Rising Cyber Attacks Costing Health System $6 Billion Annually
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Here is a simple test....
Of people who have lived and dealt with healthcare in the US as well as in a leading healthcare nation (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Japan, etc.) how many would prefer to deal with healthcare in which?
I've never met anyone who had done both and preferred the US. No one. Lots of people who dislike or like wherever they are and lack comparative. But of people who have done both, it's been ubiquitous, in my experience, that they prefer the same ones that are ranked highly by the UN / WHO and the ones that cost the least to provide.
Who wouldn't opt for the no paper work/no money out of pocket solution?
Now narrow your scope and ask those same people who had cancer - or some other major malady (non transplant), and see what you get?
Though I'm sure you wouldn't be able to find those patients... because those who have had cancer/etc and dealt with both systems probably don't exist in large enough numbers to give you a good result.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Here is a simple test....
Of people who have lived and dealt with healthcare in the US as well as in a leading healthcare nation (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Japan, etc.) how many would prefer to deal with healthcare in which?
I've never met anyone who had done both and preferred the US. No one. Lots of people who dislike or like wherever they are and lack comparative. But of people who have done both, it's been ubiquitous, in my experience, that they prefer the same ones that are ranked highly by the UN / WHO and the ones that cost the least to provide.
Who wouldn't opt for the no paper work/no money out of pocket solution?
I wouldn't because then people just start being lazy and not working because they can get care either way. Much like our welfare system.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Here is a simple test....
Of people who have lived and dealt with healthcare in the US as well as in a leading healthcare nation (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Japan, etc.) how many would prefer to deal with healthcare in which?
I've never met anyone who had done both and preferred the US. No one. Lots of people who dislike or like wherever they are and lack comparative. But of people who have done both, it's been ubiquitous, in my experience, that they prefer the same ones that are ranked highly by the UN / WHO and the ones that cost the least to provide.
Who wouldn't opt for the no paper work/no money out of pocket solution?
I wouldn't because then people just start being lazy and not working because they can get care either way. Much like our welfare system.
This is a problem that the UK suffers even worse than the US does!
-
@Dashrender said:
I understand everything you're saying Scott - the problem I have with it is, who's going to pay for it all?
It's completely likely that hugh percentages of people will use more medical care dollars than then even earn in their lifetimes. and if not more.. damn close to the same... when you look over the entirety of their lives.
The government does...
The US has the highest health spending in the world - equivalent to 17.9% of its gross domestic product (GDP), or $8,362 per person. And it's not all private - government spending is at $4,437 per person
~50% of all medical expenses were paid for by the government prior to 2012.
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
I understand everything you're saying Scott - the problem I have with it is, who's going to pay for it all?
It's completely likely that hugh percentages of people will use more medical care dollars than then even earn in their lifetimes. and if not more.. damn close to the same... when you look over the entirety of their lives.
The government does...
The government doesn't pay for anything.. Citizen's do through taxes.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
I wouldn't because then people just start being lazy and not working because they can get care either way. Much like our welfare system.
That's the American view generally - I'd rather get less as long as other people who don't deserve it as much as I do also get less. Idealism. I agree, there is a lot of value to being "fair."
The problem is, you lose. That's where European style realism is nice. Sure, it's not fair that the guy over there is lazy. But stop worrying about punishing him, focus on the fact that your life just improved.
Americans are very, very willing to hurt themselves as long as they can hurt someone that they feel deserves being hurt, more.
-
@Dashrender said:
This is a problem that the UK suffers even worse than the US does!
The UK, yes, they have always had those issues. We inherited a lot from them in that regard.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
The government doesn't pay for anything.. Citizen's do through taxes.
Or "tax like" fees like health insurance.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
I understand everything you're saying Scott - the problem I have with it is, who's going to pay for it all?
It's completely likely that hugh percentages of people will use more medical care dollars than then even earn in their lifetimes. and if not more.. damn close to the same... when you look over the entirety of their lives.
The government does...
The government doesn't pay for anything.. Citizen's do through taxes.
Agreed, I thought that was universally understood.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
I wouldn't because then people just start being lazy and not working because they can get care either way. Much like our welfare system.
That's the American view generally - I'd rather get less as long as other people who don't deserve it as much as I do also get less. Idealism. I agree, there is a lot of value to being "fair."
The problem is, you lose. That's where European style realism is nice. Sure, it's not fair that the guy over there is lazy. But stop worrying about punishing him, focus on the fact that your life just improved.
Americans are very, very willing to hurt themselves as long as they can hurt someone that they feel deserves being hurt, more.
It's not pushing them. Once you take way the advantage to working. then less will. And therefore there is less money to support the "system" which will get worse and worse over time.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
I wouldn't because then people just start being lazy and not working because they can get care either way. Much like our welfare system.
That's the American view generally - I'd rather get less as long as other people who don't deserve it as much as I do also get less. Idealism. I agree, there is a lot of value to being "fair."
The problem is, you lose. That's where European style realism is nice. Sure, it's not fair that the guy over there is lazy. But stop worrying about punishing him, focus on the fact that your life just improved.
