Quantcast

NY Times Healthcare Articles (part deux)

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

TheRealDrDorian

Dr. Acula
10+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
264
Reaction score
11
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/business/15scene.html?ex=1173589200&en=ecc8fc1c53c8ff24&ei=5070

Another article for open discussion, which I think is a great overview of the US healthcare dilemma. Unlike the last article (which was more personable and biased), this one touches base with both sides of the issue.

A very interesting point that stuck out to me was:

"Annual health spending in the United States currently exceeds $2 trillion. A single-payer system that did nothing more than reduce administrative expenses to the levels of other countries would save roughly $300 billion annually."

What are your thoughts?
 

sirus_virus

nonsense poster
10+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2006
Messages
1,254
Reaction score
2
Yeah but Americans don't like to increase taxes. Simple as that.
 

tdd340

Assistant to the sensei
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
492
Reaction score
1
Yeah but Americans don't like to increase taxes. Simple as that.

Exactly, especially when 85% of people are getting health care paid for by their employer. Most are reluctant to help pay for the other guy.
 

Dr. Roket

aka Dr. Henry Killinger
10+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2006
Messages
121
Reaction score
0
Exactly, especially when 85% of people are getting health care paid for by their employer. Most are reluctant to help pay for the other guy.

Could you provide some documentation for this fact? If only 15 percent of the population wasn't getting their insurance paid for by their employer, it wouldn't be such a big topic. Sounds like an overstatement to me. Anyways, I like the discussion of insurance companies being compensated in phases as the single payor system takes effect. I think it is an aspect that is often overlooked as consumers don't really care about the companies that have been screwing them over, and insurance companies are too busy lobbying against single payor to discuss compensation should it come to pass.:thumbup:
 

tdd340

Assistant to the sensei
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
492
Reaction score
1
Could you provide some documentation for this fact? If only 15 percent of the population wasn't getting their insurance paid for by their employer, it wouldn't be such a big topic. Sounds like an overstatement to me. Anyways, I like the discussion of insurance companies being compensated in phases as the single payor system takes effect. I think it is an aspect that is often overlooked as consumers don't really care about the companies that have been screwing them over, and insurance companies are too busy lobbying against single payor to discuss compensation should it come to pass.:thumbup:

Sorry I mispoke somewhat 85% of people in the US are insured. 60% of Americans are covered by their employer and the additional numbers come mainly from Medicare and Medicaid. The overall point I was making is still valid though, that those who have insurance are not inclined generally to help pay for the insurance of others. Here is a link to some information about the topic from HHS. http://aspe.hhs.gov/_/index.cfm
 
This thread is more than 14 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.
Top