I don't get why Obama doesn't Just Say it.

[McHrozni]

I am wondering what is the average earnings in each of these countries and how much is spent on end of life care.

It's not as off the scale as the healthcare spending is. I am wondering if those numbers are accurate though.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I think it is of only minor relevance to sell the plan to doctors. I'm not sure we should be catering to the needs of the few here.

Good luck at providing good health care without the needs of the said few. That's all I can say.

Quality will drop? Why would you think that?

US ranks #1 in quality of service provided and #1 in it's price, as well as #1 in pays for practitioners. It's highly unreasonable to assume the three are not linked, without making further studies, wouldn't you say?

Your opinion is noted. I would say that we pay 2x to 3x as much as other modern industrialized nations and receive marginal returns.

I don't dispute the notion that the US health care is inefficient for the costs. It is, but that is because of a multitude of reasons. A large population willing to pay high prices for premium service is one of them, the fact both the health providers and the financing are typically private institutions in another. Reducing one factor while catering to another won't reduce the costs by a whole lot.

McHrozni

 

[Lurker]

Good luck at providing good health care without the needs of the said few. That's all I can say.

Are you slagging on our current system? I agree, it isn't working.

US ranks #1 in quality of service provided and #1 in it's price, as well as #1 in pays for practitioners. It's highly unreasonable to assume the three are not linked, without making further studies, wouldn't you say?

And if we fell to #2 in quality, would that be a huge problem if our prices fell significantly? Amazing how other countries still get similar outcomes as us. Similar cancer survival rates, similar wait times... Of course that is for the people that actually have health care. The rest can just die when diagnosed with cancer, right?

I don't dispute the notion that the US health care is inefficient for the costs. It is, but that is because of a multitude of reasons. A large population willing to pay high prices for premium service is one of them, the fact both the health providers and the financing are typically private institutions in another. Reducing one factor while catering to another won't reduce the costs by a whole lot.

Agreed. So let's study Japan, let's study Germany, let's study the UK and find out where they are saving so much money compared to us.

 

[Lurker]

It's not as off the scale as the healthcare spending is. I am wondering if those numbers are accurate though.

McHrozni

Source:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/34/43800977.pdf

And they have been adjusted for purchasing power in each nation. It also mentions:

"Administrative costs are high [in the US]."

 

[WildCat]

US ranks #1 in quality of service provided and #1 in it's price, as well as #1 in pays for practitioners.

According to who?

 

[eeyore1954]

Of course that is for the people that actually have health care. The rest can just die when diagnosed with cancer, right?

Do you really believe that happens in America? (Out of a few 100,000,000 people I am sure you can find a few cases) . I firmly believe that in America today people are not denied cancer treatment because they are unable to get health care or cannot afford it.

 

[makaya325]

I have not read this whole thread, but what is the consensus regarding Obama's recently passed Healthcare plan?

 

[WildCat]

I firmly believe that in America today people are not denied cancer treatment because they are unable to get health care or cannot afford it.

And I firmly believe that the Rams will win the Super Bowl this season.

 

[eeyore1954]

And I firmly believe that the Rams will win the Super Bowl this season.

That doesn't show my belief is wrong. And more importantly don't be bursting my bubble about the Rams. I have been a Ram fan long enough to know who Crazy Legs Hirsch is. I remember sitting in a casino sports book the year they were 400 to 1 to win the super bowl and they won it. OF course i did not bet.

 

[Lurker]

Do you really believe that happens in America? (Out of a few 100,000,000 people I am sure you can find a few cases) . I firmly believe that in America today people are not denied cancer treatment because they are unable to get health care or cannot afford it.

I'm not sure. I know emergency rooms have to see patients but what happens to people with chronic conditions like cancer? Assume the patient is under 50 or so and is working a relatively low paying job. Who is paying for their chemo?

 

[McHrozni]

Source:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/34/43800977.pdf

Stop at the second graph. It breaks down the total spending by country to private and public spending. The current US public spending is about average. Private spending is over half of the total US health spending, whereas the number is closer to 10% in the rest of OECD.
In other words, the public health spending is comparable in the US to the rest of OECD, it's the private spending that accounts for so much more.

"Administrative costs are high [in the US]."

I imagine that those could be reduced and somewhat improve the whole picture, but I doubt they are the main problem. Reducing them would be a good start, though, since they are probably the easiest to cut.

Skipping through the document, it seems that the out-patient care is the most disproportionate in the US, if that was brought to a more normal level, the health care in the US would be almost normal in costs, compared to the rest of the OECD. Administration is also more expensive, but it accounts for a small portion of the whole thing.
The document also states outpatient care is artificially cheaper and inpatetient care artificially more expensive, since US and European (for example) definitions of one and another differ somewhat. Outpatient care is also the highest in proportion of growth, even when compared to the other countries.

In other words, the first thing any bill should consider is cutting the costs of outpatient care. Everything else can wait. The rest are only marginally greater than the rest of the OECD, and having marginally higher health spending is probably acceptable.

What are the reasons for high outpatient care, however, I do not know.

Another thing the bill highlights is that the number of doctors in the US is notably lower, which also brings their pays up disproportionally. That too could be addressed by promoting greater enrollment at colleges and with scholarships. It would take a decade or two, but improve the overall service, while cutting costs at the same time.

Just moving to a single payer system is unlikely to significantly change the costs one way or another.

