Rising Cyber Attacks Costing Health System $6 Billion Annually
-
My German friends all tell me that they must purchase additional supplemental health coverage otherwise they will be waiting a long time to see the doctor, etc. I'm not sure how things play out when they need surgery, etc.
-
@Dashrender said:
The citizens of those counties definitely pay for it... they just don't pay directly, instead they pay with Taxes that are at or over 50%.
You need to look that up. A few things to consider:
-
Healthcare cost in no leading country is even half what it is in the US. Yes, they pay, but they pay half what you do.
-
The US mandates that healthcare insurance be paid, that's a tax. My US tax rate was 52% - higher than any large European nation. Europe has lower taxes if you don't use the US loophole of calling healthcare insurance something other than a tax, which it is.
European nations have high taxes because they do a LOT of things, beyond healthcare, that the US does not do and they still pay less in taxes once you consider the big picture. The whole "low US tax" scam is part of the marketing.
-
-
@scottalanmiller said:
One of the things that is very telling is that people who live along the US / Mexico border cross from the US into Mexico to get better healthcare. Even paying completely out of pocket as US insurance won't cover that, many people do it to lower costs (even paying the full amount) and getting healthcare that they can't get in the US (or faster, or better, whatever.)
No one crossing INTO the US from Canada or Mexico to get healthcare, they cross out of the US for that.
Frankly this doesn't surprise me - the Mexican Doctors of course will welcome anyone with cash in hand to their clinics. Their citizens certainly don't have any.
-
@Dashrender said:
Another difference is shear size. European countries are considerably smaller - I'm sure that plays into the economics of it as well.
Yes, that makes it much harder for them to compete as they have less scale to work with and they still do the best in the world (France is considered number one, Italy number two.) The US has the best chances of being cost effective as it is the largest first world nation. But to be fair, countries like Germany are so large that they are in a similar bracket of scale. Once you are over 40m or so, having more doesn't change healthcare dramatically.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
One of the things that is very telling is that people who live along the US / Mexico border cross from the US into Mexico to get better healthcare. Even paying completely out of pocket as US insurance won't cover that, many people do it to lower costs (even paying the full amount) and getting healthcare that they can't get in the US (or faster, or better, whatever.)
No one crossing INTO the US from Canada or Mexico to get healthcare, they cross out of the US for that.
Frankly this doesn't surprise me - the Mexican Doctors of course will welcome anyone with cash in hand to their clinics. Their citizens certainly don't have any.
And will do stuff that not medically needed & selective surgeries that are illegal in the US.
-
Here is a simple test....
Of people who have lived and dealt with healthcare in the US as well as in a leading healthcare nation (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Japan, etc.) how many would prefer to deal with healthcare in which?
I've never met anyone who had done both and preferred the US. No one. Lots of people who dislike or like wherever they are and lack comparative. But of people who have done both, it's been ubiquitous, in my experience, that they prefer the same ones that are ranked highly by the UN / WHO and the ones that cost the least to provide.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
One of the things that is very telling is that people who live along the US / Mexico border cross from the US into Mexico to get better healthcare. Even paying completely out of pocket as US insurance won't cover that, many people do it to lower costs (even paying the full amount) and getting healthcare that they can't get in the US (or faster, or better, whatever.)
No one crossing INTO the US from Canada or Mexico to get healthcare, they cross out of the US for that.
Frankly this doesn't surprise me - the Mexican Doctors of course will welcome anyone with cash in hand to their clinics. Their citizens certainly don't have any.
And will do stuff that not medically needed & selective surgeries that are illegal in the US.
Well Medically not needed is in the eye of the beholder - I know in the US we do TONS of testing as a CYA, but frankly could be dismissed in most cases, but the doctor 1) doesn't want to be sued and 2) needs to find other ways to prop up their dwindling income.
The only ones getting rich in the medical biz in the US is the insurance companies.
Working for a medical practice I see what we bring in (at least at a high level) and see what goes out. As Scott has already pointed out, providing health insurance to employees is the single biggest expense our office has.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Here is a simple test....
Of people who have lived and dealt with healthcare in the US as well as in a leading healthcare nation (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Japan, etc.) how many would prefer to deal with healthcare in which?
I've never met anyone who had done both and preferred the US. No one. Lots of people who dislike or like wherever they are and lack comparative. But of people who have done both, it's been ubiquitous, in my experience, that they prefer the same ones that are ranked highly by the UN / WHO and the ones that cost the least to provide.
Who wouldn't opt for the no paper work/no money out of pocket solution?
Now narrow your scope and ask those same people who had cancer - or some other major malady (non transplant), and see what you get?
Though I'm sure you wouldn't be able to find those patients... because those who have had cancer/etc and dealt with both systems probably don't exist in large enough numbers to give you a good result.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Here is a simple test....
Of people who have lived and dealt with healthcare in the US as well as in a leading healthcare nation (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Japan, etc.) how many would prefer to deal with healthcare in which?
I've never met anyone who had done both and preferred the US. No one. Lots of people who dislike or like wherever they are and lack comparative. But of people who have done both, it's been ubiquitous, in my experience, that they prefer the same ones that are ranked highly by the UN / WHO and the ones that cost the least to provide.
Who wouldn't opt for the no paper work/no money out of pocket solution?
I wouldn't because then people just start being lazy and not working because they can get care either way. Much like our welfare system.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Here is a simple test....
Of people who have lived and dealt with healthcare in the US as well as in a leading healthcare nation (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Japan, etc.) how many would prefer to deal with healthcare in which?
I've never met anyone who had done both and preferred the US. No one. Lots of people who dislike or like wherever they are and lack comparative. But of people who have done both, it's been ubiquitous, in my experience, that they prefer the same ones that are ranked highly by the UN / WHO and the ones that cost the least to provide.
Who wouldn't opt for the no paper work/no money out of pocket solution?
I wouldn't because then people just start being lazy and not working because they can get care either way. Much like our welfare system.
This is a problem that the UK suffers even worse than the US does!
-
@Dashrender said:
I understand everything you're saying Scott - the problem I have with it is, who's going to pay for it all?
It's completely likely that hugh percentages of people will use more medical care dollars than then even earn in their lifetimes. and if not more.. damn close to the same... when you look over the entirety of their lives.
The government does...
The US has the highest health spending in the world - equivalent to 17.9% of its gross domestic product (GDP), or $8,362 per person. And it's not all private - government spending is at $4,437 per person
~50% of all medical expenses were paid for by the government prior to 2012.
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
I understand everything you're saying Scott - the problem I have with it is, who's going to pay for it all?
It's completely likely that hugh percentages of people will use more medical care dollars than then even earn in their lifetimes. and if not more.. damn close to the same... when you look over the entirety of their lives.
The government does...
The government doesn't pay for anything.. Citizen's do through taxes.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
I wouldn't because then people just start being lazy and not working because they can get care either way. Much like our welfare system.
That's the American view generally - I'd rather get less as long as other people who don't deserve it as much as I do also get less. Idealism. I agree, there is a lot of value to being "fair."
The problem is, you lose. That's where European style realism is nice. Sure, it's not fair that the guy over there is lazy. But stop worrying about punishing him, focus on the fact that your life just improved.
Americans are very, very willing to hurt themselves as long as they can hurt someone that they feel deserves being hurt, more.
-
@Dashrender said:
This is a problem that the UK suffers even worse than the US does!
The UK, yes, they have always had those issues. We inherited a lot from them in that regard.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
The government doesn't pay for anything.. Citizen's do through taxes.
Or "tax like" fees like health insurance.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
I understand everything you're saying Scott - the problem I have with it is, who's going to pay for it all?
It's completely likely that hugh percentages of people will use more medical care dollars than then even earn in their lifetimes. and if not more.. damn close to the same... when you look over the entirety of their lives.
The government does...
The government doesn't pay for anything.. Citizen's do through taxes.
Agreed, I thought that was universally understood.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
I wouldn't because then people just start being lazy and not working because they can get care either way. Much like our welfare system.
That's the American view generally - I'd rather get less as long as other people who don't deserve it as much as I do also get less. Idealism. I agree, there is a lot of value to being "fair."
The problem is, you lose. That's where European style realism is nice. Sure, it's not fair that the guy over there is lazy. But stop worrying about punishing him, focus on the fact that your life just improved.
Americans are very, very willing to hurt themselves as long as they can hurt someone that they feel deserves being hurt, more.
It's not pushing them. Once you take way the advantage to working. then less will. And therefore there is less money to support the "system" which will get worse and worse over time.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
I wouldn't because then people just start being lazy and not working because they can get care either way. Much like our welfare system.
That's the American view generally - I'd rather get less as long as other people who don't deserve it as much as I do also get less. Idealism. I agree, there is a lot of value to being "fair."
The problem is, you lose. That's where European style realism is nice. Sure, it's not fair that the guy over there is lazy. But stop worrying about punishing him, focus on the fact that your life just improved.
Americans are very, very willing to hurt themselves as long as they can hurt someone that they feel deserves being hurt, more.
It's not pushing them. Once you take way the advantage to working. then less will. And therefore there is less money to support the "system" which will get worse and worse over time.
Yes, I know the theory, and leading economists sometimes dispute it to through very complex arguments that are quite interesting. I hate the idea of paying lazy people not to work, but I love that it is believed that in the long run it earns me more money.
And having a MIL that works in welfare and specifically to get the lowest income people working and has managed (not alone, obviously) to not just put thousands of people into the workforce but has turned an entire city (small one) around through the use of the welfare program really shows how good it can be.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Here is a simple test....
Of people who have lived and dealt with healthcare in the US as well as in a leading healthcare nation (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Japan, etc.) how many would prefer to deal with healthcare in which?
I've never met anyone who had done both and preferred the US. No one. Lots of people who dislike or like wherever they are and lack comparative. But of people who have done both, it's been ubiquitous, in my experience, that they prefer the same ones that are ranked highly by the UN / WHO and the ones that cost the least to provide.
I will take Japan's system over ours any day of the week.
In fact, I do every year when I send my wife and kids to Japan.
As a citizen, you pay your monthly tax bill, you have health insurance. Done. For us this is a certain minimum amount (that I do not recall) as we have no Japanese income. I pay for two months of it every year.
For services, you pay 30% out of pocket. AFLAC does solid business in Japan selling services to cover that 30% for you.
Side Note: I have been buying my own health insurance in the US since 2010. Back then I paid ~$650/month (with no maternity that would have been an additional $100). It went down to about $550/month after my children were all older than 2. Now I pay $830/month for a plan not as good as what I had.
Side Note 2: I was not allowed to keep my plan because of course it had pre-existing condition clauses and no maternity care. Thus it was not ACA compliant.
-
When I lived in Texas we were forced (literally, no choice, we asked) to pay over $3,000 a month for health insurance that covered almost nothing. $3K/mo is a lot as a "tax" that doesn't get reported as tax. And then to have to pay out of pocket for every little thing on top of that.
