American Health Care Reform

[Dr. McCoy]

Links and labels would help

That would totally spoil it. It is from a single-pay advocacy group.

[Tigerman]

Links and labels would help

I thought the chart was self-explanatory... But, OK, here's where I saw it.

[Gao Bohan]

More from Tigerman's link:

Overhead Costs of Health Care
One of the most shocking consequences of the commercial health care system in the United States is that overhead costs at every level of the system devour a much larger portion of our health care dollar than in countries with publicly financed health care.

This fact is the exact opposite of the stereotype that public agencies tend to become bloated, ineffecient bureaucracies, while the private sector encourages lean efficiency through competition. Without exception, public insurance both within the United States and across countries is vastly more efficient than private insurance.

Insurance Companies in a commercial setting waste much more on overhead than public insurance plans.
Hospitals in a commercial setting waste more on overhead just having to pay multiple insurers and screen patients for insurance coverage.
Physicians Offices likewise face the same administrative burdens imposed by commercial insurance.
Insurance Overhead

Medicare, the publicly managed plan for the elderly in the United States, spends 5 percent of each health care dollar on administrative expenses, compared with the 17 percent devoured by private insurers on average. This is because private companies spend more on marketing, often pay exorbitant salaries to executives, and take a cut of each health care dollar for profits and company reserves.

Countries with a public insurance plan for the population immediately save over 10 percent on every health care dollar by cutting out private insurance overhead.

I have yet to see a serious conservative response to these facts.

[Mucha Man]

...I have yet to see a serious conservative response to these facts.

I've been waiting since '93.

5% is excellent. I think that's about what Taiwan pays for administrative costs as well for its entire system.

I really don't get how people can live here for so long and still be blind to the advantages of a public system, and the absolute lack of character-destroying/commie-cozying sub-effects. But then there are people who live here a decade and still have contempt for environmentalism as well.

[Gao Bohan]

Glad to hear you agree that Medicare and SS are entitlement programs.

Of course they're entitlement programs. But they help people. Don't you have any elderly relatives who depend on Medicare and Social Security? I do.

And all this welfare is driving us towards bankruptcy. Whether or not these programs are popular of are what most people think of is something I care not a bit about. They're welfare programs, they're all bankrupting us, and the culture of entitlement they create must be addressed, period. Whether or not that's popular or what people want isn't my concern.

Governmen health programs cost less per capita and less as a percentage of GDP than America's mixed public/private system. This thread is full of relevant facts and supporting links, and I have yet to see a refutation. We live longer and there are many times less workers to retirees, so I agree that Social Security benefits may need to be reassesed. But there are other federal outlays (like defense) that will have to be considered.

And no one that qualifies for TAMF only gets TAMF. They get money from a whole slew of other programs they would qualify for. My point was that's US17,000 from one, single program. Add up all the assistance each family is getting and it's likely a lot by your own numbers.

Which programs, specifically? There were several federal welfare programs in existence, but they were abolished in 1996 and replaced with the TANF state block grants. If you're including Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as welfare programs, fine, but that's not what 99% of Americans think of when the hear "welfare". You say it doesn't matter to you that Medicare etc. are popular. Sorry, the US is a democracy. When 70% of the population supports these programs (not TANF but the Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP), it matters. I don't believe there is a "culture of entitlement", so much as a belief in shared responsibility for protecting and caring for the elderly and the very young. There's also the peace of mind in knowing that at some point we can retire and have health care and a pension rather than working until we die.

Why? What had defense spending got to do with welfare entitlements and expanding health care? Why on earth would tax INCREASES need to be on the table when we're wasting billions already? We need to waste even more? It's crazy. I actually agree that defense spending might need to be cut in some cases but to me, that's a separate issue.

I think it's fairly straightforward. The federal government receives a finite amount of revenue each year, and yet it spends more than it receives. If we're going to balance the budget, we have to decide on whether to raise revenue or cut expenses. If the parties are really going to strike a grand compromise, the answer is "both".

[Chris]

Glad to hear you agree that Medicare and SS are entitlement programs.

Of course they're entitlement programs.

