US health care spending

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?

I do so love cluelessness . . . Oh, no, wait, I don't.

First of all, it's not just a matter of "percentage of GDP". It's also a matter of who's doing the spending. In the US, the majority of that spending is being done by private citizens, for their own personal healthcare and at their own discretion. In Canada, the vast majority of that spending is being done by the government via tax dollars. Maybe that's not important to you, but it is important to a lot of people.

Second, an increase in taxes in order to institute a single-payer system like Canada's is NOT going to encourage businesses, especially since the fact that the US has a much larger population than Canada, and a much less homogenous one, means that it would be much more massive and expensive.

Third, your personal view of the Canadian system as a "success" cuts no ice here. While I certainly would not object to being treated by a Canadian hospital if I were sick or injured while in that country, it definitely is not better than ours by any realistic measurement, and is actually worse in some regards when it comes to long-term care.

Bottom line: while the US healthcare system is not perfect by any means, replacing it with a single-payer model is not the solution to its problems and would only make it worse. I suggest that anyone who is convinced that Canada's system would be so much better should move to Canada and stop trying to impose their ideal on people who don't want it.
 
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?

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.

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?

You do understand that veterans' affairs and education are - at least, theoretically - run by different levels of government, and should also be funded by different levels of government, right? Furthermore, if YOU want to treat the people who fight to defend your country like shit, that's your business, but don't try to impose that on us. And finally, the problem with US education isn't that enough money isn't being spent per student. It's not actually all that expensive to educate effectively.

We don't have to do anything about imported food to make more healthy food available at lower prices. We could actually just stop spending federal money to pay our own farmers NOT to grow crops.

Finally, if criminals were at all inclined to be productive, they wouldn't be criminals and wouldn't be locked up.
 
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:razz:, it’s a global rescession every country is affected by the crisis. But UK and France will not collapse, haha.

Wow, someone else who can blather about a long-since-debunked study at us. Could you be any more out-of-date and less-informed?
 
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:razz:, it’s a global rescession every country is affected by the crisis. But UK and France will not collapse, haha.

Yet another person citing the vaunted WHO report. If you want to get into how those rankings are rather skewed we can, but in short I wouln't be using that report as evidence of much of anything.

I'm considering just writing up a long, detailed explanation of how that WHO report is so much wasted paper and saving it on my computer so that I can just cut and paste it every time a new 'tard shows up and starts touting it as though it means something. Saves time and frustration.
 
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:razz:, it’s a global rescession every country is affected by the crisis. But UK and France will not collapse, haha.

Yet another person citing the vaunted WHO report. If you want to get into how those rankings are rather skewed we can, but in short I wouln't be using that report as evidence of much of anything.

US is ranked low, but they still spend almost twice as much money pr. capita on health-care that shows their is something wrong with the system, and that it should be improved.

How about all the companies that has to pay for health insurance, do you think that is good for business? No!, companies find it better to flag out to other countries because of the large health costs, and then US lose jobs and income.

All that shows is that there's something wrong with that report. SEVERAL somethings, in actual fact.
 
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.

The NHS is crumbling. Anyone with a brain knows it. The French are starting to see the cracks in their system - which is way better than the NHS.... in fact, wherever this UHC thing takes hold, it ends up as a rock to drown taxpayers.

I think you spend to much time watching fox news, you actually believe in that propaganda:razz:.What’s drowning tax payers is the trillions spent at the stock market trying to "stimulate" the economy, that hasn’t worked well?
The fact is that is the high healthcare costs makes it hard for companies in the US, because of that many decide to flag out to other countries.
That’s whats drowns taxpayers.

I think you spend too much time assuming you're right, and therefore no one can object to you unless they watch Fox News. How about you dipshit liberals give us a moratorium on "Fox News" dismissals until someone ELSE mentions them, and try actually answering the points that are brought up? I know that's harder than waving your hand airily and saying, "Oh, Fox News, I don't have to respond", but it might actually be good for you to think once in a while.
 
Cheap is indeed relative. Looking at data from OECD nations, it appears there are only two nations whose health care systems are more expensive to their governments (the dark blue bars) on a per capita basis than that of the U.S.: Norway and Luxembourg. Every other country's government spends less per capita on health care than does the United States. And in the United States, government spending on health care still isn't quite half of total spending, whereas in those other nations government spending is by far the largest component of national health expenditures.

