• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Health Rankings: Of 17 Nations, U.S. Is Dead Last

Re: We're Number......LAST

Considering that it is government paid medical that is driving the deficit (mostly, anyway) and that it is private insurance that is putting a damper on employment, it sounds worse. We can't afford 32 grand on average for a family of four.

Then lets kick the uninsured off and make it cheaper. Re-introduce mandatory physical training in schools for every grade. My nephew is currently in school, and they have to take one PE class during high school, thats it, not one every year. I would also add make parents parent, but don't know how you would accomplish that.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Then lets kick the uninsured off and make it cheaper. Re-introduce mandatory physical training in schools for every grade. My nephew is currently in school, and they have to take one PE class during high school, thats it, not one every year. I would also add make parents parent, but don't know how you would accomplish that.

Kicking the uninsured off would make it cheaper, no doubt, but probably still not cheap enough. Doing so could have some serious consequences, too, it seems to me.

Four years of PE would be a great idea. We used to have PE all four years when I was in high school. Back then, there were very few obese kids. I can remember one in our PE class of 40 or so. Of course, we got a lot of exercise chasing mammoths and such (yes, that was a little joke).

Making parents parent. Now, there's an idea. If only we could do that, most of our social problems would evaporate.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

That's a great question. I'd like to know myself.

I find it odd that politicians make a lot of speeches and statements , but seldom answer questions.:peace
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Hello old friend! I hope the winter has not been too chilly up North for you this winter!

I think the most of it goes to profits by monopolies by health care providers.

March/April 2012

Gerald Friedman, Professor of economics, University of Massachusetts-Amherst

“While providing superior health care,” the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (HR 676), “would save as much as $570 billion now wasted on administrative overhead and monopoly profits. A single payer system would also make health-care financing dramatically more progressive by replacing fixed, income-invariant health-care expenditures with progressive taxes.”

Friedman estimated that, in 2013, single payer would save $215 billion on administrative costs to providers, $23 billion on government administration, and $153 billion on private health insurance administration. It would also save $178 billion on drugs, medical equipment, and hospital care by reducing their market power, for a total of $570 billion. Of that, single payer would spend $110 billion extending coverage to all, $142 billion on eliminating co-pays and increasing utilization, especially home health care and dental, and $74 billion to raise Medicaid payment rates to providers, for a net savings of $244 billion.

Friedman modeled one financing scheme consistent with HR 676: current federal health spending, current state Medicaid spending, plus a small financial transactions tax, high income surtax (6 percent on top 5 percent of income-earners), surtax on unearned income (6 percent), and 4-7 percent payroll tax (4 percent on bottom 40 percent). Compared with what people pay today in taxes, premiums and out-of-pocket payments, single payer would save money for 95 percent of Americans while providing medically necessary care to all."

Funding a National Single-Payer System | Physicians for a National Health Program

Ah, my friend it is always good to hear from you.
Keyword here I think is profits, after all America is a Capitalist country which runs on money , profits.

However my question is as I have said on another thread without income to the government money gets lower profits will shrink because a majority of profits depend on Tax Revenue.

The government must get Tax revenue from working people making a high enough wage to pay taxes.
The American government can not keep borrowing money and printing money, in the long run this will not furnish profits but bankruptcy.:peace
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

I did understand you very well. It might be YOUR individual interest to do so. But compared to the addition of million of other individual interests, it doesn't weight very much, that's what I am saying. And that is why Obama care was voted at the end: it will hopefully benefit lots of million of people even if it does not benefit YOU personally.

But it's not in his individual interest. Living in a place with such a system means much more money for his care
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...d-ways-to-treat-uninsured-patients/50376350/1
About Us | The National Association of Free & Charitable Clinics
http://www.freemedicalcamps.com/index.php

Sure, I got PWNED by a guy who has still failed to provide any proof of any claim he's made.:lamo You are the exact kind of person no one cares to debate with. Your entire purpose is to "pwn" people, not prove any sort of point. You don't even know why you believe what you believe. You're just another automaton who regurgitates the thoughts of others and claims them as his own. We're done here. Have a good one.:coffeepap

Nothing you posted supports your claim that any child who walks into an ER with pains in their stomach will be treated

However, I accept your surrender
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

