June 27, 200917 yr Is it possible that, we as US citizens, currently have the best health care available in the world. Why do people want to mess that up.
June 27, 200917 yr I have three friends from Spain that lived here for two years and they were flabbergasted by our healthcare system. One of my Kentucky friends went to Spain to visit them and while there had a medical emergency that ended up with a diagnosis of a heart irregularity. She was extremely pleased with the care and the process that she went through while there. There are 2 types of healthcare insurance in Spain, public and private. I'm assuming your friend had their own private insurance. Maybe it's because who ever treated your friend knew that they would be fully paid. Probably more than they would get from their government. Believe it or not, those who pay the most get the most. You can definitely go to other countries and get quality healthcare. I have family in Germany(2 doctors), France, and Spain(1 nurse). They have excellent doctors and nurses, but their hospitals and care facilities do not have the most up to date modern equipment that our's have. Most of the people who provide healthcare world wide are quality individuals who care about what they do. There are very few places in the world(the US is one of them) where doctors have the freedom to do what ever it takes to save someone's life.
June 27, 200917 yr Here's some interesting stats. The more developed the county the higher the incidence, because of the more importance that is put on early detecting(darn those pesky insurance companies for wanting to save money by detecting things early). The higher survival rates are pretty much self explanitory. What country would you ladies prefer to live in. What country would you guys prefer your mother, wife, sister, or daughter live in. Breast Cancer Worldwide Country.......Incidence......Deaths.....Survival rate China.............18.7............5.5............70.6% Zimbabwe........19.............14.1...........25.8% India..............19.1...........10.4...........45.5% Japan.............32.7............8.3...........74.6% Brazil...............46............14.1...........69.3% Singapore........48.7..........15.8...........67.6% Italy...............74.4..........18.9...........74.6% Switzerland......81.7..........19.8...........75.8% Australia.........83.2...........18.4...........77.9% Canada...........84.3...........21.1..........75.0% Netherlands.....86.7...........27.5..........68.3% UK..................87.2..........24.3..........72.1% Sweden...........87.8..........17.3..........80.3% Denmark..........88.7..........27.8..........68.7% France............91.9..........21.5..........76.6% United States..101.1..........19............81.2% numbers are per 100,000 http://www.imaginis.com/breasthealth/statistics.asp
June 27, 200917 yr Simple fact: Do you want your health care professionals making you health care decisions? Or, do you want the government making your health care decisions? According to the psychologist who wrote the article in the first link I provided, the govt has zero say in the matter.
June 27, 200917 yr On a side note, the person credited with creating the Canadian system is the grandfather of Kiefer Sutherland.
June 27, 200917 yr This is the point that is missing incessantly from health care debates. The US insurance industry does not deserve absolution from being a bureaucratic mess because it is "private." Well put, sir. I never understood why the insurance biz got a pass for, well, everything. Most notably, them raising their rates on us to pay for their bad investments in the open market. A physician can normally jump though the hoops to get what the insurance company wants. But, the government only has to say "No", then claim sovereign immunity. You have no recourse. And that happens how often, exactly? Never? Yeah, never sounds right. That's why my old man charges bottom-barrel rates for his care, in order to avoid the bureaucracy of mountains of paperwork and delayed claims that come with dealing with insurance companies. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but in the US the insurance company can over ride the health care professional but the patient can still choose to follow the professionals advice at his own cost. In Canada the health insurance company (government) says no and that's it. I seriously doubt that's the case. I would bet Canadian physicians would welcome "off-the-books" clients, the same way US ones do.
June 27, 200917 yr Well put, sir. I never understood why the insurance biz got a pass for, well, everything. Most notably, them raising their rates on us to pay for their bad investments in the open market. And that happens how often, exactly? Never? Yeah, never sounds right. That's why my old man charges bottom-barrel rates for his care, in order to avoid the bureaucracy of mountains of paperwork and delayed claims that come with dealing with insurance companies. I seriously doubt that's the case. I would bet Canadian physicians would welcome "off-the-books" clients, the same way US ones do. Then why the people coming to the US for procedures if they can get them done at home? I too doubted it was the case when we were discussing that the democrat's plan proposed had the exact same verbage but someone on here said that is how Canada currently operates. It would explain the Canadians crossing the border, wouldn't it? I'd love to find a definitive answer.
June 28, 200917 yr Someone correct me if I'm wrong but in the US the insurance company can over ride the health care professional but the patient can still choose to follow the professionals advice at his own cost. In Canada the health insurance company (government) says no and that's it. And I can name you a long, long list of people I've dealt with through the years that could not get to experimental drugs, procedures and medical attention because of the insurance company. And many of the above would not touch them because they would have to pay upfront and could not find the means to do so. some ability.
June 28, 200917 yr And I can name you a long, long list of people I've dealt with through the years that could not get to experimental drugs, procedures and medical attention because of the insurance company. And many of the above would not touch them because they would have to pay upfront and could not find the means to do so. some ability. Wrong, the insurance company did NOT prevent them, they just wouldn't pay for the procedures. I get so sick and tired of hearing this. What happened to people paying their own way? I don't think the insurance company SHOULD cover experimental drugs and procedures. Where does it stop?
