it’s worse than that: Atop our giant government health-care sector, we have an even more giant private health-care sector. Altogether, we’re spending about 16 percent of the GDP on health care. No other country even tops 12 percent. Which means we’ve got the worst of both worlds: huge government and high costs."

Note who isn't on that list

I am gonna go WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out on a limb and say...............CHina?

(06-11-2011 01:06 PM)crufus Wrote: [ -> ]

^ That's a figure of health care expenditures as a % of GDP. The remarkable thing is that we pay more from THE GOVERNMENT than Canada, the U.K., Japan, the Aussies, Italy, and even the Swiss. Unreal. Only in America.

Klein: The hard truth about health care

"Think about that for a minute. Canada has a single-payer health-care system. The government is the only insurer of any note. The United Kingdom has a socialized system, in which the government is not only the sole insurer of note but also employs most of the doctors and nurses and runs most of the hospitals. And yet, measured as a share of the economy, our government health-care system is the largest of the bunch.

And it’s worse than that: Atop our giant government health-care sector, we have an even more giant private health-care sector. Altogether, we’re spending about 16 percent of the GDP on health care. No other country even tops 12 percent. Which means we’ve got the worst of both worlds: huge government and high costs."

Remember, we still have the best health care in the world. Our system can stand some improvement, but when you have patients coming here to have major surgeries because they can't get what the need at home, that should tell you something. If we Obamacare is mandated, you will see an exit of the best doctors to other parts of the world. I'm sick and tired of us being compared to other countries. Go live elsewhere, and don't come back when you get sick!

So it looks like to me we need to eliminate the inefficient government run health care programs and reduce the regulations on insurance providers to stimulate real competition.

Nobody mentions this factor that drives up healthcare costs: class action suits. If Congress would pass Tort reform, that would help. There are several variables for the expense, but this is one that gets lost in the discussion and is one of the main causes. How do you think Johnny Edwards made so much money? It's becoming too expensive to practice medicine here in the States, and it's not because we need universal health coverage. As a matter of fact, as Neal Boortz asks, when did healthcare become a right?

(06-11-2011 10:22 PM)Atlantaheel Wrote: [ -> ]Remember, we still have the best health care in the world. Our system can stand some improvement, but when you have patients coming here to have major surgeries because they can't get what the need at home, that should tell you something. If we Obamacare is mandated, you will see an exit of the best doctors to other parts of the world. I'm sick and tired of us being compared to other countries. Go live elsewhere, and don't come back when you get sick!

'Best Health Care' depends a lot on definition. As to your other points, the reverse is often true now - people going elsewhere for treatment because the costs are crippling here (try Googling 'medical tourism'), ii) why would we see an exodus of doctors if we're so far ahead right now? (seems quite illogical), and iii) hating being compared to other countries is understandable when the comparison is often not flattering.

I find it very odd that so many in this country seem so committed to flushing money down the toilet. I don't include the politicians in the health industries pocket here, the insurance companies who profit handsomely from things as they stand now, and the myriad other concerns with their fingers in the $2T pie. Their motivation is obviou$. It is mystifying why so many others seem to love wasting money though. If we spent the same proportion of our GDP on health care as other leading economies, it would seem likely to free up ~$1T/year to do more productive things (figuring a conservative savings of 6% in a $14T economy). Our products could be more competitive internationally with less of a drag on our businesses as well.

Americans probably do the worst job of taking care of themselves too.

I'm not implying that our healthcare system doesn't need improvement, we just don't need it socialized. As I mentioned, Tort reform would help, lowering corporate taxes would help, and not allowing the ERs to be used for normal care would help. Not allowing illegals to freely use services would also help. There are a lot of reins to be drawn in, but also, healthcare is a nice benefit, not an entitlement. When we were kids, my parents didn't always have healthcare benefits. Of course, they managed their money and waited for seven years to start a family. Planning ahead financially would help.

(06-13-2011 12:37 PM)Atlantaheel Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not implying that our healthcare system doesn't need improvement, we just don't need it socialized. As I mentioned, Tort reform would help, lowering corporate taxes would help, and not allowing the ERs to be used for normal care would help. Not allowing illegals to freely use services would also help. There are a lot of reins to be drawn in, but also, healthcare is a nice benefit, not an entitlement. When we were kids, my parents didn't always have healthcare benefits. Of course, they managed their money and waited for seven years to start a family. Planning ahead financially would help.

Did anyone in the family have a serious chronic medical condition in those days? If so, how was it paid for? Or was your family lucky?

God the healthcare debate is such a tedious discussion I can barely even do it anymore.

Fact - Healthcare is a right. You go to any ER bleeding out and they will not let you die outside the sliding door.

Fact - the US is a leader in healthcare technology and also in practice. Evidence Based Medicine in making a big difference - just look at how well heart attacks have been treated in the past ten years. Its remarkable.

Fact - there is so much fat in the system its ridiculous, from Insurance to all of the paper pushed in big hospitals, its ridiculous. The French do better.

Opinion - I think a single payer system, like the Military, is the most efficient way to go. I am not saying we should nationalize the healthcare industry, just eliminate the patchwork of insurance while still allowing supplemental insurance for those wealthy enough to want it.

