Zander
Platinum Member
Government involvement in Health care caused the problem. Now the only solution is more government involvement? You people are permanently stuck on stupid.....
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.
Where you are getting this data? Or do things just work very differently in your field? I had various options with most if not all of the policies my company "provided."Having choice is a key mechanism in keeping costs down to consumers. Look at all of the choice government has removed from the market. They have removed the choice of how an employer wants to provide the health care benefit to its employees and they have removed coverage options of the insurer.
This is the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach. Not so much about developing a coherent or consistent story but more about venting against all that irks you.
1) Benefit mandates are the problem. Except the reality is that most people with private insurance are in plans that aren't subject to state or federal benefit mandates.
2) Having insurance is the problem. Except, as noted above, the distribution of health expenditures makes an insurance model not only prudent but necessary.
3) No, insurance is fine but should be tailored to the low-spending tiers. If we let in the higher spending cohorts, just make them pull their weight. There's no reason the most expensive cohort shouldn't pay premiums 55 times what the least expensive cohort pays!
4) People need to better understand their insurance policies. But, of course, any effort to make health insurance policies more intelligible and choices in insurance markets more meaningful is condescending and anathema to truth, justice, and the American way.
5) The problem is that people are getting too many "oil changes" (which, apparently, refers to physicals?) or, alternatively, not finding a good enough deal on them. So insurance is fine but shouldn't contribute at all to oil changes. This is key, because a significant chunk of our two and a half trillions dollars in national health expenditures is on...physicals. The five percent of folks responsible for half of our national spending must be getting quite a few physicals!
This could go on but the primary difficulty I'm seeing here is a very large lack of appreciation for the links between payment and service delivery. In its place is a blind faith that certain misapplied maxims will produce good outcomes. Instead of pursing the current trend toward tightly-knit, integrated care with coordinated team-based approaches (the sort of approach that has simultaneously led to lower costs and some of the highest quality care in the United States where implemented), we're now faced with this push for fragmented, episodic care modeled after the approach to getting your Chevy serviced. Despite the evidence in favor of coordinated care and the importance of smooth care transitions, what we really need is a more adversarial, territorial, and competitive relationship between practitioners--more MBA physicians might just be the missing piece of the puzzle.
The good thing is that everyone here seems to agreed that 1) consumers should have a meaningful choice of health insurance products and employers (particularly small businesses) should be flexibility in how they assist employees with finding coverage, and 2) value should be sought, identified, and paid for. Both of these are in the process of coming to fruition as they never have before--a happy circumstance.
Was that supposed to make any sense whatsoever? I was not "venting," and I have no idea what "developing a story" or your odd "everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach" is even supposed to mean.Where you are getting this data? Or do things just work very differently in your field? I had various options with most if not all of the policies my company "provided."Having choice is a key mechanism in keeping costs down to consumers. Look at all of the choice government has removed from the market. They have removed the choice of how an employer wants to provide the health care benefit to its employees and they have removed coverage options of the insurer.
This is the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach. Not so much about developing a coherent or consistent story but more about venting against all that irks you.
Government involvement in Health care caused the problem. Now the only solution is more government involvement? You people are permanently stuck on stupid.....
Was that supposed to make any sense whatsoever? I was not "venting," and I have no idea what "developing a story" or your odd "everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach" is even supposed to mean.
It is the extreme narrow mindedness of people like yourself who think those variables are not changeable, that is holding health care reform back.
The consumer "plugging in" will not solve this problem. As for "knowing the real cost of services," how are they supposed to do that? And did you know some costs are not even fixed, eg CT scans? The hospitals and insurances play this "negotiation" game.The consumer needs to start plugging in, in order to solve this problem. They have to be responsible for knowing what their plan covers and responsible for know what the real cost of services are.
?? Earlier you said "They have little incentive to understand their plan because they have little choice in plans." Now you're saying they have to out and shop for them? Which is it?Yes there are lots of insurance companies and yes prices are still high. That is because consumers of the product are having to go out and actually shop for a plan.
Government involvement in Health care caused the problem. Now the only solution is more government involvement? You people are permanently stuck on stupid.....
And America's health care is at the bottom of all industrialized countries.
A recent study reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine compared the amounts of money spent by nineteen Western countries on health care relative to their respective gross domestic product (GDP). The authors, Professor Colin Pritchard of the Bournemouth University School of Health and Social Care, and Dr. Mark Wallace of the Latymer School of London, ranked countries by the average percentage of GDP spent on health care between 1979 and 2005. They then looked at mortality rates for all adults (15-74 years old) and for just the older population (55-74) to determine a cost-effective ratio, i.e., how much bang for the buck each country has been getting for the money spent. The conclusions are striking.
