Why Healthcare costs so much: Explained in one cartoon

I did take a look and this is what I found.....

Only 6% of separation, they're catching up with us fast. How exactly this better?

 

"French taxpayers fund a state health insurer, Assurance Maladie, proportionally to their income, and patients get treatment even if they can't pay for it. France spends 11% of national output on health services, compared with 17% in the U.S., and routinely outranks the U.S. in infant mortality and some other health measures."

You just showed they spend less per gdp and still cover all their citizens. They also have better results.

You cannot just point to one article and say "see". Plenty of hospitals and medical practices close here in the states all the time. Plus if you live in the country some places here in the US you could be looking at hundred of miles to a hospital.

We cost the most per capita. Period. Other nations are doing it better, covering everyone, and for less money.

We could learn a thing or two from France.

Maybe we should be aiming to be the most affordable UHC provider?

 

We have Universal health care in Canada.

Employers pay per employee and wage earners also pay a premium based on net income earned per year. Its $500/yr if you earn net $48200.

Everyone is covered although you can also get additional medical coverage for things like drugs, eyecare, chiropractic, semi/private rooms etc. this can either be a perq from the employer or you can purchase a private supplemental plan.

this system results in about 70% of healthcare expenditures being government and 30% paid by the private sector. A nice blend of the two. Its a pretty good system.

I had a heart attack a few months ago and had a stent put in. Had emergency room treatment (6 hits of morphine and not even a buzz) a couple of ambulance rides, the surgery, three nights in hospital, a 6 month rehab/prevention program and it cost me zero. I take four different drugs and 70% of those costs are covered by my wife's benefits package at work. I wind up paying about $120/month for drugs.

In comparison, if the same thing happened to me in the US and I didn't have insurance the costs would be about $60,000 (had top cardio surgeon from top hospital in ontario - lucky break actually). I understand that a lot of insurance plans have a co-pay amount and are limited to something like 70% of costs. That's a lot of bucks even when you have a plan.

Oh, btw Canada spends about 10% gdp on healthcare.

there definitely is a better way to provide healthcare than to have a totally for profit system whose performance is dictated by the profit targets of insurance companies.

 

http://www.yukon-news.com/news/15368/

 

the final summation from that article:

“There is a lot of good in having a system that is publicly funded and publicly administered,” she said.

“We just need to make it work better.”

thanks for sharing.

 

Read the whole article, your shining example is in big financial and operational trouble.

 

Everytime I speak to a European or a Canadian they are absolutely appalled at the idea that we could go into serious debt with medical bills. It's completely beyond them. There is not many Europeans who would trade their system for ours. That's for sure.

 

They're running low on sources that suggest America's system is any good. When just about every medical expert in the country is begging for single payer healthcare you know something is wrong with America's ideals.

 

And UHC would change this, how?

The only reason we have higher total per capita healthcare expenditures is because the United States healthcare system has two parallel systems, one private and one public, that are factored into the costs. If you compare the costs on a specific basic, our private system spends roughly the same per capita as does the European nations you progressives want to emulate so much; in fact, Norway's public per capita healthcare expenditures exceed our private per capita healthcare expenditures, and Luxemborg's public per capita healthcare expenditures are only nominally less than our private per capita healthcare expenditures. So, you see, the data simply do not support the idea that UHC necessarily pushes costs lower than would otherwise be the case.

 

Let us know when you have something other than lame cartoons and anecdotal evidence to support your argument.

 

Quantify "just about every", define "medical expert", and then show us evidence that "just about every medical expert in the country is begging for single-payer healthcare", otherwise, stop spreading lies and misinformation.

 

Here's a Canadian who would gladly do just that.

How is this better Bill?

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112839232

And 2/3 of all Americans support medicare for all
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/09/two-thirds-support-3/

Single payer is extremely popular. The only thing holding it back is overly emotional arguments about government being inefficient (even though it's way more efficient in healthcare than any private sector insurance company)

 

Good for her. Most uninsured Americans wouldn't even get this surgery because it's expensive and non life threatening. So my sympathy is lacking.

 

Insured Americans routinely get this surgery in a timely manner. She had national health insurance in Canada and didn't! So your comparison to the uninsured is way out in left field.

 

Apparently, you do not know how to read.



Only 10% of the physicians polled support a single-payer system. A far cry from "just about every medical expert" in the country.

 

And if they were, they would all go to the states with the fewest protections for the consumer and that make it easiest for the insurer to deny coverage to the consumer. It would be a race to the bottom. How would that make the system better?

 

Quick non life threatening surgeries is not worth some Americans not getting life threatening surgeries at all because they fear the bill.

The death of Americans is not worth the convenience of Americans.

 

We get both right now, so what's your point?

 

No (*)(*)(*)(*). I support public and private options. Private options can fill in the gaps that public options do not provide. Hell we could even allow private hospitals so wait times is a non issue for wealthier Americans. I have no issue with that. I only have an issue with the fact that poor Americans are dying because of lack of options they can afford.

 

Post a link please.

 

In your second example they do ride it out. Most people don't go to the emergency room for fevers, headaches, or colds, they deal with it.

With single care and health care as a right everyone will turn up for every little thing that goes wrong.

 

and as your own cartoon shows, the costs are due to government interference.

 

There is one and only one reason that doctors want a single payer system, and they would not care if it were public or private. The paperwork would not change yearly.

 

That's not a "single-payer" healthcare system, which is what you've been advocating for throughout this entire thread. Maybe you should learn what "single-payer" means before you go around telling us how badly we need it.

And you claimed:

That is totally false, and your own article proves it. Only 10% of the physicians polled support a single-payer healthcare system.

So, now that you have demonstrated quite conclusively that you have no idea what you're talking about, would you please be so kind as to refrain from telling actual learned individuals how to fix our healthcare system?

You have multiple issues, most of which concern your utter lack of knowledge about healthcare provision and financing.

And what poor Americans are dying due to a lack of affordable options? Medicaid and S-CHIP have been paying for their medical care for decades. Are you saying Medicaid and S-CHIP are failures?