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.
Listed below is the complete World Health Report for 2000. This is widely regarded as one of the most comprehensive study of healthcare systems ever conducted. It compares treatment times, expense per citizen as a percentage of GDP, household contributions to health, out of pocket cost, life expectancy, mortality from cancers/cardiovascular disease, equality of treatment across income levels, infant mortality, adminstrative cost, bureucratic waste, physicians per patient, nurses per patient, perscriptions unfilled, and a plethora of others.
the WHO rankings of 191 health systems worldwide placed the United States 36th,
But the WHO study is much like the annual magazine rankings of colleges: It grabs plenty of headlines but rests on questionable analysis. A closer look at the WHO health care study reveals startling assumptions, critical lapses in statistical judgment, and a clearly predetermined political agenda.
Breaking “new methodological ground,” the WHO report rates national health care performance according to five trendy flavors of the month: life expectancies, inequalities in health, the responsiveness of the system in providing diagnosis and treatment, inequalities in responsiveness, and how fairly systems are financed.
First, consider the study’s data. Health statistics for each country were collected from individual agencies and ministries, assuring wide disparities in definition, reporting technique and collection methodology. Indeed, the report concedes that “in all cases, there are multiple and often conflicting sources of information,” if sources at all. For the many nations that simply do not maintain health statistics, the WHO “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” Without consistent and accurate data from within a single country, how can meaningful comparison be made among 191 different countries?
Second, the report places undue weight on statistical devices like disability-adjusted life expectancies (DALEs), which measure how long a person can expect to live in good health. The problem is, all the resources a country spends helping disabled people live longer and more comfortably do nothing to help its DALE score, so countries aiming for a good WHO ranking have no reason to spend more helping the disabled. DALEs assume that disabled people’s lives have less value than those of people without disabilities, and they make similar discounts on the lives of the elderly. Should the United States stop spending money on its disabled? On its seniors? The WHO’s criteria would give granny the boot.
Finally, on the basis of those flawed statistical measures, the WHO unleashes an emotional assault on free markets, saying that governments must hold the “ultimate responsibility” in “defining the vision and direction of health policy, exerting influence through regulation and advocacy, and collecting and using information.” WHO dismisses markets as “the worst possible way to determine who gets which health services,” arguing that “fairness” requires the highest possible degree of separation between who pays for health care and who uses it.
Overall, the WHO rankings’ mathematical formulations serve only to distract attention from the authors’ underlying distaste for individual choice in health care. The report largely ignores the extraordinary benefits the American marketplace brings to health care worldwide, such as new drugs, advanced diagnostic instruments such as MRIs and CAT scans, and lifesaving therapies for cancer and heart-disease patients. Under a WHO-style health care system, lifesaving research and innovation would be stifled and individual choice would be discarded in favor of collective control. Bureaucrats would decide who receives care — and who does not — on the basis of statistical tallies that devalue the lives of the elderly, the disabled and the chronically ill.
By contrast, a free-market health care system upholds the right of every person to make his own decisions. Patients are given choices, not issued numbers, and doctors are freed from impersonal “expert panels” dictating what care they can and cannot provide. The WHO’s idea of government-provided universal health care is a fantasy that masks a system of dangerous, formula-based rationing. If you value your health, don’t trust the WHO.
I'm only the messenger about France. If it's working in France then people somehow find the money don't they ?
I think if you don't work you are on their medicaid equivalent which is 100% paid for.
It would help contain costs because people would avoid high priced doctors.
And when doctors lose patients they either close or bring down their prices.
I don't have dental insurance..never have.
I do shop around and the dentists I've found and used over the years have plenty of cash paying patients because their costs are lower. These are not your clinics or mall stores or HMO's. These are small one/two dentist office setups.
OMG I owe the dentist thousands right now for both me and hubby. And I HAVE dental insurance. Can't imagine doing without it.
Anyway, if folks who didn't have the money up front could be helped somehow, I'd be fine with a system like the French one.
There really are a lot of models. I don't know why we're not at least exploring them all, and at least on a state-by-state basis.
Why don't we consult with a neutral source, such as the European Commission of the European Union.....
Last update 25.10.11 Extracted on 06.01.13 Source of Data Eurostat UNIT Euro per inhabitant ICHA_HC Health care expenditure ICHA_HP All providers of health care
UNIT Euro per inhabitant ICHA_HF Private household out-of-pocket expenditure
Romania .......63.95 Germany....... 403.33 United States....... 697.13
Norway .......805.54 Switzerland....... 1,590.18
Source: Database EuroStat: The European Commission of the European Union.
I cited a neutral source, yet you give us heavily slanted sources.
Let's starting by examining the credibility of Physicians for National Healthcare.