44222075health%20expenditure.jpg


Of all the allegations one can make about the defects of the health care systems of other nations, "they're more expensive" is by far the most absurd. They're not. They're not even more expensive to their governments than the United States' system is to its government (with those two exceptions).

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.

Not to mention that the idea of turning our doctors into civil servants and having them provide the same care and compassion as other civil servants is blood-chilling.
 
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.

Free-market competition doesn't bring HIGHER prices, moron. What the hell kind of half-assed economics education did YOU have?
 
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 US doesn't have a deficit of physicians, except in areas where trial lawyers have driven the cost of malpractice insurance too high.

Furthermore, I don't want the kind of doctor who finds being a government employee enticing, thanks.

And while we're on the subject, you do realize that "imported" medicine from Europe would actually just be re-imported medicine that originated here, right? And that the only reason European countries can get away with paying so little for medications is because US drug prices subsidize them and allow pharmaceutical companies to accede to the demands of European governments to only buy at cost, right? No, you probably didn't.
 
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$.

Funny, I think the best solution is for you to find the country that has the system you like best, go live there, and mind your own damned business about how other people choose to live their lives.
 
First you have NOT documented or sourced your anecdotal hyperbolic post .. I have!
Second:
So tell me again how superior Canadian health is if:
A) no drugs developed by USA B) production line doctors C) Lower legal costs???

A) Canada gets most of the drugs from USA companies that spend billions on research and development and then:
Canadian law regulates drug prices through patent laws aimed at quickly allowing the production of generic drugs, while American law allows 20-year patents for drug companies’ benefit. The import of Canadian drugs, though at one time quite popular in the U.S., has been severely restricted.
So is there ANY wonder they are cheaper? They depend on USA drug development.. take that costs in consideration?

B) Doctors are low salaried , production line mentality..

While only 7-8% of America’s healthcare expenditures go to doctors, medical practitioners in the U.S. still earn significantly more than their Canadian contemporaries.
Free market prices in the United States are responsible for doctors’ salaries, while in Canada groups of doctors negotiate with their territorial government to determine a flat salary.

C) Legal FEEs from Lawsuits are less in Canada
A final factor contributing to the lower cost of Canadian health care is the lower rate of malpractice lawsuits. In Canada, lawyers are not paid on commission, so legal expenses are generally much lower than they are in America.

So drugs developed in USA, doctors on a production line mentality AND lower legal fees mean lower DEFENSIVE MEDICINE!!!
$600 billion a year according to medical experts ALL DUE TO DEFENSIVE MEDICINE!!!

So tell me again how superior Canadian health is if:
A) no drugs developed by USA B) production line doctors C) Lower legal costs???

SOURCE: http://www.yalemedlaw.com/2004/11/dissecting-the-two-tiered-system-how-america-can-learn-from-its-northern-neighbor/

The bottom line is that while the Canadian system has some flaws, it gets the job done at a much lower cost, and the vast majority of Canadians are happy with their system. As for the drug issue, that is something that I have said should be addressed for a very long time. I am not one who strongly supports capping drug costs, however, this may be the only solution to force the drug companies to pass on some of their costs to other countries. Americans have been and continue to subsidize the rest of the world when it comes to pharmaceuticals. There is no reason that these companies should be selling their product at such a discounted price to others when Americans have to pay full price.

The vast majority of Americans are happy with THEIR system, but that never seems to matter to you twerps.

By all means, cap drug costs here, so that drug companies just stop developing new drugs altogether. THAT'LL certainly improve health worldwide. :eusa_hand: It's not like drug companies WANT to sell to other countries at no profit. The reason - which you say doesn't exist - is that those countries pass laws prohibiting drug companies from selling at a profit.
 
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.

There is no such thing as too high salary: When it comes to health it is, because consumers don’t have the knowledge to know what’s best for them.

Well, if that doesn't just sum up the exact leftist socialist attitude that makes Americans so disinterested in what Eurotrash think of how we run our country, I don't know what does.

Maybe YOU are too stupid to know what's best for you - in fact, make that "probably", since you've clearly spent your whole life with Momma Government wiping your ass for you - but I'd appreciate it if you didn't impute your own ignorance and laziness to me, thanks so very much.

At the same time they compete on quality in the health industry not price. Higher quality means higher prices.