Americans are very, very willing to hurt themselves as long as they can hurt someone that they feel deserves being hurt, more.
It's not pushing them. Once you take way the advantage to working. then less will. And therefore there is less money to support the "system" which will get worse and worse over time.
Yes, I know the theory, and leading economists sometimes dispute it to through very complex arguments that are quite interesting. I hate the idea of paying lazy people not to work, but I love that it is believed that in the long run it earns me more money.
And having a MIL that works in welfare and specifically to get the lowest income people working and has managed (not alone, obviously) to not just put thousands of people into the workforce but has turned an entire city (small one) around through the use of the welfare program really shows how good it can be.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Here is a simple test....
Of people who have lived and dealt with healthcare in the US as well as in a leading healthcare nation (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Japan, etc.) how many would prefer to deal with healthcare in which?
I've never met anyone who had done both and preferred the US. No one. Lots of people who dislike or like wherever they are and lack comparative. But of people who have done both, it's been ubiquitous, in my experience, that they prefer the same ones that are ranked highly by the UN / WHO and the ones that cost the least to provide.
I will take Japan's system over ours any day of the week.
In fact, I do every year when I send my wife and kids to Japan.
As a citizen, you pay your monthly tax bill, you have health insurance. Done. For us this is a certain minimum amount (that I do not recall) as we have no Japanese income. I pay for two months of it every year.
For services, you pay 30% out of pocket. AFLAC does solid business in Japan selling services to cover that 30% for you.
Side Note: I have been buying my own health insurance in the US since 2010. Back then I paid ~$650/month (with no maternity that would have been an additional $100). It went down to about $550/month after my children were all older than 2. Now I pay $830/month for a plan not as good as what I had.
Side Note 2: I was not allowed to keep my plan because of course it had pre-existing condition clauses and no maternity care. Thus it was not ACA compliant.
-
When I lived in Texas we were forced (literally, no choice, we asked) to pay over $3,000 a month for health insurance that covered almost nothing. $3K/mo is a lot as a "tax" that doesn't get reported as tax. And then to have to pay out of pocket for every little thing on top of that.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
When I lived in Texas we were forced (literally, no choice, we asked) to pay over $3,000 a month for health insurance that covered almost nothing. $3K/mo is a lot as a "tax" that doesn't get reported as tax. And then to have to pay out of pocket for every little thing on top of that.
WHAT!? That's daylight robbery!
-
@nadnerB said:
@scottalanmiller said:
When I lived in Texas we were forced (literally, no choice, we asked) to pay over $3,000 a month for health insurance that covered almost nothing. $3K/mo is a lot as a "tax" that doesn't get reported as tax. And then to have to pay out of pocket for every little thing on top of that.
WHAT!? That's daylight robbery!
Welcome to America. This is the degree to which the "tax" system is misleading. This is double the minimum wage total income and yet the US allows companies to make it a mandatory fee that it is actually illegal not to pay! For many people, this could be higher than their total income and for nearly anyone it is completely crippling.
This is why the US tax numbers are so misleading. The hidden things that are taxes but not collected like a tax can be larger than the actual tax!!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@nadnerB said:
@scottalanmiller said:
When I lived in Texas we were forced (literally, no choice, we asked) to pay over $3,000 a month for health insurance that covered almost nothing. $3K/mo is a lot as a "tax" that doesn't get reported as tax. And then to have to pay out of pocket for every little thing on top of that.
WHAT!? That's daylight robbery!
Welcome to America. This is the degree to which the "tax" system is misleading. This is double the minimum wage total income and yet the US allows companies to make it a mandatory fee that it is actually illegal not to pay! For many people, this could be higher than their total income and for nearly anyone it is completely crippling.
This is why the US tax numbers are so misleading. The hidden things that are taxes but not collected like a tax can be larger than the actual tax!!
Well, I hate to break it to you all but I'm not going to be moving the US. I think I'm on a pretty good wicket here.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
When I lived in Texas we were forced (literally, no choice, we asked) to pay over $3,000 a month for health insurance that covered almost nothing. $3K/mo is a lot as a "tax" that doesn't get reported as tax. And then to have to pay out of pocket for every little thing on top of that.
You're company forced you to pay this?
-
@Dashrender said:
You're company forced you to pay this?
No, the company got the government to force it. Remember that healthcare insurance is mandatory in the US now. So using a combination of that law, laws that allow employers to only offer a single plan, laws that allow employers to mark up a plan to an absurd degree, a state that only offers state health plans to people not offered other plans, etc. you end up with a combination of the company and the state and the federal government mandating only one single option and no option not to take it. So it was not as simple as "the company made me do it", but the company could have made it not happen.
-
That's part of the problem with the US health insurance laws, each law on its own is only so bad. It is the lack of comprehensive protection that is the problem. Everyone is forced to get insurance, but no law forces insurance to be offered to you. Laws that protect people with no health care don't cover people with onerous health care. There is no law that makes sure that you can afford to do what is required.
-
You could not buy it, and then buy your own plan from a ACA provider, could you not? Or are you saying that the state basically removed any insurance providers ability to provide a less expensive plan?
