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.
That's a long time from now. Do you think that nothing is going to change in the decades it takes me to reach 65? Who says I'll still be self employed then? Who says I won't be rich as hell? Who says I won't even make it to 65? By the time I reach 65, Medicaid will be dead in the water.
It's Medicare not Medicaid and as soon as you reach 65 you'll be in the government health care program you rail so much against, there's no doubt in my mind or anyone else on this board. When you are rich as hell you'll still be on Medicare so don't give any phony reassurances you won't. But in all seriousness I do hope you make it to 65 and well beyond because with ACA you'll get the healthcare you need whether you despise ACA or not.
I doubt this will sway the bigots, but it's worth a try to save as many American lives as possible.....
Sep 11, 2013
NHS shame: Death rate in Britain's hospitals is far higher than US
PATIENTS face a much higher chance of dying in an NHS hospital than in an American one, it was revealed last night.
The unexpectedly high death rates in England show that those admitted to a ward on the National Health Service are 45 per cent more likely to die than in a US hospital. The alarming figures, uncovered by Channel 4 News's Cradle to Grave NHS Special, also reveal that elderly NHS patients are five times as likely to die from pneumonia and twice as likely to die of septicaemia.
NHS hospital death rates 45% HIGHER than in America, according to new figures 12 Sep 2013 02:00 NHS medical director Sir Bruce Keogh wants clinical leaders to investigate the figures and improve the rates.
Patients are 45% more likely to die in NHS hospitals than in US ones, according to figures revealing how badly England’s health service compares with those of other countries
....so, there it is. I purposely didn't use the Block Quote function so that people could search easier.
I have come to the conclusion that there is a serious disconnect from reality by supporters of the ACA.
This disconnect is the fundamental difference between ACA supporters and those who oppose it, and the crux of the matter revolves around the focal point.
Those who oppose the ACA, are focused primarily with healthcare costs imposed by the monopolistic AHA-member hospital cartels who illegally collude to illegally fix prices in each of the various Markets in the US, as well as costs levied by all medical facilities in general. A secondary issue is the total lack of transparency related to hospital or medical fees and charges for services.
Those who support the ACA are solely concerned with their own personal costs vis-a-vis the premiums they pay for the fee-for-service healthcare plans reluctantly offered through their employers. Their secondary focus is on receiving unlimited extraordinary free health care at practically no cost to them.
Clearly, those who oppose the ACA are concerned about all Americans, while ACA supporters are grotesquely selfish, since their sole focus is "What does it cost me?"
That becomes even clearer when we review the information provided by the General Accounting Office...
1] Technology up to 65%
2] Consumer Demand up to 36%
3] Expanding Health Benefits or Insuring more people up to 13%
4] Healthcare Price Inflation up to 19% (caused by Consumer Demand and insuring more people)
5] Administrative Costs up to 13% (caused by Technology, Consumer Demand and Regulations)
6] Aging/Elderly up to 7%
Source: United States Government General Accounting Office GAO-13-281 PPACA and the Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, January 2013 pp 31-36
The expansion of health insurance increases health care cost per capita as people demand more health care when they are better insured. Health insurance has expanded in two ways: (1) by covering an increasing share of the population and (2) by covering each person more completely (page 34).
The ACA definitely does both....increases the number of people covered, and increases the amount of coverage by mandating what is covered.
Opponents of the ACA do not have an issue with that. We accept it as a matter of consequence of the Laws of Economics.
The issue ACA opponents have is that the ACA does nothing to address the fact that Technology is the driving force behind healthcare cost increases.
Even the Liberal Commonwealth Fund says...
"The U.S. spends far more on health care than any other country. However this high spending cannot be attributed to higher income, an older population, or greater supply or utilization of hospitals and doctors. Instead, the findings suggest the higher spending is more likely due to higher prices and perhaps more readily accessible technology and greater obesity."
Source: Explaining High Health Care Spending in the United States: An International Comparison of Supply, Utilization, Prices, and Quality, Commonwealth Fund pub. 1595 Vol. 10, May 2012.
The US government says neither the uninsured nor the elderly have a negative impact on healthcare costs. The Commonwealth Fund says the same thing. Both the Liberal Commonwealth Fund and the US government GAO identify Technology as the primary culprit.
The Liberal Commonwealth Fund actually takes a bold daring step the US government GAO did not take, and names Moral Hazard (obesity) as another cause.
The other main criticism from ACA opponents, is that the ACA does nothing to attack the root cause of the problem regarding healthcare costs: the ridiculous prices set by monopolistic hospital cartels.
Basically, you have a monopoly that illegally engages in price-fixing and charges outrages fees for healthcare services, and the solution proffered by the ACA supporters is to attack anyone and anything except the monopolists.
A great analogy would be a monopoly on auto-collision repair....the monopolists charge outrageous prices, refuse to give you an estimate or tell you the cost in advance, refuse to publish a price list, charge people of varying socio-economic backgrounds different rates for services, charge people with varying insurance companies different rates services.......but ACA supporters don't care about that....instead they scream at the auto insurance companies, who are not the cause of the problem.
