US health care spending

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by Euro, Oct 13, 2011.

  1. Euro
    Offline

    Euro Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    316
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Scandinavia
    Ratings:
    +26
    US is the country in the world that spends most money on health pr. capita, they spend 7290$ pr. inhabitant on health. That is 16% of GDP pr. inhabitant.
    Canada which has a good health care system spends far less, they spend 3895$ pr. capita, that is 10% of GDP pr. capita.

    Companies don’t want to start business in the US because of the high spending on private health insurance. And companies decide to flag out because of high health care spending.
    A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expense.

    Why don’t US adopt the canadian model for health care that has been a success?
    That will make companies establish in the US and create new jobs, economic growth and better health which implies more productive workers.

    Is their any disadvatages at all by adopting the canadian system, I can’t see any?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    The Canadian system does not allow for any private health insurance or care. That is a drawback. The British system, on the other hand, is a government run system where everyone is guaranteed healthcare services. For those who can afford it, private insurance is available. By purchasing private insurance, those policy holders are granted special courtesies, such as being moved to the head of the line and getting the gold treatment when in hospital. But nobody is left without insurance, and it is very unlikely that anyone will go bankrupt due to medical bills that they cannot pay.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Euro
    Offline

    Euro Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    316
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Scandinavia
    Ratings:
    +26
    Yes, thats an advantage. But why don’t US get a goverment run health care system like Britain then?
    Spending 7290$ pr. capita. is almost twice as much as Canada(3895$), Britain spends 2992$ pr. capita. But I think the canadian system have a better overall quality than the british, it has a good reputation all over the world, the US health care system has a poor reputation and they spend far to much money on health care, no nation is even close to US on health care spending pr. capita. At least they should get a new system that can reduce the costs. That will be good for business,jobs,health and productivity.
     
  4. PeteEU
    Offline

    PeteEU VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    329
    Thanks Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Malaga region, Spain
    Ratings:
    +54
    Money
    Corruption
    Brainwashing.

    There is more money in keeping the status quo .. more money for the industries involved.

    This in turn means that the industries will do anything including legally bribe politicians to create an environment that favours the industry over the consumer. Hence you have ban on negotiating the price for drugs by government healthcare organisations... hence you have a ban on importing ANY medicine from abroad.. hence you have limits based often on state or geographical areas on who can start a health insurance company there... and so on and so on.

    And this all backed up by conditioning of the US mind and consumer that anything non-American is socialist and everyone knows in the US that socialist things are bad.. after all the government and political parties have been saying that for 60+ years now.

    This in turn means you can throw all the facts and statistics on the table that clearly shows that universal healthcare is cheaper and just as good, but the debate will always come down to specific talking points and end up being classified as socialist ideas.

    An example is the whole idea that in a UHC system that there are waiting times for procedures. Yes but what is never mentioned is the waiting times in the US system, because that statistic is not released because it is a negative on the private sector. Also in this context the anti-UHC people tend hint that the waiting times also include critically ill people... which is mostly untrue, but at the same time they gloss over the fact that millions of uninsured American's never get the treatment in time that could have saved lives and ton of money...

    Basically the whole debate in the US is skewed big time by half truths and outright lies and all being promoted by millions in lobby dollars by the very industry that is profiting hugely from the status quo which in turn means that the actual truth and benifits of a UHC system like the Canadian or the British never comes out.

    It is also ironic that the anti-UHC only mention the two UHC systems that are know to be very dysfunctional by UHC standards, and never mention any other countries like France, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and so on...
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2011
  5. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    There was a thread very recently where a poster, caught up in the zeal of attacking Canadian health care, cited this statistic: "Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report 'excellent' health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent)." The poster seemed unaware she was making the argument that our universal single-payer system (which already covers substantially more people--almost entirely seniors--than does Canada's) works better than Canada's. There are indeed other examples to consider.
     
  6. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    And yet Britain is going bankrupt trying to do it. You proponents of UHC keep ignoring the personal responsibility aspect of the overall healthcare problem. It should be obvious to most anyone, yet for whatever reason remains unmentioned, that what it costs to keep someone healthy is going to be correleated to how healthy that person actually is. And how healthy a person actually is something said individual has a considerable amount of control over. The simple fact is most Americans don't lead very healthy lives. We live mainly on processed food and nearly half of the country is considered obese. Forget about HOW it gets paid for or the quality of our hospitals and physicians. Should it really be all that surprising given the health habits of the avg. American that maintaining our health costs more than it does in other countries?

