How U.S. Health System Can Fail Even the Insured - page 4

colorado springs, colo. -- barbara calder lives in nearly constant pain. her limbs dislocate at the slightest movement, even when she turns over in bed at night. she wears her hair short because... Read More

  1. by   HM2VikingRN



    I was watching Sicko last night. They interviewed a GP from the UK. He seems to be doing just fine under NHS. He made about 200,000 US and lived in his own home etc. The most telling part of the interview was that he is paid better for keeping patients healthy first.

    The most interesting attitude was from a Canadian. (paraphrased) We pay for the health care of each other because it is the right thing to do.

    Mr. moore requested feedback from current insurance companies customers: Within a week he had over 25,000 responses that detailed problems with access to appropriate care for various conditions.

    Profit drives insurance companies to deny care sometimes with lethal consequences to patients.
    Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Nov 24, '07
  2. by   HM2VikingRN
    according to the institute of medicine, "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the united states. although america leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage." insuring america's health: principles and recommendations, institute of medicine, january 2004.
    http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175
  3. by   HM2VikingRN
    "the u. s. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds." "world health organization assesses the world's health systems," press release, who/44, june 21, 2000. http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html

    who has a statistical tool on its website that allows anyone to make comparisons between countries about any outcome indicator that you can think of.
  4. by   HM2VikingRN
    canadian waiting times are overstated:
    • according to statistics canada, the official government statistical agency, "in 2005, the median waiting time was about 4 weeks for specialist visits, 4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests. nationally, median waiting times remained stable between 2003 and 2005 - but there were some differences at the provincial level for selected specialized services.... 70 to 80 percent of canadians find their waiting times acceptable" "access to health care services in canada, waiting times for specialized services (january to december 2005)," statistics canada, http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-575-xie/82-575-
      xie2006002.htm
    • a recent study of emergency care in ontario found that overall, "50% of patients triaged as ctas i [most acute] were seen by a physician within 6 minutes and 86% were seen within 30 minutes of arriving at the [emergency department]. in contrast, the 50% of patients triaged as ctas iv or v who were seen most quickly waited an hour or less, while 1 in 10 waited three hours or more. understanding emergency department wait times: how long do people spend in emergency departments in ontario? canadian institute for health information, january 2007.
      http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/disppage.jsp?cw_page=reports_
      wait_times_bulletins_e
    • "gerard anderson, a johns hopkins health policy professor who has spent his career examining the world's healthcare, said there are delays, but not as many as conservatives state. in canada, the united kingdom and france, 'three percent of hospital discharges had delays in treatment,' anderson told the miami herald. 'that's a relatively small number, and they're all elective surgeries, such as hip and knee replacement.' john dorschner, "'sicko' film is set to spark debate; reformers are gearing up for 'sicko,' the first major movie to examine america's often maligned healthcare system," miami herald, june 29, 2007.
    http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/ accessed today.
  5. by   ready4crna?
    Quote from Sensoria17
    Why don't you check your facts before posting? The link you posted shows COMBINED spending from both the public and private sectors. The U.S. government alone DOES NOT spend trillions of dollars on healthcare. See the U.S. budget. Medicare spending is under Dept of Health and Human Services which TOTALS about $620B for 2006.
    My facts are correct, and combined spending is truly the only way to look at the issue of single payer health care. Before obligating the federal government to pay for "free" healthcare for all, you must look at how much this will cost the individuals paying for it (you and I). Your sister currently makes 86,000 dollars-above the 90th percentile in the country by the way: http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/l...nal%20Averages. Could she live on 43,000 and still afford to save for retirement? Because you probably already have a federal/state tax burden of around 33% currently that brings you to 57620/year before she ever pays her first bill. Add an additional tax burden of around ten percent for all payors, having to afford all we currently pay for plus the private sector, and viola you now have to make your bills with nearly half of your gross pay. As for the evil CEO's of for-profit hospitals- you have a point, but nationally CEO's are getting paid far more than is reasonable and the market is working to correct it. (not saying it's happening fast enough, but it is happening.)

