| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - How Does Nationalizing HealthCare & Hospitals Work
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


How Does Nationalizing HealthCare & Hospitals Work

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: How Does Nationalizing HealthCare & Hospitals Work
    Posted: 18 Jun 2009 at 17:07
Do you guys think healthcare should be a Human right in every country or for a person to obtain for his own invidual self.And I'm not just talking about mediacore healthcare I'm mean health care to treatmeant of  tumors,costly surgeries, and accident recovery therapy other issues as well.
 
When they are crisuses such as influenza after World War 1 which killed 40 million,or Swine flu scare,I think it would be clever to nationailize hospitals that way they both can track the status of potential outbreaks.
 
It seems the US is the only country that doesn't have a universal coverage system.It seems they might spend that on the Voyage to Mars  ,a park or Stadium.Can anyone elaborate on the universal coverages in other countries and what exactly does it cover.


Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2009 at 18:56
Every nation state requires a national health policy of some sort. Even in America, where the right has suceeded in tainting the very thought of reasonable healthcare for all, the government has a huge health policy. Which overlaps and rarely works.

I think the two major differences are between a fully nationalised system and a fully privatised system with government subsidies and government backed insurance policies. Of course there is the two tier system, such as here in Ireland, where private clinics operate in public hospitals, and where the quality of your healthcare is completely reliant on the amount of money you earn every week.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2009 at 20:29
Yes those are the major classes, Britain being an example of the fully nationalised, and France being an example of government insurance.
 
Is Ireland still suffering somewhat from originally having a system that was dependent on what is in a way a third model - provision by the Church?
 
I ask because several Luxembourg hospitals are still owned and run by the (Roman Catholic) Church (while coming under the state insurance schemes) and on the whole it works well.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2009 at 21:28
Hello to you all
 
Mexico and some central and south american countries which were ruled at one time by wilde capitalism military puppets of the US don't have any kind of social security network. Those puppets canceled them when they came to power as an experiment and they got lots of praise for doing it.
 
Anyway, the real problem of healthcare is two-fold: Its immense size and immense cost.
 
Healthcare serves the entire population which means a bureaucracy bigger than the biggest bureaucracy currently in existence, the public school system (which by the way right wing cooks want to privitize even if it means denying upto 20% of the population the chance of education).
 
About cost, In the US healthcare is about 15% of the GDP (almost double that of europe). Both numbers are just too big to make a fully nationalised system viable.
 
Managing the bureaucracy and making sure money isn't wasted is just too much for any country and even if the people shared some of the cost the government will still be forced to provide for the rest which is too muh for countries that are already burdened with other social obligations.
 
In my opinion, healthcare preceeds any other social need including retirement. While providing for old age is important there are several ways to build retirement plans that will eventually provide a bearable standard of living without burdening the government. However healthcare is another matter. Insurance companies even those with good policies cannot simply cover everyone and people have to put some of their own money.
 
If the government support insurance companies by providing their own minimal insurance coverage this will have a double effect: first policies in general will be cheaper and many people will prefer the new and cheaper policies over the basic coverage provided by the government and the pressure on insurance companies will be much less.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2009 at 00:01
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Is Ireland still suffering somewhat from originally having a system that was dependent on what is in a way a third model - provision by the Church?


All of our hospitals are to my knowledge run by the state - ie, owned by the state. There are a few upmarket private hospitals, but they are mainly operated by the state. Dolphin would have a better idea about this so maybe he'll stick his head in at some stage.

Our education system is almost entirely owned by the church. The vast majority of rural primary schools and most secondary schools are owned by the Catholic church. The one great impediment to Ireland ever having a secular educational system is the fact that it would require a massive government land grab of church property (Which would put Henry VIII to shame) I don't think we have the same problem with hospitals since most of our hospitals were built in the late 40s and early 50s.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2009 at 15:14
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

About cost, In the US healthcare is about 15% of the GDP (almost double that of europe). Both numbers are just too big to make a fully nationalised system viable.
US costs are so much higher than any other major country because the system is so badly organised. Apart from profit-taking trhere's no reason why US care should be more expensive; indeed given the lower level of provision it ought to be cheaper.
Quote
Managing the bureaucracy and making sure money isn't wasted is just too much for any country and even if the people shared some of the cost the government will still be forced to provide for the rest which is too muh for countries that are already burdened with other social obligations.
The people have to bear ALL the cost - there's no-one else to pay for it (might be different in a really traditional monarchy like Saudi Arabia, where the royal family may not be classed as 'people').
The question is, how should the cost be shared out, and how spent most efficiently.
Quote  
In my opinion, healthcare preceeds any other social need including retirement. While providing for old age is important there are several ways to build retirement plans that will eventually provide a bearable standard of living without burdening the government. However healthcare is another matter. Insurance companies even those with good policies cannot simply cover everyone and people have to put some of their own money.
Same point as above. Even in an insurance-based system people have to pay the premiums.
 
I'd disagree that any private pension scheme can guarantee an adequate pension on retirement. People who retired since mid-2008 are getting much less pension than they would have expected when they were providing for it. In other years blatant inflation has had the same effect though from the other side so to speak.
 
Whether health care should be of higher priority than education or pensions or unemployment compensation is of course a matter of political opinion and decision.
Quote  
If the government support insurance companies by providing their own minimal insurance coverage this will have a double effect: first policies in general will be cheaper and many people will prefer the new and cheaper policies over the basic coverage provided by the government and the pressure on insurance companies will be much less.
 
Al-Jassas
I agree government-backed insurance as in most of western Europe is more effective than nationalised services like in Britain. However, I gather nationalisation works rather better in smaller countries like Denmark.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2009 at 14:56
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:


Mexico and some central and south american countries which were ruled at one time by wilde capitalism military puppets of the US don't have any kind of social security network. Those puppets canceled them when they came to power as an experiment and they got lots of praise for doing it.

At the same time the US  funded health drives to these countries. People like President Taft provided sanitation programs and health Hospitals in the Philipines after their rebellion.The US has used this to innoculate certain psyches of resistance in territories of their  colonial expansion in the late1890's to early 1900's


It would be wise for the US government to own some of these medical breakthrough programs instead of the university funded research programs that way there will be more effective results in the medical field.Vaccinations and Treatments for diseases would probably see a rise.


Originally posted by Al Jassas<br><br> Al Jassas

wrote:


If the government support insurance companies by providing their own minimal insurance coverage this will have a double effect: first policies in general will be cheaper and many people will prefer the new and cheaper policies over the basic coverage provided by the government and the pressure on insurance companies will be much less.
 


The US government is trying this strategy by check balancing the income of the payments  for the health plans of health insured borrowers.Meaning it is deciding on how to regulate both the lending towards the health patients by lending the money needed for payments.And it is also lending money to the Health Companys for example if the daily cost per month is $200 the patient National Plan(US Government)  may give $120 for the to the borrower therefore the borrower has to pay $80 per month. If the givernment

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2114.cfm

The plan would also bring about significant shifts in sources of coverage. While 21.6 million people would lose their private health insurance, 48.3 million people are projected to obtain public coverage through Medicaid, SCHIP, or the new National Plan. Private employer-sponsored coverage would decline by 13.9 million, and private non-group coverage would decline by 7.7 million.



It seems that the US governemt is also trying to buy into Employer Health plans which would also bring some sort of stability.

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2114.cfm

Lewin applied a type of model known as a micro-simulation.[7] Health Systems Innovations Network (HSI) conducted an analysis (funded by the McCain campaign) also using this type of approach.[8] It found that the plan would reduce the uninsured by 25.5 million. It also found that 24.6 million people would enroll in the new public plan through employers or in the non-group market


Another plan is for the governmet to reimburse the providers some depending on what tax bracket and whether it be Medicaid or HSI this also due to new revamping of infrastrtutue in the health care sector I'm sure you heard of the New Health Databases that every new Westernized countries are acquiring.

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2114.cfm

The figures above are based on the assumption that the National Plan would reimburse providers at a level halfway between private market rates and the lower rates set by Medicare.

Cost. According to the Lewin Group, health care system-wide savings over the 2010-19 period would be about $571.6 billion. Since the plan does not fundamentally change incentive structures in the health care sector,[11] most of its anticipated savings come from various delivery system improvements common to Obama's and McCain's plans, ranging from health information technology to disease management.

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

All of our hospitals are to my knowledge run by the state - ie, owned by the state. There are a few upmarket private hospitals, but they are mainly operated by the state. Dolphin would have a better idea about this so maybe he'll stick his head in at some stage.

I don't think we have the same problem with hospitals since most of our hospitals were built in the late 40s and early 50s.



This would prove that if the government owned more hospitals they would know what is needed for medical expenditures and should at least own different departments. Would anyone know why they were successful at doing this?

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2114.cfm

The Obama Health Care Plan: A Closer Look at Cost and Coverage

Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) has put forth an ambitious health care plan.[1] The plan proposes:

  • Expanding eligibility for existing public programs, including both Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP);
  • Creating a National Health Insurance Exchange to serve as a federal regulator of private insurance plans that would compete alongside a new National Health Plan;
  • Providing income-related subsidies for those without employer-sponsored health insurance while mandating that children have coverage; and
  • Requiring that medium and large employers provide coverage or pay a tax, while extending tax credits to small businesses and creating a government reinsurance program to cover businesses' catastrophic health costs.

http://www.workandliveabroad.com/article_item.php?articleid=587


Organization:

 

  1. France- The World Health Organization says that France offered the best Health Care services among all nations. France has universal health care system that gives its citizens a free health services.

 

  1. Italy- Italy hospitals have one of the best hospital facilities around the world. They offer good services to their citizens and give free accommodation to all.

 

  1. San Marino- San Marino provides one of the best health assistance to its people. They have the best clinics and hospitals that offer free or low costs services to its people.

 

  1. Andorra- Andorra’s citizens has a privilege to get medical ettention fro free through the countries expandable universal health care system. Andorra’s health care facilities are also favored among its neighboring country across Europe.

 

  1. Malta- Malta offers one of the best health care. The government had allotted a lot of budget annually for the expansion and modernization of their hospitals and health service to their people. They get the budget through the tax and the compulsory health insurance.

 

  1. Singapore- Singapore has a universal health care system where government ensures affordability, largely through compulsory savings and price controls, while the private sector provides most care. Like Malta, the government of Singapore also allotted big budget for their health care services. They also have universal health care system that gives all its citizens the privellege to get medical attention free or in lower cost.

 

  1. Spain- Residents in Spain who pay Social Security will have free services to any health care units. Tourists or Non-Residents can also take free charges in hospital bills if they obtained the E11 Form.

 

  1. Oman- Though Oman is located in the Middle, all its medical facilities and establishments can be compared to those in Western Countries.