Yup. Everyone's entitled to them because everyone pays into them.

I fail to see why "entitlement" is such a scary word.

[Gao Bohan]

Yup. Everyone's entitled to them because everyone pays into them.

I fail to see why "entitlement" is such a scary word.

Same here. Police and fire protection are also entitlements.

[Tigerman]

I really don't get how people can live here for so long and still be blind to the advantages of a public system...

I like Taiwan's healthcare system. I don't use it as much as many do, but, I do use it. I just don't think its sustainable. AFAIK, its losing money.

[headhonchoII]

It doesn't need to make money. It just doesn't need to lose TOO much money. It's healthcare, if the system was focused on to deriving a profit it would deny access to many people.

It has been adjusted recently and the last health minister tried to get premiums adjusted to reflect real family incomes, which would have gone someway to making it more sustainable, but legislators blocked it and he resigned. As they always do.

[johnny138]

Glad to hear you agree that Medicare and SS are entitlement programs.

Of course they're entitlement programs.

Yup. Everyone's entitled to them because everyone pays into them.

I fail to see why "entitlement" is such a scary word.

Everyone pays into them? Really? And everyone pays exactly the same, right? And everyone extracts only what they put in, correct?

People that don't pay taxes don't pay anything at all. People who pay a lot in taxes obviously pay more but don't access entitlement programs near as much.

The entitlement culture tells people they don't have to work, they don't have to do anything, they just have to get whatever they need from the government. And they demand it because they're entitled to it. "Gonna get get me some Obamabucks." That's what entitlement programs promote.

And the more of these programs we have, the more people feel entitled to. Obamacare isn't enough.

How about your "right" to a job? http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... on/42965/#
Don't give me a job and I'll sue you.

How about the new right to a vacation? http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500164_162-634664.html
"Europeans, on the other hand, think vacations are a basic human right." Great, go there.
Now it's being brought up again: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... us/259317/

How about your "right" to daycare?

Canadians have repeatedly voted this down and yet liberals keep trying to get the government to fund daycare. Why? Because they feel ENTITLED TO IT.

David Cameron and even the Commonwealth countries are talking about the culture of entitlement:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6419363235

WITH far too many exceptions, a new sense of reality seems at last to be dawning across the governments of Western nations that the age of entitlement may be coming to an end. British Prime Minister David Cameron took a leadership role by proposing a stunning blow to a population long accustomed to feeding at the public teat.

Cameron has decided to take on the culture of entitlement that has become an ingrained component of the welfare state.

In doing so he's taking a political risk, but the stark reality is that "lifters" in any economy must outnumber the "leaners". "There are few more entrenched problems than our out-of-control welfare system, and few more daunting challenges than reforming it," Cameron said.

After the multi-billion-dollar bank bailout in Spain and the protracted election process in Greece, we are seeing the new government in Athens pursuing unpopular austerity measures imposed by Germany and the European banks. Now, by zeroing in on the welfare state, Cameron is attacking those who claim they are owed a state-funded entitlement....
But across the Channel, Cameron says a serious debate is needed on the idea that citizens should receive something for nothing. "Raising big questions on welfare, . . . might not win the government support," he announced in a speech in Kent...
With a 90 billion pounds sterling ($136bn) budget deficit -- 6 per cent of gross domestic product -- Cameron knows any reform to the culture of entitlement is a political and economic imperative.

With one pound in every three of British government expenditure being poured into welfare, Cameron has reassured his backbenchers, who are constantly receiving knocks at their electorate office doors from furious constituents sick of subsiding others: "Those within (the British welfare system) grow up with a series of expectations: you can have a home of your own, the state will support you whatever decisions you make, you will always be able to take out no matter what you put in. This has sent out some incredibly damaging signals. That it pays not to work. That you are owed something for nothing."

Cameron highlighted the young couple both employed full-time in service industry jobs, together earning 24,000 pounds versus a couple who have never worked, have four children, get paid 27,000 pounds by the government. Little wonder the Prime Minister said: "Can we really say that's fair?"

Obamacare is just another in the 80+ US federal entitlement programs that are dragging the country down, just like other Western countries. It has to be stopped.