Obama asks the question.............

[touchring]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

:p
:pSingapore:p
:p
The gold plate of international health care, which provides the lowest cost and highest life expectancy. :pSingapore:p has universal healthcare that co-exists with private healthcare. Strict mandated savings accounts for health issues are also part of the system for healthcare costs not covered by the universal health system. All payments are means tested according not only to income but also value of their homes. They also highly control the introduction of new medical treatments until proven cost worthy. Singapore only had 6 healthcare patents from 1996-2003 compared to 18,241 in the :pUnited States:p.

I've got a small knee problem that wouldn't go away so I wanted to check out what's the problem.

My insurance only covers hospitalization and chronic illnesses, so the cheapest possible way is to get a referral letter from a government GP clinic. The 'cheapest' fastest way is to go to a government hospital directly to see an orthopedic specialist - but that will cost double the former approach. The fastest but also the most expensive way would be to go to a private hospital - which may cost double to triple the other approaches but still very much lower than what Americans will pay.

So, there are 3 approaches to getting healthcare here in Singapore. The Super subsidized, the subsidized and the "non-subsidized".

I choose the cheapest approach, so I went to the government clinic on Friday 1.45 pm, got an X-ray and a referral to a hospital specialist clinic by 4 pm. The cost $8 for the X-ray and $7 for the consultation. The doctor's just came over from India and is very young, but no complains since I only needed a referral letter.

I've not visited a government clinic previously so I didn't know it was that cheap. I visit private GP once every few years to get vaccination for stuff like flu and Hep B.

Today, I got a call for the appointment, mid-Oct 3 months away! At this point, i could choose to cancel the appointment and go direct to a government orthopedic clinic (3-5 days if I book the appointment over the Internet), but any subsequent costs incurred will be double. For example, an MRI will cost $400 instead of $200. Consultation fees for the orthopedic specialist will cost $20 instead of $40. If there's an operation required, it will also be half the price.

Subsidized healthcare is good, if you don't have an urgent medical issue.

But if money is not an issue (for multimillionaires who can afford to pay and want to pay for the best and most expensive doctors), I would have no doubt that America can provide the world's best health care.

[zmas28]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

Very interesting & informative. Thank you!

[BK]

Re: Obama asks the questio- Availability of Insurance Drives Costs higher

I also believe that the availability of Insurance has driven costs higher -

Doctors set their Rates based on what Insurance Companies will pay.

A similiar situation has occured in Dental Industy. The most basic dental filling can cost $125 - this filling will take the Dentist - 2-4 minutes to fill. The Dentist has a fixed fee for a Filling depending on the tooth - gone are the days when a Dentist charges for their time and materials - The Insurance Company will pay well for " a Procedure" and as a result every Dental work event is a different Procedure based on how much money can he extracted from the Dental Insurance and the Patient.

Lets make everyone in the USA pay cash for the first $1500 worth of Medical procedures - you'd see a lot of Doctors and Pharma companies offering specials and discounts for Cash customers.

[Mashuri]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

You keep saying that somehow "the government is preventing a free market in health care." But you have provided exactly zero evidence for that view. Probably because there is none.

What, exactly, is a "gubment-mandated HMO?"

Medicare and Medicaid have no relation to whether or not there is a "free market".

And, no, most hospitals were community or church owned as nonprofit organizations. Your statement of "right" adds exactly zero facts to why you think it isn't so.

Wow! Now I see where you're coming from. The fact that you even ask this means you have no idea what a true free market is.

