US health care spending

[Bern80]

Much of the spending in the US is on the high salaries on people working in the health industry. If the government runs it you can cut down the high salaries. The high salaries is the main cause why you have to pay som much for medical service.

An average salary for a specialist in the US is 230.000$ a year, a general practioner earns 161.000$ a year. An average salary for a nurse is 56.000$.
A candian specialist earns 161.000$ a year, a general practioner 107.000$ and a nurse 42.000$.
The average for a specialist in OECD 113.000$, for a general practioner 83.000$ and for a nurse 33.000$.

The salaries that the physicians and the nurses get are far to high, if the government can controll the medical service you can lower the salaries and make the services far cheaper for the consumers.

You have got to be joking. I really do wish you lived in our country to see how out of whack the compensation is of the avg. public employee. Typically our public employees make MORE than private employees of the same skill level. Anyone who understands basic economics should be able to see why.

Here it’s opposite. It’s more attractive to work for a privately owned company.They usually pay more. A public employee will have a moderate/ok salary.
Average here for physcians in private business:138.000$ a year
---------------------physicians in public business:127.000$ a year
The problem for US is that the corporate taxes on business is the highest in the world, that is not good for business. You should lower the corporate taxes from 38% to about 20%, it’s a shame to have so high corporate taxes thats not good for business and it takes the money away from the business.

At the same time your taxes on personal income are to low. You must lower corporate taxes and increase taxes on personal income. A health care system covered by the government will also be good for business. At the same time you need more strong labour unions that can negotiate for collective wages.
A minimum wage about 18$/hour should be an absolute minimum.

That still doesn't take care of the problems. In theory you may be right, but as you may know we have a government that doesn't know how to not spend money. Any excuse to give them more is bad idea. The last one is more a problem of principle that I mentinoed before. If I, John Q Taxpayer, am going to be on the hook for your health care than it is only fair that I get a say in how you live your life so as to make sure you are not wasting my money needlessly. It's a choice between freedom and security. I get wanting a level of security, but it comes at the cost of freedom (and more freedom comes at the cost of less security). It comes at the cost of freedom in restricting what you can do in order to keep you safe and it comes at the cost of financial freedom. Money is the means by which people exercise their freedom. The less of it you have the less free you are. The more taxes are taken from you in the name of providing some benefit the less free you will be. Again I'm sure we agree on what we would like to see for an outcome, but government simply is not the answer.

 

[Euro]

You have got to be joking. I really do wish you lived in our country to see how out of whack the compensation is of the avg. public employee. Typically our public employees make MORE than private employees of the same skill level. Anyone who understands basic economics should be able to see why.

Here it’s opposite. It’s more attractive to work for a privately owned company.They usually pay more. A public employee will have a moderate/ok salary.
Average here for physcians in private business:138.000$ a year
---------------------physicians in public business:127.000$ a year
The problem for US is that the corporate taxes on business is the highest in the world, that is not good for business. You should lower the corporate taxes from 38% to about 20%, it’s a shame to have so high corporate taxes thats not good for business and it takes the money away from the business.

At the same time your taxes on personal income are to low. You must lower corporate taxes and increase taxes on personal income. A health care system covered by the government will also be good for business. At the same time you need more strong labour unions that can negotiate for collective wages.
A minimum wage about 18$/hour should be an absolute minimum.

That still doesn't take care of the problems. In theory you may be right, but as you may know we have a government that doesn't know how to not spend money. Any excuse to give them more is bad idea. The last one is more a problem of principle that I mentinoed before. If I, John Q Taxpayer, am going to be on the hook for your health care than it is only fair that I get a say in how you live your life so as to make sure you are not wasting my money needlessly. It's a choice between freedom and security. I get wanting a level of security, but it comes at the cost of freedom (and more freedom comes at the cost of less security). It comes at the cost of freedom in restricting what you can do in order to keep you safe and it comes at the cost of financial freedom. Money is the means by which people exercise their freedom. The less of it you have the less free you are. The more taxes are taken from you in the name of providing some benefit the less free you will be. Again I'm sure we agree on what we would like to see for an outcome, but government simply is not the answer.

The problem with a free enterprise system, and only privately run healhtcare institutions is that it will be competiton and higher prices on health care. Businesses will try to make profit on sick people. If the government can controll salaries in the health care industry. E.g if at least 70-80% of all physicians have to work for the government, the government can decide the profit that the individual doctors make. If the government can lower the physicians salaries, they can cut the taxes that this cut makes.
That means more money and back to the people. Physicians will still have a good salary but an average of 230.000$ is far to high. If an average physician earns 120.000$ working for the government instead, he/she will still have enough money to live a godd life would he/she? At the same time the provate business can get a tax cut. (regular companies corporate taxes). Now the government puts their hands in to privately owned business and take the money away from the people, 40% corporate tax is way to high. That is something that takes away the freedo,.

