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 problem with introducing a private for-profit system is that there are whole classes of people who would be excluded from health care because they either cannot afford to pay for treatment...
And why does treatment cost so much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001
That is why the USA has a mixed for-profit and government system. The government covers those people that for-profit medicine cannot make money from …. mainly the elderly and the poor.
No, that is not why. Show us the sources to prove your claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001
The objective is to denigrate other health systems - and especially the British and Canadian ones - as if, somehow, this proves that the US system is superior to all the others. And the pattern is always the same. Seize upon an article or a statistic about one specific incident or area and pretend that this is typical of the entire system.
You keep claiming other States spend less, but you fail to understand that spending less does not equal costing less.....and the result of spending less than what something truly costs results in people dying.
Explain why these Canadians and Brits.....who according to you have access to healthcare, yet don't really have access to health care...
Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer
IEA Health and Welfare Unit (London)
12% of kidney specialists in the UK said they had refused to treat patients due to limited resources (same source).
One study showed that patients accepted for dialysis stacked up this way.....
65 patients per million population UK
98 patients per million population in Canada
212 patients per million population in the US
Why is it so hard for you to understand?
Thanks for proving my point.....you really are disconnected from the realities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001
Time to focus on our problems rather than those of other people.
How can you possibly focus on problems, when you can't identify the problems, and refuse to learn how your problems came to be problems?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001
... which is not really getting us better outcomes than the Brits get for a lot less money.
According to the US Center for Disease Control, the British NHS and JAMA, your outcomes are far better than the British...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001
The real issue is that we are paying far too much for healthcare....
Why?
And clarify....when you say "paying too much for healthcare," do you mean the actual cost of healthcare or the cost of obtaining health plan coverage?
Those issues are not related and prove my point.....
That is my main problem with ACA. When you allow the government to run your healthcare, you open the door to them telling you what you can and cannot eat or drink, how many hours you must sleep, how many miles you must run...it would be like having an overbearing parent all up in your business. That is not something I am willing to accept. And if they decide how much they are going to spend each year, at the beginning of the year, will they decide who is, and who is not, worth treatment when they are getting low on money? I'm not willing to accept that, either.
My husband's employer ( not government) operates a voluntary wellness program. Those employees who choose to participate and achieve goals receive a substantial discount on their share of the cost of healthcare insurance. As a result of my husband's choice to participate, we did not pay a dime of the cost of insurance.
He lost 20 pounds, had a colonoscopy and walks at least 10,000 steps a day.
His choice and behavior changes substantially reduced his health risks saved us almost $5K, this year, a win-win, if there ever was one.
Those employees who choose not to participate and/or reduce their healthcare risks paid more for healthcare insurance. The more employees who choose to participate and reduce their healthcare risks, the lower the sponsoring company's cost for group healthcare, another win-win.
You failed, yet you call me the failure. Interesting.
You couldn't address the issues presented....that's a fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Root cause of what? Root cause of British NHS issues?
Why does healthcare in the US cost so much?
Referring to the OP....why I say "healthcare" I'm talking about the prices and fees charged for services, not the cost of obtaining a health plan, which you continue to erroneously call insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
You flip flop between NHS and ACA as if they were the same thing, but you don't realize one had nothing to do with the other. That is the root cause for your confusion. NHS is a government owned and operated system, and ACA is private. You are basically arguing that the fact that someone died in a British hospital should be an indicator of how ACA will work. We can't discuss the root cause until you understand the basics.
They are the same thing in terms of Economics.
Need help?
Yes, you do, so let's see what the Medicare Trustees have said....
2012 Medicare Trustees Report Page 2
The Trustees believe that this outcome, while plausible, will depend on the achievement of unprecedented improvements in health care provider productivity. If the health sector could not transition to more efficient models of care delivery and achieve productivity increases commensurate with economy-wide productivity, and if the provider reimbursement rates paid by commercial insurers continued to follow the same negotiated process used to date, then the availability and quality of health care received by Medicare beneficiaries relative to that received by those with private health insurance would fall over time, generating pressure to modify Medicare’s payment rates.
[underline and bold emphasis mine]
The ACA will cause rationing of healthcare for those on Medicare.
The ACA will also cause rationing of healthcare for those not on Medicare, because the ACA does nothing to address the cost of healthcare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Yes, it can be financed through private insurance. The question is whether or not the people would be willing to pay out $15 000 per year (after tax dollars) to make it possible, or if they prefer to pay the tax and not think about it.
