WHY health care needed reform

[Zander]

Government involvement in Health care caused the problem. Now the only solution is more government involvement? You people are permanently stuck on stupid.....

 

[Bern80]

Having choice is a key mechanism in keeping costs down to consumers. Look at all of the choice government has removed from the market. They have removed the choice of how an employer wants to provide the health care benefit to its employees and they have removed coverage options of the insurer.

Where you are getting this data? Or do things just work very differently in your field? I had various options with most if not all of the policies my company "provided."

This is the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach. Not so much about developing a coherent or consistent story but more about venting against all that irks you.

1) Benefit mandates are the problem. Except the reality is that most people with private insurance are in plans that aren't subject to state or federal benefit mandates.

2) Having insurance is the problem. Except, as noted above, the distribution of health expenditures makes an insurance model not only prudent but necessary.

3) No, insurance is fine but should be tailored to the low-spending tiers. If we let in the higher spending cohorts, just make them pull their weight. There's no reason the most expensive cohort shouldn't pay premiums 55 times what the least expensive cohort pays!

4) People need to better understand their insurance policies. But, of course, any effort to make health insurance policies more intelligible and choices in insurance markets more meaningful is condescending and anathema to truth, justice, and the American way.

5) The problem is that people are getting too many "oil changes" (which, apparently, refers to physicals?) or, alternatively, not finding a good enough deal on them. So insurance is fine but shouldn't contribute at all to oil changes. This is key, because a significant chunk of our two and a half trillions dollars in national health expenditures is on...physicals. The five percent of folks responsible for half of our national spending must be getting quite a few physicals!

This could go on but the primary difficulty I'm seeing here is a very large lack of appreciation for the links between payment and service delivery. In its place is a blind faith that certain misapplied maxims will produce good outcomes. Instead of pursing the current trend toward tightly-knit, integrated care with coordinated team-based approaches (the sort of approach that has simultaneously led to lower costs and some of the highest quality care in the United States where implemented), we're now faced with this push for fragmented, episodic care modeled after the approach to getting your Chevy serviced. Despite the evidence in favor of coordinated care and the importance of smooth care transitions, what we really need is a more adversarial, territorial, and competitive relationship between practitioners--more MBA physicians might just be the missing piece of the puzzle.

The good thing is that everyone here seems to agreed that 1) consumers should have a meaningful choice of health insurance products and employers (particularly small businesses) should be flexibility in how they assist employees with finding coverage, and 2) value should be sought, identified, and paid for. Both of these are in the process of coming to fruition as they never have before--a happy circumstance.

And with all your rambling greeny (including things I never actually said) you still can't answer why it's not possible to simplify this system. I didn't say people are getting too many physicals. I suggested that instead of using insurance to pay for everything in some form or other where health care is concerned it be used more akin to auto insurance which pays for major issues under certain circumstances and the consumer pay for the more routine health care issues. Routine physicals, some prescriptions, etc. The things I don't need or are inexpensive enough for most to pay for on their own don't need to be part of insurance plan. Those same things drive the cost of premiums up. Not every medical service costs an arm and a leg. Many generic prescription cost very little. For example, I'm on a generic thyroid medication. With my insurance it costs $8 and change per refill. Paying for it out of pocket it costs about $10. I think I can handle that.

 

[bill5]

Having choice is a key mechanism in keeping costs down to consumers. Look at all of the choice government has removed from the market. They have removed the choice of how an employer wants to provide the health care benefit to its employees and they have removed coverage options of the insurer.

Where you are getting this data? Or do things just work very differently in your field? I had various options with most if not all of the policies my company "provided."

This is the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach. Not so much about developing a coherent or consistent story but more about venting against all that irks you.

Was that supposed to make any sense whatsoever? I was not "venting," and I have no idea what "developing a story" or your odd "everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach" is even supposed to mean.

As I started to read the rest of your post it sounded similarly nonsensical, so I didn't bother to read much further.

 

[Bfgrn]

Government involvement in Health care caused the problem. Now the only solution is more government involvement? You people are permanently stuck on stupid.....

And America's health care is at the bottom of all industrialized countries.

A recent study reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine compared the amounts of money spent by nineteen Western countries on health care relative to their respective gross domestic product (GDP). The authors, Professor Colin Pritchard of the Bournemouth University School of Health and Social Care, and Dr. Mark Wallace of the Latymer School of London, ranked countries by the average percentage of GDP spent on health care between 1979 and 2005. They then looked at mortality rates for “all adults” (15-74 years old) and for just the “older” population (55-74) to determine a cost-effective ratio, i.e., how much “bang for the buck” each country has been getting for the money spent. The conclusions are striking.

Increasing Health Care Costs

It will come as no surprise that health care costs have gone up everywhere. In 1980, Sweden spent nine percent of its GDP on health care. The USA came in second at 8.8%. Most countries averaged about 7.1% of GDP. In 2005, the picture had changed. The United States was far in front of all other countries, spending an average of 12.2% of its GDP for all public and private health care costs. Germany was a somewhat distant second at 9.7%, with the average for all countries standing at 7.4%. In other words, while average health care expenditures increased from 7% to 7.4%, America’s costs jumped from 8.8% to 12.2% of GDP over the same span of time.

Mortality Rates

The study then looked at trends in mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74). Deaths per million population were looked at, and the authors found that mortality rates had declined in segments of this population in every country, an indication that medical science has indeed improved over the past few decades.

Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the authors then ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:

1 Ireland
2 United Kingdom
3 New Zealand
4 Austria
5 Australia
6 Italy
7 Finland
8 Japan
9 Spain
10 Sweden
11 Canada
12 Netherlands
13 France
14 Norway
15 Greece
16 Germany
17 USA
18 Portugal
19 Switzerland

Conclusions

Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?

The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at “well-being” of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.

Universal vs. Private Health Insurance

There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries – Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland – all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.

 

[Greenbeard]

Was that supposed to make any sense whatsoever? I was not "venting," and I have no idea what "developing a story" or your odd "everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach" is even supposed to mean.

Relax there, chief. I was referring to the post you were quoting in your response. It was the tail end of a litany of loosely related gripes from Bern.

 

[bill5]

It is the extreme narrow mindedness of people like yourself who think those variables are not changeable, that is holding health care reform back.

It is the extreme silliness of comments like that that hold intelligent discussions back.

FYI hospitals are expensive. CT machines are expensive. And so on. Those "variables" are not "changeable" ie they have been and will remain expensive, and understandably so. This means the costs associated with provided such services to people will also be expensive - far too expensive for many to afford, hence the need for health insurance. That said, I do not agree with forcing people to have insurance. Just don't come crying to the gov't (or anyone else) if you choose not to have it and something happens requiring you to get care which you can't afford.

The consumer needs to start plugging in, in order to solve this problem. They have to be responsible for knowing what their plan covers and responsible for know what the real cost of services are.

The consumer "plugging in" will not solve this problem. As for "knowing the real cost of services," how are they supposed to do that? And did you know some costs are not even fixed, eg CT scans? The hospitals and insurances play this "negotiation" game.

Yes there are lots of insurance companies and yes prices are still high. That is because consumers of the product are having to go out and actually shop for a plan.

?? Earlier you said "They have little incentive to understand their plan because they have little choice in plans." Now you're saying they have to out and shop for them? Which is it?

 

[Zander]

Government involvement in Health care caused the problem. Now the only solution is more government involvement? You people are permanently stuck on stupid.....

And America's health care is at the bottom of all industrialized countries.

A recent study reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine compared the amounts of money spent by nineteen Western countries on health care relative to their respective gross domestic product (GDP). The authors, Professor Colin Pritchard of the Bournemouth University School of Health and Social Care, and Dr. Mark Wallace of the Latymer School of London, ranked countries by the average percentage of GDP spent on health care between 1979 and 2005. They then looked at mortality rates for “all adults” (15-74 years old) and for just the “older” population (55-74) to determine a cost-effective ratio, i.e., how much “bang for the buck” each country has been getting for the money spent. The conclusions are striking.

Increasing Health Care Costs

It will come as no surprise that health care costs have gone up everywhere. In 1980, Sweden spent nine percent of its GDP on health care. The USA came in second at 8.8%. Most countries averaged about 7.1% of GDP. In 2005, the picture had changed. The United States was far in front of all other countries, spending an average of 12.2% of its GDP for all public and private health care costs. Germany was a somewhat distant second at 9.7%, with the average for all countries standing at 7.4%. In other words, while average health care expenditures increased from 7% to 7.4%, America’s costs jumped from 8.8% to 12.2% of GDP over the same span of time.

Mortality Rates

The study then looked at trends in mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74). Deaths per million population were looked at, and the authors found that mortality rates had declined in segments of this population in every country, an indication that medical science has indeed improved over the past few decades.

Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the authors then ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:

1 Ireland
2 United Kingdom
3 New Zealand
4 Austria
5 Australia
6 Italy
7 Finland
8 Japan
9 Spain
10 Sweden
11 Canada
12 Netherlands
13 France
14 Norway
15 Greece
16 Germany
17 USA
18 Portugal
19 Switzerland

Conclusions

Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?

The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at “well-being” of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.

Universal vs. Private Health Insurance

There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries – Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland – all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. Get the government out of our health care. You are responsible for your own life, your own health, and your own health care. Government is not your mommy.

 

[Bfgrn]

Government involvement in Health care caused the problem. Now the only solution is more government involvement? You people are permanently stuck on stupid.....

And America's health care is at the bottom of all industrialized countries.

A recent study reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine compared the amounts of money spent by nineteen Western countries on health care relative to their respective gross domestic product (GDP). The authors, Professor Colin Pritchard of the Bournemouth University School of Health and Social Care, and Dr. Mark Wallace of the Latymer School of London, ranked countries by the average percentage of GDP spent on health care between 1979 and 2005. They then looked at mortality rates for “all adults” (15-74 years old) and for just the “older” population (55-74) to determine a cost-effective ratio, i.e., how much “bang for the buck” each country has been getting for the money spent. The conclusions are striking.

Increasing Health Care Costs

It will come as no surprise that health care costs have gone up everywhere. In 1980, Sweden spent nine percent of its GDP on health care. The USA came in second at 8.8%. Most countries averaged about 7.1% of GDP. In 2005, the picture had changed. The United States was far in front of all other countries, spending an average of 12.2% of its GDP for all public and private health care costs. Germany was a somewhat distant second at 9.7%, with the average for all countries standing at 7.4%. In other words, while average health care expenditures increased from 7% to 7.4%, America’s costs jumped from 8.8% to 12.2% of GDP over the same span of time.

Mortality Rates

The study then looked at trends in mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74). Deaths per million population were looked at, and the authors found that mortality rates had declined in segments of this population in every country, an indication that medical science has indeed improved over the past few decades.

Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the authors then ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:

1 Ireland
2 United Kingdom
3 New Zealand
4 Austria
5 Australia
6 Italy
7 Finland
8 Japan
9 Spain
10 Sweden
11 Canada
12 Netherlands
13 France
14 Norway
15 Greece
16 Germany
17 USA
18 Portugal
19 Switzerland

Conclusions

Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?

The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at “well-being” of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.

Universal vs. Private Health Insurance

There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries – Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland – all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. Get the government out of our health care. You are responsible for your own life, your own health, and your own health care. Government is not your mommy.

Epic fail...Plus you are an ignorant fuck who is brainwashed.

Our wealth care system puts all our businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace. The cost of health insurance adds $1500 to the cost of every vehicle domestic automakers produce. Japanese manufacturers spend $200 per vehicle because Japan has universal health care.

More money per person is spent on health care in the USA than in any other nation in the world, and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the USA than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor. Although not all people are insured, the USA has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita, because of the high cost of medical care in the country. 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 expenses. Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.

The USA pays twice as much yet lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, though the relation between these statistics to the system itself is debated. Currently, the USA has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations. In the United States life expectancy is 42nd in the world, after some other industrialized nations, lagging the other nations of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).

Life expectancy in the USA is 42nd in the world, below most developed nations and some developing nations. It is below the average life expectancy for the European Union. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries, and notes U.S. care costs the most.

The USA is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e., some kind of private or public health insurance). In 2004, the Institute of Medicine report observed "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." while a 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance.
wiki

 

[Zander]

And America's health care is at the bottom of all industrialized countries.

A recent study reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine compared the amounts of money spent by nineteen Western countries on health care relative to their respective gross domestic product (GDP). The authors, Professor Colin Pritchard of the Bournemouth University School of Health and Social Care, and Dr. Mark Wallace of the Latymer School of London, ranked countries by the average percentage of GDP spent on health care between 1979 and 2005. They then looked at mortality rates for “all adults” (15-74 years old) and for just the “older” population (55-74) to determine a cost-effective ratio, i.e., how much “bang for the buck” each country has been getting for the money spent. The conclusions are striking.

Increasing Health Care Costs

It will come as no surprise that health care costs have gone up everywhere. In 1980, Sweden spent nine percent of its GDP on health care. The USA came in second at 8.8%. Most countries averaged about 7.1% of GDP. In 2005, the picture had changed. The United States was far in front of all other countries, spending an average of 12.2% of its GDP for all public and private health care costs. Germany was a somewhat distant second at 9.7%, with the average for all countries standing at 7.4%. In other words, while average health care expenditures increased from 7% to 7.4%, America’s costs jumped from 8.8% to 12.2% of GDP over the same span of time.

Mortality Rates

The study then looked at trends in mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74). Deaths per million population were looked at, and the authors found that mortality rates had declined in segments of this population in every country, an indication that medical science has indeed improved over the past few decades.

Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the authors then ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:

1 Ireland
2 United Kingdom
3 New Zealand
4 Austria
5 Australia
6 Italy
7 Finland
8 Japan
9 Spain
10 Sweden
11 Canada
12 Netherlands
13 France
14 Norway
15 Greece
16 Germany
17 USA
18 Portugal
19 Switzerland

Conclusions

Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?

The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at “well-being” of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.

Universal vs. Private Health Insurance

There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries – Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland – all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. Get the government out of our health care. You are responsible for your own life, your own health, and your own health care. Government is not your mommy.

Epic fail...Plus you are an ignorant fuck who is brainwashed.

Our wealth care system puts all our businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace. The cost of health insurance adds $1500 to the cost of every vehicle domestic automakers produce. Japanese manufacturers spend $200 per vehicle because Japan has universal health care.

More money per person is spent on health care in the USA than in any other nation in the world, and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the USA than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor. Although not all people are insured, the USA has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita, because of the high cost of medical care in the country. 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 expenses. Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.

The USA pays twice as much yet lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, though the relation between these statistics to the system itself is debated. Currently, the USA has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations. In the United States life expectancy is 42nd in the world, after some other industrialized nations, lagging the other nations of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).

Life expectancy in the USA is 42nd in the world, below most developed nations and some developing nations. It is below the average life expectancy for the European Union. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries, and notes U.S. care costs the most.

The USA is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e., some kind of private or public health insurance). In 2004, the Institute of Medicine report observed "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." while a 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance.
wiki

Your cut and paste posts do not impress me son. Try writing your own thoughts. I know you're the type of person that needs government to save you and pay for your life, but please, save the insults for your playground pals. You have done nothing in this thread but cut and paste crap and sling insults.

 

[Bfgrn]

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. Get the government out of our health care. You are responsible for your own life, your own health, and your own health care. Government is not your mommy.

Epic fail...Plus you are an ignorant fuck who is brainwashed.

Our wealth care system puts all our businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace. The cost of health insurance adds $1500 to the cost of every vehicle domestic automakers produce. Japanese manufacturers spend $200 per vehicle because Japan has universal health care.

More money per person is spent on health care in the USA than in any other nation in the world, and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the USA than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor. Although not all people are insured, the USA has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita, because of the high cost of medical care in the country. 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 expenses. Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.

The USA pays twice as much yet lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, though the relation between these statistics to the system itself is debated. Currently, the USA has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations. In the United States life expectancy is 42nd in the world, after some other industrialized nations, lagging the other nations of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).

Life expectancy in the USA is 42nd in the world, below most developed nations and some developing nations. It is below the average life expectancy for the European Union. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries, and notes U.S. care costs the most.

The USA is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e., some kind of private or public health insurance). In 2004, the Institute of Medicine report observed "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." while a 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance.
wiki

Your cut and paste posts do not impress me son. Try writing your own thoughts. I know you're the type of person that needs government to save you and pay for your life, but please, save the insults for your playground pals. You have done nothing in this thread but cut and paste crap and sling insults.

And your ignorance does not impress me. I am probably older than you SON.

Knowledge is learned. Try it sometime, maybe you can replace your dogma

 

[Trajan]

And America's health care is at the bottom of all industrialized countries.

A recent study reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine compared the amounts of money spent by nineteen Western countries on health care relative to their respective gross domestic product (GDP). The authors, Professor Colin Pritchard of the Bournemouth University School of Health and Social Care, and Dr. Mark Wallace of the Latymer School of London, ranked countries by the average percentage of GDP spent on health care between 1979 and 2005. They then looked at mortality rates for “all adults” (15-74 years old) and for just the “older” population (55-74) to determine a cost-effective ratio, i.e., how much “bang for the buck” each country has been getting for the money spent. The conclusions are striking.

Increasing Health Care Costs

It will come as no surprise that health care costs have gone up everywhere. In 1980, Sweden spent nine percent of its GDP on health care. The USA came in second at 8.8%. Most countries averaged about 7.1% of GDP. In 2005, the picture had changed. The United States was far in front of all other countries, spending an average of 12.2% of its GDP for all public and private health care costs. Germany was a somewhat distant second at 9.7%, with the average for all countries standing at 7.4%. In other words, while average health care expenditures increased from 7% to 7.4%, America’s costs jumped from 8.8% to 12.2% of GDP over the same span of time.

Mortality Rates

The study then looked at trends in mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74). Deaths per million population were looked at, and the authors found that mortality rates had declined in segments of this population in every country, an indication that medical science has indeed improved over the past few decades.

Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the authors then ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:

1 Ireland
2 United Kingdom
3 New Zealand
4 Austria
5 Australia
6 Italy
7 Finland
8 Japan
9 Spain
10 Sweden
11 Canada
12 Netherlands
13 France
14 Norway
15 Greece
16 Germany
17 USA
18 Portugal
19 Switzerland

Conclusions

Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?

The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at “well-being” of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.

Universal vs. Private Health Insurance

There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries – Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland – all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. Get the government out of our health care. You are responsible for your own life, your own health, and your own health care. Government is not your mommy.

Epic fail...Plus you are an ignorant fuck who is brainwashed.

Our wealth care system puts all our businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace. The cost of health insurance adds $1500 to the cost of every vehicle domestic automakers produce. Japanese manufacturers spend $200 per vehicle because Japan has universal health care.

More money per person is spent on health care in the USA than in any other nation in the world, and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the USA than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor. Although not all people are insured, the USA has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita, because of the high cost of medical care in the country. 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 expenses. Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.

The USA pays twice as much yet lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, though the relation between these statistics to the system itself is debated. Currently, the USA has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations. In the United States life expectancy is 42nd in the world, after some other industrialized nations, lagging the other nations of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).

Life expectancy in the USA is 42nd in the world, below most developed nations and some developing nations. It is below the average life expectancy for the European Union. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries, and notes U.S. care costs the most.

The USA is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e., some kind of private or public health insurance). In 2004, the Institute of Medicine report observed "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." while a 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance.
wiki

I have seen the argument that the huge costs spent on an education system that is failing , should lead to a revamp of the whole system but that doesn't get much play yet here you say same ala health care and the sky is falling.........selectivity- the last line of defense...

 

[Care4all]

WHY did health care need reform? Because Wall Street took complete control of the health care industry. Profit driven incentives create REAL death panels for Americans. Insurance corporations are incentivized to deny patient coverage and push more and more of the costs onto consumers.

For anyone who wants an insider's knowledge of this, I recommend investing a half hour of your time to listen to what this man has to say...

Wendell Potter is former Vice President of corporate communications at CIGNA, one of the United States' largest health insurance companies. In June 2009, he testified against the HMO industry in the U.S. Senate.

Looking back over his long career, Potter sees an industry corrupted by Wall Street expectations and greed. According to Potter, insurers have every incentive to deny coverage — every dollar they don't pay out to a claim is a dollar they can add to their profits, and Wall Street investors demand they pay out less every year. Under these conditions, Potter says, "You don't think about individual people. You think about the numbers, and whether or not you're going to meet Wall Street's expectations."


Profits before Patients - Wendell Potter

WATCH VIDEO
READ TRANSCRIPT

Following a 20-year career as a corporate public relations executive, Wendell left his position as head of communications for CIGNA, one of the nation’s largest health insurers, to help socially responsible organizations — including those advocating for meaningful health care reform — achieve their goals.

In widely covered testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science and Technology Committee in June of 2009, Wendell disclosed how insurance companies, as part of their efforts to boost profits, have engaged in practices that have resulted in millions of Americans being forced into the ranks of the uninsured. Wendell also described how the insurance industry has developed and implemented strategic communications plans, based on deceptive public relations, advertising and lobbying efforts, to defeat reform initiatives.

Since then Wendell has testified before two House committees, briefed several members of Congress and their staffs, appeared with members of Congress at several press conferences, spoken at more than 100 public forums, and has been the subject of numerous articles in the U.S. and foreign media.

At CIGNA, Wendell served in a variety of positions over 15 years, most recently as head of corporate communications and chief corporate spokesperson. Prior to joining CIGNA, Wendell headed communications at Humana Inc., another large for-profit health insurer. Before that he was director of public relations and advertising for the Baptist Health System of East Tennessee and a partner in an Atlanta public relations firm. He also serves as a consumer liaison representative for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

Wendell Potter's News Articles


“As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called, ‘Wall Street’s relentless profit expectations.’” — President Barack Obama, Remarks to Joint Session of Congress, September 9, 2009

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

i don't need someone else to tell me it needs reform!

i pay 5 k a year for health insurance including dental through matt's job....from Aetna, I had the choice of only 2 policies, both aetna, one a cheaper version, I chose the more expensive one which still was crappy.

i just had pneumonia (for a month)

NOT ONE of my doctor's bills or x-rays or breathing apparatus that they had me use, was paid by the insurance company...All $1100 of it was out of pocket by me....because the plan has a $1250 dollar deductible that i had to pay first....year is gonna end soon and starting january i start all over again, pay the insurance company 5 grand, then pay the first $1250 out of pocket!

the insurance company has a real racket going!

 

[Bfgrn]

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. Get the government out of our health care. You are responsible for your own life, your own health, and your own health care. Government is not your mommy.

Epic fail...Plus you are an ignorant fuck who is brainwashed.

Our wealth care system puts all our businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace. The cost of health insurance adds $1500 to the cost of every vehicle domestic automakers produce. Japanese manufacturers spend $200 per vehicle because Japan has universal health care.

More money per person is spent on health care in the USA than in any other nation in the world, and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the USA than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor. Although not all people are insured, the USA has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita, because of the high cost of medical care in the country. 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 expenses. Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.

The USA pays twice as much yet lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, though the relation between these statistics to the system itself is debated. Currently, the USA has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations. In the United States life expectancy is 42nd in the world, after some other industrialized nations, lagging the other nations of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).

Life expectancy in the USA is 42nd in the world, below most developed nations and some developing nations. It is below the average life expectancy for the European Union. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries, and notes U.S. care costs the most.

The USA is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e., some kind of private or public health insurance). In 2004, the Institute of Medicine report observed "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." while a 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance.
wiki

I have seen the argument that the huge costs spent on an education system that is failing , should lead to a revamp of the whole system but that doesn't get much play yet here you say same ala health care and the sky is falling.........selectivity- the last line of defense...

Then start a thread on education...

 

[Bern80]

FYI hospitals are expensive. CT machines are expensive. And so on. Those "variables" are not "changeable" ie they have been and will remain expensive, and understandably so. This means the costs associated with provided such services to people will also be expensive - far too expensive for many to afford, hence the need for health insurance. That said, I do not agree with forcing people to have insurance. Just don't come crying to the gov't (or anyone else) if you choose not to have it and something happens requiring you to get care which you can't afford.

No shit hospitals negotiate the price of services with different insurance companies. Why is it so unfathomable to think they would not negotiate with YOU?

The consumer "plugging in" will not solve this problem. As for "knowing the real cost of services," how are they supposed to do that? And did you know some costs are not even fixed, eg CT scans? The hospitals and insurances play this "negotiation" game.

You really believe a service costs the same or less when a third party is paying for service someone else received as opposed to the consumer paying for it directly? When you pay a set premium per month and an actual procedure is covered 80% or completely by your insurance, do you really care how much the hospital charges for that service? All you car about is what the hospital says you owe AFTER insurance has paid their part. If there was no such thing as insurance you don't think people might ship around a bit more to find the best service at the best price?

?? Earlier you said "They have little incentive to understand their plan because they have little choice in plans." Now you're saying they have to out and shop for them? Which is it?

Are NOT. My apologies.

 

[bill5]

No shit hospitals negotiate the price of services with different insurance companies. Why is it so unfathomable to think they would not negotiate with YOU?

Basically, because they don't have to. Insurance companies can get that done because they are experts in the field and have the resources/"muscle" to work with hospitals. That cannot be said for I and 99%+ of all other consumers.

You really believe a service costs the same or less when a third party is paying for service someone else received as opposed to the consumer paying for it directly?

I don't "believe" it, I KNOW it. In fact I have seen and lived it.

When you pay a set premium per month and an actual procedure is covered 80% or completely by your insurance, do you really care how much the hospital charges for that service?

No. And that's relevant because....

If there was no such thing as insurance you don't think people might ship around a bit more to find the best service at the best price?

If there was no such thing as insurance it wouldn't always matter because people couldn't afford even the cheapest one.

Are NOT. My apologies.

Thanks and no worries but I don't know what you mean by are not.

 

[AnnieInMexico]

You really believe a service costs the same or less when a third party is paying for service someone else received as opposed to the consumer paying for it directly? When you pay a set premium per month and an actual procedure is covered 80% or completely by your insurance, do you really care how much the hospital charges for that service? All you car about is what the hospital says you owe AFTER insurance has paid their part. If there was no such thing as insurance you don't think people might ship around a bit more to find the best service at the best price?

I'm not sure I am understanding you. Are you saying that ins co's pay the same as a private individual paying cash for the same service?

 

[Bern80]

You really believe a service costs the same or less when a third party is paying for service someone else received as opposed to the consumer paying for it directly? When you pay a set premium per month and an actual procedure is covered 80% or completely by your insurance, do you really care how much the hospital charges for that service? All you car about is what the hospital says you owe AFTER insurance has paid their part. If there was no such thing as insurance you don't think people might ship around a bit more to find the best service at the best price?

I'm not sure I am understanding you. Are you saying that ins co's pay the same as a private individual paying cash for the same service?

No. I'm saying in many cases the same sercive would actually cost LESS if you offered to pay for it yourself instead of having it billed through an insurance company,

 

[Bfgrn]

You really believe a service costs the same or less when a third party is paying for service someone else received as opposed to the consumer paying for it directly? When you pay a set premium per month and an actual procedure is covered 80% or completely by your insurance, do you really care how much the hospital charges for that service? All you car about is what the hospital says you owe AFTER insurance has paid their part. If there was no such thing as insurance you don't think people might ship around a bit more to find the best service at the best price?

I'm not sure I am understanding you. Are you saying that ins co's pay the same as a private individual paying cash for the same service?

No. I'm saying in many cases the same sercive would actually cost LESS if you offered to pay for it yourself instead of having it billed through an insurance company,

FALSE!

Have you ever been on Cobra? Insurance companies pay much less for healthcare than individual patients

 

[AnnieInMexico]

No. I'm saying in many cases the same sercive would actually cost LESS if you offered to pay for it yourself instead of having it billed through an insurance company,

Hmmm... I was not aware of this. Every case I have seen in my 25+ years of medicine shows that ins co's have contracted prices. They get a deal based on quantity of people vs. an individual.

Think of it this way. You go to the hospital and have your appendix removed. The hospital will likely bill your ins co around $50K. But after the ins co goes through the bill and their contract with that hospital it's typically around $12-$15K and the rest is written off. Then the insured pays their deductable/co pays in line with what ins paid. A self pay with no negotiations would pay $50K. Cut a deal with the hospital (even after the fact, many times) and you pay what an average ins co will pay.

With that said, many people are not aware that due to these contracted prices with ins co's if they are self pay they can usually request a discount and more times than not, this is granted.

I work in this industry for a living. I send people from Mexico to the US for (paid) medical care. Sometimes they have great ins that covers US care as well as MX and sometimes they have a lot of money and are merely self pay. I have ALWAYS been able to get my self pay people ins co contracted prices which is a fraction of what a self pay would usually be.

But, those are merely my experiences.

 

[Bern80]

, because they don't have to. Insurance companies can get that done because they are experts in the field and have the resources/"muscle" to work with hospitals. That cannot be said for I and 99%+ of all other consumers.

Your trying to dodge around the obvious point bill, but being more specific, if health insurance was used less, more people would have to pay providers directly for certain services. Because the cost of service is now being felt directly by the consumer, human nature suggests the consumer is going to look for the best deal at the best price. That will create competition for customers by providers which would make services that cost one thing when billed through insurance cost less when billed directly to the customer.

, I don't "believe" it, I KNOW it. In fact I have seen and lived it.

How and when exactly. When has a provider charged less for service you received when charged to someone other than you as opposed to a service charged directly to you?

No. And that's relevant because....

It is relevent because if you don't care you have no incentive to research costs. If you have no incentive to research costs, the provider has no incentive to make the information available to the public. If the public does not have the information they can not make informed decisions on quality or price thus there is no incentive to 'shop' for providers. If there is no incentive to 'shop' for providers there is no incentive for providers to compete directly for consumers by lowering prices.