What's wrong with America's Heath Care System?

[DocMizzle]

---

Members do not see this ad.

One thing that I do feel strongly about is that health insurance companies should not be for profit. I almost fell out of my chair when I read that the United Healthcare CEO made around 54 million USD's last year. And the profit of the company is in the Billions. Billions! Insurance premiums are sky high and it makes me sick how insurance companies can make billions in profit, yet deny coverage to people who need care. And actually, I am fine with the fact they make profit--I have insurance--but put the extra money I paid back into the system to provide care to those without insurance.

Runner1979 has really hit the nail on the head here. Talk about ethics, how can insurance companies deny coverage to the poor and sick while the CEOs, presidents, etc. are enjoying huge bonuses because profits were up? This is where the government needs to step in and regulate. Bringing in enough revenue to pay insurance company employees a decent salary is one thing, but when the health and wellness of human beings is at stake, companies should be limited in terms of profit.

 

[Nuel]

10% of fatalities before age 65 could have been prevented if healthcare was adequate. One can argue that this number is trivial, but with an industrialized nation like the US that percentage should raise cause for alarm.

Another thing: the US spends too much of its dollars on cure-directed research instead of focusing on preventative medicine. Not that cures are not necessary--heck! there is cancer, HIV, alzheimers, etc--but a significant fraction of dollars can be saved if people decided to prevent just what they could. This mistake grew mostly out of the biomedical successes of the 20th century such as curing of TB, small pox and a host of diseases. Gradually the focus shifted towards treatment-based approach to diseases instead of preventative. As a result, the US has become the best and most responsive place in the world tp perform complicated/expensive medical procedures and cure disease, and individuals have surrendered their well-being to healthcare professions because all they have to do is tell the doctor to treat them as well as demand pills for a paper scratch, a trivial thing. But we should ask if it worth giving up a crucial focus on prevention. Of course prevention will also involve the individual and change of habits such as wholesome lifestyle habits--now this is the problem. When are Americans going to regulate the intake of fatty foods? RReduce if not totally eliminate smoking? over 50% of middle-aged men are in the US are considered overweight, compared to less than 1/5 that percentage for Japan.

the question we really have to answer is why prevention is no longer a priority? One could argue that low-income earners aren't able to afford insurance premiums, poor urban/rural dwellers. Well, American healthcare is pretty *****y given the resources it possesses.

 

[shawred]

This is where the government needs to step in and regulate. Bringing in enough revenue to pay insurance company employees a decent salary is one thing, but when the health and wellness of human beings is at stake, companies should be limited in terms of profit.

Rather than adding regulations and increasing the red tape, why not consider de-regulating the system??? Contrary to what most people believe, regulations tend to promote monopolistic practices. Regulations keep smaller companies from competing (generally). A good example is the phone companies. Slowly but surely, long distance costs have plummeted. Heck, I can still remember when it cost $0.34 a minute to call out of state between the hours of 8AM-7PM, and $0.23 a minute during non-peak hours, etc. Generally speaking, airline costs have also gone down over since the government took its nasty hand out of it (well their hand is still in the cookie jar, but its not around their necks).

If you really objectively study the effects of regulation, you will see a trend. Most notably look at Medicare and Social Security. They both SUCK. Social Security in particular. I believe if given the chance, most people would opt out of that crap. Your money is better off in a savings acount collecting 0.25% per quarter. Oh but no, the government feels we are obligated to help the unfortunate.

As for Medicare, it sucks for different reasons. It has some good things and bad things. The bad is that it is run by the government. It costs way to much money to do what it was designed to do. Does anyone realize that Medicare (Social Security) was originally designed to screw most people over? At what point in 193(8?) (Social Security's signing-it was amended in '65 to add Medicare) was the life expectancy anywhere near 65??? It wasn't. You were expected to die before you ever saw a penny. Moreover, it doesn't pay out worth a crap. Ask ANY doctor about that one. I am not talking about the difference between a Ferrari or a Lexus, but rather, can I afford a Camry.

 

[UseUrHeadFred]

...[T]he US spends too much of its dollars on cure-directed research instead of focusing on preventative medicine... a significant fraction of dollars can be saved if people decided to prevent just what they could... Of course prevention will also involve the individual and change of habits such as wholesome lifestyle habits--now this is the problem. When are Americans going to regulate the intake of fatty foods? RReduce if not totally eliminate smoking?

As depressing as this sounds, I'm willing to bet that Americans NEVER embrace preventive care. I come from backwater Missouri. You can't get a farmer to come into the medical office when he or she REALLY IS sick, let alone anything about regular check ups.

As you pointed out, most wouldn't give up Big Macs if they could. Americans like to eat fatty foods. I doubt that will ever change. Fatness is not an incentive - particularly for men - once they have established a family.

 

[DocMizzle]

Rather than adding regulations and increasing the red tape, why not consider de-regulating the system??? Contrary to what most people believe, regulations tend to promote monopolistic practices. Regulations keep smaller companies from competing (generally). A good example is the phone companies. Slowly but surely, long distance costs have plummeted. Heck, I can still remember when it cost $0.34 a minute to call out of state between the hours of 8AM-7PM, and $0.23 a minute during non-peak hours, etc. Generally speaking, airline costs have also gone down over since the government took its nasty hand out of it (well their hand is still in the cookie jar, but its not around their necks).

Keep in mind, most of the red tape for private insurance companies is internal. The administration of these companies, as well as the large health alliances, is very inefficient. Just look at the vast amounts of paperwork, especially in billing.

I see what you are saying about the effects of federal aviation regulations; however, I am merely suggesting that the government reasonably limit the amount of annual profit insurance companies can accrue so that this money could be allocated to cover more people. Also, limiting an insurance company's profitability in the health care industry will limit its ability to buy out other smaller, less profitable companies thus promoting competition.

 

[Nuel]

Keep in mind, most of the red tape for private insurance companies is internal. The administration of these companies, as well as the large health alliances, is very inefficient. Just look at the vast amounts of paperwork, especially in billing.

I see what you are saying about the effects of federal aviation regulations; however, I am merely suggesting that the government reasonably limit the amount of annual profit insurance companies can accrue so that this money could be allocated to cover more people. Also, limiting an insurance company's profitability in the health care industry will limit its ability to buy out other smaller, less profitable companies thus promoting competition.

I previously posted something along the lines of a hybrid of laissez-faire and government regulated. it seems to work in the uk. And the uk beats the US in healthcare according to WHO standards.