Mass. has the highest GDP per capita and they can't afford to insure everyone. Or they're banking on Obama and congress paying for everyone and bailing them out. The 2.6% is suspect, BTW. They have a similar system in Hawaii and it's quite common that people work less than the required hours to qualify (like 29 instead of 30) or are paid under the table with no withholding.
first, universal health care is a moral question. all other industrialized nations have it and americans dont. moreover, the number of insured is rising precipitously. second, fiscally your system is fucking retarded. u guys spend more proportionally of your gdp on your current health care system than many countries who already enjoy a robust universal program.
It's not moral to take a person's (doctor, nurse) labor for a price under what the market dictates. I'd call that a form of slavery. It's not something that FDR got done, nor Truman, nor LBJ (Great Society), nor Carter (Dem president, Dem congress), nor Clinton (ditto for two years). Our GDP is 1/3 of the entire world, so we can afford to spend more on things, much the way a guy making $1M/year can afford $20K/month mortgage payments with plenty left over. It's not surprising that we're spending more on health care costs as the years go on, since a very large chunk of our population is over 60 (baby boomers).
All US drivers are terrible, just look at the exams and drivers test they have to pass and compare them to Europe. lmao But yeah the experiment is a disaster, another stupid idea produced by the Mass. liberals. Sucks that I live here amongst so many liberals is all I can say. lol
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...atment-Delay-mean-lifetime-agony-victims.html A 9-month wait for arthritis treatment: Delay can mean a lifetime of agony for victims Thousands of rheumatoid arthritis sufferers face a lifetime of agony because they are not being treated quickly enough, a report says. Guidelines state that patients should receive treatment within three months of the first symptoms appearing. But the average wait is nine months - and GPs are not trained well enough to know what help to offer. There is no cure, but experts say that if arthritis is diagnosed in the first three months, drugs can be given which limit its progression. This means the disease will not be as painful as it would have been if the condition was diagnosed later. The study by the National Audit Office found that patients do not know enough about the condition, and therefore delay going to see their GP. Between half and three-quarters of people with symptoms wait more than three months before seeking medical help, and about a fifth delay for a year or more. GPs lack the specialist knowledge required to diagnose the condition quickly, and on average it takes four visits before a patient is referred to a specialist for diagnosis and treatment, the report adds. Its author, Chris Groom, said: 'This is a nasty disease, a progressive auto-immune disease, which attacks otherwise healthy joints. Early symptoms are joint pain and stiffness and it leads to inflammation and loss of strength. 'It also affects other parts of the body, such as the heart and lungs, and is also associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease.' The report found that the average length of time from the onset of symptoms to treatment has not improved in the past five years. Mr Groom said that services needed to be better coordinated and designed around people's needs, including helping them remain in work. Three-quarters of sufferers are of working age when diagnosed, meaning delays cost the economy almost £2billion a year - about £560million a year in NHS healthcare costs and £1.8billion in sick leave and work-related disability. 'Once people fall out of the job market with this disease, it is very hard to get back in', Mr Groom said. The report also found that 50 per cent more people have rheumatoid arthritis than was previously thought. Mr Groom added: 'We estimate that 580,000 adults in England have the condition, which is higher than existing estimates of 400,000 for the UK, and that there are 26,000 new cases each year in England, compared to estimates of 12,000 for the UK.' Neil Betteridge, chief executive of the charity Arthritis Care, said: 'The report echoes what people with rheumatoid arthritis have been telling Arthritis Care for years. 'Early diagnosis and referral for suitable treatment is crucial as it can stop this debilitating condition in its tracks. 'We applaud the audit's recommendations that the Department of Health and Primary Care Trusts replace their often scattergun delivery with joined-up services.' Tory MP Edward Leigh, chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, said the NHS needed to improve support services for people with arthritis. Health minister Ann Keen said: 'We welcome this report and will consider it carefully before responding.'
these above comments are preposterous. america does produce a greater gdp than any other nation, although, that reinforces my own argument for fiscal mismanagement of the system. essentially what your saying is that we not only spend a large proportion of our gdp on health care, we also spend more gross dollars than anyone else- providing a system that leaves the majority of americans either uninsured or at the mercy of a private plan. and europe and the rest of the world both are experiencing aging populations so the baby boom phenomena isnt isolated to america. besides, u guys have universal healthcare for veterans as well as seniors, and they arent complaining. the slavery and doctor salaries argument makes no sense because fundamentally doctors get paid handsomely and slaves dont get paid at all. as for the failures of previous governments- it underscores the pliability of government to the whims of the insurance lobby. hopefully, this time its different for the sake of americans. as for the article u posted about waiting lists- im fairly confident the 46 million insured would prefer to be on a waiting list than not receive any treatment at all. moreover, under a public system there are tradeoff's between "essential" care which cant wait and non-essential which can.
Every part of what I wrote is correct. There's no argument for fiscal management of the system. I'd add that people without insurance still get services. I went without insurance for years. I got flu shots for $15 at the drug store during flu season. When I got sick, I paid $65 at a walk-in clinic to see a doctor, the $50 for a prescription and maybe $200 for blood/urine test. They actually cut me a 60% discount because I was paying cash. If I got into a car accident or something, I wouldn't have been turned away at the ER. We WANT to spend more gross dollars than anyone else on our health care. For everyone but black folks, the numbers show our system is vastly superior to anyone else's. That'd be life expectancy, live births, you name it. We might be better off addressing why black folks don't live as long (the stats are skewed by violent deaths, but the live births stats are disturbing). Veterans' care is horrible except in a few hospitals. Even some of those that were top VA hospitals are now dives (Walter Reed is getting there). Wage Slavery is a form of slavery, no matter how you slice it. There's no waiting lists here that I know of, except where not enough organ donations create a shortage and those have to be rationed somehow under any system.
your paying user fees for services that u would othersie enjoy free in rest of the industrialized world. plus, the user fees u cited are affordable but how would u be as amendable to user fees for long term care like cancer? probably not, in fact, u would probably file for personal bankruptcy as insurmountable health care bills are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in america. are u an accountant denny crane? cause excluding african americans seems like some crafty accountanting practices. u guys are ranked a laughable 37th: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html - just ahead of slovenia and cuba. if blacks skew the stats- then couldnt european countries argue that their numbers are skewed by an influx of guest workers? look at the core im a capitalist but when it comes to education and health care im a socialist. and the world agrees with me and thats why we produce healthier and brighter people in aggregate terms.
Free? No such thing as a free lunch. Instead of paying $15 once a year and another $200-$400 once in a while, I'd be paying several times that amount PER MONTH. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12534&page=10 TABLE 1 Life Expectancy at Birth by Race and Sex for Selected Years 2005 75.2 male, all races 80.4 female, all races 75.7 male, white 80.8 female, white 69.5 male, black 76.5 female, black SOURCE: Adapted from NCHS, 2007. Look at your own WWW site, we rank #24, but our white people rank #1: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html (total, male, female) [SIZE=+1]1 Japan 74.5 71.9 77.2[/SIZE][SIZE=+1] 24 United States 70.0 67.5 72.6 [/SIZE]And: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5401a1.htm In the 2000 census, 36.4 million persons, approximately 12.9% of the U.S. population, identified themselves as Black or African American; 35.4 million of these persons identified themselves as non-Hispanic (1). For many health conditions, non-Hispanic blacks bear a disproportionate burden of disease, injury, death, and disability. Although the top three causes and seven of the 10 leading causes of death are the same for non-Hispanic blacks and non-Hispanic whites (the largest racial/ethnic population in the United States), the risk factors and incidence, morbidity, and mortality rates for these diseases and injuries often are greater among blacks than whites. In addition, three of the 10 leading causes of death for non-Hispanic blacks are not among the leading causes of death for non-Hispanic whites: homicide (sixth), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease (seventh), and septicemia (ninth) (Table). This week's MMWR is the third in a series* focusing on racial/ethnic health disparities. Eliminating these disparities will require culturally appropriate public health initiatives, community support, and equitable access to quality health care.
dude the richest country in the world is 24th in life expectancy and u think thats a redeeming stat about your system. and u cant segregate your numbers by race because ppl measure these indicators in aggregate terms, irrespective of race. and i would venture to say that blacks are disproportionately poor so your system punishes the poor- again, that reverts to the moral deficiency of your system. besides, your current system is fiscally irresponsible as demonstrated by your ridiculous expenditure that leaves so many unaccounted for. and nothing is free but a subsidized system is a lot cheaper than a private one. and i thought u were pro business- those rising insurance premiums unfairly burden american business. imagine the jobs and the higher wages americans would enjoy if american firms didnt have to pay insurance premiums for their employees?
