Health insurance

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

How come in the US we pay 6000-10000 for a stent, but in other countries it is like 1000-2000? There is something wrong with that. There is something wrong wrong with the health care system, when in the us an MRI cost 1200, but in Japan it is only 98 bucks. We are subsidizing everyone.


FRONTLINE: sick around the world: interviews: naoki ikegami | PBS

I find it interesting that the Japanese make HC "more affordable" by having a government version of "out of pocket" payment (Charge what payer can afford or go out of business). The gov. is a proxy representative of all the individual payers and insurance companies (of which there are many) and states this is what we can afford to pay. Accept it, or go out of business. What a concept!

As for Japan's best-in-world macro health indicators (infant mortality and longevity), it is demonstrably because of their lifestyle, homegeneous culture and lack of immigration problems, etc., NOT because of health care. Their need of health care is less pressing than U.S. citizens who are rather careless, in general, about their health, and who are a far more diverse, uncontrolled population. But survival rates of those undergoing U.S. medical procedures is tops.

Ikegami favors socialistic over market approach to HC only because, in his opinion, HC is a life and death situation. Actually, most HC is not, and what is could be covered by various private ins. cos.--catastrophic, health savings, etc.

Amazing that only 70% of Japanese favor the universal package--80% of US are happy with what they have.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Ikegami favors socialistic over market approach to HC only because, in his opinion, HC is a life and death situation. Actually, most HC is not, and what is could be covered by various private ins. cos.--catastrophic, health savings, etc.

An afterthought re socialistic solutions to "life and death" situations instead of free market solutions. Food, clothing, shelter, among others, are as much "life and death" situations as health care. Should we not, then, have universal food care, universal clothing care, universal shelter care, etc.?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Should we not, then, have universal food care, universal clothing care, universal shelter care, etc.?

Let's see, we got car companies, banks, insurance companies, govt taking over of
all student loans, proposed health care.
Ya need to give them at least another 8 months till we get the food,another cheese hand out,
clothing, shelter and they blow your nose for you.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

An afterthought re socialistic solutions to "life and death" situations instead of free market solutions. Food, clothing, shelter, among others, are as much "life and death" situations as health care. Should we not, then, have universal food care, universal clothing care, universal shelter care, etc.?

Everything is on a spectrum. We already do have some level of aid for many of these situations, food stamps, tax exemptions for clothing in some states, low income housing subsidies etc...

Your argument is akin to the one that says if two gay people can legally marry, then why can't you marry 5 people or a goat or even 5 goats?

History has proven that when society sets reasonable limits the results can indeed be effective even when pulled at from both sides.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Everything is on a spectrum. We already do have some level of aid for many of these situations, food stamps, tax exemptions for clothing in some states, low income housing subsidies etc...

I realize that we have levels of aid for these situations. The spectrum I was on was Ikegami's preference for socialized UNIVERSAL type health care BECAUSE HC is a "life and death" situation. So, if, we agree that leaving "life and death" solutions to the free market is too harsh and unfair, and our solution to the problem of health care is to mandate that insurance coverage be universal, would it not follow that we should mandate universal coverage for other, even more "life and death" situations?

Your argument is akin to the one that says if two gay people can legally marry, then why can't you marry 5 people or a goat or even 5 goats?

I am not sure if your example is a "life and death" situation, but if it is, by all means, let's mandate some universal coverage for it.

History has proven that when society sets reasonable limits the results can indeed be effective even when pulled at from both sides.
-spence

Cool.