Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All this skirting around the real issue- avoidance at it's grandest- YOU NEED universal health care in America-.
no we dont need SOMEONE ELSE paying OUR bill
singlepayer ( total government funding(taxpayer) and total government control) is NOT what we need...not if we EXPECT the QUALITY of care
when you look at the COSTS of ACTUAL care (not insurance) and the OVERHEAD costs associated with the care..the cost would be astronomical to cover 320 million people
look at the numbers from our own medicaid (a quazi single payer system),,,last year (fy10) it cost the taxpayers 320 billion dollars, just to cover 30 million people....do the math, to cover 320 million (our population) it would be over 3 trillion (possibly much more when you figure in the fact that seniors are a more costly demographic).......then look at what the IRS says is the number of 1040's filed...115 million (and nearly 50% of them get most if not all their money back)....now take that 3 trillion and divide by the 115 million taxpayers....you get over 25k (actually 28k) in taxes.......can the average taxpayer...the average worker afford that.....I dont think so
and lets look at the some other numbers
the ACTUAL cost just to help americans with alzheimers(forgive my spelling) is over 200 billion every year
and let's not forget: Obesity rates among OECD nations increased in recent years, with the highest rate in the U.S. at 34.3% -- which means one in 3 Americans is by definition obese.
number of americans getting cancer (new cases) per year 1.8 million for a total of 19 million people being treated (fighting) each year...each year at least 570,000 die from cancer
number of americans with heart desease: 26.2 million and of those..((Number of visits with heart disease as primary diagnosis: 16 million ))((Number of discharges with heart disease as first-listed diagnosis: 4.2 million))
number of americans in nursing homes: 2 million
More than 25 million Americans have significant vision loss.
(((hmmm more than 25 million americans are blind or going blind.....that's more than norway,finland, denmark,switzerland,and austria COMBINED TOTAL population....)))
number of americans with diabetes: 26 million
mumber of americans with asthma: 20 million....Each day 11 Americans die from asthma.
while some of those may overlap...look at those numbers 19,26,25,26,20...that's 116 million with MAJOR health problem,,costly problems......we will ALWAYS be the largest spender in the world...we have the 3rd hightest population in the world (next to china and india) and we have more people (total, not a percentage) with major problems than any other country in europe.....I just showed you at least 116 million people with cancer,heart,blindness, diabetes, asthma.......that's more than france and great britian COMBINED for their total populations.
Last edited by workingclasshero; 06-12-2012 at 07:41 PM..
posting about life expectancy..means actually very little to medicine
difference between us and the highest is....3.3 years ...is that realivily low (79yrs-82yrs)
and the reason...
is not health care
its....
LIFE STYLE (especially EATING, and EXERCISE), and democraphics (ethnics)
demographics, to include eating habits, GENES, TEEN PREGNANCIES, traffic, cancer, etc..ALL effect those numbers
yes I said traffic accidents....you think that the 2x amount of traffic accidents (of the world) is NOT going to lower the top level???
btw
asians have the HIGHEST life span...and FEMALE ASIAN AMERICANS have the highest life expectancy IN THE WORLD
its demographics
if you compared country "A" to country "B"...and said "A" has an average age of 38..and "B" has an average age of 51...which country do you think would be more PRODUCTIVE and HEALTHY
its the demographics
its like the life expectancy list
the USa has an AVERAGE life expectacny of 78.9 (number 30 something on the list)
but if you break it down further
in the USA, the asian american female has a life expectancy of 86(the HIGHEST in the WORLD)(((higher than the 82 in the actual country of japan)))
..whites are around 83...hispanics around 76...and blacks have a LOW LIFE expectacy around 66m/68f....giving us the AVERAGE of 78.9.....if you took the (12-15% population) of blacks of that list..we would have one of the top three life expectancies in the world....
demographic plays BIG ROLES
funny japan is higher than any of the european countries...in life expectancy..and the 3rd lowest in infant mortality....connected...hmmmmm....certainly genetic
we also have the HIGHEST teen pregnancy ...which leads to low baby weight, and high infant mortality.....and the hightest DEMOGRAPHIC with teen pregancies...the african americans (especially southern AA)
Last edited by workingclasshero; 06-12-2012 at 07:42 PM..
comparing costs to other countries....kinda apples to oranges
yes our cost are higher...but that is because EVERYTHING is higher
look at the second part of that slide cherckup cost 59 (omg its double what it is in canada)
so what are we saying we should FORCE docotrs and nurse to work for minimum wage. and have offices in huts
when you pay that doctor $59 ,, its not $59 dollars going into his pocket...there are lots of other COSTS
how are you going to control the cost of medical equipment(mri or xray machines, etc)??????most xray machine are made in denmark
how are you going to control the cost of the rising electric bills the doctors/hospitals are facing????
how are you going to control the rising property tax/rent/mortgage that doctors face?????
how are you going to control the cost of supplies(gauze, plaster, silk, rubber, polystirene( a oil product)?????especially some supplies that arent even american
how are you going to control the cost of people salaries???? a maximum wage???
how they are going to control the employment costs for Doctors, nurses, technicians, hospital food operators, hospital linnon cleaning service, custodial services, medical transcribers........are you going to 'nationalize' every profession that is even remotely connected to medicine????
how are they going to control malpractice INSURANCE COSTS?????
dont you get it... medicine (like anyother SERVICE) costs money,,(,money that our government doesnt have)
want to know A BIG REASON why its lower in those other countries.??? salaries.....a nurse in france(actually most of europe) makes about 1500-1800 a month(in us dollars)..that's 18-20000 a year.....meanwhile according to payscale.com the average Rn makes 40-78,000 in the usa
is that what you want??? do you want to have medical PROFESSIONALS be forced to work for nearly minimum wage
AS I SAID EARLIER...I would be all for single payer...except for two things that the "pro singlepayer" people cant answer..I wast a GUARENTEE of QUALITY care (not health dept horror clinics)...and the COST
This thread sure strayed a long way from the topic of the OP link. Have any of you read that link? Surely not many other than the one I commended for so doing. I am sure glad I stayed away from it.
Unless you hit the donut hole with medicare part D. If so you'd be using VA in a flash.
You got that right but as of right now I know that I plugged up and ended up with a 6 bypass surgery after taking an old anti-cholesterol medication that the VA would provide for 3 years. I doubt that I have gone from zero, after the bypasses, to 85 - 95% in the past 7 years and an taking one of those things that the VA won't supply.
I am a long way from the donut hole so I don't think I will have to go back with the VA. Maybe Medicare will take care of me, as far as surviving is concerned, unless the Supreme Court does its duty in a few days.
The fine for not buying insurance, and waiting until you get sick..
$500
Guess what one a lot of people willc hoose?
I would say that most of those millions of young (18 - 30) will take a chance so they can afford big cars, fancy apartments, etc just as they have all along.
Those people certainly want single payer, at least till they learn that they will have to pay much higher income taxes.
singlepayer ( total government funding(taxpayer) and total government control) is NOT what we need...not if we EXPECT the QUALITY of care
No, quality of care is better in single payer for almost every indicator. The US does slightly better on cancer, but much worse on all the other indicators, maternal mortality, average healthy lifespan, infant mortality, DALYs, HALEs, the lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
when you look at the COSTS of ACTUAL care (not insurance) and the OVERHEAD costs associated with the care..the cost would be astronomical to cover 320 million people
I just posted the costs of actual care. 2770 $ per person, 2000-dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
look at the numbers from our own medicaid
Yes, lets look at Medicaid. Medicaid pays for the health care and nursing for poor people. You know what they have in common? That most of them are people who needed health care. That is what the population was selected for. This is not the case with the general population, who mostly do not need healthcare.
You are comparing a population made up of patients to a general population. Of course patients have higher medical costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
and lets look at the some other numbers
the ACTUAL cost just to help americans with alzheimers....Obesity rates... cancer...heart desease: ...nursing homes....diabetes...asthma...
You do realize those are all extremely strong arguments for moving onto a system that is proven more effective and vastly cheaper, right? Everything you just wrote is a first class argument for single payer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
More than 25 million Americans have significant vision loss.
(((hmmm more than 25 million americans are blind or going blind.....that's more than norway,finland, denmark,switzerland,and austria COMBINED TOTAL population....)))
You do understand what "per person" means? Don't you? The number of people with vision loss per 1000 population is what matters. How many physicians, nurses, guide dogs, taxpayers etc per vision impaired person is what matters. You'll also notice that Germany hasn't collapsed under the number of vision-impaired people, despite having far more of them than Iceland
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
while some of those may overlap...look at those numbers 19,26,25,26,20...that's 116 million with MAJOR health problem,,costly problems......we will ALWAYS be the largest spender in the world...we have the 3rd hightest population in the world (next to china and india) and we have more people (total, not a percentage) with major problems than any other country in europe.....I just showed you at least 116 million people with cancer,heart,blindness, diabetes, asthma.......that's more than france and great britian COMBINED for their total populations.
I really don't think you do understand what "per person" means!
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
grim...
posting about life expectancy..means actually very little to medicine
That is very surprising, you know. Because its actually the gold standard. In Public Health, its used as the measure of the performance of health care systems. I am sure they'll all be surprised to hear you've decided it means very little.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
difference between us and the highest is....3.3 years ...is that realivily low (79yrs-82yrs)
Actually, thats pretty high for a First World divide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
and the reason...
is not health care
its....
LIFE STYLE (especially EATING, and EXERCISE), and democraphics (ethnics)
demographics, to include eating habits, GENES, TEEN PREGNANCIES, traffic, cancer, etc..ALL effect those numbers
Every country has life style, ethnics, demographics etc. What we are measuring is how well the health care system deals with these things!
For instance the UK is very close to America in obesity, number of ethnci groups etc. Yet still the UK is more than 2 years ahead of the US on lifespan, and more than that on number of healthy years. With half the spending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
yes I said traffic accidents....you think that the 2x amount of traffic accidents (of the world) is NOT going to lower the top level???
Not appreciably, no.
Basic maths. If the difference in lifespan between the US and the top is 3,3 years, in a population of 310 million, that is a billion man-years. For that to be explained by traffic accidents, if we assume generously that the average age of a person killed in a traffic accident is 18, roughly 50 man-years are lost per fatality....you'd need 20 million traffic fatalities per year. 0, 5 million Americans died in WW2. So no, traffic accidents are obviously not a significant factor.
I got to run, Ill come back to the rest later today.
I was going to ask, what your basic problem is, since you don't seem able to get the fundamental things here, but I am starting to see where the problems start:
You need to learn the difference between per person and total numbers!
You are not going to get anywhere without it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
