Edwynn
Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aswad quote:
ORIGINAL: Edwynn In that measure, the US pays 50% more for health care, as percentage of GDP, than the next nearest countries (Norway and Denmark). And with worse record of outcomes than several other countries in the 'bargain,' we should add. Yanno, if I get some rare disease that- due to limited population- our docs don't know how to treat, I get flown to e.g. the US, and treated at e.g. Mayo Clinic or the like, and we pay less for that treatment than the Americans would pay- even in cash- for the same treatment, because the State of Norway is a reliable customer with a certain volume, and we're ready to take our business elsewhere if they can't deliver what we want for a reasonable price with a high quality standard (the majority of American hospitals aren't even considered, due to quality issues, when someone is treated abroad). Same for India, China, Germany or the UK, to mention just a few of the places we shop what it isn't cost effective to have. When Americans are here on vacation or as part of their job, they get for free what they would've had to pay for at home, and the net cost is about similar to Denmark per capita. This includes some aspects of dental, as well. If you end up in the ER, there's no copay, and they send you back healed of what ails you, pretty much. It's not uncommon to fix preexisting issues while they're at it, if that's compatible with the treatment you need for the immediate concerns. The docs do their job and the economists do theirs. For this (and all the rest), the top and bottom quartile income brackets pay about 10% tax, and the middle half income bracket pays about 25% tax. VAT is about 25%. We fall short of Denmark, though. IWYW, — Aswad. What some people here don't get is that in any other country's health care scheme, no one is prohibited from getting whatever level of care one chooses, as soon as one demands, no waiting, as long as, just like in the US, one has the money to do that. I hear Canadians complain about the long wait, but if it's that important to that person, whatever the doctor says, and they have the means, they can jump to whatever line they want, just like in the US. If the health issue itself is that critical, they jump to the head of the line in their own system. The chicken littles have it in their mind that every aspect of their health care will be dictated to them by a mean, nasty government health bureau. Whereas, from what I witness from them, they are apparently delighted by having a private sector insurance and PPO bureaucracy telling them what they can or can't have, and here's your increase in premium anyway, TVM. Lottery capitalism begets, among other things, lottery health care, and its cost. "OK, what's my bill going to be this month?" "Are they going to pay for this treatment or procedure, or not?" THAT, my friend, is freedom. And don't you forget it. This is, so they tell us, what we fought all those wars for. PS quote:
We fall short of Denmark, though. It doesn't matter. The figures I got when this was gone over more than a year ago on this site were from 2011 OECD statistics. One stat regarded total health care cost to the country, the other was in reference to per capita expenditure, and Norway and Denmark shared the lead, I forget which one in which stat. What matters is that the thirty OECD countries who have a universal system, after getting beyond the Mexico and Turkey and the US, show a slow, gradual ascension in cost, until we get to the top country in expenditure, the US, where the cost skyrockets above the next nearest country's cost. If (I say, if) Noirway, or Denmark, were the second highest in expenditure in either measure, it would be about one or two percent higher than the number five or six country. Whereas the US' expenditure is clearly 50 % above the next nearest country, of your choice. In this argument, I don't think it's utterly crucial to the matter as to who the number two country is.
< Message edited by Edwynn -- 5/28/2013 3:17:21 PM >
|