Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Apr 23, 2020 6:35:21 GMT -5
Aww, therein lies the rub. You want what other countries in terms of healthcare but you want it to be a free for all with the taxpayer footing the bill. Government run anything has price controls. Medicaid/Medicare have extremely low reimbursements. If we have medicare for all then costs are going to have to be cut. Just curious.. .Canada has doctors even though they make significantly less than the US. Why would you assume that the US doctors would suddenly quit? Actually, they don't make "significantly less". Because their education is subsidized by the Canadian taxpayers, they don't have massive student loans to pay off. Their malpractice insurance isn't sky-high. They don't need to pay an an army of paper-pushers to deal with insurance. When all these things are considered, it's not that much less. Average medical school cost in the US is $196k per google. Even assuming it was free in Canada, that is $20k per year more spread out over 10 years (pretty fair spread). And I believe I said one of the ways to reduce our medical costs is to reduce the crazy malpractice payouts. the payouts in the US are astronomical compared to other countries.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,365
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Apr 23, 2020 8:20:44 GMT -5
Actually if one price was paid, Medicare and Medicaid would pay more, and private insurance would pay LESS, because they would not be subsidizing everyone else. Would be even better if everyone had insurance. Which is part of the reason the ACA was designed. Not sure why it is controversial. Otherwise we should just have the uninsured not get any care, but no one seems to have the stomach for that. As to pricing, it is an absolute mess. The charges depend on “intensity of service”. I get paid more for more complex cases. You don’t know how complex your case is, and I don’t know what.to charge until I see you. So, if you call as a new patient, we can give you a range of prices, but we do not know the charge until after we are done. Sort of like taking your car in. To do otherwise we required overhauling the billing system. One price for a service doesn’t work, unless you think someone with a cold paying the same as someone with a lung cancer So what will happen if liberals get their way and everyone is on a national medicare plan? Will costs be forced to go down because you don't have those of us on insurance picking up the slack for those being paid for by the government? I believe Susana was talking about things like an MRI, x-ray, etc. The pricing is different based on who is paying. The same test but a huge range of prices. This is a complicated question. Right now, we have a large number of people who work dealing with insurance and collecting bills. If the system was simplified, that over head would be eliminated, and overhead could be decreased substantially. In addition, on the payer side, Medicare's overhead is 3%, and private insurance can be as high as 20%, so the loss in payment could be less than thought, but a large number of jobs would be lost in the insurance in industry. In addition, too much of physician time is spent dealing with the fact that different insurance has different rules. If we had to deal with one set of rules, we would get some time back, and could see more patients. So, physicians may not be hurt too bad, except for higher paid specialties. Hospitals could be seriously hurt however, and some sort of accommodation will need to be made. Hope that wasn't too long winded or nuanced
|
|
GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl
Senior Associate
"How you win matters." Ender, Ender's Game
Joined: Jan 2, 2011 13:33:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,291
|
Post by GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl on Apr 23, 2020 9:24:11 GMT -5
Actually, they don't make "significantly less". Because their education is subsidized by the Canadian taxpayers, they don't have massive student loans to pay off. Their malpractice insurance isn't sky-high. They don't need to pay an an army of paper-pushers to deal with insurance. When all these things are considered, it's not that much less. Average medical school cost in the US is $196k per google. Even assuming it was free in Canada, that is $20k per year more spread out over 10 years (pretty fair spread). And I believe I said one of the ways to reduce our medical costs is to reduce the crazy malpractice payouts. the payouts in the US are astronomical compared to other countries. That’s tuition for 4 years of medical school. Add living expenses (can’t work AND go to medical school), specialty programs (surgery, anesthesia, etc.), fellowships, residencies, etc. All said and done it’s at least $300k.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 12:42:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2020 9:31:42 GMT -5
To fix healthcare, you first need massive tort reform.
I also happen to believe medical school should be free for anyone smart enough to finish it. We have many provider shortages, and this would be very helpful for us as a country.
For coverage, everyone should have the same. How's it paid for? VAT or income tax adjusted for income.
If everyone has the same access to care, that gives a LOT more people who have a stake in the program and changes will come faster.
