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.
Man, oh, man, I tossed out the bait and you took it hook, line and sinker (just like I knew you would).
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
Schooling...
Mircea
You like to throw out lots of information in one post to hide discrepancies in your information, so let's do this very, very slowly to see if you can be schooled.
Let's just take prescription drugs--nothing else---just prescription drugs.
Cheaper in for profit systems or cheaper in the VA?
An analysis of plans’ drug prices shows that, on the promise of low drug prices, the program (prescription drugs for seniors) fails. Families USA looked at Medicare prescription drug plan prices for the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors in 2004 for two regions: 1) Region 5, which covers the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Delaware; and 2) Region 14, which covers Ohio. We compared those prices to the prices negotiated by the federal government through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). We found that the lowest price negotiated by the VA was, in every case but one, lower—often substantially so—than the lowest drug price available through any Medicare prescription drug plan operating in either locale. The median percent price difference for the top 20 drugs was 48.2 percent. This means that, for half of the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors, the lowest price offered by any Medicare prescription drug plan was at least 48.2 percent higher than the lowest price available through the VA. http://www.herc.research.va.gov/resources/faq_b06.asp
The reason drugs for seniors in medicare is expensive, is because the HEALTH INDUSTRY wanted that program. The Republican (from PA, I believe) who led the fight in the House to get it passed then retired and the last I heard is serving on the board of either a pharmaceutical or for profit hospital organization.
Now let's not get long-winded. We'll take it one step at a time. Prescription drugs--better in the VA--yes or no---and offer your proof of that.
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income"
And you do love quoting this--and I'm not disagreeing. What we disagree about is--if we had the German system, WE WOULD BE PAYING LESS ON HEALTH CARE. And rationing may not be a word you like, but even the USA rations healthcare--just not in a way that even gives the appearance of fairness.
The human capacity for self-delusion never ceases to amaze me, so it shouldn't surprise me that so many Republicans seem to genuinely believe that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. Perhaps at one time they were, but those days are long gone.
This fact became blindingly obvious to me six years ago this month when a Republican president and a Republican Congress enacted the Medicare drug benefit, which former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker has called "the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s."
--the rational thing for Congress to do would have been to find ways of cutting its costs. Instead, Republicans voted to vastly increase them--and the federal deficit--by $395 billion between 2004 and 2013.
However, the Bush administration knew this figure was not accurate because Medicare's chief actuary, Richard Foster, had concluded, well before passage, that the more likely cost would be $534 billion. Republican Deficit Hypocrisy - Forbes.com
Maybe Franks (who led the fight FOR Medicare Part D) isn't the worst hypocrite I've ever come across in Washington, but he's got to be in the top 10 because he apparently thinks the unfunded drug benefit, which added $15.5 trillion (in present value terms) to our nation's indebtedness, according to Medicare's trustees, was worth sacrificing his integrity to enact into law. But legislation expanding health coverage to the uninsured--which is deficit-neutral--somehow or other adds an unacceptable debt burden to future generations http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
The human capacity for self-delusion never ceases to amaze me, so it shouldn't surprise me that so many Republicans seem to genuinely believe that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. Perhaps at one time they were, but those days are long gone.
This fact became blindingly obvious to me six years ago this month when a Republican president and a Republican Congress enacted the Medicare drug benefit, which former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker has called "the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s."
--the rational thing for Congress to do would have been to find ways of cutting its costs. Instead, Republicans voted to vastly increase them--and the federal deficit--by $395 billion between 2004 and 2013.
However, the Bush administration knew this figure was not accurate because Medicare's chief actuary, Richard Foster, had concluded, well before passage, that the more likely cost would be $534 billion. Republican Deficit Hypocrisy - Forbes.com
Maybe Franks (who led the fight FOR Medicare Part D) isn't the worst hypocrite I've ever come across in Washington, but he's got to be in the top 10 because he apparently thinks the unfunded drug benefit, which added $15.5 trillion (in present value terms) to our nation's indebtedness, according to Medicare's trustees, was worth sacrificing his integrity to enact into law. But legislation expanding health coverage to the uninsured--which is deficit-neutral--somehow or other adds an unacceptable debt burden to future generations http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
What happened, did you run out of anecdotal evidence to bombard people?
