Advocate wrote:I have not seen anyone successfully debunk the efficiency of Medicare, but have seen the opposite. Medicare is not perfect, but what is? We need to get away from our present so-called system (mess) ASAP -- it dragging our country down.
Oh please!
I posted the links that lay out the flaws in your claims in your own Universal Healthcare thread in response to your request for evidence and you then pretended they didn't exist.
,Advocate is an expert at ignoring facts presented on "many" subjects.
Fishin, I said that no one SUCCESSFULLY refuted the position that Medicare is much more cost efficient. I stand by that.
CI, who loves to "me too" the other Israel haters, and is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, loves to bash me personally.
fishin, Is Advocate still "pretending?" LOL
Advocate wrote:I have not seen anyone successfully debunk the efficiency of Medicare, but have seen the opposite. Medicare is not perfect, but what is? We need to get away from our present so-called system (mess) ASAP -- it dragging our country down.
Medicare is now a burden to the US economy and as a result, it has been proposed very recently, that the Federal Government should abolish the medigap program ( which augments Medicare).
If Medicare was efficient economically, the Government would never consider abolishing the medigap program.
No one can defend Bush's Medicare drug plan, which lacks all merit, and is supremely expensive.
Further, its fees would have to be increased somewhat, but, even with this, it would be far superior than what we have now.
a joint canada-united states health care study was recently completed and the results were released yesterday .
for your information :
Quote:Canadian health system fares well in study
TheStar.com - News - Canadian health system fares well in study
April 17, 2007
Anne-Marie Tobin
Canadian press
Health outcomes for patients in Canada are as good as or better than in the United States, even though per capita spending is higher south of the border, suggest Canadian and U.S. researchers who crunched data from 38 studies.
The findings were published in the inaugural edition of Open Medicine, a new online medical journal launching Wednesday in the aftermath of a rift last year between some editors and the publisher of the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
"In looking at patients in Canada with a specific diagnosis compared to Americans with the same diagnosis, in Canada patients had at least as good an outcome as their American counterparts - and in many situations, a better health outcome," said one of the 17 authors, Dr. P.J. Devereaux, a cardiologist and clinical epidemiologist at McMaster University in Hamilton.
"And that is important because in the United States, they're currently spending a little over $7,100 per individual on health care annually, whereas in Canada we're spending a little over $2,900 per individual annually," he said in a telephone interview from Brantford, Ont.
The study covered data on patient populations in the United States and Canada from 1955 to 2003. To conduct their meta-analysis, researchers identified almost 5,000 titles and abstracts. Of these, 498 appeared potentially eligible on initial review. Eventually, 38 studies were deemed to be eligible.
Researchers began by asking the question: Are there differences in health outcomes (mortality or morbidity) in patients suffering from similar medical conditions treated in Canada versus those treated in the United States?
"Overall, Canada did better, and in fact we found a statistically significant five per cent mortality advantage to people with diagnoses in Canada compared to their counterparts in the United States," Devereaux said.
Because of the extreme variability in study-to-study results, the researchers suggested caution was appropriate in interpreting this finding.
Overall, 14 of the 38 studies showed better outcomes in Canada, while five favoured the U.S. The other 19 studies showed equivalent or mixed results in the two countries.
Canada really stood out in one area - lower risk-adjusted death rates for dialysis care.
"What it (the study) shows is that despite an enormous investment in money we do not see better health outcomes (in the U.S.)," Devereaux said.
"And importantly, where our two systems do diverge is that America has a mixture of private insurance in terms of the funding for health care whereas in Canada we have medicare system for hospital and physician services. The medicare system allows us enormous efficiencies in terms of cost saving relative to private insurance."
He said the Canadian health-care system does have issues and needs improvement, "but certainly using medicare funding and not-for-profit delivery is the best way to actually maximize health outcomes and in a cost-effective manner."
The public is barraged by people saying Canada's health-care system has problems and the solution is to move toward allowing two-tiered medicine, and for-profit health-care delivery, he said.
