Singapore's Health Care System - Seemed Pretty Good

[mudwhistle]

There were a host of articles on this topic a while back. I had lost track.

Here is one:

Singapore's Health Care System: A Free Lunch You Can Sink Your Teeth Into | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

The Singapore government spent only 1.3 percent of GDP on healthcare in 2002, whereas the combined public and private expenditure on healthcare amounted to a low 4.3 percent of GDP. By contrast, the United States spent 14.6 percent of its GDP on healthcare that year, up from 7 percent in 1970... Yet, indicators such as infant mortality rates or years of average healthy life expectancy are slightly more favorable in Singapore than in the United States... It is true that such indicators are also related to the overall living environment and not only to healthcare spending. Nonetheless, international experts rank Singapore's healthcare system among the most successful in the world in terms of cost-effectiveness and community health results.

Now, this again goes to the measurement of health care spending.....something the ACA has not changed (unless you call it slowing down the increase).

But, this is a pretty cool system. It has mandatory health savings programs.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/singapores-health-care-system-holds-lessons-for-u-s/

Singapore has a range of policies that support health care, Haseltine said. For example, Singaporeans are required to have a health savings plan, called Medisave, that works like a 401K retirement savings plan in the U.S; the government sets both policies and prices for private insurance companies; health care costs for services and procedures must be completely transparent; there’s a minister of “wellness” who emphasizes the importance of a healthy diet and exercise and works to curb smoking; there are high health care subsidies for those with low incomes; and the government invests heavily in medical education.

Seems like they have some pretty good elements......

Wonder how they spend so little ?

They don't let in millions of assholes to soak up all of the benefits.

 

[Arianrhod]

There were a host of articles on this topic a while back. I had lost track.

Here is one:

Singapore's Health Care System: A Free Lunch You Can Sink Your Teeth Into | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

The Singapore government spent only 1.3 percent of GDP on healthcare in 2002, whereas the combined public and private expenditure on healthcare amounted to a low 4.3 percent of GDP. By contrast, the United States spent 14.6 percent of its GDP on healthcare that year, up from 7 percent in 1970... Yet, indicators such as infant mortality rates or years of average healthy life expectancy are slightly more favorable in Singapore than in the United States... It is true that such indicators are also related to the overall living environment and not only to healthcare spending. Nonetheless, international experts rank Singapore's healthcare system among the most successful in the world in terms of cost-effectiveness and community health results.

Now, this again goes to the measurement of health care spending.....something the ACA has not changed (unless you call it slowing down the increase).

But, this is a pretty cool system. It has mandatory health savings programs.

Singapore’s health care system holds valuable lessons for U.S.

Singapore has a range of policies that support health care, Haseltine said. For example, Singaporeans are required to have a health savings plan, called Medisave, that works like a 401K retirement savings plan in the U.S; the government sets both policies and prices for private insurance companies; health care costs for services and procedures must be completely transparent; there’s a minister of “wellness” who emphasizes the importance of a healthy diet and exercise and works to curb smoking; there are high health care subsidies for those with low incomes; and the government invests heavily in medical education.

Seems like they have some pretty good elements......

Wonder how they spend so little ?

They don't let in millions of assholes to soak up all of the benefits.

Actually, a lot of American assholes vacation in Singapore in order to take advantage of their healthcare system.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There were a host of articles on this topic a while back. I had lost track.

Here is one:

Singapore's Health Care System: A Free Lunch You Can Sink Your Teeth Into | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

The Singapore government spent only 1.3 percent of GDP on healthcare in 2002, whereas the combined public and private expenditure on healthcare amounted to a low 4.3 percent of GDP. By contrast, the United States spent 14.6 percent of its GDP on healthcare that year, up from 7 percent in 1970... Yet, indicators such as infant mortality rates or years of average healthy life expectancy are slightly more favorable in Singapore than in the United States... It is true that such indicators are also related to the overall living environment and not only to healthcare spending. Nonetheless, international experts rank Singapore's healthcare system among the most successful in the world in terms of cost-effectiveness and community health results.

Now, this again goes to the measurement of health care spending.....something the ACA has not changed (unless you call it slowing down the increase).

But, this is a pretty cool system. It has mandatory health savings programs.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/singapores-health-care-system-holds-lessons-for-u-s/

Singapore has a range of policies that support health care, Haseltine said. For example, Singaporeans are required to have a health savings plan, called Medisave, that works like a 401K retirement savings plan in the U.S; the government sets both policies and prices for private insurance companies; health care costs for services and procedures must be completely transparent; there’s a minister of “wellness” who emphasizes the importance of a healthy diet and exercise and works to curb smoking; there are high health care subsidies for those with low incomes; and the government invests heavily in medical education.

Seems like they have some pretty good elements......

Wonder how they spend so little ?

Probably don't have as many cosmetic and gender change surgeries.

Seriously -- the accelerating cost of healthcare is because neither patient or doctor KNOWS what stuff costs. You put someone in Singapore in charge of PAYING for their services out of THEIR OWN Med Savings Account and costs plummet instantaneously..

Right now -- Doctors are even sure of what they will get PAID on claims or how long it will take. And the insurance companies beat on BOTH the providers and the patients.

