What Americans Will Never Be Told About Their Healthcare…

Theory: “State run systems, are inevitably be more inefficient than free market, privately funded ones. That is why Communism failed, right?”
Consequently (it would follow) the best way to improve the lives of British people, would be to put “a for sale sign” outside every hospital (and give savings in tax cuts, probably too the very rich on the theory this helps everyone more).

Reality…
1. Britain’s Healthcare system is 87.3% government funded, in America it’s 45.8%.
2. In Britain healthcare spending consumes 8.2% of DGP in America it’s 15.3
In other words: 41.5% more government spending, 46.4% more value for GDP.
3. In America an average of $6719 is spent on healthcare, in Britain the same money works out as $2815
4. In Britain we have much more, for much less: America has a life expectancy of 78, in Britain its 80. America has 31 hospital beds per 10,000 in Britain it’s 39. America has 94 nurses & midwives per 10,000 in Britain its 128. Only with doctors is America slightly better of, and even then the difference is tiny: 26 doctors per 10,000 compared with Britain’s 23.
See both tables beneath this article…
www.guardian.co.uk...
Other tables confirm the U.S is massively worse of…
www.nationmaster.com...
spreadsheets.google.com...
5. In America 62% of all bankruptcies are not from houses, or reckless personal spending, but healthcare…

One of the interesting caveats of this study shows that 78% of filers had some form of health insurance, thus bucking the myth that medical bills affect only the uninsured. finance.yahoo.com...

A Cure…
I opposed Obama Care after learning it simply makes healthcare more affordable for the poor, by making it even more expensive for the Middle Class (hardly rich in America, anymore) and how it will cost businesses $750 for the privilege of not having health insurance. Twenty problems with Obama Care…
blogs.investors.com...

Rather…
1. America needs a government department that does what the NHS does, i.e: “A department of healthcare costs, reduction.”

In the UK the NHS pays for staff training all the way through to qualification. The US could do the same, probably cheaper say with interest free loans.
In the UK the NHS sources staff from third world countries. www.nhscareers.nhs.uk... This is morally controversial (although it’s often claimed they encourage training in poor countries to replace those they take). However overall, there is much less of a staff shortage. Less staff shortage = lower wages, = lower operating costs (literally!).

I would divide this department into say 100 regions, give them outrageous targets, and every year the 5-10% of regional managers, who most fail to deliver would be sacked. That way they all have an incentive to increase healthcare worker: Supply, Education, and to close down rogue insurances.

America should consider subsidising the education of other key workers in demand, as it’s clear that capitalism (left to 100% of its own devices) isn’t as good as it might be (top put it politely!).
I don’t advocate communism. But it failed because all these governments took on far too much (i.e. the entire national economy) with too little competition to make things work efficiently (almost all communist countries have been dictatorships where “criticism” was just another word for prison, or even the death penalty). So with too much to do, and too little incentive to do it well, it’s no wonder why it was a disaster.
However: Some socialism-communism can work out better than capitalisms many inefficiencies, when politicians are in full control, but know “failure” is another word for their careers end.

Surely…
When it comes to the supply of the Brains needed to make the economy run more efficiently, nothing could be more in America’s interests than subsidising the higher education, of all those in demand. It transforms poor from a burden into a life long income stream for the government, increases purchasing power, and thereby also stimulates overall, national economic growth.

2. Surely nobody should have to go bankrupt just because they failed to save money for an expensive illness, nobody should normally expect? At the very least: Surely government should loan the money needed for their treatment, even if that means taking mortgage possession of the family home (although it may then be lived in for the debtor life time?)

3. All free-minded say it: Overall US Defense spending is completely insane at 43% of the world total, given it's nearest rival is China is at 7.3% and the next rivals are close allies (Britain at 3.7% and France at 3.6% -incidentally as much as China) en.wikipedia.org... there is no threat as terrorism kills less than traffic (not that I wish to inspire a false flag like en.wikipedia.org... !!!) and the only countries that get invaded nowadays are those stupid-primitive enough to disarm themselves of WMD's for the sake of peace (Iraq & Libya providing conformation, the fact none of the countries invaded before them had WMD's is supportive evidence). People always talk about the next Hitler, when historians know the last one (Stalin) was successfully deterred by MAD -perhaps the sanest replacement to real war, in a very long time!)

