Why is Healthcare so expensive?

[Fingon]

The fact is that if we can eliminate overuse and misuse of treatments...we can cut health care costs by 50%. There would be no need to have universal health care because many, many more people could afford it. The problem with blindly introducing universal health care is that the government will be picking up the tab... guess what that means? That experimental treatment that is extremely expensive (and never proven to be better than the current) will be paid for by the government. Do you really think the government has the balls to say no to someone who is dieing? It's a PR nightmare. UHC will simply increase health care costs in this country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other countries don't have this problem because they have institutes that evaluate how effective a treatment is.

[The Dean]

Other countries don't have this problem because they have institutes that evaluate how effective a treatment is.

 

 

Are you in favor of the institutes that other countries have? If so, you should note that those countries also have some sort of universal health care. There is no reason this country should be the only one that can't make that system work. Your arguments, quite frankly, have little to do with the feasibility of universal health care, in this country. While you aren't saying it, I sense you have some overriding objection to it, other than the expense.

[Fingon]

Are you in favor of the institutes that other countries have? If so, you should note that those countries also have some sort of universal health care. There is no reason this country should be the only one that can't make that system work. Your arguments, quite frankly, have little to do with the feasibility of universal health care, in this country. While you aren't saying it, I sense you have some overriding objection to it, other than the expense.

Sure, i don't want to pay for fat people's, alcoholic's, drug addict's, smoker's, and etc...s health care. I already do to some extent, but i would even more so under a UHC plan.

 

 

 

 

PS: having an institute to to evaluate medical treatments and having UHC are NOT mutually exclusive. The point is that if we bring costs down 50% there is no need for UHC. Do you not get that? The current system would be worse under UHC than it is without it, as it does nothing to address the actual major costs of health care in the United States.

 

PPS: expense is everything.

[KD in CA]

Americans are going to have to realize that, if they want "universal health coverage", they are going to have to accept a lower standard of care.

 

Yeah right....cue the lawsuits.

[meazza]

Of course many who can afford it, or have employers who supply it, can and should have supplemental insurance. People on Medicare (as Tom rightly points out, is a form of universal health care...it simply isn't universal) regularly buy supplemental insurance. This isn't an argument against some sort of national coverage...it's an argument FOR it.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, India would be the first place I would go for an idea of how something would work in the USA. I'm sure India's horrible overpopulation has NOTHING to do with their healthcare wait time. Look at Canada, Great Britain, and other Western European countries for your examples.

 

When people go to the emergency room for healthcare, it is the most expensive, and ineffective, option available.

 

As for your co-pay example, you are once again, making the mistake of using a current abuse to argue against a new, and different, system.

 

 

If you walk into an emergency room in Canada and don't have a knife/bullet wound in the chest, your waiting time is about 12-18 hours.

[DC Tom]

If you walk into an emergency room in Canada and don't have a knife/bullet wound in the chest, your waiting time is about 12-18 hours.

 

 

Now see. If guns were legal in Canada, youo'd have better health care...

[The Big Cat]

The fact is that if we can eliminate overuse and misuse of treatments...we can cut health care costs by 50%. There would be no need to have universal health care because many, many more people could afford it. The problem with blindly introducing universal health care is that the government will be picking up the tab... guess what that means? That experimental treatment that is extremely expensive (and never proven to be better than the current) will be paid for by the government. Do you really think the government has the balls to say no to someone who is dieing? It's a PR nightmare. UHC will simply increase health care costs in this country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other countries don't have this problem because they have institutes that evaluate how effective a treatment is.

 

Overuse and misuse of treatments. I blame the media or any program which relies on the advertisements of prescription drugs. Since when did "cures" become consumer products? Just a thought since there are MAD drug commercials on TV these days.

[meazza]

Now see. If guns were legal in Canada, youo'd have better health care...

 

They are but you have to be a member of a violent criminal organization.

[finknottle]

Are you in favor of the institutes that other countries have? If so, you should note that those countries also have some sort of universal health care. There is no reason this country should be the only one that can't make that system work. Your arguments, quite frankly, have little to do with the feasibility of universal health care, in this country. While you aren't saying it, I sense you have some overriding objection to it, other than the expense.

 

Can you describe what you mean by 'Universal Health Care?"

 

Do you mean free government-provided health insurance? How about a government that mandates that you buy insurance, and offers an affordable plan for those that the insurance companies won't touch? Is that universal health care?

[Fingon]

Overuse and misuse of treatments. I blame the media or any program which relies on the advertisements of prescription drugs. Since when did "cures" become consumer products? Just a thought since there are MAD drug commercials on TV these days.

They market the product because it costs them billions to make.

[Tux of Borg]

Even with insurance healthcare is still pretty expensive. I recently had surgery to have my gallbladder taken out. My insurance co-pay was $500 for the $5000 surgery. A few weeks after the surgery I started getting bills from other departments of the hospital for their services. Because of that I'm now in the hole for around $3000 in medical bills.

[The Big Cat]

Even with insurance healthcare is still pretty expensive. I recently had surgery to have my gallbladder taken out. My insurance co-pay was $500 for the $5000 surgery. A few weeks after the surgery I started getting bills from other departments of the hospital for their services. Because of that I'm now in the hole for around $3000 in medical bills.

 

Just out of curiosity- what were the departments and did you have the option of refusing their services? (i.e cafeteria service, candy stripers, et al)

[MarkAF43]

Just out of curiosity- what were the departments and did you have the option of refusing their services? (i.e cafeteria service, candy stripers, et al)

 

 

Usually most of those are the anesthesia bills, radiology, pathology, etc... i work in the insurance field so i know a little bit... emphasis on a little

[The Dean]

Just out of curiosity- what were the departments and did you have the option of refusing their services? (i.e cafeteria service, candy stripers, et al)

 

 

If you examine a bill from a medical procedure that includes a hospital stay, and try to make sense of it, your head is likely to explode. There are a huge number of detailed charges (without an explanation that most regular people can understand). It turns out that, at least in the few I have seen, a Tylenol tablet is billed at something like $10 each (or was it $100?). But...don't worry, because this has little to do with what you, or the insurance company pays.

 

A year, or so, ago, my Father had a procedure that required a stay in the local hospital. The total bill was over $50,000. My father paid something like $1,000 and I think the insurance company paid about $6,000. (I really wish I had a copy of the actual charges, so the detail would be correct, here.)

 

So, I assume that for any reports that analyze health care, this is viewed as a $50,000+ procedure...when there was no way, no how, that the hospital was ever going to see anything near $50,000. I assume (but have no knowledge about) the hospital uses the difference between their charges and what they were paid, to show a deficit. I think they use the same accounting procedures the Hollywood studios use.