The researchers "wanted decisions made based on evidence, and not based on beliefs and ideologies," Devereaux added.
Few uninsured patients in the U.S., who probably suffer the worst quality care, were included in the studies examined.
Some explanations for the results include the fact that American health care has administrative inefficiencies that public funding - without multiple competing insurance companies - eliminates. And because drug prices are controlled, Canada saves on prescription drug costs.
source :
...CANADA - U.S. HEALTH CARE STUDY...
Ham, good piece! It has a lot of good facts.
hbg, Good article. Those who are afraid of universal health care has nothing to back up their argument except "fear" of cost overruns. They use "fear" on every issue, but can't back up their position with facts.
Fear works.
No Australians shown up here yet?
Employers have nothing to do with health care here. We have a system of both private insurance and government sponsored (partly through taxation). It is struggling a bit with ageing population and increases costs.
Quote:A universal system of health insurance, Medicare, was introduced in 1984. It is funded, in part, through a taxation levy of 1.5 per cent of income. Medicare's three main functions are to cover the cost of medical services, pharmaceuticals and public hospital care.
Under Medicare, all permanent Australian residents are entitled to free public hospital care when choosing to be public patients. Doctors who are appointed by the hospitals provide the medical treatment. State and Territory governments provide public hospital services and work closely with the Australian Government and professional bodies to ensure that quality of care and appropriate standards are maintained. Australians may elect to be treated as private patients in public hospitals or to use private hospitals. In the private sector, patients can choose to pay directly for medical costs or use private health insurance.
Source:
www.dfat.gov.au/facts/health_care.html
Eorl wrote:No Australians shown up here yet?
Employers have nothing to do with health care here. We have a system of both private insurance and government sponsored (partly through taxation). It is struggling a bit with ageing population and increases costs.
Quote:A universal system of health insurance, Medicare, was introduced in 1984. It is funded, in part, through a taxation levy of 1.5 per cent of income. Medicare's three main functions are to cover the cost of medical services, pharmaceuticals and public hospital care.
Under Medicare, all permanent Australian residents are entitled to free public hospital care when choosing to be public patients. Doctors who are appointed by the hospitals provide the medical treatment. State and Territory governments provide public hospital services and work closely with the Australian Government and professional bodies to ensure that quality of care and appropriate standards are maintained. Australians may elect to be treated as private patients in public hospitals or to use private hospitals. In the private sector, patients can choose to pay directly for medical costs or use private health insurance.
Source:
www.dfat.gov.au/facts/health_care.html
Interesting. I'll have to look into the Aussie system more. I'm particularly interested in how it is managed witha 1.5% withholding tax.
In the U.S. we already pay a 2.9% Medicare tax but that doesn't even cover the cost of the existing system.
fishin wrote:
Interesting. I'll have to look into the Aussie system more. I'm particularly interested in how it is managed witha 1.5% withholding tax.
On the
MedHunters website are some rather good reports about the healthcare systems in a few countries.
cicerone imposter wrote: Those who are afraid of universal health care has nothing to back up their argument ...
No you're wrong. If all residents of the US are on Medicare, and many American Physicians don't take Medicare patients in addition to there being an inadequate number of physicians to take care of all patients, what do you suppose will happen?
The issue is really the shortage of medical doctors to take care of all of the patients. There is already a shortage of physicians in the US due to entrance restrictions to medical schools, a shortage of medical schools and training facilities and a shortage of Doctors who will take insurance or even Medicare. Many physicians will take only cash and never, ever will take health insurance or Medicare.
