What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

US health care spending

Euro

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
316
Reaction score
25
Points
51
Location
Scandinavia
US is the country in the world that spends most money on health pr. capita, they spend 7290$ pr. inhabitant on health. That is 16% of GDP pr. inhabitant.
Canada which has a good health care system spends far less, they spend 3895$ pr. capita, that is 10% of GDP pr. capita.

Companies don’t want to start business in the US because of the high spending on private health insurance. And companies decide to flag out because of high health care spending.
A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expense.

Why don’t US adopt the canadian model for health care that has been a success?
That will make companies establish in the US and create new jobs, economic growth and better health which implies more productive workers.

Is their any disadvatages at all by adopting the canadian system, I can’t see any?
 

auditor0007

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
12,566
Reaction score
2,265
Points
255
Location
Toledo, OH
US is the country in the world that spends most money on health pr. capita, they spend 7290$ pr. inhabitant on health. That is 16% of GDP pr. inhabitant.
Canada which has a good health care system spends far less, they spend 3895$ pr. capita, that is 10% of GDP pr. capita.

Companies don’t want to start business in the US because of the high spending on private health insurance. And companies decide to flag out because of high health care spending.
A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expense.

Why don’t US adopt the canadian model for health care that has been a success?
That will make companies establish in the US and create new jobs, economic growth and better health which implies more productive workers.

Is their any disadvatages at all by adopting the canadian system, I can’t see any?

The Canadian system does not allow for any private health insurance or care. That is a drawback. The British system, on the other hand, is a government run system where everyone is guaranteed healthcare services. For those who can afford it, private insurance is available. By purchasing private insurance, those policy holders are granted special courtesies, such as being moved to the head of the line and getting the gold treatment when in hospital. But nobody is left without insurance, and it is very unlikely that anyone will go bankrupt due to medical bills that they cannot pay.
 
OP
Euro

Euro

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
316
Reaction score
25
Points
51
Location
Scandinavia
US is the country in the world that spends most money on health pr. capita, they spend 7290$ pr. inhabitant on health. That is 16% of GDP pr. inhabitant.
Canada which has a good health care system spends far less, they spend 3895$ pr. capita, that is 10% of GDP pr. capita.

Companies don’t want to start business in the US because of the high spending on private health insurance. And companies decide to flag out because of high health care spending.
A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expense.

Why don’t US adopt the canadian model for health care that has been a success?
That will make companies establish in the US and create new jobs, economic growth and better health which implies more productive workers.

Is their any disadvatages at all by adopting the canadian system, I can’t see any?

The Canadian system does not allow for any private health insurance or care. That is a drawback. The British system, on the other hand, is a government run system where everyone is guaranteed healthcare services. For those who can afford it, private insurance is available. By purchasing private insurance, those policy holders are granted special courtesies, such as being moved to the head of the line and getting the gold treatment when in hospital. But nobody is left without insurance, and it is very unlikely that anyone will go bankrupt due to medical bills that they cannot pay.

Yes, thats an advantage. But why don’t US get a goverment run health care system like Britain then?
Spending 7290$ pr. capita. is almost twice as much as Canada(3895$), Britain spends 2992$ pr. capita. But I think the canadian system have a better overall quality than the british, it has a good reputation all over the world, the US health care system has a poor reputation and they spend far to much money on health care, no nation is even close to US on health care spending pr. capita. At least they should get a new system that can reduce the costs. That will be good for business,jobs,health and productivity.
 

PeteEU

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
329
Reaction score
54
Points
78
Location
Malaga region, Spain
Yes, thats an advantage. But why don’t US get a goverment run health care system like Britain then?
Spending 7290$ pr. capita. is almost twice as much as Canada(3895$), Britain spends 2992$ pr. capita. But I think the canadian system have a better overall quality than the british, it has a good reputation all over the world, the US health care system has a poor reputation and they spend far to much money on health care, no nation is even close to US on health care spending pr. capita. At least they should get a new system that can reduce the costs. That will be good for business,jobs,health and productivity.

Money
Corruption
Brainwashing.

There is more money in keeping the status quo .. more money for the industries involved.

This in turn means that the industries will do anything including legally bribe politicians to create an environment that favours the industry over the consumer. Hence you have ban on negotiating the price for drugs by government healthcare organisations... hence you have a ban on importing ANY medicine from abroad.. hence you have limits based often on state or geographical areas on who can start a health insurance company there... and so on and so on.

And this all backed up by conditioning of the US mind and consumer that anything non-American is socialist and everyone knows in the US that socialist things are bad.. after all the government and political parties have been saying that for 60+ years now.

This in turn means you can throw all the facts and statistics on the table that clearly shows that universal healthcare is cheaper and just as good, but the debate will always come down to specific talking points and end up being classified as socialist ideas.

An example is the whole idea that in a UHC system that there are waiting times for procedures. Yes but what is never mentioned is the waiting times in the US system, because that statistic is not released because it is a negative on the private sector. Also in this context the anti-UHC people tend hint that the waiting times also include critically ill people... which is mostly untrue, but at the same time they gloss over the fact that millions of uninsured American's never get the treatment in time that could have saved lives and ton of money...

Basically the whole debate in the US is skewed big time by half truths and outright lies and all being promoted by millions in lobby dollars by the very industry that is profiting hugely from the status quo which in turn means that the actual truth and benifits of a UHC system like the Canadian or the British never comes out.

It is also ironic that the anti-UHC only mention the two UHC systems that are know to be very dysfunctional by UHC standards, and never mention any other countries like France, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and so on...
 
Last edited:

Greenbeard

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
6,871
Reaction score
1,217
Points
200
Location
New England
It is also ironic that the anti-UHC only mention the two UHC systems that are know to be very dysfunctional by UHC standards, and never mention any other countries like France, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and so on...

There was a thread very recently where a poster, caught up in the zeal of attacking Canadian health care, cited this statistic: "Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report 'excellent' health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent)." The poster seemed unaware she was making the argument that our universal single-payer system (which already covers substantially more people--almost entirely seniors--than does Canada's) works better than Canada's. There are indeed other examples to consider.
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
US is the country in the world that spends most money on health pr. capita, they spend 7290$ pr. inhabitant on health. That is 16% of GDP pr. inhabitant.
Canada which has a good health care system spends far less, they spend 3895$ pr. capita, that is 10% of GDP pr. capita.

Companies don’t want to start business in the US because of the high spending on private health insurance. And companies decide to flag out because of high health care spending.
A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expense.

Why don’t US adopt the canadian model for health care that has been a success?
That will make companies establish in the US and create new jobs, economic growth and better health which implies more productive workers.

Is their any disadvatages at all by adopting the canadian system, I can’t see any?

And yet Britain is going bankrupt trying to do it. You proponents of UHC keep ignoring the personal responsibility aspect of the overall healthcare problem. It should be obvious to most anyone, yet for whatever reason remains unmentioned, that what it costs to keep someone healthy is going to be correleated to how healthy that person actually is. And how healthy a person actually is something said individual has a considerable amount of control over. The simple fact is most Americans don't lead very healthy lives. We live mainly on processed food and nearly half of the country is considered obese. Forget about HOW it gets paid for or the quality of our hospitals and physicians. Should it really be all that surprising given the health habits of the avg. American that maintaining our health costs more than it does in other countries?

How do you get people to make healthier choices? You give them incentives to do so. You don't even further remove the financial consequences of poor decisions.
 
Last edited:

PeteEU

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
329
Reaction score
54
Points
78
Location
Malaga region, Spain
And yet Britain is going bankrupt trying to do it.

The UK is not going bankrupt because of the NHS. The NHS is cheap as hell compared to the number of people it serves. Where the UK is going down the tubes is in other areas of government spending.... many billions on a nuclear weapons system, aircraft carriers with no planes and so on.

You proponents of UHC keep ignoring the personal responsibility aspect of the overall healthcare problem. It should be obvious to most anyone, yet for whatever reason remains unmentioned, that what it costs to keep someone healthy is going to be correleated to how healthy that person actually is. And how healthy a person actually is something said individual has a considerable amount of control over.

The simple fact is most Americans don't lead very healthy lives. We live mainly on processed food and nearly half of the country is considered obese.

Yes there is no doubt about that many Americans live unhealthy lives. But you are using the personal responsibility argument as an excuse NOT to treat or provide healthcare for some people.. and that is frankly morally wrong on so many levels...and factually wrong. Most people who dont get treatment are not per say "fat", but poor... the US system is skewed towards the minority rich.

People who live unhealthy lives get sick, as do people who live healthy lives. And who decides what is healthy and what is not healthy living? Who controls it?

Point is you as a country are dealt the cards you are dealt and from that you have set up a system that is cost effective and provides healthcare for everyone regardless of age, sex, sexual orientation, religion, economic status and so on. And as it stands now the US fails on the first one big time and partly on the second one... but it is people like you who refuse to admit it and instead focus on excluding people based on some sort of personal/political bias.

Forget about HOW it gets paid for or the quality of our hospitals and physicians. Should it really be all that surprising given the health habits of the avg. American that maintaining our health costs more than it does in other countries?

And this is where you shoot yourself in the foot because you ignore the legal aspects of your healthcare industry that presses the price up. Are you seriously saying that in a system where there is next to no competition among private insures, where the laws benefit the industry over the customer and a system where a large part of the population is not even covered forcing them to get last minute healthcare... that the biggest cost problem is the fat people? You seriously think that fat people have a larger impact on the cost structure of Medicaid/care than the ban on negotiating on drug prices? Or how about the extra ordinary lengths that your healthcare system goes to keep people alive for a few more weeks or months? End of life costs are one of the primary cost problems if you did not know.. keeping 80 year old cancer suffers a live a few extra weeks costs a lot of money...

How do you get people to make healthier choices? You give them incentives to do so. You don't even further remove the financial consequences of poor decisions.

Oh I agree.. which is why I support my new governments new tax on fat in Denmark, despite not voting for them.

But that still does not change the fact that you are ignoring the biggest cost drivers in the US healthcare system and blaming the rising costs on American's instead.
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
The UK is not going bankrupt because of the NHS. The NHS is cheap as hell compared to the number of people it serves. Where the UK is going down the tubes is in other areas of government spending.... many billions on a nuclear weapons system, aircraft carriers with no planes and so on.

Cheap is relative. I'm sure it's cheap to the people. Cheap to the government, no. France for example has run 10-15 billion dollar deficits for the last several years with no signs of getting it under control.


Yes there is no doubt about that many Americans live unhealthy lives. But you are using the personal responsibility argument as an excuse NOT to treat or provide healthcare for some people.. and that is frankly morally wrong on so many levels...and factually wrong. Most people who dont get treatment are not per say "fat", but poor... the US system is skewed towards the minority rich.

People who live unhealthy lives get sick, as do people who live healthy lives. And who decides what is healthy and what is not healthy living? Who controls it?

No one is supposed to contorl it. That's the point in a free society. You make whatever choices you want and you live with the financial consequences of them. Which is why it better that people handle their health care expenses on their own. Unless you are willing to allow me the right to tell you how to live given that I am am ultimately the one paying for your decisions. And yes I know not all health care issues are self inflicted (better than most actually), my fault or not why do I have the right to obigate you to the cost of my health care needs?

Point is you as a country are dealt the cards you are dealt and from that you have set up a system that is cost effective and provides healthcare for everyone regardless of age, sex, sexual orientation, religion, economic status and so on. And as it stands now the US fails on the first one big time and partly on the second one... but it is people like you who refuse to admit it and instead focus on excluding people based on some sort of personal/political bias.

My stance on how health care should be funded has nothing to do with my political bias. My goal is not to exclude anyone. My goal is probably pretty similar to yours. That people get the care they need. The sticking point is who should be responsible for those costs and what is the most efficient way to do it. I still have yet to see a reasonable argument from anyone explaining why government should be allowed to force me to be responsible for your health. And I don't know how much you know about how our government functions, but it does almost nothing efficientl or cost effectively. My health is about the last thing I want them to have any control over.


And this is where you shoot yourself in the foot because you ignore the legal aspects of your healthcare industry that presses the price up. Are you seriously saying that in a system where there is next to no competition among private insures, where the laws benefit the industry over the customer and a system where a large part of the population is not even covered forcing them to get last minute healthcare... that the biggest cost problem is the fat people? You seriously think that fat people have a larger impact on the cost structure of Medicaid/care than the ban on negotiating on drug prices? Or how about the extra ordinary lengths that your healthcare system goes to keep people alive for a few more weeks or months? End of life costs are one of the primary cost problems if you did not know.. keeping 80 year old cancer suffers a live a few extra weeks costs a lot of money...

I'm not saying our system doesn't have problems. I'm saying government single payer is not the solution. You complain about a lack of competition in our country, yet are advocating that we move to a different type of system with no competition (government funded)?
 
Last edited:
OP
Euro

Euro

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
316
Reaction score
25
Points
51
Location
Scandinavia
US is the country in the world that spends most money on health pr. capita, they spend 7290$ pr. inhabitant on health. That is 16% of GDP pr. inhabitant.
Canada which has a good health care system spends far less, they spend 3895$ pr. capita, that is 10% of GDP pr. capita.

Companies don’t want to start business in the US because of the high spending on private health insurance. And companies decide to flag out because of high health care spending.
A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expense.

Why don’t US adopt the canadian model for health care that has been a success?
That will make companies establish in the US and create new jobs, economic growth and better health which implies more productive workers.

Is their any disadvatages at all by adopting the canadian system, I can’t see any?

And yet Britain is going bankrupt trying to do it. You proponents of UHC keep ignoring the personal responsibility aspect of the overall healthcare problem. It should be obvious to most anyone, yet for whatever reason remains unmentioned, that what it costs to keep someone healthy is going to be correleated to how healthy that person actually is. And how healthy a person actually is something said individual has a considerable amount of control over. The simple fact is most Americans don't lead very healthy lives. We live mainly on processed food and nearly half of the country is considered obese. Forget about HOW it gets paid for or the quality of our hospitals and physicians. Should it really be all that surprising given the health habits of the avg. American that maintaining our health costs more than it does in other countries?

How do you get people to make healthier choices? You give them incentives to do so. You don't even further remove the financial consequences of poor decisions.

US spends a lot of money on veteran affairs, they spend more money on veteran affairs than education. Why not make large cuts in veteran benefits, and put more money in to education.

More PE and learning about health in school instead of spending money on veteran benefits. US spends over 50 billion $ on veteran affairs thats insane. I don’t know what the kids are served at school in the US, but you can provide them with healthy food instead of hamburgers and frites.

I know that US put high custom on foreign goods, why not cut the custom on healthy food that you import to make more healthy food available at low prices?
You can also cut the VAT on healthy food and put extra taxes on unhealthy food. The same thing on medicine, you must tear down the custom wall to open for competition on the medicine market.

You also have 3.1% of all persons in prison that is to many, why not let many of them out and put them into productive work?
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
50,337
Reaction score
10,053
Points
0
US is the country in the world that spends most money on health pr. capita, they spend 7290$ pr. inhabitant on health. That is 16% of GDP pr. inhabitant.
Canada which has a good health care system spends far less, they spend 3895$ pr. capita, that is 10% of GDP pr. capita.

Companies don’t want to start business in the US because of the high spending on private health insurance. And companies decide to flag out because of high health care spending.
A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expense.

Why don’t US adopt the canadian model for health care that has been a success?
That will make companies establish in the US and create new jobs, economic growth and better health which implies more productive workers.

Is their any disadvatages at all by adopting the canadian system, I can’t see any?

The Canadian system does not allow for any private health insurance or care. That is a drawback. The British system, on the other hand, is a government run system where everyone is guaranteed healthcare services. For those who can afford it, private insurance is available. By purchasing private insurance, those policy holders are granted special courtesies, such as being moved to the head of the line and getting the gold treatment when in hospital. But nobody is left without insurance, and it is very unlikely that anyone will go bankrupt due to medical bills that they cannot pay.

Just so you know, the British system is bordering on collapse. The French - which is part public and part private insurance is also struggling... their premiums are going through the roof.

All those countries that we see as 'great alternatives'.... not true on close inspection.
 
OP
Euro

Euro

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
316
Reaction score
25
Points
51
Location
Scandinavia
US is the country in the world that spends most money on health pr. capita, they spend 7290$ pr. inhabitant on health. That is 16% of GDP pr. inhabitant.
Canada which has a good health care system spends far less, they spend 3895$ pr. capita, that is 10% of GDP pr. capita.

Companies don’t want to start business in the US because of the high spending on private health insurance. And companies decide to flag out because of high health care spending.
A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expense.

Why don’t US adopt the canadian model for health care that has been a success?
That will make companies establish in the US and create new jobs, economic growth and better health which implies more productive workers.

Is their any disadvatages at all by adopting the canadian system, I can’t see any?

The Canadian system does not allow for any private health insurance or care. That is a drawback. The British system, on the other hand, is a government run system where everyone is guaranteed healthcare services. For those who can afford it, private insurance is available. By purchasing private insurance, those policy holders are granted special courtesies, such as being moved to the head of the line and getting the gold treatment when in hospital. But nobody is left without insurance, and it is very unlikely that anyone will go bankrupt due to medical bills that they cannot pay.

Just so you know, the British system is bordering on collapse. The French - which is part public and part private insurance is also struggling... their premiums are going through the roof.

All those countries that we see as 'great alternatives'.... not true on close inspection.
On WHOs ranking France is ranked nr.1 on the worlds best health system, UK 18 and US 37. US are ranked lower than third world countries like Costa Rica, Colombia etc. on that list. Considering the large amount of money US has, that is very weak.
The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

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

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

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

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
The Canadian system does not allow for any private health insurance or care. That is a drawback. The British system, on the other hand, is a government run system where everyone is guaranteed healthcare services. For those who can afford it, private insurance is available. By purchasing private insurance, those policy holders are granted special courtesies, such as being moved to the head of the line and getting the gold treatment when in hospital. But nobody is left without insurance, and it is very unlikely that anyone will go bankrupt due to medical bills that they cannot pay.

Just so you know, the British system is bordering on collapse. The French - which is part public and part private insurance is also struggling... their premiums are going through the roof.

All those countries that we see as 'great alternatives'.... not true on close inspection.
On WHOs ranking France is ranked nr.1 on the worlds best health system, UK 18 and US 37. US are ranked lower than third world countries like Costa Rica, Colombia etc. on that list. Considering the large amount of money US has, that is very weak.
The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

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

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

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

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

Euro

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
316
Reaction score
25
Points
51
Location
Scandinavia
Just so you know, the British system is bordering on collapse. The French - which is part public and part private insurance is also struggling... their premiums are going through the roof.

All those countries that we see as 'great alternatives'.... not true on close inspection.
On WHOs ranking France is ranked nr.1 on the worlds best health system, UK 18 and US 37. US are ranked lower than third world countries like Costa Rica, Colombia etc. on that list. Considering the large amount of money US has, that is very weak.
The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greenbeard

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
6,871
Reaction score
1,217
Points
200
Location
New England
Cheap is relative. I'm sure it's cheap to the people. Cheap to the government, no.

Cheap is indeed relative. Looking at data from OECD nations, it appears there are only two nations whose health care systems are more expensive to their governments (the dark blue bars) on a per capita basis than that of the U.S.: Norway and Luxembourg. Every other country's government spends less per capita on health care than does the United States. And in the United States, government spending on health care still isn't quite half of total spending, whereas in those other nations government spending is by far the largest component of national health expenditures.

44222075health%20expenditure.jpg


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

Euro

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
316
Reaction score
25
Points
51
Location
Scandinavia
Cheap is relative. I'm sure it's cheap to the people. Cheap to the government, no.

Cheap is indeed relative. Looking at data from OECD nations, it appears there are only two nations whose health care systems are more expensive to their governments (the dark blue bars) on a per capita basis than that of the U.S.: Norway and Luxembourg. Every other country's government spends less per capita on health care than does the United States. And in the United States, government spending on health care still isn't quite half of total spending, whereas in those other nations government spending is by far the largest component of national health expenditures.

44222075health%20expenditure.jpg


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

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

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

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

ShaklesOfBigGov

Restore the Republic
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
5,077
Reaction score
749
Points
200
Location
Near Washington D.C.
Why don’t US adopt the canadian model for health care that has been a success?

It may just be that the United States offers one of the best and most advanced "quality" health care of anywhere around the globe. The "expense" of Health Care grows as government interferes into the private sector (as Massachussetts state government controlled health care has made Mitt Romney's MassCare the most costly in the nation). A young Senator Kennedy started the government ball rolling under President Nixon's term, when the Federal Government instituted PPOs or HMOs as a means to see if "the Federal Government" can provide a cheaper form of care. As a result, there is a strong parallel that exists between government interference and cost of care: as government regulations increase, the American people have also seen an increase not a decrease in the overall cost of Health Care in the United States.

Canadian Premier goes to US for treatment
February 23, 2010

"This was my heart, my choice and my health," Williams said late Monday from his condominium in Sarasota, Fla.

"I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics."

Yes, for the best care possible, come to the U.S., because choices are limited in Canada:

"His doctors in Canada presented him with two options - a full or partial sternotomy, both of which would've required breaking bones, he said."
And then there is the waiting list problem:
"I would've been criticized if I had stayed in Canada and had been perceived as jumping a line or a wait list. ... I accept that. That's public life," he said.
Long wait times, limited choices, outdated procedures, but on the plus side it's all "FREE" - you just have to pay 55% income tax, plus GST and PST.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.co...og/2010/02/canadian-premier-does-to-us-fo.php
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
50,337
Reaction score
10,053
Points
0
And yet Britain is going bankrupt trying to do it.

The UK is not going bankrupt because of the NHS. The NHS is cheap as hell compared to the number of people it serves. Where the UK is going down the tubes is in other areas of government spending.... many billions on a nuclear weapons system, aircraft carriers with no planes and so on.

You proponents of UHC keep ignoring the personal responsibility aspect of the overall healthcare problem. It should be obvious to most anyone, yet for whatever reason remains unmentioned, that what it costs to keep someone healthy is going to be correleated to how healthy that person actually is. And how healthy a person actually is something said individual has a considerable amount of control over.

The simple fact is most Americans don't lead very healthy lives. We live mainly on processed food and nearly half of the country is considered obese.

Yes there is no doubt about that many Americans live unhealthy lives. But you are using the personal responsibility argument as an excuse NOT to treat or provide healthcare for some people.. and that is frankly morally wrong on so many levels...and factually wrong. Most people who dont get treatment are not per say "fat", but poor... the US system is skewed towards the minority rich.

People who live unhealthy lives get sick, as do people who live healthy lives. And who decides what is healthy and what is not healthy living? Who controls it?

Point is you as a country are dealt the cards you are dealt and from that you have set up a system that is cost effective and provides healthcare for everyone regardless of age, sex, sexual orientation, religion, economic status and so on. And as it stands now the US fails on the first one big time and partly on the second one... but it is people like you who refuse to admit it and instead focus on excluding people based on some sort of personal/political bias.

Forget about HOW it gets paid for or the quality of our hospitals and physicians. Should it really be all that surprising given the health habits of the avg. American that maintaining our health costs more than it does in other countries?

And this is where you shoot yourself in the foot because you ignore the legal aspects of your healthcare industry that presses the price up. Are you seriously saying that in a system where there is next to no competition among private insures, where the laws benefit the industry over the customer and a system where a large part of the population is not even covered forcing them to get last minute healthcare... that the biggest cost problem is the fat people? You seriously think that fat people have a larger impact on the cost structure of Medicaid/care than the ban on negotiating on drug prices? Or how about the extra ordinary lengths that your healthcare system goes to keep people alive for a few more weeks or months? End of life costs are one of the primary cost problems if you did not know.. keeping 80 year old cancer suffers a live a few extra weeks costs a lot of money...

How do you get people to make healthier choices? You give them incentives to do so. You don't even further remove the financial consequences of poor decisions.

Oh I agree.. which is why I support my new governments new tax on fat in Denmark, despite not voting for them.

But that still does not change the fact that you are ignoring the biggest cost drivers in the US healthcare system and blaming the rising costs on American's instead.

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

Euro

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
316
Reaction score
25
Points
51
Location
Scandinavia
And yet Britain is going bankrupt trying to do it.

The UK is not going bankrupt because of the NHS. The NHS is cheap as hell compared to the number of people it serves. Where the UK is going down the tubes is in other areas of government spending.... many billions on a nuclear weapons system, aircraft carriers with no planes and so on.



Yes there is no doubt about that many Americans live unhealthy lives. But you are using the personal responsibility argument as an excuse NOT to treat or provide healthcare for some people.. and that is frankly morally wrong on so many levels...and factually wrong. Most people who dont get treatment are not per say "fat", but poor... the US system is skewed towards the minority rich.

People who live unhealthy lives get sick, as do people who live healthy lives. And who decides what is healthy and what is not healthy living? Who controls it?

Point is you as a country are dealt the cards you are dealt and from that you have set up a system that is cost effective and provides healthcare for everyone regardless of age, sex, sexual orientation, religion, economic status and so on. And as it stands now the US fails on the first one big time and partly on the second one... but it is people like you who refuse to admit it and instead focus on excluding people based on some sort of personal/political bias.



And this is where you shoot yourself in the foot because you ignore the legal aspects of your healthcare industry that presses the price up. Are you seriously saying that in a system where there is next to no competition among private insures, where the laws benefit the industry over the customer and a system where a large part of the population is not even covered forcing them to get last minute healthcare... that the biggest cost problem is the fat people? You seriously think that fat people have a larger impact on the cost structure of Medicaid/care than the ban on negotiating on drug prices? Or how about the extra ordinary lengths that your healthcare system goes to keep people alive for a few more weeks or months? End of life costs are one of the primary cost problems if you did not know.. keeping 80 year old cancer suffers a live a few extra weeks costs a lot of money...

How do you get people to make healthier choices? You give them incentives to do so. You don't even further remove the financial consequences of poor decisions.

Oh I agree.. which is why I support my new governments new tax on fat in Denmark, despite not voting for them.

But that still does not change the fact that you are ignoring the biggest cost drivers in the US healthcare system and blaming the rising costs on American's instead.

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

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

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
Cheap is relative. I'm sure it's cheap to the people. Cheap to the government, no.

Cheap is indeed relative. Looking at data from OECD nations, it appears there are only two nations whose health care systems are more expensive to their governments (the dark blue bars) on a per capita basis than that of the U.S.: Norway and Luxembourg. Every other country's government spends less per capita on health care than does the United States. And in the United States, government spending on health care still isn't quite half of total spending, whereas in those other nations government spending is by far the largest component of national health expenditures.

44222075health%20expenditure.jpg


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

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

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

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

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

Euro

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
316
Reaction score
25
Points
51
Location
Scandinavia
Cheap is indeed relative. Looking at data from OECD nations, it appears there are only two nations whose health care systems are more expensive to their governments (the dark blue bars) on a per capita basis than that of the U.S.: Norway and Luxembourg. Every other country's government spends less per capita on health care than does the United States. And in the United States, government spending on health care still isn't quite half of total spending, whereas in those other nations government spending is by far the largest component of national health expenditures.

44222075health%20expenditure.jpg


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$260.01
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top