California to get a 59% increase on insurance premiums

[BasketCase]

Not really. Doctorology commands a high salary for very good reasons. It's a very stressful job....and it has a very high suicide rate.

It's not really relevant to the point you're making, if it happens to be low (say 1%), the people you're arguing against can just claim it's because of all the overhead associated with for-profit insurance companies.

I already pointed out that health insurance is overhead. All of it. The whole thing. America's problem is not with health insurance, it is with health care. Oh, and you weren't far off. The margin is about 3.5%. The health industry makes very low profits; the dollar value is so large because the industry itself is so large.

 

[Torgny]

Oh, did I really....? Can you quote me saying that? No, you can't. How bout you refrain from assuming that I'm assuming something? If I am, I'll say so.

You did actually say “Ya ever suppose other countries keep health care costs down by skimping on the quality a little?”


It is very difficult to compare the standard of health care in different industrial nations. But if you are happy with the system with insurance companies, fine with me. Although I don’t agree with most of your replies, I really appreciate that you took the time to give me some answers about your view. You have my respect for this.

 

[BasketCase]

You did actually say “Ya ever suppose other countries keep health care costs down by skimping on the quality a little?”

Yup. But it was only supposition.

Here's what I do think: I think other developed nations don't have (on the whole) better health care systems than the United States. Or worse systems (as you said, it's very difficult to compare). They simply have different problems than we do. They're better in some ways, and worse in other ways.

 

[Souron]

What problems do other western countries have?

 

[Torgny]

They're better in some ways, and worse in other ways.

Exactly. This is how how it is.

 

[Torgny]

What problems do other western countries have?

I am sure we can find some aspects that are better and worse in all countries. But there might also be some problems. There is a limit of how much money can be spent, and if money is spent on a treatment, something else has to be cut down. Shall we for example spend money on a very expensive drug for cancer that will save some lives, or shall we spend the money to use methods to discover cancer earlier before it becomes too malefic? And shall we spend more money helping people with schizophrenia, or spend the money on transplantation of organs? Decisions like this have to be taken all the time. One nation may therefore for example be better with schizophrenia, others may be better with transplantations.

 

[Cutlass]

You did actually say “Ya ever suppose other countries keep health care costs down by skimping on the quality a little?”


It is very difficult to compare the standard of health care in different industrial nations. But if you are happy with the system with insurance companies, fine with me. Although I don’t agree with most of your replies, I really appreciate that you took the time to give me some answers about your view. You have my respect for this.

Ironically, those "socialized medicine" nations cut down the cost compared to the US by skimping on bureaucracy a lot.

 

[Mise]

The US spends twice as much per person on healthcare as the UK. Are you getting twice as much in return? Nope. Not even close.

 

[bhsup]

The US spends twice as much per person on healthcare as the UK. Are you getting twice as much in return? Nope. Not even close.

The government spends twice as much as the UK government? The people individually spend twice as much as UK people? Businesses spend twice as much as UK businesses? Which apples and oranges are we talking about here?

Are you talking about major care expenses, expenses when some mom takes her kid to the emergency room because little johnny gets a runny nose and racks up a stupid bill for the insurance agency (or doesn't have insurance and just lets the hospital eat it and let it go to collections because emergency room visits cannot be turned away)? What, exactly, are you comparing when I see that oft cited claim? Are elderly people who really don't need one, but order 'the scooter chair' paid for entirely by medicare, included in that?

 

[El_Machinae]

http://apps.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm?countries=all&indicators=nha

US
Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) 2862.0 (2005)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ? 6350.0 (2005)

UK
Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ? 2668.0 (2005)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ? 3064.0 (2005)

If that helps answer. The citizens pay much less in the UK (~$3k). The government pays slightly less in the UK (~$200).

Ostensibly, the UK system is cheaper on the taxpayer and vastly cheaper for the citizen.
This does not allow for the elasticity of demand for health services, however.

 

[bhsup]

Thanks, El Mac!

 

[Mise]

Yeah, it's total health spending that I'm (and presumably others are) referring to. As in, if you add up everything the UK spends on healthcare, and everything the US spends on healthcare, you guys spend twice as much. Do you get twice as much in return? I can't honestly say our system delivers better quality than yours -- the jury's out on that one in my mind. It's better in some areas, worse in others; perhaps, on balance, the US system does deliver a slightly higher level of service than the UK's. But the fact that they're even comparable, even though one costs half the price of the other, is something quite remarkable. It should be like comparing a BMW 5 series with a Citroen C5.

 

[BasketCase]

Just discovered some whole new goodness to complicate the health care issue.

Come on, don't stare at me like that. I can't help myself. I like to screw things up.

Here's the goods: it's been a very common argument, in this thread and elsewhere, that other countries with UHC have longer life expectancy than in the United States. Well, I just looked up those actual numbers, and the real truth is, those countries outlive Americans by anywhere from one year to four.

The difference is too small to be considered statically worthwhile. Just goes to show: when people tell you something, you gotta read the words carefully, and figure out what they're actually saying. The words "nations with UHC have longer life expectancy than the United States" don't actually say very much.

Edit: Wait! It gets better! By which, of course, I mean more complicated. Turns out American Hispanics (illegal immigrants among them!) live longer than American white people. By five years. Not very much, but when you consider that illegals are going to have an inherent fear of authority figures (they don't want to get caught) they're actually likely to avoid hospitals unless they're desperate. So there ya go. An example proving that there's a lot of other possible reasons, besides universal health care, that people in other countries live longer.

 

[.Shane.]

stuff

Links?

 

[BasketCase]

Wikipedia and ABC World News.

<generic wiseass remark about giving Google a try>

 

[Ajidica]

And? For a modest increase in life expectancy they spend on average 30-50% less then America. Longer life that is cheaper? Who wouldn't want that unless they have some reason for ideology to trump economic realities.

 

[BasketCase]

It's about cause and effect. With anything stasistics-related, you have to prove that something definitely causes something else. When you insert the thing being tested into a test environment, there must be a measurable change compared to the test environment without the presence of the thing being tested.

One to four years (or no difference at all in the case of United States vs. Cuba) is not enough to verify a difference. That's what the term "statistical significance" is all about. Yes, everybody wants a longer lifespan. Your assumption that UHC will lead to that is unwarranted. And I oppose UHC because it will shorten mine.

 

[Ajidica]

So, still ignoring the simple fact that countries that have a UHC system spend anywhere from 30-50% less on health care as a percentage of GDP, and in the case of industrialized countries they recieve effectively the same health care, even better in some areas?