Posted Jan 13, 2008, 12:43 PM UTC
I've always wondered why a lot of Americans strongly oppose "socialized medicine" but seem to accept "socialized" education, infrastructure, military etc. It's ok to pay taxes for bridges you might never use but making access to health care for all of you easier and saving ~100,000 lives per year is "communism"?
Americans seem to perceive a national health system as being as expensive as the current US system, with the level of choice of the Canadian system, the resource shortages of the British system, and the same level of access to western medicine as the Cuban system.
As opposed to a system that's more expensive per capita than all of those?
I haven't noticed a lack of choice in the Canadian health system- I managed to have preemie triplets, 2 with autism, 2 with lung problems, one with cancer, and haven't had to wait for any treatment, or to make sure that the doctor that I wanted was "covered" by my health insurance.
My mom had 13 years of cancer treatment before she died, I had triplets born 10 weeks prematurely who spent 9 weeks in an NICU, have had all of their autism treatments except for speech therapy covered by our provincial health plan, my daughter was admitted to hospital the day before we found her tumour, and received approx. 6 months of active treatment and 3 years of followup, all at no charge. At any time we were able to access other doctors and second opinions and alternative treatment plans, and we've never had to pay a bill for our medical care.
Oops...I was wrong- I had a $15 bill for an unnecessary ambulance call- one of my daughters was having problems breathing after a lung infection, and by the time the ambulance got here she was fine.
My dad did have to wait six months for a knee transplant, which I guess is a huge inconvenience, although he seemed to think that it was okay given that my mom always had treatment within 24 hours of a new cancer diagnosis.
Maybe we're just lucky, but any of the horror stories that I hear about Canadian health care are people that have slipped through the cracks (which happens everywhere), or they are for generally livable but inconvenient problems.
How much cash in the form of taxes did that cost you?
The most that I ever made was about $90,000/year, and I paid about 17% taxes on that (that dropped after I had disabled kids and got disability tax credits). My American husband pays a good amount of taxes (I think that it's about 22%..NY), but he also pays about $550/month (on top of taxes) for his U.S. health insurance (he has a matching scheme with his employer, so he only pays half of it).
I'm very, very glad to be Canadian.
Considering the costs that I would have incurred from the medical bills, I am more than happy to have paid "extra" taxes".
[deleted]
I'm very sorry to read about your family's health problems. I'm very glad they've received mostly prompt, quality, nearly free health care. (There but for the grace...) Best wishes.
Edit added "mostly."
As opposed to a system that's more expensive per capita than all of those?
Well, ultimately it's a fear of change, but to justify the fear, people will assume that a US public health care system will have the worst of every other health system in the world.
I haven't noticed a lack of choice in the Canadian health system.
In Britain, there's a private health service as an addition to the NHS (not an alternative since you can't opt-out of paying for national health care). There are a number of private hospitals.
Something about the way the Canadian system works effectively prevents private alternatives from being profitable. I'll accept that there is a decent level of choice within the system, and since Canada's health service ranks very highly, I'll assume this is a fairly minor issue, but it would be considered a drawback for someone used to paying a vast amount for exceptional health care was no longer able to do so.
with the level of choice of the Canadian system
Isn't that the one where you can go to any doctor you want and still have comprehensive coverage?
Because in the US, you don't really have doctor choice, you may only go to the company doctors that report to your insurance company.
I think most americans would love to have the level of choice that canada currently enjoys.
Isn't that the one where you can go to any doctor you want and still have comprehensive coverage?
Yes. That's the one. It's the one where there's no option apart from Canada's national health system.
Because in the US, you don't really have doctor choice, you may only go to the company doctors that report to your insurance company.
You can choose any doctor you like. You just have to pay for it.
Part of the problem is that our choice is between a national health system, run by the sorts of people who made the decisions behind the occupation of Iraq, and our current corporate health system, run in a corporate business culture full of Enrons.
It would nationalize 1/7th of the US economy. How can anyone say that is a good idea?
It's only 1/7th of the GDP because it's so terribly broken.
I think the problem is that people prefer to have some sort of choice. Monopolies suck. If I had a choice I might send my kids to a private school (if the school is demonstrably better) but hey I already pay $12K/annum in School District taxes so I cant really shell out another $15K/annum to send my kids to private school anyway. Very few people around here can send their kids to non-public schools.
Dennis Kucinich's health plan (H. Res. 676) would let Americans see any doctor they wanted; the main difference would be that the government would pay for everything instead of the private insurance companies.
(d) Freedom of Choice- Patients shall have free choice of participating physicians and other clinicians, hospitals, and inpatient care facilities.
Okay, that might be workable, but I still wonder if a single payer/buyer (monosony) system might have some sort of harmful unintended consequences. I can't think of any, but I wonder what possible ones there could be.
If the government insurance agency can approve or reject individual claims, then you have the government taking the role currently occupied by HMOs, deciding whether you get treatment or not based (at least partly) on how expensive it is.
If the government insurance agency must approve any claim, then you have the problem of unnecessary treatments, since the prescribing doctors get paid for every service they render.
You could mitigate the problem of unnecessary treatments by having the government dictate what it will pay for each service, but that has the problem of lowballing the prices, either intentionally or simply by not keeping up with increasing real-world prices.
[deleted]
40K a year for education? Americans are such tools....
Your gf goes to high school?
Not everyone on reddit is post-education..
[deleted]
$40k???
Shows Americans need education I suppose. The market works again!
We have decent private education systems here in the UK (as decent as they can be, constrained as they are by the national curriculum) but AFAIK they cost around £8k a year which would be $16k.
Why on earth do Americans tolerate such high prices on health and education? That isn't the market rate for these services in any other country.
There are private clinics in Canada. VERY rare, but they exist.
Damn you for working hard to be able to afford a good education for your children, they must tax you more so you can be like the rest of them.
This is reddit. No free-market economics allowed.
Lord knows there's no libertarian types on Reddit or the internet in general.
Right, there are only a dozen Ron Paul articles on page one every day.
You're such a fucking martyr. :'(
Simple solution: around here (Belgium) private schools are paid for by the state, too.
here in the States the public school teachers' unions and public school administrations are vehemently against any such measure. They say they don't want to jeopardize children's education, I think they are afraid of any realistic competition.
Not a problem regardless of how it is funded, see the article (note the mention of the non-profit private organisation). Similar freedom of choice exists for schooling.
Maybe Americans look at the standard of their public schools, and worry about what that implies about the standard of socialized medicine, if they had that too.
But at least every citizen who wants to go to school, can. Can't say the same for healthcare.
Education and infrastructure are largely at the state level. I don't see why liberals feel the need to push UHC on everyone. If it's so great, do it at the state level.
I for one am open to hearing about UHC, as well as it's benefits. Though I'm a libertarian, if it's a true public good, then the government should cover it.
I just remain suspicious of DC. I'm afraid they would sacrifice a solid UHC plan in the name of free money for health lobbies and other groups.
Wow, a Libertarian that understands public goods. I upvoted you for that alone!
Even Adam Smith argued for them. (I haven't read wealth of nations, but I should)
But yeah, I am a firm believer in that government isn't all bad, despite the loads of bad government we have. Libertarianism != anarchy. State and local government are on the forefront of government when it comes to interacting with the American people.
