US health care spending

[PeteEU]

The consumer ultiamtely determines what a person's salary is.

Not if you are a banker... or a politician.

 

[Full-Auto]

Health care spending

well we have this.................

Then we have how democrats really feel about fiscal responsibility

 

[Bern80]

The consumer ultiamtely determines what a person's salary is.

Not if you are a banker... or a politician.

Hence why I differentiated between public and private sectors. And yes, even a bankers salary is determined by the people that put money in the bank.

 

[Big Fitz]

The reason there is so much graft and corruption right now is because those who want socialized medicine want it so they can get access to the price gouged product and service, instead of going after the issues that CAUSE the price gouging and corruption.

If this was a case of price gouging for buying gasoline, these idiots would be demanding a social welfare program to help people pay for the price at the pump, and not demanding the issues that are allowing or MAKING the prices remain high to be solved.

Why can a 1 gas station town suffer so bad? Simple. No competition. What are you going to do? Go somewhere else? Same scenario for every market. Captive consumers beget inflated prices.

Conversely, if you have 100 gas stations in town, but you have governmental costs (regulation, monitoring, inspections, taxes for roads, taxes for taxes, taxes for fun) those prices are not born by the gas stations, but instead are passed on to the consumer who then, even though they SHOULD be charged much less STILL get fucked up the ass, but this time, you have a bloated bureaucracy raking in the cash, not some single gas station owner.

With one gas station owner, the problem is quickly solved. One parasite. Introduce competition and he must pay what the market will bear or go out of business. But when you have hundreds of government employees all protecting and justifying THEIR paychecks on the backs of their fellow neighbor's taxes... it's like trying to get rid of Herpes... only more painful and less socially embarassing.

 

[healthmyths]

First you have NOT documented or sourced your anecdotal hyperbolic post .. I have!
Second:
So tell me again how superior Canadian health is if:
A) no drugs developed by USA B) production line doctors C) Lower legal costs???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[auditor0007]

First you have NOT documented or sourced your anecdotal hyperbolic post .. I have!
Second:
So tell me again how superior Canadian health is if:
A) no drugs developed by USA B) production line doctors C) Lower legal costs???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Most of the countries with Universal Health Care have longer life spans, and far lower infant mortality than does the US. Even little Costa Rica beats us.

Results count.

 

[Euro]

First: About disinteivze effiency in government service: Can’t you just pay them less money? I saw through a salary list for people that work for the US governemnt. I saw that a HR made 130.000$ thats a lot of money for a simple job that anybody can do wihout any formal education. How is that free market economy to pay a HR 130.000$, i can find a sutiable HR on the street. Its much harder to find IT people,economists,engineers and IT people. They neeed at least a bachelor, a HR dosent neeed any education and minimal experience.
That must be some kinda corruption that a HR thats works for the government can earn that much moeny. At the same time those that creates somtething, engineers,planners,economists,IT people etc. earned under 100.000$, they should earn more money. A HR is something that anyone can be and its easy to find, why pay a HR 130.000. I understand and agree with the republicans that government is some shit when tax-payers money goes to pay a HR 130.000$ a year, thats simple work that not creates anything. Thats not free market, thats corrupt government. Their is simply to many overpaied bureaucrats in the government companies with no function.

Corruption is part of it, but mainly that is simply the nature of the beast. In the private sector a person makes money by providing some service or good in exchange for money. A buyer is going to try to buy for as little as they can and the seller is going to try sell for as much as they can until an agreement that both parties can live with. A seller can't sell something for less than it costs to produce and a buyer can't buy something for more than they have or is willing to risk meaning sometimes the two parties won't be able to agree on a price. The variables of the private economy pretty much all stem from this interaction. From the cost of labor to the cost production, etc. A government job doesn't work that way and that's why their salaries get inflated. Their compensation does not come from the above type of exchange. Remember this when you think doctors should all be public employees. You do that and your doctor is no longer paid in compensation for the heart surgery he just performed on you. It his based on an arbirtrary figure some beauracrat thought up about how much he 'deserves'. Compensation in that matter makes things like quality of service less relevent because the doctor doesn't have to answer to you, the patient. For a good or service provider to change the way they do something they have to feel it in their pocket book and that's what happens in the private sector. A good or service provider does whatever they can to earn people's money or they fail. A government employee is also not compensated based on what a buyer and seller agree upon. They are paid based on how much tax revenue a politician can alocate to them. And since our government (and it seems a lot of European ones) somehow pay people despite not actually having the money to do so, their salaries get inflated. Whereas n the private sector an employer can't afford to pay an employee more than they take it or more than would put the company in jeopardy. Again another rule of private business that government doesn't have to follow.

