America Spends The Most On Health Care, Yet Gets The Least

[topspin]

I'm generally an elitist, but when a guy can't get in with a 3.88 gap in pre med. That's to elitist in my book. Supply and demand, if someone one to cry to me about cost without addressing over paid doctors I'm not hearing it.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

and you wonder why someone gets their foot amputated when they come in for a colonoscopy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is questioning the quality of our health care. It is the best.

Not the best. Not even close.

There are third world nations with lower child mortality rates than the US.

Been there, debunked that, moved on, newbie.

Only in your mind, hon.

 

[JakeStarkey]

and you wonder why someone gets their foot amputated when they come in for a colonoscopy.

No basis for the comment. Move on.

 

[Greenbeard]

Yet the 2 concepts, increasing capacity and lowering standards, are inextricably related to one another. Too bad you fail to see that most basic thought..

No. As a matter of basic logic, that's only true if high standards are the reason supply is limited (i.e. if current capacity is determined by the number of qualified applicants). But I've never seen anyone argue that annual medical school admissions are capped by the fact that every qualified applicant is accepted and there simply are no more interested, qualified candidates to fill additional slots; the real cap is imposed by a shortage of facilities capable of absorbing all qualified applicants.

Get a new medical school accredited, retain the highest admission standards, and you will fill it.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Umm, I didn't "figure" it was a loaded question....You admitted it was a loaded question

But now you'll lie about it, and pretend you never said it

you lying piece of shit go over to REP Barton Apologises....page 10 ...it starts at post 145....you tell me WHO said it was a loaded or in this instance a "baited" question......AND WHERE i admitted it was....all i said was IF HE DOES ANSWER said question.. ........cant even back up what you said....you know Sanka...you have as much integrity as the smegma under the foreskin of some guys cock.....Sanka the little boy who lies and runs from questions....

Post #149 in the Barton apologizes thread

A good baited question for a democrat, Harry. I like it

It's a no win for him......

well IF he does reply....i can see him saying YES they do...but not as often....so its ok....

Meister points out that your question was a "good baited question". You have not disputed that.

Baited questions are a logical fallacy, and therefore dishonest.

your the guy that said i "coined" that term.....when i never mentioned it....Meister and you did....and instead of answering this "baited question"...you asked one of your own....the exact same question only with one word changed....which i was good enough to answer....but i know why you would not answer mine....you would have to have said YES they do.... this whole stupid thing would have been avoided....if you would have just been a little honest and had some balls and answered the fucking question....but you are a great dancer....

 

[PatekPhilippe]

and you wonder why someone gets their foot amputated when they come in for a colonoscopy.

No basis for the comment. Move on.

More incoherent babling from the boards only RINO.....I agree...no need to read Starkey's posts
10 Unbelievable Medical Mistakes - Oddee.com (medical errors, medical mistakes)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Guys, you are a hoot ~ you have nothing to support your elitism.

 

[sangha]

you lying piece of shit go over to REP Barton Apologises....page 10 ...it starts at post 145....you tell me WHO said it was a loaded or in this instance a "baited" question......AND WHERE i admitted it was....all i said was IF HE DOES ANSWER said question.. ........cant even back up what you said....you know Sanka...you have as much integrity as the smegma under the foreskin of some guys cock.....Sanka the little boy who lies and runs from questions....

Post #149 in the Barton apologizes thread

well IF he does reply....i can see him saying YES they do...but not as often....so its ok....

Meister points out that your question was a "good baited question". You have not disputed that.

Baited questions are a logical fallacy, and therefore dishonest.

your the guy that said i "coined" that term.....when i never mentioned it....Meister and you did....and instead of answering this "baited question"...you asked one of your own....the exact same question only with one word changed....which i was good enough to answer....but i know why you would not answer mine....you would have to have said YES they do.... this whole stupid thing would have been avoided....if you would have just been a little honest and had some balls and answered the fucking question....but you are a great dancer....

You just got caught in a lie. You said the question was not baited, and I posted a quote of yours that shows you know it was a baited question. So now, you add another lie and claim I said you "coined" the term.

Please post a quote of mine where I say you coined the term. I'll make you a deal; If you can post such a quote, I will leave USMB. If you can't post the quote, you leave USMB

Now let's see what a pussy you are

 

[Oddball]

Of course it does....That's the point in using such a deliberately vague term in the first place.

Access is a broad term, not a vague term. For example, if you wanted to know precisely what it means in the context of this thread, you'd flip through the report and find the access measures:

• Cost-Related Access Problems
  • Did not fill prescription; skipped recommended medical test, treatment, or follow-up; or had a medical problem but did not visit doctor or clinic in the past 2 years, because of cost
  • Patient had serious problems paying or was unable to pay medical bills
  • Physicians think their patients often have difficulty paying for medications or out-of-pocket costs
  • Out-of-pocket expenses for medical bills more than $1,000 in the past year, US$ equivalent
• Timeliness of Care
  • Last time needed medical attention had to wait 6 or more days for an appointment
  • Percent of primary care practices who report almost all patients who request same- or next-day appointment get one
  • Primary care practices that have an arrangement where patients can be seen by a doctor or nurse if needed when the practice is closed, not including ER
  • Somewhat or very difficult to get care on nights or weekends (base: sought care)
  • Waiting time for emergency care was less than 1 hour (base: used an emergency room in past 2 years)
  • Waiting time to see a specialist was less than 4 weeks (base: saw or needed to see a specialist in past two years)
  • Waiting time of 4 months or more for elective/nonemergency surgery (base: those needing elective surgery in past year)

None of which demonstrates that medical care, or access to it, is rationed in the sense that there is a central authority deciding who gets care, how much they get and who doesn't.

Medical services in America (at least those still left in the free market sector) are no more centrally "rationed" than are T-bone steaks or flat screen televisions....Using economic jargon to try and argue that they are rationed is the height of disingenuous.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course it does....That's the point in using such a deliberately vague term in the first place.

Access is a broad term, not a vague term. For example, if you wanted to know precisely what it means in the context of this thread, you'd flip through the report and find the access measures:

• Cost-Related Access Problems
  • Did not fill prescription; skipped recommended medical test, treatment, or follow-up; or had a medical problem but did not visit doctor or clinic in the past 2 years, because of cost
  • Patient had serious problems paying or was unable to pay medical bills
  • Physicians think their patients often have difficulty paying for medications or out-of-pocket costs
  • Out-of-pocket expenses for medical bills more than $1,000 in the past year, US$ equivalent
• Timeliness of Care
  • Last time needed medical attention had to wait 6 or more days for an appointment
  • Percent of primary care practices who report almost all patients who request same- or next-day appointment get one
  • Primary care practices that have an arrangement where patients can be seen by a doctor or nurse if needed when the practice is closed, not including ER
  • Somewhat or very difficult to get care on nights or weekends (base: sought care)
  • Waiting time for emergency care was less than 1 hour (base: used an emergency room in past 2 years)
  • Waiting time to see a specialist was less than 4 weeks (base: saw or needed to see a specialist in past two years)
  • Waiting time of 4 months or more for elective/nonemergency surgery (base: those needing elective surgery in past year)

None of which demonstrates that medical care, or access to it, is rationed in the sense that there is a central authority deciding who gets care, how much they get and who doesn't.

Medical services in America (at least those still left in the free market sector) are no more centrally "rationed" than are T-bone steaks or flat screen televisions....Using economic jargon to try and argue that they are rationed is the height of disingenuous.

Dud is disingenuous in pretending that insurance companies are not in the rationing business. All economists know that, and his nonsense borders on if not over the unethical. Move along, Dud.

 

[Oddball]

The way insurance companies have been forced to operate (in-state monopolies, mandated coverage, etcetera) are not the free market...They've insulated the person purchasing the service from paying for it, subsequently throwing the normal market forces keeping prices in check out of whack....Medicare/Medicaid have made an already sketchy situation in that area even worse.

Try again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The way insurance companies have been forced to operate (in-state monopolies mandated coverage, etcetera) are not the free market...They've insulated the person purchasing the service from paying for it, subsequently throwing the normal market forces keeping prices in check out of whack.

Thank you, for once, talking straight.

Free market forces, without regulation, would truly allow the insurance industries to ration care completely based on pricing and exclusion.

The free-market libertarians are on the far side of history looking at the future's tracks. America is not going down the libertarian road, now or in the future.

 

[Oddball]

Then pay for it out-of-pocket.

Nobody is forcing anyone to go to insurance companies...Well, until now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has to pay for health insurance if they don't want it.

No business that serves public policy interest, such as an insurance business, can expect to escape regulation in the 21st century. No government that serves the public can expect to escape national health care, either single payer or two-payer or co-operatives. These matters are inevitable.

