- #1
t-money
- 32
- 1
It doesn't work in Europe and Canada, what makes U.S politicians think that it will work here?
It works pretty well here (Sweden).t-money said:It doesn't work in Europe and Canada, what makes U.S politicians think that it will work here?
yeah and those programs have been complete disasters.Oh, by the way, the US has had 'socialist' health care for the past 30 years or more. Ever heard of medicaid and medicare?
About 30%.Greg Bernhardt said:What is the tax rate in sweden?
turbo-1 said:and cost of health-care?
yeah and those programs have been complete disasters.
Moridin said:I agree that they could have been handled much, much better and gotten their priorities straight.
t-money said:It doesn't work in Europe and Canada, what makes U.S politicians think that it will work here?
Greg Bernhardt said:What is the tax rate in sweden?
There are good arguements on both ends of the issue. There will be no fantastic solution either way. My girlfriend is living in London for 6 months for work. She mentioned that she wanted to get some dental work done but that she'd most likely wait to get back in the states because there is a 3+ month wait.
I also visited Vancouver over the summer and met with some relatives living there who are older and they have nothing but negative things to say about the system. Long waits and poor service.
t-money said:It doesn't work in Europe and Canada, what makes U.S politicians think that it will work here?
EL said:About 30%.
On top of that the employer has to pay a similar amount named "social fees" which for example goes to your own pension.
So effectively that will be something like 45% of what the employer pays which goes into taxes and fees (but you'll get some of it back as pension).
That is skewing the facts. The $10K is the average premium for a family. Employers pay most of that 10 grand. Families aren't spending 23% of their income on health insurance.$ for $ Japan still has a much better health care system than Sweden.Skyhunter said:Median American household income which is a better representation than mean or average income is $48,201.
Average American household health insurance policy is $10,880, or 23% of income.
I think the Swedes are getting a better deal. Especially if you consider the fact that if you actually need health care in the US you will pay more. Add to this the taxes already paid for medicare and medicaid and there is little doubt that the Swedes are much better off.
And just because there are flaws in the Canadian and British systems, is in no way evidence that single-payer health care does not work. In fact Sweden is an example that disproves such a conclusion.
Greg Bernhardt said:Ok I think we can all agree having everyone insured is a good idea even if under a universal government system. But here is the problem, there are many proposals. How many of the democrats and pushing for a system like Japan?
edward said:Pharmaceutical companies are spending 25% of their yearly budgets on commercials like this one.
gravenewworld said:$ for $ Japan still has a much better health care system than Sweden.
EL said:Interesting, I don't know much about Japanese health care. What are the main differenses between the systems? I mean, what is it that makes the Japanese system better?
I think it can be pretty hard to compare different kind of systems. For example, the US health care can be really great, for those who can afford it that is. The Swedish system is good in the way it automatically includes everyone. If you are rich, you're probably slightly better off in US though. It all comes down to what you mean by "better".
And this is the problem. Socializing the American system won't fix it. We pay for overtreatment and for malpractice insurance. Take these two down if you want to fix it.gravenewworld said:6.) Japan spends only 6.6% of their GDP on health care. The US 14.6%.
gravenewworld said:1.) Japanese don't pay any where near the amount of taxes like other countries with UH do. They pay less or just about the same as Americans do in income tax.
6.) Japan spends only 6.6% of their GDP on health care. The US 14.6%.
Socializing the American system won't fix it. We pay for overtreatment and for malpractice insurance. Take these two down if you want to fix it.
The American system is not that insane. If someone has a disease of this nature, they will be treated regardless of insurance.Moridin said:Outbreaks do not discriminate between classes in society. The TB outbreaks in New York is a case-in-point.
jimmysnyder said:The American system is not that insane. If someone has a disease of this nature, they will be treated regardless of insurance.
Moridin said:Actually, the US is more like 16%. For comparison, Sweden is 9.2% of GDP.
All true. And the lack of on-going screening and regular checkups for uninsured people can ensure that people who are vectors (highly contagious, but mobile) will continue to infect others. Denial of health-care for one class of a society has some serious potential risks for the rest of society. Let's say that you've got a migrant farm worker with no credentials and he or she is infected with a contagious disease, and follows hand-tending and harvest seasons from coast to coast, cutting lettuce in CA, digging onions in GA, picking apples in NY, harvesting and packing broccoli in northern ME, then back to CA to harvest grapes... This person has no access to health care, and unless they are much too sick to work, they will continue to work and infect others as they are transported around in vans and buses by the brokers that supply migrant labor. Homeless people are in the same boat regarding access to preventive health care, though they are less mobile. Here in the US, we often take a parochial "it can't happen here" attitude and point out Equatorial Africa, China and SE Asia as problematic places that might be the source of the next killer pandemic, but our own house is not in order. We have a very large segment of our population with little or no access to preventive health care and much of our population is highly mobile, unlike people in rural communities in other countries so some really deadly stuff could race through our country much faster than medical professionals can respond to it.Moridin said:Provided that a person with poor health, lack of education and lack of insurance understands that. Provided that the person understands that it is crucial to take the medication for years. Provided that the person is not being forced to sell the medicine for cash to buy food or rent to survive instead of taking them. I think that it takes public health imperatives both in education and a less hostile environment.
Really? I know it could be like that some years ago, but thought it had shaped up a bit since then.Azael said:Offcourse the downside with healthcare in sweden is that the waiting time for some routine surgery can be well over a year.
jimmysnyder said:The American system is not that insane. If someone has a disease of this nature, they will be treated regardless of insurance.
This is the typical argument that insurance companies use in order to justify their existence. While it is true that we must all pay for malpractice and overtreatment, the amount is no where near a significant % of the amount of the total overall spending on healthcare.jimmysnyder said:And this is the problem. Socializing the American system won't fix it. We pay for overtreatment and for malpractice insurance. Take these two down if you want to fix it.
Evidence from states indicates that premiums for malpractice insurance are lower when tort liability is restricted than they would be otherwise. But even large savings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on health care spending--private or governmental--because malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that spending.
Do you honestly believe that? 1 million+ children in this country do not receive all of the recommended vaccinations by physicians solely because of insurance reasons/affordability issues. This was even after they were referred to public clinics! Children who don't receive all of their vaccinations are not only a threat to themselves, but to the public in general. Yes, that's right, Insurance BS puts the general public health at risk in some cases. "Gaps in Vaccine Financing for Underinsured Children in the United States"-JAMAAzael said:The avarage american probably has acess to better healthcare than the avarage swede.
Despite high vaccination coverage
and low incidence rates of most vaccinepreventable
diseases,3,4 anecdotal reports
from state policy makers and clinicians
suggest that the US vaccine
financing system is under increasing
strain. Childhood vaccines in the United
States are financed by a patchwork of
public and private sources.5 Children
who are privately insured often have insurance
coverage for vaccines (BOX).
However, some children are enrolled in
private health insurance plans that do
not cover the cost of vaccines and they
are considered underinsured for immunization.
In 2000, it was estimated
that 14% of children aged 0 to 17 years
were underinsured in the United States,
requiring families to either pay out-ofpocket
for the cost of vaccines not covered
or forgo receiving vaccines.Among clinical preventive services,
childhood immunization has been
ranked at the top in terms of health impact
and cost-effectiveness by the National
Commission of Prevention Priorities.
15 Despite the benefits of
childhood vaccination and the high coverage
rates achieved with older childhood
vaccines,3 our study demonstrated
gaps in the financing of new
vaccines for children who are underinsured
with respect to vaccination. Assuming
14% of children are underinsured
in the United States, we estimate
that 2.3 million children are unable to
receive state-purchased meningococcal
conjugate vaccine in the private sector,
and 1.2 million children are unable
to receive this vaccine even if they
are referred to the public sector. Due
to lack of funds to purchase newer vaccines
for children who are not VFC eligible,
many states have adopted more
restrictive policies for provision of publicly
purchased vaccines since 2004.
The lack of sufficient section 317 funding
and state funding for vaccine purchase
has led some states to provide vaccine
to VFC-eligible children but not
to underinsured children. Disparities
among states are worse for the most expensive
and newest vaccines, including
pneumococcal conjugate, meningococcal
conjugate, and hepatitis A
vaccines.
The public sector safety net for offering
vaccine to underinsured children
seems to be under considerable
strain. Past studies have suggested that
many private clinicians refer underinsured
children to public health clinics
for vaccination.16,17 Unfortunately, a
growing number of states are no longer
able to provide expensive vaccines, such
as the meningococcal conjugate vaccine,
to underinsured children in the
public sector. Furthermore, the proportion
of vulnerable US children
whose insurance plans either do not
cover vaccines or require families to pay
out-of-pocket for preventive care is
likely to grow. A recent article by the
American Academy of Pediatrics found
that 20% of employers are offering catastrophic
health insurance plans (highdeductible
health plans), up from only
5% in 2003, and only 30% of these plans
covered preventive care before the deductible
was met.18,19 These trends are
of concern because inadequate insurance
coverage has been associated with
forgone health care among families who
lack resources.20
-Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D., M.P.H.Chair of the Dept. of Emergency Medicine at Emory Univ. (one of the best medical schools in this entire country)Uninsurance poses a threat to the control of communicable disease by delaying the detection, treatment, and reporting of infectious disease outbreaks, which may include emerging infectious agents such as SARS and perhaps someday those linked to bioterrorism. Hospital emergency departments and health departments play critical roles both in infectious disease surveillance and in caring for low-income populations, who are more likely to be uninsured. When high rates of uninsurance make emergency department crowding worse, the capacity of the emergency care system to handle a sudden influx of patients from a natural disaster or terrorist strike is compromised. To meet the burden of caring for the uninsured, health departments may be forced to shift scarce resources from traditional population-based public health activities, such as monitoring water quality and restaurant inspections to the delivery of personal health services to uninsured persons. This can weaken the ability of local health departments to contain outbreaks of infectious disease and other public health threats.