Seven Falsehoods About Health Care
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
Can you answer this question que?
Now, as you know, I work for a government run service, and I know full well how shit works. Everything is micromanaged, a manager for every damn thing, and pretty much everyone has to deal with the post office in some way. My point is, and I think this is the point of most of the protesters, do you really want health care to be like the post office? The same post office Obama disses. I understand that some of the claims may be considered "untrue". Maybe because people see how the government run things in the LONG run. This could actually be a good bill, however, it seems that most of the american people has heard these claims before *ie Stimulus*. So, rather than posting links, trying to prove all the protesters wrong, why not answer the real question?
Why would anyone trust the government with health care in the first place after how they did the stimulus?
Why not reform the current system, rather than, make another bureaucracy?
BTW, my insurance is private, the government just pays for it. When you *or thought...I sometimes get confused between the two.....* note that I work for the government, then I must be getting government health insurance...
Now, as you know, I work for a government run service, and I know full well how shit works. Everything is micromanaged, a manager for every damn thing, and pretty much everyone has to deal with the post office in some way. My point is, and I think this is the point of most of the protesters, do you really want health care to be like the post office? The same post office Obama disses. I understand that some of the claims may be considered "untrue". Maybe because people see how the government run things in the LONG run. This could actually be a good bill, however, it seems that most of the american people has heard these claims before *ie Stimulus*. So, rather than posting links, trying to prove all the protesters wrong, why not answer the real question?
Why would anyone trust the government with health care in the first place after how they did the stimulus?
Why not reform the current system, rather than, make another bureaucracy?
BTW, my insurance is private, the government just pays for it. When you *or thought...I sometimes get confused between the two.....* note that I work for the government, then I must be getting government health insurance...
Please tell me how is it that you contend that health care will be like the post office ???
How many times have YOU refused to accept the GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY, or WELFARE that you receive for your government supported health insurance ???
Considered to be untrue ? ? ?
What do you mean by that ???
Do you "Consider information untrue" - when you disagree with the conclusion but can't for the life of you prove ithe information wrong ???
<font size="4">Why are you assuming I am trying to prove the protesters wrong ???
Before we go any further, please answer that.</font size>
Tell me, and be honest, which bill have you "actually" read ??? What personal information do you have ???
I wasn't the least bit confused. I knew your situation before I asked the question. I already know you're receiving government welfare -- that you conveniently call Private Insurance.
You're a closet socialist in denial !
<font size="4">So, why is okay for YOU to receive welfare, and wrong for someone else ???</font size>
BTW, I pay the entire premium for my health insurance and the health insurance of those who work in my office. NO GUBMENT HELP ! Why should you be any different than those who work for my company ???
QueEx
Last edited:
I agree with you. The government is very inefficient, wasteful, and slow. I would like someone to show me a government program that is the opposite of the above. I went to the IRS last week.. I was there for over 3 hours. They called me and then sent me back to wait for someone else. I was trying to pay them. So while I am for health care reform I am not for the government trying run it.
If there is going to be a national exchange of HC plans wouldn't that solve the problem of HC plans only competing statewide.
Republicans keep talking about opening up competition across state lines as a solution; however, a health care exchange should do the same thing.
The 3-4 percent administrative cost used is misleading. I think most healthcare companies operate statewide and don't have the scale to bring this percentage down. If they operated on a national level like Medicare, the 15-30 percent administrative costs should drop unless they decide to pay their CEO $600 million.
I hope this HC bill fixes the government not being able to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. Public Option and Cooperatives intially funded by the government should be on the exchange. HC is dragging down employment in many industries and encouraging companies to hire illegals since they can get away with not paying HC.
................................................................
Republicans keep talking about opening up competition across state lines as a solution; however, a health care exchange should do the same thing.
The 3-4 percent administrative cost used is misleading. I think most healthcare companies operate statewide and don't have the scale to bring this percentage down. If they operated on a national level like Medicare, the 15-30 percent administrative costs should drop unless they decide to pay their CEO $600 million.
I hope this HC bill fixes the government not being able to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. Public Option and Cooperatives intially funded by the government should be on the exchange. HC is dragging down employment in many industries and encouraging companies to hire illegals since they can get away with not paying HC.