We see the same thing with the prisons in the US that are privately owned.
In 1972 US had less than 300k prisoners, and now you have more than 2 million people in prison. Because of the private jails, you provide privately owned prisons with cheap labour supported by the tax payers money. The individuals that owns this prisons try to get as many prisoners as possible because that provide them with cheap labour and a large amount of tax-payers money.

I think most businesses should be privately run but in US you have to high corporate taxes on business, thats not good. But some business like prison and health is not something that individuals should make large profitts on. That gives a socioeconomic deficit. Prisons and health should be run by the government, at least the majority in this business should be run by the government.

 

[Bern80]

The problem with a free enterprise system, and only privately run healhtcare institutions is that it will be competiton and higher prices on health care. Businesses will try to make profit on sick people. If the government can controll salaries in the health care industry. E.g if at least 70-80% of all physicians have to work for the government, the government can decide the profit that the individual doctors make. If the government can lower the physicians salaries, they can cut the taxes that this cut makes.
That means more money and back to the people. Physicians will still have a good salary but an average of 230.000$ is far to high. If an average physician earns 120.000$ working for the government instead, he/she will still have enough money to live a godd life would he/she? At the same time the provate business can get a tax cut. (regular companies corporate taxes). Now the government puts their hands in to privately owned business and take the money away from the people, 40% corporate tax is way to high. That is something that takes away the freedo,.

Basic economics says competition generally drives cost to the consumer down, not up. One of our issues here is the LACK of competition in the industry. Or more specifically the consumer's lack of competition. If anything I think consumers are too far removed from the costs of their health care. They never really see what the services they obtain actually cost. So there's no reason to see if a different hospital offers a better deal for the same service, for example. You have to add MORE free market to the system, not less. You don't let government dictate how much a doctor should make. You let the consumer dictate that.

 

[Big Fitz]

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?

US Spending on Health care should be $0.00 save for what they pay for their own military or worker's comp claims for employees.

It is the job of the citizens of the US to pay for their own health insurance and/or treatment.

 

[Euro]

The problem with a free enterprise system, and only privately run healhtcare institutions is that it will be competiton and higher prices on health care. Businesses will try to make profit on sick people. If the government can controll salaries in the health care industry. E.g if at least 70-80% of all physicians have to work for the government, the government can decide the profit that the individual doctors make. If the government can lower the physicians salaries, they can cut the taxes that this cut makes.
That means more money and back to the people. Physicians will still have a good salary but an average of 230.000$ is far to high. If an average physician earns 120.000$ working for the government instead, he/she will still have enough money to live a godd life would he/she? At the same time the provate business can get a tax cut. (regular companies corporate taxes). Now the government puts their hands in to privately owned business and take the money away from the people, 40% corporate tax is way to high. That is something that takes away the freedo,.

Basic economics says competition generally drives cost to the consumer down, not up. One of our issues here is the LACK of competition in the industry. Or more specifically the consumer's lack of competition. If anything I think consumers are too far removed from the costs of their health care. They never really see what the services they obtain actually cost. So there's no reason to see if a different hospital offers a better deal for the same service, for example. You have to add MORE free market to the system, not less. You don't let government dictate how much a doctor should make. You let the consumer dictate that.

That depends on the access of labour. Then you have to spend more money on education of more physicians, give scholarships an incentives so that more young people gets the oppurtunity to become physicians. The deficit of physicians is what drives the salaries to this high level.
At the same time US put high customs on foreign medicine, if you could import medicine from Europe or Asia you would get more competition in the market and lower prices. That will also give you the freedom to choose a cheaper alternative.

 

[Katzndogz]

How much would health care be if we weren't also subsidizing the health care of illegal aliens?

 

[Bern80]

The problem with a free enterprise system, and only privately run healhtcare institutions is that it will be competiton and higher prices on health care. Businesses will try to make profit on sick people. If the government can controll salaries in the health care industry. E.g if at least 70-80% of all physicians have to work for the government, the government can decide the profit that the individual doctors make. If the government can lower the physicians salaries, they can cut the taxes that this cut makes.
That means more money and back to the people. Physicians will still have a good salary but an average of 230.000$ is far to high. If an average physician earns 120.000$ working for the government instead, he/she will still have enough money to live a godd life would he/she? At the same time the provate business can get a tax cut. (regular companies corporate taxes). Now the government puts their hands in to privately owned business and take the money away from the people, 40% corporate tax is way to high. That is something that takes away the freedo,.

Basic economics says competition generally drives cost to the consumer down, not up. One of our issues here is the LACK of competition in the industry. Or more specifically the consumer's lack of competition. If anything I think consumers are too far removed from the costs of their health care. They never really see what the services they obtain actually cost. So there's no reason to see if a different hospital offers a better deal for the same service, for example. You have to add MORE free market to the system, not less. You don't let government dictate how much a doctor should make. You let the consumer dictate that.

That depends on the access of labour. Then you have to spend more money on education of more physicians, give scholarships an incentives so that more young people gets the oppurtunity to become physicians. The deficit of physicians is what drives the salaries to this high level.
At the same time US put high customs on foreign medicine, if you could import medicine from Europe or Asia you would get more competition in the market and lower prices. That will also give you the freedom to choose a cheaper alternative.

