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.
There is no doubt that overall quality-of-care would decline with a single-payer system.
There is no doubt that many wealthy foreigners do travel to America for certain procedures, and that it never happens the other way around.
There is no doubt that the vast-majority of new healthcare techniques/treatments/drugs/machines/etc, come from the American healthcare industry. And that that is in large part because of its huge profitability, which diverts top-level talent into the medical industry.
And one of our main exports to the world, is medical technology.
These are just the facts. There is no reason to argue about them. And any attempt to argue about them, turns into total stupidity.
Now, what is also a fact, is that no country who has a single-payer system, wants to get rid of it for a private system. Because the truth is, people like the peace-of-mind that a single-payer system provides.
Most people would gladly trade quality for security and equality.
The one thing that every person in this world wants, is security.
Then why does the single-payer UK system consistently rank higher in quality of care than the USA? Why do France, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Taiwan, Italy, Netherlands also do better with their universal health care? If US quality of care is good, why do we have such poorer health than other industrialized countries and getting worse? Why are Americans actually dying sooner than before-- the Case and Deaton report? Why is infant mortality in the USA so high, the highest of any industrialized country? Why does the USA have the highest medical error rate of any developed country? All the countries with single payer have far better outcomes with much lower cost than the USA, even though their taxes are around the same or even lower. American small businesses, for example, are the harshest taxed in the world. Yet we get nothing for our taxes since the taxes go to waste, fraud, corruption and wars, while other countries use taxes for their people.
Haven't read all the replies, but I do have a simple answer for you: well two for that matter: have you bothered to check what residents of those countries pay in taxes every year and have you talked to many who have to wait for surgery, tests, seeing a specialist, etc? Not to mention the size and population of America compared with say, Canada? I have seen what has happened in our country just since Obama Care was introduced? Primiums have gone up, as have deductibles and service has gone down. I am appalled at what my kids and grandkids are paying for coverage, not to mention how much we now pay for medicare and what services have been cut or how much our deductibles have increased.
Again, taxes in these countries are not higher than the USA-- that's a common myth, they don't have to pay as much in taxes in part because their healthcare system are so much cheaper and more efficient, big part thanks to not having parasitic health insurance companies adding so much to the costs. And the taxes go to provide services for the population instead of waste, fraud, corruption and wars like the US. I've worked overseas in several countries and my taxes in the US were about the same leve, often higher even compared to many countries in Europe when you factor in the total tax burden and not just cherry picking the fed tax rate. US sales, local and esp business and property taxes are much higher than overseas.
And all that talk about long delays overseas is a myth. There are long delays in US clinics too, even for those with good insurance, for poorer quality of care and much higher costs. For essential care overseas care is very quick. This is one of the reasons the USA has the highest medical tourism rate in the world, by far, of Americans going overseas for treatment.
It should be worth noting that 95% of all new drugs are discovered and developed by the United States. The United States has ran more clinical trials than any other country in the world, including all of Europe combined. Most new surgical techniques are developed in the United States.
We are paying for the world's medical indications. If we ever go to a less lucrative system medical breakthroughs will slow down significantly.
That's not true at all, first off the big financial drain on the US health care system is the health insurance companies and esp their execs, who are pure parasites and vultures and add nothing to the system, in fact they take away valuable funds for medical research. Second, most new drugs are now being discovered overseas, per capita the big kahuna among drug discovery countries is now Switzerland, but more and more the newer drugs are coming out of labs in France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Japan and, more and more, China. Not to mention that the research leading to these drugs is very international, most of it actually occurs outside the USA. And even then, most of the key discoveries are made by government labs in these countries or at universities or foundations, not the pharma companies. So no, the ridiculous costs of the US system are not contributing anything to drug discovery, especially when the profits are siphoned off by useless, parasitic health insurance companies.
Originally Posted by Redshadowz There is no doubt that many wealthy foreigners do travel to America for certain procedures, and that it never happens the other way around.
The number of medical tourists from the United States has increased from about half a million in 2007, to an expected estimate of 1.25 million Americans that will travel abroad for medical treatment in 2014.
When we look at countries that have single payer we see that:
1. Outcomes are generally as good as the USA and, in some cases, a little bit better.
2. Everyone is covered.
3. Single payer countries seem to be able to offer health care much cheaper than we do both in terms of a per-capita comparison and as a percentage of GDP.
