Meds, Mind, Body & Benefits > Insurance, Benefits Programs & HIV

what do you pay for health insurance in the USA?

<< < (5/6) > >>

mitch777:
It looks like there really is little disagreement here. Symantics.
The point is that American's lifespan is no where near the top in high-income countries.
According to a recent report by the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, America ranks below the following high-income countries in lifespan:
(in order for men)

Switzerland
Australia
Japan
Sweden
Italy
Canada
Norway
Netherlands
Spain
U.K.
France
Austria
Germany
Denmark
Portugal
Finland
U.S.

The report also went on to say that the U.S. health disadvantage has multiple causes and involves some combination of inadequate health care, unhealthy behaviors, adverse economic and social conditions, environmental factors, as well as public policies.
Other rich nations generally receive medical care through national health care systems.
America spends more per person on health care than any other nation.

So,
It only makes sense to me that a single payer national healthcare system seems not only more efficient, but more effective.
It boggles my mind how many BILLIONS of dollars are "wasted" by having insurance companies profit by simply being the middle man bill payer.
Insurance companies DO NOT PROVIDE health care. They are basically bill payers that design policies to "insure" a profit.

Other huge profit companies include pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies, but at LEAST they do provide a product. (not that I am happy with their methods and greed)

The cost of healthcare in this country is going to bankrupt our entire system.

Health care should be a human right and not a privilege.

mecch:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/business/health-care-and-pursuit-of-profit-make-a-poor-mix.html?pagewanted=all

Our reliance on private enterprise to provide the most essential services stems, in part, from a more narrow understanding of our collective responsibility to provide social goods. Private American health care has stood out for decades among industrial nations, where public universal coverage has long been considered a right of citizenship. But our faith in private solutions also draws on an ingrained belief that big government serves too many disparate objectives and must cater to too many conflicting interests to deliver services fairly and effectively.

Our trust appears undeserved, however. Our track record suggests that handing over responsibility for social goals to private enterprise is providing us with social goods of lower quality, distributed more inequitably and at a higher cost than if government delivered or paid for them directly.

By many objective measures, the mostly private American system delivers worse value for money than every other in the developed world. We spend nearly 18 percent of the nation’s economic output on health care and still manage to leave tens of millions of Americans without adequate access to care.

Britain gets universal coverage for 10 percent of gross domestic product. Germany and France for 12 percent. What’s more, our free market for health services produces no better health than the public health care systems in other advanced nations. On some measures — infant mortality, for instance — it does much worse.


_________


But that's the liberal lamestream media.

The only thing clear is that the "majority" of Americans don't have a cosmopolitan view of health care.  Its simple patriotism (and what's wrong with patriotism?) to believe the American system must be great, must be top.  People are "content" because they either can't imagine or haven't considered more successful systems.  Or, because they are on the right, and TRULY see universal coverage as a bunch of handouts to freeloaders and another way to bankrupt and ruin the country's future. That's social and economic philosophy.

How Americans can play down the US's revolting access problem, when confronted with the more successful systems, is beyond me. 

To say the uninsured Americans nevertheless have access to American healthcare brilliance is ridiculous.  Its not far from Romney's - "the poor have emergency rooms".

But I'm on the left. And, it didn't even sink into my lefty American bones, how a foreign system could be better (say UK's, or France, or Germany, etc.), until I lived under one for years. 


mitch777:
^agree 100%.

mecch:
Oh, and I'm realist enough to not think the US can or should wipe out a mixed health care system - private and government.
Nor do I forget that the US probably must, even today, foot the bill for its military strength, a strength that maybe, maybe, the other industrialised countries still rely upon, even in 2013, and obviously don't pay for. (But does the US have to spend this much? This much? On stupid wars?)
Nor do I think the solutions of medium sized countries can easily apply to the huge US.  And, you got to respect the culture of a country. 

Switzerland has private health care, but universal coverage, and government subsidies, but it just manages to work based on the economy and size and culture of this country. Full-time service workers can afford the monthly premium (for the most part), cause they get a living wage.

Overall I'd say Affordable Care was a great step in the right direction and probably the route to universal coverage is some private/government mix. Just insisting on the universal coverage, and not letting insurance companies game it up, nor corporations play the system to return ALL benefits to shareholders.  If I were a bottom line effective CEO or CFO of a huge retail or service corp, I'd be so tempted to do what they do.  No benefits, lowest wages possible, and shunt the workers onto government funded health care access. Its a no brainer.

Whats the trick to get more service and retail companies to offer fulltime work and a genuine basic health coverage?  Or, to get them to pay a living wage so workers could buy coverage in pools?








buginme2:

--- Quote from: mitch777 on January 10, 2013, 12:02:49 PM ---It looks like there really is little disagreement here. Symantics.
The point is that American's lifespan is no where near the top in high-income countries.
According to a recent report by the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, America ranks below the following high-income countries in lifespan:
(in order for men)

Switzerland
Australia
Japan
Sweden
Italy
Canada
Norway
Netherlands
Spain
U.K.
France
Austria
Germany
Denmark
Portugal
Finland
U.S.

The report also went on to say that the U.S. health disadvantage has multiple causes and involves some combination of inadequate health care, unhealthy behaviors, adverse economic and social conditions, environmental factors, as well as public policies.
Other rich nations generally receive medical care through national health care systems.
America spends more per person on health care than any other nation.


Health care should be a human right and not a privilege.

--- End quote ---

These lists, I wonder how much of it is influenced by factors not related to the country's healthcare industry.  Diet, amount of physical activity, genetics,etc would probably play a bigger role than the country's healthcare system.  Lets face it, most of those countries have a better diet and a lot less fat people.  Just sayin.

On that note, I'm off to the gym.

Health care should be a human right and not a privilege. << Agreed

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version