Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

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

@JackShephard

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2014
Messages
686
Reaction score
497
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ive-health-care-system-in-survey/?tid=rssfeed

healthrankings.png

healthspending.png

davis_mirror_intl_ig_rev_616.jpg


http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

Executive Summary
The United States health care system is the most expensive in the world, but this report and prior editions consistently show the U.S. underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance. Among the 11 nations studied in this report—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2010, 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity. In this edition of Mirror, Mirror, the United Kingdom ranks first, followed closely by Switzerland (Exhibit ES-1).

Expanding from the seven countries included in 2010, the 2014 edition includes data from 11 countries. It incorporates patients’ and physicians’ survey results on care experiences and ratings on various dimensions of care. It includes information from the most recent three Commonwealth Fund international surveys of patients and primary care physicians about medical practices and views of their countries’ health systems (2011–2013). It also includes information on health care outcomes featured in The Commonwealth Fund’s most recent (2011) national health system scorecard, and from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I'm sure you are looking for a more in-depth conversation, but am I the only one that is always skeptical of these "data" when they get published? All of these measures just scream "soft" to me, and are likely easily manipulated to fit whatever the authors want them to fit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm sure you are looking for a more in-depth conversation, but am I the only one that is always skeptical of these "data" when they get published? All of these measures just scream "soft" to me, and are likely easily manipulated to fit whatever the authors want them to fit.
Who is filling out these surveys?

Good point, but wouldn't the "Total expenditures on health as percent of GDP" data be harder to manipulate?
 
I'm sure you are looking for a more in-depth conversation, but am I the only one that is always skeptical of these "data" when they get published? All of these measures just scream "soft" to me, and are likely easily manipulated to fit whatever the authors want them to fit.

Even if the data is manipulated, I'd call it self-evident that the US wastes more money in healthcare than any other nation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
The GDP data isn't susceptible to manipulation, nor is the health expenditures per capita:

As for the rest, it's undeniable that some people in America have terrible healthcare.

healthspending.png


I posted this in another thread, but since people are trying to say that the data above is manipulated, here some more hard #'s (Yes, the NYT is often terrible, but these are good objective #'s).

The $2.7 Trillion Medical Bill
Colonoscopies Explain Why U.S. Leads the World in Health Expenditures
(colonoscopy, pregnancy, joint replacements, Rx, ER, Derm, Type 1 diabetes)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/h...-health-expenditures.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
Last edited:
Is that a lie when I hear people shouting out on TV that we have the best healthcare system?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Is that a lie when I hear people shouting out on TV that we have the best healthcare system?

I would say it's a lie. It matters if your talking about a wealthy person or a poor person. When a hip replacement costs $40,000 - that's no problem if you're a millionaire.

We have great physicians and technology.

Unfortunately it's poorly distributed. A billionaire receives much better care than a veteran for example.
 
I'm sure you are looking for a more in-depth conversation, but am I the only one that is always skeptical of these "data" when they get published? All of these measures just scream "soft" to me, and are likely easily manipulated to fit whatever the authors want them to fit.
Pretty much.
 
I would say it's a lie. It matters if your talking about a wealthy person or a poor person. When a hip replacement costs $40,000 - that's no problem if you're a millionaire.

We have great physicians and technology.

Unfortunately it's poorly distributed. A billionaire receives much better care than a veteran for example.
So the solution is to distribute it well so that everyone has ****ty care? Wonderful. No commodity in any country is equally distributed regardless of monetary resources. Not food, not shelter, not education (esp. higher education), etc. I know many non-wealthy middle class and upper middle class who are fine with their health care.

We've seen how well government single payer healthcare has worked (a.k.a. the VA) for veterans. Up to this point, liberals and certain liberal policy wonks advocated to actually impose this type of structure on everyone (until the disastrous scandal where veterans were actively DYING - and we only found out bc a retired doctor blew the whistle). Have you seen the doctors that are part of Physicians for a National Health Program? Many of them are quite nuts: getting arrested, asking confrontational questions at Benjamin Rush debates, etc.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You apparently don't realize how different countries classify infant mortality thus greatly skewing the numbers. Or the rationing systems involved in certain countries healthcare systems.

I also highly suggest you look up the mission of The Commonwealth Fund, whose on their Board of Directors, etc.: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/about-us/mission-statement. It's headed by a former Obama official.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The GDP data isn't susceptible to manipulation, nor is the health expenditures per capita:

As for the rest, it's undeniable that some people in America have terrible healthcare.

healthspending.png


I posted this in another thread, but since people are trying to say that the data above is manipulated, here some more hard #'s (Yes, the NYT is often terrible, but these are good objective #'s).

The $2.7 Trillion Medical Bill
Colonoscopies Explain Why U.S. Leads the World in Health Expenditures
(colonoscopy, pregnancy, joint replacements, Rx, ER, Derm, Type 1 diabetes)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/h...-health-expenditures.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I have no problem with the fact that the USA spends way more on healthcare than we should have to, and it probably is more than other countries. What I would like to see is a report about the sources for this data for other countries. Like @DermViser said, not all countries classify infant mortality the same way. Thus I have a feeling that in other countries, expenditures which count for healthcare in the USA may not be getting counted as healthcare in other countries, skewing the numbers.

I am on my phone, and haven't visited your sources, so if they include this information, my apologies. I will check them out later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The $2.7 Trillion Medical Bill
Colonoscopies Explain Why U.S. Leads the World in Health Expenditures
(colonoscopy, pregnancy, joint replacements, Rx, ER, Derm, Type 1 diabetes)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/h...-health-expenditures.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Yes, we've all seen the articles coming from the NY Times attacking specialists: Emergency Medicine doctors, Gastroenterologists, Dermatologists, etc. esp. by using extreme patient story examples in which we don't know the real story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
So the solution is to distribute it well so that everyone has ****ty care? Wonderful. No commodity is equally distributed regardless of monetary resources. Not food, shelter, education (esp. higher education), etc. I know many non-wealthy middle class and upper middle class who are fine with their health care.

I stated the problem was that the costs are much too high. I don't blame physician salaries.

I also didn't say that the goal is to equally distribute health care across the US. I said it was poorly distributed, which you seem to agree with.

I don't think we need "$hitty care for all". I think we need a more efficient system that also costs less.

Guess what, businesses do this all the time. And the increased efficiency and decreased costs benefit everyone. Look at the cell phone market. Because of competition there are a lot of great phones available at great prices - there are also premium phones also.

Increases efficiency and lowering costs is a good thing. Everyone benefits.

We've seen how well government single payer healthcare has worked (a.k.a. the VA) for veterans. Up to this point, liberals and certain liberal policy wonks advocated to actually impose this type of structure on everyone (until the disastrous scandal where veterans were actively DYING - and we only found out bc a retired doctor blew the whistle). Have you seen the doctors that are part of Physicians for a National Health Program? Many of them are quite nuts: getting arrested, asking confrontational questions at Benjamin Rush debates, etc.

I agree a government single payer system seems terrible because of the VA debacle. That's not anything against a single payer system. That's against an inefficient government run by lobbyists. If our government was a well run machine, they could create a single payer system with a single EMR that worked well. But it's not a priority - and healthcare costs will suffer and quality will continue to diminish.

I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative. I'm an independent - and I'm looking at a broken health care system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I stated the problem was that the costs are much too high. I don't blame physician salaries.

I also didn't say that the goal is to equally distribute health care across the US. I said it was poorly distributed, which you seem to agree with.

I don't think we need "$hitty care for all". I think we need a more efficient system that also costs less.

Guess what, businesses do this all the time. And the increased efficiency and decreased costs benefit everyone. Look at the cell phone market. Because of competition there are a lot of great phones available at great prices - there are also premium phones also.

Increases efficiency and lowering costs is a good thing. Everyone benefits.

I agree a government single payer system seems terrible because of the VA debacle. That's not anything against a single payer system. That's against an inefficient government run by lobbyists. If our government was a well run machine, they could create a single payer system with a single EMR that worked well. But it's not a priority - and healthcare costs will suffer and quality will continue to diminish.

I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative. I'm an independent - and I'm looking at a broken health care system.
The govt. by definition is inefficient, with or without lobbyists. And no, a govt. single payer system doesn't SEEM terrible. It IS terrible, and the VA scandal is an example of that. This is important bc the VA was hailed as the epitome of efficiency, low costs, etc. We now know this was at the expense of dead veterans. The VA system is govt. controlled, single payer healthcare in action.

It's people like you who believe that a single payer, govt. controlled system would be great if only if ____________ (insert request here).
 
