A real, but rarely addressed problem with government run health care

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Nebor

It is remarkable how efficient it is, but you also have to consider the type of government in place in Taiwan. What do you think it entails when the "Bureau of National Health Insurance" comes to have a "little chat?"

That article serves to point out the unbridled consumption problem of UHC (solved by the Taiwanese with visits from scary state officials.) And also the fact that the system is too expensive for them to afford. They're borrowing money to keep it going.

I do admire their system overall though. Very efficient, high quality care, while still maintaining a private health care industry. Though I imagine prices for services must be dictated by the government.

Taiwan is having trouble affording it, but what I would like to know is what it would take for the US to be able to afford it and maintain the same kind of quality. That is one of many million dollar questions concerning this topic right? Does anyone really know who is also offering what seems to be an unbiased opinion?

Considering the costs involved when you get what amounts to unbridled consumption, I think it's pretty clearly unaffordable. Especially consider the elderly, and soon to be elderly population that would be utilizing it (often.) Also take into account the projected costs of current entitlement programs (Social security) and the cost of current (Iraq, Afghanistan) and imminent (Iran) conflicts.

America simply can't afford UHC, which is actually convenient, because even if we could, it would be a bad idea.

Eh? Some of the only ones who have government funded health care here in the US are the elderly. If anything, adding the rest of the country to it would make funding the system easier.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Cool, let's say I actually know more about Baylor than Nebor, but couldn't say exactly why...

Baylor loses money and the reason it provides nationally recognized quality health care is because it's a faith based hospital system with deep pockets, with a mission to not make money, but to provide the best care they possibly can, they have a mandate to provide better than the status quo in health care and to be an industry leader.

So Nebor's example of a perfect hospital is one that isn't in it for profit. Interesting. My question to you pliablemoose, in your opinion do you think this hospital would show some profit if everybody who walked in the door had insurance?

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Nebor

It is remarkable how efficient it is, but you also have to consider the type of government in place in Taiwan. What do you think it entails when the "Bureau of National Health Insurance" comes to have a "little chat?"

Could you elaborate or provide examples?

That article serves to point out the unbridled consumption problem of UHC (solved by the Taiwanese with visits from scary state officials.) And also the fact that the system is too expensive for them to afford. They're borrowing money to keep it going.

True. But they still manage to spend so little per person a year. One would think we could learn something from their system (and others), and even if we spent twice what they did, we'd still be coming out really well.

I do admire their system overall though. Very efficient, high quality care, while still maintaining a private health care industry. Though I imagine prices for services must be dictated by the government.

Exactly. And yes, the prices are set by the government.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Cool, let's say I actually know more about Baylor than Nebor, but couldn't say exactly why...

Baylor loses money and the reason it provides nationally recognized quality health care is because it's a faith based hospital system with deep pockets, with a mission to not make money, but to provide the best care they possibly can, they have a mandate to provide better than the status quo in health care and to be an industry leader.

So Nebor's example of a perfect hospital is one that isn't in it for profit. Interesting. My question to you pliablemoose, in your opinion do you think this hospital would show some profit if everybody who walked in the door had insurance?

That depends on how much the insurance paid.

You propose to insure Jesus Sanchez, illegal immigrant? Cuz I gotta tell ya Jesus eats up a lot of health care dollars.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
My personal physician has told me he figures he has two or three years, then he's out.

He's in his early 50s. His take home pay less close to net zero. He lives off of his investments and his kids are on their own. The reason he sticks around is because he likes what he does, and he provides jobs to people he likes. He can't run an office on his retirement though, so I'll have to go looking to see who's left. Most offices aren't taking new patients.

I have a bridge to sell you too.

You actually believe his bullshit?

What is he driving a 1980 Honda civic?

Why yes, I do believe him Dave. He and I both know far more than you do about it.

These were the good old days.

I can tell you that reimbursements have been cut drastically since 2003. I'm not a physician, but I am in health care, and I'm not stupid, nor gullible.

