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.
Oh yea, the "I found it on the internet" so it must be true.
Wait until you actually try and buy it. Ever had a surgery, for anything, ever had a biopsy on anything?
I had a routine colonoscopy, which found one polyp, removed and biopsied as non-cancer. Otherwise perfect health, normal blood pressure, BMI, non-smoker, etc. etc. etc. and the best quote I got was $1850 per month and it would not cover any digestive tract illness or procedures.
Wife had successful back surgery 10 years prior, no back problems since, and she could not get insurance on the open market at any price.
Not second-guessing you....but it sounds like you decided to get insurance after you had your medical procedures? Maybe you can clarify?
I'm all for reforming the system. But if buying insurance after the fact is a routine occurrence in America, then no wonder costs are higher. Would you insure for the same price someone you knew to be a higher risk factor than a person that didn't carry the same known risk? My guess is that you probably wouldn't.
My grandfather delivered all seven of his own children. When my father was born, in Montana, on January 16th, it took three months before they could get into town to register his birth. I would say, there probably wasn't a "health professional" for a couple of hundred miles or so in either direction.
Nobody went to doctors back then. Even if you were seriously injured, you took care of it yourself or you died.
I can see how those colonoscopy screenings can get you. If they find the equivalent of a wart inside your colon they snip it off. That is enough to trigger the "no coverage for YOU" response or bounce you up to outrageous premiums.
People who are safe in the bosom of employer-provided health care have no idea.
First off, like I keep pointing out, the average European pays less taxes for government health care than the average American. I don't think you've fully grasped just how far out there American health care costs are, or how much cheaper UHC is to run.
The red bars are public money, coming from taxes. The pink are what citizens spend privatly after that. Notice how Americans pay more tax money towards government health care than the average European?
Today, government health care in America includes Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, Veterans, IH, etc. Each with their bureaucracies, bureaucrats, forms and schemes. Many of which not only do redundant jobs, but often billing and credit checking that is simply not relevant in other first world systems.
For this massive duplication of effort the American tax payer pays -unsurprisingly, more than the average European tax payer does for their single government program and its one set of bureaucrats.
Basically, having loads of departments with different procedures doing the same job each for a limited number of people is much more expensive than having one that does it for everyone. Extending one program to cover everyone costs less than having umpteen different ones to cover umpteen limited groups.
This should not come as a surprise to anyone, since one program covering everyone is a popular strategy in many of the nations that get good results at half the cost.
Second, the US is hardly that different. UHC works in Iceland with 300 000 people. It works in Denmark with 5 million. It works in Germany with 80 million. It works in Japan with 125 million people. And China seems pretty confident it'll work for them too. It obviously works better in bigger nations, but that is how economics of scale works.
Also, UHC works fine in less diverse populations than the US, such as Norway or Finland. It also works in counties with a far more divere population, like Australia or Switzerland.
Do you seriously think the US is far more different from the UK and France than Japan, Taiwan or South Korea is? So much more different that the laws of economics do not apply?
When you posted this earlier, I decided not to wade into this particular debate simply because i'm not an economist.
However, I don't think what you have posted provides a clear indication that UHC is better than non-UHC healthcare systems. I think all it shows is that the United States spends more money on health care per person. I do not believe it shows that UHC will bring healthcare costs down per person. I don't believe what you've posted here is enough evidence that any one system is better than the other.
Not second-guessing you....but it sounds like you decided to get insurance after you had your medical procedures? Maybe you can clarify?
I'm all for reforming the system. But if buying insurance after the fact is a routine occurrence in America, then no wonder costs are higher. Would you insure for the same price someone you knew to be a higher risk factor than a person that didn't carry the same known risk? My guess is that you probably wouldn't.
This is one of the reasons that the health insurers demanded the mandate. I agree with them If you have a no pre-existing conditions clause, you Must have a mandate of insurance coverage. Without the mandate, premiums would have to be quite a bit higher than they are now. It's simply business sense, and is totally logical.
Most Republican plans were similar to mine. Open up the free market, greatly reduce regulations, and no insurer would have to pick up anybody. Premiums and costs are on your own dime.
50 years ago, as college students, DH and I paid for the birth of our childen in a hospital out of the wages we earned as part time students. If the child got an infection we payed for the Dr. visit and the antibiotic. We had no hospitalization.
When DH became employed I was stunned to learn that the company would pay for part of the Dr. fee and all of the hospital. Childbirth was not considered anything medically unusual.
Do most of us spend as much on medical care each month as we do on the insurance?
Perhaps having major medical coverage is what we need. We each pay for regular stuff and if treatment or hospitalization is required, then the insurance kicks in.
My grandfather delivered all seven of his own children. When my father was born, in Montana, on January 16th, it took three months before they could get into town to register his birth. I would say, there probably wasn't a "health professional" for a couple of hundred miles or so in either direction.
Nobody went to doctors back then. Even if you were seriously injured, you took care of it yourself or you died.
However, I don't think what you have posted provides a clear indication that UHC is better than non-UHC healthcare systems...I don't believe what you've posted here is enough evidence that any one system is better than the other.
Well, the problem there is that the only example of a developed country with a non-UHC system is the US. And all the numbers show that other systems average half the cost, average better results, cover everyone, and do not impose a competitive disadvantage or smother labor mobility and business startups. This does make them "better" for every possible definition of "better" I can imagine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
I think all it shows is that the United States spends more money on health care per person. I do not believe it shows that UHC will bring healthcare costs down per person.
You could replace the current government health care systems with a single-payer UHC and have a rather large chunck of money left over. That is what the numbers show. And that is without touching private insurance at all.
There are four basic models for health care, Beveridge, Bismark, NHI and out-of-pocket. Every other developed nation has some version or mixture of the first three. And they all result in universal health care, even the ones that use health care insurance as the tool to get there, such as Germany, Switzerland and the Nederlands.
Just slightly higher than $200 bucks a month, I'd say
Yes, slightly higher by $1800!
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.
I'm pretty good at math.
