|
|
<< Numbers Up, Real Economy Down | Main | New Feature: Quick Hits >> August 21, 2003Save Money- Eliminate Health InsurersThe US spends $209 billion per year on useless health care paper work-- enough money to provide health care for everyone who needs it if we abandoned our wasteful system of duplicative private health insurance. So says, a new Harvard Medical School study. When hands-on medical costs were excluded, the cost of treating a U.S. patient in 1999 was US$1,059, more than triple the Canadian cost of US$307...The immediate response will be to cite horror stories from Canada of hospital lines. First, this ignores the better overall health results, but the real problem is that Canada just spends so much less on health care than it should. The system is efficient but underfunded. Americans spend about US$5,600 per patient -- 83% more than is spent in Canada. But there is no question that the US health care system is the most wasteful health care system in the world. Guess what-- government bureaucrats are far more efficient than private corporate bureaucrats. That's the basic lesson you learn when you compare the US health care system to government-run systems around the developed world. Update: On cue at least one comment brought out the Canada horror stories of long lines and less fancy manchines, so instead of looking at atmospherics, let's look at results. On, infant mortality, according to the American Journal of Nursing, we waste money on lots of extraordinary emergency medicine and not enough on prevention. We don't fund health care adequately for pregnant women, so we end up dumping millions for low-birth weight babies rushed into emergency rooms. And the results are higher mortality rates: [the United States] has 4.9 times the number of neonatal intensive care beds as the United Kingdom, and the combined number of intensive care and intermediate care beds is twice as large as it is in Australia and Canada. Yet a recent study shows that U.S. infants don't have proportionately better survival rates: the infant morality (the number of deaths in the first year of life per 1,000 live births) and the neonatal mortality rate (the number of deaths in the first 28 days per 1,000 births) are higher in the United States than they are in the other three countries. These findings refute the effectiveness of the current U.S. funding emphasis on neonatal care and make a case for more funding for preconception and prenatal care.”So we spend more, and more babies die. How conservatives can insist on bragging about US health care is beyond me. Posted by Nathan at August 21, 2003 01:17 PM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsMr.Newman: The Harvard Medical School study concludes that we ought to dump the private insurance system--hooray! Unfortunately, you're probably right that it is just a matter of time that either the study will be smeared or the "horror stories" from Canada will soon be coming. Food for thought: the business community in the US has to wake up and understand it's own best interest, as well. Why do businesses put up with the run-away inflation of the health insurance industry? I've read in Detroit newspapers where auto executives moan about there being "more health care than steel in [these] cars." This is the issue that just won't go away. Quick prediction: Political leaders will offer all sorts of new tax-credit shell game solutions to plug up the sinking system--but won't touch the single-payer solution(see for example the Gephardt proposal). Five or six years from now, health insurance costs will again spike and the number of uninsurance will hit 50 million! Can someone, anyone, give me the name of just one American, who does not deserve health care? Posted by: Rob Grocholski at August 21, 2003 03:53 PM Regarding government efficiency: Overhead for the Social Security Administration (SSA) is about 1%. (In contrast, overhead for private pensions is usually 15% or more.) If a government-run health care system had the same sort of overhead costs as SSA we would be able to spend the money where it matters -- on direct patient care. Posted by: BJD at August 21, 2003 04:49 PM I completely oppose national health care. However, I realize that every left-wing politcal group in the country is hell bent on making everything "socialized." So how about this: Opt-In system where the people have the opportunity to pay for thier health care with their taxes and pay a higher fee on their taxes for these services. This way we avoid the altuistic nature of socialization that most conservatives can not stand. Prediction . . . under socialized medicene doctor's wait times will be weeks/months not days, Overall cost of "system" will be more than 10 times projections because everyone with a sniffle will run to the "free" doctor, and all current tax cuts will have to be repealed with an additional raising on taxes, of course, on the providers of jobs and high income earners. Don't think so. Move to Canada and find out. Posted by: Austin Barrow at August 21, 2003 07:12 PM Austin Barrow, A Nationalized health-care would be cheaper than our current (lack of) health-care system. But do you perhaps work for the Health Insurance industry ? Posted by: Patrick (G) at August 22, 2003 12:06 AM Austin Barrow, Perhaps you are not aware, but the wait time to see a specialist can be months. That's now with this bastardized health care system you think is so great. In an emergency maybe you can get in within a week. That's what it took, a week, for my mother to get an appointment with an orthopedic specialist after breaking her arm. She had sharp pieces of bone