The U.S healthcare fiasco

Lol! Listening in one ear, while the (*)(*)(*)(*) runs out of the other. Great counter argument you've got going on there; "I've been listening".

 

Nothing!

 

This information comes from the NAIC website for 2015 financial data of our health insurance industry.

The net premium for Comp Hospital and Medical coverage was 213 billion and medical expenses were 183 billion for 48 million people.
This averages out to $4,451 for premiums and $3,820 for claims per person.

The net premium for Medicaid under PI was 147 billion and medical expenses were 127 billion for 38 million people.
This averages out to $3,882.23 for premiums and $3,340.47 for claims per person.

The net premium for Individual coverage was 57 billion and medical expenses were 59 billion for 13.8 million people.
This averages out to $4,130 for premiums and $4,275 for claims per person.

Average Single coverage $6,500 Deductible range $1,500 - $6,000

This implies that every person is paying $2,000 in taxes that is added to their premium rates.

 

a slight exaggeration and this type of rhetoric isn't productive. The ACA DID solve some problems (lifetime caps, discrimination against the most in need etc..) but didn't work simply because we have a privatized system where premiums not only pay for our healthcare but also pay for billions in insurance profits. Not only this, the system currently has the highest administrative costs of any industrialized nation, it's ironic that it's largely private yet more bureaucratic and wasteful than nationalized or single payer systems. Explain to me why the US govt. spends more in healthcare as a % of GDP when compared to Canada or UK?

. So you care more about doctors, insurance company and drug company employees making big bucks vs. the sick people who can't afford healthcare when they most need it? Your priorities seem to be upside down my friend. Also, what you speak of can be easily remedied by a single player system. Under a single payer system many of today's problems are solved and the people you speak of get paid (yes doctors and employees of drug companies in Canada are doing just fine). Under a single payer system, everyone chips in via a payroll tax so everyone contributes to ensure everyone has the right to take care of their health! It is amoral that someone can go bankrupt because they can't afford healthcare or be denied coverage because they are self employed and unhealthy. No-one should have to go through financial hardship due to health problems and those who think this fine are not right in their head, IMO. A single payer system also reduces administrative costs of hospitals (they are MUCH lower in Canada vs US) and also eliminates the funding of massive profits (our premiums also go towards billions in profits). There is no way to bring premiums down significantly in a privatized system... very hard to do.

no, their system is more cost effective.

Medicare is funded with like a 2% payroll tax and medicare pays for the elderly who are the most expensive. A 5-7% payroll tax would cover everyone and before you start whining, most people would actually save money by avoiding premiums, out of pocket medical expenses by instead paying more in payroll tax. All i hear from people is 'these premiums are SO EXPENSIVE and deductibles SO HIGH'....WELL... wouldn't it be best to save these expenses and instead pay a few more in payroll taxes? do the math...

The idea was to increase the pool of people paying in to cover more affordable care for the sick. The problem is that the ACA attempted to put a bandaid on a wound that needed serious treatment, surgery and stitches. This privatized system will never work as efficiently as single payer. Premiums were increasing before ACA and continue to increase...

People who were denied insurance before ACA win, people with pre-existing conditions win and people with low income win... Now, they win largely at the expense of the younger and more healthy people who think they don't need insurance. Guess what, this is not due to ACA, it's due to having a privatized insurance system. it has always been expensive, way before ACA and all ACA did was reduce the pain for some but increase the pain for others. Again, a bandaid on a wound that never heals unless it's treated properly.

geez.... be real, don't come up with these delusional ideas. We need to be pragmatic. Not only is this naive but very low on specifics...

This won't make much of a difference... the system will still remain loaded with needles admin costs and overhead. It would be nice though to make the prescription process more efficient.

what drug companies charge for drugs is a crime, some of the profit margins are criminal. Profits cost, simple as that and they are funded by us via what we pay for them (directly or via premiums). I would argue the US govt would have more negotiating power and maybe under Trump, he can make it work better.

With the regulation stipulating that drug prices may not exceed twice their worth(IE: The cancer drug incident isn't happening again.) With those stipulations in mind, and with the vast US market, buyers will eventually cede to a strong US position. It's the one thing Sanders has that I majorly approve of, I just want to give the function to capable players.

there is a better way - medicare or single payer. Everyone pays in, everyone is taken care of. You can keep trying to work your way around the privatized system maze but will never find the way out. It's plagued with problems which are very hard to address.

Let me tell you what would happen under this scenario. Insurance will be cheap for the healthy brackets but incredibly expensive under the terminally ill/elderly. Do you seriously think that such a simpleton idea would work? how would insurance companies continue to make their billions in profits and how would the overhead/admin costs be covered? There are only two ways for insurance companies to continue funding their billions in profits and for hospitals to recoup the admin/overhead costs - charge the healthy more to cover for the unhealthy or charge the unhealthy insane rates. Again, single payer is best option. This is profit making 101 and why this privatized system sucks.

sure, i pay cheap premium early on and then later in life, it increases to outrageous rates. Once again, all you are doing is moving the burden around, just as ACA did but you are doing it in different ways. In this privatized system, all these ideas just move the burden around pools of people. What you are doing is coming up with your own ACA. Under your plan, the younger and more healthy would be happier but the sick and aging group, very very unhappy with you. You would be hero for some and an evil man for others.

sounds good but how is this funded? who pays for the collegiate insurance and PCC?

maybe better than the privatized system we are trying to put on a bandaid on here in US.

 

He's already Putin's puppet. Only so many strings.

 

Trump makes sense in many ways... The US befriends Saudia Arabia who is one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism and abides by sharia law, where human rights violations are common place. Who are the leaders of SA? kings, like it was thousands of years ago. So the US considers SA an ally and Russia evil and Putin a thug. It really is amazing...... just take a moment to think about this.

The US is fine with allies as long as they align with their interests, whether the leaders or the country are 'evil' or 'thugs', doesn't really matter. In many ways, SA is much worse than Russia but it benefits the US to have them as an ally. THINK...

Trump will be tough on Russia, you watch.. but he's not going to call Putin a thug and demonize Russia at every chance, yet say nothing about SA, ruled by kings and under Sharia Law. It serves no good to be constantly attacking Russia and making Putin out to be a thug, what do we want? a nuclear war? but we are friends with Saudi Arabia and say nothing about the evils here... unbelievable.

 

I watch TV and listen to the radio, so there are no links. Is there some aspect of internet links that makes them the Holy Grail of truth?. The numbers I have heard are all over the place; I have heard both 20 and 30 million. The numbers the Left puts out varies along with the current air temperature and tends to be exaggerated in whatever direction sounds better. Ever notice how things become more accurate as time passes?

 

It is understandable that people that are totally immersed in current visual technology will have lost the ability to gain knowledge from audio input. Sort of like humans losing our need for whatever the appendix used to do. However, us older types still retain the ability to understand the spoken language. Have your mommy take you for a hearing test or get an ear syringe and flush the wax buildup out of your ears with a warm water and Dawn dish soap solution.

 

I'd be pleased to help out. They go to prison.

 

yes, he uses simple language and tweets a lot. It's easy for the poorly educated and those with a low attention span to understand him.

 

Promulgated distortions are exacerbated by radical partisan propaganda sources. Lies are uncovered without consequence, and motivations become less subtle, but those who are totally absorbed with their own self-interests and unconcerned with the welfare of others and even the fate of our nation nevertheless retain their loyal following.

 

Ahhh, say that in English.

 

But what we are bound to find out is whether international considerations will reflect OUR political interests or HIS personal interests.

 

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub.../oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective

This adds it up quite nicely and the high price per capita is basically due to better technology and less on preventative care. We're basically expensive cars that haven't had an oil change since it was driven out of the dealership. We also take a lot more drugs than people in other countries, and that adds a significant amount to the total. Another is that we've got a lot more specialists, and that costs.

In other words, you're not really comparing services by country because a technician with several advanced degrees operating a brand new top of the line multi-million dollar MRI machine is not the same service as some guy who took a weekend course in which buttons to push on a 20 year old bottom of the line MRI machine. A nurse in the states is much more likely to have a masters or doctorate than a nurse in Mexico, who doesn't even have a bachelors degree.

 

A very good post and one of the most sensible I’ve read.

The NHS in the UK was founded in 1948 by the Labour party (Socialist) after its landslide election victory over Churchill’s Tory party. It followed the principle that it was the government’s responsibility to care for the nation’s health from cradle to grave.
Before, medical care was run by private companies much as is today in America with the result that so many couldn’t afford the cost and had to fall back on charity, if they could find one.

The cost of running the NHS is paid for by the government, the employer and by the individual on a tax on a sliding scale i.e. the more the wage, the more you paid.
If there was one wage earner in a family then the entire family was covered by the wage earner with no extra cost. If you lost your job you and you’re family were still covered. On reaching retirement age your NHS payment stopped though your cover carried on.

If we take one example say a single heart bypass, which is a fairly common operation and compare the cost to two patients one American and one British. The cost of the operation and after care to the American is from 70,000 to 90,000 dollars, to the British patient nothing.
Even if the American’s insurance covered the cost his premium would shoot skywards.

In 2014 America was ranked 44th out of 55 nations in health care efficiency and honestly that’s scandalous, you should be demanding much more.

 

The broken parts are your hospital cartels and monopolies, which the ACA does not even address.

States can formulate their own single-payer/universal plans.

You do know what a State is, don't you?

 

Stop listening to Rush Limpdick

 

Americans fight government interference in anything, claiming government is useless and can do no right. In many ways, this is what makes America great as government should stay away from interfering in the private sector but there are some areas where government should play a large role - defense and healthcare. It's amazing that the American privatized healthcare system has failed at almost every level yet many conservatives still try to make it work. What is amazing is that the US government actually spends more on healthcare than several countries with nationalized and single payer systems! There are slightly different stats out there but looking at world bank stats for 2014, the US government spends 8.3% vs Canada with 7.4% and UK 7.6%. So let's think about this for a second, a private healthcare system (US) is more expensive for the government than a single payer system (Canada) and a nationalized healthcare system (UK). How is this possible given US is supposed to be private? If conservatives truly were conservatives, shouldn't they be pushing for a system that results in less govt spending? See, the reality is that conservatives are not really conservatives, they are anti-government anarchists, there is a difference. The logic that 'it would be too expensive' to run a single payer system is a flawed one, it can actually save the US govt. money!

The privatized healthcare system simply has never worked efficiently when it comes to costs and the reasons are very basic - premiums have to pay for billions in insurance company profits, CEO and executive pay and incredibly high administrative costs (which in the US are incredibly high compared to Canada for instance). Premiums were increasing rapidly before ACA and continue to increase, the ACA just moved the burden/pains from one group to another (from sick to healthy), this is all it did. Other 'conservative ideas' will do the same - move the expenses from one group to the other (from healthy to sick). Premiums will continue to increase no matter what conservatives try to do...the system has never worked well, period.

The world health organization ranks the US system #37 in the world (in terms of accessibility, efficiency, affordability, quality etc..) and it has always ranked low pre and post ACA, WHEN WILL CONSERVATIVES FINALLY ADMIT IT JUST WON'T WORK? It's costing people and the government a lot of money, money going towards inefficient admin practices and massive profits and executive salaries. WAKE UP... some things CAN be done better in government! For those worrying about an increase in payroll tax, most will save money by avoiding high premiums, high copays and deductibles etc... Americans would actually save $$.

 

...As do their counterparts who frame the needy to pander to the self-righteous.

 

Appeal of the vernacular to Trump followers is substantiated in post#87.

 

sigh....

We've all heard variations on this for decades now, and still, Trump won.

If this is what you want, you're just going to have to do it on your own. Sorry, but that's the way of it.

Don't like it? Too bad.

 

It is pointless to appeal to the lack of sensitivity of the self-righteous. . . . But since true empathy is not an exploitive attempt to elicit a partisan response, when did it become a vice in America???

 

'For government employees'. Do you think said employees won't cost as much in the "nationalized" system? Of course they will! I insist, look at the population of Canada, New Zealand, Japan, etc. You'd have to add the TOTAL population of those three nations(that is the total health care of three countries), equals one USA.

Single-payer will not be an increase of 4% on the payroll, that's only presuming current numbers. We already have the future outlined by the ACA. Expect 15-20% increase instead.

 

When we realized that after all the aid we were sending to africa has resulted in... Africa, we realized that the best way to help people is to let them help themselves.

How much aid do you think can be sent to Chiraq so they can stop killing each other? How about detroit? How much aid do you think it'll take before they start taking education and jobs and family seriously?

 

. . . . That's SOME of the broken parts I said needed to be fixed.

YOUR thoughts are irrelevant to my statement. Have Republicans in Congress suggested this???