The other part of the disconnect centers on True Cost. The former German Health Minister explains that really well...
"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)
Virtual budgets are also set up at the regional levels; these ensure that all participants in the system—including the health insurance funds and providers— know from the beginning of the year onward how much money can be spent.-- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
Source: How Germany is reining in health care costs An interview with Franz Knieps
The true cost of you rent or mortgage is whatever it is, let's say $1,250/month.
You can choose to spend less, but by spending less, you did not alter reality, since your mortgage is still $1,250/month. Worse than that, because you chose to spend less than the true cost, you will suffer, in this case through foreclosure.
What is the true cost of healthcare in Britain?
Well, it doesn't really matter what the true cost is.
What matters is that Britain chose to spend less than what healthcare truly costs, and the result is a death rate that is 45% higher.That's what happens when you violate the Laws of Economics.
Watch what happens (in America)...
Mircea
Ok... you compared death rates at hospitals from one system of healthcare? Why not do it for all socialized healthcare........
Why did you single out Britain? Convenience?
Why is their life expectancy and infant mortality higher with such dire stats....?
.....with less money spent per capita? But whatever.
It's okay, I'm sure you got plenty of time to copy and paste this information.......
It's Medicare not Medicaid and as soon as you reach 65 you'll be in the government health care program you rail so much against, there's no doubt in my mind or anyone else on this board. When you are rich as hell you'll still be on Medicare so don't give any phony reassurances you won't. But in all seriousness I do hope you make it to 65 and well beyond because with ACA you'll get the healthcare you need whether you despise ACA or not.
No, despite what you libbies want, I do not have to sign up for a thing. I will not be using Medicaire, Medicaid, (I know, it was a typo, I'm poking fun at that here), or even Social Security because a) I do not have to and b) by the time I reach that age, they won't be around, they'll be dead in the water. There's not enough money to fund them. If I do make it to 65, I'll be impressed. I was amazed I made it to 30.
No, despite what you libbies want, I do not have to sign up for a thing. I will not be using Medicaire, Medicaid or even Social Security because a) I do not have to and b) by the time I reach that age, they won't be around, they'll be dead in the water. There's not enough money to fund them. If I do make it to 65, I'll be impressed. I was amazed I made it to 30.
....so you'll just pay into and hope it you'll never use it because it will be insolvent. Sounds like a very well planned notion.....
And have you ever considered "conversies" want the same? Or maybe you just have to generalize the world in order for your mind to understand it.....
People who die in hospital in the UK are older than people who die in the US, because people live longer in the UK.
People spend more years out of that lifespan in good health in the UK. This is a measurement called HLY.
People lose fewer years to ill health in the UK. This is a measurement called DALYs.
Fewer people die as a result of inappropriate, late or complete lack of healthcare in the UK. This is a measurement called Amendable Mortality.
When the efficiency of healthcare systems are compared in Public Health, large, over-arching measures are used. Measures that involve as many factors as possible. This is to even out the confounding factors introduced by some countries having particular competencies or challenges. More people die from malaria in Nigeria than in Iceland, but that says nothing about how their healthcare systems perform. Cuba is pretty good on preventive medicine, Norway on resucitating people whos been under ice, America does well on many cancers. And systems have their areas where they do badly as well.
But the measurements above are highly appropriate for measuring the performance of a healthcare system across all levels of a population.
Additionally, the UK have a lower rate of infant mortality. More children born there survive birth. A lower rate of maternal mortality, more mothers survive giving birth. And a lower rate of under-5 mortality.
This is worth keeping in mind when remembering that for every dollar spent on healthcare in the US, the UK spends 40 cents. Per person. And gives healthcare to all.
BUT....BUT....BUT.... American exceptionalism.... socialism..... Lenin...... healthcare.
I think it's hard far people to come to the conclusion there are PROs and CONs to everything. Not all socialized healthcare is equal and all socialized healthcare has its pitfalls.
When you look at how much this country spends on security (military, homeland security, law enforcement, penal system, etc.) it's laughable we are balking at the cost of healthcare. We certainly need to shift our priorities.
Oh and can I get a money back guarantee on your claim? Or you just spewing rhetoric?
If it comes out of my annual earnings, then yes, I have no choice. How do I have the choice NOT to pay for it? Please tell me because if there is a way, I'd like to stop it right now.
As for rhetoric...believe what you want. It doesn't matter what anyone shows you, you won't believe the reality anyway.
If it comes out of my annual earnings, then yes, I have no choice. How do I have the choice NOT to pay for it? Please tell me because if there is a way, I'd like to stop it right now.
Move out of the country to a country where they don't have what you dislike.......
....it's pretty simple.
Quote:
As for rhetoric...believe what you want. It doesn't matter what anyone shows you, you won't believe the reality anyway.
Move out of the country to a country where they don't have what you dislike.......
....it's pretty simple.
Hilarious. So because I don't want to live in a socialized country, I have to leave the USA? How about all the socialists who want a bunch of hand outs leave this country, instead? Hey! If you think the UK has a better health care plan, why don't you move there instead of trying to foist some junk reform, like this ACA garbage, on us? There's a plan!
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.
