The US Health System

[El_Machinae]

You'd also think that the Health Insurance companies would discriminate, too. For example - "clients must wear helmets while cycling, or forfeit insurance, or pay a higher premium". I mean, if I was an insurer, I'd want to capture the profit difference between helmet wearers and non-wearers.

 

[Mise]

You'd also think that the Health Insurance companies would discriminate, too. For example - "clients must wear helmets while cycling, or forfeit insurance, or pay a higher premium". I mean, if I was an insurer, I'd want to capture the profit difference between helmet wearers and non-wearers.

Private health insurers in the UK are beginning to do this. They spend a lot of money promoting healthier lifestyles. People pay for such intrusion.

 

[Bigfoot]

Putting aside discussions of safety and personal responsibility, something is cleary wrong with the US health care system. A recent study found that the US has the second-worst infant mortality rate in the developed world, notwithstanding all the money that gets spent on health care in this country.

"The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn rate is higher than any of those countries," said the annual State of the World's Mothers report.

LINK

We seem to excel at treating medical emergencies, but really suck at preventive medicine (which is much more efficient). Something is radically wrong with a system that spends so much money but still allows innocents to die for lack of care.

 

[Kayak]

^Interesting. Could you see a case where a an insurer would refuse to pay out because a seatbelt was not worn say? Or maybe a cheaper contract based on promissing to wear a helmet at all times?

 

[Kayak]

We seem to excel at treating medical emergencies, but really suck at preventive medicine (which is much more efficient). Something is radically wrong with a system that spends so much money but still allows innocents to die for lack of care.

Name one area in recent decades (aside from warfare) that the US has dealt with before a crisis has occured.

 

[Bigfoot]

I'm not sure I understand your comment Kayak. I was referring to critical care administered on an individual basis, not public health emergencies. It costs more to treat someone who is critical than it is to administer preventive care in the first place.

For that matter, why are you asking me for examples of successful crisis aversion when I said that preventive measures were lacking?

 

[Kayak]

I'm not sure I understand your comment Kayak. I was referring to critical care administered on an individual basis, not public health emergencies. It costs more to treat someone who is critical than it is to administer preventive care in the first place.

For that matter, why are you asking me for examples of successful crisis aversion when I said that preventive measures were lacking?

I'm just pointing out that US is not proactive about anything these days. It takes a crisis for us to even think about addressing our problems. Preventative measures avert crises thats all.

It was an agreement with your comment tinged with cynisism that it would not get any better.

 

[.Shane.]

I must warn you! This thread bears THE MARK OF THE BEAST!

 

[Bigfoot]

Ah, now I understand!

 

[Hotpoint]

It's a matter of libertarian ideology. Some people view paying someone twice as much for something privately as they would for the same thing through taxation as freedom.

The problem there would be that by opposing a universal healthcare system they are not only effecting themselves but negatively effecting the wellbeing of other individuals.

J.S. Mill wrote that "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others". Given that a large number of others are likely harmed by the absence of "Socialised" Healthcare then it can be argued that harm does warrant the beliefs of those of a libertarian mindset being overridden.

 

[KAE]

My family, because my father works for the US government, has one of the best health insurance plans available (Federal Blue Cross/Blue Shield), but we still have to pay about $200 ourselves per doctor visit and about $300 whenever someone goes to the hospital because no health insurance plan covers everything.

Do you really have to pay 200$ if you go to a doctor with sour throat!!

In Denmark its free, (I pay 40% in taxes) but I have to pay for the penicillin myself.

I dont pay anything at all if I go to the hospital. If there is a waiting list for my treatment, that exceeds 8 weeks, I am offered treatment at a private hospital at no cost for me.

In Denmark we dont live that long , but we dont have to bother about economic problems if we need to go to a hospital, and seniorcare is payed for as well.

 

[JerichoHill]

To the free market's defense, the US government isn't giving it a chance to operate due to over-regulation.

I do not have to pay 200 bucks to see a doctor if I have a sore throat. I pay about 75 a month for my health insurance, and to see most doctors (dentist, eye, general practioner, the normal ones) I pay between 25-35 per visit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_structure_of_the_United_States

The again, according to that, I'm upper middle class...so maybe I just dont see the problems because im so stinking rich

yeah...rich...thats a laugh

 

[El_Machinae]

I've been looking at the numbers by comparing life expectancy and %GDP spent on health care. Canada smokes the States when you look at it like that.

Can anyone think of a better system of looking at the numbers?

 

[.Shane.]

Do you really have to pay 200$ if you go to a doctor with sour throat!!

In spite of what he said, if that's his co-pay he has the worst insurance ever.

My co-pay is $20 a visit. I pay about ~$110 out of my bi-weekly paycheck and that covers my family of 5 people.

If you have decent insurance the US system is OK. If you don't, its horrible.