The Problem of Health Care

Yea, and you conveniently forget how many Americans leave the country to escape Great US Health Care system.
-------------------
According to a 2015 report by the US International Trade Commission (USITC), between 150,000 and 320,000 Americans travel abroad every year to receive healthcare.

 

The article you linked to shows that the US had the best health outcomes. The other countries only rank higher in other, non-health related, categories. Thanks for proving my point.

 

Almost all due to regulations that prevent certain treatments from being legal in the US or driving costs too high.

 

Same is true for Canadians who come to United States, regulations and the unlimited power of medical cartel that creates artificial shortages and high cost.
Your point was that U.S. system somehow is better then Canadian system. There is no proof that it is a case.

 

See this is how we know you didn’t read it. It’s not an article. It’s a peer reviewed paper, and it shows the US isn’t even in the top 20.

 

Yes....government healthcare....from the government that conducted the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, then lied about it, then repeatedly denied it then refused to do the right thing and compensate the families.

From the government that conducted nuclear weapons testing then made soldiers enter test-shot areas 10 minutes after detonation then lied for 50 years claiming it never once detonated a nuclear weapon on US soil while repeatedly refusing to compensate veterans for the injuries sustained, and repeatedly refusing to compensate nuclear fall-out victims in New Jersey.

Oh, but the government did make every effort to warn the Eastman Kodak Company about the fallout so that film negatives would not be damaged.

From the government that murdered at least 86 Americans, possibly as many as 380 Americans, with its illegal radiation experiments conducted at Cincinnati General Hospital.

After staff and technicians with in-depth knowledge of the illegal experiments came forward, the government engaged in smear campaign to discredit them.

After the nurses came forward to corroborate the claims of staff and technicians, the government engaged in a smear campaign against the nurses, planting stories in the papers and major news networks that the nurses were drug-addicted promiscuous home-wreckers.

After doctors became angered by the government smear campaign against the nurses, staff and technicians and came forward the government....well, it's hard to smear a group of doctors.

Then Doctor Sanger who ran the illegal experiments for the government came forward. Well, that was the end of that.

Still, the government denied any wrong-doing and refused to compensate any of the murdered victims' families.

Only a lawsuit compelled the government to pay up and those records are till classified.

Then we have this:

"VA adherence to the DOD "no exposures" doctrine, often in the face of compelling clinical evidence to the contrary, could be viewed as Department-wide medical malpractice. - the Honorable Jesse Brown, Secretary of Veteran's Affairs

The Department of Defense says there were no chemical weapons in Iraq, so it is not possible to for the VA medical facilities to diagnose soldiers exposed to chemical weapons that really were in Iraq during the Gulf War and really were exposed to chemical weapons when the Army hastily destroyed the Khamisiyah Weapons Depot to hide the fact that the US sold chemical weapons to Saddam.

What if it were this...

"Medical adherence to the Medicare "no HIV" doctrine, often in the face of compelling clinical evidence to the contrary, could be viewed as Department-wide medical malpractice.

Or this...

"Medical adherence to the Medicare "no Ebola" doctrine, often in the face of compelling clinical evidence to the contrary, could be viewed as Department-wide medical malpractice.

Or this...

"Medical adherence to the Medicare "no Alzheimer's" doctrine, often in the face of compelling clinical evidence to the contrary, could be viewed as Department-wide medical malpractice.

Or this...

"Medical adherence to the Medicare "no Opiod-crisis" doctrine, often in the face of compelling clinical evidence to the contrary, could be viewed as Department-wide medical malpractice.


What would get your all's attention?

Because worker's compensation is a matter of English common law stemming from the Master-Servant Relationship.

It is manifestly unfair to saddle States with the cost of worker's compensation for veterans who were employed by the federal government.

During WW II, it became rather obvious that civilian hospitals were neither equipped, nor staffed nor properly trained or experienced in treating the types of injuries sustained in combat, thus the need for a system that was.

