fmccap Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I receive no government healthcare benefits so yes, I can compare them. You can't lump them together with what the country spends, because we are comparing the cost of the private vs. the government option. I'm covered for things that I don't need; psychiatric care and pregnancy are the first ones that come to mind, but also in my State every health insurance policy must cover the costs of certain procedures (pap smears, breast exams, etc) at 100%. It doesn't make sense that, since I'm a male, that I must be covered for pap smears. Since you seem to have all the numbers or can easily acsess them could you tell me what % of the total US health care costs are private and what % are government? I believe the government part is over 50%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Affordable Health Care Shouldn't we ask ourselves whether we want the politicians who brought us the "affordable" housing, that created the current financial debacle, to now deliver us affordable health care? Of course, if socialized medicine becomes a reality here, Americans can do as many Brits do. Mrs. Easton says, "more than 70,000 Britons -- known as 'health tourists' -- have gone as far as India, Malaysia and South Africa for major operations. This figure is expected to rise to almost 200,000 by the end of the decade." We have health care problems in the U.S. but it's not because ours is a free market system of health care delivery. Well over 50 percent of all health care expenditures are made by government. Where government spends, government regulates. It's truly amazing that Americans who are dissatisfied with the current level of socialized medicine in the U.S. are asking for more of what created the problem in the first place. Anyone thinking that an American version of socialized health care will differ from that found in Canada, Britain, Sweden, France and elsewhere are whistling Dixie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 Since you seem to have all the numbers or can easily acsess them could you tell me what % of the total US health care costs are private and what % are government? I believe the government part is over 50%. The most recent article I've seen says that of the total U.S. healthcare system cost (in 2006), the government portion represented 46%. The following is a graph from another article: I haven't found the basis for this calculation, some other stories have alluded to the fact that private insurance is often paid with pre-tax dollars, and count this as a government expenditure, which I find fault with since the money in question was the wage earner's (and not the government's) to start with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Ford Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 No, because the government isn't worried about profit, they can be more efficient. They don't need a margin on the top. The government is intentionally providing a non-equilibrium output, by definition it is intentionally being inefficient. If the government taking over the majority of an industry and running it non profit made things more efficient, everything should be taken over and run non-profit. And the Soviet Union would have won the cold war. And we'd have to rewrite some fundamental and well established principals of macroeconomics concerning incentives and the efficiency of equilibrium output. Efficiency is not a consideration. That doesn't make it wrong or bad, only inefficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Ok...the government can fund things efficiently...they can run others efficiently. That's why they fund health in many places and that's why the run public safety That doesn't mean that they should be doing everything. In most countries, healthcare is a right, and a public service. Why that hasn't come to pass yet in the US is something that I find strange...well...I know why it is, it's because the US one of the world's more conservative countries...but, even Switerland has a form of public healthcare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I haven't found the basis for this calculation, some other stories have alluded to the fact that private insurance is often paid with pre-tax dollars, and count this as a government expenditure, which I find fault with since the money in question was the wage earner's (and not the government's) to start with. From the figures I've seen, that looks about right. It's interesting to note that most countries with a universal system only cover 20 - 30% more of the total cost. The biggest problem with the US system (and ours to a degree in comparison to France and the United Kingdom) is that it is expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadtrip Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) Let's hope that when the government takes over the healthcare industry, it will do a better job of running it than it does with running the Veterans Affairs health centers: VA officials grilled over botched colonoscopies WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawmakers sharply criticized the Veterans Affairs Department on Tuesday about why a national scare over botched colonoscopies earlier this year didn't prompt stronger safeguards at the agency's medical centers.. . . The strong reaction came as the agency's inspector general reported that fewer than half of VA facilities selected for surprise inspections last month had proper training and guidelines in place. That was months after the VA launched a nationwide safety campaign over the discovery of errors at facilities in Miami, Augusta, Ga., and Murfreesboro, Tenn., that could have exposed veterans to HIV and other infections. John Daigh, VA's assistant inspector general who led the review, said the findings "troubled me greatly." "We think there are systemic issues," Daigh said. . . . The VA has said — through self-reporting from individual facilities — that it believes errors were limited to the centers in the three states. But the inspector general report suggests otherwise. In surprise inspections at 42 randomly selected medical centers on May 13 and 14, investigators found that only 43 percent had standard operating procedures in place for the specific equipment in use and could show they properly trained their staffs for using the devices. . . . I'm sure the way the government has cared for its veterans' health in this example was just a fluke (as were the government's treatment of vets in other instances, i.e., the Walter Reed Army Hospital scandal, Gulf War Syndrome, Post Traumatic Stress Disorders, Agent Orange exposure, etc.). Nah, this should in no way be a reflection of how we can expect the government to care for ordinary citizens' health. As I said, "Let's hope. . ." We can hope, right? After all, President Obama did campaign on a promise of hope. So we've got hope going for us. Edited June 17, 2009 by Roadtrip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 And I wonder what the numbers would be for private facilities? They are both human systems, and problems will occur. Now that the problem has been found though, it will hopefully be fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 And again, under the US proposal, the government won't be providing care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadtrip Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 And I wonder what the numbers would be for private facilities? Red herring. If the same circumstances occurred in private facilities, you can bet there would be a MAJOR malpractice suit, probably rising to the level of class action (with unimaginable jury awards given the HIV and Hepatitis B and C infections involved). As a result, private facilities are much more careful, given their sensitivity to such risks. Conversely, government facilities don't care so much -- and they don't need to -- since it's nearly impossible to sue the federal government. And if malfeasance or malpractice or inadherence to specified practices are discovered through an internal audit, there's no effective recourse. Try firing an incompetent government employee sometime. They are both human systems, and problems will occur. Now that the problem has been found though, it will hopefully be fixed. Stated in pure bureaucratese -- glossing over the problem by saying that it will "hopefully" be fixed. I'd love to hear you say see you saying that to any one of the veterans -- who have no legal recourse -- who went to the hospital for a simple medical procedure and came away infected by HIV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Just a quick reminder... Maybe things in Canada aren't perfect after all... or maybe they are, on average. The Ugly Truth about Canadian Health Care QUOTE America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use, and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health. Americans live 75.3 years on average, fewer than Canadians (77.3) or the French (76.6) or the citizens of any Western European nation save Portugal. Health care influences life expectancy, of course. But a life can end because of a murder, a fall, or a car accident. Such factors aren’t academic—homicide rates in the United States are much higher than in other countries (eight times higher than in France, for instance). In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don’t die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country. And if we measure a health-care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates bear this out. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50 percent; the European rate is just 35 percent. Esophageal carcinoma: 12 percent in the United States, 6 percent in Europe. The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2 percent here, yet 61.7 percent in France and down to 44.3 percent in England—a striking variation. Like many critics of American health care, though, Krugman argues that the costs are just too high: “In 2002 . . . the United States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman, and child.” Health-care spending in Canada and Britain, he notes, is a small fraction of that. Again, the picture isn’t quite as clear as he suggests; because the U.S. is so much wealthier than other countries, it isn’t unreasonable for it to spend more on health care. Take America’s high spending on research and development. M. D. Anderson in Texas, a prominent cancer center, spends more on research than Canada does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadtrip Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 And again, under the US proposal, the government won't be providing care. Evidently, you are much better at suspending disbelief than I am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) Just a quick reminder... Maybe things in Canada aren't perfect after all... or maybe they are, on average. The Ugly Truth about Canadian Health Care QUOTE Who ever said that things were perfect? Also, Canadians live more than 80 years on average now. This article must be old. Oh, and since the article starts out with a lie, by calling the system socialized, I have trouble believing any of the rest of it....not to mention that we've already seen pieces of it. No one here pretends that Canada has all the answers. There are problems with our system, and most jurisdictions are working to address them. I can't really ask for much more. Edited June 17, 2009 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 So I assume then that the American system is perfect, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Evidently, you are much better at suspending disbelief than I am. There are very few nations that follow a government provided model...i.e, Socialized Medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Red herring. No, it's not. You have not shown the numbers for comparison when it comes to private facilities. There are problems in every system, but which has more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadtrip Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 No, it's not. You have not shown the numbers for comparison when it comes to private facilities. There are problems in every system, but which has more? Yes it is. It's a qualitative distinction. Victims of medical malpractice in the private system have remedies available in the form of lawsuits. Victims of medical malpractice in the public system (in this case, the government-run VA system) have no such remedies. When they are subjected to malpractice in the government-run healthcare system, they have no other recourse than to just take it up the ass (don't get excited -- it's a metaphor). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Ford Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Ok...the government can fund things efficiently...they can run others efficiently. That's why they fund health in many places and that's why the run public safety That doesn't mean that they should be doing everything. In most countries, healthcare is a right, and a public service. Why that hasn't come to pass yet in the US is something that I find strange...well...I know why it is, it's because the US one of the world's more conservative countries...but, even Switerland has a form of public healthcare. I never said it would be a mess, only that it is less efficient than private alternative, as with anything else. Even a subsidy is less efficient just because it results in non-equilibrium output. Does that invalidate arguments for universal health coverage? No, only claims that it would be more efficient than the alternative. I don't think universal health care is something like education, security forces, treasury, etc that will have far reaching benefits in excess of its costs. Again, that doesn't invalidate arguments for universal health coverage, only claims that it would have far reaching benefits that would make its implementation economically advantageous. As a welfare program, I can't argue with it. I may disagree with it on my conservative principals, that's just my opinion and has no more weight than the opinions that call for welfare programs. It will deliver what it promises, albeit with some costs. The only question I have towards it is if universal healthcare is indeed the most effective welfare program in light of other problems. I do have several problems with the plan. As I understand it, its similar to what Massachusetts has: government welfare provides payments for health care for people that are unable to afford health insurance and requires those that can afford it do be covered. There are several problems with this. The first problem is it does not address inefficiencies in the system that cause healthcare to be expensive- it does not address the problems of high malpractice insurance and it does not address the high costs from having health care provided through one's employer. It simply patches over the problems with more money, as if the additional trillion they're already spending isn't enough. This is the second problem, they're already spending a hell of a lot of money without providing healthcare to millions of people. And no one has done anything about social security and Medicare. I also suspect that cost analysis underestimates the increases in healthcare costs that will come from artificially increasing demand, the US gov already underestimated the increases that came from implementing Medicare and Medicaid.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 When they are subjected to malpractice in the government-run healthcare system, they have no other recourse Well then maybe it's time that you held your government accountable. Alternatively, the people involved can probably be sued rather than the government. Our system has made mistakes in the past...and often compensation has been paid. The government isn't as impenetrable as you think...or at least...it shouldn't be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Well then maybe it's time that you held your government accountable. Alternatively, the people involved can probably be sued rather than the government. Our system has made mistakes in the past...and often compensation has been paid. The government isn't as impenetrable as you think...or at least...it shouldn't be. Exactly doctors here carry malpractice insurance just like in the states. They can be and are sued when they screw up. As the gov't is not actually providing the health care just the funding for it. Also our courts use some common sense when awarding judgements in lawsuits so dispersments are more realistic. I think the biggest differance here is our government is held to a higher leval of accountability than in the U.S . I never really liked party plolitics but I will say this about it the ruling party is held to higher level of accountabilty because of it. Matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joihan777 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 So I assume then that the American system is perfect, right? As a medical professional I can tell you that it is not. But it is a great system nonetheless. For those who have the will to take care of themselves our system works very well for them. We provide basic care even to those who do not care for themselves well, financially or physically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 As the gov't is not actually providing the health care just the funding for it. Yes, that's right, but as the regulator, they sometimes take responsibility (like in the tainted blood thing from the 80s....I can't remember if it was the feds or the provinces that paid it back). In this country, politicians can't hide anything anywhere.....the rules that are in place make sure of that. I think that maybe the US needs more rules in relation to the people in power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) Yes, that's right, but as the regulator, they sometimes take responsibility (like in the tainted blood thing from the 80s....I can't remember if it was the feds or the provinces that paid it back). In this country, politicians can't hide anything anywhere.....the rules that are in place make sure of that. I think that maybe the US needs more rules in relation to the people in power. Canadian man goes to Buffalo to get cancer treatment More horror stories of the Canadian health system Edited June 17, 2009 by napfirst Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Canadian man goes to Buffalo to get cancer treatment More horror stories of the Canadian health system good lord...and how many PEOPLE here are NOW starting to go overseas for major surguries due to exorbident costs??????? my gal has had TWO open heart surgeries...her insurance HERE is $900 a MONTH just for herself.....now she can't afford it...your answer nap ( mine is shes Irish and she can go home and have it done FOR FREE! ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 good lord...and how many PEOPLE here are NOW starting to go overseas for major surguries due to exorbident costs??????? my gal has had TWO open heart surgeries...her insurance HERE is $900 a MONTH just for herself.....now she can't afford it...your answer nap ( mine is shes Irish and she can go home and have it done FOR FREE! ) I have no idea....enlighten us.......and define "free" as you used it here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.