Not necessarily. You clearly know jack shit about capitalism, free markets, and competition. Look at any number of inventions which, over time, have become both much higher in quality than when they were introduced, and also became much cheaper as more competitors flooded the market. And lest you try to tell us that healthcare is somehow different in this from other products and commodities, let's look specifically at healthcare which is strictly voluntary and thus not paid for by either private insurance or the government. Laser eye surgery, cosmetic surgery, and bariatric surgery have all improved tremendously in recent years, and have also become much, much cheaper as more and more providers enter the market.

At the same time you have the insurance companies that takes out profitt, the government can provide non profitt insurance. Drugs is also something, in a free market the physician will provide you with to many drugs because the patient does not have knowledge whats best for him. If you open for import of drugs you will get more competition, its no reason to forbid foreign medicine. The owners of US drug industry companies take out large profitts and they spend a lot of money on marketing to the consumers.

If we start paying the same artificially low prices for drugs that countries with government healthcare do, it will kill the drug companies financially, and leave everyone without the development of new medications. US pharmaceutical companies actually have a much lower profit margin than comparable companies in other industries, by the way, and I'd be interested to know what "foreign" medicines you think are "forbidden".

The wealth of the nations depends on the health care spending: Health care does not provide any growth for the nation. Health care is a cost. At the moment US spends 16% of its GDP on health care. Other OECD countries spends 8-10%. That will give US less money in the free market that they can spend on things that creates economic growth. The wealth of the nation depends on the ability to export high quality products. You cannot export health services, at least US can’t because other nations can provide them for free.

You really can't get over trying to think of US healthcare in the same terms as other countries, can you? Healthcare is NOT "just a cost" in the US: it is a product and a commodity, the same as any other, so the demand for it DOES produce economic growth, the same as any other product or commodity. It's only "just a cost" in a country that believes the government should be the sole provider of it.

Furthermore, a very big reason why the US spends so much more on healthcare is BECAUSE it is a commodity. There's a big difference between government spending on healthcare - which is only 44% of healthcare spending here, versus 70% in Canada - and private spending thereon. Much of American healthcare spending is on LUXURY healthcare, ie. healthcare spent to improve the quality of life, rather than basic medical necessities. I don't particularly want to change that, thanks.

If US can limit health costs they have more money to put in to creating an export industry. Lawyer spending is also something that you can’t export, this does not create any economical growth.

It's really beyond you that we're not talking about government money here, isn't it?

Amazingly enough, economic growth is not necessarily dependent only on exports, dummy. Our economy does a great deal of growing and thriving just on the domestic side. You really need to learn something about the United States before opening your flapping piehole.

A society where lawyers and physicians are paid to much money will not work because the nation will become poorer, because their is no export.
As much money as possible shall be invested in industrys that can create economic growth for the nation.
E.g examples if you can cut costs on lawyers and physicians you can put more in to investing in oil companies, vehicles,metals,ships,machinery. High quality stuff you can sell in an international market. A lawyer is a overpaid bureaucrat that not create any economical growth.

A society where lawyers and physicians has most of the money can not compete internationally. Lawyers and physicians provides services, but in an international market they dont have any value.
Reduced spending on health and lawyers means more money to invest in things that can strengthen the ability to compete internationally.

Same complaint. You're just dead-on incapable of differentiating between government money and private money, and what you know about economics or the United States could fit into a gnat's ear.
 
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 US doesn't have a deficit of physicians, except in areas where trial lawyers have driven the cost of malpractice insurance too high.

Furthermore, I don't want the kind of doctor who finds being a government employee enticing, thanks.

And while we're on the subject, you do realize that "imported" medicine from Europe would actually just be re-imported medicine that originated here, right? And that the only reason European countries can get away with paying so little for medications is because US drug prices subsidize them and allow pharmaceutical companies to accede to the demands of European governments to only buy at cost, right? No, you probably didn't.
Did you know that 5 out of 7 of the largest drug companies in the world are european? Ok, the two biggest Johnson&Johnson and Pfizer are american, but 5 out of 7 the 7 largest are european. And the european pharmaceutical market are more competitive on price so they have increased their market share to about 33% in the world market. So europe do produce drugs and the industry has been growing the last years. Here is the market share diagram, so you’re not right.
World pharmaceutical market | Public Agenda
So it would not be just re-imported. And did you know that drug companies in the US spends more on marketing than R&D?.
Big Pharma Spends More On Advertising Than Research And Development, Study Finds
 
Last edited:
Mostly us health care spending a lot of money and purpose to aware of health wealth.
 
I'm still waiting to hear by what right does someone else have to my money to pay for their health care. I'd still like to see this constitutionally protected right.
 

Forum List

Back
Top