Fact - Government must continue to support basic research and is failing in that cause, as China gains R&D supremacy. If we do not redouble our research efforts (funding) we are going to be in a world of hurt. My mentor won the freaking Nobel Prize and can't get RO1 funding. Its insane.

Healthcare has never been a "right". I question your choice of mentors if there is a Nobel Prize involved. There is a ton of R&D being funded by our government, your tax dollars. Since the French do better, and China has R&D supremacy, why don't you try living over there for awhile, and then tell me how they are better. I'd love to educated, but by someone that has lived it. Maybe that's why the Brits and Canucks come here to have major surgeries performed.

(06-13-2011 03:13 PM)Atlantaheel Wrote: [ -> ]Healthcare has never been a "right". I question your choice of mentors if there is a Nobel Prize involved. There is a ton of R&D being funded by our government, your tax dollars. Since the French do better, and China has R&D supremacy, why don't you try living over there for awhile, and then tell me how they are better. I'd love to educated, but by someone that has lived it. Maybe that's why the Brits and Canucks come here to have major surgeries performed.

I welcome these insults, I really do. I did live in France (Strasbourg) for a few years doing diabetes/obesity research. (thats why i am 'wrongtimezone') Their health system is just fine. Trust me.

And yes, health care - life saving health care - is a right in the United States even if you end up in a private ER. No doctor will refuse care to a dying patient in the ER. I used to work in the ER at UNC. the door was wide open, as it should be under the Constitution and the medical code of ethics.

If you believe that the "problem" (or one of the "problems") with American Health Care is that costs outpace the rate of inflation, turning it over to the government does nothing to alliviate that problem UNLESS the government decides to ration care. I would be interested in hearing from someone why a system of rationed medical care is better for the majority of the US population that what we currently have.

I'd also be interested in hearing from someone who defines the "problem" differently.

(06-13-2011 03:33 PM)Byrdy Wrote: [ -> ]If you believe that the "problem" (or one of the "problems") with American Health Care is that costs outpace the rate of inflation, turning it over to the government does nothing to alliviate that problem UNLESS the government decides to ration care. I would be interested in hearing from someone why a system of rationed medical care is better for the majority of the US population that what we currently have.

I'd also be interested in hearing from someone who defines the "problem" differently.

ordering a CT scan for every headache is an issue.

Defensive medicine to avoid lawsuits adds major costs.

Evidence based medicine is helping, but it takes time to get proof of the efficacy of various procedures. We are on the right track, but the ambulance chasers and insurance deniers are not interested in science and efficacy of care. (I know we have at least one very thoughtful insurance provider on these boards and I mean no personal disrespect, its a global statement from my experience, and there are good and bad people in every human endeavor)

(06-13-2011 12:37 PM)Atlantaheel Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not implying that our healthcare system doesn't need improvement, we just don't need it socialized. As I mentioned, Tort reform would help, lowering corporate taxes would help, and not allowing the ERs to be used for normal care would help. Not allowing illegals to freely use services would also help. There are a lot of reins to be drawn in, but also, healthcare is a nice benefit, not an entitlement. When we were kids, my parents didn't always have healthcare benefits. Of course, they managed their money and waited for seven years to start a family. Planning ahead financially would help.

what would help more than all of those together would be to take back the jobs we sent to China, Mexico, India et al. Then we could have a tax cut because we'd have less need for welfare and more people paying taxes

this is one of the best examples I've seen for why we cannot win by outsourcing so many jobs to countries that live in poverty. they aren't on that list because their healthcare sucks, and that's one of the biggest reasons they can undercut our production costs.

lung disease treatment for coal miners in China? hell, you're lucky if you live long enough to get a lung disease if you mine coal in China. 5,000 a year die in coal mines. cuts out a lot of health care cost right there. no lung disease when you're dead

put those Americans back to work. you won't need socialized medicine and you can cut taxes. keep sendign jobs to China you'll drive 20,000,000 people who can't find a job into the waiting arms of socialists. the left couldn't come up with a better plan than the right has in place

Sorry if you took my comment as an insult, it wasn't meant to be. Bottom line, I'm aware of the medical code of ethics, that's why our HC system is to strapped right now. That code of ethics never stated that everyone has a "right" to healthcare, which is different than being treated. Anyone and everyone will be treated in an ER, which is not its purpose. ERs are for emergencies and have been misused for years. As I previously mentioned, tort reform (no "bogus" class action suits against the medical establishment) would help in this matter. Point was made about discontinuing the outsourcing of jobs. Over 60% of CEOs recently polled stated they would bring corporate offices back here with tax cuts. Over 40% said they'd put manufacturing plants back, as well. If the government would stop trying to rape the private sector, healthcare would practically take care of itself.

Let's not lose sight of what this whole HC issue is about. It has nothing to do with whether or not everyone has access to affordable HC. It's another mandate to control expendable income of the masses. The more we pay for needs, the less we have for anything else. HC and global warming tactics have been tried in the past and failed.