EDIT: I'm going to actually help you with this. Here's a good article comparing what we have to a true free market:

http://mises.org/story/3165

This, in particular, explains why we are not even close to a free market in the U.S.:

The utter absurdity of statements claiming that the present political-economic environment of the United States in some sense represents laissez-faire capitalism becomes as glaringly obvious as anything can be when one keeps in mind the extremely limited role of government under laissez-faire and then considers the following facts about the present-day United States:

1. Government spending in the United States currently equals more than forty percent of national income, i.e., the sum of all wages and salaries and profits and interest earned in the country. This is without counting any of the massive off-budget spending such as that on account of the government enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Nor does it count any of the recent spending on assorted "bailouts." What this means is that substantially more than forty dollars of every one hundred dollars of output are appropriated by the government against the will of the individual citizens who produce that output. The money and the goods involved are turned over to the government only because the individual citizens wish to stay out of jail. Their freedom to dispose of their own incomes and output is thus violated on a colossal scale. In contrast, under laissez-faire capitalism, government spending would be on such a modest scale that a mere revenue tariff might be sufficient to support it. The corporate and individual income taxes, inheritance and capital gains taxes, and social security and Medicare taxes would not exist.
2. There are presently fifteen federal cabinet departments, nine of which exist for the very purpose of respectively interfering with housing, transportation, healthcare, education, energy, mining, agriculture, labor, and commerce, and virtually all of which nowadays routinely ride roughshod over one or more important aspects of the economic freedom of the individual. Under laissez-faire capitalism, eleven of the fifteen cabinet departments would cease to exist and only the departments of justice, defense, state, and treasury would remain. Within those departments, moreover, further reductions would be made, such as the abolition of the IRS in the Treasury Department and the Antitrust Division in the Department of Justice.
3. The economic interference of today's cabinet departments is reinforced and amplified by more than one hundred federal agencies and commissions, the most well known of which include, besides the IRS, the FRB and FDIC, the FBI and CIA, the EPA, FDA, SEC, CFTC, NLRB, FTC, FCC, FERC, FEMA, FAA, CAA, INS, OHSA, CPSC, NHTSA, EEOC, BATF, DEA, NIH, and NASA. Under laissez-faire capitalism, all such agencies and commissions would be done away with, with the exception of the FBI, which would be reduced to the legitimate functions of counterespionage and combating crimes against person or property that take place across state lines.
4. To complete this catalog of government interference and its trampling of any vestige of laissez faire, as of the end of 2007, the last full year for which data are available, the Federal Register contained fully seventy-three thousand pages of detailed government regulations. This is an increase of more than ten thousand pages since 1978, the very years during which our system, according to one of The New York Times articles quoted above, has been "tilted in favor of business deregulation and against new rules." Under laissez-faire capitalism, there would be no Federal Register. The activities of the remaining government departments and their subdivisions would be controlled exclusively by duly enacted legislation, not the rule-making of unelected government officials.
5. And, of course, to all of this must be added the further massive apparatus of laws, departments, agencies, and regulations at the state and local level. Under laissez-faire capitalism, these too for the most part would be completely abolished and what remained would reflect the same kind of radical reductions in the size and scope of government activity as those carried out on the federal level.

What this brief account has shown is that the politico-economic system of the United States today is so far removed from laissez-faire capitalism that it is closer to the system of a police state. The ability of the media to ignore all of the massive government interference that exists today and to characterize our present economic system as one of laissez faire and economic freedom marks it as, if not profoundly dishonest, then as nothing less than delusional.

[Mashuri]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

Hey, would you rather have economic collapse with healthcare or without healthcare?

Because healthcare is not going to cause the collapse nor will it prevent it. $239 billion spread out over 9 years (the cost for Obama's plan according to the CBO) is mere chump change. We've given more than that to banks in the last six months. So all this whining about the costs and "economic collapse" is a mega straw man.

So, I say, give us health care.

That's like asking me if I want a cookie or not while my burning house crashes on my head. How about not wanting an economic collapse in the first place? Is that asking too much?? BTW, Obama's plan is going to cost us closer to 2 trillion dollars over the next few years.

[raja]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

Here are some things I find broken with the system.
1) To visit a doctor stick out a tongue and say Ahh, and leave costs $200.00
If you have something wrong that requires a recheck, medicine, etc. the price quickly goes up. Have a kid with a sinus infection, you're talking 200 for initial visit, $100.00 for anti-biotics, and 200.00 for a visit later to see if everything is ok. 500.00 for a sinus infection is a lot of money for a family making 50K.
That is why insurance for simple things exists.

