A first hand (actually second hand) interpretation of UHC

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Originally posted by: freegeeks
I don't understand why Americans are so paranoid about the govt. running healthcare, can someone enlighten me?

There is also some great reading here. Some good interviews with experts about the different approaches to healthcare in different countries

Because if govt. is involved it quashes compitition which in turn quashes quality. But I guess you don't mind that they turn over used bed sheets in some British hospitals to save $$.

Will the French system work here? Who knows. It might, but the beaucracy created would be substancial and quality of care would plummet. It's just the way it works. We are not France, Britain or Germany--we just don't have the same views on what govt. should do. And IIRC wasn't this the place were thousands died of heat stroke in 2007? Where EMS just stopped answering the phone.

the problem is that competition doesn't seem to work because the US should have the best and cheapest healthcare in the world which it is not. I posted some links before with interviews with experts in healthcare and they all seem to agree that the US system is an expensive bureaucratic mess. In all modern UHC systems, administrative cost is FAR less then the current USA system. I read somewhere that the system with the lowest overhead in the USA is the govt. run Medicare program

There is no real competition here. Because of insurance no one cares that it costs up $1200 for a prostate exam. I won't sit up and say that the system here doesn't need fixing, because it does. I just don't want the first answer to be govt. intervention, because it will never be fixed. I mean really, the same a-holes that put the nation into a near depression because of incompetence we now want them to decide what kind of care you need. It's appalling.

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: vi edit
Population size absolutely does matter. We've got 6x the possible number of people sucking up incredibly expensive, end of life care. These costs are exponential in nature and don't follow a linear trend of costs paid in by subscriber.

The only way it would work would be both a radical revision in both administration of healthcare AND the expectations (or lack their of) by us as citizens in what we'll be entitled to as we age.

it works in Japan, not exactly a small country so I don't see why it couldn't work in the USA. If it works for countries with a population of 60 million (France), 82 million (Germany) and 120 million (Japan) there should be absolutely no reason why it wouldn't work in a country with 300 million

I ask because I simply don't know....

But do either of these countries have illegals/undocumented flowing in by the millions and using care that they have paid a dime into?

Most of those countries dont flog Grandma for 6 months in the ICU before she dies.

Yeh. That's what I was referring to when I said it would take a dramatic change in expectations. My wife is a staff pharmacist working a 25 bed ICU unit. She's just sickened by the excesses that go on there. Whether it's to convenience the family members so that Mom/Dad/Grandma/ect can stick around until after Christmas time, or because some cardiovascular surgeon sucks at patient management. There's just thousands of people living off a machine that *somebody* won't let go.

I see this too often. The family wants everything done for granny, because granny wanted everything done!! But then I have seen some of those that were lost causes walk out of the hospital. And yet again it's a family decision--usually--so who we going to leave it up to? Tom Daschle? John McCain? President Obama? Egad...

Edit for additions and punctuation

 

[Pneumothorax]

Originally posted by: freegeeks


it works in Japan, not exactly a small country so I don't see why it couldn't work in the USA. If it works for countries with a population of 60 million (France), 82 million (Germany) and 120 million (Japan) there should be absolutely no reason why it wouldn't work in a country with 300 million

Aren't we the sickest/fattest nation on earth though?

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: freegeeks


it works in Japan, not exactly a small country so I don't see why it couldn't work in the USA. If it works for countries with a population of 60 million (France), 82 million (Germany) and 120 million (Japan) there should be absolutely no reason why it wouldn't work in a country with 300 million

Aren't we the sickest/fattest nation on earth though?

Exactly between that and having 10s of millions of illegals UHC would bankrupt the country in record time. The second UHC is passed every person in south america with a serious illness will cross the boarder for expensive treatments. I would be in favor of UHC if things changed. Start with the illegal problem build that fence and deport the illegals. Then start with the problem with people being so damn unhealthy. Base the tax on how fat people are body fat % not the bullshit BMI. Make sure everyone pays the tax because people don't value what is free. UHC just can not work in this country at this time thanks to all the issues we have.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
I read somewhere that the system with the lowest overhead in the USA is the govt. run Medicare program

as a percentage of total budget, that's probably true. however, while true, medicare pays mostly for really ridiculously expensive stuff. the cost to push paper for a broken leg is of the same magnitude as open heart surgery. so the paper pushing, as a percentage, is much lower for open heart surgery.




no one has ever given me a good explanation for why utah pays roughly 1/3 less the per capita cost of medical care that massachusetts does. against the whole US it's about $1,300 per person. with about 303 million people in the rest of the US, that'd be a savings of about $394,000,000,000 if what utah is doing differently can be applied everywhere else. that'd get us pretty close to germany in terms of % GDP.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: freegeeks


it works in Japan, not exactly a small country so I don't see why it couldn't work in the USA. If it works for countries with a population of 60 million (France), 82 million (Germany) and 120 million (Japan) there should be absolutely no reason why it wouldn't work in a country with 300 million

Aren't we the sickest/fattest nation on earth though?