Speaking for coal miners, great article today from americanthinker.com. Talks about how Barry plans to get rid of coal mining jobs and replace them with efficient energy sources. Funny thing is, a company in Chicago would gain a great deal. Seems Bill Ayers' daddy has been an executive there, and David Axlerod has a company that would benefit, as well. The whole HC and "green" environmental causes are for the sheep that follow the wolf down the road to self-imposed oblivion.

(06-13-2011 03:45 PM)wrongtimezone Wrote: [ -> ]ordering a CT scan for every headache is an issue.

Defensive medicine to avoid lawsuits adds major costs.

No argument from me on those two points, but they are symptoms, not the actual problem.

^ Sorry if I missed it above, but would the problem be patients having 'no skin in the game'? I wouldn't dispute that in a great many cases. I've got a bit of a libertarian attitude about many habits that affect health. Want to smoke and feast on cheese fries from the comfort of your barcalounger all the time? Fine. Just find some way not to stick me with the tab for your lung cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. I can likewise see the arguments against the individual mandate. Trouble is that I'm getting stuck with the tab for those who could afford insurance and decide not to purchase it when they are not, as WTZ points out, left to bleed to death outside the ER. Seems awful durn close to a mandate to me, just that I'm paying for someone else in that case.

(06-13-2011 03:33 PM)Byrdy Wrote: [ -> ]If you believe that the "problem" (or one of the "problems") with American Health Care is that costs outpace the rate of inflation, turning it over to the government does nothing to alliviate that problem UNLESS the government decides to ration care. I would be interested in hearing from someone why a system of rationed medical care is better for the majority of the US population that what we currently have.

I'd also be interested in hearing from someone who defines the "problem" differently.

Healthcare is and has always been rationed. The debate is over how it is rationed.

(06-13-2011 07:01 PM)crufus Wrote: [ -> ]^ Sorry if I missed it above, but would the problem be patients having 'no skin in the game'? I wouldn't dispute that in a great many cases. I've got a bit of a libertarian attitude about many habits that affect health. Want to smoke and feast on cheese fries from the comfort of your barcalounger all the time? Fine. Just find some way not to stick me with the tab for your lung cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. I can likewise see the arguments against the individual mandate.

Yep. Consumers have little to no incentive to "push back" on the fees and/or the procedures that their provider recommends. They care about what their co-pay is

Quote:Trouble is that I'm getting stuck with the tab for those who could afford insurance and decide not to purchase it when they are not, as WTZ points out, left to bleed to death outside the ER. Seems awful durn close to a mandate to me, just that I'm paying for someone else in that case.

I am skeptical about the "cost" to society, at least up until now, of uninsureds visiting the ER. But, even if all of the doomsayers are correct and it's costing a bloody fortune, there were much easier fixes to that "problem" than revamping the entire health care system.

(06-13-2011 07:19 PM)Redstuff Wrote: [ -> ]Healthcare is and has always been rationed. The debate is over how it is rationed.

Incorrect. Check back in about 25 years (assuming the SC upholds the individual mandate) if you want to see what rationing is.

Quote:

Quote:Trouble is that I'm getting stuck with the tab for those who could afford insurance and decide not to purchase it when they are not, as WTZ points out, left to bleed to death outside the ER. Seems awful durn close to a mandate to me, just that I'm paying for someone else in that case.

I am skeptical about the "cost" to society, at least up until now, of uninsureds visiting the ER. But, even if all of the doomsayers are correct and it's costing a bloody fortune, there were much easier fixes to that "problem" than revamping the entire health care system.

I have no numbers on that. However, the issue of principle remains no matter what the cost. No one has yet explained to me what is fair about having people coast along cost free until something happens and then sticking the rest of us with the tab.

I'd love to drop the monthly cost of our car insurance and then pay for minor stuff when something happened. If, however, that something was destruction of an expensive vehicle or injuries that were very expensive to treat and I just couldn't afford to pay the cost, well....I'm just so so sorry about that.

two columns by Paul Krugman. pretty mch speak for themselves

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11165/115...newspanel5

Quote:Like Republicans who want to end Medicare as we know it and replace it with (grossly inadequate) insurance vouchers, Mr. Lieberman describes his proposal as a way to save Medicare. It wouldn't actually do that. But more to the point, our goal shouldn't be to "save Medicare," whatever that means. It should be to ensure that Americans get the health care they need, at a cost the nation can afford.

And here's what you need to know: Medicare actually saves money -- a lot of money -- compared with relying on private insurance companies. And this in turn means that pushing people out of Medicare, in addition to depriving many Americans of needed care, would almost surely end up increasing total health care costs.

http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krug...edy-2011-6

Quote:Rudy Giuliani, 2008:

You have got to see the trap. Otherwise we are in for a disaster. We are in for Canadian health care, French health care, British health care.

David Cameron, now:

Ask a Briton to describe “American-style” healthcare, and you’ll hear a catalog of horrors that include grossly expensive and unnecessary medical procedures and a privatized system that favors the rich. For a people accustomed to free healthcare for all, regardless of income, the fact that millions of their cousins across the Atlantic have no insurance and can’t afford decent treatment is a farce as well as a tragedy.