Providers could fix this --- if people were not already REQUIRED to deal with the insurance companies..

Once again, it would good to know if the high proportion of GDP are for additional medical costs other countries don't generally incur.

This would be things like:
1. Sex Change Operations
2. Breast Implants (as I understand it the most popular high school graduation give in Paradise Valley, AZ)
3. Gunshot wounds
4. Botox injections
5. Lyposuction
6. And more

I don't know that we pay more for these. But it sure seems like we might.

Additionally, I'd like to see our incidence of diabetes, hip and knee replacements (all the fatties we have).

If we stripped that out, what would it be ?

 

[dblack]

There were a host of articles on this topic a while back. I had lost track.

Here is one:

Singapore's Health Care System: A Free Lunch You Can Sink Your Teeth Into | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

The Singapore government spent only 1.3 percent of GDP on healthcare in 2002, whereas the combined public and private expenditure on healthcare amounted to a low 4.3 percent of GDP. By contrast, the United States spent 14.6 percent of its GDP on healthcare that year, up from 7 percent in 1970... Yet, indicators such as infant mortality rates or years of average healthy life expectancy are slightly more favorable in Singapore than in the United States... It is true that such indicators are also related to the overall living environment and not only to healthcare spending. Nonetheless, international experts rank Singapore's healthcare system among the most successful in the world in terms of cost-effectiveness and community health results.

Now, this again goes to the measurement of health care spending.....something the ACA has not changed (unless you call it slowing down the increase).

But, this is a pretty cool system. It has mandatory health savings programs.

Singapore’s health care system holds valuable lessons for U.S.

Singapore has a range of policies that support health care, Haseltine said. For example, Singaporeans are required to have a health savings plan, called Medisave, that works like a 401K retirement savings plan in the U.S; the government sets both policies and prices for private insurance companies; health care costs for services and procedures must be completely transparent; there’s a minister of “wellness” who emphasizes the importance of a healthy diet and exercise and works to curb smoking; there are high health care subsidies for those with low incomes; and the government invests heavily in medical education.

Seems like they have some pretty good elements......

Wonder how they spend so little ?

Probably don't have as many cosmetic and gender change surgeries.

Seriously -- the accelerating cost of healthcare is because neither patient or doctor KNOWS what stuff costs. You put someone in Singapore in charge of PAYING for their services out of THEIR OWN Med Savings Account and costs plummet instantaneously..

Right now -- Doctors are even sure of what they will get PAID on claims or how long it will take. And the insurance companies beat on BOTH the providers and the patients.

Providers could fix this --- if people were not already REQUIRED to deal with the insurance companies..

Once again, it would good to know if the high proportion of GDP are for additional medical costs other countries don't generally incur.

This would be things like:
1. Sex Change Operations
2. Breast Implants (as I understand it the most popular high school graduation give in Paradise Valley, AZ)
3. Gunshot wounds
4. Botox injections
5. Lyposuction
6. And more

I don't know that we pay more for these. But it sure seems like we might.

Additionally, I'd like to see our incidence of diabetes, hip and knee replacements (all the fatties we have).

If we stripped that out, what would it be ?

Again, I have to ask. Why does it matter how much of our GDP we spend on health care? I'm certainly sympathetic to the concern that health care prices are inflated - I think it's obvious they are. But how much we choose to invest our treasure in health care is a different concern. Why do we assume it's a bad thing?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

In real life, I avoid jackasses.

So stop replying to her. I quit a while ago.

I got tired of trying to find those primary sources she kept forgetting to include.

You are clouding up, what I think could be, a very interesting thread with beating her to pulp.

Pick on someone who has a brain....at least.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There were a host of articles on this topic a while back. I had lost track.

Here is one:

Singapore's Health Care System: A Free Lunch You Can Sink Your Teeth Into | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

The Singapore government spent only 1.3 percent of GDP on healthcare in 2002, whereas the combined public and private expenditure on healthcare amounted to a low 4.3 percent of GDP. By contrast, the United States spent 14.6 percent of its GDP on healthcare that year, up from 7 percent in 1970... Yet, indicators such as infant mortality rates or years of average healthy life expectancy are slightly more favorable in Singapore than in the United States... It is true that such indicators are also related to the overall living environment and not only to healthcare spending. Nonetheless, international experts rank Singapore's healthcare system among the most successful in the world in terms of cost-effectiveness and community health results.

Now, this again goes to the measurement of health care spending.....something the ACA has not changed (unless you call it slowing down the increase).

But, this is a pretty cool system. It has mandatory health savings programs.

Singapore’s health care system holds valuable lessons for U.S.

Singapore has a range of policies that support health care, Haseltine said. For example, Singaporeans are required to have a health savings plan, called Medisave, that works like a 401K retirement savings plan in the U.S; the government sets both policies and prices for private insurance companies; health care costs for services and procedures must be completely transparent; there’s a minister of “wellness” who emphasizes the importance of a healthy diet and exercise and works to curb smoking; there are high health care subsidies for those with low incomes; and the government invests heavily in medical education.

Seems like they have some pretty good elements......

Wonder how they spend so little ?

Probably don't have as many cosmetic and gender change surgeries.