2) :yawn:
XE: (EUR/USD) Euro to US Dollar Rate
(Mid-market rates: 2013-01-19 15:02 UTC)
Dude, you do understand that is saying 1 Euro to $1.33 US right? You said in the previous post 1 Euro to $1,333 US. Was that a typo?
So yes, we have Greece in the Euro zone and it looks like we wil make it that Greece stays in the Euro zone. So far so good.
Well, we have California so we're even lol.
4) What I think is that you should redirect those who get lung cancer to these free clinics so that they get proper treatment: maybe with your support will the US better its international ranking in treating lung cancer. You do not need to redirect me: I get access to high quality care at home and in just any clinic.
You live in Germany correct?
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

i tend to look at these and think 'yea.. were still the highest accurately and honestly reported of all the above'..
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Managed healthcare means rationed healthcare. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, and technically it's already rationed anyhow, but when people get upset when the elderly and terminally ill are turned down for "life preserving" treatment because of cost cutting measures, it makes me wonder if the US is ready for such a system. Furthermore, the US has the highest rates of obesity, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease of nearly any other nation. Providing all of these people with "free" healthcare wouldn't reduce our rates. The countries with cheaper healthcare per capita have different demographics. One cannot simply compare the US to other nations and say, "There! See I told you UHC is superior." The comparison fails.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Managed healthcare means rationed healthcare. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, and technically it's already rationed anyhow, but when people get upset when the elderly and terminally ill are turned down for "life preserving" treatment because of cost cutting measures, it makes me wonder if the US is ready for such a system. Furthermore, the US has the highest rates of obesity, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease of nearly any other nation. Providing all of these people with "free" healthcare wouldn't reduce our rates. The countries with cheaper healthcare per capita have different demographics. One cannot simply compare the US to other nations and say, "There! See I told you UHC is superior." The comparison fails.

Free (to the patient) health care is not the way to go if we're ever to reduce costs. Universal health insurance, not pre paid health care, is the way to go. The patient has to share in the costs, and have an incentive to take responsibility to reduce costs. Working on issues like diabetes and obesity is a part of the patient's responsibility.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information about the US having higher rates of cancer and heart disease. Is that accurate? How do you know?
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Free (to the patient) health care is not the way to go if we're ever to reduce costs. Universal health insurance, not pre paid health care, is the way to go. The patient has to share in the costs, and have an incentive to take responsibility to reduce costs. Working on issues like diabetes and obesity is a part of the patient's responsibility.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information about the US having higher rates of cancer and heart disease. Is that accurate? How do you know?

A google search.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Managed healthcare means rationed healthcare. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, and technically it's already rationed anyhow, but when people get upset when the elderly and terminally ill are turned down for "life preserving" treatment because of cost cutting measures, it makes me wonder if the US is ready for such a system. Furthermore, the US has the highest rates of obesity, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease of nearly any other nation. Providing all of these people with "free" healthcare wouldn't reduce our rates. The countries with cheaper healthcare per capita have different demographics. One cannot simply compare the US to other nations and say, "There! See I told you UHC is superior." The comparison fails.

I really don't think cost cutting measures are the biggest concerns. I think questions of morbidity are a bigger concern as far as health issues are concerned in regards to the issues you are talking about
 
Last edited:
Re: We're Number......LAST

I really don't think cost cutting measures are the biggest concerns. I think questions of morbidity are a bigger concern as far health are concerned

Let's apply some math to that statement:

The health care system accounts for roughly 18% of the GDP.
The federal government spends about 21%.

You could conclude, therefore, that federal spending outpaces health care spending, but wait: There is an overlap.

Medicare/Medicaid/Veterans together account for about 9% of the GDP, all a part of federal spending. Subtract that out, and you get 12% of the GDP spent by the federal government on everything but health care. That figure includes social security, welfare (other than Medicaid), the military, interest on the national debt, everything except medical care.

So, medical care costs significantly more than the entire federal budget exclusive of medical care.

The United States spends significantly more than any other nation.
And other nations are finding that they can't afford their systems, either.

Our medical system is unaffordable, unsustainable, and is bankrupting the country. Yes, costs have to be addressed.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Your post makes no sense

Let's apply some math to that statement:

The health care system accounts for roughly 18% of the GDP.

Cite please

The federal government spends about 21%.

The fed spends 21% of WHAT? 21% of GDP on health care? 21% of its budget on health care? 21% of the total spending on health care?

And provide a cite, please

You could conclude, therefore, that federal spending outpaces health care spending, but wait: There is an overlap.

We can't conclude anything from some poorly written nonsense

Medicare/Medicaid/Veterans together account for about 9% of the GDP, all a part of federal spending.

Cite?

Subtract that out, and you get 12% of the GDP spent by the federal government on everything but health care. That figure includes social security, welfare (other than Medicaid), the military, interest on the national debt, everything except medical care.

