We already have some examples of government run medical programs,
medicare, medicaid and veterans hospitals. There doesn’t seem to be any kind
of massive outcry against these programs from those who use it, so I would say
they seem to work. Recall that the US is the 37 ranked country in the world in medical care
behind such “socialist” countries such as the UK, France, Italy, Germany and Canada. We spend the
most money in the world and get the worst results among industrial countries. We have the highest
infant mortality rate of industrial countries among other things. We are ranked 30 in life expectancy according
to the CIA fact book behind the usual socialist countries of France, the UK, Germany, Sweden, and at number
14… Canada. Canada is suppose to have this terrible system and yet they are still light years ahead of us,
I wonder what that says about our medical system?
That study was completely bogus. It didn’t measure health care, it measured health itself. Now, I’ll readily admit that Americans have the most unhealthy habits of just about anybody in the developed world. We smoke too much, we drink too much, we eat too much fast food, we never exercise, etc. etc. etc. Hell, when you adjust for something as distantly related as violent crime, life expectancy in the US equals or exceeds those other countries listed.
None of that’s the health care industry’s fault.
Issues like these are the reason the WHO has said it will no longer do this study (actually, it was done in 2000), claiming the data is “too complicated” to make a rational judgement, but somehow the left thinks it’s good enough to institute a trillion dollar gov’t program!?!
The entire left-wing argument for massive health-care reform rests on two arguments, the supposed 46 million uninsured and this supposed WHO study. Both have been completely debunked.
As far as the uninsured goes, of that 46 million, 37% can afford insurance but choose not to have it, 33% are eligible for government programs but not enrolled, and 20% are not citizens. That leaves 10%, or 4.6 million, as people who want health care but can’t get it. Certainly, something should be done for that group, but no reason for massive reform.
Uh, too bad the CBO says Obama’s plan will raise the cost of health insurance, making your little link a moot point. We spend more on health care because of the unhealthy lifestyles we live. You can’t blame the market when a gov’t system will raise costs even higher. But that won’t stop the left.
Oh, I see, it’s those gross profits that are making us pay twice as much as other countries! Too bad only 10% of health insurance companies revenue goes to profit (a high estimate which includes the more profitable life insurance - health insurance alone is probably closer to 5%). Since the insurance industry only make up 35% of the country’s health care costs (medicare is 47%), that means corporate profit accounts for a whopping 3.5% of the medical costs we pay (based on the higher #).
“But I was especially interested to read that a full 60% of consumers surveyed thought that profit margins for health insurance companies are more than 20%, and 25% of consumers pegged insurers’ profits at more than 40%!”
The propaganda is working, though. Like I said, the entire thing is a fraud. Health care costs won’t go down until Americans change their lifestyles. Public systems only makes it worse.
Of course it measured health, what else should it of measured?
Same here and yet we did better and our life expectancy is only slightly better. The system relied not just on life expectancy but a myriad of other issues which are directly related to health.
Violent crime in the US is relatively low, for example there is slightly more violent crime in the UK, although not by much and not so many murders. The cost to the health system for murders I assume is relatively low compared to treating the living.
By who? We know that 59% Doctors in the US support the idea, because of the unmanageable bureaucracy which comes from an insurance company where its in its best interest not to pay out and to stall the system.
It rests on the cost of the system and its wastage and pragmatic issues also. You as tax payers are paying for the inflated costs, which means not only are those who have healthcare paying over the odds for this system but everyone whether they have healthcare or not is paying for it. This is a bang for buck issue.
This just highlights why people don’t act in their best interest commonly, that’s hardly a reason to discount the fact that people often wont get health care until they need it, and sometimes when its too late. As far as I can see only 20% have any real reason to be discounted.
Your lifestyles are similar to ours and thus our life expectancy is also very similar, it differs by a fraction of a percent. The difference is we pay ~7% GDP and you pay ~16%. Care to explain why we have the same issues and yet we pay so much less for our system?
If the system is working, than how come two thirds of all bankruptcy come from
medical cost? And of those two thirds who declared bankruptcy from health cost,
fully two thirds had health insurance at the start of their medical issues. The health care system
is so bad as to drive a million and half people into bankruptcy of which over a million had
health insurance, mind you this was before the economic collapse of 2008 and I’m sure the
numbers have gone up.
Measuring health care quality by measuring health is like judging a mechanic by the condition of the cars people bring him to work on. The mechanic can’t control whether the person keeps fresh oil in the car, grinds the gears, drives in the city or on the highway, etc.
I don’t need to support this as the WHO has already dropped the study.
It’s clear that murders are what are effecting the life expectancy.
That was written over a year ago. Support for the program has been dropping as the real costs are exposed.
How is that possible when all administrative costs combined only amount to 21% of expenditures?