Didn't Physicians for National Healthcare claim that administrative costs for "health insurance" companies was 31%?
Yes, they did.
"PNHP Co-founders Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein published this definitive study of the administrative costs of the U.S. health system in the August 21, 2003 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine. After analyzing the costs of insurers, employers, doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and home-care agencies in both the U.S. and Canada, they found that administration consumes 31.0 percent of U.S. health spending"
From GAO-12-908....
However, in at least one instance, the amount of administrative and facilities costs not shown was about 31 percent—a total of $1.05 billion—of the program’s cost.
....and that was in reference to...
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) creates its budget request through its Enrollee Health Care Projection Model (EHCPM) using data from systems designed for the former single-account structure.
So how exactly is 31% Administrative Costs different from 31% Administrative Costs?
And understand, that 31% is not the Administrative Costs of the VA medical centers....it's the cost of the insurance program.....maintaining the enrollees.....those covered by the VA system.
That only proves Californicators want it.
I regret to inform you that California is not the united States....and that should be more than obvious by the fact that the 9th Circuit Court is repeatedly slam-dunked by the US Supreme Court.
You want portability?
Fine....here's what you need to do...repeal these to federal laws....
"Amounts paid by an employer on account of premiums on insurance on the life of the employee...may not exceed five per cent of the employee’s annual salary or wages determined without the inclusion of insurance and pension benefits."
Source: War Labor Reports, Reports and Decisions of the National War Labor Board (Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, 4, 1943) LXIV.
Source: Office of Economic Stabilization, Regulations of the Part 4001 Relating to Wages and Salaries, Issued October 27, 1942; amended November 5 and November 30, 1942, Section 4001.1 (h) (2), War Labor Reports 4, XII.
Source: War Labor Reports, Reports and Decisions of the National War Labor Board, Section 1002.8, LXVIII.
"Premiums paid by an employer on policies of group life insurance without cash surrender value covering the lives of his employees, or on policies of group health or accident insurance...do not constitute salary if such premiums are deductible by the employer under Section 23(a) of the IRS Code."
Source: Public Law 83-591, August 16, 1954; Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Section 106. For more information on the 1954 tax code.
What's the problem?
Rescinding/repealing two regulations, or creating 9,000 new ones.....which is easier and less costly to taxpayers.....no-brainer there.
Uh, like this where people die waiting.....
The risks of waiting for cardiac catheterization: a prospective study However, only 37% of the procedures overall were completed within the requested waiting time. Interpretation: Patients awaiting cardiac catheterization may experience major adverse events, such as death,...
Or do you mean like this.....where people died waiting in Britain.....
Lung cancer treatment waiting times and tumour growth.
Therefore, 21% of potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list. This study demonstrates that, even for the select minority of patients who have specialist referral and are deemed suitable for potentially curative treatment, the outcome is prejudiced by waiting times that allow tumour progression.
Or do you mean like this.....where people died waiting in Sweden.....
Mortality on the waiting list for coronary artery bypass grafting: incidence and risk factors
BACKGROUND: Insufficient capacity for coronary artery bypass grafting results in waiting times before operation, prioritization of patients and, ultimately, death on the waiting list. We aimed to calculate waiting list mortality and to identify risk factors for death on the waiting list.
Sorry, but I don't see that waiting and dying on a list is a "benefit."
No bearing on outcomes.
Spend all you want....nothing happens....except that you waste money and harm your economy....
Health Care is a lot like Education......no amount of spending alters the out-comes.
What you're looking for is Geographical Variations in Medical Spending and Outcomes by John E. Wennberg, MD.
Uh, suckers already drank that Kool-Aid and then found out keeping your doctor was a big lie.
And what happens when government starts using the IRS, NSA, or any number of other agencies at its disposal to influence what doctors (or hospitals) do?
There are already issues of government interference telling doctors to do this or that, or don't do this or that, most notably in the area of "reproductive rights" (snicker) but there are other areas as well.
That's completely false, and a total misrepresentation of reality.
If you spend $5,000 per year on health plan coverage, what should you get in return?
$100,000 in healthcare benefits? $500,000? $1 Million? $5 Million? Infinite amount of healthcare?
Oh, I forgot.....in your world, if you insure your car for $25,000 and it is totaled, the insurance company has to give you a brand new car every month for the rest of your life, and not just any car, but the most expensive car in the world, just because you paid $1,200 in premiums annually.
When you have employer-sponsored healthcare, who is the consumer?
You?
No, sorry, wrong answer.
Basic contract law....your employer is the consumer, not you....you are merely a beneficiary.
The reason I mention this basic fact and reality, is that many people blame their "health insurance" company when in fact it is their own employer who is denying payments, because it would cause the employer's costs to rise.
That is a problem for California, not the rest of the world.