It's the Feds I have no faith in and seek to scale down. Ron Paul 08.
I'm a little confused on your position of socialized medicine. The posted article suggests that the British NHS has flaws in it that the german system has corrected by adding in a bit of capitalism. So by this, I would think your position would be against socialized healthcare due to lack of competition.
Yet in your comment you seem to be suggesting that socialized healthcare should be as natural as other social services. Which suggests that you support socializing it. So are you for socialism or not?
My problem with socialized medicine is illustrated in this article very well, it's lack of competition. While I can see that a strict, rigidly planned system can provide adequate service to 95% of the population, I think that competition is needed to deliver the extra 5% or provide truly stellar service.
Yes, I realize that the US is far from being stellar in their service, but they are not a truly competitive market. The US is a monopoly and that is why prices are so expensive.
Ideally, I think a competitive free market would make healthcare as ubiquitous as automotive repair. However, I think it's an impossible ideal to meet, because people expect the government to certify a minimum standard for healthcare, whereas for automotive repair its caveat emptor (buyer beware).
So it's inevitable that the US will socialize it's healthcare, but that doesn't mean that it was the best solution. This just means that it was the least repugnant and easiest understood system.
I think a competitive free market would make healthcare as ubiquitous as automotive repair.
I think I know what you're saying here, but the flaw I see in the analogy is that automotive repair is pretty cheap. And, if it costs more to fix a car than its worth, you can always dump the car and buy another one. Unfortunately, we don't have the technology to dump our existing body and buy another one when it becomes to expensive to fix ;-)
That's only ONE flaw. Another flaw is that there is no such thing as emergency auto repair. Yet another flaw is that automobiles all start their lives at more or less the same value. There are no 6 orders of magnitude differences in auto repair costs which have to be equalized for equity's sake. Yet another flaw is that the information asymmetry in auto repair isn't even a tiny fraction of the one in medicine. Doubtless I could think of more flaws if I spent some real time at it. The analogy between them is preposterous.
there is no such thing as emergency auto repair.
Emergency auto repair, like roadside assistance? A tow-truck that tows you to the hospital and you wait there while the doctor fixes your car? I'd have to say that due to the lack of preventative checkouts a majority of automotive repair in the US is on an emergency basis.
There are no 6 orders of magnitude differences in auto repair costs
That was the point of the analogy. healthcare costs are run up because of a government sanctioned monopoly. The automotive repair industry has no such monopoly and therefore competition reduces costs.
In other words, if the government granted a monopoly to Sears for all automotive repair, there certainly would be a "6 order of magnitude" between actual and charged costs in this service.
Yet another flaw is that the information asymmetry
Thats right, the ignorance of the public has created a need for the government to step in with regulations. I recognize that people willfully remain ignorant about their bodies and health concerns, but that is fostered by the government. If people applied the same amount of effort into understanding the need for exercise as they do for the need to change the oil in their car, then there wouldn't be an obesity problem in the US.
So willful ignorance about health doesn't invalidate the analogy. It does illustrate one of the problems with the current state of healthcare, but that makes the analogy even better.
In BC there is socialized auto insurance. It's about 1/2 the price of the private auto insurance next door in Alberta.
If only Vancouver were not such an expensive place to live, I'd move there in a heartbeat ;-)
Good point, from the perspective of the market it would make sense to junk the car (body), but the car probably would object! :)
I was thinking of something like a brain download into the new body! But, no technology like that yet...
Pay attention to what aletoledo wrote: "The US is a monopoly and that is why prices are so expensive."
Automotive repair is relatively cheap because of the endless competition.
None of the presidential candidates in favor of universal health care want to eliminate competition. They want to provide the option for the poor, and Obama, for example, wants to make it a requirement that all children have some form of health care, whether it is provided by the state or by their parents' work.
"option for the poor" means subsidizing the system. It's not like the poor never had options, it's that they couldn't afford what option they had. Therefore the government will have to somehow make up the difference.
Yet the real problem still remains, that the medical-industrial complex wields a monopoly and can set their own prices. Having government subsidize this monopoly isn't going to help anything, because the prices still remain at an artificially elevated level due to the monopoly.
Socialized healthcare works because it not only becomes the payer of the bill, but it dicates what can be charged as well. Therefore it addresses the cost problem as well. Any solution offered by a candidate that doesn't take into account curbing the costs means that they are in the pocket of somebody.
There are many problems with the health care system in the US, but it is not correct to say that the medical-industrial complex has a monopoly on health care. In fact 55% of health care expenditure in this country is public whether that be from Medicare, Veterans Administration, Medicaid (both state and federal), SCHIP, or any number of smaller programs. The reality is that prices are already being set by Medicare because they are the biggest customer, but they are not doing a very good job. The reimbursements for surgeries are generally quite good, but they are not good at all for office visits by a primary care physician. Also, the public reimbursements for some procedures have randomly been cut to the point that hospitals that do them are taking a loss each time. An example would be electroconvulsive therapy, which is still the best treatment for an acutely depressed suicidal person, but is not available to people with public insurance(especially Medicaid) at many hospitals because of poor reimbursement.
It's not like the poor never had options, it's that they couldn't afford what option they had.
What twisty Talmudic thinking. The poor, by definition, don't have access to expensive options. If all options are expensive, then that is the same as them having no options.
When you ration healthcare by income, you deprive poor people of their universal human right to it. Of course, I doubt that you care about human rights since you are an American.
It's the same as your system's denying poor people their human right to property. Just because they're poor. How sickening.
You're right. Technically, I should have used the term universal health care. I used socialized medicine (and tried to indicate my intentions by quotation marks) because a lot of Americans seem to purposely (mis)use this (rather deprecatory) term whenever they refer to any form of universal health care.
Wrong. Public schools and all the other items on your list are a problem for the same reasons, too.
It's really very simple when you think about it. Mass schooling hurts children, infrastructure helps industry (non-humans), and the military kills people. Health care, along with welfare and hygiene, actually helps people live longer. So it's clear why Americans hate the thought of being forced to help others. That's altruism.
Americans believe that if you see someone drowning in a lake, you can just sit on the bank, pull out the popcorn and watch them die. They believe you have no human rights obligation to save them because human rights do not exist, only civil rights and natural rights (an obsolete 17th century idea few people believe in) exist.
Americans are sado-masochists who incidentally worship dominance-submission (corporate hierarchies and power). The reason you have failed to realize this is because it is entirely preposterous to imagine a fat lardass of an American in a leather outfit. What you don't realize about BDSM is that the outfits and other such paraphernelia are entirely secondary.
So it's clear why Americans hate the thought of being forced to help others. That's altruism. Americans believe that if you see someone drowning in a lake, you can just sit on the bank, pull out the popcorn and watch them die.
Hey, come on now. I've agreed with many of the negative comments about US citizens but now you're just being insulting, and characterizing us as selfish brutes doesn't help anything. Many of my fellow Americans are decent people and some are not just like with every other culture.
The problem here is not that the people are monsters. It's that there is misinformation campaign being waged against them. The news is run by industry and industry is perfectly happy with the way things are. The best thing you can do is instead of demonizing Americans, when you talk to them try to undo some of the brain washing they've been subjected to.
Where do you draw the line between the brainwashed and the brainwashers?
