Who are the 47 million Americans who ‘don’t have health care?”

[Luissa]

I came upon this and it addresses the 47 million Americans who are constantly being referenced as being uninsured. The website name is laughable, but the numbers are sound.

Who are the 47 million Americans who ‘don’t have health care?”
August 27, 2008 — whatthecrap?

In 2006 the U.S. Census Bureau reported that 46.6 million are people without health insurance. You hear this number all the time today in discussions on what our public policy should be towards health care (particularly - socialized healthcare). But who are these 46.6 million people? Here are a couple things you probably won’t hear from politicians, whether Democratic or Republican:

1. Of that 46.6 million, 9.5 million were not United States Citizens
2. Another 17 million of those people live in households exceeding $50,000 and could purchase healthcare but choose to invest their money in other things.
3. 18 million were between the age of 18-34, most in good health - and either not in need of coverage - or chose not to purchase it (that includes me for a while there). (Also, note that this stat likely overlaps with the one above as commentor Kottcamp reminded me.)
4. 70% of the non-elderly population that become uninsured in a given year - are reinsured in less than one year.

Here are a couple other statistics about healthcare in Canada and Europe:

Canada:

1. More than 825,000 Canadians are on waiting lists for surgery and other necessary treatments.
2. 15 years ago the average wait for Canadians was 9 weeks - today it’s 15 weeks.
3. Over the past 10 years, 11% of physicians trained in Canada have moved to the United States.

Britain:

1. More than 1 million citizens are waiting for hospital admission.
2. Another 200,000 are waiting to get on the waiting list.
3. Each year - the national health service cancels around 100,000 operations.
4. Britain has a government agency that’s sole purpose is to limit citizens access (rationing) to prescription drugs.

Some other important items:

1. 85 new drugs hit the U.S. market from 1998-2002.
2. During that same period - only 44 of those drugs became available in Europe.
3. More than half of the 175 billion dollars in health care technology products purchased throughout the world are produced in the United States.
4. Between 1999-2005 the United States was responsible for the sale of 71% of new pharmaceutical drugs (the next two largest - Japan and Germany accounted for only 4% each).

Who are the 47 million Americans who ‘don’t have health care?” What The Crap? - whatthecrap.us

I was 26 with no insurance even though I worked a full time job and was healthy, then I got a bad ear infection with fluid on my ear. I had to go to the ER because they will sometimes cover part of the cost of your bill, of course not the doctors bill. Then a month later after spending five hours in the ER I came down with MRSA which I had to go the hospital five times for, spending one night there in the end when it got worse. My bill ended up being $5,000 dollars, most of the cost coming from an IV drip.
In Canada if that happened I would have been completly covered with cheaper medicine!

 

[morpheus]

There's nothing "viable" in my book about lowering the quality of MY care for the purpose of making me pay for YOUR care.

Who says the quality of your care has to diminish?

That's right, roll up your sleeves, and reach for the bottom of the barrel, because your side is running out of propaganda.

 

[editec]

You have to look at the balance sheets of all the different enterprises involved in our medical care system to understand what the problem is. I don't care which one you look at there is going to be a couple of line items that are going to jump out that contribute heavily to why costs are so high and continue to rise. Those line items are legal and insurance costs. They are in among the rest of the overhead costs related to regulation, research, development and such but they are the dominant factors.
If they were eliminated costs would drop dramatically across the board, but a few other things would happen as well. It would mean that no one was suing anyone else, which would mean a lot of lawyers would be out of work.
I don't advocate removing our ability of being able to seek restitution through our legal system but there should be, and needs to be, some kind of limitations when it is applied to our health care system.
Medical care is not an exact science, it is as much an art as anything else. A "good" doctor is a practitioner, someone who operates on intuition and gut as well as knowledge, but he is also human and fallible.
Our legal system, which is made to provide anyone a means of fighting injustice through restitution, has been highjacked by "For the people" lawyers who have created an industry based on promises that rival lotteries. The path to riches is to get hit by a bus and survive. They sell unrealistic expectations to manipulated juries as fact to prove diabolic intent to get huge sympathy awards. They do this at the individual, regulatory, and corporate levels with the end result being that you and I, or anyone else fortunate enough to still have medical insurance, ulitmately paying for it all.

