Why are our heath care costs so very high, as compared to other countries?

29% of the US population [90 million] IS covered by the govt. A single payer system that has no profit motive. That segment costs over $10,000.00 per person and the horrible, profit motivated, private health care costs $6900. per person. Would you explain that please? WHY does the non-profit, reimbursement controlled govt health care cost 31% more?

 

Great question, Dan40!

The liberals and socialists in this group will not have a good answer to this question!

You have some very good ideas. What do you think of this latest discussion?

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...obamas-stimulus-package-work.html#post4585798

 

Only to make the point that you can't lure people who are uninterested in your product or service into your place of business with price cuts, and you certainly can't cause some stampede of them.

Another over-hyped pretense based on the notion that Americans are suit-happy nit-pickers, meaning that doctors have to walk around on egg shells all day. Neither is the case. Doctors take satisfaction from helping people. They don't like missing something and seeing that patient get into trouble as the result. At the same time, there is a line somewhere between "appropriate" and "medically necessary", and it doesn't take much to figure out which way a fee-for-service system has been pushing it.

Why would he do that in the event of a conclusive diagnosis of a sprain? If the diagnosis were not conclusive, what would be the problem with asking?

Not necessarily. Patient safety groups have been pushing for years to see limits set on all forms of imaging due to their cumulative effects. There are only so many you can have before cancer risks start to rise. Requests for them when not medically necessary are something that a physician should refuse to entertain.

You're picking two goods that have high and very high positive value to a typical consumer Pick a good that people would usually prefer not to consume at all. If you offer someone $20K to go see his doctor, he'll quite likely go. But if you start reducing your offer, there will come a point above $0 where he simply won't go any more. That amount would be a (crude) measure of the disutility of visiting the doctor for that particular person at that particular time.

 

I did not follow the link. No need. The government is not the jobs creator, never has been, never will be. Government is a burden on every economy. always has been, always will be.

b.o. was handed the right answers by his personally appointed fiscal commission back in Dec. 2010. Their findings clash with his ideological demagoguery so he sh!tcanned his own commission's report to continue his failed ideological idiocy.

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sit...files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

Every liberal should be required to read this. Conservatives too.

 

Sounds like a deck chairs on the Titanic sort of deal. You aren't affecting costs at all. Just tinkering with when and how people pay them.

Gee, another hackneyed, meaningless, tough-guy sounding, right-wing buzzphrase. Only wimps use those. But more to the point, every patient already has an interest in the matter that is much more important than money: His or her health. People gladly trade their money for their health. Even all of it. Every year, hundreds of thousands of Americans are forced into bankruptcy by medical bills. It isn't that they started out with no money. It's that they spent all the money they had and all they could raise by selling everything they owned to try to get their health back. So that's hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies per year in the US and none per year anywhere else, and you think what Americans need to face is more risk? Think again.

Furthermore and has already been discussed above, your assumption that people automatically choose whatever option is most expensive is based on exactly nothing other than your having consumed way more than far too much meaningless right wing propaganda. You'd have been better off eating a box of Twinkies.

Obviously, you are not talking about any sort of private health insurance, exactly none of which is billed to the U.S. taxpayer. And by the way, even Congressmen with that cushy private plan right-wingers think they have are more than 25% out of pocket for their health care costs right now. Where is all this mind-changing that you expect supposed to come from?

What's actually foolish and wasteful is people who troll around spouting off as if they knew what they were talking about when they don't.

 

The first sentence is directly contradicted by the rest of them.

 

Because they actually cover people. Private insurance companies try to DENY your claims, even if you've been giving them money for 20 years.

Right now, our country (supposedly "the greatest nation on earth") is 37th in health care, according to the WHO. Even though we spend FAR more than anyone else. Countries where everyone is covered have BETTER SYSTEMS.

How broken does it have to GET for right-wingers to admit it's not working?

 

You are very mistaken, ignatz.

You foolishly blame the doctor when really you should blame the patient!

Why are our health care costs so high?

Recent medical data confirm the reason our heath care costs are high relative to age between persons in China, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom is because we, as a Nation, are seriously overweight and this affliction, as well too much fat in our diets, leads to all kinds of serious health problems (heart disease, diabetes, colon and pancreatic cancer and internal organ failure) in our later years.

We need to provide affordable health insurance for families with catastrophic illnesses. However, if everyone else were to take better care of themselves and eat healthy foods, our national health care costs would be very reasonable and we could easily eliminate many of the necessities for higher insurance premiums for all of us.

Today, the healthy, such as you and me and others in our discussion group, have to absorb the health care costs of people who eat too much and don't get enough exercise.

