U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-04-2011, 12:29 PM
 
132 posts, read 135,103 times
Reputation: 100

Advertisements

it's interesting that the average Chilean spends 7 times less on healthcare yet achieves the same life expectancy as the average american.



link: Health costs and life expectancy: Paying through the (surgically altered) nose | The Economist


...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-04-2011, 12:31 PM
 
Location: United States
5,888 posts, read 4,500,021 times
Reputation: 1906
Where would you rather get sick America or Sub-Saharan Africa?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 12:31 PM
 
10,813 posts, read 6,958,631 times
Reputation: 4163
Quote:
Originally Posted by DBIF View Post
it's interesting that the average Chilean spends 7 times less on healthcare yet achieves the same life expectancy as the average american.



link: Health costs and life expectancy: Paying through the (surgically altered) nose | The Economist


...
The new health law will help, but it is really only an expansion of the current health system. It's not a new system.

I wish the health reform bill would have been modeled after what Singapore did with their health care system. I guess there's always round two...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 12:39 PM
 
6,406 posts, read 6,535,244 times
Reputation: 9812
Quote:
Originally Posted by clb10 View Post
Where would you rather get sick America or Sub-Saharan Africa?
Not to be obtuse, but what has Chile to do with sub-Saharan Africa?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 12:43 PM
 
26,866 posts, read 15,105,729 times
Reputation: 12628
Sit tight, Obama gonna fix everfing for ya.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 12:44 PM
 
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,266 posts, read 3,611,444 times
Reputation: 2313
I suspect that there isn't a single system in the world that is very efficient at health care. It is a bureaucratic nightmare and a monster. I haven't heard anyone touch on the subject of malpractice suits. If we have a national healthcare system, could doctors be sued? The governmental system of health care? Lawyers may not like this too much and may be a powerful "nay-sayer" to that manner of health care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 12:47 PM
 
5,767 posts, read 10,059,575 times
Reputation: 3809
Malpractice is a complex problem. One of the historical reasons for large medical malpractice and punitive damage awards in the US is that we assumed the burden of paying for future medical expenses would be on the person who suffered malpractice. Such a person might not be able to get insurance anymore, for instance, and would have to pay out-of-pocket. So, the malpractice award was meant to offset those types of future costs, deep into the future - for the lifespan of the victim.

In a system where healthcare does not depend on your personal level of income, that entire consideration is obviously changed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 01:07 PM
 
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,266 posts, read 3,611,444 times
Reputation: 2313
Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn View Post
Malpractice is a complex problem. One of the historical reasons for large medical malpractice and punitive damage awards in the US is that we assumed the burden of paying for future medical expenses would be on the person who suffered malpractice. Such a person might not be able to get insurance anymore, for instance, and would have to pay out-of-pocket. So, the malpractice award was meant to offset those types of future costs, deep into the future - for the lifespan of the victim.

In a system where healthcare does not depend on your personal level of income, that entire consideration is obviously changed.
I think many of these malpractice suits use that as a false justification (although many are valid as well). I think, many sue because they see hospitals/insurance companies as cash cows. If they have to, they will be honest in their claims and just say that they had "emotional or psychological distress" or that they just feel compensation is in order. I really don't think lawyers are going to give up on a big money maker for themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 01:11 PM
 
14,253 posts, read 14,808,713 times
Reputation: 13621
There are a number of issues with our health system. One major problem is the way we deliver care to people who have no insurance or very poor insurance. This is done through ER visits rather than primary care physicians. As a result, chronic diseases such as diabetes do not get managed efficiently at an early stage where delivery of care would be cheaper and more effective. Rather, we wait until there is a serious problem and then we try to fix it. This was one issue that Obama tried to resolve (very poorly imho).

The we have the issue and cost of malpractice protection. From my career in public accounting I know how much this costs ... our firm alone budgeted $300 million/year for protection

We also do not have a uniform system. We have insurance, medicaid, medicare, VA, ER visits for the uninsured, etc. etc.. All these different systems lead to bureaucratic complexity and add cost.

All that said, I don't think that we have a bad health care system. But I do not think it is any better than that found in other developed countries. The problem is that we are paying far too much for what we get in comparison. I really think we need to have a constructive debate (i.e. not the usual partisan bickering) and that should start with a set of principles of what we want from our health care system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 01:12 PM
 
14,920 posts, read 10,786,068 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldawg82 View Post
I suspect that there isn't a single system in the world that is very efficient at health care. It is a bureaucratic nightmare and a monster.
Yeah, but as far as the developed 1st world goes, no healthcare system wastes more on bureaucratic/administrative costs as the US healthcare system. We run the most inefficient and wasteful system out there. It's shameful. American should be the best, not the worst.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top