| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/08/2006 03:28:16 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
That comes to over $171 BILLION dollars worth of health services at no cost to those who are un/under-insured..
By contrast, The UK's 2006-2007 NHS budget is 96 Billion Pounds ( 182 Billion Dollars ). So the U.S. spends around 94% of what the NHS budgets on health care for those who cannot pay for themselves. |
The UK's population is 60,609,153 (July 2006 est.), so the UK spends about 4 times per capita as the US ... |
Doesn't actually feed out to the masses though....
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 03:29:32 PM · #27 |
| I'm lucky to have excellent benefits (Motion Picture/Blue Cross), but what gets me is when I get a statement from my them that shows what's originally billed and then the "provider discount" which is usually 60% or more off what the original charges are. But uninsured people have to pay the top dollar for the same procedures. |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 03:32:09 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And don't give the "government is always more inefficient" line because in this case it's not true -- the administrative costs for Medicare are far below those found in private health insurance companies. |
Mark Litow, a consulting actuary with Milliman, a firm of consultants and actuaries, calculated overall administrative costs of Medicare and Medicaid, including hidden costs and some of its unfunded mandates in a 1994 study. He found these administrative costs of these government programs to be 27 percent of total claims costs, compared with 16 percent for private insurance.
And that was in 1994 - BEFORE the monstrous Medicare Prescription Drug Plan went into effect.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 03:35:45 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The UK's population is 60,609,153 (July 2006 est.), so the UK spends about 4 times per capita as the US ... |
What's the point? They spend 4x more per capita to insure 100% of the population. If the posted figures are accurate, at $171 billion dollars to offer health services to 40 million people in the US who don't have private insurance, it would cost the US 1.25 trillion dollars a year to insure 100% of the population.
I already see almost 40% of my paycheck get taken from me before it even hits my hand. The tax burden to fund a national social healthcare system would be insane. Come up with some other way to fund it, and I'd be all for it. |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 03:44:19 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And don't give the "government is always more inefficient" line because in this case it's not true -- the administrative costs for Medicare are far below those found in private health insurance companies. |
Mark Litow, a consulting actuary with Milliman, a firm of consultants and actuaries, calculated overall administrative costs of Medicare and Medicaid, including hidden costs and some of its unfunded mandates in a 1994 study. He found these administrative costs of these government programs to be 27 percent of total claims costs, compared with 16 percent for private insurance.
And that was in 1994 - BEFORE the monstrous Medicare Prescription Drug Plan went into effect. |
Try this more recent and more comprehensive (30 year) study, which reaches quite different conclusions.
From the article's Abstract:
From academic journals to the popular press to the House and Senate floors, comparisons are frequently drawn between Medicare and private health insurers regarding their rates of spending growth. Assertions that the private sector is better able to constrain spending are common.(1) On the other hand, we are learning that private insurers, including participants in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), are raising their premiums by double digits to compensate for their tremendous cost increases.(2) Varying conclusions on spending growth rates often reflect differences in data sets, analytical techniques, and selected variables. In this paper we first present four measurement principles that are useful when comparing rates of growth for personal health care spending. Then we apply these approaches to health spending data produced annually by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), finding that, on average, Medicare has enjoyed a lower annual growth rate than private insurance has. Moreover, cumulative analysis shows that MedicareĂ¢€™s spending growth from 1970 through 2000 was lower than that of the private sector.
Message edited by author 2006-11-08 15:50:05. |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 03:48:35 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I already see almost 40% of my paycheck get taken from me before it even hits my hand. The tax burden to fund a national social healthcare system would be insane. Come up with some other way to fund it, and I'd be all for it. |
The tax burden for health care should be less than the health insurance premiums you pay now, or none of this would make sense.
If you don't now pay for health insurance, then either you can pay your health care costs out of pocket (good luck!) or you are transferring the tax burden to someone else, to pay for your care. |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 03:49:52 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by talj:
Reading between the lines, if I can get a cheap flight to the US in the next couple of weeks do you folks reckon I'd get to have my OP done over there, on you, before Christmas?? ;o) lol |
Probably. By thanksgiving if you come in illegally. (that is another separate rant though) |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 04:06:31 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And don't give the "government is always more inefficient" line because in this case it's not true -- the administrative costs for Medicare are far below those found in private health insurance companies. |
Mark Litow, a consulting actuary with Milliman, a firm of consultants and actuaries, calculated overall administrative costs of Medicare and Medicaid, including hidden costs and some of its unfunded mandates in a 1994 study. He found these administrative costs of these government programs to be 27 percent of total claims costs, compared with 16 percent for private insurance.
