John: You shouldn't complain, it is the nature of the economic system your government employs. Be thankful they don't follow the Constitution which stipulates they have the power to tax to pay the debts of the government. By careful manipulation of the tax code, it is the working stiffs in the middle of the income stream who would be paying for all this unconstitutional government charity. Instead, they just print more money and give it to the banks to distribute through loans that are usurious.
Single payor like Canada? Where gas taxes make it over a dollar a gallon more? $1.254 this past weekend per litre, times 3.785 litres in a gallon = $4.746 per gallon, times exchange rate this weekend of .81 = $3.84 a gallon American dollars...now add in massive lodging, restaurant and general sales taxes...this is what socialized medicine and big government do - they spend
You're question is incorrect, since it ignores that providing universal service by definition is inefficient.
Take the Post Office, for example. It MUST provide service to any and everyone that asks for it, no matter how much burden it places on the system. But UPS can refuse to deliver packages to customers so far off the normal route that they are unprofitable. UPS pays the Post Office to deliver them.
Universal health care/insurance is no different. Yet somehow Medicare functions.
Universal service CAN be efficient. It would just cost more for those "so far off the normal route", which is the cost of living there. Why should others have to subsidize your choice? That's what single-payer is, along with the government control.
I live very far off, and have NEVER had a UPS package delivered by USPS. It's UPS that delivers, USPS refuses to do so!
And, of course, control means "cost control"... which means your expensive procedure isn't covered, unless there is some political benefit.
Everyone wants insurance to cost $50 per month ( or less) and expects to get at Least $200 per month in benefits and wonders why it won't work.
I can't stand the LIES.
All over I hear "repealing ACA will make your premiums go up!"
NO, that's what ACA *did*... premiums up five fold or more. Do I get the same coverage? OF COURSE NOT! My deductible is now ten times what it was!
But a double down on the lies is all that arrives in response... plus attempts to make me feel guilty.
Pretending to care while implementing a lie doesn't make you a good person. It makes you a hypocrite.
@Toolsmith: "All over I hear "repealing ACA will make your premiums go up!""
Repeal or no repeal, your premiums are going up no matter what.
Though at this point it's moot, the repeal is pretty much dead.
Fact. America runs Medicare well. Medicare for all.
it works Robert. You're too much of an idiot to comprehend that.
its people like you that i will be voting against the merger. I don't want you wrecking Auburn.
It is bleeding dollars, and it is not a "closed system". It shifts a large portion of patient costs to other sources.
A hospital/health care provider that ONLY dealt with Medicare patients and had to survive ONLY on Medicare reimbursements could not and would not survive. At least under current care standards and rules of operation.
Yeah I'm with Melvin on this one... the government's track record of managing health care (both here, and in the UK - can't speak to Canada, maybe someone with Canadian expertise can chime in here) is pretty crappy at best.
I'll admit, I did enjoy going to the hospital in London for my daughter (who had a rash) and getting immediate and free attention. But if you take a look at the entire system, it's very difficult to select which procedures/medicines are covered because saying, "we won't cover X" is potentially killing specific people.
I would much rather have the government supply subsidies for the poor who buy into a privately, for-profit health care system than have the government the whole thing.
(Of course that fails when the government hates poor people and cuts their subsidies...)
The underlying problem is that no-one is attacking the fundamental cost model for health care in this country. There are numerous issues identified and needing remedy, but it's not nearly as politically rewarding as giving "free health care" away to the masses.
Some brave doctors are opting out of the system and opening Direct Patient Care practices, including some in this state. You might look into it and consider it an innovative way to restructure the basics at far lower cost, and without government involvement.
Good thing no one is sick or dying due to lack of adequate healthcare or medications here in the wealthiest country in the history of the world.
Finally...the solution to the toughest nut society has ever faced.
I think the real myth here is that the American health system is a capitalistic industry. If you go to Best Buy to get a new TV and the sales person insists that the only model for you is the giant screen TV that is twice your budget you can say no thank-you and walk out of the store. If your doctor tells you that you need a procedure you are not going to question them and will accept going into debt; whether you really needed the procedure or not. In a real capitalistic society supply and demand are dictated by the consumer; in the health care industry unfortunately supply and demand are dictated by the provider. The same argument could be made for the pharmaceutical industry telling us what medications we need on commercials during our favorite TV show. We can put the blame for high medical costs on the insurance companies and we can falsely equate insurance coverage with providing health care but until we control the actual cost of dispensing care we are going to continue to have rising costs that consume a larger and larger portion of the GDP.
In Maine you can get a colonoscopy for $800 and that's where the loggers and guides go. Welfare folks get the $8,000 colonoscopy because that's paid for by the loggers and guides who actually pay taxes.
@Kennebec: "I think the real myth here is that the American health system is a capitalistic industry. "
That's not quite right. It is capitalistic, but the reason prices are out of control is because there is an agent/owner conflict with respect to the purchase of health services.
The entity that decides on the procedure (the patient, with input from the doctor) is *not* the entity that pays for it (the insurance). For large, expensive procedures, the cost to the patient is pretty much the same regardless if they do the procedure or don't - if they take the drug or not. (Modulo where you are in your deductible, obviously).
If you're the patient, and it doesn't cost you any more to do the procedure, it's a no brainer. If there's a drug that cures cancer but costs $2mm, you take it, regardless of the cost.
Until patients start turning down procedures & drugs *because of cost* prices will continue to spiral out of control.
Regardless of the payment source it is the supplier dictating demand not the consumer. In Canada the Canadian Medical Association won the right years ago for physicians to charge by procedure/visit instead of being salaried. When the government dropped their payments for individual procedures/visits physicians started doing more procedures. The supplier dictated demand.
"Regardless of the payment source it is the supplier dictating demand not the consumer. In Canada the Canadian Medical Association won the right years ago for physicians to charge by procedure/visit instead of being salaried. When the government dropped their payments for individual procedures/visits physicians started doing more procedures. The supplier dictated demand."
That's retarded, you can always say, "no" to a procedure or drug.
You are now contradicting yourself a_c.
You said in a prior post "If you're the patient, and it doesn't cost you any more to do the procedure, it's a no brainer."
In my post I am explaining that the Canadian patient isn't paying for the procedure the government single payer system is and the physician is then in a place to dictate demand. The single payer lowers what they pay and the physician increases how many visits/procedures the patient needs in order to maintain their income level. I repeat my main point that the healthcare industry is driven by the supplier rather than the consumer.
"In my post I am explaining that the Canadian patient isn't paying for the procedure the government single payer system is and the physician is then in a place to dictate demand. The single payer lowers what they pay and the physician increases how many visits/procedures the patient needs in order to maintain their income level. I repeat my main point that the healthcare industry is driven by the supplier rather than the consumer."
There are other costs besides price. I had my achilles' tendon repaired, and I couldn't walk for 2 months, couldn't run for 6, couldn't sprint full speed for at least a year. And that's nothing compared to the toll that is taken when one undergoes chemotherapy.
My point was only that the patient is the decider. They usually do not factor cost into the decision, but the decision is still theirs.