Thanks proving my point......you just highlighted the major disconnect, which is that ACA supporters are focused on what it costs them personally, not what it costs America...
....which is incredibly selfish, but then many have pointed out that the whole issue has always been the Penis Envy and Butt/Breast Implant Envy that Liberals harbor.
Why don't you try to fix the root causes --- those things which cause your healthcare to cost more --- before making people pay for it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
I know vast majority of Europeans prefer the systems they have now, which is why their systems work.
Which guitar do you prefer: Martin, Taylor or Seagull?
I can answer the question, since I've owned and used all three.
How bigoted is it to claim you prefer one thing over another, when you've had no experience with the other?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Anything with massive public support will work.
Oh, yes, holding hands and singing Kumbaya will allow you to become Masters of the Universe and control the Laws of Economics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Or we could ask how big of an tax increase would US people pay for exchange of national insurance? 5%? 7.5%?
Why don't you try fixing the systemic problems in your healthcare system, before levying a tax on everyone?
Some people have no common sense...
I've found the ignore feature to be very useful here at CD, and the OP would be evidence of that.
Well, people who can't form a cogent response generally run for the Ignore button.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan
Again it all boils down to: How many British would exchange their system for our previous "for profit" system? The answer is: Not very many at all.
Again, how bigoted it is it to prefer one thing over another, when you've had no experience with the other?
Thanks again for proving the disconnect and also how bigoted you really are.
As bold as it might be, I could set up an healthcare system in Britain or the US or anywhere else, and it would be 100% private and affordable covering everyone.
No, that is not why. Show us the sources to prove your claim.
You keep claiming other States spend less, but you fail to understand that spending less does not equal costing less.....and the result of spending less than what something truly costs results in people dying.
Explain why these Canadians and Brits.....who according to you have access to healthcare, yet don't really have access to health care...
Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer
IEA Health and Welfare Unit (London)
12% of kidney specialists in the UK said they had refused to treat patients due to limited resources (same source).
One study showed that patients accepted for dialysis stacked up this way.....
65 patients per million population UK
98 patients per million population in Canada
212 patients per million population in the US
Why is it so hard for you to understand?
Thanks for proving my point.....you really are disconnected from the realities.
How can you possibly focus on problems, when you can't identify the problems, and refuse to learn how your problems came to be problems?
According to the US Center for Disease Control, the British NHS and JAMA, your outcomes are far better than the British...
Why?
And clarify....when you say "paying too much for healthcare," do you mean the actual cost of healthcare or the cost of obtaining health plan coverage?
Those issues are not related and prove my point.....
Mircea
A lot of your questions can't be answered because the healthcare industry in the United States is not transparent. We don't know why one hospital charged Patient X $2700 for a colonoscopy, and charged Patient Y $6000 for the exact same procedure, using the same doctors and support staff. Actually, we don't know how much the hospital charged unless patients allow the release of those charges. We know that Medicare and Medicaid set certain prices that they will pay for certain procedures. We have some information about the average costs for certain procedures. We have VERY solid figures on what those procedures cost in foreign countries.
And what we KNOW is that in the United States we pay a super-premium price. And we KNOW that the healthcare sector of the economy is consuming our resources at an ever-growing rate, and that as it consumes those resources, the other sectors of the economy no longer have those resources available to them. That's one of the reasons for offshoring so many American jobs. If those other sectors are to survive, they've got to have resources, and if the resources aren't available in the United States, they are available elsewhere. We also KNOW that we have a demographic problem. An entire generation is poised to start consuming healthcare at unprecedented rates, which can be expected to drive healthcare to consume an even larger portion of our economy. Which is an economic crisis.
In other industries we can estimate the real cost of a product. Because the costs are transparent. The healthcare industry doesn't want us to know the real costs of healthcare, so they hide behind privacy and contract confidentiality. As a nation, we NEED to find out the real costs, and to compensate care providers appropriately. As a nation, we cannot afford to absorb the industry's losses globally. We cannot afford to be the sole underwriters of research and development. We cannot afford exorbitant profits being collected by the healthcare industry.
What is it about the concept of ALL sharing a proportionate cost to guarantee ALL the basics of effective healthcare is beyond your intellectual grasp?
And what is the cost? Like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target.
And when you speak of costs, are you referring to the actual cost of healthcare services, or are you referring to the costs of health plan coverage?
That would be the disconnect I mentioned in the OP, which you still have failed or refused to address.
For ever so long, spanning decades during which both parties controlled the White House, and houses of Congress, the issue of runaway healthcare costs has remained unaddressed/unresolved.
That would be factually incorrect.
Healthcare is intra-State Commerce. I knew that, the US Supreme Court knew that, and damn near everyone on Earth knew that, except you and Obama-the-former-editor-of-the-Harvard-Law-Review-with a Juris Doctorate and Democrats.
The only positive thing coming from the recent Supreme Court ruling on the ACA, is that the Supreme Court affirmed that healthcare is intra-State Commerce, and therefore Congress has no power or authority...
...and that will prevent a national government take-over of healthcare for at least a decade or more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gomexico
"little Billy" is a contributing factor to higher costs when those people fail to care for their health except in cases of emergency when they show-up at a hospital Emregency Room where the cost to provide services is so high.
The term “emergency medical condition” means— (A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in— (i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy, (ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or (iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or (B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions– (i) That there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or (ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.
EMTALA definition of ‘stabilized’ To provide such medical treatment of the condition as may be necessary to assure, within reasonable medical probability, that no material deterioration of the condition is likely to result from or occur during the transfer of the individual from a facility, or, with respect to an emergency medical condition described in paragraph (1)(B) [a pregnant woman who is having contractions], to deliver (including the placenta).
Why don't you point out in the law where it says everyone who walks into an ER gets treated.
BIG HINT: Read the case law.
Aside from that, you still failed to address the issue....
Mircea dismisses everyone. Don't take it personally. She posts...
I'm a he, but thanks for proving to everyone how lazy you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen
She buries her points in so much data that most people don't have time to deal with it all.
I give you the sources, and more often than not, I include the page numbers......what kind of lazy oaf is so pathetic that they cannot google for 3 seconds?
What I'm hearing is that you admit to being bigoted and refuse to take the time or the effort to learn anything, especially when it might contradict your bigoted belief system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen
It's a very effective tactic.
Posting sources that others are free to evaluate is a tactic?
Wow.....you are really afraid of free debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen
Then she uses a snide sign-off to every post, sits back and incurs a repetitive motion injury from patting herself on the back.
Again, I'm a he, and it just proves how lazy you are, and that you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen
Meanwhile, as you noticed, she did not address your points.
I'm the OP....I'm under no obligation to address points that are off-topic.
Some people would consider derailing threads with off-topic comments to be a tactic.
I wonder who's using that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen
And the other very cogent point about hospitals serving inner city immigrant populations was addressed by … a pile of data that no one wants to read. (I could see quite a few inner city hospitals in that list as I scanned it, but Mircea knows that no one really wants to wade through the entire thing.)
Do you work for the American Hospital Association?
Just wondering, since as they like to stifle competition, you like to stifle debate.
"… a pile of data that no one wants to read."
That's lame.
You're so afraid of truth and reality it's not even funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen
You'll get used to her, I promise.
Again, I'm a he...so don't act like you actually know anything......but I offer sincere apologies for not being able to dumb down the issue to a 30 second sound bite or text message that you can understand.
Thanks for proving my premise.
Momentarily amused...
I'm a he, but thanks for proving to everyone how lazy you are.
I give you the sources, and more often than not, I include the page numbers......what kind of lazy oaf is so pathetic that they cannot google for 3 seconds?
What I'm hearing is that you admit to being bigoted and refuse to take the time or the effort to learn anything, especially when it might contradict your bigoted belief system.
Posting sources that others are free to evaluate is a tactic?
Wow.....you are really afraid of free debate.
Again, I'm a he, and it just proves how lazy you are, and that you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm the OP....I'm under no obligation to address points that are off-topic.
Some people would consider derailing threads with off-topic comments to be a tactic.
I wonder who's using that one.
Do you work for the American Hospital Association?
Just wondering, since as they like to stifle competition, you like to stifle debate.
"… a pile of data that no one wants to read."
That's lame.
You're so afraid of truth and reality it's not even funny.
Again, I'm a he...so don't act like you actually know anything......but I offer sincere apologies for not being able to dumb down the issue to a 30 second sound bite or text message that you can understand.
Thanks for proving my premise.
Momentarily amused...
Mircea
Careful of that repetitive motion injury …
It's funny how I assume you're female because your snide, snotty tone is so feminine. Much like mean cheerleaders in high school.
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.
