I’d not trade ours for yours but I would take the best of yours and incorporate it in to ours. I like the mixture of public and private healthcare, I like the fact that we have a independent body that assesses the efficacy of treatments as and when they become available, and determine which will be funded publically but do not prevent you from paying for it privately if you see fit where they do not approve it…They had an excellent record up until last week when the broke in to quacktitioner territory…but thats another story…
“Here in the UK people complain about the NHS all the time. This is probably healthy, we need to keep them on their toes. However, we must love it because it’s impossible to get elected unless you pledge to maintain or increase it. For me the benefit is perhaps something that isn’t in the statistics above. I don’t need to think about insurance, I don’t need to worry if I’m covered for different types of operation or drugs. When it comes to health I know that it’ll just get sorted. This is a kind of peace of mind that is incredibly valuable to me.”
Decent health care should be a right, not a privilege. Stop spending $$$ on needless wars, TARP, bailouts…
For me, the thing that bewilders me about U.S. politics, is why you’re not out on the streets marching - both parties - over the ridiculous amounts of money your government spends for so little benefit. Any reconstruction of the U.S. health system needs to begin with the simple question: “Where the fuck is all that money going.” Unless you can answer that and stop the rot, you’ll have the same problems regardless of having universal health care or not.
Which really has been my point all along. The stats are not all that different from the US to any other country. Obviously since we do not have “universal” healthcare we will suffer in that area as far as stats. But in many other areas we rank pretty similarly.
Looking at “what we spend per capita” we spend as much per capita to cover JUST the people covered by public coverage as the other countries spend to cover EVERYONE. This obviously does not bode well for “Government lowering cost”.
TRuly unless we can nail down were the money is going now we will be doing nothing but exchanging one master for another.
I like the idea of “mixing” as well but would rather it be private only. I see no need to put the government into the “insurance business” if the private sector can agree to a few general terms.
Although in my perfect world “universal coverage” would not be “Mandated” I realize we don’t live in my world and that most people believe health care is a right.
If private companies agree to cover everyone and are willing to do so on some “Sliding scale” and at the same time agree to the “Terms of coverage” set out by a similar board as the UK, again I see no need for “public” coverage.
It’s frightening enough to think that a good 12-15% of the GDP has been handed over to the government in the last 6 months. It’s even more disconcerting to realize that by 2010 the combined spending of government will reach around 45% of GDP…I’m just not real crazy about handing over another 15%…you know cause they’re doing such a fine job with what they have
Mostly I just think it's a great time to create another expensive govt. program...I mean, you know, we have lots of extra money and all. You think this may be part of what Obama meant recently when he enumerated what has been done (spent) so far by his admin, then said "you ain't seen nothin' yet!"?
Looking at “what we spend per capita” we spend as much per capita to cover JUST the people covered by public coverage as the other countries spend to cover EVERYONE. This obviously does not bode well for “Government lowering cost”.
I don’t doubt that. We have a very sophisicated healthcare system in the US. It hardly compares with the French system where everyone is covered but at a MUCH lower cost because the expensive stuff is just not available. The French have the “cradle to grave” mentality - the government does what it can to help and take care everyone. I just don’t see this working in the US.
I think that everyone in US who are not covered - or have poor coverage-think that a new healthcare system will bring them up to a "good’level and those who have coverage think that they will find themselves with less then they have (which is scary).
Decent health care should be a right, not a privilege. Stop spending $$$ on needless wars, TARP, bailouts…
Yet another one with no clue. Heath care is NOT and should NOT be a right. YOU may not be an abuser of the system - but many are. MOST of the ED visits are abuse any more.
It is time we stop spending money on Welfare and hand outs…make people work and earn what they have. Wait, was that mean? If someone has two arms and two legs - they can work (of course there are other conditions that will preclude this). If someone can rob a store, they can work. If they can loot a liquor store, they can work. If they can beat their wife, they can work. You can play all the feel good trash you want about “those poor people” - the fact is that those poor people grew up on hand outs, will die and hand outs and have kids who will all do the same. They will end up in jail or in the ED…either way - those of us who did play by the rules, dont live a life of crime and try to do well for ourselves will still pay for them.
TRuly unless we can nail down were the money is going now we will be doing nothing but exchanging one master for another.
A few elephants in the room are the salaries that doctors make (2x other developed countries), drug companies and others pushing product, malpractice fees, inefficient bureaucracy, etc. You can be assured that these special interests are not going to allow their slice of the pie to be cut… which is why I don’t expect anything (good) to happen.
A few elephants in the room are the salaries that doctors make (2x other developed countries)
I don’t think this is correct. From other conversations with AndrewMC, IIRC, salaries in the UK are similar to those in the US. I would suspect that if that wasn’t the case we’d have a whole bunch of UK doctors here rather than Indians ones
drug companies and others pushing product
I can agree with this to a point. I also think it points to a larger “CYA” problem we have to avoid your malpractice point. Doctors prescribe medicines, procedures, tests etc that simply are not necessary to avoid any possibility of being sued for not doing something.
inefficient bureaucracy,
Absolutely. I was told many years ago by people that were hospital administrator level that for every hour a doc sees a patient that 10 hours of paper work were generated. I just heard an add from IBM this AM claiming that 25% of the cost of our health care is paper work and administration.
Without doubt the reason for this needs to be nailed down and solved…call me skeptical but I don’t see the kind of bureaucracy, the US government, making this problem “Better”.
I think the big issue is that we have to start looking at healthcare as a return on investment rather than a “Right” under every circumstance. You simply can’t continue the technological advances we have and apply those to every patient under every circumstance, resources simply won’t allow it. At some point you have to say “This is not a good investment” as cold and as caloused as that sounds.
Yet another one with no clue. Heath care is NOT and CAN NOT be a right.
I fixed it for you. Simply stated a right can not depend on the labor of another. Doing so takes away the rights of the individual providing the labor which is inherently infringing on their constitutional rights.
One could argue “Then don’t be a doctor, drug maker etc etc” But the fact of the matter is that SOMEONE has to do those jobs and as soon as they do they no longer have any rights to control their own income.
when the public gets to rob the treasury by voting, they will always define it as, approximately, whatever it takes to get healthy again.
that simply can not be afforded by most countries, and will be harder to afford in the future.
lots of things would be nice to have
but can we afford them? even if we magically eliminated wasteful spending?
Decent health care should be a right, not a privilege. Stop spending $$$ on needless wars, TARP, bailouts…
Look at we we do spend/waste money on, stop, and spend that money on healthcare. For bailouts and wars there is always a buck. Why does the average Joe always come last? I spend 4K+ on healthcare for my family and my company also takes a hit. Surely there has to be a better way.
I spend 4K+ on healthcare for my family and my company also takes a hit. Surely there has to be a better way.
I’m not arguing that there is a better way, but I’m always interested to here what people believe healthcare “Should” cost. Also if someone else is willing to pay more or less should they have more or less services available to them?
I think most certainly prices and cost can be lowered. However I don’t think prices can be lowered significantly without limiting or altering services.
You can have availability to many multiple of million dollar machines at any time without paying for it. If you’re willing to forgo that availability then you shouldn’t have to pay for it.
You pay a $400 per month amount or less for healthcare coverage for your family and you think that is excessive. You must be in the entitlement camp if you think that is a lot. Be careful what you ask for. Your employer sponsored plan sounds like a sweet deal. Or maybe you are like all the other lemmings who would rather pay $10,000 in additional hidden (or not) taxes for “free” healthcare.
You pay a $400 per month amount or less for healthcare coverage for your family and you think that is excessive.
Me? No, that is what the person I was responding too was paying, thus the question “How much should we be paying?”
If 400$ a month was all that a person had to pay for a family that seems cheap to me considering the level of health care we receive. I’d guess the posters employer probably pays considerably more in addition to why the poster pays.
We have a fairly low cost HSA with high deductible here and family coverage is still in the 700-800$ range in a low cost area.
It would be interesting to have a “Cross sample” of “How much should health care cost”. I’d bet some people believe it should be free while others are willing to pay quite a bit for it.
Entitlement? What I want is more of a say on how my tax dollars are being spent, isn’t that democracy in action? How much are people paying in Canada and in the UK for complete coverage? The way I look at it over 30% of my pay check goes to the govt. I’d be happier if .5% of that 30% goes to cover my families medical bills and that .5% represents a lot more then what I am paying for health insurance today. If that happened I might even startup my own business again, generate some additional revenue and hire some employees.
It will not cost just .5%…that is the point - it will be more expensive than you can imaging. It will cost you more than it costs you today…I love how people really believe the US govt can provide healthcare coverage cheaper…unbelievable.
Why doesn’t the Obama administration put out a specific plan with specific costs? All I hear is billions for a “down payment”…
I tell you what, once the Feds get a grip on Medicare and then we can consider govt healthcare for everyone. If they cannot control cost here, then no way in hell.
I love how people really believe the US govt can provide healthcare coverage cheaper…unbelievable.
I think the OP’s article refutes that belief pretty well. The US government is spending nearly as much per capita but only covering a portion of the population as almost every other country is spending to cover the entire population.
In fact if I did my numbers correctly private insurance is significantly cheaper than public insurance.
From HERE
*The number of people with health insurance increased by 2.0 million to 245.3 million between 2003 and 2004, and the number without such coverage rose by 800,000 to 45.8 million. *(Note total population from these numbers would be 291.1 million)
*The percentage of people covered by government health insurance programs rose in 2004, from 26.6 percent to 27.2 percent, driven by increases in the percentage of people with Medicaid coverage, from 12.4 percent in 2003 to 12.9 percent in 2004. *
Combine these two number with the numbers from the OP’s article. Cost per capita for those on Public insurance 2727$. That comes out to 10,251 per person on public insurance. Cost per capita on private 2572$. That comes to 4460$ per person on private insurance.
Again if I’m doing the numbers righ the US government is spending 226% more per person than th private sector is.
Holy crap if I’m understanding these numbers right we could save in the neighborhood of 450 Billion dollars a year by simply putting all the people on public insurance into the private system.