Seriously -- the accelerating cost of healthcare is because neither patient or doctor KNOWS what stuff costs. You put someone in Singapore in charge of PAYING for their services out of THEIR OWN Med Savings Account and costs plummet instantaneously..

Right now -- Doctors are even sure of what they will get PAID on claims or how long it will take. And the insurance companies beat on BOTH the providers and the patients.

Providers could fix this --- if people were not already REQUIRED to deal with the insurance companies..

Once again, it would good to know if the high proportion of GDP are for additional medical costs other countries don't generally incur.

This would be things like:
1. Sex Change Operations
2. Breast Implants (as I understand it the most popular high school graduation give in Paradise Valley, AZ)
3. Gunshot wounds
4. Botox injections
5. Lyposuction
6. And more

I don't know that we pay more for these. But it sure seems like we might.

Additionally, I'd like to see our incidence of diabetes, hip and knee replacements (all the fatties we have).

If we stripped that out, what would it be ?

Again, I have to ask. Why does it matter how much of our GDP we spend on health care? I'm certainly sympathetic to the concern that health care prices are inflated - I think it's obvious they are. But how much we choose to invest our treasure in health care is a different concern. Why do we assume it's a bad thing?

I don't know that the reason has been determined.

However, I do think you'll agree that the difference does bear some investigation...at the very least.

 

[dblack]

In real life, I avoid jackasses.

So stop replying to her. I quit a while ago.

I got tired of trying to find those primary sources she kept forgetting to include.

You are clouding up, what I think could be, a very interesting thread with beating her to pulp.

Pick on someone who has a brain....at least.

Call it a hobby. I've watched these shills come and go over the years. And I'm convinced they're being supplied with talking points from a consistent source. I think it's important to expose the bullshit they're trying to disseminate.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

In real life, I avoid jackasses.

So stop replying to her. I quit a while ago.

I got tired of trying to find those primary sources she kept forgetting to include.

You are clouding up, what I think could be, a very interesting thread with beating her to pulp.

Pick on someone who has a brain....at least.

Call it a hobby. I've watched these shills come and go over the years. And I'm convinced they're being supplied with talking points from a consistent source. I think it's important to expose the bullshit they're trying to disseminate.

Alright....but please help out on the thread topic.

I think this is very interesting stuff.

When I used to suggest that states could pull this off....the far left would always scoff (you see state officials are corrupt as hell, but our federal officials are as clean and new snow......).

Singapore is roughly the size of CO. Seems like there should be some interest.

 

[dblack]

In real life, I avoid jackasses.

So stop replying to her. I quit a while ago.

I got tired of trying to find those primary sources she kept forgetting to include.

You are clouding up, what I think could be, a very interesting thread with beating her to pulp.

Pick on someone who has a brain....at least.

Call it a hobby. I've watched these shills come and go over the years. And I'm convinced they're being supplied with talking points from a consistent source. I think it's important to expose the bullshit they're trying to disseminate.

Alright....but please help out on the thread topic.

I think this is very interesting stuff.

When I used to suggest that states could pull this off....the far left would always scoff (you see state officials are corrupt as hell, but our federal officials are as clean and new snow......).

Singapore is roughly the size of CO. Seems like there should be some interest.

Well, I think my comments WERE on topic. Percentage of GDP spent on health care doesn't tell us what many think. It doesn't tell us how efficient our health car system is, for example. All it tells us is how much of our GDP we spend on health care.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

In real life, I avoid jackasses.

So stop replying to her. I quit a while ago.

I got tired of trying to find those primary sources she kept forgetting to include.

You are clouding up, what I think could be, a very interesting thread with beating her to pulp.

Pick on someone who has a brain....at least.

Call it a hobby. I've watched these shills come and go over the years. And I'm convinced they're being supplied with talking points from a consistent source. I think it's important to expose the bullshit they're trying to disseminate.

Alright....but please help out on the thread topic.

I think this is very interesting stuff.

When I used to suggest that states could pull this off....the far left would always scoff (you see state officials are corrupt as hell, but our federal officials are as clean and new snow......).

Singapore is roughly the size of CO. Seems like there should be some interest.

Well, I think my comments WERE on topic. Percentage of GDP spent on health care doesn't tell us what many think. It doesn't tell us how efficient our health car system is, for example. All it tells us is how much of our GDP we spend on health care.

Yes, those comments were.

It's playing with your dinner before you kill it that is somewhat distracting.

The end results are often referred to as outcomes. And I would expect that if you have a good comparison of outcomes, you could use that to look at spending as a percentage of GDP. Of course, that would mean all outcomes as flacaltenn pointed out, we don't all do the same proportion of surgeries. And there is what you count too.

That is what makes all this bleating by both sides so frustrating.

Getting an apples to apples comparison is pretty tough.

But I would have to ask why we are required to spend so much on health care (assuming we have somewhat similar GDP's) ? What are they not getting done ?

 

[flacaltenn]

There were a host of articles on this topic a while back. I had lost track.