While your numbers are nice and all, one factor that I didn't read was the compensation for population of the United States against that of European countries....

That could explain the vast difference there.

reply to post by Liberal1984


The other thing Americans will never be told about their healthcare is that Cuba has better health care on average than we do.

The healthcare system in the U.S. is setup just to take peoples money without curing anything so that they have to keep spending money on treatments until they die.

U.S. healthcare is like the drug dealer on the corner. There is no money in a cure, just like there is no money in selling someone drugs once,.. the money is on the comeback.

Anybody that doesn't see this in our capitalist society is just kidding themselves.

Originally posted by JizzyMcButter
The healthcare system in the U.S. is setup just to take peoples money without curing anything so that they have to keep spending money on treatments until they die.

U.S. healthcare is like the drug dealer on the corner. There is no money in a cure, just like there is no money in selling someone drugs once,.. the money is on the comeback.

Anybody that doesn't see this in our capitalist society is just kidding themselves.

According to the US defenders of capitalism the US is actually failed socialism due to the amount of government intervention....... So I fully understand what you are saying but you are going to struggle to open folks eyes when your own citizens can't face up to the failure of the most capitalist society in the world!

I'm a supporter of the NHS and wouldn't want it privatised EVER! Your points have proved the reasons behind it, and your figures helped, showing how a national health service is a good thing and not a bad 'sucubus' so to speak.

The NHS still has problems, but that is hardly supprising when the torries have been trying to privatise it since the Thacture years, and now giving it another go.

Personaly, I believe that one of the problems with the USA health service is that it has been private for far too long, and now the damage can not be reversed, I am of course talking about pharmacy industry. These companies have one goal, profit. Nationalised health service has one goal, effectiveness of cure. You can see from a glance were the problem comes from. Americans health service is just too expencive now to be supported nationaly, thanks to the price of their medical companies being so high.

100% capitalist will have the same fall of 100% communist, nihlism. They will destroy themselves with their own structure, what is needed, I personaly believe, is a mixture of socialism and capitalism. An example of what I personaly believe would make a good compramise of the two;

Nationalise:
Public Transport
Health care
Roads
Education (partial nationalisation)

The rail industry was alot more effective when it was nationalised, prices was not increasing 6% every year like they have been for so long, and the profit from the rail industry (once nationalised) would go straight back into the maintinance of the rail system, thus keeping the costs of tickets down. Unlike when it is privatised, where the profits go towards the bonus's and so on.

That is just an example, the profit could be used also to lower tax's on the system, or to put towards the deficit pay back, resulting in less cuts being needed.

Just an idea, but i believe a good mix of the two can be found, as long as everything isn't privatised, and everything isn't nationalised, there should be a good equilibrium somewhere between that would be better off for everyone. Alas, socialism is a word as bad as the plauge now, so I doubt that will happen.

The biggest difference between that of other socialized healthcare and obamacare is the freedom of choice, the lack of choice for the United States.

In other countries with nationalized healthcare, the people can still get private insurance. Obamacare eliminates that choice. So, no matter the cost, no matter your plan, no matter your status - working or not working, legal or illegal, rich or poor - you will have the exact same plan and see the exact same medical professionals. The only difference will be cost. You WILL pay heaps more for the exact same treatment, if you just so happen to be employed or make any sort of wages.

So, even if you WANTED to pay extra for privatized insurance plans, you do not have that option. Obamacare eliminates the freedom of choice, and THAT is against the constitution, and THAT is illegal in the United States.

Whether people understand this, or not, it WILL impact other areas of consumerism in America. It sets the legal precedence that other items in our economy can and will be governed and we will lose the freedom to choose. Things like, the car we drive, the food we eat, the school our children go to, our house we live in, the clothes we where. Once there is legal case reference, it will be open to other statutes being imposed.