It's understandable that people with Cadillac plans don't want to find themselves with "government" coverage like the masses. Oh well.
Then again, I happen to believe in a 1st world country, healthcare access should be a right not a privilege of your birth or benefit of being able to land a "good" job... Your grocery clerks and gas station attendants need healthcare too - perhaps this pandemic will show people why.
There will also be people who had great coverage who lose their jobs, can't afford COBRA or coverage on the exchange, and then get COVID and massive bills. Perhaps that group will be helpful in leading the reform.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,365
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Apr 23, 2020 9:34:46 GMT -5
Average medical school cost in the US is $196k per google. Even assuming it was free in Canada, that is $20k per year more spread out over 10 years (pretty fair spread). And I believe I said one of the ways to reduce our medical costs is to reduce the crazy malpractice payouts. the payouts in the US are astronomical compared to other countries. That’s tuition for 4 years of medical school. Add living expenses (can’t work AND go to medical school), specialty programs (surgery, anesthesia, etc.), fellowships, residencies, etc. All said and done it’s at least $300k. My son went to our state school. $250K for all in. Residents are paid, and he gets about $55k with a 2% raise a year. He will be in training for a minimum of 5 years and possibly 7-9. So 33-35 yo before all done. When you factor in all the schooling and post-graduate work, there is a huge opportunity cost to becoming a physician. Study in NEJM looked at it, and only high paid surgical specialties come out at an economic advantage compared to an MBA.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,386
|
Post by thyme4change on Apr 23, 2020 10:31:47 GMT -5
Actually if one price was paid, Medicare and Medicaid would pay more, and private insurance would pay LESS, because they would not be subsidizing everyone else. Would be even better if everyone had insurance. Which is part of the reason the ACA was designed. Not sure why it is controversial. Otherwise we should just have the uninsured not get any care, but no one seems to have the stomach for that. As to pricing, it is an absolute mess. The charges depend on “intensity of service”. I get paid more for more complex cases. You don’t know how complex your case is, and I don’t know what.to charge until I see you. So, if you call as a new patient, we can give you a range of prices, but we do not know the charge until after we are done. Sort of like taking your car in. To do otherwise we required overhauling the billing system. One price for a service doesn’t work, unless you think someone with a cold paying the same as someone with a lung cancer So what will happen if liberals get their way and everyone is on a national medicare plan? Will costs be forced to go down because you don't have those of us on insurance picking up the slack for those being paid for by the government? I believe Susana was talking about things like an MRI, x-ray, etc. The pricing is different based on who is paying. The same test but a huge range of prices. Unfortunately, "liberals" don't agree on what universal coverage should look like, so it is impossible to say. There has to be a careful effort to decrease costs, because a quarter of our stock market and a ton of jobs are tied to healthcare. How do we ratched the costs back without sinking the economy? Where is the most profit? Maybe we start there. Where are the biggest discrepancies compared to other countries? That is a good place to dig. Are we ready to make changes? For example, maybe not all births need to be in a hospital, or how do other countries handle end of life care, without everyone yelling "death panels".
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 21,297
|
Post by giramomma on Apr 23, 2020 10:50:54 GMT -5
Where is the most profit? Maybe we start there. Where are the biggest discrepancies compared to other countries? That is a good place to dig. Are we ready to make changes? For example, maybe not all births need to be in a hospital, or how do other countries handle end of life care, without everyone yelling "death panels". I was floored at how the number of ultrasounds for a NORMAL pregnancy has increased between my first kid (now 15) and my last (2). When I was first pregnant, no one wanted to see you until the heartbeat could be heard over a hand-held thingy. Now, first dating ultrasound happens at 8 weeks as standard treatment. Back of the napkin math: we'll say there's 4.5 million normal, healthy pregnancies a year. Each dating ultrasound costs $250 a pop. I can't do that math easily on paper. I rounded down to 4 million normal pregnancies and $200 ultrasounds. That means, we're spending 900,000,000 a YEAR on ultrasound testing that was deemed unnecessary until a 5-10 years ago, give or take.
