What the heck is wrong with the US healthcare?

[J&N* 68]

Okay, I've been reading and hearing from EVERYONE about how messed up the American healthcare is, could someone please explain to me what to expect?? I'm kinda frightened!

Did anyone watch the documentary by Michael Moore?

here's a part of it I found on YouTube.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Junita

[Penguin_ie 5,987]

Actually, US healthcare is very good, IF you can afford it.

If you have no health insurance though, good luck!

For example, I had an uncomplicated pregnancy and birth here, it cost us almost 10'000 dollars as we had no insurance.

Another example, my little boy (2.5 years old) is a bit slow in speaking. We had a hearing test done, which came back clear, so our family doctor refered him for a speech and language evaluation. Due to how much behind the boy is, he would be entitled to get this done for free on the state, but the waitinglist is 10-12 months! Fortunately, we do have private health insurance for the kids, and got an appointment to get the evaluation the next day.

I can;t stand Moore, he spins news and makes things up to further his agenda.

[REINITA♥REY 8]

Yes, the best case is to have a job that provides insurance. The medical insurance amount is deducted each week from your paycheck....for example $20 per week. When you go to the doctor you may have to pay a co-pay, maybe $15-20, but everything else is mostly covered. There are many insurance plans, it depends on which ones your company offers and which one you select. It may be a good idea to ask about health insurance when interviewing for jobs. On my insurance plan, if I have a baby, I pay $300 and everything is covered for the baby. I can't comment on Moore, I don't pay any attention to him.

[Cortr 3]

Michael Moore is just a propaganda artist. Don't pay attention to him. That movie is misleading in many respects, but accurate in some others.

The short story is that US Healthcare is very good quality but yes, it's also very expensive. If you don't have insurance, and something serious happens to you, you can easily be completely overwhelmed by the costs. I read a statistic recently that something like 60% of personal bankruptcies are due to sudden unforseen medical expenses.

For example, a friend of mine's girlfriend recently had an aneurism and a stroke, which required her to go into the emergency room, followed by a series of surgeries and a few weeks in the hospital.

The total bill? Over $400,000. Fortunately, she had insurance, so they will only have to pay their deductible (probably like $1000) out of their own pockets.

Insurance and socialized medicine are basically the same concept, it's just that in a completely socialized setting like Canada, you've got a safety net and the system will always catch you if you fall. In the US, you have to purchase the insurance yourself.

There's also the possibility in the US that the insurance company will try to weasel their way out of paying for some legitimate medical service. That happens sometimes, but it's rarer than Michael Moore would have you believe.

[yorkshirerose22 4]

I hate the healthcare out hear , thats one thing that sucks... At least In England if yr unemployed they have NHS so u can get some sort of Medical care.. health is very important and past few years i have been needing medical care and right now my husband is unemployed and i carnt see a doc becouse we havent the money... NOT good. But when My husband was working he was paying afortune for medical insurance and he still had to pay out of his pocket. Which is not right, why pay all that money a month and still have to pay more.

[fozzie 41]

Yes, the best case is to have a job that provides insurance. The medical insurance amount is deducted each week from your paycheck....for example $20 per week. When you go to the doctor you may have to pay a co-pay, maybe $15-20, but everything else is mostly covered. There are many insurance plans, it depends on which ones your company offers and which one you select. It may be a good idea to ask about health insurance when interviewing for jobs. On my insurance plan, if I have a baby, I pay $300 and everything is covered for the baby. I can't comment on Moore, I don't pay any attention to him.

At one point my wife and I were paying over $350 a month for health insurance because neither of our companies had an Employee + 1 plan. We had to have a family plan. Fortunately that went away and we now pay half that, but its still expensive.

I agree with a previous thread that I was reading in that if you can afford it its one of the best systems in the world, but if you can't you are well and truly f***ed if something bad happens.

Nationalized healthcare is not the answer, it has its advantages but also long wait lists and increased taxes to pay ofr it. Its underfunded and the equipment and traing is far from cutting edge. The health insurance costs here amount to the inceased taxes in the UK so it doesnt rwally cost me any more.

[ValerieA 350]

Nationalized healthcare is not the answer, it has its advantages but also long wait lists and increased taxes to pay ofr it. Its underfunded and the equipment and traing is far from cutting edge. The health insurance costs here amount to the inceased taxes in the UK so it doesnt rwally cost me any more.

The US public expense for health care right now per capita is more than the per capital cost of socialized medicine in Canada, so I do not agree on the increased taxes part. Overall, we are worse off here. Also, I have run into a couple of people here (one of them my mother-in-law, who works for an insurance company in the health insurance department), who have had to wait 2 months to get into specialists. I never had to wait more than a couple of weeks in Canada, although I never had any health issues that would require someone who was highly specialized. Either way, in Canada, the wait is based on a triage process, where those who need it most go to the top of the list, not those who have more money.

Did you know the first lung transplant was done in Toronto? Canada, the UK, and many other 'socialized' medicine countries have many major firsts that are part of the norm now. I don't agree that we are not on the cutting edge; I think that our research dollars are more likely to go into research life-saving procedures than, say, erectile dysfunction or Botox.

[govols 0]

http://www.examiner.com/extreme-weight-loss-in-national/why-change-the-us-has-the-37th-best-health-care-system-the-world

[Kevin- 13]

The reason health care is expensive in the US is three-fold. 1. It's the best in the world. The best of anything usually costs the most, or at least nearly the most. 2. Lack of government regulation in SOME areas, which goes right along with 3. Over-regulation by government in many areas. If government could regulate a bit more the few areas that need it, and back out of the myriad areas which they are armpit-deep in and shouldn't be, cost of health care would become much lower for everyone in the US.

However, it's generally not so expensive that people can't afford it. It's not very hard to get an insurance policy that will cover basic needs and maintenance. Many good employers offer very good health care plans. If a person doesn't work for one of them, then they can (and should) make sacrifices on their other expenses to get good health care. For example: drive a more affordable car, live in a less fancy house or apartment, drink less starbucks, cook food at home more often, etc.

Health care is not a basic human right. It is a logical fallacy to say that any person has a right to another person's product or service. Health care is a product and a service provided by people who also have rights. Creating a "right" to a product or service means that other people's rights must be infringed upon in order to provide this "right" to people who can't afford it themselves. This is pure logic.

Health care is not free. It can never be free. If you're not "paying for it", then somebody else is paying for it against their will through taxes, or you're paying for it yourself through taxes. And when you pay for it through taxes, you pay more than it's worth, because the government has to take some of that money out to cover the cost of operating a very thick layer of bureaucracy between you and the care provider. Additionally, the government is then involved in monetary decisions about whether to cover certain types of procedures.

Since when is any government good at being efficient and making decisions that are good for individuals?

There is a ton of infuriating political propaganda (including the W.H.O.'s 10-year-old data) trying to make the US health care system look horrible. Statistics are often quoted which sound really bad. But upon a deep investigation of those stats you can find that other countries count their stats differently than we do. One example has to do with newborn death rate. In the US we count almost every baby that dies at or near the birth process due to medical problems of any kind as one of these incidents. In the countries we are often compared to, they don't count "all" of them. Premature doesn't count, etc. We have a higher rate because we count every single bad situation. We don't doctor our stats to look better, because we have the highest standards in the world. It's similar to how the UK claims to have lower rates of certain types of crime than we do, by changing the standards by which they are recorded.

"You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.

You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.

You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.

You cannot establish security on borrowed money.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

The only place where a free health care systme can ever exist is the one place that it will never be needed: Heaven.

How do you know when something is the best? When everybody who doesn't have it tries to point out how bad it is. Like how Porsche tries to let everyone know how bad the Nissan GT-R is. Heh.

Also, this is coming from a person who is a U.S. Citizen, living in the U.S., without a health care plan (for now), and who does NOT want any health care assistance from the government.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Kevin-

[VanessaTony 3,567]

The reason health care is expensive in the US is three-fold. 1. It's the best in the world. ....

I'm not sure whether you think the system is the best, or if the think the standard of care is best.. Assuming the former, I disagree. Here's a list from 2000 done by WHO (World Health Organisation): http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html . You'll see that the USA is number 37.. hardly near the top. The list is old because they don't do it anymore but I doubt the US has climbed 36 points to reach No.1 in 10 years.. still... stranger things have happened.

Assuming the later, this article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/19/opinion/main6223147.shtml sums up what I think (more or less) at the end "I strongly believe that we have the best health care providers in the world but despite what some claim, is it really the best health care system in the world?".. though personally I don't "strongly" believe it, and you have SOME of the best health care providers... otherwise it's true. It's not the best system.

The US system is flawed in many many ways. And yes you have SOME of the best care, but some of the best care can be found in other countries. Some of the worst care can be found in the US or other countries. The important factor is the US system is horrible and needs a serious overhaul.

**Edit - additionally - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system#Cross-country_comparisons "Direct comparisons of health statistics across nations are complex. The Commonwealth Fund, in its annual survey, "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall", compares the performance of the health care systems in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and the U.S. Its 2007 study found that, although the U.S. system is the most expensive, it consistently underperforms compared to the other countries.[11] A major difference between the U.S. and the other countries in the study is that the U.S. is the only country without universal health care. The OECD also collects comparative statistics, and has published brief country profiles."

Edited September 27, 2010 by Vanessa&Tony

[MJ&RJ 7]

The U.S. healthcare is not the best that is a know fact to us Americans that have actually ventured outside the states(Sorry but visiting Mexico, Canada, and Bahamas isn't venturing out in my opinion). But I think most of you new immigrants failed to properly educate yourself about the U.S. healthcare system and to also ask those questions of your significant other. That was the third question my wife asked of me in a list she sent me to answer so she would have good knowledge of the states before she even gets here.

It would be nice to have healthcare like some of the European countries but we have a population that is more than double most socialized medicine countries. It's hard but if you play your cards right you can make it here but we won't progress much. Our country is sliding the wrong way based off a failed way of thinking based on greed, materialism, and arrogance. SO I suggest if you coming here you better have a plan to cover your basics and to keep yourself afloat.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

The U.S. healthcare is not the best that is a know fact to us Americans that have actually ventured outside the states(Sorry but visiting Mexico, Canada, and Bahamas isn't venturing out in my opinion). But I think most of you new immigrants failed to properly educate yourself about the U.S. healthcare system and to also ask those questions of your significant other. That was the third question my wife asked of me in a list she sent me to answer so she would have good knowledge of the states before she even gets here.

It would be nice to have healthcare like some of the European countries but we have a population that is more than double most socialized medicine countries. It's hard but if you play your cards right you can make it here but we won't progress much. Our country is sliding the wrong way based off a failed way of thinking based on greed, materialism, and arrogance. SO I suggest if you coming here you better have a plan to cover your basics and to keep yourself afloat.

I concur. It was one of the things I was most concerned about when I came to the US. So was my family. I made sure I researched it, and my husband has a job that includes it and it's with Blue Cross Blue Shield so it's hardly ####### healthcare.

Just like everyone preaches about having enough money to pay for AOS etc, you should be sure to have enough money to look after the person you're importing, and that includes getting them healthcare... esp if you plan on having a family.

[REINITA♥REY 8]

GREAT post Kevin!!!

[Kevin- 13]

I'm not sure whether you think the system is the best, or if the think the standard of care is best.. Assuming the former, I disagree. Here's a list from 2000 done by WHO (World Health Organisation): http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html . You'll see that the USA is number 37.. hardly near the top. The list is old because they don't do it anymore but I doubt the US has climbed 36 points to reach No.1 in 10 years.. still... stranger things have happened.

**Edit - additionally - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system#Cross-country_comparisons

It seems you did not read my whole post. I directly mentioned WHO's 10 year old data. The wikipedia article and sub-article you linked includes one particular statistic which I directly addressed, as well as the issues with comparing statistics where the standards-of-recording-statistics (hyphenated to show use as single noun) for the various criteria are different. This means that where one country might count a particular incident as an "infant mortality" another country would not count an identical incident as such. Point the Google Cannon in the right direction, and you can find this information. It's not as easy to find as the government-directed ideals, but it is still locatable.

Also, I didn't say we have the best system. By the way this discussion tends to go (in general, not just in this thread particularly), we don't have a system at all, as our health care is not government run. Well, sadly, I suppose now it is, but 60+% of likely voters are now in favor of repealing the ridiculous monstrosity that managed to be called a health care bill.

