Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Seriously, what years are you talking about? Just answer the question.
Would it make a difference? Seriously, I'm not into typing a bunch of stuff you're not even going to read. It's all there in the Wikipedia article. You can find many other sources that outline the history of health care in the US. Basically it started to go downhill after WWII when Truman first set his sights on nationalizing health care. The Cold War, and paranoia over socialism slowed things down a bit, and forced them to "partner" with corporations in their efforts, but it's always been the same goal.
YES, because I'm really not clear on what you are referring to.
Go ahead and just say what period you are talking about. Your resistance to this simple ask is telling.
Pre WWII
thank obummerfail.It is a for profit system set up to serve Wall Street and the "job creator" class. The rest of the advanced post industrial world has left us in the dust when it comes to healthcare for the people. By design.We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.
Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.
New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.
“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”
U.S. Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health
U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries
U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries
Major Findings
· Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.
· Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.
· Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.
· Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.
· Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.
Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally
No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.
A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.
The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.
The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.
One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.
"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."
US health care: Spending a lot, getting the least
Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
MMS: Error
Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities
One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.
The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).
Public Health and Medical Care Systems - U.S. Health in International Perspective - NCBI Bookshelf
Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey
A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.
"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.
Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey
US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
he U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.
The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.
Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.
Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.
The U.S. healthcare system: worst in the developed world
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
The power structure is shitting itself because every other advanced post industrial nation on the planet has better outcomes for less cost and less efficiency, plus a majority of the american popluation supports single payer.
Seriously, what years are you talking about? Just answer the question.
Would it make a difference? Seriously, I'm not into typing a bunch of stuff you're not even going to read. It's all there in the Wikipedia article. You can find many other sources that outline the history of health care in the US. Basically it started to go downhill after WWII when Truman first set his sights on nationalizing health care. The Cold War, and paranoia over socialism slowed things down a bit, and forced them to "partner" with corporations in their efforts, but it's always been the same goal.
YES, because I'm really not clear on what you are referring to.
Go ahead and just say what period you are talking about. Your resistance to this simple ask is telling.
Pre WWII
you may as well refer to the stone age as an example.
Life expectancy in 1930s was 60 years old, today it is 80 - mostly because we got all this advanced and often expensive medical care.
Truman's "sight setting" doesn't change the reality that we've never had any nationalized healthcare.
The power structure is shitting itself because every other advanced post industrial nation on the planet has better outcomes for less cost and less efficiency, plus a majority of the american popluation supports singel payer.Seriously, what years are you talking about? Just answer the question.
Would it make a difference? Seriously, I'm not into typing a bunch of stuff you're not even going to read. It's all there in the Wikipedia article. You can find many other sources that outline the history of health care in the US. Basically it started to go downhill after WWII when Truman first set his sights on nationalizing health care. The Cold War, and paranoia over socialism slowed things down a bit, and forced them to "partner" with corporations in their efforts, but it's always been the same goal.
YES, because I'm really not clear on what you are referring to.
Go ahead and just say what period you are talking about. Your resistance to this simple ask is telling.
Pre WWII
you may as well refer to the stone age as an example.
Life expectancy in 1930s was 60 years old, today it is 80 - mostly because we got all this advanced and often expensive medical care.
Truman's "sight setting" doesn't change the reality that we've never had any nationalized healthcare.
Seriously, what years are you talking about? Just answer the question.
Would it make a difference? Seriously, I'm not into typing a bunch of stuff you're not even going to read. It's all there in the Wikipedia article. You can find many other sources that outline the history of health care in the US. Basically it started to go downhill after WWII when Truman first set his sights on nationalizing health care. The Cold War, and paranoia over socialism slowed things down a bit, and forced them to "partner" with corporations in their efforts, but it's always been the same goal.
YES, because I'm really not clear on what you are referring to.
Go ahead and just say what period you are talking about. Your resistance to this simple ask is telling.
Pre WWII
you may as well refer to the stone age as an example.
Life expectancy in 1930s was 60 years old, today it is 80 - mostly because we got all this advanced and often expensive medical care.
Truman's "sight setting" doesn't change the reality that we've never had any nationalized healthcare.
so you believe roads are built free? how fking much of a loser must you be to think that. Ever hear of tollways? Gasoline taxes? Free roads? really? Free, wow, how can one argue with such stupid as you just posted?Lol what? Man this reply makes you look dumb. Why wouldn't I use private service? I never said I had a problem with private industry. You on the other hand are a hypocrite who claims to hate "free shit" yet you take advantage of it everyday.Does this logic of yours mean you never drive on public roads?Here is the democrat voter solution:
The solution is of course to get government out of health care.
You couldn't elaborate on this idea of yours if your life depended on it.
