Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

T.R. Reids been doing some fine work in this area for a number of years. There's quite a few popular myths out there.

In his book, Reid offers a handy way for Americans to think about other countries’ systems. Are you covered by an employer? That’s Germany, France and Japan. Are you retired and at least 65 years old? That’s Canada and Taiwan. Are you a current or former member of the military, a Native American or in prison? That’s the United Kingdom or Cuba. Are you among the tens of millions of people without health care coverage? That’s the Third World.

So what do you get when you toss all of that together? A wilting American salad, with some important caveats.

First, we are alone in using for-profit insurance companies. The employer-based funds offered in Germany, France and Japan are designed for one purpose only: to cover health care costs. To keep costs down, the government sets prices. An MRI scan that costs $1,200 in our country costs $98 in Japan.

Does this mean care is rationed? Well, the Japanese average 14 office visits a year. In France, it’s nine. In the United States, it’s five. U.S. insurance companies place lifetime limits on health care spending (“Obamacare” would repeal this). No such thing exists in other countries.

Does this mean administrative costs are lower? Yes, they are in the single digits in other countries. In the United States, marketing, advertising, billing and high executive pay devour from 20 percent to 30 percent of health care spending (Obamacare would cap this at 20 percent).

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/a ... lthy-idea/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

show me how to do it without illegal and unconstitutional COERCION by the national government of the 'late united states' upon the rights and powers of the GLORIOUS State of South Carolina and her citizens and i would gladly support it.

kalm wrote:T.R. Reids been doing some fine work in this area for a number of years. There's quite a few popular myths out there.

In his book, Reid offers a handy way for Americans to think about other countries’ systems. Are you covered by an employer? That’s Germany, France and Japan. Are you retired and at least 65 years old? That’s Canada and Taiwan. Are you a current or former member of the military, a Native American or in prison? That’s the United Kingdom or Cuba. Are you among the tens of millions of people without health care coverage? That’s the Third World.

So what do you get when you toss all of that together? A wilting American salad, with some important caveats.

First, we are alone in using for-profit insurance companies. The employer-based funds offered in Germany, France and Japan are designed for one purpose only: to cover health care costs. To keep costs down, the government sets prices. An MRI scan that costs $1,200 in our country costs $98 in Japan.

Does this mean care is rationed? Well, the Japanese average 14 office visits a year. In France, it’s nine. In the United States, it’s five. U.S. insurance companies place lifetime limits on health care spending (“Obamacare” would repeal this). No such thing exists in other countries.

Does this mean administrative costs are lower? Yes, they are in the single digits in other countries. In the United States, marketing, advertising, billing and high executive pay devour from 20 percent to 30 percent of health care spending (Obamacare would cap this at 20 percent).

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/a ... lthy-idea/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the healthcare industry is forced to operate on a not-for-profit basis, what will be the incentive to invest in R&D for medical technology and pharmaceuticals?

citdog wrote:show me how to do it without illegal and unconstitutional COERCION by the national government of the 'late united states' upon the rights and powers of the GLORIOUS State of South Carolina and her citizens and i would gladly support it.

There in lies the problem...they can't do it without amending the Constitution and they are not willing to go through that process...

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:T.R. Reids been doing some fine work in this area for a number of years. There's quite a few popular myths out there.



http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/a ... lthy-idea/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the healthcare industry is forced to operate on a not-for-profit basis, what will be the incentive to invest in R&D for medical technology and pharmaceuticals?

Well there's always that whole saving lives and passion for scientific inquiry thing. Or how about just socializing the insurance?

We'll have absolutely no incentive to try to cure cancer, AIDS, or any other disease with socialized medicine

Freakin Commies

Why do the Japanese need to go to the doctor 14 times a year? I can't even imagine going 5 times like the average American.

griz37 wrote:Why do the Japanese need to go to the doctor 14 times a year? I can't even imagine going 5 times like the average American.

They run of of face masks frequently.

I would give the author more credit if he wasn't, by implication, demonizing the US Health Care system while he was talking about "De-demonizing" the others. I'm pretty sure that one could sit down and list advantages and disadvantages of each. I think it very likely that going to a system such as any of those in the referenced nations would mean that at least some people in the United States would lose something in at least some respects.

My opposition to the concept of universal health care is based simply on opposition to the idea that one person should be forced to take care of the personal needs of others. It'd be like anything else. People who do well are going to be bled like stuck pigs to pay the bill for people who don't do well. Essentially compelled charity.

But I WILL say that I agree with the idea that for profit health insurance is not the way to go if one wants to reduce the cost of health care. Insurance is based on risk calculation. The insurance company is calculating that, on average, it is going to take in more in premiums than it is going to pay out in benefits. When you buy insurance, you are incurring a cost to avoid a scenario in which something relatively unlikely happens that will result in catastrophic cost. You should expect that, more likely than not, the insurance is going to cost you more than just paying for the thing yourself would. But you're protected to at least a certain point from financial disaster.

If we DO attempt to make sure that everybody gets health care as a matter of government compulsion we shouldn't be doing it through private health insurance.

