The Right has been saying that Medicare is going bankrupt for many years and will as long as its representatives receive large contributions.
It does , they have immigrants and they are able to make them part of their society without creating ghettos.
So , the NSA can access you e-mail , credit record , phone calls , web content , contact list ... ahh but they don't mess with my waistline. No sir !!!The correct metric has been supplied. If you get sick in America your ability to get seen early is greater and your health outcome is greater. This is a fact.
The OECD stats are misleading and biased. This has been shown over and over again.
Well then , which stats do you want to use to compare different countries ? WHO ?
It is very easy to disregard stats, but then you should provide a better source.
Other sources point towards the same direction.
Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey
You dont get better healthcare in Mexico. You get cheaper healthcare.
Indeed. I've never said the opposite. A Beetle is far cheaper than a BMW, but hey , if the Beetle suits your needs ..
Why would people invest in hospitals without getting any kind of return?
Those were different alternatives. In community owned hospitals you would get a return AND if the hospital charges you sky high prices you also get a return .
In any case, every example of "non-profit" medical insurance/medical care has failed to deliver lower prices.
No , not really
Profit drives lower costs and better outcomes.
Indeed , but you need profit AND competition , and current insurance schemes damp competition.
So the fact that you go to Mexico, like many others, is not proof the US system delivers worse care, which is what you contended. Point refuted.
Your point about communty hospitals is incoherent. If the purpose of them is to reduce medical costs then you've already admitted it wont do that.
Medicare dictates payments, private insurance negotiates payments. Thus the difference. In any case you are citing payments for medical services, not medical insurance premiums. Surely you know the difference.
The correct metric has been supplied. If you get sick in America your ability to get seen early is greater and your health outcome is greater. This is a fact.
Well , post the link.
If you are refering to Andylusion's post , then that is not valid. It's 25 years old.
So the fact that you go to Mexico, like many others, is not proof the US system delivers worse care, which is what you contended. Point refuted.
No point proven or disproven. Cecile stated :
Hey, if you think another country will provide you with better-quality healthcare, head on over there. None of us will stop you.
I simply gave an answer.
Your point about communty hospitals is incoherent. If the purpose of them is to reduce medical costs then you've already admitted it wont do that.
No , it is not. If the hospitals get a profit, you as an owner get a profit.
If the hospital gets no profit you get no profit , but you get healthcare at the lowest price available.
Medicare dictates payments, private insurance negotiates payments. Thus the difference. In any case you are citing payments for medical services, not medical insurance premiums. Surely you know the difference
The post was unrelated to medicare, I was simply giving ideas for the available options. There are many more. For example in Japan the patient covers only 30% of the cost , the government pays the rest. Then you have to do some shopping.
Yes, Japan. And now that they control healthcare, they can also control you:
Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions
By NORIMITSU ONISHI
Published: June 13, 2008
AMAGASAKI, Japan — Japan, a country not known for its overweight people, has undertaken one of the most ambitious campaigns ever by a nation to slim down its citizenry.
Summoned by the city of Amagasaki one recent morning, Minoru Nogiri, 45, a flower shop owner, found himself lining up to have his waistline measured. With no visible paunch, he seemed to run little risk of being classified as overweight, or metabo, the preferred word in Japan these days.
But because the new state-prescribed limit for male waistlines is a strict 33.5 inches, he had anxiously measured himself at home a couple of days earlier. “I’m on the border,” he said.
Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?_r=0
I don't know if I'd be that thrilled with Mrs. Obama coming out to measure my waist line.
So , the NSA can access you e-mail , credit record , phone calls , web content , contact list ... ahh but they don't mess with my waistline. No sir !!!The correct metric has been supplied. If you get sick in America your ability to get seen early is greater and your health outcome is greater. This is a fact.
The OECD stats are misleading and biased. This has been shown over and over again.
Well then , which stats do you want to use to compare different countries ? WHO ?
It is very easy to disregard stats, but then you should provide a better source.
Other sources point towards the same direction.
Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey
You dont get better healthcare in Mexico. You get cheaper healthcare.
Indeed. I've never said the opposite. A Beetle is far cheaper than a BMW, but hey , if the Beetle suits your needs ..
Why would people invest in hospitals without getting any kind of return?
Those were different alternatives. In community owned hospitals you would get a return AND if the hospital charges you sky high prices you also get a return .
In any case, every example of "non-profit" medical insurance/medical care has failed to deliver lower prices.
No , not really
Profit drives lower costs and better outcomes.
Indeed , but you need profit AND competition , and current insurance schemes damp competition.
So the fact that you go to Mexico, like many others, is not proof the US system delivers worse care, which is what you contended. Point refuted.
Your point about communty hospitals is incoherent. If the purpose of them is to reduce medical costs then you've already admitted it wont do that.
Medicare dictates payments, private insurance negotiates payments. Thus the difference. In any case you are citing payments for medical services, not medical insurance premiums. Surely you know the difference.
The correct metric has been supplied. If you get sick in America your ability to get seen early is greater and your health outcome is greater. This is a fact.
Well , post the link.
If you are refering to Andylusion's post , then that is not valid. It's 25 years old.
So the fact that you go to Mexico, like many others, is not proof the US system delivers worse care, which is what you contended. Point refuted.
No point proven or disproven. Cecile stated :
Hey, if you think another country will provide you with better-quality healthcare, head on over there. None of us will stop you.
I simply gave an answer.
Your point about communty hospitals is incoherent. If the purpose of them is to reduce medical costs then you've already admitted it wont do that.
No , it is not. If the hospitals get a profit, you as an owner get a profit.
If the hospital gets no profit you get no profit , but you get healthcare at the lowest price available.
Medicare dictates payments, private insurance negotiates payments. Thus the difference. In any case you are citing payments for medical services, not medical insurance premiums. Surely you know the difference
The post was unrelated to medicare, I was simply giving ideas for the available options. There are many more. For example in Japan the patient covers only 30% of the cost , the government pays the rest. Then you have to do some shopping.
Yes, Japan. And now that they control healthcare, they can also control you:
Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions
By NORIMITSU ONISHI
Published: June 13, 2008
AMAGASAKI, Japan — Japan, a country not known for its overweight people, has undertaken one of the most ambitious campaigns ever by a nation to slim down its citizenry.
Summoned by the city of Amagasaki one recent morning, Minoru Nogiri, 45, a flower shop owner, found himself lining up to have his waistline measured. With no visible paunch, he seemed to run little risk of being classified as overweight, or metabo, the preferred word in Japan these days.
But because the new state-prescribed limit for male waistlines is a strict 33.5 inches, he had anxiously measured himself at home a couple of days earlier. “I’m on the border,” he said.
Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?_r=0
I don't know if I'd be that thrilled with Mrs. Obama coming out to measure my waist line.
Medicare's own trustees say that, dunce. You really are a ninny.
You've never been to France, obviously. We can add "France" to the list of things you know nothing about.
Best health care system in the world. Nope,
The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. It is 2 times more expensive on a per capita basis than that of Sweeden or U.K developed country.So yea, Bernie is actually right.
We have the best health care system in the world. That's why it's the most expensive.
We spend more money on preventative care. Which is why it's the most expensive.
We have the most availability of care. Which is why it's the most expensive.
If all you care about is cutting cost, we can do the same as all those other countries. Cut preventative care. Cut availability. Cut quality. The cost will go down.
Problem solved. Of course more people will die. But.... it'll be cheaper.
It might be the best for some very specialized procedures, but not for general medicine required by the 99% of the population.
We spend more money on preventive care.
??? WTF? If it was so the US would have the highest life expenctancy in the world. It doesn't.
Just look at the chart and how the US costs started to take-off after the 80's.
The general increase in cost is in part due to better procedures and an aging population, but going as far as telling it is two times better than Sweeden's makes no sense.
Insurance companies are damping competition. People don't do medical shopping ( unless they are uninsured or live abroad). You either make healthcare a public service or take insurance companies out of the equation.