With a corrupt government like that I understand yours scepsis towards government provided medicine.
But US have 9.1% unemployment, why not sack those that have to high salaries and works for the government. Then hire some of the 9.1% that is unemployed, they will surely work for a lower salary.
US needs to cut down salaries and positions for bureaucrats in the government.

There is no such thing as too high a salary in a free market. The consumer ultiamtely determines what a person's salary is.

There is no such thing as too high salary: When it comes to health it is, because consumers don’t have the knowledge to know what’s best for them. At the same time they compete on quality in the health industry not price. Higher quality means higher prices. At the same time you have the insurance companies that takes out profitt, the government can provide non profitt insurance. Drugs is also something, in a free market the physician will provide you with to many drugs because the patient does not have knowledge whats best for him. If you open for import of drugs you will get more competition, its no reason to forbid foreign medicine. The owners of US drug industry companies take out large profitts and they spend a lot of money on marketing to the consumers.

The wealth of the nations depends on the health care spending: Health care does not provide any growth for the nation. Health care is a cost. At the moment US spends 16% of its GDP on health care. Other OECD countries spends 8-10%. That will give US less money in the free market that they can spend on things that creates economic growth. The wealth of the nation depends on the ability to export high quality products. You cannot export health services, at least US can’t because other nations can provide them for free.
If US can limit health costs they have more money to put in to creating an export industry. Lawyer spending is also something that you can’t export, this does not create any economical growth.
A society where lawyers and physicians are paid to much money will not work because the nation will become poorer, because their is no export.
As much money as possible shall be invested in industrys that can create economic growth for the nation.
E.g examples if you can cut costs on lawyers and physicians you can put more in to investing in oil companies, vehicles,metals,ships,machinery. High quality stuff you can sell in an international market. A lawyer is a overpaid bureaucrat that not create any economical growth.

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

 

[Old Rocks]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4]"We're Number 37" - Paul Hipp - YouTube[/ame]

 

[dblack]

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? ...

These are the key questions to consider. If we give government responsibility for our health care, they will eventually seek power over our 'unhealthy' habits. For example:

... I support my new governments new tax on fat in Denmark, despite not voting for them.

This is the kind of insanity that will follow if health care is nationalized in the US. And our uptight "not on my dime" conservatives will be leading the charge. They'll propose laws to single out and punish anyone who refuses to conform to regulated standards for weight, exercise, tobacco/alcohol/drug use, etc, etc... The conservatives will support this crap because it will piss them off to fund other people's vices and the liberal will support it because they love the idea of the government telling us what's good for us.

 

[Bern80]

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.

Most of the countries with Universal Health Care have longer life spans, and far lower infant mortality than does the US. Even little Costa Rica beats us.

Results count.

Dumb as rocks, I don't even know why I keep saying this to you because it always seems to go in one ear and out the other, but I'll try it again for the probably 50th time since you've brought up this absurd point:

LIFE EXPECTENCY IS NOT AN INDICTMENT OF A COUNTRIES HEALTH CARE RERSOURCES OR IT'S COST. IT IS AN INDICTMENT OF THE HEALTH HABITS OF THE INDIVIDUALS OF THAT COUNTRY. Do you fucking get it yet? Perhaps a comparison would help. Citing life expectency as evidence of a problem with countries health care system would be the same as if you tried to cite our countires high rate of obesity as evidence of a problem with our health care system. It is a statistic predominantly determined by the choices people make and genetics. Not the quality of treatment or cost of countries facilities.