BTW, a little advice (got this from my family doctor yesterday): If you have any sort of elective surgery that you may have been putting off (elective = ANY and ALL surgery that is not an immediate life saving emergency, like repairing a hernia) get it done NOW. Soon, you will not have that choice unless it turns into a life saving event. And then, you're most likely gambling your own life on it (like, will you get to the hospital in time? Will the right surgeon with the right skills be available? Will an operating room be available? etc)

So, get your medical procedures taken care of now, even if you may not have the money. Get a loan, ask parents and friends. Your life just may depend on it.

Yes that is the reality of our current position and yes it is what we have to look forward to and plan for.

Hard to ignore the problem when you put it in black and white.

The two things are mainly responsible:

Profit and those paid to track and increase the profit.

Anything besides cost of care and labor compensation is immoral when it comes to healthcare.

Originally posted by pirhanna
reply to post by Liberal1984

 

The other thing Americans will never be told about their healthcare is that Cuba has better health care on average than we do.

Where do people come up with this tripe? I want sources... elaboration... anything.

You should put your health where your mouth is.

EDIT TO ADD:

What the hell does "better health care on average" even mean? What is "average"?

Also, to anyone who cares:

My mom is a VP at a major health care provider in the United States. She has over 30 years of experience in the health care sector and has taught a few semesters at our state university. She has a degree in nursing and a Masters of Health Sciences in Health Economics.

When I showed her this thread, she laughed.

When someone needs expert specialized healthcare treatment where do they go? Canada? Britian? Cuba? Nope, they come to the United States. When they get put on a massive waiting list and opt for treatment now, where do they go? The United States. Within 5 minutes you can Google 100 stories of people getting put on a waiting list for the treatment of life threatening ailments or the treatments the doctor prescribing not being covered.

CBS - Canadian Healthcare

A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."

Originally posted by de Thor
Where do people come up with this tripe? I want sources... elaboration... anything.

Not better but about the same.
World Health
...
18 United Kingdom
...
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
...

reply to post by daskakik


Well, these figures are from 1997. And apparently the WHO doesn't even find them credible:

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task.

I looked at the data and the criterion for the rankings and I couldn't really make any sense out of it. Did you have better luck?

reply to post by jjkenobi

When someone needs expert specialized healthcare treatment where do they go? Canada? Britian? Cuba? Nope, they come to the United States.

Yeah, those who can afford to actually fly over here and pay for our incredibly expensive healthcare.

reply to post by de Thor


That is the info that the OP laid out as far as UK vs. USA. The US may have leading edge tech, which brings people in from around the world, but that is one aspect of the entire health care system.

I think the main point of the OP is pointing out that despite spending more, US citizens get less.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by de Thor

 

That is the info that the OP laid out as far as UK vs. USA. The US may have leading edge tech, which brings people in from around the world, but that is one aspect of the entire health care system.

I think the main point of the OP is pointing out that despite spending more, US citizens get less.

Sure, I think we can agree that US citizens pay more. The assertion that they receive less, however, is not true. At least he didn't prove it to be true in the OP. Not even the WHO knows how to measure this #, so I find it comical he can come to these conclusions using trivial data such as "hospital beds per 10,000 patients." And the most important category, "doctors per 10,000 patients" he dismisses because the difference is "tiny."

Furthermore, his "theory" is all over the place. Not only is his thesis ridiculous, it is presented in the form of a rhetorical question in which he manages to take a veiled shot at capitalism.

Really, guy?

Mentors Riddle

While your numbers are nice and all, one factor that I didn't read was the compensation for population of the United States against that of European countries....
That could explain the vast difference there.

(If anything due to something called “Economies of Scale”) America’s larger population should mean lower, per capita, healthcare costs than Britain’s –not the opposite reality of $6719 per American a year, compared with Britain’s equivalent of $2815.

You also appear unaware that…
“Per Capita Spending” means total spending, divide total population.
Therefore: Population itself has no direct effect on PCS. The economy does, economic efficiency does, but population (itself) doesn’t. That’s is why PCS is so useful, and also so revealing that US spends 15.3% of GDP on health, compared with Britain’s 8.2%

Especially When…
British GDP is only 2.25 trillion (i.e. 35,974 per person)
And American GDP is 14.59 trillion (i.e. 48,147 per person)
en.wikipedia.org...(PPP)_per_capita

I.e. American, per capita, GDP is 25.28% higher than the UK’s yet it still spend 7.1% more of it, on health!!!) Translation…
If Britain had an identical health system, with identical "value for money", then we would spend 15.3% of GDP too, plus another 25.28% (owing to our smaller per capita wealth) meaning Britain would spend 19.16784% of its total GDP on health (compared with what it actually spends, which is 8.2%!!!)
In other words: The US has 2.4 times less value for money, than Britain’s NHS!!!

Also: For 16.3% of Americans, your “system” is 100% inefficient, in the sense they are totally not covered by it. And the situations quickly getting worse…
money.cnn.com...
In Britain (even those who never paid a penny in taxes, throughout their entire lives) are (near) 100% protected.
But we don’t mind (well some taxpayers do!) but overall the public don’t mind, because the NHS’s value for money, is so superior, that we virtually receive universal health coverage for free, then plus some more (savings).

Is it not unchristian for the richest nation, to demand people pay for healthcare out their own pocket? Especially when people are going to be ill anyway, and it therefore should be paid out of general taxation (because not only does this avoid bankruptcy, but value for money is 244% higher!). After all: The money wasted on the 244% less efficient American model, could (and obviously would) then be spent elsewhere in the American economy.

Consequently: So inefficient is America (uk equivalent) 19.16784% GDP spending, compared with Britain’s actual 8.2% that it seems possible to raise most of the money needed to pay for an American NHS, just by taxing (close to existing rates) the money an NHS establishment liberates!
Think about it: (Adjusted for per capita GDP) America would not spend Britain’s 8.2%n of GDP, but rather 25% less at 6.15 of GDP. Saving of 9.15% of GDP, against what America today spends.
If this saving is spent by Americans in e.g. the shops, but taxed at 33%, then 3.05% of the 6.15% GDP needed would have been provided by the savings. Therefore only another 3.05% would needed by taxation, but a richer consumer, also equates to higher government tax income (from the same taxes). Consequently...
The need to raise taxes would be ever smaller than 3.05% GDP, and in any case the amount of extra money in consumers’ pockets (9.15% of GDP before tax, or 6.10% afterwards) would be far higher than maximum money taxed away (i.e. 3.05% of GDP).

reply to post by de Thor


Actually those numbers are how you would measure a health system.

The shot at capitalism isn't veiled. It's a straight forward comparison of a capitalist vs social health system. Your paying more and have a shorter life span and/or not everyone is covered. How is this not getting less while paying more?

In fact, the whole entire OP is an absolute gong show.

His title leads me to believe that he will presenting info about the US healthcare system which average Americans wouldn't know. His theory is barely even a theory and it tries to tackle a much larger issue than healthcare. In fact, he doesn't even mention healthcare in his theory.

His "reasons" category is based on nugatory data and he even dismisses some of the data that goes against his theory. But then again, I'm not even sure what his theory is.

Not sure what he's attempting in his "cure" category.

His "rather" category is the best one of this thread. His ignorance of the health care sector really shines through here.

And finally his "surely" category. I thought we were talking about healthcare? What the hell are you talking about the United States defense spending for?

Chris Berman: C'MON MAN!

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by de Thor

 

Actually those numbers are how you would measure a health system.

The shot at capitalism isn't veiled. It's a straight forward comparison of a capitalist vs social health system. Your paying more and have a shorter life span and/or not everyone is covered. How is this not getting less while paying more?

Show me statistics of the:
1.) success of a treatment over total time of the treatment
compared to
2.) average success rates of a treatment and the time over which the treatment took place

Place those two figures next to the cost figures and then we'll have a thread.