Myth #2

[Guest guest]

/ Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies./

 

Much less so than here. It may seem to Americans that U.S.-style free

enterprise -- private-sector, for-profit health insurance -- is

naturally the most cost-effective way to pay for health care. But in

fact, all the other payment systems are more efficient than ours.

 

U.S. health insurance companies have the highest administrative costs in

the world; they spend roughly 20 cents of every dollar for nonmedical

costs, such as paperwork, reviewing claims and marketing. France's

health insurance industry, in contrast, covers everybody and spends

about 4 percent on administration. Canada's universal insurance system,

run by government bureaucrats, spends 6 percent on administration. In

Taiwan, a leaner version of the Canadian model has administrative costs

of 1.5 percent; one year, this figure ballooned to 2 percent, and the

opposition parties savaged the government for wasting money.

 

The world champion at controlling medical costs is Japan, even though

its aging population is a profligate consumer of medical care. On

average, the Japanese go to the doctor 15 times a year, three times the

U.S. rate. They have twice as many MRI scans and X-rays. Quality is

high; life expectancy and recovery rates for major diseases are better

than in the United States. And yet Japan spends about $3,400 per person

annually on health care; the United States spends more than $7,000.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

True health care starts with the individual and not some outside

source. As Dr. Mercola says, " Take charge of your health. " You

are unique and no one can do this legwork for you. If you have

failed in maintaining your wellness you need doctors for

diagnosis, but you have ultimate responsibility from that point.

With the internet we have vast resources far beyond what even the

most informed doctor had just a generation ago.

 

 

Statistics aside, due to the above, you can bet that members of this

group have a much higher level of wellness than the general

population... and wellness is certainly the keystone of health. Any

insurance company would be wise to take this into consideration, but

none do and quite likely none ever will.

 

 

 

It is interesting that most believe that health somehow has

anything to do with insurance. Almost no one in this country had

any form of health insurance in 1950 and we managed just fine. We

were more like this group then, but lacked these resources. We

were looking out for ourselves. Now the general population thinks

that they can hand this responsibility off to others and wonder

why their results are so poor.

 

 

 

In fact, health insurance is not really insurance. It is a form

of health payment. If it were really insurance, people would

only be reimbursed when the payment was above a deductible amount

that they could not afford.

 

 

 

In fact, when you really get down to it, our health care system

has almost nothing to do with maintaining health, so it truly is

a temporary repair and pain relief system financed by an outside

payer improperly called an insurer. I predict that with this

passage of " universal healthcare " , our general wellness will

deteriorate even more.

 

 

<>

 

 

 

 

>Posted by: " Evanesce " Evanesce

<Evanesce?Subject=%20Re%3AMyth%20%232> apricot855

<http://profiles./apricot855>

 

 

>Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:00 am (PDT)

 

 

 

>/ Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies.

/

 

>Much less so than here. It may seem to Americans that U.S.-style free

>enterprise -- private-sector, for-profit health insurance -- is

>naturally the most cost-effective way to pay for health care. But in

>fact, all the other payment systems are more efficient than ours.

 

>U.S. health insurance companies have the highest administrative costs in

>the world; they spend roughly 20 cents of every dollar for nonmedical

>costs, such as paperwork, reviewing claims and marketing. France's

>health insurance industry, in contrast, covers everybody and spends

>about 4 percent on administration. Canada's universal insurance system,

>run by government bureaucrats, spends 6 percent on administration. In

>Taiwan, a leaner version of the Canadian model has administrative costs

>of 1.5 percent; one year, this figure ballooned to 2 percent, and the

>opposition parties savaged the government for wasting money.

 

>The world champion at controlling medical costs is Japan, even though

>its aging population is a profligate consumer of medical care. On

>average, the Japanese go to the doctor 15 times a year, three times the

>U.S. rate. They have twice as many MRI scans and X-rays. Quality is

>high; life expectancy and recovery rates for major diseases are better

>than in the United States. And yet Japan spends about $3,400 per person

nnually on health care; the United States spends more than $7,000.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

This is true. But keep in mind that the prices were much lower in

1950. Today, one medical mishap requiring hospitalization could easily

result in a $25k bill. This is more than a person with average means

can manage. If you don't pay the bill, you will find yourself with a

judgment or lien placed against you on your home. It is one of the

biggest reasons people file bankruptcy. It is the reason we have

Medicare - more people at that age need health care.

 

The rate of increase in medical costs has fast outpaced the rise of

income. Medical care is a business & represents much more of income

than in 1950. It continues to increase super fast. Primarily, this is

because of pharma companies, and the 'system'. The example the other

guy gave about what he witnessed at hospitals was a very good example.

 

One does not have to be negligent about taking care of oneself in order

to need costly health needs. Accidents & genes happen.

 

Your post seems to suggest that people should not need health care

insurance at all. Does that apply to you too? Anyone over 65, or a

Veteran automatically has a government managed healthcare benefit. Will

you pay for your healthcare needs from your own pocket, rather than opt

in to Medicare? Family members ever use government managed healthcare

(parents, siblings)?

 

I fear Donna's post about single-payer has merit - could turn out to be

true.

 

Amy

 

 

Jim wrote:

It is interesting that most believe that health somehow has

anything to do with insurance. Almost no one in this country had

any form of health insurance in 1950 and we managed just fine. We

were more like this group then, but lacked these resources. We

were looking out for ourselves. Now the general population thinks

that they can hand this responsibility off to others and wonder

why their results are so poor.