TORT REFORM people! It's the first step. It's not the last step but nothing can be done without it.

A FULLY socialized system will be nearly judgement proof.

The medical malpractice industry, while probably not likely to go completely out of business, will cease to be the problem it might be today.

Of course, that will mean that the government will have to impose some standards for how much any particular medical malpractice outcome will pay, but that's easily doable.

Right now there is no standards for payoffs.

With a government system developing a system of adjudicating malpractice, and paying off for it honestly and fairly should be fairly easy.

In a truly well designed system?

The plantiff might not even need a lawyer.

I can easily envision an office which does nothing but advocate for patients.

They'd have complete records of all the medical procedures, would know the record of the health care providers, and THEY would be the people advocating for patients who were victims of bad care.

That would eliminate much of the encentive for specious medical malpractice suits by laywers.

Of course in that scenario, every person is worth the same amount, depending on age, too.

I'm not explaining this well, I'm sure.

Believe me, it's pure editecian genuis...which means basically its an idea too good to ever happen.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The fact that PoliticalChic starts this thread with uncited "statistics" from a website titled "whatthecrap" -while Turboswede's rebuttal draws actual OECD figures- epitomizes the greater health care debate in this country: conservatives rely on false assumptions, truncated facts, and myths in order to lay down their argument.

The fact that you chose exactly two people and conflated them into representations of "conservatives" and "liberals" in general is what's REALLY false and truncated around here. Very telling that you mysteriously missed anything anyone else has had to say on this subject that you couldn't just airily dismiss, isn't it?

The bit about people under 30 being "healthy" and thus not needing insurance is fallacious...it's perfectly possible for, say, a healthy, physically active 24-year-old male to develop testicular cancer (in fact, this is most common in young men, between 16 and 35), or for a 26-year-old female to be diagnosed with underactive thyroid (this can be inherited and can develop at a young age), or for a 19-year-old to break a bone in a sport-related accident. Let alone common ailments such as strep throat (and even pneumonia) which may require expensive antibiotics. The point of having health insurance is: you have financial back-up should something happen to you; and things do happen to young people. And with American society becoming increasingly obese nowadays, Americans are developing diseases such as diabetes at younger ages. So while younger adults are likely to use their health insurance less often than older adults, they still do need it, and the vast majority would probably opt for it if they had the financial power to do so.

The argument is not, and has never been, that all people under 30 are always healthy and not in need of health care. The point is that it is - indisputably - quite common for people who are under 30 to decide that, because they are young and healthy, they don't wish to spend the money to purchase health insurance, preferring instead to spend that money in other ways. The point is, further, that what is fallacious is people like you lumping these young people, who COULD have health insurance and do not by choice, in with the "poor and downtrodden" simply to inflate the numbers. You can argue whether or not their decision to play the odds and gamble that they won't become ill is wise or not. What you can't argue is that they are not "deprived" of coverage.

But conservatives don't see it this way, because they prefer to deny the existence of any problems that challenge their worldview. Instead of offering an alternative solution to the nation's healthcare shortcomings (maybe a solution that's more market-based), conservatives opt to -instead- deny that the problem exists and trash liberals for daring to come up with a solution. And even with an increasing number of conservative politicians conceding that the health care system is broken, hard-core conservatives continue to live in denial, and bury themselves in the politics of spin.

The only denial I see is you completely ignoring the fact that conservatives HAVE offered alternative solutions, all of them "market-based", as you put it, and they have been roundly excoriated for it, when they aren't just ignored in favor of single-payer plans that are even more "broken" than the current system.