Increasing Health Care Costs
It will come as no surprise that health care costs have gone up everywhere. In 1980, Sweden spent nine percent of its GDP on health care. The USA came in second at 8.8%. Most countries averaged about 7.1% of GDP. In 2005, the picture had changed. The United States was far in front of all other countries, spending an average of 12.2% of its GDP for all public and private health care costs. Germany was a somewhat distant second at 9.7%, with the average for all countries standing at 7.4%. In other words, while average health care expenditures increased from 7% to 7.4%, Americas costs jumped from 8.8% to 12.2% of GDP over the same span of time.
Mortality Rates
The study then looked at trends in mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74). Deaths per million population were looked at, and the authors found that mortality rates had declined in segments of this population in every country, an indication that medical science has indeed improved over the past few decades.
Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the authors then ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:
1 Ireland
2 United Kingdom
3 New Zealand
4 Austria
5 Australia
6 Italy
7 Finland
8 Japan
9 Spain
10 Sweden
11 Canada
12 Netherlands
13 France
14 Norway
15 Greece
16 Germany
17 USA
18 Portugal
19 Switzerland
Conclusions
Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?
The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at well-being of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.
Universal vs. Private Health Insurance
There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.
Government involvement in Health care caused the problem. Now the only solution is more government involvement? You people are permanently stuck on stupid.....
And America's health care is at the bottom of all industrialized countries.
A recent study reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine compared the amounts of money spent by nineteen Western countries on health care relative to their respective gross domestic product (GDP). The authors, Professor Colin Pritchard of the Bournemouth University School of Health and Social Care, and Dr. Mark Wallace of the Latymer School of London, ranked countries by the average percentage of GDP spent on health care between 1979 and 2005. They then looked at mortality rates for all adults (15-74 years old) and for just the older population (55-74) to determine a cost-effective ratio, i.e., how much bang for the buck each country has been getting for the money spent. The conclusions are striking.
Increasing Health Care Costs
It will come as no surprise that health care costs have gone up everywhere. In 1980, Sweden spent nine percent of its GDP on health care. The USA came in second at 8.8%. Most countries averaged about 7.1% of GDP. In 2005, the picture had changed. The United States was far in front of all other countries, spending an average of 12.2% of its GDP for all public and private health care costs. Germany was a somewhat distant second at 9.7%, with the average for all countries standing at 7.4%. In other words, while average health care expenditures increased from 7% to 7.4%, Americas costs jumped from 8.8% to 12.2% of GDP over the same span of time.
Mortality Rates
The study then looked at trends in mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74). Deaths per million population were looked at, and the authors found that mortality rates had declined in segments of this population in every country, an indication that medical science has indeed improved over the past few decades.
Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the authors then ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:
1 Ireland
2 United Kingdom
3 New Zealand
4 Austria
5 Australia
6 Italy
7 Finland
8 Japan
9 Spain
10 Sweden
11 Canada
12 Netherlands
13 France
14 Norway
15 Greece
16 Germany
17 USA
18 Portugal
19 Switzerland
Conclusions
Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?
The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at well-being of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.
Universal vs. Private Health Insurance
There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.
Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. Get the government out of our health care. You are responsible for your own life, your own health, and your own health care. Government is not your mommy.
Your cut and paste posts do not impress me son. Try writing your own thoughts. I know you're the type of person that needs government to save you and pay for your life, but please, save the insults for your playground pals. You have done nothing in this thread but cut and paste crap and sling insults.And America's health care is at the bottom of all industrialized countries.
A recent study reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine compared the amounts of money spent by nineteen Western countries on health care relative to their respective gross domestic product (GDP). The authors, Professor Colin Pritchard of the Bournemouth University School of Health and Social Care, and Dr. Mark Wallace of the Latymer School of London, ranked countries by the average percentage of GDP spent on health care between 1979 and 2005. They then looked at mortality rates for all adults (15-74 years old) and for just the older population (55-74) to determine a cost-effective ratio, i.e., how much bang for the buck each country has been getting for the money spent. The conclusions are striking.
