America Spends The Most On Health Care, Yet Gets The Least

[Harry Dresden]

Well, I guess we cant say "were number 1" anymore....

I love when the righty's come back with...well why do people come here from othere country's for exotic or complicate procedures?

My come back is, because they are rich and can afford it. Most of us here cant.

you do a lot of bitching about what the Republicans put on the table Zona.....but i never see a Zona idea....what is Zona healthcare?.....lets hear it.....the floor is yours....

 

[Harry Dresden]

From the OP:

This year the competitors were Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. The U.S. finished last.

the competitors?....is it going to be televised next year?...

 

[Sweetchuck]

What specific criteria are these rankings based on?

Can anyone elaborate?

 

[Greenbeard]

What specific criteria are these rankings based on?

Can anyone elaborate?

I would suggest reading the actual report if you want the details on each dimension.

But I'll give you an example. The rankings are based on cross-national surveys of patients and their physicians. So to get the coordinated care ranking, they compared survey responses on the following criteria:

• Have a regular doctor
• Percent for whom specialist did not have information about medical history
• When primary care physicians refer a patient to a specialist, they always or often receive a report back with all relevant health information
• Percent of primary care physicians who report the amount of time they spend coordinating care for patients is a major problem
• Doctor receives computerized alert or prompt to provide patients with test results
• Time was often or sometimes wasted because medical care was poorly organized
• Know whom to contact for questions about condition or treatment (among those hospitalized within past two years)
• Receive written plan for care after discharge (among those hospitalized within past two years)
• Hospital made arrangements for follow-up visits with a doctor or other health care professional when leaving the hospital
• Percent of primary care physicians receive the information needed to manage a patient's care from the hospital in 2 weeks or less from when the patients were dishcarged

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is questioning the quality of our health care. It is the best.

Not the best. Not even close.

There are third world nations with lower child mortality rates than the US.

hey Sanka....if you were in dire need of major surgery and had a choice between going to anywhere in the US or anywhere in Zimbabwe....where would you go?....

Harry, quit deflecting. The question is not the quality of US health care but rather the reasonable access and affordability of health care. Based on the interplay of all three components, the US sucks in health care results. A Costa Rican lives longer than an American? Say what?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Not the best. Not even close.

There are third world nations with lower child mortality rates than the US.

hey Sanka....if you were in dire need of major surgery and had a choice between going to anywhere in the US or anywhere in Zimbabwe....where would you go?....

Harry, quit deflecting. The question is not the quality of US health care but rather the reasonable access and affordability of health care. Based on the interplay of all three components, the US sucks in health care results. A Costa Rican lives longer than an American? Say what?

Jake....this guy made a statement....US health care "not the best...not even close"...to some third world countries.....ok i gave him a choice between a third world country and the US....whats the problem?......he did not say access.....otherwise i would have seen..."not the best access,not even close"....i probably would not have commented if he said it that way....

 

[Oddball]

Since every other country the U.S. was compared with in this Commonwealth study also relies on a third party payment structure, that can't explain the discrepancy, although I suppose you can count out the U.K. since the payer and provider generally belong to the same entity.

How's that "cost containment" in Great Britain workin' out for them, huh?

Oh yeah....They're now rationing care.

Are you under the impression that insurance policies in our nation or any other have no limitations to what they'll pay for? Besides being silly, that seems like an odd thing to wish for after your gripes about the hazards of third party payment.

There aren't any limitations as long as you're allowed to pay out-of-pocket for services on demand...The prohibition of which has blown up in the faces of the Canadians, if not the British as well.

Which brings us to the best reason in the world that Americans spend more money on medical services:

Because we can.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Harry, quit deflecting. The question is not the quality of US health care but rather the reasonable access and affordability of health care. Based on the interplay of all three components, the US sucks in health care results. A Costa Rican lives longer than an American? Say what?

Jake LONGEVITY has much more to do with lifestyle than health care....if you dont go for regular checkups,which many people WITH Ins. do not....dont take care of yourself.....which MANY Americans do not....ive said this before and ill say it again....you can have the Medical technology of Dr. Crusher on the USS Enterprise at your disposal, and still be fat and out of shape and have a heart attack and die.....at a young age....if you dont take care of yourself....we have more overweight little kids now than what i have ever seen.....its pretty dam sad....