The access of labor issue would be the same whether there is more demand through free market solutions or through government solutions. Think about what we're being told here in the U.S. We're essentially being told that our problem is that if not but for cost, more people would being getting the care they need. So regardless of which way the issue is solved, the increased demand for labor is still gonna be there. I'm not so sure about your contention about foreign competition. We certainly have a lot of foreign competition in the form of foreign students wanting to be taught here. The only barrier I can think of is insurance companies perhaps not recognizing treatment from foreign countries. That is certainly something to be explored.

 

[alan1]

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?

Get back to me when Canada has the same obesity rate as the US.

 

[Big Fitz]

Someone needs to show me where I am required to pay for my neighbor's health treatments. Where's that right.

 

[Euro]

Basic economics says competition generally drives cost to the consumer down, not up. One of our issues here is the LACK of competition in the industry. Or more specifically the consumer's lack of competition. If anything I think consumers are too far removed from the costs of their health care. They never really see what the services they obtain actually cost. So there's no reason to see if a different hospital offers a better deal for the same service, for example. You have to add MORE free market to the system, not less. You don't let government dictate how much a doctor should make. You let the consumer dictate that.

That depends on the access of labour. Then you have to spend more money on education of more physicians, give scholarships an incentives so that more young people gets the oppurtunity to become physicians. The deficit of physicians is what drives the salaries to this high level.
At the same time US put high customs on foreign medicine, if you could import medicine from Europe or Asia you would get more competition in the market and lower prices. That will also give you the freedom to choose a cheaper alternative.

The access of labor issue would be the same whether there is more demand through free market solutions or through government solutions. Think about what we're being told here in the U.S. We're essentially being told that our problem is that if not but for cost, more people would being getting the care they need. So regardless of which way the issue is solved, the increased demand for labor is still gonna be there. I'm not so sure about your contention about foreign competition. We certainly have a lot of foreign competition in the form of foreign students wanting to be taught here. The only barrier I can think of is insurance companies perhaps not recognizing treatment from foreign countries. That is certainly something to be explored.

With a government controlled health care system you would reduce the labour demand. If the government runs the system the physician will not think profitt, and unessecarry treatment will dissappaear. E.g if you go to the physician he will try to provide you with all sorts of medicine to earn extra money, maybe he will send you to specialist so the specialist can earn more money. If the government had run it all this unesecarry consultion with extra costs for specialists and medicine wouldnt’ happened, that will reduce the labour demand. When the physician in a free market sees a patient he gets two dollar signs in his eyes and will try to provide him with a lot of unesecarry things he don’t need, because the physician want’s to earn as much money as possible. If the government had runned it the physician would provided you with ecxactly what you need and no extras which will cost you extra money and the physician extra time.

For me if I wanted to travel to the US for study or work, the government here have agreements with the US. So we get free medical treatment in the US, no charge.

About foreign competition I mean the high customs put on import of pharmaceuticals from foreign countries. If you could have removed the custom on foreign pharmaceuticals you will get more competition and cheaper pharmaceuticals. Then you could import pharmaceuticals from Europe or Asia.

 

[auditor0007]

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?

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.

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.

While there are funding issues currently, it boils down to what or how much people are willing to spend on healthcare. Those systems would not be struggling if funding was increased 15% or so. And they would still only spend about half of what we do in the US.

Here is something to really think about. We spend approximately $8000 per year per person in the US for healthcare. Now, you need to really put that number into perspective. It is not some made up number; it is the amount of money we put into healthcare for each person living in the US, every single year at the current rate. Now, we know the average life expectancy in the US is right around 78 years. When you do the math, you will find that works out to $624,000 per person over their lifetime. The average income for the bottom 90% of income earners in the US is around $32,000. Assuming their employer pays a good portion of their health insurance costs plus the employer share of Medicare, let's say their income is actually $40,000 with benefits. The average person will work about 40 years. So in 40 years , the average person in the lower 90% of income earners will earn $1.6 million. $624,000 of that $1.6 million will go to healthcare. That is 39% of their lifetime earnings.

When you see numbers like this, then you can begin to appreciate the problems we face. We are flat out paying way too much more healthcare. And everything currently points to those numbers only growing. We have to make drastic changes, and it would be better to make them sooner than later.

 

[California Girl]

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.

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.

On WHOs ranking France is ranked nr.1 on the worlds best health system, UK 18 and US 37. US are ranked lower than third world countries like Costa Rica, Colombia etc. on that list. Considering the large amount of money US has, that is very weak.
The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

And still US spends almost twice as much money pr. capita on health than any other country in the world and are ranked 37, many third world countries are ranked higher.

Both Britain(18) and France(1) spends far less money on healt care pr. capita than US and at the same time they are ranked far higher than the US(37) on the WHO list.

