U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Would you rather pay $5000 more in private premiums than $2000 more in health care taxes?
Yes, paying more to the insurance companies ensure that I am free 27 29.67%
No, paying less into a Medicare-style system is the sensible thing to do 64 70.33%
Voters: 91. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-10-2019, 05:06 AM
 
Location: OH->FL->NJ
9,950 posts, read 8,077,811 times
Reputation: 4205

Advertisements

Until you reign in big pharma, the AMA and big hospitals, the choices are.

10K per person for Medicare but you do not lose coverage if laid off.
12K a person for private insurance.

The big difference is not losing coverage.

Given congress serves big pharma, the AMA and big hospitals, we will never get the half savings they get in for example The Netherlands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-10-2019, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Barrington
45,820 posts, read 34,041,047 times
Reputation: 15308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post



The CONCORD Study shows the US did better than Canada.

The 5-year survival rate for the 4 most common cancers:

Breast Cancer: UK 69.7% while US leads the World at 83.9% If you're a woman, you want to be in the US, not the UK.

Colorectal Men: UK 42.3% while US leads the World at 59.1%

Colorectal Women: 44.7% for the UK while US leads the World at 60.2%

Prostate: UK 51.1% while US leads the World at 91.9% If you're a man, you want to be in the US, not the UK, because your survival chances are 1.7x better than in the UK.

Canada was 2nd for breast cancer behind the US, 3rd for prostate cancer behind the US and Austria, 2nd to the US in colorectal cancer for women and 4th behind the US, France and Australia for colorectal cancer for men.

The CONCORD study was conducted by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the British National Health Service (NHS) and the British medical journal Lancet.


.
The most significant risk factor of ^ Cancers is age.

Age increases the likelihood that Medicare reimburses healthcare providers for detecting and treating ^ Cancers.

Most Cancers in the US are treated by private healthcare, regardless of who pays.

The Concord Study cited the 5 year survival rates for non- specific Cancer to be the highest in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Several countries in SE Asia have the best outcomes with gastro Cancers. Sweden and Denmark have the best outcomes with childhood leukemia.

Last edited by middle-aged mom; 06-10-2019 at 08:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 08:57 AM
 
Location: Barrington
45,820 posts, read 34,041,047 times
Reputation: 15308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
A for-profit system is for minimizing costs while offering a quality service. Competition drives both factors. A government run system focuses on minimizing effort and increasing the jobs for unaccountable government bureaucrats.
While I am not a particular advocate for Medicare for all or any Single Payer scheme, I am aware that Healthcare is mostly provided by the private sector that accepts reimbursement from Medicare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 09:03 AM
 
4,323 posts, read 881,814 times
Reputation: 2401
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post
First of all, congratulations on taking the time and trouble to cross our land coast-to-coast. It is an extraordinary place, and I am glad that you explored it. I've been coast-to-coast overland too, and I hope you enjoyed your experiences as much as I have!

As to your question, we generally wouldn't care if the US had UHC or single payer or a private insurance model--we wouldn't care, if Americans didn't keep bringing it up, and declaring their private-insurance system as superior, while simultaneously declaring any other country's system as inferior at best, and "socialist" or "communist" at worst. Maybe it's because we're right next door, and our peoples are pretty similar culturally, but we Canadians are constantly told, by Americans on this very forum and others, that our healthcare system is "socialist" (wrong), that we have "death panels" (wrong), and that we are taxed out the wazoo in order to pay for it (wrong). Ironically, the Americans who post such garbage refuse to believe the Canadians who live daily with the Canadian truth.

If Americans don't want us Canadians to speak about American healthcare, then those Americans ought to keep to American healthcare, and stop dragging Canadian healthcare into the debate. If Americans want to debate American provision of healthcare among themselves, fine. But don't drag Canadian healthcare into the debate--if you do, then you will find Canadians participating. And once again, we will be fighting the poster who knows a guy, who knows another guy, whose mother's cousin's brother knows a guy, who knows another guy, who spent a weekend in Canada, and who talked to a guy at the bar who had an ingrown toenail, and had to wait six hours to have it seen to. Six whole hours, a story which is based on nothing but hearsay. And like the game of "Broken Telephone," only gets more weird as it progresses. Can you see what we put up with?

Our system isn't better, and I'm the first to say that. But when it comes to the US system, our system is different. It certainly is not socialist, contrary to what many Americans think--how can it be socialist when physicians are self-employed, and hospitals are private, non-profit corporations?.