 

[Oddball]

Harry, quit deflecting. The question is not the quality of US health care but rather the reasonable access and affordability of health care. Based on the interplay of all three components, the US sucks in health care results. A Costa Rican lives longer than an American? Say what?

For an alleged republican, you sure have the vapid non sequitur progressive Fabian talking points down pat.

Access and affordability are easy...Just walk into an emergencey room, get treated ans stiff them...Or you could go ahead and get on Medicare/Medicaid, which about 1/3 of the reputed "uninsured" don't do even thought they qualify.

As for Costa Ricans, they don't sit around on their sofas playing X-Box and shoving Pizza, Twinkies and Pepsis into their cake holes all day every day. Nor do they live the kind of lifestyle that has them gobbling antacids and anti-depressants down like they're after dinner mints.

Good job, though, at regurgitating those DNC talking points....Really.

 

[AquaAthena]

Our doctors make the most by far.

Fifty to eighty percent of their profits goes to malpractice insurance. Happy???

 

[PatekPhilippe]

there are a lot of dumbasses or kids on this board.
Do any of you tools believe the democratic bs that other countries nearly all way poorer get the same amount of HC. LOFL
I'm with don't Taz me bro it's healthcare deform not reform

I think it's redistribution of wealth but his name is catchier

Costa Rica has 1/10 the personal income that we do, yet ranks above us in health care, and they are third in longevity. They have had universal health care for 60 years.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4]YouTube - "We're Number 37" - Paul Hipp[/ame]

You think if we go to the Costa Rica system your old ass will live longer? Not quite pal....longevity has a lot more to do with diet and genetics than it does on whether or not your country has nationalized healthcare....besides....if you like their system so much...why don't you move there, put your money where your mouth is.

Personally I'm tired of all this "I want some MORE FREE SHIT from the government that everyone else works for." Enough is enough already. Thank you liberals for all the free shit we got now...BUT WE CAN'T PAY FOR IT!!!! IS THIS FACT SINKING IN YET!!!!????

 

[Gatekeeper]

According to the article the 2007 cost average yearly cost for American health care insurance was $7290. I tend to agree and have to look at what we paid personally back then, but it's close.

Now in 2010 we pay, for two people, $12,288 per year with co-pays, PLUS, if no one hasn't noticed, at least with us, our prescription co-pays which used to be $10 for 90% of them seem to be $25 and $50 for about 50% or more, at the least! We blew through the pretax flexpay dollars card last year, $2500, by August. As of Jan 1 2011 THAT pretax amount DROPS!

When did 'they' start jacking premiums and co-pays, as soon as the talk of healthcare reform hit the news stands? So it's not costing LESS for American health care it is costing $MORE$.
But, we have more people living longer don't we? Where do we draw the line in complaining? Check the figures against other nations.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/site_docs/slideshows/MirrorMirrorEmbargoed/MirrorMirror.html

 

[Greenbeard]

There aren't any limitations as long as you're allowed to pay out-of-pocket for services on demand...The prohibition of which has blown up in the faces of the Canadians, if not the British as well.

Hmm, so access to care is determined through administrative decisions by a third party or through price rationing. It's almost as if care doesn't exist in infinite supply and thus every place on earth rations it by some mechanism.

Personally I'm tired of all this "I want some MORE FREE SHIT from the government that everyone else works for." Enough is enough already. Thank you liberals for all the free shit we got now...BUT WE CAN'T PAY FOR IT!!!! IS THIS FACT SINKING IN YET!!!!????

Imagine you have two markets for health care. One receives a limitless subsidy, the the other does not. If you felt equity concerns demanded extending help into the unsubsidized market, you might do it by capping the heretofore limitless subsidy in the one market and creating a capped subsidy in the other market. Not only is a degree of parity achieved, but you've helped pay for the new subsidy by reducing the old. This is of course is what will be happening over the next decade. It's not simply addition, it's addition and subtraction.

According to the article the 2007 cost average yearly cost for American health care insurance was $7290. I tend to agree and have to look at what we paid personally back then, but it's close.

