ngle Single a searchi Singers gsearchrSeiko+Men%27s+SNKA07+Seiko+5 searchssearcha You c Single .searchS0ng
e Sexyundressedsingers searchouaS Singers e Singers yu Sexyundressedsingers d Single eas Singers d You i Single ger Singers Sexyundressedsingers Sexyundressedsingers esearchysearchnd Sexyundressedsingers e
sesearchs Singers n Sexyundressedsingers e Singers s You lnjzzhutesearch
Some or much of the increase in spending since the early 1980s is due to the introduction of many new drugs and technologies. The biotech industry came into being and with it many new but very expensive drugs. New but very expensive treatments such bone marrow transplants became more common. New immuno-suppressives were introduced that allowed for more successful transplants. Thus this greater spending in part reflects the fact that the U.S. does have the best in medical treatment in the world.
However access to much of this treatment is very dependent on one´s having the right form of health insurance and/or being very wealthy.
The same is true for education. The U.S. has some of the best educational institutions in the world. However the level and quality of the education available to any child is highly dependent on the wealth of the parents.
So what kind of society do Americans want? One where access to health care and education is a privilege that is dependent on wealth or one like many of the other countries in the above charts where access to health care and education are rights of citizenship?
— John C.Of course, one is entitled to spend one’s money as one wishes. But according to statistics, life expectancy is higher and infant mortality lower in, for example, Scandinavian countries than in the US. I would not bet that the Swedes or the Danes would be ready to spend more on health to have equal or inferior results…
— WeberUh, Milton? If it was just a matter of the U.S. choosing to voluntarily direct more funds to health care because the nation thought it was ever so important to do it realy, really excellently and in return for those extra hundreds of billions of dollars a year the American people are shelling out compared to everyone else they were getting their money’s worth in health care quality that went way above and beyond all those other cheapskate countries… then you would have a point.
However, NONE of that is actually true.
The U.S. doesn’t just spend more, it GETS less. It leaves tens of millions of people totally uncovered and tens of millions more inadequately covered when all those other nations tend to cover pretty much everyone for far less cost. In study after study the health outcomes produced by the system are on par with or in many cases even below most other industrialized nations… this is not a matter of the U.S. placing a higher priority on health care, it is a matter of the health care system in the United States being a dysfunctional money sucking disaster. Do you have any idea how much money we’re talking about in the difference between the 15%+ of GDP the U.S. spends and what it would be spending if it had a system that cost what even the average OECD nation’s does, which is somewhere less than 10%? About three quarters of a TRILLION dollars.
Every. Single. Year.
Are you somehow under the impression that U.S. citizens are getting their money’s worth for that extra spending? Because last time I checked, the U.S. health care system ranked somewhere in the neighborhood of Cuba’s on the world rankings.
— GrantQuestion–
I don’t pretend to be an expert in health care or economics, but my understanding is that the government — not the individual citizen — bears health care costs in many countries. All things being equal, a country that provides health care would have higher taxes than a country that doesn’t.
Would this chart reflect money that is taxed and then spent on health care as part of the costs of such a country?
If not, I would expect Canada, Denmark, etc to appear low on this chart.
Please clarify if I’m misunderstanding.
— ASDTo #7: The health care spending shown in these charts is the total private AND public spending in each nation. In other words, everything you pay in taxes for health care, PLUS everything you have to pay out of pocket.
So, yes… you were misunderstanding.
And FYI, it’s largely a myth that the U.S. citizens pay less taxes towards health care in their system They pay as much as many other nations with universal coverage… they just get back very little for their money, are thus left uncovered, and have to pile on out of pocket expenses on top of that to make up the difference.
In Canada for example, you pay your taxes and you’re mostly taken care of, you still have a few things you need to cover yourself like dental and optomology (many people get these through their employer)… but mostly you’re good. In the U.S. you pay your taxes and for most people that means squat, if they get sick they’re still screwed so they have to pile on the private insurance out of pocket.
— GrantThe economics of the system in America are really foolhardy. We say we don’t want socialism, but actually we already have a good deal of it. People age 65 and over are on Medicare, the federal government insurance program. Also, people of all ages at or below the poverty line are eligible for Medicaid. So, neither of those groups are covered by private health insurers. Also, health insurance companies by law do not have to take people with health conditions, except those inside employer groups. Note, however, that to be in an employer group a person needs to be working – and that alone probably means they aren’t TOO sick. So, what we’ve done is given the healthiest individuals to private health insurance companies, and then decided that government (i.e. taxpayers) will pick up the cost of insuring the poor and the old. Private companies SHOULD be covering those other people, but they are not, because taxpayers are doing it. Taxpayers are subsidizing the profits of the private health insurance industry through our “socialist” Medicare and Medicaid programs. Then, we leave those with a medical condition who are not yet 65 and not covered by an employer plan out in the cold…which is why we have so many bankruptcies. (Medical-related bankruptcies increased 2200% between 1981 and 2005.) It’s also why private health carriers are extremely profitable – they have the “cream of the crop” when it comes to people to insure, as government has already done the dirty work for them. It is a mess.
dYou Sexyundressedsingers Singers Single It 1 Sexy Undressed Singers U.S. Health Spending Breaks From the Pack - NYTimes.comg a Slave Sexy Undressed Singers lYou Sexyundressedsingers Singers Single It 1 Sexy Undressed Singers U.S. Health Spending Breaks From the Pack - NYTimes.comi m A