There is no excuse for this

[Steve R]

An article from our local online English language daily, January 10.

New report says U.S. health worse than other nations

By the A.M. Costa Rica wire services

On average, Americans die sooner and experience higher rates of disease and injury than people in other high-income countries, says a new report from the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. The report finds that this health disadvantage exists at all ages from birth to age 75 and that even advantaged Americans -- those who have health insurance, college educations, higher incomes, and healthy behaviors -- appear to be sicker than their peers in other rich nations.

"We were struck by the gravity of these findings," said Steven H. Woolf, professor of family medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond and chairman of the panel that wrote the report. "Americans are dying and suffering at rates that we know are unnecessary because people in other high-income countries are living longer lives and enjoying better health. What concerns our panel is why, for decades, we have been slipping behind."

The report is the first comprehensive look at multiple diseases, injuries, and behaviors across the entire life span, comparing the United States with 16 peer nations -- affluent democracies that include Australia, Canada, Japan, and many western European countries. Among these countries, the U.S. is at or near the bottom in nine key areas of health: infant mortality and low birth weight; injuries and homicides; teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections; prevalence of HIV and AIDS; drug-related deaths; obesity and diabetes; heart disease; chronic lung disease; and disability.

Many of these health conditions disproportionately affect children and adolescents, the report says. For decades, the U.S. has had the highest infant mortality rate of any high-income country, and it also ranks poorly on premature birth and the proportion of children who live to age 5. U.S. adolescents have higher rates of death from traffic accidents and homicide, the highest rates of teenage pregnancy, and are more likely to acquire sexually transmitted infections. Nearly two-thirds of the difference in life expectancy between males in the U.S. and these other countries can be attributed to deaths before age 50.

These findings build on a 2011 Research Council report that documented a growing mortality gap among Americans over age 50. "It's a tragedy. Our report found that an equally large, if not larger, disadvantage exists among younger Americans," Woolf said. "I don't think most parents know that, on average, infants, children, and adolescents in the U.S. die younger and have greater rates of illness and injury than youth in other countries."

The panel did find that the U.S. outperforms its peers in some areas of health and health-related behavior. People in the U.S. over age 75 live longer, and Americans have lower death rates from stroke and cancer, better control of blood pressure and cholesterol levels, and lower rates of smoking.

This health disadvantage exists even though the U.S. spends more per capita on health care than any other nation. Although documented flaws in the health care system may contribute to poorer health, the panel concluded that many factors are responsible for the nation's health disadvantage.

The report examines the role of underlying social values and public policies in understanding why the U.S. is outranked by other nations on both health outcomes and the conditions that affect health. For example, Americans are more likely to engage in certain unhealthy behaviors, from heavy caloric intake to behaviors that increase the risk of fatal injuries, the report says. The U.S. has relatively high rates of poverty and income inequality and is lagging behind other countries in the education of young people.

However, the panel's research suggests that the U.S. health disadvantage is not solely a reflection of the serious health disadvantages that are concentrated in the U.S. among poor or uninsured people or ethnic and racial minorities. Americans still fare worse than people in other countries even when the analysis is limited to non-Hispanic whites and people with relatively high incomes and health insurance, nonsmokers, or people who are not obese.

The report recommends an intensified effort to pursue established national health objectives. It calls for a comprehensive outreach campaign to alert the American public about the U.S. health disadvantage and to stimulate a national discussion about its implications. In parallel, it recommends data collection and research to better understand the factors responsible for the U.S. disadvantage and potential solutions, including lessons that can be learned from other countries.

"Research is important, but we should not wait for more data before taking action, because we already know what to do. If we fail to act, the disadvantage will continue to worsen and our children will face shorter lives and greater rates of illness than their peers in other rich nations," Woolf said.

The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

[JustRalph]

Haven't you heard? McRib is back.........

