CRITICAL CARE - America vs the World

NOTE:  U.S. healthcare costs are considerably higher than other countries as a share of GDP, among other measures.  According to the OECD, U.S. healthcare costs in 2015 were 16.9% GDP, over 5% GDP higher than the next most expensive OECD country.  A gap of 5% GDP represents $1 trillion, about $3,000 per person or one-third higher relative to the next most expensive country.

The high cost of health care in the United States is attributed variously to technological advance, administration costs, drug pricing, suppliers charging more for medical equipment, the receiving of more medical care than people in other countries, the high wages of doctors, government regulations, the impact of lawsuits, and third party payment systems insulating consumers from the full cost of treatments.  The lowest prices for pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and payments to physicians are in government plans.  Americans tend to receive more medical care than people do in other countries, which is a notable contributor to higher costs.  In the United States, a person is more likely to receive open heart surgery after a heart attack than in other countries.  Medicaid pays less than Medicare for many prescription drugs due to the fact Medicaid discounts are set by law, whereas Medicare prices are negotiated by private insurers and drug companies.  Government plans often pay less than overhead, resulting in healthcare providers shifting the cost to the privately insured through higher prices.  - Wikipedia

"The U.S. spends nearly $4 trillion on health care, but inequities still exist.  Here’s why." PBS NewsHour 4/21/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The U.S. spends nearly $4 trillion on health care, yet inequities in care continue to persist.  With 30 million Americans uninsured during the pandemic, is universal health care the answer?  William Brangham explores the matter in our new documentary, "Critical Care: America vs. The World."  He joins Judy Woodruff to preview and discuss the special.

CANADA'S WAY - Critical Care

IMHO: Many may have noted that America DOES NOT have the best health care system in the world.  Why?  In America health care is a for-profit business which puts profit ahead of actually providing good health care, it's 'health care on the cheep.'

"What Canada’s universal health system could teach the U.S. about managing a pandemic" PBS NewsHour 4/15/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  More than 30 million Americans have gone without health insurance in the last year.  Other high-income nations cover their entire populations for a lot less money than the U.S. already spends.  But does a universal health care system help save lives in a pandemic?  For answers, William Brangham looks to our northern neighbor Canada and its single-payer system.

U.S. HEALTH CARE - Hidden Costs

"Trump pushes for new transparency with health care prices — but will it lower them?" PBS NewsHour 6/24/2019

Again, the U.S. lags behind the other nations that have universal health care, that the citizens like (worth every penny).  And these nations have smaller GNP than the U.S. and still afford it.

NOTE:  Trump's solution only applies to ELECTIVE heath care.  So what about when you have a heart attack and are taken to a out-of-network ER?  You can guess, you're out of luck (unless you're rich).

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Uncertainty around the costs of prescription drugs and health care in general is worrying Americans.  A recent study found that one in six were surprised by a medical bill from a hospital treatment in 2017.  On Monday, President Trump issued executive orders requiring greater transparency around medical costs.  But will they help?  Nick Schifrin talks to Elisabeth Rosenthal of Kaiser Health News.

DEMOCRATS - Medicare for All

"Why these House Democrats think Medicare for All is the best path for U.S. health care" PBS NewsHour 2/28/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In the U.S., health care costs continue to rise, insurance is more difficult to obtain and millions lack access to care entirely.  As a result, some House Democrats want to implement a single-payer, universal coverage system in which all costs are paid by the federal government.  Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash) talks to Amna Nawaz about the benefits of expanding Medicare for all Americans.

What Medicare for All Means

Universal Health Care in Different Countries, Pros and Cons of Each

How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries?

IMHO:  When you have everyone on Medicare for All all costs are spread across everyone, individual cost down.  Also, the system we now have puts a for-profit insurance company between the customer and their health care providers (doctors, hospitals, druggists, clinics, etc., with added cost and restrictions), it would be cheaper for a customer's money to directly to providers.  As for the 'tax' cost, polls in other nations with universal health care usually have 2 related questions: a) Would you want your taxes lowered, b) Would you give up your health care system to save money?  Question (a) is what I call, the meat lover's would you like prime rib at hamburger prices, of course the answer is yes.  Question (b) is the 'Is your heath care system worth it,' again the overwhelming answer is yes, their system is worth what they pay in taxes.

TRUMP LIE - Britain's Universal Health Care

"Trump on Britain’s Universal Health Care" by Robert Farley, FactCheck.org 2/8/2018

President Donald Trump tweeted that while Democrats are pushing for universal health care, “thousands of people are marching in the UK because their U[niversal] system is going broke and not working."  But the London demonstrators marched in support of the system and urged the government to better fund it.

The United Kingdom’s National Health Service is a single-payer system: The government pays for health care, which is free at the point of service (with the exception of some prescription, eye care or dental costs), and funded through taxes.

Trump’s tweet came after a “Fox & Friends” interview with Nigel Farage, former leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party and a Trump supporter, who said rampant immigration is putting a strain on Britain’s National Health Service.  As a result, he said, “We just haven’t got enough hospitals.  We haven’t got enough doctors.  We haven’t got enough facilities.”

Without “fundamental reforms,” Farage said, the NHS is at a “breaking point.”

And he issued this warning for Americans:  “The big, big point is this: when the state gives benefits to people, any attempt in the future to reform it or take those benefits back becomes politically impossible.  … If you [Americans] were to introduce universal health care, paid for essentially out of taxes, you would never, ever be able to remove that.”

Soon after, Trump tweeted this:

Indeed, some Democrats are pushing for universal health care.  In September, Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination, introduced the Medicare for All Act of 2017, which would broaden Medicare into a universal health insurance program.  It was cosponsored by 16 Democratic senators.  And a majority of House Democrats signed on as co-sponsors of the Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act, introduced by Democratic Rep. John Conyers earlier last year.

But Trump’s tweet suggests those “marching in the UK” were opposed to the universal health care system there.  That’s not accurate.

The BBC reported that thousands demonstrated in London on Feb. 3, “calling for more government support for the NHS.”

The groups behind the rally, The People’s Assembly and Health Campaigns Together, put out a joint statement responding to Trump’s tweet.  They said the demonstrators wanted “to show their love for the principles of universal and comprehensive care free at the point of use, paid for through general taxation."  They were protesting, they said, against British government policies they view as trying to “move us more to an American-style system which is widely acknowledged to be one of the most expensive, inefficient and unjust healthcare systems in the world.”

Here’s the entire response:

The People’s Assembly and Health Campaigns Together, Feb.  5:

Dear Donald Trump

The NHS has existed since 1948 in the UK after the devastation of the second world war.  The British population demanded the right to have access to healthcare which they deserve as human beings which is absolutely affordable when the right political decisions are made.

It has been a shining example to the world of what can be achieved when we put the needs of the collective good over the interests of a few wealthy individuals.  Unfortunately, our current government have been persuaded to increasingly adopt policies which represent those of your Government, they have decided to move us more to an American-style system which is widely acknowledged to be one of the most expensive, inefficient and unjust healthcare systems in the world.

This is why our NHS is currently struggling and why leading Professors including Professor Stephen Hawking are bravely battling politicians who wish to turn it into a system like yours.

This is what our demonstration was about on Saturday 3rd Feb and tens of thousands of British people want to show their love for the principles of universal and comprehensive care free at the point of use, paid for through general taxation.  We don’t agree with your divisive and incorrect rhetoric.  No thanks.

A New York Times story notes that “budgetary austerity” in the U.K. has limited the growth of health spending to below the historical norm.  As a result, “Patients often wait months, even for essential procedures.  Waiting rooms are often crowded,” the Times wrote.  That has soured some on the system, though public satisfaction with the NHS remains high.

Those protesting in Britain recently weren’t advocating scrapping the system; they were advocating higher government funding.  According to the Times, the protesters in Britain chanted, “Keep your hands off our N.H.S."  Images of the protest from the BBC and published by The Guardian show demonstrators carrying signs that read, “More Staff, More Beds, More Funds” and “Save Our NHS.”

In July 2017, the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based nonpartisan research foundation that promotes improved health care access and quality, issued a report comparing the health care system performance of 11 high-income countries, using indicators for care process, access, administrative efficiency, equity and health care outcomes.  The U.K. was tops overall in the performance rankings.  The U.S ranked last.

Commonwealth Fund, July 2017:  In general, the U.K. achieves superior performance compared to other countries in all areas [care process, access, administrative efficiency and equity] except Health Care Outcomes, where it ranks 10th despite experiencing the fastest reduction in deaths amenable to health care in the past decade.  [The U.S. ranked 11th, last, on health care outcomes].

Eric Schneider, senior vice president for policy and research at the Commonwealth Fund and the study’s lead author, said he could not comment on the specifics of Trump’s claims.  But he said the Commonwealth Fund report “shows that overall the health systems of the United Kingdom and several other high income countries achieve higher performance than the U.S.”

“Like several other high-income countries, the U.K. spends a lower percentage of its GDP on health care than the U.S.,” Schneider told us via email.  “All health systems, even those that are well designed and organized, may find it difficult to perform at a high level if they are insufficiently funded.”

In response to Trump’s tweet, Britain’s health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, said on Twitter that while he disagreed with some of the claims made by those who participated in the march, “not ONE of them wants to live in a system where 28m people have no cover.”

Hunt added that while “NHS may have challenges” he was “proud to be from the country that invented universal coverage – where all get care no matter the size of their bank balance.”

According to the BBC News, Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, also responded to Trump’s tweet, saying, “Unfortunately, respectfully, we suggest that tweet got the wrong end of the stick.”

“And, in fact, people in this country don’t want to ditch our NHS,” Stevens said, “not withstanding what we’ve said today, they want to keep it and strengthen it.”

AMERICA - Universal Health Care

In the debate about health care in the U.S. there are many claims going around.  One is Universal Health Care whose champion is Bernie Sanders.

Universal Health Care:

"Universal health care, sometimes referred to as universal health coverage, universal coverage, or universal care, usually refers to a health care system that provides health care and financial protection to all citizens of a particular country.  It is organized around providing a specified package of benefits to all members of a society with the end goal of providing financial risk protection, improved access to health services, and improved health outcomes.  Universal health care is not one-size-fits-all and does not imply coverage for all people for everything.  Universal health care can be determined by three critical dimensions: who is covered, what services are covered, and how much of the cost is covered.  It is described by the World Health Organization as a situation where citizens can access health services without incurring financial hardship. U.N. member states have agreed to work toward universal health coverage by 2030." - Wikipedia

As of 2009, 58 countries have legislation mandating universal health care and have actually reached >90% health insurance coverage and >90% skilled birth attendance.

The cost and spending on Health Care:

It is hard to argue with the numbers.

The U.S. spends MORE than any other nation and we get Trumpcare.


Here's another argument:

1.  $200 billion tax cut!
2.  $2.2 trillion saved by NOT needing private heath care!

Of course the reason we are not getting Universal Health Care is item #2.

It would be a $2.2 trillion loss to health insurance industry (aka extortionists).  And they have bought the loyalty of politicians.

Reminder:  Health care PROVIDERS (doctors, hospitals, HMOs, etc) would not loose money, they will get more with 100% coverage.  The health insurance industry are middle-men.

We don't get a less costly Universal Health Care because of GREED!

Don't believe the lies, especially by the Republican Party.

POLITICS - UHC Debunking 5 of the Right’s Favorite Myths

There is a interesting article on the Universal Health Care (UHC) proposal in the "Campus Progress," at least "interesting" if you are not a lock-step conservative, i.e. you have an open mind.

In part.....

There are numerous pathologies (such as a fear of increasing the size of the federal government) in the American political climate that prevented Universal Health Care (UHC) from succeeding. For many, blind faith in the free market and the sentiment that "private is always more efficient than public" is the motivation for dismissing such a sweeping reform initiative.

The trouble with UHC isn’t that it’s politically infeasible, financially ruinous, or inefficient, because none of the above is true. The largest impediment to implementing UHC is that it has yet to receive a fair trial in this country.

There are over 40 million people in the U.S. who do not have any health insurance. For a country touted as the most powerful in the world, that figure is appalling. Ensuring that every individual has free access to health care should be an imperative of any fair and just society. Health care, contrary to what those on the right would argue, is not simply a commodity to be bought and sold according to the market, but rather it is a basic human need. As such, it should not be limited to only those who are able to pay for it. Even some conservatives will reluctantly sympathize with the spirit of social justice inherent in UHC, but skepticism about the political and financial feasibility of UHC frequently color their arguments against it.

The first example is:

Myth #1: It would be too expensive

Rather than cost more money, UHC would actually reduce the cost of health care. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that UHC could save up to $14 billion annually by spreading the risk evenly over the entire population, eliminating deductibles and co-pays and making preventive medicine available to the poor and uninsured. The federal government already subsidizes private health insurance in the form of tax deductions. Private insurance companies also spend billions on administration and overhead, advertising, and determining and inspecting patient eligibility, all while trying to make a profit. UHC would not be burdened with some of those costs, like advertising, and unlike private business, it could run at a loss and still be viable. The pressures of profitability would no longer close the door for millions of Americans and drive up costs. As a result, Americans would effectively pay less for health insurance than they do now, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Think about that, "effectively pay less?" If you have an open mind you should read the full article. You may not agree and that's OK. If you do agree, like me, then we still need to push for UHC. Of course, the medical insurance companies and their cohorts the pharmaceuticals, and the super-conservatives, will oppose it with all their $might. They must have their profits no matter what it does to the average American.