Yes, we've all seen the articles coming from the NY Times attacking specialists: Emergency Medicine doctors, Gastroenterologists, Dermatologists, etc. esp. by using extreme patient story examples in which we don't know the real story.

Yes, the NYT is infamous for terrible one-sided and biased reporting.

I get it.

At the same time, there are hard #'s in the article I posted that interest me.

Forget all they hype and word twisting - just look at the #'s. They do tell a story.
nvtg1u.jpg


A hip replacement costs $40,000 in the US and $7,700 in Spain. Even if they are inflating the #'s, that's not good for our system. Lipitor $125 in the US and $6 in New Zealand. These are #'s that need to be looked at.

No one cares right? The consumer thinks, I have insurance - I don't need to be cost efficient. Or they may not even know what they are paying! Next, the hospital administration knows they can charge whatever the insurance or Medicare is willing to pay. Insurance, they are charging as much as they can for premiums - everyone is trying to maximize their profit in a system that isn't transparent and has nothing built in to control costs. End result? A healthcare system that costs twice as much as it delivers.

It's simple. We're going to run out of money. Forget the quality - we're not going to be able to pay for healthcare very very soon.

And fat, sick and old people make the whole scenario worse. Furthermore, many of our maladies are self-inflicted.
 
How is the system in Canada if there are any Canadians reading this thread? I heard they have a single payer system...Is it bad?
 
The govt. by definition is inefficient, with or without lobbyists. And no, a govt. single payer system doesn't SEEM terrible. It IS terrible, and the VA scandal is an example of that. This is important bc the VA was hailed as the epitome of efficiency, low costs, etc. We now know this was at the expense of dead veterans. The VA system is govt. controlled, single payer healthcare in action.

It's people like you who believe that a single payer, govt. controlled system would be great if only if ____________ (insert request here).
I think when you bring politics into this, it diminishes any reasonable debate. If you contend that the debate can not be had without blaming democrats or republicans- either go into public policy or stfu.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The govt. by definition is inefficient, with or without lobbyists. And no, a govt. single payer system doesn't SEEM terrible. It IS terrible, and the VA scandal is an example of that. This is important bc the VA was hailed as the epitome of efficiency, low costs, etc. We now know this was at the expense of dead veterans. The VA system is govt. controlled, single payer healthcare in action.

It's people like you who believe that a single payer, govt. controlled system would be great if only if ____________ (insert request here).

I don't think it's terrible intrinsically. It's the American government that has the problem. Sure, I agree the VA is a perfect example of government run healthcare. No one can deny that at this point. Our government has proven that it will hide things and pull stunts that are unethical to get what they want.

I do believe it could be great. I believe in a two tiered system, a single payer for basic necessity and a premium insurance based market for better care. I don't have faith that our government can do it.

But it isn't a pipe dream. There are countries that do well with two tiered systems or single payer systems.
 
Yes, the NYT is infamous for terrible one-sided and biased reporting.

I get it.

At the same time, there are hard #'s in the article I posted that interest me.

Forget all they hype and word twisting - just look at the #'s. They do tell a story.
nvtg1u.jpg


A hip replacement costs $40,000 in the US and $7,700 in Spain. Even if they are inflating the #'s, that's not good for our system. Lipitor $125 in the US and $6 in New Zealand. These are #'s that need to be looked at.

No one cares right? The consumer thinks, I have insurance - I don't need to be cost efficient. Or they may not even know what they are paying! Next, the hospital administration knows they can charge whatever the insurance or Medicare is willing to pay. Insurance, they are charging as much as they can for premiums - everyone is trying to maximize their profit in a system that isn't transparent and has nothing built in to control costs. End result? A healthcare system that costs twice as much as it delivers.

It's simple. We're going to run out of money. Forget the quality - we're not going to be able to pay for healthcare very very soon.

And fat, sick and old people make the whole scenario worse. Furthermore, many of our maladies are self-inflicted.
Yes, and hospitals also care for those who are uninsured or underinsured (Medicaid) and have to make up those costs. Like I said, those countries have a lot of govt. intervention, and many treatments that are available here in the United States just are not given in those countries. They are deemed to be "too expensive". Active govt. rationing can work wonders to make your numbers look better.
 
I think when you bring politics into this, it diminishes any reasonable debate. If you contend that the debate can not be had without blaming democrats or republicans- either go into public policy or stfu.
Who brought up Democrats or Republicans or politics in my post?