I was also amazed at the number of ultrasounds I was counseled to have in my second and third trimesers just because I was 35 and pregnant. Of courses, these weren't the dumb ultrasounds in an OBs, office. I had to go to the hospital to get level 2 ultrasounds, at twice the cost of a normal dumb ultrasound.
The kicker: level 2 ultrasounds were still unreliable in terms of accuracy for weight. I was supposed to get them to make sure The peanut wasn't getting to big. I refused some of them. But, by then, I knew better that I was still a "good mom" even if I turned down unnecessary testing. I was grateful that I found an OB that was willing to work with my common sense approach to being pregnant with #4 at 41/42. My first OB was going to insist on a ton of medical interventions JUST because I was obese and old. As it turned out, most of the tests that my first OB told me were "absolutely necessary" were actually wait and see. Turns out, we waited, and I didn't need the testing. We weren't even sure if Miss M was going to flip in time..she was still head up far longer than she should have been. Again, my OB took the wait and see approach and let me go as long as possible. Kiddo turned, all by herself, in the nick of time. If I had insisted that we do something right.then.immediately. to fix the issue, I would have likely ended up with an emergency c-section. I actually would have preferred to have #4 in a birth center. For #2-4, I had very normal births, a walking epi, and only spend 24 hours in the hospital after birth. However, I live in a city of 200K, and there are no birth centers in my parts. I wasn't comfortable having a home birth, so hospital it was.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,386
|
Post by thyme4change on Apr 23, 2020 11:16:24 GMT -5
Where is the most profit? Maybe we start there. Where are the biggest discrepancies compared to other countries? That is a good place to dig. Are we ready to make changes? For example, maybe not all births need to be in a hospital, or how do other countries handle end of life care, without everyone yelling "death panels". I was floored at how the number of ultrasounds for a NORMAL pregnancy has increased between my first kid (now 15) and my last (2). When I was first pregnant, no one wanted to see you until the heartbeat could be heard over a hand-held thingy. Now, first dating ultrasound happens at 8 weeks as standard treatment. Back of the napkin math: we'll say there's 4.5 million normal, healthy pregnancies a year. Each dating ultrasound costs $250 a pop. I can't do that math easily on paper. I rounded down to 4 million normal pregnancies and $200 ultrasounds. That means, we're spending 900,000,000 a YEAR on ultrasound testing that was deemed unnecessary until a 5-10 years ago, give or take.
I was also amazed at the number of ultrasounds I was counseled to have in my second and third trimesers just because I was 35 and pregnant. Of courses, these weren't the dumb ultrasounds in an OBs, office. I had to go to the hospital to get level 2 ultrasounds, at twice the cost of a normal dumb ultrasound.
The kicker: level 2 ultrasounds were still unreliable in terms of accuracy for weight. I was supposed to get them to make sure The peanut wasn't getting to big. I refused some of them. But, by then, I knew better that I was still a "good mom" even if I turned down unnecessary testing. I was grateful that I found an OB that was willing to work with my common sense approach to being pregnant with #4 at 41/42. My first OB was going to insist on a ton of medical interventions JUST because I was obese and old. As it turned out, most of the tests that my first OB told me were "absolutely necessary" were actually wait and see. Turns out, we waited, and I didn't need the testing. We weren't even sure if Miss M was going to flip in time..she was still head up far longer than she should have been. Again, my OB took the wait and see approach and let me go as long as possible. Kiddo turned, all by herself, in the nick of time. If I had insisted that we do something right.then.immediately. to fix the issue, I would have likely ended up with an emergency c-section. I actually would have preferred to have #4 in a birth center. For #2-4, I had very normal births, a walking epi, and only spend 24 hours in the hospital after birth. However, I live in a city of 200K, and there are no birth centers in my parts. I wasn't comfortable having a home birth, so hospital it was. Testing and drug patents are probably the two best places to start. They seem to be big money makers for the medical industry.