"We can spend all the money we want on bypass surgeries, chemotherapy and diabetes, but . . . two-thirds [of Americans] are overweight, one-third are obese."

 

All broad measures are inexact, and when we want to know which links in our failing chain are the ones most in need of replacement, the focus of study will be sharpened. The debate here is over why our health care costs are so high in comparison to those in other countries. That is a system-wide question. Our system is in fact at least among the worst in the developed world, delivering notably inferior outcomes at a markedly higher price. Our system is basically indefensible, yet inumerable close-minded, poorly informed reactionaries insist on defending it anyway.

Do let us know when you've ceased being one of the people just referred to above.

What happened to elderly, and are you ever going to address the much higher smoking rates in Japan and elsewhere? Do you think that smoking is not a significant health issue in comparison to obesity or something?

And to be more honest about it, Americans are not disproportionately obese relative to the populations of other developed countries. Rather, with the US leading the way, the populations of most developed countries are disproportionately obese relative to what would be considered healthy and relative to what they used to be. And obesity rates in all developed countries (including Japan) are increasing, as they are in developing countries as well. Obesity is a growing global problem that health care systems everywhere will have to deal with.

Which brings us to the main point: National health care systems are all responsible for dealing with the health care needs of their particular national populations. If ischemic heart disease is more common in the US than it is in Japan, then the US system needs to be more focused on preventing deaths from IHD than does the system in Japan. And that is the case. If you in fact have IHD, you are slightly more likely to survive it here than in Japan. We also have relatively high survival rates for various forms of cancer, due in large part to what other nations would view as our irrational cancer-phobia. But as a whole, our system is terrible when it comes to preventing needless deaths, and when it comes to providing acceptable levels of health care at affordable costs in general. We simply stink, and all your knee-jerk bleating and excusification isn't going to change that fact.

Exactly wrong. The actual provision of health care in France is quite similar to what it is here. What is different is the manner in which it is paid for. That small difference takes virtually every employee who is not a degreed health care professional out of every doctor's office. It also means that no doctor has to call an insurance company to see if they will cover a procedure. Simply put, there is no army of decision-making paper-pushers to pay for in France. In the US by contrast, some 30 cents of every dollar spent on health care goes for something other than health care. Med school in France is difficult to get into, but once you do get in, tuition is free, meaning that doctors have no mounds of debt to pay off once they start practice. They also do not pay malpractice premiums since malpractice claims are handled by a special court system staffed by medical experts, not lawyers, and whose awards are funded from general revenues. France has more doctors per capita than the US does and more hospital beds. France consistently has the best or near-best overall outcomes in the world, and the French pay about two-thirds of what we do for health care (11-12% of GDP). This is not because health care is provided any differently there, but because it is financed differently. Your claim is a complete lost cause.

That's not evidence at all. Ever spent an extended period of time in actual Germany? Any experience at all with their dietary habits? Could you explain the role of "a walk in the forest" in German culture? If not, could you provide any actual third-party evidence of this lean and healthy sausage-, sauce-, and beer-free diet you suppose the Germans to adhere to?

Really? What radical genetic differences can you report?

In knee-jerk, non-think, right-wing DreamWorld.

Be more attentive! Every existing national health care system is different. Each is unique because it was developed separately to meet that nation's particular needs and circumstances. The relatively newer health care systems in Taiwan and the Netherlands are perhaps most alike in the fact that each provides better care at lower cost than does the US system. Otherwise, they don't have a whole lot in common.

There is no existing system that we can simply copy. There are plenty that we can and should learn from in trying to save ourselves from what history has left us here. HCR makes a good start at moving away from the worst abuses of a system that will soon enough crush us if left unto itself, but a great deal more work needs to be done. The system you blindly defend is actually dead and ossifying. If you want to help build a better mousetrap, fine. Otherwise, you might best just shut up and get out of the way.

Go tell it to Rush Limbaugh. Do you think any intelligent person actually buys that crap? Even Rush doesn't buy it. He only sells it.

It appears that you don't know what's in HCR, even though it has been passed. All you seem to know is that thin right-wing gruel that's been pumped into your head. The price you pay for being an incurious couch potato, I guess. Use-it-or-lose-it, the saying goes, and you're not doing a lot to disprove that.

 

Wow!

This is an excellent response, Ethereal!

You are correct on all accounts!

 

The ratings are political as much as medical...

 

Medicaid is for POOR people. Age -- as you have just explained yourself -- does not matter.

