have you seen swiss taxes?
cant hate on the swiss healthcare
How timely is the treatment you receive in the US if you are uninsured? If diagnosed with cancer, are you saying that in the US you would start on a treatment plan within a couple of weeks even with no insurance?
Even if you think the quality of US healthcare generally is on a par with other OECD countries, the fact that is absorbs a vastly higher proportion of GDP than any other country implies that the US has by a considerable distance the worst healthcare system in the world on a value for money basis.
Given the abuse that Obama has received for trying to reform that massively inefficient system (rightly or wrongly depending on which political football team you support) suggests that the situation is not likely to improve significantly for several decades to come.
The analogy is extremely applicable and relevant - I dont know what you’re talking about. It’s like being forced to sell fire insurance to prospective customers that call in with a burning building in the background.
I want to make a comment about the timeliness and quality of medical care in America. Regardless of whatever political dogma we might hear on TV, people vote with their feet. Tons of people fly to the USA from their “more civilized nations” when they’re about to die because they know
A) American doctors know what they’re doing
B) You won’t die in the waiting room or be on a 6-month wait list.
Of course, that will all change in one generation with the introduction of socialized medicine. Look what happened to Britain and Canada!
What did happen in Britain and Canada?
Also, I assume anybody flying into the US for medical treat will pay through the nose for it. They are hardly uninsured.
There are some distinctions that need to be made though. I think plenty of people would argue that America has the best doctors and state-of-the-art technology. That’s why we get Saudi royalty coming here to get fairly routine stuff done like Lasik.
But, that has nothing to do with timeliness and only somewhat relates to cost. On timeliness, if you go to an emergency room in America you will get treated regardless of your insurance status. If you have cancer you will get treated. Where we do fall short regarding the uninsured is on preventative treatments and follow-up. We’ll fix you up after that massive car crash but you’re probably on your own when it comes time for physical therapy. So, yeah, that’s a concern.
Regarding cost, there’s a lot that goes into that. Tort reform would help tremendously. In general, doctors have no clue how to manage a business. They pay whatever the pharma or medical supply rep tells them to. And why not? Insurance will cover it anyway; so there’s no cost control in place at all. Then there’s the massive spend on R&D here in the US by healthcare companies. Since most of the R&D is done here (relative to the rest of the world) we get stuck with the bill - but we also get that technology I referenced above. Oh, and then there’s all the uninsured people that we (the insured) end up paying for as well.
It’s a complicated issue, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone with health insurance say they wish they were in another country to get treated. Don’t like your doctor? Fine, get a new one and, by the way, you’ll be able to see him/her next week. Oh, does that hernia hurt like a bitch? We’ll get that taken care of in two days. Try doing that in Canada, the UK, or pretty much anywhere else.
tl;dr - by no means is our system perfect, but the uninsured are still covered to a degree and if you do have health insurance, you’re happy you’re being treated in America.
^I really don’t know what drives the cost of medical care. But I did read an interesting article a few weeks ago that basically said there were two drugs that are virtually identical, except Drug A costs $10 per dose and Drug B costs $300 per dose. Doctor’s compensation is limited to a certain % of the drug (say 6%).
So logically, if the doctor prescribes Drug A, he gets $0.60 . If he prescribes Drug B, he gets $18.00 Mind you–other than price, the drugs are virtually identical. Which one will he prescribe?
A doctor that I actually go to here in town (and I only go to him because he’s the only sleep specialist around) charges you for an appointment just to hand you your medical supplies. Yes–he charges me a $30 copay, charges the insurance company $180, then says, “Here’s your stuff. Have a nice day.” I don’t know the ethics or law concerning this, but it certainly smells like racketeering.
I’m sure doctors have figured out how to game the system so they can maximize their profits.
I have all the answers. (Or at least I can copy others’ good ideas.)
-
Like BChad implied: let every health care provider publish a price list. No exceptions. They can have a reasonable range based on patient health as it affects cost (e.g. the same surgery on someone obese might cost more just because they have to be more careful.)
-
THEN let’s figure out how to pay. Conditions that are routine (Greenie) or fairly routine (children’s coughs and colds) are easy to treat, will have a low price if doctors compete, don’t need insurance or can be non-deductible. Unexpected illnesses covered by insurance. Elderly care (majority of health expenditure) covered by patients’ savings and taxes - which is what medicare is, BTW. A tax.
-
Do not let AMA or anyone control the number of doctors. Import if you must, but let it be a free market.
When Ron Paul was running, someone asked him if a young uninsured motorcyclist was involved in a serious crash and there was no government-sponsored medical care, would Paul let him die? Paul stuttered and mumbled. I would have said - of course we’d save his life, but then make sure to send him the bill that he’d pay for the rest of his life for his stupidity in not getting medical insurance.
Bottom line is, someone has to pay for doctors’ and nurses’ time and skills, and equipment and drugs. It is impractical to have only the patients pay or only the government pay. If anything, the patient should pay as much as possible and just as food is necessary for life and food stamps exist but the government does not pay for my lobster dinner; the government should pay in extreme circumstances.
If you break your leg you can’t get coverage on the ambulance ride to the hospital – it’s an extended process that would take some time to finalize. The insurers are okay with the added coverage because the increased rates of insured through the tax penalty will offset providing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Everything else said in the post was nonsense. The bottom line is that the US wants universal coverage and given the pre-Obamcare system this is this best option to get it.
Do you suggest expanding the VA for all?