This will change as the world equalizes economically in the coming years . . . US doctors' salaries are headed down.

(please excuse the formating quirks)

General Physician Job Average Salary
U.S. average salary :p>:p>	PPP $ 8,189 :p>:p>
Taiwan average income :p>:p>	PPP $ 5,388 :p>:p>
UK median salary :p>:p>	PPP $ 4,874 :p>:p>
Japan average salary :p>:p>	PPP $ 4,685 :p>:p>
Australia average income :p>:p>	PPP $ 3,903 :p>:p>
Singapore average salary :p>:p>	PPP $ 3,843 :p>:p>
France median salary :p>:p>	PPP $ 3,210 :p>:p>
Finland average salary :p>:p>	PPP $ 3,177 :p>:p>
Italy average salary :p>:p>	PPP $ 3,160 :p>:p>
Thailand average salary :p>:p>	PPP $ 2,936 :p>:p>
Kuwait average income :p>:p>	PPP $ 2,371 :p>:p>
Portugal average salary :p>:p>	PPP $ 1,973 :p>:p>
Czech Republicaverage income :p>:p>	PPP $ 1,471 :p>:p>
Romania average salary :p>:p>	PPP $ 838 :p>:p>

[WildspitzE]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

THE US GOV CAN'T EVEN DELIVER THE MAIL WITHOUT GOING BANKRUPT...YOU THINK THEY CAN RUN HEALTHCARE?!!!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE RATIONAL THINKING INDIVIDUALS CAN REALLY BELIEVE THIS STUFF. IT'S MIND BOGGLING! THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!!!

You'll enjoy this video.
http://tinyurl.com/nmh5kq

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

This will change as the world equalizes economically in the coming years . . . US doctors' salaries are headed down.

To clarify, these are "monthly incomes", right? The word "salary", unless otherwise annotated, often suggests "annual salary" to my way of speaking.

The "PPP" seems to refer to "IMF Purchasing Power Parity" rates, used to convert various other currencies to $US equivalents.

Thanks for the table. Yes, I agree. Wages will tend to equalize globally. For Americans, that will be mostly down (or unemployed .) Some wages will equalize more aggressively than others.

[meechpod]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

RJWR - Must admit your arguments sound among the least intelligent here. I have nothing against cowboys, guns or even pride - it's just your critique of other members contributions does not sound that intelligent or focused.

"Also, many of us are "cowboys" with guns and egos and great pride in our Country"


Meanwhile you are urging Steve to provide more intelligent criticisms.

Health care is not a right provided by our constitution so your argument is void of merit. Plus, you have it backwards...a FREE America is one WITHOUT government mandated health care.

For what it's worth, starting a post with "Let the Americans go to hell..." is not wise. It detracts from your point as it places (most) Americans immediately on the defensive. Also, many of us are "cowboys" with guns and egos and great pride in our Country and we don't take kindly to your type of argument. Most of us are open to constructive, intelligent criticism and welcome your future ideas. Few of us are open to America bashing or American bashing.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

Welcome to iTulip, meechpod. Are you the "meechpod" who has posted pictures from near London on flickr? If you're not, please accept my apologies. I find it interesting to search Google for unusual screennames (my own screenname works well for such efforts ).

For what it's worth, rjwjr, your posts make good sense to me.

[WildspitzE]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

You'll enjoy this video.
http://tinyurl.com/nmh5kq

Ok, I should probably limit my facetious posting...

Have you guys checked this out?

http://www.waittimealliance.ca/June2...June2009_e.pdf

"Overview:

Canadians are used to waiting. They wait in line for coffee
and for buses on the way to work. But waiting for health care
is very different. Five years ago the governments of Canada
resolved to improve wait times for health care by committing
nearly $6 billion to the cause. Although there are signs of
improvement, the lack of uniform and timely information on
wait times is just one symptom of the ‘unfinished business’
relating to wait times in Canada. What’s going on?