|
|
jerseygirl
Senior Member
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,765
|
Post by jerseygirl on Apr 23, 2020 11:47:56 GMT -5
To fix healthcare, you first need massive tort reform. I also happen to believe medical school should be free for anyone smart enough to finish it. We have many provider shortages, and this would be very helpful for us as a country. For coverage, everyone should have the same. How's it paid for? VAT or income tax adjusted for income. If everyone has the same access to care, that gives a LOT more people who have a stake in the program and changes will come faster. It's understandable that people with Cadillac plans don't want to find themselves with "government" coverage like the masses. Oh well. Then again, I happen to believe in a 1st world country, healthcare access should be a right not a privilege of your birth or benefit of being able to land a "good" job... Your grocery clerks and gas station attendants need healthcare too - perhaps this pandemic will show people why. There will also be people who had great coverage who lose their jobs, can't afford COBRA or coverage on the exchange, and then get COVID and massive bills. Perhaps that group will be helpful in leading the reform. All great ideas. BUT the costs aren’t decreased just because everyone has insurance. Trump or his administration are actually doing some things to reduce costs. Hospitals and medical practice must start listing actual costs for pricedures(eg ultrasound, hip replacement without complications); must assure that no ‘surprise ‘ costs eg go to ER that’s covered by your insurance but get big bills from other docs or services outside your plan
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Apr 23, 2020 14:33:20 GMT -5
So what will happen if liberals get their way and everyone is on a national medicare plan? Will costs be forced to go down because you don't have those of us on insurance picking up the slack for those being paid for by the government? I believe Susana was talking about things like an MRI, x-ray, etc. The pricing is different based on who is paying. The same test but a huge range of prices. Unfortunately, "liberals" don't agree on what universal coverage should look like, so it is impossible to say. There has to be a careful effort to decrease costs, because a quarter of our stock market and a ton of jobs are tied to healthcare. How do we ratched the costs back without sinking the economy? Where is the most profit? Maybe we start there. Where are the biggest discrepancies compared to other countries? That is a good place to dig. Are we ready to make changes? For example, maybe not all births need to be in a hospital, or how do other countries handle end of life care, without everyone yelling "death panels". If we want universal healthcare and we want it to be successful, we need to do it correctly. There is zero reason to have an insurance industry if it is medicare for all. We need to get our costs inline with that of other countries. We can't tout their success if we do not want to mimic how they get their. Everyone is busy fighting about who pays but no one wants to do anything about the fact that our medical costs (not insurance costs) are significantly higher than other countries.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 23, 2020 14:45:52 GMT -5
Unfortunately, "liberals" don't agree on what universal coverage should look like, so it is impossible to say. There has to be a careful effort to decrease costs, because a quarter of our stock market and a ton of jobs are tied to healthcare. How do we ratched the costs back without sinking the economy? Where is the most profit? Maybe we start there. Where are the biggest discrepancies compared to other countries? That is a good place to dig. Are we ready to make changes? For example, maybe not all births need to be in a hospital, or how do other countries handle end of life care, without everyone yelling "death panels". If we want universal healthcare and we want it to be successful, we need to do it correctly. There is zero reason to have an insurance industry if it is medicare for all. We need to get our costs inline with that of other countries. We can't tout their success if we do not want to mimic how they get their. Everyone is busy fighting about who pays but no one wants to do anything about the fact that our medical costs (not insurance costs) are significantly higher than other countries. 1. "Medicare for all" is typically a basement level, not the only thing. Under most medicare for all suggestions people can still get private insurance. 2. Other countries that have basic healthcare programs still have insurance companies that offer private insurance as well.
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,303
|
Post by gs11rmb on Apr 23, 2020 16:20:02 GMT -5
If we want universal healthcare and we want it to be successful, we need to do it correctly. There is zero reason to have an insurance industry if it is medicare for all. We need to get our costs inline with that of other countries. We can't tout their success if we do not want to mimic how they get their. Everyone is busy fighting about who pays but no one wants to do anything about the fact that our medical costs (not insurance costs) are significantly higher than other countries. 1. "Medicare for all" is typically a basement level, not the only thing. Under most medicare for all suggestions people can still get private insurance. 2. Other countries that have basic healthcare programs still have insurance companies that offer private insurance as well. In the UK almost everyone uses the NHS. Private health insurance is offered as a perk usually to higher earning employees.