No, that's not the average insurance premium. That's total health care spending in the United States divided by the population. When you're talking about health care spending that's not about premiums--premiums are how we raise money to finance health care spending (certainly not all of the money collected in premiums goes toward financing care, though the new legislation does provide guidelines for that) but the spending itself goes to these things:

National Health Expenditures, 2008

The 2007 Kaiser Employer Health Benefits Survey found "The average premium for family coverage in 2007 is $12,106, and workers on average now pay $3,281 out of their paychecks to cover their share of the cost of a family policy. "

When did 'they' start jacking premiums and co-pays, as soon as the talk of healthcare reform hit the news stands? So it's not costing LESS for American health care it is costing $MORE$.

Premiums have been rising for years, though the current recession certainly hasn't been kind on them.

 

[saveliberty]

What a stupid thread.

Americans spend the most on healthcare for two reasons.

1. We are some of the most out of shape people on the planet. The associated costs to care for us will be more.

2. Americans look to medical technology to overcome our illnesses. We are willing to pay for that research and the results.

Gets the least to just pure hog wash.

 

[Oddball]

Hmm, so access to care is determined through administrative decisions by a third party or through price rationing. It's almost as if care doesn't exist in infinite supply and thus every place on earth rations it by some mechanism.

Baloney.

"Access" in America is the one thing that's universal, since nobody can be turned down for care, in ERs at the very least....What isn't universal is a third-party payer for services rendered.

"Price rationing" is a semantic game that the medical Marxists use to rationalize seizing free market medical care to put it under a centralized gubmint monopoly.

You really need to get better at Orwellian torturing of the language.

 

[saveliberty]

Hmm, so access to care is determined through administrative decisions by a third party or through price rationing. It's almost as if care doesn't exist in infinite supply and thus every place on earth rations it by some mechanism.

Baloney.

"Access" in America is the one thing that's universal, since nobody can be turned down for care, in ERs at the very least....What isn't universal is a third-party payer for services rendered.

"Price rationing" is a semantic game that the medical Marxists use to rationalize seizing free market medical care to put it under a centralized gubmint monopoly.

You really need to get better at Orwellian torturing of the language.

Greenbeard has a band-aid and antibiotic tree in his backyard. We just need to plant enough to cover everyone on the planet.

 

[Yukon.]

Only a GOP memeber could support the current system in the USA.

 

[RDD_1210]

Hmm, so access to care is determined through administrative decisions by a third party or through price rationing. It's almost as if care doesn't exist in infinite supply and thus every place on earth rations it by some mechanism.

Baloney.

"Access" in America is the one thing that's universal, since nobody can be turned down for care, in ERs at the very least....What isn't universal is a third-party payer for services rendered.

You are mind boggling in your stubbornness. This "free" access that anyone can get at an ER....who pays for that if someone comes in without insurance? You think the hospital eats the cost out of the goodness of their heart? Maybe the insurance companies do? No, we do through higher costs and premiums both from the hospitals and insurance companies.

And if you have cancer or a serious long term illness, you aren't being treated in the ER which seems to be the best answer you can come up with in terms of access for everyone.

I'm sure you'll ignore these points or try and switch topics like you usually do.

 

[Oddball]

That's bad enough without making the current ER model standard operating procedure for everyone.

Moreover, I'd bet a week's wages that most of the ER patients that end up stiffing the hospitals are those aforementioned people, who qualify for Medicare/Medicaid but are too lazy to go through what it takes to apply for them....What's so difficult to understand about that?

The comment about the semantic duplicitousness in invocation of the word "access" stands.

 

[RDD_1210]

That's bad enough without making the current ER model standard operating procedure for everyone.

Moreover, I'd bet a week's wages that most of the ER patients that end up stiffing the hospitals are those aforementioned people, who qualify for Medicare/Medicaid but are too lazy to go through what it takes to apply for them....What's so difficult to understand about that?

The comment about the semantic duplicitousness in invocation of the word "access" stands.

And absolutely nothing you said actually addresses any of my points. Who pays for the "free ER" visits that you think are a some sort of solution. What do people do when they have long term illnesses? Again no answer from you and exactly as I predicted.

Sure, I'll bet you a weeks wages. Just tell me what you do for a living. Since you've ignored that question too repeatedly. I'm going to take a wild guess and say you are unemployed and collecting checks from the government while sitting on your computer all day blasting people for mooching off of you. How ironic would that be?