The british are not bordering a collapse, it’s a global rescession every country is affected by the crisis. But UK and France will not collapse, haha.

The British NHS is bordering on collapse, you halfwit. They health system is crumbling, as is the French... regardless of the stats - which, by the way, are always at least a couple of years out of date.... Idiot.

 

[Bern80]

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.

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.

While there are funding issues currently, it boils down to what or how much people are willing to spend on healthcare. Those systems would not be struggling if funding was increased 15% or so. And they would still only spend about half of what we do in the US.

Here is something to really think about. We spend approximately $8000 per year per person in the US for healthcare. Now, you need to really put that number into perspective. It is not some made up number; it is the amount of money we put into healthcare for each person living in the US, every single year at the current rate. Now, we know the average life expectancy in the US is right around 78 years. When you do the math, you will find that works out to $624,000 per person over their lifetime. The average income for the bottom 90% of income earners in the US is around $32,000. Assuming their employer pays a good portion of their health insurance costs plus the employer share of Medicare, let's say their income is actually $40,000 with benefits. The average person will work about 40 years. So in 40 years , the average person in the lower 90% of income earners will earn $1.6 million. $624,000 of that $1.6 million will go to healthcare. That is 39% of their lifetime earnings.

When you see numbers like this, then you can begin to appreciate the problems we face. We are flat out paying way too much more healthcare. And everything currently points to those numbers only growing. We have to make drastic changes, and it would be better to make them sooner than later.

You're right, you do need to put that number into perspective. You do need to look at what that number really means. Per capita health care spending figures get thrown out there all the time and it seems we're all supposed to agree with the premise behind them. That the amount spent per person on health care is somehow an indictment of the system in terms of both doctors and premiums simply costing too much. That simply isn't a premise that should be accepted at face value.

What things might go into how much it costs to maintain your health over the course of a year? Maybe, perhaps how healty you actually are might have something to do with it. I would guess it costs a bit more to take care of an over weight smoker than it does to take care of of someone who has actually watches their diet and gets some exercise. Unfortuantely we have a few more of the former in this country than most. Also if you look at the WHO report, when you take out the so called unfairness in dollars spent our health outcomes and our medical resources are still at or near tops in the world. Doesn't it make some sense that the best the world has to offer is going to cost the most? That's how it works in every other market. The highest quality of like products usually costs the most. For those two reasons alone and not even getting into a discussion about whether doctors are really overpaid or if premiums are just too high, health care in the U.S. should cost more per capita than it does in every other country.

 

[Bern80]

That depends on the access of labour. Then you have to spend more money on education of more physicians, give scholarships an incentives so that more young people gets the oppurtunity to become physicians. The deficit of physicians is what drives the salaries to this high level.
At the same time US put high customs on foreign medicine, if you could import medicine from Europe or Asia you would get more competition in the market and lower prices. That will also give you the freedom to choose a cheaper alternative.

The access of labor issue would be the same whether there is more demand through free market solutions or through government solutions. Think about what we're being told here in the U.S. We're essentially being told that our problem is that if not but for cost, more people would being getting the care they need. So regardless of which way the issue is solved, the increased demand for labor is still gonna be there. I'm not so sure about your contention about foreign competition. We certainly have a lot of foreign competition in the form of foreign students wanting to be taught here. The only barrier I can think of is insurance companies perhaps not recognizing treatment from foreign countries. That is certainly something to be explored.

With a government controlled health care system you would reduce the labour demand. If the government runs the system the physician will not think profitt, and unessecarry treatment will dissappaear. E.g if you go to the physician he will try to provide you with all sorts of medicine to earn extra money, maybe he will send you to specialist so the specialist can earn more money. If the government had run it all this unesecarry consultion with extra costs for specialists and medicine wouldnt’ happened, that will reduce the labour demand. When the physician in a free market sees a patient he gets two dollar signs in his eyes and will try to provide him with a lot of unesecarry things he don’t need, because the physician want’s to earn as much money as possible. If the government had runned it the physician would provided you with ecxactly what you need and no extras which will cost you extra money and the physician extra time.

For me if I wanted to travel to the US for study or work, the government here have agreements with the US. So we get free medical treatment in the US, no charge.

About foreign competition I mean the high customs put on import of pharmaceuticals from foreign countries. If you could have removed the custom on foreign pharmaceuticals you will get more competition and cheaper pharmaceuticals. Then you could import pharmaceuticals from Europe or Asia.

On that point you're wrong Euro. Doctor's don't do extra tests in America to get more money. They do extra unneccessary tests to cover their asses from malpractics lawsuits. And I can tell you they don't just prescribe medicine for the heck of it. Your counter arguments are starting to get irrational. I use more medical services in a year than probably your avg. individual. I see three different specialists for various conditions. None of them have ever tried to push a bunch of different drugs on me. They try to find what works and maintain it. Doctors are paid for their time, not based on what drugs they prescribe. We have medical eithics laws in this country to prevent such abuses as well.

And since when has a monopoly ever worked out for the consumer? That is essentially what you're suggesting would be better. Demand for labor will not go down under said government monopoly. Because first, how you think the avg. doctor here treats people simply isn't accurate and two, again we are being told that if not but for the cost of medicine in this country more people would use it. Thus if costs go down demand for service and thus demand for labor is going to go up. The only way that doesn't happen would be some secnario under which most of our physicians are somehow overtreating all of the patients they do get to see. That simply isn't happening.

 

[Euro]

The access of labor issue would be the same whether there is more demand through free market solutions or through government solutions. Think about what we're being told here in the U.S. We're essentially being told that our problem is that if not but for cost, more people would being getting the care they need. So regardless of which way the issue is solved, the increased demand for labor is still gonna be there. I'm not so sure about your contention about foreign competition. We certainly have a lot of foreign competition in the form of foreign students wanting to be taught here. The only barrier I can think of is insurance companies perhaps not recognizing treatment from foreign countries. That is certainly something to be explored.

With a government controlled health care system you would reduce the labour demand. If the government runs the system the physician will not think profitt, and unessecarry treatment will dissappaear. E.g if you go to the physician he will try to provide you with all sorts of medicine to earn extra money, maybe he will send you to specialist so the specialist can earn more money. If the government had run it all this unesecarry consultion with extra costs for specialists and medicine wouldnt’ happened, that will reduce the labour demand. When the physician in a free market sees a patient he gets two dollar signs in his eyes and will try to provide him with a lot of unesecarry things he don’t need, because the physician want’s to earn as much money as possible. If the government had runned it the physician would provided you with ecxactly what you need and no extras which will cost you extra money and the physician extra time.

For me if I wanted to travel to the US for study or work, the government here have agreements with the US. So we get free medical treatment in the US, no charge.

About foreign competition I mean the high customs put on import of pharmaceuticals from foreign countries. If you could have removed the custom on foreign pharmaceuticals you will get more competition and cheaper pharmaceuticals. Then you could import pharmaceuticals from Europe or Asia.

On that point you're wrong Euro. Doctor's don't do extra tests in America to get more money. They do extra unneccessary tests to cover their asses from malpractics lawsuits. And I can tell you they don't just prescribe medicine for the heck of it. Your counter arguments are starting to get irrational. I use more medical services in a year than probably your avg. individual. I see three different specialists for various conditions. None of them have ever tried to push a bunch of different drugs on me. They try to find what works and maintain it. Doctors are paid for their time, not based on what drugs they prescribe. We have medical eithics laws in this country to prevent such abuses as well.

And since when has a monopoly ever worked out for the consumer? That is essentially what you're suggesting would be better. Demand for labor will not go down under said government monopoly. Because first, how you think the avg. doctor here treats people simply isn't accurate and two, again we are being told that if not but for the cost of medicine in this country more people would use it. Thus if costs go down demand for service and thus demand for labor is going to go up. The only way that doesn't happen would be some secnario under which most of our physicians are somehow overtreating all of the patients they do get to see. That simply isn't happening.

I think a solution with mostly government controll and som private hospitals is the best solution, then you’ll have a balance between freedom and security. That way you can provide everyone with health services and give them security and freedom. Those who want to pay can pay for it. can do so and they still have their freedom to choose Those who wants public alternative can choose that for a lower price. Here we have both, so I can choose between a private hospital or a public hospital. The standard and the waiting time on private hospitals are a bit better and the waiting time is shorter. Then I have the freedom to choose.

The concept about the government is that it can limit the salaries that the physicians take out and make more money staying in the peoples hands, the problem in the US is greedy physicians that puts the peoples money in their pocket. An average american income is fairy low about 45.000$ and an average american physician earns 230.000$.

I understand that you don’t believe in government since they pay their workers far to much money and this jobs oftenly dont create any growth for the people. In your country the elite works for the government, here it is lower status to work for the government and they pay less money than private business. Why do the government need to recruit the best people?, can’t they hire average people and give them moderate salaries. The government employees shouldn’t be best paid, it’s the entreprenurs and those that create values, not the government. I do not agree with Reagan that the solution is to cut down the whole government, but you can cut the benefits and the salaries for those who work in a government company. And cut down the unesecarry services the government provides. The government shall not compete with private businesses, it shall be a tool that effectivly and cheap can allocate services.

If the government can limit the amount of money the physicians put in their pockets, then more money will stay with the people. Let the government decide some moderate salaries for the physicians, lets say about 120.000$ instead of 230.000$.

 

[California Girl]

With a government controlled health care system you would reduce the labour demand. If the government runs the system the physician will not think profitt, and unessecarry treatment will dissappaear. E.g if you go to the physician he will try to provide you with all sorts of medicine to earn extra money, maybe he will send you to specialist so the specialist can earn more money. If the government had run it all this unesecarry consultion with extra costs for specialists and medicine wouldnt’ happened, that will reduce the labour demand. When the physician in a free market sees a patient he gets two dollar signs in his eyes and will try to provide him with a lot of unesecarry things he don’t need, because the physician want’s to earn as much money as possible. If the government had runned it the physician would provided you with ecxactly what you need and no extras which will cost you extra money and the physician extra time.