 

[Bern80]

There is no such thing as too high salary: When it comes to health it is, because consumers don’t have the knowledge to know what’s best for them. At the same time they compete on quality in the health industry not price. Higher quality means higher prices. At the same time you have the insurance companies that takes out profitt, the government can provide non profitt insurance. Drugs is also something, in a free market the physician will provide you with to many drugs because the patient does not have knowledge whats best for him. If you open for import of drugs you will get more competition, its no reason to forbid foreign medicine. The owners of US drug industry companies take out large profitts and they spend a lot of money on marketing to the consumers.

You're repeating things that simply aren't true Euro. You're back to claiming that doctors push pills and tests to make extra money. That is ILLEGAL in this country and a doctor can lose their license for donig so. When a person learning medicine in this country becomes an M.D. they take what is called The Hippocratic Oath which is an oath taken where the doctor essentially swears he will act in an ethical manner. Violating medical ethics is a big deal here. You can lose your license to practice medicine for doing so. Again the only pressure to a doctor to over prescribe or over test comes from the fear of being sued by the patient because he didn't to the test to discover the one in a million disease the patient has.

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


As much money as possible shall be invested in industrys that can create economic growth for the nation.
E.g examples if you can cut costs on lawyers and physicians you can put more in to investing in oil companies, vehicles,metals,ships,machinery. High quality stuff you can sell in an international market. A lawyer is a overpaid bureaucrat that not create any economical growth.

A for profit system is what allows for the world leading medical research and development our country has. We are essentially doing all the work for the rest of the world so euro countries like yours can pretend you're better than us because their governments provide health care. It is a fact that the euro countries with some form of UHC are running deficits every single year in medical spending. Tell me, where does that leave any money for actualy research?

If US can limit health costs they have more money to put in to creating an export industry. Lawyer spending is also something that you can’t export, this does not create any economical growth.
A society where lawyers and physicians are paid to much money will not work because the nation will become poorer, because their is no export.

They most certainly do have value in an international market. Foreign dignitaries come here all of the time for medical treatment, because the quality, if you can afford it, is the best in the world. People who have the money to spare will pay for quality, especially in health care.

 

[Big Fitz]

First you have NOT documented or sourced your anecdotal hyperbolic post .. I have!
Second:
So tell me again how superior Canadian health is if:
A) no drugs developed by USA B) production line doctors C) Lower legal costs???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just don't need surgery towards the end of the fiscal year.

 

[healthmyths]

you wrote:
"There is more money in keeping the status quo .. more money for the industries involved."

Please explain to me.. Which is a bigger number $600 Billion or $54 million?
I know that sounds really stupid.. BUT you and others totally ignore the gigantic 10,000 lb gorilla.. $600 BILLION A YEAR IN DEFENSIVE MEDICINE COSTS!
And all strictly due to fear of getting sued by lawyers that MADE in 2009 $100 billion!
Yet Obama care ATTACKED Tanning salons.. 10% tax !
So if the supposedly "smartest " President thinks that the TANNING SALONS cause cancer which causes health claims is worthy a 10% tax.. what the hell is $600 billion a year that the experts i.e. doctors all attest they do because they don't want to be sued!

And don't use that stupid comment "malpractice insurance costs makes up..."!
Idiot that;s peanuts! Doctors survey say $1 of every $4 spent is because of duplicate test, special referrals... all out of FEAR!
Solution?? Tax the lawyers and use that to pay the claims for the yes 10 million truly uninsured! NOT 50 million! Did you know 9 million people who claimed they were uninsured were covered under Medicaid? Or 5.4 million kids who's parents ONLY need register them are claimed as uninsured? Did you know 18 million uninsured UNDER 34 refuse to use employer health insurance?

So please get your facts straight!
Tax 20% of the $100 billion lawyers make.. use that and pay the claims of the "uninsured" which is less then $20 billion and watch how quick the $600 billion when linked to declining lawyer surcharge tax rate goes down!
20% decline or $120 billion MAKES A BIG DENT in health costs!

 

[Greenbeard]

What things might go into how much it costs to maintain your health over the course of a year? Maybe, perhaps how healty you actually are might have something to do with it.

The fact remains that a large reason that our national (and, obviously, per capita) expenditures are so much higher than anywhere else in the world is that our prices are higher.

For example, going back to 2003: It’s The Prices, Stupid: Why The United States Is So Different From Other Countries

In the U.S. health system, for example, money flows from households to the providers of health care through a vast network of relatively uncoordinated pipes and capillaries of various sizes. Although the huge federal Medicare program and the federal-state Medicaid programs do possess some monopsonistic purchasing power, and large private insurers may enjoy some degree of monopsony power as well in some localities, the highly fragmented buy side of the U.S. health system is relatively weak by international standards. It is one factor, among others, that could explain the relatively high prices paid for health care and for health professionals in the United States. [...]

In 2000 the United States spent considerably more on health care than any other country, whether measured per capita or as a percentage of GDP. At the same time, most measures of aggregate utilization such as physician visits per capita and hospital days per capita were below the OECD median. Since spending is a product of both the goods and services used and their prices, this implies that much higher prices are paid in the United States than in other countries. But U.S. policymakers need to reflect on what Americans are getting for their greater health spending. They could conclude: It’s the prices, stupid.

Or read Aaron Carroll's reaction last year to the Federation of Health Plans' Annual Comparative Price Report: Everything costs more. A sample:

For each of these, you’re looking at the price, or what was charged to the insurer (this did not include Medicare in the US). Let’s start with a CT scan of the head:

Why does it cost so much more in the US? Does the radiation work better here? Are the scanners different? If you’re wondering, the CT scanner was invented in the UK, so it’s not like there’s some reason to believe our machines are better. [...]

Let’s be clear. I have no problem with things costing more when they are demonstrably better. Or, if you’re getting more of them for your money. But a scan is a scan is a scan. There had better be a good reason for it costing more here, and I can’t think of a good one.

Our problems extend beyond simply having poor health habits.

LIFE EXPECTENCY IS NOT AN INDICTMENT OF A COUNTRIES HEALTH CARE RERSOURCES OR IT'S COST. IT IS AN INDICTMENT OF THE HEALTH HABITS OF THE INDIVIDUALS OF THAT COUNTRY.

Perhaps, but there are other indicators one could look at to get a sense of how well a system is set up and functioning. The Commonwealth Fund does international comparisons periodically and the news certainly isn't unequivocally good for the U.S. For example, see the 2010 update.

Or you can forget the international comparisons and just look at their National Scorecard on U.S. Health System Performance, 2011 that came out this week. There are lots and lots of indicators (quality and otherwise) that we can improve on substantially.

You're repeating things that simply aren't true Euro. You're back to claiming that doctors push pills and tests to make extra money. That is ILLEGAL in this country and a doctor can lose their license for donig so. When a person learning medicine in this country becomes an M.D. they take what is called The Hippocratic Oath which is an oath taken where the doctor essentially swears he will act in an ethical manner. Violating medical ethics is a big deal here. You can lose your license to practice medicine for doing so. Again the only pressure to a doctor to over prescribe or over test comes from the fear of being sued by the patient because he didn't to the test to discover the one in a million disease the patient has.

This is a bit of an incoherent argument: physicians don't respond to Incentive-for-Volume A because doing so would be unethical, but they will respond to Incentive-for-Volume B because, well you know, it's an incentive.

Fee-for-service reimbursement is widely (I probably would've said "universally" before reading your posts) understood to be a volume-driver. It is, at its core, an economic incentive for greater service intensity and volume. Hence the long and continuing struggle to get away from it. (The undesirable incentives of this kind of financial structure aren't something recognized just by health economists; George Bernard Shaw remarked upon it darkly in the preface to The Doctor's Dilemma over a century ago: "That any sane nation, having observed that you could provide for the supply of bread by giving bakers a pecuniary interest in baking for you, should go on to give a surgeon a pecuniary interest in cutting off your leg, is enough to make one despair of political humanity. But that is precisely what we have done. And the more appalling the mutilation, the more the mutilator is paid. He who corrects the ingrowing toe-nail receives a few shillings: he who cuts your inside out receives hundreds of guineas, except when he does it to a poor person for practice.")

 

[Euro]

There is no such thing as too high salary: When it comes to health it is, because consumers don’t have the knowledge to know what’s best for them. At the same time they compete on quality in the health industry not price. Higher quality means higher prices. At the same time you have the insurance companies that takes out profitt, the government can provide non profitt insurance. Drugs is also something, in a free market the physician will provide you with to many drugs because the patient does not have knowledge whats best for him. If you open for import of drugs you will get more competition, its no reason to forbid foreign medicine. The owners of US drug industry companies take out large profitts and they spend a lot of money on marketing to the consumers.

You're repeating things that simply aren't true Euro. You're back to claiming that doctors push pills and tests to make extra money. That is ILLEGAL in this country and a doctor can lose their license for donig so. When a person learning medicine in this country becomes an M.D. they take what is called The Hippocratic Oath which is an oath taken where the doctor essentially swears he will act in an ethical manner. Violating medical ethics is a big deal here. You can lose your license to practice medicine for doing so. Again the only pressure to a doctor to over prescribe or over test comes from the fear of being sued by the patient because he didn't to the test to discover the one in a million disease the patient has.

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


As much money as possible shall be invested in industrys that can create economic growth for the nation.
E.g examples if you can cut costs on lawyers and physicians you can put more in to investing in oil companies, vehicles,metals,ships,machinery. High quality stuff you can sell in an international market. A lawyer is a overpaid bureaucrat that not create any economical growth.

A for profit system is what allows for the world leading medical research and development our country has. We are essentially doing all the work for the rest of the world so euro countries like yours can pretend you're better than us because their governments provide health care. It is a fact that the euro countries with some form of UHC are running deficits every single year in medical spending. Tell me, where does that leave any money for actualy research?

If US can limit health costs they have more money to put in to creating an export industry. Lawyer spending is also something that you can’t export, this does not create any economical growth.
A society where lawyers and physicians are paid to much money will not work because the nation will become poorer, because their is no export.

They most certainly do have value in an international market. Foreign dignitaries come here all of the time for medical treatment, because the quality, if you can afford it, is the best in the world. People who have the money to spare will pay for quality, especially in health care.

Ok but as healthmyths says why not tax the lawyers. Sueings and trials is not very constructive. Thats just more bureaucracy and as republican you don’t like bureaucracy I assume. Put the tax money into the health care system to provide better and more effective services.

About countries running deficit with UHC is not right: If the costs get to high the government can regulate that by rising the deductible, (the out of pocket money). To prevent deficits we raised the deductible from 330$. This year we raised the deductible by 10$.

About coming to US for health treatment, some do because of face-lifts, fake tits, hair transplant and so. That is not something we provide, but that is not nescessary its just a cost. I dont find spending money on R&D to improve face-lifts to be constructive. At the same time doctors go into the plastic surgery instead of treating sick people because of profit. This doctors should have been treating sick people not providing face-lifts and hair transplants. More doctors treating sick people instead of providing face-lifts means lower costs for the sick consumers.

 

[Bern80]

Ok but as healthmyths says why not tax the lawyers. Sueings and trials is not very constructive. Thats just more bureaucracy and as republican you don’t like bureaucracy I assume. Put the tax money into the health care system to provide better and more effective services.

I'm not a republican for starters. But in a round about way one option would be working on reforming the laws that currently allow people to sue doctors frivolously.

About countries running deficit with UHC is not right: If the costs get to high the government can regulate that by rising the deductible, (the out of pocket money). To prevent deficits we raised the deductible from 330$. This year we raised the deductible by 10$.

It is right. It is a fact that France, for example, ran a medical deficit of around 12 billion dollars. Yes you can combat costs by raising deductibles or, like they're doing, reduce reimbursement rates, but if you have to keep doing that, what exactly have you accomplished?

About coming to US for health treatment, some do because of face-lifts, fake tits, hair transplant and so. That is not something we provide, but that is not nescessary its just a cost. I dont find spending money on R&D to improve face-lifts to be constructive. At the same time doctors go into the plastic surgery instead of treating sick people because of profit. This doctors should have been treating sick people not providing face-lifts and hair transplants. More doctors treating sick people instead of providing face-lifts means lower costs for the sick consumers.

Again you are wrong. More than wrong you are clearly ignorant of what goes on as far as research in the U.S. You can't research in europe because YOU DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. It has nothing to do with elective surgeries. It is because we have the best and brightest in treating real illnesses. In the state I live their is a hospital called the Mayo clinic. It is WORLD renowned for its cancer treatment. All kinds of foreign leaders have been treated there. Those to whom money is no object are going overseas for their treatment. They stay here where the best and brightest at doing damn near everything medicine wise already are.

 

[Euro]

Ok but as healthmyths says why not tax the lawyers. Sueings and trials is not very constructive. Thats just more bureaucracy and as republican you don’t like bureaucracy I assume. Put the tax money into the health care system to provide better and more effective services.

I'm not a republican for starters. But in a round about way one option would be working on reforming the laws that currently allow people to sue doctors frivolously.

About countries running deficit with UHC is not right: If the costs get to high the government can regulate that by rising the deductible, (the out of pocket money). To prevent deficits we raised the deductible from 330$. This year we raised the deductible by 10$.

It is right. It is a fact that France, for example, ran a medical deficit of around 12 billion dollars. Yes you can combat costs by raising deductibles or, like they're doing, reduce reimbursement rates, but if you have to keep doing that, what exactly have you accomplished?

About coming to US for health treatment, some do because of face-lifts, fake tits, hair transplant and so. That is not something we provide, but that is not nescessary its just a cost. I dont find spending money on R&D to improve face-lifts to be constructive. At the same time doctors go into the plastic surgery instead of treating sick people because of profit. This doctors should have been treating sick people not providing face-lifts and hair transplants. More doctors treating sick people instead of providing face-lifts means lower costs for the sick consumers.

Again you are wrong. More than wrong you are clearly ignorant of what goes on as far as research in the U.S. You can't research in europe because YOU DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. It has nothing to do with elective surgeries. It is because we have the best and brightest in treating real illnesses. In the state I live their is a hospital called the Mayo clinic. It is WORLD renowned for its cancer treatment. All kinds of foreign leaders have been treated there. Those to whom money is no object are going overseas for their treatment. They stay here where the best and brightest at doing damn near everything medicine wise already are.

But France has a insurance program, we have health fund provided through government surplus. The more money you put into that fund the larger the profit will be. Then you can use the profitt from the fund to pay for health. Lets say the funds make 10% profitt, then we spend that on health. If the fund dosent give enough profitt then we can take money from the government surplus. Then you can regulate by changing the deductible. If the health fund decreases we can put government surplus in to it.
Then each hospital gets paid through this fund, when the patient has spent his maximum limit which is about 350$. Amount over 350$ is covered by the fund.

About hospitals the EU cooperate on that. If I need a specialist that we dont have, we usually have that in 99.9% of situations. But if not I can get treatment in another EU country if its nesecarry.

 

[Bern80]

Ok but as healthmyths says why not tax the lawyers. Sueings and trials is not very constructive. Thats just more bureaucracy and as republican you don’t like bureaucracy I assume. Put the tax money into the health care system to provide better and more effective services.

I'm not a republican for starters. But in a round about way one option would be working on reforming the laws that currently allow people to sue doctors frivolously.



It is right. It is a fact that France, for example, ran a medical deficit of around 12 billion dollars. Yes you can combat costs by raising deductibles or, like they're doing, reduce reimbursement rates, but if you have to keep doing that, what exactly have you accomplished?

About coming to US for health treatment, some do because of face-lifts, fake tits, hair transplant and so. That is not something we provide, but that is not nescessary its just a cost. I dont find spending money on R&D to improve face-lifts to be constructive. At the same time doctors go into the plastic surgery instead of treating sick people because of profit. This doctors should have been treating sick people not providing face-lifts and hair transplants. More doctors treating sick people instead of providing face-lifts means lower costs for the sick consumers.

Again you are wrong. More than wrong you are clearly ignorant of what goes on as far as research in the U.S. You can't research in europe because YOU DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. It has nothing to do with elective surgeries. It is because we have the best and brightest in treating real illnesses. In the state I live their is a hospital called the Mayo clinic. It is WORLD renowned for its cancer treatment. All kinds of foreign leaders have been treated there. Those to whom money is no object are going overseas for their treatment. They stay here where the best and brightest at doing damn near everything medicine wise already are.

But France has a insurance program, we have health fund provided through government surplus. The more money you put into that fund the larger the profit will be. Then you can use the profitt from the fund to pay for health. Lets say the funds make 10% profitt, then we spend that on health. If the fund dosent give enough profitt then we can take money from the government surplus. Then you can regulate by changing the deductible. If the health fund decreases we can put government surplus in to it.
Then each hospital gets paid through this fund, when the patient has spent his maximum limit which is about 350$. Amount over 350$ is covered by the fund.

About hospitals the EU cooperate on that. If I need a specialist that we dont have, we usually have that in 99.9% of situations. But if not I can get treatment in another EU country if its nesecarry.

Yes they do. Very similar to ours. Can't you see this experiment is failing before your eyes? The simple fact is despite Fance's already very high taxes they still don't collect enough to cover the health care costs of the citizens. They are having to reneg on the things they said they were going to do for people because they just can't afford it. They're having to cut back on the things they cover for people. Driving people to private insurance. Exactly what you say doesn't work.

 

[Euro]

I'm not a republican for starters. But in a round about way one option would be working on reforming the laws that currently allow people to sue doctors frivolously.



It is right. It is a fact that France, for example, ran a medical deficit of around 12 billion dollars. Yes you can combat costs by raising deductibles or, like they're doing, reduce reimbursement rates, but if you have to keep doing that, what exactly have you accomplished?



Again you are wrong. More than wrong you are clearly ignorant of what goes on as far as research in the U.S. You can't research in europe because YOU DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. It has nothing to do with elective surgeries. It is because we have the best and brightest in treating real illnesses. In the state I live their is a hospital called the Mayo clinic. It is WORLD renowned for its cancer treatment. All kinds of foreign leaders have been treated there. Those to whom money is no object are going overseas for their treatment. They stay here where the best and brightest at doing damn near everything medicine wise already are.

But France has a insurance program, we have health fund provided through government surplus. The more money you put into that fund the larger the profit will be. Then you can use the profitt from the fund to pay for health. Lets say the funds make 10% profitt, then we spend that on health. If the fund dosent give enough profitt then we can take money from the government surplus. Then you can regulate by changing the deductible. If the health fund decreases we can put government surplus in to it.
Then each hospital gets paid through this fund, when the patient has spent his maximum limit which is about 350$. Amount over 350$ is covered by the fund.

About hospitals the EU cooperate on that. If I need a specialist that we dont have, we usually have that in 99.9% of situations. But if not I can get treatment in another EU country if its nesecarry.

Yes they do. Very similar to ours. Can't you see this experiment is failing before your eyes? The simple fact is despite Fance's already very high taxes they still don't collect enough to cover the health care costs of the citizens. They are having to reneg on the things they said they were going to do for people because they just can't afford it. They're having to cut back on the things they cover for people. Driving people to private insurance. Exactly what you say doesn't work.

I’m not french. about France they have to high taxes that’s their problem. They have 35% corporate tax and 50% on income. You do not create wealth and oppurtunities taxing that high. They spend 18.2% of their GDP on social security. They have taken in to many refugees that is provided by social security. Those refugees does not speak the language and they do not have any education so they can’t get any work. US spends 12.6% on social security, to compare to france 18.6% of GDP. They also have the euro as currency, then they cant’t regulate their own currency.
It’s not the health care that is the their main problem, they are not productive enough. 33.100$ in GDP pr. capita is not good enough. To keep a good welfare system the main thing is to have a high GDP. If you produce then you can share. If you produce less than you share you will get deficit, thats France problem not the health-care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita