What Americans Will Never Be Told About Their Healthcare…

Originally posted by de Thor
Show me statistics of the:
1.) success of a treatment over total time of the treatment
compared to
2.) average success rates of a treatment and the time over which the treatment took place

Place those two figures next to the cost figures and then we'll have a thread.

Wouldn't the lack of death be final measure of the success of treatments? That is why putting that next to the cost figures is the thread.

I understand that you don't like the format of the OP but it doesn't change the information in it. Is it an oversimplification? Sure, it's supposed to be but it doesn't make it less true.

De Thor Have you found anything on Google that widely contradicts the fact the U.S is spending far more (of it’s much larger GDP) on health, than does Britain? Or that the British has better healthcare? Together with higher life expectancy?

If you have… I couldn’t quite see the links (to reality) in your previous post!

His "reasons" category is based on nugatory data and he even dismisses some of the data that goes against his theory.

Which was?
It’s you who’s making a bad job, of a bad reply.

And finally his "surely" category. I thought we were talking about healthcare? What the hell are you talking about the United States defense spending for?

There’s just two strong reasons…
1. Both health and defence save & defend America lives. Health just does it far more cost effectively.
2. It would be prudent to offer 100% free, high quality, healthcare for everybody. Yet let the public spend (or save) the savings on the economy, whilst simultaneously avoiding any tax rise. Whoever did this would be a popular fellow. (More than resist TPT) Ron Paul made a mistake: He promised to reduce government spending, but forgot to tell voters how he would “bribe” them, by putting it back into their pockets! –The economy & deficit are too much of an abstract concept. What people are (genuinely) interested in, is their States & most of all their own pockets.
That’s the truth, and yes the truth is often very harsh.

Originally posted by daskakik

Wouldn't the lack of death be final measure of the success of treatments? That is why putting that next to the cost figures is the thread.

I understand that you don't like the format of the OP but it doesn't change the information in it. Is it an oversimplification? Sure, it's supposed to be but it doesn't make it less true.

No, because people die regardless of the quality of their health care system. Sure, it can be a good indicator when used in the appropriate context but 2 years difference isn't much to discern from.

Originally posted by Liberal1984
De Thor Have you found anything on Google that widely contradicts the fact the U.S is spending far more (of it’s much larger GDP) on health, than does Britain? Or that the British has better healthcare? Together with higher life expectancy?

If you have… I couldn’t quite see the links (to reality) in your previous post!

... I haven't... which is why I didn't post any links... seriously?

Which was?
It’s you who’s making a bad job, of a bad reply.

You dismiss the fact the the US has more doctors per 10,000 patients because the difference is tiny. As if any of the differences in the other categories arn't tiny?

There’s just two strong reasons…
1. Both health and defence save & defend America lives. Health just does it far more cost effectively.
2. It would be prudent to offer 100% free, high quality, healthcare for everybody. Yet let the public spend (or save) the savings on the economy, whilst simultaneously avoiding any tax rise. Whoever did this would be a popular fellow. (More than resist TPT) Ron Paul made a mistake: He promised to reduce government spending, but forgot to tell voters how he would “bribe” them, by putting it back into their pockets! –The economy & deficit are too much of an abstract concept. What people are (genuinely) interested in, is their States & most of all their own pockets.
That’s the truth, and yes the truth is often very harsh.

Awful, awful analysis.

Originally posted by de Thor
No, because people die regardless of the quality of their health care system. Sure, it can be a good indicator when used in the appropriate context but 2 years difference isn't much to discern from.

True, but that is what the other numbers are about, things like beds, personnel and access to services for less means its better.

Newsweeks Worlds best countries puts the UK and US closer.

What "Americans will never be told about their healthcare" is that they are being gouged while countries with socialized health care are getting the same level of care for less than half the price. That is what I'm getting from the OP.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by de Thor
No, because people die regardless of the quality of their health care system. Sure, it can be a good indicator when used in the appropriate context but 2 years difference isn't much to discern from.

True, but that is what the other numbers are about, things like beds, personnel and access to services for less means its better.

