This discussion is closed.
Blamps
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#21
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#21
(Original post by Howard)
Because I live in America.
and I live on the Land of Nod
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#22
Report 15 years ago
#22
(Original post by Blamps)
Health Care Spending Rose 8.7 Percent in 2001
U.S. health care spending escalated to $1.4 trillion in 2001, an 8.7 percent increase over the 2000 cost.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reported the figures Jan. 8 in its annual expenditure report. CMS also reported that health care spending averaged $5,035 per person in 2001, compared with $4,672 in 2000.

"While still the greatest in the world, our health care system is stretched and stressed to the point of nearly breaking," HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson said. Causes for the spending hike included an 8.3 percent rise in hospital spending, a 15.7 percent rise in prescription drug spending and an 8.6 percent rise in spending for physician services.

Public spending, including Medicare and Medicaid payments, accounted for 45 percent of national health expenditures. Spending for Medicaid reached $224.3 billion in 2001, an increase of 10.8 percent, the fastest growth rate since 1993. "If there ever was an argument for Medicare and Medicaid reform, this report is it," said CMS Administrator Tom Scully
That's spending on medicaid (for the really really poor) and medicare (for the seniors) Most folks don't fall into this category, and use the only medical system available to them, the one provided by the private sector and for which insurance is required.
0
Blamps
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#23
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#23
(Original post by Howard)
That's spending on medicaid (for the really really poor) and medicare (for the seniors) Most folks don't fall into this category, and use the only medical system available to them, the one provided by the private sector and for which insurance is required.
Well consider this..the total expenditure of the Uk is about £300 billion whilst our average GDP/capita is about £21,000, yours is much higher....something like £40,000/capita
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#24
Report 15 years ago
#24
(Original post by fishpaste)
But if you're one of the millions without insurance. You're rather screwed. You're also screwed if you have a long term illness, because insurance companies can refuse to cover you after you've had a condition for a said time. I think that's probably a can and not a do though, I guess.
No. It's often a "do" which is why one of the biggest sources of civil litigation comes from folks suing their insurers over whether a condition was "pre-existing" or not.
0
Blamps
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#25
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#25
(Original post by Blamps)
Well consider this..the total expenditure of the Uk is about £300 billion whilst our average GDP/capita is about £21,000, yours is much higher....something like £40,000/capita
and I believe a third of that expenditure is on benefits alone...
0
Juwel
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#26
Report 15 years ago
#26
Doesn't Cuba have the world's best healthcare system? That's what I heard from my mates, who applied to Cambridge for Medicine. They read all the books. One got in.
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report 15 years ago
#27
(Original post by Howard)
No. It's often a "do" which is why one of the biggest sources of civil litigation comes from folks suing their insurers over whether a condition was "pre-existing" or not.
I can't believe such **** goes. You have cancer, we don't want to pay for you, go die in the gutter, AND QUIETLY.
0
kikzen
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#28
Report 15 years ago
#28
(Original post by ZJuwelH)
Legalise euthanasia, then you won't be giving healthcare to people who aren't exactly grateful for it.
what happens when someone has a huge will and unable to speak and their kids say their parent's wish was to die peacefully.....
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#29
Report 15 years ago
#29
(Original post by ZJuwelH)
Doesn't Cuba have the world's best healthcare system? That's what I heard from my mates, who applied to Cambridge for Medicine. They read all the books. One got in.
And the best education system.
0
Blamps
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#30
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#30
Yankee doodle, read this

U.S. Spends More on Health Care Than Any Other Country But Not Getting More Care
It's the prices, stupid
May 12, 2003
A study finds that although the United States spends more on health care than any other country, Americans are not necessarily receiving more care.

The study, released in the May/June issue of the journal Health Affairs, suggests that the difference in spending is caused mostly by higher prices for health care goods and services in the United States - not increased use in those services.

"As a country, we need to ask whether increased spending means more resources for patients, or simply higher incomes for health care providers," says lead study author Gerard Anderson, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "Policymakers should assess exactly what Americans are getting for their greater health care spending. In economics these are known as opportunity costs because you can spend the money in different ways."

Supported by the Commonwealth Fund, the study found that in 2000, U.S. per capita health spending was $4,631, an increase of 6.3 percent over 1999. In addition to being 44 percent higher than Switzerland's per capita spending, the U.S. level was 83 percent higher than neighboring Canada and 134 percent higher than the median of $1,983 for the 30 industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Despite efforts to control health spending with managed care in the 1990s, the spending gap between the United States and other industrialized countries in the OECD actually widened slightly between 1990 and 2000, according to the study.