Here is one:

Singapore's Health Care System: A Free Lunch You Can Sink Your Teeth Into | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

The Singapore government spent only 1.3 percent of GDP on healthcare in 2002, whereas the combined public and private expenditure on healthcare amounted to a low 4.3 percent of GDP. By contrast, the United States spent 14.6 percent of its GDP on healthcare that year, up from 7 percent in 1970... Yet, indicators such as infant mortality rates or years of average healthy life expectancy are slightly more favorable in Singapore than in the United States... It is true that such indicators are also related to the overall living environment and not only to healthcare spending. Nonetheless, international experts rank Singapore's healthcare system among the most successful in the world in terms of cost-effectiveness and community health results.

Now, this again goes to the measurement of health care spending.....something the ACA has not changed (unless you call it slowing down the increase).

But, this is a pretty cool system. It has mandatory health savings programs.

Singapore’s health care system holds valuable lessons for U.S.

Singapore has a range of policies that support health care, Haseltine said. For example, Singaporeans are required to have a health savings plan, called Medisave, that works like a 401K retirement savings plan in the U.S; the government sets both policies and prices for private insurance companies; health care costs for services and procedures must be completely transparent; there’s a minister of “wellness” who emphasizes the importance of a healthy diet and exercise and works to curb smoking; there are high health care subsidies for those with low incomes; and the government invests heavily in medical education.

Seems like they have some pretty good elements......

Wonder how they spend so little ?

Probably don't have as many cosmetic and gender change surgeries.

Seriously -- the accelerating cost of healthcare is because neither patient or doctor KNOWS what stuff costs. You put someone in Singapore in charge of PAYING for their services out of THEIR OWN Med Savings Account and costs plummet instantaneously..

Right now -- Doctors are even sure of what they will get PAID on claims or how long it will take. And the insurance companies beat on BOTH the providers and the patients.

Providers could fix this --- if people were not already REQUIRED to deal with the insurance companies..

Once again, it would good to know if the high proportion of GDP are for additional medical costs other countries don't generally incur.

This would be things like:
1. Sex Change Operations
2. Breast Implants (as I understand it the most popular high school graduation give in Paradise Valley, AZ)
3. Gunshot wounds
4. Botox injections
5. Lyposuction
6. And more

I don't know that we pay more for these. But it sure seems like we might.

Additionally, I'd like to see our incidence of diabetes, hip and knee replacements (all the fatties we have).

If we stripped that out, what would it be ?

Again, I have to ask. Why does it matter how much of our GDP we spend on health care? I'm certainly sympathetic to the concern that health care prices are inflated - I think it's obvious they are. But how much we choose to invest our treasure in health care is a different concern. Why do we assume it's a bad thing?

We're not assuming it's a bad thing. We KNOW it's a bad thing. Because we share a lot of those costs thru insurance pools.. Not the elective stuff -- but the other stuff that SunDevil mentioned. Or including the Govt mandated coverage for stuff I --- YOU don't want or need..

 

[dblack]

There were a host of articles on this topic a while back. I had lost track.

Here is one:

Singapore's Health Care System: A Free Lunch You Can Sink Your Teeth Into | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

The Singapore government spent only 1.3 percent of GDP on healthcare in 2002, whereas the combined public and private expenditure on healthcare amounted to a low 4.3 percent of GDP. By contrast, the United States spent 14.6 percent of its GDP on healthcare that year, up from 7 percent in 1970... Yet, indicators such as infant mortality rates or years of average healthy life expectancy are slightly more favorable in Singapore than in the United States... It is true that such indicators are also related to the overall living environment and not only to healthcare spending. Nonetheless, international experts rank Singapore's healthcare system among the most successful in the world in terms of cost-effectiveness and community health results.

Now, this again goes to the measurement of health care spending.....something the ACA has not changed (unless you call it slowing down the increase).

But, this is a pretty cool system. It has mandatory health savings programs.

Singapore’s health care system holds valuable lessons for U.S.

Singapore has a range of policies that support health care, Haseltine said. For example, Singaporeans are required to have a health savings plan, called Medisave, that works like a 401K retirement savings plan in the U.S; the government sets both policies and prices for private insurance companies; health care costs for services and procedures must be completely transparent; there’s a minister of “wellness” who emphasizes the importance of a healthy diet and exercise and works to curb smoking; there are high health care subsidies for those with low incomes; and the government invests heavily in medical education.

Seems like they have some pretty good elements......

Wonder how they spend so little ?

Probably don't have as many cosmetic and gender change surgeries.

Seriously -- the accelerating cost of healthcare is because neither patient or doctor KNOWS what stuff costs. You put someone in Singapore in charge of PAYING for their services out of THEIR OWN Med Savings Account and costs plummet instantaneously..

Right now -- Doctors are even sure of what they will get PAID on claims or how long it will take. And the insurance companies beat on BOTH the providers and the patients.

Providers could fix this --- if people were not already REQUIRED to deal with the insurance companies..

Once again, it would good to know if the high proportion of GDP are for additional medical costs other countries don't generally incur.

This would be things like:
1. Sex Change Operations
2. Breast Implants (as I understand it the most popular high school graduation give in Paradise Valley, AZ)
3. Gunshot wounds
4. Botox injections
5. Lyposuction
6. And more

I don't know that we pay more for these. But it sure seems like we might.

Additionally, I'd like to see our incidence of diabetes, hip and knee replacements (all the fatties we have).