This is a debate on national health care.
Take your political crap to the P&OC forum.
What I find to be hypocritical is that you accuse me of being uninformed, not wanting to learn and using "singularly outmoded" sources of data, and yet all you can do is post magazine articles.
It just demonstrates your knowledge of health care systems in general is incredibly superficial.
This info is from another one of those "singularly outmoded sources" you keep accusing me of using.....
2012 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL HOSPITAL INSURANCE AND FEDERAL SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS
Page 34.....SMI differs fundamentally from HI in regard to the nature of its financing and the method by which its financial status is evaluated. SMI comprises two parts, Part B and Part D, each with its own separate account within the SMI trust fund. The Trustees must determine the financial status of the SMI trust fund by evaluating the financial status of each account separately, since there is no provision in the law for transferring assets or income between the Part B and Part D accounts. The nature of the financing for both parts of SMI is similar in that the law establishes a mechanism by which income from the Part B premium and the Part D premium, and the corresponding transfers from general revenues for each part, are sufficient to cover the following year’s estimated expenditures. Accordingly, each account within SMI is automatically in financial balance under current law.
Page 37....The Medicare prescription drug benefit began full operation in 2006. For the 10-year period 2012 to 2021, the Trustees project that income and expenditures for the Part D account will grow at an average annual rate of 8.8 percent, due to expected further increases in enrollment and continuing growth in per capita drug costs. As with Part B, income and outgo would remain in balance as a result of the annual adjustment of premium and general revenue income to match costs. Because of the appropriations process for Part D general revenues, it is not necessary to maintain a contingency reserve in the account.
Page 39....Financing for the SMI trust fund is adequate because beneficiary premiums and general revenue contributions, for both Part B and Part D, are established annually to cover the expected costs for the upcoming year. Should actual costs exceed those anticipated when the financing is determined, future rates can include adjustments to recover the shortfall. Likewise, should actual costs be less than those anticipated, the savings would result in lower future rates. As long as the future financing rates continue to match the following year’s estimated costs, both parts of the SMI trust fund will remain financially solvent under current law.
You don't even understand how the SMI Trust Funds are operated.
This is what the Trustees actually say on Page 240....
Unfunded Medicare and OASDI obligations
(trust fund perspective)113 ....................................$14.0 trillion (1.5% of GDP)
HI, SMI, and OASDI asset redemptions .....................$3.0 trillion (0.3% of GDP)
SMI and OASDI general revenue financing ..............$21.6 trillion (2.4% of GDP)
Footnote 113: Additional revenues and/or expenditure reductions totaling $14.0 trillion, together with $3.0 trillion in asset redemptions, would cover the projected financial imbalance but would leave the HI and OASDI trust funds exhausted at the end of the 75-year period. The long-range actuarial deficits for HI and OASDI include a cost factor to allow for a normal level of fund assets. See section III.B3 in this report, and section IV.B4 in the OASDI Trustees Report, for the numerical relationship between the actuarial deficit and the “unfunded obligations” of each program.
Is there a particular reason you have an obvious aversion to primary source documents? Do you have have some kind of learning disability or maybe are dyslexic and cannot comprehend primary source documents? There's no reason to use tertiary and quaternary sources (which are heavily biased), when primary sources are readily available.
You need to study in detail how the SMI Trust Funds are financed, especially since they are not financed in the same way the HI (Medicare) Trust Fund is financed.
Just a couple of comments here. First of all, you comment on people complaining about that $15 office visit now costing $45. Which doctors are charging only $45? I'd be doing cartwheels if it was that cheap to go to a doctor! Any place I've lived in the last few years, any general practitioner I go to charges around $100 for a visit, and insurance is of no help because you usually have to spend a couple thousand dollars to get up to your deductible before insurance will start paying even a dime of my office visit costs.
And talking about how if something costs $40 then it will cost $40, no way around it. Well that is fine, but the problem is hospitals and clinics charge WAY too much for things, way more than they actually cost. We're not talking about wasteful spending, we're talking about overcharging for the sake of profits! That is what's wrong with this whole system. For example a couple months ago I had a kidney stone late on a Saturday night so I had to go to the emergency room. Later when I received the bill I was shocked- they charged $700 simply for the saline solution IV that I was given for hydration. $700!! I work at another hospital and asked a coworker what that would actually cost- he said maybe $10 for the solution, a couple dollars for the bag and the needle, and about $45 per hour for the nurse who actually set it up for me. So let's just be generous and give the nurse the entire hour's worth of pay even though it only took a couple minutes to hook me up with the IV, giving this cost a total of $50 or $55. So why do I end up getting charged $700??? That is ridiculous, it is nothing more than hospitals charging whatever they want to make profits because they know they can. Thinking that either we are stuck and have no choice anyway, or we have insurance that would just pay it for us. In my case insurance wouldn't touch it, because again the total cost for my visit was $1900, just below my $2000 deductible.
So THAT is what's wrong with our system- it is for profit, and there are several layers who all want profits, leaving us with RIDICULOUSLY high bills for even the simplest of things.
Not to nit-pick, but that is a symptom of what is wrong with our system. What is really wrong with our system is a government that is paid for by lobbyists. I see this as a significant distinction, because a failure to acknowledge this root cause will take us down rabbit holes of arguments that nobody will win, and leave us right where we are - if we're lucky - or in a lot worse shape, if campaign finance laws are not seriously changed.
Not to nit-pick, but that is a symptom of what is wrong with our system. What is really wrong with our system is a government that is paid for by lobbyists. I see this as a significant distinction, because a failure to acknowledge this root cause will take us down rabbit holes of arguments that nobody will win, and leave us right where we are - if we're lucky - or in a lot worse shape, if campaign finance laws are not seriously changed.
This right here is a very important piece of the puzzle, IMO. There is no way a government can keep promises to the majority of voters with lobbyists and campaign donations pending first approval. Not until we do away with campaign finance and lobbyists will we truly have the government we started with.
It's not like we don't know, it's on the first page of the politics section in the Washington Post yet we just let it continue on. I'd like to know where they got all the extra millions in cash to spend that much lobbying. I thought they were low on funds? lol This is what we pay for, right here. It's sickening.
All the while screaming we don't want to give our neighbors a "free ride"- crap, we give so many people a free ride we might as well get a good deal on it instead of paying for a premium free ride.
Off with their heads, IMO. Let's clean the ladies underwear drawer and get rid of this overhead. McCain got laughed out for his campaign against funding this crap. It's to bad we are so lopsided. It's not hard to see how stupid we are for throwing our money in the toilet.
You are absolutely right about what you say though Captain F, I totally agree this is a problem that has to be corrected in order to even continue on with anything else. Unfortunately it runs pretty deep down the rabbit hole.
"Lobbyists Spend Millions to Influence Health Care
By Dan Eggen
Drugmakers, hospitals and insurers continued to pour millions of dollars into lobbying during the second quarter of this year, hoping to limit the damage to their bottom line as lawmakers and the Obama administration wrangle over landmark health-care legislation.
New disclosure reports that began arriving Monday in Congress showed familiar players at the top of the health-care influence heap, including $6.2 million in lobbying by the dominant Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and $4 million by the American Medical Association.
Many health companies and associations increased their first-quarter lobbying expenditures, sometimes dramatically. The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association upped its lobbying expenditures by a full million, to 2.8 million dollars in the second quarter; GlaxoSmithKline's spending jumped from $1.8 million to $2.3 million; Novartis grew from $1.4 million to $1.8 million; and Metlife Group reported $1.7 million, up nearly 50 percent. Allstate, which spent less than $900,000 on lobbying through March, boosted its spending to more than $1.5 million from April to June.
Others simply kept up the pace, including Johnson & Johnson at $1.6 million and America's Health Insurance Plans and Bayer Corp. both approaching $2 million in spending from April to June. The AMA has spent a total of $8.2 million on lobbying through June of this year.
Final aggregate numbers are likely a day or two away as reports continue to trickle in and get tallied by journalists and watchdog groups. But the data so far suggest that the second quarter has a good chance of reaching a new high for the health-care lobby. The industry already set records from January to March, when health-care firms and their lobbyists spent money at the rate of $1.4 million a day.
There were a few surprising examples of declines, however, most notably PhRMA, which reported spending about $700,000 less than it did in the first quarter. But consider that PhRMA spent $8.6 million in the first half of 2008 -- just two thirds of what they've spent so far this year."
LOL, Germany provides healthcare and financial protection to all it's citizens as an ideal. We aren't good at that. Don't sit around and wait or anything. They have one of the oldest universal healthcare systems and are much better than us at that kind of thing. Yes, I'm jealous. No, I don't know how we'd ever compete with that. Yes, I'd like to. IMO, of course.
LOL, Germany provides healthcare and financial protection to all it's citizens as an ideal. We aren't good at that. Don't sit around and wait or anything. They have one of the oldest universal healthcare systems and are much better than us at that kind of thing. Yes, I'm jealous. No, I don't know how we'd ever compete with that. Yes, I'd like to. IMO, of course.
The Dutch system looks just as good, based on the links that LindaVG provided - maybe even better than the German system.
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income"
And you do love quoting this--and I'm not disagreeing. What we disagree about is--if we had the German system, WE WOULD BE PAYING LESS ON HEALTH CARE. And rationing may not be a word you like, but even the USA rations healthcare--just not in a way that even gives the appearance of fairness.
I'll keep quoting it until people get it.
Is there some part of "...cannot spend more than its income..." that don't you understand?
Look, it's real simple....
You're annual income is $4,000. Your car needs $8,000 worth of repairs. You cannot spend more than your income, so how exactly are you going to make $8,000 in repairs?
You aren't. You're going to spend $4,000 and then claim you have the best car in the world, and that you spend less on repairs than anyone else.
I'm going to rain all over your parade again. And, why, yes, I'm going to use another one of those "singularly outmoded sources" you keep accusing me of using.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
You are stuck with singularly outmoded sources of information,….
That's not the Green Party; not the New York Times; not Physicians Acting Stupid; not Forbes; not People; not not Doctors Going Dumb; not Anti-FamiliesUSA; not some ranting post with nothing but unqualified anecdotal evidence; and not any other partisan thing.
That's the US National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Heath.
Health Econ Policy Law. 2010 Jul;5(3):319-41. doi: 10.1017/S1744133110000046. Is Canada odd? A comparison of European and Canadian approaches to choice and regulation of the public/private divide in health care.
Are you sitting down?
Okay.....
....here it comes....
In contrast to the Dutch system pre-2006 where the top 30 percent of the population was not permitted to be covered by the statutory scheme, in Germany those earning above €48,000 per year may choose to opt out and either buy private insurance or self insure. The reader who is wondering why an individual in Germany may choose private health insurance needs to understand that for a healthy single individual it is often cheaper to be in the private health insurance plan than to contribute to the social health insurance system (Greβ, 2007). There may also be non-financial incentives for individuals to move to private insurance as the range of services covered by private insurance may be more comprehensive and may include drugs or treatments not covered by social health insurance plans.
[emphasis mine]
Would you like a sedative?
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Your lack of win is not even amusing.
So much for your claims that universal health care is cheaper.
Just replying to the title should america GIVE IN to a national healthcare system?
Never give in to anything. doesn't mean you can't change, or adjust. Losers give in.
my opinion on the title and attitude perhaps
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.
Prescription drugs
This is what we pay for, right here. It's sickening. 