Increasing Health Care Costs
It will come as no surprise that health care costs have gone up everywhere. In 1980, Sweden spent nine percent of its GDP on health care. The USA came in second at 8.8%. Most countries averaged about 7.1% of GDP. In 2005, the picture had changed. The United States was far in front of all other countries, spending an average of 12.2% of its GDP for all public and private health care costs. Germany was a somewhat distant second at 9.7%, with the average for all countries standing at 7.4%. In other words, while average health care expenditures increased from 7% to 7.4%, Americas costs jumped from 8.8% to 12.2% of GDP over the same span of time.
Mortality Rates
The study then looked at trends in mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74). Deaths per million population were looked at, and the authors found that mortality rates had declined in segments of this population in every country, an indication that medical science has indeed improved over the past few decades.
Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the authors then ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:
1 Ireland
2 United Kingdom
3 New Zealand
4 Austria
5 Australia
6 Italy
7 Finland
8 Japan
9 Spain
10 Sweden
11 Canada
12 Netherlands
13 France
14 Norway
15 Greece
16 Germany
17 USA
18 Portugal
19 Switzerland
Conclusions
Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?
The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at well-being of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.
Universal vs. Private Health Insurance
There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.
Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. Get the government out of our health care. You are responsible for your own life, your own health, and your own health care. Government is not your mommy.
Epic fail...Plus you are an ignorant fuck who is brainwashed.
Our wealth care system puts all our businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace. The cost of health insurance adds $1500 to the cost of every vehicle domestic automakers produce. Japanese manufacturers spend $200 per vehicle because Japan has universal health care.
More money per person is spent on health care in the USA than in any other nation in the world, and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the USA than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor. Although not all people are insured, the USA has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita, because of the high cost of medical care in the country. A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses. Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.
The USA pays twice as much yet lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, though the relation between these statistics to the system itself is debated. Currently, the USA has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations. In the United States life expectancy is 42nd in the world, after some other industrialized nations, lagging the other nations of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).
Life expectancy in the USA is 42nd in the world, below most developed nations and some developing nations. It is below the average life expectancy for the European Union. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries, and notes U.S. care costs the most.
The USA is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e., some kind of private or public health insurance). In 2004, the Institute of Medicine report observed "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." while a 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance.
wiki
Your cut and paste posts do not impress me son. Try writing your own thoughts. I know you're the type of person that needs government to save you and pay for your life, but please, save the insults for your playground pals. You have done nothing in this thread but cut and paste crap and sling insults.Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. Get the government out of our health care. You are responsible for your own life, your own health, and your own health care. Government is not your mommy.
Epic fail...Plus you are an ignorant fuck who is brainwashed.
Our wealth care system puts all our businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace. The cost of health insurance adds $1500 to the cost of every vehicle domestic automakers produce. Japanese manufacturers spend $200 per vehicle because Japan has universal health care.
More money per person is spent on health care in the USA than in any other nation in the world, and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the USA than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor. Although not all people are insured, the USA has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita, because of the high cost of medical care in the country. A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses. Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.
The USA pays twice as much yet lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, though the relation between these statistics to the system itself is debated. Currently, the USA has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations. In the United States life expectancy is 42nd in the world, after some other industrialized nations, lagging the other nations of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).
Life expectancy in the USA is 42nd in the world, below most developed nations and some developing nations. It is below the average life expectancy for the European Union. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries, and notes U.S. care costs the most.
The USA is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e., some kind of private or public health insurance). In 2004, the Institute of Medicine report observed "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." while a 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance.
wiki
And America's health care is at the bottom of all industrialized countries.
A recent study reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine compared the amounts of money spent by nineteen Western countries on health care relative to their respective gross domestic product (GDP). The authors, Professor Colin Pritchard of the Bournemouth University School of Health and Social Care, and Dr. Mark Wallace of the Latymer School of London, ranked countries by the average percentage of GDP spent on health care between 1979 and 2005. They then looked at mortality rates for all adults (15-74 years old) and for just the older population (55-74) to determine a cost-effective ratio, i.e., how much bang for the buck each country has been getting for the money spent. The conclusions are striking.
Increasing Health Care Costs
It will come as no surprise that health care costs have gone up everywhere. In 1980, Sweden spent nine percent of its GDP on health care. The USA came in second at 8.8%. Most countries averaged about 7.1% of GDP. In 2005, the picture had changed. The United States was far in front of all other countries, spending an average of 12.2% of its GDP for all public and private health care costs. Germany was a somewhat distant second at 9.7%, with the average for all countries standing at 7.4%. In other words, while average health care expenditures increased from 7% to 7.4%, Americas costs jumped from 8.8% to 12.2% of GDP over the same span of time.