 

 

  1. Austria- Austria is known, among other nation, to have a strong foundation on their health care units and social security system. Austrian medical practitioners are very well respected and highly regarded abroad.

 

  1.  Japan- Like in France, Japan offered good health service to its citizen. Each citizen is obliged to get insurance in the government that covers the universal health care system of Japan.

 




Edited by AksumVanguard - 21 Jun 2009 at 03:36
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2009 at 15:20
Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:


Organization:

1.  France- The World Health Organization says that France offered the best Health Care services among all nations. France has universal health care system that gives its citizens a free health services.

2. Italy- Italy hospitals have one of the best hospital facilities around the world. They offer good services to their citizens and give free accommodation to all.

3. San Marino- San Marino provides one of the best health assistance to its people. They have the best clinics and hospitals that offer free or low costs services to its people.

4. Andorra- Andorra’s citizens has a privilege to get medical ettention fro free through the countries expandable universal health care system. Andorra’s health care facilities are also favored among its neighboring country across Europe.

5. Malta- Malta offers one of the best health care. The government had allotted a lot of budget annually for the expansion and modernization of their hospitals and health service to their people. They get the budget through the tax and the compulsory health insurance.

6. Singapore- Singapore has a universal health care system where government ensures affordability, largely through compulsory savings and price controls, while the private sector provides most care. Like Malta, the government of Singapore also allotted big budget for their health care services. They also have universal health care system that gives all its citizens the privellege to get medical attention free or in lower cost.

7. Spain- Residents in Spain who pay Social Security will have free services to any health care units. Tourists or Non-Residents can also take free charges in hospital bills if they obtained the E11 Form.

8. Oman- Though Oman is located in the Middle, all its medical facilities and establishments can be compared to those in Western Countries.

9. Austria- Austria is known, among other nation, to have a strong foundation on their health care units and social security system. Austrian medical practitioners are very well respected and highly regarded abroad.

10. Japan- Like in France, Japan offered good health service to its citizen. Each citizen is obliged to get insurance in the government that covers the universal health care system of Japan.

I dont know why American sources invariably overlook the really important difference betwen different health care systems: whether they are free or whether you have to pay for them and then get your money back?
 
The difference may seem trivial, but is critical since in the latter case the people providing the service get paid for the service they provide whereas in the former the providers get paid anyway with, consequently, no need to worry about efficiency or quality, except as overseen by layers of bureaucracy, the fate that has impacted Britain's NHS.
 
Apart from that, the US seems unwilling to face up to the fact that lessening the cost of healthcare means taking money directly out of the pockets of the providers of the care, since they're the people getting it now. That's true no matter how you dress it up.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2009 at 16:39
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

The difference may seem trivial, but is critical since in the latter case the people providing the service get paid for the service they provide whereas in the former the providers get paid anyway with, consequently, no need to worry about efficiency or quality, except as overseen by layers of bureaucracy, the fate that has impacted Britain's NHS.



The third party system is not what its cracked up to be I have many family members who are naturalized and native born in the US who have fallen victim to the parent insurance company new cut backs,they third party coverage providers end up having to call back the customers and tell them that they have to rediscuss the terms of the premium and quote. Although the companys do provide a certain percentage of the coverage for the borrower it is still not enough especially when they need the backing of the Parent American Companys such HSI,Medicare, H.I.P. ETC.


Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


I don't know why American sources invariably overlook the really important difference between different health care systems: whether they are free or whether you have to pay for them and then get your money back?

 I am not aware of the full details of the free health insurance but they provide very minimal features such as Physyical Examinations, Emergency Room Occurances, and double digit medicne prescriptions.


Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Apart from that, the US seems unwilling to face up to the fact that lessening the cost of healthcare means taking money directly out of the pockets of the providers of the care, since they're the people getting it now. That's true no matter how you dress it up.


Not necessarily the amount of people defaulting on these companys health insurances would be a problem off their hand. Not to mention the health insurance providers,can lend the a bigger bulk of money to more important needs such as surgery cost and organ donor operations.

Here goes the a list of Major Insurances and third party insurance expenditures

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/155_personal_health_care_third_party_payments.html


 
















































































ITEM 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998









































 







































Personal health care expenditures 23.6 25.1 27.0 29.5 32.4 35.2 38.8 44.1 49.8 56.2 63.8 70.1 78.0 87.1 99.9 114.5 130.5 147.7 164.8 187.5 217.0 252.0 283.3 311.5 341.5 376.4 410.5 449.7 499.3 550.1 614.7 679.6 740.7 790.5 834.0 879.1 924.0 968.6 1,019.3
 







































Third party payments, total 10.6 11.7 12.7 13.9 15.1 16.6 20.0 25.3 29.1 33.5 38.9 43.6 49.1 55.1 65.0 76.4 88.6 101.3 115.1 133.2 156.8 183.5 207.8 229.2 250.6 275.8 302.4 333.7 371.8 416.9 469.6 526.2 578.9 623.5 665.8 708.6 745.9 779.6 819.8
    Percent of personal health care 44.7 46.6 47.2 47.3 46.7 47.3 51.5 57.4 58.3 59.6 61.0 62.3 62.9 63.3 65.1 66.7 67.9 68.6 69.8 71.0 72.2 72.8 73.4 73.6 73.4 73.3 73.7 74.2 74.5 75.8 76.4 77.4 78.2 78.9 79.8 80.6 80.7 80.5 80.4
  Private insurance payments 5.0 5.7 6.3 6.9 7.8 8.7 8.9 9.2 10.5 12.4 14.8 16.5 18.3 20.6 24.1 28.4 33.5 39.1 44.6 52.7 62.0 72.9 84.0 92.7 102.1 114.1 124.9 140.2 160.8 183.3 207.7 229.8 250.6 265.2 274.7 286.3 298.1 312.4 337.0
  Government expenditures 5.1 5.6 5.9 6.4 6.7 7.3 10.3 15.1 17.4 19.7 22.5 25.4 28.7 32.3 38.4 45.3 51.2 58.1 65.5 74.7 87.0 101.3 113.2 125.0 136.3 147.7 161.8 176.5 191.4 213.5 241.1 273.4 303.6 331.4 362.2 391.2 414.0 430.9 444.9
  Other 1 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.7 3.8 4.2 5.0 5.7 7.8 9.3 10.7 11.5 12.3 14.0 15.7 17.0 19.6 20.2 20.8 23.1 24.7 26.8 28.8 31.1 33.8 36.3 37.9
 







































Private consumer expenditures 2 18.1 19.1 20.6 22.5 25.1 27.2 27.7 28.1 31.3 35.2 39.7 42.9 47.2 52.6 59.0 66.5 75.4 85.5 94.3 107.1 122.3 141.4 159.4 175.1 193.0 214.7 233.0 256.3 288.2 316.5 352.8 383.1 412.4 432.3 442.9 456.8 476.2 501.4 536.5
    Percent met by private insurance 27.7 29.8 30.8 30.9 31.2 31.9 32.1 32.9 33.5 35.4 37.2 38.4 38.6 39.2 40.9 42.7 44.4 45.7 47.3 49.3 50.7 51.6 52.7 53.0 52.9 53.1 53.6 54.7 55.8 57.9 58.9 60.0 60.8 61.4 62.0 62.7 62.6 62.3 62.8
  Hospital care 5.2 5.7 6.2 6.9 7.7 8.5 8.1 7.6 8.7 9.9 11.6 12.7 14.2 16.1 18.8 21.7 24.9 28.5 31.9 36.7 41.8 48.7 56.3 60.8 63.9 67.8 71.5 78.0 86.1 95.9 106.6 114.9 120.9 124.0 121.2 118.2 119.6 123.2 130.9
    Percent met by private insurance 63.3 65.9 67.8 67.3 67.0 67.6 70.8 75.6 74.6 77.6 78.3 80.1 78.6 77.0 78.2 79.8 81.7 82.8 84.3 85.9 87.2 87.2 87.2 87.5 87.3 87.0 88.0 88.9 87.9 89.9 89.6 88.7 88.7 88.6 89.6 90.4 90.2 90.1 90.2
  Physicians' services 4.9 5.1 5.4 6.2 7.2 7.6 7.6 7.7 8.2 9.3 10.5 11.5 12.6 13.7 15.3 17.2 19.6 22.8 24.0 27.5 31.8 36.5 39.7 44.0 49.7 57.9 63.6 70.3 81.3 88.9 99.0 110.5 120.5 127.1 130.2 134.5 137.8 143.1 151.7
    Percent met by private insurance 32.5 35.2 36.6 34.9 33.8 34.9 36.9 38.8 41.0 42.9 45.5 45.8 46.0 48.8 48.9 49.0 49.2 49.3 50.9 52.4 53.9 54.7 55.5 56.3 57.1 57.8 58.6 59.3 62.2 64.9 67.5 69.9 72.0 74.1 75.9 77.5 77.4 76.4 76.5
  Drugs/other medical nondurables 4.2 4.4 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.7 6.1 6.5 7.2 7.7 8.3 8.8 9.3 10.1 11.1 12.0 13.1 14.1 15.7 17.6 19.9 22.6 25.6 28.3 31.0 34.0 37.2 40.6 44.3 48.3 53.4 57.9 62.9 66.9 71.2 76.9 84.5 92.8 103.1
    Percent met by private insurance 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.6 2.3 3.0 3.7 4.4 5.2 5.8 6.4 6.9 7.3 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 10.0 11.0 12.2 12.6 14.5 15.0 16.6 18.6 18.9 19.8 21.1 21.9 24.3 26.2 28.5 30.1 32.9 37.2 39.7 43.0 46.3

1 Includes nonpatient revenues and industrial inplant health services.
2 Includes expenditures not shown separately. Represents out-of-pocket payments and private health insurance benefits. Excludes net cost of insurance.

Source: U. S. Health Care Financing Administration, Health Care Financing Review, winter 1999.

http://www.hcfa.gov/stats/


Edited by AksumVanguard - 20 Jun 2009 at 16:45
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2009 at 19:30
Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

The difference may seem trivial, but is critical since in the latter case the people providing the service get paid for the service they provide whereas in the former the providers get paid anyway with, consequently, no need to worry about efficiency or quality, except as overseen by layers of bureaucracy, the fate that has impacted Britain's NHS.

The third party system is not what its cracked up to be I have many family members who are naturalized and native born in the US who have fallen victim to the parent insurance company new cut backs,they third party coverage providers end up having to call back the customers and tell them that they have to rediscuss the terms of the premium and quote. Although the companys do provide a certain percentage of the coverage for the borrower it is still not enough especially when they need the backing of the Parent American Companys such HSI,Medicare, H.I.P. ETC.
I don't see the relevance to what I said. We were discussing alternative forms of universal health care: the kind where the patient doesn't have to pay anything, and providers are paid whether they provide a service or not (as in the British system where general practitioners for instance have an annual fixed capitation fee depending on how many patients are on their books, not on how many they treat); and the kind where the patient chooses his provider and pays for the service directly depending on what treatment he gets, then being recompensed by the government.
 