|
|
jerseygirl
Senior Member
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,765
|
Post by jerseygirl on Apr 23, 2020 16:30:10 GMT -5
Private insurance also available in Holland Don’t know about now but at one time in Canada couldn’t have private insy
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Apr 23, 2020 18:46:37 GMT -5
I was floored at how the number of ultrasounds for a NORMAL pregnancy has increased between my first kid (now 15) and my last (2). When I was first pregnant, no one wanted to see you until the heartbeat could be heard over a hand-held thingy. Now, first dating ultrasound happens at 8 weeks as standard treatment. Back of the napkin math: we'll say there's 4.5 million normal, healthy pregnancies a year. Each dating ultrasound costs $250 a pop. I can't do that math easily on paper. I rounded down to 4 million normal pregnancies and $200 ultrasounds. That means, we're spending 900,000,000 a YEAR on ultrasound testing that was deemed unnecessary until a 5-10 years ago, give or take.
I was also amazed at the number of ultrasounds I was counseled to have in my second and third trimesers just because I was 35 and pregnant. Of courses, these weren't the dumb ultrasounds in an OBs, office. I had to go to the hospital to get level 2 ultrasounds, at twice the cost of a normal dumb ultrasound.
The kicker: level 2 ultrasounds were still unreliable in terms of accuracy for weight. I was supposed to get them to make sure The peanut wasn't getting to big. I refused some of them. But, by then, I knew better that I was still a "good mom" even if I turned down unnecessary testing. I was grateful that I found an OB that was willing to work with my common sense approach to being pregnant with #4 at 41/42. My first OB was going to insist on a ton of medical interventions JUST because I was obese and old. As it turned out, most of the tests that my first OB told me were "absolutely necessary" were actually wait and see. Turns out, we waited, and I didn't need the testing. We weren't even sure if Miss M was going to flip in time..she was still head up far longer than she should have been. Again, my OB took the wait and see approach and let me go as long as possible. Kiddo turned, all by herself, in the nick of time. If I had insisted that we do something right.then.immediately. to fix the issue, I would have likely ended up with an emergency c-section. I actually would have preferred to have #4 in a birth center. For #2-4, I had very normal births, a walking epi, and only spend 24 hours in the hospital after birth. However, I live in a city of 200K, and there are no birth centers in my parts. I wasn't comfortable having a home birth, so hospital it was. Testing and drug patents are probably the two best places to start. They seem to be big money makers for the medical industry. Actually, it’s not the drug patents. Saw a report about a month ago that analyzed the increase in pharmaceutical cost over the last 20 or 40 years. The portion of the cost increase attributable to drug manufacturers was about the rate of inflation. The portion of the cost increase attributed to pharmaceutical management companies was several times (like 15 times) as much as the increase the manufacturer got. The middle men, insurance companies, pharmaceutical managers, and the like, who have entered the medical care arena in the past 50 years create a massive amount of additional cost. And not just in the fees they collect. For example, my BIL, a sole practitioner chiropractor, has a full time person on his staff of five to deal with the insurance companies, their demands for additional information, denied claims, delays in payment for services provided, and so forth.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Apr 23, 2020 19:39:19 GMT -5
Average medical school cost in the US is $196k per google. Even assuming it was free in Canada, that is $20k per year more spread out over 10 years (pretty fair spread). And I believe I said one of the ways to reduce our medical costs is to reduce the crazy malpractice payouts. the payouts in the US are astronomical compared to other countries. That’s tuition for 4 years of medical school. Add living expenses (can’t work AND go to medical school), specialty programs (surgery, anesthesia, etc.), fellowships, residencies, etc. All said and done it’s at least $300k. If I'm remembering right from my friend it was 3 years in traditional school and then 1 year of more or less being an intern in all these different areas which can often mean spending time away from your home base. For example my friend crashed with me for the 6-8 weeks she had to be at the hospital 5 minutes from me. If I wasn't there she would have had to drive 2 hours from here parents' place (which is rough because she worked long hours - leaving before me and often coming home after me) or pay for a temporary spot over here. Then it was one year of residency where I think she got paid $50k for all her hours. She then opted to do the second year of residency instead of jumping straight to specialty training so another year at about the same pay. I haven't spoken with her about what exactly happened after her second year of residency. So 4 years of no pay and at least 1 of not making enough to really pay anything and probably several more years too. Plus that fun thing called interest. So yeah I could see $300k easy.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Apr 23, 2020 21:27:49 GMT -5
Private insurance also available in Holland Don’t know about now but at one time in Canada couldn’t have private insy Private insurance exists in Canada for things like ambulance rides, dental and glasses. It's illegal for private insurance to cover things already covered by our single-payer system, like surgery/chemo/cardiac care, etc. It only pays for "extras".