June 28, 200917 yr I’ll preface this post with this: I don’t have anywhere near an extensive knowledge of the medical and insurance industries or healthcare policy. Yet, it is an often discussed issue that I’ve given some thought to. I’m laying out some of my concerns, arguments and conclusions concerning the topic here and looking for discussion. The nature of the US insurance industry insulates companies from the most important mechanism of capitalism: competition. The large majority of Americans get their insurance through their employer, thus the only real competition between insurance companies exists through how cheaply they can provide coverage, not providing the best coverage. People don’t choose their insurance provider, it’s chosen for them and they are not in a reasonable position to opt for a competing company’s service if they perceive it as better. Additionally, people may not fully understand their policy or their insurance company until they have used it. This could lead to people going for years without having much information to evaluate their company on and thus there is only limited potential to provide market feedback (and this is assuming providing feedback would be viable anyhow). By its nature, insurance is not well suited for competition. Insurance is possible only through volume as insurance companies must pool risk. Clearly, in order to be profitable insurance companies need the amount of premiums coming in to exceed the amount of benefits being paid out. Therefore, insurance companies need a lot of people paying in so that when they do have to pay out for something expensive, it won’t terribly offend their bottom line. All of this is to say that insurance companies need to be very large and the nature of the industry creates a significant barrier to entry in and of itself. Put another way, competition is significantly limited. The opposite would occur in the relationship between the consumer and the medical professional. The consumer would have a great deal of information concerning service and effect (and the ability to respond to it), but limited information concerning price since the insurance provider covers most of the cost. Therefore, the insurance companies negotiate pricing with the doctors and hospitals or they limit the choice of their coverage holders to the providers with the cheapest rates. Again, this is to say competition is convoluted and limited. Considering this situation and that the US healthcare system is incredibly expensive I think it is reasonable policy for the government to provide an insurance option. Through this, coverage can be extended universally and preventive care can be enhanced while inefficiencies in the current insurance system can be replaced. Doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals will remain private and their services and effects will be subject to competition, which is a reasoned argument for why the US may have better quality in those aspects. This could potentially boost competition among insurers as well since the government option will provide considerable pressure on existing insurance companies to do things the government does not or will not do. Of course, there are drawbacks. My main concern is funding. However, other countries with similar setups don’t seem to face grave difficulties or massive taxes in funding theirs. The tax burden will also fall lighter since money will be freed up from the previously purchased insurance. My next concern is that of efficiency, yet I think it is manageable. Of course, abuse, fraud, and waste will need to be monitored and handled in some fashion, but the government simply has to insure all non-elective procedures. My last and most pressing concern is cost. I’m not sure how prices could be kept down without heavy handed policies. In the current setup, medical firms face the specter of insurance companies not covering their customers if their rates get too exorbitant. That specter would not exist with a government insurance plan, as it stands. In other words, the forces that drive prices down will be limited. But, I still see potential for solutions here. As I argued previously, little competition is evident currently and costs continue to rise tremendously. I think that the government is a more powerful negotiator for lowering costs than insurance companies and could additionally create a situation where medical firms could lose government business by increasing their rates. Additionally, healthcare is already more expensive in the US than nearly anywhere else, it has very little room to increase.
June 28, 200917 yr Wrong, the insurance company did NOT prevent them, they just wouldn't pay for the procedures. I get so sick and tired of hearing this. What happened to people paying their own way? I don't think the insurance company SHOULD cover experimental drugs and procedures. Where does it stop? And a recent study (unfortunately I don't have a link but am willing to go digging if need be. Saw it in a newspaper article) reveals that 62% of recent bankruptcies for individuals were based on Medical expenses. Of those 62%, 75 % had insurance. You cite for people to "pay up" but if they do not have the means to (by savings, earnings, or loans) then what are they to do? Die at their earliest convienenc while those that have the "means" to pay get the hope that they can receive the treatment that allows them to live a little longer? People pay their insurance companies to help cover some of their medical bills. Yet the moment that bill becomes too huge for the company to keep its profits, they either deny or cut loose that individual. (Again, I am speaking of real people I've dealt with through the years) I don't know where it stops but the truth is that the whole system feeds on one another to make the biggest profit and IMO the one who gets the least benefit more than anyone else is the patient who is fighting to be healthy and fighting insurance/hospital beauracracy at the same time.
