Is it just me? health insurance related
- 06-16-2009, 01:14 PM
Is it just me? health insurance related
Sebelius' comments came after disappointing cost estimates for health care legislation by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. The Congressional Budget Office released estimates that the bill would cost about $1 trillion over 10 years and only cover about one-third of the nearly 50 million uninsuredAnimis Rep
- 06-16-2009, 01:18 PM
- 06-16-2009, 01:25 PM
Don't worry.. the unconstitutional federal reserve will print notes to sell to china to pay for it... now what to do when china doesn't buy our worthless bonds?
AdamsThe Historic PES Legend
06-16-2009, 01:49 PM
06-16-2009, 01:57 PM
06-16-2009, 02:34 PM
06-17-2009, 08:40 PM
06-18-2009, 08:10 AM
The Historic PES Legend
06-18-2009, 09:05 AM
06-18-2009, 09:22 AM
i got one for you.........
Dirtball drug addict and alcoholic tries to kill himself, nearly succeeds btw.
Anywho, as they were trying to save his life pumping his stomach they messed up somehow and got into his lungs.................Anyways, hes alive and working, but last i heard he was sueing for 400,000 dollars...........
EPIC FAIL for Darwinism
06-18-2009, 09:25 AM
oh and btw, the new estimates are covering 13 million people (so now 1/4 of the 50 million who are in such desparate need) for a cost of 1.6 trillion over 10 years, or 160 billion a year, or over 10k per person per year.
06-18-2009, 12:23 PM
I have a question that I will ask here....it's not off topic very much as it pertains to health insurance and money.
What if we fixed it by getting rid of insurance all together?
A market can only exist if there are people willing to pay for it right? If I made a widget and tried to sell it for $200 but people thought it was too much, I wouldn't sell any. I would need to drop the price to make it more attractive. If someone else offered a widget and a cheaper price, people may go there unless I lower mine too. It's basic free market competition.
Now in the instance of healthcare, we pay $50 a week for insurance. Then you have deductables. Then if something major happens the insurance cover only so much and you're still screwed with a huge bill. Some people have more than one insurance just to cover that!
Maybe the problem isn't that not enough people have insurance or "enough" insurance...maybe insurance IS the problem.
Maybe insurance with it's paperwork mess and willingness to pay $200 for a band-aid and $500 for aspirin has artificially inflated the prices past a substainable point.
I know some things ARE more expensive with insurance. There was one pill I was on and it was $144 a bottle, with insurance I paid $20. After a recent layoff I lost my insurance and had my doctor change it....a generic version that was $4. The same thing, just A hell of a lot cheaper. Now if "A" makes the same thing as "B" but "A" charges $20 and "B" charges $4, most consumers would go to "B". "A" would be force to drop the price to get customers back. Yet insurance is willing to pay the $20 to "A" thus "A" is able to sustain.
If you ask a doctor why office visits are so much...insurance. They have theirs, the staff, malpractice, etc.
Hospitals...a year or so ago my wife didn't feel well (facial numbness and dizzy)and went to the ER. She laid in the back for FIVE hours and other than a nurse poking her head in evey halr hour or so to ask if she was OK, nobody did anything. We finally just left because my wife decided if she was going to lay around and have a stroke/die she was doing it at home. The bill was over $1000...for NOTHING!
I had a buddy several years ago break his back. A doctor walked in and grabbed his toe and asked if he felt it...that is all...and charged $600 for wiggling his toe!!!!
Needless to say, the problem is things are OVERPRICED! Why? Insurance usually pays it and leave you the rest! The market have been sustained due to willingness on behalf of insurance to pay $200 for the $50 widget.
And because prices went high enough, soon the people who didn't have/want insurance NEEDED it.
Now, if insurance suddenly went the way of the Dodo, if prices stayed high, the majoity of people would not be able to afford go to the doctor or buy medicine and the market would have to adapt by lowering prices to a level where the product is affordable to the customer and market sustainable.
06-18-2009, 12:26 PM
that only works if you view healthcare as your responsibility to maintain (say by eating healthy and exercising), rather than some intrinsic right
06-18-2009, 12:45 PM
06-18-2009, 01:00 PM
06-18-2009, 01:10 PM
06-18-2009, 01:10 PM
Here is pulled from a Calgary Paper
Canadians receive poor value for health-care dollars
The beginning of May marks the end of income tax season in Canada. While the task of completing our personal tax returns and the size of those tax bills slowly fades from our memories, some Canadians may find themselves taking solace in a belief that their taxes (of which income taxes make up about one-third for the average Canadian family) at least purchased a high-quality, universal access health-care program.