Otherwise, at least this author did not engage in the fallacy of implying or outright claiming that a higher national average life expectancy necessarily means that nation has a better health care system.

BTW I also think it's a bit of an exaggeration to imply that our health care system is comparable to the third world in any way. People without health insurance generally get care here.

I have a cousin who had two kids when he had no health insurance. They both had cystic fibrosis. One ended up having cancer too. Now, the children were covered in the sense that they had medicaid. And those children got to notch medical care. One got a lung transplant. Both spent a lot of time in Children's Hospital in New Orleans.

If someone in the third world has a kid with cystic fibrosis I'm willing to bet that the odds are overwhelming that the kid just dies as an infant. It's just not the same situation at all.

While I don't think it should necessarily be the way it is the way it is is that anybody who really needs medical care in this country can get it. I don't think it's like that in the third world.

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
If the healthcare industry is forced to operate on a not-for-profit basis, what will be the incentive to invest in R&D for medical technology and pharmaceuticals?

Well there's always that whole saving lives and passion for scientific inquiry thing. Or how about just socializing the insurance?

Oh. I forgot something. Another reason I am against the idea of government ensuring health care...of the society guaranteeing that the cost for each individual is covered...is that when the society (government) assumes responsibility for your care the government has an angle for controlling your behavior. Anything you do that potentially impacts your health becomes a potential direct cost to the society.

The Health and Safety NAZIs already use that angle to some extent. It comes up, for instance, in arguments for mandatory seat belt laws. But I think it has the potential to get a lot worse.

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:
Well there's always that whole saving lives and passion for scientific inquiry thing. Or how about just socializing the insurance?

I have to hand it to ya graddy. That's definitely one of your more informative posts.

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:

I have to hand it to ya graddy. That's definitely one of your more informative posts.

I believe he was laughing at your naivete.

When you socialize the insurance, the government sets the prices, and that basically means everyone will be working for what the government is willing to pay (far below the free market rates). Given the enormous amount of doctors dropping out of the current socialized systems we have (due to ever decreasing fee schedules), there will no longer be any incentive for people to get into the medical field.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
I have to hand it to ya graddy. That's definitely one of your more informative posts.

I believe he was laughing at your naivete.

When you socialize the insurance, the government sets the prices, and that basically means everyone will be working for what the government is willing to pay (far below the free market rates). Given the enormous amount of doctors dropping out of the current socialized systems we have (due to ever decreasing fee schedules), there will no longer be any incentive for people to get into the medical field.

I knew what he was laughing at and I feel sorry for the 36 countries ahead of us in medical outcomes who no longer have any doctors.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote:
I believe he was laughing at your naivete.

When you socialize the insurance, the government sets the prices, and that basically means everyone will be working for what the government is willing to pay (far below the free market rates). Given the enormous amount of doctors dropping out of the current socialized systems we have (due to ever decreasing fee schedules), there will no longer be any incentive for people to get into the medical field.

I knew what he was laughing at and I feel sorry for the 36 countries ahead of us in medical outcomes who no longer have any doctors.

Actually, I was laughing at your belief that a not-for-profit healthcare system would not result in a decrease of medical technology and pharmaceutical development. We are already seeing a decrease in the number of new general practitioners, especially in rural areas.

I wonder if it has occurred to you that most advanced pharmaceuticals and medical technology is developed in the United States. Of course the products of that R&D are sold to nations with socialized healthcare, but with much lower profit margins, as all of those countries purchase on a cost-plus basis -- and the plus isn't that great. The margins are made up in the domestic market. In other words, it is the American healthcare consumer who is subsidizing those wonderful single-payer systems that you believe are superior to our own. So what happens when the United States moves to a similar systems? The availability and quality of healthcare will stagnate and even decline, worldwide.

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:
I knew what he was laughing at and I feel sorry for the 36 countries ahead of us in medical outcomes who no longer have any doctors.

Actually, I was laughing at your belief that a not-for-profit healthcare system would not result in a decrease of medical technology and pharmaceutical development. We are already seeing a decrease in the number of new general practitioners, especially in rural areas.

I wonder if it has occurred to you that most advanced pharmaceuticals and medical technology is developed in the United States. Of course the products of that R&D are sold to nations with socialized healthcare, but with much lower profit margins, as all of those countries purchase on a cost-plus basis -- and the plus isn't that great. The margins are made up in the domestic market. In other words, it is the American healthcare consumer who is subsidizing those wonderful single-payer systems that you believe are superior to our own. So what happens when the United States moves to a similar systems? The availability and quality of healthcare will stagnate and even decline, worldwide.

Yep, it has occurred to me and that's a valid concern. But I still don't see how for-profit insurance helps this situation. And how much of that R&D has occurred in public institutions? It's not as if medical breakthroughs aren't happening elsewhere. Meanwhile, within our system, efficiency is lost, and money is wasted on marketing products that treat the symptoms rather than a focus on preventative care and healthy living or alternative medicine. Exercise and diet are not good for the prilosec bottom line. But I digress.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote:
I believe he was laughing at your naivete.

