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.
The point is that Americans either don't understand, or refuse to accept the reality that health care is rationed in Europe. Americans think they can simply over-lay some kind of single payer plan and drive on. It doesn't work that way. There's a reason why the Laws of Economics are Laws and not song lyrics. People can make all of the illogical emotional-based arguments they want, but it will never alter the reality, and the reality is that health care is subject to, and governed by, the Laws of Economics.
How do you propose to reduce health care spending without some form of rationing? Health rationing is a dirty word in this country but the market is unable to control health care costs. It doesn't matter if hospitals are for profit or non-profit, they is still an incentive to do more procedures.
How is health care subject to, and governed by, the Laws of Economics when the laws of supply and demand to not apply to it. The Laws of Economics deal with a market where buyers and sellers trade money for services. In health care the market is distorted since the consumer of health care service is separated from the provider by both their employer and payer.
Quote:
Is anyone ever going to bring some facts to this debate, or am I the only one?
Wondering...
Mircea
You bring a lot of facts to the table but I can't figure out what you are recommending.
I've suggested this before but I think a competitive market can potentially exist for health insurance if employers are removed from providing health insurance. To control costs, people need to be paying more out of pocket where they see the actual cost of the service. Today, too many people expect insurance to cover everything.
And yes, an optimum heath system must find a way to cover all citizens. It that means the government penalizes people for not buying health insurance than so be it.
An BTW, I agree with you that we have prepaid health plans and not health insurance. Health insurance would only cover catastrophic events such as a major surgery or illness like cancer.
A quote about German health care from The Institute for the Study of Civil Society:
"First, Germans are free to visit any doctor they like. They may either walk in off the street, or ring for an appointment that will invariably be booked for the same morning or afternoon. Consumers can and do penalise bad service. Our recent study of German consumers commonly produced reactions like this: 'I saw a long queue, so hopped on the tube and went to a different practice'; 'she was rather ill-tempered so I never went back'; 'the facilities were drab, so I went to a different one next to my office'; 'I felt rushed at his practice so didn't go back'.
[quote=villageidiot1;27556623]How do you propose to reduce health care spending without some form of rationing? Health rationing is a dirty word in this country but the market is unable to control health care costs. It doesn't matter if hospitals are for profit or non-profit, they is still an incentive to do more procedures.
How is health care subject to, and governed by, the Laws of Economics when the laws of supply and demand to not apply to it. The Laws of Economics deal with a market where buyers and sellers trade money for services. In health care the market is distorted since the consumer of health care service is separated from the provider by both their employer and payer.
You bring a lot of facts to the table but I can't figure out what you are recommending. I can't either. But I'd like to know.
You make great points village, about rationing being a dirty word. The link I posted has two comparative rationing at two different well recognized hospitals and it was an eye opener for me. (money and medicine)
We send people for a lot of test that are unnecessary, expensive, and sometimes dangerous to the patient. Our doctors are so use to this way of doing things they don't even question it.
They are now studying the effects and rewards of all this testing we've been doing. Finally! It was just a free for all for quite sometime, nobody really knew if they were effective or mattered at all. With these new studies they are finding that a lot of them do absolutely nothing for your health outcome. Not one thing. Some actually increase your risk of serious illness or complications on top of that and cost millions of dollars.
But, we are stuck in the mind set. When they recently no longer recommend a mammogram for all women at age 40 after studying the facts of doing so and finding out it's outcome is actually more dangerous than a life saving people, doctors, who are so use to this being the right way ignore it. Oppose it. Get them anyway. That is a waste of money, a danger to your health and a regulation worth having. IMO.
Cardiovascular stents, etc. Way to many used without good outcomes. Cancer detection is fine tuned but the problem is cancer removal isn't always the answer. But, we do it anyway. Once you find it you remove it. Removal carries a lot of risks. A lot of cancers or suspected cancers would have never bothered you in your lifetime. Most cancer never grows, it's not malignant. But once you see it, you address it regardless because of our lack of understanding cancer. People with no symptoms go in and have regular test done on a time table. Some die from simply having the test. Some die removing something that if not detected would have never bothered them. And yes, some are saved by this technology. We are just now doing studies that show surprising things. We aren't' doing a great job in that area like we assumed. The outcomes of mass testing isn't saving as many people as it's hurting. But, it's an emotional issue, I do understand that. People are afraid. I get afraid, we all do.
More studies have to be done until we are comfortable testing what we do and making sure it's safe and necessary. More rationing and good judgement have to be applied. Not only does it save money, it saves lives and well being as well. It's a free for all of unnecessary testing out there and a huge waste.
We have the means to study outcomes, and regulate it so that people are healthier and we save money. Why not do this? Sounds like a good idea. Nobody is going to regulate something that has proven to be safe with a majority of positive outcome. No need to fear regulating healthcare. IMO.