This is the first time I've ever heard that the "40-some million AMERICANS" figure includes undocumented foreigners living here; I suppose if some random idiot on a blogging website says so (without citing his "fact"), then it must be true. Somehow, this random blogger, as well as PoliticalChic and her allies in this thread are privy to information that the rest of us aren't. I suppose the "liberal" media doesn't report this information, either. I'm not sure why conservatives live in such denial, but I do know that a country that refuses to acknowledge its own problems and shortcomings will only fall behind in the future, and America is very well headed in that direction because of the hard-headedness of hard-core conservatives.

Fascinating. First, you inform us that YOU have never heard of such a thing, implying that, therefore, it can't POSSIBLY be true, and THEN you heap contempt on the idea based on the fact that it was reported by a blogger. May I ask, please, what makes YOUR opinion more acceptable as evidence than his? May I also suggest that you use your Internet connection for, in addition to congratulating yourself on your ability to make lofty pronouncements, a little bit of research?

The National Coalition on Health Care website gives us this quote:

The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.

Hmm. I guess that would mean the other 20 percent aren't US citizens, huh?

In more specificity, the National Institute for Health Care Management cites the US Census Bureau thusly:

These reported data indicate that there are 10 million non-citizens among the 46.5 non-elderly uninsured. Because the CPS [Current Population Survey] does not collect information on legal status among non-citizens, both legal and undocumented immigrants are included in the 10 million.

Very many of the world's best hospitals, research institutions, and medical talent are located in the United States, but there's something intrically fucked up when the vast majority of Americans don't have access to that top-notch healthcare (or top-notch drugs), and -instead- these hospitals serve a small number of wealthy foreigners who have the money to come to the US, because they don't feel like waiting on a list back home for a non-emergency surgical procedure that can wait a few months. (Of course, let's not forget that waiting lists to see certain specialists, or have certain tests or surgeries done, also exist in the United States to some extent.) The numbers speak for themselves: according to the UN and OECD, America is slowly slipping when we compare the US to other developed nations on infant mortality, life expectancy, and other health indicators. Let alone the claims from millions of Americans who are in incredible debt due to having falling sick. But then again, I suppose our conservative blogger or FOX News will report that all of these people are part of a big liberal consiracy or hoax.

Okay, NOW who's bullshitting and making things up? "The vast majority of Americans don't have access to top-notch healthcare"? First of all, lack of health insurance is NOT lack of health care, and second of all, 47 million ain't even the majority of Americans, much less the "vast majority". Perhaps while you're on the Census Bureau website, doing that research I advised a minute ago, you could look up the actual population of the United States, pinhead.

In addition, I would like very much for YOU to produce evidence of ANY hospital in America that "serves a small number of wealthy foreigners", instead of having its patient base made up primarily of Americans. Go ahead. Let's hear it.

And if you want to see waiting lists, Sparky, try looking at some of those other OECD countries whose stats leftists like to tout. Unlike countries like Canada, England, and New Zealand - just as examples - the United States does not have people dying from wait times in such huge numbers that it's reached epidemic proportions and become a worldwide scandal.

Also, infant mortality and life expectancy statistics - as I've stated so many times, I should just make a macro for it - have NOTHING to do with healthcare systems in any industrialized nation. They are a function primarily of race, ethnicity, and lifestyle, and the United States, unlike most OECD nations, doesn't have a homogenous population.

And while we're on the subject of how to judge a health care system, let me point out that for diseases and injuries that modern medicine can effectively treat, the country in which one lives makes a huge difference. For premature babies, children born with spina bifida, or for people who have cancer, heart disease, chronic renal failure or almost any other serious illness, the chances of survival are best in the United States.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I was 26 with no insurance even though I worked a full time job and was healthy, then I got a bad ear infection with fluid on my ear. I had to go to the ER because they will sometimes cover part of the cost of your bill, of course not the doctors bill. Then a month later after spending five hours in the ER I came down with MRSA which I had to go the hospital five times for, spending one night there in the end when it got worse. My bill ended up being $5,000 dollars, most of the cost coming from an IV drip.
In Canada if that happened I would have been completly covered with cheaper medicine!

Do you know why Canada has cheaper pharmaceuticals than the US does? It's because the US underwrites the cost of pharmaceuticals for most of the rest of the world. Unfair it might be, but if we drop down to paying barely the production costs of medicines, the way Canada and European countries do, the world will see a sudden absence of new drug development and production.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who says the quality of your care has to diminish?

That's right, roll up your sleeves, and reach for the bottom of the barrel, because your side is running out of propaganda.

Any cursory examination of the quality of care in other countries with single-payer systems, that's who says.

That's right, roll up your sleeves and reach for your Internet browser, because my side is getting damned tired of you prattling nonsense with no evidentiary basis.

You think it's "propaganda" that single-payer systems drop the quality of care? Then I suggest you make with the proof you claim conservatives never use, and prove it. I have my stats holstered and ready to go. Draw, pilgrim!

 

[Chris]

There's nothing "viable" in my book about lowering the quality of MY care for the purpose of making me pay for YOUR care.

The quality of your care will still be the same.

Your doctor won't change.

 

[Chris]

Any cursory examination of the quality of care in other countries with single-payer systems, that's who says.

That's right, roll up your sleeves and reach for your Internet browser, because my side is getting damned tired of you prattling nonsense with no evidentiary basis.

You think it's "propaganda" that single-payer systems drop the quality of care? Then I suggest you make with the proof you claim conservatives never use, and prove it. I have my stats holstered and ready to go. Draw, pilgrim!

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org

 

[Cecilie1200]

The quality of your care will still be the same.

Your doctor won't change.

Prove it. Prove to me that the quality of care will be exactly the same, and that my doctor won't either opt to retire or change to a more lucrative profession when medicine no longer becomes worth the cost and effort he put into learning it, which is why countries that have single-payer plans also have shortages of doctors.

I KNOW you didn't think I was going to take YOUR word for it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Any time you want somebody to trot out dozens of nightmare stories about health care provided by the government to treat the poor, I'll step right up to the plate.

Also any time you want a personal testimony about the people who are RECEIVING health care from the states and the federal government...how many they are, what is being spent on them, I'll step up to the plate.

Let me tell you, we're supporting with foodstamps and medical the children of illegals, and we're supporting illegals, too, if they happen to be pregnant or in a DV situation. It's a huge issue.

And the level of care poor people receive who are covered by government health care is pathetic. They are treated like shit in ER, they receive substandard care, and they are demeaned by the doctors who treat them.

 

[Care4all]

Cecilie1200;902980]Wow, you found a blog that says what you believe. THAT certainly proves . . . not a damned thing, particularly since they don't bother to offer any substantiation of their claim.

I can understand how it might be hard for those out there that are "challenged", to google something....my bad for not recognizing that YOU were a part of THAT group! Many apologies!!!

Whether or not WalMart's employees get lower premiums on their health insurance because they constitute such a large group has diddly squat to do with how much the doctors or hospitals charge the insurance companies for services. WalMart itself doesn't negotiate anything with the actual providers, because WalMart is not itself a health insurance company. Duh.

It is illegal for a doctor to charge one price to people with Blue Cross, for example, and another price to people who self-pay. It is considered discriminatory. Feel free to call whoever is in charge of insurance billing at your doctor's office and ask.

And now for the SECOND TIME, YES it is LEGAL for a doctor or hospital to charge more for the same service, to the person without insurance than the person who has insurance.

PLEASE Repeat what i said....so it can sink in....

IT IS LEGAL FOR HOSPITALS TO CHARGE MORE FOR PEOPLE WITHOUT INSURANCE.

i am not saying I agree with it, it just doesn't seem right to me, for them to be able to this with something so critical to ones well being....