Newsweeks Worlds best countries puts the UK and US closer.

What "Americans will never be told about their healthcare" is that they are being gouged while countries with socialized health care are getting the same level of care for less than half the price. That is what I'm getting from the OP.

edit on 21-3-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

That's what I'm getting from the OP as well. I'm just stating that he did an awful job of trying to prove it and used data that, when held under heavy scrutiny, doesn't corroborate his "theory." And the fact that all these figures are based off of GDP is a whole entire separate issue.

England is having a bit of trouble with DHS and elderly neglect issues and such now ... so, the timing is a bit off for this article but ...

there are less infant mortalities in the British system as well!

Also, Obamacare only exacerbates the existing problems ... that being the middleman "Big Insurance" hiking all the prices on BOTH ends.

Big Insurance is the #1 problem and Obamacare just gives it MORE power.

Socialized medicine in England certainly has a lot better track record than ours does.

Our system USED to work ... until Big Insurance decided to play Piggy-In-The-Middle.

De Thor

I'm just stating that he did an awful job of trying to prove it and used data that, when held under heavy scrutiny, doesn't corroborate his "theory." And the fact that all these figures are based off of GDP is a whole entire separate issue.

1. You haven’t put my figures under any kind of factual scrutiny, just the hostility of your own ideology.
2. The fact these figures are based on GDP is an error, but one highly favourable towards your own argument (its 25% higher in the US, so health expenditure should be up to 25% less than Britain’s) –nevermind the smaller quantity of service, provided per American).

... I haven't... which is why I didn't post any links... seriously?

You should post your own links, supporting your arguments. Since you haven’t (but have made plenty posts) it appears you must be struggling!
It’s certainly not up to me (or others supporting me) to provide links supporting the very arguments we oppose. Same applies on every other issue.

Sure, I think we can agree that US citizens pay more. The assertion that they receive less, however, is not true. At least he didn't prove it to be true in the OP.

So it’s not true? Do you have any evidence (hard or otherwise) then?
I can at least point to…
A. 16.3% of Americans having no health insurance, and it’s getting worse…
money.cnn.com...
B. Health causing 62% of US Bankruptcies
C. And 78% of these persons, having so kind of health insurance finance.yahoo.com...

As evidence…
1. Many people receive next to no healthcare
2. People are dying because they delay treatment, causing their illness to get worse during this delay.
3. Others are dying because they have no money, so delay isn’t even a choice.
4. Plenty are suffering from bad health, compounded with devasted savings.
5. And the other statistics showing less health facility, for the lower living US population…

You said…

You dismiss the fact the the US has more doctors per 10,000 patients because the difference is tiny. As if any of the differences in the other categories arn't tiny?

When in actual fact the US has…
A. 26.5% less nurses & midwives per 10,000 (probably don’t need as many, since your “Christian” country loves making the poor die, for their sin of not earning or extorting enough money)
B. 20.5% less hospital bed
C. 11.53% more doctors (you probably need them, as that’s the one thing the poor will always some money to afford-borrow)
Convert the figures into percentages, yourself…
www.guardian.co.uk...

My mom is a VP at a major health care provider in the United States. She has over 30 years of experience in the health care sector and has taught a few semesters at our state university. She has a degree in nursing and a Masters of Health Sciences in Health Economics.

When I showed her this thread, she laughed.

Did she laugh knowing
she would take less money from peoples sicknesses if the US adopted my most obvious, (and perhaps) least radical proposal, which is simply to subsidise the education of those wishing to become health professionals? (I.e. through cheap educational loans)
I advocate that policy in other areas because it: reduces business costs, increases consumer purchasing power, alleviates poverty (but most frequently of all reduces “under potential”) and ultimately spreads the opportunity, for Americans to become richer, through their own hard work.
This policy sure beats immigration! (Even British politicians, much preferred “short term fix”). Because immigration: Totally ignores today’s society’s short comings, by providing (in the long run) a MUCH more expensive solution (as all immigrants ultimately retire too). It’s therefore far wiser helping today’s young retire towards their full educational potential (since this leaves only one “old age burden” as opposed to two). Even so: Better to have skilled immigrants do work, than have not enough people doing it, since: Everybody (who isn’t e.g. a health professional) gets exploited. Correction: Even your mother would be ripped-off by the system she’s advocating (unless of course, her work entitles some kind of, “special health insurance”).

reply to post by Liberal1984


Why are German business men bidding on British hospitals now if govt run is so much better? Socialism fails every time.. I cannot remember the German group bidding on British hospitals but I read it last summer.. I'm sure someone on here can find out who they are.

Why are German business men bidding on British hospitals now if govt run is so much better?

Because our government is employing them, so they will then save lives for free! Days ago the British government passed an NHS reform bill, aspiring to deliver the best of both socialism & capitalism.
Socialism because: the NHS will continue being 100% free to the user
Capitalism because: Doctors & individuals (rather than complex bureaucracies) will make all the decisions. And capitalism: because private companies will compete against each other, to provide the government the best deal (whilst patients continue to be treated for free) www.bbc.co.uk...

You say “socialism fails every time”. No. Not when Americans pay more than twice, for less. Not when the NHS (a highly perfected form of socialism) is just about to be perfected again.
There is nothing wrong with the government wanting to make a good system better. Some fear these reforms will lead to the exploitation of the NHS. In fact: Our government is well aware that (if this is the outcome) they will be very lucky indeed, not to have been replaced by the Labour opposition.
Socialism is rather like nuclear energy: Great in theory, catastrophic if you get the details wrong, but in everybody’s interests once the details are perfected. The implications extend beyond the NHS...

For the NHS "perfecting socialism" has meant free to consumer deliver, yes; but: With minimum government control, maximum individual control, and maximum (competitive) capitalistic & entrepreneurial involvement.

I believe the Tories reforms will work. They certainly have no intention of committing electoral suicide, and simply wish even more, for less cost. But because Britain’s NHS already outperforms your “capitalism” on virtually every level, the end result (if successful) will be to ridicule America’s deadly health crisis, even further. Quite inadvertently too –which of course is the sincerest-strongest of all possible insults.
In Conclusion: British verses American experience preaches: A hybrid between the generosity of socialism & competitiveness of capitalism, is better than the (supposed) "purity" of one or the other.

Health Care for Profit is a Crime against Humanity.

(repeat first line )

I don’t know Two0Sides I have nothing against it in the NHS, if there is ultimately more money for patients (which there will, at least if the governments, private sector friends, are to survive within the NHS, in the longer term).

Yes it’s easy for us Europeans to criticise the inefficiency & barbarity of US health sickness. However we Brits have yet to nationalise car insurance (which is why it’s going up by 100’s of percent, every few years)
Even the Tory Graph says this (100% capitalistic) system has gone up by 40% in the last year www.telegraph.co.uk...

But the more this situation continues the more they sow the seeds of their own destruction. The government makes a law requiring us to have car insurance, so it should also provide it. Especially when (with price increases of 40% a year) it would be hard for socialism to do worse –especially once the government has to start paying, it doesn’t take it very long to work out how to get better value & regulations for money!

Let me look at this from a 'child like' perspective.

In the US, the average consumer and his/her employer spend - let's say - $2400 a year on health "insurance."
This "insurance" is to cover you should you get sick.
You get sick.
You go to the doctor. He/she charges you $75 just to see you.
Your insurance company says, "Oh, well... You have a $5000 deductible."
So you spend $5075 before your insurance company kicks in a dime.
The insurance company then tells you that they will only cover $10000 of your bill (and spend a lot of money trying to get your case shown as a 'pre-existing condition' or 'non-coverable' condition so they can pay nothing).

Over the last 15 years you've never had a day sick in your life.
$2400 x 15 = $36000. Not including 'premium increases."
Your current medical 'costs' (we'll get to that) are $30000.
Insurance pays $10000.
Except it doesn't. It negotiates with the hospital/medical facility to bring that total down to $5000.
You are out of pocket $5075 + the difference between the hospital bill and what the insurance company "said" they paid. $14925 + $5075 = $20000.
The insurance company now sees you as a liability, and cancels your policy.