If Americans are unhappy with the present system, just wait till there's universal coverage ( paid by Gov ), then it'll be hell for sure.
miller wrote :
Quote:If Americans are unhappy with the present system, just wait till there's universal coverage ( paid by Gov ), then it'll be hell for sure.
miller , i can assure that canada definetely is NOT hell - despite universal health care ; it may not be the land of milk and honey ... but it isn't hell either .
why do you think american citizens - mostly seniors - come to canada by the bus-load to buy their prescription medicine ? BECAUSE they can't afford the prices charged in the united states !
you might also be interested to know that some americans come across the border , borrow a healthcard from a friend or relative to get treatment in canada ; if you wonder why ? BECAUSE they cannot afford to pay for it in the united states .
(i should really not advertise this here) .
hbg
Miller wrote:cicerone imposter wrote: Those who are afraid of universal health care has nothing to back up their argument ...
No you're wrong. If all residents of the US are on Medicare, and many American Physicians don't take Medicare patients in addition to there being an inadequate number of physicians to take care of all patients, what do you suppose will happen?
The issue is really the shortage of medical doctors to take care of all of the patients. There is already a shortage of physicians in the US due to entrance restrictions to medical schools, a shortage of medical schools and training facilities and a shortage of Doctors who will take insurance or even Medicare. Many physicians will take only cash and never, ever will take health insurance or Medicare.
If Americans are unhappy with the present system, just wait till there's universal coverage ( paid by Gov ), then it'll be hell for sure.
This doesn't make sense. If all residents of the US are on Medicare,
physicians have to take Medicare patients if they want to make a living.
In fact, physicians make even worse concessions now, when they sign
up for HMOs, being capitated in fees and seeing a horrendous amount
of patients per day to make a decent salary.
There might be a shortage of physicians in some areas, in other areas
it is the opposite. I have never met a physician who will take cash only,
not now and not in future (if they want to make a living).
I'd be surprised if the majority of physicians would not welcome a universal health care system, as they are at present time just as squeezed by the insurance providers as the patients are.
^4/20/07: The Plot Against Medicare
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The plot against Social Security failed: President Bush's attempt to
privatize the system crashed and burned when the public realized what he
was up to. But the plot against Medicare is faring better: the stealth
privatization embedded in the Medicare Modernization Act, which Congress
literally passed in the dead of night back in 2003, is proceeding apace.
Worse yet, the forces behind privatization not only continue to have the
G.O.P. in their pocket, but they have also been finding useful idiots
within the newly powerful Democratic coalition. And it's not just
politicians with an eye on campaign contributions. There's no nice way
to say it: the NAACP and the League of United Latin American Citizens
have become patsies for the insurance industry.
To appreciate what's going on, you need to know what has been happening
to Medicare in the last few years.
The 2003 Medicare legislation created Part D, the drug benefit for
seniors -- but unlike the rest of Medicare, Part D isn't provided
directly by the government. Instead, you can get it only through a
private drug plan, provided by an insurance company. At the same time,
the bill sharply increased payments to Medicare Advantage plans, which
also funnel Medicare funds through insurance companies.
As a result, Medicare -- originally a system in which the government paid
people's medical bills -- is becoming, instead, a system in which the
government pays the insurance industry to provide coverage. And a lot of
the money never makes it to the people Medicare is supposed to help.
In the case of the drug benefit, the private drug plans add an extra,
costly layer of bureaucracy. Worse yet, they have much less ability to
bargain for lower drug prices than government programs like Medicaid and
the Veterans Health Administration. Reasonable estimates suggest that if
Congress had eliminated the middlemen, it could have created a much
better drug plan -- one without the notorious "doughnut hole," the gap in
coverage once your annual expenses exceed $2,400 per year -- at no higher
cost.
Meanwhile, those Medicare Advantage plans cost taxpayers 12 percent more
per recipient than standard Medicare. In the next five years that
subsidy will cost more than $50 billion -- about what it would cost to
provide all children in America with health insurance. Some of that $50
billion will be passed on to seniors in extra benefits, but a lot of it
will go to overhead, marketing expenses and profits.
With the Democratic victory last fall, you might have expected these
things to change. But the political news over the last few days has been
grim.
