 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The US spends 16% of our GDP on healthcare. That's more than we spend
on defense, and we're fighting in Iraq *and* Afghanastan!
It's more than any other nation in the world. Technologically, we're
also more advanced than any nation outside of the G8.
Yet, in terms of the care we receive in exchange for our dollars, we
rank 37th in the world.
For all that people complain about governmental inefficiency, I have a
hard time believing that public healthcare would be *worse* than what we
have now; in fact, I'm quite optimistic about its chances of being better.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:07:41 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> For all that people complain about governmental inefficiency, I have a
> hard time believing that public healthcare would be *worse* than what we
> have now; in fact, I'm quite optimistic about its chances of being
> better.
Take that 30% profit out of the insurance industry and turn it into a <
10% overhead (estimates I've heard are 3%, but I personally think that's
low) for a public option. Sounds good to me.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The US spends 16% of our GDP on healthcare. That's more than we spend on
> defense, and we're fighting in Iraq *and* Afghanastan!
Isn't much of that money going to the people who provide the healthcare?
Doesn't that motivate them to provide the best services possible?
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Isn't much of that money going to the people who provide the healthcare?
> Doesn't that motivate them to provide the best services possible?
No, it motivates them to do whatever is needed to maximise profits.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <Ben### [at] gmail com> wrote in message
news:4ac2bd73$1@news.povray.org...
> The US spends 16% of our GDP on healthcare. That's more than we spend on
> defense, and we're fighting in Iraq *and* Afghanastan!
>
> It's more than any other nation in the world. Technologically, we're also
> more advanced than any nation outside of the G8.
>
> Yet, in terms of the care we receive in exchange for our dollars, we rank
> 37th in the world.
>
> For all that people complain about governmental inefficiency, I have a
> hard time believing that public healthcare would be *worse* than what we
> have now; in fact, I'm quite optimistic about its chances of being better.
>
> ...Chambers
Ooh... I love the statistics game! I'll take a turn:
Who's calculation of the GDP? What adjustments were taken into account in
the calculation?
Who came up with 16%? Is it rounded off? What's that work out to per capita,
as opposed to as a chunk of the GDP?
What, exactly, is meant by "healthcare" in the first statement? I bought a
bottle of aspirin this morning, does that count? What about the cost of
building a hospital? What about people who invest in medical money markets?
Is the 16% more than other nations %, or is the dollar amount more than
their (adjusted) dollar amout?
37th according to whom? What was ranked? Is that for the whole nation? Does
it include protectorates of the US? Does that compare with countries with
the same "technologically advanced" nations?
What does "technologically advanced" mean, specifically, in this context?
*giggle*
(Note: Not trying to make light of a problem, just the concept of
statistics. Please stay calm, my flame retardent suit is out for repairs...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:21:18 -0700, Slime wrote:
>> The US spends 16% of our GDP on healthcare. That's more than we spend
>> on defense, and we're fighting in Iraq *and* Afghanastan!
>
>
> Isn't much of that money going to the people who provide the healthcare?
Yep.
> Doesn't that motivate them to provide the best services possible?
Doesn't seem to have, given that the WHO ranks us as #37 for quality of
care.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-9-2009 10:21, Slime wrote:
>> The US spends 16% of our GDP on healthcare. That's more than we spend on
>> defense, and we're fighting in Iraq *and* Afghanastan!
>
>
> Isn't much of that money going to the people who provide the healthcare?
One of the reasons for their high earnings (at least as given by some us
physicians that I know) is that they have to be able to pay a) the
mal-practice insurance and b) the mal-practice law suits.
> Doesn't that motivate them to provide the best services possible?
No, just what is needed to not be prosecuted, what may in many
circumstances be more than what is considered clinically justifiable
elsewhere.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/30/09 15:34, andrel wrote:
> One of the reasons for their high earnings (at least as given by some us
> physicians that I know) is that they have to be able to pay a) the
> mal-practice insurance and b) the mal-practice law suits.
It's often claimed as the reason, but studies indicate that they barely
affect health care costs:
http://www.factcheck.org/president_uses_dubious_statistics_on_costs_of.html
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/71xx/doc7174/04-28-MedicalMalpractice.pdf
--
To call a man an ass is to insult the jackass. M.Twain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Slime wrote:
>> The US spends 16% of our GDP on healthcare. That's more than we spend on
>> defense, and we're fighting in Iraq *and* Afghanastan!
>
>
> Isn't much of that money going to the people who provide the healthcare?
> Doesn't that motivate them to provide the best services possible?
>
> - Slime
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
>
>
The people providing the health care are not determining what is being
provided, or even the "prices". Insurance companies mitigate their costs
by a) not covering some things, b) hand picking doctors they know will
minimize their costs, and/or c) refusing to pay for some treatments. In
one case, a major insurance company actually "bought up", what was, at
the time, the only two agencies responsible for rating the actual cost
of medical procedures, then ordered their, now sub-companies, to under
rate the costs, so that the companies could make **you** pay for some
percentage of the real cost for the procedure. They got sued, and
forced, as part of the settlement, to pay money out, to create an new
*independent* agency to provide such cost ratings. The problem is, they
themselves still use "their" companies, and so does nearly every other
company that wants to save themselves money, instead of basing coverage
on "honest" averages of those costs. Worse, some morons just recently
convinced the courts that it was "unfair" for us to only pay the
percentage we where (I think like 10-15%), and to raise it to 20% of the
costs, and there is at least one idiot in congress, if I remember
rightly, on the right wing side, who has suggested it would be ever
fairer if we paid 30-35% of the cost of medical bills, as premiums. Or,
in other words, 30 cents, out of every dollar, for **all** procedures,
whether it be a $20 bottle of pills, or a $10,000 surgery.
Insurance companies are in it to make money, while minimizing how, when,
and how much, they pay out, when you "need them". Its also why they
almost *never* cover preventative care. Some moron figured, some place,
that the odds of most people needing to have $100,000 was extremely
small, but if 1,000 people all had to pay $20 to get a checkup (this
being when they first came up with the stupid idea), they would be
paying out $200,000 a year, instead of $100,000. So, its better if you
never use it, and they keep making money, than if you do use it, to
prevent paying for actually medical problems. At least from their
perspective.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Worse, some morons just recently
> convinced the courts that it was "unfair" for us to only pay the
> percentage we where (I think like 10-15%), and to raise it to 20% of the
> costs, and there is at least one idiot in congress, if I remember
> rightly, on the right wing side, who has suggested it would be ever
> fairer if we paid 30-35% of the cost of medical bills, as premiums. Or,
> in other words, 30 cents, out of every dollar, for **all** procedures,
> whether it be a $20 bottle of pills, or a $10,000 surgery.
>
Note, my numbers "may" be off. I do know that prior to buying out the
companies, we only paid the "difference", after that we paid a
percentage that didn't reflect any true difference, and that there are
some morons now trying to *double* that.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
