Wrong. Governments are going bankrupt, or on the way to it. When Taiwan has to borrow money from the bank to pay for it's health care system that's only a couple decades old, where do you think it is heading? Is that sustainable?
You for real?
No, because the US is one of the only (if not the only), that keeps statistics on early fetal death. Basically due to our world-class system of intensive care, doctors are able to keep low-birth weight, premature, and otherwise unhealthy babies alive for far longer than any other country in the world. Since these births are already high-risk, there is a very high rate of births that result in death within 1 day. In the US, these are recorded as live-births resulting in infant mortality. In other countries, such as Cube, and almost every other nation in the world, they are not. This is even more true when dealing with premature babies.
Bottom line, our infant mortality rate is higher because our definition of infant mortality is broader, and we are much better at giving babies at least a fighting chance, that they would not be afforded in other countries.
But please, tell us all about the wonderful Cuban medical system.
So, 3 out of several dozen have problems? So?
Let me ask you this,
Under the new healthcare law, my health insurer is refusing to pay for any medical costs the relate to any of my pre-existing conditions. Lets suppose I need another back surgery, that's easily 100k+ upfront, plus rehab, medications, pre-op and check-ups. Describe to me a how a college student is suppose to pay for that.
If you haven't noticed, basically every country in the west is having major problems with debt and social entitlements. Exception being Germany, which is doing pretty well due to their manufacturing capacity and general awesomeness.
Look, I said some reasonable reforms are needed, which would hopefully bring that cost down, or help you find a way to pay for it. A college student probably qualifies for medicaid though.
Conversely, my question would be, why should anyone pay for it? What if you need several more $100k surgeries over your lifetime? Where does that money come from? You can cry compassion all day, but you have to realistically look at where the money for these services comes from. SOMEBODY is paying for it. Saying that the government will pay for it is just saying that everyone else will pay for it.
Last time I checked, Cuba wasn't a first-world country. What about heart disease, diabetes, etc. The U.S. loses compared to Europe in these results as well.
In France for example, doctors are paid a bonus for every patient they get to quit smoking. Much better way to get better results. But please go on and tell me how much better our general health is compared to other FIRST- WORLD countries.
I think you mean, East. And, yea they're having problems, but nothing serve as our own.
Why should someone be purchasing yachts due to my bad luck? A non-profit government health insurance system would be infinitely more efficient, ethical, etc which could be easily be paid for through-and-through by reducing our defense budget which is already absurd.
If you compare medical systems in terms of research and innovation, the US is far and away the leader, indisputably. Look at the top cancer research facilities in the world, the top medical schools, developers of cutting-edge technology... almost all of them are in the US.
2) What factors are you measuring to determine the overall general health of different countries?
4) What do you believe, very specifically, we can do in the US to bring our costs down?
No, I mean West. We live in the West. Europe is in the Western world. Portugal, Spain, France, Canada, Germany, and even Greece, are part "The West". The West is collectively having problems with debt, and social entitlements, and yes, their problem are not detached from us. Europe's economy is very interconnected, if you haven't noticed the problems they are having with Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Ireland. It's more than those nations' problems, it's Europe's problem, and in a global economy, it is, to a lesser extent, our problem.
Nobody is purchasing yachts due to your bad luck. You said yourself that the insurance company paid probably 90% of your surgery bills... who made money in that transaction?
And I'll refrain from laughing, but if you think a government-run health program would be infinitely more efficient, you need to reevaluate your line of thinking. I could wager my life savings that the exact opposite would be true, and I would win immediately by pointing to the various current government-run health programs that are the epitome of inefficiency. When there is no motivation to be efficient, as in cases of government-run entities, efficiency is not a factor.
I think the Defense budget could come down a bit, but seeing as how that is one of the few government programs that is constitutionally mandated, I would support 1000 other cuts before that.
Let me ask you this: End-of-life care accounts for around 20% of ALL health expenditures in the country every year, and the majority of that is paid for by Medicare/medicaid. That's almost $500 billion /year just to keep people alive for a few months to days longer than they naturally would be. That's just slightly less than the entire Defense budget.
Now tell me, how is it fair that we spend so much money on extending the life of an elderly person who is at the end of their days, rather than cutting back on that and paying for your back surgery? Or, as baby-boomers continue to age, and end-of-life care service costs exponentially increase in coming years, where should that money come from? Will we get bulk end-of-life care prices?
Meh.
The bottom line, despite not being perfect socialized medicine is the way to go and nobody is going bankrupt due to it. Nobody should be refused medical care and have to live life 50% or go bankrupt, period.
Really anecdotal.
So, you throw around anecdotal and then ask a question, which, really the only correct answer would probably be a 500+ page, million dollar, 5+ year peer-reviewed study.
[/quote]Socialize providers and insurers. Those that don't like, can feel free to setup shop in Somalia, Russia or China - a capitalists paradise.
I'm assuming you are very young. Consider that most of what you earn will be needed for the cost of these things, and "well just make it cheaper" doesn't work.
Your whole argument began with a made-up anecdotal claim that a board member raised your rates so he could buy a bigger yacht that year, and you've returned to it several times during the course of the argument.
You can claim that Taiwan and the UK have better health care than the US, but if I ask you how you are determining that, it's an invalid question? Sounds like you're grasping.
Russia and China? Two of the countries with the most government control over private industry in the developed/developing world?
Removing the for-profit section, will. And your argument, boils down to "Its going to be expensive!" - yea, so?
1) Why do you believe health care costs in the US are so high compared to European countries?
Because we have a for profit healthcare system, and insurance companies, big pharma, etc..
4) What do you believe, very specifically, we can do in the US to bring our costs down?
Get rid of our for profit system of healthcare, get doctors more involved, rather than insurance corps. Specifics would take walls of text, lots of studies and more time then I have right now.
2) What factors are you measuring to determine the overall general health of different countries?
Rates of obesity, heart desease, etc.
3) What do you believe is the reason (or reasons) for any differences between different countries?
Better eating habits, more exercise, treating problems before they become chronic,
instead of treating the cause we treat the symptoms.
No it won't because there isn't that much profit in the system. Prescriber salaries for example are quite small compared to the cost of health care yet you completely ignore the issues that need to be addressed and saying "hey we just will pay you crap" again doesn't fix it.
The facts are laid before you and verifiable and you choose to ignore them. Those who choose to ignore reality when it's in front of you are either pathological or fools or both.
Which it is in your case, I'm done. The only reason I've responded is to provide sane people with what's upcoming which needs to be addressed now. It will require not the authoritarian totalitarian system of government you espouse, but a great deal of critical thinking.
You? You are clearly beyond your depth and therefor it's time to ignore you.
Removing the for-profit section, will. And your argument, boils down to "Its going to be expensive!" - yea, so?
Profit is one of the biggest drivers toward efficiency, innovation, and research. If a drug company wasn't going to make any money on a drug, why would they research it? If I am not going to make enough money on a new medical device to make a profit, much less cover my year and years of research, why should I bother starting in the first place?
As I just posted in my other reply, here are the figured for FY09 for Wellpoint, the largest US health insurance provider:
Net income minus sale on business unit: $953.6 million (less than $1 billion)
Total premiums collected: $56.382 billion
Profit on premiums collected: 1.7%
People Wellpoint insures: 33.7 million
Profit per insured person: $28.30
So as you can see, in 2009, the largest insurance company in the US made less than $30 per person that they insured. How much did they spend on your back surgery again?
YES. That has been my point. The problem is defining the problem. I propose that it is more of a cultural problem than a health care problem, and no amount of government money or socialization will be able to fix it. As long as we keep telling people that it isn't their fault that they are sick, the less likely they are to try to improve their health. End result, the care that could be going to treating those who are struck with unavoidable diseases or conditions that are truly no fault of their own is instead expended on those who, through their own action or inaction, brought the condition upon themselves.
As I just posted in my other reply, here are the figured for FY09 for Wellpoint, the largest US health insurance provider:
Net income minus sale on business unit: $953.6 million (less than $1 billion)
Total premiums collected: $56.382 billion
Profit on premiums collected: 1.7%
People Wellpoint insures: 33.7 million
Profit per insured person: $28.30
So as you can see, in 2009, the largest insurance company in the US made less than $30 per person that they insured. How much did they spend on your back surgery again?
Not sure where you got your numbers but wellpoint made around 2.4Billion in 2009 year, NOT counting the sale of one of their units.
"It reported $2.4 billion in operating profit from that segment last year"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/21/health-care-costs-a-look-_n_470703.html
Nonprofit insurers can raise rates in the range of 20 percent, said Gary Claxton, an expert on the private insurance market at the Kaiser Family Foundation. However, regulators in some states can require nonprofits to return some of their surplus to curb rate increases.
and to me its not about profit but how much gets in the health care field. If they take in a dollar how much of that actually goes into health care vs "overhead"?
If you feel a company should not have a profit; then what is the purpose for the company to exist.
The government can not operate on a shoe string budget - they keep adding fat via legislation or just empire building.
What large scale government agencies operate efficiently. they have no need - they do not have to show efficiency. No accountability.
When you pay tax dollars to fund government activities, how much of that goes to overhead? Do you think money sent to Washington at a federal level has a better chance of getting down to the health care provider than money sent to a private company that deals exclusively in health services?
Showing that the non/for profit distinction really has negligible impact on the end result.