Self-insure the first 2-10k/year of health care costs. Let a health insurer eat the rest of it. You'll be glad you did if you ever get seriously ill. Traveler
IMO-US health care system will undergo major change in the coming years because as you say it should consume 25% of GDP, if not more, assuming nothing is done to the current screwed up system. France for example delivers better health care for about 1/3 less cost than the US does and the other G7/8 are not far behind. The US system is an outlier in both costs (way high) and results (basically mid 3rd World), So, I see changes to cut costs coming. What that will entail is anyones guess. Certainly going to a govt system, maybe like Germany, is not out of the question. After all, GM and other big companies are lobbying strongly for relief in this area. Part of the answer is data management as most offices and some hospitals are basically mid 50s technology: pushing paper around in files and file clerks galore. So, maybe no exports will be gained, but perhaps if you know of a company that has a system for medical offices, it could be a winner. America usually leads in this area, so when one is found,perhaps it will take off in other parts of the world. DS
I have had the good fortune of sharing some office space with a PR firm over the last few months. You learn quite a bit about the system and how it works. The fact is, most reporters are basically lazy, they get alot of their ideas and stories from PR firms, hedge funds, political parties, etc. So realize that any time you read a story, ask yourself who has motive to put the story out there. Then you can view the information under a completely different light. As some of the previous posters highligted, the information is not accurate, and given that an election is near, it's politics as usual.
Define better healthcare? The reality is, you change the metrics, you change the results. One can make the case that health care is better in nearly any civilized country. A government system cutting costs? You have got to be kidding me. Governement doesn't cut costs.....in fact....the mantra of nearly every goverment agency is "if we don't spend it, they will take it away!" Technology and innovation has always cut costs, and will continue to do so in the future. I can't say where or how they will occur, only that they will.
I agree with what you say about reporters. They basically just "report" - some would say "steal" - others' ideas. But, even so, I don't think the Bus Week article is inaccurate. For example, it's been long reported that there's a gross nursing shortage. They get signing bonuses, etc. That's, of course, yet another sign of expanding health care. Yeah, maybe someone projected in a somewhat biased way. Maybe health care will only reach 22% of GNP? But that really doesn't change any of the underlying q's that I am asking...
If there was no insurance...would anyone, in any situation, allow themselves to be charged $25 for an aspirin?
Life expectancy and infant mortality rates. I didn't say I thought Govt was the answer but it might be the inevitable. BTW the Medicare system runs about 2% admin costs vs about 30% for the private sector. DS
The main point of insurance to protect us against six or whatever signma event. That is why I would take a higher deductible and pay absolute minimum (reputable company of course). It is all about risk/reward. Small costs most of us can handle.
This is the kind of issue that can be debated and discussed ad infinitum without any real progress towards a resolution until there is a crisis so bad that something absolutely must be done. There are powerful vested interests that have a stake in maintaining the status quo. We're apparently waiting for a genius to surface that can figure out a way to bring costs down without anyone making less money. In a country that could not even agree to let people order drugs from foreign pharmacies at considerable savings, there doesn't appear to be much hope for a quick fix of our self-created medical mess.