10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care

[Stephen Eisel]

thanks for the graphic, Steve. it doesn't list a source or describe the data very clearly.

Ryan, I hope that you practice what you preach with all of your future post...

[Will Brown]

There are two problems here, and many people seem to confuse them.

First is the cost of health care. If that cost were reasonable, most of us would not need insurance,
other than a policy that would give catastrophic expense coverage. i.e., if a routine procedure cost $25
or even $50, most of us would rather pay cash for that than buy insurance; we would, however,
Want some insurance coverage in case of a major procedure, since a $100,000, or greater, bill would be
ruinous. One of my main objections to the current scheme before Congress is that it fails to address in any
meaningful way the causes of the high cost of treatment (not insurance) and thus will do nothing to reduce
expenses; in fact, will drastically increase them. We have to do something to reduce the excess costs
attributable to defensive medical practice. Right now doctors have been trained to order superfluous and
unnecessary procedures, because if they don't and are sued the plaintiff's attorney will haul out his hired
witnesses to say that the failure to provide the procedures was malpractice. It is not hard to make a lot
of money as a plaintiff's attorney because the costs of defending a suit are so high (including a lot of the
doctor's time), and the decision will be made by a panel of jurors who probably don't have a good grasp of
the material and will base their votes on which side has the most folksy manner, and sympathy for the plaintiff,
and the idea that the plaintiff is poor and the doctor rich. As a consequence, most suits, even those with no
merit, are settled with insurance company money. Where, you may ask, does the insurance company get that
money? From premiums paid by all doctors, who in turn pass on that cost to their patients. What is wrong
with this? First, it is a major cost of our medical treatment, a cost that we shouldn't have to pay. Second,
if the doctor actually did something seriously wrong, it is swept under the rug.

A better solution would be to get the contingency fee lawyers out of the business, and have a knowledgeable
panel evaluate and decide the cast, awarding appropriate damages, and getting an incidents of malpractice
into a data base, which should be consulted when deciding whether we want to allow a doctor to continue
practicing, or malpracticing, as the case may be.

This would eliminate a big part of the cost of medical care, and benefit us all.

The other problem is medical insurance. Insurance is, basically, the banding together of people to share
expenses. Not all insurance companies have shareholders, and they are all under pressure to provide an
attractive product at a reasonable price. So when we impose increased costs and penalties on an insurance
company, we are actually imposing them on the policyholders, as that is where the companies will get the extra
money.

Today much of the procedures of medical insurance is controlled by the government, in that they are the
biggest hog at the trough, and everyone has to conform to their mandates. It is common now that your private
policy requires you to sign up for Medicare when you are eligible. Worse, in my case, my private insurance
wanted me to continue paying my share of the premium (I paid about 20%; my employer paid the rest) while
they provided a mere fraction of the coverage they had provided before. I solved that by canceling the
coverage.

I do think that something should be done about coverage of preexisting conditions. My employer offered a
number of group policies, and if I changed policies during the yearly open season, my preexisting conditions
remained covered. That was because my employer demanded that as a feature of any policy that they would
offer. However, buying the coverage subsidized by my employer was optional. Many new (and lower-paid)
employees opted to go without the insurance (young people often think they will never get sick or hurt, or
old, for that matter) as they felt they had a better use for the money (payments on the SUV?), knowing that
they could get into the insurance program on any of the annual open seasons. It was not uncommon that they
would go for quite a few years without coverage, then join. When they joined, they found that preexisting
conditions were not covered. I don't feel much sympathy for them, because group insurance is predicated on
many people being insured, and only a few being sick. Those who chose not to participate when they were
well shouldn't expect the rest of us to pay to cover their treatment of things that started when they were
voluntary nonparticipants. The idea that anyone can buy coverage of a preexisting condition is about as valid
as allowing us to buy life insurance after we have passed.

I do think that insurers should be prohibited from increasing premiums for those who get sick. I also think that
when someone has coverage (typically through his employer) and loses it involuntarily, such as being laid off,
insurers should be barred from denying coverage for a preexisting condition (that was covered under his prior
policy) when he gets a new policy. I suppose there could be some circumstances where this should not apply,
such as when someone takes an extended vacation rather than working seriously to regain employment.