The failings of private insurance schemes are irrelevant to that. We know such schemes don't deliver, which is why the US has the problem it has.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


I don't know why American sources invariably overlook the really important difference between different health care systems: whether they are free or whether you have to pay for them and then get your money back?

 I am not aware of the full details of the free health insurance but they provide very minimal features such as Physyical Examinations, Emergency Room Occurances, and double digit medicne prescriptions.
I don't know what you mean by 'free health insurance', but in fact free systems like the UK's NHS are at their best in dealing with critical life-saving work. They're at their worst dealing with things like physical exams, appointments for regular checkups and such.
 
I've had life-saving emergency treatment in a free system (Britain) and in public insurance ones (Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg) and Britain was as good as any. I've also had relatively trivial treatment in the US (two nights in hospital, half an hour of treatment (local anaesthetic) on the operating table), and been presented with a bill for $33,000 (thirty-three thousand) - ten times what the government would have had to pay in Luxembourg.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Apart from that, the US seems unwilling to face up to the fact that lessening the cost of healthcare means taking money directly out of the pockets of the providers of the care, since they're the people getting it now. That's true no matter how you dress it up.

Not necessarily the amount of people defaulting on these companys health insurances would be a problem off their hand.
How does a client default on a health insurance? Not get sick? If he doesn't pay, there's no insurance.
Quote
Not to mention the health insurance providers,can lend the a bigger bulk of money to more important needs such as surgery cost and organ donor operations.
But they will have less money available to do that (assuming they still exist at all).
 
If current health services cost $x billion and you reduce that to $y billion, $x-y billion must come from somewhere in the form of reductions in income. It can only come from (a) administration costs (b) medical and nursing salaries (c) paramedic and other staff salaries (d) insurance premiums (e) and therefore insurance company profits of staff wages (f) money paid to other providers for equipment and services (g) income of pharmaceutical companies.
 
That extra $30,000 I had to pay in the US had to go someone: if a switch was made to the Luxembourg system those people would have been $30,000 worse off (and I would have had the same treatment, which, incidentally, I accept was professional and satisfactory.
 
I don't really see what your table has to do with anything here. The subject is public universal health care systems, not private ones.

 


Edited by gcle2003 - 20 Jun 2009 at 19:34
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2009 at 03:30
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


I don't see the relevance to what I said. We were discussing alternative forms of universal health care: the kind where the patient doesn't have to pay anything, and providers are paid whether they provide a service or not (as in the British system where general practitioners for instance have an annual fixed capitation fee depending on how many patients are on their books, not on how many they treat); and the kind where the patient chooses his provider and pays for the service directly depending on what treatment he gets, then being recompensed by the government.

There lies a problem at hand with this .Are you aware of the number of Health Fraud cases in the United States,some estimates say its from 3% to 10% or even more. I would suggest that the amount of medical care needed for a patient being monitored following the patient either sends  the medical bill to Public Health Coverage themselves or the hospital sending the bill to the Public Health Coverages for the patients. Being recompensed leaves a window open for fraud and  alot of fraud.

Heres a snippet

Although the exact amount of healthcare fraud is difficult to determine, estimates range from three to ten percent, thus translating into staggering amounts of money lost to fraud.

http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=117524,00.html

The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General reported in testimony to Congress that $13.5 billion of Medicare fee-for-service claim payments, which are only a portion of Medicare payments, may have been a result of inadvertent error or outright fraud in fiscal year 1999. This figure does not consider the amount of fraud perpetrated against private insurance companies.

http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=117524,00.html
Currently, CI is involved in the following areas of healthcare fraud: false billings, mental health, nursing home fraud, chiropractic fraud, durable medical equipment fraud, staged accidents, pharmaceutical diversion, and patient referral (kickbacks) schemes.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:



The failings of private insurance schemes are irrelevant to that. We know such schemes don't deliver, which is why the US has the problem it has.





Maybe so but you must not also forget about personal needs for certain people who have a distinct needs for Plastic Surgery,Breast Augmentation ,Botox,Special Treatment to athletes.So it may be  a little difficult to eliminate private health coverage.Certain people what something that the government just would find crazy to provide.And of course eliminating private hospitals were special services can be performed are not realitic either.






Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I don't know what you mean by 'free health insurance', but in fact free systems like the UK's NHS are at their best in dealing with critical life-saving work. They're at their worst dealing with things like physical exams, appointments for regular checkups and such.

I've had life-saving emergency treatment in a free system (Britain) and in public insurance ones (Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg) and Britain was as good as any. I've also had relatively trivial treatment in the US (two nights in hospital, half an hour of treatment (local anaesthetic) on the operating table), and been presented with a bill for $33,000 (thirty-three thousand) - ten times what the government would have had to pay in Luxembourg.
 

If you mean "critical" as in a freak car crash,falling out of a 3 story building,or treating a stab wound then yes the US can provide that very quickly but it will do  it relunctantly in a  the Emergency Room to a not well insured victim. But if you are in the need for Chemo-Therapy or Need A Transplant then its a bit difficult if you are a third or second class citizen.


The check ups in Doctors offices are relatively cheap and the free Public Coverage takes care of that in the US.It is not really too much of a problem.



Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Apart from that, the US seems unwilling to face up to the fact that lessening the cost of healthcare means taking money directly out of the pockets of the providers of the care, since they're the people getting it now. That's true no matter how you dress it up.


You cannot lessen the cost of medical treatment so the key is to find out what particular patients need the  cheap treatment compared to  those who need the high expensive treatment.Thus they are some people who have a high medical coverage and have high paying job but are as healthy as "track racing horse". So imagine the money being dispersed for those with full medical coverage who  are in reality  healthy and don't need to spend that much.If a person has an expected amount money needed to pay their  health coverage,then money can be used for something else,hypothetically if we are in 1st world country then most people of the country's population would be healthy therefore not to be to concerned with too much money being dispersed for each of  their health coverages,hence the government would probably would be able to sustain the majority of citizens and   minority of citizens who are disabled,handiccaped,veterans and require heavy amount of dollars to be treated . 

What if there was 1st 2nd 3rd 4th level of treatment.

1st who are healthy in shape and just need check ups

2nd who have mild allergic reactions,mild conditions,such asthma or eye glasses

3rd who have life threatening diseases Diabetes, Glucoma, Hepatatis, paralyzed from the neck down

4th for patients hospitalized in need of critical treatment,on life support,paralyzed

This of course is just theorizing and I hope you get my drift.



How does a client default on a health insurance? Not get sick? If he doesn't pay, there's no insurance.


Here is another good side to what I said. If the patient doesn't require that much money for medical treatment then he almost won't likely have to pay to much for medical coverage.Now what I meant was that if the health coverage companys had 10 people getting  full coverage  then 5 out of the 10 would have unfortunately defaulted in which 1 out of those 5 defaultees would have really needed full coverage. You can say that maybe we should classify  citizens by medical needs according to their health issues.So that way money spending on coverage is supported in the direct needs for the citizens.



Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:




But they will have less money available to do that (assuming they still exist at all).

If current health services cost $x billion and you reduce that to $y billion, $x-y billion must come from somewhere in the form of reductions in income. It can only come from (a) administration costs (b) medical and nursing salaries (c) paramedic and other staff salaries (d) insurance premiums (e) and therefore insurance company profits of staff wages (f) money paid to other providers for equipment and services (g) income of pharmaceutical companies.
That extra $30,000 I had to pay in the US had to go someone: if a switch was made to the Luxembourg system those people would have been $30,000 worse off (and I would have had the same treatment, which, incidentally, I accept was professional and satisfactory.


See now we're talking. What will fund the National Public Health Providers will it be Taxes, from the federal government,state or province government,or Muncipal city taxes. On one far extreme perspective  maybe you can diverge the cash flow  from National Parks,Tourism,Public Transportation,into public health money for public health coverages.

Now  deductions  at the cost of the hospitals is not exactly what I was talking about. I was trying to say that if the government owned some of these hospitals the amount f money spent on infrastructure would probably be a more strict regulation of  equipment,services  and medical programs being implemented.

Your extra 30,000 probably happened because they do not keep that much anesthetic in the hosipital,they weren't enough doctors to give you that kind of treatment,the hospital  wanted   have an empyty spot for a bed or it was money,or they just can overcharge cause there isn't anyone to regulate the hospital cost of equipment and measure of services.


So how does the government not become overburdened by giving Public Health Coverages.i s it Buying into Empolyee Health Pensions,buying into the Health Pensions provided by Employers or Reimbursing the borrowers.


Edited by AksumVanguard - 21 Jun 2009 at 05:38
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2009 at 09:21

Hello to you all

Already in the US the federal government spends per capita from federal budget on healthcare more than double the average OECD countries spending yet the quality of service is no where near. (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/20/2789777.pdf)

 
People still pay their share of the cost and still get swindled by insurence companies under the protection of law. What is even more funny, the best example the guys who oppose any socialisation of the system is to compare the situation in the US with Canada and Britain yet they are dum struck when France is mentioned and can't say anything.
 
What Graham experienced isn't unique. Our neighbour had a child there, he and his family were insured yet the child was 6 weeks premature so he (the child) had to be hospitalised. His wife also had some trouble and had to be hospitalised too yet when his share of the bill came for just two days his wife had to leave the hospital (7000$). The cost for two weeks in hospital for the kid was not entirely covered by the insurance company (despite he had "full" coverage) and in the end he payed half the cost (25000$). The guy was nearly bankrupted and quit the US altogether after his contract expired (despite the juicy offers).
 