If our system is better, it is better because we do not allow denial of claims. The physician submits a claim to the single-payer government insurer, and the government pays it, no questions asked. No claims adjusters nor any denial, under any circumstances.
Nailed it, except for the part that hospitals are private... they are not, with a few exceptions (Cambie center in B.C.).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 09:05 AM
 
29,435 posts, read 15,437,324 times
Reputation: 19996
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
Simple question, is it better to pay more in private health care premiums, deductibles and co-pays than paying less than that in taxes?
Lol. You're not familiar with taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Midwest
31,375 posts, read 19,621,110 times
Reputation: 7869
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Lol. You're not familiar with taxes.
We are taxed to pay for the healthcare needs of the most expensive population of our country (Medicare) then we are taxed to pay for the increasing number of those who cannot afford health insurance (Medicaid). Then..we pay high premiums on top of that for our own healthcare. We may as well pay a bit more in taxes and a lot less in insurance premiums!

National Inpatient Hospital Costs: The Most Expensive Conditions by Payer, 2013

Would you rather pay 00 more in private premiums than 00 more in health care taxes?-6-10-19.jpg


Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Center for Delivery, Organization, and Markets, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), National Inpatient Sample (NIS), 2013
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Barrington
45,820 posts, read 34,041,047 times
Reputation: 15308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
Membership in private HMO/PPO "big insurance" made large gains in the 1980's and soon took over the healthcare industry.

In 1980, national healthcare expenditures was $1,100 per capita. In 2012 it had exploded to $8,925 per capita
(source: https://www.kff.org/health-costs/sli...es-per-capita/)

Big private insurance has failed miserably at controlling healthcare costs.

Let's face the facts here: The big private insurance model is broken, it's not sustainable and they have been failing at cost control for decades. Then, to add insult to injury, they have the nerve to make profits on their failures.

Big Insurance should be fired. They had their chance to succeed and they didn't. It's time to implement universal healthcare, it'll be cheaper and is non-profit. We can't afford Big Insurance any longer.
All else being equal,$1100 in 1980 = $3065 in 2012 due to the 179% rate of inflation.

The obesity rate has doubled since 1980. 75% of us are overweight/ obese and more vulnerable to Diabetes, Heart Disease, Stroke, some Cancers and joint deterioration. If a magic want could right size the population, it would be healthier and medical expenditures would substantially decline.

Diabetes 2 is an epidemic.

The population is aging.

Medicine has substantially evolved over the past 39 years. Many diagnosed as fatal are increasingly treatable and sometimes curable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 09:18 AM
 
29,435 posts, read 15,437,324 times
Reputation: 19996
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
We are taxed to pay for the healthcare needs of the most expensive population of our country (Medicare) then we are taxed to pay for the increasing number of those who cannot afford health insurance (Medicaid). Then..we pay high premiums on top of that for our own healthcare. We may as well pay a bit more in taxes and a lot less in insurance premiums!

National Inpatient Hospital Costs: The Most Expensive Conditions by Payer, 2013

Attachment 211763


Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Center for Delivery, Organization, and Markets, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), National Inpatient Sample (NIS), 2013
Which is why we should be changing it and removing that tax monkey from the tax payer's back.

I'm for reducing such taxes while you apparently want to increase them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Barrington
45,820 posts, read 34,041,047 times
Reputation: 15308
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
Our for-profit system is the most privatized system in the world and by far the most expensive. "minimizing costs" in a for-profit insurance system doesnt work. The health care industry seek to get every penny from ordinary Americans when they get sick. And "consumers" (desperate sick people") are not rational and informed people in this market. They cant be. The people with all the power in the market are also allowed to price gouge sick people who are in a desperate situation. Of course costs will skyrocket to line the pockets of the medical industrial complex. Wall Street who runs our health care system will always find ways to rip sick people off. And as long as we allow that to happen, the American people will suffer with the most dysfunctional and expensive system in the world.
Most hospitals in the US are not for profit. This status does not preclude profit. Rather those profits cannot be used to declare a dividend for shareholders. Profits may be used to expand, modernize, acquire other hospitals and medical practices , teach and provide unreimbursed services.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 09:26 AM
 
12,843 posts, read 4,645,233 times
Reputation: 5213
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
All else being equal,$1100 in 1980 = $3065 in 2012 due to the 179% rate of inflation.

The obesity rate has doubled since 1980. 75% of us are overweight/ obese and more vulnerable to Diabetes, Heart Disease, Stroke, some Cancers and joint deterioration. If a magic want could right size the population, it would be healthier and medical expenditures would substantially decline.

Diabetes 2 is an epidemic.

The population is aging.

Medicine has substantially evolved over the past 39 years. Many diagnosed as fatal are increasingly treatable and sometimes curable.
Obese people die much earlier so the cost for old age care (which is extremely expensive) is much less. Its a myth that the reason health care is so expensive is because of the obese. Its a distraction because vested interests want to preserve the status quo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top