At $5,267 per person, U.S. citizens pay most in world for medical care

[k1xv]

quote:

---

Originally posted by srivett:


Anyway, you literally can't buy good healthcare in Canada because it's illegal. You are outta luck. If you've got money your best bet is to hop on a Greyhound and go to the US because that'd be faster and less painful. It takes many hours to be helped because there isn't enough staff.

Steve

---

===========
If you have ever been to a US emergency room in any big city, you will be surprised to find that unless you are literally bleeding to death, you may sit there for hours on end waiting to be served, only to be served by some young resident physician on duty who has been on duty for 20 hours straight.

 

[brianl703]

EMTALA guarantees medical treatment at your local emergency room. As to whether it's free or not, that mostly depends on whether you have an SSN and a credit rating you care about.

 

[Cutehumor]

[/qb][/QUOTE]===========
If you have ever been to a US emergency room in any big city, you will be surprised to find that unless you are literally bleeding to death, you may sit there for hours on end waiting to be served, only to be served by some young resident physician on duty who has been on duty for 20 hours straight. [/QB][/QUOTE]

it depends which state you are in, some have passed laws forbiding physicians from working more than 16 hours straight

 

[mormit]

quote:

---

Originally posted by keith:
"At $5,267 per person, U.S. citizens pay most in world for medical care".

Maybe, but I would argue that those receiving health care are generally getting excellent care, and more of it than in other nations. Paying more and getting more is not newsworthy.

---

Compare our healthcare to others: http://www.who.int/countries/en/

I work for a major healthcare provider and I am outraged thet our child mortality rate is a little worse than Cuba's. No way should a third world nation with a screwed up socialistic economy beat us on this. I find it unacceptable.

Countrys like Sweden pay half as much per person for healthcare but have under half the child motality rate we have with longer healthy lifespans we do. Just look it up.

1) Take the courts out completely of malpractice.
2) Go to a single-payer system.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Having individuals pay MORE out of pocket is the surest way to control costs.

---

I disagree. It will only limit the use of medical services ...it will not reduce their costs one cent. Medical services are "out of the loop" in normal economics. They cost so much to maintain -period. There's no economy of size or frequency. The more M.D's in the area ..the more care costs. Under that theory ..all that would have to be done is build a bunch of hospitals and fill them with staff ..that would reduce cost due to competition.

It doesn't work that way. Hospitals end up being a "rent-a-bay" for the area physicians. The better the facility ..the more doctors want to be there for the traffic they can route into various utilties that the facility offers. The leading edge facilities offer a physician/surgeon the best buck for hid/her practice hour.

 

[obbop]

A few years back I read an excellent article explaining how the federal government's handling of medical affairs resulted in escalating costs to the consumer.

The article made a LOT of sense and I could not find any flaws in the writer's arguments.

Sure, there are many reasons for increasing medical costs.... illegal aliens not paying for their care with the costs passed on to you and I being one of many reasons but, the feds HAVE had a large effect on medical costs with the common American worker bearing the economic burden.

One statistic that I have not been able to find is what percentage of the "medical dollar" goes to "business suits" who never tend to a patient while drawing very large salaries. There is a lot of parasitism in the medical field!!!!!! Leeches. Not the type that draw blood to rid the body of excessive foul humours. Nay!!!!!! Leeches who have created a system that skims money off the top to allow a small elite to live as royalty while the commoner's payments drain their bank accounts.

The rich ARE getting richer thanks to the artificial systems that elite class has created with cooperation from the political elites.

I am convinced class warfare is ongoing in America and getting worse. Part of the belief is gut feeling, part from decades of real-life observations and, in part, from non-fiction reading of thousands of books over the decades. Knowledge the typical American is never confronted with via the TV, partying, shopping at the mall, etc.

 

[obbop]

Additionally..... the American Medical Association is a self-policing entity, a MONOPOLY, that has historically proven unable to adequately police its members. Data shows a small minority of doctors are responsible for a disproportionatly large percentage of malpractice claims. There is ample evidence (that the media seldom mentions) that incompetent doctors are allowed to continue their vile ways, leaving a wake of injured victims behind them. If the AMA would weed out the incompetent, as they are supposed to, watch the claims plummet...... but, I assure you, if claims did plummet medical costs to the consumer would not change.

The medical business is a monopoly!!!!! Try to find a price list so you can shop for a doctor!!!!