First, the Senate failed to end debate on a bill -- in effect, killing it
-- that would have allowed Medicare to negotiate over drug prices. The
bill was too weak to have allowed Medicare to get large discounts.
Still, it would at least have established the principle of using
government bargaining power to get a better deal. But in spite of
overwhelming public support for price negotiation, 42 senators, all
Republicans, voted no on allowing the bill to go forward.
If we can't even establish the principle of negotiation, a true repair
of the damage done in 2003 -- which would require having Medicare offer
seniors the option of getting their drug coverage directly, without
involving the insurance companies -- seems politically far out of reach.
At the same time, attempts to rein in those Medicare Advantage payments
seem to be running aground. Everyone knew that reducing payments would
be politically tough. What comes as a bitter surprise is the fact that
minority advocacy groups are now part of the problem, with both the
NAACP and the League of United Latin American Citizens sending letters
to Congressional leaders opposing plans to scale back the subsidy.
What seems to have happened is that both groups have been taken in by
insurance industry disinformation, which falsely claims that minorities
benefit disproportionately from this subsidy. It's a claim that has been
thoroughly debunked in a study by the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities -- but apparently the truth isn't getting through.
Public opinion is strongly in favor of universal health care, and for
good reason: fear of losing health insurance has become a constant
anxiety of the middle class. Yet even as we talk about guaranteeing
insurance to all, privatization is undermining Medicare -- and people who
should know better are aiding and abetting the process.
--------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I scrolled through every page to see if any Aussies had posted yet before making mine. Australia has universal health care through the Medicare system, but universal is a bit misleading, because not everything is covered. We also have a private health system. Medicare is funded by a 1.5% tax, calculated at tax return time each year. If a single person earns in excess of $50 000 p/a and doesn't have any private health insurance, then they pay an extra 1%. We receive a 30% tax rebate on health insurance payments.
Medicar provides free medical treatment in public hospitals. All treatment is free when provided as an inpatient in a public hospital, but there is a waiting list for non-essential care. GP costs are up to the individual practitioners. If a GP "bulk bills" then medicare pays 100% of the cost. Alternatively, individual practitioners may set a higher fee than the standard, with the "gap" between the medicare benefit and the fee paid for by the patient. It's up to the patient to decide whether to attend a doctor who bulk bills or not. In urban areas this isn't a problem, but apparently in more remote areas, there's less choice available. There's also a large range of pathology and imaging available free of charge.
Eye testing is also covered by Medicare, and I believe there's a limited range of prescription glasses covered, with the cost reduced to something in the vicinity of $40 (not sure as I have private insurance). Dental services are generally not covered at all by the public health system. There is some publicly funded dental services available, but it has horrendous waiting lists, and this is issue is causing some considerable debate at the moment.
Prescription medications are subsidised under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which keeps the cost of most medicines very low, and limits apply to the amount any person has to pay for medications under the scheme each year. I've never exceeded the cost of medications, so don't know the details.
Full cover private health insurance for a family (after tax rebate) runs at about $100 a month - about $50 a month for a single person. This covers a range of treatments, dental, optical, physio, chiro, psycho etc etc. There are a range of cover options available.
I can say that I would not swap our system for America's user pays system for anything. I care about people less fortunate, and there is absolutely no question that despite flaws in the system, a poor person who gets sick in Australia is about a million times better off here than in the US.
Based on what you described in your post Wilso - that is more along the line of the sort of system I envision for the U.S.. It sounds pretty much like the basic framework of the recently implemented system here in MA.
fishin wrote:Based on what you described in your post Wilso - that is more along the line of the sort of system I envision for the U.S.. It sounds pretty much like the basic framework of the recently implemented system here in MA.
It's definitely not perfect, but personally I feel a sense of security when it comes to access to medical care.
A quick question for you Wilso - above you mentioned "Full cover private health insurance for a family (after tax rebate) runs at about $100 a month - about $50 a month for a single person."
Is that the full cost? Or just your share with an employer paying a portion of the total?