Does this reply mean you never use any private services, not paid at other people's expense?
What a complete moron.
so go live there. We are a developed innovated country, we lead, we don't follow. you should wise up.The power structure is shitting itself because every other advanced post industrial nation on the planet has better outcomes for less cost and less efficiency, plus a majority of the american popluation supports single payer.Seriously, what years are you talking about? Just answer the question.
Would it make a difference? Seriously, I'm not into typing a bunch of stuff you're not even going to read. It's all there in the Wikipedia article. You can find many other sources that outline the history of health care in the US. Basically it started to go downhill after WWII when Truman first set his sights on nationalizing health care. The Cold War, and paranoia over socialism slowed things down a bit, and forced them to "partner" with corporations in their efforts, but it's always been the same goal.
YES, because I'm really not clear on what you are referring to.
Go ahead and just say what period you are talking about. Your resistance to this simple ask is telling.
Pre WWII
you may as well refer to the stone age as an example.
Life expectancy in 1930s was 60 years old, today it is 80 - mostly because we got all this advanced and often expensive medical care.
Truman's "sight setting" doesn't change the reality that we've never had any nationalized healthcare.
thank obummerfail.It is a for profit system set up to serve Wall Street and the "job creator" class. The rest of the advanced post industrial world has left us in the dust when it comes to healthcare for the people. By design.We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.
Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.
New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.
“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”
U.S. Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health
U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries
U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries
Major Findings
· Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.
· Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.
· Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.
· Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.
· Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.
Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally
No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.
A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.
The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.
The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.
One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.
"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."
US health care: Spending a lot, getting the least
Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
MMS: Error
Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities
One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.
The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).
Public Health and Medical Care Systems - U.S. Health in International Perspective - NCBI Bookshelf
Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey
A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.
"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.
Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey
US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
he U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.
The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.
Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.
Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.
The U.S. healthcare system: worst in the developed world
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
so go live there. We are a developed inoventive country, we lead, we don't follow. you should wise up.The power structure is shitting itself because every other advanced post industrial nation on the planet has better outcomes for less cost and less efficiency, plus a majority of the american popluation supports single payer.Would it make a difference? Seriously, I'm not into typing a bunch of stuff you're not even going to read. It's all there in the Wikipedia article. You can find many other sources that outline the history of health care in the US. Basically it started to go downhill after WWII when Truman first set his sights on nationalizing health care. The Cold War, and paranoia over socialism slowed things down a bit, and forced them to "partner" with corporations in their efforts, but it's always been the same goal.
YES, because I'm really not clear on what you are referring to.
Go ahead and just say what period you are talking about. Your resistance to this simple ask is telling.
Pre WWII
you may as well refer to the stone age as an example.
Life expectancy in 1930s was 60 years old, today it is 80 - mostly because we got all this advanced and often expensive medical care.
Truman's "sight setting" doesn't change the reality that we've never had any nationalized healthcare.
He's spot on, you're a phony, and an ignorant one at that.so you believe roads are built free? how fking much of a loser must you be to think that. Ever hear of tollways? Gasoline taxes? Free roads? really? Free, wow, how can one argue with such stupid as you just posted?Lol what? Man this reply makes you look dumb. Why wouldn't I use private service? I never said I had a problem with private industry. You on the other hand are a hypocrite who claims to hate "free shit" yet you take advantage of it everyday.Does this logic of yours mean you never drive on public roads?Here is the democrat voter solution:
The solution is of course to get government out of health care.
You couldn't elaborate on this idea of yours if your life depended on it.
Does this reply mean you never use any private services, not paid at other people's expense?
What a complete moron.
LOL, where are there free roads?He's spot on, you're a phony, and an ignorant one at that.so you believe roads are built free? how fking much of a loser must you be to think that. Ever hear of tollways? Gasoline taxes? Free roads? really? Free, wow, how can one argue with such stupid as you just posted?Lol what? Man this reply makes you look dumb. Why wouldn't I use private service? I never said I had a problem with private industry. You on the other hand are a hypocrite who claims to hate "free shit" yet you take advantage of it everyday.Does this logic of yours mean you never drive on public roads?Here is the democrat voter solution:
The solution is of course to get government out of health care.
You couldn't elaborate on this idea of yours if your life depended on it.
Does this reply mean you never use any private services, not paid at other people's expense?
What a complete moron.
so just quickly, are people looking to go live in those countries or here in the US?so go live there. We are a developed inoventive country, we lead, we don't follow. you should wise up.The power structure is shitting itself because every other advanced post industrial nation on the planet has better outcomes for less cost and less efficiency, plus a majority of the american popluation supports single payer.YES, because I'm really not clear on what you are referring to.
Go ahead and just say what period you are talking about. Your resistance to this simple ask is telling.
Pre WWII
you may as well refer to the stone age as an example.
Life expectancy in 1930s was 60 years old, today it is 80 - mostly because we got all this advanced and often expensive medical care.
Truman's "sight setting" doesn't change the reality that we've never had any nationalized healthcare.
Actually you now trail the rest of the world in many areas, this is but one.
Healthcare solution ?
Obama gave us that already no ??
It predictably only needs massive coerced tax increases and obscene premium increases on those forced to pay for others welfare care.
ACA is a hybrid mix of private insurance/providers and government run exchanges, subsidies and regulation.
This solution was spawned by conservatives over a Heritage as an alternative to Clinton single payer plan, it was implemented by Romey in his state (Republican presidential candidate 2012) and finally delivered nationally by Democrats.
So "giving it to us" was a bi-partisan effort, complete with conception, beta-testing and implementation.
It is also certainly not a FINAL solution, but a first major step that has many shortcomings and MUCH to fix and add-on.
Tell us about the "FINAL solution to the health care question"!
That is not borne out by theory, but practice - when our system gives ballpark outcomes and costs to other, more successful systems.
ACA needs to better address certain affordability situations to ENSURE that insurance is affordable for everyone, and put real teeth behind the mandate, so people can't abuse the system by skipping coverage until they are sick.
So, what sort of "real teeth" does your final solution entail?
There also needs to be much added on terms of cost containment and pricing transparency throughout healthcare industry to seriously increase competition. Currently there is no way, or extremely difficult to figure out what any given treatment or surgery will cost you and there is no way to "shop around" for consumers in this industry.
No one gives a shit about what their health care costs. In fact, if a patient is "covered" and the premium is met, they have every incentive to pick the most expensive treatments available. That's central to the problem.
Insurance is the problem, not the solution.
It doesn't matter who is in the white house or "which" party. Go research Dick Gephardts lobbying firms shit since he left office.I can't wait until trusted leaders like Donald Trump are in charge of our health care. What a great time that will be!
getting government out though is.Healthcare solution ?
Obama gave us that already no ??
It predictably only needs massive coerced tax increases and obscene premium increases on those forced to pay for others welfare care.
ACA is a hybrid mix of private insurance/providers and government run exchanges, subsidies and regulation.
This solution was spawned by conservatives over a Heritage as an alternative to Clinton single payer plan, it was implemented by Romey in his state (Republican presidential candidate 2012) and finally delivered nationally by Democrats.
So "giving it to us" was a bi-partisan effort, complete with conception, beta-testing and implementation.
It is also certainly not a FINAL solution, but a first major step that has many shortcomings and MUCH to fix and add-on.
Tell us about the "FINAL solution to the health care question"!
That is not borne out by theory, but practice - when our system gives ballpark outcomes and costs to other, more successful systems.
ACA needs to better address certain affordability situations to ENSURE that insurance is affordable for everyone, and put real teeth behind the mandate, so people can't abuse the system by skipping coverage until they are sick.
So, what sort of "real teeth" does your final solution entail?
There also needs to be much added on terms of cost containment and pricing transparency throughout healthcare industry to seriously increase competition. Currently there is no way, or extremely difficult to figure out what any given treatment or surgery will cost you and there is no way to "shop around" for consumers in this industry.
No one gives a shit about what their health care costs. In fact, if a patient is "covered" and the premium is met, they have every incentive to pick the most expensive treatments available. That's central to the problem.
Insurance is the problem, not the solution.
"real teeth" IRS being able to collect mandate tax as any other tax - currently it's a piece of cake to not pay because ACA specifically strips out IRS being able to enforce it and there are tons of exceptions/waivers because again, affordability is not fully addressed.
Even when covered you are most often paying for % of your care.
Getting rid of insurance is not possible PERIOD.
We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.
Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.
Canadians pay less for US pharmaceutical products than you do padnah, so just quickly, you're blind to your own economic sodomization.so just quickly, are people looking to go live in those countries or here in the US?so go live there. We are a developed inoventive country, we lead, we don't follow. you should wise up.The power structure is shitting itself because every other advanced post industrial nation on the planet has better outcomes for less cost and less efficiency, plus a majority of the american popluation supports single payer.Pre WWII
you may as well refer to the stone age as an example.
Life expectancy in 1930s was 60 years old, today it is 80 - mostly because we got all this advanced and often expensive medical care.
Truman's "sight setting" doesn't change the reality that we've never had any nationalized healthcare.
Actually you now trail the rest of the world in many areas, this is but one.
We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.
Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.
We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.
Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.
Let us buy the kind of coverage we deem suits us best or none at all if we so choose.
Simplest fucking plan there is.
The government has no business meddling in my medical business.
