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.
Let's not! Please, let's not. Why do we want what Europe and Canada have? They all come here when they need serious care.
Surely you don't seriously believe that.
85 000 people come to the US for treatment every year. The estimates on the number leaving the US for treatment runs from a lowball one million to one and a half million at the most.
The US health care industry is not exactly competitive.
There is no healthcare crisis.. Get off the imaginary soapbox...
The US is estimated to end up spending 18% of GDP on health care in 2010. By 2025, it is projected to hit 25%.
By comparison, US military expenses are 4 % of GDP.
That is something of a crisis in itself.
Additionally, other first world countries spend an average of 9 % of GDP, covers everyone, does not burden their business sector with healthcare, do not have medical bancrupcies, and get better results. In a competitive world, America cannot sustain this situation for long.
"Since the Republican Party hates the healthcare LAW, what do they propose, letting the poor die or go bankrupt? "
Do you suppose there might be other options?
Why would you not have a problem with someone passing massive legislation without intimate knowledge of the legal intricacies?
People you have chosen to represent your interests have approved massive legislation without understanding what was contained in the gift they selected for you, for which you will have to pay dearly.
How can you defend 2,200 pp of legislation plus thousands of pages of references without knowing what is in it?
You have no idea what it is you are defending. Sanity has prevailed as 'we passed it to see what's in it' and so far the little that we know about Obamacare justifys its repeal as first order of business.
You intimate that someone 'hates' the 'law'. That premise provides no adequate details for a discussion. The two options you ask readers to choose from, ensure tails you win, heads we lose.
Obamacare is too complex to modify without doing harm as the labrynth of interconenecting laws would require years of study to intelligently make modifications. The details of this legislation should take a backseat to its repeal.
The passage of Obamacare is an unprecedented violation of constitutional law and ethics. As murders get off on technicalities for the sake of honoring the sanctity of law so should Obamacare be repealed to ensure honoring the law that forms the basis of society.
Obama stated he would not advocate the passage of Obamacare by nuclear option as such action would not allow him to govern. Why not ask him to clarify his claim?
Any legislator who approved Obamacare should stand trial for misrepresentation and theft of service.
US goverment spending on health care matches goverment spending in other countries. However, in the US, this does not result in health care for all, only for a limited number. So no, it does not work well with insurance.
LOL, the only insurance people are allowed to buy as part of government healthcare is part D. I think your theory (it is a theory since you didn't support it) proves the government is inefficient since the vast majority of government spending is on government programs and not via private insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader
The reason why it has high barriers of entry is that insurance works better the bigger the risk pool is. And that health care insurance requires a certain amount of trust from the purchaser. It is not related to state differences in regulations. If it was, the next question would be why European countries, about the size of US states, can have so many different regulations and choices, and still be so much more effective than the US ones.
However, vast amounts of bureaucracy and different regulationsares one of the reasons for the high costs in the US. It also applies to different insurance companies having different systems.
Barriers to entry are the 50 different sets of rules insurers have to navigate. I m not sure which Europe you are talking about but the European countries I know have a single single payer system. What choiceare you talking about? European health care is notoriously inefficient. It is so bad that many European countries are radically changing their programs. not to mention that their are riots in Europe due to the unsustainable nature of their social programs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader
The providers are hospitals and surgeons, not insurance companies. Providers can bill the insurance companies for far more treatments and tests than what is medically neccessary. In fact, the treat of lawsuits if they miss anything, even something higly improbable, provides incentive for them to do so.
When someone insured is admitted to a hospital, neither the consumer (patient) nor provider (hospital) bears the cost. It is shuffled off to a third part (insurers).Hence, overprovision occurs. As you said, it is a big driver in the excessive US health costs, although not the only one.
You clearly are not in health care. Insurers and the government closely monitor treatments and most costly treatments require prior approval. You couldn't be more wrong. I am in health care and deal with this everyday.
You are right in one regard since the insured don't pay anything there is no incentive for them to consume services rationally.
Really, so you disagree with many Repubs in Washingtoon? FYI, you ALREADY pay for those uninsured, who do you think pays what they cannot?
