[ingelein]

Some Call it Health Care
http://watchingthewatchers.org/news/...ll-health-care

Survey results from healthcare industry, 200 hospital and insurance company executives and 1,000 consumers.The survey was commisioned by the PNC Financial Services Group and conducted by an independant research firm.The results were released to the public on March 20th.

Among the survey results:

1.Almost one in every three dollars spent on health care goes to administrative costs associated with health care claims and billing.

2.Hospital executives reported that an average of one in five claims submitted is delayed or denied, while 96% of all claims must be submitted more than once.

3.Nearly a quarter of consumers reported that a legitamite claim had been denied by their health care plan, one in five of these consumers ultimately paid the claim out of their own pocket.

Dedicated free marketeers continue to do their best to muddy the waters in the health care debate, dragging the debate out as more and more people find themselves unable to afford health insurance or health care.But every now and then you get some information that really clarifies exactly how bad our current system is.

[anonymurse]

Tell all you haters of our health system what. Let's just agree to disagree. When I or my family get sick, we'll stay here for care, and when you get sick, you go somewhere else, 'kay?

[pickledpepperRN]

I wish we had a healt system in the United states.
We have a sick care non system.

I will work for all Americans to have excellent healthcare when we need it. And work so we need it less because we have access to education and preventative care.

Of course it is OK to disagree.

[Fuzzy]

The access to affordable and available preventive care would be a good start but alas it's not so unless of course a person has health insurance. Even than health insurance isn't necessarily a guarantee of good health care AFAIK.
I do know that people would think differently about this matter if health insurance wasn't such a job perk.

Fuzzy

[Shamira Aizza]

It was a long thread to read, so I might have missed something, but Singapore uses a Western-style system that places the majority of the responsibilty for health on the individual, and the system is largely privatized...maybe even more so than the US system. BTW, Singaporeans are taxed at a much lower rate than we are, and are REQUIRED to save personal funds for future medical expenses.

Singapore is also heavily subsidized by the US (economically, militarily), freeing up funds for other programs...and their population is about the same as the Atlanta Metro area.

I don't see how folks are using Singapore as any kind of support for a socialized health failure system.

"The key to Singapore’s efficient health care system is the emphasis on the individual to assume responsibility towards their own health and, importantly, their own health expenditure." (my bold).

http://www.watsonwyatt.com/europe/pu...2.asp?ID=13850

[ZASHAGALKA]

Universal healthcare's dirty little secrets
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...nion-rightrail

"Simply saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that "access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare."

"You may think it is self-evident that the uninsured may forgo preventive care or receive a lower quality of care. And yet, in reviewing all the academic literature on the subject, Helen Levy of the University of Michigan's Economic Research Initiative on the Uninsured, and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago, were unable to establish a "causal relationship" between health insurance and better health. Believe it or not, there is "no evidence," Levy and Meltzer wrote, that expanding insurance coverage is a cost-effective way to promote health. Similarly, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year found that, although far too many Americans were not receiving the appropriate standard of care, "health insurance status was largely unrelated to the quality of care."

(Emphasis mine)

~faith,
Timothy.

[HM2Viking]

The correlational data linking enhanced life expectancy and decreased infant mortality for OECD countries vs US results are a compelling argument.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

The correlational data linking enhanced life expectancy and decreased infant mortality for OECD countries vs US results are a compelling argument.

It would be, if you were comparing apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.

The key: the data is the voluntary submission from the participating gov'ts.

In other words, Cuba's health care successes are reported EXACTLY as Castro submits them. Of course, he wouldn't have any cause to misrepresent the status of his paradise . . .

~faith,
Timothy.

[Tweety]

Interesting Timothy. I'm too tired to read it and find out who they are talking about, but it does contradict some other studies I read when I researched this topic last year. Guess as in all research it depends on who is asking who what questions.

I think part of the reason is the uninsured do get care in the ER thanks to those laws. If someone has a trauma or a heart attack our society takes care of them. We already are paying the cost.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by Tweety

Interesting Timothy. I'm too tired to read it and find out who they are talking about, but it does contradict some other studies I read when I researched this topic last year. Guess as in all research it depends on who is asking who what questions.

I think part of the reason is the uninsured do get care in the ER thanks to those laws. We already are paying the cost.

As the LA Times article I linked points out, yes, we ARE paying the costs. Currently, the average costs hospitals write off for uninsured is about 3%. A huge amount of money, to be sure. However, it is a problem to be managed and it is NOT 'breaking the system'. Nor, do advocates of government restricted healthcare suggest such, because, in order to do so, you'd have to translate the cost of this 'free rider' problem to the gov't. And of course, the gov't, if we'd just cede over our rights to it, can create utopia on Earth.

Everybody puts in an equal amount and everybody gets back an equal amount. Except. Neither would be the case.

~faith,
Timothy.