BUT Cilie, it MOST CERTAIN IS LEGAL for them to do such....in fact....on average the people without insurance are charged two and a half times more than those that have health insurance.

I did a little homework for you since you did not accept the article writen on the blog for small businesses in America....btw....it was very easy to find other support of what i said on the topic Cilie.... and those kind of games that you just tried to play with me by trying to negate the site of the first article i printed, just "won't work with me"....never has and never will... so you can put that little bag of tricks right back in to your pocket....ok?

This is from reuters on the topic....

Reuters U.S. hospitals charge uninsured more, study says
Tue May 8, 2007 12:11am EDT By Kim Dixon

CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. hospitals are charging uninsured patients about two-and-a-half times more than those with health insurance, a mark-up that has been steadily rising despite pressure to level prices, a study released on Tuesday found.

In 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, hospital patients without health insurance and others who pay for medical care out of their own pockets were charged an average 2.57 times more than those with health insurance, according to the study published in the May-June issue of the journal Health Affairs.

That number has been rising steadily since 1984, but has jumped more quickly since 2000, the analysis of government data said.

Hospitals in the United States have come under fire from patient groups and lawmakers for marking up prices for those lacking the negotiating clout of a health insurer. But the price discrepancies are steadily worsening despite some reform efforts, the article said.

"The mark-up on hospital care for these individuals, especially for those who can afford it least, is unjustifiable," said Gerard Anderson, director of the center for hospital finance and management at Johns Hopkins University's school of public health, and study author.
U.S. hospitals charge uninsured more, study says | Health | Reuters

 

[Cecilie1200]

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org

It's bad enough I have to listen to the ignorant, uninformed opinions of the people who are actually on these boards and with whom I am actually discussing, without having time and space wasted being referred to the ignorant, uninformed opinions of bloggers not present on the board, because the board poster in question is too dumb and/or lazy to formulate his own opinion statement.

If you can't debate me personally, just don't even bother to post. Posting a link and then expecting me to respond with a point-by-point rebuttal to it is beyond lame and pitiful.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecilie1200;902980]Wow, you found a blog that says what you believe. THAT certainly proves . . . not a damned thing, particularly since they don't bother to offer any substantiation of their claim.

I can understand how it might be hard for those out there that are "challenged", to google something....my bad for not recognizing that YOU were a part of THAT group! Many apologies!!!

It is, indeed, YOUR bad for you to expect ME to try to verify your dumbassed claims when you personally couldn't be bothered to do more than post a blog. Don't do it again.

I am no more impressed with the fact that you can find some OTHER fool who holds the same lame opinion you do than I am with the fact that YOU hold that lame opinion. If you're going to post links, make them to reliable, factual sources. I already have such sources for MY statements and opinions. It's not my job to now attempt to prove YOUR ignorant position.

Whether or not WalMart's employees get lower premiums on their health insurance because they constitute such a large group has diddly squat to do with how much the doctors or hospitals charge the insurance companies for services. WalMart itself doesn't negotiate anything with the actual providers, because WalMart is not itself a health insurance company. Duh.

It is illegal for a doctor to charge one price to people with Blue Cross, for example, and another price to people who self-pay. It is considered discriminatory. Feel free to call whoever is in charge of insurance billing at your doctor's office and ask.

And now for the SECOND TIME, YES it is LEGAL for a doctor or hospital to charge more for the same service, to the person without insurance than the person who has insurance.

No, it isn't. No matter how many times you say it is, it will not become the truth, nor will I suddenly shout, "Eureka! I didn't realize that YOU thought that! It MUST be true! What was I thinking?!"

PLEASE Repeat what i said....so it can sink in....

IT IS LEGAL FOR HOSPITALS TO CHARGE MORE FOR PEOPLE WITHOUT INSURANCE.

It has already sunk in that you are a dimwit who believes something that isn't true. I don't need to hear it repeated any more to be aware of that.