Who are you to determine what’s in somebody else’s best interest? Having health insurance isn’t the most important thing to everybody, so they choose not to based on what they value in life. That’s fine, it’s their life and their choice to make (I’m aware that emergency care is mandatory and therefore shared, but that is a relatively small issue). What you value is irrelevant. All my discounts are valid.
It said nothing of the sort. It said no significant savings would be had in the next decade, and it said government responsibility would be expanded. Well no shit, the government will be insuring 12+ million people that aren’t currently insured. But, immediate savings is not the point of this particular plan, as the idea is that the public option will keep costs down in the long run, and force monopolistic insurers to reduce costs or face obsolescence.
But, honestly, I don’t like this proposal in of itself. It’s better than the current system, but it, as the CBO said, doesn’t go far enough to curb the insane prices on such a fundamental service.
The biggest problem is the incentive system that creates an atmosphere of profit where Americans get things they don’t need because consciously or unconsciously doctors prescribe unneeded tests and treatments. No such incentive exists in non for profit government run healthcare, and instead preventive care is focused on which helps to correct what you have already pointed out, we are remarkably unhealthy. It is estimated that 500 billion to 700 billion is spent on uneeded bullshit, and when you consider that the total cost was around 2.3 trillion, it adds up to about 1/4 of the costs.
Second, a is the administrative costs of the massive insurance companies that, by nature, worry more about preventing someone from filing a claim than paying the claim out. Not to mention the 5 thousand different companies each with 5 thousand differnet policies. It is extremely bloated and overly complex. Estimates put administrative costs at around 30%, while Canada’s administrative costs are at about 16% for its single payer system.
Higher costs based on the incentive based nature of private for profit healthcare.
Unneeded treatment and tests because of the incentive based nature of private for profit healthcare.
Administrative costs of multiple insurance companies all with dozens of different insurance policies, and the incentive to find ways to not pay out on claims.
You’re right about one thing though, the problem is not just insurance companies. The idea is that the public option will address the other issues over time.
The study didn’t find that 2/3 were caused by bankruptcy, it found that medical costs were a significant cause in 2/3 of bankruptcies. Big difference. If 1/3 of your debt is your home, and 1/3 is credit cards, and 1/3 is medical, then medical is a significant cause, but maybe you could have done without all the credit card junk.
There are no insurance monopolies and if there were, the solution is to break them up, not create a govt competitor which is paid for by people who don’t even use the service. What you said about the long term is snake oil. Whatever you gain in cost you’ll lose in innovation, because when you remove the profit motive, you also remove the motivation to improve the service.
A dubious claim at best. Doctors don’t work on commission and any small practitioner who engaged in such tactics would soon find themselves out of business.
Estimated by who? Somebody who wants universal health care, of course. I wonder whether the actual doctors think its unnecessary? Oh, wait, since they’re the one’s prescribing it, obviously they think it’s necessary.
Wait, 5000 companies? I thought they were a monopoly?
You mean the study put out by Harvard U? Big surprise. I can provide a study by the Cato institute that says we lose $170 billion (roughly 7.5%, but also as high as 25%) in wasteful gov’t regulation: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa527.pdf. Every side has it’s think tanks.
Anyway, the study I found put administrative costs at 21%. That’s what I’m going to work with. A difference of 5% is not what’s creating high health-care costs.
False. The profit motive caps profit in a competitive environment. If profits get too high, the competition will undercut.
Pure conjecture that’s highly suspect.
First off, that conflict is what prevents people from making frivolous claims. Otherwise every hypochondriac would rent out a room in the hospitals.
Second, if these high administrative costs are caused by conflicting interests between providers and insurers (which has never been shown), and not some other reason, then it would take an astute business mind all of about 5 seconds to realize they could achieve immense savings (read: profits) by merging the two industries in a single entity. Since that hasn’t happened, then I can be sure that that isn’t what’s causing the higher administrative costs.
Sorry your reasoning is laughable comparing human lives to a mechanic and his cars is ridiculous these are human beings with concerns that go beyond a broken tail light. What they can do is get people seen for simple non emergency procedures more often and sooner before they become worse. They can set up call centres to weed out those who have serious medical complaints from those who don’t and advising the minor cases not to worry or to see a GP if the problem persists and the serious ones to come into hospital. Give the free GP cover so that they can feel free to see Dr’s that can make early diagnosis without worrying they’ll have to pay hundreds of dollars and so not bothering. It’s not the life expectancy that is your biggest point loser anyway, not even close. We’re after all only talking about a few percent points difference between Western nations. You keep making faulty assumptions about where you fall on your arse. But yes you are failing people there too.
No they haven’t the WHO still produces tables and charts and there are still ranking tables, it just doesn’t publish them directly any more, you can usually read about them every year still in the broadsheets, as the UK drifts between 18th place and 18th place every year.
