It may be. I’d have to look at the exact figures, but that money spent on healtchare may also include what insurance companies dished out on claims. So the actual amount that a family with insurance paid would be much less than the amount technically spent on health care, if you follow me.
For example, when I was 12 I gashed up my leg pretty badly in a mountain biking accident. The total cost for the hospital bills, etc was in thousands, but my family only paid about $200 or so. So the total amount spent on healthcare for that accident was in the thousands, but the amount my family actually paid was much less than that.
A car! Woe is me, I can’t even imagine being able to afford one of those- it’d literally double my post-rent living expenses, not that I can afford the eye exam I’d need (thanks to a stupid, worthless regulation) to get a license. Of course this limits my job oppertunties to where I can walk or bus to. Thankfully my city is well designed and has a reasonable bus system. But that is an argument for the"Smart Growth" threadh, where people argue that taking people who cannot drive into consideration when planning cities is too much to ask.
I don’t understand - why is it that the government has a “stupid, worthless regulation” that you have to get an eye exam before you can drive, but you are quite sure that a government-funded health care system would have no “stupid, worthless regulations” that would interfere just as much?
There have been a number of posts in this thread that assume that a government-funded health care system would save money in the US. Keep in mind thatMedicare costs are increasing faster than private sector costs, and Congress is currently working on a bill to increase spending on prescription drug benefits by some $400 billion over the next few years.
I doubt if simply importing a federally-funded health care system would affect medical cost inflation in the US. We have signficant cultural and demographic differences that would mean (IMO) that we would simply change to a federally-funded system that cost far more than that of Canada or western Europe.
The problem is that demand for health care in the US is essentially infinite, and the consumer is shielded from the cost. A federally-funded system (there is no such thing as “free” health care, anywhere in the world) would address neither of these issues.
I have said it before, but I will repeat - Americans want
[ul]
[li]The best health care in the world[/li][li]Available to everyone[/li][li]At a reasonable cost[/ul][/li]
They can have, at most, any two of these three. There is no possible system under which they can have more.
I’d say you’re off. Certain segments like those with chronic conditions, elderly, the extremely elderly, and the ‘shouldn’t you be dead yet’ elderly pay much more in medical bills, raising the median. I know its not uncommon for an elderly person to spend $1000 a month on prescription drugs alone in the US.
Plus, like Neurotik said, insurance picks up alot of the tab for many people. I’ve heard that the average cost is closer to around $1400 a person in the US.
I am all for socialized medicine, we pay the most out of any country. Luckily, in 2004 alot of democratic candidates have tried to make universal healthcare a viable political issue.
So anything that is “essential to life” should be guaranteed to every US citizen? What about shelter and food? Certainly as basic a need as health care? Is the government responsible for providing me a house and 3 meals a day if I don’t want to pay for them myself?
The Calculus of Logic, paying 180K a year certainly attracts more talented people to the field of medicine than 25K a year. As a result you get better doctors and more competition for the positions that are available.
Personally, I want the guy doing open heart surgery on me to make more than a factory worker.
Yeah, this issue has been bothering me. The way i see it, americans are making a sacrifice for the world by not price controlling medicine. As long as we pay doctors such high amounts and pay such large amounts for medicine, R&D will grow faster than it would if we had price controls because doctors will immigrate here and there will be funds for new technologies. Its a question of whether depriving ourselves of medical care is worth advancing global medical technology.
i figured someone might say something like that. examples such as Russia in it’s communist (bread lines anyone?) state have shown socialized food does not work. however universal health care has been shown to work.
I see, yes, it did sound way off. But if the average salary in the US is $30,000 (give and take), that is $2,500 a month. Even a health insurance bill of $500 per month seems like a lot.
I know many regard Europe, and especially Scandinavia, as high-taxed countries, but I did some calculations and found that from a average salary we pay 40% in taxes (both salary tax and sales tax), though this figure increases rapidly for high-incomers. I know that Americans pay less taxes than that, but with health insurance, education and the other stuff we already have paid for with our taxes, it does seem that many should have a hard time make ends meet.
But I agree that the US cannot just “copy” the system in a European country, if they wanted to do so. For one, European governments have strong control over the education system, so they can to some extent regulate the number of medical personell available for the citiziens.
Reading this thread it appears to me that the biggest problem (the biggest problem being that the cost of medical care is higher in America than other places) is that Americans doesn’t choose health care based on price, i.e. it’s not a true market-driven system. Instead the cost comes back as a “non-specified” bill from the insurance company. (maybe I’m still way off here) ???
On a sidenote: The debate of how much a doctor is earning in dollars in different countries is fruitless. You have to factor in the cost of living also. A doctor in Norway may earn a lot more than a doctor is Sweden, but the cost of living in Norway is quite a bit higher. It’s equally fruitless to debate “satisfaction” with health care in different countries, because “satisfaction” is related to what you believe you could have.
No, distibuting food and shelter works fine. Also, there are social security nets that look after poor people. That is why it is rare to have people without food or shelter in western countries.
A minimum good standard of healthcare does not seem to be provided in the USA, from what I gather. Thus there is a problem, and it should be up to the government to fix it. That is what they exist for.
Food is inexpensive. And as long as you are content with shelter, not a giant house, shelter is not that expensive either if you are willing ot live in a town with under 250k people in it.
Medical care, on the other hand, can be insanely high priced. And the people who need it most (like the physically disabled or elderly or poor who could catch diseases early and save money like Sven, who needs to get her teeth filled when they only need $50 fillings but due to no money will have to wait until they need $800 root canals) are the least able to obtain the funds necessary to purchase it.
PS The cost of NOT insuring the 41 mil americans w/o health insurance is 2x what it costs to insure them.
IMHO, socialized medicine in the United States is a good idea, but it frankly scares me. For one thing, once we put it in place, there’s pretty much no going back. Also, it’s worth keeping in mind that the success (?) of socialized medicine in Europe will not necessarily translate to the United States. The reality is that the U.S. has a large oppressed underclass which may very well put an extra strain on the system.
As an attorney who works every day with the unemployment insurance system, I would add that socialized medicine in the US would introduce a lot of expensive inefficiencies. The U/I system must pay for attorneys, administrative law judges, tax consulting services, etc. Granted there are inefficiencies in a private system, but we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that the total cost of health care will be less in a socialized system.
If the problem is that there are lots of people w/o health insurance in the United States, then perhaps we should set up programs to help the poor and elderly with health costs (and we could call those programs medicaire and medicaid!!).
Seriously, why not simply beef up medicaire and medicaid and thus take gradual steps towards a socialized system?
Hi! I’m Joe Trailer Trash! I don’t live in a mansion, because I don’t want to pay for one! I don’t eat well, because I don’t want to pay for decent food! I don’t send my kids to college, because I don’t want to pay for their education. I’ve got all this money, but I just don’t want to pay for things I need. Dammit, I really need debaser to show me that I chould pay for the things I need to keep me alive rather than keep my money hidden away!