For me if I wanted to travel to the US for study or work, the government here have agreements with the US. So we get free medical treatment in the US, no charge.

About foreign competition I mean the high customs put on import of pharmaceuticals from foreign countries. If you could have removed the custom on foreign pharmaceuticals you will get more competition and cheaper pharmaceuticals. Then you could import pharmaceuticals from Europe or Asia.

On that point you're wrong Euro. Doctor's don't do extra tests in America to get more money. They do extra unneccessary tests to cover their asses from malpractics lawsuits. And I can tell you they don't just prescribe medicine for the heck of it. Your counter arguments are starting to get irrational. I use more medical services in a year than probably your avg. individual. I see three different specialists for various conditions. None of them have ever tried to push a bunch of different drugs on me. They try to find what works and maintain it. Doctors are paid for their time, not based on what drugs they prescribe. We have medical eithics laws in this country to prevent such abuses as well.

And since when has a monopoly ever worked out for the consumer? That is essentially what you're suggesting would be better. Demand for labor will not go down under said government monopoly. Because first, how you think the avg. doctor here treats people simply isn't accurate and two, again we are being told that if not but for the cost of medicine in this country more people would use it. Thus if costs go down demand for service and thus demand for labor is going to go up. The only way that doesn't happen would be some secnario under which most of our physicians are somehow overtreating all of the patients they do get to see. That simply isn't happening.

I think a solution with mostly government controll and som private hospitals is the best solution, then you’ll have a balance between freedom and security. That way you can provide everyone with health services and give them security and freedom. Those who want to pay can pay for it. can do so and they still have their freedom to choose Those who wants public alternative can choose that for a lower price. Here we have both, so I can choose between a private hospital or a public hospital. The standard and the waiting time on private hospitals are a bit better and the waiting time is shorter. Then I have the freedom to choose.

The concept about the government is that it can limit the salaries that the physicians take out and make more money staying in the peoples hands, the problem in the US is greedy physicians that puts the peoples money in their pocket. An average american income is fairy low about 45.000$ and an average american physician earns 230.000$.

I understand that you don’t believe in government since they pay their workers far to much money and this jobs oftenly dont create any growth for the people. In your country the elite works for the government, here it is lower status to work for the government and they pay less money than private business. Why do the government need to recruit the best people?, can’t they hire average people and give them moderate salaries. The government employees shouldn’t be best paid, it’s the entreprenurs and those that create values, not the government. I do not agree with Reagan that the solution is to cut down the whole government, but you can cut the benefits and the salaries for those who work in a government company. And cut down the unesecarry services the government provides. The government shall not compete with private businesses, it shall be a tool that effectivly and cheap can allocate services.

If the government can limit the amount of money the physicians put in their pockets, then more money will stay with the people. Let the government decide some moderate salaries for the physicians, lets say about 120.000$ instead of 230.000$.

Trample on your own country, we have a Constitution to protect us. No one sets anyone's salary. Fucking moron.

 

[Ropey]

On that point you're wrong Euro. Doctor's don't do extra tests in America to get more money. They do extra unneccessary tests to cover their asses from malpractics lawsuits. And I can tell you they don't just prescribe medicine for the heck of it. Your counter arguments are starting to get irrational. I use more medical services in a year than probably your avg. individual. I see three different specialists for various conditions. None of them have ever tried to push a bunch of different drugs on me. They try to find what works and maintain it. Doctors are paid for their time, not based on what drugs they prescribe. We have medical eithics laws in this country to prevent such abuses as well.

And since when has a monopoly ever worked out for the consumer? That is essentially what you're suggesting would be better. Demand for labor will not go down under said government monopoly. Because first, how you think the avg. doctor here treats people simply isn't accurate and two, again we are being told that if not but for the cost of medicine in this country more people would use it. Thus if costs go down demand for service and thus demand for labor is going to go up. The only way that doesn't happen would be some secnario under which most of our physicians are somehow overtreating all of the patients they do get to see. That simply isn't happening.

I think a solution with mostly government controll and som private hospitals is the best solution, then you’ll have a balance between freedom and security. That way you can provide everyone with health services and give them security and freedom. Those who want to pay can pay for it. can do so and they still have their freedom to choose Those who wants public alternative can choose that for a lower price. Here we have both, so I can choose between a private hospital or a public hospital. The standard and the waiting time on private hospitals are a bit better and the waiting time is shorter. Then I have the freedom to choose.

The concept about the government is that it can limit the salaries that the physicians take out and make more money staying in the peoples hands, the problem in the US is greedy physicians that puts the peoples money in their pocket. An average american income is fairy low about 45.000$ and an average american physician earns 230.000$.