If we stripped that out, what would it be ?

Again, I have to ask. Why does it matter how much of our GDP we spend on health care? I'm certainly sympathetic to the concern that health care prices are inflated - I think it's obvious they are. But how much we choose to invest our treasure in health care is a different concern. Why do we assume it's a bad thing?

We're not assuming it's a bad thing. We KNOW it's a bad thing. Because we share a lot of those costs thru insurance pools.. Not the elective stuff -- but the other stuff that SunDevil mentioned. Or including the Govt mandated coverage for stuff I --- YOU don't want or need..

And this is where I think you're misguided.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[flacaltenn]

In real life, I avoid jackasses.

So stop replying to her. I quit a while ago.

I got tired of trying to find those primary sources she kept forgetting to include.

You are clouding up, what I think could be, a very interesting thread with beating her to pulp.

Pick on someone who has a brain....at least.

Call it a hobby. I've watched these shills come and go over the years. And I'm convinced they're being supplied with talking points from a consistent source. I think it's important to expose the bullshit they're trying to disseminate.

Alright....but please help out on the thread topic.

I think this is very interesting stuff.

When I used to suggest that states could pull this off....the far left would always scoff (you see state officials are corrupt as hell, but our federal officials are as clean and new snow......).

Singapore is roughly the size of CO. Seems like there should be some interest.

Well, I think my comments WERE on topic. Percentage of GDP spent on health care doesn't tell us what many think. It doesn't tell us how efficient our health car system is, for example. All it tells us is how much of our GDP we spend on health care.

Yes, those comments were.

It's playing with your dinner before you kill it that is somewhat distracting.

The end results are often referred to as outcomes. And I would expect that if you have a good comparison of outcomes, you could use that to look at spending as a percentage of GDP. Of course, that would mean all outcomes as flacaltenn pointed out, we don't all do the same proportion of surgeries. And there is what you count too.

That is what makes all this bleating by both sides so frustrating.

Getting an apples to apples comparison is pretty tough.

But I would have to ask why we are required to spend so much on health care (assuming we have somewhat similar GDP's) ? What are they not getting done ?

We don't even do the same amount of PREVENTATIVE procedures -- I'll wager. Go look at the colonoscopy or mammography rates in Singapore and tell me if they compare. WE demand a lower risk of disease.. That's why screenings are important. But they do not REDUCE overall costs all that much in the big scheme of payouts..

 

[flacaltenn]

There were a host of articles on this topic a while back. I had lost track.

Here is one:

Singapore's Health Care System: A Free Lunch You Can Sink Your Teeth Into | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

The Singapore government spent only 1.3 percent of GDP on healthcare in 2002, whereas the combined public and private expenditure on healthcare amounted to a low 4.3 percent of GDP. By contrast, the United States spent 14.6 percent of its GDP on healthcare that year, up from 7 percent in 1970... Yet, indicators such as infant mortality rates or years of average healthy life expectancy are slightly more favorable in Singapore than in the United States... It is true that such indicators are also related to the overall living environment and not only to healthcare spending. Nonetheless, international experts rank Singapore's healthcare system among the most successful in the world in terms of cost-effectiveness and community health results.

Now, this again goes to the measurement of health care spending.....something the ACA has not changed (unless you call it slowing down the increase).

But, this is a pretty cool system. It has mandatory health savings programs.

Singapore’s health care system holds valuable lessons for U.S.

Singapore has a range of policies that support health care, Haseltine said. For example, Singaporeans are required to have a health savings plan, called Medisave, that works like a 401K retirement savings plan in the U.S; the government sets both policies and prices for private insurance companies; health care costs for services and procedures must be completely transparent; there’s a minister of “wellness” who emphasizes the importance of a healthy diet and exercise and works to curb smoking; there are high health care subsidies for those with low incomes; and the government invests heavily in medical education.

Seems like they have some pretty good elements......

Wonder how they spend so little ?

Probably don't have as many cosmetic and gender change surgeries.

Seriously -- the accelerating cost of healthcare is because neither patient or doctor KNOWS what stuff costs. You put someone in Singapore in charge of PAYING for their services out of THEIR OWN Med Savings Account and costs plummet instantaneously..

Right now -- Doctors are even sure of what they will get PAID on claims or how long it will take. And the insurance companies beat on BOTH the providers and the patients.

Providers could fix this --- if people were not already REQUIRED to deal with the insurance companies..

Once again, it would good to know if the high proportion of GDP are for additional medical costs other countries don't generally incur.

This would be things like:
1. Sex Change Operations
2. Breast Implants (as I understand it the most popular high school graduation give in Paradise Valley, AZ)
3. Gunshot wounds
4. Botox injections
5. Lyposuction
6. And more

I don't know that we pay more for these. But it sure seems like we might.

Additionally, I'd like to see our incidence of diabetes, hip and knee replacements (all the fatties we have).

If we stripped that out, what would it be ?

Again, I have to ask. Why does it matter how much of our GDP we spend on health care? I'm certainly sympathetic to the concern that health care prices are inflated - I think it's obvious they are. But how much we choose to invest our treasure in health care is a different concern. Why do we assume it's a bad thing?