piercing into her flesh every time she moved. But it took a week to get an appointment after her visit to the emergency room. Posted by: Gail Davis at August 22, 2003 09:12 AM I don't get this bit about socialism. Our roads and highways are socialized, our schools are socilaized, our police, fire, and military are socialized, our parks are socialized, our water and waste systems are socialized, and on and on. But oh no! Suggest single-payer, and suddenly you're accused of being a card carrying marxist. That's crap. Want to know what else is crap? Your group health policy. Don't believe me? Try getting really sick. You'll be surprised at how fast you go bankrupt. And yes, as it happens, I did work in the business. Ten years, group health claim payment. You don't even have a clue how crappy your policy is when you really get sick.. Posted by: Benedict@Large at August 22, 2003 11:19 AM When people bring up Canada, the simple response is to ask the Canadians whether they want our system. In poll after poll, the answer is a resounding no. Yes, their system is underfunded -- thanks to the devolution trend of Mulroney -- but it produces better results than our system in clear, measurable outcomes. You are more likely to survive a heart attack in Canada and more likely to survive bypass surgery. Your wait time for a bone-marrow transplant is actually longer in the US than in every national health country it's been compared to. Now, the details matter on that one. The wait from being put on a list to gettng the transplant is shorter in the US, but it takes longer here to get on the list since your insurance company will insist on trying every possible cheaper alternative first. You're more likely to survive breast cancer in Canada. I could go on and on. And Business is getting it. At least those businesses that provide health insurance get it. Business Week endorsed single payer back in 1991. Chrysler has lobbied for single-payer for years. According to Chrysler, the single factor most impeding US car companies ability to compete with foreign cars is the cost of health insurance. They spend more on health insurance per car than they do on steel. Yes, there are businesses that oppose single-payer. Those parisitic companies that provide low-wage, no-benefit jobs like Domino's Pizza, Taco Bell and their ilk. Of course, they make a profit and provide health insurance to their employees in Canada and Europe. It's only American workers that get the shaft - talk about patriotism. Of course, they are the same parasitic companies whose profits are paid for by taxpayers who subsidize their employee's wages with food stamps, medicaid and the EITC. I would like to see a corporate income tax surcharge of 10% on every company that pays less than a living wage to all their employees. That will put an end to their expecting taxpayers to pay their employees for them while they pocket the profits we pay for. Posted by: Kija at August 23, 2003 11:18 PM Kija, ('poster #7') you got it so right, amen! I lived in Detroit in 2002 and I can testify that the Canadians across the Detroit River are typically dumbfounded at the insanity of our health care system. Actually there are still droves of Americans sneaking into Canada to buy medicine and many are still trying to forge ID cards to get medical care in Canada. The Harvard Medical study focused on the insurance side, but that's just the beginning. Chew on this: In May of 2003, TENET HEALTHCARE CORP., the nations 2nd largest private for-profit hospital chain forced out it's CEO Jeffrey Barbakow amid a federal investigation that Tenet was cooking its books with special payments thru Medicare for its sickest patients (LA Times 5-28-03). CEO Barbakow was paid $116 million (!!). There's a dubious pattern of billing practices between private hospitals and insurers that profits on the chaotic relations between the two that results in a huge run-up in the cost of care. And guess who pays the tab? The public and businesses. I lose $171 a month out of my monthly pay check for health insurance. That's about $2,052 per year. And last year, when I actually had to use my health coverage to see a doctor, the insurer who steered me to a hospital under their plan, refused to pay the bill! I was sent to collection company. I had to fight and scream like hell to get the insurance company to correct this problem. It took 3 months to clear this up and I still had fork over another $133 get this charge off my credit record. Can someone tell me if they know of any Canadians who have to go through this kind of mess? Posted by: Rob Grocholski at August 26, 2003 03:50 PM "Can someone, anyone, give me the name of just one American, who does not deserve health care?" George W Bush? The vast majority of Americans do deserve decent health care, though. Posted by: felice at August 31, 2003 07:11 PM I seem to recall reading someplace that profits of insurance companies have increased even more than health care costs. If that can be easily proven and clearly demonstrated, it would be a great benefit to the public to make the information available. And I wonder about the profits insurance companies make in providing medical malpractice insurance - how do their profits/losses compare to the cost of malpratice suit settlements? Posted by: John at September 19, 2003 01:04 AM Does anyone have any ideas to stop jobs leaving the country? Posted by: Ellen at September 19, 2003 08:46 PM Are there any Liberal talk shows (other than Allan Combs)? If not, we need some. Talk radio has power. Posted by: Ellen at September 19, 2003 08:47 PM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|