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.
A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%
I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare" comparable to England or Canada .
Moreover, it was Sen. Harry Reid who said, "Elderly Americans must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age."
SHIP HIM OFF TO CANADA OR ENGLAND !
He is "elderly" himself but be sure to remember his health insurance is different from yours as Congress has their own high-end coverage! He will never have to learn to accept "inconveniences"!!!
The statistics are skewed. Diagnosing cancer can be done by a doctor that accepts government as well as private insurances so that stat is here nor there.
More often than not, Type II Diabetes is a major illness of seniors who have Medicare as their primary insurance.
Most poor seniors have Medicare or Medicaid or Medicare Advance (which is subsidized by the government) as their primary insurance and have access to health care. Very
few have private insurance as their primary insurance
carrier.
Most seniors that get "hip replacements" have Medicare
as their primary insurance.
The use of MRI's has actually been over abused, simply for profit. It is not the only, but the most expensive tool, used as an accurate diagnostic test for diagnosis.
Senator Reid was born in 1939. I'm sure he has Medicare
Part A. If he doesn't have Medicare Part B - it's simply
because he can afford - not to.
Actually, I want Medicare for everyone Your stats prove it. I already pay Medicare tax - up it a little more, and I won't even come close to the premium I have to pay as a self employed individual with half the coverage you mentioned in your stats - not to mention the outrageous deductibles I have to pay.
^^As a matter of fact, if you are eligible for Medicare (65+ and paid into Social Security) you must accept Medicare as your primary insurance, rich or poor. Since many of the diseases for which Investor's Daily (yeah, I agree, a great source of info about health care, not) posted stats are diseases of the elderly, they prove nothing except that perhaps Medicare is a better form of "nationalized health care" than the NHS in the UK or the Canadian system. Would it be that we could all get Medicare, despite its flaws.
Just need to point out a couple of obvious things:
These cherry-picked stats are about treatment of disease and completely ignore prevention of disease. How about posting stats about our cancer and diabetes rates per capita? You get really good at treating something when you have to treat it a lot.
As far as the number of MRI machines, that's just a dumb thing to "brag" about when so many people can't afford to get an MRI. These are revenue generators, which is why we have a lot of them. How about posting stats about how many people truly have access to MRI's and can afford to get one?
How about posting stats about how many people can afford to go to a doctor, much less a specialist? Yes, the waits may be longer in those systems, but that's because everyone is covered and can go to the doctor. Here, only those privileged enough to have great insurance can afford to go to a specialist.
^^As a matter of fact, if you are eligible for Medicare (65+ and paid into Social Security) you must accept Medicare as your primary insurance, rich or poor. Since many of the diseases for which Investor's Daily (yeah, I agree, a great source of info about health care, not) posted stats are diseases of the elderly, they prove nothing except that perhaps Medicare is a better form of "nationalized health care" than the NHS in the UK or the Canadian system. Would it be that we could all get Medicare, despite its flaws.
Its mandatory for Medicare Part A (hospital). If you choose not to take Medicare Part B (physician) because you are still employed, I think you pay a % penalty for every year after 65 that you have opted out - when you opt back in when you become unemployed.
The majority of one's medical costs occur at the end of
their life, unless you have a hereditary illness, etc. and
they usually end up on Medicaid or Medicare anyways, because they can not sustain the cost of care.
That's why you can't really compare cost analysis from
private insurance and medicare - it's like comparing apples to dried prunes One just needs a spritz of water to freshen it up, the other A LOT of water to plump it up
I really think Medicare could work for everyone Keep the
doctors - get rid of the insurance companies. Our health
should not be a for profit business anyways
We really do not need the insurance companies’ huge executive compensation or outrageous profit added to the cost of providing health care to our people. That just drives the cost to unsustainable levels and lets the parasites get even richer of our money. Better to spend the money paying doctors and nurses than private sector bean counters.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
....................
I really think Medicare could work for everyone Keep the
doctors - get rid of the insurance companies. Our health
should not be a for profit business anyways
What you are really stating is: eliminate the private sector and turn it over to the government. And that physicians, nurses and others working in the medical field do not deserve to reap the rewards of their education and of their hard work. In otherwords, they should not profit from their labor.
The way to keep the medical industry from profiting from YOU is to stay healthy. Why don't YOU do that instead of imposing Socialism on everyone else?
What you are really stating is: eliminate the private sector and turn it over to the government. And that physicians, nurses and others working in the medical field do not deserve to reap the rewards of their education and of their hard work. In otherwords, they should not profit from their labor.
The way to keep the medical industry from profiting from YOU is to stay healthy. Why don't YOU do that instead of imposing Socialism on everyone else?
Just out of interest, have you ever lived in another country and experienced their health system first hand?
As someone once said, there are lies, damned lies and statistics
After all, there is also a WHO statistic that shows the UK with higher average life expectancy than the US and at less than half the per-capita cost of health.
Of course, here in the US, we have already partial UHC due to Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc. etc. all paid for by taxpayers who also have to pay for their own health insurance. So people like me get to pay for health care twice. Once for me and once for the others.
We also have a hopelessly inefficient system of paying for health. Ever had a procedure? How many different invoices did you get from the various practitioners and how many statements from the insurance company? What does that all cost? In the UK you get none (as in zero).
And our health care bills also have to provide a nice little profit for the insurance companies on top of the doctors and nurses that actually do the work.
My mother is still in the UK. 84 years old and she gets outstanding care on the NHS. If she needs a drug, she gets a prescription, goes to the pharmacy and gets it for free. My wife's parents, also around 80, are here in the US. They get pretty good care too (thank you taxpayers). Except, they cannot afford the drugs they are prescribed and have to break the law and get them from Canada.
Imagine that, you have to break the law just to get the treatment the doctor has prescribed. Seems pretty dumb to me.
No, your 84 yr. old mother does not get her prescription for "free". They have been paid for by someone else via taxes. There aint no such thing as a free lunch. Some of us in the USA prefer to keep the individual liberties we left England to practice more than 200 yrs. ago. The escape from an overbearing and overtaxing government was one of those reasons. Read the Declaration of Independence and you'll see the grievances of the colonists then against King George back then are not so different than those of Conservatives against a Progessive led US federal government now.
I propose paying the Doctors, Nurses, Technicians and Therapists what they are now earning. I think the administrators and pencil pushers can be replaced with clerks and computers. This would properly reward the people for their training and knowledge while getting rid of the administratium clogging up the delivery of medical care to everybody.
I realize my proposal will not be welcome by the posers working on their Medical Business Administration degrees.
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.
Your stats prove it. I already pay Medicare tax - up it a little more, and I won't even come close to the premium I have to pay as a self employed individual with half the coverage you mentioned in your stats - not to mention the outrageous deductibles I have to pay.
Keep the