To utilize the system of hospitals to its utmost efficiency, it makes sense to allow veterans with non-service connected injuries to use the facilities.

 

When do you intend to post factual evidence?

You lied.

Life-span is a function of both Life-Style and Culture.

Please list all cities in the UK that have drive-by shootings, gang-related shootings, and list the Black neighborhoods in the UK that have the same gun-death rate as Black neighborhoods in the US.

You lied again. It's not free, It's paid for by taxes.

France. Right.

Why don't you explain to everyone what France's unfunded liabilities are through 2040?

Why don't you explain to everyone what France has done because of the tremendous amount of money it owes through 2040?

Well, you won't, but I will.

France slashed its pensions from 50% to 37.5%. That means the poor French guy who was earning 80,000 Euros/year and who thought he was going to get a pension of 40,000 Euros/year is now only going to get 30,000/year.

Is that a step forward? Really? Reducing someone's pension because you can't pay for it is a good thing?

What else? Since you don't have the moral courage to tell, I will.

In addition to slashing the pension from 50% to 37.5%, the retirement age was increase.

But, France didn't stop there. In addition to slashing the pension from 50% to 37.5% and increasing the retirement age, France also now makes French workers work 7 years longer than Americans.

Americans only have to work 35 years to get 100% of their social security benefits but the French now have to work 42 years.

Oh, and French born 1973 or later have to work 43 years.

Is that forward progressive thinking? Making people work longer to get their pensions?

Germany claims its unfunded liabilities are only 80% of GDP, but a number of independent sources say differently. The Market Economy Foundation puts it at 228% of GDP and the EU Central Bank says Germany owes 276% of it's GDP.

That is unsustainable. No amount of tax increases will cover that debt. Germany will be forced to cut pensions and reduce healthcare spending while also increasing taxes in order to pay for it.

Italy is a basket case with its unfunded liabilities being 300% of GDP. No amount of taxes will cover that, so Italy will cut pensions and reduce healthcare benefits which is really going to anger Italians.

Why don't you want people to know the Truth?

About 10 years from now, those wonderful programs in the Euro-States are not going to be so wonderful.

Provide a list of all European cities that have drive-by shootings, gang-related violence, drug-related violence and murder-a-plenty.

More to the point, which European cities have murder rates like Baltimore or Chicago?

No amount of healthcare spending is going to stop drive-by shootings or gang-related violence or drug-related violence or murder-a-plenty.

No amount of healthcare spending is going to stop fat women from smothering their infants after they roll over their infants whilst sleeping.

Yes, that's one reason there's high infant mortality in the US: fat people.

Yes, we know you prefer to deceive.

The 5-year survival rate for the 4 most common cancers is appalling in Britain. Compare:

Breast Cancer: UK 69.7% while US leads the World at 83.9% If you're a woman, you want to be in the US, not the UK.

Colorectal Men: UK 42.3% while US leads the World at 59.1%

Colorectal Women: 44.7% while US leads the World at 60.2%

Prostate: UK 51.1% while US leads the World at 91.9% If you're a man, you want to be in the US, not the UK, because your survival chances are 1.7x better than in the UK.

The NHS might be okay for a boil on the bum or bronchitis, but not for serious life-threatening illnesses.

You can read Delay, Dilution and Denial, by the British National Health Service for an expose on that.

 

Yeah, but cancer isn't treated in an ER is it?

Yeah, I'm guessing that this is an exception because alot of the time ER patients will require medical attention due to the criminal or negligent actions of another person, so the state is almost obliged to intervene to counter that action. The same doesn't apply to a disease which someone gets.

So are there health problems which aren't covered by medicare/medicaid but also aren't covered by any insurance companies?

Which court?

 

Exactly. You were asking what the possibilities are. I pointed out that one can walk into an ER and have healthcare issues addressed, but you're only going to get what amounts to outpatient treatment. And, it's the most expensive health care solution we have, as ERs come prepared in ways that are super expensive..