Casper
You just disputed your own argument. We are already paying for the uninsured. Translation: People pay for thsoe who cant.. We ALREADY pay for those who cant.. Thanks for confirming what I said..
The US is estimated to end up spending 18% of GDP on health care in 2010. By 2025, it is projected to hit 25%.
By comparison, US military expenses are 4 % of GDP.
That is something of a crisis in itself.
Additionally, other first world countries spend an average of 9 % of GDP, covers everyone, does not burden their business sector with healthcare, do not have medical bancrupcies, and get better results. In a competitive world, America cannot sustain this situation for long.
Right.. we SPEND 18% of GDP on health care. Translation.. We are SPENDING on healthcare.. The liberal argument rests on some fantasy land THAT WE ARE NOT spending on healthcare..
Our higher than average GDP ratio indicates that we have better coverage than most, and our willingness to cover for those that cant. People will STILL file bankruptcy.. The imaginary world that universal healthcare will stop medical bankruptcies are an outright lie. People file bankruptcies when they get sick because they cant cover their mortgage, they cant cover their car payments, their credit card bills.. People do not go bankrupt over medical bills. Find me ONE hospital who has ever gone after someone for their medical bills and forced them into bankruptcy.. JUST ONE story about it taking place. Fact is, it doesnt.. People file bankruptcy because they cant pay OTHER bills and that wont change...
LOL, the only insurance people are allowed to buy as part of government healthcare is part D. I think your theory (it is a theory since you didn't support it) proves the government is inefficient since the vast majority of government spending is on government programs and not via private insurance.
It is theory, but not mine. Health Care Economics is a branch of economics. You can look up Grossman and Arrow for more on it if you wish. But fundamentally, unregulated insurance leads to skyrocketing costs, for the reasons mentioned. High barriers of entry, externalities leading to overprovision, customers most in need are least attractive to the insurance providers, low price elasticity.
If we reality check the theory, we find that the country using the least regulated insurance, the USA has the highest costs with no comesurate increase in results, and in fact does not even cover all its citizens, despite the huge expenditure. The next most expensive are normally Germany and Switzerland (oil-rich Norway also show up in the top 3 at times), both with insurance-based systems.
So the theory is quite a good fit to observed reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
Barriers to entry are the 50 different sets of rules insurers have to navigate.
That is not what "barriers to entry" mean. Rules preventing insurers from operating in multiple states can be describes as "barriers to entry", but complex sets of rules navigated during normal operations can not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
I m not sure which Europe you are talking about but the European countries I know have a single single payer system. What choiceare you talking about?
All European systems are mixed private and public provision systems. Europeans have the choice of buying insurance if they wish, paying out of pocket or using the public systems. Or all of the above. Most choose the last, even though out of pocket are normally far cheaper than in the USA.
Some European goverments purchase treatment in bulk from private hospitals if they put in cheaper bids than public ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
European health care is notoriously inefficient. It is so bad that many European countries are radically changing their programs. not to mention that their are riots in Europe due to the unsustainable nature of their social programs.
Not reality-based.
First off, what are European health care supposed to be inefficient compared to? Zimbabwe?
The European systems get comparable, frequently better results than the US system while spending half the money the US does, and while covering their entire populations. For any meaning of the word, they are leagues more efficient than the US system. What system is more efficient? Cuba?
Do you know anything about health care or economics?
And what European countries are" radically changing their programs?"
And "riots due to the unsustainableness of their social programs?" Where?
Countries doing badly include Greece, Ireland, Spain, the UK, Portugal and Iceland. Countries doing quite well, include Sweden, Austria, Denmark Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, and Norway. Notice a trend here? With the excpetion of Iceland, the countries doing well are the ones with large and expensive social welfare programs, while the ones doing badly are the ones with poor and cheap social welfare programs.
Will it take 3 seconds to pass?
Or millions maybe even billions of taxpayers money to put into endless efforts to repeal and destroy the HCR Act , the one the people's Congress already duly passed?
