[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]
Like I’ve said in earlier post, I think the truth is somewhere between the two extreme. It’s not Utopia like some would like us to believe and it won’t kill health care like others like us to believe. I’m fine with private/public system that compete with each other to provide us a service. Kind of like the shipping system we have today. Although we have USPS, we still have FedEx and UPS. They all have their place and they all are competing for our shipping business. Mailing letter is defaulted to USPS, but all other shipping needs, we have choices. One thing I hope they won’t do is taxing me (the employee) if my employer decide to offer me a killer health benefit plan.[/quote]

And this is exactly what is being proposed – a public plan which will compete as a not for profit alternative to the private insurors.

The advantages should be clear – the private insurors will now have an incentive to reduce costs and expand coverages, which is the exact opposite of their incentives today. Insurance companies have no incentives to control costs today, since they can pass any expenses directly on to their consumers (which, of course they have been doing), and still take their 15% on every transaction, while making every attempt (frequently successful) to decline coverage on any medical expenses that would lead to significant losses on their part. Health plans today are far more restrictive on benefits than they were even 10 years ago – because we’re essentially a captive market to a relatively small group of insurors who all have the same profit motive, and that group is relatively immune to competition, because of the extremely high barrier of entry to competitors (it’s not like you or I could decide to found a healthcare insurance agency to compete with them).

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]SDEngineer, very informative study. Thanks for the link. The biggest thing that stands out to me is, we’re in desperate need to modernizing our health care system. A lot of these errors that’s being reported can be fixed if everything is computerized. A lot of the result are pretty similar between countries. We’re doing something right and some things are lacking. I agree we’re not perfect.[/quote]

Very true observation that we’re stuck in the 20th century where most other countries have moved into the 21st as regards medical care, and no doubt bringing us into the 21st century would help some in both improving quality of care and controlling costs.

However, the study does make one thing crystal clear – a socialized healthcare system will not by its very nature destroy the quality of healthcare in the U.S., despite what the private insurance companies (profits up nearly 500% over the past 10 years, as mergers and aquisitions have reduced the number of major players to less than 10 major insurors) are claiming in the mass media. Clearly, socialized medicine is capable of working, and working at a quality level at least as good as what our completly privatized system does today – and at a substantial savings.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]SDEngineer, very informative study. Thanks for the link. The biggest thing that stands out to me is, we’re in desperate need to modernizing our health care system. A lot of these errors that’s being reported can be fixed if everything is computerized. A lot of the result are pretty similar between countries. We’re doing something right and some things are lacking. I agree we’re not perfect.[/quote]

Very true observation that we’re stuck in the 20th century where most other countries have moved into the 21st as regards medical care, and no doubt bringing us into the 21st century would help some in both improving quality of care and controlling costs.

However, the study does make one thing crystal clear – a socialized healthcare system will not by its very nature destroy the quality of healthcare in the U.S., despite what the private insurance companies (profits up nearly 500% over the past 10 years, as mergers and aquisitions have reduced the number of major players to less than 10 major insurors) are claiming in the mass media. Clearly, socialized medicine is capable of working, and working at a quality level at least as good as what our completly privatized system does today – and at a substantial savings.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]SDEngineer, very informative study. Thanks for the link. The biggest thing that stands out to me is, we’re in desperate need to modernizing our health care system. A lot of these errors that’s being reported can be fixed if everything is computerized. A lot of the result are pretty similar between countries. We’re doing something right and some things are lacking. I agree we’re not perfect.[/quote]

Very true observation that we’re stuck in the 20th century where most other countries have moved into the 21st as regards medical care, and no doubt bringing us into the 21st century would help some in both improving quality of care and controlling costs.

However, the study does make one thing crystal clear – a socialized healthcare system will not by its very nature destroy the quality of healthcare in the U.S., despite what the private insurance companies (profits up nearly 500% over the past 10 years, as mergers and aquisitions have reduced the number of major players to less than 10 major insurors) are claiming in the mass media. Clearly, socialized medicine is capable of working, and working at a quality level at least as good as what our completly privatized system does today – and at a substantial savings.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]SDEngineer, very informative study. Thanks for the link. The biggest thing that stands out to me is, we’re in desperate need to modernizing our health care system. A lot of these errors that’s being reported can be fixed if everything is computerized. A lot of the result are pretty similar between countries. We’re doing something right and some things are lacking. I agree we’re not perfect.[/quote]

Very true observation that we’re stuck in the 20th century where most other countries have moved into the 21st as regards medical care, and no doubt bringing us into the 21st century would help some in both improving quality of care and controlling costs.

However, the study does make one thing crystal clear – a socialized healthcare system will not by its very nature destroy the quality of healthcare in the U.S., despite what the private insurance companies (profits up nearly 500% over the past 10 years, as mergers and aquisitions have reduced the number of major players to less than 10 major insurors) are claiming in the mass media. Clearly, socialized medicine is capable of working, and working at a quality level at least as good as what our completly privatized system does today – and at a substantial savings.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]SDEngineer, very informative study. Thanks for the link. The biggest thing that stands out to me is, we’re in desperate need to modernizing our health care system. A lot of these errors that’s being reported can be fixed if everything is computerized. A lot of the result are pretty similar between countries. We’re doing something right and some things are lacking. I agree we’re not perfect.[/quote]

Very true observation that we’re stuck in the 20th century where most other countries have moved into the 21st as regards medical care, and no doubt bringing us into the 21st century would help some in both improving quality of care and controlling costs.

However, the study does make one thing crystal clear – a socialized healthcare system will not by its very nature destroy the quality of healthcare in the U.S., despite what the private insurance companies (profits up nearly 500% over the past 10 years, as mergers and aquisitions have reduced the number of major players to less than 10 major insurors) are claiming in the mass media. Clearly, socialized medicine is capable of working, and working at a quality level at least as good as what our completly privatized system does today – and at a substantial savings.

[SDEngineer]

doublepost

[SDEngineer]

doublepost

[SDEngineer]

doublepost

[SDEngineer]

doublepost

[SDEngineer]

doublepost

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]
Anecdote is all I got. Do you have better data from independent sources?

[/quote]

Here’s the most comprehensive comparison of several first world healthcare systems I could find online.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/Shea_hltsysperformanceselectednations_chartpack.pdf

You’ll note some surprising findings. One is that we lead the countries in most categories of medical errors, and our doctors provide in general the least amount of information to patients on their treatments and potential side effects thereof.

We are also on top of the list for patients who missed treatments or didn’t buy presciptions due to cost related issues.

Our cost per capita for healthcare is just about double all the other countries compared ($6102 per person per year, vs. $2k-3k per person per year – highest surveyed other than us was $3165).

The only country where it was more difficult to get in to see a doctor either same or next day was Canada (47% same or next day in the US – 36% in Canada, 81% in NZ, 69% in Germany, 66% in Australia, and 51% in the UK). 23% reported taking 6 days or longer to see a doctor (again, 2nd only to Canada). We were the worst at being able to see a doctor on nights, weekends, and holidays without having to go to an ER.

One of the few measurements which we did well in was in relatively fast access to specialists for sicker adults (2nd, Germany was best) and access for elective (non urgent) surgeries (2nd again to Germany).

6% of Germans had to go to the ER for a condition which could have been treated by a normal office visit. 26% of Americans did (the European nations averaged around 12%).

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]
Anecdote is all I got. Do you have better data from independent sources?

[/quote]

Here’s the most comprehensive comparison of several first world healthcare systems I could find online.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/Shea_hltsysperformanceselectednations_chartpack.pdf

You’ll note some surprising findings. One is that we lead the countries in most categories of medical errors, and our doctors provide in general the least amount of information to patients on their treatments and potential side effects thereof.

We are also on top of the list for patients who missed treatments or didn’t buy presciptions due to cost related issues.

Our cost per capita for healthcare is just about double all the other countries compared ($6102 per person per year, vs. $2k-3k per person per year – highest surveyed other than us was $3165).

The only country where it was more difficult to get in to see a doctor either same or next day was Canada (47% same or next day in the US – 36% in Canada, 81% in NZ, 69% in Germany, 66% in Australia, and 51% in the UK). 23% reported taking 6 days or longer to see a doctor (again, 2nd only to Canada). We were the worst at being able to see a doctor on nights, weekends, and holidays without having to go to an ER.

One of the few measurements which we did well in was in relatively fast access to specialists for sicker adults (2nd, Germany was best) and access for elective (non urgent) surgeries (2nd again to Germany).

6% of Germans had to go to the ER for a condition which could have been treated by a normal office visit. 26% of Americans did (the European nations averaged around 12%).

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]
Anecdote is all I got. Do you have better data from independent sources?

[/quote]

Here’s the most comprehensive comparison of several first world healthcare systems I could find online.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/Shea_hltsysperformanceselectednations_chartpack.pdf

You’ll note some surprising findings. One is that we lead the countries in most categories of medical errors, and our doctors provide in general the least amount of information to patients on their treatments and potential side effects thereof.

We are also on top of the list for patients who missed treatments or didn’t buy presciptions due to cost related issues.

Our cost per capita for healthcare is just about double all the other countries compared ($6102 per person per year, vs. $2k-3k per person per year – highest surveyed other than us was $3165).

The only country where it was more difficult to get in to see a doctor either same or next day was Canada (47% same or next day in the US – 36% in Canada, 81% in NZ, 69% in Germany, 66% in Australia, and 51% in the UK). 23% reported taking 6 days or longer to see a doctor (again, 2nd only to Canada). We were the worst at being able to see a doctor on nights, weekends, and holidays without having to go to an ER.

One of the few measurements which we did well in was in relatively fast access to specialists for sicker adults (2nd, Germany was best) and access for elective (non urgent) surgeries (2nd again to Germany).

6% of Germans had to go to the ER for a condition which could have been treated by a normal office visit. 26% of Americans did (the European nations averaged around 12%).

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]
Anecdote is all I got. Do you have better data from independent sources?

[/quote]

Here’s the most comprehensive comparison of several first world healthcare systems I could find online.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/Shea_hltsysperformanceselectednations_chartpack.pdf

You’ll note some surprising findings. One is that we lead the countries in most categories of medical errors, and our doctors provide in general the least amount of information to patients on their treatments and potential side effects thereof.

We are also on top of the list for patients who missed treatments or didn’t buy presciptions due to cost related issues.

Our cost per capita for healthcare is just about double all the other countries compared ($6102 per person per year, vs. $2k-3k per person per year – highest surveyed other than us was $3165).

The only country where it was more difficult to get in to see a doctor either same or next day was Canada (47% same or next day in the US – 36% in Canada, 81% in NZ, 69% in Germany, 66% in Australia, and 51% in the UK). 23% reported taking 6 days or longer to see a doctor (again, 2nd only to Canada). We were the worst at being able to see a doctor on nights, weekends, and holidays without having to go to an ER.

One of the few measurements which we did well in was in relatively fast access to specialists for sicker adults (2nd, Germany was best) and access for elective (non urgent) surgeries (2nd again to Germany).

6% of Germans had to go to the ER for a condition which could have been treated by a normal office visit. 26% of Americans did (the European nations averaged around 12%).

[Author]

Posts