That says it all

[ArlJim78]

"Research is important, but we should not wait for more
data before taking action, because we already know what to do.



what exactly does this mean? what actions are they talking about and why did they already know what to do?
I'm very skeptical of this kind of "research" that comes prepackaged with a solution which is really just a disguised social agenda. the nanny Bloomberg's of the country will be ready to run wild with this to protect us from ourselves. maybe as a whole we are more willing to take risks with certain aspects of our health. So what? aren't we free to do that?

if there are countries which are healthier in some respects, it isn't because of actions taken by government bodies. It's because of ingrained cultural differences.

I'm fine doing the studies and reporting on the results and raising awareness but we don't need more government mandates.

[Tom]

Haven't you heard? McRib is back.........

That says it all

And, the new cheddar and fried onion value burger....don't forget that one! :kiss:

Lifestyle says it all.
Maybe we should severely restrict the EBT cards can purchase, in the interest of health.

if there are countries which are healthier in some respects, it isn't because of actions taken by government bodies. It's because of ingrained cultural differences.

Oh, yeah, and maybe parents should be held accountable for raising their children. Lets tax each pound over their kids are. Maybe parents should stop planning on Uncle Sugar taking care of their kids. Maybe some people should not be allowed to have kids.

[riskman]

:18:
Oh, yeah, and maybe parents should be held accountable for raising their children. Lets tax each pound over their kids are. Maybe parents should stop planning on Uncle Sugar taking care of their kids. Maybe some people should not be allowed to have kids.

That is a major part of the problem right there. Parents do not take much of an interest in their childs diet. They are too busy spending their spare time watching Snookie, posting on Facebook and Tweeting. They are soooo busy in other peoples lives and ignore their own. Then they wonder how their lives and their kids end up in the crapper.

[Steve R]

what exactly does this mean? what actions are they talking about and why did they already know what to do?
I'm very skeptical of this kind of "research" that comes prepackaged with a solution which is really just a disguised social agenda. the nanny Bloomberg's of the country will be ready to run wild with this to protect us from ourselves. maybe as a whole we are more willing to take risks with certain aspects of our health. So what? aren't we free to do that?

if there are countries which are healthier in some respects, it isn't because of actions taken by government bodies. It's because of ingrained cultural differences.

I'm fine doing the studies and reporting on the results and raising awareness but we don't need more government mandates.
Your paranoia seems to be working overtime. The recommendations are fairly explicit and are captured in the following paragraph:

"The report recommends an intensified effort to pursue established national health objectives. It calls for a comprehensive outreach campaign to alert the American public about the U.S. health disadvantage and to stimulate a national discussion about its implications. In parallel, it recommends data collection and research to better understand the factors responsible for the U.S. disadvantage and potential solutions, including lessons that can be learned from other countries."

But if the American people continue to ignore the ultimate price of unhealthy behaviors, that costs everyone a lot of money. IOW, I don't want someone else's lard ass lifestyle determining how much I have to pay for medical care. I guess it's a balance between one person's freedom to maintain a sedentary/high calorie lifestyle and my freedom not to have to pay for their stupidity. If government action will save me money and improve the general health, I don't see a problem. Not many have an issue with the government mandating that house paints can't contain lead or that roof tiles can't contain asbestos. Why would limiting sugar and fat in foods, for example, be any different? Or does one individual's "freedom" supersede everyone else's even if it causes them harm?

[LottaKash]

http://www.naturalnews.com/report_Nutrition_Health_America_0.html


An excerpt from this report:...


"Nutrition can save America".

But from what, exactly?

Every day, it seems, there are more signs of the accelerating decline of the American Empire. The economy is tanking, the currency is being abandoned by other nations, health care remains a disastrous failure, unemployment is atrociously high, prisons are filled to capacity, public education is failing yet another generation of children, and the population seems to be getting more diseased with each generation.

The question, though, is why?

Why is our population so diseased? Why is unemployment so high? Why can't our kids learn well in school? Why is America losing its leadership position in the world? Why are so many jobs being offshored to other countries?

What if there were a single underlying reason that answered all these questions? As you may have guessed, there is:

Nutrition.

Poor nutrition destroys any nation. Good nutrition saves it. And in this NaturalNews special report, you'll learn why nutrition plays such a powerful role in the rise or fall of any nation.