 

[drive it forever]

The high cost of health care works for me. My wife is an hospital RN. Due to a nursing shortage with no end in sight, she works alot of overtime @ $1960.00 gross per week. There are many reasons why medical care is sky high. There are too many people on costly prescription drugs then ever before. Ask any MD, 25 years ago patients dident take half the drugs they do now, because they didnt have them. Medicine has advanced and alot of stuff is treated now that cost big money. We as patients are the winners-but at what cost. We cant have our cake and eat it too.

 

[keith]

"At $5,267 per person, U.S. citizens pay most in world for medical care".

Maybe, but I would argue that those receiving health care are generally getting excellent care, and more of it than in other nations. Paying more and getting more is not newsworthy.

One way to reduce cost per individual is to reduce the consumption of services. Who wants to do that? The US system has shifted responsibility away from the individual, and the end result is entirely predictable

Citizens are already mostly of the opinion that only employers and government are responsible for their health care. Cut out the employers and we'll all soon benefit from 'universal health care'. You do like long waiting lists and rationing and no choice, right?

 

[Cutehumor]

my dad had a stroke on 4/30, the doctors ordered five catscans, two MRI's, echocardiogram, doppler test, EKG, several CBC screens, a troponin series to rule out heart attack. he was in the ER, ICU, on a med-surg floor. then transferred inpatient for two weeks at a rehab hospital. then discharged and had 8 weeks of outpatient physical therapy. he just completed it and is about to start outpatient occupational therapy. hasn't worked in 2.5 months. estimated medical bills: 50K dollars. insurance will pay 90% but 5k is no small change for a retired person still paying his insurance premiums of 287 a month

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:

quote:

---

Having individuals pay MORE out of pocket is the surest way to control costs.

---

I disagree. It will only limit the use of medical services ...it will not reduce their costs one cent.

---

Individuals use less services (due to THIER higher cost) = lower overall system cost (due to fewer services used).

This isn't economics, just simple math. The system will soon adapt to lower demand. I personally know two doctors that got out of the field in the last couple of years and I don't know many doctors so two is a very high percentage. (They got out primarily due to their insurance costs. One was a neurosurgeon, the other a gynecologist).

 

[TooSlick]

Preventive Medicine (PM), ie annual checkups and/or lifestyle changes, is a lot more cost effective than treatment only after a serious medical problem has arisen.

When uninsured (or underinsured) patients first enter into the health care system in the US, it is often with a life threatening or crippling illness. Treatment for these types of conditions costs everyone in the system much more money. This is why 100% coverage IS the most cost effective way to go on a per capita basis, short of letting the less fortunate simply die on the street.

For millions, the current system is analogous to taking your vehicle in for service only after it breaks down on the side of the road.

 

[OMCWankel]

There is a real lack of reliable data out there on the health care problem. Most sites-authors-reporters, like the site at the first post, have thier own agenda to advance. Statistics are no help because if you craft the question or assumption carefully, the statistics can be made to prove your hypothesis.

In the short term, taxes and fees will be raised to keep the statis quo. States with large non-paying populations will probably add state tax revenue to the federal revenue, and keep the system going.

There will be no help from the politicians, besides raising taxes. Making an attempt at meaningful reform to health care, like making an attempt at meaningful reform to social security or the tort system, is political suicide. No matter what side of the political spectrum the politician is on, no matter what party is in power, the politician will be torched. Non-meaningful reform will be proposed and passed, with lots of chest pounding about how "we made the system better".

JHZR2 is correct in saying: "People want things, and don't want to pay for them... This is problem #1". Everyone wants the best health care they can beg, borrow or steal. I know people that owe over 50K to the doctors/hospitals. They will probably never pay that debt off, at the 50-100$ per paycheck they can afford to pay.

If we want the best health care possible, we must budget more of our take home income towards health care, instead of treating it as an emergency expense. The system may eventually come into economic balance, but that is not the case in the short term.

 

[JHZR2]

Look at how people half @$$ their vehicle care. Look at how they let their kids get obese, they get obese, they eat mcdonalds and tv dinners four times a week or more. Do you really think theyll do more PM on their bodies? Even if care was free? Though I agree with you, I have little faith in people.

JMH

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
Preventive Medicine (PM), ie annual checkups and/or lifestyle changes, is a lot more cost effective than treatment only after a serious medical problem has arisen.

When uninsured (or underinsured) patients first enter into the health care system in the US, it is often with a life threatening or crippling illness. Treatment for these types of conditions costs everyone in the system much more money. This is why 100% coverage IS the most cost effective way to go on a per capita basis, short of letting the less fortunate simply die on the street.

For millions, the current system is analogous to taking your vehicle in for service only after it breaks down on the side of the road.