June 28, 200917 yr And a recent study (unfortunately I don't have a link but am willing to go digging if need be. Saw it in a newspaper article) reveals that 62% of recent bankruptcies for individuals were based on Medical expenses. Of those 62%, 75 % had insurance. You cite for people to "pay up" but if they do not have the means to (by savings, earnings, or loans) then what are they to do? Die at their earliest convienenc while those that have the "means" to pay get the hope that they can receive the treatment that allows them to live a little longer? People pay their insurance companies to help cover some of their medical bills. Yet the moment that bill becomes too huge for the company to keep its profits, they either deny or cut loose that individual. (Again, I am speaking of real people I've dealt with through the years) I don't know where it stops but the truth is that the whole system feeds on one another to make the biggest profit and IMO the one who gets the least benefit more than anyone else is the patient who is fighting to be healthy and fighting insurance/hospital beauracracy at the same time. I read a similar article. Said that a little over 50% of bankruptcies had ill or failing health as a major factor in the bankruptcy. But it's not really cut and dry - just medical costs. It's all of the factors that come with ill or failing health. Like job loss, decreased income, etc. If your insurance company pays your medical bills, but you can't work to create an income to afford house payments, car payments, or whatever you're going to go bankrupt. Most of the articles I've read on the topic are really onesided. I don't have the answers, just saying it's not black and white there's a lot of grey.
June 29, 200917 yr I read a similar article. Said that a little over 50% of bankruptcies had ill or failing health as a major factor in the bankruptcy. But it's not really cut and dry - just medical costs. It's all of the factors that come with ill or failing health. Like job loss, decreased income, etc. If your insurance company pays your medical bills, but you can't work to create an income to afford house payments, car payments, or whatever you're going to go bankrupt. Most of the articles I've read on the topic are really onesided. I don't have the answers, just saying it's not black and white there's a lot of grey. My sentiments exactly. :thumb:
June 29, 200917 yr I’ll preface this post with this: I don’t have anywhere near an extensive knowledge of the medical and insurance industries or healthcare policy. Yet, it is an often discussed issue that I’ve given some thought to. I’m laying out some of my concerns, arguments and conclusions concerning the topic here and looking for discussion. The nature of the US insurance industry insulates companies from the most important mechanism of capitalism: competition. The large majority of Americans get their insurance through their employer, thus the only real competition between insurance companies exists through how cheaply they can provide coverage, not providing the best coverage. People don’t choose their insurance provider, it’s chosen for them and they are not in a reasonable position to opt for a competing company’s service if they perceive it as better. Additionally, people may not fully understand their policy or their insurance company until they have used it. This could lead to people going for years without having much information to evaluate their company on and thus there is only limited potential to provide market feedback (and this is assuming providing feedback would be viable anyhow). By its nature, insurance is not well suited for competition. Insurance is possible only through volume as insurance companies must pool risk. Clearly, in order to be profitable insurance companies need the amount of premiums coming in to exceed the amount of benefits being paid out. Therefore, insurance companies need a lot of people paying in so that when they do have to pay out for something expensive, it won’t terribly offend their bottom line. All of this is to say that insurance companies need to be very large and the nature of the industry creates a significant barrier to entry in and of itself. Put another way, competition is significantly limited. The opposite would occur in the relationship between the consumer and the medical professional. The consumer would have a great deal of information concerning service and effect (and the ability to respond to it), but limited information concerning price since the insurance provider covers most of the cost. Therefore, the insurance companies negotiate pricing with the doctors and hospitals or they limit the choice of their coverage holders to the providers with the cheapest rates. Again, this is to say competition is convoluted and limited. Considering this situation and that the US healthcare system is incredibly expensive I think it is reasonable policy for the government to provide an insurance option. Through this, coverage can be extended universally and preventive care can be enhanced while inefficiencies in the current insurance system can be replaced. Doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals will remain private and their services and effects will be subject to competition, which is a reasoned argument for why the US may have better quality in those aspects. This could potentially boost competition among insurers as well since the government option will provide considerable pressure on existing insurance companies to do things the government does not or will not do. Of course, there are drawbacks. My main concern is funding. However, other countries with similar setups don’t seem to face grave difficulties or massive taxes in funding theirs. The tax burden will also fall lighter since money will be freed up from the previously purchased insurance. My next concern is that of efficiency, yet I think it is manageable. Of course, abuse, fraud, and waste will need to be monitored and handled in some fashion, but the government simply has to insure all non-elective procedures. My last and most pressing concern is cost. I’m not sure how prices could be kept down without heavy handed policies. In the current setup, medical firms face the specter of insurance companies not covering their customers if their rates get too exorbitant. That specter would not exist with a government insurance plan, as it stands. In other words, the forces that drive prices down will be limited. But, I still see potential for solutions here. As I argued previously, little competition is evident currently and costs continue to rise tremendously. I think that the government is a more powerful negotiator for lowering costs than insurance companies and could additionally create a situation where medical firms could lose government business by increasing their rates. Additionally, healthcare is already more expensive in the US than nearly anywhere else, it has very little room to increase. Very, very interesting perspective. Never thought about that. However, if one of the major problems is that insured never deal with the insurer, and therefore have little say in the matter in terms of how they would like to set up their healthcare and quality & feedback, why would government negotiating rather than employer negotiating have any difference? If the problem has to do with the first bolded passage (which is a bit questionable because I though that the root of US healthcare problems was the high cost), and you also say the second bolded passage, do we not have the same problems?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.