And you're basing this assertion on what?
Hey, if you think another country will provide you with better-quality healthcare, head on over there. None of us will stop you.
People aren't allowed by law to "shop around" for medical insurance. The regulations on medical insurance were ridiculous even before Obamacare.
Who, precisely, do you think is going to manage healthcare payment other than health insurance companies? You think the government is going to set up a separate department to handle that, and that it would be cheaper and more efficient if they did? Hell no. They'd be more likely to farm it out to some private entity who specialized in that field. And then there'd be no competition at all to bring down prices.
And you're basing this assertion on what?
Which assertion ? That healthcare in the US is not the best in the world ? Just look at the OCED stats.
That insurance dampens competition ? Well, just tell me how many insured people you know before or after obamacare did medical shopping ?
Hey, if you think another country will provide you with better-quality healthcare, head on over there. None of us will stop you.
I do have one such arrangement. I go south to get medical attention ( which is not very often), just as nearly 90,000 US retirees do.
Mexico's health care lures Americans - USATODAY.com
People aren't allowed by law to "shop around" for medical insurance. The regulations on medical insurance were ridiculous even before Obamacare.
I am talking about shopping for medical attention not for medical insurance.
One of the few points I do like about Obamacera is that insurance must cover pre-existing conditions.
Who, precisely, do you think is going to manage healthcare payment other than health insurance companies?
If insurances worked as a "saving account" people would do medical shopping, and that would encourage competition.
Of course it is not as easy as that, what about someone who gets cancer at an early age? In that case the government should step in and pay part of the fee ( never all the fee, because it would discourage competition ).
Another alternative would be to have community owned hospitals ( gather , 10,000 people to invest in a hospital and make them the owners ). That way you take out the middle man out of the way.
Like most libs he operates from false premises using made up facts.Best health care system in the world. Nope,The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. It is 2 times more expensive on a per capita basis than that of Sweeden or U.K developed country.So yea, Bernie is actually right.
We have the best health care system in the world. That's why it's the most expensive.
We spend more money on preventative care. Which is why it's the most expensive.
We have the most availability of care. Which is why it's the most expensive.
If all you care about is cutting cost, we can do the same as all those other countries. Cut preventative care. Cut availability. Cut quality. The cost will go down.
Problem solved. Of course more people will die. But.... it'll be cheaper.
It might be the best for some very specialized procedures, but not for general medicine required by the 99% of the population.
We spend more money on preventive care.
??? WTF? If it was so the US would have the highest life expenctancy in the world. It doesn't.
Just look at the chart and how the US costs started to take-off after the 80's.
The general increase in cost is in part due to better procedures and an aging population, but going as far as telling it is two times better than Sweeden's makes no sense.
Insurance companies are damping competition. People don't do medical shopping ( unless they are uninsured or live abroad). You either make healthcare a public service or take insurance companies out of the equation.
And you're basing this assertion on what?
Hey, if you think another country will provide you with better-quality healthcare, head on over there. None of us will stop you.
People aren't allowed by law to "shop around" for medical insurance. The regulations on medical insurance were ridiculous even before Obamacare.
Who, precisely, do you think is going to manage healthcare payment other than health insurance companies? You think the government is going to set up a separate department to handle that, and that it would be cheaper and more efficient if they did? Hell no. They'd be more likely to farm it out to some private entity who specialized in that field. And then there'd be no competition at all to bring down prices.
And you're basing this assertion on what?
Which assertion ? That healthcare in the US is not the best in the world ? Just look at the OCED stats.
That insurance dampens competition ? Well, just tell me how many insured people you know before or after obamacare did medical shopping ?
Hey, if you think another country will provide you with better-quality healthcare, head on over there. None of us will stop you.
I do have one such arrangement. I go south to get medical attention ( which is not very often), just as nearly 90,000 US retirees do.
Mexico's health care lures Americans - USATODAY.com
People aren't allowed by law to "shop around" for medical insurance. The regulations on medical insurance were ridiculous even before Obamacare.
I am talking about shopping for medical attention not for medical insurance.
One of the few points I do like about Obamacera is that insurance must cover pre-existing conditions.
Who, precisely, do you think is going to manage healthcare payment other than health insurance companies?
If insurances worked as a "saving account" people would do medical shopping, and that would encourage competition.
Of course it is not as easy as that, what about someone who gets cancer at an early age? In that case the government should step in and pay part of the fee ( never all the fee, because it would discourage competition ).
Another alternative would be to have community owned hospitals ( gather , 10,000 people to invest in a hospital and make them the owners ). That way you take out the middle man out of the way.
So many false premises and fake debate parameters, I don't even know where to start.
That still makes US hospitals the most expensive in the world.
The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. It is 2 times more expensive on a per capita basis than that of Sweeden or U.K developed country.So yea, Bernie is actually right.
You might want to investigate the difference between "expensive" and "spending". See, expensive is how much each procedure costs. Spending, on the other hand, is how much is spent in total on anything healthcare-related. This includes all the non-essential spending on things like Lasik, hearing aids, cosmetic surgery, frequent diagnostics by hypochondriacs, orthodontia, vitamins . . .
Part of the reason that the US spends so much on health care every year is because we can. We are a wealthy nation, with people who are more than willing to use their discretionary funds to improve their quality of life. That's not a bad thing.
Didnt you mean to say the opposite here? Medicaid/Medicare have low reimbursements, often below cost. Hospitals and doctors can only make it up by charging private insured patients more.That still makes US hospitals the most expensive in the world.
The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. It is 2 times more expensive on a per capita basis than that of Sweeden or U.K developed country.So yea, Bernie is actually right.
You might want to investigate the difference between "expensive" and "spending". See, expensive is how much each procedure costs. Spending, on the other hand, is how much is spent in total on anything healthcare-related. This includes all the non-essential spending on things like Lasik, hearing aids, cosmetic surgery, frequent diagnostics by hypochondriacs, orthodontia, vitamins . . .
Part of the reason that the US spends so much on health care every year is because we can. We are a wealthy nation, with people who are more than willing to use their discretionary funds to improve their quality of life. That's not a bad thing.
And so you simply assume it's because what? People arbitrarily decided to jack up the prices for the fun of it? Gotta love simplistic "logic". I guess it saves time over the messy, complicated reality.
Forbes magazine, for example, provides a number of reasons why medical prices in the US are high. Heading the list is government healthcare: Medicare and Medicaid, which sets its compensation rates higher than other countries, which in turn raises the prices charged to private insurers, since doctors certainly can't charge patients differently for the same procedure based on payment method.
.
The correct metric has been supplied. If you get sick in America your ability to get seen early is greater and your health outcome is greater. This is a fact.
The OECD stats are misleading and biased. This has been shown over and over again.
Well then , which stats do you want to use to compare different countries ? WHO ?
It is very easy to disregard stats, but then you should provide a better source.
Other sources point towards the same direction.
Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey
You dont get better healthcare in Mexico. You get cheaper healthcare.
Indeed. I've never said the opposite. A Beetle is far cheaper than a BMW, but hey , if the Beetle suits your needs ..
Why would people invest in hospitals without getting any kind of return?
Those were different alternatives. In community owned hospitals you would get a return AND if the hospital charges you sky high prices you also get a return .
In any case, every example of "non-profit" medical insurance/medical care has failed to deliver lower prices.
No , not really
Profit drives lower costs and better outcomes.
Indeed , but you need profit AND competition , and current insurance schemes damp competition.
So the fact that you go to Mexico, like many others, is not proof the US system delivers worse care, which is what you contended. Point refuted.
Your point about communty hospitals is incoherent. If the purpose of them is to reduce medical costs then you've already admitted it wont do that.
Medicare dictates payments, private insurance negotiates payments. Thus the difference. In any case you are citing payments for medical services, not medical insurance premiums. Surely you know the difference.