Mortality Rates
The study then looked at trends in mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74). Deaths per million population were looked at, and the authors found that mortality rates had declined in segments of this population in every country, an indication that medical science has indeed improved over the past few decades.
Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the authors then ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:
1 Ireland
2 United Kingdom
3 New Zealand
4 Austria
5 Australia
6 Italy
7 Finland
8 Japan
9 Spain
10 Sweden
11 Canada
12 Netherlands
13 France
14 Norway
15 Greece
16 Germany
17 USA
18 Portugal
19 Switzerland
Conclusions
Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?
The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at well-being of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.
Universal vs. Private Health Insurance
There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.
Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. Get the government out of our health care. You are responsible for your own life, your own health, and your own health care. Government is not your mommy.
Epic fail...Plus you are an ignorant fuck who is brainwashed.
Our wealth care system puts all our businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace. The cost of health insurance adds $1500 to the cost of every vehicle domestic automakers produce. Japanese manufacturers spend $200 per vehicle because Japan has universal health care.
More money per person is spent on health care in the USA than in any other nation in the world, and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the USA than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor. Although not all people are insured, the USA has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita, because of the high cost of medical care in the country. A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses. Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.
The USA pays twice as much yet lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, though the relation between these statistics to the system itself is debated. Currently, the USA has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations. In the United States life expectancy is 42nd in the world, after some other industrialized nations, lagging the other nations of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).
Life expectancy in the USA is 42nd in the world, below most developed nations and some developing nations. It is below the average life expectancy for the European Union. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries, and notes U.S. care costs the most.
The USA is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e., some kind of private or public health insurance). In 2004, the Institute of Medicine report observed "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." while a 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance.
wiki
i don't need someone else to tell me it needs reform!WHY did health care need reform? Because Wall Street took complete control of the health care industry. Profit driven incentives create REAL death panels for Americans. Insurance corporations are incentivized to deny patient coverage and push more and more of the costs onto consumers.
For anyone who wants an insider's knowledge of this, I recommend investing a half hour of your time to listen to what this man has to say...
Wendell Potter is former Vice President of corporate communications at CIGNA, one of the United States' largest health insurance companies. In June 2009, he testified against the HMO industry in the U.S. Senate.
Looking back over his long career, Potter sees an industry corrupted by Wall Street expectations and greed. According to Potter, insurers have every incentive to deny coverage every dollar they don't pay out to a claim is a dollar they can add to their profits, and Wall Street investors demand they pay out less every year. Under these conditions, Potter says, "You don't think about individual people. You think about the numbers, and whether or not you're going to meet Wall Street's expectations."
Profits before Patients - Wendell Potter
WATCH VIDEO
READ TRANSCRIPT
Following a 20-year career as a corporate public relations executive, Wendell left his position as head of communications for CIGNA, one of the nations largest health insurers, to help socially responsible organizations including those advocating for meaningful health care reform achieve their goals.
In widely covered testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science and Technology Committee in June of 2009, Wendell disclosed how insurance companies, as part of their efforts to boost profits, have engaged in practices that have resulted in millions of Americans being forced into the ranks of the uninsured. Wendell also described how the insurance industry has developed and implemented strategic communications plans, based on deceptive public relations, advertising and lobbying efforts, to defeat reform initiatives.
Since then Wendell has testified before two House committees, briefed several members of Congress and their staffs, appeared with members of Congress at several press conferences, spoken at more than 100 public forums, and has been the subject of numerous articles in the U.S. and foreign media.
At CIGNA, Wendell served in a variety of positions over 15 years, most recently as head of corporate communications and chief corporate spokesperson. Prior to joining CIGNA, Wendell headed communications at Humana Inc., another large for-profit health insurer. Before that he was director of public relations and advertising for the Baptist Health System of East Tennessee and a partner in an Atlanta public relations firm. He also serves as a consumer liaison representative for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
Wendell Potter's News Articles
As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called, Wall Streets relentless profit expectations. President Barack Obama, Remarks to Joint Session of Congress, September 9, 2009
It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus
Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. Get the government out of our health care. You are responsible for your own life, your own health, and your own health care. Government is not your mommy.
Epic fail...Plus you are an ignorant fuck who is brainwashed.
Our wealth care system puts all our businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace. The cost of health insurance adds $1500 to the cost of every vehicle domestic automakers produce. Japanese manufacturers spend $200 per vehicle because Japan has universal health care.
