What the Left Isn't Telling You About US Healthcare

[PeterS]

Medical bills underlie 60 percent of U.S. bankrupts: study

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Medical bills are behind more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday in a report they said demonstrates that healthcare reform is on the wrong track.

U.S. MEDICAL BANKRUPTCIES A MYTH; PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY RATE HIGHER IN CANADA

* The personal bankruptcy rate was actually higher in Canada in 2006 and 2007 (0.30 percent for both years) than in the United States (0.20 percent and .27 percent).

* Medical spending was only one of several contributing factors in 17 percent of U.S. bankruptcies -- medical debts accounted for only 12 to 13 percent of the total debts among American bankruptcy filers who cited medical debt as one of their reasons for bankruptcy.

* Medical reasons were cited as the primary cause of bankruptcy by approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors (55 years of age and older).

* Non-medical expenditures comprise the majority of debt among bankrupt consumers in both Canada and the United States; the inability to earn sufficient income to cover these costs -- not exposure to uninsured medical costs -- is the real explanation for almost all bankruptcies in either country.

Thus, bankruptcy statistics do not support arguments for a government-run, single-payer, socialized health insurance system, says Fraser.

Fraser cherry picked data excluding years where US bankruptcy rates were higher and failed to take into account more lenient bankruptcy laws in Canada vs. the US. Fraser is an libertarian think tank (oxymoron) who put out a study designed to support ideology and has nothing to do with fact. Thanks for sharing with us….

 

[editec]

Okay, let's discuss health care in industrialized nations, shall we? Let's cut through some of the liberal smoke and mirrors and get down to brass tacks.

Okay

The left tells us in horrified tones that the United States spends far more on health care than any other country, whether measured as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) or by expenditure per capita. This is quite true. the United States now spends close to 16 percent of GDP on health care, nearly 6.1 percent more than the average for other industrialized countries.

More like 18% now, last I heard.

What is not true is that health care spending is automatically bad.

Not automatically bad, I agree. But is 16% or 18% of the GDP spent on HC is out of line with a healthy economy? Most definitely

To a large degree, America spends money on health care because it is a wealthy nation and chooses to do so.

Nonsense.

Very few people WANT to spend a huge percentage of their incomes (many people's HC insurance premiums are 25% of their salarlies!) on HC insurance.

Economists consider health care a “normal good,” meaning that spending is positively correlated with income. As incomes rise, people want more of that good. Because we are a wealthy nation, we can and do demand more health care.

You are confused about what the term means

A Normal good is a good which rises as INCOMES rise. Hence the percentage of one's incomes one spends on a "normal good" stays aligned with the rising income.

If the percentage of one's income one pays for that good increases, then that spedning is not on a "normal good".

See the difference?

The left also tells us that health insurance premiums are rising faster than wages are, and this is also true.

Yes, and that is the problem. Also why HC spending is not a "normal good"

What they forget to tell you is that government health care programs, particularly Medicare and Medicaid, are piling up enormous burdens of debt for future generations.

The enormous debts are based on the probably costs in the future as the amount of HC people need increases due to demographics.

Medicare’s unfunded liabilities now top $50 trillion

The $50 trillion number is interesting. What's your source?

Unchecked, Medicaid spending will increase fourfold as a percentage of federal outlays over the next century.

Yeah...that's why what we're looking at is a HC crises.

In other words, what we already have in the direction they want to go isn't doing any better in the "holding down costs" arena.

Not a clue what you're tryig to say there.

None of this indicates that what's needed is a huge new bureaucracy . . of ANY type.

Probably true. What we really need is less bureaucracy, I agree.

The left loves to cite a 2000 World Health Organization study that ranks the U.S. health care system 37th in the world, “slightly better than Slovenia.” What they don't bother to tell you (and often don't know themselves) is that this study bases its conclusions on such highly subjective measures as “fairness” and criteria that are not strictly related to a country’s health care system, such as “tobacco control.” For example, the WHO report penalizes the United States for not having a sufficiently progressive tax system, not providing all citizens with health insurance, and having a general paucity of social welfare programs. Indeed, much of the poor performance of the United States is due to its ranking of 54th in the category of fairness. The United States is actually penalized for adopting Health Savings Accounts and because, according to the WHO, patients pay too much out of pocket. Such judgments clearly reflect a particular political point of view, rather than a neutral measure of health care quality. They also neglect to mention that the WHO report ranks the United States number one in the world in responsiveness to patients’ needs in choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely care, and confidentiality. Whoops!

