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.
I left Hungary in 1972 and don't know much about their quality of health care.
However:
The point of my post was that by paying the providers a fixed salary, they reduced the cost of administration, eliminated the cost of using insurance companies, marketing, and most of the fraud.
The only way to create a single payer health system is increasing the sales tax substantially.
We are retired and pay $ 570 a month for two. This includes Medicare premiums (deducted from our social security benefits) and the United Healthcare supplemental insurance. I'm not complaining, it's worth every penny.
But:
With $ 570 a month saved we could easily afford paying 20-25 % sales tax on anything but on that 65-foot sailboat (keep dreaming mgforshort and don't forget your medications either......)
The only reason you are only paying $570/month is because premiums for Medicare only make up about 15% of the total cost of the program, the other 85% is funded through taxes. If everyone when to Medicare or a single payer system or universal care, EVERYONE would see HUGE hikes in their taxes because 85% of the population has employer sponsored health insurance. That would go away and your taxes would skyrocket to cover the costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001
You keep coming up with this stuff and it is absolute nonsense.
"In 2013–2014, there were 60,136 knee replacements performed in Canada, representing a 5-year increase of 22.9% from 48,946 in 2009–2010 and a 1-year increase of 3.6%."
When adjusted for the size of population, the difference in the incidence of knee replacements as a proportion of population is relatively small. The USA does more but nothing like in the proportion you imply in your post.
The only difference is that Americans pay a lot more for it than do Canadians and the reason for that is nothing to do with access to care.
Edit: here is another statistic. Knee replacement in the USA actually lags behind those of a number of other OECD countries:
We are paying a lot more money than these countries for our health care but not getting the outcomes we deserve.
It was a simple math problem to illustrate simple math. The number performed is irrelevant, the way people are allowed to receive them is what is important and they LIMIT ACCESS TO CARE TO SAVE COSTS. It doesn't matte if fewer people in the US got them, maybe they didn't NEED THEM. The point is, of those 60,000 in Canada, how many MORE NEED THEM AND DIDN"T GET THEM????????? It has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH ACCESS TO CARE!!!!
The only reason you are only paying $570/month is because premiums for Medicare only make up about 15% of the total cost of the program, the other 85% is funded through taxes. If everyone when to Medicare or a single payer system or universal care, EVERYONE would see HUGE hikes in their taxes because 85% of the population has employer sponsored health insurance. That would go away and your taxes would skyrocket to cover the costs.
It was a simple math problem to illustrate simple math. The number performed is irrelevant, the way people are allowed to receive them is what is important and they LIMIT ACCESS TO CARE TO SAVE COSTS. It doesn't matte if fewer people in the US got them, maybe they didn't NEED THEM. The point is, of those 60,000 in Canada, how many MORE NEED THEM AND DIDN"T GET THEM????????? It has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH ACCESS TO CARE!!!!
You are making the claim, then prove your point.
Your 'maths' (arithmetic actually) doesn't prove anything. You have not provided any sourced data on the number of knee replacements in Canada compared to the number of people requiring them. Neither have you provided similar data for the USA to prove your point about access to care.
I have provided sourced data that, in the area of knee replacements (your choice of example), the USA is fairly average in the number performed. That does not suggest a lack of access to care in that area in those other health care systems.
And shouting (use of capitalization) does not make your point any more valid.
You are also incorrect on the number of people covered by employer sponsored health insurance. The correct number is not 85% but 49%. That error necessarily invalidates your unsupported claim that taxes would skyrocket. Clearly, the cost of moving to UHC would be the delta between the amount of health care costs currently paid and the amount of tax currently paid. For many people that might involve a reduction in overall cost.
"In 2013–2014, there were 60,136 knee replacements performed in Canada, representing a 5-year increase of 22.9% from 48,946 in 2009–2010 and a 1-year increase of 3.6%."
When adjusted for the size of population, the difference in the incidence of knee replacements as a proportion of population is relatively small. The USA does more but nothing like in the proportion you imply in your post.
Edit: here is another statistic. Knee replacement in the USA actually lags behind those of a number of other OECD countries:
I have provided sourced data that, in the area of knee replacements (your choice of example), the USA is fairly average in the number performed. That does not suggest a lack of access to care in that area in those other health care systems.
Borne out by this:
Canadian knee replacement is 22% below that of US.
318,900,000 - US Population per Census Bureau - 2014
...... 700,000 - Knee Replacements
.2195% of population
35,160,000 - Canadian Population - 2013
.......60,136 - Knee replacements
.1710% of population
.2195/.1710 = 78%
So, Canadian knee replacements are 78% of the US - or, if one is in the glass half-full mode, 22% below that of the US.
Is that 22% significant? Depends on the variables.
Using age - Canada has slightly more people over 65 than US:
Using obesity - Canadian obesity is 70% that of the US, or 30% lower:
Quote:
According to obesity data from 2007 to 2009, an estimated 34 percent of Americans are obese compared to 24 percent of Canadians — a 10 percent difference that further exposes the severity of America’s struggle with obesity.
So, age differences aren't significant, but obesity is. I've known obese women in their early 50's getting hip and knee replacements. One of them died at age 60.
It would appear the 22% fewer knee replacements may - repeat may - have some correlation to the 30% lower obesity in Canada.
If that is true, then it would seem Canadian knee replacement needs are more than being met.
We pay more because we have more access to care!!!!!!! In Canada they only do say 100 knee replacements each year, but 358 people need one, those other 258 have to WAIT until it's their turn, thus controlling costs...it's pretty simple math but people don't look at the methodology.
$11.02 doesn't even cover the supplies to do a CBC, let alone the costs to pay the people to draw the blood, run the tests, clean the floors, pay the light bills to keep the clinic or hospital operational. WHY is that so hard to understand!! Do you REALLY want to go to a doctor that is paid $50,000/year who got into medical school because no one else wanted to go???
So your issue is that hospitals have lobbyists huh?
You refuse to provide any support for your claims, so why bother responding to you? We pay twice as much as other western nations on healthcare and have LESS access to healthcare and WORSE outcomes Here is real data, not made up stuff, please look at it, and after you do so- if you want we can discuss it: U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective - The Commonwealth Fund
I think raising the sales tax to 25-30 % to pay for universal healthcare would present a tremendous shock to the US economy in the first 2 years.
Then as people slowly understand that the money taken out of their left pockets somehow returns to the right with the savings in health care /health insurance the country would settle down where we have been before the huge tax increase.
The biggest losers would be the insurance companies and their agents, not to forget the CEO with the 2 million dollar paycheck.
The best way to start, I think, is to pick a small state like Vermont or Utah, implement it, and put whatever happens under a microscope.
As mistakes and horror stories show up, we'll step back and start making changes like the fine tuning of a race car.
If it is a complete failure we can return to the current system of survival of the fittest ( the richest).
But whatever we do healthcare should never become entirely free because we don't appreciate the things we don't have to work or pay for.
By this I mean that a small amount of co payments should be required for every doctor or hospital visit. Otherwise our doctor's waiting rooms would become a new camping site for the homeless trying to get away from the cold.
But whatever we do healthcare should never become entirely free because we don't appreciate the things we don't have to work or pay for.
By this I mean that a small amount of co payments should be required for every doctor or hospital visit. Otherwise our doctor's waiting rooms would become a new camping site for the homeless trying to get away from the cold.
I think that raises an additional point about health outcomes and access to care.
US spends significantly less on other social programs that have a relationship to health.
Quote:
One potential consequence of high health spending is that it may crowd out other forms of social spending that support health.
In the U.S., health care spending substantially outweighs spending on social services. This imbalance may contribute to the country’s poor health outcomes. A growing body of evidence suggests that social services play an important role in shaping health trajectories and mitigating health disparities.
You keep coming up with this stuff and it is absolute nonsense.
"In 2013–2014, there were 60,136 knee replacements performed in Canada, representing a 5-year increase of 22.9% from 48,946 in 2009–2010 and a 1-year increase of 3.6%."