We're not assuming it's a bad thing. We KNOW it's a bad thing. Because we share a lot of those costs thru insurance pools.. Not the elective stuff -- but the other stuff that SunDevil mentioned. Or including the Govt mandated coverage for stuff I --- YOU don't want or need..

And this is where I think you're misguided.

Be careful what you wish for.

That I need birth control or pregnancy coverage? Or even psych coverage? Don't think so... I'm willing to take those risks.. Purpose of all that is to spread the pool and leave some room for Viagra/gender reassignment procedures...

The ONLY risky folks paying more under ObamaCare are smokers. And THEY are ALREADY PAYING with $$Thousands/year in cigarette taxes ostensibly going to cover their costs..

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There were a host of articles on this topic a while back. I had lost track.

Here is one:

Singapore's Health Care System: A Free Lunch You Can Sink Your Teeth Into | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

The Singapore government spent only 1.3 percent of GDP on healthcare in 2002, whereas the combined public and private expenditure on healthcare amounted to a low 4.3 percent of GDP. By contrast, the United States spent 14.6 percent of its GDP on healthcare that year, up from 7 percent in 1970... Yet, indicators such as infant mortality rates or years of average healthy life expectancy are slightly more favorable in Singapore than in the United States... It is true that such indicators are also related to the overall living environment and not only to healthcare spending. Nonetheless, international experts rank Singapore's healthcare system among the most successful in the world in terms of cost-effectiveness and community health results.

Now, this again goes to the measurement of health care spending.....something the ACA has not changed (unless you call it slowing down the increase).

But, this is a pretty cool system. It has mandatory health savings programs.

Singapore’s health care system holds valuable lessons for U.S.

Singapore has a range of policies that support health care, Haseltine said. For example, Singaporeans are required to have a health savings plan, called Medisave, that works like a 401K retirement savings plan in the U.S; the government sets both policies and prices for private insurance companies; health care costs for services and procedures must be completely transparent; there’s a minister of “wellness” who emphasizes the importance of a healthy diet and exercise and works to curb smoking; there are high health care subsidies for those with low incomes; and the government invests heavily in medical education.

Seems like they have some pretty good elements......

Wonder how they spend so little ?

Probably don't have as many cosmetic and gender change surgeries.

Seriously -- the accelerating cost of healthcare is because neither patient or doctor KNOWS what stuff costs. You put someone in Singapore in charge of PAYING for their services out of THEIR OWN Med Savings Account and costs plummet instantaneously..

Right now -- Doctors are even sure of what they will get PAID on claims or how long it will take. And the insurance companies beat on BOTH the providers and the patients.

Providers could fix this --- if people were not already REQUIRED to deal with the insurance companies..

Once again, it would good to know if the high proportion of GDP are for additional medical costs other countries don't generally incur.

This would be things like:
1. Sex Change Operations
2. Breast Implants (as I understand it the most popular high school graduation give in Paradise Valley, AZ)
3. Gunshot wounds
4. Botox injections
5. Lyposuction
6. And more

I don't know that we pay more for these. But it sure seems like we might.

Additionally, I'd like to see our incidence of diabetes, hip and knee replacements (all the fatties we have).

If we stripped that out, what would it be ?

Again, I have to ask. Why does it matter how much of our GDP we spend on health care? I'm certainly sympathetic to the concern that health care prices are inflated - I think it's obvious they are. But how much we choose to invest our treasure in health care is a different concern. Why do we assume it's a bad thing?

We're not assuming it's a bad thing. We KNOW it's a bad thing. Because we share a lot of those costs thru insurance pools.. Not the elective stuff -- but the other stuff that SunDevil mentioned. Or including the Govt mandated coverage for stuff I --- YOU don't want or need..

And this is where I think you're misguided.

Be careful what you wish for.

I am all ears as to how this might not be the case.

I didn't start this thread to argue a point. I started it to raise these questions.

I can't say it is a bad thing. What I need to know is where we spend our dollars.

A very touch subject is end of life care. As I understand it, we spend about 30% of our total health care dollars on people in the last year of life.

I quickly looked and found this:

Medicare, the health insurance program for the elderly, spends nearly 30 percent of its budget on beneficiaries in their final year of life. Slightly more than half of Medicare dollars are spent on patients who die within two months.

30% or a small variation, one has to ask what we are getting for that.

Now, I'd like to see what Singapore does with regards to EOL issues.

 

[dblack]

Probably don't have as many cosmetic and gender change surgeries.

Seriously -- the accelerating cost of healthcare is because neither patient or doctor KNOWS what stuff costs. You put someone in Singapore in charge of PAYING for their services out of THEIR OWN Med Savings Account and costs plummet instantaneously..

Right now -- Doctors are even sure of what they will get PAID on claims or how long it will take. And the insurance companies beat on BOTH the providers and the patients.

Providers could fix this --- if people were not already REQUIRED to deal with the insurance companies..

Once again, it would good to know if the high proportion of GDP are for additional medical costs other countries don't generally incur.

This would be things like:
1. Sex Change Operations
2. Breast Implants (as I understand it the most popular high school graduation give in Paradise Valley, AZ)
3. Gunshot wonds
4. Botox injections
5. Lyposuction
6. And more

I don't know that we pay more for these. But it sure seems like we might.