It's also a warning message for America: If we don't make immediate, radical changes in the available food supply -- and the marketing of foods to consumers -- we won't survive much longer as a nation. America will fall, brought down by the inevitable consequences of a nutritionally deficient, chronically diseased population.

But to understand why this is the case, you first have to see why food has such a powerful impact on everything that matters in society: Health, happiness, employment, productivity, education and even freedom. To explain all that, let's start with a lesson on poor nutrition.

Next: The consequences of poor nutrition...



http://www.naturalnews.com/images/NextButton.gif (http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_Nutrition_Health_America_1.html)

[Tom]

Who else do we not want adding to the cost of health care?

Anyone who plays sports, climbs mountains, drives cars, does anything that entails some exposure or risks?
What about people who might pass on some hereditary health issues - do we prevent them from having children?

Who gets to judge?

This is not a government issue.
It is a personal issue.

Puddin' heads like Mayor Bloomingidiotberg have no business trying to legislate healthy living to anyone. It is not their role.

Government has a lot more pressing issues to deal with - counting calories is not on the list. The role of government is to serve the people, not decide what the people are served. (clever, huh?:cool:)

Yes...personal freedom is more important.
The responsibility that comes with it is mine, no one else's.

[Steve R]

Who else do we not want adding to the cost of health care?

Anyone who plays sports, climbs mountains, drives cars, does anything that entails some exposure or risks?
What about people who might pass on some hereditary health issues - do we prevent them from having children?

Who gets to judge?

This is not a government issue.
It is a personal issue.

Puddin' heads like Mayor Bloomingidiotberg have no business trying to legislate healthy living to anyone. It is not their role.

Government has a lot more pressing issues to deal with - counting calories is not on the list. The role of government is to serve the people, not decide what the people are served. (clever, huh?:cool:)

Yes...personal freedom is more important.
The responsibility that comes with it is mine, no one else's.
Fine. Then I suggest the assholes who have never run a mile, picked up a weight in the gym and who eat the s__t that McDonalds serves several days a week can pay for my medical care. It's only fair since I have to pay for their f_____g wars.

[Tom]

I'll get on that right away. :ThmbUp:

[hcap]

I don't get it. All youse guys do is complain about cutting the fat and waste in government, but when it comes to personal responsibility to take care of your own bodies and your childrens', you bail and do a 180.

And now for the fallacy of private is always better than vs public. “it’s the prices, stupid.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/why-an-mri-costs-1080-in-america-and-280-in-france/2011/08/25/gIQAVHztoR_blog.html

There is a simple reason health care in the United States costs more than it does anywhere else: The prices are higher.

That may sound obvious. But it is, in fact, key to understanding one of the most pressing problems facing our economy. In 2009, Americans spent $7,960 per person on health care. Our neighbors in Canada spent $4,808. The Germans spent $4,218. The French, $3,978. If we had the per-person costs of any of those countries, America’s deficits would vanish. Workers would have much more money in their pockets. Our economy would grow more quickly, as our exports would be more competitive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/03/01/Web-Resampled/2012-03-01/health-care-costs-606--606x404.jpg?uuid=vylzWGPcEeG1HAHZE1E9Yw

[Tom]

I don't get it. All youse guys do is complain about cutting the fat and waste in government, but when it comes to personal responsibility to take care of your own bodies and your childrens', you bail and do a 180.

I guess you missed Post #4.
Or ignored it.

And Post #8.

[hcap]

I guess you missed Post #4.
Or ignored it.

And Post #8.

No I didn't miss it. All I got from your salivating was this....

/X3ZcZ2h4Ths?

Be sure to pay attention to the last scene where Homer is eating in assembly line fashion. :)

[TJDave]

There should be a two-tiered system. People who take personal responsibility for their health and those who don't. Those that do go to the front of the line. If there's anything left then the porkers can have the crumbs.

[badcompany]

Fine. Then I suggest the assholes who have never run a mile, picked up a weight in the gym and who eat the s__t that McDonalds serves several days a week can pay for my medical care. It's only fair since I have to pay for their f_____g wars.