I understand that you don’t believe in government since they pay their workers far to much money and this jobs oftenly dont create any growth for the people. In your country the elite works for the government, here it is lower status to work for the government and they pay less money than private business. Why do the government need to recruit the best people?, can’t they hire average people and give them moderate salaries. The government employees shouldn’t be best paid, it’s the entreprenurs and those that create values, not the government. I do not agree with Reagan that the solution is to cut down the whole government, but you can cut the benefits and the salaries for those who work in a government company. And cut down the unesecarry services the government provides. The government shall not compete with private businesses, it shall be a tool that effectivly and cheap can allocate services.

If the government can limit the amount of money the physicians put in their pockets, then more money will stay with the people. Let the government decide some moderate salaries for the physicians, lets say about 120.000$ instead of 230.000$.

Trample on your own country, we have a Constitution to protect us. No one sets anyone's salary. Fucking moron.

^ I agree!

Stopping the intended revisions that seek to remove people from their money in order to 'redistribute' wealth is the job that the Republicans are doing.

And doing quite well in my view. And now the money is really going to flow in with the Supreme Court decision to allow external funding by corporations as "Free Speech".

Democrats have a problem with legislating it would seem. I fail to see that same problem when the Republicans are in office.

 

[Bern80]

I think a solution with mostly government controll and som private hospitals is the best solution, then you’ll have a balance between freedom and security. That way you can provide everyone with health services and give them security and freedom. Those who want to pay can pay for it. can do so and they still have their freedom to choose Those who wants public alternative can choose that for a lower price. Here we have both, so I can choose between a private hospital or a public hospital. The standard and the waiting time on private hospitals are a bit better and the waiting time is shorter. Then I have the freedom to choose.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you're simply wrong. European countries that are doing it are already showing that. It's an unsustainable model. And it can't be a balance either, certainly not a balance skewed toward government control. Mostly government control is basically complete government control because why would anyone pay for what they can get for free? You aren't going to get the freedom to choose when government controls things because they in turn have to control costs. If all you do is collect a tax for health care and tell people 'okay do whatever you want with your life, we'll cover it' that's exactly what people will do. You have to get this through your head. If I, the taxpayer, am going to be forced to pay for your healthcare then I get a say in how you live your life.

The concept about the government is that it can limit the salaries that the physicians take out and make more money staying in the peoples hands, the problem in the US is greedy physicians that puts the peoples money in their pocket. An average american income is fairy low about 45.000$ and an average american physician earns 230.000$.

Again it has nothing to do with greed and everything to do with the fact that it is a service that has been removed from having to operate in a free market. Again you're simply wrong about the mindset and how physicians in the U.S. operate.

I understand that you don’t believe in government since they pay their workers far to much money and this jobs oftenly dont create any growth for the people. In your country the elite works for the government, here it is lower status to work for the government and they pay less money than private business. Why do the government need to recruit the best people?, can’t they hire average people and give them moderate salaries. The government employees shouldn’t be best paid, it’s the entreprenurs and those that create values, not the government. I do not agree with Reagan that the solution is to cut down the whole government, but you can cut the benefits and the salaries for those who work in a government company. And cut down the unesecarry services the government provides. The government shall not compete with private businesses, it shall be a tool that effectivly and cheap can allocate services.

I don't believe in government providing services because of the way it is structured. It is structured in such a way as to disincentivze efficiency. You can't have it both ways. You can't shrink government yet have it take on an ever exanding role in society. Government can and should provide for those who simply can not help themselves, but that is where it has to end or else society degenerates into group of entitled individuals unwilling and unable to do anything for themselves. that creates a weaker society. Not a stronger one.

 

[Euro]

I think a solution with mostly government controll and som private hospitals is the best solution, then you’ll have a balance between freedom and security. That way you can provide everyone with health services and give them security and freedom. Those who want to pay can pay for it. can do so and they still have their freedom to choose Those who wants public alternative can choose that for a lower price. Here we have both, so I can choose between a private hospital or a public hospital. The standard and the waiting time on private hospitals are a bit better and the waiting time is shorter. Then I have the freedom to choose.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you're simply wrong. European countries that are doing it are already showing that. It's an unsustainable model. And it can't be a balance either, certainly not a balance skewed toward government control. Mostly government control is basically complete government control because why would anyone pay for what they can get for free? You aren't going to get the freedom to choose when government controls things because they in turn have to control costs. If all you do is collect a tax for health care and tell people 'okay do whatever you want with your life, we'll cover it' that's exactly what people will do. You have to get this through your head. If I, the taxpayer, am going to be forced to pay for your healthcare then I get a say in how you live your life.

The concept about the government is that it can limit the salaries that the physicians take out and make more money staying in the peoples hands, the problem in the US is greedy physicians that puts the peoples money in their pocket. An average american income is fairy low about 45.000$ and an average american physician earns 230.000$.

Again it has nothing to do with greed and everything to do with the fact that it is a service that has been removed from having to operate in a free market. Again you're simply wrong about the mindset and how physicians in the U.S. operate.

