[Bob Pr.]

Health care costs per capita X country; see this link:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html

I'm fairly sure that this is based on total health care costs divided by the number of residents.

Health care costs in the US are increasing faster than any other service or goods.

IMO, too many hands are making profits off the delivery of services -- for profit health insurance companies, health equipment product mfrs, medical specialties, extra diagnostic tests, pharmaceutical companies, nursing homes, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Add to that, there's more emphasis on treatment of illness and disorders than there is on prevention and health.

Add to that there's sometimes a 10X-100X difference between the most expensive medical treatments and the cheapest without any proven difference in outcome or effectiveness.

I've heard that no sane citizen in a developed country would trade their system and costs for health care services with those of the USA.

Any truth to this?

 

[myfavoritedog]

I've heard that no sane citizen in a developed country would trade their system and costs for health care services with those of the USA.

Not true. I work with someone who is originally from the UK. Her aged mother has been in and out of the hospital over there for some time. I asked about the health care there, and her reply was she wished she could get her mom here so that she could get good, timely health care.

Let's not forget the madness of all the court cases that doctors have to carry malpractice insurance for. Tort reform doesn't seem to be part of this whole "reform" package.

Seniors will also see reduced medical care, because they are talking about taking 'waste" from Medicare and using it to pay for this disaster.

I heard a story on the news the other day where there is a group of doctors, in CA I think, but not sure, who do not accept med insurance and charge their patients about $40 per month. That approach seems to be working in that regard. Then for the major stuff, the insurance comes into play.

Instead of having the government take over everything, market based strategies should be the focus. It is THESE kinds of solutions that should be encouraged. Not dictated by the government.

That is where savings will come into play. BTW, they said they reduced their costs some 40% by not having to deal with insurance bureaucracies. I believe it.

 

[Cheerio]

I dunno, Bob, but I do know that problems like substandard care provided to our seniors in nursing homes has everything to do with maximizing profit and minimizing overhead. Some of the business practices are awfully slimy, like hiring nurses as office staff and counting them in the staffing matrix so that they can then say they have a certain nurse/resident ratio. I'm quite certain the CEOs of these corporations would never send their mother/father to one of their facilities.

 

[Bob Pr.]

One of our new choir members at the Cathedral is a recently retired executive of a company that runs nursing homes in a variety of states. I asked him if he'd ever want to be placed in a nursing home and he said, "Never!"

 

[blacklabparent]

Not interested in trading. No way.

(but you can give us back some of our drs & nurses, please )

 

[Samson]

Something that as you get older you start to think about !

Health care in the UK is not so much of a problem until you come to illnesses that require revolutionary cancer drugs or similar that have yet to be approved in the UK !

Clinical trials that take years to carry out are the most serious delays even though another country has already carried out the tests !

Don't start me on retirement ! In the UK if you have saved a reasonable amount towards your retirement and you need a nursing home then they commandeer your savings to pay for your care !

On the other hand, if you are a wastrel and have no savings whatsoever then your after care is free ! Where's the incentive to save ?

Our government is looking into a scheme where retirees pay £20k for rest of life care ! Where is the difference ? You will still get cared for even if you don't have £20k !

BTW statistics say the one in five will need nursing care ! Only 20% ! I guess somebody is taking the cream !

 

[Sams Mom]

Not interested in trading. No way.

(but you can give us back some of our drs & nurses, please )

This, but I do reserve the right to complain about it.

 

[Labs4life]

It's hard to compare the US with other countries. We have runaway obesity, poor dietary habits and poor overall physical condition. obesity alone can double or triple healthcare costs. A 60lbs overweight Diabetic will have more complications and require more treatment than one who is the correct weight.

My wife is health care and she is always saying that half of her clients would not need as much care, if they lost some weight.

We are a pretty demanding bunch. We want cheap healthcare for everyone but we do nothing in terms of preventative measures. Last I read 25% of Americans are obese. I have no idea what percentage of the population eats poorly, but by the sheer number of fast food and chain restaurants available, I would expect it's high.

It's pretty hard to demand from ANY government excellent healthcare for all, when we do nothing to improve our health as individuals.

Deep fried bacon sandwiches anyone?

 

[Kate3jays]

Something that as you get older you start to think about !

Health care in the UK is not so much of a problem until you come to illnesses that require revolutionary cancer drugs or similar that have yet to be approved in the UK !

Clinical trials that take years to carry out are the most serious delays even though another country has already carried out the tests !

Don't start me on retirement ! In the UK if you have saved a reasonable amount towards your retirement and you need a nursing home then they commandeer your savings to pay for your care !

On the other hand, if you are a wastrel and have no savings whatsoever then your after care is free ! Where's the incentive to save ?

Our government is looking into a scheme where retirees pay £20k for rest of life care ! Where is the difference ? You will still get cared for even if you don't have £20k !

BTW statistics say the one in five will need nursing care ! Only 20% ! I guess somebody is taking the cream !

I agree Colin, very unfair, a friend of my mom's had to sell her elderly mother's home which should have been her and her siblings inheritance and her mother and father's product of years of hard work, to pay for their nursing home care, and in that same home are people who have lived in rented accomodation, like you said no incentive to save, better youself etc..

I am grateful for our national health service however, despite paying through the nose for it from our national insurance contributions.

 

[myfavoritedog]

Unless it has changed here in the US, the nursing home thing is very similar. 20 years ago, my granny had a stroke and had to be put iunto a nursing home. I had some money saved, but it only would pay for up to 3 months. Medicare would pay for 6 months at that time. Then I would have had to get her on Medicaid. They would have confiscated everything. And if she died before the price of her medical care used up the value of her assets, well, the family would get nothing.

She died before any of that came about, but like you folks in the UK have pointed out, those who are productive members of society seem to already have to pick up the tab for those who are not.

 

[myfavoritedog]

One of our new choir members at the Cathedral is a recently retired executive of a company that runs nursing homes in a variety of states. I asked him if he'd ever want to be placed in a nursing home and he said, "Never!"

I feel the same way. MY only experience was when my granny was in one briefly before she died. I am convinced that the only reason she got as good care as she did was because I was there everyday, plus a couple of ladies from church would go by once or twice a week.

Unfortunately, nursing homes are sometimes the only choice. If I would have had any other choice I would have avoided it at all costs.

 

[Dexter Dogg]

I'm British and moved here 5 years ago. I would not trade what I have here over what I got there.


- Dave

 

[tootsiesmom]

It's hard to compare the US with other countries. We have runaway obesity, poor dietary habits and poor overall physical condition. obesity alone can double or triple healthcare costs. A 60lbs overweight Diabetic will have more complications and require more treatment than one who is the correct weight.

My wife is health care and she is always saying that half of her clients would not need as much care, if they lost some weight.

We are a pretty demanding bunch. We want cheap healthcare for everyone but we do nothing in terms of preventative measures. Last I read 25% of Americans are obese. I have no idea what percentage of the population eats poorly, but by the sheer number of fast food and chain restaurants available, I would expect it's high.

It's pretty hard to demand from ANY government excellent healthcare for all, when we do nothing to improve our health as individuals.

Deep fried bacon sandwiches anyone?

Very interesting and valid point.

 

[Jan]

...I'm fairly sure that this is based on total health care costs divided by the number of residents.

I've heard that no sane citizen in a developed country would trade their system and costs for health care services with those of the USA.

The link clearly states that the per-capita cost is based on population. So, as always, I'm puzzled that a health system that doesn't give full coverage to all its citizens, that costs double Canada's per-capita cost, is supported by so many.

I would not trade systems, and don't know any other Canadian that would.

 

[blacklabparent]

The link clearly states that the per-capita cost is based on population. So, as always, I'm puzzled that a health system that doesn't give full coverage to all its citizens, that costs double Canada's per-capita cost, is supported by so many.

Good point.

 

[Bob Pr.]

The link clearly states that the per-capita cost is based on population. So, as always, I'm puzzled that a health system that doesn't give full coverage to all its citizens, that costs double Canada's per-capita cost, is supported by so many.

I stated it that way because the US (as many countries do) has a number of undocumentated aliens which do increase our health care costs -- I wasn't sure or not if they're counted in the "per capita". BUT, since about 20% of US citizens -- our legal citizens -- are lacking health care coverage, that's over 60 million people and that number by far dwarfs our number of undocumented aliens.

IMO, the main reasons it'll be so hard to get reform in the USA are:

#1- the large number of people who have ideological reasons for opposing government involvement, as if anything the government does will always be less efficient, less effective, and far more costly than anything done by private businesses operating to make profits AND

#2- there are so many companies and people making exorbitant profits from these skyrocketing costs of health care that they will spend billions of $$$$ fanning the flames of those people in the first group and in buying political support through their lobbying of our representatives and senators. They'll generate a latter day version of the "Harry & Louise" TV ads that helped sink the earlier Clinton attempts at health care reform.

When the USA ranks about 17th or lower in the quality of health care delivery for its people and unquestionably ranks #1 in cost per capita by a wide margin, you'd think that would be reason enough for most rational people to say, "Hey! It's time for a big change! We're very obviously doing something WRONG!!!" But as I think someone, somewhere, said, 'no one is as blind as someone who will not see.'

In which case, I suppose we'll keep with very much our present ever increasingly expensive system and it'll be "**** the rocks and shoals, full speed ahead" until we crash.

 

[Labs4life]

The link clearly states that the per-capita cost is based on population. So, as always, I'm puzzled that a health system that doesn't give full coverage to all its citizens, that costs double Canada's per-capita cost, is supported by so many.

I would not trade systems, and don't know any other Canadian that would.

I wonder how population density affects per capita costs. Canada has the majority of the national population in the east and another large segment in the west. I would imagine you could keep costs lower in population dense areas. It would be interesting to see if that is true.

As a side note: No one is denied healthcare in the US. The healthcare reform is about insuring not rights to medical care. Anyone can walk into any hospital and be taken care of. The true expense of our healthcare system is the uninsured. Doctors, hospitals,clinics etc write off service they can't collect and pass on those costs to the insured. I guess that's why an office visit costs me 100 bucks, it's to make up for the two before me who did not pay or have the ability to pay.

Something definetly has to be done but it must be done carefully and without total government control. The free market works and I think that is the avenue which we need to pursue.

 

[blacklabparent]

I stated it that way because the US (as many countries do) has a number of undocumentated aliens which do increase our health care costs -- I wasn't sure or not if they're counted in the "per capita". BUT, since about 20% of US citizens -- our legal citizens -- are lacking health care coverage, that's over 60 million people and that number by far dwarfs our number of undocumented aliens.

IMO, the main reasons it'll be so hard to get reform in the USA are:

#1- the large number of people who have ideological reasons for opposing government involvement, as if anything the government does will always be less efficient, less effective, and far more costly than anything done by private businesses operating to make profits AND

#2- there are so many companies and people making exorbitant profits from these skyrocketing costs of health care that they will spend billions of $$$$ fanning the flames of those people in the first group and in buying political support through their lobbying of our representatives and senators. They'll generate a latter day version of the "Harry & Louise" TV ads that helped sink the earlier Clinton attempts at health care reform.

When the USA ranks about 17th or lower in the quality of health care delivery for its people and unquestionably ranks #1 in cost per capita by a wide margin, you'd think that would be reason enough for most rational people to say, "Hey! It's time for a big change! We're very obviously doing something WRONG!!!" But as I think someone, somewhere, said, 'no one is as blind as someone who will not see.'

In which case, I suppose we'll keep with very much our present ever increasingly expensive system and it'll be "**** the rocks and shoals, full speed ahead" until we crash.

And it's #1 in cost by a hell of a lot too, Double Canada

Sombody's got some 'splainin' to doooo...

 

[Nick]

#2- there are so many companies and people making exorbitant profits from these skyrocketing costs of health care that they will spend billions of $$$$ fanning the flames of those people in the first group and in buying political support through their lobbying of our representatives and senators. They'll generate a latter day version of the "Harry & Louise" TV ads that helped sink the earlier Clinton attempts at health care reform.

Groups in favor of Obama's plan are already running "Harry & Louise" ads (obviously with an altered message than the ones from the 90s).

 

[Jefferson'n'Ted]

Has anyone thought of what will happen to small businesses and unemployment if this bill passes as is? Small businesses that employ 25 or more people will have to provide a company sponsored plan or pay a per worker fine. Sounds like a simple fix, right? What happens when those businesses decide to let 3 or 4 or more people go rather than pay?
Unemployment rises even more. The economy tanks even more.
While I do agree that some changes are needed in the health insurance industry, I don't think this plan is going to do what it's supporters hope. And it is not deficit neutral. Even the CBO says that it will cost an alarming amount.