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.
you can NOT get those costs down..... without having to CUT the cost of the SERVICE
do you want doctors and nurses working for min wage... because that is one of the many CUTS you would NEED to get costs down
many of the '''costs''' are GOVERNMENT mandates through the FDA, USDH, AMA, AHA
all of you say...look at medicare… they have less admin costs than health insurance companies
yet medicare covers 15% of the population and MEDICARE COSTS 20% of the budget.... and has tonnes of denials of care
medicare wont even help out with the costs of nursing homes.... seniors (or the family of the sick senior) MAY qualify for Medicaid ONCE THEY HAVE SPENT ALL their ASSETS...… that is a government policy.... has ZERO to do with the """"evil boogeyman of health insurance""""""
The US is up there, but it's not #1 in pay for doctors.
And few other countries have to contend with the astronomical cost of education and malpractice insurance that American doctors do. Both of which are things that ought to be addressed before attempting single payer.
Because single payer systems have a tiny fraction of the bureaucracy of our current for-profit insurance system. They also dont allow hospitals, big pharma and other providers to price gouge the "consumer" (desperate sick people with no market power). Free market health care naturally MUST be extremely expensive, as providers have all the power, consumers are in a terribly weak position and providers can earn ridiculous profits simply by abusing the power given to them. Thats why single payer systems that cover everyone cost 9-11.5% of GDP. Ours cost 18% of GDP and rising fast. Once it hits 20%+, the economy will likely start to break down at some point and the business elites who set policy and fund the campaigns will start to get upset as non-health care businesses will suffer too much as a result of the insatiable greed of the health care industry. Thats when change is likely to take place. But they are not going down without a fight.
wow, you really are bought and paid for , aren't you
number of americans in full pledged nursing homes: 2.5 million...... the average cost Adult Day Health Care,.20,000 per year......assisted living facility 45,000 per year....nursing home (semi-private room),.85,000 per year.......nursing home (private room),.96,000
number of americans in all levels of nursing homes and assisted living....12 million (Annually 11,995,100 people receive support from the 5 main long-term care service; home health agencies (5,742,500), nursing homes (2,383,700), hospices (1,544,500), residential care communities (913,300) and adult day service centers (373,200)...............total cost of long term care 590 billion annually...and going up every year https://www.genworth.com/corporate/a...t-of-care.html
will nursing homes be covered under a singlepayer...or would that massive expense be classified as ''not covered''?? or is that nearly trillion dollar bill right back on the peoples back??
----------------------------
More than 26 million Americans have significant vision loss.((a total of 85 million Americans have potentially blinding eye diseases. )) (((hmmm more than 26 million americans are blind or going blind.....that's more than Norway, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, and Austria COMBINED TOTAL population....)))......The cost of vision loss, including direct costs and lost productivity, is estimated to exceed $141 billion in 2017
----------------------------
number of americans with heart disease: 29.2 million and of those..((Number of visits with heart disease as primary diagnosis: 17 million ))((Number of discharges with heart disease as first-listed diagnosis: 4.9 million)).....900,000 people in the USA die from heart disease annually....the cost 690 billion annually
will cardiac care be covered under a singlepayer...or would that massive expense be classified as ''not covered'' or "sorry you smoke, or eat too much" not covered?? that is the cost of CARE... again has nothing to do with insurance
---------------------------------
number of americans with diabetes: 31 million....total cost 375 billion per year, and rising.....
will the ''government single-payer'' say.... nope, you got diabetes, because you are FAT, sorry not covered??
so what YOU are saying is we should FORCE doctors and nurse to work for minimum wage. and have offices in huts
when you pay that doctor $100 ,, its not 100 dollars going into his pocket...there are lots of other COSTS
how are you going to control the cost of medical equipment(mri or x-ray machines, etc)??????most xray machines are made in and imported from Denmark
how are you going to control the rising property tax/rent/mortgage that doctors face????? will the government LOWER property taxes for doctors offices.. the property taxes that fund our schools which say they dont have enough money????
think about that one for a second.... let it sink in....
how are you going to control the cost of supplies(gauze, plaster, silk, rubber, polystyrene( a oil product)?????......especially some supplies that aren't even American, because the globalist liberals have outsourced almost all manufacturing!!!
how are you going to control the cost of the people salaries???? these people with a specialty of medicine...... a maximum wage ??? yeah that's a perfect socialist idea a max wage... bet that will fly
how are you, going to control the employment costs for Doctors, nurses, technicians, hospital food operators, hospital linen cleaning service, custodial services, medical transcribers????.....
...are you going to 'nationalize' every profession that is even remotely connected to medicine????
yeah that's the idea...'nationalize' every profession connected to medicine, then install a max wage....
how are they going to control malpractice INSURANCE COSTS????? …. well Shakespeare did say "kill all the lawyers"
how are you going to control the cost of the rising electric bills the doctors/hospitals are facing????
for example the average hospital uses a lot of electricity...about 450,000 a month...that's over 5 million dollars in electric costs yearly, and in most case to a town government as many utility companies are municipals to the town/city...………..
.........….you are not likely to cut that piece of overhead...………..
…………... now had the so environmentally friendly liberals actually said back during the stimulus bill to ''give'' solar power to every household, you might have a chance of a trillion well spent... but liberals showed they dont really care about the environment or helping americans
The US is up there, but it's not #1 in pay for doctors.
And few other countries have to contend with the astronomical cost of education and malpractice insurance that American doctors do. Both of which are things that ought to be addressed before attempting single payer.
