Private health insurance is not efficient

Zakaria's facts and arguments regarding health care:

The least efficient payers in the world are the American private insurance companies. They have administrative costs of 20 to 30%. That's a 30% tax on every dollar you spend on health care. Britain is totally socialized medicine [and its] administrative costs [are] 5%. Canada is private doctors and public payers - 6% administrative costs. So it turns out, for some reason in health care, governments are doing this more efficiently than our private sector."

If you are interested (and many people should be), read the rest of the paper. And think of the numbers.

This kind of material is bad for my blood pressure, because it makes me angry at right wing nuts and their dimwit followers who would indulge in idiocy like "death panels" or "socialism" whereas we Americans are fleeced by a bunch of well connected healthcare behemots.

My salary increases are behind what I pay in my insurance co-pays at work, so if I wasn't even reading any sources at all, something would tell me that there is robbery under way. It's mind boggling that vast majority of Americans just would wake to the facts.

Of course its not

A lot of people in the united states need health care

Do I think that the current Health care system needs improvement? Yes, but I think the current system that was passed by president Obama is a vast improvement.

Sadly all the GOP has to do is to throw the word "socialist" around and people are going to be against it, even if its for their bests interests. That term has been hijacked, that it doesn't even have a real meaning anymore.

People like to point at the soviet union as an example of socialism, but that's just an example of the things that can go wrong with it.

Originally posted by muse7

People like to point at the soviet union as an example of socialism, but that's just an example of the things that can go wrong with it.

edit on 3/18/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)

Name a government that is self sustainable that is socialist? I agree that on a small scale and on paper it looks good, but it won't ever work in practice for very long on a large scale.

reply to post by calnorak


Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Sweden

Those four counties have one of the highest taxes in the world, and are generally the happiest people in the world and enjoy the highest living standards.

Danes pay about two thirds of their income in taxes.

I don't think the health care system is ever going to be reformed to reach the levels of the countries listed above. We do have a very good health care system, but the wealthy are the ones that really benefit from it. We have far too many gun-toting patriots that would rather die of a disease that could have easily been prevented if they had access to good health care, rather than to accept the truth.

reply to post by buddhasystem



There's nothing wrong with Socialized medicine IF the policies are set by morally competent politicians.

Anybody know where to find 535 or so of those?

Wow you actually answered, dang now I am going to have to educate myself and research

Don't expect a response from me for several hours, even perhaps tomorrow sometime.

Originally posted by muse7
We have far too many gun-toting patriots that would rather die of a disease that could have easily been prevented if they had access to good health care, rather than to accept the truth.

Quite true. And it's truly tragic (I can't emphasize that enough) that none else but the President would say something like "we have healthcare -- there is always the emergency room". Yup, Dubya said that.

It just shows that the American public in large part is still in Stone Age and is unaware of what civilized nations call Preventive Medicine, that saves both tons of money and many, many lives.

Too many people on both sides of the issue miss the point. Health Insurance is NOT health care, and health care does not need insurance. In fact, go back 50 to 60 years, and you will find that most people did NOT have health insurance, but they did have health care. People didn't die because they couldn't get health care. In fact, many doctors such as Dr. Ron Paul treated those people for free, or barter or a token fee, to give them a feeling of worth. The prime force that Health Insurance provides is assured Increases year over year, because all they do is pass on the increased costs to premiums, and since the health care companies know that, they feel free to do things like charge $200 for an aspirin for a hospital patient. People go to doctors for even minor problems, because they know that their visit will be covered, and again, costs go up, and waits become longer for that health care.

Furthermore, anyone that thinks that a 2,700 page bill, written by the health companies and drug lobbyists, will improve things, truly NEEDS to go see a doctor.

Finally, this is not a left/right issue. This is a human issue. To lower it to a political debate ignores the true problems that exist.

The talent, resources, and skill exist so that nobody in America should have to pay (or pay much) for medical care.

Almost every other country in the world has mechanisms for getting its citizens healthcare. Its astounding to me that America still hasn't solved this fundamental problem.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Too many people on both sides of the issue miss the point. Health Insurance is NOT health care, and health care does not need insurance.

Did anyone say the opposite? It's just that insurance affects what sort of care you get.

I would tend to agree. To further this, you usually get better rates at larger companies than smaller companies. Why? Because you have more people in the pot, more healthy people covering the sick people. It averages out of a lower cost per person. Now, imagine taking that same principle and applying it to hundreds of millions of people.

Did anyone say the opposite? It's just that insurance affects what sort of care you get.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I wasn't pointing at anyone in particular. I was sharing my life experience, since many didn't live through a time where medical insurance was an oddity, rather than common-place.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

Did anyone say the opposite? It's just that insurance affects what sort of care you get.

reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I wasn't pointing at anyone in particular. I was sharing my life experience, since many didn't live through a time where medical insurance was an oddity, rather than common-place.

What I saw in your post was a statement that Ron Paul was providing health care for free. Is that the solution that you would like to see implemented nation-wide?

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
I would tend to agree. To further this, you usually get better rates at larger companies than smaller companies. Why? Because you have more people in the pot, more healthy people covering the sick people. It averages out of a lower cost per person. Now, imagine taking that same principle and applying it to hundreds of millions of people.

Now, imagine taking the insurance company profit margin out of the equation and how much farther-reaching would the system be?

Now imagine a corrupt overfed, undereducated, self funding government agency running the medical field. You must remember that the wealthy pay for their own health care and that the political hacks have a different system than the rest of us will. This doesn't make us equal or better covered. The worlds wealthy people still flock here to get the best medical treatment available. Do you really think that Joe Blow on public assistance will get the same healthcare that a person that pays in higher taxes and does not pose a drain on society will get? Do you really want a government agency telling you what treatment you may or may not have? Or even worse this same agency telling you that you MUST take certain meds or vaccines to be in the system. This system suggested by the president has all the aspects of a totalitarian police state and none of the utopian bliss suggested to the masses. Yes we need healthcare reform but we do not need the fixes suggested by the government. A good start would be tort reform, but that will never happen as it cuts too deep into the pockets of those in control.

reluctantpawn

Originally posted by reluctantpawn
Do you really want a government agency telling you what treatment you may or may not have?

If you read the article in the OP, it's sort of the opposite. Doctors decide what they recommend. If you must decide for yourself that you want something else, then indeed go to a private doctor and insist they'll prescribe it to you.

Again, we have examples of many countries where public health care works well. What exactly do you find missing?

Originally posted by reluctantpawn
Now imagine a corrupt overfed, undereducated, self funding government agency running the medical field.

Well, fortunately you have the opportunity to decide for yourselves come next election...though why you folks tend to define the battle ground as corrupt government agencies versus the best-wishes of corporate America seems a little hinkey to me.
But hey...fill yer boots, eh?

Okay, I did a very quick google search (I did the im feeling lucky and it pulled up wikipedia)en.wikipedia.org...

Non of those countries you listed are marked as socialist Marxist/Leninist or otherwise.