$121,262 for a GP, well cry me a river. I have a MS and worked with lots of PhD's in the Chemistry or civl engineering or physics etc and only a small few approached such heights and here we are talking about the least paid MD/DOs... PhD's in the hard sciences require at least an equivalent education and time commitment as MD's to obtain and you don't hear them whining. You also don't see any PhD's driving 911 turbos either unless they are on the board or a VP of Amgen/norvatis/Dow etc a very rare bird.

Why don't you do a search on the horde of postdocs and low wage PhDs who work as gypsy scientists and after a few years of that decide to put their passions aside and go to medical school to pay the bills. Or guys like myself who only survived because wife worked as, you guessed it a nurse another destitute medical care giver ~ 75K a year before 30.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
You propose to insure Jesus Sanchez, illegal immigrant? Cuz I gotta tell ya Jesus eats up a lot of health care dollars.

If he already eats up a lot of health care dollars then it doesn't matter. But let me propose this:

Lets say the cost of a procedure is $1000

if 100 people get a procedure and only 50 pay for it then they would have to charge more for the procedure to cover those who didn't pay so now the price goes up to $2000 for the procedure. This is what happens. If Jesus eats up a lot of health care dollars ALREADY then why not try to fix it by covering the costs by spreading the load more evenly?

Or my second idea is to round them all up and gas them but I don't think Jesus would like that.

If the health care industry wants to say that the procedure (that really costs $1000) they charge $2000 to cover the costs of the uninsured is as low as they will go, then the system is broken there too. In my mind then what they want is the $2000 for every person therefore doubling profits. This is wrong. You guys in the industry need to bend like grass or break. Its' your choice but it's coming.

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: Nebor
To me, the most agreeable system (if I were the type to compromise with you pinko-commie lib types ) would be a single payer national health insurance program. Everyone would pay in, and just like a social security card, you would get your insurance card. You absolutely have to have that card, or some way of proving your enrolled in the system (ie: a US citizen) in order to obtain care anywhere.

But there would also be a concurrent private medical services market. You would have the option of paying for your own care, or with your own private insurance. This would allow for certain clinics, hospitals and other facilities that do no accept the national insurance card (presumably because the prices that national insurance is willing to pay is too low to satisfy them.)

That way, everyone would have coverage (like you want) and people like me could still get their own private insurance to ensure a higher quality of care. While I strongly oppose the idea of paying for other people's health care by paying national health insurance premiums, I feel that this is the most likely outcome in America. We've turned the corner in our nations history, where the majority has realized that they can simply vote money right out of the pockets of the minority. So given a choice between being forced to use sub-standard care payed for by the national provider, and having my choice of "paying twice" to maintain my private, high level care, I'll choose the latter.

From what I briefly researched, that sound essentially like the French healthcare system (which by no means a criticism of your compromise with the "pinko-commie libs", as France's system is rated #1 by the World Health Organization - link).


Here are three good articles I found on the French healthcare system.


The French Lesson In Health Care - Business Week

France's model healthcare system ? The Boston Globe

The Health Care System I Want Is in France ? ABC News

Here's a quick summary from the Business Week article that I thought summed up France's system pretty well.

Michael Moore's documentary Sicko trumpets France as one of the most effective providers of universal health care. His conclusions and fist-in-your-gut approach may drive some Americans up the wall. But whatever you think of Moore, the French system?a complex mix of private and public financing?offers valuable lessons for would-be health-care reformers in the U.S.

In Sicko, Moore lumps France in with the socialized systems of Britain, Canada, and Cuba. In fact, the French system is similar enough to the U.S. model that reforms based on France's experience might work in America. The French can choose their doctors and see any specialist they want. Doctors in France, many of whom are self- employed, are free to prescribe any care they deem medically necessary. "The French approach suggests it is possible to solve the problem of financing universal coverage...[without] reorganizing the entire system," says Victor G. Rodwin, professor of health policy and management at New York University.

France also demonstrates that you can deliver stellar results with this mix of public and private financing. In a recent World Health Organization health-care ranking, France came in first, while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba and one notch above Slovenia. France's infant death rate is 3.9 per 1,000 live births, compared with 7 in the U.S., and average life expectancy is 79.4 years, two years more than in the U.S. The country has far more hospital beds and doctors per capita than America, and far lower rates of death from diabetes and heart disease. The difference in deaths from respiratory disease, an often preventable form of mortality, is particularly striking: 31.2 per 100,000 people in France, vs. 61.5 per 100,000 in the U.S.

That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65% of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40% of U.S. residents. And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation.

And, from the end of the ABC article:

"The French health care system has a lot of lessons for the U.S.," said Northern Arizona University Professor Paul V. Dutton, who has studied both extensively for his book "Differential Diagnoses: A Comparative History of Health Care Problems and Solutions in the U.S. and France."

"There seems to be a feeling that Britain's socialized health system is the only one we can look at because it's English, it's the mother country. But in fact, the French share many of the same values that American consumers seek, like choice of physician and freedom from insurance company authorization of medical decisions. The French system is already far more similar to the American ideal," Dutton said.
Except it works.

So, despite the initial skepticism I'm sure many of my fellow Americans would have towards the French healthcare system, they seem to have forged quite a winning compromise between patient choice and universal coverage.

 

[Zebo]

The French system sounds perfect except for the part about making employers pay. This probably kills a small business or one just starting out.

 

[ProfJohn]

A French style system is probably the best choice for America.

We need a public health system that allows the poor to get decent healthcare. But that 'free' healthcare should be limited to such a degree that companies still offer their employees private health insurance.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Cool, let's say I actually know more about Baylor than Nebor, but couldn't say exactly why...

Baylor loses money and the reason it provides nationally recognized quality health care is because it's a faith based hospital system with deep pockets, with a mission to not make money, but to provide the best care they possibly can, they have a mandate to provide better than the status quo in health care and to be an industry leader.

So Nebor's example of a perfect hospital is one that isn't in it for profit. Interesting. My question to you pliablemoose, in your opinion do you think this hospital would show some profit if everybody who walked in the door had insurance?

That depends on how much the insurance paid.

You propose to insure Jesus Sanchez, illegal immigrant? Cuz I gotta tell ya Jesus eats up a lot of health care dollars.

I'd like to see some of your 'fun facts' - hard statistics not anecdotal BS from World Net Daily.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Cool, let's say I actually know more about Baylor than Nebor, but couldn't say exactly why...

Baylor loses money and the reason it provides nationally recognized quality health care is because it's a faith based hospital system with deep pockets, with a mission to not make money, but to provide the best care they possibly can, they have a mandate to provide better than the status quo in health care and to be an industry leader.

So Nebor's example of a perfect hospital is one that isn't in it for profit. Interesting. My question to you pliablemoose, in your opinion do you think this hospital would show some profit if everybody who walked in the door had insurance?

That depends on how much the insurance paid.

You propose to insure Jesus Sanchez, illegal immigrant? Cuz I gotta tell ya Jesus eats up a lot of health care dollars.

I'd like to see some of your 'fun facts' - hard statistics not anecdotal BS from World Net Daily.

He works at a Dallas Hospital. He sees it first hand. Hospitals in Texas are overrun with illegal immigrants using expensive emergency care. The only ones that survive are non-profits funded by huge faith based endowments (like Baylor, with literally billions of dollars in the bank) and government run hospitals (Like Parkland, paid for by the taxpayers of Dallas County.) AFAIK there are no private, for profit hospitals in the Dallas area.

 

[Xavier434]

I had a French professor in college that spent the majority of her life living in Paris. She spoke to us in great length a few times about the differences between France and the US which entailed both pros and cons. She was a pretty down to earth person and quite knowledgeable. She spoke very highly about the health care system in France. Their system would work out extremely well for us even if we do need to modify it a bit here and their to maximize its efficiency in the US. I have never understood why the US has not adopted this sort of thing yet. According to my professor, one of the last things the French worry about is having their lives destroyed as a result of a terrible health related misfortune. Being that is the number one cause of bankruptcy in America and is also the number one uncontrollable possibility to occur that will wreck your life despite how responsible you are imo, I believe this should be something that every American citizen can be promised as long as they have some kind of job, are a student, are under the age of 18, are retired, or are disabled.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Nebor
Everyone I know that's a doctor did it for money and prestige (women.)

Then I feel sorry for you.

I'd be curious to know how they were able to BS their way through the admissions process and interview with a motivation like that. Heck, how were they able to do well in school and their years of professional training if their sole motivation for completing it was money and women?

I wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor whose only motivation was money and women - not that you'd ever really be able to know what a doctor's true motivations were, of course. I was only making a general statement.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Nebor
Everyone I know that's a doctor did it for money and prestige (women.)

Then I feel sorry for you.

I'd be curious to know how they were able to BS their way through the admissions process and interview with a motivation like that. Heck, how were they able to do well in school and their years of professional training if their sole motivation for completing it was money and women?

I wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor whose only motivation was money and women - not that you'd ever really be able to know what a doctor's true motivations were, of course. I was only making a general statement.

People are motivated by self interest. If you believe otherwise, you're fooling yourself. A doctor motivated by money has an incentive to be a great doctor, to make more money, get appointed to medical boards, etc.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Nebor

People are motivated by self interest. If you believe otherwise, you're fooling yourself. A doctor motivated by money has an incentive to be a great doctor, to make more money, get appointed to medical boards, etc.

Of course they are in it for self interest which may partially include money, but that does not mean that a great deal of doctor's self interest is the satisfaction of what their job is providing to society. Many people take pride in their work and do it for reasons in addition to money all of the time. What you are failing to realize is that not everyone puts wealth so high on the ladder that not only is it at the top, but it also miles above the step that is second from the top. Try not to take this offensively, but I think the problem is that you have spent too much time around too many people that think like you.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Nebor

People are motivated by self interest. If you believe otherwise, you're fooling yourself. A doctor motivated by money has an incentive to be a great doctor, to make more money, get appointed to medical boards, etc.

Of course they are in it for self interest which may partially include money, but that does not mean that a great deal of doctor's self interest is the satisfaction of what their job is providing to society. Many people take pride in their work and do it for reasons in addition to money all of the time. What you are failing to realize is that not everyone puts wealth so high on the ladder that not only is it at the top, but it also miles above the step that is second from the top. Try not to take this offensively, but I think the problem is that you have spent too much time around too many people that think like you.

I already allowed for the "mother teresa" types in my earlier post. There aren't enough of them to adequately fill the need for doctors with qualified individuals, should you mandate lower wages for doctors.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Nebor

People are motivated by self interest. If you believe otherwise, you're fooling yourself. A doctor motivated by money has an incentive to be a great doctor, to make more money, get appointed to medical boards, etc.

Of course they are in it for self interest which may partially include money, but that does not mean that a great deal of doctor's self interest is the satisfaction of what their job is providing to society. Many people take pride in their work and do it for reasons in addition to money all of the time. What you are failing to realize is that not everyone puts wealth so high on the ladder that not only is it at the top, but it also miles above the step that is second from the top. Try not to take this offensively, but I think the problem is that you have spent too much time around too many people that think like you.

I already allowed for the "mother teresa" types in my earlier post. There aren't enough of them to adequately fill the need for doctors with qualified individuals, should you mandate lower wages for doctors.

You do not have to be a "mother teresa" type to put money as your top priority while keeping it at a reasonable level and still having a lot of pride in your work which motivates you to do a great job. That's the middle ground. That's where most people stand which is perfectly fine imo. Your example is just another extreme that sits on the opposite side of the so called "mother teresa" types.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Nebor
Everyone I know that's a doctor did it for money and prestige (women.)

