Japanese culture has accepted the trade off of a capitalistic system for the efficiency of a socialized one and has funded it appropriately. While I am not familiar with the details, I would only guess to say that their healthcare costs are offset by the indirect affects of high taxation specifically for healthcare. People jut accept it for a fact of life and do not object to paying more in taxes and paying less out-of-pocket when they need to seek treatment. Also, the cultural lifestyle is much more conducive to preventative medicine (which, to my understanding, is a much larger portion of their overall system than ours). Their diet and active way of life helps keep the affects of expensive illnesses on a more controllable level. Of course but all the general public has to accept all the above criteria to make it work. It that light, and the fact that American culture is what it is, I don't think that adopting a similar model is likely. I don't necessarily think the US has to adopt a socialistic model in its purest fashion to fix the problems we face. However, sacrifices are going to have to be made before it gets any better. I don't think the biggest hurdles are bureaucratic or legislative (although they are certainly huge), I think its the cultural ones that are going to get us. There are still too many people that stigmatize socialized medical system while, unbeknownst to them, they already have one.
Like I said, cultural differences and public commitment of costs. Good, fast, cheap......pick two. If you want it cheap and good, you aren't going to get it fast. If you want it fast and cheap, its not going to be very good. If you want it good and fast, it won't be cheap.
Doctors are just technicians that speak Latin and like to make big bucks from insurance companies and the government. Use them for the diagnosis, don't let them use any invasive procedures or expose you to too much xrays, then google your own cures. I got over one incurable condition already and found really safe cures for a couple other serious ones whereas the official cures would have killed me, but that only after 5 years so the medical establishment could call it a success. The doctors don't really mind if you do that but it seems to bother them, they are arguing with me about the diagnosis and saying if I got over the condition without their help then the diagnosis must have been wrong! There are five very plain markers for the condition and I have all five of them but they just can't accept it. I don't care much to argue with them about that, I know how much better I feel. I do know that I really do not want the Feds dictating what diagnosis I can have or not have, no.. no... noooo..... or what supplements I can have ... no way. Keep those jerks out of my business please. I work for a medical device manufacturer, I see what the relationship is between the industry and the regulators and I am not paying much attention to the regulators, their opinion is pretty much worth what the industry pays for it!! We have a few little medical industry biaaatches called senators that want to regulate supplements because a half dozen people a year die from some hyped up stuff while hundreds of thousands die in the war between the socialists and capitalists over the medical care system. Fagetaboutit.
Bullshit. I assure you that there are just as many uninsured whites as there are blacks and hispancs combined that flood the system everyday. Keep race out of the discussion and go back to your cheap beer and Big Mac.
Good post, Maxpi. My ex-wife first got me to look at alternatives. If you think about, our doctors are trained to do two things.....cut you or drug you. They have very little training in alternatives or in preventive medicine. Thank God for my HSA.
stop ya bitching, wht bitches. if your congress got 1/2 trillions to fight a fake war on terrorism, then ya can afford to provide healthcare for everyone.
Yes, but it won't make Haliburton or the pharmaceuticals or the HMOs rich. So, who is going to spend the money to lobby congress, take them to golf outings, dinners etc. to pass such a legislation? By the way, can anybody provide a reliable source that has a ballpark figure on how much it will cost the US treasury if universal healthcare was instituted in the US?
Thanks for taking the time to respond, Riserburn. This is only important if the cost of mandated care exceeds the reimbursement provided by Medicaid/Medicare. Is this the case? If so, then the Government is surreptitiously coercing the insured to subsidize the uninsured by short changing HMO's and providers. If the uninsured impose the largest cost on the system, then minimizing their burden under the current legislative climate of 'health care for all' would seem to be the first step in reducing costs. Levying a mandatory patient surcharge for non life threatening emergency room visits and imposing regular check ups for continued medicare coverage could be a start. The idea is to make the uninsured accountable. I am not sure I understand why this is important if providers are ultimately compensated for their gross costs. Again, the net effect is a final price tage commensurate to its cost of provision. Nothing inherently nefarious about that. But under any socialized system, the 'haves' will be forced to pay for the 'have nots'. The only difference is the avenue in which these costs are paid. Currently, its a shell game; all unpaid costs are surreptitiously deferred between the administrating agents (Gov, Hmo's and providers) to the ultimate consumer - the insured. Under a socialized system, healthcare costs are declared upfront, but again, footed entirely by what now constitutes the insured - the haves. Market forces should stabilize the nursing wage push given enough time. Whats interesting is you didn't mention the self imposed quota med schools have on the number of MD's and specialized Doctors they graduate - and on the number of accredited medical schools themselves. Medical schools routinely turn away qualified applicants because the AMA - and all these other self appointed certification bodies composed of existing Dr's - restrict the number of accredited schools and graduates to keep salaries artificially high for Drs. Who eventually subsidizes these inflated salaries? The consumer. If the US was serious about curbing spiraling healthcare costs, the Government can short circuit the controlled derth of graduating Doctors and open up Federally sanctioned med schools. Let the market decide what Drs should be paid. Not the doctors themselves.
Again, I am not sure I understand. How do HMO billing practices increase the ultimate cost paid by the insured? From my understanding, HMO's are simply forcing providers to defer costs from unprofitable procedures to profitable ones. The gross cost charged by providers and compensated by HMO's should remain unchanged. Am i wrong? Yes, but the vast majority of consumers also have no clue how a myraid of highly technical products work - computers, automobiles, televisions, cell phones etc - yet have available at their fingertips a vast selection of adequate and wholly affordable choices to meet those respective needs. Consumers are not precluded from receiving an affordable, quality product or service whose operation is vastly beyond their understanding. They need only to be privy to a free market in which competiting suppliers are unimpeded from driving down costs and improving product/service quality for the public. Whatever the true cost charged by a purely free market healthcare system void of monopolies (HMO's and manufactured Dr shortages) or excessive Government regulation. Again, see above. This is a problem. How can it be solved? What actions can be taken to weed out unnecessary surgeries while maintaining patient acceptable care?