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.
and what he is not telling you is that many of the COSTS, are from outside the medical arena.
did you know the AVERAGE hospital spends 380,000 A MONTH just on electricity????? yep thats 4.5 MILLION a year just to run the electric for all the services in a hospital,,,not to mention the nurses, custodial workers, food workers, linnen services, etc
even at your basic doctors office, the amount you pay (either you the individual or an insurance//government payer) doesnt just go into the doctors pocket....do you think the 60-100 dollars for a office visit goes straight into the doctors pocket???????..............he still has to pay rent/mortgage on the property........he still has to pay high electric bills,.heating bills, air conditioning bills...he still had to pay for all the supplies/equipment (just think about that MRI machine...its 1.2 million dollars....even if he paid it off over time (lets say 5 years), that would be about 20,000 A MONTH (20,000x12mothsx5 years=1.2 mill)..........he still has to pay a cleaning/sanitizing service............he still has to pay a staff(even if its one nurse/recept/transcriptionist)............not to mention a miriad of other bills BEFORE he can put one dime into his own pocket.
this is why 'single payer' / universal/ national will do NOTHING to lower the COSTS...it MAY eliminate or lower INSURANCE..but it will NOT lower the actual costs and assosiated costs
So you think nurses are "outside the medical arena"?
this is why 'single payer' / universal/ national will do NOTHING to lower the COSTS...it MAY eliminate or lower INSURANCE..but it will NOT lower the actual costs and assosiated costs
So how do other health systems in developed countries manage to do it?
So how do other health systems in developed countries manage to do it?
you mean the other countries with doctors in poverty
you mean the other countries with 2 year waits for an MRI
you mean like the other countries that wont give you a knee operation if you are over 60???
Those countries that have single-payer systems or systems heavily weighted toward government control are the most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on the choice of physician, and other barriers to care.
or like france who's health care system is not only broke..but have co-payments run between 10 and 40 percent, and physicians can balance bill over and above government reimbursement rates, something not allowed in the U.S. Medicare program. On average, French patients pay roughly as much out of pocket as do Americans.
Rising health care spending is not a uniquely American phenomenon. While other countries spend considerably less than the U.S. on health care both as a percentage of GDP and per capita, it is often because they begin with a lower base of expenditures. But their costs are still rising, leading to budget deficits, tax increases, and/or benefit cuts.
even in canada, they are now allowing and moving towards a PRIVATE INSURANCE along with the government
is that what you want...long waits to see quacks that see you like an assembely line and dont care, because they get a government salary????
you mean the other countries with doctors in poverty
you mean the other countries with 2 year waits for an MRI
you mean like the other countries that wont give you a knee operation if you are over 60???
Those countries that have single-payer systems or systems heavily weighted toward government control are the most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on the choice of physician, and other barriers to care.
or like france who's health care system is not only broke..but have co-payments run between 10 and 40 percent, and physicians can balance bill over and above government reimbursement rates, something not allowed in the U.S. Medicare program. On average, French patients pay roughly as much out of pocket as do Americans.
Rising health care spending is not a uniquely American phenomenon. While other countries spend considerably less than the U.S. on health care both as a percentage of GDP and per capita, it is often because they begin with a lower base of expenditures. But their costs are still rising, leading to budget deficits, tax increases, and/or benefit cuts.
even in canada, they are now allowing and moving towards a PRIVATE INSURANCE along with the government
is that what you want...long waits to see quacks that see you like an assembely line and dont care, because they get a government salary????
And yet .... they manage better life expectancy than we do
See, I have lived in other countries and used their health systems ... the UK and Switzerland to be specific ... and the way you describe it is so far from the truth as to be laughable.
And yet .... they manage better life expectancy than we do
See, I have lived in other countries and used their health systems ... the UK and Switzerland to be specific ... and the way you describe it is so far from the truth as to be laughable.
I lived in Germany, Italy, and Belguim for over 11 years of my life
the 'life expectancy.. the differnce is about 1-1.5 years...not really much...and those numbers DONT take in to cosideration...the way americans eat, and dont excersise.. doesnt take into condideration the demographics, the regional eating...hamhocks, fried chicken and chitlins are exaclty the most healthiest foods
europeans eat a lot healthier,, have less teen pregnancies... exersise/walk a lot more
sorry but the difference of 1.5 years has NOTHING to do with health care. it has more to do with life style than anything else
please try to compare apple to apples, not banannas
If you think Obamacare is an abomination then what is your solution for the millions of poor Americans who cannot afford extensive, critical health care?
I lived in Germany, Italy, and Belguim for over 11 years of my life
the 'life expectancy.. the differnce is about 1-1.5 years...not really much...and those numbers DONT take in to cosideration...the way americans eat, and dont excersise.. doesnt take into condideration the demographics, the regional eating...hamhocks, fried chicken and chitlins are exaclty the most healthiest foods
europeans eat a lot healthier,, have less teen pregnancies... exersise/walk a lot more
sorry but the difference of 1.5 years has NOTHING to do with health care. it has more to do with life style than anything else
please try to compare apple to apples, not banannas
As I have often said on these boards, the difference in health systems is cost not quality. European systems offer the same quality at half the cost. Even ultra-expensive Switzerland manages to do it.
and everytime I post these FACTS.. you imeadiatly slam it..are you a stalker???