Now try to let THIS sink in: your belief in something does not constitute proof that it is true. Your ability to repeat it does not constitute proof. Your ability to find some OTHER moron to agree with you does not constitute proof.

i am not saying I agree with it, it just doesn't seem right to me, for them to be able to this with something so critical to ones well being....

BUT Cilie, it MOST CERTAIN IS LEGAL for them to do such....in fact....on average the people without insurance are charged two and a half times more than those that have health insurance.

Oh, well, since you've said it again, THAT must make it true. I didn't believe you the first four times you said it and I told you you were an imbecile, but since you said it a fifth time, I can't argue with that.

Oh, wait. I can. You're an imbecile, and you're still - always - wrong.

I did a little homework for you since you did not accept the article writen on the blog for small businesses in America....btw....it was very easy to find other support of what i said on the topic Cilie.... and those kind of games that you just tried to play with me by trying to negate the site of the first article i printed, just "won't work with me"....never has and never will... so you can put that little bag of tricks right back in to your pocket....ok?

This is from reuters on the topic....

Reuters? Are you kidding me?

First a blog, now Reuters . . . and I'm not even going to comment on your "your little trick of dismissing pure opinion as pure opinion won't work" other than to say, "Get the hell off my screen, Lobotomy Boy. You're a waste of good oxygen."

FLUSH!

 

[Care4all]

It is, indeed, YOUR bad for you to expect ME to try to verify your dumbassed claims when you personally couldn't be bothered to do more than post a blog. Don't do it again.

I am no more impressed with the fact that you can find some OTHER fool who holds the same lame opinion you do than I am with the fact that YOU hold that lame opinion. If you're going to post links, make them to reliable, factual sources. I already have such sources for MY statements and opinions. It's not my job to now attempt to prove YOUR ignorant position.



No, it isn't. No matter how many times you say it is, it will not become the truth, nor will I suddenly shout, "Eureka! I didn't realize that YOU thought that! It MUST be true! What was I thinking?!"



It has already sunk in that you are a dimwit who believes something that isn't true. I don't need to hear it repeated any more to be aware of that.

Now try to let THIS sink in: your belief in something does not constitute proof that it is true. Your ability to repeat it does not constitute proof. Your ability to find some OTHER moron to agree with you does not constitute proof.



Oh, well, since you've said it again, THAT must make it true. I didn't believe you the first four times you said it and I told you you were an imbecile, but since you said it a fifth time, I can't argue with that.

Oh, wait. I can. You're an imbecile, and you're still - always - wrong.



Reuters? Are you kidding me?

First a blog, now Reuters . . . and I'm not even going to comment on your "your little trick of dismissing pure opinion as pure opinion won't work" other than to say, "Get the hell off my screen, Lobotomy Boy. You're a waste of good oxygen."

FLUSH!

you know, I am not known for calling anyone an IDIOT, even to the most rude posters....but......

DING DING DING DING

YOU have won the PRIZE!

Cilie....you are a complete ignorantly bliss idiot.

Doctors and Hospitals can and do charge more for the same medical service to people that do not have insurance. The reason they are able to charge the people with insurance LESS is because their insurance companies NEGOTIATED with the hospitals/doctors for cheaper prices for their customers....

This is perfectly LEGAL and it is what is happening to the people without insurance.

YOu can continue to be all high and mighty and criticize my legitimate sources on the topic all you like....it just shows your faulty character as a person and your ignorance, BY CHOICE.

Too bad....so sad....

Go Away Little Girl, find another spot to spill your garbage...because YOU are nothing but a dishonest, rude, cocky, arrogant, and by choice, uninformed rearend.

Care

 

[auditor0007]

I'll make this very simple.

Average life expectancy;
Canada 80.34 years
UK 78.70 years
US 78.06 years

Average cost per person as of 2007;
US $6096
Canada $3173
UK $2560

For 2008, US spending will increase to $7200.
Based on these numbers, we are idiots. We are receiving negative benefit by paying double what other industrialized countries pay.