Many of my fellow Americans are decent people
Who just happen to not believe in universal human righs. This isn't a question of decency, it's a question of belief in human rights.
It's that there is misinformation campaign being waged against them.
Nah, that's not it. The propaganda starts all the way in primary school. And it's reinforced by parents. And that's what makes them monsters. They teach their own children to ignore/dismiss human rights by mentally translating 'human rights' into 'civil rights' thus ignoring even the existence of the concept of human rights.
There is very little in the UN statement on human rights that a reasonable person would disagree with until you get to Article 25.
"(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
My question is do you plan to support me out of your own pocket, or do you prefer to force other people to do it?
You are describing a libertarian, not an American.
That's not what a libertarian believes either. The fact that human rights exist is at the core of libertarian philosophy.
The fact that human rights exist is at the core of libertarian philosophy.
To a libertarian, property rights trump human rights - since they view all rights derive from the former.
Therefore, your right to horde water trumps the right of another to drink if he's dieing of thirst.
[deleted]
Libertarianism is one of the two official religions of the United States. The other is fascism.
In contrast, Gaulism is the official religion of France. I like it much better.
No, that is not the description of a libertarian.
Libertarian: A philosophy based on the premise that in order to maximize personal freedom, society should value the acquisition of private property over the public good.
Mass schooling hurts children,
Common libertarian criticism of public schooling.
Americans hate the thought of being forced to help others. That's altruism.
Libertarians are against altruism. For that matter, they also distrust democracy.
Americans believe that if you see someone drowning in a lake, you can just sit on the bank, pull out the popcorn and watch them die.
This is acceptable behavior according to libertarian ideology. Why should any person altruisticly help another?
Only civil rights and natural rights (an obsolete 17th century idea few people believe in) exist.
According to libertarians, this is true.
The rest of the paragraph also fits in well with the overall libertarian worldview. Libertarians see themselves as Randian unbermenchen, who, while claiming to support personal freedom, have no problem condemning others to slavery, deprivation and death in the name of lassie fare capitalism.
Mass schooling hurts children
O_o what? This is the first I've heard about an education hurting children. We don't have to look that far back in history to see what the average education level was but a generation or two ago to see universal education has been a big benefit to a lot of people.
The Underground History of American Education
Edit: the short version: The Six-Lesson Schoolteacher
You know, there's a world of difference between education, universal or otherwise, and schooling, especially of the mass variety. Are you really so stupid as to believe sticking a thousand children into one big building is the best way to educate them? Because if you are then get out of my face.
Are you really so stupid as to believe sticking a thousand children into one big building is the best way to educate them?
Just look back a couple generations to see where lack of universal education took us.
It's better than the alternative - just two generations ago - where 100 of those kids would be going to school and the other 900 would be tending the family farm and not being educated.
Whereas in France the government fights tobacco, alcohol, tasty food, fast driving, etc. (basically, whatever is fun)
The goal is that we all live very long, boring lives for 70 years and then 20 additional years with Parkinson's disease. Great idea, if you ask me.
Whereas in France the government fights tobacco, alcohol, tasty food
They fight alcohol? As in French wine which is the best in the world?
And tasty food? Dude, French cuisine is revered for its complexity and tastiness.
Wait, what do you mean by tasty food? Do you mean fast food or real food? Because I've never heard of any campaign against the last. Or against alcohol for that matter. When did that start?
Every food with too much salt, sugar or fat. So, basically, every food.
Advertisement for alcohol is forbidden, for example. And public drinking is less and less tolerated.
The reason Americans support "socializing" (as you put it) education, the military, and our infrastructure is because education, the military, and infrastructure all have positive externalities attached to them which would not be realized strictly by allowing the Marginal Private Cost to equal the Marginal Private Benefit. Educating others makes you better off, because studies have shown educated people to be better citizens, commit less crimes, and give back to their community. Being taxed for the military benefits you because the military protects you (supposedly). Being taxed for roads, etc. benefit you because YOU get to use them. Paying for someone's healthcare has no benefit to me or you or anyone except that individual (and their friends and families of course.)
I also challenge your claim that socialized healthcare will make access easier for us all. I know many Canadians who will disagree with you on that point.
Of course it won't make for easier access for all. If you are in the top 5% income bracket, you can pay to see a doctor, right now. It isn't about making easier access for all, it is about having equitable access.
because no-one calls those (education, infrastructure, military) "socialized" - they're "public" or "security". When you want to discredit a collective effort in the US, you call is "socialized" and the last 50 years of propaganda kicks in. Pavlov would be proud...
Americans think as they are told to think, no less and no more, most of them anyway
They've accepted socialized medicine for years. I know, I know, but hear me out:
In the US, companies are deemed to be people.
The life blood of a company (people) is profit.
Profit (health) is essentially guaranteed by lack of bargaining on medicines, etc. (Monopoly OK, monopsony !OK.)
Hence we have an example of an extremely successful socialized medical system. Only the beneficiaries (patients) differ than in most countries.
I don't accept socialized education. I think it a first step to tyranny.
It's that whole freedom is slavery routine. Not everyone has an open mind, is intelligent, or rational. Money has more power in this country and people are to comfortable trying to make it. It influences people more than George Orwell or God.
but seem to accept "socialized" education
Most don't, but when the government has a gun to your face, what are you going to say?
The fact is, there's (depending on who's numbers you believe) 40 million folks over here who currently don't have insurance.
If it's socialized, not only do I have to pay the premiums for me and my family, but I'm footing the bill for 40 million deadbeats too.
No thanks.
You're going to have allot of fun when someone in your family gets a major illness and you go $200,000 in debt, lose your house, and go bankrupt because your insurance company denies the care you need.
That's alright. I'll pay.
Thanks for playing.
Now, go handle your own damned healthcare. I'll handle mine.
Things like roads and defense (the only two things the federal government should spend money on) are public goods whereas health care is an individual good. For the federal government to, ultimately through force, remove property from an individual to then redistribute to other individuals as it sees fit is a form of tyranny.
I'm an American who's lived in Germany for 4 years. The health care that I enjoyed in the US was far, far better than what I have in Germany.
First of all, it's not free here. I'm a healthy 30 year old with no health issues - I've never even had a cavity. Out of pocket I pay 230 Euros a month , and my employer pays a matching 230 Euros. I do have private insurance, but public isn't that much cheaper. My out of pocket cost in the U.S. was $20 a month.
Doctors aren't as well paid in Germany as they are in the U.S., so they have a habit of shuffling as many patients through their offices as possible. My last checkup took all of ten minutes. B.S.
Finally, the drugs here suck. My girlfriend recently had her wisdom teeth taken out. The bottom teeth required significant jaw-bone removal to get to the teeth and she had 20 stitches on each side. What did they give her for the pain? 400mg of Ibuprofen. Yup, the equivalent of two Advil tablets. After three excruciating days she went back and asked for something stronger. The doc gave her a 600mg prescription. They fail to grasp that pain-mitigation is part of health care.
OTC medication is also outrageously expensive in Germany. Twelve aspirin can cost 5-10 Euros. $5 will buy you hundreds in the U.S. Want a stronger OTC? You can pretty much forget it.
Your mileage may vary, but in my experienced opinion, German health-care is inferior to American for the average person.