It is also a lie.
Medicare is not an insurance company.
Who manages the HI (Medicare) Trust Fund?
Not Medicare. The US Treasury Department does that. Back up, regroup, recalculate administrative costs adding in the cost of Treasury to manage the HI Trust Fund.
Who manages the SMI (Part B and Part D) Trust Fund?
Not Medicare. The US Treasury Department does that. Back up, regroup, recalculate administrative costs adding in the cost of Treasury to manage the SMI Trust Fund.
Who collects the HI payroll taxes?
Not Medicare. The IRS does that, and Treasury has a hand in it. Back up, regroup, recalculate administrative costs adding in the cost of the IRS and Treasury to collect the monies.
Who audits Medicare?
Not Medicare. The GAO does that. Back up, regroup, recalculate administrative costs adding in the cost of GAO to audit Medicare accounts and the HI and SMI Trust Funds.
Who manages the pension plans and employee benefits for Medicare employees?
Not Medicare.
Shall I continue? Because I can do this all day long.
Taiwan has an homogenous population of 23 Million....even fewer people than Canada.
Explain the difference between spending less and costing less. These Canadians could help you do that..
The risks of waiting for cardiac catheterization: a prospective study However, only 37% of the procedures overall were completed within the requested waiting time. Interpretation: Patients awaiting cardiac catheterization may experience major adverse events, such as death,...
..uh, but they're dead.....they died on a waiting list, which is what happens when the government spends less than what healthcare costs.
You think obesity and Type II Diabetes are problems in Taiwan?
Uh-huh....common sense.....right up to the point of rationing healthcare....
In order not to trigger penalty payments, the KBV devised an Emergency Programme which would, in effect, ration drug prescribing for the rest of the year.
The Emergency Programme proposed five steps: 1. Waiting lists for prescription drugs and other prescription treatments (Heilmittel, which include physiotherapy, acupuncture etc.) except in life threatening or medically essential circumstances 2. Postponement of innovative therapy to the following budget year 3. Radical switching of prescriptions from brand to the cheapest generic 4. Prior authorisation of expensive therapies 5. In the event of budget being exceeded, ‘emergency prescriptions’ to be issued temporarily, for which patients would have to pay out-of pocket and personally claim reimbursement (in Germany, unlike France, patients pay only user charges out of pocket)
Source: Why Ration Healthcare? Page 86
I'll bet you can't wait to start filling out the tons of government paperwork necessary to get "prior authorization."
Don't you want to get in line now?
The Public?
Are you freaking serious?
John Q Public is too goddam lazy to vote for a mayor/city council to control out-of-control cops, and you think the Public is going to over-see healthcare?
That's hysterical....
Mircea
Wow...I'm sure that was an exhausting thread to type out. I would commend you on it but I know that you copy and paste the majority of it from your previous threads because you literally say the same thing over and over. You're argument condesed is as follows: It's too expensive, people die on waiting lists, healthcare monopolies jack up costs (i agree there), bureaucrats are stupid and inefficient, etc. etc. etc.
All that is well and good, and I'm not denying that single-payer systems aren't perfect...because they aren't .However, I've cited a widely accepted, and widely comprehensive study from the WHO that ranks our system 36th based on metrics that really can't be that skewed. Life expectancy, Infant mortality, per person expenditure, doctors to patient, nurses to patient, access to care, care across socioeconomic status, deaths from cancer, deaths from cardiovascular disease, deaths from muscular degenerative disease, and a slew of other........ALL OF THESE METRICS FAVOR 35 OTHER COUNTRIES AHEAD OF US.
On top of that, for all your citations on the deaths on waiting lists in single-payer countries, Canada never see's headlines like these.
The study below was presented by Families USA in conjunction with the Institute of Medicine. Please read pages 9-11 on the methodology for how a "death because of being uninsured" is quantified. http://familiesusa2.org/assets/pdfs/...r-Coverage.pdf
Across the nation, 26,100 people between the ages of 25 and 64 died prematurely due to a lack of health coverage in 2010 (Table 1). That works out to:
2,175 people who died prematurely every month;
502 people who died prematurely every week;
72 people who died prematurely every day; or
Three every hour.
Between 2005 and 2010, the number of people who died prematurely each year due to a lack of health coverage rose from 20,350 to 26,100.
Between 2005 and 2010, the total number of people who died prematurely due to a lack of health coverage was 134,120.
Each and every state sees residents die prematurely due to a lack of health insurance. In 2010, the number of premature deaths due to a lack of health coverage ranged from 28 in Vermont to 3,164 in California.