I read health care threads because I work in health care. I slam them because singling out the two most expensive patient groups and projecting costs from that is obviously grossly wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
yes medicare is the most expensive...because of the demographics...sorry to say but the elderly have the most costs/needs
yes medicaid is a singlepayer
yes medicaid costs 340 billion (and climbing) a year
yes it only covers 32 million people
yes I use the CHEAPER of the two.. medicare or medicaid..caid is cheaper
yes the MATH is there... mediciad costs 340 billion to cover 32 million....our country is 320 million...10 times the amount on medciad.. meaning the cost would be in the RANGE of 2.5 trillion to 5 trillion...depending on all the demographics and RESTRICTIONS (ie mediciad refuses coverage (DENIED) for that proceedure))
Lets do the maths then:
Using your own numbers, medicaid covers 32 million people and costs 340 billion. The expensive 25 % who can't get insurance are then 8 million people, costing 230 billion. The people with normal health profiles are 24 million and cost 102 billion.
So covering everyone with medicaid would cost 1,3 trillion.
Lets do that again, from other sources and in greater detail:
Quote:
The elderly (age 65 and over) made up around 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2002, but they consumed 36 percent of total U.S. personal health care expenses. The average health care expense in 2002 was $11,089 per year for elderly people but only $3,352 per year for working-age people (ages 19-64).
Ref. source: Keehan SP, Lazenby HC, Zezza MA, et al. Age Estimates in the National Health Accounts. Health Care Financing Review 2004 Dec. 2; 1(1); Web Exclusive.
So according to this, extending Medicare to all would cost a further 655 billion for the 18-65s, and another 184 for the under 18s. For a total of 1,2 trillion dollars.
When accounting for the increase in costs between 2002 and 2008, these two numbers, arrived at through two different calculations, look very very close to each other.
The first one is a cost of $ 4250 per head. The second one $ 3970 per head. Still above the OECD average, but about even with Switzerland and Germany.
Todays costs are over 2,3 trillion, or 7250 $ per head! And between VA, Mediare, Medicai, Indian health etc, etc the government already pays 1,1 trillion of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
you cant deny the math
Thats the real maths.
And here is a look at the maths from the conservative side of the political fence, old numbers, but still relevant:
American Thinker
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
which is exactly what I am saying...2.5 -5 trillion a year for the entire population....or ARE YOU TRYING to say that we could somehow cover 320 million people for the price we currently cover 70 million....if you think that I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya
Obviously that can be done.
Obviously it is not even difficult.
Thats not even subject to debate, it is sheer fact. Every other developed nation does it. All of them. Berlusconis Italy manages it ferchristssake! You're saying the country that put a man on the moon can't hope to be as effective as Berlusconis Italy?
Last edited by Grim Reader; 02-07-2011 at 01:49 PM..
I read health care threads because I work in health care. I slam them because singling out the two most expensive patient groups and projecting costs from that is obviously grossly wrong.
Using your own numbers, medicaid covers 32 million people and costs 340 billion. The expensive 25 % who can't get insurance are then 8 million people, costing 230 billion. The people with normal health profiles are 24 million and cost 102 billion.
So covering everyone with medicaid would cost 1,3 trillion.
Lets do that again, from other sources and in greater detail:
Ref. source: Keehan SP, Lazenby HC, Zezza MA, et al. Age Estimates in the National Health Accounts. Health Care Financing Review 2004 Dec. 2; 1(1); Web Exclusive.
So according to this, extending Medicare to all would cost a further 655 billion for the 18-65s, and another 184 for the under 18s. For a total of 1,2 trillion dollars.
When accounting for the increase in costs between 2002 and 2008, these two numbers, arrived at through two different calculations, look very very close to each other.
The first one is a cost of $ 4250 per head. The second one $ 3970 per head. Still above the OECD average, but about even with Switzerland and Germany.
Todays costs are over 2,3 trillion, or 7250 $ per head! And between VA, Mediare, Medicai, Indian health etc, etc the government already pays 1,1 trillion of that.
Thats the real maths.
Obviously that can be done.
Obviously it is not even difficult.
Thats not even subject to debate, it is sheer fact. Every other developed nation does it. All of them. Berlusconis Italy manages it ferchristssake! You're saying the country that put a man on the moon can't hope to be as effective as Berlusconis Italy?
Which is roughly what the Swiss are spending per head per year.
However, you could argue that there would be efficiency savings on top of that because 1) people would have coverage and would see a doctor rather than just showing up at the ER and 2) you could probably take some of the admin out of the equation.
Then, if you also did like the Swiss and made the insurance coverage "non-profit" then you could take even more cost out of the equation.
Of course, some people do want the opportunity to spend their money on a higher level of service. Most European systems offer a parallel private sector through the use of "top up" insurance. I see no problem with having this as well and it could be done through "for profit" insurance.
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.