Right...against the wishes of the majority of the American people and with all kinds of back-door bribes and manipulation...way to go, Democrats!
when the president and congress is on the same health care Im on, than I'll be for Congress dictating what I do for health insurance.
till then, you and those other liberats can go away.
Thank God for Republicans and Intelligent Americans that Vote for them
It is theory, but not mine. Health Care Economics is a branch of economics. You can look up Grossman and Arrow for more on it if you wish. But fundamentally, unregulated insurance leads to skyrocketing costs, for the reasons mentioned. High barriers of entry, externalities leading to overprovision, customers most in need are least attractive to the insurance providers, low price elasticity.
If we reality check the theory, we find that the country using the least regulated insurance, the USA has the highest costs with no comesurate increase in results, and in fact does not even cover all its citizens, despite the huge expenditure. The next most expensive are normally Germany and Switzerland (oil-rich Norway also show up in the top 3 at times), both with insurance-based systems.
So the theory is quite a good fit to observed reality.
Again you can deny it as much as you like but the high barrier is over regulation 50 sets of regulation. More competition leads to greater effciencies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader
That is not what "barriers to entry" mean. Rules preventing insurers from operating in multiple states can be describes as "barriers to entry", but complex sets of rules navigated during normal operations can not.
Well of course 50 different sets of regulation are a barrier to entry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader
All European systems are mixed private and public provision systems. Europeans have the choice of buying insurance if they wish, paying out of pocket or using the public systems. Or all of the above. Most choose the last, even though out of pocket are normally far cheaper than in the USA.
Some European goverments purchase treatment in bulk from private hospitals if they put in cheaper bids than public ones.
Not reality-based.
First off, what are European health care supposed to be inefficient compared to? Zimbabwe?
The European systems get comparable, frequently better results than the US system while spending half the money the US does, and while covering their entire populations. For any meaning of the word, they are leagues more efficient than the US system. What system is more efficient? Cuba?
Do you know anything about health care or economics?
And what European countries are" radically changing their programs?"
And "riots due to the unsustainableness of their social programs?" Where?.
Check out France raising the retirement are by 2 years has sparkedd riots.
European healthcare systems are rife with examples of rationing. Again the NHS is changing radically because it unsustainable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader
Countries doing badly include Greece, Ireland, Spain, the UK, Portugal and Iceland. Countries doing quite well, include Sweden, Austria, Denmark Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, and Norway. Notice a trend here? With the excpetion of Iceland, the countries doing well are the ones with large and expensive social welfare programs, while the ones doing badly are the ones with poor and cheap social welfare programs.
LOL, All those countries with so called cheap wlfare programs are virtually indistiguishable fom the ones with large programs. It was after they were nearly sunk by those programs , that they contracted their programs because they are unsustainable.
Right.. we SPEND 18% of GDP on health care. Translation.. We are SPENDING on healthcare.. The liberal argument rests on some fantasy land THAT WE ARE NOT spending on healthcare..
This makes no sense. Every nation is spending on health care. The others just spend less and get more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Our higher than average GDP ratio indicates that we have better coverage than most, and our willingness to cover for those that cant. .
How does that work? The US still does not cover all its citizens, while every other first world nation does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
People will STILL file bankruptcy.. The imaginary world that universal healthcare will stop medical bankruptcies are an outright lie.
So why do the countries with actual non-imaginary universal health care have no medical bankrupcies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
People file bankruptcies when they get sick because they cant cover their mortgage, they cant cover their car payments, their credit card bills.. People do not go bankrupt over medical bills. Find me ONE hospital who has ever gone after someone for their medical bills and forced them into bankruptcy.. JUST ONE story about it taking place. Fact is, it doesnt.. People file bankruptcy because they cant pay OTHER bills and that wont change...
Are you seriously saying that no hospital will force someone into bankrupcy over medical bills? Seriously?
Medical bancrupcy is normally understood to be backrupcy due to unpaid medical bills. Although it is not a legal term.
"Using a conservative definiton, 62,1 % of all bankrupcies in 2007 were medical..."
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.