The five states with the most premature deaths due to uninsurance in 2010 were California (3,164 deaths), Texas (2,955 deaths), Florida (2,272 deaths), New York (1,247 deaths), and Georgia (1,161 deaths).
uhm life expectancy has very little to do with health CARE
(life expectancy) has been debunked a dozen times
the usa ranked in the 30's. a LE of 9.1
the highest is japan at 82.6
could it be demographics???
the USa has an AVERAGE life expectacny of 79.1, just recently up from 78.9
the difference between us and france ....1.6 year
the difference between us and canada.....1.6 year
the difference between us and germany...a HALF a year
the differnce between us and the untied kingdom...4 months
but if you break it down further
in the USA, the asian american female has a life expectancy of 86(the HIGHEST in the WORLD)......(((higher than the 82 in the actual country of japan)))
...........whites are around 83...........hispanics around 76............and blacks have a LOW LIFE expectacy around 66m/68f.............giving us the AVERAGE of 79.1.............if you took the (12-15% population) of blacks off that list.........we would have one of the top three life expectancies in the world....
demographic plays BIG ROLES
we also have the HIGHEST teen pregnancy ...which leads to low baby weight, and high infant mortality.....and the hightest DEMOGRAPHIC with teen pregancies...the african americans (especially southern AA)
life expectance is more about genetics and life style, than health care
its more about genetics and LIFE STYLES (ie hamhocks, fried twinkies, and fried chicken, mcdonalds, fatbacks certainly dont help)
most other places..they walk/bike
most other places dont have 4 tv's to a house
posting about life expectancy..means actually very little to medicine
difference between us and the highest is....3 years ...is that realivily low (79yrs-82yrs)
and the reason...
is not health care
its....
LIFE STYLE (especially EATING, and EXERCISE), and democraphics (ethnics)
demographics, to include eating habits, GENES, TEEN PREGNANCIES, traffic, cancer, etc..ALL effect those numbers
yes I said traffic accidents....you think that the 2x amount of traffic accidents (of the world) is NOT going to lower the top level???
if you compared country "A" to country "B"...and said "A" has an average age of 38..and "B" has an average age of 51...which country do you think would be more PRODUCTIVE and HEALTHY
demographics (and their LIFE STYLE and GENETICS) plays BIG ROLES
funny japan is higher than any of the european countries...in life expectancy..and the 3rd lowest in infant mortality....connected...hmmmmm....certainly genetic
life expectancy is not about health care.. but about healthy living.....too bad the liberhaddists dont understand that
I noticed you spent the majority of your post on life expectancy. However this was my previous pose
Quote:
Listed below is the complete World Health Report for 2000. This is widely regarded as one of the most comprehensive study of healthcare systems ever conducted. It compares treatment times, expense per citizen as a percentage of GDP, household contributions to health, out of pocket cost, life expectancy, mortality from cancers/cardiovascular disease, equality of treatment across income levels, infant mortality, adminstrative cost, bureucratic waste, physicians per patient, nurses per patient, perscriptions unfilled, and a plethora of others France is number one........The USA is number 36.
.However, I've cited a widely accepted, and widely comprehensive study from the WHO that ranks our system 36th based on metrics that really can't be that skewed. Life expectancy, Infant mortality,
total mistruth
Quote:
Despite a one-third decline since the early 1990s, the United States still has the highest rates of teen pregnancy and birth among comparable countries. In 2007, the U.S. teen birth rate was 42.5 births per 1,000 girls age 15-19. By way of comparison, the U.S. teen birth rate is nearly two times higher than the United Kingdom (26.7 per 1,000), which has the highest teen birth rate in Europe, and nearly ten times higher than the teen birth rate in Switzerland (4.3 per 1,000) which has the lowest teen birth rate in Europe. In addition, the U.S. teen birth rate is more than three times higher than the teen birth rate in Canada (13.3 per 1,000).
do you not think that teen births aslo effects infant mortality??? cant be skewed my butt
Quote:
uhm life expectancy has very little to do with health CARE
(life expectancy) has been debunked a dozen times
the usa ranked in the 30's. a LE of 9.1
the highest is japan at 82.6
could it be demographics???
the USa has an AVERAGE life expectacny of 79.1, just recently up from 78.9
the difference between us and france ....1.6 year
the difference between us and canada.....1.6 year
the difference between us and germany...a HALF a year
the differnce between us and the untied kingdom...4 months
but if you break it down further
in the USA, the asian american female has a life expectancy of 86(the HIGHEST in the WORLD)......(((higher than the 82 in the actual country of japan)))
...........whites are around 83...........hispanics around 76............and blacks have a LOW LIFE expectacy around 66m/68f.............giving us the AVERAGE of 79.1.............if you took the (12-15% population) of blacks off that list.........we would have one of the top three life expectancies in the world....
demographic plays BIG ROLES
we also have the HIGHEST teen pregnancy ...which leads to low baby weight, and high infant mortality.....and the hightest DEMOGRAPHIC with teen pregancies...the african americans (especially southern AA)
life expectance is more about genetics and life style, than health care
its more about genetics and LIFE STYLES (ie hamhocks, fried twinkies, and fried chicken, mcdonalds, fatbacks certainly dont help)
most other places..they walk/bike
most other places dont have 4 tv's to a house
posting about life expectancy..means actually very little to medicine
difference between us and the highest is....3 years ...is that realivily low (79yrs-82yrs)
and the reason...
is not health care
its....
