|
freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/11/2013 10:07:43 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The %GDP cost of the NHS has gone from, roughly, 2½ 3½%GDP in 1950/1 to, roughly, 7¼% in 2007/8.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2012/07/nuffield.jpg (the image comes out huge here, so I'm linking to it instead)
This shows the NHS costs rising from 3½% GDP to 9%GDP from 1949/50 to 2009/10.
What proof is there that US costs will go from roughly 17%GDP to 9%GDP, based on the experience of the UK?
No proof at all because nobody can provide a guesstimate of future events as proof.
But we have admitted that our costs are rising to do with the nation having an aging demographic and requiring more care.
Considering our GDP is a lot lower in recent years (relatively) and the NHS budget has only risen by 5% in SIXTY years - that's shitloads less than the spiralling costs that have happened in the US in just the last decade. And on a cost per person, we are still only paying around 8% from wages so in real terms it hasn't risen at all for those that pay into the system.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Since 1970, everyone's health care expenditures are rising. Where is there any proof that going to a national care model will cut costs? Where is there any proof that going to a national care model has cut costs?
Just take a look at your graph.
The cost% of GDP has more than doubled for the US compared to the others.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You're still only talking about the 20% (less, actually because there are still administrative costs associated with national health care systems) of the costs.
But there's the clincher. lol.
The costs are irrelevant to what is charged to the patient in a single-payer system.
Under a private system, rising costs are borne by the patient in rising premiums.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
At what cost (with regards to R&D, jobs, etc.)? Is the cost actually a negotiated cost or a mandated cost?
quote:
None whatsoever.
The difference is, the CEO's and shareholders don't get to make such fat profits when dealing with a whole nation rather than individuals.
Have any proof of that?
Look at my later post Re cost of the same drug in different countries.
The manufacturers don't get to dictate the costs to the single-payer country so they take a huge cut in order to get their drugs used outside the US and that cut has to come from profits they would otherwise have made. Ergo, shitloads less money to line the pockets of CEO's and shareholders.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The restrictions are there. There is a monopoly on the licensing of physicians. It's a government sanctioned monopoly, too. Is Medicare a buyer's market? Medicare has Government negotiating the reimbursements for services. They are lower than private insurance reimbursements. Lowering them will have more of a negative effect than anything, as physicians would either reduce the number of Medicare patients they see, reduce the amount of time they spend with Medicare patients, or stop seeing Medicare patients altogether. The costs of providing care are high enough that reducing Medicare reimbursements is not a popular stance. Even politicians aren't in support of it, as proven by the continuing passage of "Doc Fix" bills (which are passed to prevent legislated reductions in reimbursements enacted during Clinton's Presidency).
quote:
There are some restrictions, yes.
But the whole system is based on profiteering, not providing a decent, affordable service.
You say there is a government monopoly on the licensing of physicians.
I don't see that anywhere - not even in the US.
No, I said there was a government sanctioned monopoly (the AMA).
quote:
Someone does the study, passes the exam, they can apply for a license in whatever field they passed in.
Where do they get that license? Here, it's the AMA.
quote:
When they have that license, they join a practice or setup shop themselves and charge what the fuck they like.
Where is the monopoly restriction? All I see is profit and greed.
In a state-funded system, you are paid a salary negotiated between the unions and the government body. You can't charge any more for treating existing pre-conditions or for someone coming twice a week for months on end and the prescription charges are the same regardless of the cost of the medication that is prescribed.
Are you saying that a healthy individual presents the same income for a practice as a chronically ill individual?
Yes!! That's precisely what I'm saying.
In a single-payer system, the physicians and staff are paid a set salary for the hours they work, not per patient visit.
So it doesn't matter to them if they do nothing all day or get flooded with patients all day - they are paid the same salary.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
Profit doesn't come into it - and there's the essential difference.
Private companies need to advertise against their rivals and they need to make a profit or they go bust. This is standard business practice - emphasis on making profits to re-invest (or line your CEO's nest egg).
State funded single payer systems don't nned to advertise (hence no advertising costs) and the emphasis is on providing the service, not making a profit. If you don't make a profit and more funds are needed, you just re-route taxes from another budget into the one that needs more funding.
That's the difference between the two systems.
Private systems are in it for profit and *that* is their main goal.
Single-payer systems are in it for basic salaries and providing the service they are contracted to provide by the state.
ETA: quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Charity care, that is, providing care for someone that can't afford to pay for it, is a great thing.
In single-payer systems, it is paid for in taxes and covers all those that cannot afford it.
Ergo, it isn't charity per se at all.
Under private systems, those people either suffer or die as a consequence of getting ill.
|
|
|
|