Not too ask too taxing a question or anything, but if there are two of them (and they aren't the only two of their kind), how can there be a SINGLE payer? Not to mention that Medicare is not typically the only coverage that the elderly have, nor that the number of non-elderly Americans who are insured by Medicaid is considerably lower than the number who have no insurance at all. All in all, about two-thirds of all Americans under 65 are hopelessly hooked into a failing for-profit private multi-payer system that has been not so slowly bleeding them dry, this as the overall health of the population has continued to decline. It is a record of failure unmatched and unheard of anywhere else in the developed world.

What's the incidence of osteoporosis among 23-year olds?

Blather. The national health care systems of the world cover many, many multiples of 90 million people. Germany's national health care system was founded in 1883. The UK system was begun in 1911. Various others proceeded from Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1948] that established a basic right to health. The US isolates itself in the world by having never ratified it.

One of the blessings of having an actual national health care system meanwhile is that it covers everyone, not just those whom private sector actuaries and accountants have simply refused admission to. We have private sytems for both the provision and financing of health care that are creating runaway costs and declining care as they seek to maximize profits from covering only the able and healthy population. This leaves those in whom the private sector does not happen to see much profit potential to be simply abandoned or picked up instead by the state which then has no alternative but to plug right back into the very same private system. This is called internalizing the profits and externalizing the costs. In the US big corporate insurers and manufacturers are the dog and any state run sytems are the tail. In countries with a national health care system, things are quite the other way around, leading directly to major cost reductions and significant gains in overall outcomes.

Ya think??? I might also claim that your math is a complete waste of time as what you actually want to compare is what it costs state-run programs to provide Coverage-Level-X to Population-Y versus what that same level of coverage would cost if that same population were to be covered under the private system. We will of course never know what that number might be, because whatever it is, it is so high that the private sector will have nothing whatsoever to do with these people. These particular subscribers could not afford to pay what the private sector system would have to charge in order to make a profit from their care after paying for all of their own rampant inefficiencies.

Actually, they do exist everywhere in the private sector as well, and doctors simply eat the difference.

Your so-called "normal" cost is actually whatever exhorbitant and inflated number the private sector has managed to come up with. An MRI in Japan averages about $100. What is it here? Which number is normal?

Your definition of knowing is actually amazingly weak, but assuming that you KNOW what the VA for example pays for prescription drugs in comparison to what you pay or what Bozo Bush's so-called program does, it seems odd that you haven't mentioned it yet.

Pfft! What a total farce.

 

That would depend on whether any of them recognize absurdly bogus math when they see it. Apparently, some do.

 

Only if you believe that deliberately denying health care to people you don't like is a legitimate political issue.

 

I'll just pick one of your nonsensical responses.
How can two have a single payor? Sorry if this is so complicated that you suffer brain lock. Medicare, the single payor is the govt. Medicaid, the single payor is the govt.

That wasn't so hard was it?

PROVE the math wrong.

Medicare Part D is less than a decade old, 2005 or 2006. But Medicare has cost much more than private health care for nearly half a century.

And the VA supplies generic drugs almost exclusively. And they charge $9. Vets, [I am a vet] can get better prices at a Publix Supermarket, Walmart, Walgreen's, CVS, Albertson's, Target, etc, etc.

I post facts, you post brainwashed ideological idiocy.

 

Again, your empty and self-serving assertions are not an adequate substitute for logical argumentation and evidence. Get your ego under control or I'll be forced to terminate this discussion.

The fact is the metric you are so enamored with cannot tell us which element of the system is performing sub-optimally, which means you cannot use said metric as evidence of our private element's failure, period.

Already addressed in another post.

Interesting. Now you've resorted to brazen lying.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/...738110.html?ref=twitter#s144651&title=USA__68

More empty assertions masquerading as fact. When will you learn?

Hilarious. You're actually trying to argue that the provision of healthcare is not affected by the manner in which it's financed, even though I already gave you a well-established example (which you ignored) of why it is.

The fact that we're much more obese than Germany is not evidence that we eat more fatty foods than them? That's funny.

One well known example is the genetic predisposition of certain racial or ethnic minorities (blacks, Hispanics, and native Americans) to develop type-two diabetes.

So, you cannot even tell me what your UHC would look like. Impressive...

Unbelievable. You're so deluded and partisan that you actually refuse to admit the obvious malfeasance, corruption, and deception that plagued the passage - nay, the cramming - of Obamacare.

And I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, skippy. Maybe you should step outside your narrow partisan world for two seconds and realize that not everyone who opposed your precious Democratic party is a "right-winger" or whatever.

Ah, more insults. Such intelligent and insightful commentary.