................................................................
Is it me, but does it seem kinda funny when Obama gets in a rut, he finds something to blame Bush on?
Remember, right after the stimulus was passed, people were questioning him about where the money is going to. All of a sudden, we are now talking about waterboarding. When congress was talking about Cap and Trade, people start criticizing Cap and Trade. All of a sudden, we are talking about the Pelosi vs. CIA story. Now, when health care is going bad, his admin is bringing up "enhanced interrogations". This dude is a fucking ONE trick pony.
Yet, quethought don't notice this trend....
Que I thought you was OBJECTIVE....
Remember, right after the stimulus was passed, people were questioning him about where the money is going to. All of a sudden, we are now talking about waterboarding. When congress was talking about Cap and Trade, people start criticizing Cap and Trade. All of a sudden, we are talking about the Pelosi vs. CIA story. Now, when health care is going bad, his admin is bringing up "enhanced interrogations". This dude is a fucking ONE trick pony.
Yet, quethought don't notice this trend....
Que I thought you was OBJECTIVE....
BTW, as I've said before, I "try" to be objective and I definitely don't reach for "party labels" like a one-legged man does a crutch, as do you.
I don't have to prove that I'm objective, I am what I am; but if you think that I've missed that mark, its on you to make that case. So, get on with it.
QueEx
P.S.
Now, what was that journalism school ?
`
You know whats funny. I'm talking about stuff on here, and you are talking about my personal life. Very low indeed...
Hoss, you said you were a journalism student; not me.
I just wanted to know the school that teaches the syntax you use.
But you're right, the issues are what count. Now, if you can stay
"On Issue" so can I. When you stop drifting off-issue, so will I.
Remember that the next time you type my name.
QueEx
If my memory serves me right, this whole thing started when you/vegas/thought changed the subject on the school voucher thread. It took 3 threads later for me to get an answer for my question. *by thought of all people.*
For a so-called mod, you obviously took offense to me criticizing you on your job. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought a moderator suppose to moderate, not debate people he/she disagree with. Personally, if I was mod I would post things from both sides, and stay out of the fray. However, you can't do that. I brought the real you out didn't I? Honestly, the best way to beat me is to not get into the fray at all. Be what you claim you are.
As for me saying your name, when you post bs, I'm going to call you on it. That goes for anyone on here. This is me.... Best way to shut me up is to not post bullshit...
<font size="4">If</font size>
But you're not.
So, try to do what you would <font size="3">If</font size> you were and maybe you might come close to being what you could <font size="3">If</font size> you would.
QueEx
Five Myths about Health Care Around the World
Tuesday August 25, 2009
by T.R. Reid
As Americans search for the cure to what ails our health-care system, we've overlooked an invaluable source of ideas and solutions: the rest of the world. All the other industrialized democracies have faced problems like ours, yet they've found ways to cover everybody -- and still spend far less than we do.
I've traveled the world from Oslo to Osaka to see how other developed democracies provide health care. Instead of dismissing these models as "socialist," we could adapt their solutions to fix our problems. To do that, we first have to dispel a few myths about health care abroad:
1. It's all socialized medicine out there.
Not so.
Some countries, such as Britain, New Zealand and Cuba, do provide health care in government hospitals, with the government paying the bills. Others -- for instance, Canada and Taiwan -- rely on private-sector providers, paid for by government-run insurance. But many wealthy countries -- including Germany, the Netherlands, Japan and Switzerland -- provide universal coverage using private doctors, private hospitals and private insurance plans.
In some ways, health care is less "socialized" overseas than in the United States. Almost all Americans sign up for government insurance (Medicare) at age 65. In Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, seniors stick with private insurance plans for life. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the planet's purest examples of government-run health care.
2. Overseas, care is rationed through limited choices or long lines.
Generally, no. Germans can sign up for any of the nation's 200 private health insurance plans -- a broader choice than any American has. If a German doesn't like her insurance company, she can switch to another, with no increase in premium. The Swiss, too, can choose any insurance plan in the country.