The govt. by definition is inefficient, with or without lobbyists. And no, a govt. single payer system doesn't SEEM terrible. It IS terrible, and the VA scandal is an example of that. This is important bc the VA was hailed as the epitome of efficiency, low costs, etc. We now know this was at the expense of dead veterans. The VA system is govt. controlled, single payer healthcare in action. It's people like you who believe that a single payer, govt. controlled system would be great if only if ____________ (insert request here).

I'm referring specifically to him in my last statement. If you're going to make a ridiculous statement at least stick with the facts.

However, since you @NontradCA brought up politics yourself in this argument, I will address it. Yes, there are Democrats who have stated directly that their goal is to get to single-payer heathcare. PERIOD.
 
Last edited:
Wow... These numbers show that our system is VERY inefficient. The problem is that most people point fingers at the physicians and accuse them of driving up our healthcare cost. I was told that physicians in Canada make as much as their US counterpart, so why Canadians don't point fingers at their physicians? I guess if we don't fix our healthcare inefficiency before it gets blown up, everyone involved will suffer.
 
I don't think it's terrible intrinsically. It's the American government that has the problem. Sure, I agree the VA is a perfect example of government run healthcare. No one can deny that at this point. Our government has proven that it will hide things and pull stunts that are unethical to get what they want.

I do believe it could be great. I believe in a two tiered system, a single payer for basic necessity and a premium insurance based market for better care. I don't have faith that our government can do it.

But it isn't a pipe dream. There are countries that do well with two tiered systems or single payer systems.
Yes, and those countries effectively RATION care unlike the United States.
 
Yes, and hospitals also care for those who are uninsured or underinsured (Medicaid) and have to make up those costs. Like I said, those countries have a lot of govt. intervention, and many treatments that are available here in the United States just are not given in those countries. They are deemed to be "too expensive". Active govt. rationing can work wonders to make your numbers look better.
Would you mind telling us about treatments available here that are not given in other industrialized countries? I hope you won't say a 98-year old that needs knee replacement...
 
Would you mind telling us about treatments available here that are not given in other industrialized countries? I hope you won't say a 98-year old that needs knee replacement...
They're not available mainly bc it's effectively rationed by their govt. In a completely single payer system, if a treatment is deemed too expensive and the govt. believes that it's not "worth" it, then you don't get it. Not difficult to understand.
 
They're not available mainly bc it's effectively rationed by their govt. In a completely single payer system, if a treatment is deemed too expensive and the govt. believes that it's not "worth" it, then you don't get it. Not difficult to understand.
Believe it or not, some treatments don't 'worth' the cost like the example I just gave...

Edit... The problem I have with your statements is that they seem more like talking points. You gotta provide evidences like @@JackShephard does...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think when you bring politics into this, it diminishes any reasonable debate. If you contend that the debate can not be had without blaming democrats or republicans- either go into public policy or stfu.

...or vote. I've never like the false dilemma argument.
 
Last edited:
Believe it or not, some treatments don't 'worth' the cost like the example I just gave...

Edit... The problem I have with your statements is that they seem more like talking points. You gotta provide evidences like @@JackShephard does...
Yes, remember your statement that some treatments aren't worth the cost, when it comes to your own health. For now, I prefer that decision to be between myself and my physician. Not a govt. body that makes a decision that then affects insurance coverage of it.

Try using Google. I'm not your handmaiden to do your research for you regarding different healthcare systems and how they effectively ration care.
 
Yes, remember your statement that some treatments aren't worth the cost, when it comes to your own health. For now, I prefer that decision to be between myself and my physician. Not a govt. body that makes a decision that then affects insurance coverage of it.

I still think you can have both a single payer and a more expensive private system.

Regardless of the exact solution - my point more of this thread is to look at the wildly expensive health care system we have. I don't think a fair response is, "We offer better options, that's why we cost so much more." That simply doesn't explain why the same exact health care products/services cost 5, 10 or 20 times more here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I still think you can have both a single payer and a more expensive private system.

Regardless of the exact solution - my point more of this thread is to look at the wildly expensive health care system we have. I don't think a fair response is, "We offer better options, that's why we cost so much more." That simply doesn't explain why the same exact health care products/services cost 5, 10 or 20 times more here.
Because they don't shut off the lights at night and run the ac with the windows open. Seriously though, if I had to guess its that everyone has to get their cut. Or as dermviser would say, liberals.

You did, right before you went and edited your post.
 
