Which country's government subsidizes through tax payer money more on health care per person ?

A) Canada

B) The United Kingdom

C) Denmark

D) The United States

E)Sweden

I'm going to guess: the US?

Hello tom:

Your point being that we're doing just hunky dory as far as our health care is concerned, so we should butt out??

Well, we're NOT doing hunky dory and we're NOT butting out.

Hopefully, the congress has the cajones to change it... Nahhh, they don't. How silly of me.

excon

Yes this is one of the things I leave the right camp on, We are already spending more money on free health care for the poor, the elderly and the homeless.

But need to redue the system to provide health care for all, but with controls on law suits and unneeded testing

Your point being that we're doing just hunky dory as far as our health care is concerned, so we should butt out??

no that is not my point at all.

Hello again, tom:

K... What is it?

Are we to assume the answer to your question is the United States? Which proves exactly, what?

To me, it proves that we're wasting, losing, and getting ripped off for a LOT of money because we're certainly not getting our money's worth.

I don't judge the quality of our health care on how much we spend. I judge it on whether the amount we spend filters down to the people who need it. That isn't happening now. The money instead, is being siphoned off by pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and just your ordinary crook - plain and simple.

excon

Here are the numbers :

Norway: $2,550
U.S.: $2,168
Denmark: $2,098
Iceland: $2,025
Sweden: $1,832
Germany: $1,803
France: $1,599
Canada: $1,531
UK: $1,518
Belgium: $1,417.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/07s1318.xls

Only Norway with it's sparse population and huge oil revenue pays out more per capita.

Note that all the countries that are touted for their Universal Care fall way short in expenditures .

The numbers are even more dramatic when you add the private funding for health care to the total :



U.S.: $4,887
Switzerland: $3,690
Norway: $2,982
Denmark: $2,545
Iceland: $2,441
Germany: $2,407
Canada: $2,161
Sweden: $2,149
Netherlands: $2,134
France: $2,104.

But is that really free market when the government mandates what private health insurance must provide? According to the CATO Institute, the net cost of health regulation in the U.S. is over $169 billion, or an average of $1,500 per household.
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/issues/CATOHealthCareReg100404.pdf

Fr Chuck is correct when he mentions areas of reform like tort . The issue is not at the expenditure side.Perhaps we are closer to this so called universal care than we think and perhaps we should be looking at that as part of the problem

I think Tort reform will have to be done along with healthcare reform. My OB told me that he was discontinuing his OB care shortly after my daughter was born. He was only going to do GYN simply because the cost of business was too high. The doctors order all these tests because they are afraid of being sued into obilivion.

I saw an article recently where Australia is refusing the entry of an immigrant because she is too fat and will be a drain on their healthcare system. That made me wonder - what's going to happen in the future when the money is too tight? What about women like me who's child was diagnosed in utero to have a genetic disorder? Will we forced to abort so our child doesn't become a drain on the system? What about Granny who is diabetic, has cancer and can't walk? Will she be "put down" to save a few bucks? When you need a heart transplant, will the doctor say "shouldn't have eaten all those Big Macs - you're disqualified!"?

It drives me crazy to see the folks at my office that don't take advantage of the healthcare plan offered. The company pays 60% of the premium, but I hear that "I can't afford it!" They can afford: cell phones, cable TV, cigarettes, new shoes and take food everyday though.

Better stop there - I'm getting started on a rant.

Hello again, tom:

I don't think we actually disagree.

However, I'm an either/or kind of guy. You can't have it half way. And, what we have NOW, is a half way system.

On the "or" side, the Cato Institute is absolutely correct as they are on lots of issues. I remember a time when everybody could afford to go their family doctor. His rates were fair, lawsuits weren't frivolous, and the insurance companies didn't yet recognize that THEY could control the price of health care.

Then things changed. The prices I paid my doctor were no longer the ones he wanted to charge. They were the ones the insurance companies were TELLING him to charge. Boom. We were OFF to the races.

On the "either" side, as a result of that race, health care costs skyrocketed, and lots of people were left UN covered and UN able to afford to pay their doctor, unlike earlier times.

Therefore, we need to EITHER cover EVERYBODY, or cover nobody.

excon

Emland

I share your concerns . I have heard of many similar cases where doctors are walking away from the profession due to liability insurance. I deal with a doctor who refuses to accept insurance payments and I know of a doctor that has an upfront annual retention fee from his patients on top of the copayment. This helps covers the expenses that insurance companies deny .

With unlimited demand comes shortages and that is why so many nations that have universal care ration it.

excon no we really don't disagree except I do not buy into universal for the reason stated above to Emland. Well that ;and the fact that there is never enough money .The government feels they are entitled to forever pick your pockets and universal care is just their latest excuse.

My son's genetic doctor is one of only a handful in his field. He takes cash or check only. He says we can deal with the insurance companies, because he is done with them.

The funny thing is that an annual visit with him for an hour checkup/consult costs less than a trip to the regular MD for a runny nose/cough.

Hello again, tom:

Isn't universal health care a threesome? You, your doctor and the insurance company? Seems like there's one too many partners... Don't you think it would be cheaper if we just eliminated the insurance company altogether?

There's no insurance company in between the government and Medicare. That works. Yes, they're getting ripped off big time, but that's because they don't police the claims. They just pay them. That doesn't mean Medicare (single payer) doesn't work. It just means the agency needs to do its job better.

So, if we're going to PAY for health insurance for everybody, why don't we just pay the health provider and tell Geico to make their money off cars?

While we're at it, I suppose I should talk about tort reform. It's BOGUS. It's another SCAM brought about by guess who?? Those dreaded INSURANCE companies again. They raise this red herring because they found out that if they could get a law passed that limits their claims, they can make a whole lot more money. They trumpet the aberrations in the law, like the lady with hot coffee in her lap, and then they lie and tell you it happens ALL the time.

Well, it DOESN'T happen all the time, just like verdicts like OJ's don't happen all the time. Our court system DOES work for the most part, but nothing is absolute. That the courts are ALREADY set up to deal with frivolous law suits. They're dismissed before they even get off the ground.

But I tell you, that 99% of the judgments granted by juries ARE warranted. Clearly, 12 people, your peers, agreed that somebody did something really really bad to somebody else. I like juries. I trust them. If THEY say somebody screwed up, I for the most part, believe it.

When the insurance companies take away YOUR Constitutional rights to have your case adjudicated by a jury, you're not going to be happy when somebody hurts your child and laughs all the way to the bank, because he knows you can't collect, only but a pittance.

Jury awards, BIG ONES, were designed to PUNISH. Don't you think people should be punished? Specially the ones who HURT people??

K, I'm done.

excon

Honestly you sound more socialist every day. Do you really think that government run plans like Medicare is run efficiently ? How about the VA ? How about Medicaid ? WE all know of horror stories about each ;and even worse terrible delays in service.

As for tort reform refer to my comments about John Edwards .Meritless lawsuits like he championed clog up the courts and regardless about the jury decision ;there is no penalty for bringing frivolous cases before the courts. Not only that but it leads to more and more ridiculous regulations that add costs to the system.

Got to love that VA.

They told my dad he had chronic heartburn and prescribed Pepcid AC.

When it didn't get better he paid out of pocket to see a real doctor. By then the cancer was too advanced.

My husband is retired military and he only goes there when he has to get their blessing on a referral.

Hello again, tom:

Libertairians take the best from the left and the best from the right. Republicans are in the middle somewhere.

I'm not surprised that you think I'm a socialist. Indeed, it's the opposite. In my view, the Constitutional role of government is, for want of better words, simply the trash collectors. They build the roads and deliver the mail. They decide who should get water, and who should get electricity, and who should get broadband.

Health care is like the roads, and our water, and the National Parks. It belongs to everybody, and should be treated as such.

excon

I can't find health care in any of them inalienable rights. I do not think the founders ever envisioned a country that would take that responsibility away from the individual . I think it would lead to a nanny state like Emland describes . Your too fat We mandate you do something about it. You smoke ? Not anymore . Food police... yup.. mandated exercise time in the work place ? You bet.

Libertarian Party on Health Care

Government should not be in the health insurance business
We advocate a complete separation of medicine from the state. We oppose any government restriction or funding of medical or scientific research, including cloning. We support an end to government-provided health insurance and health care. Government's role in any kind of insurance should only be to enforce contracts when necessary, not to dictate to insurance companies and consumers which kinds of insurance contracts they may voluntarily agree upon. Libertarian Party on Health Care (http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Libertarian_Party_Health_Care.htm)

The business of insurance is the business of making money; no less than gambling houses, the odds are fixed. Under government health insurance, those who are covered qualify for reasons other than profitability; from that it would seem to follow that the cost for the same coverage would be less if controlled by the government…a non-profit enity.

The thing I hate about health care besides it being high because of mal practice suits--

They charge triple if you do not have any health coverage. It doesn't seem fair to me.
When my old boyfriend broke two of my toes and the top of my foot a few years ago the x rays cost almost $200. And then the specialist's charge was almost $900. And ALL he did was look at one x ray and say you have three breaks---DAH I already KNEW that!!

Then I found out that they over charge if you don't have health coverage---next time I go it will be for dying.

“Newspaper and journal headlines nationwide have reported on the record profits of a number of large health insurance companies in the past few years. The CEO of United Health Care (reportedly America's largest health insurance company) personally earned more than $90 million in 2003 and more than $120 million in 2004 in salary and incentives. Other company executives also received multimillion dollar packages. I haven't seen the 2005 or 2006 figures for United Health Care executives, but I suspect that there will be similar findings.”


(http://physician-assistant.advanceweb.com/Editorial/Content/Editorial.aspx?CC=81403)

So, United Health's CEO Dr. William McGuire gets 1.6 BILLION dollars worth in options. Now, besides the normal issues we can focus in on, such as corporate fiscal responsibility, or justification for what one man can do in any single day to justify the equivalent of a multi-million dollar daily "salary", how about discussing the question of skyrocketing insurance premiums. [from a performance perspective, the CEO cannot claim how well the company's stock has done this past year since UNH has been down as much as 28% off it's high since December - which doesn't mean the company hasn't been making boatloads of money (it's sitting on over $8 billion in cash)]

Health Insurance Profits Booming with $1.6 BILLION Paydays! - vlogolution :: www.HotRoast.com :: www.moMoneyTV.com :: Gotta Watch (http://www.vlogolution.com/vlog/archives/13-Health-Insurance-Profits-Booming-with-1.6-BILLION-Paydays!.html)

So... the government is spending the second-most per person on health coverage of any country in the world, and we still have "people falling through the cracks" who don't have medical insurance coverage.

But we are supposed to believe that if we have government-controlled "universal health care" that will improve.

Can someone explain how that will work? Will the government spend MORE money and become the BIGGEST spenders on medical care in the world (per capita)? Will it regulate prices so that doctors exit the marketplace, thus decreasing availability of services? How will the government improve healthcare coverage in a way that maintains or improves the current quality of care?

I have huge problems with medical insurance companies too. Personally, I'd like to see us switch to a system of Health Savings Accounts... everyone puts a pre-tax percentage of their salaries into HSA's to cover medical care. The money can be invested as desired, and interest and dividends are tax free. This money can only be used for medical care. It can also be passed to wife or children or other family members upon the death of the acount-holder. If the money is rolled over into another medical account, it remains tax-free. If it is drawn out of a medical account for any purpose other than to pay medical costs, it gets taxed at standard rates.

This accomplishes a number of things.

1) Increased investment, which boosts the economy.
2) Medical coverage for anyone who saves for it.
3) Elimination of insurance companies (this is the biggest plus).
4) Choice of medical treatment is put back in the hands of the patients rather than the insurance companies.
5) Families can inherit monies saved by the individual for medical purposes, either on a tax-free or taxed basis, depending on how the money is used. Why should that money disappear into the black hole called "medical insurance"?
6) Did I mention the elimination of insurance companies? It's worth mentioning twice.
7) Without insurance companies playing their games, medical costs can return to market norms. Doctors get more, patients pay less, and everyone is happy, except the insurance companies... and who really gives a flying leap what they think?

For those who need additional help, there is still Medicare, Medicaid and other government programs.

It's a win-win situation. Everyone is covered. Prices are lower. Doctors are happy. Patients are happy. And both the insurance companies and the government are out of the picture.

Elliot

It's a win-win situation. Everyone is covered. Prices are lower. Doctors are happy. Patients are happy. And both the insurance companies and the government are out of the picture.Hello El:

I'm IN.

excon

ETWolverine agrees: Holy $&*@!!! Somebody check whether hell has frozen over. You are aware of the fact that this is a CONSERVATIVE idea, aren't you? It is PRIVATIZATION of health care coverage! You sure you're still in?Hello El:

Dude! I don't have a political dog in the fight. My knee doesn't jerk because something is a liberal or conservative cause. I hate the government, and I hate the insurance companies. If your solution will have the result you say it will, I'm IN.

Besides, I thought of it too….


Therefore, we need to EITHER cover EVERYBODY, or cover nobody. I’m cool with the nobody option.

excon

Its third party payors [ whether gov or insurance co ] that inflate health care costs.

When money does not visibly come out of your pocket - or you think that a third party will pay for it that artificially creates more demand.

of course whenever there is a third party there are more costs added to the equation - administrative, salaries marketing etc.

But will the average citizen be willing to go back to a direct payment system?

I think HSAs are a step in that direction.

Will doctors and hospitals compete with each other based on price , quality, value?

Will consumers accept that technology costs real money, and that every time you have a headache don't expect to get a cat scan unless you are wiling to pay for it yourself.

People are willing to pay for luxury homes, cars, plastic surgery, video games, huge tvs, vacations, etc... why are not people willing to pay for their own healthcare?

As to government ? Being the solution?

The Doctor's Office - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119732809319620055.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

Petoskey News-Review - News - Cuts in Medicare reimbursement to doctors may limit access to health care for seniors (http://www.petoskeynews.com/articles/2007/12/08/news/news02.txt)

Asked if he foresees the current crisis ending in a kind of socialized medicine, Everett said: “This IS socialized medicine. The top groups are Medicare and Medicaid, and they are completely governed by the government

Stabenow said that when Congress cuts payments to provide health care, businesses see their health insurance rates go up.

“The private sector ends up paying for all of this, and it does not save money to cut physicians’ payments or other Medicare or Medicaid payments,” she said



Yes the government at work.

They did such a good job with Katrina and some who can't trust the gov because of Iraq are now looking to gov to solve the healthcare issue?