Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

U.S. health care system ranks last


MovieMadness
 Share

Recommended Posts

U.S. health care system ranks last

Despite spending more on health care than any other country in the world, the U.S. health care system lags far behind many other high-income nations recently analyzed.

A new report from the Commonwealth Fund found that among 11 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the U.S. ranks last.

“We ranked last when it comes to care, affordability, administrative inefficiency, equity, and health care outcomes,” David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund, said on a press call. “In no other country does income inequality so profoundly limit access to care as it does here.”

The countries ranking ahead of the U.S. were Norway, the Netherlands, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, France, Switzerland, and Canada. (These countries, chosen due to existing partnerships with the Commonwealth Fund, have been featured in this annual report since 2004.)

“Other countries have much better primary care than we do in the United States,” Blumenthal said. “They invest more in primary care and social services than we do, and they have health systems that are more equitable.”

****************************************

Look at this Obama, it turned out how many of us said it would, now we rank last.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, MovieMadness said:

Look at this Obama, it turned out how many of us said it would, now we rank last.

Just imagine how much better off you would have been if Trump and the GOP had come up with that health care he promised to have again and again and again. By the way, whatever happened to that GOP Health Care Plan anyway?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MovieMadness said:

Go ask John McCain, he buried it.

He buried it because it did not include the replace part of the repeal and replace plan.  Republicans are incapable of coming up with anything suitable.  They had 4 years under Trump and didn't put forward a plan.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

Here's where things stood in 2008.  About the same, though fewer uninsured today.  As long as we have a system based on profits, it will never fundamentally improve.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/scorecard/2008/jul/why-not-best-results-national-scorecard-us-health-system

True.   This was the major flaw in the ACA;  it still left private for-profit insurance  companies being the administrator.  

That is because the Dems were in the pockets of these insurance companies just like  the GOP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MM: Go back and read all the objective, honest reporting on the ACA and its results.   It was weakened in an attempt to get GOPers to agree to it (as they said they would, but didn't).  

Then Trump and the GOPers gutted it as much as possible.

Trump never put forth a health care plan; he and the GOPers just put forth a repeal ACA plan.

Once again, you are clueless and continue to post incorrect things in a lame, losing attempt to make Trump look good and Dems look bad.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
4 hours ago, MovieMadness said:

Obama and Biden just congratulated themselves over this socialist debacle.

What "socialist debacle?"  The one where people in America cannot afford insulin and the Republicans support that idea?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rjbartrop said:

Which was ironically the brainchild of a Republican.

What was the brainchild of a Republican?  Are you speaking of The Heritage Foundation's support of a similar plan and Mitt Romney's healthcare system in MA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ElCid said:

What was the brainchild of a Republican?  Are you speaking of The Heritage Foundation's support of a similar plan and Mitt Romney's healthcare system in MA?

I thought Obamacare as based on Romney's p;an for Massachusetts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US health system ranks low because for-profit insurance companies,  which don't provide actual medical treatments or services directly to anyone,   are part of the system.

Remove them,  go to non-profit private administration companies (not only one,  and especially not just the Feds),   so that most of the money collected (via premiums,  payroll deductions etc..),  go to actual medical providers.

Note that this is how the US Workers Comp system generally works;   most of the dollars collected  go to injured workers (for loss time or permanent injuries),   or actual medical providers that are treating the claimants.    Insurance companies make a minimal profit,  if any at all (e.g. some states require insurance companies to underwrite workers comp if they wish to underwrite other lines of the property casualty business).

PS: since the ACA left for-profit private insurance companies as part of the "system",   it was a half-A solution,  at best.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS: since the ACA left for-profit private insurance companies as part of the "system",   it was a half-A solution,  at best.

==============================

I looked at it as the BETTER THAN NOTHING plan....

but a step in the right direction (M4-All)

and the best they could do at the time

:huh:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

The US health system ranks low because for-profit insurance companies,  which don't provide actual medical treatments or services directly to anyone,   are part of the system.

Remove them,  go to non-profit private administration companies (not only one,  and especially not just the Feds),   so that most of the money collected (via premiums,  payroll deductions etc..),  go to actual medical providers.

Note that this is how the US Workers Comp system generally works;   most of the dollars collected  go to injured workers (for loss time or permanent injuries),   or actual medical providers that are treating the claimants.    Insurance companies make a minimal profit,  if any at all (e.g. some states require insurance companies to underwrite workers comp if they wish to underwrite other lines of the property casualty business).

PS: since the ACA left for-profit private insurance companies as part of the "system",   it was a half-A solution,  at best.

 

You don't think your health insurer did you a service by paying for your doctor visit? Your heart surgery? 

