The system is broken and there is no relief in sight.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...1F6-4416-94BC-F0F3DD1E200A}&siteid=mktw&dist=
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...1F6-4416-94BC-F0F3DD1E200A}&siteid=mktw&dist=
At $5,267 per person, U.S. citizens pay most in world for medical care
- Thread starter Amkeer
- Start date
- Status
I call B.S. Lawyers/defensive medice are driving up the price. It costs 60K on the average to defend every malpracrtice lawsuit even though only a tiny number succeed. The cost of medicines is driven up (in part) by the same concept. Relief is in sight..the system will collapse bc noone will be able to aford it.
Most doctors aren't hurting ,I have 2 dear friends that are doctors .
Salaries are too high in the health care profession. I cannot comment on the U.S. health care system because I do not live there,but here in Canada,most health care employee's work in a unionized environment. The vast majority of every dollar spent on health care is "feeding" the system and being spent on health care employee's salaries. Do I think that these people deserve a well paying salary,yes,If the country can afford it. Where I have a problem though is when the whole system becomes self serving and the tail wags the dog. I'm in the airline business and gone are the good ole glory days when everybody was well paid in the airline business. My girlfriend works in the health care profession up here and tells me some of the ridiculously high entry level wages for TOTALLY non-skilled (but unionized) hospital employee's. There are people washing hospital dishes for $20.00/hour!!! As long as the taxpayer is footing the bill the health care wastage will continue.
The dollars flying in health care put defense contractors, landlords, cable companies, strip club owners, real estate speculators, pimps, politicians, etc to shame...and that is saying something!
Total boondoggle. Not sure if I have the cure...other than stay healthy on a personal level.
Total boondoggle. Not sure if I have the cure...other than stay healthy on a personal level.
The malpractice lawsuits are not BS. There is a lot of malpractice that happens in the hospitals. From my observations, only a tiny fraction of them are brought to court. Most of the times the victims or the families don't even know. Only major screw ups attract attention.
What do you expect when the health care delivery system is private and "for profit"?
Plus, the total tangle of reimbursement systems cause a large proportion of those costs being consumed by the system just to get the bills paid.
There are those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and this is the end result.
I heard today on our Burlington VT news, WCAX Channel 3, that for many heart surgery procedures, the cost in the USA is 80% higher than in Canada for the same procedure, and the outcomes in Canada were just as good.
Here is a link to a Reuters report on the same story.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N11220139.htm
Plus, the total tangle of reimbursement systems cause a large proportion of those costs being consumed by the system just to get the bills paid.
There are those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and this is the end result.
I heard today on our Burlington VT news, WCAX Channel 3, that for many heart surgery procedures, the cost in the USA is 80% higher than in Canada for the same procedure, and the outcomes in Canada were just as good.
Here is a link to a Reuters report on the same story.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N11220139.htm
Sorry, every gas passer in the country can't make $750,000 a year and have the system available to everyone. Costs are just plain too high. I am in the process of changing doctors because the old guy now charges $250 for a 15 office visit with no services. Outrageous!
Cutehumor, I hope you dad will be ok. You live here, so you know of the sad state of affairs with Tenncare.
I was shocked to read that the new committee in Washington to look at fixing Medicaid has our former governor to chair the committee.
I hope the nation looks at this and at how Tenncare problems evolved. Our system is broken, so I just don't see our former governor as the man for the job.
I was shocked to read that the new committee in Washington to look at fixing Medicaid has our former governor to chair the committee.
I hope the nation looks at this and at how Tenncare problems evolved. Our system is broken, so I just don't see our former governor as the man for the job.
==============quote:
Originally posted by keith:
"At $5,267 per person, U.S. citizens pay most in world for medical care".
Maybe, but I would argue that those receiving health care are generally getting excellent care, and more of it than in other nations. Paying more and getting more is not newsworthy.
One way to reduce cost per individual is to reduce the consumption of services. Who wants to do that? The US system has shifted responsibility away from the individual, and the end result is entirely predictable
Citizens are already mostly of the opinion that only employers and government are responsible for their health care. Cut out the employers and we'll all soon benefit from 'universal health care'. You do like long waiting lists and rationing and no choice, right?
Those who get care and are able to pay these rates may receive excellent service, but those who cannot afford these rates do not.
Doling out health care on the basis of ability to pay is rationing.
Please expand on this - did you leave a word or words out?
Paying more for something more is not rationing. Deluxe heart fix $500,000, cheap rubber heart patch $5000.
Or are what you are really saying: the same treatment, just people that happen to have more money should pay more? That is theft, IMHO.
I will not be getting a Mercedes S500 or that seaside vacation home then. It's outside of my ability to pay, er, my ration.
Lack of money to buy something is not a ration. There is all the health care and Mercedes cars you will ever need. I do understand the frustration of someone that can't afford something, especially something as vital as health care.
Having individuals pay MORE out of pocket is the surest way to control costs. The current system typically has no incentive for the individual to control costs, so they don't. A large part of the problem is us, but you'll never hear that from a politician that wants your vote. It's far easier to bash the evil rich insurance companies, or lawyers, or greedy doctors, or foreign criminals (illegal aliens if you prefer). Who surely do each have their contributions
A lot of the costs are unnecessary expenses. My wife works in a nursing home and was telling about a resident who is 90+ years old and is dieing. The doctor keeps ordering test after test - it seems like they have kind of a clan that provides business to each other. The result is that although these tests are performed, no medical procedure can be done because the resident is too ill to handle any kind of procedure. All the expenses are paid by Medicare, i.e. me and you.
One particular example that I just remembered - an elderly resident has bad teeth. So the doctor orders all kinds of x-ray and other exams. The results come in, but nothing can be done to her teeth because she is too old and ill to handle either tooth extraction, or fillings. End result - Medicare is bilked out of a significant sum.
One particular example that I just remembered - an elderly resident has bad teeth. So the doctor orders all kinds of x-ray and other exams. The results come in, but nothing can be done to her teeth because she is too old and ill to handle either tooth extraction, or fillings. End result - Medicare is bilked out of a significant sum.
My RN wife often comes home upset, after the most recent open heart surgery on a new 90+ year old patient that is now in intensive care and very likely to never fully recover. It's really crazy, but the problem ultimately is unrealistic expectations from patients.
My father in law, on learning of cancer at the age of 72, said to **** with it. No surgery, I've lived a long and good life. My mother in law, in her sixtes, went into hospital and signed a DNR (do not resuscitate). She died peacefully, as she wished.
I hope I have the good grace to know when my time is up and exit on my terms, not hooked to machines with 50 pipes into me.
My wife sometimes works on the fringes of health care. She is a non-practicing HIM. You should see the $$$$$ she gets for minimal consulting.....if....well I won't go there for personal reasons, but she was embarrased to receive this money SHE earned!
We have been SLEEPING! Let the Revolution BEGIN!!!
I am under the impression that the US has very good medical service other than the 911 calls get sent to SUDBURY, ONTARIO to be routed. Hang-up calls aren't followed up on if sent up here either!
Anyway, you literally can't buy good healthcare in Canada because it's illegal. You are outta luck. If you've got money your best bet is to hop on a Greyhound and go to the US because that'd be faster and less painful. It takes many hours to be helped because there isn't enough staff.
Steve
Anyway, you literally can't buy good healthcare in Canada because it's illegal. You are outta luck. If you've got money your best bet is to hop on a Greyhound and go to the US because that'd be faster and less painful. It takes many hours to be helped because there isn't enough staff.
Steve
Kestas
Staff member
It won't be long before the medical field feels the pinch that manufacturers feel. The system is now set up with HMOs paying everything.... that is shrinking. With fewer companies offering free and comprehensive medical care, and clients making less and less money, the medical system will not have any paying clients left. There's already been talk of this problem becoming real.
To explain myself further, all economic transactions in a market based system results in "rationing" of a good or service on the basis of the desire of potential purchasers to obtain the good or service, and, their ability to pay.
Assuming that the health care in question is necessary to sustain life, and all individuals have an equal desire to survive, then the best care is available to those of the greatest economic status, i.e., those able to pay cash or those able to afford sufficient health insurance. Those with lesser economic means either do without, or have a lesser level of care.