Unfortunately, Canadian taxpayers are not receiving the same sort of value that their counterparts in other nations are when it comes to universally accessible health care, despite the fact nearly 60 per cent of personal income taxes paid in aggregate are required to cover the cost of Canada's taxpayer-funded health-care program.
First things first: Canadians are funding the developed world's second most expensive universal access health insurance system. On an age-adjusted basis (older people require more care) in the most recent year for which comparable data are available, only Iceland spent more on universal access health insurance system than Canada as a share of GDP, while Switzerland spent as much as Canada. The other 25 developed nations which maintain universal health insurance programs spent less than we did; as much as 38 per cent less as a percentage of GDP in the case of Japan.
With that level of expenditure, you might expect that Canadians receive world-class access to health care. The evidence finds this is not so.
Consider the case of waiting lists. In 2008, the median wait time from general practitioner referral to treatment by a specialist was 17.3 weeks in Canada. Despite substantial increases in both health spending and federal cash transfers to the provinces for health care over the last decade or so, that wait time was 45 per cent longer than the overall median wait time of 11.9 weeks back in 1997. It was 86 per cent longer than the overall median wait time of 9.3 weeks back in 1993.
Canada's waiting lists are also, according to the available evidence, among the longest in the developed world. For example, a 2007 survey of individuals in seven nations, six of whom maintain universal access health insurance programs, published in the journal Health Affairs found that: - Canadians are more likely to experience waiting times of more than six months for elective surgery than Australians, Germans, the Dutch, and New Zealanders, but slightly less likely than patients in the United Kingdom; and were least likely among the six nations to wait less than one month for elective surgery; - Canadians are most likely to wait six days or longer to see a doctor when ill, and are least likely to receive an appointment the same day or next day among the six universal access nations surveyed; and - Canadians are least likely to wait less than one hour and most likely to wait two hours or more for access to an emergency room among the six universal access nations surveyed.
That is hardly the sort of access you might expect from the developed world's second-most-expensive universal access health insurance system.
By comparison, seven developed nations--Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, and Switzerland --maintain universal access health insurance programs that deliver access to health care without queues for treatment.
Access to medical technologies is also relatively poor in Canada. In a recent comparison of age-adjusted inventories of medical technologies, Canada ranked 14th of 25 nations for which data were available in MRI machines per million population, 19th of 26 nations in CT scanners per million population, eighth of 21 in mammographs per million population, and tied for second last among 21 nations in lithotripters per million population. Clearly, Canada's relatively high expenditures are neither buying quick access to care nor are they buying high-tech health-care services for the population.
Governmental restrictions on medical training, along with a number of other policies affecting the practices of medical practitioners, have also taken their toll on Canadians' access to care. Among 28 developed nations that maintain universal approaches to health insurance, a recent comparison found Canada ranked 26th in the age-adjusted number of physicians per thousand population. It should come as no surprise that Statistics Canada determined that nearly 1.7 million Canadians aged 12 or older could not find a regular physician in 2007.
While our taxes can and do pay for important and valuable services for all Canadians, we need to critically assess whether we are receiving value for the dollars we are spending.
In the case of health care, Canadians are paying for a world-class health-care system but are not receiving one in return.
Hopefully, this knowledge will encourage Canadians to think more carefully about the need for substantial reform of Canada's failing approach to health-care policy.
Nadeem Esmail Is The Director Of Health System Performance Studies At The Fraser Institute.
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
The Historic PES Legend
06-18-2009, 01:21 PM
Here is the WHO ranking Canada #30, and the United States #37, in terms of overall quality of care - so yes, it is comparable, or better, than private-sector care.
Another, and for Easy:
http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1Of 10 studies that included extensive statistical adjustment and enrolled broad populations, 5 favoured Canada, 2 favoured the United States, and 3 showed equivalent or mixed results. Of 28 studies that failed one of these criteria, 9 favoured Canada, 3 favoured the United States, and 16 showed equivalent or mixed results. Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada (relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.92-0.98, p= 0.002) but were very heterogeneous, and we failed to find convincing explanations for this heterogeneity. The only condition in which results consistently favoured one country was end-stage renal disease, in which Canadian patients fared better.
Interpretation: Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent.
So obviously Easy, a systematic review of case studies showing either superior or equal healthcare is not a "moot point".
06-18-2009, 01:27 PM
I seriously cannot believe you quoted the WHO for your reference. The most politically driven organization in the healthcare industry.