    How do you get people to make healthier choices? You give them incentives to do so. You don't even further remove the financial consequences of poor decisions.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2011
  7. PeteEU
    Offline

    PeteEU VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    329
    Thanks Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Malaga region, Spain
    Ratings:
    +54
    The UK is not going bankrupt because of the NHS. The NHS is cheap as hell compared to the number of people it serves. Where the UK is going down the tubes is in other areas of government spending.... many billions on a nuclear weapons system, aircraft carriers with no planes and so on.

    Yes there is no doubt about that many Americans live unhealthy lives. But you are using the personal responsibility argument as an excuse NOT to treat or provide healthcare for some people.. and that is frankly morally wrong on so many levels...and factually wrong. Most people who dont get treatment are not per say "fat", but poor... the US system is skewed towards the minority rich.

    People who live unhealthy lives get sick, as do people who live healthy lives. And who decides what is healthy and what is not healthy living? Who controls it?

    Point is you as a country are dealt the cards you are dealt and from that you have set up a system that is cost effective and provides healthcare for everyone regardless of age, sex, sexual orientation, religion, economic status and so on. And as it stands now the US fails on the first one big time and partly on the second one... but it is people like you who refuse to admit it and instead focus on excluding people based on some sort of personal/political bias.

    And this is where you shoot yourself in the foot because you ignore the legal aspects of your healthcare industry that presses the price up. Are you seriously saying that in a system where there is next to no competition among private insures, where the laws benefit the industry over the customer and a system where a large part of the population is not even covered forcing them to get last minute healthcare... that the biggest cost problem is the fat people? You seriously think that fat people have a larger impact on the cost structure of Medicaid/care than the ban on negotiating on drug prices? Or how about the extra ordinary lengths that your healthcare system goes to keep people alive for a few more weeks or months? End of life costs are one of the primary cost problems if you did not know.. keeping 80 year old cancer suffers a live a few extra weeks costs a lot of money...

    Oh I agree.. which is why I support my new governments new tax on fat in Denmark, despite not voting for them.

    But that still does not change the fact that you are ignoring the biggest cost drivers in the US healthcare system and blaming the rising costs on American's instead.
     
  8. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    Cheap is relative. I'm sure it's cheap to the people. Cheap to the government, no. France for example has run 10-15 billion dollar deficits for the last several years with no signs of getting it under control.


    No one is supposed to contorl it. That's the point in a free society. You make whatever choices you want and you live with the financial consequences of them. Which is why it better that people handle their health care expenses on their own. Unless you are willing to allow me the right to tell you how to live given that I am am ultimately the one paying for your decisions. And yes I know not all health care issues are self inflicted (better than most actually), my fault or not why do I have the right to obigate you to the cost of my health care needs?

    My stance on how health care should be funded has nothing to do with my political bias. My goal is not to exclude anyone. My goal is probably pretty similar to yours. That people get the care they need. The sticking point is who should be responsible for those costs and what is the most efficient way to do it. I still have yet to see a reasonable argument from anyone explaining why government should be allowed to force me to be responsible for your health. And I don't know how much you know about how our government functions, but it does almost nothing efficientl or cost effectively. My health is about the last thing I want them to have any control over.


    I'm not saying our system doesn't have problems. I'm saying government single payer is not the solution. You complain about a lack of competition in our country, yet are advocating that we move to a different type of system with no competition (government funded)?
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2011
  9. Euro
    Offline

    Euro Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    316
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Scandinavia
    Ratings:
    +26
    US spends a lot of money on veteran affairs, they spend more money on veteran affairs than education. Why not make large cuts in veteran benefits, and put more money in to education.

    More PE and learning about health in school instead of spending money on veteran benefits. US spends over 50 billion $ on veteran affairs thats insane. I don’t know what the kids are served at school in the US, but you can provide them with healthy food instead of hamburgers and frites.

    I know that US put high custom on foreign goods, why not cut the custom on healthy food that you import to make more healthy food available at low prices?
    You can also cut the VAT on healthy food and put extra taxes on unhealthy food. The same thing on medicine, you must tear down the custom wall to open for competition on the medicine market.

    You also have 3.1% of all persons in prison that is to many, why not let many of them out and put them into productive work?
     
  10. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    Just so you know, the British system is bordering on collapse. The French - which is part public and part private insurance is also struggling... their premiums are going through the roof.

    All those countries that we see as 'great alternatives'.... not true on close inspection.
     

Share This Page