Second, if you make too much money for subsidized healthcare, it's because you make enough money to live on. You sound just like the farmer who complains about all the taxes he has to pay - unaware of the fact that EVERYBODY knows that he's paying taxes because he's making money.
You need less complaining and more money management savvy. I will GUARANTEE you that if I went over your family finances, I could make a budget that would work for you. But you wouldn't like it, and you wouldn't stick with it, because you'd have to cut out all your wasteful spending.
Put the $160 per month you're paying for Cable into a savings account, and pay your medical bills out of that. You'd be surprised how many bills $2,000 per year can pay.
Buying private health insurance out of your pocket ranges from $600-$1000 a month. Saving $160 in cable bills isn't going to cover healthcare costs. Being a financial adviser you should know you can't compare cable costs to healthcare costs. Healthcare costs are increasing twice the inflation rate in the US.
You lost all your credibility by saying Sweden funds healthcare through oil sales. For one Sweden doesn't have oil, and two I can't find any source for that information.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 01-01-2013 at 07:11 PM..
Reason: Deleted inappropriate comment
So they set aside money for health care during the fiscal year, that money trickles/filters down to subordinate government levels, and then into the health care system, where health care is the rationed until the money runs out, then they do it all again the year after.
Is anyone ever going to bring some facts to this debate, or am I the only one?
Wondering...
Mircea
Well, here is some FRONT line views of a couple of nurses posted on another thread. Where is all that money going from a PROFIT system?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stellar It has nothing to do with the Affordable Care act. My hospital has been riding the coat tails of that myth for years! Within weeks of the law passing, long before any effects were felt, they got rid of our affordable HMO mid-year, now they are doing away with our POS and in July we will have only an HSA (5K deductible) that covers only 50%, they froze our salaries, took away our matching retirement for several years, charge us almost $500 a year for parking ($250 on nights in an empty parking lot,) did away with our major medical (lost tens of thousands with that one,) I could go on, but why bother. During all that time we have expanded exponentially, have several new satellite clinics, tens of millions in tax dollars have been given with the various state legislative sessions, federal money, plus enormous private donations. The CEO makes 1.5 million not counting bonuses (and we are small, 200 beds,) the average exective compensation package (per our well-respected local newspaper) is 900K and we are way top heavy with upper brass. It is sickening, our hospital is falling apart, there is not a shift, really every task I perform, that is not thwarted by broken equipment, medication scanners that don't work, broken beds, electrical and oxygen sockets, closet doors (got a black eye when one hit me in the face, and all they cared about was that I pee in a cup to make sure I wasn't doing drugs,), IV pumps and broken systems because we are constantly changing the way we do things that weren't broken, to a "new and improved" system that works like C#$%, just for the sake of change. They cut the linen to almost nothing, we have no blankets to give our cold patients. I cannot tell you how sickened I am by the greed and lies, but I feel for the patients who suffer more for it! But please do not blame this on the ACA (Obamacare), this is greed, pure and simple, they just have a favorite scapegoat to hide behind, and people actually buy it!
This is the stuff that my husband has started seeing here in OR too. Luckily, for the nurses here, they have a strong union and fought to keep most of these changes from happening here for the next few years. It's scary to see and hear this though. I agree, corporate greed has ruined healthcare!
The above posts say it all. I do believe you may have your head in some corporate horse dung, Mircea. And you never did respond to my question about what YOU would do with sick people that have no health insurance.
Yes. We need a system free of private sector insurance companies and private ownership of large medical facilities. Our health care money should go to provider's education and salaries as well as to research into techniques and pharmaceuticals but not monopoly profits. In addition health care should be available to everyone regardless of their wealth or employment status. We could pay for all of this by eliminating our Imperial Dreams and most of our military spending.
The job of a capitalist system is to turn everything from a need to a want. Profit is attained from waste, why fix it, why get rid of an area of profit. Profit is attained from illness. Profit is attained from us when we take needs like, clean air, food, health and allow them to be turned into wants instead of basic needs. Wanting something is psychologically different than a need. A want feeds the capitalist ideal, that's what a profit making entity needs, is you to want something they sell. That's happened here in America. It's happened because we are capitalists.
This system causes great divides between people who get those basic needs because they have the money and people who don't. This changes people mentally and physically. It creates a divide, creates violence and illness, and defines people by putting them in different categories of marketability.
Economy means offering the best value for the money spent. Capitalism means an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. Do we apply basic economic principles in America? No, we don't. We apply capitalism. Our healthcare is a commodity. Something useful that can be turned to commercial or other advantage. This creates a divide among those who can afford it, not those who need it.