No it doesn't mean they spend 12% on "everything but health care". It means that the fed spends 12% of GDP on health care, not counting what it spends on Medicare/Medicaid/Veterans together (note: I'm assuming you meant the 21% referred to 21% of GDP)

So, medical care costs significantly more than the entire federal budget exclusive of medical care.

12% is not more than the other 79%

The United States spends significantly more than any other nation.

True

And other nations are finding that they can't afford their systems, either.

Not true

Our medical system is unaffordable, unsustainable, and is bankrupting the country. Yes, costs have to be addressed.

Agreed
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Your post makes no sense



Cite please



The fed spends 21% of WHAT? 21% of GDP on health care? 21% of its budget on health care? 21% of the total spending on health care?

And provide a cite, please



We can't conclude anything from some poorly written nonsense



Cite?



No it doesn't mean they spend 12% on "everything but health care". It means that the fed spends 12% of GDP on health care, not counting what it spends on Medicare/Medicaid/Veterans together (note: I'm assuming you meant the 21% referred to 21% of GDP)



12% is not more than the other 79%



True



Not true



Agreed

You didn't understand my post at all.

But, here are some citations:

% of gdp: this one is a couple of years old, but the numbers are close enough to make the point:

United States

Total expenditure on health per capita: $7,960
Expenditure as percent of GDP: 17.4 percent (the most)
Annual growth of total health expenditure: +2.2 percent (14th least)
Life expectancy: 78.2 years (27th highest)

Federal spending as a percent of GDP does fluctuate. Currently, it is a little more than I said:

With nominal GDP under our belt, we now know what the government’s spending, revenue and deficit was as a percent of GDP. In FY 2012, the federal government spent 22.77% of GDP while it took in 15.76% of GDP. The deficit came to 7.01% of GDP.

So, now with more precise figures, do the math again and see if I'm not right: Take out the amount spent by the federal government for health care (Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran's), then compare that figure with health care spending over all.

If you do the math carefully, you too will understand that health care spending (public and private) outstrips all federal spending on everything else.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

You didn't understand my post at all.

No, I didn't

But, here are some citations:

% of gdp: this one is a couple of years old, but the numbers are close enough to make the point:



Federal spending as a percent of GDP does fluctuate. Currently, it is a little more than I said:



So, now with more precise figures, do the math again and see if I'm not right: Take out the amount spent by the federal government for health care (Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran's), then compare that figure with health care spending over all.

If you do the math carefully, you too will understand that health care spending (public and private) outstrips all federal spending on everything else.

OK, now I understand that your %'s were a % of GDP. Now can you tell me where you got "Medicare/Medicaid/Veterans together" acct for 9% of GDP. Id true, that means that more than 42% of the Fed budget is spent on those three pgms

According to this chart, Fed spending on health care doesn't come close to 42% of the Fed budget
SRfedspendingnumbers2012p22chart3.ashx


Federal Spending by the Numbers - 2012
 
Last edited:
Re: We're Number......LAST

Dude, you do understand that is saying 1 Euro to $1.33 US right? You said in the previous post 1 Euro to $1,333 US. Was that a typo?

Well, we have California so we're even lol.

You live in Germany correct?
I don't exactly remember what the point of this conversation was...

PS. Using a coma and not a point is the non English way of writing figures while the point is used to separate separate centimals. - 3.000, - € and not 3.000 Euros (for example) or 1,55 € instead 1.55 Euros. Maybe I should write "non American" because my British colleagues actually understand this way of writing. (Unless they are too polite ...)
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

But it's not in his individual interest. Living in a place with such a system means much more money for his care
If his individual insurance policy is lower than if he had to paid in a general system? Lets say he is 30 years old, does not smoke, has no overweight, has no genetic predisposition, has never gone through psychotherapy etc. If on top of this he has a good income, and for a limited set of service XYZ, a private insurance policy may be cheaper than in the general system. At least as long as he stays 30 years old all his life ...
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

i tend to look at these and think 'yea.. were still the highest accurately and honestly reported of all the above'..
Because unlike America, the other developed nations of the world are backward and primitive societies that have not yet learned how to count properly and do not therefore understand or appreciate the value of collecting high quality data and statistics about how things are going where they are. Right?
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

At least as long as he stays 30 years old all his life ...
The free-rider problem. Some of these people actually root for free-riders and cheer them on.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

I don't exactly remember what the point of this conversation was...
LOL. It was about my lack of belief in the WHO's data collection techniques. It's cool, I'm tired of debating it too.
PS. Using a coma and not a point is the non English way of writing figures while the point is used to separate separate centimals. - 3.000, - € and not 3.000 Euros (for example) or 1,55 € instead 1.55 Euros. Maybe I should write "non American" because my British colleagues actually understand this way of writing. (Unless they are too polite ...)
The website used a decimal, I've always used one when writing dollar amounts, so I thought you had a typo. No worries.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Kicking the uninsured off would make it cheaper, no doubt, but probably still not cheap enough. Doing so could have some serious consequences, too, it seems to me.