With an ever-expanding roster of wait-time benchmarks
and data, the 4th Wait Time Alliance (WTA) report card
gives Canadians a more accurate picture of the real wait times
to access a broader range of medical care.

This report card is the first to go beyond reporting on
access to the initial “5 priority areas” listed in the 2004 First
Ministers Agreement: joint replacement (hip and knee); sight
restoration (cataract surgery); heart (coronary artery bypass
graft); diagnostic imaging (MRI and CT) and cancer care
(radiation therapy).

The report contains four main sections: (1) Unfinished
business — wait times for the five priority areas, (2) Expanding
focus — the total wait for a wide range of specialty care
services can be quite lengthy, (3) How long is the wait —

better public information required and finally (4) Next steps.

..."

[flintlock]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

I find SS posts amusing, so no ban please. Every now and then there actually are some interesting ideas mixed in with all the bashing.



As far as health care, the elephant in the room that nobody wants to discuss is what level care we can AFFORD to provide people. Do we keep 85 years old's alive at the cost of younger people going without? My 74 and 76 year old very well off parents don't hesitate to run to the doctor any time they have an ache or pain because they know medicare is going to handle it and what it doesn't pay their supplemental policy will. Going to the doctor is almost a social event for a lot of elderly. Most elderly simply could not afford the level of care they receive in the US without medicare, which is nothing more than national health care for the elderly. Even many of those who think they have enough saved for retirement simply could not afford private medical insurance and care at the level they receive now without medicare. So the question is, do we owe more to our elderly than we do to other citizens? Is a life more valuable at 85 than 17? I think the answer lies somewhere in between the extremes we have now. I'm not especially crazy about nationalized health care, but I'm also not crazy about the government paying for constant expensive surgeries on 80 year olds who never paid more than a pittance into the system. To have national health care for one group of Americans and not the other doesn't especially strike me as fair either.

[raja]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

To clarify, these are "monthly incomes", right? The word "salary", unless otherwise annotated, often suggests "annual salary" to my way of speaking.

The "PPP" seems to refer to "IMF Purchasing Power Parity" rates, used to convert various other currencies to $US equivalents.

Thanks for the table. Yes, I agree. Wages will tend to equalize globally. For Americans, that will be mostly down (or unemployed .) Some wages will equalize more aggressively than others.

Some people may think of healthcare as non-discretionary spending, but it isn't. Are you going to take your kid to the doctor for a sore throat or earache, or are you going to pay your electric bill or buy food? When people don't have money for the latter, they are going to cut down visits to the doctor and drug purchases dramatically.

Of course, the AMA is behind healthcare reform. They want the taxpayer to continue to pay the high cost of medical care, rather than lose money and jobs, which is what would happen if the market were allowed to work.

[sunskyfan]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

I think you make a great point. If,however, if we built the infrastructure and trained the people to staff a healthcare system and targeted servicing the elderly and veterans we would have plenty of capacity for the younger folk who don't need as much support.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

RJWR - Must admit your arguments sound among the least intelligent here. I have nothing against cowboys, guns or even pride - it's just your critique of other members contributions does not sound that intelligent or focused.

"Also, many of us are "cowboys" with guns and egos and great pride in our Country"


Meanwhile you are urging Steve to provide more intelligent criticisms.

May I remind you that America's for-profit private healthcare system now devours (sp?) 17% of the GDP of the entire nation. In 2007, the devouring was 7%.... Quite a jump!

So stick with the for-profit private healthcare system, if you wish. This is the system that has given America the highest healthcare cost in the world, and the shortest life span in the developed world. This is the system that has fifty million people who can not even get healthcare service. This is the system with the highest cost, the most lawsuits, the fewest served, and the worst care.

Just imagine what three or four more years of for-profit medicine would do the country! The day of reckoning has come. What is there to discuss?