I realize that to apply this to a decision to buy a Coca Cola, or to buy a Mercedes vs. a Hyundai, it would be hard to characterize it as "rationing". However, when it is applied to health care that may be a matter of life or death, apportioning of a scarce and life sustaining resource among individuals based on the individual's ability to pay is economic rationing of that resource.
The working poor and indigent will get some level of care, but cannot expect to get the best quality care, and perhaps not even adequate care to meet their needs.
As another example of rationing within our system, I know of someone who had a severe accident and his leg was crushed. He was told that he could regain use of the leg with multiple operations and recuperative therapy. His HMO refused to pay for anything more than an amputation and post amputation therapy and some rehab. If he had the cash to pay for the better, more expensive care, he would have gotten it.
Perhaps my definition of rationing is different than yours. My definition follows theoretical economic concepts that when there is a scarce resource and there is insufficient supply to meet the needs of all candidates that need it and equally desire it, there must be a system of rationing that resource among the potential recipients. Under some systems, the rationing system is based on an individual's need. In other systems, it is based on the ability to pay. One is an institutionalized rationing system, and the other one is market based. Nevertheless, in both systems, the scarce resource is allocated among potential recipients with some getting a lot, some getting a little, and some getting none. So, in both cases, as I see it, it is rationing.
I am sure that others will disagree with me, and will say that not getting what you cannot afford out of your own pocket is not "rationing". But when the good or service is vital to continuation of one's life, I doubt that you can say that a lower income person decided not to obtain necessary health care because it just wasn't that important to him, and he would rather spend his money on tickets to baseball games instead.
On the other hand, we have public education, which is not fee based. I guess we can quibble about the quality of public education, but unlike health care, every child is entitled to go to a free public school. So, unlike health care, a basic education is not rationed.
While you may not agree with my statement that health care is rationed, I hope you better understand why I consider it to be rationed.
Assuming that the health care in question is necessary to sustain life, and all individuals have an equal desire to survive, then the best care is available to those of the greatest economic status, i.e., those able to pay cash or those able to afford sufficient health insurance. Those with lesser economic means either do without, or have a lesser level of care.
I realize that to apply this to a decision to buy a Coca Cola, or to buy a Mercedes vs. a Hyundai, it would be hard to characterize it as "rationing". However, when it is applied to health care that may be a matter of life or death, apportioning of a scarce and life sustaining resource among individuals based on the individual's ability to pay is economic rationing of that resource.
The working poor and indigent will get some level of care, but cannot expect to get the best quality care, and perhaps not even adequate care to meet their needs.
As another example of rationing within our system, I know of someone who had a severe accident and his leg was crushed. He was told that he could regain use of the leg with multiple operations and recuperative therapy. His HMO refused to pay for anything more than an amputation and post amputation therapy and some rehab. If he had the cash to pay for the better, more expensive care, he would have gotten it.
Perhaps my definition of rationing is different than yours. My definition follows theoretical economic concepts that when there is a scarce resource and there is insufficient supply to meet the needs of all candidates that need it and equally desire it, there must be a system of rationing that resource among the potential recipients. Under some systems, the rationing system is based on an individual's need. In other systems, it is based on the ability to pay. One is an institutionalized rationing system, and the other one is market based. Nevertheless, in both systems, the scarce resource is allocated among potential recipients with some getting a lot, some getting a little, and some getting none. So, in both cases, as I see it, it is rationing.
I am sure that others will disagree with me, and will say that not getting what you cannot afford out of your own pocket is not "rationing". But when the good or service is vital to continuation of one's life, I doubt that you can say that a lower income person decided not to obtain necessary health care because it just wasn't that important to him, and he would rather spend his money on tickets to baseball games instead.
On the other hand, we have public education, which is not fee based. I guess we can quibble about the quality of public education, but unlike health care, every child is entitled to go to a free public school. So, unlike health care, a basic education is not rationed.
While you may not agree with my statement that health care is rationed, I hope you better understand why I consider it to be rationed.
- Status
Similar threads