Additionally, I'd like to see our incidence of diabetes, hip and knee replacements (all the fatties we have).

If we stripped that out, what would it be ?

Again, I have to ask. Why does it matter how much of our GDP we spend on health care? I'm certainly sympathetic to the concern that health care prices are inflated - I think it's obvious they are. But how much we choose to invest our treasure in health care is a different concern. Why do we assume it's a bad thing?

We're not assuming it's a bad thing. We KNOW it's a bad thing. Because we share a lot of those costs thru insurance pools.. Not the elective stuff -- but the other stuff that SunDevil mentioned. Or including the Govt mandated coverage for stuff I --- YOU don't want or need..

And this is where I think you're misguided.

Be careful what you wish for.

I am all ears as to how this might not be the case.

I didn't start this thread to argue a point. I started it to raise these questions.

I can't say it is a bad thing. What I need to know is where we spend our dollars.

A very touch subject is end of life care. As I understand it, we spend about 30% of our total health care dollars on people in the last year of life.

I quickly looked and found this:

Medicare, the health insurance program for the elderly, spends nearly 30 percent of its budget on beneficiaries in their final year of life. Slightly more than half of Medicare dollars are spent on patients who die within two months.

30% or a small variation, one has to ask what we are getting for that.

Now, I'd like to see what Singapore does with regards to EOL issues.

If a family wants to blow their life savings to keep grandpa alive for an extra year, or if insurance companies can sell expensive insurance that covers such extremes, it's not a bad thing. It's people spending their money how they want. You and I might think it's a waste, but others disagree. They obviously find some value in it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Once again, it would good to know if the high proportion of GDP are for additional medical costs other countries don't generally incur.

This would be things like:
1. Sex Change Operations
2. Breast Implants (as I understand it the most popular high school graduation give in Paradise Valley, AZ)
3. Gunshot wonds
4. Botox injections
5. Lyposuction
6. And more

I don't know that we pay more for these. But it sure seems like we might.

Additionally, I'd like to see our incidence of diabetes, hip and knee replacements (all the fatties we have).

If we stripped that out, what would it be ?

Again, I have to ask. Why does it matter how much of our GDP we spend on health care? I'm certainly sympathetic to the concern that health care prices are inflated - I think it's obvious they are. But how much we choose to invest our treasure in health care is a different concern. Why do we assume it's a bad thing?

We're not assuming it's a bad thing. We KNOW it's a bad thing. Because we share a lot of those costs thru insurance pools.. Not the elective stuff -- but the other stuff that SunDevil mentioned. Or including the Govt mandated coverage for stuff I --- YOU don't want or need..

And this is where I think you're misguided.

Be careful what you wish for.

I am all ears as to how this might not be the case.

I didn't start this thread to argue a point. I started it to raise these questions.

I can't say it is a bad thing. What I need to know is where we spend our dollars.

A very touch subject is end of life care. As I understand it, we spend about 30% of our total health care dollars on people in the last year of life.

I quickly looked and found this:

Medicare, the health insurance program for the elderly, spends nearly 30 percent of its budget on beneficiaries in their final year of life. Slightly more than half of Medicare dollars are spent on patients who die within two months.

30% or a small variation, one has to ask what we are getting for that.

Now, I'd like to see what Singapore does with regards to EOL issues.

If a family wants to blow their life savings to keep grandpa alive for an extra year, or if insurance companies can sell expensive insurance that covers such extremes, it's not a bad thing. It's people spending their money how they want. You and I might think it's a waste, but others disagree. They obviously find some value in it.

EOL care is no longer a "personal decision" in the USA -- largely.. It's the Medicare reimbursements and highly controlled MediCare supplemental markets that we all are FORCED to share. In fact ---- it's ILLEGAL to "blow a wad" on Gramps in almost all cases. I know -- my Dad died (partly) because I was not able to fund a simple variation on a procedure that Medicare would not allow..

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Once again, it would good to know if the high proportion of GDP are for additional medical costs other countries don't generally incur.

This would be things like:
1. Sex Change Operations
2. Breast Implants (as I understand it the most popular high school graduation give in Paradise Valley, AZ)
3. Gunshot wonds
4. Botox injections
5. Lyposuction
6. And more

I don't know that we pay more for these. But it sure seems like we might.

Additionally, I'd like to see our incidence of diabetes, hip and knee replacements (all the fatties we have).

If we stripped that out, what would it be ?

Again, I have to ask. Why does it matter how much of our GDP we spend on health care? I'm certainly sympathetic to the concern that health care prices are inflated - I think it's obvious they are. But how much we choose to invest our treasure in health care is a different concern. Why do we assume it's a bad thing?

We're not assuming it's a bad thing. We KNOW it's a bad thing. Because we share a lot of those costs thru insurance pools.. Not the elective stuff -- but the other stuff that SunDevil mentioned. Or including the Govt mandated coverage for stuff I --- YOU don't want or need..

And this is where I think you're misguided.

Be careful what you wish for.

I am all ears as to how this might not be the case.

I didn't start this thread to argue a point. I started it to raise these questions.

I can't say it is a bad thing. What I need to know is where we spend our dollars.

