I found something interesting about US healthcare.

Because I am infinitely quizzical about most things and the rising cost of healthcare was on my mind, I did a little browsing and came across this document:

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

Now keep in mind this is information compiled is from a think tank funded by some of the biggest corporations, including insurance corps for the betterment and furtherance of the regressive conservative ideal, so I was rather surprised to see these numbers so beautifully printed in black and white. 

It shows exactly how much we are paying for healthcare in the United States and it is rather astounding.  Far more of our GDP, about 15.5% (the highest in the world) goes to healthcare.  Almost double that other industrialized nations that have socialized healthcare. 

I think this is a pretty good argument against a free market healthcare system being the most efficient and the best, it is just the most expensive and at the rate it has been exploding, it is going to increase the number of uninsured. 

Why is it so expensive?  Because the insurance companies are pacing the market.  Some things should just NOT be included in the free market enterprise, and healthcare is one of them.  We get sicker and the insurance companies get fatter.

• I found something interesting about US healthcare. - piglet
  • That's fine if you want to be told - Z
    • Basing this assumption on what? - Think Liberal
  • Thanks for this Piglet! Here's one that sm - whorn
    • This is pretty interesting. - piglet

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Not sure if the embed link below will work.  If not, here's the link to the web page where you can watch it. I'll pose a question immediately below this post.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/330913.html

<object width=425" height=344"><param name=movie" value=http://www.youtube.com/v/dJkXl4wG2eU&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name=allowFullScreen" value=true"></param><embed src=http://www.youtube.com/v/dJkXl4wG2eU&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type=application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen=true" width=425" height=344"></embed></object>

Actually I was looking for a physician name and this came up with their name on it.... Got to looking at it and you can put in a name, zip code, etc. and it will show you who has financially supported different candidates...... the link I'm putting here has "jones" just as a general name.

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=jones&fname=&search=Search

Yes, more people probably will go to the doctor.  That means there will be a lot of health maintenance involved, and as we both know only too well, health maintenance is a key issue in preventing major medical issues, hence less surgeries, etc.  Check out France's healthcare system.  I think main issue we will have is going to be dealing with the drug companies to get costs under control.  At this point a lot of people don't go to the doc because they can't afford it, like you said; however, even more don't go because they can't afford the drugs.

BTW, regardless of Fox's ratings, they are undeniably a right-wing station.  That is a fact that is widely known and recognized.  Just because you agree with what they say doesn't mean they don't lean to the right.  And yes, the same holds true for MSNBC (to the left), but at least they admit it.  You also might want to look into exactly how ratings for cable news come about.  You might be surprised and what you could learn.

I'm not sure this is a good idea either.  Ireland has gov't run medical and those women were waiting years, yes years to get their Pap smears read.  They had to be shipped to the US because of a lab closure.  Can you imagine wondering if you have cervical cancer for years?  No thanks.

I posted this further down but there are apparently a lot of people who are still confused about how McCain's tax on health insurance works. 

So, here you go:

Say you pay 14% income tax based on your income.

And you receive $10,000 worth of health insurance from your employer.

The $10,000 is taxed separately at the 14% (your tax bracket). That comes out to $1,400.

McCain gives you a $5,000 tax credit.

$5,000 less the $1,400 -

YOU'RE AHEAD $3,600.

:)

Alternatively, you can take the $5,000 tax credit and purchase your own insurance (like I do). I pay $250 a month.

$250 x 12 = $3,000.

$5,000 - $3,000 - $2,000.

I'M STILL AHEAD $2,000.

WIN/WIN

Nearly half the respondents in a survey of U.S. primary care physicians said that they would seriously consider getting out of the medical business within the next three years if they had an alternative.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/17/primary.care.doctors.study/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

and in France and England (several times in France) and I have to say that national healthcare over there works wonderfully well.....costs are minimal (though taxes are high) and all rxs in England cost the same and I was treated fabulously (married French) at American Hospital in Paris and Gap Hospital in France in 1980.....I did England in 71-72 and again, got treated well and for less than $40.  I believe national healthcare can work but the govt and medical professions here in the states don't want it - because they, the MDS, will make less.  But know this, that I saw the life of a doctor in France and his family in Michael Moore's movie SiCKO and they are living like kings, well not kings, but living VERY VERY WELL.

So, based on my own experiences in Europe - and the experiences to date of my in-laws over in France - I have to say the healthcare over there is FAR better and FAR LESS EXPENSIVE than over here but again, their taxes are somewhat higher.

Hillary screwed it up once before, I don't want to give her a second chance regarding healthcare.

I would like to see more affordable healthcare for all Americans, but really if kids got free or very affordable healthcare I would be happy.  We spend outrageous amounts of money on the space program, the war, gourmet food for Congress, etc.  I don't agree with the hoards of money going to those things, but I would think we could ALL AGREE on money being redirected to provide healthcare to all American children, because that is obviously a good and just cause.

Great post piglet.  I so agree with what you all had to say in support of changing our current system.  Canada probably has the worst universal healthcare system, and yet the average Canadian lives 3 years longer than the average American.  People always point to the flaws in their system and just assume that we will make all the same mistakes.  Of course their system has flaws, just as our system has many fatal flaws.  England and France actually have great universal healthcare systems.  Here is an article I found about France's successful program:

"France's model healthcare system
By Paul V. Dutton | August 11, 2007

MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.

Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.

The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.

An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.

That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.

Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.

Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.

It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.

Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?

National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.

Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.

French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.

The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?

Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.

American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.

Perhaps it's time for us to take a closer look at French ideas about healthcare reform. They could become an import far less "foreign" and "unfriendly" than many here might initially imagine."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...lthcare_system/

I have visited and used both the British and French national healthcare system and I must say I was treated very_well in both countries.....and I think it is a great idea for THIS country now, having had first-hand experiences in Europe.. 

JMHO, of course.

1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?
   
2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
   
3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
   
4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
   
5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
   
6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
   
7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
   
8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
   
9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
   
10. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
    
11. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
    
12. Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.
    
13. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.

NOT VOTING FOR OBAMA!  His plans will fail and they will up the cost of everything.  Stop the government spending!  Don't vote for someone wanting to add more programs that will INCREASE government spending.  That is why our economy is in deep crap right now.

I've written a few times on this board that I think employers and insurance companies should be completely taken out of the picture when it comes to healthcare, that our very lives shouldn't be profit-driven commodities.

In my opinion, what's happening at AIG with greedy executives gives us a window into what could happen again (or probably already is happening) with health insurance companies.

I did a quick Google search and found the following two articles that address this.  The first link is more current and probably the better of the two links, but the second is worth reading, as well.  There may be better ones out there, but I didn't have much time to do my search, and these are two that caught my attention.  If you find others, please post them.

It seems to me that before a new healthcare plan is implemented for Americans, we need to insure (no pun) that greedy executives can never do this again to Americans, particularly if our very ability to live or die lies in the balance.

I plan on writing my Congressman and Senator.  I DON'T plan on having my concerns taken seriously (or even being read, for that matter).

Can you imagine -- just for a moment -- how much money could be saved by eliminating the profit factor in healthcare?  It might just pay for a new healthcare care system itself, or at least put a big dent into the cost of one.

http://blogs.webmd.com/mad-about-medicine/2007/08/ceo-compensation-who-said-healthcare-is.html

http://www.harp.org/hmoexecs.htm

Their plan for healthcare "reform" basically consists of changing nothing, and maybe tweaking medicaid and child care.  Cost of this plan?  We have no idea.  No numbers were given.  The total plan was only 4 pages. 

In other words, they are just fine with the idea that tons of people in this country have NO healthcare, and obviously don't see anything wrong with HMOs.  Yeah, they're working for the people alright......NOT.

I know a little 5-year-old boy with a cancerous brain tumor.  His family owns a local construction company and makes decent money, maybe even the $80,000 you speak of.  They still have had to have 2 fundraisers just to cover costs associated with saving this precious little boy's life, and they have "decent insurance."

So yes, I think ALL FAMILIES, regardless of income, should have access to more affordable insurance.  What happens if one of the parents becomes unemployed?  They lose their healthcare coverage.  I do not like the fact that most insurance is covered through your employer.  Many people have to work the whole time they are fighting cancer or other diseases for fear of losing their health insurance.  Even people making $80,000 per year can drown in medical bills that total in the hundreds of thousands, so I don't think their children should be excluded from CHIP healthcare either.  People making $80,000 would not get on the program for free, but at a much more reasonable cost than most insurance companies would charge.

When I say I think ALL children in the USA should have free or affordable healthcare, I mean ALL children, rich and poor.

Thirteen more votes are needed in order to override Bush's veto of the new bill (assuming he vetoes it).  Do you think the changes made will help rope in those 13 votes?  Do you personally hope the bill gets passed?

Some of the revisions are:

"Changes to legislation to expand the program are aimed at addressing concerns voiced by Republicans in an effort to get them to support it this time around.

Under the retooled version, Democrats attempt to allay claims that the expanded health care would benefit illegal aliens. While the vetoed bill did not allow the program to cover illegals, the new version requires more rigorous background checks.

In addition, the bill states that despite claims to the contrary, coverage would not be offered to children of families with incomes over three times the federal poverty rate.

It also declares benefits to childless adults, now permitted in some states, will be phased out within a year."

link to the entire article: 

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN2435217520071025?pageNumber=1

Many of them do end up on public assistance due to health issues after having gone for many years without healthcare. 

Healthcare workers fail to take the time with patients to discuss disease prevention and health promotion.   

now?  It's been used as a bargaining chip by unions when negotiating a new contract.  Just imagine how discontinuing healthcare from employers would help everyone!  Vendors could sell their products for less.  The insurance obligation would be placed somewhere else, maybe someplace it belongs, and the employees wouldn't have to pay a "co-pay" to their insurers.

Like Obama, I believe that if you like the healthcare you have, then you can keep it.

I've been very ill for 3-1/2 years now, and not only do I NOT qualify for regular health insurance, I also don't qualify for Mediaid.  When my social security disability claim comes through, I believe I'm not eligible for Medicare for something like 2-1/2 years after being approved.  So that's 2-1/2 YEARS to deny someone who was approved based on ILLNESS!  Isn't that kind of crazy?

If the option of an insurance plan that I can afford is "on the table," then I'd snatch it up as quickly as I could, while being perfectly agreeable with you keeping your own policies.

Some of us are falling through the cracks.