Thread: Are healthcare costs in the US very high when compared to socialized countries? - No!

The people who support Obamacare often tell us healthcare costs are very high in the United States compared to socialized countries.

Like other myths about soaring prices, this one is used to undermine faith in our system and open us to radical change for the worse (such as ObamaCare or even worse if that is possible!).

The statistics often cited by progressives seem to show that we spend a larger fraction of our GDP on healthcare and don’t get better outcomes than other countries. It is true we spend more but it is also true our outcomes are much better than the outcomes of the socialist countries because we have advanced medical devices and diagostic instruments, the latest technology and life saving procedures and more highly-effective and successful life-saving emergency equipment. Spending more on health care is not always bad if more good lives are saved, and is not always true our costs are higher because we have private rather than highly-inefficient government-controlled markets.

As a good example, in many of these socialist markets, if people are anticipated to have a low success for surgical recovery, the government denies these people access to the latest (and costly) live-saving procedures to keep the successful outcome rates that they report to the public as high as possible. Do we really want a health care system like this one --- the very kind of health care system the liberal Democrats now have in store for all of us!

Article follows.

Many of the surveys of “outcomes” that show other countries spend less for similar or better healthcare than the United States are just intentionally disingenuous (i.e., they lie). The ultimate example is the U.N.’s 2000 World Health Report, which has been extensively cited by progressives and the media. Yet there are concrete examples of its anti-American bias. For instance, the study included high-speed auto fatalities and frequent murders in our inner cities in their assessment of a country’s life expectancy, and then progressives cited that life expectancy to indict the U.S. healthcare system. Well, Americans drive more often on a more extensive highway system than most others, and we sadly have more street crime [in our minority communities] than many.

Reputable studies exclude these fatalities as, while tragic, they are not the fault of the healthcare system and should not be used to judge or modify the healthcare system. With these fatalities excluded, the U.S. ranks 1st in the world on life expectancy. With them included, we rank 19th, as reported in the 2000 study cited so often by ObamaCare advocates. The studies of infant mortality may be even worse, with the comparisons of what constitutes a live birth (and thus an opportunity for mortality) substantially different across countries, with the United States holding itself to the highest standard (and thus producing worse statistics). But, this does not stop enemies of free-market healthcare from citing warped statistics showing the United States to rank well below the truth, while to a person they’d all opt to have their babies in the United States, particularly if it was a complex or premature situation. That kind of hypocrisy is simply breathtaking.

Perhaps even more insidiously, most of the U.N.’s 2000 World Health Report does not really even rank healthcare outcomes. The actual oft-quoted final rankings, with the United States ranking poorly, are an average of many different ratings, many of them explicitly about how “socialized” or “progressive” a healthcare system is. For instance, their rating system gives 25 percent weight to “financial fairness,” and if one goes through their other categories you find they again are not rating who lives or dies or lives better (you know, healthcare outcomes), but how much the healthcare system has such things as “respect for persons” (this is part of the 12.5 percent weight they gave to “responsiveness,” which is separate from the 12.5 percent weight they gave to “responsiveness distribution,” whatever on Earth that is). The report goes further, judging these things with such objective measures as “respect for dignity” and “autonomy.” In total, more than 60 percent of a country’s score in this survey was some measure of progressive desires, not what you or I would call a healthcare outcome. And, as in our auto example above, much of the rest contained expressly anti-American flaws. That we pay for the United Nations to lie about us is a topic for another day.

In other words, in this often-cited study, and in many others created by the international progressive community, the U.S. healthcare system has been ranked low solely for not being one of socialized medicine. Personally, when I am told how the United States ranks on healthcare “outcomes,” I want it to be about whether my kids get good treatment, not about where we stand on the U.N.’s politically correct progressive agenda. But it’s this and other similar nonsense that the Obama team cited again and again to denigrate the U.S. system and push the case for radical reform. In summary, they say “we have done a survey and found we must reform our system and become more socialist, because the survey says we are not socialist enough.” That’s how they argue. Really.

Source: http://www.american.com/archive/2012...-must-confront

More and more bigt problems with Obamacare!

“A lot of healthy people are going to say, you know what, it just makes more sense to pay this tax or not do anything, instead of buying this insurance,” Ryan suggested. This would mean “sicker people will buy the insurance, raising everybody’s premiums.”