When you socialize the insurance, the government sets the prices, and that basically means everyone will be working for what the government is willing to pay (far below the free market rates). Given the enormous amount of doctors dropping out of the current socialized systems we have (due to ever decreasing fee schedules), there will no longer be any incentive for people to get into the medical field.

I knew what he was laughing at and I feel sorry for the 36 countries ahead of us in medical outcomes who no longer have any doctors.

The 36 countries ahead of us in medical outcomes?
Yes, according to some group who despises a free market based health care system.

Nice try at hyperbole, but I never claimed those countries didn't have doctors, but all of them do face critical doctor shortages. Just like the US faces critical shortages in doctors who are willing to accept the government sponsored and paid socialized Medicare and Medicaid.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
I knew what he was laughing at and I feel sorry for the 36 countries ahead of us in medical outcomes who no longer have any doctors.

The 36 countries ahead of us in medical outcomes?
Yes, according to some group who despises a free market based health care system.

Nice try at hyperbole, but I never claimed those countries didn't have doctors, but all of them do face critical doctor shortages. Just like the US faces critical shortages in doctors who are willing to accept the government sponsored and paid socialized Medicare and Medicaid.

See Tman's post about the unwise facilities choices Dr's are making, consider the cost of Med school and malpractice insurance, and it's no wonder there's a shortage. Plus from what I've read, too many people are going into specialized medicine and the shortage is with general care physicians. But soon, if there really are critical shortages, there will be an increased demand in the job market for Dr's. It ebbs and flows.

No system is perfect, but ours is far and away the most expensive and, according to some very reliable and non biased sources (too lazy to look it up but I believe there was a Harvard study and perhaps an OECD study) well down the list when it comes to outcomes.

I'm just glad Rand Paul was able to make some serious cash off of Medicare and Medicaid payments before it all went south.

I've received US Government sponsored socialized medicine for many years with no complaints what so ever.



Had an emergency appendectomy in 1967 at Irwin Army Hospital in Ft. Riley Ks, and a right cheekbone blow-out fracture repaired at Fitzimmons General Army Hospital in Aurora Colorado in Sept. 1968. Both times warded with wounded and recovering Viet Nam troops. Most of the guys in the eye ward in Aurora had major reconstruction surgeries, I think the health care was state of the art.

So say socialized medicine is no good, does not work, yada, yada, yada is pure political partisan poppycock, no matter how hard it is demonized.

There is a hell of a lot of money at stake here, don't expect to hear anything other than what is fueled by that fact alone.

Wedgebuster wrote:I've received US Government sponsored socialized medicine for many years with no complaints what so ever.



Had an emergency appendectomy in 1967 at Irwin Army Hospital in Ft. Riley Ks, and a right cheekbone blow-out fracture repaired at Fitzimmons General Army Hospital in Aurora Colorado in Sept. 1968. Both times warded with wounded and recovering Viet Nam troops. Most of the guys in the eye ward in Aurora had major reconstruction surgeries, I think the health care was state of the art.

So say socialized medicine is no good, does not work, yada, yada, yada is pure political partisan poppycock, no matter how hard it is demonized.

There is a hell of a lot of money at stake here, don't expect to hear anything other than what is fueled by that fact alone.

The Military Health System and the old CHAMPUS from 45 years ago are NOTHING like the botched abortions of Medicare and Medicaid in today's world. No need in comparing apples to oranges.

Baldy wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:I've received US Government sponsored socialized medicine for many years with no complaints what so ever.



Had an emergency appendectomy in 1967 at Irwin Army Hospital in Ft. Riley Ks, and a right cheekbone blow-out fracture repaired at Fitzimmons General Army Hospital in Aurora Colorado in Sept. 1968. Both times warded with wounded and recovering Viet Nam troops. Most of the guys in the eye ward in Aurora had major reconstruction surgeries, I think the health care was state of the art.

So say socialized medicine is no good, does not work, yada, yada, yada is pure political partisan poppycock, no matter how hard it is demonized.

There is a hell of a lot of money at stake here, don't expect to hear anything other than what is fueled by that fact alone.

The Military Health System and the old CHAMPUS from 45 years ago are NOTHING like the botched abortions of Medicare and Medicaid in today's world. No need in comparing apples to oranges.

So what was good is now all bad..

I am shocked. Not at your response though.

Wedgebuster wrote:

Baldy wrote: The Military Health System and the old CHAMPUS from 45 years ago are NOTHING like the botched abortions of Medicare and Medicaid in today's world. No need in comparing apples to oranges.

So what was good is now all bad..

I am shocked. Not at your response though.

Don't know if either was all good or all bad, but I do know that Medicare and Medicaid have nothing in common with the Military Health System, tho....

citdog wrote:show me how to do it without illegal and unconstitutional COERCION by the national government of the 'late united states' upon the rights and powers of the GLORIOUS State of South Carolina and her citizens and i would gladly support it.

You know that AMA is the main reason medicine is so expensive get rid of them maybe you will have a shot.