More money per person is spent on health care in the USA than in any other nation in the world, and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the USA than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor. Although not all people are insured, the USA has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita, because of the high cost of medical care in the country. A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses. Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.
The USA pays twice as much yet lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, though the relation between these statistics to the system itself is debated. Currently, the USA has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations. In the United States life expectancy is 42nd in the world, after some other industrialized nations, lagging the other nations of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).
Life expectancy in the USA is 42nd in the world, below most developed nations and some developing nations. It is below the average life expectancy for the European Union. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries, and notes U.S. care costs the most.
The USA is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e., some kind of private or public health insurance). In 2004, the Institute of Medicine report observed "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." while a 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance.
wiki
I have seen the argument that the huge costs spent on an education system that is failing , should lead to a revamp of the whole system but that doesn't get much play yet here you say same ala health care and the sky is falling.........selectivity- the last line of defense...
FYI hospitals are expensive. CT machines are expensive. And so on. Those "variables" are not "changeable" ie they have been and will remain expensive, and understandably so. This means the costs associated with provided such services to people will also be expensive - far too expensive for many to afford, hence the need for health insurance. That said, I do not agree with forcing people to have insurance. Just don't come crying to the gov't (or anyone else) if you choose not to have it and something happens requiring you to get care which you can't afford.
No shit hospitals negotiate the price of services with different insurance companies. Why is it so unfathomable to think they would not negotiate with YOU?
The consumer "plugging in" will not solve this problem. As for "knowing the real cost of services," how are they supposed to do that? And did you know some costs are not even fixed, eg CT scans? The hospitals and insurances play this "negotiation" game.
?? Earlier you said "They have little incentive to understand their plan because they have little choice in plans." Now you're saying they have to out and shop for them? Which is it?
Basically, because they don't have to. Insurance companies can get that done because they are experts in the field and have the resources/"muscle" to work with hospitals. That cannot be said for I and 99%+ of all other consumers.No shit hospitals negotiate the price of services with different insurance companies. Why is it so unfathomable to think they would not negotiate with YOU?
I don't "believe" it, I KNOW it. In fact I have seen and lived it.You really believe a service costs the same or less when a third party is paying for service someone else received as opposed to the consumer paying for it directly?
No. And that's relevant because....When you pay a set premium per month and an actual procedure is covered 80% or completely by your insurance, do you really care how much the hospital charges for that service?
If there was no such thing as insurance it wouldn't always matter because people couldn't afford even the cheapest one.If there was no such thing as insurance you don't think people might ship around a bit more to find the best service at the best price?
Thanks and no worries but I don't know what you mean by are not.Are NOT. My apologies.
You really believe a service costs the same or less when a third party is paying for service someone else received as opposed to the consumer paying for it directly? When you pay a set premium per month and an actual procedure is covered 80% or completely by your insurance, do you really care how much the hospital charges for that service? All you car about is what the hospital says you owe AFTER insurance has paid their part. If there was no such thing as insurance you don't think people might ship around a bit more to find the best service at the best price?
You really believe a service costs the same or less when a third party is paying for service someone else received as opposed to the consumer paying for it directly? When you pay a set premium per month and an actual procedure is covered 80% or completely by your insurance, do you really care how much the hospital charges for that service? All you car about is what the hospital says you owe AFTER insurance has paid their part. If there was no such thing as insurance you don't think people might ship around a bit more to find the best service at the best price?
I'm not sure I am understanding you. Are you saying that ins co's pay the same as a private individual paying cash for the same service?
You really believe a service costs the same or less when a third party is paying for service someone else received as opposed to the consumer paying for it directly? When you pay a set premium per month and an actual procedure is covered 80% or completely by your insurance, do you really care how much the hospital charges for that service? All you car about is what the hospital says you owe AFTER insurance has paid their part. If there was no such thing as insurance you don't think people might ship around a bit more to find the best service at the best price?
I'm not sure I am understanding you. Are you saying that ins co's pay the same as a private individual paying cash for the same service?
No. I'm saying in many cases the same sercive would actually cost LESS if you offered to pay for it yourself instead of having it billed through an insurance company,
No. I'm saying in many cases the same sercive would actually cost LESS if you offered to pay for it yourself instead of having it billed through an insurance company,
, because they don't have to. Insurance companies can get that done because they are experts in the field and have the resources/"muscle" to work with hospitals. That cannot be said for I and 99%+ of all other consumers.
, I don't "believe" it, I KNOW it. In fact I have seen and lived it.
No. And that's relevant because....