Everyone keeps telling me that we have the best health care system in the world... and the most expensive...
Anyone see a connection there??
So if Obama is going to reduce costs, how does he do it??
There is only one way to reduce cost. And that is to reduce care. If that is what you want, then you should be happy.
But no one wants that. What they want is health care paid for by someone else. I keep on saying that we have all the elements in place for the worlds greatest National Health Care.
First, we have the administrative system in place. Medicare. And the delivery system knows how to deal with it.
Secondly, we have the delivery system in place. Our Hospitals, Clinics and professionals are the greatest in the world.
Thirdly, all we need is how to pay for it. I say a national sales tax, collected at the POS. That way we all use it, we all pay for it. Drug dealers, illegal aliens, doctors, lawyers...Indian chiefs... poor man.. beggar man...rich man... thief...
But that won't fly because it doesn't favor Obamie's minions. It isn't free. And it doesn't create a new level of bureaucrats to ration care, which is what the Left wants. Even worse, everyone can see what they are paying and even much worse, the insurance companies are included out...
So stand by. You think what we have now is bad, just wait until you have to call your local ward heeler to get a Doctor's appointment...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Actually, this spends twice as much money per capita as do other countries, and we get the same outcome as do other countries and their medical systems.
ReplyDeleteBut don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant, it's never stopped you in the past ;-)
Link
ReplyDeleteBy several measures, health care spending continues to rise at a rapid rate and forcing businesses and families to cut back on operations and household expenses respectively.
In 2008, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent -- two times the rate of inflation.1 Total spending was $2.4 TRILLION in 2007, or $7900 per person1. Total health care spending represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).
U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.3 TRILLION in 2017, or 20 percent of GDP.1
In 2008, employer health insurance premiums increased by 5.0 percent – two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,700. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,700.2
Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families.
Outcome on a global basis or outcome on an individual basis??
ReplyDeleteA 60 year citizen having a heart attack and dying when a simple surgery could have saved him will be a cost savings to Obamie's sweethearts health plan, not to mention Social Security..
It is a tragedy to his family, and eventually it will poison society when people realize that the social contract has been destroyed by the government.
From ANON's link:
ReplyDelete"Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.3"
The question is, do those other nations provide health care, or do they SAY the provide health care??
You just have to look at these numbers for your answers:
ReplyDelete1. Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.
2. Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.
* Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990
* Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960
* Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.
* Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana
* Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.
* Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation
3. Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive
* Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care
* Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.
* Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits
* Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.
* Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money
If you are defending NHC, why? I support it.
ReplyDeleteMy opposition is to the Obamie plan which will only increase costs and dectease service.
Tell me, are you willing to pay for Bob's health care? Or is Bob paying for your care?
I would be happy to start paying an 8% national sales tax, collected at the POS, assuming that is my individual total cost. And the delivery and administrative system is as I noted in the post.
Do you or don't you agree??
If Obama were for single-payer health care,
ReplyDeleteI'd support it in a New York minute.
The problem with a sales tax approach is that it would be regressive and affect the lower income folks more than those at the top of the income brackets.
However national healthcare is financed in Germany, Japan, France, etc., that would undoubtely work here as well.
What's wrong with people paying for their health care?
ReplyDeleteYou know, it is the lower income group that smokes the most and has the most fatties. These two items contribute more problems than any other factor to poor health yet you appear to think I SHOULD pay for their bad actions.
Maybe of we took 8% of their income they'd quit smoking and gobbling Big Macs!
These two items contribute more problems than any other factor to poor health yet you appear to think I SHOULD pay for their bad actions.
ReplyDeleteNo, we're all in this together, and that you treat a mere suggestion as some sort of advocacy of an attack on your pocketbook tells us more about you than you perhaps want to reveal.
We’re all in this together? Hahahahahaha
ReplyDeleteWhere do you think Obamie’s $400 million dollar reduction in Medicare and Medicaid will come from? People on Mars?
Reveal more than I want?? Didn’t you just tell me that we are all in this together? Well, if that be true, why not tell the smokers to “butt out” and the fatties to push back from the table?? I mean that seems fair to me. And while we’re at it, no illegal drugs, no alcohol… and we all must walk 3 miles a day on our government provided treadmills which or up linked via WIFI or satellite to a government data base….
But I am not asking that, just that everyone pay. Seems pretty fair to me.