In France and Japan, you don't get a choice of insurance provider; you have to use the one designated for your company or your industry. But patients can go to any doctor, any hospital, any traditional healer. There are no U.S.-style limits such as "in-network" lists of doctors or "pre-authorization" for surgery. You pick any doctor, you get treatment -- and insurance has to pay.
Canadians have their choice of providers. In Austria and Germany, if a doctor diagnoses a person as "stressed," medical insurance pays for weekends at a health spa.
As for those notorious waiting lists, some countries are indeed plagued by them. Canada makes patients wait weeks or months for non-emergency care, as a way to keep costs down. But studies by the Commonwealth Fund and others report that many nations -- Germany, Britain, Austria -- outperform the United States on measures such as waiting times for appointments and for elective surgeries.
In Japan, waiting times are so short that most patients don't bother to make an appointment. One Thursday morning in Tokyo, I called the prestigious orthopedic clinic at Keio University Hospital to schedule a consultation about my aching shoulder. "Why don't you just drop by?" the receptionist said. That same afternoon, I was in the surgeon's office. Dr. Nakamichi recommended an operation. "When could we do it?" I asked. The doctor checked his computer and said, "Tomorrow would be pretty difficult. Perhaps some day next week?"
3. Foreign health care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies.
Much less so than here. It may seem to Americans that U.S.-style free enterprise -- private-sector, for-profit health insurance -- is naturally the most cost-effective way to pay for health care. But in fact, all the other payment systems are more efficient than ours.
U.S. health insurance companies have the highest administrative costs in the world; they spend roughly 20 cents of every dollar for non-medical costs, such as paperwork, reviewing claims and marketing. France's health insurance industry, in contrast, covers everybody and spends about 4 percent on administration. Canada's universal insurance system, run by government bureaucrats, spends 6 percent on administration. In Taiwan, a leaner version of the Canadian model has administrative costs of 1.5 percent; one year, this figure ballooned to 2 percent, and the opposition parties savaged the government for wasting money.
The world champion at controlling medical costs is Japan, even though its aging population is a profligate consumer of medical care. On average, the Japanese go to the doctor 15 times a year, three times the U.S. rate. They have twice as many MRI scans and X-rays. Quality is high; life expectancy and recovery rates for major diseases are better than in the United States. And yet Japan spends about $3,400 per person annually on health care; the United States spends more than $7,000.
4. Cost controls stifle innovation.
False. The United States is home to groundbreaking medical research, but so are other countries with much lower cost structures. Any American who's had a hip or knee replacement is standing on French innovation. Deep-brain stimulation to treat depression is a Canadian breakthrough. Many of the wonder drugs promoted endlessly on American television, including Viagra, come from British, Swiss or Japanese labs.
Overseas, strict cost controls actually drive innovation. In the United States, an MRI scan of the neck region costs about $1,500. In Japan, the identical scan costs $98. Under the pressure of cost controls, Japanese researchers found ways to perform the same diagnostic technique for one-fifteenth the American price. (And Japanese labs still make a profit.)
5. Health insurance has to be cruel.
Not really. American health insurance companies routinely reject applicants with a "preexisting condition" -- precisely the people most likely to need the insurers' service. They employ armies of adjusters to deny claims. If a customer is hit by a truck and faces big medical bills, the insurer's "rescission department" digs through the records looking for grounds to cancel the policy, often while the victim is still in the hospital. The companies say they have to do this stuff to survive in a tough business.
Foreign health insurance companies, in contrast, must accept all applicants, and they can't cancel as long as you pay your premiums. The plans are required to pay any claim submitted by a doctor or hospital (or health spa), usually within tight time limits. The big Swiss insurer Groupe Mutuel promises to pay all claims within five days. "Our customers love it," the group's chief executive told me. The corollary is that everyone is mandated to buy insurance, to give the plans an adequate pool of rate-payers.
The key difference is that foreign health insurance plans exist only to pay people's medical bills, not to make a profit. The United States is the only developed country that lets insurance companies profit from basic health coverage.
In many ways, foreign health care models are not really "foreign" to America, because our crazy-quilt health care system uses elements of all of them. For Native Americans or veterans, we're Britain: The government provides health care, funding it through general taxes, and patients get no bills. For people who get insurance through their jobs, we're Germany: Premiums are split between workers and employers, and private insurance plans pay private doctors and hospitals. For people over 65, we're Canada: Everyone pays premiums for an insurance plan run by the government, and the public plan pays private doctors and hospitals according to a set fee schedule. And for the tens of millions without insurance coverage, we're Burundi or Burma: In the world's poor nations, sick people pay out of pocket for medical care; those who can't pay stay sick or die.
This fragmentation is another reason that we spend more than anybody else and still leave millions without coverage. All the other developed countries have settled on one model for health-care delivery and finance; we've blended them all into a costly, confusing bureaucratic mess.
Which, in turn, punctures the most persistent myth of all: that America has "the finest health care" in the world. We don't. In terms of results, almost all advanced countries have better national health statistics than the United States does. In terms of finance, we force 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills. In France, the number of medical bankruptcies is zero. Britain: zero. Japan: zero. Germany: zero.
Given our remarkable medical assets -- the best-educated doctors and nurses, the most advanced hospitals, world-class research -- the United States could be, and should be, the best in the world. To get there, though, we have to be willing to learn some lessons about health care administration from the other industrialized democracies.
T.R. Reid, a former Washington Post reporter, is the author of "The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care."
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/08/five_myths_about_health_care_a.html
Comment of Brit Who Lived In US for 15 Years about Health Care Systems
November 10, 2009 at 12:33 am
Glenn_UK says:
http://www.mikemalloy.com/2009/11/09/let-the-games-begin/#comment-654
As a British person, I’m amazed at all this – even though I spent a number of years (15) living in the US. We have free, universal health care in the UK. In Wales – which, like England and Scotland and Northern Ireland is part of the UK – we do not even pay a contribution towards prescriptions (drugs).
So if I need to see the doctor, I make an appointment – nearly always for the same day. 10 minute wait in the office maximum as a rule, free consultation. No forms, nothing to sign. If I need drugs, the doctor writes a prescription and I get them for free from the chemist (pharmacy) next door. Not a penny exchanged, no waits, and no paperwork.
The speed and skills of paramedics and emergency workers are also incredible. If you have a complaint, it will be dealt with very seriously indeed. If all of this still isn’t good enough for you, one can go private and utilise health insurance companies too.
It baffles me why Americans shy away from our system. I cannot understand why they don’t consider any of the following obvious points:
Q: Why don’t British people demand the abolition of the NHS?
A: Because’re very happy with it, and wouldn’t have it any other way.
Q: Why does every last UK politician speak so favourably of the NHS and their commitment to it?
A: Because it would be political suicide to threaten or diss the NHS in any way.
Q: Why do British and oversees doctors train long and hard to work for the NHS?
A: Because it pays well and they are satisfied with their jobs. (Nurses and ancillary staff are another story.)
Q: What are the biggest problems with the NHS?
A: The partial privitisation that started with Thatcher and has continued under “New” Labour. The poor treatment and pay of nurses, and the farming out of much of the unskilled work to private companies, and excessive use of clip-board ‘consultants’, public-private-partnerships (PPP’s) and internal markets within the NHS have been a disaster. This Thatcher legacy has been the poison pill of our current NHS.
Q: What do British people think of the right-wing in America slagging off the British NHS?
A: It makes us angry.
All this talk about waiting lists being excessive, people dying without treatment etc., is exaggeration, fueled hugely by the far-right gutter-press which bedevils the UK, and is our national disgrace. But even they dare not knock the NHS as a concept, try as they might to claim it is bad and highlight lackings. Of course the very best health care for the ultra rich in the US is better than that for the general NHS patient – who would expect otherwise? But what sort of comparison is that? The rich can get private health care in the UK if they want it. But remarkably few do.
What beats me most of all is why Americans are so ready to take the odd anecdote of failure abroad as proof that they can’t do it themselves. What happened to the American ‘can-do’ spirit? Heck, why don’t Americans say “If the British, and hell – even the Cubans! – can make that good a job of free, universal health-care, they WE – by God! – are going to make a MAGNIFICENT job of it!”
Good luck on this one, America. You need it.
-Glenn.
Last edited:
Similar threads