 

[Oddball]

Nobody is forced to buy insurance, yet nobody will escape socialized national medical services.

Riiiiiight.

 

[2Parties]

No one has to pay for health insurance if they don't want it.

No business that serves public policy interest, such as an insurance business, can expect to escape regulation in the 21st century. No government that serves the public can expect to escape national health care, either single payer or two-payer or co-operatives. These matters are inevitable.

They may not escape regulation entirely but they will go where there is less. See American doctors and patients in Costa Rica demonstrating what an epic failure government involvement in health care is.

 

[Greenbeard]

None of which demonstrates that medical care, or access to it, is rationed in the sense that there is a central authority deciding who gets care, how much they get and who doesn't.

Medical services in America (at least those still left in the free market sector) are no more centrally "rationed" than are T-bone steaks or flat screen televisions....Using economic jargon to try and argue that they are rationed is the height of disingenuous.

You're attempting to draw distinctions that don't exist. The cost of many health care procedures/commodities exceeds what a single person or family could reasonably afford to pay. Thus people pool their resources and, when someone needs to pay for a medical procedure, they draw from the communal well; the exact terms of how much and for what purposes they can draw resources are determined by the entity administering the pool. This is health insurance.

In most nations, there are publicly operated and privately operated pools. So if you're in the U.K. looking for a procedure to be financed by the NHS, or in Canada trying to get it paid for by provincial Medicare, or in the United States trying to get it paid for by Blue Cross Blue Shield, the same fundamental process is occurring. I don't know if you consider that "a central authority deciding who gets care" and I don't particularly care.

In any of those systems, if the primary insurance pool you're in doesn't cover something, you have other options. At the same time Commonwealth released the report this thread is about, it released another report (International Profiles of Health Care Systems) that will walk you through how health care systems in 13 nations work.

You'll find that in Canada many people pay for things not covered by Medicare through supplementary private insurance or out-of-pocket:

Privately funded health care: Roughly two-thirds of Canadians have supplementary private insurance coverage, many through employment-based group plans, which cover services such as vision and dental care, prescription drugs, rehabilitation services, home care, and private rooms in hospitals. Duplicative private insurance for publicly funded physician and hospital services is not available. Private health expenditures (payments through private insurance and out-of-pocket payments) represent approximately 30 percent of total health expenditures.​

In the U.K., this is less common but still an option:

Private health insurance: A mix of for-profit and not-for-profit insurers provide supplementary private health insurance. Private insurance offers choice of specialists, faster access to elective surgery, and higher standards of comfort and privacy than the NHS. In 2006, it covered 12 percent of the population and accounted for 1 percent of total health expenditure.

Other: People also pay directly out of pocket for some services, e.g., care in the private sector. Direct out-of-pocket payments account for more than 90 percent of total private expenditure on health.​

So what rationing is occurring in these systems that doesn't occur in our own? If your primary insurer rejects a certain procedure or item, you have the option of seeking it with your own money.

The way insurance companies have been forced to operate (in-state monopolies, mandated coverage, etcetera) are not the free market...They've insulated the person purchasing the service from paying for it, subsequently throwing the normal market forces keeping prices in check out of whack....

In other words, insurance as a payment structure period is "not the free market." No kidding.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has to pay for health insurance if they don't want it.

No business that serves public policy interest, such as an insurance business, can expect to escape regulation in the 21st century. No government that serves the public can expect to escape national health care, either single payer or two-payer or co-operatives. These matters are inevitable.

They may not escape regulation entirely but they will go where there is less. See American doctors and patients in Costa Rica demonstrating what an epic failure government involvement in health care is.

Then go to Costa Rica, sonny. But you won't have to. Watch and see.

 

[Harry Dresden]

You just got caught in a lie. You said the question was not baited, and I posted a quote of yours that shows you know it was a baited question. So now, you add another lie and claim I said you "coined" the term.

Please post a quote of mine where I say you coined the term. I'll make you a deal; If you can post such a quote, I will leave USMB. If you can't post the quote, you leave USMB

Now let's see what a pussy you are

post 273 page 19....in the same thread you claimed i used the term "baited question"....so you told Meister you googled it....show me where i used that term before you did...here is exactly what you said....this is what i meant by "Coined'....it means to fabricate an expression.....

baited question" is the term Harry used, so that's what I googled

"baited question" and "loaded question" are synonymous (ie they mean the same thing)


by-by.....