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.
America, for the rich guy... sucks for the other 300 million
Your ignorance of the facts is blatant. Do a little research. A huge number of Americans are quite satisfied with their health care... and they aren't rich.
If you can afford the personal cost in the UK they are pretty good. If you can't you are put on the list for up to 6 months from the day. What if you expire in that waiting period?
Really? That must be why over 70% of people are satisfied with how it is run and 10% are not. It seems most people living there, don't agree with you. Here is some info you can look at if you actually do want to know, which I doubt.
Your ignorance of the facts is blatant. Do a little research. A huge number of Americans are quite satisfied with their health care... and they aren't rich.
Until they really need it. It is at that moment your insurance mysteriously takes a dumb. Happens often, everyday to many.
Who decides what Medicare patients get turned away? Why the appointed bureaucrats at the state Medicare group that decides how much will be paid for who. They are turning us away right now by lowering the amounts that they will pay doctors for tending to us. When enough doctors stop taking enough new Medicare patients because of this I see a form of reverse rationing and I see that bureaucratic bunch taking care away.
Before Medicare, most seniors could not get insurance and only those who could pay out-of-pocket got treatment.
I know lots of seniors who think Medicare is a blessing because they remember what it was like before 1965.
We had worse rationing before 1965 -- no money, no treatment.
Take Japan and Singapore out of that list and we have to provide for more people than the other 8.
You might also look at the fact that the WHO is one of the often heard from groups from the UN. UN, you know that has Agenda 21 as one of its favorite groups.
Since our per capita GDP is similar to theirs, it doesn't matter that we're a much bigger country.
If our per capita GDP were much smaller than any of the other countries on the list, then you'd have a point.
I guess they are "rationing" Malibu beach homes and Mercedes convertibles, then. No money, no beach house.
So your argument is that basic health care is a luxury? The compassionate conservative is dead and replaced by the greedy and selfish conservative who don't give a damn about their fellow countrymen.
WHO's criteria includes the number of people covered by the system, cost and healthcare outcomes.
In that regard, the US fails miserably. The US has the most expensive system in the world. Few Americans have access to the healthcare system because it costs so much. The system is employer-based and many employers don't even offer healthcare benefits. It is not universal and people simply can't afford to use it. And since the system is focused on expensive treatments instead of prevention due to its profit-driven nature, the outcomes aren't very good either.
It is true the U.S. has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. We spend more on technology than other countries but the biggest reason is the administrative costs of our private health inusurance system and our regulatory environment. Think about your doctors' offices. How many people are providing care, e.g., doctors, nurses, health aides; and how many people are administrative, e.g., billing, scheduling, getting authorization from insurance companies? What percent of people in a typical hospital are doctors, nurses and other providers of care? You will find their are more people working in hospitals who are strictly administrative, in other works, they don't provide patient care.
It is an exaggeration to say that, "Few Americans have access to the healthcare system because it costs so much." Most Americans do have access to the heatlhcare system.
The fact that the, "system is employer-based and many employers don't even offer healthcare benefits," is true and a major problem. Many people think the U.S. has a great healthcare system because they enjoy excellent health insurance that is mostly paid for by their employer. Their employer's human resources department negotiates with the private insurance company and if the employee is not happy they can complain to their HR Benefits dept. The system works well for large employers and private insurance companies. The problem is the rest of America that works for a small employer or is self-employed. More and more Americans are falling into this latter category.
"And since the system is focused on expensive treatments instead of prevention due to its profit-driven nature, the outcomes aren't very good either." It is true that the system is focused on expensive treatments. The U.S. healthcare system has an arcane system of reimbursement that drives costs up. It encourages doctors and hospitals to provide treatments or procedures. Most of a hospital's revenue is from outpatient procedures, e.g., x-rays, MRIs, scopes, surgical procedures, catheterizations, etc. The more you do the more you get paid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
Your ignorance of the facts is blatant. Do a little research. A huge number of Americans are quite satisfied with their health care... and they aren't rich.
As I said above, many Americans are happy with their healthcare. But a growing number of Americans are losing access to their health insurance or their employer is providing health insurance that is covering less of their expenses. The people who have good health insurance take it for granted. They have no idea what it could be like to not have good health insurance.
Our current healthcare reimbursement system is the problem. It does not encourage competition, in fact, it hinders competition. Everyone is not on a level playing field to purchase health insurance. Imagine if people who worked for large companies could purchase discounted care insurance through their employer. We need market-based reform, but it will only go so far in controlling costs. The objective should be to move as much decision making on healthcare expenditures back to the individual. As an individual consumer, I should have more choice in how much health insurance coverage I want. This would mean that health insurance would only cover large expenditures. A portion of our current health insurance plans is not insurance but a group purchasing arrangement. By definition, insurance is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss. A doctor's office visit is not an uncertain loss. The private insurance companies have inserted themselves between the consumer and the provider in order to control the marketplace. The result is the US spent more than 17% of its GDP on healthcare in 2009, higher than any other developed nation. How long can this trend continue?
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.
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.