A government can provide excellent health care while not overburdening themselves by simply delegating the role and cost to the tiers below. In germany I think both federal and state level governments help in funding the system plus of course the citizen who also pays for extra coverage (dental, plastic et al).
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2009 at 09:37
I've been able to find out about some interesting facts about Healh Insurance Coverage for Expenditures this would be both Universal Health and Private.

http://www.besthealthinsurancebook.com/resources/medical-cost-by-principal-diagnosis.html

Medical Cost by Principal Diagnosis

2005 National statistics - principal diagnosis only
Rank order of CCS principal diagnosis category by number of discharges  
  Total number charges, $ (mean) Standard error of Standard error of  
of discharges total number charges, $ (mean)  
Rank CCS principal diagnosis category and name   of discharges    
1 221 Infant respiratory distress syndrome 16,317 113,933 3,507 9,764  
2 227 Spinal cord injury 11,741 110,632 816 7,197  
3 96 Heart valve disorders 89,936 97,926 5,963 3,969  
4 39 Leukemia (cancer of blood) 44,845 90,542 2,953 5,075  
5 219 Premature birth and low birth weight 31,173 90,296 4,004 7,610  
6 213 Cardiac and circulatory birth defects 60,999 90,148 10,090 4,578  
7 220 Intrauterine hypoxia and birth asphyxia (lack of oxygen to baby in uterus or during birth) 1,004 76,489 167 9,764  
8 78 Polio and other brain or spinal infections 8,886 74,344 373 3,112  
9 115 Aneurysm (ballooning or rupture of an artery) 81,411 69,791 3,917 2,196  
10 37 Hodgkin's disease 5,673 62,951 400 5,270  
11 13 Cancer of stomach 24,905 60,718 1,119 3,664  
12 40 Multiple myeloma (cancer of bone marrow) 19,017 58,498 1,469 5,126  
13 131 Adult respiratory failure or arrest 336,350 58,448 11,018 1,616  
14 38 Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma 46,043 57,208 1,996 2,436  
15 209 Other acquired deformities 47,586 55,846 3,288 2,530  
16 248 Gangrene 38,669 55,608 1,469 2,171  
17 1 Tuberculosis (TB) 9,005 54,217 813 4,742  
18 18 Cancer of other gastrointestinal organs and peritoneum (lining of abdominal cavity) 20,403 53,890 962 2,468  
19 77 Encephalitis 9,552 53,559 427 2,313  
20 41 Other and unspecified cancer 9,601 51,782 865 3,234  
21 12 Cancer of esophagus 13,792 51,727 692 4,150  
22 35 Brain cancer and other nervous system cancer 37,226 51,383 2,463 2,946  
23 30 Cancer of testicles 1,788 50,219 141 5,230  
24 4 Mycoses (fungal and yeast infection) 23,286 48,365 839 2,135  
25 100 Heart attack (acute myocardial infarction) 662,345 48,362 23,745 1,321  
26 97 Pericarditis, endocarditis, myocarditis, cardiomyopathy (disorders of heart muscle and surrounding tissue) 82,640 48,078 2,773 1,655  
27 233 Brain injury 171,263 46,969 9,157 2,440  
28 234 Crushing injury or internal injury 105,700 46,526 6,082 2,190  
29 2 Septicemia (blood infection) 537,717 46,122 16,859 1,322  
30 56 Cystic fibrosis 14,920 45,909 2,647 5,555  
31 107 Cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation (uncoordinated contraction of heart) 15,548 45,827 517 1,459  
32 21 Cancer of bone and connective tissue (ligaments and tendons) 16,166 45,308 1,540 2,936  
33 14 Cancer of colon 112,242 44,889 3,018 1,127  
34 116 Arterial embolism or thrombosis (blood clots) 34,025 44,599 1,307 1,355  
35 15 Cancer of rectum and anus 45,918 44,474 1,476 1,394


The Universal HealthCare Systems in other countrys such as France and Canada are  paid for by the Countrys National Government  and the Province,and City the patient lives in.  All basic needs are provided by the Insurer but if patient is hospitalized and decided to order a Pizza the hospital would National Insurance would not pay for it because it doesn't provide those kinds of services.

Consilidation and Merging some hospitals with clinics has proved to be a little effective in reducing operating cost also.Governments have also pulled money on Taxes on Payroll Employers and Employees that includes all employess no matter what business or sector,although there is a difference of percentage taken.

The US spends 17%of its GDP,France spends 10.4% of GDP on healthcare but does have the best insurance.France spend 18 to 25 per visit in the doctors office per month while the US spend $45.

They are alot of details on this page

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/rodwin/french.html

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

[QUOTE=AksumVanguard] [QUOTE=gcle2003]The difference may seem trivial, but is critical since in the latter case the people providing the service get paid for the service they provide whereas in the former the providers get paid anyway with, consequently, no need to worry about efficiency or quality, except as overseen by layers of bureaucracy, the fate that has impacted Britain's NHS

The third party system is not what its cracked up to be I have many family members who are naturalized and native born in the US who have fallen victim to the parent insurance company new cut backs,they third party coverage providers end up having to call back the customers and tell them that they have to rediscuss the terms of the premium and quote. Although the companys do provide a certain percentage of the coverage for the borrower it is still not enough especially when they need the backing of the Parent American Companys such HSI,Medicare, H.I.P. ETC..

[QUOTE=gcle2003]
I don't see the relevance to what I said. We were discussing alternative forms of universal health care: the kind where the patient doesn't have to pay anything, and providers are paid whether they provide a service or not (as in the British system where general practitioners for instance have an annual fixed capitation fee depending on how many patients are on their books, not on how many they treat); and the kind where the patient chooses his provider and pays for the service directly depending on what treatment he gets, then being recompensed by the government.
 
The failings of private insurance schemes are irrelevant to that. We know such schemes don't deliver, which is why the US has the problem it has.
[QUOTE]

 
The keyword here is bureaucracy,I took it that you were refering to subsidized services and 3rd party lenders on the behalf of Public Providers. I included the chart to try and see what exactly Universal or Private Coverages  was spending on what and how much money was spent for services although it is hard to see what exactly the chart was talking about but the link above gives a better example at least for surgical and treatment  procedures.
 



Edited by AksumVanguard - 30 Jun 2009 at 06:07
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2009 at 15:09
Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:

There lies a problem at hand with this .Are you aware of the number of Health Fraud cases in the United States,some estimates say its from 3% to 10% or even more. I would suggest that the amount of medical care needed for a patient being monitored following the patient either sends  the medical bill to Public Health Coverage themselves or the hospital sending the bill to the Public Health Coverages for the patients. Being recompensed leaves a window open for fraud and  alot of fraud.

Heres a snippet

Although the exact amount of healthcare fraud is difficult to determine, estimates range from three to ten percent, thus translating into staggering amounts of money lost to fraud.

http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=117524,00.html

The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General reported in testimony to Congress that $13.5 billion of Medicare fee-for-service claim payments, which are only a portion of Medicare payments, may have been a result of inadvertent error or outright fraud in fiscal year 1999. This figure does not consider the amount of fraud perpetrated against private insurance companies.

http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=117524,00.html
Currently, CI is involved in the following areas of healthcare fraud: false billings, mental health, nursing home fraud, chiropractic fraud, durable medical equipment fraud, staged accidents, pharmaceutical diversion, and patient referral (kickbacks) schemes.
Most of this arises because the US has no decent healthcare system. It isn't fraud if one submits a receipted invoice from a doctor stamped paid with the relevant odes for treatment type, and the money is paid to your bank account. Hospital bills and most paramedic bills and prescription charges are paid direct to the supplier by the government (at least here in Luxembourg).
 
The only way you could have fraud is if the doctors were involved in it, which isn't terribly likely, and statistically would be almost bound to reveal itself.
 
It sounds as if you're just describing yet another way in which the US system is inadequate and inefficient.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


The failings of private insurance schemes are irrelevant to that. We know such schemes don't deliver, which is why the US has the problem it has.

Maybe so but you must not also forget about personal needs for certain people who have a distinct needs for Plastic Surgery,Breast Augmentation ,Botox,Special Treatment to athletes.So it may be  a little difficult to eliminate private health coverage.Certain people what something that the government just would find crazy to provide.And of course eliminating private hospitals were special services can be performed are not realitic either.
Where's the problem? No-one's talking about eliminating private hospitals and private services. In fact with state-sponsored insurance you automatically have both. For instane, to cite a possibly trivial example, if I want a cosmetic crown on a front tooth I go to the dentist, pay him, submit the bill and get my money back. If I want a similar crown on a back tooth, I go to the same dentist, pay him, submit my bill and don't get my money back - except of course I don't submit the bill because the dentist tells me I won't get it back anyway.
 
So for private treatment and public treatment I use EXACTLY the same dentist/doctor/clinic/hospital of my choice paying him in EXACTLY the same way and if it's not an approved procedure I don't get my money back (or possibly a proportion). From an administrative or service point of view there's no difference between the public and the private system: there's no reason for a doctor to treat a 'private' patient from a 'public' one.             
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I don't know what you mean by 'free health insurance', but in fact free systems like the UK's NHS are at their best in dealing with critical life-saving work. They're at their worst dealing with things like physical exams, appointments for regular checkups and such.

I've had life-saving emergency treatment in a free system (Britain) and in public insurance ones (Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg) and Britain was as good as any. I've also had relatively trivial treatment in the US (two nights in hospital, half an hour of treatment (local anaesthetic) on the operating table), and been presented with a bill for $33,000 (thirty-three thousand) - ten times what the government would have had to pay in Luxembourg.
 If you mean "critical" as in a freak car crash,falling out of a 3 story building,or treating a stab wound then yes the US can provide that very quickly but it will do  it relunctantly in a  the Emergency Room to a not well insured victim. But if you are in the need for Chemo-Therapy or Need A Transplant then its a bit difficult if you are a third or second class citizen.

The check ups in Doctors offices are relatively cheap and the free Public Coverage takes care of that in the US. It is not really too much of a problem.
What free public coverage? And you missed out that the same treatment costs ten times as much in the US as in Luxembourg. Not that I have to pay one tenth of the bill, but that the cost to the giovernment is one tenth of the cost to the insurance company/patient in the US.
 
I.e. the medical providers get paid ten times as much as they do here.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Apart from that, the US seems unwilling to face up to the fact that lessening the cost of healthcare means taking money directly out of the pockets of the providers of the care, since they're the people getting it now. That's true no matter how you dress it up.


You cannot lessen the cost of medical treatment
Of course you can. It's immensely more expensive in the US than anywhere else. The same drugs cost immensely more. The same doctor's visits cost immensely more. The same procedures in the operating room cost immensely more. The cost of a stent (the actual cost of the piece of plastic, not the cost of inserting it) can be $9,000 in the US: it's a few hndred here.
 
Of course you can reduce the cost. You just pay the providers and the insurers less.
Quote
so the key is to find out what particular patients need the  cheap treatment compared to  those who need the high expensive treatment.Thus they are some people who have a high medical coverage and have high paying job but are as healthy as "track racing horse". So imagine the money being dispersed for those with full medical coverage who  are in reality  healthy and don't need to spend that much.If a person has an expected amount money needed to pay their  health coverage,then money can be used for something else,hypothetically if we are in 1st world country then most people of the country's population would be healthy therefore not to be to concerned with too much money being dispersed for each of  their health coverages,hence the government would probably would be able to sustain the majority of citizens and   minority of citizens who are disabled,handiccaped,veterans and require heavy amount of dollars to be treated . 
I don't follow that at all.
Quote
What if there was 1st 2nd 3rd 4th level of treatment.

1st who are healthy in shape and just need check ups

2nd who have mild allergic reactions,mild conditions,such asthma or eye glasses

3rd who have life threatening diseases Diabetes, Glucoma, Hepatatis, paralyzed from the neck down

4th for patients hospitalized in need of critical treatment,on life support,paralyzed

This of course is just theorizing and I hope you get my drift.
Nope. The whole point is you don't know from one day to the next who is in which group. It can change dramatically overnight.
Quote
Quote
How does a client default on a health insurance? Not get sick? If he doesn't pay, there's no insurance.

Here is another good side to what I said. If the patient doesn't require that much money for medical treatment then he almost won't likely have to pay to much for medical coverage.Now what I meant was that if the health coverage companys had 10 people getting  full coverage  then 5 out of the 10 would have unfortunately defaulted in which 1 out of those 5 defaultees would have really needed full coverage. You can say that maybe we should classify  citizens by medical needs according to their health issues.So that way money spending on coverage is supported in the direct needs for the citizens.
You didn't answer my question. How can a patient 'default'?
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


But they will have less money available to do that (assuming they still exist at all).
If current health services cost $x billion and you reduce that to $y billion, $x-y billion must come from somewhere in the form of reductions in income. It can only come from (a) administration costs (b) medical and nursing salaries (c) paramedic and other staff salaries (d) insurance premiums (e) and therefore insurance company profits of staff wages (f) money paid to other providers for equipment and services (g) income of pharmaceutical companies.
That extra $30,000 I had to pay in the US had to go someone: if a switch was made to the Luxembourg system those people would have been $30,000 worse off (and I would have had the same treatment, which, incidentally, I accept was professional and satisfactory.
See now we're talking. What will fund the National Public Health Providers will it be Taxes, from the federal government,state or province government,or Muncipal city taxes. On one far extreme perspective  maybe you can diverge the cash flow  from National Parks,Tourism,Public Transportation,into public health money for public health coverages.
It's funded by the premiums paid by the insured, just like any other insurance. It's probably necessary to have the premiums paid by the State for the unemployed, disabled and so on. Personally I'm pensioned, but I still have sickness insurance deducted from my State pension.
Quote
Now  deductions  at the cost of the hospitals is not exactly what I was talking about. I was trying to say that if the government owned some of these hospitals the amount f money spent on infrastructure would probably be a more strict regulation of  equipment,services  and medical programs being implemented.

Your extra 30,000 probably happened because they do not keep that much anesthetic in the hosipital,they weren't enough doctors to give you that kind of treatment,the hospital  wanted   have an empyty spot for a bed or it was money,or they just can overcharge cause there isn't anyone to regulate the hospital cost of equipment and measure of services.
It was their standard charge for non-insured (in the US) patients. And, as I thought I pointed out, I didn't have any anaesthetic. Or any other driugs except a tranquilliser tablet as I recall. Basically you're right, it's because there's no-one to regulate what they charge.
Quote
So how does the government not become overburdened by giving Public Health Coverages.i s it Buying into Empolyee Health Pensions,buying into the Health Pensions provided by Employers or Reimbursing the borrowers.
It's paid for by insurance premiums deducted from salaries for the most part, most people being salaried. If you're not salaried you have to make your own monthly payment to the insurer: if you don't pay you're sued for it. Much like health insurance in the US, except that it's compulsory and a hell of a lot cheaper. People who genuinely can't pay (unemployed, disabled, sick) it have it paid for them as part of their benefits.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2009 at 15:25
Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:


The Universal HealthCare Systems in other countrys such as France and Canada are  paid for by the Countrys National Government  and the Province,and City the patient lives in.
Not really. They administer the payment but the cost is born in France by the insured person, and, as I underatnd it in Canada, by the taxpayer.
Quote
All basic needs are provided by the Insurer but if patient is hospitalized and decided to order a Pizza the hospital would National Insurance would not pay for it because it doesn't provide those kinds of services.
You're trying to generalise something that isn't generalisable. The Canadian (which I understand is like the British) and French systems in fact have very little in common.
Quote
Consilidation and Merging some hospitals with clinics has proved to be a little effective in reducing operating cost also.Governments have also pulled money on Taxes on Payroll Employers and Employees that includes all employess no matter what business or sector,although there is a difference of percentage taken.

The US spends 17%of its GDP,France spends 10.4% of GDP on healthcare but does have the best insurance.France spend 18 to 25 per visit in the doctors office per month while the US spend $45.

They are alot of details on this page

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/rodwin/french.html

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

The difference may seem trivial, but is critical since in the latter case the people providing the service get paid for the service they provide whereas in the former the providers get paid anyway with, consequently, no need to worry about efficiency or quality, except as overseen by layers of bureaucracy, the fate that has impacted Britain's NHS.

The third party system is not what its cracked up to be I have many family members who are naturalized and native born in the US who have fallen victim to the parent insurance company new cut backs,they third party coverage providers end up having to call back the customers and tell them that they have to rediscuss the terms of the premium and quote. Although the companys do provide a certain percentage of the coverage for the borrower it is still not enough especially when they need the backing of the Parent American Companys such HSI,Medicare, H.I.P. ETC.
I don't see the relevance to what I said. We were discussing alternative forms of universal health care: the kind where the patient doesn't have to pay anything, and providers are paid whether they provide a service or not (as in the British system where general practitioners for instance have an annual fixed capitation fee depending on how many patients are on their books, not on how many they treat); and the kind where the patient chooses his provider and pays for the service directly depending on what treatment he gets, then being recompensed by the government.
 
The failings of private insurance schemes are irrelevant to that. We know such schemes don't deliver, which is why the US has the problem it has.
[QUOTE]
The keyword here is bureaucracy,
Exactly. It's a major cause of the high cost of care in the US, though not as big a one as private profit margins. It's also a major cause of inefficiency in the British system.,
[QUOTE]
I took it that you were refering to subsidized services and 3rd party lenders on the behalf of Public Providers. I included the chart to try and see what exactly Universal or Private Coverages  was spending on what and how much money was spent for services although it is hard to see what exactly the chart was talking about but the link above gives a better example at least for surgical and treatment  procedures.
The trouble is it gives no idea of how long the patient was hospitalised or what treatment they received, if any. What I was hospitalised for (on suspicion) has an average cost of $48,000 to the $33,000 I paid, but it fails to point out that I was only in hospital for two nights, and they found nothing very serious needed doing.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2009 at 07:56
I'm quite sorry I took a long to respond to your post gcle2003 I probably forget to check the thread or forgot to respond.



Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:



Most of this arises because the US has no decent healthcare system. It isn't fraud if one submits a receipted invoice from a doctor stamped paid with the relevant odes for treatment type, and the money is paid to your bank account. Hospital bills and most paramedic bills and prescription charges are paid direct to the supplier by the government (at least here in Luxembourg).
 
The only way you could have fraud is if the doctors were involved in it, which isn't terribly likely, and statistically would be almost bound to reveal itself.
 
It sounds as if you're just describing yet another way in which the US system is inadequate and inefficient.

Its good to know this method of payment works in Luxembourg but applying this method in United States is not totally fraud proof. As you said if the doctor is involved ,it is a possibility that making surplus charges,or hidden fees leaves a window for overwithdrawl
 of government monies.  

You must not also forget that the Doctors do not handle money,and leave their interns, accountants,  money clerks to handle payment fees. The office workers don’t necessarily have to make overcharges on the behalf of the doctor but it is also can  make surplus charges on the offices behalf.So the scam can come in many ways,believe me it is better to send doctors bill directly to the Public Health Coverage or the Administartion of the National Health System not through the patient

So for private treatment and public treatment I use EXACTLY the same dentist/doctor/clinic/hospital of my choice paying him in EXACTLY the same way and if it's not an approved procedure I don't get my money back (or possibly a proportion). From an administrative or service point of view there's no difference between the public and the private system: there's no reason for a doctor to treat a 'private' patient from a 'public' one.             


Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


Where's the problem? No-one's talking about eliminating private hospitals and private services. In fact with state-sponsored insurance you automatically have both. For instane, to cite a possibly trivial example, if I want a cosmetic crown on a front tooth I go to the dentist, pay him, submit the bill and get my money back. If I want a similar crown on a back tooth, I go to the same dentist, pay him, submit my bill and don't get my money back - except of course I don't submit the bill because the dentist tells me I won't get it back anyway.
 
So for private treatment and public treatment I use EXACTLY the same dentist/doctor/clinic/hospital of my choice paying him in EXACTLY the same way and if it's not an approved procedure I don't get my money back (or possibly a proportion). From an administrative or service point of view there's no difference between the public and the private system: there's no reason for a doctor to treat a 'private' patient from a 'public' one.             





But there is a big difference in Private Treatment and Public Treatment, and with “public  medical treatment”  expenditures are more easily monitored . Whereas with private treatment the medical treatments  in private hospitals aren’t as easily monitored. For example say if I’m getting treatment in the Public Hospital that Public hospital would have to submit its needed list of expenses to the backing administration  in order to continue its funding. The list will include the services of hospital staff, medical equipment, bills and utilities,medical treatment,wages and other cost. It can than submit the list to one depratmemt of Public Health Sytem and the other department which would of course be  the Public Health Insurance which would be aware of much money to disperse to the patient .

Of course it wouldn't make a difference to the doctors and staff if they work for a " private hospital or public hospital,they would still be paid for their services reguardless.

Now in the case of private treatment it has no need to submit a list of expenditure and cost plans to the government except for its annual tax business application tax form monitored by the IRS. But also keep in mind that the Private Hospital can get some of its Medical supplies form out the country leaving the cost of equipment at a variable and not to mention the exchange of currency playing an effect on the bought medical supplies.







Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

What free public coverage? And you missed out that the same treatment costs ten times as much in the US as in Luxembourg. Not that I have to pay one tenth of the bill, but that the cost to the giovernment is one tenth of the cost to the insurance company/patient in the US.
 
I.e. the medical providers get paid ten times as much as they do here.



There is a medical coverage available in the US were you can get certain things free.One of them is called Medicaid.

http://www.health.state.ny.us/health_care/medicaid/

It is financed through 2% of employee taxes of  but it is free but provides a certain limited amount of medical coverage

If you are dealing with life saving work and the patient is in critical condition it is against the law for the hospital to ignore the patient whether insured or not. And since the patient is  not aware of medical billing they get away with it.  Its funny how there Malpratice lawyers but not too high profile Bureau in the Medical field.


Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Of course you can. It's immensely more expensive in the US than anywhere else. The same drugs cost immensely more. The same doctor's visits cost immensely more. The same procedures in the operating room cost immensely more. The cost of a stent (the actual cost of the piece of plastic, not the cost of inserting it) can be $9,000 in the US: it's a few hndred here.
 
Of course you can reduce the cost. You just pay the providers and the insurers less.

 
Well if you can reduce the cost you would have more accumulated money to attribute for other patients needs,Winkjust imagine the money usedfor medical operations,vaccinations, high cost physical rejuvenation therapies etc.

Later I would do some research on the 1st world countries  medical cost of supplies,treatment,operations and other basic Functions to that of the United StatesBig smile


 

Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:


so the key is to find out what particular patients need the  cheap treatment compared to  those who need the high expensive treatment.Thus they are some people who have a high medical coverage and have high paying job but are as healthy as "track racing horse". So imagine the money being dispersed for those with full medical coverage who  are in reality  healthy and don't need to spend that much.If a person has an expected amount money needed to pay their  health coverage,then money can be used for something else,hypothetically if we are in 1st world country then most people of the country's population would be healthy therefore not to be to concerned with too much money being dispersed for each of  their health coverages,hence the government would probably would be able to sustain the majority of citizens and   minority of citizens who are disabled,handiccaped,veterans and require heavy amount of dollars to be treated .



What if there was 1st 2nd 3rd 4th level of treatment.

1st who are healthy in shape and just need check ups

2nd who have mild allergic reactions,mild conditions,such asthma or eye glasses

3rd who have life threatening diseases Diabetes, Glucoma, Hepatatis, paralyzed from the neck down

4th for patients hospitalized in need of critical treatment,on life support,paralyzed

This of course is just theorizing and I hope you get my drift.




Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


Nope. The whole point is you don't know from one day to the next who is in which group. It can change dramatically overnight.



I don't follow that at all.



Remember  the people that are illegiable for high costing medical operation such as a  transplant or the ones that had good paying jobs that  provided  good "employer based insurance" or good jobs that were able to accuire full coverage insurance.

I am sure there is a predetermined and expected ratio of citizens in each country diagnosed with certain diseases each year. It will be just as proportionate as the mortality rate and the birth rate.So you would then give treatment  at a scheduled date (ie if I get diagnosed with a insufficient pace maker ,I am illegible to get  a new “pacemaker” not immediately but in due and safe time) in that way  everybody won’t  rush to the hospitals to get the same treatment at the same time causing the hospitals to get overpacked. In fact in the United States, the rise in certain diseases is proportionate to those who are not receiving adequate health care  or getting diagnosed prior to worsening sickening according to some reports .

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.317/DC1

This reference shows why more medical surveying can keep the outbreak of disease down.

Researchers have paid relatively little attention to increases in certain population risk factors (for example, the rise in obesity, changing environmental factors such as air pollution and ozone levels, stress, and exposure to aeroallergens) and the growing emphasis in medicine on the early detection of chronic conditions, both of which could lead to a rise in the prevalence of treated medical conditions.









Quote

How does a client default on a health insurance? Not get sick? If he doesn't pay, there's no insurance.



Here is another good side to what I said. If the patient doesn't require that much money for medical treatment then he almost won't likely have to pay to much for medical coverage.Now what I meant was that if the health coverage companys had 10 people getting  full coverage  then 5 out of the 10 would have unfortunately defaulted in which 1 out of those 5 defaultees would have really needed full coverage. You can say that maybe we should classify  citizens by medical needs according to their health issues.So that way money spending on coverage is supported in the direct needs for the citizens.


Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

You didn't answer my question. How can a patient 'default'?



Its not good in any case if the patient defaults on his medical coverage due to improper planning but if there was a better medical plan by the Public Health System or the Public Health Coverage there would still be enough money to pay for the medical treatment.


Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Not really. They administer the payment but the cost is born in France by the insured person, and, as I underatnd it in Canada, by the taxpayer.


As you are right the citizens in France are taxed according to their job description and sector markets they work in. Where in Canada it is taxed also but not paricually based on citizens certain occupation but rather the taxpayers.



Edited by gcle2003 - 30 Jun 2009 at 16:27
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2009 at 17:04
Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:

I'm quite sorry I took a long to respond to your post gcle2003 I probably forget to check the thread or forgot to respond.
That's OK. I took the liberty of putting a missing ']' in your post to straighten out the quote system.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Most of this arises because the US has no decent healthcare system. It isn't fraud if one submits a receipted invoice from a doctor stamped paid with the relevant odes for treatment type, and the money is paid to your bank account. Hospital bills and most paramedic bills and prescription charges are paid direct to the supplier by the government (at least here in Luxembourg).
 
The only way you could have fraud is if the doctors were involved in it, which isn't terribly likely, and statistically would be almost bound to reveal itself.
 
It sounds as if you're just describing yet another way in which the US system is inadequate and inefficient.

Its good to know this method of payment works in Luxembourg but applying this method in United States is not totally fraud proof. As you said if the doctor is involved ,it is a possibility that making surplus charges,or hidden fees leaves a window for overwithdrawl
 of government monies.  

You must not also forget that the Doctors do not handle money,and leave their interns, accountants,  money clerks to handle payment fees. The office workers don’t necessarily have to make overcharges on the behalf of the doctor but it is also can  make surplus charges on the offices behalf.So the scam can come in many ways,believe me it is better to send doctors bill directly to the Public Health Coverage or the Administartion of the National Health System not through the patient
If the doctor/medical service is overcharging, then it doesn't matter who pays the bill does it - the coverage origanisation eventually pays exactly the same bill? The advantage of giving the bill to the patieint and the patient then giving it to the insurer is that all patients get treated exactly alike, because the doctor doesn't know whether the patient is paying himself or not. But the insurer gets the same bill, whether direct from the doctor or via the patient.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


So for private treatment and public treatment I use EXACTLY the same dentist/doctor/clinic/hospital of my choice paying him in EXACTLY the same way and if it's not an approved procedure I don't get my money back (or possibly a proportion). From an administrative or service point of view there's no difference between the public and the private system: there's no reason for a doctor to treat a 'private' patient from a 'public' one.             
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


Where's the problem? No-one's talking about eliminating private hospitals and private services. In fact with state-sponsored insurance you automatically have both. For instane, to cite a possibly trivial example, if I want a cosmetic crown on a front tooth I go to the dentist, pay him, submit the bill and get my money back. If I want a similar crown on a back tooth, I go to the same dentist, pay him, submit my bill and don't get my money back - except of course I don't submit the bill because the dentist tells me I won't get it back anyway.
 
So for private treatment and public treatment I use EXACTLY the same dentist/doctor/clinic/hospital of my choice paying him in EXACTLY the same way and if it's not an approved procedure I don't get my money back (or possibly a proportion). From an administrative or service point of view there's no difference between the public and the private system: there's no reason for a doctor to treat a 'private' patient from a 'public' one.             


But there is a big difference in Private Treatment and Public Treatment, and with “public  medical treatment”  expenditures are more easily monitored . Whereas with private treatment the medical treatments  in private hospitals aren’t as easily monitored.
Why not?
Quote
 For example say if I’m getting treatment in the Public Hospital that Public hospital would have to submit its needed list of expenses to the backing administration  in order to continue its funding. The list will include the services of hospital staff, medical equipment, bills and utilities,medical treatment,wages and other cost. It can than submit the list to one depratmemt of Public Health Sytem and the other department which would of course be  the Public Health Insurance which would be aware of much money to disperse to the patient .
Why would publicly owned hospitals be treated any differently than privately owned ones? They aren't here. Whether public or privateor church-owned  the hospital is funded by (a) medical fees (b) charitable donations (c) government subvention for certain procedures - for instance mammogram checks are free to the woman but paid for by the government no matter who provides them (one a year a think, but I'm not sure of that).  I hnk EU grants may be involved as well, but we'll count that as 'government' just as local communal funding is.
 
If they're budgeting they have much the same process whether the governing board are civil servants, church dignitaries or private individuals. It's true that private hospitals (in the full sense - not charitable or church) have to bear the extra cost of returning a profit to shareholders, which in this environment tends to mean they can't compete with public/church ones.
Quote
Of course it wouldn't make a difference to the doctors and staff if they work for a " private hospital or public hospital,they would still be paid for their services reguardless.

Now in the case of private treatment it has no need to submit a list of expenditure and cost plans to the government except for its annual tax business application tax form monitored by the IRS. But also keep in mind that the Private Hospital can get some of its Medical supplies form out the country leaving the cost of equipment at a variable and not to mention the exchange of currency playing an effect on the bought medical supplies.
Private hospitals as in the US are studk with being unable to compete as buyers with the main socialised health systems, even small ones like Luxembourg, which is the maîn reason why US medical care is so horrendously expensive. The second reason of course is that the hospitals have to return a profit to shareholders, another burdensome cost.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

What free public coverage? And you missed out that the same treatment costs ten times as much in the US as in Luxembourg. Not that I have to pay one tenth of the bill, but that the cost to the giovernment is one tenth of the cost to the insurance company/patient in the US.
 
I.e. the medical providers get paid ten times as much as they do here.

There is a medical coverage available in the US were you can get certain things free.One of them is called Medicaid.

http://www.health.state.ny.us/health_care/medicaid/
I know quite a lot about Medicaid and Medicare. My mother-in-law and her sister bothe died a few years ago in their nineties. In Georgia anyway you cannot get Medicaid unless you have first run all your assets down to no more than $3,000 . The figure may be different in other states but the system is similar. First you have to go virtually bankrupt: Then you get Medicaid.

Medicare itself isn't so bad: if everybody had it the situation would be a lot better. However, Congress has put a stop to the real benefits you could get from Medicare by refusing to allow the Medicare administration to bargain over drug costs with suppliers. (Moreover, you have the disadvantage still that the doctor knows you are a Medicare patient.)

Quote
It is financed through 2% of employee taxes of  but it is free but provides a certain limited amount of medical coverage

If you are dealing with life saving work and the patient is in critical condition it is against the law for the hospital to ignore the patient whether insured or not. And since the patient is  not aware of medical billing they get away with it.  Its funny how there Malpratice lawyers but not too high profile Bureau in the Medical field.

Nonsense. In limited circumstances hospitals are required to give emergency care without enquiring about ability to pay. However, when the treatment is complete they bill the patient, and if necessary pursue him in court for the money. To say the patient is 'not aware' of medical billing is absurd - they get given the bill immediately after the treatment. And there'll be dicussions of how they can afford to pay, often through term payments.
 
Happened to me in fact. And to various relatives. Though I will concede that was in Georgia.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Of course you can. It's immensely more expensive in the US than anywhere else. The same drugs cost immensely more. The same doctor's visits cost immensely more. The same procedures in the operating room cost immensely more. The cost of a stent (the actual cost of the piece of plastic, not the cost of inserting it) can be $9,000 in the US: it's a few hndred here.
 
Of course you can reduce the cost. You just pay the providers and the insurers less.

 
Well if you can reduce the cost you would have more accumulated money to attribute for other patients needs,Winkjust imagine the money usedfor medical operations,vaccinations, high cost physical rejuvenation therapies etc.
You can reduce the costs of US health services in all fields. Iwas talking about the mmense costs in the US for medical operations, vaccinations, and other therapies. 
Quote
Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:


so the key is to find out what particular patients need the  cheap treatment compared to  those who need the high expensive treatment.Thus they are some people who have a high medical coverage and have high paying job but are as healthy as "track racing horse". So imagine the money being dispersed for those with full medical coverage who  are in reality  healthy and don't need to spend that much.If a person has an expected amount money needed to pay their  health coverage,then money can be used for something else,hypothetically if we are in 1st world country then most people of the country's population would be healthy therefore not to be to concerned with too much money being dispersed for each of  their health coverages,hence the government would probably would be able to sustain the majority of citizens and   minority of citizens who are disabled,handiccaped,veterans and require heavy amount of dollars to be treated .
Start from the truth. All US health costs in whatever area cold be substantially reduced often by a factor of 90%, but at least ba a half, with an approriate system.
Quote
What if there was 1st 2nd 3rd 4th level of treatment.

1st who are healthy in shape and just need check ups

2nd who have mild allergic reactions,mild conditions,such asthma or eye glasses

3rd who have life threatening diseases Diabetes, Glucoma, Hepatatis, paralyzed from the neck down

4th for patients hospitalized in need of critical treatment,on life support,paralyzed

This of course is just theorizing and I hope you get my drift.




Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


Nope. The whole point is you don't know from one day to the next who is in which group. It can change dramatically overnight.



I don't follow that at all.



Remember  the people that are illegiable for high costing medical operation such as a  transplant or the ones that had good paying jobs that  provided  good "employer based insurance" or good jobs that were able to accuire full coverage insurance.

I am sure there is a predetermined and expected ratio of citizens in each country diagnosed with certain diseases each year. It will be just as proportionate as the mortality rate and the birth rate.
If we keep to modern industrialised countries, on the whole, yes.
Quote
So you would then give treatment  at a scheduled date (ie if I get diagnosed with a insufficient pace maker ,I am illegible to get  a new “pacemaker” not immediately but in due and safe time) in that way  everybody won’t  rush to the hospitals to get the same treatment at the same time causing the hospitals to get overpacked. In fact in the United States, the rise in certain diseases is proportionate to those who are not receiving adequate health care  or getting diagnosed prior to worsening sickening according to some reports .

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.317/DC1

This reference shows why more medical surveying can keep the outbreak of disease down.

Researchers have paid relatively little attention to increases in certain population risk factors (for example, the rise in obesity, changing environmental factors such as air pollution and ozone levels, stress, and exposure to aeroallergens) and the growing emphasis in medicine on the early detection of chronic conditions, both of which could lead to a rise in the prevalence of treated medical conditions.
All true, but I don't see how it affects the difference between healthcare systems.
Quote
[QUOTE]
How does a client default on a health insurance? Not get sick? If he doesn't pay, there's no insurance.

Here is another good side to what I said. If the patient doesn't require that much money for medical treatment then he almost won't likely have to pay to much for medical coverage.Now what I meant was that if the health coverage companys had 10 people getting  full coverage  then 5 out of the 10 would have unfortunately defaulted in which 1 out of those 5 defaultees would have really needed full coverage. You can say that maybe we should classify  citizens by medical needs according to their health issues.So that way money spending on coverage is supported in the direct needs for the citizens.
You're going to have to try that again. I stuîll don't understand what you mean by a patient 'defaulting' on his insurance. Do you just mean stops paying? How is that 'defaulting'?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

You didn't answer my question. How can a patient 'default'?



Its not good in any case if the patient defaults on his medical coverage due to improper planning but if there was a better medical plan by the Public Health System or the Public Health Coverage there would still be enough money to pay for the medical treatment.


Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Not really. They administer the payment but the cost is born in France by the insured person, and, as I underatnd it in Canada, by the taxpayer.


As you are right the citizens in France are taxed according to their job description and sector markets they work in. Where in Canada it is taxed also but not paricually based on citizens certain occupation but rather the taxpayers.

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2009 at 01:31
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:



That's OK. I took the liberty of putting a missing ']' in your post to straighten out the quote system.


LOL.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

If the doctor/medical service is overcharging, then it doesn't matter who pays the bill does it - the coverage origanisation eventually pays exactly the same bill? The advantage of giving the bill to the patieint and the patient then giving it to the insurer is that all patients get treated exactly alike, because the doctor doesn't know whether the patient is paying himself or not. But the insurer gets the same bill, whether direct from the doctor or via the patient.


When an insurer is being overcharged it cost the Insurance Company ,(Whether Governement backed or Not) becomes resilient and doubtful in covering the patients. Remember money out the pockets can cause an unwanted effect. Not to mention every dollar counts and can be used in towards other programs such as, Medical Relief drives or the lessing cost of Vaccinations.




Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


So for private treatment and public treatment I use EXACTLY the same dentist/doctor/clinic/hospital of my choice paying him in EXACTLY the same way and if it's not an approved procedure I don't get my money back (or possibly a proportion). From an administrative or service point of view there's no difference between the public and the private system: there's no reason for a doctor to treat a 'private' patient from a 'public' one.             




Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:


But there is a big difference in Private Treatment and Public Treatment, and with “public  medical treatment”  expenditures are more easily monitored . Whereas with private treatment the medical treatments  in private hospitals aren’t as easily monitored.
 


Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Why not?


As I said the government does not like making any loans or lending money if they do not receive any annuity,interest,or non profit returns.First and foremost medical office will think twice before it scams any money from the government itself facing prosecution in the balance.

Another reason if they are getting paid by the governemt there is already a fixed wage for the staff. So if they decide to make an overcharge that can be consider embezzlement on part of  staff for "Public Medical Treatemnt Center". And I'm sure the other department of the Public Health Insurers report the malpratice to the Head Department.


Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Why would publicly owned hospitals be treated any differently than privately owned ones? They aren't here. Whether public or privateor church-owned  the hospital is funded by (a) medical fees (b) charitable donations (c) government subvention for certain procedures - for instance mammogram checks are free to the woman but paid for by the government no matter who provides them (one a year a think, but I'm not sure of that).  I hnk EU grants may be involved as well, but we'll count that as 'government' just as local communal funding is.

If they're budgeting they have much the same process whether the governing board are civil servants, church dignitaries or private individuals. It's true that private hospitals (in the full sense - not charitable or church) have to bear the extra cost of returning a profit to shareholders, which in this environment tends to mean they can't compete with public/church ones.
 





Indeed they are definitely more private owned Hospiatls but remember if you want to reduce the cost of medical supplies,medical machinery ,medical treatment,and medical services being adminstered in hospitals you must monitor them.

If there is a sudden urgent need for plasama,blood transfusion,or antedote it can be expesnive
if you suddenly order it in. And you may now why,were as the supplier had it reserved for another  buyer or the supplier may have to produce it at the last minute charging  inciting the company supplier to charge "late minute fees".

 I'm sure a better example would be the Medics in the military. The "Medics" would definitely have a logistical supply of equipment and they would have a predetermined notion of whats needed so it will not cost them more to supply in the long run.Ordering in on the last minute before the set on a campaign be costly.


Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


Private hospitals as in the US are studk with being unable to compete as buyers with the main socialised health systems, even small ones like Luxembourg, which is the maîn reason why US medical care is so horrendously expensive. The second reason of course is that the hospitals have to return a profit to shareholders, another burdensome cost.



Well maybe if they receive a better adequate funding if they were Nationalized and Intergrated into the Municicpal funding they wouldn't have to worry about macreoeconomic survival.This is why a NHS system is more fitting.


Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I know quite a lot about Medicaid and Medicare. My mother-in-law and her sister bothe died a few years ago in their nineties. In Georgia anyway you cannot get Medicaid unless you have first run all your assets down to no more than $3,000 . The figure may be different in other states but the system is similar. First you have to go virtually bankrupt: Then you get Medicaid.

Medicare itself isn't so bad: if everybody had it the situation would be a lot better. However, Congress has put a stop to the real benefits you could get from Medicare by refusing to allow the Medicare administration to bargain over drug costs with suppliers. (Moreover, you have the disadvantage still that the doctor knows you are a Medicare patient.)




Right as you said they are different  requirements in different states,but in some you are able for coverage if you have a very minimal paying job.



Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

You can reduce the costs of US health services in all fields. Iwas talking about the mmense costs in the US for medical operations, vaccinations, and other therapies.

 I will try to find out what there cost are and post them up later.I don't know if you mind finding out what their cost are too,but I'll find some




Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:



If we keep to modern industrialised countries, on the whole, yes.


I think you can do this even in 2nd world countries,if we exclude epidemics,rebellions,and dependency on Foreign Bonds AND National Debt.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:



You're going to have to try that again. I stuîll don't understand what you mean by a patient 'defaulting' on his insurance. Do you just mean stops paying? How is that 'defaulting'?


Well if in the US when you are insured you have a contract to pay for an a amount of time.Whether it be a year or 2 years.If you breach this contract and refuse to pay, "you are defaulting".







Edited by AksumVanguard - 02 Jul 2009 at 01:42
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2009 at 10:12
Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

If the doctor/medical service is overcharging, then it doesn't matter who pays the bill does it - the coverage origanisation eventually pays exactly the same bill? The advantage of giving the bill to the patieint and the patient then giving it to the insurer is that all patients get treated exactly alike, because the doctor doesn't know whether the patient is paying himself or not. But the insurer gets the same bill, whether direct from the doctor or via the patient.


When an insurer is being overcharged it cost the Insurance Company ,(Whether Governement backed or Not) becomes resilient and doubtful in covering the patients. Remember money out the pockets can cause an unwanted effect. Not to mention every dollar counts and can be used in towards other programs such as, Medical Relief drives or the lessing cost of Vaccinations.
True, but my point was that it makes no difference who gives the insurance company the bill. Also of course a primary, possibly the primary, overcharger in the US system is the insurer itself.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


So for private treatment and public treatment I use EXACTLY the same dentist/doctor/clinic/hospital of my choice paying him in EXACTLY the same way and if it's not an approved procedure I don't get my money back (or possibly a proportion). From an administrative or service point of view there's no difference between the public and the private system: there's no reason for a doctor to treat a 'private' patient from a 'public' one.             

Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:


But there is a big difference in Private Treatment and Public Treatment, and with “public  medical treatment”  expenditures are more easily monitored . Whereas with private treatment the medical treatments  in private hospitals aren’t as easily monitored.
 
That would seem to be true.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Why not?

As I said the government does not like making any loans or lending money if they do not receive any annuity,interest,or non profit returns.First and foremost medical office will think twice before it scams any money from the government itself facing prosecution in the balance.

Another reason if they are getting paid by the governemt there is already a fixed wage for the staff. So if they decide to make an overcharge that can be consider embezzlement on part of  staff for "Public Medical Treatemnt Center". And I'm sure the other department of the Public Health Insurers report the malpratice to the Head Department.


Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Why would publicly owned hospitals be treated any differently than privately owned ones? They aren't here. Whether public or privateor church-owned  the hospital is funded by (a) medical fees (b) charitable donations (c) government subvention for certain procedures - for instance mammogram checks are free to the woman but paid for by the government no matter who provides them (one a year a think, but I'm not sure of that).  I hnk EU grants may be involved as well, but we'll count that as 'government' just as local communal funding is.

If they're budgeting they have much the same process whether the governing board are civil servants, church dignitaries or private individuals. It's true that private hospitals (in the full sense - not charitable or church) have to bear the extra cost of returning a profit to shareholders, which in this environment tends to mean they can't compete with public/church ones.
 

Indeed they are definitely more private owned Hospiatls but remember if you want to reduce the cost of medical supplies,medical machinery ,medical treatment,and medical services being adminstered in hospitals you must monitor them.
True. However the main effect on costs of government-sponsored insurance or government-run services is their greater bargaining power due to sheer size. (In the US too, what federal government services there are - Medicare, VA - are forbidden by law to negotiate terms with pharmaceutical suppliers.
Quote
If there is a sudden urgent need for plasama,blood transfusion,or antedote it can be expesnive
if you suddenly order it in. And you may now why,were as the supplier had it reserved for another  buyer or the supplier may have to produce it at the last minute charging  inciting the company supplier to charge "late minute fees".
 I'm sure a better example would be the Medics in the military. The "Medics" would definitely have a logistical supply of equipment and they would have a predetermined notion of whats needed so it will not cost them more to supply in the long run.Ordering in on the last minute before the set on a campaign be costly.
True but see above.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


Private hospitals as in the US are studk with being unable to compete as buyers with the main socialised health systems, even small ones like Luxembourg, which is the maîn reason why US medical care is so horrendously expensive. The second reason of course is that the hospitals have to return a profit to shareholders, another burdensome cost.

Well maybe if they receive a better adequate funding if they were Nationalized and Intergrated into the Municicpal funding they wouldn't have to worry about macreoeconomic survival.This is why a NHS system is more fitting.
The troubles with NHS systems include that no-one has any motivation to improve services. If you're paid the same no matter how many patients you treat, then your incentives become to treat fewer patients. As with any other nationalised service, no-one has any economic incentive to improve services, or even maintain them.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I know quite a lot about Medicaid and Medicare. My mother-in-law and her sister bothe died a few years ago in their nineties. In Georgia anyway you cannot get Medicaid unless you have first run all your assets down to no more than $3,000 . The figure may be different in other states but the system is similar. First you have to go virtually bankrupt: Then you get Medicaid.

Medicare itself isn't so bad: if everybody had it the situation would be a lot better. However, Congress has put a stop to the real benefits you could get from Medicare by refusing to allow the Medicare administration to bargain over drug costs with suppliers. (Moreover, you have the disadvantage still that the doctor knows you are a Medicare patient.)

Right as you said they are different  requirements in different states,but in some you are able for coverage if you have a very minimal paying job.
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

You can reduce the costs of US health services in all fields. Iwas talking about the mmense costs in the US for medical operations, vaccinations, and other therapies.

 I will try to find out what there cost are and post them up later.I don't know if you mind finding out what their cost are too,but I'll find some
I can tell you that the price charged for having a single stent inserted, with two nights in hospital, and no anaesthesia, in  the US (Atlanta) six years ago was $33,000 ($6,000 in surgeon's fees) whereas the price charged to the government, not to me, of the identical operation (also requiring two nights in hospital) in Luxembourg would have been closer to $3,000 ($600 in surgeon's fees).
I can also tell you that one month's supply of the drug Plavix in the US cost me nearly $300 whereas three months supply in Luxembourg is $180 of which I pay some $25 (the rest being paid by the government).
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


If we keep to modern industrialised countries, on the whole, yes.


I think you can do this even in 2nd world countries,if we exclude epidemics,rebellions,and dependency on Foreign Bonds AND National Debt.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:



You're going to have to try that again. I stuîll don't understand what you mean by a patient 'defaulting' on his insurance. Do you just mean stops paying? How is that 'defaulting'?


Well if in the US when you are insured you have a contract to pay for an a amount of time.Whether it be a year or 2 years.If you breach this contract and refuse to pay, "you are defaulting".
Understood. It can't of course happen in a government system. At least, it can happen, but without due cause you can be sued for the money in Luxembourg: in the UK you can be prosecuted. Actually i was once proseuted for non-payment myself: however, it was a damp squib and they dropped the case once I pointed out in court that I had been working abroad at the time.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
ResoundingEagle View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 27 Jun 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 131
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ResoundingEagle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 20:05
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

About cost, In the US healthcare is about 15% of the GDP (almost double that of europe). Both numbers are just too big to make a fully nationalised system viable.
US costs are so much higher than any other major country because the system is so badly organised. Apart from profit-taking trhere's no reason why US care should be more expensive; indeed given the lower level of provision it ought to be cheaper.
Quote
Managing the bureaucracy and making sure money isn't wasted is just too much for any country and even if the people shared some of the cost the government will still be forced to provide for the rest which is too muh for countries that are already burdened with other social obligations.
The people have to bear ALL the cost - there's no-one else to pay for it (might be different in a really traditional monarchy like Saudi Arabia, where the royal family may not be classed as 'people').
The question is, how should the cost be shared out, and how spent most efficiently.
Quote  
In my opinion, healthcare preceeds any other social need including retirement. While providing for old age is important there are several ways to build retirement plans that will eventually provide a bearable standard of living without burdening the government. However healthcare is another matter. Insurance companies even those with good policies cannot simply cover everyone and people have to put some of their own money.
Same point as above. Even in an insurance-based system people have to pay the premiums.
 
I'd disagree that any private pension scheme can guarantee an adequate pension on retirement. People who retired since mid-2008 are getting much less pension than they would have expected when they were providing for it. In other years blatant inflation has had the same effect though from the other side so to speak.
 
Whether health care should be of higher priority than education or pensions or unemployment compensation is of course a matter of political opinion and decision.
Quote  
If the government support insurance companies by providing their own minimal insurance coverage this will have a double effect: first policies in general will be cheaper and many people will prefer the new and cheaper policies over the basic coverage provided by the government and the pressure on insurance companies will be much less.
 
Al-Jassas
I agree government-backed insurance as in most of western Europe is more effective than nationalised services like in Britain. However, I gather nationalisation works rather better in smaller countries like Denmark.


Clap  I like this fellow.

I agree. We have to start reorganizing things before we can begin to make a nationalized health care viably possible. Though thanks to our recent wars and massive corporate unndertakings, our economy is trash. So this will take some time.

I do think nationalized health care is necessary though for the benefit of the American people. Making excuses for not working hard enough to find answers, is the bane of all good policy, and simply unacceptable.

Clap
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Aug 2009 at 23:39
The below link is an example of how much the of how the cost of surgeries can be reduced. If hospitals prepare themselves properly and if there is enough availability of doctors in the hospitals reduction surgeries ,physical therapies shall become apparent.


http://www.healthcare-blog.com/2009/ever-wonder-just-how-much-that-sugery-cost/

Medical Procedure       USA               Mexico       Cost Rica       India      Thailand   Korea

Angioplasty              Up to $57,000     $17,100      $14,000    $10,000     $9,000     $21,600
Heart Bypass            Up to $144,000    $21,100     $26,000    $10,000     $26,000   $26,000
Heart Valve Rep.      Up to $170,000    $31,000     $31,000     $3,000       $24,000    $38,000
Knee Replacement Up to $50,000       $11,500     $12,000    $9,000        $14,000   $19,800
Hip Resurfacing       Up to $30,000+    $13,400     $13,000    $10,000      $18,000   $22,900
Hip Replacement      Up to $43,000      $13,800     $13,000    $10,000      $16,000   $18,450
Special Fusion        Up to $100,000    $8,000       $16,000    $14,000      $13,000   $19,350
Face Lift                 Up to $15,000      $8,000       $6,500       $9,000       $8,600       $5,000
Breast Implants      Up to $10,000       $9,000       $4,000      $6,500       $5,700      $13,600
Rhino Plasty           Up to $8,000         $5,000       $6,000      $5,500       $5,400       $6,000
Lap Band/Bariatric  Up to $30,000       $9,200       $9,000      $9,500       $14,000    $11,500
Hysterectomy        Up to $15,000       $7,500       $6,000      $7,500       $7,000      $11,000
Dental Implant   Up to $2,000/10,000   $1,000       $1,100      $1,000       $1,000      $2,000

 *Prices are as of 2009 -  Prices are approximate and not actual prices and include estimated airfare for patient and companion.  Prices will vary based upon many factors including hospital, doctor’s experience, accreditation, currency exchange rates and more.  Not included are costs for meals, miscellaneous expenses and any hotel costs or tourism costs. 

Prices obtained from Medicaltourism.com.

Another link below is indicative that certain health insurances that are expensive but give the same coverage of non-high costing providers, still retain money and do not properly cover patients that may be in imperative need of surgery.There is another factor to this that "3rd party insurers" or  "middleman insurers" through Medicaid, may have to do this since they have to cut a percentage of their earnings to the Parent Insurance Company.

http://www.healthcare-blog.com/2009/176/

Comparison-shopping with hospitals is tricky. One hospital might have 30 different insurance contracts and the same number of rates that it charges them, plus a list price inflated to double or even triple those rates that it charges customers who lack insurance. Out-of-network providers are the most likely to charge sky-high prices. Beware also ancillary providers, such as anesthesiologists, pathologists, radiologists and pharmacists, who might bill separately from the hospital and the surgeon.

Even with most American Middle Class families being insured in America alot of the health insurance providers they possess do not give them the prerequisite financial support for their newly diagnosed chronic diseases.It really is sort of futile to get medicore medical providers since alot of them are withdrawing from giving coverages to distinct medical treatments among patients.

http://www.healthcare-blog.com/2009/study-links-medical-costs-and-personal-bankruptcy/

But medically bankrupt families with private insurance reported average out-of pocket medical bills of $17,749, while the uninsured’s bills averaged $26,971. Of the families who started out with insurance but lost it during the course of their illness, medical bills averaged $22,658. “For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection.

Most of us have policies with so many loopholes, co-payments, and deductibles that illness can put you in the poorhouse,” said lead author Himmelstein. “Unless you’re Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy.”




Edited by AksumVanguard - 14 Aug 2009 at 23:54
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.344 seconds.