McHrozni

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'm not sure. I know emergency rooms have to see patients but what happens to people with chronic conditions like cancer? Assume the patient is under 50 or so and is working a relatively low paying job. Who is paying for their chemo?

They can apply for loans or financial aid from the government (Medicaid). Most hospitals have financial aid services and long-term payment plans for treatment. If they can't get the money, then the hospital might not provide cancer treatment. They are only required (by law) to treat emergency cases and stabilize the patient.

 

[Lurker]

Stop at the second graph. It breaks down the total spending by country to private and public spending. The current US public spending is about average. Private spending is over half of the total US health spending, whereas the number is closer to 10% in the rest of OECD.
In other words, the public health spending is comparable in the US to the rest of OECD, it's the private spending that accounts for so much more.

In other words, you choose to compare apples to oranges. If we did not have private spending then the public spending to accomodate those health care visits would be much higher here. I'm not sure what your point is when you separate our the private vs public here in the states.

I imagine that those could be reduced and somewhat improve the whole picture, but I doubt they are the main problem. Reducing them would be a good start, though, since they are probably the easiest to cut.

Agreed.

Skipping through the document, it seems that the out-patient care is the most disproportionate in the US, if that was brought to a more normal level, the health care in the US would be almost normal in costs, compared to the rest of the OECD. Administration is also more expensive, but it accounts for a small portion of the whole thing.
The document also states outpatient care is artificially cheaper and inpatetient care artificially more expensive, since US and European (for example) definitions of one and another differ somewhat. Outpatient care is also the highest in proportion of growth, even when compared to the other countries.

In other words, the first thing any bill should consider is cutting the costs of outpatient care. Everything else can wait. The rest are only marginally greater than the rest of the OECD, and having marginally higher health spending is probably acceptable.

What are the reasons for high outpatient care, however, I do not know.

Agreed.

Another thing the bill highlights is that the number of doctors in the US is notably lower, which also brings their pays up disproportionally. That too could be addressed by promoting greater enrollment at colleges and with scholarships. It would take a decade or two, but improve the overall service, while cutting costs at the same time.

Just moving to a single payer system is unlikely to significantly change the costs one way or another.

I'm not convinced. I think a single payer system WOULD significantly reduce the cost.

 

[Lurker]

They can apply for loans or financial aid from the government (Medicaid). Most hospitals have financial aid services and long-term payment plans for treatment. If they can't get the money, then the hospital might not provide cancer treatment. They are only required (by law) to treat emergency cases and stabilize the patient.

That was my understanding, perhaps eeyore1954 has some information to the contrary on how these people receive treatment.

 

[mhaze]

Stop at the second graph. It breaks down the total spending by country to private and public spending. The current US public spending is about average. Private spending is over half of the total US health spending, whereas the number is closer to 10% in the rest of OECD.
In other words, the public health spending is comparable in the US to the rest of OECD, it's the private spending that accounts for so much more.
....

Right. So the voluntary, private spending needs to be taken aware and redistributed....

 

[mhaze]

That was my understanding, perhaps eeyore1954 has some information to the contrary on how these people receive treatment.

I'll offer a simple comment, that the use of the phrase "hospital" as the originator of treatment is incorrect. There are many doctors and private clinics, radiation therapy clinics, etc. These dominate the market, rather than hospitals as the provider.

Oh wait.....the know it alls that want to reorganize medicine didn't know that? Sheessh...

The ignorance is indeed profound.

 

[Lurker]

I'll offer a simple comment, that the use of the phrase "hospital" as the originator of treatment is incorrect. There are many doctors and private clinics, radiation therapy clinics, etc. These dominate the market, rather than hospitals as the provider.

Sorry, I was using "hospital" rather euphemistically and had not intended it to mean solely "hospital". Anyway, whether it si clinic, hospital, office the point remains the same.

Oh wait.....the know it alls that want to reorganize medicine didn't know that? Sheessh...

The ignorance is indeed profound.

Well, that is why I asked eeyore a question NOT regarding whether it was hospitals specifically providing the treatment but about how the treatment no matter where received was being paid for. That was the crux of my question to which I did not know the answer. That is why I asked. Obviously you read sarcasm in my post when none was intended.

 

[Earthborn]

In other words, the public health spending is comparable in the US to the rest of OECD, it's the private spending that accounts for so much more.

Yes, public health spending in the US is comparable to other countries, but it is also mentioned that it only covers the elderly, the disabled and some of the poor... So in the US people are paying about as much in taxes on healthcare, but it doesn't cover everyone, while in other countries it does cover everyone.

Right. So the voluntary, private spending needs to be taken aware and redistributed....

A lot of that private spending is used for crucial medical necessities, which are covered by public health spending in other countries. That's because some people aren't covered by the public spending.

 

[McHrozni]

I'm not convinced. I think a single payer system WOULD significantly reduce the cost.

Fine - how?

McHrozni

 

[mhaze]

Fine - how?

McHrozni

The socialist Utopian concept here is that by putting the insurance companies out of business, the average person would benefit since the insurance companies were scarfing up bunches of profits. (Reality is it was only 2-4%).

Actually, it's like saying the US Post office can/should/would do better than Federal Express or UPS.

Further, those believing this typically are not aware of the negatives, such as the effect of putting the 2M people in the insurance industry out of work (and in the middle of a depression to boot). Which is a totally Anti Keynesian approach to solving a depression, or to be blunt, is directly a way to make it worse.

So that'd move the 10.2% unemployment to 12.5%. Wow, that'd be brilliant Socialism! Wow!!!