A fair complaint.

Comparing HC delivery systems between nations is difficult for a number of reasons. It is often misleading.

The left likes to point out how much higher other countries' life expectancy and infant mortality rates are compared to ours.

Well...those stats, despite some problems with then which I agree exist, are still telling us soemthing about our system compared to others. I question their accuracy, but not the story they are telling us.

What they don't tell you is that life expectancies are affected by exogenous factors such as violent crime, poverty, obesity, tobacco and drug use, and other issues unrelated to health care. In fact, a study by Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider for the American Enterprise Institute found that those exogenous factors are so distorting that if you correct for homicides and accidents, the United States rises to the top of the list for life expectancy.

Interesting. I'd love to see that study. Let's just say I am highly dubious of their findings.

Likewise, infant mortality is highly problematic. In the United States, very low birth-weight infants have a much greater chance of being brought to term with the latest medical technologies. Some of those low birthweight babies die soon after birth, which boosts our infant mortality rate, but in many other Western countries, those high-risk, low birth-weight infants are not included when infant mortality is calculated. In addition, many countries use abortion to eliminate problem pregnancies. For example, Michael Moore cites low infant mortality rates in Cuba, yet that country has one of the world’s highest abortion rates, meaning that many babies with health problems that could lead to early deaths are never brought to term.

Yes, this is a good example of why HC delievery stems and morbitity mortality stat comparisons are so difficult and often misleading.

When you compare the outcomes for specific diseases, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the world.

Do they? According to whom, exactly?

Whether the disease is cancer, pneumonia, heart disease, or AIDS, the chances of a patient surviving are far higher in the United States than in other countries. Notably, when former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi needed heart surgery last year, he didn’t go to a French, Canadian, Cuban, or even Italian hospital—he went to the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. Likewise, Canadian MP Belinda Stronach had surgery for her breast cancer at a California hospital.

That's nice. Nobody disagrees that if you have a lot of money, the USA is a good place to seek treatment.

The United States drives much of the innovation and research on health care worldwide. Eighteen of the last 25 winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine are either U.S. citizens or individuals working here. U.S. companies have developed half of all new major medicines introduced worldwide over the past 20 years. In fact, Americans played a key role in 80 percent of the most important medical advances of the past 30 years. Advanced medical technology is far more available in the United States than in nearly any other country.

Yes we spend a LOT of money of HC research that is true.

The same is true for prescription drugs. For example, 44 percent of Americans who could benefit from statins, lipid-lowering medication that reduces cholesterol and protects against heart disease, take the drug. That number seems low until compared with the 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians who could both benefit from the drug and receive it. Similarly, 60 percent of Americans taking anti-psychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia or other mental illnesses are taking the most recent generation of drugs, which have fewer side effects. But just 20 percent of Spanish patients and 10 percent of Germans receive the most recent drugs.

Okay...and?

(Thanks to the Cato Institute for this info.)

(Thanks to Boston University's Graduate School for Health Care Management in for preparing me to give you my responses )

 

[auditor0007]

When faced with inconvienent truths, the right wing does two things...

Hurls insults.

Or changes the subject.

Your insults don't change the fact that our system sucks.

It punishes the sick and the poor.

it rewards those that prepare and punishes those that do not. Some day it will punish you.

I prepared, and it punished me anyway. Please continue telling me how great this system is. I don't know for certain that a government option is the best answer. What I can tell you is that none of you have come up with any realistic alternatives. Your answer is the same old same old; our system is fine the way it is, so why mess with it, lol.

While it is true that Medicare spending will increase as a percentage of GDP, it is also true that private spending is projected to increase at an even greater rate than Medicare. But as usual, none of you address this. You honestly believe that the average American can afford to spend twice what they are spending now and it will be good for our economy and health. It's no wonder our healthcare industry is such a mess.

There is one simple fact that those like you refuse to address. Within the private sector of healthcare, we are spending around 30% of all costs on administration and profits. The profit portion really isn't that significant, but the administrative costs are over 25%. Anyone who tries to justify that kind of spending on administrative costs in an industry that consumes nearly 17% of GDP is out of their mind.

Your simple one liners attacking any alternative just doesn't hold water, nor does it bring anything positive to the table.

 

[auditor0007]

None of this indicates that what's needed is a huge new bureaucracy . . of ANY type.

Then why do you continue to support the huge bureaucracy of private insurance that eats up 25% of all revenue?

 

[Oddball]

None of this indicates that what's needed is a huge new bureaucracy . . of ANY type.

Then why do you continue to support the huge bureaucracy of private insurance that eats up 25% of all revenue?

Could it possibly be that right now one has a choice as to whether or not to purchse insurance?

 

[Chris]

When faced with inconvienent truths, the right wing does two things...

Hurls insults.

Or changes the subject.

Your insults don't change the fact that our system sucks.

It punishes the sick and the poor.

it rewards those that prepare and punishes those that do not. Some day it will punish you.

I prepared, and it punished me anyway. Please continue telling me how great this system is. I don't know for certain that a government option is the best answer. What I can tell you is that none of you have come up with any realistic alternatives. Your answer is the same old same old; our system is fine the way it is, so why mess with it, lol.

While it is true that Medicare spending will increase as a percentage of GDP, it is also true that private spending is projected to increase at an even greater rate than Medicare. But as usual, none of you address this. You honestly believe that the average American can afford to spend twice what they are spending now and it will be good for our economy and health. It's no wonder our healthcare industry is such a mess.

There is one simple fact that those like you refuse to address. Within the private sector of healthcare, we are spending around 30% of all costs on administration and profits. The profit portion really isn't that significant, but the administrative costs are over 25%. Anyone who tries to justify that kind of spending on administrative costs in an industry that consumes nearly 17% of GDP is out of their mind.

Your simple one liners attacking any alternative just doesn't hold water, nor does it bring anything positive to the table.

The French have the best system. They spent about HALF per capita what we spend on healthcare and they cover everyone with no wait times.

They also limit doctor liability, have free medical schools, and don't pay their doctors ridiculous salaries.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You should elaborate because the only thing I could find is that France is starting to more heavily means test. How is this a 'more' free-market system? Health care in France is unchanged...it's just the wealthy are now expected to pay for their own plus pay taxes to pay for ever one elses. I always thought that was communism not free-market.

Yeah, those Frenchies are really seeing the light aren't they...

I don't know if I'm more surprised that you don't know the basics of how France's system works, or that you still have the hubris to comment on it and assume that it supports your worldview.

From the Cato Institute:

Although the French system is facing looming budgetary pressures, it does provide at least some level of universal coverage and manages to avoid many of the problems that afflict other national health care systems. However, it does so in large part by adopting market-oriented approaches, including consumer cost sharing. Other aspects of the system appear to reflect French customs and political attitudes in such a way that would make it difficult to import the system to the United States.

France provides a basic level of universal health insurance through a series of mandatory, largely occupation-based, health insurance funds. These funds are ostensibly private entities but are heavily regulated and supervised by the French government. Premiums (funded primarily through payroll taxes), benefits, and provider reimbursement rates are all set by the government. In these ways the funds are similar to public utilities in the United States.

The French health care system is the world’s third most expensive, costing roughly 11 percent of GDP, behind only the United States (17 percent) and Switzerland (11.5 percent). Payroll taxes provide the largest source of funding. Employers must pay 12.8 percent of wages for every employee, while employees contribute an additional 0.75 percent of wages, for a total payroll tax of 13.55 percent. In addition, there is a 5.25 general social contribution tax on income (reduced to 3.95 percent on pension income and unemployment benefits). Thus, most French workers are effectively paying 18.8 percent of their income for health insurance. Finally, dedicated taxes are assessed on tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceutical company revenues.

In theory, the system should be supported by these dedicated revenues. In reality, they have not been sufficient to keep the program’s finances balanced. The National Health Authority sets a global budget for national health care spending, but actual spending has consistently exceeded those targets.

Most services require substantial copayments, ranging from 10 to 40 percent of the cost. As a result, French consumers pay for roughly 13 percent of health care out of pocket, roughly the same percentage as U.S. consumers. Moreover, because many health care services are not covered, and because many of the best providers refuse to accept the fee schedules imposed by the insurance funds, more than 92 percent of French residents purchase complementary private insurance. In fact, private insurance now makes up roughly 12.7 percent of all health care spending in France, a percentage exceeded only by the Netherlands (15.2 percent) and the United States (35 percent) among industrialized countries.

The private insurance market in France is in many ways less regulated than the U.S. market. For example, while 20 U.S. states require some form of community rating or put limits on health insurance premiums, private health insurance in France is largely experience rated. No regulations specify what benefits must be included in coverage or mandate “guaranteed issue”; and pre-existing conditions may be excluded. The only significant restriction requires “guaranteed renewability” after two years of coverage. More than 118 carriers currently offer some form of private health insurance coverage.

A 2004 poll showed that the French had the highest level of satisfaction with their health care system among all European countries. This is partly because their hybrid system has avoided many of the biggest problems of other national health care systems. Yet it also stems from French social character. For example, by a three-to-one margin, the French believe the quality of care they receive is less important than everyone having equal access to that care. This means the French experience may not be easily transferable to the United States, which has a far less egalitarian ethic.

The Cato Institute has very strong right leanings, in my opinion. Like most think tanks, they are going to publish, research, advocate, etc.., what they themselves personally believe to be accurate. The Cato website just screams: "Let them eat cake!".

If you are going to dispute the merit of everyone else's sources, then you also need to be a little more neutral in your choice of references. That is, unless you enjoy insulting people. Don't miss your bus.

Nice try, but no. The Cato Institute is Libertarian, and the fact that they DARE to publish research and policy papers to the right of your position doesn't make them conservative OR unreliable. They are one of the most respected think tanks in the country, and I'm afraid insisting that I find a leftist organization to source my arguments just isn't going to work.

How about you give me something to discredit the Cato Institute other than "I don't like what they say"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

When faced with inconvienent truths, the right wing does two things...

Hurls insults.

Or changes the subject.

Your insults don't change the fact that our system sucks.

It punishes the sick and the poor.

it rewards those that prepare and punishes those that do not. Some day it will punish you.

I prepared, and it punished me anyway. Please continue telling me how great this system is. I don't know for certain that a government option is the best answer. What I can tell you is that none of you have come up with any realistic alternatives. Your answer is the same old same old; our system is fine the way it is, so why mess with it, lol.

While it is true that Medicare spending will increase as a percentage of GDP, it is also true that private spending is projected to increase at an even greater rate than Medicare. But as usual, none of you address this. You honestly believe that the average American can afford to spend twice what they are spending now and it will be good for our economy and health. It's no wonder our healthcare industry is such a mess.

There is one simple fact that those like you refuse to address. Within the private sector of healthcare, we are spending around 30% of all costs on administration and profits. The profit portion really isn't that significant, but the administrative costs are over 25%. Anyone who tries to justify that kind of spending on administrative costs in an industry that consumes nearly 17% of GDP is out of their mind.

Your simple one liners attacking any alternative just doesn't hold water, nor does it bring anything positive to the table.

OUR simple one-liners? You run from thread to thread, hauling your suitcase packed with three or four boilerplate posts about your personal sob story, and WE have nothing new to say? There are a lot more facts here than just one that YOU refuse to address. Where's your post actually speaking to and refuting the facts that are the basis of the thread? Try bringing THAT to the table, instead of groveling for our pity as though that's a cogent, logical debate point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Y'all know what I've noticed? In five pages, not one leftist has even ACKNOWLEDGED the facts I've presented, let alone tried to address them. They just keep shouting the same old slogans (I swear to God, I've seen these exact posts, word for word, in every thread on healthcare) and refusing to hear anything new. Just what the hell are you poltroons afraid of, that you can't have any discussion of the topic outside the same carefully-planned pathways?

Call me when you chickenshits grow a pair.

 

[eagleseven]

For the left, it is not about healthcare.

It is about the rich. Rather, hatred of the rich.


Every argument boils down to "We're gonna stick it to those rich snobs real good." It's old...in fact, it dates back to the late 19th century...

 

[Chris]

For the left, it is not about healthcare.

It is about the rich. Rather, hatred of the rich.


Every argument boils down to "We're gonna stick it to those rich snobs real good." It's old...in fact, it dates back to the late 19th century...

Teddy Roosevelt hated the rich. That is why he busted the trusts!

I love the wing nuts lying about "the left." What horseshit!

Our healthcare system sucks. It is too expensive and unfair.

Every other industrialized nation has a national healthcare system except for us.

Making money off the sick is morally wrong!

 

[driveby]

For the left, it is not about healthcare.

It is about the rich. Rather, hatred of the rich.