Think about this. The governments of these other countries are the source of the health care data, being government run systems. Governments in general never, ever, want to give up any of their control of anything. It is naive, therefore, to assume that they would be brutally honest in the way they record and report statistics, if doing so could possibly mean showing that their government-knows-best system might not actually be the best. In the US, since it's not government-run, the statistics are far less likely to be biased in any way. Ask any honest statistician, they'll tell you that the reliability and honesty of any statistical conclusions are equal to the reliability and honesty of their source.

People I've known who have immigrated to the US from socialized-health-care countries, and some who still live in them, have helped me to realize how bad it really is elsewhere, and how much better it is here.

[Kevin- 13]

http://smartgirlnation.com/2009/06/popular-ranking-unfairly-misrepresents-the-us-health-care-system/

Here's a couple interesting facts:

Americans have a higher survival rate than any other country on earth for 13 of 16 of the most common cancers.

Belinda Stronach, former liberal member of the Canadian Parliament and Cabinet member (one of the health care systems touted as “superior” to the US) abandoned the Canadian Health Care system to undergo her cancer treatment in California.

EVERYONE WHO THINKS THE US HEALTHCARE "SYSTEM" IS NOT GOOD, BASED ON THE W.H.O. RANKINGS, NEEDS TO READ THIS.

Even though the data is ten years old, let's have a look at the WHO's ranking system, shall we?

WHO’s health care rankings are constructed from five factors each weighted according to a formula derived by WHO. These are:

1. Health Level: 25 percent

2. Health Distribution: 25 percent

3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent

4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent

Let's now define these factors.

Health Level. A measure of a countries "disability adjusted life expectancy". This factor makes sense, since it is a direct measure of the health of a country’s residents. However, even “life expectancy” can be affected by many factors not related to health care per se, such as poverty, homicide rate, dietary habits, accident rate, tobacco use, etc. In fact, if you remove the homicide rate and accidental death rate from MVA’s from this statistic, citizens of the US have a longer life expectancy than any other country on earth.

Responsiveness. Measures a variety of factors such as speed of service, choice of doctors, and amenities (e.g. quality of linens). Some of these make sense to include (speed of service) but some have no direct relationship to health care (quality of linens). These two factors at least make some sense in a ranking of health care, but each is problematic as well. ((this paragraph was quoted. Having personally been hospitalized in third world country hospitals, the quality of linens matters. But, I highly doubt that quality of linens was any different across the first-world countries in the list))

Financial Fairness: This is the big one. Measures the percentage of household income spent on health care. It can be expected that the “percentage” of income spent on health care decreases with increasing income, just as is true for food purchases and housing. Thus, this factor does not measure the quality or delivery of health care, but the value judgment that everyone should pay the same “percentage” of their income on health care even regardless of their income or use of the system. This factor is biased to make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior. It rewards countries that spend the same percentage of household income on health care, and punishes those that spend either a higher or lower percentage, regardless of the impact on health. In the extreme then, a country in which all health care is paid for by the government (with money derived from a progressive tax system), but delivers horrible health care, will score perfectly in this ranking, whereas a country where the amount paid for health care is based on use of the system, but delivers excellent health care will rank poorly. To use this factor to justify more government involvement in health care, therefore, is using circular reasoning since this factor is designed to favor government intervention.

Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution. These measure inequality in the other factors. In other words, neither factor actually measures the quality of health care delivery, because “inequality of delivery” is independent of “quality of care”. It is possible, for example, to have great inequality in a health care system where the majority of the population gets “excellent” health care, but a minority only gets “good” health care. This system would rank more poorly on these measures than another country that had “equal”, but poor, health care throughout the system.

It is very clear to see, based on this criteria, that a country with the best actual health care measurements in the world could have a lower score on the WHO's rank than a country where all health care is paid for by the government, but has horrible actual health care measurements. The actual quality of care is only 25% of the ranking. And, we don't get to know which criteria they looked at for those bits either. Since we can already see that they're trying very hard to make government-run health care look highly favorable, it's easy to be very skeptical of that measurement as well.

Additionally, the Financial Fairness portion means that a nation with more wealthy people who choose to pay for their own health care (with or without a privately funded coverage plan) will score lower than a country where everyone pays the same percentage of their income on health care. Regardless of the quality of care.

Finally, a very interesting bit of analysis on another part of WHO's data.

http://agoraphilia.blogspot.com/2007/07/whos-healthcare-rankings-part-3.html