LIFE STYLE (especially EATING, and EXERCISE), and democraphics (ethnics)
demographics, to include eating habits, GENES, TEEN PREGNANCIES, traffic, cancer, etc..ALL effect those numbers
yes I said traffic accidents....you think that the 2x amount of traffic accidents (of the world) is NOT going to lower the top level???
if you compared country "A" to country "B"...and said "A" has an average age of 38..and "B" has an average age of 51...which country do you think would be more PRODUCTIVE and HEALTHY
demographics (and their LIFE STYLE and GENETICS) plays BIG ROLES
funny japan is higher than any of the european countries...in life expectancy..and the 3rd lowest in infant mortality....connected...hmmmmm....certainly genetic
life expectancy is not about health care.. but about healthy living...
in the USA, the asian american female has a life expectancy of 86(the HIGHEST in the WORLD)......(((higher than the 82 in the actual country of japan)))
...........whites are around 83...........hispanics around 76............and blacks have a LOW LIFE expectacy around 66m/68f.............giving us the AVERAGE of 79.1.............if you took the (12-15% population) of blacks off that list.........we would have one of the top three life expectancies in the world....
uhm life expectancy has very little to do with health CARE
(life expectancy) has been debunked a dozen times
the usa ranked in the 30's. a LE of 9.1
the highest is japan at 82.6
could it be demographics???
the USa has an AVERAGE life expectacny of 79.1, just recently up from 78.9
the difference between us and france ....1.6 year
the difference between us and canada.....1.6 year
the difference between us and germany...a HALF a year
the differnce between us and the untied kingdom...4 months
but if you break it down further
in the USA, the asian american female has a life expectancy of 86(the HIGHEST in the WORLD)......(((higher than the 82 in the actual country of japan)))
...........whites are around 83...........hispanics around 76............and blacks have a LOW LIFE expectacy around 66m/68f.............giving us the AVERAGE of 79.1.............if you took the (12-15% population) of blacks off that list.........we would have one of the top three life expectancies in the world....
demographic plays BIG ROLES
we also have the HIGHEST teen pregnancy ...which leads to low baby weight, and high infant mortality.....and the hightest DEMOGRAPHIC with teen pregancies...the african americans (especially southern AA)
life expectance is more about genetics and life style, than health care
its more about genetics and LIFE STYLES (ie hamhocks, fried twinkies, and fried chicken, mcdonalds, fatbacks certainly dont help)
most other places..they walk/bike
most other places dont have 4 tv's to a house
posting about life expectancy..means actually very little to medicine
difference between us and the highest is....3 years ...is that realivily low (79yrs-82yrs)
and the reason...
is not health care
its....
LIFE STYLE (especially EATING, and EXERCISE), and democraphics (ethnics)
demographics, to include eating habits, GENES, TEEN PREGNANCIES, traffic, cancer, etc..ALL effect those numbers
yes I said traffic accidents....you think that the 2x amount of traffic accidents (of the world) is NOT going to lower the top level???
if you compared country "A" to country "B"...and said "A" has an average age of 38..and "B" has an average age of 51...which country do you think would be more PRODUCTIVE and HEALTHY
demographics (and their LIFE STYLE and GENETICS) plays BIG ROLES
funny japan is higher than any of the european countries...in life expectancy..and the 3rd lowest in infant mortality....connected...hmmmmm....certainly genetic
life expectancy is not about health care.. but about healthy living.....too bad the liberhaddists dont understand that
Well apparently available healthcare DOES play some part.:
do you not think that teen births aslo effects infant mortality??? cant be skewed my butt
in the USA, the asian american female has a life expectancy of 86(the HIGHEST in the WORLD)......(((higher than the 82 in the actual country of japan)))
...........whites are around 83...........hispanics around 76............and blacks have a LOW LIFE expectacy around 66m/68f.............giving us the AVERAGE of 79.1.............if you took the (12-15% population) of blacks off that list.........we would have one of the top three life expectancies in the world....
hmmm cant be skewed....really now
Again...You're taking quite possibly the most comprehensive study on national healthcare systems ever compiled and focusing on ONE aspect in hopes of making a case for a poor study or bias.
You're failing your own hypothesis if that is your goal.
