In article ,
rwwff wrote:
>Why is this in rec.bicycles.misc??
Because you didn't remove it from the 'Newsgroups' line?
>If you restrict the amount of money going into national health care, you
>have to restrict the expenses faced by doctors, hospitals, and medical
>supply makers. Can you cut pay to nurses, orderlies, secretaries, techs,
>etc?
30% of our precious health care dollars pay for worse-than-useless
bureucrats. This is a massively inefficient part of our economy, let those
parasites do something productive with their lives instead. All of the money
America saves can be steered towards much more productive parts of the economy
creating a net increase in jobs. (even before you factor in reduced labor costs
throughout the economy). A lot of the rest of the money goes to insurance
industry profits which is also a useless waste of money. Some high-end doctors
may not be able to afford a 2nd BMW. Then again, doctors who choose not to
participate in the government insurance plan could still work for private plans
like Canada's supplemental health care plans.
>Nope, those folks are in the core democratic wage class. Can you
>cut availability of MRI's, tests, etc? No, patients will go
>beserk.
None of that would be cut. The Canadians and Australians have not gone
"beserk" so that's just nonsense. They say they would never trade their system
for the American system. And Canadians typically can choose almost any
provider they want, while most Americans are restricted by our crummy HMOs and
PPOs. BTW Canadians can also purchase supplemental health care plans if
they want an extra level of service.
>Can you cut their real estate rents and utility bills? Not
>really. Can you cut their insurance costs.. hmmmm... maybe. But
>wait, guess who is the recipients of that largess?? Trial lawyers,
Bureaucrats. Other countries pay about 1/2 of what Americans pay for health
care and for two main reasons. The first reason is that the American system
pays for _way_ more bureaucrats the the rest of the world. Instead of a single
payer system we have we have to pay for enough bureaucrats to maintian 4
government systems (medicare, veterens, federal workers, military) and
bureaucrats for dozens of little shitty private companies to look for ways to
avoid paying you. The US system is to wasteful that we pay more _public_ money
on health care than some countries pay to cover their entire populations. The
2nd reason the US pays twice what other countries pay is that their single
payer systems have increased bargaining clout with suppliers and providers.
>a(the?) core democrat supplier of campaign funds. So democrats ended up
>having to choose between embracing single payer with US style costs, and
>the tax increases that would be required to pay those costs, or screwing
>their trial lawyer supporters by capping payouts from insurance pools for
>malpractice and other liabilities in order to achieve acceptable expense
>levels that wouldn't result in a tax payer revolt.
This accounts for less than 1% of the spending difference. The US spends
about TWICE as much as other countries.
>> it is only
>> a matter of time before the US catches up to the rest of the
>> industrialized world.
>
>The day our lawyers will agree to accept the same degree of payout as our
>Northern and European competitors, maybe. Until then? Can't happen.
_Every_ other First World country has a universal health care system. That
goes for Europe, Asia, Australia, and North America. Our shitty system is a
huge competitive disadvantage because it inflates labor costs for all American
goods and services. Because the American system keeps getting worse and worse
every single year reform is a certaintly, the only question is when.
|