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Apr 23, 2020 21:40:00 GMT -5
In other words, you cannot use private insurance to get quicker/better care if you have cancer, diabetes, need thoracic surgery, orthopedic surgery, hernia repair, transplants etc. Nobody gets to the front of the line because they have money.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Apr 23, 2020 21:59:48 GMT -5
31 countries do not have free universal healthcare. They are:
Afghanistan
Angola
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Chad
Gambia
Guinea
Haiti
Indonesia
Iraq
Jordan
Kenya
Lebanon
Liberia
Mali
Mauritania
Mozambique
Niger
Nigeria
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Sudan
Sudan
Suriname
Syria
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
United States of America
Zimbabwe
What's wrong with this picture? It's the USA, the richest country in the world, and the poorest "shit-hole" countries.
Nicely done!
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 24, 2020 7:43:47 GMT -5
31 countries do not have free universal healthcare. They are: Afghanistan Angola Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Chad Gambia Guinea Haiti Indonesia Iraq Jordan Kenya Lebanon Liberia Mali Mauritania Mozambique Niger Nigeria Senegal Sierra Leone Somalia South Sudan Sudan Suriname Syria Tajikistan Turkmenistan United States of America
Zimbabwe What's wrong with this picture? It's the USA, the richest country in the world, and the poorest "shit-hole" countries. Nicely done! Not true, there are a limited number of countries with universal healthcare. And many countries that offer high levels of coverage are not free (Germany for example, though no place is actually free, I believe by "free" you're talking about a single payer system...SOMEONE is paying for it though). Please stop posting things you know are untrue. Today, 18 countries offer true universal health coverage: Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Unlike you, I'll post a source of information...I realize you will not since you're making things up. Or you'll post a link that completely contradicts the statement you've made as you have many times on this topic. www.verywellhealth.com/difference-between-universal-coverage-and-single-payer-system-1738546
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 12:42:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2020 7:47:17 GMT -5
In other words, you cannot use private insurance to get quicker/better care if you have cancer, diabetes, need thoracic surgery, orthopedic surgery, hernia repair, transplants etc. Nobody gets to the front of the line because they have money. But they can go to other countries to get some of those done. Look up "medical tourism". A friend in Canada has posted on FB that she needs hip replacements but will have to wait "forever and a day" to get them. If she had a lot of money she could go to a highly-respected place such as Bumrungrad Clinic in Thailand and get them done now. And many countries that offer high levels of coverage are not free (Germany for example, though no place is actually free, I believe by "free" you're talking about a single payer system...SOMEONE is paying for it though). Thank you!!! I always bristle at the word "free". It's inaccurate unless the healthcare providers are working for nothing, the pharmaceutical companies are giving away their products, etc. I know our system in the US has a ton of problems but most of the single-payer systems have their own: long waits for non-emergency surgery, doctor shortages, stricter controls on who gets what (many systems won't allow a second stem cell transplant if the first fails- in the US you can get one).