..a nurse in France(actually most of europe) makes about 1600-2000 a month(in us dollars)..that's 19-24,000 a year.....
meanwhile according to payscale.com the average Rn makes 44-75,000 in the usa
AGAIN.. Everybody else does it, but we can´t do it, wah wah wah..
I guess all the other 30+ nations that manages to do it, is cooking the books?
again.. liberals cant read
did NOT say we CANT do it..... said the ENTIRE system … yes entire system... system of service provided, system of pay, system of taxing, supply system, utility systems, etc....ALL WILL HAVE TO BE CHANGED
you think pay wont have to be changed to MATCH THOSE PERFECT EUROPEAN SYSTEMS????
.a nurse in France(actually most of europe) makes about 1600-2000 a month(in us dollars)..that's 19-24,000 a year.....
meanwhile according to payscale.com the average Rn makes 44-75,000 in the usa
so everyone , including you says ""why does it cost 3 times as much in the USA.... well for one (of the thousand) reason... our nurse pay is 2-3 times as much
can we do it... yes... but the majority wont like the costs
number of americans with heart disease: 29.2 million and of those..((Number of visits with heart disease as primary diagnosis: 17 million ))((Number of discharges with heart disease as first-listed diagnosis: 4.9 million)).....900,000 people in the USA die from heart disease annually....the cost 690 billion annually
will cardiac care be covered under a singlepayer...
or would that massive expense be classified as ''not covered'' or "sorry you smoke, or eat too much" not covered?? like they are doing in England and Germany
the fact is it is not the American way to say "sorry you smoke, or you are fat" we will not cover you..... americans want every sniffle covered.... and that costs money, lots of money
you want UHC or singlepayer like "all those other countries"..... then be prepared to CHANGE YOUR LIFESTYLE
yes I said life style, because life expectancy, has more to do with life style (genetics has a play in there too), than it does with health care
LIFE STYLES (ie hamhocks, fried Twinkies, and fried chicken, mcdonalds, fatbacks certainly dont help)
LIFE STYLES in most other places like Europe ...…..they walk/bike
LIFE STYLES in most other places like Europe, don't have 4 tv's to a house
LIFE STYLE (especially EATING, and EXERCISE), and demographics (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 our life expectancy????
we also have the HIGHEST teen pregnancy ...which leads to low baby weight, and high infant mortality.....and the highest DEMOGRAPHIC with teen pregnancies...the African Americans (especially southern AA)
life expectancy is not about health care.. but about healthy living
but the cost of health care is directly reflected by LIFE STYLES
.....too bad the liberhaddists dont understand that
we spend massively, because we atleast address the problems
we have millions that have diabetes...other country dont diagnose as much as we do
we have millions that have monocular degeneration (blindness) other countries dont fully treat as well as we do
its the same with most thing...look at the numbers we (the usa) has a better 'treatment' record (life after diagnoses) than all other countries.
1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.
3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.
4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:
Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).
5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."
6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.
7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."
8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).
9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade. The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.
Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country.[14] Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.
Conclusion. , the U.S. health care system compares MORE favorably to those in other developed countries
If healthcare costs less in Germany, then why does Germany have to ration?
Healthcare costs less, but Germany can't give you the medication you need, because they can't afford to buy it.
yes we spend a lot on healthcare...but we also have the BEST RECORDS of health.........
our outcomes (diagnosis and TREATMENT, and RECOVERY) is some of the BEST in the world
a) we rank in the top 10 of RECOVERY from cancer
b)American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women.
c)American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.
d)Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.
e)For women, only three European countries (Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland) have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.
that is the ranking of care available to all Americans, not just those with private health coverage. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old government-run, universal health care system, fares worse than the European average: British men have a five-year survival rate of only 45 percent; women, only 53 percent.
a)For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.
b)For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.
In the United States, 85 percent of women aged 25 to 64 years have regular PAP smears, compared with 58 percent in Great Britain. The same is true for mammograms; in the United States, 84 percent of women aged 50 to 64 years get them regularly — a higher percentage than in Australia, Canada or New Zealand, and far higher than the 63 percent of British women.
which country has the highest cancer rate (cases not recovery)...Denmark..they are the SICKEST (in terms of cancer) in the world
Plus, you're failing to account for the 28 million that are still uninsured. At $10,350 per capita (average annual US health care spending), it would cost an additional $300 billion/year.
Quote:
You would just need to change the tax system a bit.. like having companies paying more in taxes.
US companies are already more highly taxed than those in other developed countries. The problem with taxes on corporations is that the corporations don't pay them, the end user/consumer does. They're factored into the pricing formula as overhead.
I prefer the European model: regressive taxation, including a 20%-25% VAT that everyone pays. A MUCH wider tax base generates a MUCH higher percentage of GDP in tax revenue. For example...
Sweden: 44.12% of GDP
US: 26.02% of GDP
(Source: OECD)
To sum it up exactly as the data tells us,"the progressivity of countries' tax codes is negatively correlated with the amount of redistribution they do. In English: The less progressive the [tax] code, the more progressive the system." Those other developed countries aren't wrong. That's why they tax the way they do: regressively, to generate adequate tax revenue to fund their services.
It depends on who you are and I deleted your list as it is obviously slanted. How?
It compares incomes of the retired. Irrelevant. For the retired their income says only a part of their wealth. If you are living off what you are making on $500,000 you are doing OK but it isn't the same as someone simply living on the same income.
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.
