The US has the best health care in the world?

[sylas]

That guy's clearly an idiot, though.

Of course. He or she represents an extreme that is sometimes used as a stereotype of the ugly american. I'm noting that the extreme is there, but that it is an extreme, and not fair as a generalization of Americans. But imagine, if you can bear it, how it comes across to readers in the UK... where the article appears.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Al68]

It's not an outright hateful lie. I only wish it were not true. Right now, if you own a small business and offer health insurance to your employees and one of your employees comes down with a catastrophic illness the insurance company will either jack up your rates or refuse to renew your policy. If you have been paying for private coverage for years and you come down with a catastrophic illness, it's likely that your insurance company will drop you on some pretext to avoid paying for your care. This is the status quo, and this is the system that the GOP wants to perpetuate. We can speculate about their motivations, but the end result is the same.

Being against the current proposal, as I am, does not constitute being in favor of "wanting insurance companies to decide who lives and dies", and again, you know it.

It's obvious you have contempt for the idea that an insurance policy is a voluntary agreement on both sides, which means it can be withdrawn by either side for any reason. This is what freedom of contract means.

My contract with my insurance company isn't a "system", it's a voluntary agreement on both sides that government is not a party to. Why is the concept of a private agreement so difficult to understand?

Bottom line is that those who advocate the government's use of force are the ones that have an obligation to defend their position. Those of us that think people who want to be left alone should be left alone have no such obligation, despite the hateful lies accusing us of wanting to perpetuate some imaginary system.

 

[lisab]

Of course. He or she represents an extreme that is sometimes used as a stereotype of the ugly american. I'm noting that the extreme is there, but that it is an extreme, and not fair as a generalization of Americans. But imagine, if you can bear it, how it comes across to readers in the UK... where the article appears.

Cheers -- sylas

Given that there are over 300,000,000 of us, I don't think there is a "fair generaliztion of Americans." In fact when I read any statement that begins with "Americans are...", my eyes automatically roll. I would call it a knee-jerk reaction but my knees aren't affected :tongue2:.

And as far as how we come across to the Brits...well, they're our closest ally (despite that little spat some 230 years ago). I feel confident that idiots like that commenter aren't going to affect the bond between our countries. I do wish that their experience with their medical system was better known and understood by my fellow citizens, though.

 

[Al68]

See, for example, one rather extreme example: http://news.independentminds.livejournal.com/3753821.html?thread=22834525#t22834525 . This comment represents what is sometimes taken as a convenient caricature of the USAmerican by some of us in other countries.

The commenter does not actually say anything much about health care or the story in the the article, but merely asserts that "A majority of Americans DO NOT want universal health care as you have in England."

And why not? Because its "socialized". It would be a "handout" to the "poor and illegal migrants". It is "government is trying to force Progressive and Liberal ideas down our throats". In this person's comment, "liberal" and "progressive" are negative terms. (Which is weird in itself.) All the things that are "liberal" and "progressive", such as diversity, inclusiveness, social justice and a lot more (there's a list given) are, for this commenter, just ways of saying "redistribution of wealth".

I just read that link, and while I don't agree with everything he said, you misinterpreted it completely. He was referring to the fact that the words "liberal", "progressive", "diversity", "social justice", etc. are commonly mis-used to refer to oppression. He was saying that "social justice" was used as a a code word for policies he disagreed with, not that he actually disagreed with social justice.

The word "liberal" is rarely used according to its dictionary definition in the U.S. It is mostly incorrectly used as a synonym for "socialist". Actual liberals in the U.S. are referred to most commonly as "right wing wacko extremists".

 

[noblegas]

Insurance is meant to be used in case of emergencies, i.e. when you are diagnosed with cancer or when you cut off your hand and subsequently lose a ton of blood; Insurance is not meant to be used when you have a minor ailment like a cold or body aches; If americans would allocate their earnings that would be used for typical doctor visits and used there health insurance exclusively for emergencies, health care insurance would not be as expensive; Look at it this way; Most people wouldn't used their car insurance to add extra car accesories like Monster wheels , rims , those neon lights on the bottom of some cars ,or a better quality engine, they used their insurance when their car is severely damaged, because the owner knows the cost of insurance will increase; People should used their insurance when its absolutely necessary

 

[sylas]

I just read that link, and while I don't agree with everything he said, you misinterpreted it completely. He was referring to the fact that the words "liberal", "progressive", "diversity", "social justice", etc. are commonly mis-used to refer to oppression. He was saying that "social justice" was used as a a code word for policies he disagreed with, not that he actually disagreed with social justice.

I don't agree; I think I understand him just fine, and that he -- and you -- use words in ways that don't fit with normal usage in the rest of the world. That's the point. We can add "oppression" to this list of words, in my opinion.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[lisab]

Insurance is meant to be used in case of emergencies, i.e. when you are diagnosed with cancer or when you cut off your hand and subsequently lose a ton of blood; Insurance is not meant to be used when you have a minor ailment like a cold or body aches; If americans would allocate their earnings that would be used for typical doctor visits and used there health insurance exclusively for emergencies, health care insurance would not be as expensive; Look at it this way; Most people wouldn't used their car insurance to add extra car accesories like Monster wheels , rims , those neon lights on the bottom of some cars ,or a better quality engine, they used their insurance when their car is severely damaged, because the owner knows the cost of insurance will increase; People should used their insurance when its absolutely necessary

Not sure where you're posting from, noblegas. Are you aware of what health care costs in the US? It's very expensive. Something simple, like a broken arm or a root canal, can cost thousands of dollars...an expense many people can't afford.

 

[f95toli]

Just out of curiosity:
How many of those opposing the suggested health care reform are "extreme" laissez-faire liberals? I.e. they oppose the very idea of the state being involved in health care at all (i.e. not even in case of emergencies: if you can't pay you don't get the necessary treatment even if it means you die).
I've seen a quite a few comments that could be interpreted that way; but only one or two where someone has openly expressed that opinion.

I must say I find it hard to understand how someone could think that it is right to e.g. let a child die if the parents can't afford to pay for treatment (which was the essence of one of the comments I saw, from a town hall meeting).

 

[noblegas]

I must say I find it hard to understand how someone could think that it is right to e.g. let a child die if the parents can't afford to pay for treatment (which was the essence of one of the comments I saw, from a town hall meeting).

There is no outrage over starvation in this country about starving children and there is no big push in washington for food insurance because starvation is minimal to non-existent in the US or no push in washington for "universal food coverage". Why is universal health coverage seen as a good and benevolent force for our society? We basically have universal education for all of our children, yet our kids our performing badly compared to other industrialized countries plus acquiring poor reading skills and critical thinking skills after they graduate; Yet when someone suggest to privatize such institutions like education or healthcare to improve efficiency and quality , they are labeled as "greedy" and "cold-hearted" "robberbarons" out for only profit; I also wanted to add that children are covered for those who can't afford it; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children's_Health_Insurance_Program

 

[mheslep]

Yes, generally, regarding Medicaid it is true.

Again are you reading different things to me? You say:

And in the US if one has no or very little income (<~20k/yr), then they are eligible for government based health care via the Medicaid program as I posted before, and before, and before.

...Yet, I quoted from the source:

So did I, more extensively than you did.

The poverty line in the US is something like a wage of $10,000. Now, pray tell, if the medicaid guidelines state that being in poverty is not sufficient to receive aid, how is every person with a wage of $20,000 eligible to receive such aid?

I never said 'every', I added 'generally' in the second post, and sourced some of the caveats (e.g. large assets). 'Generally' in this case meaning (again) that Medicaid covers

http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2009/Jul/08_0153.htm"

which is pretty damn general.

Likewise the poverty guidelines are much more complicated than 'something like a wage of $10,000'. It turns out that the poverty level for a family of four in 2005 was $19,350. Some states http://books.google.com/books?id=bs...sult&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false", covering the family of four up to $48,375
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidEligibility/Downloads/MedicaidataGlance05.pdf , pg 6.

Your figures just don't add up, yet you try say that I'm wrong. Prove it, or stop making such claims. That's now (at least) two cases of misinformation you've made in this thread, and this discussion is getting pretty tiresome.

These unexamined responses are growing tiresome.

 

[noblegas]

Not sure where you're posting from, noblegas. Are you aware of what health care costs in the US? It's very expensive. Something simple, like a broken arm or a root canal, can cost thousands of dollars...an expense many people can't afford.

Well , as a healthcare insurance provides insurance to a growing pool of people, insurance will inevitably go up for everyone ; So therefore , I expect healthcare expenses also to rise; What has also been contributing to the costly expenses are the health care insurance companies paying for a large bulk of administrative expenses . As much as 30 percent of the costs derive from administrative expenses. (http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf); I think cost would be reduced if competition were encouraged on a global scale , i.e. being able to choose health insurances plans outside the state and nation you live in, being able to buy medical drugs legally outside the country; I think the customers would be happy with the quality of the healthcare they received if the healthcare services provided to them were between just the patient and the doctor;

 

[mheslep]

Given that there are over 300,000,000 of us, I don't think there is a "fair generaliztion of Americans." In fact when I read any statement that begins with "Americans are...", my eyes automatically roll. ...

Amen. It's a huge country.

 

[Al68]

I just read that link, and while I don't agree with everything he said, you misinterpreted it completely. He was referring to the fact that the words "liberal", "progressive", "diversity", "social justice", etc. are commonly mis-used to refer to oppression. He was saying that "social justice" was used as a a code word for policies he disagreed with, not that he actually disagreed with social justice.

I don't agree; I think I understand him just fine, and that he -- and you -- use words in ways that don't fit with normal usage in the rest of the world. That's the point. We can add "oppression" to this list of words, in my opinion.

Well, I suppose you believe he is against what he himself considers to be "social justice", then.

As far as using words differently from others, I pointed out that it was very common for the word "liberal" to be used as a synonym for socialist, and you're right, I don't and won't use it that way because the dictionary defines the word "liberal" to mean just the opposite.

The fact that a word is commonly misused for the purpose of misleading people doesn't obligate me to use it the same way, just because others do as "normal usage".

And I used the word oppression to mean economic oppression, ie the restricting of economic liberty, the same way any libertarian or classical liberal would. And of course it's not "normal usage" today because libertarianism/classical liberalism is not the norm.

Edit: What word should I use, instead of "oppression", to refer to the use of force by government to restrict individual liberty?

Here's an example of the word liberal used according to the dictionary definition:

Just out of curiosity:
How many of those opposing the suggested health care reform are "extreme" laissez-faire liberals? I.e. they oppose the very idea of the state being involved in health care at all...

Although I certainly disagree with the suggestion in that post that anyone thinks it's "right" to let children die, at least the word liberal is used correctly, ie not the way it "normally" is.

 

[Al68]

Just out of curiosity:
How many of those opposing the suggested health care reform are "extreme" laissez-faire liberals?

Virtually all of the opposition I've seen to the current proposal has been (at least partially) on that basis, even though some of the objections are from people who are not completely "laissez-faire liberals". None of this opposition has been even acknowledged by those politicians advocating the plan.

They seem to be under the delusion that anyone who opposes their plan must be against their goals and motives, not the substance of their plan. Or more likely they would just rather debate a strawman than the actual objections to their plan.

Edit: Your use of the word "extreme" reminds me of a Barry Goldwater quote: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."

 

[cristo]

'Generally' in this case meaning (again) that Medicaid covers
... which is pretty damn general.

That's not what it means to append the word generally to your previous comment. If you're saying that, in general, the following statement is true:

And in the US if one has no or very little income (<~20k/yr), then they are eligible for government based health care via the Medicaid program as I posted before, and before, and before.

Then it means that most people with an income less than $20,000 a year are eligible for Medicaid support. However, I have shown that the poverty line is around $10,000, and that medicaid doesn't even support all people in poverty, thus most people earning less than $20,000 are not supported.

Likewise the poverty guidelines are much more complicated than 'something like a wage of $10,000'. It turns out that the poverty level for a family of four in 2005 was $19,350.

So now we're talking about families of four. Your previous statement was talking about "one". You should really tell your opposition if you decide to move the goalposts mid match.

These unexamined responses are growing tiresome.

Stop making snarky little responses like this. Since you have refused to retract your previous statements of misinformation, I can only assume that everything you state in future will be liberally sprinkled with false information. Note that this is strictly against PF rules.

 

[cristo]

Of course. He or she represents an extreme that is sometimes used as a stereotype of the ugly american. I'm noting that the extreme is there, but that it is an extreme, and not fair as a generalization of Americans. But imagine, if you can bear it, how it comes across to readers in the UK... where the article appears.

Cheers -- sylas

I am in the UK! I think it does come across as the stereotypical American point of view. Then again, if you read lots of comments to news articles, you will get similar types of comments. I think as a rule, such commenters are a different breed. It is somewhat insulting, as I mentioned above, for someone to "empathise" with me with something they know nothing about (presuming that the BNP situation is what that guy was alluding to).

 

[Al68]

Then it means that most people with an income less than $20,000 a year are eligible for Medicaid support. However, I have shown that the poverty line is around $10,000, and that medicaid doesn't even support all people in poverty, thus most people earning less than $20,000 are not supported.

This is faulty logic, independent of whether the conclusion is true or false.

Clearly not everyone who made < $10,000/yr would not be eligible, since there are other factors. One example is someone who has a lot of cash in the bank while taking time off from working.

That fact doesn't imply anything about the percentage of people who make under $20,000/yr that are eligible, except that it's not 100%.

 

[cristo]

This is faulty logic, independent of whether the conclusion is true or false.

Now you're just picking an argument for the sake of it.

Note that I was not the one making the claim that almost all people earning less than $20,000 a year is eligible for support. I simply refuted this claim.

Of course, such a statement does not have impeccable logic since there are far too many unknowns. However, one needs to make reasonable assumptions. It is a reasonable assumption to say that there are probably around the same number of people earning $10,000 to £20,000 as there are earning under $10,000 (in fact there are probably more). It is also a reasonable assumption to say that most of these people probably do not have extenuating circumstances. Thus, since not all the people earning less than $10,000 are eligible, it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that a lot less than all people earning less than $20,000 are eligible. So, a statement like "And in the US if one has no or very little income (<~20k/yr), then they are eligible for government based health care via the Medicaid program as I posted before, and before, and before." is false.

Of course, had the member above adhered to PF rules and refrained from making unsubstantiated claims, then we would not be having this discussion. Since he did not, and so he has not presented any information to support his claims, there's little more I can do than argue following reasonable assumptions.

 

[drankin]

Insurance is meant to be used in case of emergencies, i.e. when you are diagnosed with cancer or when you cut off your hand and subsequently lose a ton of blood; Insurance is not meant to be used when you have a minor ailment like a cold or body aches; If americans would allocate their earnings that would be used for typical doctor visits and used there health insurance exclusively for emergencies, health care insurance would not be as expensive; Look at it this way; Most people wouldn't used their car insurance to add extra car accesories like Monster wheels , rims , those neon lights on the bottom of some cars ,or a better quality engine, they used their insurance when their car is severely damaged, because the owner knows the cost of insurance will increase; People should used their insurance when its absolutely necessary

Here's what's going on. The bulk of the US citizens cannot manage their money far enough to cover themselves in the case of an emergency. There is no savings. So, what does a voter do when they don't have a savings? They vote in a handout.

The purpose for insurance is to cover you in the case of an emergency. An insurance company is a for profit institution. If you don't like it, don't start a policy. And SAVE yourself enough money to cover your azz if you have a catastrophic emergency. It's incredible to me to see so many people think that they are entitled to health care. I just don't get the mentality.

It's fundamental. The more responsibility you do not take for yourself, the less liberty you will have.

 

[WhoWee]

Insurance is meant to be used in case of emergencies, i.e. when you are diagnosed with cancer or when you cut off your hand and subsequently lose a ton of blood; Insurance is not meant to be used when you have a minor ailment like a cold or body aches; If americans would allocate their earnings that would be used for typical doctor visits and used there health insurance exclusively for emergencies, health care insurance would not be as expensive; Look at it this way; Most people wouldn't used their car insurance to add extra car accesories like Monster wheels , rims , those neon lights on the bottom of some cars ,or a better quality engine, they used their insurance when their car is severely damaged, because the owner knows the cost of insurance will increase; People should used their insurance when its absolutely necessary

You've outlined the basic premise of high deductible, catastrophic policies, and Health Savings Accounts (HSA's). A few earlier posts discuss their application and the potential consequences/changes to them under consideration.

 

[mheslep]

Then it means that most people with an income less than $20,000 a year are eligible for Medicaid support. However, I have shown that the poverty line is around $10,000, and that medicaid doesn't even support all people in poverty, thus most people earning less than $20,000 are not supported.

You did not show, you asserted, twice now. The poverty guidelines are as I have posted from the source above.

So now we're talking about families of four. Your previous statement was talking about "one". You should really tell your opposition if you decide to move the goalposts mid match.

yes and I also https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2309163&postcount=387"

Yes, generally, regarding Medicaid it is true. Clearly the eligibility criterion are more complex than my one sentence statement, it includes other things including the size of ones assets, such as a fat bank account or a flashy boat in the backyard.

I did not immediately address dependents. I followed up with the full poverty guidelines posting above. For that matter, 'one' can still be one wage earner, with any number of dependents, and in some states Medicaid eligibility extends up to 250% of poverty, or almost https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=20125&d=1250387948" for one person with no dependents.

You seem to be hanging on the assertion you made above:

...Now, pray tell, if the medicaid guidelines state that being in poverty is not sufficient to receive aid...

which is incomplete. The Medicaid guidelines state, that low income by itself is not sufficient to receive aid. There are other criterion, especially asset size. Never the less, low income groups are the primary target of the program. Again, from the HHS Overview of Medicaid:

In general, you should apply for Medicaid if your income is low and you match one of the descriptions of the Eligibility Groups.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidGenInfo/

 

[cristo]

In general, you should apply for Medicaid if your income is low and you match one of the descriptions of the Eligibility Groups.

What about those who don't fit into the eligibility groups? You're just cherrypicking statistics, and rearranging your argument so it sounds like you know what you're talking about. Dear god, this is like smacking my head against a brick wall.

 

[mheslep]

What about those who don't fit into the eligibility groups

Already addressed, repeatedly. Not every low income person qualifies, yet 53 million are covered by Medicaid

You're just cherrypicking statistics, and rearranging your argument so it sounds like you know what you're talking about.

Nonsense. They figures and sources are there for all to see.

Dear god, this is like smacking my head against a brick wall.

Stop making snarky little responses like this...

 

[cristo]

Not every low income person qualifies, yet 53 million are covered by Medicaid

You use the phrase "in general" but you don't know what the phrase means. It means "in all cases but a few exceptions" but you think it means "oh, this is a really big number.. wow, it's pretty general". You're just wrong: face it, and move on. Seriously. This is really boring.

 

[WhoWee]

The debate over health care is often side-tracked as evidenced in the last several posts. Until the debate re-focuses on the specific problems inherent to both the Government and private insurance programs (plus the cause and effect of current mandates), and addresses specific and well thought out solutions, nothing productive will ever be accomplished.

If the politicians choose to use this to grab power and ram-rod "reform" through Congress the way the stimulus package was handled - no time to read the Bill - just throw money at it - the results could be catastrophic to both health care and the economy.

It's time for a serious adult conversation - no politics - health care (and reform) is too important to fail - and we need to take as much time as necessary to get it right.

 

[turbo]

It's time for a serious adult conversation - no politics - health care (and reform) is too important to fail - and we need to take as much time as necessary to get it right.

Thank you! I don't favor delay for the sake of obstuctionism, but hope that some adults (if there are any) in Congress will try to put something together that works for the common good. Too many people are marginalized or bankrupted by the current system, and that's no way to treat people.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I thought Tom Daschle put the issue of health care into perspective nicely with this statement on Meet The Press, this morning:

We have islands of excellence in a sea of mediocrity

 

[WhoWee]

I thought Tom Daschle put the issue of health care into perspective nicely with this statement on Meet The Press, this morning:

I'm not sure of the context of the statement, but have to agree if he meant that we do have the best components to start with and can build a system second to none.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not sure of the context of the statement, but have to agree if he meant that we do have the best components to start with and can build a system second to none.

That is more or less my understanding of his statement as well as my perspective. For example, there is no doubt that advanced FMRI, Spiral CT, PET, and diagnostic imaging technologies generally are second to none. Heck, it is impossible to even keep up at times. But the problem that I saw personally with these technolgies was the cost. Back in the bad old days of CT, I can remember circuit boards covered with perhaps 20 or 30 chips - all TTL and early CMOS - costing $100,000 each. Then, the additional cost of the support contracts was absurd. Like so much of technology, the development costs, and more importantly I think, the cost of continued advances is put on the user [patient].

While a non-invasive scan beats exploratory surgery every time, the continual cost burden of purchasing and maintaining state-of-the-art technologies plays a large role in driving the cost of health care. In the meantime, the essentials of medicine take a back seat and it becomes a money game. That is why in part we see things as ridiculous as a pianist playing a grand piano in the lobby of a major hospital; or a woman vomiting blood until she dies in the ER waiting room, unassisted.

Another minor absurdity that comes to mind is the tendency for hospitals to remodel and install carpeting in areas where hospital workers have to push gurneys. Not only does this present problems when body fluids hit the floor, but it also puts a burden on the workers who have to push the gurney. The reason for the carpeting is that it looks nice for investors, as does a fine grand piano. But perhaps my favorite example was the ER entry [internal access] that was too narrow for a gurney! Talk about missing the mark!

Some hospitals now require medical workers to wear nice clothes instead of scrubs. Why? Is it better or more practical? Heck no, but it looks nice.

The point: Decisions driving the industry are improperly motivated.

 

[wildman]

I finally found a answer on who pays for those emergency room calls by people without insurance. What apparently happens is that the hospital raises its rates on everyone. In other words it is a business cost which is expensed over its insured customers. The charity that Evo was talking about is all of us.

 

[wildman]

I finally found a answer on who pays for those emergency room calls by people without insurance. What apparently happens is that the hospital raises its rates on everyone. In other words it is a business cost which is expensed over its insured customers. The charity that Evo was talking about is all of us.

In other words, we already have a form of socialized medicine in the US whether we like it or not. The people with insurance and the government are paying for the poor and the uninsured. It is however a very strange and completely out of control form of socialized medicine and also VERY expensive.

In view of this, the debate about socialized medicine people are having in the US takes on a Twilight Zone kind of air. It is almost like people were debating whether automobiles should be allowed in American cities and almost half the people thought that there were no automobiles in our cities at the present time...

 

[Al68]

I finally found a answer on who pays for those emergency room calls by people without insurance. What apparently happens is that the hospital raises its rates on everyone. In other words it is a business cost which is expensed over its insured customers. The charity that Evo was talking about is all of us.

In other words, we already have a form of socialized medicine in the US whether we like it or not. The people with insurance and the government are paying for the poor and the uninsured. It is however a very strange and completely out of control form of socialized medicine and also VERY expensive.

In view of this, the debate about socialized medicine people are having in the US takes on a Twilight Zone kind of air. It is almost like people were debating whether automobiles should be allowed in American cities and almost half the people thought that there were no automobiles in our cities at the present time...

Good point, kind of. But the issue is whether to greatly expand socialist policy, not whether socialist policy currently exists at all.

More like debating about whether or not to drastically increase the number of cars in our cities, to use your analogy.

 

[Al68]

There are certain things that should not have been or be privatised or for profit.
Health, Water, Power (to the home) all are necessities and should be available to all at a cost which covers running costs and a percentage for future required investments, not excess amounts to pay shareholders.

The fact that these are necessities is more reason, not less, that there should be competition from multiple providers, instead of provided by government.

When private companies compete for consumers, the total price, including profits to shareholders, is much less than the total price if controlled by government, or any monopoly, even with zero profit. This is just basic economics, which some politicians count on people not understanding.

Treating private profit as if the same service would be cheaper without it is just faulty. The opposite is true. This is why the same politicians who want to take control of a private industry have no interest in competing with it instead.

 

[WhoWee]

That is more or less my understanding of his statement as well as my perspective. For example, there is no doubt that advanced FMRI, Spiral CT, PET, and diagnostic imaging technologies generally are second to none. Heck, it is impossible to even keep up at times. But the problem that I saw personally with these technolgies was the cost. Back in the bad old days of CT, I can remember circuit boards covered with perhaps 20 or 30 chips - all TTL and early CMOS - costing $100,000 each. Then, the additional cost of the support contracts was absurd. Like so much of technology, the development costs, and more importantly I think, the cost of continued advances is put on the user [patient].

While a non-invasive scan beats exploratory surgery every time, the continual cost burden of purchasing and maintaining state-of-the-art technologies plays a large role in driving the cost of health care. In the meantime, the essentials of medicine take a back seat and it becomes a money game. That is why in part we see things as ridiculous as a pianist playing a grand piano in the lobby of a major hospital; or a woman vomiting blood until she dies in the ER waiting room, unassisted.

Another minor absurdity that comes to mind is the tendency for hospitals to remodel and install carpeting in areas where hospital workers have to push gurneys. Not only does this present problems when body fluids hit the floor, but it also puts a burden on the workers who have to push the gurney. The reason for the carpeting is that it looks nice for investors, as does a fine grand piano. But perhaps my favorite example was the ER entry [internal access] that was too narrow for a gurney! Talk about missing the mark!

Some hospitals now require medical workers to wear nice clothes instead of scrubs. Why? Is it better or more practical? Heck no, but it looks nice.

The point: Decisions driving the industry are improperly motivated.

Ivan has hit upon something important. Hospitals compete for business - and capital, and talent. The beautiful new buildings and hi-def TV's and open balcony dining areas are all part of the marketing. However, the cost of amenities compared to the cost of the latest hi-tech machine is insignificant.

This is where one of my previous posts was headed. The Government has the wherewithal to fund capital equipment and real estate on a grand scale. The hospital networks can operate the facilities and equipment, and the insurance companies are well equipped to do their part. Government involvement doesn't have to be an expense to taxpayers. Healthcare is a profitable business model.

First, if Government were to make an investment in the buildings and equipment necessary to provide adequate care to everyone in the country, the health care system could lease the packages at a significant ROI to taxpayers. Each new hospital facility could include a preventative care/wellness clinic. By reducing the need to obtain capital, the health care networks would be more competitive - that is smaller players would have an equal opportunity to compete.

Second, if doctors were provided tax credits in exchange for services rendered in the new preventative care/wellness clinics the doors would open for everyone with minor health care issues - and remove the cost and burden from the emergency rooms.

Last, if the Government would guarantee high risk insurance pools, the doors would swing open and include everyone with pre-existing conditions. Managed properly, and with shared costs, this could reduce long term costs currently absorbed by Government plans.

This is of course over-simplified, but would address specific problems. In areas with well developed hospital networks, perhaps the Government could engage in sale/leaseback transactions to free capital for re-investment into research and add stand-alone preventative care/wellness clinics - even incorporate them into new school properties?

If everyone has the same building and equipment package, the networks will need to compete on the basis of quality and service - then we win as both consumers and investors.

 

[Al68]

Last, if the Government would guarantee high risk insurance pools, the doors would swing open and include everyone with pre-existing conditions.

Assuming you mean that government would cover the cost of the pre-existing conditions, why would anyone ever buy medical insurance until after they're sick or injured? Then they can buy "insurance" at the discounted (subsidized) rate after they're sick/injured.

Of course, using the term "insurance" to refer to something that covers something pre-existing is a logical contradiction, so it might be more accurate to use the phrase "health care plan".

Obviously the cost of "insurance" for someone that's not already sick/injured is a fraction of the cost of a "health care plan" for someone already sick/injured. Are you suggesting that government cover the difference? If so, health "insurance" would no longer exist, because nobody would buy it.

If government covered the cost of car "insurance" paying for "pre-existing" damage, there would be no reason to buy car insurance until after the damage. (Actually this is exactly what some people have done, anyway).