And that was in 1994 - BEFORE the monstrous Medicare Prescription Drug Plan went into effect. |
Try this more recent and more comprehensive (30 year) study, which reaches quite different conclusions.
From the article's Abstract:
From academic journals to the popular press to the House and Senate floors, comparisons are frequently drawn between Medicare and private health insurers regarding their rates of spending growth. Assertions that the private sector is better able to constrain spending are common.(1) On the other hand, we are learning that private insurers, including participants in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), are raising their premiums by double digits to compensate for their tremendous cost increases.(2) Varying conclusions on spending growth rates often reflect differences in data sets, analytical techniques, and selected variables. In this paper we first present four measurement principles that are useful when comparing rates of growth for personal health care spending. Then we apply these approaches to health spending data produced annually by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), finding that, on average, Medicare has enjoyed a lower annual growth rate than private insurance has. Moreover, cumulative analysis shows that MedicareĂ¢€™s spending growth from 1970 through 2000 was lower than that of the private sector. |
Why are you attempting to switch horses in mid-stream?
First you make a claim about the lower administrative costs of Medicare vs. private insurers. I countered that claim with an actuarial's findings that that wa not true. And, in defense, you now attempt to counter my posting by pointing to an article about the differences in the growth rates of spending between medicare vs. private insurers.
Please try to explain to me how pointing out the differences in spending growth rates supports your earlier claim about administrative costs. |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 04:27:21 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you don't now pay for health insurance, then either you can pay your health care costs out of pocket (good luck!) or you are transferring the tax burden to someone else, to pay for your care. |
I transfer part of my insurance coverage costs to my employer. Which is the same as saying, I am paid less because part of my compensation is my employer footing the bill for my health insurance coverage. It is not a tax issue in the sense of Uncle Sam taking from the have's in the form of taxes to subsidize the needs of the have-not's in the form of entitlements. |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 04:48:43 PM · #35 |
Count me among the uninsured. I'm not some bum looking for a handout either. I have a Master's degree in engineering and several years of experience. I was laid off as part of a merger in June and my benefits have since run out. Due to a pre-existing condition, no private insurance company will extend coverage at any price. I guess they're afraid that we might actually use insurance coverage if we had it, God forbid.
As far as COBRA goes, if it wasn't such a serious matter, the asking price would be laughable, nearly $2000/mo.
Luckily, at least for the kids, there are programs that guarantee low-cost coverage for them. That still leaves us very vulnerable, should my wife or I get sick or injured before I find a new position and get coverage there. Anything that required a hospital stay or extended treatment, could well mean bankruptcy or worse.
I don't pretend to know what the solution is for heathcare in the US, but the current system is definitely FUBAR.
I'd rather wait for treatment than have to choose between treatment and a roof over my family's head.
The liberals and conservatives can argue all they want, but this is the reality of life in America. |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 05:26:52 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The liberals and conservatives can argue all they want, but this is the reality of life in America. |
It is the reality of life every where and throughout many centuries. What is the healthcare system in Botswana, or the Ukraine, or Iraq? Perhaps Vietnam or North Korea?
The "right" thing to do is provide top notch state of the art health care for the entire globe and charge it to america. Where does the responsibility to provide care for others end?
Is it just the american uninsured? What about illegals? Why not all of Mexico or Central America or Brazil etc etc etc?
Message edited by author 2006-11-08 17:31:55.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 05:35:47 PM · #37 |
The problem is simple, as I see it.
situation 1:
people pay X dollars to various insurance companies for the healthcare.
Insurance companies pay Y dollars to healthcare providers to cover expenses for treating all the people.
X >> Y
(>> means considerably larger than)
Situation 2:
people pay Y dollars (from above) to government for insurance. Government pays healthcare providers Y dollars to treat the same number of people.
The same number of people gets treated, by the same healthcare providers, for the same cost.
How dense one has to be to support the system where X >> Y?!?!? |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 05:43:45 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The liberals and conservatives can argue all they want, but this is the reality of life in America. |
What is the healthcare system in Botswana, or the Ukraine, or Iraq? Perhaps Vietnam or North Korea? |
I don't know and I honestly don't care.
Originally posted by Flash:
The "right" thing to do is provide top notch state of the art health care for the entire globe and charge it to america. Where does the responsibility to provide care for others end? |
I'm not talking about "right" or "left", I'm talking about the sad state of affairs when the single most powerful and wealthiest nation on earth does so little for the health of its citizens.
Does anyone (aside from those that are making money hand over fist) think the health care system in the US is in good shape?
Every side, that's liberals AND conservatives, claims to have a solution or be working on it, yet there have been no results from anyone's plan. Remember Hillary Clinton's plan to "fix" health care? How about GW's privatization plan? Neither one has really done diddly-squat.
Message edited by author 2006-11-08 17:47:40. |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 06:06:34 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
How dense one has to be to support the system where X >> Y?!?!? |
I seem to recall reading similiar arguments being voiced circa 1917. A bunch of guys decided that market forces were nothing more than a mechanism for a small group to profit at the expense of society by demanding more money for their goods and services than this particular bunch of guys thought was fair.
It took 72 years before that country wised up and pulled the plug on such notions.
There are plenty of ways to bring the cost of health care down. Cut down on multi-million dollar malpractice litigation, turn up the propaganda on the benefits of exercise, stomp on the food industry and get them to cut portion sizes and the shitter ingredients in their food.
Removing the profit motive is never, never an appropriate course of action. |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 06:47:12 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Removing the profit motive is never, never an appropriate course of action. |
I beg to differ. Also, I did not suggest removing the profit from healthcare providers, who are providing the care after all. Let the doctors earn their share.
Why is the system that makes 3 people rich out of someone's medical problems better than the system that makes 2 people rich?
I did not suggest soviet system (reference to 1917) as it was implemented. I merely suggested that we remove the middle man.
Did you ever purchase something at costco or sam's club? Did you ever go to factory outlet to buy something? Do you consider those establishments communist? They also avoid middle man, and bring you goods at a lower cost by doing this.
Now again, I am recommending having a non-profit organization (make it your church if you are against the government taking care of own country's citizens) handling the funds for healthcare.
Why do you think it can't work? I am not asking why do you think it will never happen in the USA, I know the answer to that, I am just asking why do people think that it cannot work?
I can understand you when you want to go to Iraq for the oil, I appreciate the honesty (although I slightly disagree on the main reasons), but I cannot begin to understand why do you also want the insurance companies to rake billions of $$$ for their own benefit - no oil there?
-Serge |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 06:50:25 PM · #41 |
The "free market" is a crazy utopian dream that doesn't work, just like Communism is. You're just hoisting yourself on your own canard.
What's required are practical compromises with realistic notions of human behavior. Some functions are required to be controlled by the state. Other functions must be regulated by the state. It's not a question of either/or, but of how much. Once you start arguing either/or, you are in Wonderland smoking with the caterpillar.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 06:51:35 PM · #42 |
did anyone find me a surgeon yet? ;o)
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 06:51:44 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
turn up the propaganda on the benefits of exercise, stomp on the food industry and get them to cut portion sizes and the shitter ingredients in their food. |
Realistic compromises! I like it when you're smart! :)
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 07:02:09 PM · #44 |
Sorry to hear your story Talj - sounds horrible.
The NHS can work pretty well. I was diagnosed with a posible broken neck a couple of weeks ago after a car crash - got seen quickly, had every type of scan available (costing the NHS many thousands) and walked out the same day, luckily with nothing found to be badly wrong (and a pocket full of painkillers). When it works, the system works really well, but it all depends on so many factors whether you get a good or a bad experience.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 07:02:10 PM · #45 |
.
Message edited by author 2006-11-08 19:02:23.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 07:08:12 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Sorry to hear your story Talj - sounds horrible.
The NHS can work pretty well. I was diagnosed with a posible broken neck a couple of weeks ago after a car crash - got seen quickly, had every type of scan available (costing the NHS many thousands) and walked out the same day, luckily with nothing found to be badly wrong (and a pocket full of painkillers). When it works, the system works really well, but it all depends on so many factors whether you get a good or a bad experience. |
Glad to hear you are alright Matthew!
Thanks for your post! Tomorrow I am off to beg for a new Aircast boot. I have been in this one since March so 8 months now. I wear it from around 8am to when I go to bed so anything to about 4am. I have tried twice so far and been refused a new one on the grounds that each one I have costs Ă‚Â£150 and they can't spare the money. This one is literally falling to pieces and is adding more pain to that which I already have everyday.
If my doctor can't do anything tomorrow I have 2 options, go to Accident and Emergency and basically demand to be seen (that offers no guarantees) or find somewhere I can buy the boot myself.
The whole process, as far as I'm concerned, stinks and I'm sick of it :o(
Edit for spelling!
