Health care - administrative incompetence

Funny how no one has commented on the health system in Singapore.

I wonder why that could be?
 
xjx388 said:
Funny how no one has commented on the health system in Singapore.

I wonder why that could be?
Click to expand...

A nationalized catastrophic insurance plan, 6% of your salary taken out of your salary like a tax to be used to fund your routine healthcare needs, and government enforced price controls to keep things affordable?

I'd be fine with that.
 
Tatyana said:
I would really like to know how things like community screening programmes are managed with so many providers.
Click to expand...

When they come in for care, we screen them. We send reminders about yearly physicals, which most insurers cover and sometimes with no cost, and many take advantage of them and many don't. It's a free country, ya know.

And we use the iFOB in our clinic not guiac cards.
 
Tatyana said:
That is what I meant, how is it organised in the US.

For example, infants are screened at birth as they are in hospital, that one is quite easy to understand how it is done, but how does pre-natal screening work?

How does breast cancer screening work in the US?
Click to expand...

According to Wiki:

"13% of women who become pregnant every year in the United States are uninsured, resulting in severely limited access to prenatal care. According to Children’s Defense Fund’s website, “Almost one in every four pregnant Black women and more than one in three pregnant Latina women is uninsured, compared with one in nearly seven pregnant White women. Without coverage, Black and Latina mothers are less likely to access or afford prenatal care.”[4] Currently, pregnancy is considered a “pre-existing condition,” making it much harder for uninsured pregnant women to actually be able to afford private health insurance.[5]"
Click to expand...

link
 
Vital Signs: Breast Cancer Screening among Women Aged 50–74 Years — United States, 2008

Results: For 2008, overall, age-adjusted, up-to-date mammography prevalence for U.S. women aged 50–74 years was 81.1%, compared with 81.5% in 2006. Among the lowest prevalences reported were those by women aged 50–59 years (79.9%), persons who did not finish high school (72.6%), American Indian/Alaska Natives (70.4%), those with annual household income <$15,000 (69.4%), and those without health insurance (56.3%). Highest mammography prevalence was among residents of the northeastern United States.
Click to expand...

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/725261
 
kellyb said:
A nationalized catastrophic insurance plan, 6% of your salary taken out of your salary like a tax to be used to fund your routine healthcare needs, and government enforced price controls to keep things affordable?

I'd be fine with that.
Click to expand...

You forget to mention the government subsidies. I wonder of xjx388 understands how their system is the antithesis of what he wants.
 
kellyb said:
How are you defining "bottom 15%"?

I'm pretty sure the US infant mortality stats are affecting our life expectancy.
Here's the infant mortality situation in my city:
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2005/mar/06/special-report-infant-mortality-in-memphis/

Would those infants count as part of the US's "bottom 15%"?
Click to expand...
Nice appeal to emotion. I bolded 2 areas in my original post to help you make that determination.

I fail to see what the infant mortality rate in your city has to do with the US's healthcare system. Remember, I'm against any type of national universal healthcare; I'm perfectly fine with state universal healthcare.

ServiceSoon said:
Would it make sense if it was due to the nature of how the data is communicated? Lets take average life expectancy for example. WIki says the UK has a life expectancy of 79.4 compared to the US's 78.3. In the UK system everybody receives treatment. In the US 15% are uninsured and therefore don't receive proper treatment.

I wonder what would happen if you removed the bottom 15% from both the UK and US data? I'd bet a US nickel that the figures would reverse.
Click to expand...
Your article says this grave site is called the burial ground for the poor. Being poor I bet more than 15% of the mothers of these babies were without health insurance, which would lend to a higher rate.

Don't forget that there are date limitations due to international variations with the way births/deaths are classified.
 
ServiceSoon said:
Nice appeal to emotion. I bolded 2 areas in my original post to help you make that determination.

I fail to see what the infant mortality rate in your city has to do with the US's healthcare system. Remember, I'm against any type of national universal healthcare; I'm perfectly fine with state universal healthcare.


Your article says this grave site is called the burial ground for the poor. Being poor I bet more than 15% of the mothers of these babies were without health insurance, which would lend to a higher rate.

Don't forget that there are date limitations due to international variations with the way births/deaths are classified.
Click to expand...

The 15% you mention for the US is the uninsured, but that's not the bottom 15% in terms of wealth. The absolute poorest in the US are on Medicaid. The uninsured are generally lower middle class.

Who are the "bottom 15%" in the UK?
 
Remember, I'm against any type of national universal healthcare; I'm perfectly fine with state universal healthcare.
Click to expand...

Why?

I can see that working, but only if states/state citizens were allowed to opt out of medicaid/medicare payments.

But I'm really not seeing how a state "triple payer" (and the UK is a triple payer system now, technically, since you can also buy insurance and just pay for non-NHS covered services out of pocket there) system would be better than a federal NHS-like thing?
 
xjx388 said:
Really, how so?

What do you think I want?
Click to expand...

I think you want a free market. I kinda got that when you wrote, "I'll take my chances with a free market, thank you." Singapore doesn't have a free market. They have price controls, subsidies (including up to 100%), government run insurance, and mandatory (threatened with incarceration!!!) savings where (again, with threats of incarceration) you're only allowed to spend it on certain things.

You also claimed that a free market would make everything cheaper. I got that from where you wrote, "Government out + Free Market in = lower cost." Singapore's health care is much less expensive, which disproves your argument.

At this point I have no idea why you're bringing up Singapore.
 
UncaYimmy said:
I think you want a free market. I kinda got that when you wrote, "I'll take my chances with a free market, thank you." Singapore doesn't have a free market. They have price controls, subsidies (including up to 100%), government run insurance, and mandatory (threatened with incarceration!!!) savings where (again, with threats of incarceration) you're only allowed to spend it on certain things.

You also claimed that a free market would make everything cheaper. I got that from where you wrote, "Government out + Free Market in = lower cost." Singapore's health care is much less expensive, which disproves your argument.

At this point I have no idea why you're bringing up Singapore.
Click to expand...

STOP MAKING GOOD POINTS.

You're going to make me have some sort of esoteric crisis over here. :p

But seriously, that. What you said.
 
UncaYimmy said:
I think you want a free market. I kinda got that when you wrote, "I'll take my chances with a free market, thank you." Singapore doesn't have a free market. They have price controls, subsidies (including up to 100%), government run insurance, and mandatory (threatened with incarceration!!!) savings where (again, with threats of incarceration) you're only allowed to spend it on certain things.

You also claimed that a free market would make everything cheaper. I got that from where you wrote, "Government out + Free Market in = lower cost." Singapore's health care is much less expensive, which disproves your argument.

At this point I have no idea why you're bringing up Singapore.
Click to expand...

Ah. Thanks for clarifying.

Yes. I want a free market and no Singapore isn't a completely free market (not completely closed either, mind you). However, it illustrates that a model very similar to the one I proposed can work. Maybe this is the model we should be trying to improve upon instead of the UK's model?

I wouldn't even be so opposed to subsidies per se. Price controls I have a bigger problem with; the free market can take care of pricing. Consider that the US doesn't even really have a price system in place at all right now. Call the hospital and ask them how much a bypass surgery is if you want to pay cash. . . good luck with that. Physician services are little easier to get prices for. So I think Singapore is at least on the right track and it's worth exploring how a model based on personal responsibility (savings) and a big safety net (catastrophic insurance) could work here.

I've come to the realization that there will have to be some regulation of the health care industry. But such regulation does not mean that the government has to become your doctor or make your health decisions for you. In my opinion, the UK style system of healthcare will never fly here in the US. That's a pipe dream. It's time to start thinking a little more creatively and the Singapore model might be a good first step in that direction.
 
xjx388 said:
UK life expectancy: 79.2 years
US life expectancy: 78.24 year

Difference = .96 years.

Neither of us have anything on Singapore = 82.06 years. Interesting health system they have there . . . Kind of a hybrid between a UHC system and a Free Market system.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get your numbers from but according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...cy#List_by_the_United_Nations_.282005-2010.29 the US has 78.3, the same as Cuba but less than for example Puerto Rico and Costa Rica. UK has 79.4 and Sweden, where I come from and healthcare is free, has 80.9.

CIA factbook on the same page says USA 78.3, UK 79,01 and Sweden 80,86. I really like living a couple of years longer :)

Anyway, it's kinda interesting to follow a heated debate about something I take for granted. I can't imagine having to worry about costs when I'm ill.
 
xjx388 said:
Ah. Thanks for clarifying.

Yes. I want a free market and no Singapore isn't a completely free market (not completely closed either, mind you). However, it illustrates that a model very similar to the one I proposed can work. Maybe this is the model we should be trying to improve upon instead of the UK's model?

I wouldn't even be so opposed to subsidies per se. Price controls I have a bigger problem with; the free market can take care of pricing. Consider that the US doesn't even really have a price system in place at all right now. Call the hospital and ask them how much a bypass surgery is if you want to pay cash. . . good luck with that. Physician services are little easier to get prices for. So I think Singapore is at least on the right track and it's worth exploring how a model based on personal responsibility (savings) and a big safety net (catastrophic insurance) could work here.

I've come to the realization that there will have to be some regulation of the health care industry. But such regulation does not mean that the government has to become your doctor or make your health decisions for you. In my opinion, the UK style system of healthcare will never fly here in the US. That's a pipe dream. It's time to start thinking a little more creatively and the Singapore model might be a good first step in that direction.
Click to expand...

In Singapore, the gov TAKES, AGAINST YOUR WILL, under threat of incarceration or death of you fight back, a % of your income to be paid into a HSA and the collectivist insurance plan for large expenditures.

How is that "personal responsibility"? How is that not the gov thinking they can spend your money better than you can?

I agree that that's better than what the US has right now. Far, far better. But how is that more "free market" than the current situation in the US?

And how is the NHS a system where " the government has to become your doctor or make your health decisions for you"? WTF?

Do you understand that the entire population in the UK is covered by (per capita) what we pay for Medicare and Medicaid alone?

How can the Singapore system bring down Medicare costs? Or do you want to abolish Medicare? Talk about a pipe dream!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom