quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: susie
An obvious way to reduce costs is through buying power. The costs of providing a product will be higher if it is purchased by say 5,000 different customers than if the same amount of product is supplied to one customer. Admin costs etc are reduced so the supplier can reduce the cost to the single purchaser.
This is how in the UK the NHS is able to obtain items at lower rates than the private sector is able to obtain. Multiply that by all the products used and of course the cost of running a national organisation will be lower than running an individual operation.

Did switching over to the NHS allow the UK to enjoy lower costs? Every graph I've seen shows that's not the case. If the UK didn't see cost reductions, then what makes anyone think the US will?

What graphs are you comparing desi??
Costs will always rise according to the markets.
Is that wht you are saying?
It is always rising so therefore never a drop in costs?
The costs of the medicine were on a par with everyoine else.
The US went the private route.
The UK, Canada, Auz, NZ etc went the single-payer route.
Yes, all the cost are rising.
We are all supplied by the same small number of companies for the drugs, the buildings, the R&D.
Now compare the costs of the single payer system to those in the US.
Same input all round. Ergo, identical starting point.
US costs are several orders of magnitude greater than any single-payer system.
Yes, it shifts expense from the personal to the government purse.
End cost to the overall 'thing' (whatever you are measuring), by power of monopoly and number, single-payer systems pay far less for the identical 'thing' than the US does.
That's about as much proof as you can get.
Same input from the same companies, reduced cost at the target.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Now, here is where we agree. We all started out at roughly the same %GDP location decades ago. Then, US costs started spiraling up, up, up. Some have intoned that costs started rising with the advent of health care being made into a perk. Costs weren't railed against back then, but once business decided to use it as a perk - which is how they got around the wage caps government instituted - and government started doling out the tax preferences towards it, costs really started to go up.

But, if costs aren't going to decrease, the US will continued to spend 9+%GDP more than anyone else, with costs just shifting to the taxpayers. What's the point of that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


Did switching over to the NHS allow the UK to enjoy lower costs? Every graph I've seen shows that's not the case. If the UK didn't see cost reductions, then what makes anyone think the US will?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, you do understand, do you not, that whatever government pays, is coming from the taxpayers, who likely include the consumer, right?

I understand all too well that the taxpayers pay, here is what you cant or wont grasp. We dont give a fuck, at least the majority dont, because everybody benefits INCLUDING those who cant pay.
Your point about US costs being too high is correct, although costs differ wildly between hospitals. Those of you who support your system, and less government intervention (IE Cost regulation or a proper NHS) have no room to complain. You have got your wish, warts and all.

Horseshit. If you don't give a fuck, then what's got you worked up here?

If the cost of medical care is lower, there will be fewer who can't pay, and those who can't pay will still benefit. Charity will have a bigger impact if medical care costs are lower, too, won't it? Everyone will benefit with a lower cost of medical care, regardless of what payment methods are used.

You can't grasp that my point wasn't in support of any payment plan, but aimed solely at the costs. Would you have the right to complain that the cost of medical care was too high in the UK, if costs were the same as in the US, but you still had the NHS system? Of course you would. From all the graphs I've seen, it sure looks as if those with national health care systems have had lower rates of cost inflation. That's great. But, that's not going to solve the problem of high care costs in the US. If the only thing it's going to do is reduce cost inflation, we'll always be spending more than national systems anyway.

I have seen no proof, and no one has been able to show any, that costs in the US will drop if we adopt a national system. That your costs are lower isn't proof that ours will drop, as your costs are lower because you've had lower cost inflation since inception. If you have proof otherwise, post it, and I'll take it into account. This is not the first time I've asked P&R for this, either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
........... Mankind lived in abundance until the Sumerians invented money...6000 years ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Did switching over to the NHS allow the UK to enjoy lower costs? Every graph I've seen shows that's not the case. If the UK didn't see cost reductions, then what makes anyone think the US will?

Any chance of seeing such a graph then, not that I am being cynical. I call bullshit, since it is impossible to compare any cost regards the NHS with costs before.... IE, there was NO health service as such for the majority prior to the NHS, except for the unworkable insurance scheme introduced in 1911.
http://www.historyextra.com/feature/nhs-what-can-we-learn-history
What I can show you though, is a graph showing that between 1970 and 2006 US costs rose faster than anywhere else.
http://www.significancemagazine.org/details/webexclusive/876609/How-much-does-public-health-cost-in-the-US-and-the-UK.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Who said I was worked up, other than you ?
I clearly stated UK taxpayers dont give a fuck about paying tax to fund the NHS as it benefits everyone. If you wish to quote me, at least learn to read what I post.

quote:

As for the lower inflation costs, thats patent nonsense as the link in my previous post will show. Statisticians take all that into account.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Did switching over to the NHS allow the UK to enjoy lower costs? Every graph I've seen shows that's not the case. If the UK didn't see cost reductions, then what makes anyone think the US will?

Any chance of seeing such a graph then, not that I am being cynical. I call bullshit, since it is impossible to compare any cost regards the NHS with costs before.... IE, there was NO health service as such for the majority prior to the NHS, except for the unworkable insurance scheme introduced in 1911.
http://www.historyextra.com/feature/nhs-what-can-we-learn-history
What I can show you though, is a graph showing that between 1970 and 2006 US costs rose faster than anywhere else.
http://www.significancemagazine.org/details/webexclusive/876609/How-much-does-public-health-cost-in-the-US-and-the-UK.html

Was there medical care before the NHS? Was there no cost for that medical care? Sure, you can't compare costs of the NHS from before the NHS was created, but that's not the question. If you just want to look at government spend, the US Federal Government is already spending a higher %GDP than the UK, but not by too terribly much (roughly 2% more). Total health care expenditures are about 17% (Government + private expenditures). If costs won't be lowered from where they are, our Government expenditures will be 17% (roughly). Essentially, a cost shifting scheme, rather than a cost reduction.

Nowhere have I stated that costs aren't rising faster in the US than anywhere else. I have acknowledged that they are rising slower everywhere else. But, "reducing costs" is more than just reducing the rate of price inflation.

I am looking to see how we can actually reduce that 17% number, not how we can shift the numbers around from private spend to public spend.

quote:

ORIGINAL: susie

You clearly refuse to understand the logic of buying power reducing costs so I don't see much point in trying to explain it again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

http://www.viralnova.com/hospital-bill/

A 20 year-old man came down with appendicitis in October of this year. He posted the bill on Reddit and it has gone viral. The US Health Care system is a topic of much debate, not only in the US but around the world. A lot of countries get ‘free’ health care, so needless to say, this has stirred up a lot of conversation.

As if waking up in excruciating pain isn’t enough, this is the bill he received in the mail a couple months later. Take a look:

The original cost was over $55,000. Because the 20 year-old man was on his father’s insurance, the cost was lowered to $11,000.

There are pictures here as well, http://imgur.com/a/WIfeN
the reddit site
http://www.reddit.com/user/zcypher

Im so glad I dont need my kids on my insurance, or that they would have to pay a bill like that.
Think its going "viral" cos its aimed at young adults??
nah couldnt be....

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

...
Ach, mensch, meine nerven, too long away from Germany.  CRIPO, pronounced Creepo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: calamitysandra
I did some searching, and an appendectomy, including a 3 day hospital stay works out to something between 2000 and 3000 Euro in Germany.

If that appendectomy had been performed in the USA it would have been much cheaper, Sandra. This is because the free market always leads to greater competition and lower costs to the consumer. For the same reason, it would have been done much more efficiently. Finally, the patient would have woken up after the surgery feeling immensely grateful that his life had not been interfered with by a Stalinist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Was there medical care before the NHS? Was there no cost for that medical care? Sure, you can't compare costs of the NHS from before the NHS was created, but that's not the question. If you just want to look at government spend, the US Federal Government is already spending a higher %GDP than the UK, but not by too terribly much (roughly 2% more). Total health care expenditures are about 17% (Government + private expenditures). If costs won't be lowered from where they are, our Government expenditures will be 17% (roughly). Essentially, a cost shifting scheme, rather than a cost reduction.

Nowhere have I stated that costs aren't rising faster in the US than anywhere else. I have acknowledged that they are rising slower everywhere else. But, "reducing costs" is more than just reducing the rate of price inflation.

I am looking to see how we can actually reduce that 17% number, not how we can shift the numbers around from private spend to public spend.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Who said I was worked up, other than you ?
I clearly stated UK taxpayers dont give a fuck about paying tax to fund the NHS as it benefits everyone. If you wish to quote me, at least learn to read what I post.

Not clearly. It was my misinterpretation. I do apologize.

quote:

As for the lower inflation costs, thats patent nonsense as the link in my previous post will show. Statisticians take all that into account.

Patent nonsense?!? You have shown that your cost inflation is lower than that in the US. How is it patent nonsense, then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: susie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Did switching over to the NHS allow the UK to enjoy lower costs? Every graph I've seen shows that's not the case. If the UK didn't see cost reductions, then what makes anyone think the US will?

