The high cost of health, I always thought, was the fault of the malpractice lawyers, but this suggests it is the insurance companies.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/malpractice/rp/1008.pdf

I'm sure it is a combination of the two. We live in a letiginous society. That fault lays with ambulance chasers like John Edwards. The insurance companies realizing they have the deepest pockets raise their rates to compensate for high jury awards. And the cycle continues. Those getting rich are the lawyers and the insurance companies. From there the folks complain about both the lawyers and the insurance companies. Its a vicious cycle.

I'm not an expert, but I would contend that it is a spiral effect; insurance covers health costs for those who buy insurance; those who do not buy insurance, many do not pay for their services; the price of services is increased to cover the loss; insurance prices go up as a result of increased service cost; fewer people pay for insurance as a result of higher insurance costs... repeat. If you do not pay for insurance, and you do not have money to take care of your personal health costs, you want someone else to pay for it. Not right, in my opinion. Especially when many people who say they are too poor to take care of themselves splurge much of their income on luxuries, such as cell phones, internet service, games, movies, restaurants, cars, etc. Food, housing, health care should come first. A lot of people do not want to admit that they should be responsible for their own well being, if it means giving up their pleasures.

If everyone pitched into Medicare, exempting those who can provide proof of insurance, medical costs would not be so high.

Ultimately I would discuss the idea of health care if those who wanted it would care about their health.

Since up to now they don't, neither will I. Stop looking for a handout!!

In summary, care about your health and I'll care about health care.

The price of insurance premiums really hammer the small and medium size business.

One answer is employee leasing. The major benefit is savings in insurance premiums.

http://www.answers.com/topic/employe...ms?cat=biz-fin

http://www.constructionweblinks.com/...4/leasing.html

http://www.gordonrees.com/pubs/ins_bulletin_043007b.cfm

Problem with modern medicine is that it becomes more and more expensive. In Germany, we have de facto a two-class medicine already, becasue they needed to add so many regulations to the insurance system that are meant to finance the system that the money all too often is not enough. Doctors need to fight with budget limits per quarter, and if the money for a quarter is no more, you will get cheaper, eventually not optimal medications, or are put on waiting lists. This makes hospitals and doctors prefer patients who are privately insured. Also, the different lobbies try their best to manipulate the system to milk as much money of it as possible. Especially the pharmaceutical industry and the pharmacists try their best to prevent competition, and keep prices high (Nowhere in europe drugs are as expensive as in Germany). Mismanagement in the insurance system lead to some insurance companies living beyond their financial possebilities, at the cost of others who manage well - and because of that are obligated to give away very high ammounts of money - that are used to finance the first.

At no cost I would like to have the american system. General health insurance is one of the things I accept to be covered by our oprinciple of "social solidarity" our community is depending on. But the German system needs far-leading, reasonable reforms, too, to prevent the many daily abuses and manipulations.

Nobody seems to want to have a discussion on the problem of modern medicine making itself unaffordable for more and more people (and by far not only the so-called "poor"). It will not be done before the problem jumps with hurting spikes into our eyes, I assume. Having been with dying people on special, closed stations at hospital I am convinced that it is not onoly important to have the available tools available for therapies, but that the way in which people can be allowed to die is as important. I saw much misery and fear there. Becasue we live in a cult that tries to avoid any mentioning of the fact bthat we are mortal and one day will die,and thus many people never learn to approach the idea of their own death, and never learn how to deal with that once the time has come. The result is tragedy, panic, and often total isolation.

No good way to die, I tell you, no matter if you are old, or if you are young and suffer from a disease or accident. I have made some certain decisions for myself, for that reason, and always carry a card with instruction with me that tells them where to find or get my advance health care directive (? Patientenverfügung) that gives more details on when I expect them NOT to continue with certain treatments in case I am not able to formulate my will myself anymore.

There are times and situations when you simply need to let go. In our culture with it'S body cult and living cult and medicine cult and death-avoidance cult it is almost a sacrileg to mention that.

Thats exactly the point. The private for profit American system functions the best but its a discriminatory system. It works only for those that pay for it. The best always comes with the highest price tag and thats why its so unaffordable. And its not that the Canadian or the French or the British or the German systems don't or can't work, its that they require alot of maintenance to keep them functioning properly.

Any government program is vulnerable to bloated buraucracy and corruption but ultimately it has the potential to work better in the interests of society at large. And given the social imperative of health care, the private sector can't be trusted to do right by the patients. Its actually ingrained in law in the US. The corporation has a legal obligation to do right by its investors primarily. Thats a conflict of interest when we talk about an essential service.

Michael Moore aside. I have never understood why a debate on Welfare reform is so taboo in the United States. But just to correct a few figures.

<<Edit>> Do'h. Chart doesn't display in forum Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthc...care_economics instead <<Edit>>

I am not advocating the UK model or Canadian model. But surely as Niel says - review and change is needed in the medical system. Especially as these figures seem to indicate the US system has no advantages over its Universialist counterparts and in several cases - a clear disadvantage

You got my vote...oh, wait, you're not...

Why aren't you running for something?

Appropriately enough I just finished watching John Q on TV. Very strong message about the American health care system in there.

Share what you gleaned P.

Thanx

Well the message generally is more about he dysfunction of the system than the solutions. Denzel Washington has a little boy that needs a heart transplant. It costs $200k and his insurance says it won't cover it. So he gets a gun and holds a hospital hostage until they put his son on the donor list.

Throughout there are little conversations he has with hostages and doctors there where the truth behind the system is revealed. Like how his son's condition might have been known by his doctor but because the HMO pays the doctor a bonus he didn't test for it. Another point that in the ER they have to stabalize people but if they don't have the cash they're out the door.

Stuff like that. James Woods plays a really good bastard doctor apologist.

Thanx P. It sounds like a anti-Health Managment Orginization (HMO) movie. I have never opted for that kind of insurance even though it would cost me less. I've never thought bean counters or bureaucrats should be in charge of medical care.

Well it really is anti HMO. But beyond the social commentary its a pretty good movie too. My mom was watching it with me and she cried quite a bit. Lots of good actors too. Whatever anyones feelings about health care its worth a watch.:up:

I guess I misundertood your answer.