I still think you can have both a single payer and a more expensive private system.

Regardless of the exact solution - my point more of this thread is to look at the wildly expensive health care system we have. I don't think a fair response is, "We offer better options, that's why we cost so much more." That simply doesn't explain why the same exact health care products/services cost 5, 10 or 20 times more here.
Well then look at the whole system for that answer: ridiculous tuition cost for medical students, student loan rates, length and structure of medical school, length and structure of GME, R&D for pharmaceuticals, medical innovation, medical equipment, etc. by companies that have to recoup their costs and pay their employees, hospitals that have to make up for indigent care, uninsured care, underinsured care, etc.
 
Well then look at the whole system for that answer: ridiculous tuition cost for medical students, student loan rates, length and structure of medical school, length and structure of GME, R&D for pharmaceuticals, medical innovation, medical equipment, etc. by companies that have to recoup their costs and pay their employees, hospitals that have to make up for indigent care, uninsured care, underinsured care, etc.
Lmao.
 
Because they don't shut off the lights at night and run the ac with the windows open. Seriously though, if I had to guess its that everyone has to get their cut. Or as dermviser would say, liberals.

You did, right before you went and edited your post.
Yes, "liberals" which you take as a pejorative, is a word that I made up. :rolleyes:

I don't know what you believe I "edited" out, but I didn't bring Democrat/Republican into the conversation. And yes, liberal (a.k.a. left of center) policy advisers HAVE advocated for single payer healthcare systems. That is a FACT. I refuse to not use certain words, just bc your sensibilities are offended.

You should learn from the last time in which you graciously apologized for your mistake that you don't know everything that you're talking about, esp. since you have yet to finish medical school, assuming you've even started.
 

If you believe that those things don't directly impact the system in which healthcare operates in this country, then I really don't know what to tell you. There's a reason in places like France the medical school tuition is ridiculously low.
 
Yes, "liberals" which you take as a pejorative, is a word that I made up.

I don't know what you believe I "edited" out, but I didn't bring Democrat/Republican into the conversation. And yes, liberal (a.k.a. left of center) policy advisers HAVE advocated for single payer healthcare system. I refuse to not use certain words, just bc your sensibilities are offended.

You should learn from the last time in which you graciously apologized for your mistake that you don't know everything that you're talking about, esp. since you have yet to finish medical school, assuming you've even started.
60% of the time, I'm right everytime. I'm not going to argue with you. Bring something new to the table is all I'm saying; you offer nothing to the discussion.
 
If you believe that those things don't directly impact the system in which healthcare operates in this country, then I really don't know what to tell you. There's a reason in places like France the medical school tuition is ridiculously low.
I laugh because you're so predictable.
 
60% of the time, I'm right everytime. I'm not going to argue with you. Bring something new to the table is all I'm saying; you offer nothing to the discussion.
Actually, you were looking to argue. Hence your needing to respond to me first (#18). I'm not looking to argue with you. The facts on the table don't change. This same argument has brought again and again about how we have such a bad healthcare system. It's a lot more complicated than that - esp. when people start using stats (from the Commonwealth Fund, no less). To say that costs are high bc the U.S. is just greedy, wah wah wah, is an argument a 5 year old would make. Feel free to click the Ignore button for me, if you're unable to rebut with responses besides "Lmao".

I'm sorry you were offended at the word "liberals" (vs. the word "conservative") and that liberals (a.k.a. those who are left of center) advocate for single payer systems. Most people know this very basic fact.
 
Last edited:
You apparently don't realize how different countries classify infant mortality thus greatly skewing the numbers. Or the rationing systems involved in certain countries healthcare systems.

I also highly suggest you look up the mission of The Commonwealth Fund, whose on their Board of Directors, etc.: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/about-us/mission-statement. It's headed by a former Obama official.

I never planned to argue the finer points of the report. I think your argument here is fair.

I'm much more interested in the objective data- as I've stated above. I don't care about who wrote it, as long as I'm looking at the objective data.
 
Well then look at the whole system for that answer: ridiculous tuition cost for medical students, student loan rates, length and structure of medical school, length and structure of GME, R&D for pharmaceuticals, medical innovation, medical equipment, etc. by companies that have to recoup their costs and pay their employees, hospitals that have to make up for indigent care, uninsured care, underinsured care, etc.

Yes, these all contribute. So does executive pay, insurance company profits, defensive medicine, inefficient EMR and health records systems, inefficient delivery of care and time wasted re-documenting everything, etc.

There's a lot that goes into the cost of healthcare. Lack of transparency and the inability to compete in a true marketplace are also big drivers.
 
I never planned to argue the finer points of the report. I think your argument here is fair.

I'm much more interested in the objective data- as I've stated above. I don't care about who wrote it, as long as I'm looking at the objective data.
My point is even objective data can be twisted - i.e. infant mortality, as well as WHO statistics, into a report. This has been debunked again and again by those who have looked at what actually makes up the data.
 
Yes, these all contribute. So does executive pay, insurance company profits, defensive medicine, inefficient EMR and health records systems, inefficient delivery of care and time wasted re-documenting everything, etc.

There's a lot that goes into the cost of healthcare. Lack of transparency and the inability to compete in a true marketplace are also big drivers.
A completely free market healthcare system has never existed.
 
My point is even objective data can be twisted - i.e. infant mortality, as well as WHO statistics, into a report. This has been debunked again and again by those who have looked at what actually makes up the data.

I'm more thinking GDP and per capita spending.
 
A completely free market healthcare system has never existed.

I agree.

I still think these #'s aren't good and that America can improve a lot with the system, efficiency and costs. That's my point. I think we will all play a role in this - I think if some people are informed and get into politics, they may be able to be more influential. But it all begins with a discussion.

I don't want a partisan debate - just people laying out the facts and their perspectives - conservative/liberal/independent. I think the discussion can improve everyone's thinking and fluency in these important issues.
 
I'm more thinking GDP and per capita spending.
Yes, but the numbers by themselves don't mean anything - we also have a larger population, a much less homogeneous population, high rates of obesity, etc. vs. say Sweden.
 
I agree.

I still think these #'s aren't good and that America can improve a lot with the system, efficiency and costs. That's my point. I think we will all play a role in this - I think if some people are informed and get into politics, they may be able to be more influential. But it all begins with a discussion.

I don't want a partisan debate - just people laying out the facts and their perspectives - conservative/liberal/independent. I think the discussion can improve everyone's thinking and fluency in these important issues.
I agree. Some people such as NonTradCA get easily distracted by side arguments like the use of the word, "liberal" (meaning left of center), forgetting the actual point being made.
 
I agree. Some people such as NonTradCA get easily distracted by side arguments like the use of the word, "liberal" (meaning left of center), forgetting the actual point being made.

It's what happens when you want to argue just for the sake of arguing and "winning" said arguments.
 
It's what happens when you want to argue just for the sake of arguing and "winning" said arguments.
Yes, apparently now the word "liberal" is a cussword that somehow muddies the discussion. Even though the actual point that I was making was that those who support a single payer healthcare system are left-of-center. But apparently mentioning this fact "diminishes any reasonable debate".
 
Yes, apparently now the word "liberal" is a cussword that somehow muddies the discussion. Even though the actual point that I was making was that those who support a single payer healthcare system are left-of-center. But apparently mentioning this fact "diminishes any reasonable debate".

He wins when we respond.
 
Yes, the NYT is infamous for terrible one-sided and biased reporting.

I get it.

At the same time, there are hard #'s in the article I posted that interest me.

Forget all they hype and word twisting - just look at the #'s. They do tell a story.
nvtg1u.jpg


A hip replacement costs $40,000 in the US and $7,700 in Spain. Even if they are inflating the #'s, that's not good for our system. Lipitor $125 in the US and $6 in New Zealand. These are #'s that need to be looked at.

No one cares right? The consumer thinks, I have insurance - I don't need to be cost efficient. Or they may not even know what they are paying! Next, the hospital administration knows they can charge whatever the insurance or Medicare is willing to pay. Insurance, they are charging as much as they can for premiums - everyone is trying to maximize their profit in a system that isn't transparent and has nothing built in to control costs. End result? A healthcare system that costs twice as much as it delivers.

It's simple. We're going to run out of money. Forget the quality - we're not going to be able to pay for healthcare very very soon.

And fat, sick and old people make the whole scenario worse. Furthermore, many of our maladies are self-inflicted.

That chart tells a story alright....the story of one with an agenda.

Here's the original presentation, as far as I can tell. Stay out of 95th percentile land and you see a much different picture than is painted above.

http://obamacarefacts.com/2012-Comparative-Price-Report.pdf
 
Top