The Ever Rising Health Care Cost, has to be Cut off Now.

To a small extent some of these limits have been successfully imposed in Oregon.  At some point if someone really wants care that society has deemed not covered they can always pay for the proceeedure themselves.

We spent about $100,000 to keep dying men and women alive in the '70s and into the '80s. Now the pricetag is even higher, all to add three months onto their lives.

We could cut that but, but, but....!

And, we could give discounts, heavy discounts to people who really take care of themselves vs the ones who don't.

That preventive care is the only way out of this and yet it is seen as "discriminatory".

You must pay for your own vices and that is that.

An operation if one was paying full cost in Canada is wayyyyyyyyyyy............. cheaper than what it costs in the USA where health care is privatized. I remember years ago, Ford Inc, came to my small hospital to study why health care costs were way cheaper in Canada than the USA. I remember years ago calculating what a broken leg would cost. I figured if I paid for the full cost here in Canada, it would have come close to the same price as Americans pay AFTER their health insurance covers the rest. That is a big difference!

So don't tell me that public health care is more expensive. I totally disagree! And don't include Canada in this post, when the US is much more expensive.

I agree health care is expensive but in a private hospital system  it is way more expensive!! I do know that if our health care  is becoming more expensive it is because privatization is trying to sneak in. Privatization with its greed is set up to make money on other people suffering.

 Doctors here have a set price for the work they do, and in the US they charge phenmomenally more!! Yes the nurses do get paid well, it is more like $60,000CA/year for an experienced nurse. The problem is not sot is much that they are getting paid a lot, as much as they are getting paid OVERTIME. The conditions in which they work is the problem, and that is why there is a shortage and why they get overtime wages up to $70/hour. Travel nurses in Canada now get paid $50/hour base pay, and $75 overtime. Hospitals who can't fill there needs turn to travel companies, that are very busy.

Why is there a shortage?  In NS the unions are corrupt and management are the union reps. Also now to get your license they ask for a reference from your employer. So management totally dictates what a Professional Nurse must do, and we cannot speak out against them. It is also overregulated with too many chiefs at the top end trying to justify their jobs. Even changing our program to a degree program  (now how does that solve the problem of shortage of nurses and therefore increasing health cost). <see http://my.nowpublic.com/health/registered-nursing-shortages-continue-non-rns-hired-fill>

I could go on about it, as there is much more. But the bottom line is that wages are high because of the shortage.

Also I get so irrate that people who are going to these conferences to figure out solutions such as yours, are from the world of academia, which in itself is a problem. The real workers who know the real problems and the real solutions are stifled. How many real nurses attended this Think Tank Conference of yours?? Or did they all have a gazillion letters behind their name which don't mean squat to the real problem.

I see the problem and solutions very clearly, and it ain't gonna change until it all falls apart or the trenchworkers are allowed to speak.

As far as Europe goes, I cannot comment, but I know that people all over the world usually have the same problem, just in different colors.

As far as meds go, just a while ago the non-Socialist Americans were buying their meds from Canada because it was cheaper.

I think that it should be cut off and capped but companies are making too much money from it - that's the problem. It's so sad to think about all the people that can't afford health care.

" The most realistic coast savings would be achieved with deeply ethical and moral changes, such as no longer keeping coma patients on live support for longer then a month. Alternatively, letting severely handicapped and premature new-born babies dye rather then put them through life support, surgery and highly questionable interventions. Each premature new-born not receiving such intervention would save around $700,000.00."
well that's just plain wrong, you put savings on costs above the meaning of life. Last year a coma patient woke after nearly 20 years. One month is a very short time for a coma patient.all children born are born equal and should receive whatever treatment they need.

your view of health care is very simplistic and full of holes, I could spend all day on it but I'll just give two examples:-

I start work at 20-years and remain in work until I reach 70-years. In those 50 years I have paid my contribution to health care, but I was healthy and during that time I never required any health care. At 70-years I require a major operation but in your view I should not be entitled.

I have a dear friend who was born six months premature and required hospital treatment for the first year of her life. Her first year was spent in hospital but since then she hasn't required any health care. She is now almost 60-years and I think she'll live for quite some more, but according to you she would never have made it pass the first month?

Thanks for an interesting post and comment thread, Paschen!

An important post.  Glad you did it, Paschen.  ALTHOUGH I CAN'T AGREE ABOUT THE OVER 70S not getting surgery.  I have a friend who is a child specialist surgeon and he thinks the time/energy we spend trying to save children whose quality of life will be poor is not a good use of scarce resources.  In the UK, we have NICE (Nat Inst if comparative efficiency?) to decide which drugs to permit and which are too expensive.  Its a move in the right direction.  One you you omit is RESPONSIBILITY for personal health.  Ive just had breakfast with two westerners who are my age but seriously overweight.  Yet they kind of avoid the issue completely.  My local hospital in London gets crowded every weekend with traffic crash victims that are the result of drink.  We campaign about thjis in the UK and the figures ARE improving, but is the state responsible for people's irresponsible behaviour?  Difficult!

Hi guys I couldn't read all the posts but I have a solution to the USA, try to get this around--Obama says he wants all interested parties to suggest solutions--to here goes:

Right now, the US is in the middle of a worsening healthcare crisis, (and it is sure to get even worse if we change from ICD-9 to ICD10) and the government program for the elderly and disabled (Medicare) is functioning but costs too much (labor/administration+)  The managed care plans have mostly failed, and it costs them more to cover patients than Medicare.

Since the 'private' health insurance industry would cry foul at the mere mention of a decrease in funding, we cannot cut them off completely.  But if every person in the US came under Medicare, we would save lots of money.  And since Medicare does not pay 100%, the 'private' carriers would be able to work the market for the plans which would pay the part of the bill that medicare did not pay!

This could be combined with a tax deduction/credit for medical expenses that ended up being paid out-of-pocket!

lets here it for saving the American Healthcare system!

Jamesm

I don't know a great deal about the US system (except that the insurers seem to profit) but JamesMMM suggestion sounds sensible.  But I think people who pay for insurance to ensure they get premium treatment (whatever that is) would be angry about it.

I cannot imagine a national healthcare system being fair to low and middle income people.  It will probably soon be filled with term limitations that only apply to those with limited revenue, because people with substantial means don't have to worry about restrictions on healthcare expenses.  I envision lots of dead and dying people with remedies available but out of their reach.  That is certainly not the intention of the people putting forth this plan, but I believe it would be the eventual outcome.