 

Here's the primary source for the 2000 WHO report (the last one with rankings) for anyone interested: (WHO Report).

From the report:

The #37 ranking was for "Overall Health System Performance" based on achieving the three goals I listed above. The report is full of references to fairness and financial burden, which are clearly important but very subjective.

5 main areas were measured and the US came in:

• #1 in health responsiveness level
• #3 (tied) in health responsiveness distribution
• #24 in Health Level (DALE - Disability Adjusted Life Expectancy - I'd argue this has a lot to do with culture and lifestyles)
• #32 in Health Distribution (a measure of health inequality based on variance in DALE within the population)
• #54 (tied) for Fairness in Financial Contribution

Many people refer to the "37th in the world" ranking without having actually read the results or the methodology. It basically says the actual health care in the U.S. is great, but the system that pays for that care is not as "fair" as other systems. So while the results may not be politically motivated, they are certainly based on some very subjective measures. Furthermore, this report did not really address the amounts spent on healthcare (only the fairness of contribution) so it doesn't really address the issue of whether we pay too much for the best care in the world.

 

I also like the yahoo that ridiculed the US for being just barely ahead of Cuba. Cuba is noted for more doctors, more nurses, and more hospitals per capita than any other country in the world. And all health care is free, courtesy of the Cuban govt. And this shining star, perfect example of govt supplied single payer universal health care ranks down with the USA. Liberal idiots must intentionally contradict themselves. So many contradictions must be planned far in advance.

And so many put so much emphasis on life expectancy. And the difference between us and #1 is about 4 years. That's the max. Many countries with UHC have life expectancies only months longer than ours. Some even LESS than ours. I'm over 70, from my perspective, it is not a big deal. I'm not a bit worried about how long I will live. I focus on HOW I live.

 

Do you have any evidence to support these claims? Maybe they're reluctant to start chemo or dialysis, but when it comes to prescription medication (for example) they often seek out doctors to specifically request health care that they do not "desperately need." Some experts believe that 1 in 4 office visits are essentially "social calls." I'm sure some people act the way you describe but I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe that most people do.

 

I've never had to wait hours for a 3-minute consult in the U.S. and patients are rarely if ever turned away from emergency rooms here.

 

I think this may be the crux of our disagreement - I've seen nothing to indicate that people "prefer not to consume" healthcare. I realize they prefer not to get sick or break bones, but healthcare goes way beyond that type of malady.

Here is a report on the top 5 overused clinical activities across 3 primary care specialties. The top offender (in terms of cost)? Expensive brand name statins prescribed instead of cheaper generics for patients who were initiating lipid-lowering therapy. They went straight for the expensive brand instead of first trying a cheaper option. Prescribers do not benefit financially from this practice since the pharmacy actually fills the medication. Research doesn't indicate that the expensive brands perform better. So what, then, is the explanation?

 

I think that is true but people tend to overlook data and also to procrastinate. Many would rather pay double or triple tomorrow than pay anything today.

There is no rational reason not to have national non-profit healthcare. It's cheaper and better, but Americans generally stand on hypocritical judgements and false 'ethics' to save a couple of bucks right now hoping the poor will just go die. Sadly, most of this rhetoric comes from the religious right which is rather shameful.

 

Over 40 million people on MEDICAID. That is free, non-emergency medical care for the poor. Medicaid reimburses providers on an even lower schedule than Medicare does and far, far lower than private health insurance does, and yet MEDICAID costs 30% more than private for profit health care expenditures.,
Medicaid covers the poor from prenatal to death or 65 if they qualify for Medicare at 65.

 

Medicaid covers some poor, not all of them.

"Poverty
Having limited assets is one of the primary requirements for Medicaid eligibility, but poverty alone does not qualify a person to receive Medicaid benefits unless they also fall into one of the defined eligibility categories.[10] According to the CMS website, "Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups."[10]"


Categories
There are a number of Medicaid eligibility categories; within each category there are requirements other than income that must be met. These other requirements include, but are not limited to, assets, age, pregnancy, disability, blindness, income and resources, and one's status as a U.S. citizen or a lawfully admitted immigrant.[11] Special rules exist for those living in a nursing home and disabled children living at home. A child may be covered under Medicaid if she or he is a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident. A child may be eligible for Medicaid regardless of the eligibility status of his or her parents or guardians. Thus, a child can be covered by Medicaid based on his or her individual status even if his or her parents are not eligible. Similarly, if a child lives with someone other than a parent, he or she may still be eligible based on his or her individual status.[12]

 

You are correct, Dan40.

The Medicaid systen is also subject to a lot of abuse. Fraud is rampant in the system.