I also think some government rules act to increase our costs. My understanding is that typically, a doctor bills
say $130 for a procedure, and Mediwhatever limits it's payment to about $30, and bars the treater from doing
anything to collect the shortage. One problem with that is that some doctors are worth $30, but some are
worth more, and if we were using our own money, we would decide whether to pay more for the doctor with a
warm stethoscope than for another. But the nastiest part of the procedure is that Mediwhatever, who doesn't
even pay the $130, insists that the doctor bill, and collect, $130 from his patients who are not covered by
insurance (the insurance companies apparently have some agreement with the bureaucracy allowing them to
pay less). So if you choose to go without insurance, you are on the hook for $130, not because of your
physician, nor an insurance company, but because of your own government, and someone thinks that giving
such a government bureaucracy more power is a good idea!

It looks to me like the Democrats are unwilling or unable to address some of the real problems in health care,
and are rushing to get something, anything, passed so they can say they did something about the problem,
with no consideration of costs or benefits. Well, a turd, even when frosted and tarted up with a fancy name,
is still a turd.

[Dustin James]

thanks for the graphic, Steve. it doesn't list a source or describe the data very clearly. cancer by age group by country would be nice.

Ryan-
This may be slightly off topic, but over the years I've seen a trend in this forum. You seem exceedingly negative in your disposition. It's not just this subject, but pretty much all subjects. I don't know if you're a young man, but I suspect that you are younger than I am. These types of forums are relatively new to social intercourse, in that one could not have an easy way to rant-on about injustices, or man's inhumanity to man, or Republicans, or any number of subjects. It was reserved to street corners, op-ed's in the old newspapers, bus' or other inconvenient public venues. I'm not for a moment suggesting that you should not do it. I would only suggest that you have more self awareness that it could cause you physical harm over time.

Now I know everybody rants here from time to time. But on the subject of better health care, you should know that your behavior puts you at risk because it appears to be chronic. The question is whether it is worth the long term effects? One who is so sure that they suffer fools, may in fact not be so smart after all.

Here is something to think about:
~~~~
...In recent health news the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), shared its findings about the harmful affects on the brain posed by chronic negativity. Research shows that people having a habitual negative disposition are at a higher risk for suffering from memory and comprehension problems later in life, including a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, compared to people with a positive disposition and outlook on life.

Scientists and doctors examined the brain scans of patients with an admitted history of negativity in their thinking, feeling, and reacting processes, along with examining the brain scans of patients with noted histories of optimism and positive thinking, looking for any differences in the scans between these two groups if there were any. What researchers found was that there were higher instances of physical and physiological functioning differences that could be seen in the brain scans of the chronically negative versus the instances of physical and physiological changes seen in the brain scans of the chronically positive....
~~~
Here is the rest of the article: [url]http://www.personalpowertraining.net/Articles/the_health_risks_of_chronic_negativity.htm[/url]

Anyway, you may -or may not find this interesting or relevant. I've looked at hundreds of your posts and the pattern is worth your consideration. Just sayin'

.

[Stephen Eisel]

Off subject: (this is just a question) I thought that insurance was form of risk management, kind of like a hedge against a potential loss?????

[Heather Ramsey]

In this health care reform, Obama and dems have demonized health insurance companies and pharma companies, among others. He says they are making too much money. Well, who does he thinks owns those companies? Everyone with a 401k or mutual fund or direct stock ownership (that would be you and me).

One of the major differences between our system and other more "successful" systems (this seems to be in debate, but from what I've read, it seems that health care works better elsewhere...) is that our insurance companies are for profit. This gives them an incentive not to help you because if they don't pay for your procedure, they'll still have your payments and the profits that keep their shareholders happy. This is putting the focus in the wrong place. And maybe I would see a bright side if I had the money to invest someplace, but those of us without insurance tend not to have stocks and 401ks either.

[I recently read T.R. Reid's book where he tries out a variety of health care systems (and, obviously, researched how they work as well), The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper and Fairer Health Care. It's pretty much my main basis for claiming ANY knowledge on this REALLY complex subject, but it was a good read and made a lot of sense.]