Every argument boils down to "We're gonna stick it to those rich snobs real good." It's old...in fact, it dates back to the late 19th century...

Teddy Roosevelt hated the rich. That is why he busted the trusts!

I love the wing nuts lying about "the left." What horseshit!

Our healthcare system sucks. It is too expensive and unfair.

Every other industrialized nation has a national healthcare system except for us.

Making money off the sick is morally wrong!

Making money off people looking for housing morally wrong .......

 

[Political Junky]

The brain dead left is already telling those things, ad nauseum, dickweed.

And wingnuts don't understand it, or lie about it.

 

[DiveCon]

For the left, it is not about healthcare.

It is about the rich. Rather, hatred of the rich.


Every argument boils down to "We're gonna stick it to those rich snobs real good." It's old...in fact, it dates back to the late 19th century...

Teddy Roosevelt hated the rich. That is why he busted the trusts!

I love the wing nuts lying about "the left." What horseshit!

Our healthcare system sucks. It is too expensive and unfair.

Every other industrialized nation has a national healthcare system except for us.

Making money off the sick is morally wrong!

life isnt fair, asshole, get used to it

 

[Chris]

For the left, it is not about healthcare.

It is about the rich. Rather, hatred of the rich.


Every argument boils down to "We're gonna stick it to those rich snobs real good." It's old...in fact, it dates back to the late 19th century...

Teddy Roosevelt hated the rich. That is why he busted the trusts!

I love the wing nuts lying about "the left." What horseshit!

Our healthcare system sucks. It is too expensive and unfair.

Every other industrialized nation has a national healthcare system except for us.

Making money off the sick is morally wrong!

Making money off people looking for housing morally wrong .......

When faced with the truth the right will do one of two things...

1. Personal insult

2. Change the subject

Congrats, you managed to do both at the same time!

 

[DiveCon]

The brain dead left is already telling those things, ad nauseum, dickweed.

And wingnuts don't understand it, or lie about it.

yeah, leftwingnuts like you never will

 

[DiveCon]

Teddy Roosevelt hated the rich. That is why he busted the trusts!

I love the wing nuts lying about "the left." What horseshit!

Our healthcare system sucks. It is too expensive and unfair.

Every other industrialized nation has a national healthcare system except for us.

Making money off the sick is morally wrong!

Making money off people looking for housing morally wrong .......

When faced with the truth the right will do one of two things...

1. Personal insult

2. Change the subject

Congrats, you managed to do both at the same time!

it fits for you
you want to ***** about others that make money off others, yet you do the same damn thing
you are a HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!!

 

[Chris]

Making money off people looking for housing morally wrong .......

When faced with the truth the right will do one of two things...

1. Personal insult

2. Change the subject

Congrats, you managed to do both at the same time!

it fits for you
you want to ***** about others that make money off others, yet you do the same damn thing
you are a HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!!

When faced with the truth the right will do one of two things...

1. Personal insult

2. Change the subject

Congrats, you managed to do both at the same time!

 

[driveby]

Teddy Roosevelt hated the rich. That is why he busted the trusts!

I love the wing nuts lying about "the left." What horseshit!

Our healthcare system sucks. It is too expensive and unfair.

Every other industrialized nation has a national healthcare system except for us.

Making money off the sick is morally wrong!

Making money off people looking for housing morally wrong .......

When faced with the truth the right will do one of two things...

1. Personal insult

2. Change the subject

Congrats, you managed to do both at the same time!

I made my point, i demonized you the way you and the dems are demonizing the insurance companies and you folded like a lawn chair. Exactly the same way your elected dem officials are at these town hall meetings. You're making money off people looking for housing and contributing to predatory lending, that is an undisputable FACT .....

 

[Chris]

Making money off people looking for housing morally wrong .......

When faced with the truth the right will do one of two things...

1. Personal insult

2. Change the subject

Congrats, you managed to do both at the same time!

I made my point, i demonized you the way you and the dems are demonizing the insurance companies and you folded like a lawn chair. Exactly the same way your elected dem officials are at these town hall meetings. You're making money off people looking for housing and contributing to predatory lending, that is an undisputable FACT .....

More lies and personal insults. I keep my people away from "predatory lenders."

Demonizing insurance companies? No need. They do it to themselves.

60% of U.S. bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, and have you ever hear the term "pre-existing condition?"

Our system sucks. That is why it is failing.