Aren't you tacitly making a case for a privatized health care system in which we all take care of ourselves?

I happen to agree with the sentiment of the post.

[hcap]

Aren't you tacitly making a case for a privatized health care system in which we all take care of ourselves?

I happen to agree with the sentiment of the post.I think we should combine private initiative and the 2nd amendment with "socialized" medicine.

Shoot all them fat F**k*rs as they drive up to MickeyDs

[badcompany]

I think we should combine private initiative and the 2nd amendment with "socialized" medicine.

Shoot all them fat F**k*rs as they drive up to MickeyDs


You'd have to do that on the way out. Some people might be getting a salad.

http://onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/mcsalad.jpg

[hcap]

Duly noted :)

[Tom]

Aren't you tacitly making a case for a privatized health care system in which we all take care of ourselves?



You some kind of Loose cannon?? :D

[Actor]

What about people who might pass on some hereditary health issues - do we prevent them from having children?That's called eugenics. It was practiced by Nazi Germany and condemned at the war crimes trials.

[Tom]

Yes, I know, and it was strongly considered by the Progressives here in the USA...you know, Obama's heros.

[JustRalph]

That's called eugenics. It was practiced by Nazi Germany and condemned at the war crimes trials.

It was also the basis for the founding of planned parenthood.........

[PaceAdvantage]

It's interesting that in this report cited by the OP, it states the US has lower rates of smoking than these other countries that they claim are "healthier."

You'd think lower rates of smoking alone would go a long way toward raising life expectancy for the US population as a whole AND lead to a healthier country as compared to these other countries cited that incidentally have higher rates of smoking.

Is an unhealthy diet as deadly as smoking? It probably is, but the stats on such things aren't as meticulously kept compared to cigarette smoking.

If someone dies of a heart attack and they have a piss-poor diet, nobody is keeping a stat on that, are they?

If someone dies of a heart attack and they are a smoker, I betcha somebody is keeping a stat on that...

Then again, what do I know?

[Actor]

If someone dies of a heart attack and they have a piss-poor diet, nobody is keeping a stat on that, are they?Somebody must be, otherwise we would not know of the diet/heart disease connection and you would not be asking the question. Try the CDC web site.

[hcap]

An article from our local online English language daily, January 10.

New report says U.S. health worse than other nations

By the A.M. Costa Rica wire services

On average, Americans die sooner and experience higher rates of disease and injury than people in other high-income countries, says a new report from the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. The report finds that this health disadvantage exists at all ages from birth to age 75 and that even advantaged Americans -- those who have health insurance, college educations, higher incomes, and healthy behaviors -- appear to be sicker than their peers in other rich nations.

"We were struck by the gravity of these findings," said Steven H. Woolf, professor of family medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond and chairman of the panel that wrote the report. "Americans are dying and suffering at rates that we know are unnecessary because people in other high-income countries are living longer lives and enjoying better health. What concerns our panel is why, for decades, we have been slipping behind."

The report is the first comprehensive look at multiple diseases, injuries, and behaviors across the entire life span, comparing the United States with 16 peer nations -- affluent democracies that include Australia, Canada, Japan, and many western European countries. Among these countries, the U.S. is at or near the bottom in nine key areas of health: infant mortality and low birth weight; injuries and homicides; teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections; prevalence of HIV and AIDS; drug-related deaths; obesity and diabetes; heart disease; chronic lung disease; and disability.

Many of these health conditions disproportionately affect children and adolescents, the report says. For decades, the U.S. has had the highest infant mortality rate of any high-income country, and it also ranks poorly on premature birth and the proportion of children who live to age 5. U.S. adolescents have higher rates of death from traffic accidents and homicide, the highest rates of teenage pregnancy, and are more likely to acquire sexually transmitted infections. Nearly two-thirds of the difference in life expectancy between males in the U.S. and these other countries can be attributed to deaths before age 50.

These findings build on a 2011 Research Council report that documented a growing mortality gap among Americans over age 50. "It's a tragedy. Our report found that an equally large, if not larger, disadvantage exists among younger Americans," Woolf said. "I don't think most parents know that, on average, infants, children, and adolescents in the U.S. die younger and have greater rates of illness and injury than youth in other countries."

The panel did find that the U.S. outperforms its peers in some areas of health and health-related behavior. People in the U.S. over age 75 live longer, and Americans have lower death rates from stroke and cancer, better control of blood pressure and cholesterol levels, and lower rates of smoking.

This health disadvantage exists even though the U.S. spends more per capita on health care than any other nation. Although documented flaws in the health care system may contribute to poorer health, the panel concluded that many factors are responsible for the nation's health disadvantage.

The report examines the role of underlying social values and public policies in understanding why the U.S. is outranked by other nations on both health outcomes and the conditions that affect health. For example, Americans are more likely to engage in certain unhealthy behaviors, from heavy caloric intake to behaviors that increase the risk of fatal injuries, the report says. The U.S. has relatively high rates of poverty and income inequality and is lagging behind other countries in the education of young people.

However, the panel's research suggests that the U.S. health disadvantage is not solely a reflection of the serious health disadvantages that are concentrated in the U.S. among poor or uninsured people or ethnic and racial minorities. Americans still fare worse than people in other countries even when the analysis is limited to non-Hispanic whites and people with relatively high incomes and health insurance, nonsmokers, or people who are not obese.

The report recommends an intensified effort to pursue established national health objectives. It calls for a comprehensive outreach campaign to alert the American public about the U.S. health disadvantage and to stimulate a national discussion about its implications. In parallel, it recommends data collection and research to better understand the factors responsible for the U.S. disadvantage and potential solutions, including lessons that can be learned from other countries.

"Research is important, but we should not wait for more data before taking action, because we already know what to do. If we fail to act, the disadvantage will continue to worsen and our children will face shorter lives and greater rates of illness than their peers in other rich nations," Woolf said.

The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

But why do seniors do so well........?

January has turned out to be a banner month for fans of American exceptionalism. As documented in voluminous detail in a 404-page report released last week by the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine, Americans lead shorter lives than Western Europeans, Australians, Japanese and Canadians. Of the 17 countries measured, the United States placed dead last in life expectancy, even though we lead the planet in the amount we spend on health care (17.6 percent of gross domestic product in 2010 vs. 11.6 percent each for France and Germany). We get radically less bang for the buck than comparable nations. If that’s not exceptionalism, I don’t know what is.

….

But a funny thing happens to Americans’ life expectancy when they age. The U.S. mortality rate is the highest of the 17 nations until Americans hit 50 and the second-highest until they hit 70. Then our mortality ranking precipitously shifts: By the time American seniors hit 80, they have some of the longest life expectancies in the world.

What gives? Have seniors discovered the Fountain of Youth? Do U.S. geriatricians outpace all our other physicians?

Part of the answer is Darwinian: Those Americans who have been less able to access reliable medical care, maintain good diets and live in neighborhoods that are not prey to gun violence have disproportionately died off before age 80. That isn’t natural selection but social selection — the survival of the economically fittest in a nation that rations longevity by wealth.

But the larger part of the answer is that at age 65, Americans enter a health-care system that ceases to be exceptional when compared with the systems in the other 16 nations studied. They leave behind the private provision of medical coverage, forsake the genius of the market and avail themselves of universal medical insurance. For the first time, they are beneficiaries of the same kind of social policy that their counterparts in other lands enjoy. And presto, change-o: Their life expectancy catches up with and eventually surpasses those of the French, Germans, Britons and Canadians.

Interestingly, of course, Medicare is not only provides better health outcomes than the rest of the system in the aggregate, but it also controls costs better. And it could control costs even better if the Republicans would stop screaming “death panels!” for just a few minutes.

[hcap]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html

Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries

How much is good health care worth to you? $8,233 per year? That's how much the U.S. spends per person.

Worth it?

That figure is more than two-and-a-half times more than most developed nations in the world, including relatively rich European countries like France, Sweden and the United Kingdom. On a more global scale, it means U.S. health care costs now eat up 17.6 percent of GDP.

...

There are fewer physicians per person than in most other OECD countries. In 2010, for instance, the U.S. had 2.4 practicing physicians per 1,000 people -- well below below the OECD average of 3.1.

The number of hospital beds in the U.S. was 2.6 per 1,000 population in 2009, lower than the OECD average of 3.4 beds.

Life expectancy at birth increased by almost nine years between 1960 and 2010, but that's less than the increase of over 15 years in Japan and over 11 years on average in OECD countries. The average American now lives 78.7 years in 2010, more than one year below the average of 79.8 years.

There's a bright side, to be sure. The U.S. leads the world in health care research and cancer treatment, for instance. The five-year survival rate for breast cancer is higher in the U.S. than in other OECD countries and survival from colorectal cancer is also among the best, according to the group.


????????????/

[Tom]

And it is going to go higher thanks to ObamaDon'tCare.
Fact of life.

[hcap]

And it is going to go higher thanks to ObamaDon'tCare.
Fact of life.Care to explain why we pay so much and get so little?

BTW, too bad there is no adult day car under Obama. I can think of at least one simian minded Frog who could really really use it. :lol:

[Tom]

Get so little?
I reject your premise.
I reject your anti-American blather.
Now, in terms of mental health, as you demonstrate, we have work to do.

[hcap]

Read the article Thomas and stop doubting and complaining.
All of your moaning is not context sensitive. You are just angry ALL THE FRICKIN' time.

http://www.philebrity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Old-Man-Yells-At-Cloud-the-simpsons-7414384-265-199.gif

Sour Grapes Over President

The new "SGOP" party :)

[Tom]

You're the one with the Obug up you butt. :D
Sore winner?

[Steve 'StatMan']

I think we should combine private initiative and the 2nd amendment with "socialized" medicine.

Shoot all them fat F**k*rs as they drive up to MickeyDs


How are you going to wipe out that local chapter of Weight Watchers if they take assult rifles away? :p

[hcap]

How are you going to wipe out that local chapter of Weight Watchers if they take assult rifles away? :pWait a darn minute! You guys are the ones that trumpet "Guns don't kill people, people do.

What do we need assault rifles for. Bomb 'em :)

[hcap]

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/

Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us

....he total cost, in advance, for Sean to get his treatment plan and initial doses of chemotherapy was $83,900.

Why?

The first of the 344 lines printed out across eight pages of his hospital bill — filled with indecipherable numerical codes and acronyms — seemed innocuous. But it set the tone for all that followed. It read, “1 ACETAMINOPHE TABS 325 MG.” The charge was only $1.50, but it was for a generic version of a Tylenol pill. You can buy 100 of them on Amazon for $1.49 even without a hospital’s purchasing power.

[fast4522]

Here is something from Johnny Cash for you to identify with Hcrap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aF9AJm0RFc

[Tom]

You can buy 100 of them on Amazon for $1.49 even without a hospital’s purchasing power.

Yes you can. and when you get them home, you have 100 pills. Period.
the hospital has to mark up this stuff to pay for the expenses of maintaining a large facility with a huge number of employees, many of them UNION workers, who drive up the costs, having to do countless chores around the clock that have nothing at all to do with the the health care part of it. Laundry, grounds keeping, moping floors, washing windows, dishes, you name it - hospital are very expensive to run. If you stay at home and buy your e-meds, you can help cut health care costs. Under Obamdon'tcare, many will find this their only means of health care.

[hcap]

Yes you can. and when you get them home, you have 100 pills. Period.
the hospital has to mark up this stuff to pay for the expenses of maintaining a large facility with a huge number of employees, many of them UNION workers, who drive up the costs, having to do countless chores around the clock that have nothing at all to do with the the health care part of it. Laundry, grounds keeping, moping floors, washing windows, dishes, you name it - hospital are very expensive to run. If you stay at home and buy your e-meds, you can help cut health care costs. Under Obamdon'tcare, many will find this their only means of health care.Maybe the next time conservative who believe in the profit motive and the right of doctors and hospitals and insurance companies to SCREW their customers for all their worth get a heart attack, they can practice pure capitalism and do the operation at home. After all the invisible hand will balance everything out.

