a creative pejorative phrase ("harassing unlicensed practitioners") to describe the vital function of exposing quackery, and preventing illness and death resulting from quackery.
How dare we not respect the great masses who know less than the folks who have been trained and passed examinations proving their knowledge base is sufficient. That latter group are the ELITES and are to be shunned!
(At least according to my Fox-watching bro-in-law. He has strict policies about hiring only the best subcontractors, but rails against the "elites" who think they know more than anyone else because of their training. Wha?)
Interesting. Leave it to a libertarian historian to come up with a creative pejorative phrase ("harassing unlicensed practitioners") to describe the vital function of exposing quackery, and preventing illness and death resulting from quackery.
Not sure what this has to do with your question of what explains much higher per capita medical costs in the US vs. other civilized countries. We should probably continue discussion in a relevant thread.
There have been a lot of smart people who have looked into the issue of what drives health care costs. There's not going to be a single clear, easy answer to the question (like "it's due entirely to excessive regulation" or "it's because it's no longer privatized!") that all experts agree on. Various factors seem to be in play, and it's a dynamic situation when you take the long view over the decades.
I would suggest looking beyond short, snappy video presentations and dig into boring white papers and other detailed, lengthy written sources. Wikipedia, IIRC, has links to several studies HERE and HERE for starters. Probably lots of dusty old books in the library on the topic, too.
i'd say look over in one of the health insurance/coverage threads
i've posted some stuff about the history of the medical profession in the usa
friendly societies, flexner report, ronald hamomy's work, etc.
one of the observations was that people had organized into voluntary fraternal organizations or friendly societies and had doctors bid for their business
they also had life, disability, old age coverage etc.
for health coverage i believe that the annual premium was two to five days pay for most people
so what happened? why did the premiums increase so much?
Cura te ipsum.
There have been a lot of smart people who have looked into the issue of what drives health care costs. There's not going to be a single clear, easy answer to the question (like "it's due entirely to excessive regulation" or "it's because it's no longer privatized!") that all experts agree on. Various factors seem to be in play, and it's a dynamic situation when you take the long view over the decades.
I would suggest looking beyond short, snappy video presentations and dig into boring white papers and other detailed, lengthy written sources. Wikipedia, IIRC, has links to several studies HERE and HERE for starters. Probably lots of dusty old books in the library on the topic, too.
Just like we're mandated to get car insurance, it's OK to mandate health insurance. The whole point behind insurance (besides the coverage) is the shared pool. We all pay in, including the people that aren't sick, and that helps keep costs down for the ill.
I'm a great driver, but still pay into the kitty. It's there if I need it, and I hope I don't. But that's what insurance is: prepaying for something so you're covered later. I suppose an alternate perspective is: don't buy insurance but you also don't get to draw from the health care resources that others are paying into (Medicare, etc) when you need it - and you might end up destitute or dead because you are denied coverage.
We could even step back a bit further and say that there are too many people on the planet. Lack of health insurance coverage might get a few of them off it, leaving more resources for the ones that can pay. Maybe universal health care is a mistake...
i'd say look over in one of the health insurance/coverage threads
i've posted some stuff about the history of the medical profession in the usa
friendly societies, flexner report, ronald hamomy's work, etc.
one of the observations was that people had organized into voluntary fraternal organizations or friendly societies and had doctors bid for their business
they also had life, disability, old age coverage etc.
for health coverage i believe that the annual premium was two to five days pay for most people
so what happened? why did the premiums increase so much?
you can read up if you'd like
here's a short vid that from an older essay ( a bit dramatic but you'll get the point)
*Thread jack warning* I think there are other states which have similar DMV/License laws to NC's. Apparently, years ago there were a lot of problems with an abundance of uninsured drivers (even though the state requires all active drivers to have insurance) and that was some sort of blanket solution - or at least that's what I've been told by people who have lived here longer than I have.
Not a thread jack! And this was such a substantive, fact-filled thread!
I sure hope NC gets its act together. And we all vote the Big Orange Klown out of office.
People want it both ways: they don't want to pay for insurance when they are healthy, but IF they get sick or injured, they demand health care. It's classic cognitive dissonance.
Right: if we want to be assured that we're cared for at the ED, isn't that just universal health care implemented in an expensive and improper way? We drive uninsured sore throats to the ED rather than set up a system where they can get minimal or preventative care on the cheap.
The big picture is simple: universal health care (like the rest of the civilized world) is cheaper in aggregate, keeps the population more well so they can participate in the workforce or raise children or grow up un-handicapped, and is a fundamental purpose of a benevolent government. Refusing to provide it is simply chaotic murder.
That situation in NC smells of some backroom sweetheart deal for the insurance industry. It's a chicken-and-egg conundrum that someone's profiting from. Has that law/s been in place for long? My parents lived in NC for 20 years or so but left when the state government lurched heavily to the right and all sorts of crazy laws started getting passed. Great place, great people but it's not the most progressive or efficient state government, even before the Republicans took over and went nuts.
*Thread jack warning* I think there are other states which have similar DMV/License laws to NC's. Apparently, years ago there were a lot of problems with an abundance of uninsured drivers (even though the state requires all active drivers to have insurance) and that was some sort of blanket solution - or at least that's what I've been told by people who have lived here longer than I have.
Where did/does your friend live? I imagine his state/jurisdiction has an arrangement for those who want a driver's license but no car and no auto insurance. Personal insurance that covers driving situations, for instance. That's what people use to rent cars. Not that hard.
That varies by state. In NC you cannot be issued a new driver's license unless you have proof of liability car insurance, which generally entails owning a car as well. NY State required having a license before being able to get insurance or a vehicle. I have known people in NC who went and got car insurance, then got license, and then went back to the insurance office to cancel the policy. There may be other ways around it, but those are their rules stated on their DMV site.
That situation in NC smells of some backroom sweetheart deal for the insurance industry. It's a chicken-and-egg conundrum that someone's profiting from.
Has that law/s been in place for long? My parents lived in NC for 20 years or so but left when the state government lurched heavily to the right and all sorts of crazy laws started getting passed. Great place, great people but it's not the most progressive or efficient state government, even before the Republicans took over and went nuts.
Where did/does your friend live? I imagine his state/jurisdiction has an arrangement for those who want a driver's license but no car and no auto insurance. Personal insurance that covers driving situations, for instance. That's what people use to rent cars. Not that hard.
That varies by state. In NC you cannot be issued a new driver's license unless you have proof of liability car insurance, which generally entails owning a car as well. NY State required having a license before being able to get insurance or a vehicle. I have known people in NC who went and got car insurance, then got their license, and then went back to the insurance office to cancel the policy. There may be other ways around it, but those are their rules stated on their DMV site.
That's the real difference between car and health insurance. Lots of people don't have cars, but EVERYBODY has health (or lack thereof).
I had a friend who didn't own a car, but wanted to get a driver's license. They wouldn't do it, because he didn't have proof of insurance! Oops.
Universal health care has its share of problems. But its problems are nothing compared to the mess we have now.
There will always be a two-tier system: the wealthy can purchase whatever health care they want.
Where did/does your friend live? I imagine his state/jurisdiction has an arrangement for those who want a driver's license but have no car and no auto insurance. Personal insurance that covers driving situations, for instance. That's what people use to rent cars. Not that hard.
"Universal health care has its share of problems. But its problems are nothing compared to the mess we have now."
That mess is going to get worse when the Republicans seek to make significant cuts to Medicaid and Medicare in order to pay for their tax cut for the uber-rich. The GOP has show its true loyalties, but they're going to try and dismantle more of the social welfare net we have now. "There will always be a two-tier system: the wealthy can purchase whatever health care they want."
Private insurance exists as a supplement to nationally mandated policies in heavily regulated countries like Germany, the UK, etc.
there is evidence the industry is starting to move the needle in the right direction. Pay for performance, improving management of data, increasing use of Rx to control health issues, growth of lower cost clinics, vertical integration.Â
Â
Yep, that is what we should be concentrating on; when we get the cost reasonable then ultimately a solution can be found.
should be part of our taxes like the rest of the world. Shouldn't depend on how sick or healthy one is. It's a fact of life, we all need health coverage! Oh and car insurance too :)
That's the real difference between car and health insurance. Lots of people don't have cars, but EVERYBODY has health (or lack thereof).
I had a friend who didn't own a car, but wanted to get a driver's license. They wouldn't do it, because he didn't have proof of insurance! Oops.
Universal health care has its share of problems. But its problems are nothing compared to the mess we have now.
There will always be a two-tier system: the wealthy can purchase whatever health care they want.
It is not possible given current health cost and seeing how this will never be addressed, I stand by not possible or perhaps not possible under our current construct. Simply having universal health care certainly does not address this. And btw there is no greatest country in the world, this is a myth however even with our horrible health care system I can think of no where else I would rather live certainly not France who most agree has the most equitable healthcare system.
there is evidence the industry is starting to move the needle in the right direction. Pay for performance, improving management of data, increasing use of Rx to control health issues, growth of lower cost clinics, vertical integration.
I piss people off on Facebook by saying "If we keep saying it's not possible, then we need to stop telling ourselves we live in the Greatest Country in the World."Â
Because the greatest country in the world should be able to solve this.
Â
It is not possible given current health cost and seeing how this will never be addressed, I stand by not possible or perhaps not possible under our current construct. Simply having universal health care certainly does not address this. And btw there is no greatest country in the world, this is a myth however even with our horrible health care system I can think of no where else I would rather live certainly not France who most agree has the most equitable healthcare system.
I piss people off on Facebook by saying "If we keep saying it's not possible, then we need to stop telling ourselves we live in the Greatest Country in the World."
Because the greatest country in the world should be able to solve this.
should be part of our taxes like the rest of the world. Shouldn't depend on how sick or healthy one is. It's a fact of life, we all need health coverage! Oh and car insurance too :)
Ultimately I agree, it is the only equitable way to distribute the cost however unfortunately the quality of health care will undoubtedly suffer and the tax increase will be a bit shocking for the healthy so there is that tradeoff. And although from a moral perspective it should not depend on how sick or healthy one is, as long as healthcare is a charged service it most certainly does, there is no escaping that. The only true answer is to live as healthy of a lifestyle as possible and pray to whoever or whatever you pray to that you do not have a major health crisis. Anyone who thinks we can have equal quality healthcare for all is just simply wrong, it is not possible without full employment across the board and a major overhaul of health care cost.
there could be tremendous savings and improvements in care if we had more vertical integration in healthcare (see the CVS/Aetna merger). HMOs have historically had a bad name, but they are improving. Costs are costs...you pay it one way or another...either through premiums, lower wages, or taxes. I like the idea of a hybrid/type voucher system, where the gov funds the current amount we pay on healthcare, something like 14% of gdp, and the consumer then uses those funds to acquire the plan of choice, coupled with an HMO provider system.
should be part of our taxes like the rest of the world. Shouldn't depend on how sick or healthy one is. It's a fact of life, we all need health coverage! Oh and car insurance too :)
Ultimately I agree, it is the only equitable way to distribute the cost however unfortunately the quality of health care will undoubtedly suffer and the tax increase will be a bit shocking for the healthy so there is that tradeoff. And although from a moral perspective it should not depend on how sick or healthy one is, as long as healthcare is a charged service it most certainly does, there is no escaping that. The only true answer is to live as healthy of a lifestyle as possible and pray to whoever or whatever you pray to that you do not have a major health crisis. Anyone who thinks we can have equal quality healthcare for all is just simply wrong, it is not possible without full employment across the board and a major overhaul of health care cost.
Because the greatest country in the world should be able to solve this.