---

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Individuals use less services (due to THIER higher cost) = lower overall system cost (due to fewer services used).

---

Sure ..in total $$ spent ..but it has NO impact on the increase in costs. If I don't use my insurance, am I going to get a cheaper rate? If a hospital has an under used MRI machine ...are they going to discount the procedure rate to attract more patients?

The point that is being missed is that their is no way to reel in medical costs. Lack of use doesn't do it ..setting limits doesn't do it ..they just produce more procedures to maintain an escalatory cost curve.

There is no other exchange of cash, other than taxes, that follows this profile. Any normal enterprise would immutably have to contour itself to the surrounding society's ability to sustain it. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that if we get cut ..they bleed. They don't feel the impact of a declining per capita earning population.


btw- any doctors that have gotten out of medicine have done so probably to retire ..not to get another career. They've weighed the insentives to increase their wealth and saw it as an unfavorable rate of return compared to not working at all and living, very LARGE, on what they have.

I will swap problems with them any day of the week. (visions of a very small violin, playing "My heart bleeds for you".)

 

[mormit]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JHZR2:
...isnt the reason why we payu a lot more for healthcare because most comparable nations (say, european nations), all have a higher taxation rate, which then goes back around to pay to some extent the healthcare that people receive?
JMH

---

Yes, good point.

However the Swedes are paying 50 cents in taxes for the dollar we spend here on healthcare and getting a better return for their money to boot.

I'm only in favor of putting money to the most efficient use. Our tax dollars pay for fire protection, armed forces, and police protection. Healthcare would be best served under the same umbrella rather than a direct expense to myself and my employer.

I have better than average health benefits. Coverage for my family of four is only $1000/year but it's costing my employer more than that. Where does the difference come from??? Higher prices for our products?

 

[mormit]

quote:

---

Originally posted by keith:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:

quote:

---

Having individuals pay MORE out of pocket is the surest way to control costs.

---

I disagree. It will only limit the use of medical services ...it will not reduce their costs one cent.

---

Individuals use less services (due to THIER higher cost) = lower overall system cost (due to fewer services used).

This isn't economics, just simple math. The system will soon adapt to lower demand.

---

I was once a tried and true Libertarian too but think things through.

You will use less services for your wife's breast cancer or your son's fractured wrist becuse of price. Am I understanding your statement correctly?

Maybe WalMart can have a staff doctor from communist China on hand 24/7 to see to your medical needs.

 

[JavaMan]

If we're spending twice the amount for health care as some other developed countries we should be living at least 150 years.

 

[JHZR2]

This may be a dumb question, but isnt the reason why we payu a lot more for healthcare because most comparable nations (say, european nations), all have a higher taxation rate, which then goes back around to pay to some extent the healthcare that people receive?

If we were paying 55% income tax, and some of that money was appropriated properly into healthcare, Id bet it would be a lot cheaper for us too.

People want things, and don't want to pay for them... This is problem #1. You can draw it out to say, the fact that there are a lot of bogus claims and high dollar lawsuits, or the fact that people dont want to pay any tax and often cheat, or even the fact that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer, and so many of the poorer folks think theyre helping out the country, when all theyre doing is making the rich richer yet. Its complex, but surely there will be some forced solution, even if the forcing is the system imploding.

I love the signs that claim that all the doctors are going to leave the area unless reform is brought about. Id love to see a huge number of doctors give up their practices, and then move to a new area. id love to see what they would do when overcapacity causes them to loose lots more money than they were on insurance. Bring it on, let all the doctors leave all the areas, and find new jobs, then we'll start again.

I have to wonder how many poor folks could get half decent coverage with the multimillion dollar bonuses that the healthcare ceos give themselves for 'good performance'... Good performance on who's metric? Only their own and their deep pocketed shareholders, who all can afford decent coverage.

JMH

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, JM, I'll grab on an adaptation of your co-benefit of higher costs and let's see what we get for our money.


What does the American population get over Japan, Germany, any of other Nordic nations (or any contemporary industrial nation) for their money? Most Western (includes Japan and others for this demonstration) have a like demographic ..and aging population ...what do we have that they lack in bang for the buck??

Do they have a lower life expectancy? Higher infant mortality rate? Poorer health? Now we can see that Canada has some issues ..but they seem to be limited to availability of services for the number that need them ..not the cost. Now this can arguably mean the same thing ..but it is just one challenge as opposed to a systemic outpricing of access that we're approaching.

I'll take theirs over ours for "problems" as apreferred evil.