Doesn’t add up. The article you linked puts it at 35 Billion for 5.5 million people.
I’ve just got to chime in here…
There may be some VA clinics or hospitals somewhere that have a 6-8 month wait for some kinds of care, but I assure you, it’s not the norm. At least not where I work.
And, as long as we’re getting all anecdotal here, I’ve had patients tell me that they’ve come back to the VA system after leaving because they receive better care with us. We’ve even had ‘snowbirds’ move back to Minnesota because they couldn’t get equivalent treatment somewhere else in the Sun Belt.
Gladly, I can say that the VA has been funded well enough lately so that we’ve been able to raise the level of many of our systems to state of the art, and we have more new equipment scheduled for installation soon.
And, your wishes for good medical care for veterans are being realized by the opening new polytrauma centers–here and at several other select VA hospitals around the nation. Any service member injured while serving their country can be assured of top priority, high-level, on-going treatment and support to assist in their recovery.
Hell, yes, I’m biased. I’m also proud to be able to do my part in providing excellent medical care to America’s heroes.
And for less money, too. 
FWIW, that $6,280 average health care cost per person includes (as of 2005) 47 million people who have no health insurance. (Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance in the United States: 2005, Table 4.) People who are actually getting medical care when they need it are probably averaging a bit more.
All I know is that at present the 3 meds I take cost nearly 10% of my monthly income and that’s with good health insurance (my co-pay at the doc’s is one of the lowest I’ve ever had). If someone can cut that down without jacking my taxes through the roof, I’d be happy.
Sure, I see.
Facts be damned, even when you’re admitting that the VA is doing things as well as or better than the private sector you refuse to back off from your “Evil gubbmint gonna screw it all up” meme.
It’d be funny if you weren’t so sad as to believe it.
-Joe
Are you going to address what I said, or just make snide remarks?
Got something to support that that would have a significant effect on American health care costs?
I mean, I could say, “if we went to single-payer, the cost of all the insurance company bureaucracy whose goal is to deny claims would go away, and that would free up billyuns and billyuns of dollars.” But if I did, you’d expect a cite, and quite rightfully so.
I’m curious as to why you tore one item from a whole list of things that need to be done and demanded proof that it would solve the problem. Tort reform isn’t the entire answer, no, but it is one component of a multifaceted solution to a complex problem. In fact, insulating the VA from lawsuits is one of the things mentioned in the linked articles that they point to as helping them reduce costs. Do you have any reason to believe that tort reform wouldn’t help lower costs?
Oh yeah! (Sarcasm)…Let’s all blame the LAWYERS!!! (/sarcasm)
The government won’t be dispensing the medication. PBMs will be doing that mostly, the government will just be using the large purchasing power inherrant in Medicare to negotiate lower prices - exactly as the PBMs do now.
Also, there is no ‘quality’ difference - a drug is a drug. There is no such thing as cheap non-effective fake penicillan.
The insurance company (or PBM) doesn’t solely decide your formulary (translation - what meds are covered at what price) - more likely your employer or union or whoever you have your prescription insurance through decides that along with the insurance company or PBM to find a good mix of coverage and cost control.
If you work for IBM or company Z and are complaining about the cost of Zocar, its not the manufacturer of Zocar, or your insurance company, or you presrciption coverage company that is at fault - it is IBM for negotiating that formulary and rate.
Your doctor visit copay likely has zero to do with your prescription coverage, as they are often seperate insurance companies with seperate contracts. And even if your drug coverage is through your general medical insurance company (UHG or one of the Blues) they are probably outsourcing the drug coverage part to a PBM.
Your complaint is likely with your employer, not the insurance company.
Because while I expect that, as usual, you’re being the loudmouth guy at the bar who makes ridiculous bullshit arguments that he mostly can’t back up, this is one I pretty much know you can’t back up. So I’m calling. Let’s see your cards. Got a cite for that? Put it on the table. Or fold, whichever.
I may well have. But you’re the one who made the bullshit claim. Do you have any reason to believe tort reform would make a noticeable difference in health care costs?
As an aside in this discussion, problems with legal costs aren’t confined to the US, althought they may be more severe. In the UK the NHS is paying out hundreds of millions in settlements and fees. A sensible solution that squares the rights of patients with a recognition of the inherent difficulties of the medical environment would be much appreciated everywhere.
At my company, we only had one choice of drug coverage given us by the insurance companies (I was in on the decision-making). The insurance is Medical Mutual of Ohio, and the prescriptions are Express Scripts.
Also, something strange. We offer coverage through MMOH that has a $250 deductible. The insurance agents told us that the only reason we were able to offer coverage with that low deductible was that we were grandfathered in. That no new businesses would be able to take that, and that if we switched insurance companies, we wouldn’t be able to keep that low deductible. They were putting some pressure on us to raise the deductible to $500. Some of our employees would be bankrupt at $500!
The question is, is there any evidence that we aren’t there already?
In the UK, you say, the National Health is paying out hundreds of millions of pounds in settlements. But even though the UK’s a fraction of the population of the US, you’re still presumably paying in the low hundreds of billions of pounds to keep the NHS operating. So you’re talking about a problem that’s in the order of magnitude of tenths of a percentage point.
Meanwhile, over here in the U.S., we’re paying about double, per capita, what residents of Canada, Europe, etc. pay for their health systems.
The NHS budget is currently somewhere just over £76Bn a year, I believe. So they are looking at approx 1% of the current annual budget going to legal costs over the next decade.
Eh. legal costs **each year **over the next decade, that should be :smack:
And once again, you’re being the asshole. No qualifiers, just the asshole in general. You’re very good at it. In the post that you’re alluding to, I listed 8 things that I felt needed to be done, off the top of my head, to improve the health care situation in the U.S. You pick one of the eight and harp on it to the exclusion of the others. I’m not going to play that game. If you want to address the entire post, have at it. If you want to challenge one part of it with facts and figures, be my guest. Otherwise, this is just another typical RTFirefly smokescreen; when you can’t deal with the point another poster has made, you nitpick part of it to death to the exclusion of the larger point.
The Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives seems to think that there is some value in tort reform. cite-warning PDF You may provide cites from other groups that disagree. It’s hardly a panacea for all the problems in the system. However, unless you can provide conclusive proof that tort reform wouldn’t do a thing, then you don’t have a case for excluding it from a larger list of various remedies.
So who’s got the most lobbying money? The quacks or the ambulance chasers?