In other words, ObamaCare imposes a number of mandates upon the health insurance industry, forcing them to abandon “bare-bones” low-cost plans… and, most significantly, to cover people with pre-existing conditions, in defiance of actuarial logic. (It’s not “insurance” if the underwriter knows the buyer will be making claims far in excess of the premiums he pays.)

The only way for insurance companies to survive this financial meat grinder is for healthy Americans to be compelled to purchase insurance. Otherwise, since pre-existing conditions must be covered, it would make far more sense to wait until they get sick, then buy an “insurance” plan, and immediately begin filing claims.

However, the ObamaCare tax penalty weighs in at a bit over $600 per year, for the failure to buy insurance, while the other mandates will push the price of insurance far beyond $600 per year, while also destroying the incentives for businesses to provide insurance plans as part of employee compensation. In fact, small businesses have already been dropping those plans in droves – causing “up to 20 million Americans to lose their health-insurance policies,” as Senator Paul pointed out in his editorial.

Therefore, it may still make financial sense for a large number of healthy people to pay the ObamaCare tax instead of buying insurance, until they actually get sick. This will have the net effect of increasing the general level of sickness – meaning cost – among the population that does purchase insurance. And that will lead even more healthy people, particularly in the lower income brackets, to conclude that it’s cheaper to pay the tax penalty.

The correct term for this is “death spiral.” Only Mitt Romney, and whoever he chooses as a running mate, along with Republican reinforcements in the House and Senate, have a chance of breaking us out of it. Fortunately, Romney has a number of fine choices available for his vice-president.

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/2...obamacare-tax/

It's hard to take any health study serious, when the sole purpose is to demonize our healthcare. By using fuzzy math by leaving this statistic out and that statistic out in order to come to a particular conclusion, you just have to laugh. Same with those Quality of life studies and even those education studies that include 1 city in china, as if that represents the entire country. You can't compare cities in other countries to our entire population. It's misleading and basically an outright lie.

The US is made up of 50 Sovereign and very different States. What people in one State need, pay or are acceptable to their people are far different than many States and simply unacceptable to what exist in others. Single payer, by mandate or regulation, would make ALL States subject to the same, literally forcing acceptance of what otherwise would be the most comprehensive system, maybe required for the larger metropolitan areas of the Country.

I doubt the people in Spain, Germany or GB would be interested in a Comprehensive plan for their 27States (about 500M people) or should Americans be compelled to accept any of their systems.

As for BEST HC; Without question, no other society of a combined population of 312 Million People has a better system, in the worst areas of our Country. Capitalism has provided the equipment, medical supplies, medications and attentive services, most people in the world are using today....Said another way, the overall HC in one Country may be seen as better, but that service has evolved from the US and if you pick out the best US State (however determined) it would lead the World.

Originally Posted by jackson33

The US is made up of 50 Sovereign and very different States. What people in one State need, pay or are acceptable to their people are far different than many States and simply unacceptable to what exist in others. Single payer, by mandate or regulation, would make ALL States subject to the same, literally forcing acceptance of what otherwise would be the most comprehensive system, maybe required for the larger metropolitan areas of the Country.

I doubt the people in Spain, Germany or GB would be interested in a Comprehensive plan for their 27 States (about 500M people) or should Americans be compelled to accept any of their systems.

As for BEST HC; Without question, no other society of a combined population of 312 Million People has a better system, in the worst areas of our Country. Capitalism has provided the equipment, medical supplies, medications and attentive services, most people in the world are using today....Said another way, the overall HC in one Country may be seen as better, but that service has evolved from the US and if you pick out the best US State (however determined) it would lead the World.

You are indeed correct, Jackson.

Unfortunately, Obamacare will make our health care in the U.S. much more expensive than it now is in Spain, Germany or GB. And here is how.

Contrary to what we have been told, President Obama and the Democrats DO NOT pay for the Affordable Care Act. And, as the CBO reports in its latest scoring, as of 2019 there would still be 23 million people in America lacking health insurance. The Affordable Care Act is a very bad bill.

"How would we pay for all of this? According to the CBO, by diverting $1.1 trillion away from already barely-solvent Medicare and spending it on Obamacare, and by increasing taxes on the American people by over $1 trillion."