I'm in favor of NHC being paid for from general tax revenues, not a regressive tax like a national sales tax would be.
ReplyDeleteHow you get to rejecting your solution means that people who make bad health choices wouldn't pay for their medical care is risible.
I'm out of here, you can keep rating, like 70% of your posts here, you're more concerned with blaming the Lefties for everything from your trash pick-up being late to the inevitable heat death of the Universe, and everything between.
We already have a level of bureaucrats to ration care, it's called private health insurance, although to be fair, their real intent is to increase profits at the expense of patient care.
I don't discuss with anonymous people. This is for you, Jim. We have a socialised health system in Canada but it's not free...Certainly not for the hard-working people who have seen their taxes increased while the quality of the medical system diminished. My single Canadian son finds it hard to accept that he is paying for all the babies born in our country.As he is pro-life, he is finding it even harder to pay for all the accepted abortions. He found it hard (5 years ago) to see his old mother (who had paid high taxes since 1971) waiting 7 months for an "urgent" heart bypass because our system is clogged with immigrants allowed to be part of it after only 3 month-residency in the country. He is finding it hard to accept that his mother is on a 7 month-waiting-list for a heart procedure (which, when, peformed) would clear up ,instantly, a serious recurrent angina problem. By nature, we're very charitable people. But it's hard to let the whole world share our limited resources when it's a question of life or death.
ReplyDeleteNow rich Canadians simply go to the States for medical emergencies.The Canadian Government will not repay that cost although it takes our money for our own clogged medical system.
Universal coverage, in any country, is a myth if a person dies waiting for it....
“I'm in favor of NHC being paid for from general tax revenues, not a regressive tax like a national sales tax would be.”
ReplyDeleteWhat that means is that those who pay no FIT are getting, basically, free health care. No one has a constitutional right to free anything.
“How you get to rejecting your solution means that people who make bad health choices wouldn't pay for their medical care is risible.”
That makes no sense. It is the lower income groups who pay no FIT and limited other taxes who are the majority of the problem because of their own life style choices. All I ask is they pay the same as everyone else, even though they will be the biggest consumer group.
“I'm out of here, you can keep rating, like 70% of your posts here, you're more concerned with blaming the Lefties for everything from your trash pick-up being late to the inevitable heat death of the Universe, and everything between.”
Since you don’t say who you are, how do I know that you won’t be back??
“We already have a level of bureaucrats to ration care, it's called private health insurance, although to be fair, their real intent is to increase profits at the expense of patient care.”
I was covered under private insurance for 33 years. Neither I, or anyone I ever knew were denied care. Does that mean it hasn’t happened? No. But it does mean that I believe the information is anecdotal.
My spouse, under government controlled Medicare has been sent home one time because she wasn't "sick" enough to stay.
Claudia - well said. My fascination with NHC is only because I think the alternatives will get worse and worse.
ReplyDelete“I'm out of here, you can keep rating, like 70% of your posts here, you're more concerned with blaming the Lefties for everything from your trash pick-up being late to the inevitable heat death of the Universe, and everything between.”
ReplyDeleteI thought the Universe will end when everything goes cold....
As for my trash pick up, that is done by a private company and the do an excellent job.
lol
There is only one way to reduce cost. And that is to reduce care. If that is what you want, then you should be happy.
ReplyDeleteSo wrong. There is another simpler way to cut health care costs, yet it is the one way that congress has rejected time and again. That is to limit litigation. Make all the malpractice suits loser pays and require that the liar err lawyer fork over the cash immediately if his client filed a false claim.
Much of the costs we now pay is for malpractise insurance. When there is a claim, often the insureres just fork over dough and don't give the doctor a chance to defend himself. Then they jack premiums to cover it. Some areas, especially neonatal care are considered high risk. That is because the USA has the tech skills to attempt to save babies that are allowed to die, and are not reported as live births in many countries. Many of those kids make it here, but for the ones who don't, there are often law suits against the doctor who "Botched it". Botched it my ass. The dostors put forth herculean efforts and are rewarded with character attacks and slanders. Sure there are some bad doctors, but even good ones get sued.
Health care used to be affordable in America until insurance companies and greedy lawyers got into the picture.
I don't disagree that limiting malpractice suits would reduce cost. It would. But I just don't see it being enough to make a real difference. But should we stop them? Yes. If for no other reason than to stop creating more John Edwards.
ReplyDelete