]OMG I owe the dentist thousands right now for both me and hubby. And I HAVE dental insurance. [/b]Can't imagine doing without it.
Anyway, if folks who didn't have the money up front could be helped somehow, I'd be fine with a system like the French one.
There really are a lot of models. I don't know why we're not at least exploring them all, and at least on a state-by-state basis.
Oh wait, yes I do.
If you look at it dental insurance really doesn't cover much.
My plan has a max yearly benefit of the equivalent of 1 root canal.
Did you shop around for your dental work if I might ask ?
Took my son for a root canal last year. Had to find a dentist due to relocation to a new city.
I made 4 calls after doing a bit of research and the price for a root canal varied from $400-$1500.
The $1500 one said they'd give me a 10% discount for cash.
How do you explain that much of a difference ?
Went with the $400 dentist and found out they don't take any insurance but do layaway work.
Told my son he found his dentist because after paying for that root canal he was on his own.
Obamacare is a train wreck and it complicates an issue that is already complicated. A universal, single-payer approach will bring the USA to the table with all other post-industrialized nations and it will do so for less per capita than we spend now.
Source: California Nurses Associations, Physicians for National Healthcare, and AMSA
1. Everybody in,nobody out. Universal means access to healthcare for everyone, period — the desire of 81% of all Californians, as reported in a January, 2007 Field Poll.
Given the state of financial disaster for which the People's Republic of California is suffering, I
think it unwise to adopt on a national scale any proposal from the left coast loons. They don't exactly have a sound grasp of economics.
Besides, the devil is in the details. Of course you would expect universal appeal for healthcare for all ... but 19% of californians said no, no doubt that they comprise the underrepresented conservative crowd who haven't fallen mentally ill, realizing that california can't even come close to paying its bills now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
2. Portability. Even if you are unemployed, or lose or change your job, your health coverage goes with you
Kinda like taxes ... no matter where you go, they go with you, and this free for all utopian pipe dream is just the lastest excuse to jack you up more!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
3. Uniform benefits. No Cadillac plans for the wealthy and Moped plans for everyone else, with high deductibles, limited services, caps on payments for care, and no protection in the event of a catastrophe. One level of comprehensive care no matter what size your wallet.
Come on down to capitol chevrolet, where eveyone drives away in a brand new car for just $99 down and $99 per month.
Translation: when it sounds to good to be true, it isn't true. One brand new car for everyone, no matter what size your wallet? This means mopeds for everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
4. Prevention. By removing financial roadblocks, a single payer system encourages preventive care that lowers an individual’s ultimate cost and pain and suffering when problems are neglected, and societal cost in the over utilization of emergency rooms or the spread of communicable diseases.
Allopathic, pharmacuetical based medicine is an abject failure of unimaginable proportions, when it comes to promoting health. This is why the US pays more than any other country yet also leads in disease like cancer, heart disease, etc. Who pays the bill for such a disaster should not be the main concern ... what is being delivered should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
5. Choice of physician. Most private plans restrict what doctors, other caregivers, or hospital you can use. Under a single payer system, patients have a choice, and the provider is assured a fair reimbursement.
Ah yes, a fair deal. Everybody loves a fair deal, as long as it fits their personal defition of what fair means. Though among 300 million people, you're likely to have disagreement. But since everyone gets the same plan, no matter the size of their wallet, and their choice of doctors too, who doesn' get a fair deal? Who doesn't get to choose? I'm assuming that all doctirs would get the same compensation for the same service, right? So the nation's top rated surgeon, 1st in his class will be paid the same as the guy who came in last, at a lesser medical school? That,s fair to whom? So everyone will want the top guy, but not everyone can expect ... oh never mind ... there are so many problems here, it would take a book!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
6. Ending insurance industry interference with care. Caregivers and patients regain the autonomy to make decisions on what’s best for a patient’s health, not what’s dictated by the billing department or the bean counters. No denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions or cancellation of policies for “unreported” minor health problems.
A virtual all you can eat buffet of medical care, prepared by Gorden Ramsey, and available to everyone on a McDonalds happy meal budget. How? Magic!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
7. Reducing administrative waste. One third of every health care dollar in California goes for paperwork, such as denying care, and profits, compared to about 3% under Medicare, a single-payer, universal system.
This will be administered by the same buffoons who spent a billion dollars on an enrollment eebsite that doesn't function? Right!
Medicare is a DISASTER rife with the most absurd levels of waste and abuse, should a similar system take over all healthcare, it would bankrupt the country in less than two years.