"The latest CBO score should help wavering Democrats to resist the president’s plea and listen anew to the pleas of their constituents. Two trillion dollars is a lot to spend on something that Americans don’t want."

Article follows.

The CBO’s most recent analysis is out, and it’s not likely to convince wavering House Democrats to jump to the Obamacare side of the fence. To see the bill’s true first-decade costs, we need to start the clock when the costs would actually start in any meaningful way: in 2014. The CBO says that Obamacare would cost $2.0 trillion in the bill’s real first decade (from 2014 to 2023) — and much more in the decades to come. But $2.0 trillion wouldn’t be the total ten-year costs. Instead, that would merely be the “gross cost of coverage provisions.” Based on earlier incarnations of the proposed overhaul, the total costs would be about a third higher (the exact number can’t be gleaned from the CBO’s analysis, which is only preliminary and is not a full scoring) — making the total price-tag between $2.5 and $3 trillion over the bill’s real first decade.

How would we pay for all of this? According to the CBO, by diverting $1.1 trillion away from already barely-solvent Medicare and spending it on Obamacare, and by increasing taxes on the American people by over $1 trillion. Among the Medicare cuts would be cuts of $25,000 in Medicare Advantage benefits per enrollee — up from $21,000 in the previous scoring. To be clear, those living in South Florida wouldn’t have to worry about this, as the newly politicized nature of health care would cause them to be exempted. These cuts would affect only less-fortunate seniors, namely those living in just about any other part of the country.

And what would we get for all of this? The CBO says that health insurance premiums would rise by 10 to 13 percent in the individual market, in relation to current law. The Medicare Chief Actuary says that the percentage of the gross domestic product spent on health care would also rise in relation to current law, increasing from 17 percent today to 21 percent in 2019. And, as the CBO reports in its latest scoring, as of 2019 there would still be 23 million people in America lacking health insurance.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/...rillion?page=2

Originally Posted by Pred

By using fuzzy math by leaving this statistic out and that statistic out in order to come to a particular conclusion, you just have to laugh.

What fuzzy math? That IS statistics!

Originally Posted by jackson33

The US is made up of 50 Sovereign and very different States. What people in one State need, pay or are acceptable to their people are far different than many States and simply unacceptable to what exist in others. Single payer, by mandate or regulation, would make ALL States subject to the same, literally forcing acceptance of what otherwise would be the most comprehensive system, maybe required for the larger metropolitan areas of the Country.

I doubt the people in Spain, Germany or GB would be interested in a Comprehensive plan for their 27States (about 500M people) or should Americans be compelled to accept any of their systems.

As for BEST HC; Without question, no other society of a combined population of 312 Million People has a better system, in the worst areas of our Country. Capitalism has provided the equipment, medical supplies, medications and attentive services, most people in the world are using today....Said another way, the overall HC in one Country may be seen as better, but that service has evolved from the US and if you pick out the best US State (however determined) it would lead the World.

The states are not sovereign.

Originally Posted by James Cessna

More and more bigt problems with Obamacare!

“A lot of healthy people are going to say, you know what, it just makes more sense to pay this tax or not do anything, instead of buying this insurance,” Ryan suggested. This would mean “sicker people will buy the insurance, raising everybody’s premiums.”

In other words, ObamaCare imposes a number of mandates upon the health insurance industry, forcing them to abandon “bare-bones” low-cost plans… and, most significantly, to cover people with pre-existing conditions, in defiance of actuarial logic. (It’s not “insurance” if the underwriter knows the buyer will be making claims far in excess of the premiums he pays.)

The only way for insurance companies to survive this financial meat grinder is for healthy Americans to be compelled to purchase insurance. Otherwise, since pre-existing conditions must be covered, it would make far more sense to wait until they get sick, then buy an “insurance” plan, and immediately begin filing claims.

However, the ObamaCare tax penalty weighs in at a bit over $600 per year, for the failure to buy insurance, while the other mandates will push the price of insurance far beyond $600 per year, while also destroying the incentives for businesses to provide insurance plans as part of employee compensation. In fact, small businesses have already been dropping those plans in droves – causing “up to 20 million Americans to lose their health-insurance policies,” as Senator Paul pointed out in his editorial.

Therefore, it may still make financial sense for a large number of healthy people to pay the ObamaCare tax instead of buying insurance, until they actually get sick. This will have the net effect of increasing the general level of sickness – meaning cost – among the population that does purchase insurance. And that will lead even more healthy people, particularly in the lower income brackets, to conclude that it’s cheaper to pay the tax penalty.

The correct term for this is “death spiral.” Only Mitt Romney, and whoever he chooses as a running mate, along with Republican reinforcements in the House and Senate, have a chance of breaking us out of it. Fortunately, Romney has a number of fine choices available for his vice-president.

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/2...obamacare-tax/

A crucial statistic from CNN's Fareed Zakaria:

New Jersey’s Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers founder and family medicine practitioner, Jeffrey Brenner, used medical billing records to find that just 1% of patients accounted for 30% of health care costs in Camden. And that's not all he discovered in the city's three hospitals. He says: "We learned that someone went 113 times in one year. Someone went 324 times in five years. In similar workup in Trenton, they found someone who went 450 times in one year." These were people with complicated medical histories and chronic illnesses. One patient alone racked up $3.5 million in medical bills over a five year period. As Brenner says, :"They're the difficult patients to treat, and no one is being paid and incentivized to pay attention to them."

What's more, Camden's problem is America's problem. Just 5% of Americans accounted for half of our nation's health care costs in 2009. This is perhaps the crucial statistic to understand about America's health care problem.

It's kind of a catch-22. We have the best healthcare quality in the world -- if you have the money for it.

If you don't... well, you'd better hope you have an employer plan when you need that high quality care.

Most socialized systems take a simpler and cheaper approach. The waiting times might be worse on average, but the costs are far lower. You might have a harder time finding the specialist you need, but it's actually easier to find a G.P. in most of our peers than here.

We have a worse G.P. to patient ratio than most of our peers, but we do have more specialists. Why? Because the gap between what G.P's and specialists make is much, much greater in our system than in most socialized systems.

So, the end result is that basic care costs more with more people per G.P. If you want to see a specialist, you'll find one relatively easily, but you'll often pay an absurdly high amount for their care.

The most functional healthcare system in the world is a hybrid one. France socializes its basic and intermediate care, but for more advanced procedures and treatment, most people still have private policies to cover them. The idea is that anyone can affordably seek most of their medical needs through a public system, but when they need the more complicated help, then they seek out the specialized private sector.

In this way, both systems play to their strengths. Socialized care is better at providing preventive or basic care, because these are lower profit markets to begin with. The emphasis is on keeping everyone healthy.

The private sector is better suited for care that fewer people need and usually only for emergency situations or extenuating circumstances. These are markets that have much more profit potential.

In the meantime, socialized systems also provide for much greater discounts for medications due to much larger volume sales.

Originally Posted by Serfin' USA

It's kind of a catch-22. We have the best healthcare quality in the world -- if you have the money for it.

If you don't... well, you'd better hope you have an employer plan when you need that high quality care.

Most socialized systems take a simpler and cheaper approach. The waiting times might be worse on average, but the costs are far lower. You might have a harder time finding the specialist you need, but it's actually easier to find a G.P. in most of our peers than here.

We have a worse G.P. to patient ratio than most of our peers, but we do have more specialists. Why? Because the gap between what G.P's and specialists make is much, much greater in our system than in most socialized systems.

So, the end result is that basic care costs more with more people per G.P. If you want to see a specialist, you'll find one relatively easily, but you'll often pay an absurdly high amount for their care.

The most functional healthcare system in the world is a hybrid one. France socializes its basic and intermediate care, but for more advanced procedures and treatment, most people still have private policies to cover them. The idea is that anyone can affordably seek most of their medical needs through a public system, but when they need the more complicated help, then they seek out the specialized private sector.

In this way, both systems play to their strengths. Socialized care is better at providing preventive or basic care, because these are lower profit markets to begin with. The emphasis is on keeping everyone healthy.

The private sector is better suited for care that fewer people need and usually only for emergency situations or extenuating circumstances. These are markets that have much more profit potential.

In the meantime, socialized systems also provide for much greater discounts for medications due to much larger volume sales.

You are very very correct Serfin' USA! an excellent post!

I am also of the opnion that the U.S could benefit from a healthcare structure like the one implemented in France. Its a shame that Obam and his cronies will never allow that to happen.