• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged "Bitter Pill": Major article on US expensive healthcare (Time)

I've been saying here for years that the expense of US health care comes not from the much-maligned insurance companies but from the health care providers themselves. But everyone wants to blame the insurance companies, mostly just for being the bearers of bad news.

This is part of the reason I'm disappointed in the ACA - it does virtually nothing to bring costs down. Should be the ECA. ;)

Rolfe (I think) posted links that suggested about 38% of US healthcare costs were in administration and middlemen.

I'll try to find them.

Actually it isn't as bad as that - "just" 31% in 1999

Int J Health Serv. 2004;34(1):65-78.

Abstract

A decade ago, U.S. health administration costs greatly exceeded Canada's. Have the computerization of billing and the adoption of a more business-like approach to care cut administrative costs? For the United States and Canada, the authors calculated the 1999 administrative costs of health insurers, employers' health benefit programs, hospitals, practitioners' offices, nursing homes, and home care agencies; they analyzed published data, surveys of physicians, employment data, and detailed cost reports filed by hospitals, nursing homes, and home care agencies; they used census surveys to explore time trends in administrative employment in health care settings. Health administration costs totaled at least dollar 294.3 billion, dollar 1,059 per capita, in the United States vs. dollar 9.4 billion, dollar 307 per capita, in Canada. After exclusions, health administration accounted for 31.0 percent of U.S. health expenditures vs. 16.7 percent of Canadian. Canada's national health insurance program had an overhead of 1.3 percent, but overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than in the U.S.: 13.2 vs. 11.7 percent. Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada. Between 1969 and 1999 administrative workers' share of the U.S. health labor force grew from 18.2 to 27.3 percent; in Canada it grew from 16.0 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996. Reducing U.S. administrative costs to Canadian levels would save at least dollar 209 billion annually, enough to fund universal coverage.
 
All you want to look for is negativity and answers that will strengthen your argument against the ACA. All you really have to know is that we pay less in taxes overall than you do.

Canadians pay less in taxes? Really?

I see Provincial sales taxes run on average of 12.35% (13.16% if you omit the Albert fluke of 5%...all the others run 10-15%).

State sales taxes average 7.49% here (ranging from 0% - 11.725%).

Property sales taxes are a bit harder to narrow down.

But, if taxes were so low in Canada, I can't imagine they'd be flocking down to our malls like they do in Buffalo.


I'll ignore the rest of your personal attack.
 
Canadians pay less in taxes? Really?

I see Provincial sales taxes run on average of 12.35% (13.16% if you omit the Albert fluke of 5%...all the others run 10-15%).

State sales taxes average 7.49% here (ranging from 0% - 11.725%).

Property sales taxes are a bit harder to narrow down.

But, if taxes were so low in Canada, I can't imagine they'd be flocking down to our malls like they do in Buffalo.


I'll ignore the rest of your personal attack.

I said taxes OVERALL and if you think any province has 12.35% or 13.16% porvincial sales tax then you have some homework to do before you start munching carrots with a Canadian!

How do you like them carrots?
 
And if you get insurance through your employer, and you become too sick to work, you lose the insurance. You can extend it with COBRA...for a lot more money than you were paying. And of course now you're not working you can't really afford what you were paying before, much less more...

As long as health insurance comes through employers, people are not secure because both your insurance and income eggs are in the same basket.

I also have paid a price because of this situation. I have a good job, with good insurance, and have now worked for the company for 15 years. up to 6 years ago, I was working in Las Vegas, a town in which I had friends, family and a decent social network. However, 6 years ago the office in Las Vegas closed down, and was consolidated with the office in Indianapolis. I was lucky, that I had this option, but my job was being relocated to Indianapolis, and I could keep it if I wanted.

I was born with a congenital heart defect, for which I had already had 3 surgeries, and require several drugs daily. All of this is manageable and affordable - as long as I keep my insurance. I could have stayed in Las Vegas, but this was 2007, the economy was beginning its fall, and I could not be sure to get another job soon enough. And even if I did get one, I would have almost no say on what level of health insurance they offered. With my pre-existing condition, there was no way of getting individual coverage

So I decided to move across the country to a brand new city, where I have no roots, no family, no social network, because I couldn't afford the risk of losing my health insurance.

For my physical health, I made the right choice. The health care is better here and I am doing much better physically. However, I am still living in a city in which I have no roots, no family, and no social support structure.

Had I lived in a country with UHC, I could have afforded to take the financial risk (of lost salary only) to stay in LV and find another job even if it took me 6 months to a year without having to sacrifice those social positives.
 
Last edited:
Precisely. The US method of health insurance disinclines people to take risks. Our national ethos is that we're supposed to be bold explorers, risk-takers, adventurers...but our very lives depend on clinging to safety even if we're miserable. How many people don't strike out to start their own business, or go back to school, because they fear not just wasting their time and losing money, but actually winding up dead because they took a risk?
 
I said taxes OVERALL and if you think any province has 12.35% or 13.16% porvincial sales tax then you have some homework to do before you start munching carrots with a Canadian!

How do you like them carrots?

I would suggest actually reading the post before trailing off into insults...it makes you sound extremely uneducated.
 
I said taxes OVERALL and if you think any province has 12.35% or 13.16% porvincial sales tax then you have some homework to do before you start munching carrots with a Canadian!

How do you like them carrots?

Here's a wikipedia page that shows taxes collected as a % of GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

Canada - 32.2%
USA - 26.9%

(using the Heritage Foundation figures for 2012 as a source).

Unless you want to include U.S. non-tax medical expenses as some kind of ersatz tax then it's not even close. That's not to say that the US's low tax policy is necessarily a good or bad thing but it does appear that U.S. residents pay lower taxes.
 
I've already said administrators also make far more in the US than they do elsewhere.

And what is your solution?

eta: and I'm pretty sure letting 50 states make their own health care regulations bumps up that administrative expense quite a bit, that's 50 diffferent sets of rules and regs to comply with. The states should be relieved of the authority to regulate health care, it should be the province of the federal government, especialy since it's the feds that are paying.
 
Last edited:
So you have backed off from your claim that its the pay of "everyone" in the healthcare industry that's responsible for the high costs.
No, I'm not.

And your anecdotes prove squat, stats are all that matters.
 
Maybe that's what your looking for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

We pay roughly double what other 1st world countries pay per capita for healthcare. And they almost all live longer.

At the end of the day, does it really matter if its a tax, or out of pocket?
But remember, it has nothing at all to do with far higher salaries in the USA. Must all be because the same exact equipment costs twice as much in the USA or something.
 
I remember a TV documentary about this, where a doctor casually remarked that he employed four secretaries just to deal with the paperwork generated by insurance companies.

Now I'm sure these four secretaries are pleased to have the work. But I can't help feeling there are other things they could be doing, even within healthcare, that would benefit the country and the economy a lot more.

Rolfe.
 
WildCat: You haven't really provided any data either, so I'd refrain from throwing those stones in glass houses.


To the subject: I note that some places (like Walmart, funnily enough) will discount services if you have no insurance. Although, it was only my eye exam. (Which is probably on a different type of payment need than anything else.)
 
I'll worry about that when the government has to pick up the tab for fast food meals to prevent deaths from starvation. Nobody has to buy a Big Mac, if you go without health care you will die.
The government has been picking up the tab for the financial industry for some years now, do you support price controls on baker banker and broker salaries?

Daredelvis
 
Last edited:
If you want the best and brightest being doctors -and you really really should- then you want those people to have an incentive to enter medicine. Otherwise, they'll become engineers, lawyers and anything more lucrative than being a doctor.

Do you have any evidence that our doctors are significantly better than those in say, the UK?

Nothing?

TANSTAAFL.

What are you trying to say? He pays taxes for his medical coverage. It's right there in his post. He pays no additional money for private medical insurance, because it's not needed. And the taxes that he pays to access universal healthcare coverage are on par with what Americans pay for coverage that many of us can't access (Medicare and Medicaid).
 
Well, my best friend from school is a doctor, though she has only worked part-time for the past 30 years because of bringing up three kids as well. Her husband is an ENT surgeon.

They have an ocean-going yacht. If I drop the right hints at the right time, I get to sail on it.

Rolfe.
 
And you pay roughly what I pay in tax for healthcare (slightly more in 2007) whilst I pay nothing for private medical insurance.


Nothing?

TANSTAAFL.

Nothing

Because like many, if not most Brits, I see no need when I have public coverage paid for from my taxes and at a slightly lower rate than that which fails to provide coverage for a large proportion of the US population.
 
No, I'm not.

And your anecdotes prove squat, stats are all that matters.

So you claim that every person in the healthcare industry makes more money (significantly more, at one point you suggested double) what the same jobs pay in other First World countries? Even the janitors, the IT people, the schedulers, the secretaries, the orderlies. Every single one.

And that I know my own salary, and you don't, is "anecdote". Because you know better.

Does anyone else reading this think the suggestion is not absurd?
 
Sufficient numbers of verified anecdotes *are* data.

A single case can disprove a claim.
 
I'm about 18 pages into this monster of an article, and I almost want to just move to Canada now rather than finish reading it. Why do we as a nation put up with this insanity?

Because FREEDUMB! and DEATH PANELS! and socalislists and stuff.

Seriously, it really is absolutely insane. And the idea that our system is just fine and is superior to every other heath care system in the developed world is equally insane.

I had to switch doctors because my old doctor gave up my health insurance because they were a pain to deal with. And I couldn't afford to see her without the insurance so I was forced to switch doctors. Where was my freedom of choice there? I liked my old doctor! (fortunately my new one is also pretty good). We switched pharmacies not because we wanted to but because our insurance company told us we had to. Where was our freedom of choice there? And we dare not switch insurance companies because my wife has per-existing conditions. Where is our freedom of choice there? The idea that somehow people with single payer/socialized medicine/whatever you want to call it, have less freedom of choice in their medical care than we do with our current system is not grounded in any reality.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom