British people react to American medical expenses
- Thread starter Menace Sockeyes
- Start date
The fact that anyone can see healthcare as a for-profit business disgusts me.
Let’s pay the doctors and nurses and critical staff a good wage. Let’s incentivize drug companies to make new cures/preventions. But there are a LOT more ppl with their hand in the cookie jar that need to go. Including everyone in the health insurance industry.
Let’s pay the doctors and nurses and critical staff a good wage. Let’s incentivize drug companies to make new cures/preventions. But there are a LOT more ppl with their hand in the cookie jar that need to go. Including everyone in the health insurance industry.
I look at this like liquor prices in the state of Iowa. The government controls the cost and distribution of liquor in the state of Iowa. I can go across the border to Minnesota and get it for half price because it is more of a free market.
Maybe we should simplify the system so you don't have to hire lord knows how many people with special degrees to bill for a simple office visit.
How about pushing to break up the large groups that control healthcare. Mercy one would be a good start. That would help with cost if some competition was added in.
Maybe we should simplify the system so you don't have to hire lord knows how many people with special degrees to bill for a simple office visit.
How about pushing to break up the large groups that control healthcare. Mercy one would be a good start. That would help with cost if some competition was added in.
My former boss passed away this past weekend. Had a massive heart attack a week ago at 65. They did CPR for an hour from home to the hospital before his heart took over. The brain damage was undoubtedly huge. His wife kept him breathing for a week in intensive care before doctors and family convinced her to pull the plug. So...really...he passed away when he had the heart attack.
Most hospitals would also allow a $300 per month payback off that.. not ideal but wouldnt be worth quitting a job.
I don't know this situation, but I am certain that this kid wasn't offed. There comes a point when you are doing things to patients not for them. Withdrawing care is not killing somebody and what your implying is frankly insensitive, pathetic, and shameful.
I don't know this situation, but I am certain that this kid wasn't offed. There comes a point when you are doing things to patients not for them. Withdrawing care is not killing somebody and what your implying is frankly insensitive, pathetic, and shameful.
There is a difference between realizing a situation has no hope and stopping treatments and making a person more comfortable and what he is advocating which is not treating someone simply because treating them and caring for them in the future takes too many resources.
Read his post again it talks about all the stuff that could be wrong with the kid in later life, not the fact that the situation is hopeless.
People even babies die, I recognize that. However refusing to treat someone because they will be disabled in the future. That's cruel and inhumane. I don't accept that.
hawkeyetraveler
HR All-American
I am simply saying that you cannot make an argument for or against death panels without factoring the hidden costs to other people (via underinsurance or unaffordable premiums) of extending life beyond a reasonable point. The ethics of this situation require an assessment of the true costs of our current approach. A life lost due to underinsurance cannot be less important than a couple weeks gained because of a life prolonging treatment.
So instead of throwing around emotionally charged terms like “death panels” let’s get all the facts on the table so we can actually solve the problem.
No. They do not.
Also, we spend around 20-24% of every healthcare dollar on "administrative" costs.
Single payer countries pay 6-8%.
3x to 4x of our administrative spend is going to a combination of 'waste' and 'profits' for middlemen. Middlemen who will lobby with tens of millions to protect that gravy train.
20% chance of a severe learning disability = abortion? Yeah, you're a dick. And I could one-up your tale of woe in the NICU several fold, but I will spare you the details.
hawkeyetraveler
HR All-American
Yes, that is part of the point. There have been numerous studies on the fact that providers often lose money on Medicare paid procedures/drugs. The hidden costs of treating these patients is not being paid by those patients. Rather it creates pressure to jack up costs on other non related services for other patients or face operating losses as a hospital.
While I was just focused on the end of life piece given the OPs example, there are multiple issues at play in my opinion, here are some of the most significant:
1. Unnecessary treatments
2. Uneven pricing (this eventually gets solved with a single payor system) contributing to the underinsurance issue
3. For profit medicine putting upward pressure on prices
4. A “lawsuit” culture contributing to huge costs for malpractice insurance that ultimately we bear as consumers - every malpractice suit contributes to the price we pay for medical care
5. Lack of focus on disease prevention
Interestingly, European countries...and every other wealthy country...spend a smaller percentage of GDP on health care than the US. And it's not even close.
The US govt spends a greater percentage of it's budget on health care than does the Canadian govt. That's tax dollars to tax dollars. The Canucks cover every single citizen and spend - read carefully - LESS per citizen in tax dollars to do it. We cover old folks, the most indigent, and vets. And it costs more.
Notice, please, that our public spending as a percentage of GDP is pretty much in line with other wealthy countries - but they cover far more people than we do. They aren't investing saved money becasue we cover their military needs. That's a myth.
And US citizens spend far, far more on private care than those of Any. Other. Country. And for all of that, we get worse overall outcomes.
Last edited:
NOPE
Most approach about 1/2 to 2/3 our spend, based on the % GDP.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/268826/health-expenditure-as-gdp-percentage-in-oecd-countries/
You can bet the 6-8% "gap" here is going to executive salaries and middlemen in the USA.
That's why they'll lobby in the tens of millions to protect their income stream.
It is why the "New NAFTA" has included a prescription drug aspect designed to protect Big Pharma, and keep US drug prices higher, while also increasing pricing to our neighbors. And when that is codified in a treaty, it cannot be changed by any US law. Precisely why USMCA should be revised before it is ratified.
You know I always just assumed it's true but I havn't ever taken the time to challenge it. Is there any documentation that shows that we spend a large amount of resources extending the lives of people who will die anyways in weeks or a few months at most?
It's been repeated on here a million times but I've never seen an actual source that says that it's true. I'm not saying the fact would shock me if true, in fact I'm guessing it probably is but it occurred to me that it's a statement of fact that I'm not sure we should accept without proof.
Unless you are really healthy, no chronic issues why would you go with an Advantage program? Plus, with an Advantage program...when you die, you just better drop dead on the spot.
I didn’t like my brief Advantage experiment, one iota.
Yeah, and there are those that would contend that you are a selfish prick. "It is my right to spend $3M worth of societies resources and have a 1 in 5 chance of having a kid that will never be a productive member of society, will only drain it." This is an ethical dilemma that doctors talk about everyday. The fact that we can save a 1.4lb premie does not mean that we should.
Administration costs. The insurance companies and healthcare are in a constant battle. Insurance keeps adding barriers to prevent having to pay so healthcare orgs have to hire loads of people to navigate those hoops. We are hiring pharm techs to deal with prior auths because they have become too time consuming for our staff. There are entire departments in health organizations that review documentation to make sure that everything that is documented.
100% agree. I am currently trying to lose weight. I know that for me, the only way it is going to happen is to 1) cut down on alcohol, 2) eat better and 3) exercise. If I don't do all three, my weight will continue to increase, perhaps slowly, but it will still increase and I will have other issues as a result.
I would like to see everybody’s taxes go up $100 a year, including kids.
at end of year you get your BMI tested. Those with a healthy BMI get to split the money of those not. If you don’t show up for BMI test you are assumed I be unhealthy.
money motivates people.
at end of year you get your BMI tested. Those with a healthy BMI get to split the money of those not. If you don’t show up for BMI test you are assumed I be unhealthy.
money motivates people.
I really don't think there are issues about keeping guns safe in this country. I'm sure you meant something else
Estimates for care in the last year of life range from 10-15% of total health care expenditures. Much of that expense is probably unavoidable as a percentage of total dollars spent.
More important is spending on chronic health conditions. About 20-25% of spending is on potentially avoidable complications of chronic conditions (for example, amputations in patients with diabetes and vascular disease) and 40-50% on managing those chronic conditions.
You want a for profit scam instead, you are clueless.
People under 25 BMI are considered healthy, and the data indicates the healthy don't live as long as those in the 'overweight category'.
I'm fine with some biometric screening on various preset conditions as a financial incentive, but BMI alone is not a good indicator.
People with their I don't want government controlling my healthcare, it is already involved now, and the for profit scam we are in now is not sustainable for the every day Joe's out there, CEO's making millions and costs of everything going up because they do NOT want to pay out your coverage and will do all they can to make it hard/deny it. Medicare for all with an open market as well is the answer. Canada seems to be just fine with their current system as well, our system is broken like just about everything else at this current time/climate.
BMI is not a great as a solo metric. About 33% of patients with a normal BMI are unhealthy based on a full cardiovascular risk profile. About 50% of patients considered "overweight" based on BMI have a normal cardiovascular risk profile.
Since you enjoy the calculus of whether a life is worth living, how much do the surviving 4 contribute to society, on average, during their lifetimes? Is the cost avoided by killing one baby in 5 offset by the value produced by the other 4 you decided not to kill?
I have too many health issues, I guess. MediCare and a supplemental are a lot more cost effective for me.
I am fine making the exam more comprehensive but I think BMI is at least something people can control and monitor on their own. A lot of other health stuff seems hereditary.
I just think a reward for trying to be healthy and a penalty for not would be a big motivator. People love cash in hand.
people at work get very motivated for weight loss contests when they can win a few hundred dollars.
I'd like to know more.
I just signed up for Medicare Advantage, and I am not a particularly healthy person. My out of pocket maximum is a little higher than if I went with a regular Medicare Supplement, but there are no premiums. So, in a normal year with a couple of doctor visits and some meds, I'll save some nice money. If I need some more expensive treatment, my max is more, but not that much more.
Plus, I can get reimbursement for some vision, dental and over the counter meds (like aspirin).
I spent several hours on this decision with a consultant, who was getting paid the same either way, and Medicare Advantage seemed like the way to go.
What am I missing?
I don't mind the idea of some sort of tax penalty for people who are purposefully in poor health. The problem is what should the measurement be? What could we measure on your body that gives an indication of overall health that can't also be affected by things outside of your control.
I'm more of an advocate of a sales tax, even a heavy sales tax on junk food. It's not perfect, but if we identify junk food as the cause of the problem the solution is to make the people who consume the most of it, pay a heavier burden. Honestly that sort of thing seems like the most fair way of doing it.
yes, more taxes.
just give the Fing healthy people money. Why is it so hard? If I am healthy I should be able to eat a god damn snickers without giving the government money. Let the god damn lard asses pay via a yearly checkup and reward the healthy with their money.
the government can’t stand not getting their hands on money. It’s like the carbon tax, give us money and you can pollute like a mother F’er.
as long as you are healthy Advantage has advantages...sickly old farts like me, not so much. Once you start using the system, you will start getting charges. Just be careful. My experience has been a lot of folks don’t listen closely and then get burned because of their not paying attention. As long as you understand what you are getting.
Then again what would you suggest? BMI isn't a very good indicator. The only other thing I can come up with might be % body fat which is IMO a better indicator than BMI.
That’s fine. Pick something. Any incentive to get people to lose weight has to save billions in the long run.
I don’t see why healthy people need to pay a tax just because they eat fast food. If they exercise enough to stay thin don’t punish them for eating a Big Mac.