When adjusted for the size of population, the difference in the incidence of knee replacements as a proportion of population is relatively small. The USA does more but nothing like in the proportion you imply in your post.
The only difference is that Americans pay a lot more for it than do Canadians and the reason for that is nothing to do with access to care.
Edit: here is another statistic. Knee replacement in the USA actually lags behind those of a number of other OECD countries:
You refuse to provide any support for your claims, so why bother responding to you? We pay twice as much as other western nations on healthcare and have LESS access to healthcare and WORSE outcomes Here is real data, not made up stuff, please look at it, and after you do so- if you want we can discuss it: U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective - The Commonwealth Fund
Keep in mind, these wait times, as noted, are only from the time the orthopedic surgeon agrees to do your surgery, NOT ANY of the time leading up to getting that appointment. The fact that they have to track this data should tell you something too. Their benchmark is within 6 MONTHS and 1/2 to 3/4's of the time they actually meet that time, again that is 6 months after they approve your surgery. That's a long time to sit around in pain. A friend just had a hip done, this week, met with his MD last week, scheduled for a week later...not going to happen with Universal Health Care ever.
And, just an FYI, the first line on your link about why our costs are so much states that we use more advanced technology vs other countries--another example of how they LIMIT ACCESS in other countries to save costs.
http://boneandjointcanada.com/wp-con...Toolkit_V3.pdf
Keep in mind, these wait times, as noted, are only from the time the orthopedic surgeon agrees to do your surgery, NOT ANY of the time leading up to getting that appointment. The fact that they have to track this data should tell you something too. Their benchmark is within 6 MONTHS and 1/2 to 3/4's of the time they actually meet that time, again that is 6 months after they approve your surgery. That's a long time to sit around in pain. A friend just had a hip done, this week, met with his MD last week, scheduled for a week later...not going to happen with Universal Health Care ever. https://www.cihi.ca/en/joint-replacements
t even is a focus area because they acknowledge that this is a huge issues...wait times/limited access to care
Oh look, they have a registry to track availability https://www.cihi.ca/en/canadian-join...istry-metadata https://www.cihi.ca/en/canadian-join...censed-vendors they limit who can supply the equipment too...too bad if that doesn't work for your anatomy, tough luck to you I guess
And, just an FYI, the first line on your link about why our costs are so much states that we use more advanced technology vs other countries--another example of how they LIMIT ACCESS in other countries to save costs.
There are waitlists in the US too, particularly for medicaid patients to even get in to see an orthopedic doc. I have no problem with some fat 70 year old waiting 6 months for a joint replacement because unless they lose weight the new joint will probably fail anyway.
And answer me this...how many people in Canada are denied joint replacement surgery because they can't afford it...I'll be here anxiously awaiting your response to that.
But when it comes to waiting, is the USA much better?
"In 2013, the healthcare foundation The Commonwealth Fund examined waiting times across 11 countries, including the US. It reported that in the US a quarter of adults surveyed (26%) said they waited six or more days for primary care appointments “when sick or needing care”. The figure for the UK was just 16%."
Of course, it is generally better to have to wait than to get no treatment at all:
"Given that an estimated 45,000 Americans are estimated to die every year due to lack of access to health care services, rationing in America is particularly troublesome, and oddly overlooked."
And there are those who wait and other problems too ....
"There is actual data ....... showing that "U.S. patients reported relatively longer waiting times for doctor appointments when they were sick, but relatively shorter waiting times to be seen at the ER, see a specialist, and have elective surgery.”
"Additionally, Americans are less likely to have a regular doctor, less likely to get prescriptions filled, less likely to get follow-up care, less likely to keep a doctor long-term, and have a harder time getting taken care of nights and weekends."
And here is the kicker ........
"OECD data shows that waiting times are a problem in some countries, but only about half of those in the OECD. The others are like the United States in lack of significant waiting times, but unlike us they manage to do this with their entire population covered, and at significantly lower costs."
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.