Look at your own data. In countries that supposedly have the best health care, the % of GDP spent has gone up every year. Nobody's holding down costs. http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_health_expenditure_as_pecent_of_gdp_2000_to_2005.html A Kia is cheaper than a cadillac, you do get what you pay for. If you care to look at real data, the picture isn't as bleak as some people make it out to be. The #1 reason black males here live an average of 8 years less than white males is death by MURDER/VIOLENCE at a young age. That's a social problem, not one that universal health care is going to solve. The data actually looks good for black males once they reach a certain age (like 30 or 40) - they live to about the same as white males. The infant mortality rates are ridiculously bad for black people. My assessment is not a health care problem as much as we're throwing young black men in jail at far too high a rate, or they're victims of violence at a young age. It's a lot easier on a woman if she's got some extra support from the father, rather than having to work throughout the pregnancy to pay the bills. Your assertion that black people are poor and the system hurts the poor doesn't wash. You might realize that if 100% of black people are poor and 15% of white people are poor, there's an equal number of each race. Yet 75% or more of black people are not at all poor, and those poor white folks aren't hurting the numbers for white males/females I already posted.
rising cost is attributable to inflation, i dont see how thats germane to our discussion. moreover, those numbers u provided in the link reasserts my point that your system is grossly inefficient. i dont know how exactly the WHO established their rankings but im confident its based on aggregate measures. so its a collection of a whole bunch of things like life expectancy, infant mortality, wait times, quality of care, etc. so your point about race skewing the results has negligible effects. plus, african americans are a minority group behind whites and latino; i highly doubt the 40 odd million african american would skew the results so much so that u would go from 37th to first. i agree about the absurd incarceration mentality of americans. although, linking incarceration to poor health care indicators is a leap in my estimation. going back to the economic side of the argument- the universal system is also a hedge against recessions. with companies in cutting cost mode these days- they are simply choosing to layoff workers, rather than pay the exorbitant premiums demanded by insurance companies.
Look at the numbers in your first link. The difference between 1st and 37th is about one year of life expectancy. What's true for white people is true for black people who aren't killed in their youth a violent death. How can the WHO data be accurate about health care quality if it includes people who die of a gunshot wound and never are treated by the system for it? Use your own logic. If inflation is 1% and you spend $100 on something and I spend $1000 on it, your cost next year is $101 and mine is $1010. My costs went up 10x more than yours. Kia. Cadillac. And you are almost right about the last bit. If they are forced to pay health care premiums, they will pay workers under the table or reduce the # of hours people are allowed to work so they don't have to consider them full-time (skirt the law).
your argument is laden with assumptions. u've totally hinged your entire argument on the perceived backwardness of african americans, its not only bigoted, its spurious. as an example- australia has an aboriginal population who routinely engage in revenge killings at an almost hunter gather rate and yet they manage to have a better system than u according to the WHO. the question is priorities- america has the best military in the world because your leaders want to impose themselves on others; conversely, your health care system is inept because your elected officials are on the payroll of insurance companies. as for the inflation thing- i took a cursory glance at the numbers and it appears like the numbers are very similar in terms of rising cost. and in the kia- cadillac analogy- americans are kia and the rest of the industrialized world is cadillac according to the WHO.
