 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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 Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
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 Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-9-2009 23:14, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 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:
As far as I can see from a quick scanning of these documents they don't
do that. Even if you can criticise a study that does not imply that the
opposite conclusion must therefore be true.
> 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
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/30/09 17:25, andrel wrote:
>> It's often claimed as the reason, but studies indicate that they
>> barely affect health care costs:
>
> As far as I can see from a quick scanning of these documents they don't
> do that. Even if you can criticise a study that does not imply that the
> opposite conclusion must therefore be true.
"However, a fact not mentioned in the Bush HHS paper is that several
other studies of defensive medicine failed to find anywhere near such
large costs. A 1990 study by the Harvard University School of Public
Health “did not find a strong relationship between the threat of
litigation and medical costs,” CBO said. And a 1999 study in the Journal
of Health Economics found only tiny savings – less than three-tenths of
one percent – when studying the cost of Caesarian sections in states
with limits on lawsuits, compared to states without limits."
"Finally, a 1994 study by the congressional Office of Technology
Assessment found some added costs (under $54 million total) due to
defensive radiology in children with head injuries and defensive
Caesarian sections in certain women with difficult pregnancies. But the
OTA study concluded: “it is impossible in the final analysis to draw any
conclusions about the overall extent or cost of defensive medicine.”"
"Savings of that magnitude would not have a significant impact on total
health care costs, however. Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated
$24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of
overall health care spending.(12) Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent
to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only
about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health
insurance premiums would be comparably small.(13)"
--
To call a man an ass is to insult the jackass. M.Twain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-10-2009 1:12, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 09/30/09 17:25, andrel wrote:
>>> It's often claimed as the reason, but studies indicate that they
>>> barely affect health care costs:
>>
>> As far as I can see from a quick scanning of these documents they don't
>> do that. Even if you can criticise a study that does not imply that the
>> opposite conclusion must therefore be true.
>
> "However, a fact not mentioned in the Bush HHS paper is that several
> other studies of defensive medicine failed to find anywhere near such
> large costs. A 1990 study by the Harvard University School of Public
> Health “did not find a strong relationship between the threat of
> litigation and medical costs,” CBO said. And a 1999 study in the Journal
> of Health Economics found only tiny savings – less than three-tenths of
> one percent – when studying the cost of Caesarian sections in states
> with limits on lawsuits, compared to states without limits."
>
> "Finally, a 1994 study by the congressional Office of Technology
> Assessment found some added costs (under $54 million total) due to
> defensive radiology in children with head injuries and defensive
> Caesarian sections in certain women with difficult pregnancies. But the
> OTA study concluded: “it is impossible in the final analysis to draw any
> conclusions about the overall extent or cost of defensive medicine.”"
>
> "Savings of that magnitude would not have a significant impact on total
> health care costs, however. Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated
> $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of
> overall health care spending.(12) Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent
> to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only
> about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health
> insurance premiums would be comparably small.(13)"
Referring to studies with just as many weaknesses. Probably not
mentioning the studies that are in agreement with the Bush paper etc.
Let me put it this way: I don't believe any study that claims one or the
other. The only way to prove anything is running the whole economy for
20 odd years with one option and then rerun the same period with the
other option. Which is impossible.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/01/09 13:41, andrel wrote:
> Referring to studies with just as many weaknesses. Probably not
> mentioning the studies that are in agreement with the Bush paper etc.
> Let me put it this way: I don't believe any study that claims one or the
> other. The only way to prove anything is running the whole economy for
> 20 odd years with one option and then rerun the same period with the
> other option. Which is impossible.
Which is also why people like yourself are not ones policy makers want
to listen to.<G>
And BTW, even that won't tell much. There are too many other
significant variables over that 40 year period which may impact health
care more than this.
--
Why a man would want a wife is a big mystery to some people. Why a man
would want *two* wives is a bigamystery.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Referring to studies with just as many weaknesses.
> Probably not mentioning the studies that are in
> agreement with the Bush paper etc.
Argument from wishful thinking.
Disclaimer: I chimed into this late and explicitly don't know what side of the
debate you are on.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-10-2009 1:22, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 10/01/09 13:41, andrel wrote:
>> Referring to studies with just as many weaknesses. Probably not
>> mentioning the studies that are in agreement with the Bush paper etc.
>> Let me put it this way: I don't believe any study that claims one or the
>> other. The only way to prove anything is running the whole economy for
>> 20 odd years with one option and then rerun the same period with the
>> other option. Which is impossible.
>
> Which is also why people like yourself are not ones policy makers
> want to listen to.<G>
Normally I am not so 'scientific' about this sort of things. Yet, in
this case there are so many confounding factors. E.g. you can not look
to one state, take a measure that might influences the salary of someone
and assume that the fact that the neighbouring state pays more is of no
effect. There is also a whole chain of things influenced by law suits.
Not only the physician but also the other medical staff and the board of
the hospital etc. Even larger than that, law suit influence the mindset
of a whole country. You can not look to the experience in another
country either because too many things are different...
> And BTW, even that won't tell much. There are too many other
> significant variables over that 40 year period which may impact health
> care more than this.
Correction, I was talking about the same 20 years twice. So it is not
only practically and politically impossible, but even physically.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-10-2009 12:55, gregjohn wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Referring to studies with just as many weaknesses.
>> Probably not mentioning the studies that are in
>> agreement with the Bush paper etc.
>
> Argument from wishful thinking.
>
> Disclaimer: I chimed into this late and explicitly don't know what side of the
> debate you are on.
I think I am on no side at all. As I said, I don't believe any
'evidence' for any position in this debate.
I do have an opinion on the US healthcare issue, but that was not really
what this was about.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