Four years of PE would be a great idea. We used to have PE all four years when I was in high school. Back then, there were very few obese kids. I can remember one in our PE class of 40 or so. Of course, we got a lot of exercise chasing mammoths and such (yes, that was a little joke).

Making parents parent. Now, there's an idea. If only we could do that, most of our social problems would evaporate.

There are going to be serious consequences not matter which route we take. Change will always cause problems. But in this case, no change would also cause serious problems. Socializing medicine in the US would reduce costs, but ending the major source of innovation and advancement would have even more drastic costs (not monetary) for the whole human race. Socialist and socialized systems, outside of defense, are always stagnate with little advancement and innovation. The UHC countries don't even realize how much they benefit from the US system. Fortunately, there are still some, even outside the US, that operate medical services that are not socialized. Will they be enough to sustain progress? I don't think so, but that is only my opinion.

I am a firm believer in a person is only entitled to what they earn. Although it is rapidly changing, poverty and lack of healthcare insurance in the US have been the product of personal choices, not mandated by society. Those choices by some have affected the costs to the whole. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and in the US, those few, around 15% live under the poverty line, is bankrupting the other 85% of us.

Yep, America was healthier then, at least I believe so. But then, we didn't have X-boxes or Satellite/Cable TV and we went outside to play all day when not in school.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Because unlike America, the other developed nations of the world are backward and primitive societies that have not yet learned how to count properly and do not therefore understand or appreciate the value of collecting high quality data and statistics about how things are going where they are. Right?

no even primitive cultures can count, but they couldnt possibly have the means or interest in doing an accurate job of it. so any information they'd bring would be questionable.

instead i simply believe that many "modern" countries are just not forthcoming with any damaging data in order to be viewed better on the "world stage", or perhaps some just don't tally these things and use estimates based on samplings to the good..

IMO, there just seems to be alot of finger pointing at the USofA, using snippits of data that are very likely not "apples to apples".
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

There are going to be serious consequences not matter which route we take. Change will always cause problems. But in this case, no change would also cause serious problems. Socializing medicine in the US would reduce costs, but ending the major source of innovation and advancement would have even more drastic costs (not monetary) for the whole human race. Socialist and socialized systems, outside of defense, are always stagnate with little advancement and innovation. The UHC countries don't even realize how much they benefit from the US system. Fortunately, there are still some, even outside the US, that operate medical services that are not socialized. Will they be enough to sustain progress? I don't think so, but that is only my opinion.

"Socializing" medicine isn't really the answer either, not for a nation with a dysfunctional government like the USA. Even the Canadians are having some issues, though not as severe as we have in the USA. Surely to goodness our government could get its act together enough to initiate a universal catastrophic care sort of plan that could be outsourced and run as a government regulated monopoly, but, even that may be asking too much of the current Congress. What is for sure is that the current system is not affordable, and that asking employers to take responsibility is a huge job killer.

As for innovation and advancement, how do you know what you're saying is right? Don't I remember reading about an AIDS vaccine being developed in Canada, for example?

I am a firm believer in a person is only entitled to what they earn. Although it is rapidly changing, poverty and lack of healthcare insurance in the US have been the product of personal choices, not mandated by society. Those choices by some have affected the costs to the whole. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and in the US, those few, around 15% live under the poverty line, is bankrupting the other 85% of us.


Not necessarily. If your job is "downsized" and you're laid off at the ripe old age of 50 or so and with dependents, you will lose health insurance and probably are not going to be able to pick it up on your own, especially if you or one of your family members has health issues.

Moreover, people on disability or some other government program will lose their Medicaid if they go to work. That sounds to me like a big disincentive for entering the labor force, as the chances of them getting a job that provides health benefits are slim to none.
Yep, America was healthier then, at least I believe so. But then, we didn't have X-boxes or Satellite/Cable TV and we went outside to play all day when not in school.

That's the way I remember it, too. If it wasn't dark or raining hard, we were outside or in school.
 
Back
Top Bottom