Message edited by author 2006-11-08 19:09:30.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 07:17:28 PM · #47 |
The system is politicised - I guess that the reason you cannot join the list is because otherwise the list would be too long for patients to be seen within target times. I don't know if you remember, but TB was challenged at the last election over similar figure fiddling when it was pointed out that targets for doctors' appointments were being met by surgeries refusing to take appointments more than 7 days in advance (thereby ensuring everyone got seen within 7 days of making an appointment).
If something similar is going on for you in being refused entry to a waiting list, then it may be worth writing to your MP and/or the press (tell the hospital in advance).
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 07:22:47 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
The system is politicised - I guess that the reason you cannot join the list is because otherwise the list would be too long for patients to be seen within target times. I don't know if you remember, but TB was challenged at the last election over similar figure fiddling when it was pointed out that targets for doctors' appointments were being met by surgeries refusing to take appointments more than 7 days in advance (thereby ensuring everyone got seen within 7 days of making an appointment).
If something similar is going on for you in being refused entry to a waiting list, then it may be worth writing to your MP and/or the press (tell the hospital in advance). |
Am on it! I spoke with my MP's office today and they will be happy to arrange for him to visit me at home, they are calling tomorrow to arrange a date. I was impressed with how efficient they appeared to be!
My cousin also works for the 'press' and I spoke with him this evening about a 'story'. I am reluctant about both these routes though as I really don't want to be in a newspaper etc BUT if I can't get what I NEED any other way I will have no choice.
You are exactly right about the waiting lists. They refuse to allow me on the list because it is already 'full'. In other words target times would start to look bad if they allowed people in need of treatment on to the list....politics gets in the way of everything!!
Thanks again for posting :o)
Message edited by author 2006-11-08 19:24:27.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 07:47:42 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
I merely suggested that we remove the middle man. |
An admirable notion I guess, but not what you are recommending. You are recommending replacing, not removing, the current middle-man with either the government, or churches, or other non-profits.
Government makes a lousy middle-man. Witness TSA, how bungled FEMA's response was to managing the Katrina crisis, the social security system, the welfare system, etc, etc. In any situation where the choice is between private industry handling the job or the government handling the job, I'd choose private industry.
Originally posted by posthumous:
The "free market" is a crazy utopian dream that doesn't work, just like Communism is. You're just hoisting yourself on your own canard. |
What reasons do you have for saying this? While no economic system is invulnerable to the human trait of dishonesty, free markets have certainly proven their merit. For instance, I don't have to stand in line for hours hoping to be able to buy food staples. I don't live in a mud hut. I am well compensated for my skills. Skills I developed by choosing to invest time and energy for years in the pursuit of a specific area of knowledge. Skills for which demand exceeds supply, and that no government panel has arbitrarily decreed to be worth X dollars an hour.
Free markets don't work, or don't work as well, when the government gets involved. Subsidizing segments of the economy (agriculture), dictating prices on goods, claiming authority over the supply of goods and services.
Business should be about making money. Government should be about providing defense and handling international relations. What's left, the social safety nets that would make the world a better place, should be the realm of churches (what good are these things anyway) and community group/non-profit organizations.
So says I.
Message edited by author 2006-11-08 19:49:11. |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 08:10:57 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by srdanz:
I merely suggested that we remove the middle man. |
An admirable notion I guess, but not what you are recommending. You are recommending replacing, not removing, the current middle-man with either the government, or churches, or other non-profits.
Government makes a lousy middle-man. Witness TSA, how bungled FEMA's response was to managing the Katrina crisis, the social security system, the welfare system, etc, etc. In any situation where the choice is between private industry handling the job or the government handling the job, I'd choose private industry.
|
I think that we are getting somewhere here. (Not that our conversation will change anything in this world, but it is fun to exchange thoughts with other intelligent beings every once in a while). I want to get rid of the unnecessary expense in the middle, that is comparable in size to the original healthcare expense.
Can you explain why is is necessary to have such huge cost overhead of private industry? Why not expand the Medicare/Medicaid concept to the wide population - it exists, it is managed by the government (still) and it could work?
You are rejecting the notion that the government can do a good job by looking at one of the most corrupt governments in the world these days. Here is where we should perhaps consider hanging criminals, too. Maybe that would send a message that they are not there to steal, but to perform services.
On the other hand, you are suggesting that private industry can handle the job better. Like Enron?
C'mon, I stated that I realize that it can never happen here. But, given honest people in the government, this could work. The government would be responsible to people, while you can never force the private companies to respond to people. And no, free market and offers of services by multiple companies don't cut it either.
-Serge
ps. I don't think that all diseases in this country come from eating cheeseburgers with supersized cokes and fries. There are some other diseases out there, exercise isn't going to save us. |
|