And how will the people who staff the non-profit admin agencies be paid? Why would they be more efficient than insurers who are competing for premium dollars?

Can you say what you would consider to be a reasonable profit for an insurer to make, as a percentage of total revenue after paying all claims and all salaries, all expenses?

You don't have to answer. I really just popped in to say I'd rather be sick or in need of emergency medical services in the USA than anywhere else in the world, insured or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LuckyDan said:

You don't think your health insurer did you a service by paying for your doctor visit? Your heart surgery? 

And how will the people who staff the non-profit admin agencies be paid? Why would they be more efficient than insurers who are competing for premium dollars?

Can you say what you would consider to be a reasonable profit for an insurer to make, as a percentage of total revenue after paying all claims and all salaries, all expenses?

You don't have to answer. I really just popped in to say I'd rather be sick or in need of emergency medical services in the USA than anywhere else in the world, insured or not.

When I said "actual medical treatments or services"  by services I meant MEDICAL services;  I.e. they do NOT take an x-ray or interpret the results etc... I.e. Medical Services.

It could be the case that non-profit admins agencies would be less efficient than the current for-profit insurance companies;  any increase in admin cost would be offset,  big time,  but the fact they make ZERO profit.   (instead of the billions in profit insurance companies make today that is way beyond their internal admin expenses).

There are NO insurers in this system;    none;   the feds collect all the premiums and these are distributed to the admin companies who distribute them to the medical providers.

The above is similar to the Swiss system. 

Of course there could be individual admin companies that collect premiums,  perform the admin services and then make the payouts (like the USA Work Comp system), but they would still be non-profit.       Of course one could ask;  who would want to create such a private non-profit company?     I work for one that overseas the USA Work Comp system and we are ready to be such a company for the entire USA.   I.e. not just work comp but group health as well.

As for your last comment:   have you lived in another country that offers health care to all (insured or not)?     I know many that have (e.g. my wife's family in Italy that have moved here),  and they still can't understand that the uninsured can't go to a medical provider for treatment in the riches country in the world.    (they have to go to the ER room!).

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

It could be the case that non-profit admins agencies would be less efficient than the current for-profit insurance companies;  any increase in admin cost would be offset,  big time,  but the fact they make ZERO profit.   (instead of the billions in profit insurance companies make today that is way beyond their internal admin expenses).

There are NO insurers in this system;    none;   the feds collect all the premiums and these are distributed to the admin companies who distribute them to the medical providers.

The above is similar to the Swiss system. 

Of course there could be individual admin companies that collect premiums,  perform the admin services and then make the payouts (like the USA Work Comp system), but they would still be non-profit.       Of course one could ask;  who would want to create such a private non-profit company?     I work for one that overseas the USA Work Comp system and we are ready to be such a company for the entire USA.   I.e. not just work comp but group health as well.

As for your last comment:   have you lived in another country that offers health care to all (insured or not)?     I know many that have (e.g. my wife's family in Italy that have moved here),  and they still can't understand that the uninsured can't go to a medical provider for treatment in the riches country in the world.    (they have to go to the ER room!).

 

You, and others who seek to eliminate health insurers, should search out the average industry profit margin sometime. Might surprise you. 

No I've not lived in a single payer country.

Going to the emergency room IS going to a medical provider for treatment. And it's open all night. 

Open question to all: If you could eliminate profit-making health carriers entirely and guarantee equity of health outcomes (the poor would be no worse off than the rich) but it would mean less efficiency, longer waits, fewer options, would you agree to it? Or would you prefer things as they are? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LuckyDan said:

Open question to all: If you could eliminate profit-making health carriers entirely and guarantee equity of health outcomes (the poor would be mo worse off than the rich) but it would mean less efficiency, longer waits, fewer options, would you agree to it? Or would you prefer things as they are? 

I would prefer things as they are,  but I don't think that would be the case.  Check out the Swiss system.   Highly efficient based on the studies I have seen.  Much more so than the existing USA hybrid type system (hybrid in that there are private carriers,  and then other payers of last resort like state-programs and the feds). 

Also ER room visits for non emergency care is the least efficient use of health care dollars.   (well other than fraud).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

I would prefer things as they are,  but I don't think that would be the case.  Check out the Swiss system.   Highly efficient based on the studies I have seen.  Much more so than the existing USA hybrid type system (hybrid in that there are private carriers,  and then other payers of last resort like state-programs and the feds). 

Also ER room visits for non emergency care is the least efficient use of health care dollars.   (well other than fraud).

 

 

It's always the Swiss. Isn't Switzerland better compared to a state in the US than to the nation as a whole?

And here is an opening to champion federalism again. Or state sovereignty. Let states pass compulsory health insurance 

laws like Switzerland. No reason the entire USA has to. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...