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 24, 2020 7:59:22 GMT -5
In other words, you cannot use private insurance to get quicker/better care if you have cancer, diabetes, need thoracic surgery, orthopedic surgery, hernia repair, transplants etc. Nobody gets to the front of the line because they have money. But they can go to other countries to get some of those done. Look up "medical tourism". A friend in Canada has posted on FB that she needs hip replacements but will have to wait "forever and a day" to get them. And many countries that offer high levels of coverage are not free (Germany for example, though no place is actually free, I believe by "free" you're talking about a single payer system...SOMEONE is paying for it though). Thank you!!! I always bristle at the word "free". It's inaccurate unless the healthcare providers are working for nothing, the pharmaceutical companies are giving away their products, etc. I know our system in the US has a ton of problems but most of the single-payer systems have their own: long waits for non-emergency surgery, doctor shortages, stricter controls on who gets what (many systems won't allow a second stem cell transplant if the first fails- in the US you can get one). It's also inaccurate even as people use it sometimes where "Free=government pays for it". Many countries don't even do that. They force people to pay for insurance, sometimes not much differently than the US tried to do by making a law that you have to have coverage, regardless of how you do it via private insurance or government coverage. There's a reason there are a few countries in the world like the US where anyone rich enough to have medical services done there, goes there, rather than stay in their home country with their own healthcare system. It doesn't exactly scream as a ringing endorsement for that country's healthcare system.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 12:42:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2020 9:07:56 GMT -5
It's also inaccurate even as people use it sometimes where "Free=government pays for it". Many countries don't even do that. They force people to pay for insurance, sometimes not much differently than the US tried to do by making a law that you have to have coverage, regardless of how you do it via private insurance or government coverage. I used to work for a company HQ'd in Switzerland, where purchase of health insurance is compulsory. I asked my Swiss coworkers what would happen if you were taken to the hospital with a health problem and had no insurance. They said they wouldn't let you leave the hospital till you paid. Yeah, like THAT would work in the US.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,386
|
Post by thyme4change on Apr 24, 2020 9:36:59 GMT -5
Testing and drug patents are probably the two best places to start. They seem to be big money makers for the medical industry. Actually, it’s not the drug patents. Saw a report about a month ago that analyzed the increase in pharmaceutical cost over the last 20 or 40 years. The portion of the cost increase attributable to drug manufacturers was about the rate of inflation. The portion of the cost increase attributed to pharmaceutical management companies was several times (like 15 times) as much as the increase the manufacturer got. The middle men, insurance companies, pharmaceutical managers, and the like, who have entered the medical care arena in the past 50 years create a massive amount of additional cost. And not just in the fees they collect. For example, my BIL, a sole practitioner chiropractor, has a full time person on his staff of five to deal with the insurance companies, their demands for additional information, denied claims, delays in payment for services provided, and so forth. The patent for insulin and epinephrine pens are a good example of drugs that have been put there for decades, but have had the patents extended so manufacturers can charge crazy prices. It might not be a main driver for cost in the industry, but it should be examined for the health of our citizens.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 12:42:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2020 9:49:52 GMT -5
In other words, you cannot use private insurance to get quicker/better care if you have cancer, diabetes, need thoracic surgery, orthopedic surgery, hernia repair, transplants etc. Nobody gets to the front of the line because they have money. I think like cannabis reforms, universal healthcare in the US may be coming in the next generation or two. Everyone sees it for the shit system it currently is, but we still have enough of the voting block who's older with good insurance and fierce lobbies fighting reforms. But, that's changing as insurance costs skyrocket and people get worse and worse care. Then again, I do realize I am jaded. DS spent another hour immobile and having seizures last night. Hundreds of thousands of healthcare dollars from Medicaid and not a single provider has yet to offer anything to help him nor a definitive diagnosis...
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Apr 24, 2020 10:16:59 GMT -5
Actually, it’s not the drug patents. Saw a report about a month ago that analyzed the increase in pharmaceutical cost over the last 20 or 40 years. The portion of the cost increase attributable to drug manufacturers was about the rate of inflation. The portion of the cost increase attributed to pharmaceutical management companies was several times (like 15 times) as much as the increase the manufacturer got. The middle men, insurance companies, pharmaceutical managers, and the like, who have entered the medical care arena in the past 50 years create a massive amount of additional cost. And not just in the fees they collect. For example, my BIL, a sole practitioner chiropractor, has a full time person on his staff of five to deal with the insurance companies, their demands for additional information, denied claims, delays in payment for services provided, and so forth. The patent for insulin and epinephrine pens are a good example of drugs that have been put there for decades, but have had the patents extended so manufacturers can charge crazy prices. It might not be a main driver for cost in the industry, but it should be examined for the health of our citizens. I agree. We need a law that US citizens will not pay more than the lowest amount paid by another first country. A quick google search says we pay 3x as much as other countries. It's ridiculous. Either drug companies take less profit or the profit gets spread around to more than US citizens. And I'm cool with stopping all advertising if that is driving up costs....I don't need to watch a commercial on the latest and greatest drugs!