    HM- A Michael Moore movie as a source? really? Please find more credible people to make your point. Not saying the people were lying, but please, at least give me something from PBS, CNN, or a source that is remotely credible.
  6. by   HM2VikingRN
    see:
    http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/

    he does provide references for his work on his website to support his positions.

    see also:
    taxes already pay for more than 60 percent of us health spending

    americans pay the highest health care taxes in the world. we pay for national health insurance, but don’t get it
    .
    (woolhandler, et al. “paying for national health insurance — and not getting it,” health affairs 21(4); july / aug. 2002)
    http://pnhp.org/single_payer_resourc...th_program.php accessed today.
  7. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from ready4crna?
    my facts are correct, and combined spending is truly the only way to look at the issue of single payer health care. before obligating the federal government to pay for "free" healthcare for all, you must look at how much this will cost the individuals paying for it (you and i). your sister currently makes 86,000 dollars-above the 90th percentile in the country by the way: http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/l...nal%20averages. could she live on 43,000 and still afford to save for retirement? because you probably already have a federal/state tax burden of around 33% currently that brings you to 57620/year before she ever pays her first bill. add an additional tax burden of around ten percent for all payors, having to afford all we currently pay for plus the private sector, and viola you now have to make your bills with nearly half of your gross pay. as for the evil ceo's of for-profit hospitals- you have a point, but nationally ceo's are getting paid far more than is reasonable and the market is working to correct it. (not saying it's happening fast enough, but it is happening.)

    hm- a michael moore movie as a source? really? please find more credible people to make your point. not saying the people were lying, but please, at least give me something from pbs, cnn, or a source that is remotely credible.
    here is probably the best resource with details for single payer financing:

    currently, about 60% of our health care system is financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. these funds pay for medicare, medicaid, the va, coverage for public employees (including teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. there are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees' health insurance. about 20% of heath care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc. private employers only pay 20% of health care costs. in all, it is a very "regressive" way to finance health care, in that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for health care than higher income individuals do.
    a universal public system would be financed this way: the public financing already funneled to medicare and medicaid would be retained. the difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). the payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees' health care. the income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments. for the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness. it is also a fair and sustainable contribution. currently, over 41 million people have no insurance and thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but they would receive health insurance for the same low rate as larger firms. many small employers have to pay 25% or more of payroll now for health insurance - so they end up not having insurance at all. for large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay less than they currently do (about 8.5%). no employer, moreover, would hold a competitive advantage over another because his cost of business did not include health care. and health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.

    source: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...hp#raise_taxes accessed today.

    the important thing to recognize is that there would be no net change in costs for health insurance for individuals. this is not a net tax increase but it is a redirection of current premium dollars away from administrative costs towards patient care and covering the costs of the uninsured.
  8. by   Sensoria17
    Quote from ready4crna?
    My facts are correct, and combined spending is truly the only way to look at the issue of single payer health care. Before obligating the federal government to pay for "free" healthcare for all, you must look at how much this will cost the individuals paying for it (you and I). Your sister currently makes 86,000 dollars-above the 90th percentile in the country by the way: http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/l...nal%20Averages. Could she live on 43,000 and still afford to save for retirement? Because you probably already have a federal/state tax burden of around 33% currently that brings you to 57620/year before she ever pays her first bill. Add an additional tax burden of around ten percent for all payors, having to afford all we currently pay for plus the private sector, and viola you now have to make your bills with nearly half of your gross pay. As for the evil CEO's of for-profit hospitals- you have a point, but nationally CEO's are getting paid far more than is reasonable and the market is working to correct it. (not saying it's happening fast enough, but it is happening.)

    HM- A Michael Moore movie as a source? really? Please find more credible people to make your point. Not saying the people were lying, but please, at least give me something from PBS, CNN, or a source that is remotely credible.
    Comparing a federally funded program as in Canada with the US system is like comparing apples and oranges. Your link also points out another point which is, why does healthcare cost significantly more in the U.S. than elsewhere? I'll leave it at that though.

    Also, you are in Texas so you may not understand that $82000 does not go far in the SF Bay Area where the average house will run you about $600,000. As far as taking out 10% (I have no idea where you are getting this figure), go ahead. My husband's company already takes out 5% for his premium, honestly what is another 5%? I've known people where their company's have taken even more out than that and didn't even get a good plan to boot.

    CNN and PBS are credible? How much more corporate-backed programming can you get?

close