Then I feel sorry for you.

I'd be curious to know how they were able to BS their way through the admissions process and interview with a motivation like that. Heck, how were they able to do well in school and their years of professional training if their sole motivation for completing it was money and women?

I wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor whose only motivation was money and women - not that you'd ever really be able to know what a doctor's true motivations were, of course. I was only making a general statement.

People are motivated by self interest. If you believe otherwise, you're fooling yourself. A doctor motivated by money has an incentive to be a great doctor, to make more money, get appointed to medical boards, etc.

People can (or at least should) have a basic interest in what they do though. If someone hates the thought of treating sick and injured people, would they make a very good doctor? If they are grossed out by blood, deformities, sickness, etc., is throwing a bunch of money at them going to change that? Even if you aren't a 'Mother Theresa' type, you still have to have a basic interest in what you are studying and working at. I just don't believe someone who hates science would have the resolve to stick it out for years to become a doctor, all for the prospect of money.

Plus what about the medical school admissions committee? How easy would it be to fool them during the interview? Saying you want to be a doctor for the money probably isn't going to fly with them.

 

[ElFenix]

i think we should ask ourselves why utah spends $3,972 per capita when the US as a whole spends $5,283 (33% more!)?

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Cool, let's say I actually know more about than Nebor, but couldn't say exactly why...

loses money and the reason it provides nationally recognized quality health care is because it's a faith based hospital system with deep pockets, with a mission to not make money, but to provide the best care they possibly can, they have a mandate to provide better than the status quo in health care and to be an industry leader.

So Nebor's example of a perfect hospital is one that isn't in it for profit. Interesting. My question to you pliablemoose, in your opinion do you think this hospital would show some profit if everybody who walked in the door had insurance?

That depends on how much the insurance paid.

You propose to insure Jesus Sanchez, illegal immigrant? Cuz I gotta tell ya Jesus eats up a lot of health care dollars.

I'd like to see some of your 'fun facts' - hard statistics not anecdotal BS from World Net Daily.

He works at . He sees it first hand. Hospitals in Texas are overrun with illegal immigrants using expensive emergency care. The only ones that survive are non-profits funded by huge faith based endowments (like , with literally billions of dollars in the bank) and government run hospitals (Like Parkland, paid for by the taxpayers of Dallas County.) AFAIK there are no private, for profit hospitals in the Dallas area.

I cannot say where I work, as any comments would lend themselves as speaking for my employer.

I can say that after more than a decade of working in Dallas ER's I can no longer stomach what's going on. The compromises and trade offs in providing the legal minimum care wears on one's psyche after a few years. Over the years I watched ER's degrade from a system that provided a needed service to the clinic of last resort for the great masses of the unwashed, the illegals, and the cast offs of society, and attempting to survive the bean counters who try to stop the financial bleeding through care provided through ER's finally got to me. Thank goodness there are those doctors, nurses and ancillary providers that are willing to work in them, and thank goodness I don't.

I can say that I now come very close to the salary of a clinic based MD, and I make more than 90% of physician's assistants and nurse practitioners, I traded what I loved for $ and peace of mind.

Hospitals are very reluctant to release the statistics of race/immigration status & ability to pay because of the political fallout, and when they do speak of these issues, they use code that's difficult to decipher.

Here are some stats: Snopes ratio of illegal immigrant births

Text

 

[LostUte]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i think we should ask ourselves why utah spends $3,972 per capita when the US as a whole spends $5,283 (33% more!)?

The biggest reason is probably median age. Utah has by far the lowest median age in the US at 28.5 (as of 2005). Next closest is Texas at 33.2. US median is 36.4. Other than Utah, the range for every other state is 33.2-41.2. Text

As you can see, Utah is a huge outlier. I suspect that the lower medical costs are driven primarily by this fact.

 

[Duwelon]

Some of you people in this thread have restored some of my hope. Not everyone is a far left loony, praise the Lord. Down with UHC and any loony politician who wants to see it enacted in the USA.