True, and on lines of your first point, outcomes are generally a good deal better in single payer countries. The USA has by far the highest infant mortality rate and overall health is declining. The United States also has by far the worst medical error rate in the world, and the medical errors in America are often especially disastrous. Yet we pay far more for this mess since the health insurance parasites get such a big cut. So in the US we absolutely don't get what we pay for, we get a good deal less.
Having been in business for over 40 years and a statistics and history nut, I don't buy the "welfare queen" argument....for many reason.
First, if I did buy it, we are STILL now taking care of all those people....but at a higher price since we don't step in earlier with preventative care. So that brings up a simple question - would you rather insure these "losers" for 1/2 the price with better results (maybe allowing them to step up the ladder, have a job, get an education) or do you prefer watching them be punished at 2X the price?
But my real answer is this. Productivity (machines, technology), IMHO do away with most ALL of the tired arguments about "takers". We could write a book about this, but some basic factoids...
1. A farmer can now feed 10's of thousands - it used to be maybe 10-20.
(this created an amazing excess of workers.
2. A modern car plant uses robotic spot welders and painters, etc. to replace thousands of humans. Without looking up the basics, I'd say a 90% reduction in the number of needed workers. Same with steel plants, foundries and most other industries.
Productivity is STILL increasing almost yearly. Also, take that car plant - the one that used 10X as many workers produced cars that lasted 2-4 years, the new plants produce cars that easily last 10 years.
Computers and robotics have entered every field - Boeing used to have thousands of typists and draftsmen - Insurance companies the same....now they still employ thousands, but the reduction (per policy) is probably 75% or more.
And so - you and many others label the people who were thrown out of work due to these changes "losers" or "takers". I tend to see (maybe because I am upper middle class) a different class of "takers"....including
1. Tax cheats
2. Insurance and other frauds
3. Useless jobs that not only don't create value, but create problems (I think the crash of 2008 involved millions of these people).
4. Total scams - Bernie Madoff and all his friends big and small.
You are not a "great giver" if your job involves fighting in a snake pit with 200 other Realtors each looking to make a piece of the pie (when the pie is not big enough to cover all of you). Same goes with many sales people - they are not creating anything much. Having millions of people in the business of refinancing mortgages down another 1/4% doesn't seem to be to be a truly productive enterprise.
In short, what many of us call work is really "make work" and has little to do with actually supporting the nation and economy. In fact, if we got rid of a lot of these jobs we've probably be better off due to the environmental improvements (not having to go to offices, etc.)....
Anyway, that's deep philosophy - but the point is that the money has nothing to do with it. The reality of civilized human existence from here forward is going to involved LOTS of off-time - and it will be OK because machines will do much of the work for us.
We seem to have plenty for relatively useless "security" - a trillion or more a year...
If we wanted to put more people to work - and I question whether that is even a goal worth pursuing (we'd have to study where and when we need them working), we could invest the money and implement the policy to do do.
Actually, as it stands many of the lower income folks DO work in home care - especially in end of life type of home care. It's rare you'll meet a native born American doing home care.
I'm stopping you right there because you're BLATANTLY wrong. I already posted the Tax Revenue as a Percentage of GDP chart.
If you want an accurate number to compare taxation - to the USA you;d have to add:
10.5K per person for health care (it's included in the other countries, not here). So that would be 42K per year for a family of 4 here in ADDITIONAL TAXES.
Worse yet, many of our tax savings are our of increased debt! In other words, we have been adding this to the 20 Trillion already owed....to make our taxes look lower.
I ask you honestly- assuming you are capable of doing the math - to add to the USA figure both the money needed to balance the budget and pay down the debt (and interest) and also the amount spent on health care (it's included with those other nations).
Guess what? When you do that you will see we are taxed MORE than most other nations. Only difference is that we enjoy both fooling ourselves and passing on debt to our children instead of being responsible adults and paying our way.
Why is no foreigner traveling to U.K. Or Canada for surgery but they come to the USA?
Many US citizens do come to Canada with false documents and steal health care. Others come here because it's much less expensive. US Residents and OHIP | KeatsConnelly US
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.