A very touch subject is end of life care. As I understand it, we spend about 30% of our total health care dollars on people in the last year of life.

I quickly looked and found this:

Medicare, the health insurance program for the elderly, spends nearly 30 percent of its budget on beneficiaries in their final year of life. Slightly more than half of Medicare dollars are spent on patients who die within two months.

30% or a small variation, one has to ask what we are getting for that.

Now, I'd like to see what Singapore does with regards to EOL issues.

If a family wants to blow their life savings to keep grandpa alive for an extra year, or if insurance companies can sell expensive insurance that covers such extremes, it's not a bad thing. It's people spending their money how they want. You and I might think it's a waste, but others disagree. They obviously find some value in it.

Nobody said it was a bad thing. At least I didn't. And I didn't say it was a waste. I was just asking if Singapore spends that same percentage.

It's more trying to find out what we do different.

Not to change what we do, but just explain it.

As you said, just because we spend more does not mean it is bad.

However, if Singapore has good end of life care and they still don't spend what we do....you have to ask why.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Again, I have to ask. Why does it matter how much of our GDP we spend on health care? I'm certainly sympathetic to the concern that health care prices are inflated - I think it's obvious they are. But how much we choose to invest our treasure in health care is a different concern. Why do we assume it's a bad thing?

We're not assuming it's a bad thing. We KNOW it's a bad thing. Because we share a lot of those costs thru insurance pools.. Not the elective stuff -- but the other stuff that SunDevil mentioned. Or including the Govt mandated coverage for stuff I --- YOU don't want or need..

And this is where I think you're misguided.

Be careful what you wish for.

I am all ears as to how this might not be the case.

I didn't start this thread to argue a point. I started it to raise these questions.

I can't say it is a bad thing. What I need to know is where we spend our dollars.

A very touch subject is end of life care. As I understand it, we spend about 30% of our total health care dollars on people in the last year of life.

I quickly looked and found this:

Medicare, the health insurance program for the elderly, spends nearly 30 percent of its budget on beneficiaries in their final year of life. Slightly more than half of Medicare dollars are spent on patients who die within two months.

30% or a small variation, one has to ask what we are getting for that.

Now, I'd like to see what Singapore does with regards to EOL issues.

If a family wants to blow their life savings to keep grandpa alive for an extra year, or if insurance companies can sell expensive insurance that covers such extremes, it's not a bad thing. It's people spending their money how they want. You and I might think it's a waste, but others disagree. They obviously find some value in it.

EOL care is no longer a "personal decision" in the USA -- largely.. It's the Medicare reimbursements and highly controlled MediCare supplemental markets that we all are FORCED to share. In fact ---- it's ILLEGAL to "blow a wad" on Gramps in almost all cases. I know -- my Dad died (partly) because I was not able to fund a simple variation on a procedure that Medicare would not allow..

You'll need to explain.

You are saying that had you paid for a procedure on your own, you would have been in violation of the law ?

 

[flacaltenn]

We're not assuming it's a bad thing. We KNOW it's a bad thing. Because we share a lot of those costs thru insurance pools.. Not the elective stuff -- but the other stuff that SunDevil mentioned. Or including the Govt mandated coverage for stuff I --- YOU don't want or need..

And this is where I think you're misguided.

Be careful what you wish for.

I am all ears as to how this might not be the case.

I didn't start this thread to argue a point. I started it to raise these questions.

I can't say it is a bad thing. What I need to know is where we spend our dollars.

A very touch subject is end of life care. As I understand it, we spend about 30% of our total health care dollars on people in the last year of life.

I quickly looked and found this:

Medicare, the health insurance program for the elderly, spends nearly 30 percent of its budget on beneficiaries in their final year of life. Slightly more than half of Medicare dollars are spent on patients who die within two months.

30% or a small variation, one has to ask what we are getting for that.

Now, I'd like to see what Singapore does with regards to EOL issues.

If a family wants to blow their life savings to keep grandpa alive for an extra year, or if insurance companies can sell expensive insurance that covers such extremes, it's not a bad thing. It's people spending their money how
they want. You and I might think it's a waste, but others disagree. They obviously find some value in it.

EOL care is no longer a "personal decision" in the USA -- largely.. It's the Medicare reimbursements and highly controlled MediCare supplemental markets that we all are FORCED to share. In fact ---- it's ILLEGAL to "blow a wad" on Gramps in almost all cases. I know -- my Dad died (partly) because I was not able to fund a simple variation on a procedure that Medicare would not allow..

You'll need to explain.

You are saying that had you paid for a procedure on your own, you would have been in violation of the law ?

If the patient is admitted for a particular reason that is covered under Medicare - you cannot ALTER the treatments or services rendered in ANY WAY by private funding or subsidizing deviations from Medicare standards. The doctors will then not be reimbursed for a DIME of the total cost.

In this case, there were recurrent serious UTInfections due to an enlarged prostate and the solution was radio heating of prostrate which is approved for local anesthesia. The Urologist refused to put him on the table because it's painful and requires a lot a cooperation and was afraid he wouldn't comply.

I wanted them to put him under general anesth. which the doctor said was possible, but Medicare would reject his entire claim if I paid for it..