That should teach them overcharging robber barons that the customer(especially astute repugs) will automatically correct the abuses because they are smart enough to vote with their pocketbooks.

Even though they only may get to vote once
:lol:

[fast4522]

For the very same reasons Tom mentioned blood work that we all have done will cost you 3 times more at the hospital than you would pay at an independent lab. If your like me watching your cholesterol getting blood tests every year in January can be a good savings, to you and your insurance provider if you cut the hospital out.

[JustRalph]

The hospitals must do "cost shifting" to cover for those who don't pay. A large part of this problem comes from illegal aliens and plain old deadbeats.

That's why you pay a premium at the hospital as opposed to a local lab. The local lab can refuse patients. The hospital cannot.

The hospital cannot by law ask if you are illegal. They cannot force you to ID yourself either. The illegals know this and use it to their advantage.

I have seen illegals come to the hospital e.r. And check in for some made up symptom. Stay 12 hours for a battery of tests, get fed, get discharged and 8 hours later come back, use a different name and do it again for 12 hours.

Homeless are even worse. If a bad snowstorm is comng they all check in as soon as the snow starts falling. They can always feign suicideal ideations and they get up to 48 hours in a room with a shower and 3 meals. If they get a sucker for a doctor they might even get some meds.

You are paying for these people every time you go to a hospital.

[hcap]

So you gentlemen obviously HAVE not read the article. It is long but gives a pretty good idea of abuses in the health care "industry". I fail to see how anyone can defend charging outrageous rates as a good example of how competitive free markets are good for the consumer.

[hcap]

Actually, according to a new report from the Obama administration, double-digit premium rate increases are falling. Dramatically. The researchers looked at 15 states that make requests for rate increases by insurers public, and saw rate increases plummet, at least in the individual plan market.

Since 2010, there has been a decline in the proportion of rate filings in which the requested increase is at or above the Affordable Care Act threshold of 10 percent. In 2010, 75 percent of rate filings requested increases of 10 percent or more, a proportion that dropped to 34 percent in 2012 (See Figure 1).

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2013/rateIncreaseIndvMkt/rb.pdf

Here's Figure 1,

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/20322/large/rate-increases.png?1361571464

These 15 states represent about a third of the entire individual market, making the findings pretty significant. However, the researches didn't see the same drop in rate increases on the group plan side of the market, where rate increases are more stable. This study does, though, reinforce similar findings from the Kaiser Family Foundation last fall. KFF concluded that the greater scrutiny on rate increases under Obamacare could account for reduced premium increases.

See

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8376.pdf

Similar findings from the Kaiser Family Foundation last fall. KFF concluded that the greater scrutiny on rate increases under Obamacare could account for reduced premium increases.

Obamacare is not what many of wanted. Single Payer was. Maybe at some point it will evolve into SP when demographics shift some more and repugs grow up.

[fast4522]

You always benefit by increased participation, especially now in the matter of ones own health care.

[hcap]

You always benefit by increased participation, especially now in the matter of ones own health care.That's why single payer with some exceptions, would work the best. And incentives for taking care of oneself by preventive care leverages further savings

There are ways that private companies get involved in single payer-minus the out of control abusive costs.

[Tom]

The hospitals must do "cost shifting" to cover for those who don't pay. A large part of this problem comes from illegal aliens and plain old deadbeats.

We call them anchors around here. :lol:
As bad as our HC system is, or least hcap likes to believe it is, we turn NO ONE away. That is why we pay more than anyone else. The huge HC costs are direct result of the liberals. but is easier to blame someone else, ala Obama, the Great Divider, than to try to really fix the problem - which Obamadon'tcare doesn't even attempt to do. Some people are not bright enough to figure that out.

[fast4522]

That's why single payer with some exceptions, would work the best. And incentives for taking care of oneself by preventive care leverages further savings

There are ways that private companies get involved in single payer-minus the out of control abusive costs.


How does it feel to want? :lol: :lol: