The Most Efficient Healthcare Systems In The World (INFOGRAPHICS)

[keith]

Now we all know that Hispanics do not have the same access to healthcare on average than whites yet we have this little stat:


U.S. Hispanics outliving whites, blacks
By Haya El Nasser, USA TODAY

Hispanics live longer than whites or blacks, according to the first-ever life expectancy data for the U.S. Hispanic population, which were released Wednesday.

The research by the National Center for Health Statistics is an important confirmation of the "Hispanic mortality paradox."

On average, Hispanics outlive whites by 2.5 years and blacks by 7.7 years, according to the report. Their life expectancy at birth in 2006 was 80.6 years, compared with 78.1 for whites, 72.9 for blacks and 77.7 years for the total population. Asians are not included in the data.

I guess Hispanics have a more efficient healthcare system in the USA than whites.

 

[greengirl77]

There is no "stretch" between the comparison of food and healthcare, or healthcare and any other commodity. It's exactly the same. the only difference is that we have chosen to remove healthcare from free market competition, while the cost of food is held in check by free market competition.

Maybe you need to read ACA it is opening the doors for exchanges that consumers can go on to find the best rate from Healthcare providers. It is still a free market so where are you getting your info??? Saying Healthcare is privatized commodity is a big strecth like I pointed out you are trying boogeyman tactics. The point of this discussion shows that the rightwing does not believe the basic facts about how we are not the best in healthcare and even some throd world countries are better!

 

[imagep]

Maybe you need to read ACA it is opening the doors for exchanges that consumers can go on to find the best rate from Healthcare providers. It is still a free market so where are you getting your info??? Saying Healthcare is privatized commodity is a big strecth like I pointed out you are trying boogeyman tactics. The point of this discussion shows that the rightwing does not believe the basic facts about how we are not the best in healthcare and even some throd world countries are better!

I'm not really disagreeing with you, and I'm not really what most people consider a "conservative". I'm just saying that ACA is far from the best possible solution.

A number of years ago I met with a member of congress, and proposed a socialized major medical insurance system. Basically, under my system, we would aggregate all of the current government healthcare systems into just one system, under which every citizen would get the exact same coverage. This would have saved about $600 billion dollars a year, which I suggested be rebated back to each citizen, in the form of a deposit into their own personal HSA, which they could then use to pay for preventive care or for normal doctors visits, medications, or deductibles.

It seemed like a system which would be acceptable to both the right and the left. Under the system that I proposed, every US citizen would have equal insurance, and cash money for health care (satisfying the left), yet without having to increase taxes (satisfying the right). Unfortunately, we are so polarized, that those on the left are not willing to accept anything short of socialized medicine, and those on the right are only happy if many are uninsured and financially unable to pay for adequate care.

 

[greengirl77]

I'm not really disagreeing with you, and I'm not really what most people consider a "conservative". I'm just saying that ACA is far from the best possible solution.

A number of years ago I met with a member of congress, and proposed a socialized major medical insurance system. Basically, under my system, we would aggregate all of the current government healthcare systems into just one system, under which every citizen would get the exact same coverage. This would have saved about $600 billion dollars a year, which I suggested be rebated back to each citizen, in the form of a deposit into their own personal HSA, which they could then use to pay for preventive care or for normal doctors visits, medications, or deductibles.

It seemed like a system which would be acceptable to both the right and the left. Under the system that I proposed, every US citizen would have equal insurance, and cash money for health care (satisfying the left), yet without having to increase taxes (satisfying the right). Unfortunately, we are so polarized, that those on the left are not willing to accept anything short of socialized medicine, and those on the right are only happy if many are uninsured and financially unable to pay for adequate care.

No it not that at all the right (not pointing at you) that are screaming and yelling and not one Republican in Congress offered anything. This was after months and months of saying they would. We need a single payer system. Taxes need to go up mind you only 43% pay anything in federal taxes. State level is a little different!

 

[imagep]

No it not that at all the right (not pointing at you) that are screaming and yelling and not one Republican in Congress offered anything. This was after months and months of saying they would. We need a single payer system. Taxes need to go up mind you only 43% pay anything in federal taxes. State level is a little different!

Like I said, both extremes are so entrenched in their ideology, that they are not willing to accept an obviously better solution because the better solutions are reasonable and practical compromises. Ideologues aren't about reasonable or practical.

I asked one conservative why he object to my plan, he explained that he didn't like it because then EVERYONE would have insurance, then they would have what he has, and he wouldn't be special any more.

Now I perfectly get that you want socialized healthcare, but why would you object to having socialized health insurance as a politically viable alternative?

 

[Stewart]

There is no "stretch" between the comparison of food and healthcare, or healthcare and any other commodity. It's exactly the same. the only difference is that we have chosen to remove healthcare from free market competition, while the cost of food is held in check by free market competition.

To treat food and medical services as similar, doesn't really stack up. Medical services by their very nature is a lot more expensive than food and it's demand is very inelastic. It is untenable to suggest that we treat medical services as a commodity, if we were then we must be prepared to let people go without. I don't believe that is anything most Americans desire.

 

[Stewart]

Nearly 100% of it can be blamed on government. We didn't have rampant inflation in health care until the government started encouraging individuals to get health insurance, and until the government started encouraging employers to provide health insurance.

It is too simplistic. Which came first, government mandates or innovation? I believe it is mainly the advent of technology (increasingly complex procedures) that has driven the healthcare inflation. Does the government's role play a part? Perhaps, but it is less than what most people attribute.

I do agree that the American model of Health Insurance is a tangled mess. However, transitioning it into paying only for serious/catastrophic/rate situations is a mistake.

 

[imagep]

To treat food and medical services as similar, doesn't really stack up. Medical services by their very nature is a lot more expensive than food and it's demand is very inelastic. It is untenable to suggest that we treat medical services as a commodity, if we were then we must be prepared to let people go without. I don't believe that is anything most Americans desire.

You might want to rethink that. I spend a lot more on food than I do medical services. Food is much more expensive than medical care. The demand for food and medical care are both very inelastic.

And you are missing my point that part of the reason that medical care is as expensive as it is is because with our current system, and even the Obamacare system, we have a third party payer system, thus there is little incentive for medical providers to compete on price, because there is little incentive for the consumer to shop based on price.

 

[imagep]

It is too simplistic. Which came first, government mandates or innovation? I believe it is mainly the advent of technology (increasingly complex procedures) that has driven the healthcare inflation...

In EVERY other technology based industry, as technology improves, the costs of the products decline. So why doesn't the cost of medical care decline? Because it isn't held in check by the competitive free market.

Now LASIK surgery is a perfect example. Most insurance policies don't cover eyecare. Thus, the cost of LASIK has come down. If you google "LASIK" you will find a zillion eye doctors competing on price. Now try googling for "turbanate reduction" (a similar outpatient proceedure, but it IS covered by most insurance plans), and you will find no one competing on price. LAZIK has dropped by 70% in cost since it first came out.