I don't know what kind of coverage you had, but you can't get a free flu shot for $20 a month in the US. Try closer to $600 for a small family. Perhaps your employer was paying the bulk of it? They don't do that anymore. And just for fun, BS raised their rates over 30% last year. And over 20% the year before that. And so it goes.
I lived in France for a year, everything was better and cheaper there. Maybe Germany is an exception but your claimed experience doesn't sound at all typical for Europe.
Have you been to France as of late...everything single thing in that country is RIDICULOUSLY more expensive than anything in America.
Well, that's only because our dollar is equivalent to toilet paper. When I hung out with some Indian friends who work at the amazon.com outsourcing office, they say the same thing about the food prices here. The individual cost of going to PF Chang's for one meal can easily purchase a decent bicycle in India.
Yeah, just wait until you have to go to the ER or need some major surgery. You'll change your viewpoint pretty quick. I know a few people who were like you, when they were healthy 20-somethings, they thought the system in America was fine. It isn't until you actually deal with our healthcare system that you see how fucked up it is.
I don't know where you shop, but on this German Web site 100 Aspirin (500 mg pills) are 12 euros.
At drugstore.com, a US site, 100 Aspirin (500 mg) are 9 dollars. That's somewhat cheaper, but not a huge difference.
I have experienced the difference in painkiller perception too. In Germany, many people never ask for a painkiller when getting a filling in their teeth. In the USA, people think they'll die from the pain when they don't get a shot first.
Just got back from WalMart. 500 aspirin for $4.99.
I don't know where you shop, but on this German Web site 100 Aspirin (500 mg pills) are 12 euros.
That is extremely expensive. In the US you can buy a bottle of 500 for $5 or $6.
Not on the Web apparently. The prices I quoted are for brand-name products, it's going to be cheaper for generics in both countries.
In the US, the name "aspirin" isn't trademarked. Anyone can sell acetylsalicylic acid under the name "aspirin."
Die Deutsche volk haben stark zahne, ja?
Somewhat cheaper? It's twice as expensive in Germany for the prices you quoted.
There's a difference between getting a filling and having teeth pulled. I get fillings without any painkiller, as I don't like needles, and the dentist seems to be extra careful then.
But anything short of valium is worthless for the pain of having wisdom teeth pulled.
But anything short of valium is worthless for the pain of having wisdom teeth pulled.
Pedantic correction: You mean Vicodin (hydrocodone), not Valium (diazepam). The former is a painkiller, the latter a sedative.
I haven't bought OTC online in Germany (or in the U.S.). My experience stems from going into the average Apotheke on the street.
It's moot actually, I just buy meds in the U.S. while visiting and bring them back with me. Even my European colleagues put in orders for OTC stuff that actually works (Advil Cold & Sinus is a hot commodity in my office).
I am german and live in Germany my whole life, so I want to comment on this.
First: Healthcare insurance is divided into two branches: Private insurance and public insurance. Cost for public insurance depends on your income, in the moment it costs about 14% of your gross income where you have to pay one half and your employer the other half. Private insurance OTOH depends on your age, health status, benefits etc and not on your income.
If you have private insurance you're normaly a 'premium patient' for most doctors because they can charge more money to private insured patients. So you should be able to easily find a doctor who can give you a one hour checkup. If you you would have public insurance this is hardly possible (or you have to additionally pay from you own pocket).
Iboprofen (up to 400mg) is OTC in germany so you don't need prescription. Last time I bought Ibu400 I payed about 5 euro for 30 pills.
Aspirin is very cheap here - as long as you don't buy the original from Bayer! From Ratiopharm or Hexal you pay about 1-2 euro for 30 pills (and the quality is the same). And if you buy over the net you can get 100 500mg pills for 3.25euro.
If you really life here for 4 years you should have had a little bit more experience. But I suspect you're simply healthy and had not to care about healthcare much in the past.
Every system has it's pro and cons. In Germany you can get good healthcare even if you have no income (because everybody has at least public insurance - and there you get the same benefits if you earn nothing or 4000euro the month).
If you want better healthcare you have to get private insurance with a good insurance plan. If you're about 40 years old this will cost you about 500euro a month (if you're employed your employer will pay the half of it).
"My out of pocket cost in the U.S. was $20 a month."
Wow. Really? Since you're in Germany, can i have your old job?
Go work at Starbucks. That's about what my girlfriend pays and they cover me as well.
Good luck staying healthy.
EDIT: I don't understand the downvotes. All I'm saying is $20/month health insurance is probably the bare-bones. If I had $20/month health insurance, I'd probably want to stay as healthy as possible, because it probably isn't worth jack-shit.
It's also very rare. I worked for a medical laboratory corporation, and the minimum deductible I was offered through their group insurance was $1000 before co-pay.
Since when did people turn into cars?
But as anyone who works for Starbucks will tell you, the coverage is excellent.
My out of pocket cost in the U.S. was $20 a month.
How does that cost change in the US when you get 60, had your second bypass, have your next in a few months plus a sick wife to support? In Germany it still remains at the same monthly rate for your whole family - if you have a public plan, private ones tend to get really expensive in that situation.
The American system is cool as long as you're young and healthy, have enough income and are eligible. But people tend to get older and sicker.
I know the example is a little bit dramatic but still proves the point I am making.
Btw, next time ask for a non-otc medication. Should cost you 10 Euro max if the same rules as for the public plans apply. And get another doc.
Check out Medicare and Medicaid. They're US programs for the elderly.
You can get OTC medication for $4 in the US.
I'm sure you'll get down-modded here on reddit for giving a negative opinion on socialized healthcare. It's nice to get such a detailed anecdotal perspective though.
I think you hit the nail on the head though when you said "for the average person". I think the definition of the average person is a large part of the problem when comparing end results between systems.
Your examples are from an informed consumer trying to utilize the tools available to him. Clearly you prefer more options over a minimum level of service to everyone.
What he prefers is quite irrelevant to what provably increases lifespan and quality of life. So let's get into that, shall we? Just what is the US expected lifetime these days?
Do you think that has more to do with our problem with obesity or our health care system. If you're going to try to make the link between the health care system and the lifespan you're going to have to do a lot better than just noticing a correlation.
The British are almost as fat and unhealthy as Americans, topping the world charts on obesity with the US. Yet manage to provide health care for half the price of the US in GDP terms (7 versus 14%) and at comparable quality. The average Briton lives to 78 whereas the average American lives to 77.
How about, noticing the correlation existed as far back as 50 years ago? Long, loooooong before any obesity epidemic?
Average height is a reliable marker of the health of a population. And for most of the 20th century, Americans have been stunted while the rest of the world grew and grew and grew and grew.
Health care provably has a minimal effect on health outcomes, and the effects of health care are dwarfed by lifestyle choices.
See, e.g. here,:
When longitudinal data [across different VA districts] are used, the significant cross sectional effect of funding levels on mortality disappear.
In this study, a bunch of people were given random health plans.
For the average participant, as well as for subgroups differing in income and initial health status, no significant effects were detected on eight other measures of health status and health habits.
As for expected lifetime:
Expected lifetime of an asian woman in Japan: 85.6 years.
Expected lifetime of an asian woman in Bergen County, NJ: 91 years.
Aren't apples to apples comparisons more fun than apples to oranges?
Hey downmodders, you want to tell me what's wrong with the studies I cited?
Or do you just want to hide facts that are inconvenient to your cause.
<shrug> Life expectancy increases when doctors go on strike. You're actually being generous when you say it has minimal effect.
Just what is the US expected lifetime these days?
For everyone or just the people with health insurance? My point is to eliminate the people that can't afford healthcare due to cost and you'll likely see the US life expectancy increase.
The US system is limited by cost and not by technology. If anything, the US leads the world in medical technology. The problem is that the poor americans can't afford this technology.
My point is to eliminate the people that can't afford healthcare due to cost
Yeah, let's do that. What is your preferred final solution? Bullets, gas chambers or straight into the kilns?
If anything, the US leads the world in medical technology.
No it doesn't. It leads the world in pocketbook sucking technology, not life enhancing technology. And the chief life enhancing technology is reduction in poverty. A technology the USA studiously avoids dispensing, even as it is eminently affordable, because of its fetish for sado-masochistic dominance-submission.
OTC medication is also outrageously expensive in Germany. Twelve aspirin can cost 5-10 Euros. $5 will buy you hundreds in the U.S. Want a stronger OTC? You can pretty much forget it.
Why is this? Are prices for OTC medicine set by the government?
EDIT: Who downvotes this? It's a legitimate question about why drugstores and or manufacturers aren't competing on price.
Medicine prices in general aren't regulated in Germany. OTC can be quite expensive if you shop in the local stores (Apotheke) for brand names.
If you have a public plan and get proscribed non-otc medication you pay max 10 euro per month regardless of cost.
In the US you can get a prescription filled for as low as $4.
Actually I know both sides of the healthcare system, too. The health care in both countries depends strongly on the hospital you end up. You can get the best healthcare available on the planet in the US - true, you can get it in more places than in Germany - true. But there are many pretty bad hospitals in the US, especially in places nobody wants to work - you´ll find these in Germany, too - but not so many (bearing in mind the US is much bigger).
Doctors aren´t well paid in Germany - quite true - i.e. an ENT specialist in a private practice receives 30 Euro per patient ONCE per three months time regardless of how often they see you or what examinations they perform. So, very true, they´ll shuffle about 70-100 patients per day through their office. Pain mangement sucks in Germany - the younger doctors are a little better but two reasons - you don´t show pain and doctors have to fill out a lot of forms fors stronger drugs - takes too much time (can see 2 patients instead). OTC is more expensive in Germany as cars are much more expensive in Germany than in the US - a long as they can sell at these prices - the firms will. The biggest BUT considering the health care system is (I might be wrong) is the retention/deductible - which is at best 10% in the US, in Germany its nil. So if you decide to spend a few weeks on intensive care (about 500 000 USdollars) - you´ll still have to cough up 50 000 in the US, in Germany nil - thats pretty bad luck for the average person.
So if you decide to spend a few weeks on intensive care....
Of course that doesn't concern him. That is someone else's problem. He feels no need to pay extra money so someone else can get the medical service they need. As far as he's concerned, he's never going to need it so he shouldn't have to pay for it.
Wow what an insightful coverage, hundreds of cases, thousands of managed cases discussed, handling of debilitating conditions etc.. Geez dude you did a great work. I just don't know why infant mortality in the US is worse than any other developed country.
And just wait to get a condition that will make it mandatory to go to the hospital once or twice a week (like dialysis for ex) and then go back to the US to enjoy your cheap OTC drugs.
How would your US cost look like if you e.g. happened to be in a serious traffic accident ? And the German cost for the same ?
If you don't have health insurance, you would pay nothing in the US. Hospitals must treat all patients with life or limb threatening injuries the same.
All of your treatment would likely be finished before they found out if you can pay for it or not, anyway.
But then they would send you a bill to pay, wouldn't they ?
Sure, but you'd get out of it by talking to the hospital's finance department. If they didn't just drop it for you, there is a wide variety of money available from different sources for exactly that type of thing.
People underestimate the charity available if someone is only willing to ask for it.
Gotta call bullshit. You're talking about the initial care, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Treatment for something like that will go on for months, and can be debilitating if ignored. There's no way you're going to get all that for free, even if you're expecting to recoup it from insurance (which will probably get you blackballed from the hospital before the insurance agrees to cough anything up).
For the non-life-threatening stuff I've had to do, private practices were glad to perform the procedure and let the insurance company sort it out. As a matter of fact, they even tend to help when the insurance company is being a pain (ended up not wanting to pay for a $150 xray). At no point did they refuse to give me treatment.
You're wanting premium care though, and you're wanting me and everyone else to pay for it.
I haven't been in a car wreck, but I did need elective surgery when I didn't have insurance, and the doctor cut his rate in half for me, and charged nothing for any of the dozen or so follow up visits.
A family member of mine had $250,000 worth of chemotherapy, a week long hospital stay, and several doctors' bills paid for when he had no insurance.
Honestly, sometimes all you have to do to get what you need is ask for it.
They only have to treat you to the point that you are stable.
Doctors aren't as well paid in Germany as they are in the U.S., so they have a habit of shuffling as many patients through their offices as possible.
Doctors in the US do this, too. It has nothing to do with how well you're paid, and everything to do with getting paid more for seeing more patients.
Those cold, heartless american doctors. They only go to med school because they want to be filthy rich... rich off of our tragic losses when their 2 minute "factory assembly line" checkups fail to catch the disease that kills our toddlers and grandparents.
Absolutely none of them go into it because they want to heal people, and make things better in the world. All of them know that medical school is insanely cheap, and that they can simply pay off their cheap student loans with their first week's paycheck, and then invest the rest of their ill-gotten gains in some Enron or another.
ProTip: Sarcasm only works when you don't look like you're falling all over yourself to use it. (It would also help if anything I said implied I believed anything you're suggesting.)
Bonus Hint: I said "doctors", not "all doctors" or even "most doctors".
I'm not being sarcastic.
[deleted]
The amount he pays has nothing to do with whatever plan he gets (everyone gets the same); it's a fixed fraction of his salary.
[deleted]
The premium has a top income cap somewhere around 40000 EUR a year iirc. At 14% its 230EUR(for the employee) a month.
However. His actual problem was that he is apparently unable to communicate with his doctor. Your painkillers weren't enough? Talk to your doctor. You are unsatisfied with the checkup? Talk to your doctor.
.. and the aspirin thing is complete BS. I just bought a 20 piece box for 1.99 ...
The base private plan is just shy of 180 Euros. Note that that's 9 times what I was paying in the U.S. (assuming parity) and the care is inferior.
The public plan isn't much cheaper for an individual and only becomes worthwhile if you've got a family. That said, going from private to public health care (as one would do as they age and start a family) is virtually impossible.
Pain killers should be more expensive because they're bad for you? Absurd, but I guess that goes well with the whole "we know what's best for you" approach.
[deleted]
I disagree with your opinion that pain killers are extremely unhealthy. Doctor in the house? They're also dirt cheap and I imagine the price would have to soar to start deterring people from buying them for even wisdom teeth removal.
So it's a 3 year old "push piece" by a right wing british PAC, written to move their "privitize britain's health care!" agenda?
Who the hell linked to this?
It's basically hosted on the British equivalent of the "Heritage Foundation's" website. I'm trying to envision who would vote this sort of thing up...and coming up blank.
Even the far-right Libertarian "make every road a toll road, and privatize sewage collection and drainage" nuts could find a more focused piece of punditry somewhere...
Sorry, I didn't really check civitas' background or agenda. I simply looked for a short summary of the German system and found this to be (while arguably a little bit too positive) rather correct. Other links I found were rather long, complicated PDF-reports by the WHO or the EU. If there was a wiki-link I'd have happily used it.
That said, did you find any factual errors?
They really didn't cite any facts, or attribute much of anything. Just a lot of vague talk about dissatisfaction, with a privatization agenda.
I'd really rather see a more technical document about the workings of the German and British system, not wrapped in a Right Wing political argument.
I mean, I've talked with a lot of British friends about their system, and for the most part it's like anything else. Nobody loves their system, or thinks its perfect, and everyone can cite ways that they'd like to see it improved, but not a one of them would swap it for American-style privatization.
For some reason though, I don't know if it's folks believing the politicians or whatever, my Brit friends are always surprised that Americans (also) have to wait to see doctors, that it takes months to get an appointment to see specialists from cardiologists to GI folks, and that "elective" surgery like hip and knee replacements can have a year or more waiting time. For some reason they (mistakenly) think privatization would clear that up... having never actually dealt with an HMO / PPO.
but not a one of them would swap it for American-style privatization.
How familiar are they with the American system, I wonder?
Well, the one point most of them are clear on is that the threat of medical-related bankruptcy in the US, for both the uninsured and the insured, is very very real.
That's enough to make any sane person think twice about that level of soul-sale to buy a (largely imaginary) shorter wait time at the doctor's office.
but not a one of them would swap it for American-style privatization.
What about a German style hybrid system. The German system described here seems very similar to what Democratic politicians in the US (Clinton, Obama) are proposing.
I was surprised when I started to read it as well. Especially since Thatcher did something like that, weakening the NHS and creating a parallel private market, and prices increased (and so did waiting time).
Spellcheck. Get Firefox!
I use Firefox, but I haven't any thesaurus installed. I generally reply in two motions: I write it quickly and click "reply", then I go and see if there are any mistakes. Not efficient, I know, but generally nobody reads it in that interval :/
For Americans who don't care about British politics, this is a nicely informative comparison of the British system and the German system.
I like this article, it emphasizes that we can't just throw around the term "universal healthcare". He seems to promote capitalistic way of doing healtcare. While everyone has to pay into it, they can choose who provides it to them, and more importantly who doesn't. This creates and spurns competition. This would be great. As a capitalist I would love to have a system like this. That's what people don't realize about US healthcare. We already basically have universal healthcare through our employeers. But we don't choose our providers. OUR universal healthcare is in many ways more socialist and commmunist than the healthcare that is in Germany. We should be demanding that we get to pick and choose our providers!
As a capitalist I would love to have a system like this.
Unfortunately, you can only have one in a basically socialist society like France or Germany. In a right-wing society like Canada or the UK where citizens are brainwashed sheep who will take being fucked up the ass then take it and take it, you can't tolerate competition between public and private. Because if you do then the right-wing government will starve the public system until it is snuffed out. If France's public or private healthcare quality ever got reduced, there would be riots in the streets. Not so in Canada or the UK. USA? Forget it, you are the kingdom of submissive masochists.
The competition between providers that ensues from not subjecting the patient to a monopolistic general practitioner, that is good. It is the single determinant of queue length, whether patients have a choice of GP. As evidence of right-wing governments' fervent desire to destroy the health care system, I present you the fact that Canadian politicians have tried to make doctor-switching more painful and difficult. And that they have cynically justified this by saying it would cut queues and lower costs. Because having two doctor visits is less expensive than just one, of course.
If France's public or private healthcare quality ever got reduced, there would be riots in the streets.
It's funny, every month there is a reform to offer less service and pay more (the last one is called "franchise medicale") and I see no riots in the streets.
France? Riots? never...
oh wait.
Do you realize that thugs aren't rioting because of health care reforms? They probably don't even know how our health care system is organized.
I've gotten to the point that I'm done 'reasoning' with Americans. They seem to think if you can't make money off it then it's communist or something.
So you can have your shitty healthcare, I don't really give a damn. If you like it that there are heartless corporations literally competing to take your money and find ever more creative ways in not giving it back then go ahead. You can die knowing you fought the evils of communism and saved a few bucks in taxes (and blew a few thousand in insurance premiums no less).
So you can have your shitty healthcare
It's obvious you know next to nothing about health care in the US. I can make an appointment and see a doctor in the same day and the care is among the best in the world. Most new medical and pharmaceutical innovations come from the US.
Perhaps for you. But let's say you weren't able to get a job that provided health insurance.... The number of people with little or no coverage in the US keeps growing.
What percentage of those people can afford health care but choose not to? What percentage of those people have cable television or cell phones?
What kind of savage are you, that you want people to go without cable television just so they can afford their lasik eye surgery, and to pester ER doctors with their hypochondria?
Why don't you ask them to forego eating instead? It's sociopaths like you that give all americans a bad name.
We need to cap doctor's salaries at $22,000 a year. That will fix this mess we're in.
Where do you get these same-day appointments? I have to wait weeks for appointments (in Connecticut).
The care isn't the best in the world if you can't afford it and don't have health insurance. In those cases the care is the worst, because it doesn't exist.
And if our care is so great, why are our health outcomes lower than many other industrialized nations?
And if our care is so great, why are our health outcomes lower than many other industrialized nations?
Because we eat like hogs, don't exercise, smoke, and do all sorts of other stupid shit as if we were all secretly suicidal?
What do you know about healthcare in Australia?
I can do the exact same thing. It's actually how I bailed out of having to do one of my exams since I had the flu on that day, made an appointment with the doctor, same day service.
oh and I'm a uni bum who doesn't work, i.e. I spend my days burried in books and not working. Should I not have the same level of service as someone in the work force because I don't pay any taxes (yet)?
The majority of the population who pay their national insurance contributions accept that they must also pay for the poor
And this is why there is such great resistance in the US to publicly funded health care. The majority here have an attitude of entitlement, a "why should poor people get my money" kind of outlook.
In other words, health care reform in the US is being held back by pervasive, blatant and unrelenting ignorance.
[deleted]
From the article: "It is true that the rich can always buy a premium service....German policy makers do not waste their time trying to stop some people from ever getting more than anyone else. They focus on ensuring that the standard of care available to the poorest people is acceptably high.
==> premiums are set as a percentage of income. This percentage varies from fund to fund, with an average of 14 per cent ...
Yeah ... that works really well. My next marginal dollar is taxed at: 31% Federal income tax, 7% state income tax, 15% (self-employment tax -- the equivalent of SS and Medicare for you employees), 3.1 municipal tax (31+7+15+3 = 56%).
My marginal tax rate is already 56%. Effectively (due to a 7% sales tax in my county), the 44% I have left to spend is reduced by another 7% when I spend it (sales tax is applied at spend, not at earn). 44% - 7% = 37%.
I spend another 2% of my income on my property tax, so I'm down to 35% of the next dollar I earn remaining in my pocket.
Now, y'all wanna tell me it's only another 14%? That leaves me with ... for the next dollar I earn, I get to keep a whole 20 cents.
Yeah.
Right.
Kiss my ass.
It's for your own good. What will you do when you discover you have ass cancer, and the treatment costs $49 trillion dollars?
Don't come crying to your friendly socialists then, my friend!
==> What will you do when you discover you have ass cancer
BTDT.
Didn't come "crying to your friendly socialists." Won't be doing it in the future, either.
the 44% I have left to spend is reduced by another 7% when I spend it
Just being pedantic, but if you're losing 7% on sales tax, you're not losing 7% of your salary, you're losing it when you spend it. That's roughly equivalent to 3% of your salary.
==> Just being pedantic
You're not being pedantic, you're being correct.
The point still stands. I give enough. I'm not paying for y'all's medical care too.
Your house catches on fire, you call the fire department. Someone tries kicking in your front door, you call the police. In either case, I am glad I don't have to call somebody, I don't know, thousands of miles away sitting in a little cubicle and asking them if I'm covered to receive help, or if I am covered, how much it's going to cost me out of pocket.
Thats the kind of universal health care I want, not what their doing in Germany either. I, like every other person on earth, want health care, not health insurance.
I am glad I don't have to call somebody, I don't know, thousands of miles away sitting in a little cubicle and asking them if I'm covered to receive help
Uh.. You mean like, Washington, DC?? Oh, and by the way, there's no one to call. They just make dictates about what care you are to receive and there's no appeal...
call somebody, I don't know, thousands of miles away sitting in a little cubicle and asking them if I'm covered to receive help, or if I am covered, how much it's going to cost me out of pocket.
That's not how it works here in Germany. In general, doctors decide what's necessary. If the sickness fund claims afterwards that a certain treatment wasn't indicated doctors (or hospitals) end up paying the bill themselves. Never patients.
What also sucks is that no all workers in a hospital will accept your insurance, and you don't know till after the bill. Due to lawsuits, doctors incorporate as private companies with 1 employee. The hospital then contracts with these 'companies' for their services.
So if any one doctor in your surgery does not accept your insurer, he'll bill you direct.
And since doctors or hospitals don't post their prices, or what plans they accept ( and technically, each individual doctor would have to do so ) you don't know till after treatment if one of the docs who treated you will try and bill you seperately because he doesn't take Blue Cross.
Apparently Radiologists and Anesthiologists are the biggest sources of these problems.
It was funny, went i went in for my MRI, the form I signed from Hospital said all this, and noted they couldn't guarantee that the person who'd see me would accept my insurance.
I, like every other person on earth, want health care, not health insurance.
Then pay for it. You can either pay for the care, or pay for the insurance so they'll pay for the care.
Doctors need to eat. Hospitals need to buy medical equipment.
You pay for it no matter what. Paying for it indirectly just means it will cost more.
most americans are too scared of their own shadows to bother thinking about something outside the confines of what they're told. i know, i live amongst them. =(
As a European MD I noticed that most Americans seem to be rather misinformed.
/fixed.
A quick google search reveals German health care is some of the costliest in the world in % of GDP terms at 11% of GDP. This is behind the US at 14-16% but nowhere near as efficient as the UK or Japan at 7-8% of GDP.
More figures: http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/03/05/global_health/
but nowhere near as efficient
The fact that something has a low price doesn't mean it's cheap. Or efficient.
That may be generally true but in this case it seems not to be. The British are almost as fat and unhealthy as Americans, topping the world charts on obesity with the US. Yet we manage to provide health care for half the price of the US and at comparable quality. The average Briton lives to 78 whereas the average American lives to 77.
Yet we manage to provide health care for half the price of the US and at comparable quality.
Health care is provided but it's underfunded. Mandatory minimum waiting periods have been implemented.
Thats beside the point.
It's not as simple as saying its underfunded. The govermnent is a labour government and have created thousands of non-jobs in the NHS (creating jobs = winning votes).
There's plenty of money there for a decent NHS, but too much is going on managers and 5-a-day-coordinators.
The article is okay, but a bit too positive about reality in german. Yes, you can choose your MD as you like, but unless you are in private plans your likely to wait a while for specialist attention. Its true that the poor receive an okay basic treatment, but there are some real things lacking or quite expensive. Basically if you have high enough pay you can escape the system into the private sector, pay less, get better service and look down on all those unlucky ones stuck in the upper end of the service but not yet above the 'Beitragsbemessungsgrenze'. Its better than nothing but surely not the best system of them all.
but, but.. the TV told me that universal healthcare is a communist plot
Essentially this article isn't that accurate on German style healthcare. As everyone outside the hospitals is essentially a free agent, everyone is trying to make a profit. Everything is invoiced and is a line item on somebodies bill and as with the US, only certain items are covered, particularly in the public system. In any case there is an administrative monster lurking within that system which isn't for the NHS. Also, the NHS is hated by Big Pharma. Public health insurance in Germany try to restrict what drugs are given out, but the NHS is much larger and able to push down prices.
I may have misread - but wasn't that article targeted at a UK audience about how the German system is better?
showed that the German are far more satisfied with their system than we are with the NHS.
Ummm.... but don't the universal healthcare advocates keep saying everything is bright and cheery in the UK - land of universal healthcare? That any intimations that things are NOT perfect there are FUD being spread by insurance companies?
I'm confused.
I have heard that the UK and Germany healthcare systems are not the ones that the US should copy. Some other European countries apparently have more affordable, more effective care than what the US has now.
Ok guys I'm from Germany and I have to say that the German Health care system rather sucks. It is very bureaucratic, over complicated and not really cost effective. Drugs are very expensive and after all there is no real competition between insurance companies. If you are rich enough you better get private insurance because the treatment is way better then. But if you earn not enough money you are not even allowed to switch by law. So you get a kind of 2-class society.
I lived in Britain for about 8 months and i have to say that I'm pretty impressed. I got an appointment on the same day i called my GP-Department (or however you might call it). I was able to see a specialist in the same week and i were able to switch to another GP if wanted to.
You also have to see that this Article Cites a survey from 1996. A lot happened since then in Britain... in Germany not so much.
I kind of agree: Some parts of the germany HC system are far from perfect.
If you are poor or rich, you still get comperative excellent healthcare here but if you are in the middle area it's a bit different: You can't switch to private insurance because you earn not enough but you have to pay relativly much for comperatively decent service.
Wow, in America I can see the doctor the same hour or two I arrive. You're calling seeing a doctor within a week "good service"?
RTFA
Not so in Germany, where queueing up in a hospital outpatient department to see a specialist is largely unknown. First, Germans are free to visit any doctor they like. They may either walk in off the street, or ring for an appointment that will invariably be booked for the same morning or afternoon. Consumers can and do penalise bad service. Our recent study of German consumers commonly produced reactions like this: 'I saw a long queue, so hopped on the tube and went to a different practice'; 'she was rather ill-tempered so I never went back'; 'the facilities were drab, so I went to a different one next to my office'; 'I felt rushed at his practice so didn't go back'.
What doctors are you going to? There are lots of doctors in America where you can't get an appointment for weeks or months.
Ok, let's disspell some common myths:
FALSE: Hospitals are legally bound to accept and treat anyone that comes into the Emergency Room, regardless of ability to pay. This process is THE most expensive way to treat patients. However, it is demand that people are treated universally.
FALSE: The laws of the United States have removed market economics and replaced a favoritism system that prefers large drug and insurance companies. This prevents the market from finding the most efficient use of resources.
FALSE: A federally mandated and controlled universal health care system will (once again) aggregate too much power and money control at the federal level, leading to immense corruption such as we are seeing in the military complex.
Ok, you say that we have a form of universal health care, and I'll throw you a small bone in saying that hospitals, by law, have to treat any patients brought before them, regardless of who they are and if they can pay.
But what you fail to mention is the mountain of shit that begins to stack the moment you even THINK of going to a hospital without an HMO or some kind of health-care provider.
Have any of you been to a hospital lately? More-over, have any of you been to a hospital and been unable to pay or at least fill out all the forms they give you? They take your name down and put you at the bottom of "the list" if you can't fill that crap out. I was beaten unconscious by my brother a year ago, and my friends carried me into the ER. I hadn't done anything to provoke the beating, he's just an angry drunk at 3am.
Immediately I was treated second class because I couldn't fill the forms out (remember, I'm unconscious), so I obviously didn't have the money to pay for just an initial diagnosis. It didn't matter that I was unconscious and bleeding with massive head-trauma, I couldn't pay my bill so I would be seen by the next available doctor, which was an hour later. I bled, unconscious, in the ER waiting room for an hour before someone came to check on me.
Now keep in mind that brain cells, when cut off from oxygen, begin to die within minutes.[1][2] So, theoretically speaking, I could have been dying and because I was unable to properly fill out forms to pay for my treatment, I was essentially given a cold shoulder. It didn't matter that I was actually insured at the time through a state sponsored HMO, I couldn't provide immediate proof so I wasn't seen immediately.
How do I know how long it took? Well I was given an invoice at the end of my visit.
Fast Forwarding to 6 months after, I still can't pay my bill because I have to work a minimum wage job. My hospital bill is over $1,000, and if I'm even injured the hospital won't treat me because I'm a "Non-Paying Customer", which acording the 30 some odd notices I recieved, I can never recieve treatment from that particular hospital again. If I'm dying, they'll let me die, in other words.
Hospital's blacklist you and refer you to credit agencies. I can't get a loan or a new apartment now because my credit rating is shit. My HMO won't cover the visit because they didn't authorize me to go to that hospital. Apperently, you can recieve treatment from a hospital and not have the money to pay, but it'll only happen once, you'll be flagged as a huge credit risk, and you'll never be allowed treatment in that particular hospital again.
Listed Sources *[1] http://www.braininjury.com/injured.html *[2] http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001435.htm
I agree with your initial comment and your story is heartbreaking. This is part of 'expensive' that we deal with in our health care system. People get treated badly, expense gets shifted to people that can barely pay, and those that do pay blame those that can't.
Please note that I said that a federally mandated universal healthcare is not the answer. Each state should take that as their constitutionally protected right to appropriately tax and fund a healthcare system for their own state. To shift this to the fed will, as I have said, put too much power in one place.
Amazing. Usually when I'm unconscious, I'm not able to evaluate hospital care or criticize check-in procedures. Do you have psychic powers?
Doctors that delay trauma care until you've filled out the paperwork are guilty of malpractice and would/should lose their licenses.
More likely, the ER was backed up, and they couldn't get to you immediately.
if I'm even injured the hospital won't treat me because I'm a "Non-Paying Customer", which acording the 30 some odd notices I recieved, I can never recieve treatment from that particular hospital again. If I'm dying, they'll let me die, in other words.
Not true. If you go there to that ER to get an asthma prescription filled, they might be able to refuse that. But by law, they can't deny emergency service.
If you want someone to blame, blame your stupid friends that decided to drive you there rather than call an ambulance.
I can't get a loan or a new apartment now because my credit rating is shit.
If you can't pay a $1000 bill, how would you expect to get an apartment when they want first month and security deposit?
My HMO won't cover the visit because they didn't authorize me to go to that hospital.
Um, have you ever bothered to call? They can't deny ER treatment, generally, especially if you were unconscious at the time. Or do you just sit around whining to friends about it, rather pestering them to cover it retroactively?
Hospitals are legally bound to accept and treat anyone that comes into the Emergency Room, regardless of ability to pay.
Source? I thought they are only obligated to "treat" life-threatening injuries. Treatment in this case means stabilizing the patient, and then transferring them to a public hospital if they do not have insurance.
The rules may have changed, I'm an old man.
Most people on Reddit are misinformed, that is what makes it interesting. Kind of like going to an intellectual circus.
And what is your role?
Juggling and sticking my head in the lion's mouth.
As a European MD you are rather misinformed about the attention span of most Americans. That article has too many words and some long words and not enough pictures and no pictures of any "celebrities" so they wont read it- nice try though.
yeah nice try biatch we ain't fallin for that intelligentsia bull shit ivory tower!
america's funniest home videos... #1!!!!!
No no no no NO!
America's funniest PEOPLE #1!!!!!
more like America: Funniest People
What does your name mean?
Don't listen to artied - he's pretty jaded about the American public. They are definitely informed and intere... Hey! Christina Aguilera had her baby!!!
wtf, she had a baby?
For brunch.
I think a dingo ate your baby.
I know, just when we thought celebrities were eating again.
Britney's?
As stated below by a very insightful reader, this article is a 3 year old "push piece" by a right wing british PAC, written to further their health care privatization agenda and hosted on the British equivalent of the "Heritage Foundation's" website.
That might explain why it's so long and dry. :)
The article suffers from too much passive voice.
Regardless of that, I know from firsthand experience that the NHS is a failure that cost me $300/month in taxes (converted from £)
I live in California. I wish our monthly costs were that low. In addition to paying more, we have a $500 yearly deductible per person for covered items within our plan. For certain "specialty" treatments that require us to go out of "network", our out-of-pocket expense is $5000 per person per year. And we have the best insurance my husband's company offers -- none of that janky HMO stuff.
Some facts about privatized care in the U.S. We are all one bout with cancer away from bankruptcy. Every year our companies offer less and our deductibles rise -- well in excess of inflation. For those who suffer under HMOs, in the event of a potentially terminal illness, a group will vote on whether or not your treatment is cost effective -- in other words they'll vote on whether or not you live or die. That is if you are lucky enough to even have insurance -- 40% of the US does not. That's hundreds of millions of people with nothing.
Additionally, my husband has elevated blood pressure. His doctor refused to write it down in his charts, instead discussing treatments offline. She explained that if she recorded it and we ever needed to seek out insurance on our own, a history of hypertension would make it impossible for us to find affordable coverage.
You complain because you pay $300/month? Privatize your system like the U.S. and you'll see what failure really is.
I too live in California and corroborate much of your comment. However:
I thought that 46 million Americans had no insurance. Given the U.S. population of about 300 million, that's about 15% without health insurance, not 40%. Curious to know where you saw the 40% figure...
The US system is expensive because you have a fascist system where the state is run for the benefit of the corporation. It is nothing to do with privatisation.
Like so much in the US there are a series of favoured monopolies from the time of the new deal. These are why some of your prices are way above European standards (best examples being modern telecomms. Broadband and mobile phone networks are cheaper in the EU).
What you need to do is kick out the politicians who follow this route.
Yeah I complain about $300/month because going private was half as cheap and more than double as good!
That's what she said.
Edit: Dumb European used too many words, no pictures.
Great sentence O wise one