We are top heavy as far as who owns the wealth and bottom heavy with consumption. Our medical needs are considered consumption. Medical needs have become consumer wants now. That's unhealthy. It's really messed up when you look at the reasons why it has become this way. It's been planned. Your needs turning into wants that you feel bad about has been done on purpose. For profit. That's sick in itself.
Climbing out of this will be hard, but not because we don't all need it. Because the top 1% making the profit off our needs by turning them into wants doesn't want this to change. Your wanting to feel better makes them a lot of money. Their bottom line is making that profit. We allow it to continue because we feel it's a want, not a need.
If you don't think this is a bad thing for most of us, 90% of us to put it in perspective, I think you are wrong. Wrong to the point of being dangerous to the rest of us. Our health as a commodity for profit of a few large companies is very dangerous. Changing basic needs to wants is dangerous. No regulation, no outcome testing is dangerous.
You don't want to be healthy, you need to be healthy. Right now you are worth money for wanting that health. It's like paying for bottled water because our water systems have been polluted. Water is now sold for quality, that's something that should concern you. Feeling like you have to buy bottled health because our system is polluted isn't healthy at all, it's planned for profit and should concern you. We make our food supply unhealthy for profit and then you have to have more money to buy a healthier version of our diet like organic, or local, it causes a large divide which in itself isn't healthy. We should be demanding our needs are met. Not acting like are needs are wants and denied because we shouldn't desire them unless we have a lot of money.
Water, food, air, your health are basic needs, not wants.
Don't buy into the idea that our needs, (required because it is essential or very important), be changed into wants, (the desire to possess or wish for), and sold as such for a profit. This is dangerous to 90% of us. IMO, of course. Seriously think about it.
Last edited by PoppySead; 01-02-2013 at 07:28 AM..
Buying private health insurance out of your pocket ranges from $600-$1000 a month. Saving $160 in cable bills isn't going to cover healthcare costs. Being a financial adviser you should know you can't compare cable costs to healthcare costs. Healthcare costs are increasing twice the inflation rate in the US.
You lost all your credibility by saying Sweden funds healthcare through oil sales. For one Sweden doesn't have oil, and two I can't find any source for that information.
IMO - This is the mindset wanted by people who make a profit. People like Big George are great advertisers for profit making off of waste.
The difference between one who has great healthcare and one who does not isn't usually a job. Both work, it's money, affordability. It's a class difference encouraged by someones want for profit.
Corporations love Big George because he is a profit making little machine. Not only doesn't he fight them making a profit off a need, he encourages the need as a want. He encourages others to find a way to make that basic need affordable by changing out one want for the other. Like the want for cable vs the want for health. In turn he gives that mind set to others. Now others think, hey, my health is a want. Which do I want right now, my health or cable?
But, it's not a want and people quickly find that out the day their health fails. If cable fails it's not the same unfortunately. It isn't right to assume they deserve it. You can't plan for a stable allowance for health care needs month to month like a want. You have no control over your health. Even if you do all they say to insure it.
Basic needs should come out of our income before we buy wants. It should be a non profit, shared expense in this country like it is in others so that people out of work get it, people unable to work get it. That's fair, it's humane, we need that, and it clearly states our health is not a want but a need. We deserve to have it met.
The above posts say it all. I do believe you may have your head in some corporate horse dung, Mircea. And you never did respond to my question about what YOU would do with sick people that have no health insurance.
I think I can answer for him. He has strong libertarian beliefs. He'd first say that no matter what, under no circumstances does the federal government have any constitutional basis to be involved in the whole healthcare process. In his mind, it should be up to the states. If you point out that some states would simply drop the ball on those who can't afford healthcare and they ended up doing without, he'd probably say that its not his problem. He only needs to worry about himself. You only need to worry about yourself.
What people with this philosophy don't seem to understand is that this isn't something a majority of the country is willing to accept anymore. The reason we have programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIPS is because a majority of the country decided years ago that we would not stand by while some people went without medical care. He got out voted. And he's lost his argument over the Constitution as well. In our country, he doesn't get to interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court does. They've sided against his view of that document.
Once you get past his condescension, his sly little insults, and his constantly suggesting he's proven things he hasn't, what you really find is a lot of hot air. He actually has some things to say when he talks about the overall economic health of this country. When it comes to this debate, he seems more wrapped up in the notion that he might not get the system to pay for some kind of surgery or medical procedure he doesn't fully describe. The whole thing is pretty strange.
Just for a moment let us consider the alternate way of paying for healthcare. What would happen if everyone had to pay for their own care in cash without any insurance at all? The system would count on the young people saving up for their eventual health care even if it cut into their spendable income. All health services would be paid in full at the time of service. Services would only be provided to the people that could pay for them.
A few months of this would probably result in a universal health care system with strict controls on the providers that minimize monopoly profits.
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.
German health care