I understand that you don’t believe in government since they pay their workers far to much money and this jobs oftenly dont create any growth for the people. In your country the elite works for the government, here it is lower status to work for the government and they pay less money than private business. Why do the government need to recruit the best people?, can’t they hire average people and give them moderate salaries. The government employees shouldn’t be best paid, it’s the entreprenurs and those that create values, not the government. I do not agree with Reagan that the solution is to cut down the whole government, but you can cut the benefits and the salaries for those who work in a government company. And cut down the unesecarry services the government provides. The government shall not compete with private businesses, it shall be a tool that effectivly and cheap can allocate services.

I don't believe in government providing services because of the way it is structured. It is structured in such a way as to disincentivze efficiency. You can't have it both ways. You can't shrink government yet have it take on an ever exanding role in society. Government can and should provide for those who simply can not help themselves, but that is where it has to end or else society degenerates into group of entitled individuals unwilling and unable to do anything for themselves. that creates a weaker society. Not a stronger one.

First: About disinteivze effiency in government service: Can’t you just pay them less money? I saw through a salary list for people that work for the US governemnt. I saw that a HR made 130.000$ thats a lot of money for a simple job that anybody can do wihout any formal education. How is that free market economy to pay a HR 130.000$, i can find a sutiable HR on the street. Its much harder to find IT people,economists,engineers and IT people. They neeed at least a bachelor, a HR dosent neeed any education and minimal experience.
That must be some kinda corruption that a HR thats works for the government can earn that much moeny. At the same time those that creates somtething, engineers,planners,economists,IT people etc. earned under 100.000$, they should earn more money. A HR is something that anyone can be and its easy to find, why pay a HR 130.000. I understand and agree with the republicans that government is some shit when tax-payers money goes to pay a HR 130.000$ a year, thats simple work that not creates anything. Thats not free market, thats corrupt government. Their is simply to many overpaied bureaucrats in the government companies with no function.

With a corrupt government like that I understand yours scepsis towards government provided medicine.
But US have 9.1% unemployment, why not sack those that have to high salaries and works for the government. Then hire some of the 9.1% that is unemployed, they will surely work for a lower salary.
US needs to cut down salaries and positions for bureaucrats in the government.

You need a government that uses cheaper labour in the government run positions. The best heads shall work in the private companies not for the government.

 

[Bern80]

First: About disinteivze effiency in government service: Can’t you just pay them less money? I saw through a salary list for people that work for the US governemnt. I saw that a HR made 130.000$ thats a lot of money for a simple job that anybody can do wihout any formal education. How is that free market economy to pay a HR 130.000$, i can find a sutiable HR on the street. Its much harder to find IT people,economists,engineers and IT people. They neeed at least a bachelor, a HR dosent neeed any education and minimal experience.
That must be some kinda corruption that a HR thats works for the government can earn that much moeny. At the same time those that creates somtething, engineers,planners,economists,IT people etc. earned under 100.000$, they should earn more money. A HR is something that anyone can be and its easy to find, why pay a HR 130.000. I understand and agree with the republicans that government is some shit when tax-payers money goes to pay a HR 130.000$ a year, thats simple work that not creates anything. Thats not free market, thats corrupt government. Their is simply to many overpaied bureaucrats in the government companies with no function.

Corruption is part of it, but mainly that is simply the nature of the beast. In the private sector a person makes money by providing some service or good in exchange for money. A buyer is going to try to buy for as little as they can and the seller is going to try sell for as much as they can until an agreement that both parties can live with. A seller can't sell something for less than it costs to produce and a buyer can't buy something for more than they have or is willing to risk meaning sometimes the two parties won't be able to agree on a price. The variables of the private economy pretty much all stem from this interaction. From the cost of labor to the cost production, etc. A government job doesn't work that way and that's why their salaries get inflated. Their compensation does not come from the above type of exchange. Remember this when you think doctors should all be public employees. You do that and your doctor is no longer paid in compensation for the heart surgery he just performed on you. It his based on an arbirtrary figure some beauracrat thought up about how much he 'deserves'. Compensation in that matter makes things like quality of service less relevent because the doctor doesn't have to answer to you, the patient. For a good or service provider to change the way they do something they have to feel it in their pocket book and that's what happens in the private sector. A good or service provider does whatever they can to earn people's money or they fail. A government employee is also not compensated based on what a buyer and seller agree upon. They are paid based on how much tax revenue a politician can alocate to them. And since our government (and it seems a lot of European ones) somehow pay people despite not actually having the money to do so, their salaries get inflated. Whereas n the private sector an employer can't afford to pay an employee more than they take it or more than would put the company in jeopardy. Again another rule of private business that government doesn't have to follow.

With a corrupt government like that I understand yours scepsis towards government provided medicine.
But US have 9.1% unemployment, why not sack those that have to high salaries and works for the government. Then hire some of the 9.1% that is unemployed, they will surely work for a lower salary.
US needs to cut down salaries and positions for bureaucrats in the government.

There is no such thing as too high a salary in a free market. The consumer ultiamtely determines what a person's salary is.