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 24, 2020 10:21:33 GMT -5
In other words, you cannot use private insurance to get quicker/better care if you have cancer, diabetes, need thoracic surgery, orthopedic surgery, hernia repair, transplants etc. Nobody gets to the front of the line because they have money. I think like cannabis reforms, universal healthcare in the US may be coming in the next generation or two. Everyone sees it for the shit system it currently is, but we still have enough of the voting block who's older with good insurance and fierce lobbies fighting reforms. But, that's changing as insurance costs skyrocket and people get worse and worse care. Then again, I do realize I am jaded. DS spent another hour immobile and having seizures last night. Hundreds of thousands of healthcare dollars from Medicaid and not a single provider has yet to offer anything to help him nor a definitive diagnosis... Let's be clear what "universal healthcare" actually means though. It simply means everyone is covered. Right now about 91% of the US is covered. Universal healthcare would be as simple as extending that other 9% some kind of Medicare/Medicaid coverage. That's a completely separate issue from insurance costs or quality of care. People aren't going to suddenly get better care just because other random people go on a government-sponsored system...the doctors you're saying give poor care don't just disappear.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Apr 24, 2020 11:53:29 GMT -5
In other words, you cannot use private insurance to get quicker/better care if you have cancer, diabetes, need thoracic surgery, orthopedic surgery, hernia repair, transplants etc. Nobody gets to the front of the line because they have money. I think like cannabis reforms, universal healthcare in the US may be coming in the next generation or two. Everyone sees it for the shit system it currently is, but we still have enough of the voting block who's older with good insurance and fierce lobbies fighting reforms. But, that's changing as insurance costs skyrocket and people get worse and worse care.Then again, I do realize I am jaded. DS spent another hour immobile and having seizures last night. Hundreds of thousands of healthcare dollars from Medicaid and not a single provider has yet to offer anything to help him nor a definitive diagnosis... Insurance costs are skyrocketing because medical costs are skyrocketing. I'm very happy with the care that my family and I receive.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 12:42:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2020 11:54:47 GMT -5
In other words, you cannot use private insurance to get quicker/better care if you have cancer, diabetes, need thoracic surgery, orthopedic surgery, hernia repair, transplants etc. Nobody gets to the front of the line because they have money. I think like cannabis reforms, universal healthcare in the US may be coming in the next generation or two. Everyone sees it for the shit system it currently is, but we still have enough of the voting block who's older with good insurance and fierce lobbies fighting reforms. But, that's changing as insurance costs skyrocket and people get worse and worse care. Then again, I do realize I am jaded. DS spent another hour immobile and having seizures last night. Hundreds of thousands of healthcare dollars from Medicaid and not a single provider has yet to offer anything to help him nor a definitive diagnosis...But that wouldn't change with universal healthcare.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,449
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 24, 2020 12:16:17 GMT -5
Interesting discussion here on this thread. Reminds me "Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," he added. "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated." link
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Apr 24, 2020 12:52:22 GMT -5
Interesting discussion here on this thread. Reminds me "Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," he added. "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated." link Yes, he would be much better off if he stopped speaking sometimes... It is funny, though. Everyone wants to change healthcare until it impacts them personally. Then it's "well you can't change THAT". If we want to have government funded universal healthcare, there will have to be some significant changes from everyone. I will be the first to say I do not want to go to a system where the wait times are a lot longer. Plenty of articles out there documenting Canadian wait times versus ours and I would not be pleased. Others want to shift payment to the taxpayers but not reduce costs that impact them. Another big issues is malpractice wards...imagine the uproar if we limit malpractice awards like they do in other countries (which I am in favor of, btw). And so on...there are a lot of changes and EVERYONE will have to give.
|
|