Question about US healthcare (coming from a Brit)

fanaskin_sl said:

Why Can't America Be Sweden?

Click to expand...

To paraphrase, "America is the innovative center of the world because of how financial rewards work here, that can't work in more socialized countries". That's a fair summary yes?

30 Most Innovative Countries: Who Took Home the Gold? - Bloomberg

According to this link, which country is labeled more innovative than us? If you said Sweden, congrats!

So the narrative now when someone talks about a country like Sweden is that they are only able to be so awesome because of us.

BubbySoup_sl said:

What's the variance in your monthly insurance premiums from say, bottom tier to top and how much of that would an employer contribute?

Click to expand...

Really really varies. For instance, for my wife, myself, and our son, we paid a total of about $300/month while her job contributed another $1650/month. And it was some kick ass insurance to boot. Now with her new job it costs us $1000/month JUST for her and our son, while the company kicks in $610/month, and the insurance is kinda bleh, Kaiser. (Luckily she was just headhunted by a major corp and looks like (crosses fingers) she has a new job with a substantial salary increase AND way cheaper insurance, from our end. I work for a small business that doesn't provide insurance because it would be insanely expensive.)

Kirun_sl said:

The Scandinavian countries have it pretty well figured out. It won't work in the US, because...reasons.

Click to expand...

They have oil money and small populations.

I'ma be a bit of a dick suck and have to 100% agree with Kruegen; the US healthcare system truly is as stupid and predatory as it seems from the outside. Those Harvard studies a few years back indicated that most bankruptcies in the US are from medical bills, and the majority of the bankrupt familieswereinsured. The entire concept is peddled as a preventative measure for that exact scenario, " need insurance to make sure if something goes wrong my family would be safe". And yet this system is still being lobbied for and protected.

Reminds me of tobacco companies or Bell Telephone managing to deny the most obvious , needed changes to their monopolies for decades on end, and now it's common knowledge that tar leads to emphysema and that phones can indeed have more than one ring tone, hah.

Funny you mention the costs of the military protecting us, Brutul. It's interesting how our nation spends billions a week for its citizens' safety and that bill is footed instantaneously without thought, but a person with an injurywhose safety could be directly assistedby a better system may be denied their claim. That pops up in my mind particularly when VA hospitals and charities ask for donations, "how and why the fuck does the Marine Corps need a bag of my old clothing"

Brutal, you're in Montana there's no VA there, they choose to live far from the VA. And honestly, most UHS systems modeled themselves after MEDICARE not VA.

Xequecal_sl said:

They have oil money and small populations.

Click to expand...

You are talking about Norway,not Sweden or Finland.
Oli money or not,at least their government use the country's wealth to insure the population's prosperity.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gov...Fund_of_Norway
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A0710U20140108
i know you have strong lobbies who don't give 2 fuck about anyone but don't the general population care with the well-being of everyone?

Healthy skepticism of ole Sam taking on even more is reasonable, but I feel that the government isalreadyin charge of this system. Roughly 1/5 of all federal tax dollars go to Medicare/Medicaid, that's about 730 Billion total or $2300 average per person. I won't bullshit pretending to know how much exactly, but I will assume a good amount of Social Security money is spent indirectly on medical care ( ex. costly stair lifts because an old family member can no longer climb unassisted ).

Heh looking at this chart from the Office of Management and Budget...



I wonder if Federal funding on education, medical and scientific research has anything to do with the size of the other programs.

Brut: When you retire from the military they are quite explicit in explain the options you restrict yourself on living in someplace like Montana or Idaho (the example I know better being that one of my good friends had to use VA often and lived in ID). Is it shitty? Sure - but the VA is structured to be near military bases, if you leave the military then run out to the wilderness far away from the military bases it's not exactly shocking that you're not going to be near their services anymore. [And of course last I checked TriCare does have some setup for using other services, there is some degree of cost however - and might require a copay and the like, not sure - I know it was an option he talked about that he had for minor shit and the kids, but no longer in touch with my friend from Idaho anymore so can't refresh memories from the days of EQ1 to state absolutely]

And last I checked almost every "socialized medicine" state that does anything remotely close to VA methods (which really are none - they're closer to Medicare IMO as I already stated - with the exception of Singapore - for the one's I'm familiar with. And Singapore is towards the other direction) they all have "pay for service" options and out of network providers allowed, although the demand for out of network providers are very low and they're still subsidized by the system. So in the hypothetical that it happened here under the VA system, you could still have local doctors servicing podunk areas just they'd be slightly pricier.

Also note that consolidating major treatments generally leads to better treatment and more innovation for the consumer as well - you don't see little minihospitals inventing new procedures after all, you see major hospitals. John's Hopkins and the like aren't teensy places, the teensy hospitals and treatment centers usually just cut and paste what others already innovated in.

Chair lift check from the grandmother-in-law was drafted from Medicare when we got our reimbursement for paying for hers (since it was a pay and get reimbursed thing and she couldn't afford it supposedly [although with the inheritance we recently got and her not earning any money I think she lied to us back then...]) - so I'd assume that they were covered under Medicare funds.

Yeah and we win more medals at the Olympics, too.

(think population might skew results?)

Two countries on their allow repatenting things by very minimal changes including changes that from any known standpoint have no actual changes to the product as it's used. Any guesses which two?

Or more simply: Comparing patent law when the range of what is allowed to be patented is so different really doesn't prove anything. Not to mention the benefits those same two have in physical separation from a nation that ignores patent law, which makes patents in those nations more valuable, and far less valuable in those that can be traveled to by land by the same nation.

And population is a good point as well, true.

Additionally not sure on Japan - but most of the EU doesn't allow rampant subpatenting like we do - I'd have to look up old articles, but pretty sure the EU (I believe it was filed in Ireland) patent for the iPhone 3 was a total of 4 patents, here in the US the same exact product held over 20 - for the same object being sold.