My own personal experience with my mom and medicare ... she was issued a tens unit, which was billable to medicare at $75 per month. (You could buy that thing on ebay or amazon for $45). After a month, it did not help, so she tried to get it picked up, or sent back. No luck. Dozens of phone calls, no response. That unit continued to be billed for THREE YEARS!!! Yes, that's 36 months ... or $2,700 for a $45 little device. You don't even want to know about the expensive hospital bed shipped to her for home use .... it was still sitting there 8 months after she passed away. Couldn't get anyone to pick it up. This is just one of countless examples that number in the hundreds of thousands of similar stories totaling in billions of dollars of pure waste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
8. Cost savings. A single payer system would produce the savings needed to cover everyone, largely by using existing resources without the waste. Taiwan, shifting from a U.S. healthcare model, adopted a single-payer system in 1995, boosting health coverage from 57% to 97% with little if any increase in overall healthcare spending.
According to whom? Their government? Hint ... according to ours, you will be able to keep your plan and your doctor if you want to ... so declared the Liar-in-Chief. Oops, I
made a boo boo Obozo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
9. Common sense budgeting. The public system sets fair reimbursements applied equally to all providers while assuring all comprehensive and appropriate health care is delivered, and uses its clout to negotiate volume discounts for prescription drugs and medical equipment.
Translation: grab your ankles, and scream "whose your daddy". We decide what is paid for, how much, and who gets it. Don't like it? Tough ... it's the law, baby. We will decide everything, especially that part about "fair". And it will be only fair to have the experts decide what you should get for treatments and how much those pharmacueticals should cost ... and who are the experts? Well, Merck, and Pzizor, and Beyer, Oh My!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
10. Public oversight. The public sets the policies and administers the system, not high priced CEOs meeting in secret and making decisions based on what inflates their compensation packages or stock wealth or company profits.
The public will decide? Oh really? You mean that the public will be deciding by means of who they vote into congress, who then will take care of those details for us?
This alone constitutes just cause to reject such absurd nonsense!
I must say that anyone who really believes this tripe .. this bill of goods .. this snake oil of mo-better, mo-cheaper, mo-fair is really a pretty gullible mo-fo.
"GPs have been paid bonuses to put elderly patients on controversial ‘death lists’ in an attempt to save the NHS money by cutting the number of people who die in hospital."
Yes, we know that....
Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer
IEA Health and Welfare Unit (London)
12% of kidney specialists in the UK said they had refused to treat patients due to limited resources (same source).
One study showed that patients accepted for dialysis stacked up this way.....
65 patients per million population UK
98 patients per million population in Canada
212 patients per million population in the US
The NHS has a habit of telling people they have pneumonia or influenza, when they really have something else in order to save money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
There's actually a fairly substantive argument that exists suggesting our taxes wouldn't need to be increased.
Okay, let's see it.
Understand I'm skeptical since there was a "substantive argument" that eliminating the wage cap for Social Security would save it, and it took me IRS data, a spreadsheet and 30 seconds to prove that to be a big lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
The additional revenue would come from removing the tax advantage status of employer provided healthcare.
"The" tax advantage status?
That is really a peculiar way of putting it.
Do you understand that you benefit from this tax advantage?
"Amounts paid by an employer on account of premiums on insurance on the life of the employee...may not exceed five per cent of the employee’s annual salary or wages determined without the inclusion of insurance and pension benefits."
Source: War Labor Reports, Reports and Decisions of the National War Labor Board (Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, 4, 1943) LXIV.
Source: Office of Economic Stabilization, Regulations of the Part 4001 Relating to Wages and Salaries, Issued October 27, 1942; amended November 5 and November 30, 1942, Section 4001.1 (h) (2), War Labor Reports 4, XII.
Source: War Labor Reports, Reports and Decisions of the National War Labor Board, Section 1002.8, LXVIII.
"Premiums paid by an employer on policies of group life insurance without cash surrender value covering the lives of his employees, or on policies of group health or accident insurance...do not constitute salary if such premiums are deductible by the employer under Section 23(a) of the IRS Code."
Source: Public Law 83-591, August 16, 1954; Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Section 106. For more information on the 1954 tax code.
And by the way, just what is that tax advantage?
I'm just wondering why you don't come out and tell us.
Of course that is a government document, and many Obamacare supporters will start frothing at the mouth having convulsions until they fall over backward in their own urine and excrement, because they claim government data is an "unrecognized source."
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
The existence of a Medicare for all option would render worthless employer provided coverage therefore they wouldn't have the need to offer it. So, if my salary is 50k and my healthcare is 13k my effective salary is 63k.
Uh, no, not even close.
Whoever told you that fed you a line of BS...do the math.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
That theory is agreed upon by healthcare analysts across the political divide.
So?
Healthcare Analysts is not the same as Economist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
Listed below is a study by the uber libertarian Cato institute that suggests salaries would be higher in the even of the removal of tax advantage status on healthcare.