Measured in terms of share of gross domestic product (GDP), the United States spent 13 percent on health care in 2000, Switzerland spent 10.7 percent, and Canada spent 9.1 percent. The OECD median was 8 percent. U.S. private spending per capita on health care was $2,580, more than five times the OECD median of $451. In addition, the U.S. financed 56 percent of its health care from private sources - the highest of the OECD countries, along with Korea.

According to the study, the absolute amount of money financed from public sources - primarily Medicare and Medicaid -- is similar to other countries. For example, public sources in the United States accounted for spending of 5.8 percent of GDP in 2000, close to the OECD median of 5.9 percent. However, public sources spent per person in the U.S. was $2,051 in 2000, far higher than the OECD median of $1,502. In most of the other OECD countries the public expenditures cover everyone.

There were also striking differences in many other areas of health care spending. For example:

Spending per capita on pharmaceuticals varied from $93 in Mexico to $556 in the U.S. Despite being the highest, the U.S. is actually closer to other countries on pharmaceutical spending than spending for other health services and goods.
The U.S. had fewer physicians per 1,000 population in 2000 and fewer physician visits per capita than the OECD median. There were 2.8 physicians per capita in the U.S., compared to an OECD median of 3.1 physicians.
Germany and Switzerland have much higher hospital admissions per capita, average length-of-stay, and acute care beds per capita than the United States. Yet both countries spend far less than the U.S. per capita and as a percentage of GDP on hospital care than the U.S.
The average U.S. expenditure per hospital day was $1,850 in 1999 - three times the OECD median.
According to the study, U.S. hospital expenditures are likely so much higher because:

Health care workers' salaries, medical equipment, and pharmaceutical and other supplies are more expensive in the U.S.
The average U.S. hospital stay could be more service-intensive than elsewhere.
The U.S. health care system could be less efficient, especially the payment system, which is highly fragmented and complex.
The study, which uses the latest data (for year 2000) to compare the health systems of the 30 OECD member countries, was conducted by Anderson, Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton University, and Peter S. Hussey and Varduhi Petrosyan, both doctoral candidates at Johns Hopkins University. The authors examined the factors contributing to higher health care prices in the United States. In addition, they compared pharmaceutical spending, health system capacity, and use of medical services.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#31
Report 15 years ago
#31
Actually, I'm forced yo concede some of this! Here's what I found out.

Health care spending in the United States surged to $1.6 trillion in 2002 — about $5,440 for every American — and outpaced growth in the rest of the economy for a fourth straight year.

However, this is TOTAL health spending.

"Public funds paid $713.4 billion, led by the Medicare and Medicaid programs"

"Out-of-pocket spending actually continued its long decline as a percentage of overall spending — from 21 percent in 1988 to 13.7 percent in 2002 — mainly a result of the expansion of covered services in insurance plans"

" Private insurance accounted for $549.6 billion, or 35 percent of the total. Out-of-pocket spending and other private sources, including philanthropy, made up 19 percent, or $290 billion"

Source: CBS News, Health Care Spending Soars WASHINGTON, Jan. 9, 2004


That means that the Federal government and the States pick up roughly 44% of the total health care tab or about $2394 for every American.

At today's exhange rate that's about 1345 pounds sterling per American.

Astonishingly, this is indeed ever so slightly more per head than the UK's public spending levels.

Stranger and stranger said Alice.
0
Blamps
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#32
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#32
(Original post by Howard)
Actually, I'm forced yo concede some of this! Here's what I found out.

Health care spending in the United States surged to $1.6 trillion in 2002 — about $5,440 for every American — and outpaced growth in the rest of the economy for a fourth straight year.

However, this is TOTAL health spending.

"Public funds paid $713.4 billion, led by the Medicare and Medicaid programs"

"Out-of-pocket spending actually continued its long decline as a percentage of overall spending — from 21 percent in 1988 to 13.7 percent in 2002 — mainly a result of the expansion of covered services in insurance plans"

" Private insurance accounted for $549.6 billion, or 35 percent of the total. Out-of-pocket spending and other private sources, including philanthropy, made up 19 percent, or $290 billion"

Source: CBS News, Health Care Spending Soars WASHINGTON, Jan. 9, 2004


That means that the Federal government and the States pick up roughly 44% of the total health care tab or about $2394 for every American.

At today's exhange rate that's about 1345 pounds sterling per American.

Astonishingly, this is indeed ever so slightly more per head than the UK's public spending levels.

Stranger and stranger said Alice.
hehe...told you
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (102)
24%
No (323)
76%

Watched Threads

View All