I'm not bigoted toward black people. Far from it. I pointed out factual and measurable data. I pointed out that our incarceration of young black men is inexcusable. I pointed out we have serious social issues. What else can I say? Australian Aboriginal makes up .58% of Australia's population, and the median age there is like 35. I don't think our priorities are messed up. We spend 4% or less of our GDP on our military and 4x that on health care. When you spend 4% of a really big number, you end up with a well equipped military. That's just how the numbers work when our GDP is 1/3 of the entire world. 25% of a $millionaire's income buys him a house with $250K/year mortgage payments. 25% of a $100,000 income buys a house with $25K/year mortgage payments. Or one can afford the cadillac, the other the kia.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/us/16hospital.html?_r=1 Massachusetts in Suit Over Cost of Universal Care By ABBY GOODNOUGH BOSTON — A hospital that serves thousands of indigent Massachusetts residents sued the state on Wednesday, charging that its costly universal health care law is forcing the hospital to cover too much of the expense of caring for the poor. The hospital, Boston Medical Center, faces a $38 million deficit for the fiscal year ending in September, its first loss in five years. The suit says the hospital will lose more than $100 million next year because the state has lowered Medicaid reimbursement rates and stopped paying Boston Medical “reasonable costs” for treating other poor patients. “We filed this suit more in sorrow than in anger,” said Elaine Ullian, the hospital’s chief executive. “We believe in health care reform to the bottom of our toes, but it was never, ever supposed to be financed on the backs of the poor, and that’s what has happened in Massachusetts.” The central charge in the suit is that the state has siphoned money away from Boston Medical to help pay the considerable cost of insuring all but a small percentage of residents. Three years after the law’s passage, Massachusetts has the country’s lowest percentage of uninsured residents: 2.6 percent, compared with a national average of 15 percent. Low-income residents, who have benefited most from expanded access to health care, receive state-subsidized insurance, one of the most expensive aspects of the state plan. But rapidly rising costs and the battered economy have caused more problems than the state and supporters of the 2006 law — including Boston Medical — anticipated. According to the suit, Massachusetts is now reimbursing Boston Medical only 64 cents for every dollar it spends treating the poor. About 10 percent of the hospital’s patients are uninsured — down from about 20 percent before the law’s passage in 2006. But many more are on Medicaid or Commonwealth Care, the state-subsidized insurance program for low-income residents. One of the state’s reimbursement rates to Boston Medical, dropped from $12, 476 in 2008 to $9,323 by 2009, the suit says. Wendy E. Parmet, a professor at the Northeastern University School of Law, said the suit was “a step in a wider minuet” as state lawmakers, health care providers and other stakeholders try to figure out how to make the new law work in the long term. “I think it’s going to be a very hard lawsuit for them to prevail on,” Professor Parmet said of the hospital. “I think they’re trying to bring another weapon into what is essentially, in many ways, a political and economic battle going on in the state about how to pay for health care, and making sure their voice gets heard.” The suit comes as Congress looks to Massachusetts as a potential model for overhauling the nation’s health care system. Even before the suit, the state’s fiscal crisis had cast doubts on the law’s sustainability. To help close a growing deficit, the Democratic-controlled Legislature eliminated coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants in the new state budget. Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, is seeking to restore about half of the $130 million cut, but lawmakers have expressed reluctance, saying that doing so would require cuts to other important programs. State officials expressed surprise at the lawsuit, saying that Boston Medical received $1.5 billion in state funds in the past year and should not be seeking more in the midst of a fiscal crisis. “At a time when everyone funded and served by state government is being asked to do more with less, B.M.C. has been treated no differently,” said Dr. JudyAnn Bigby, the state secretary of health and human services, in a prepared statement. “We are confident that the administration’s actions in this area comply with all applicable law and will be upheld.” State officials have suggested that Boston Medical could reduce costs by operating more efficiently. The state has also pointed out that the hospital has reserves of about $190 million, but Tom Traylor, the hospital’s vice president of federal and state programs, said the reserves could only sustain the hospital for about a year. “The magnitude of the loss here can’t be solved on the program-cutting or expense-cutting side,” Mr. Traylor said. Professor Parmet said the hospital’s dissatisfaction with the new law should be a warning to Congress that “insurance alone doesn’t solve the problems” of the health care system. In fact, she said, it might exacerbate the financial problems of safety-net hospitals in the short term. Katie Zezima contributed reporting
The sorry conclusion to this mess is going to be $.64 worth of care instead of $1. And instead of working their asses off for years to become doctors, some of our brightest and most able people will go work on Wall Street where they can get big paychecks off of government bailouts.