You’re still doing pretty bad by the way even after you winged about the whole system and they revamped it for you. What you clearly can’t accept is the reason for much of your poor performance is the money that goes into providing actual front line health care and the money that is wasted is so high that the bang for buck mark puts you down the table out of the top ten even before any other statistic is considered. You still haven’t explained to me why our system costs 7% GDP and yours 16% GDP and rising, I’m all ears. Why does it cost so much and do you think that placing bureaucracy in a central state by state system is really going to exponentiate costs when around the world it has clearly shown that it doesn’t cost anywhere near as much as your system. And as that other link says (which of course you ignored and failed to tackle) the reason isn’t law suits or differing styles of system its purely to do with your system being expensive above and beyond.
Nonsense do you know the amount of murders per capita in the US if removed from the life expectancy would raise it by a fraction of a year. Think about it your per capita murder rate is .042802 per 1000 people. That’s ~4.3 murders for every one hundred thousand people. The maths doesn’t add up I’m sure you’ll agree. You said yourself the reason why life expectancy is down is because of poor lifestyle, but that isn’t a big enough excuse because we have comparatively poor life styles over here. The reason isn’t primarily infant mortality which is only mildly worse than European countries, it isn’t primarily because of life expectancy which although low isn’t that bad. It’s because of what I said, poor coverage, and huge expenditure on a system where much money is wasted.
So your counter to this link is to make something up? Can you show me any recent studies where all these medical practitioners have completely done a U-turn despite none of the things they complained about changing? You’ll have to counter that link with a source to the study, with more than that.
They don’t you’re looking at a system that isn’t nationalised and comparing it to ones that are, therefore your statistics are meaningless. It’s an example of manufacturing comparisons that don’t exist. The only way you can compare with any legitimacy is per capita cost, ie GDP. Medicaid, might as well call it very loosely subsidized healthcare for a minority of people that runs out after a short period of time. Think about this carefully though because clearly you don’t think too hard about propaganda? How is our system comparable to one where say the whole states medical bureaucracy runs through one department, not many, many different medical companies. Also how can one compare the cost of a persons health care over their entire life if the systems they are under differ so markedly on just about every level? It makes no sense?
What the human race values has no regard for your wining and sophistry. The WHO is a multinational body of people that has taken account of many experts from many nations concerns about health (especially the US which it has had to jump through hoops to please), your value system is meaningless because it’s not your value system, that was decided by consultation between WHO and your medical specialists. And yes your still on the table and no your still not in the top 10. One can easily find health performance records from 2004 and from the last few years if you want to look for them.
Your government is responsible for providing a system that maintains the health of its people, therefore the only people it can discount and maintain any sort of face are illegal immigrants, ie people who are not its citizens and thus not its responsibility. One has to look at the lack of coverage and simply say that it is an issue of poor health care if one has any integrity. Let’s face it people don’t complain about systems that are working; 75% of psychiatrists don’t recommend a change of system because of whims that change with the political wind. These are front line staff dealing with front line issues, that complain constantly about the sheer red tape and tooing and froing with the insurance companies they have to go through sometimes to get someone treated. The only person that’s buying propaganda is you here.
Clearly your accusations of fraud are founded on only believing what you want to believe. It’s not like you’re even talking about something that has been tried say in a few states and failed, you simply have no idea whether it would be a better system and instead are defending something against the vast majority of countries that have national and private healthcare and do very well in terms of cost and performance.
That study is bullshit, the only way one could determine what the difference in cost between universal/private and purely private is to try it. As I say there simply is no way to see how and why two systems cost less, when the two systems are totally alien to each other and don’t use the same system. All one can say is that national systems cost far less in any other country on the planet and ask why? The only reason you buy it because it highlights only those factors that couldn’t possibly explain why costs are high in comparison. Thus you avoid any real issue. Conversely the other link looks at features that are similar in nations and asks since they are why costs are so much higher, ie litigation, drug and medical costs, waiting lists etc. And because it is applicable you ignored it. I think its clear what you are really trying to do, and that is create a fraud of your own by selective reading.
What it comes down to though over all the bullshit is that some people simply are terrified of socialism even when it makes perfect sense and works better and more efficiently. The fact is its a simple world wide known view, that healthcare is a necessity for all not a luxury. You can’t expect healthy people to plan for there futures when a a couple of hundred bucks a month can help pay off the mortgage quicker. And more importantly you can’t rely on human nature full stop, all systems that try that fail: be it communism, libertarianism or any other failed system large or small.
What the fuck. You just quoted the CBO as an authority to disprove a strawman, and then when you’re given a quote of what it actually said it becomes “snake oil”. The worst part is that the first of you posts was full of facts and figures and I was starting to believe you weren’t a donkey and that we were going to have a decent discussion, but it turned out, as it often does, that facts, figures, and experts only matter if they help your position. It’s a real shame - a real pathetic shame.
I guess that’s that, since doctors don’t work on commission, and it is a dubious claim. Oh wiat, good thing this is a straw man and the “incentive” that I’m talking about is fee for service. Jeeze, that was a close one - I just don’t know how I’d overcome “a dubious claim at best”. You better get to googling, maybe the Cato institute has something to say about it.
You throw around about 10 uncited facts and when it’s someone elses turn any fact they give is automatically conjured up by partisan politics. You are truly a pillar of intellectual integrity.
[size=85]In international perspective, the United States spends nearly six times as much per capita on health care administration as the average for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations. Nearly all of this discrepancy is due to the sales, marketing, and underwriting activities of our highly fragmented framework of private insurance, with its diverse billing and review practices[/size]
Oh boy, the CATO institute. Those partisan libertarians who deny global warming have so much damn veracity. Too cool, they’ve shown that things like requiring translators to ensure non english speaking people get proper care, and forcing hospitals to take people who can’t pay costs a bit of money. That is so damn enlightening. Let’s fix it by allowing those people to die and those other people to not be able to communicate. That study has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with administrative costs or wasteful government regulations. Unless ofcourse you’re a libertarian politician or someone whogets a boner thinking about the right of a hospital to refuse life saving care.
nejm.highwire.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768
[size=85] After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada’s national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada’s private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers’ administrative costs were far lower in Canada.[/size]
Lets see, which source is more trustworthy. An agenda based thinkgroup run by libertarian politicians, or Harvard and Cambridge hospital. The answer is frighteningly clear. I know which one is respected at an acedmic level in political science, do you?
Why’s that? Because you dreamt it? Reads like an idealized version of ecnomics you read in a 3rd grade textbook before you are capable of having a thought in your head. One can do alot of shopping around for health care can they? Employers offer multiple different companies, and the antibotics are cheaper at the other hospital right? And people have time to shop around for health care right. That is so nonsensical that it is offensive.
Perhaps you might want to read this. I don’t know, it might be influential - let me know what CATO thinks.
Really, because I thought that was the doctors job. I didn’t know insurance would allow you to tell them what you needed and then Okay it after it’s reviewed. I must be getting screwed over because any time I need something it has to be written up by a doctor for my insuranceto even consider it. What plan ar eyou on in lala land? Maybe I should switch over since my employer and geography allows me to shop around and all.
Oh there we go, I guess you do know the healthcare that I know. Businessmen who are trying to make a profit attempting to tell you and your doctor that you don’t need the procedure that is prescribed for you. I don’t know about you, but in an ideal world all medical decisions would be made by people who have a vested interest in you not getting the care you need. Because the problem is not that the company has a vested interest in you not getting you care, but in the fact that doctors don’t have that same vested interest. So yes, let us merge the two. Infact, lets get rid of doctors all together and simply ask your capitalist masters what and when we need to stay healthy. Who knows, maybe it will be my lucky day and it turns out I need some sort of amputation. It would be like winning the lottery, I get all this money for the procedure.
[size=85]“The health sector continued its breakneck lobbying efforts during the 2nd quarter of 2009, spending money at the rate of nearly $1.5 million a day as it attempted to shape landmark reform legislation to its advantage, according to new data released today.”
“But the biggest spenders in Washington were the drugmakers, hospitals and other health-care firms that are fighting to influence reform legislation being pushed by President Obama. The sector as a whole reported spending $133 million on lobbying from April to June, up slightly from its expenditures in the first quarter of the year.”[/size]
Are we talking gross profit or net profit? Does “profit” include CEO wages, government lobbying, bonuses?
Also, contrast the figures given in the Fortune 500 list and the .pdf report linked to in the article you’re referencing: insurance company produced .pdf says 3% of revenue is profits, Fortune 500 says on average 10.6% is.
Now, 10.6% may seem low, but if you look at the listed profits for other major industries, this benevolent health care industry makes more profit than: Real Estate; Financial Data Services; Food Services; Publishing, Printing; Utilities: Gas and Electric; Industrial and Farm Equipment; Electronics, Electrical Equipment; Hotels, Casinos, Resorts; Aerospace and Defense; Beverages… ten times as much as the “Food Production” industry.
As far as references rate, this one is grade-a horseshit. They even go as far as to say that premiums have been going up due to government regulation! Hahaha, jeebus.
It seems to me if you want to make a point then you need to explain it, not expect others to do your work for you. How does the Weimar republic become pertinent to your point, or pertinent to modern healthcare systems anyway or are we supposed to guess that too?