Any chance of seeing such a graph then, not that I am being cynical. I call bullshit, since it is impossible to compare any cost regards the NHS with costs before.... IE, there was NO health service as such for the majority prior to the NHS, except for the unworkable insurance scheme introduced in 1911.
http://www.historyextra.com/feature/nhs-what-can-we-learn-history
What I can show you though, is a graph showing that between 1970 and 2006 US costs rose faster than anywhere else.
http://www.significancemagazine.org/details/webexclusive/876609/How-much-does-public-health-cost-in-the-US-and-the-UK.html

Was there medical care before the NHS? Was there no cost for that medical care? Sure, you can't compare costs of the NHS from before the NHS was created, but that's not the question. If you just want to look at government spend, the US Federal Government is already spending a higher %GDP than the UK, but not by too terribly much (roughly 2% more). Total health care expenditures are about 17% (Government + private expenditures). If costs won't be lowered from where they are, our Government expenditures will be 17% (roughly). Essentially, a cost shifting scheme, rather than a cost reduction.
Nowhere have I stated that costs aren't rising faster in the US than anywhere else. I have acknowledged that they are rising slower everywhere else. But, "reducing costs" is more than just reducing the rate of price inflation.
I am looking to see how we can actually reduce that 17% number, not how we can shift the numbers around from private spend to public spend.

You clearly refuse to understand the logic of buying power reducing costs so I don't see much point in trying to explain it again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

As for the lower inflation costs, thats patent nonsense as the link in my previous post will show. Statisticians take all that into account.

Patent nonsense?!? You have shown that your cost inflation is lower than that in the US. How is it patent nonsense, then?

Lmao.....you would like to think all your extra cost is down to inflation and not down to maximising profit. Good luck with that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: susie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Did switching over to the NHS allow the UK to enjoy lower costs? Every graph I've seen shows that's not the case. If the UK didn't see cost reductions, then what makes anyone think the US will?

Any chance of seeing such a graph then, not that I am being cynical. I call bullshit, since it is impossible to compare any cost regards the NHS with costs before.... IE, there was NO health service as such for the majority prior to the NHS, except for the unworkable insurance scheme introduced in 1911.
http://www.historyextra.com/feature/nhs-what-can-we-learn-history
What I can show you though, is a graph showing that between 1970 and 2006 US costs rose faster than anywhere else.
http://www.significancemagazine.org/details/webexclusive/876609/How-much-does-public-health-cost-in-the-US-and-the-UK.html

Was there medical care before the NHS? Was there no cost for that medical care? Sure, you can't compare costs of the NHS from before the NHS was created, but that's not the question. If you just want to look at government spend, the US Federal Government is already spending a higher %GDP than the UK, but not by too terribly much (roughly 2% more). Total health care expenditures are about 17% (Government + private expenditures). If costs won't be lowered from where they are, our Government expenditures will be 17% (roughly). Essentially, a cost shifting scheme, rather than a cost reduction.
Nowhere have I stated that costs aren't rising faster in the US than anywhere else. I have acknowledged that they are rising slower everywhere else. But, "reducing costs" is more than just reducing the rate of price inflation.
I am looking to see how we can actually reduce that 17% number, not how we can shift the numbers around from private spend to public spend.

You clearly refuse to understand the logic of buying power reducing costs so I don't see much point in trying to explain it again.

Clearly refuse? Yeah, you have a clue who I am.

Enjoy ignoring anything else I post. I have a feeling it won't bug me.

Btw, doesn't the US Government have "buying power" when it comes to Medicare reimbursements? How's come those costs are still ridiculously high? What kind of leverage will the government have, anyway? How many knee replacements are they going to guarantee to "buy," in exchange for a lower cost? What about dialysis treatments? How many laser eye surgeries? How many impacted wisdom teeth are they going to guarantee will be pulled in exchange for a lower price?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Lmao right back! You know what medical cost inflation is? It's the rise in medical costs. If medical cost inflation (aka the rise in medical costs) isn't the cause of the rise of medical costs, then, what else can it be?

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
It's not a problem of mere number of operation, if an hospital could fill it's shedule and the beds only with medicare patients, than medicare would be in the position to negotiate a price, with a public offer race, the problem is patients would need to travel a lot to be cared in a medicare hospital if there are only a few in each state. A single payer would have buying power because he could control the whole market as it controls the whole demand, so only the hospitals offering the lowest prices to the national health insurance would still be in the market and the others will have ort to differentiate the product or be out of business.
There is also another cost that will be cut, the insurance profit that is actually a cost.
Anyway the point is not a mere cost reductions in terms of GDP% but it is a general quality of life issue, now in your sytem every individual is paying a share of the costs without a direct proportion to his/her income, with a national health care system everyone pays a share proportionate to the income, deciding that the state has not the duty to provide basic service like health care has the same effect of increasing the tax rate for the lowest till middle income classes, and if medical bills are one of the major bankruptcy causes in the usa than it means the system is really affecting the general quality of citizen's life.