Well according to a study posted by (Zebo I think) in another thread, fat and sickly people actually end up costing the system less than fit people, because they tend to die much earlier. So really, having a load of fat people in the US is a structural advantage in terms of health care costs as compared to other countries.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: freegeeks
I read somewhere that the system with the lowest overhead in the USA is the govt. run Medicare program

as a percentage of total budget, that's probably true. however, while true, medicare pays mostly for really ridiculously expensive stuff. the cost to push paper for a broken leg is of the same magnitude as open heart surgery. so the paper pushing, as a percentage, is much lower for open heart surgery.




no one has ever given me a good explanation for why utah pays roughly 1/3 less the per capita cost of medical care that massachusetts does. against the whole US it's about $1,300 per person. with about 303 million people in the rest of the US, that'd be a savings of about $394,000,000,000 if what utah is doing differently can be applied everywhere else. that'd get us pretty close to germany in terms of % GDP.

interesting, if the difference is really that big, they (the powers that may be) should have a look at it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

interesting, if the difference is really that big, they (the powers that may be) should have a look at it.

http://www.statehealthfacts.or...able.jsp?cat=5&ind=596

for all i know it's the clean mountain air and more outdoor activity.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: freegeeks

interesting, if the difference is really that big, they (the powers that may be) should have a look at it.

http://www.statehealthfacts.or...able.jsp?cat=5&ind=596

for all i know it's the clean mountain air and more outdoor activity.

or maybe they just let everyone die

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

or maybe they just let everyone die

eaten by bears! :Q

 

[CanOWorms]

What's your sister's ethnicity? The reason I ask is that European systems (including the French) are notorious for denying health care to minority groups. It's so bad that some countries have to have officials to monitor their UHC programs for racism.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: freegeeks

interesting, if the difference is really that big, they (the powers that may be) should have a look at it.

http://www.statehealthfacts.or...able.jsp?cat=5&ind=596

for all i know it's the clean mountain air and more outdoor activity.

http://www.statehealthfacts.or...p?cat=5&sub=143&rgn=46

Their physician services are lower, but what really is below the norm is nursing home care. So people either die early and don't have lots of them in nursing homes, or they retire somewhere else, or nursing homes are just cheap there.

Otherwise they aren't too far off any other real stat. ND was the oddball to me. I wonder how much of it is due to Indian Health Services having a huge presence?

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: freegeeks

interesting, if the difference is really that big, they (the powers that may be) should have a look at it.

http://www.statehealthfacts.or...able.jsp?cat=5&ind=596

for all i know it's the clean mountain air and more outdoor activity.

http://www.statehealthfacts.or...p?cat=5?=143&rgn=46

Their physician services are lower, but what really is below the norm is nursing home care. So people either die early and don't have lots of them in nursing homes, or they retire somewhere else, or nursing homes are just cheap there.

Otherwise they aren't too far off any other real stat. ND was the oddball to me. I wonder how much of it is due to Indian Health Services having a huge presence?

I know family is extremely important in Mormonism. Just a guess, but families may tend to take in and care for their elders, similar to how it's done in Asian cultures.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Guys, it is much better to pay 10-20% of your income on health insurance without any pre-existing coverage than the evils of socialist UHC... So what if you are denied insurance by everyone because of a pre-existing condition? You should just exercise more and lose weight... Losing weight and exercising will eliminate your pre-existing conditions and you will have the choice to see all of the doctors in your limited healthcare plan.... Plus, our insurance companies(american workers) get to rake in the profits for denying us healthcare treatments! What beats that!?

lol

 

[Sedition]

My girlfriend was in France for 4 months and had a small medical emergency/hospital visit. She had similar things to say about the care she received. While their she was living with a family who consisted of a French OB/GYN and an American Cardiologist. Both had practiced in America and in France and both vastly preferred the French system. Doctor still have status, health care isn't considered a product or commodity, insurance companies don't control your practice and people overall are healthier for it (though they smoke like fiends).

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: freegeeks

interesting, if the difference is really that big, they (the powers that may be) should have a look at it.

http://www.statehealthfacts.or...able.jsp?cat=5&ind=596

for all i know it's the clean mountain air and more outdoor activity.

Actually I'll bet a big part of it is the religious beliefs of LDS (Mormon) people. Approximately half the people in the state are LDS and part of the LDS beliefs is not consuming alcohol, tobacco, or coffee. They also believe in eating things in moderation (such as meat, fatty stuff, sugar, etc).

Edited for clarity.

 

[babylon5]

Unless our government has trillions sitting around somewhere to create a UHC, our for-profit health care industry would not allow government to change their profit model.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Oh, I think I see the $62,000 reason why the French medical care system is superior to ours, in one of those linked articles:

"Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system,"

Why don't you take a minute and check out what percentage of medical expenses in the US are consumed by malpractice settlements/insurance and then come back and edit your statement?

Have you got any figures on how much malpractice insurance premiums drive up the cost of health care? Surely you don't think that those in the health care industry just eat those costs?

 

[irwincur]

You have to fix the lawyers before you fix the US system. A great chunk of our healthcare costs go to tort liability claims and the outrageous insurance costs that doctors must pay.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: irwincur
You have to fix the lawyers before you fix the US system. A great chunk of our healthcare costs go to tort liability claims and the outrageous insurance costs that doctors must pay.

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime. It needs to be done legislatively and I just don't expect to see lawyers taking an interest in this.

The whole legal system needs a major overhaul. I'm also weary of paying for the umpteenth appeal of murderers, rapists, child molesters and Guantanamo detainees.

 

[Xellos2099]

Well, let rid of all the free benefit to illegal benefit in US and it will keep our budget down. Unfortunely, no one will agree to this idea. Our federl budget is suppose to be for the resident of the US, not the illegal.

 

[LostUte]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: freegeeks
I read somewhere that the system with the lowest overhead in the USA is the govt. run Medicare program

as a percentage of total budget, that's probably true. however, while true, medicare pays mostly for really ridiculously expensive stuff. the cost to push paper for a broken leg is of the same magnitude as open heart surgery. so the paper pushing, as a percentage, is much lower for open heart surgery.




no one has ever given me a good explanation for why utah pays roughly 1/3 less the per capita cost of medical care that massachusetts does. against the whole US it's about $1,300 per person. with about 303 million people in the rest of the US, that'd be a savings of about $394,000,000,000 if what utah is doing differently can be applied everywhere else. that'd get us pretty close to germany in terms of % GDP.

It's almost entirely due to age. The average age in Utah is much, much lower than any other state. In addition, members of the predominant religion don't smoke and drink, and there is a strong culture of outdoor activity.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
What's your sister's ethnicity? The reason I ask is that European systems (including the French) are notorious for denying health care to minority groups. It's so bad that some countries have to have officials to monitor their UHC programs for racism.

Nah, doubt that. She's white.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
As big a supporter of UHC as I am, anecdotal evidence isn't really very useful. Late last year I had some strange swelling in my face and neck and so I went to my doctor, who proceeded to give me all the quick and cheap checks. He gave me some allergy tests, and they did nothing. Then he said it was an infection and gave me some antibiotics... that did nothing. Then I was sent to get an ultrasound to check my thyroid, which did nothing. When it finally got bad enough I decided to go to the emergency room and not leave until they figured out what was wrong with me, and after waiting for about six hours it turned out that I have cancer. I sat around with cancer for the better part of a month because people here wanted to try the cheap solution first. How shitty is that?

Even that having been said though, my experience really doesn't impugn the quality of US health care, which in general is quite good. The problem with the US system is its absurd cost/benefit ratio. People should support UHC because it saves us all money and still provides equivalent quality, not because they had some good experience or bad experience somewhere.

Ever try having one of the lesser HMO plans in the US? Care isn't really any better than that, probably worse. I have to make my appointments 6 months in advance.

BTW, US funds the majority of medical research. Would there still be money for that under a universal health care system that cuts costs as much as possible?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: eskimospy
As big a supporter of UHC as I am, anecdotal evidence isn't really very useful. Late last year I had some strange swelling in my face and neck and so I went to my doctor, who proceeded to give me all the quick and cheap checks. He gave me some allergy tests, and they did nothing. Then he said it was an infection and gave me some antibiotics... that did nothing. Then I was sent to get an ultrasound to check my thyroid, which did nothing. When it finally got bad enough I decided to go to the emergency room and not leave until they figured out what was wrong with me, and after waiting for about six hours it turned out that I have cancer. I sat around with cancer for the better part of a month because people here wanted to try the cheap solution first. How shitty is that?

Even that having been said though, my experience really doesn't impugn the quality of US health care, which in general is quite good. The problem with the US system is its absurd cost/benefit ratio. People should support UHC because it saves us all money and still provides equivalent quality, not because they had some good experience or bad experience somewhere.

Ever try having one of the lesser HMO plans in the US? Care isn't really any better than that, probably worse. I have to make my appointments 6 months in advance.

BTW, US funds the majority of medical research. Would there still be money for that under a universal health care system that cuts costs as much as possible?

I live in the US, my experience was in the US... and yeah my experience sucked. My point was that anecdotal evidence isn't really a good way to judge things.

I also have to say that if we want to fund research into drugs, then we should fund research into drugs. Having some back door giveaway to drug companies built into our health care system is a deceptive way to fund it. Also, without the US bankrolling the consumption of drugs taking place in other western countries, first world consumers of drugs will have to share the cost equally as opposed to our country taking on a disproportionate share.