But I have already proven the employee is the greatest beneficiary, not the employer.
I don't know who it is that you work for, but I've never seen a company that hires full time employees without benefits.
That's because you don't understand why employers offer such benefits in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
Because no other country has EVER made a single payer healthcare system work, right?
Explain how spending less is the same as costing less.
If your mortgage costs $1,000/month, you can certainly spend less....but then there are negative consequences, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
It's a relic of WW2 at work.
No.
National Recovery Act 1933
"Amounts paid by an employer on account of premiums on insurance on the life of the employee...may not exceed five per cent of the employee’s annual salary or wages determined without the inclusion of insurance and pension benefits."
Source: War Labor Reports, Reports and Decisions of the National War Labor Board (Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, 4, 1943) LXIV.
Source: Office of Economic Stabilization, Regulations of the Part 4001 Relating to Wages and Salaries, Issued October 27, 1942; amended November 5 and November 30, 1942, Section 4001.1 (h) (2), War Labor Reports 4, XII.
Source: War Labor Reports, Reports and Decisions of the National War Labor Board, Section 1002.8, LXVIII.
Unions have the right negotiate fringe benefits on behalf of employees
Source: Inland Steel Co. v. National Labor Relations Board. United Steel Workers Of America, C.I.O., et al. v. National Labor Relations Board; United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
"...pension and retirement plans constitute part of the subject matter of compulsory collective bargaining under the Act."
September 23, 1948. Writ of Certiorari Granted January 17, 1949. 170 F.2d 247 (1948)
"Following the 1949 Inland Steel decision by the Supreme Court, pensions became a mandatory bargaining topic and the subject of nearly all collective negotiations."
Source: www.nber.org/chapters/c7131.pdf
"Premiums paid by an employer on policies of group life insurance without cash surrender value covering the lives of his employees, or on policies of group health or accident insurance...do not constitute salary if such premiums are deductible by the employer under Section 23(a) of the IRS Code."
Source: Public Law 83-591, August 16, 1954; Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Section 106. For more information on the 1954 tax code.
Those are not relics...that's government interference through policies and decision-making.
Learn and understand the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
Other governments have made this work successfullly.
It only works successfully some of the time.
If your problem is a Drippy John Thomas, then I suppose it works fine, but if you've got a tumor, well, you might die on a waiting list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
I've personally experienced it in Austria.
So? Personal experiences are irrelevant. Austria: 8.5 Million population, about the size of New York City.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
These systems consistently have lower costs per patient....
Explain how spending less is the same as costing less.
Furthermore this.....
Last update 25.10.11 Extracted on 06.01.13 Source of Data Eurostat UNIT Euro per inhabitant ICHA_HC Health care expenditure ICHA_HP All providers of health care
UNIT Euro per inhabitant ICHA_HF Private household out-of-pocket expenditure
Romania .......63.95 Germany....... 403.33 United States....... 697.13
Norway .......805.54 Switzerland....... 1,590.18
Source: Database EuroStat: The European Commission of the European Union.
....proves you wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
... and have higher health metrics.
Skewed metrics....
"If the United States had Sweden’s distribution of births by gestational age, nearly 8,000 infant deaths would be averted each year and the U.S. infant mortality rate would be one-third lower."
Note the cause of the "high" infant mortality rate.... "The main cause of the United States' high infant mortality rate when compared with Europe is the very high percentage of preterm births in the United States."
That is cultural, in part due to Affluence, and no amount of healthcare spending will fix that. Source: US Center for Disease Control
Austria: 8.5 Million population homogenous nation-State
Germany: 81 Million homogenous nation-State
Sweden: 9.5 Million homogenous nation-State
Ireland: 4.5 Million homogenous nation-State
Finland: 5.5 Million population consisting of two homogenous nations (Finns & Lapps)
Norway: 5 Million population homogenous nation-State
Spain: 47 Million consisting of heterogeneous population grouped as separate homogenous nations
Italy: 61 Million consisting of numerous culturally similar homogenous nations
UK: 62 Million consisting of 3 separate homogenous nations (Welsh, Scots, and Brits)
Belgium: 11 Million consisting of two homogenous nations
France: 65 Million homogenous nation-State
Netherlands: 17 Million homogenous nation-State
If anything, you have demonstrated that any form of single-payer should be at the State level, and not at the "federal" level.
To that end, how will you address the "disparity" in economic conditions between the 1,539 separately functioning economies in the US?
In some of those 1,539 separately functioning economies, a single person is denied HUD Section 8 because their annual income of $9,101 is too much money.
But in some of those 1,539 separately functioning economies, a single person will be approved for HUD Section 8 because their annual income of $53,490 is not enough money.
Do you think those two people should pay the same amount of money for single payer?
Substantively...
Mircea
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.