So where is all this extra money going? It's making a few people very rich. If this money were spent on other things (we're talking about around $1 trillion annually), can you imagine how all Americans would benefit?

Let me add one more thing; while Americans dietary habits aren't the best, the US has the lowest percentage of smokers of all industrialized countries, except possibly Canada. Japan, and all of Europe have a smoking rate approximatley 50% greater than our own, yet they still have longer life expectancy and pay half of what we do for medical care. Again, we are idiots if we keep this current system going.

And finally, our costs continue to rise by double digits. Within ten years, we will be spending well over $10,000, possibly more, per person. When this happens, many middle income earners will no longer be able to afford health insurance. Then guess what will happen? The wealthy will pay even more. More likely, the system will finally collapse, and we will move to National Healthcare. In the meantime, many Americans will go without and it will be absolutely devastating to our economy.

For those who make a good living, that living is based on Americans being able to purchase goods. When healthcare becomes too expensive, the only option will be to cut back on the purchase of those goods. When that happens, unemployment will skyrocket, and the wealthy will become poor. Even they will not be able to afford to pay for what they argue is the best healthcare in the world.

When people argue in favor of our current system, the argument is always about choice. Well, that is the wrong argument. The real argument is about cost and affordability and what impact the lack of affordability will have on day to day life for everyone.

You want to know why GM is going under? It's not because of poor planning. It's not because of an inferior product. It's not even due to their CEO making ridiculous amounts of money. It's due to the cost of their longterm commitment towards healthcare for their current and retired workers. Their average hourly cost of labor is now over $70 per hour. The wage portion is only half of that. It won't be long before every industry in the US is affected by healthcare costs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'll make this very simple.

Average life expectancy;
Canada 80.34 years
UK 78.70 years
US 78.06 years

Average cost per person as of 2007;
US $6096
Canada $3173
UK $2560

For 2008, US spending will increase to $7200.
Based on these numbers, we are idiots. We are receiving negative benefit by paying double what other industrialized countries pay.

I'll make this very simple. What the hell's your point? What does any of this have to do with the quality of our health care? And rest assured, I WILL require you to show your work.

So where is all this extra money going? It's making a few people very rich. If this money were spent on other things (we're talking about around $1 trillion annually), can you imagine how all Americans would benefit?

Whoa up there, Speedy. PROVE that that's where the money is going.

Let me add one more thing; while Americans dietary habits aren't the best, the US has the lowest percentage of smokers of all industrialized countries, except possibly Canada. Japan, and all of Europe have a smoking rate approximatley 50% greater than our own, yet they still have longer life expectancy and pay half of what we do for medical care. Again, we are idiots if we keep this current system going.

Again, so what? What does life expectancy - or one bad habit - have to do with anything? Show some causation instead of just correlation, Sparky.

And finally, our costs continue to rise by double digits. Within ten years, we will be spending well over $10,000, possibly more, per person. When this happens, many middle income earners will no longer be able to afford health insurance. Then guess what will happen? The wealthy will pay even more. More likely, the system will finally collapse, and we will move to National Healthcare. In the meantime, many Americans will go without and it will be absolutely devastating to our economy.

How did we get from amount spent on healthcare to "can't afford health insurance"? They aren't the same set of numbers. Hell, you haven't even clarified exactly WHAT spending you're referring to. Are you talking about the total amount of money spent in the US every year on all things healthcare? The amount that just the government spends in that regard? The amount that is spent on health insurance coverage? What are these numbers you're bandying about, and could you please stop applying them randomly to all things at once?

For those who make a good living, that living is based on Americans being able to purchase goods. When healthcare becomes too expensive, the only option will be to cut back on the purchase of those goods. When that happens, unemployment will skyrocket, and the wealthy will become poor. Even they will not be able to afford to pay for what they argue is the best healthcare in the world.

Well, butter my butt and call me a biscuit. You mean people don't have unlimited funds to spend on everything and anything they want at any given moment, and have to make budgetary decisions? When the hell did THAT start happening?