You get sick again.
The hospital now charges you $30000 for the second round of treatment.
You cannot negotiate this number down.
Where do you get $30000? You leverage your home. As the medical bill mount, you go further into debt/bankruptcy.

Why are the bills so high? Because the hospital is bogged down by liability insurance. They must give you every single expensive test known to man to avoid you suing should they miss something.
Ingrown toenail? Easy. CAT scan, Xrays, blood tests, liver biopsy etc.

The actual cost of treatment is nothing like what you see on the bill (which is why insurance companies can negotiate).
The insurance company took $36000 from you/your employer, and paid $5000.
Net profit is $31000. Multiply that by all policies...PLUS what they get in liability insurance.
Who wins?
Not you.
Not the hospital.

Now let's say that you pay a little more in taxes, perhaps $1200 per year, and all your medical is covered 100%
(you could choose to pay an additional $1200 and ADD private insurance. To get things a little more comfortable, better meals etc.).
You get all the treatment, at no additional cost to you.
The insurance companies still make money (but not at the cost of your home/retirement savings).

One scenario means caring for the people.
The other means giving MORE money to the insurance companies (who also lobby for additional laws to deregulate them, and allow them to predate and bankrupt you).

"We the people"?
Nope. We the insurance companies...
Follow the money.

....and remember, for all you americans out there.....when you do your taxes in 2015, you will need to show PROOF of healthcare coverage or you will be fined, via the U.S. TREASURY. u.s. healthcare coverage will soon be of interest to the IRS.............

yeahhhh for obamacare

Sigh... Britain's Taxes are much higher to pay for that supposedly cheaper health care. It always cracks me up when the marxtards think that government provided health care is cheaper as if the money government spends (that they stole from tax payers) on it does not count... Sigh

Not to worry though we have plenty of idiots here who are hell bent in following Britain etc. down the stupid trail.

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone — doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies — to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high. www.lewrockwell.com...

Originally posted by SourGrapes
Obamacare eliminates that choice. So, no matter the cost, no matter your plan, no matter your status - working or not working, legal or illegal, rich or poor - you will have the exact same plan and see the exact same medical professionals. .

Source, please.

Actually, never mind, that is a load of poop -

You are making up things

Originally posted by hawkiye
Sigh... Britain's Taxes are much higher to pay for that supposedly cheaper health care. It always cracks me up when the marxtards think that government provided health care is cheaper as if the money government spends (that they stole from tax payers) on it does not count... Sigh

Not to worry though we have plenty of idiots here who are hell bent in following Britain etc. down the stupid trail.

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone — doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies — to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high. www.lewrockwell.com...

edit on 23-3-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

American's private insurance is more expensive.

If you are so right, post up the fact jack, or face the facts that you are actually the "tard" here
America's insurance expenditure will reach half of the GDP in fifteen years if it continues
on at this rate Albert Einstein.

reply to post by Liberal1984


If you plan on engaging american conservatives, you might as well talk to
drunken four year olds. Facts do not matter to them, what matters is what
ever is repeated the most over and over again. Just write America off in the
cognition department.

"DAAAR insurance is cheaper in America cawse Britishes are socialists
Daaaw..."

Quick England send use drool cups, quickly, we are being drowned!

Originally posted by clearmind
....and remember, for all you americans out there.....when you do your taxes in 2015, you will need to show PROOF of healthcare coverage or you will be fined, via the U.S. TREASURY. u.s. healthcare coverage will soon be of interest to the IRS.............

yeahhhh for obamacare

Yeahhh previously conservative approach to healthcare

and remember america, after Obama care is repealed, when you get cancer in 20 years
your family will be bankrupted after your insurance policy is rescinded, yeahhh freedumbs!

reply to post by Liberal1984


Drugs are baaaad. Do what the Dr Says, don't take that MJ medication but do take these OPIUM pills and be a zombie and give your #$ to me & my institution... or just cum on in cuz i'm big, im govt funded and I'm ...