I don't care to defend our system, i think it needs to be reworked. Repeal the regulations that cause the problems, repeal medicare/caid, and banish the frivolous lawsuits that bank multi millions. The US Health Industry isn't perfect, and the reason it gets a black eye is because people dont want to take control of their own health care, instead they want it handed to them.United States Health Care ranking
June 6th, 2008 | by Brian Schwartz |
WHO distorted“Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, noted that the United States invests more on health care than any country, but that its health care system ranks 37th.” - Denver Post, April 29 2008
A Google search reveals that many people quote this World Health Organization figure on Denver Post blogs. But do any of them know what the rankings mean? John Stossel dissects the criteria:
In the WHO rankings, the United States finished 37th, behind nations like Morocco, Cyprus and Costa Rica. Finishing first and second were France and Italy. Michael Moore makes much of this in his movie “Sicko.” …
But there’s less to these studies than meets the eye. They measure something other than quality of medical care. So saying that the U.S. finished behind those other countries is misleading. …
The WHO judged a country’s quality of health on life expectancy. But that’s a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That’s not a health-care problem. …
When you adjust for these “fatal injury” rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.
Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy.
Another reason the U.S. didn’t score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it’s crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how “fairly” health care of any quality is “distributed.” The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but “unequal distribution” would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.
Other good critiques of the WHO study include Glen Whitman, who blogs about it here and published a summary here, which also links a more detailed Cato policy analysis here.
The Historic PES Legend
06-18-2009, 01:32 PM
As I said, I really do not care about the U.S., system, but your and Easy's points about the Canadian system are out-and-out false. I have apparently misunderstood coverage denial, but that does nothing to detract from the main point.
We can trade data all day, but, generally, those are the results I have seen from countless studies.
06-18-2009, 01:36 PM
Also left out on the WHO are the fact that the US is the only country with a significant sizable military (again, so young 18-26 year old fatalities are higher, making the average lifespan appear lower) and that infants who are born prematurely in the US and die as infants affect that number hugely as in most of those other countries those children are counted as miscarriages or stillborn, so do NOT affect average life expectancy.
And please read "Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent." May. not are, May. given what it costs you in taxation + GDP % and growth, and given the differences in so much of the rest of the population base, theres nothing conclusively showing that universal health care is better for any group other than the non-producing non-useful segment of society, the people living on state provided kraft dinners.
06-18-2009, 01:37 PM
The Historic PES Legend
06-18-2009, 01:42 PM
The fact is Canada's system needs reform, as does the United States system. But with a considerable body of data showing that Canada's system is equal to - or in certain situations, superior to - the American system, stating the opposite is simply not true.
At any rate, I can understand why you both endorse a private-sector system, and, as Easy said, it stems from differences between the countries themselves. No point in continuing to argue what we both "feel" is right.
06-18-2009, 01:45 PM
06-18-2009, 01:50 PM
No systems is "green grass and rainbows", but I would rather have an honest discussion about something. You said something that I felt was not true, and I provided evidence for why I felt it was not true. The only difference between us is that you are getting your ego in a huff and blown-up over a simple disagreement.The fact is Canada's system needs reform, as does the United States system.
06-18-2009, 01:51 PM
I as well don't think that the US healthcare is without need of changes, but universal health care isn't either the best choice, or realistically affordable by us as a country. When the cost will come to over $10,000 per uninsured person per year, we need to take a far far far closer look at the math as the private industry will cover a family of 4 for less than that.
06-18-2009, 01:53 PM
You constantly preach from high on your rock, and most honestly find it condescending, and annoying. Now please, retort my post with words that only exceed 12 characters long to try and crucify me to my proverbial cross.
The Historic PES Legend
06-18-2009, 01:54 PM
I completely agree. Something that is feasible in the scope of 30 million may not be on the scope of 300 million. I was never arguing that Universal is superior to private-sector, Easy. We were comparing relative care for the citizens of each country, and you said something I felt was false. So, in the context of care for Canadian Citizens, I defended the system. In no way I am saying the U.S., should adopt this type of system, or that it is viable for every nation.I as well don't think that the US healthcare is without need of changes, but universal health care isn't either the best choice, or realistically affordable by us as a country. When the cost will come to over $10,000 per uninsured person per year, we need to take a far far far closer look at the math as the private industry will cover a family of 4 for less than that.
06-18-2009, 02:00 PM
Whats interesting in some ways is that the socialistic system in canada can enjoy a useful life a good bit longer than in most other countries due to canadas "youth" as a country and significant amount of natural resources and space to expand. Socialistic policies work decently at any point where you can continue to pull more natural resources and continue population growth whether by births or by immigration. Its when you reach germany's point of declining population and relatively maximized out resources and space that the socialistic policies show the worst of their weaknesses. If the population isn't growing then you have negative GDP growth yet with longer lifespans you have higher cost of maintaining your non-working population both in terms of food + healthcare. Not a good combo.
06-18-2009, 02:07 PM
06-23-2009, 10:13 AM
They also rate equality of health care higher or better than health care which is more variable, roughly meaning equally distributed ****ty health care rates 'better' in their study's methods than unevenly distributed but universally higher quality care. They also rate life span without correcting for nonhealthcare related issues that affect life span, which is rather convenient if you're the nation with a higher death toll due to car accidents, military deaths, and other nonhealthcare related deaths. Infant mortality is another bull**** figure because we bring more problematic pregnancies to term in the US than in other countries. We have higher infant mortality because more high risk kids are born here that would die in the womb or get aborted in other countries.
So, relative opinions on the health care systems aside, the WHO report is a load of steaming bull**** that literally begs its own conclusions in various areas and deliberately uses slanted data. Using it for birdcage liner would do it too much respect. Quoting it as some kind of authority means you either haven't read it or are deliberately or through ignorance overlooking massive errors and biases that present.
06-23-2009, 10:22 AM
You are aware that just under half the health care costs raised and settled in the US anually are paid by the government through our own single payer systems Medicare and Medicaid, correct? You are aware that the majority of the rest of the system is a third party payment system, mostly subsidized by employers via the government mandated HMO Act, which itself was a reaction to the situation that arose after WWII when the government froze wages and forced employers to offer other 'benefits' to compete for employees, and then the government made those benefits tax deductable for companies but not individuals essentially forcing the whole country into employer subsidized third party payment or government care, correct? You are aware that it is the government at the state and federal levels which stops proper risk tiering and mandates coverage for uninsurable conditions, as well as de facto outlaws a la carte coverage, correct? Yoiu are aware that it is the AMA via government mandate which essentially controls the supply of doctors in the US, correct?
If so, please explain to me what kind of massively twisted and distorted view of the world one must have in order to view the US system as a 'private sector' system.
06-23-2009, 10:25 AM
You know, I could almost (really not quite, but much closer) be behind a universal catastrophic only coverage plan. It would be a lot cheaper at least than full sniffles/headaches/prescription coverage.
damn bush for medicare part D
06-23-2009, 10:41 AM
In terms of expenditures, the U.S., expenditure for its system is equal to the amount, or exceeds the amount, that Canada spends as a percentage of GPD, Easy.Now, what do these statements mean? Two things: a) I am fully aware of the exorbitant involvement of the U.S., Government in Health Care provision, the substantially greater % of GDP the U.S., government spends on health care provision compared to Canada, and the per-capita tax cost; and b) I was making a statement about what both Easy and Adams would ideally like the system to be [private sector] - i.e., they were both criticizing the current [and predominantly] single payer system in favor of a completely privatized system. (This means they were "endorsing" it.) To that end, I understood and, to a certain degree, agreed with their motivation. Easy and Adams were pointing out the inadequacies in the current U.S., system, and promoting an all for-profit method; I saw their motivation.At any rate, I can understand why you both endorse a private-sector system, and, as Easy said, it stems from differences between the countries themselves. No point in continuing to argue what we both "feel" is right.
You may want to fully consider statements before acting pompous.
06-23-2009, 11:23 AM
06-23-2009, 11:26 AM
another option would be to "criminalize" risky behaviors IF you are accepting the safety net. Ever read the book Holy Fire by bruce sterling?
06-23-2009, 11:26 AM
06-23-2009, 11:31 AM
On the issue as a whole: I agree with your hypothetical plan above; I have no qualms with it whatsoever. My original criticism stemmed from the warped operation of the U.S's current system, and my defense of the Canadian system was based on the two as-of-now.
My only concerns with a la carte coverage would be transparency; however, "transparency" is usually government-mandated, and this may have unintended consequences on the market.
06-23-2009, 11:37 AM
Don't like the idea of criminalizing the behaviors. At root that means you accept the government's role in the area as legitimate, not one of necessary but minimal evil. That's one of the reasons why we're in our current state anyway. We ceded power over health care to the government. Now because 'we' bear the burden of health care 'we' have to have our options restricted and our lives intruded upon.
06-23-2009, 11:42 AM
its science fiction, but the relationship is that people are able to have life extending medical procedures but how many / how often is dictated partially by you NOT doing risky behaviors.
I'm not sure about criminalizing, but my problem with any universal coverage of any sort is that I dislike paying a premium for someone who (for instance) smokes cigarettes, eats wrong, etc.
Similar Forum Threads
- By Mrs. Gimpy! in forum General ChatReplies: 2Last Post: 10-21-2008, 12:02 PM
- By alinestra in forum General ChatReplies: 5Last Post: 10-19-2006, 04:54 PM
- By Aaliyah in forum General ChatReplies: 10Last Post: 09-10-2006, 09:31 PM
- By DmitryWI in forum General ChatReplies: 15Last Post: 05-04-2006, 08:08 AM
- By jasser in forum General ChatReplies: 0Last Post: 04-08-2006, 11:36 PM