You're making some leaps in logic that would make Evel Knievel green with envy.

When people argue in favor of our current system, the argument is always about choice. Well, that is the wrong argument. The real argument is about cost and affordability and what impact the lack of affordability will have on day to day life for everyone.

Yeah. Where do they get off deciding that THEIR priorities are what matters, or that controlling their own healthcare should be important? Everyone knows that what REALLY counts is what the Almighty Auditor0000-whatever says.

You want to know why GM is going under? It's not because of poor planning. It's not because of an inferior product. It's not even due to their CEO making ridiculous amounts of money. It's due to the cost of their longterm commitment towards healthcare for their current and retired workers. Their average hourly cost of labor is now over $70 per hour. The wage portion is only half of that. It won't be long before every industry in the US is affected by healthcare costs.

Uh, no. The collapse of GM isn't even remotely that simple or cut-and-dried.

 

[editec]

I'll make this as simple as I can for those of you still attempting to grasp the level of the problem.

Right now I have four young adults living with me.

They are ALL working full time.

Not ONE of them has health care insurance

Neither do I.

Simple enough?

The system is NOT working for more and more people every damned year.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'll make this as simple as I can for those of you still attempting to grasp the level of the problem.

Right now I have four young adults living with me.

They are ALL working full time.

Not ONE of them has health care insurance

Neither do I.

Simple enough?

The system is NOT working for more and more people every damned year.

How is that "the system" not working for you? You work (presumably), they work, you're all reasonably intelligent adults (again, presumably). What, precisely, is it that you think "the system" owes you?

 

[KittenKoder]

Okay, a nice and kinda funny story to me since I don't live on credit it didn't really hurt me any.

I went to the emergency room for an infection. They prescribed the same old crap. Then about two months after I get a notice "your unpaid bill has been sent to collections." The funny part is that they never sent me the first bill and it slipped my mind completely so I didn't think to call and find out why I haven't had a bill yet. So I call them now, their response, "Um ... well ... um, we sorry but we can't do anything about it now."

Well, a $50 bill is now $400 outstanding and in the hands of a collection agency who I will never pay anyway. I hate doctors, oh well.

 

[editec]

How often do you hear about people dying in the US because they were diagnosed with cancer but the government wouldn't let them get treatment until it was inoperable?

Not nearly so often as we read about people dying because their PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES decided that a treatment is experiemental (when it isn't really) and they wouldn't pay for it, actually.

I am so sick and tired of this myth that government is less effecient than private insurance companies, folks.

It is simply not true.

Private insurance comapnies have vested interest in screwing people, and they respond to that vested interest often.

Now bear in mind my previous post.

There is NO perfect solution to this problem...not privatizing, not semisocialism and not pure socialistic health care either.

Each comes with their own sets of problems.

Health care is not like other things we buy, folks.

Any of us who think HC responds to the laws of supply and demand like other necessities do, is not thinking about this issue very deeply.

For example we know that :

More doctors tends to increase the aggregate amount of HC used, and does not reduce the cost of HC (the more doctors in an area? the higher cost for HC tends to be in that area!)

Consumers do not comparison shop for the best buy in HC because they are wholly unqualified to decide what the best buy is.

Consumers do NOT decide how much HC they need, the providers do.

Other things to consider...

MOST of the nation HC dollars are spent on patients in their last year of life because keeping people alive for those last day is typically the most intensive and expensive HC.

Sooner or later we are going to just have to accept the fact that HC doesn't work in the standard economic model way that most other things do because the demand for health care is an ever increasing but the return on HC investment is a diminishing return.

Sooner or later, every HC system, public or private, is going to start to ration the HC dollars they'll spend on people, folks because of the aforementioned statement.

HC rationing is inevitable because HC demand doesn't like any other necessities we purchase.

Health care is like a black hole into which we could (and have been) shoving money.

But the thing is...its a black hole we can never fill.