Yes, ERs are designed to treat emergent cases as their name implies. They do not ask for proof of abilitly to pay - like a family practice dentist might. They also don't care about the legality of anything that led to the need for healthcare. They can't take the time to give a financial quiz.

Absolutely. Not even Medicare covers everything. Those who can afford it usually buy a commercial plan that covers stuff Medicare doesn't cover. And, that can be significant. Also, to take advantage of these systems usually involves co-pays which can be high enough to be exclusive. I know a guy on Medicare who bought extended coverage, but her co-pays are still in the range of $2,000 per month. Also, operations and other significant work can be covered only to the extent of a percent - like an operation may be covered so the patient only has to pay 20% (or whtever).

As I said - the US Supreme Court. It has passed through lower courts and is now being appealed to the highest court. Trump is pushing on this. AND, he's suggesting he is the defender of coverage for "preexisting conditions" - which is absolutely false. He's always pushed for our whole system to be trashed without proposing ANY new direction. And, the curent court case would provide no way for existing commercial policies to continue covering cases of preexisting conditions.

This has been stated not just by those defending our healthcare, but by the JUDGE in a lower court decision that Trump's direction has so far lost.

 

Well you said, "I don't believe you can walk into and ER with cancer and no means of payment and say "Fix me." So I was saying that an ER doesn't treat cancer. Perhaps you meant to say hospital.

Not EVEN medicare? I was under the impression that medicare barely covered anything, which is why healthcare is
so hard to get for many people. Perhaps you meant to say, not even the best insurance covers everything.

What I was asking is if there are any health problems which simply cannot be treated in the US no matter who the person is, or how money they have, due to not being covered by the state or by any insurance companies. I'd be stunned if this was the case.

I've been trying to research what you're talking about. Is this Texas v United States? That's all that I can come up with.

 

AMERICANS GENERALLY WANT A FEDERAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM

Let's just hope he keeps pushing in the same direction. Because it is right off a cliff.

Anyway, there are some good signs that Americans do want a National Healthcare Plan:
CBS News poll: Most Americans favor a national health plan

Excerpt:





Quote from the web-site:

Quoted sentence above: Try it - you'll like it. There is not one European who would dish their National Healthcare Service. In the UK, it was adopted in the early 1950s and showed the way to the rest of Europe.

ACA was just a step in the right direction. If it stumbled along its way, don't blame those who passed the law creating it. (Obama and the Dems.)

It will take another decade to finally swing most Americans into supporting a National Healthcare System. And, in the face of where the money is being spent (from the Nation's Discretion Funding), its actuality is more important than ever. The country is wasting its money on the DoD:

We are wasting good money on the defense of what? Who would ever dare tangle with the US?

There should be switch between the red and blue in the above graphic (Defense and Education) ... !

 

Well, ERs are part of a hospital. They take wallk-ins while other departments are going to want you to have a primary physician withwhom you would schedule appointments and who would then send patients to specialists in the hospital if something significan shows up. It's unusual for those who have no means of payment to have a primary physician. So, one typical approach is for such individuals to go to the ER, where one will be seen regardless of ability to pay. As you say, the ER isn't going to do stuff like a cancer operation or treatment. They're going to tell the patient to get a physician who will assess treatment options. The hospital is sure to have some budget for indigent care, but that is not a general solution.

Yes. Medicare does NOT cover everything. And, they require significant co-pay for what they do cover. That's why those who can afford it usually buy commercial isurance to cover medicie, eyes, ears, and procedures not covered by Medicare. The care provider sends the bill to Medicare. Medicare sends anything they won't cover to the commercial insurance company. And, you get billed for co-pays and whatever didn't get covered. Also, private insurance companies that I have talked to won't sell a full coverage policy to someone eligable for Medicare. So, when you turn 65 (I think is the limit) your insurance company dumps you.

Not even the best insurance covers everythiing. So, your care provider will talk to the insurance company to see if what you need is covered and what the co-pay will likely be.

Since employers of a certain size must provide healthcare coverage, a lot of Americans are covered through their employer. That coverage is designed by the corporation in compliance with regulations that cover insurance companies who sell poliicies to indiviuals directly. Usually, the company contracts with a management company to actually manage the plan - so providers would be calling the management company the employer chose to find out whether something is covered.

The state doesn't manage healthcare of an indiiual other than through Medicare and Medicaid (which targets those with low income) and by regulation. The management overhead of Medicare is lower than the management overhead of private insurance coverage. Plus, employee insurance means that employers have significant additional work to do in their HR departments - which is a problem for companies growing toward the size threshhold that requires them to provide coverage.

The bottom line is that you can get the quality of healthcare and healthcare insurance you can pay for. In the US, healthcare is a product. If you buy the wide screen TV instead of a healthcare insurance product, you can be in trouble.

I see this as overly complex insanity. Health isn't a product to be purchased if you can afford it.

I could have missed something here. I'm just a customer. Anybody with something to correct or add - please do o.

 

Price Fixing.
A system Void of Competition

y'r'welcome

 

Right, so then nobody would go to the ER then I assume, even as a first step.

Well yeah, if someone was stupid enough to go to the ER thinking that there might be even a small chance that they could get cancer treatment.

How does it "target" those with low income?

 

Well done, your exposé.

Just a reminder of what this all means as regards lifespan:


Wanna live longer? That aint-gonna-happin in the US if we don't change radically our provision of far too expensive healthcare. Like implementing a National Healthcare System that would never ever have approved the sale publicly of opioids ...

PS: From here:

 

Is there an accompanying article?

You mean a national healthcare system which is in place now or one which is being proposed?

 

Asked and answered.

 

That post includes a link to the article.

It's the undlined "here" in the sentence starting with "PS:"

 

When did I previously ask you how it targets low income people?

 

I'm getting tired of being your answer man.

Medicaid targets those with low income. That's the whole reason it exists.

You could have found this out with a ridiculously simple search.

 

I thought that you meant "target" in a negative sense.

 

Where's your data that demonstrates causation between lifespan and single payer system?
I'll patiently await your response

 

HEALTHCARE'S PROMISE

Bollocks! Medicaid is curative, and not preventive! Healthcare is necessary to fill the gamut, that is, the consequence an American nation that does not know neither how to eat well nor exercise. (And far too many religious dolts think that's "God's will"!)

You understand nothing-whatsoever about National Healthcare. This is what healthcare should be: Reclaiming Health Care's Fundamental Purpose

 

Estimates put the number of Yanks living in Europe at between 3 and 6 million. That's a population larger than the state of Oregon. They are ALL covered by local/country-of-residence National Health Insurance.

And not one of them (I suggest) would be foolish enough to return to the US for relatively costly-healthcare.

Also, graphic of World Healthcare Systems and their ranking:



Consider carefully the above INDEPENDENT analyses of healthcare systems. The US is Number 1 ONLY in terms of per-capita cost*. And Whyzat?

Because it is run privately and costs an-arm-and-a-leg! The best HC-systems - because of their widespread coverage of the population - are rated better!

MY POINT:
*The above is yet another good example of why there are some fundamental necessities that SHOULD NEVER EVER BE PRIVATELY RUN (because as such profit is the sole-reason for their existence). There are some social-services that MUST BE provided by governments to the entire population. Like national defense. Like fire-fighting. Like local, state and national policing (FBI).
*BUT MOST FUNDAMENTAL OF ALL ARE NATIONAL HEALTHCARE AND NATIONAL POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION!

*And I will grant you that coming out Number 3 on "Effective Healthcare" is a key criteria.

 

But that is NOT good-enough in terms of fully-adequate Total-Healthcare, which the factual graphics I have posted show.

Targeting does not necessarily mean "performing". You've got your superlatives wrong and the studies demonstrate that fact ...