[Athens]

There has got to be a way to compare out of pocket costs that is subjective, any idea's?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Athens 

There has got to be a way to compare out of pocket costs that is subjective, any idea's?

You mean that is not subjective?

Comparing any two systems directly is likely difficult, but what is the objective here? Are there really those that feel that out-of-pocket health care costs here in the US are appropriately priced?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You mean that is not subjective?

Comparing any two systems directly is likely difficult, but what is the objective here? Are there really those that feel that out-of-pocket health care costs here in the US are appropriately priced?

Dunno, all I do know is my out of pocket cost since im not covered by work is $57.00 a month. No Deductibles, no Co-Pays. No coverage for drugs so I pay full price which is usually in the $12.00 to $20.00 range for prescriptions.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Dunno, all I do know is my out of pocket cost since im not covered by work is $57.00 a month. No Deductibles, no Co-Pays. No coverage for drugs so I pay full price which is usually in the $12.00 to $20.00 range for prescriptions.

I'm not surprised, at one point I researched similar numbers to provide myself with a point of reference. US costs are wayyy wayyy wwwaaayyy inflated due to a variety of debatable reasons.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not surprised, at one point I researched similar numbers to provide myself with a point of reference. US costs are wayyy wayyy wwwaaayyy inflated due to a variety of debatable reasons.

The main reason is the lack of market discipline - you cannot negotiate prices outside of Medicaid/Medicare bc it's illegal. Also, going along with that is the inflation due to the infrastructure required. Add to that the inflation from the government monopoly. Medicare itself is a large part of the cost difference.

[Athens]

I was watching a good documentary about the US financial situation currently, well as of last year and the Interests alone the federal government pays is more then the costs of most of the social programs including Medicare combined.

Debt needs to be taken care of because if there was none, it would free up just a TON of money for everything else.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not surprised, at one point I researched similar numbers to provide myself with a point of reference. US costs are wayyy wayyy wwwaaayyy inflated due to a variety of debatable reasons.

You did the same thing Athens did when we discussed this. You shopped an individually-priced plan. Very few actually get their healthcare this way. The problem was when I cited national expenditures as determined by the Dept of Labor, they weren't high enough to make Athen's point so now he's still looking for another way. There isn't much else I can do for him at this point.

I pay $47 (and some change) every two weeks for my healthcare insurance which covers not only general healthcare, but optometry and dental FOR THE FAMILY. That is why the expenditures are measured as a "unit" in the US system; again most are getting their insurance through an employer and most in the household are covered under one insurance plan. My wife works full-time for example and makes about as much as I do yet we are all covered under one plan offered through my job. In essence, even if I was paying closer to the national average, my wife is paying nothing so you'd take that figure and split it anyway. I pay a $15.00 office visit to the doctor, just had dental-work done and the Hydrocodone for example was... get this... (generic equivalent) $2.50!

So again, to your point; the argument is not whether the cost of health care in the US is reasonable as most (80%) are happy with the cost and quality of their own care. Besides, no one can tell me what health care should cost per month. The point is are the systems sustainable and neither is. Comparing the two is apples and oranges and I've yet to see any proponent of the Canadian system properly acknowledge this fact.

[Athens]

I think the Canadian system is sustainable. I think the US system can be to if only one system was picked. If you ask me it would be cheaper for the US government to pay the "monthly" premiums for Vets and those on Medicare to a private insurance company vs running a totally separate system.

Sustainability is only in doubt because of a rare situation caused form baby boomers. Its a influx of needed care that has never existed before. Traditionally a couple had 3-5 kids and the population grew in a way that allowed for the new generation to pay into a system to take care of the old generation. Both systems are being stretched more so then normal because of the large influx of babies after WW2 and the decrease in couples producing childing with the average family creating 1 or 2 kids which was not enough to sustain the baby boomer generation. Add into that immigration numbers which help a bit in one way through contributions but add into that non contributing immigrates who retire here that come along with the new younger contributors and what we have is sky rocketing costs of additional demand and care requirements that will level out in another 10-15 years. Because care must be provided to every one, the US also has additional hardships of illegal immigrants making use of the system and not paying into it. So between the baby boomers, lower child births, retiring family members and illegals the health systems are under a lot of strain. Whats not sustainable is the special situation with baby boomers. When they have all died the demands on the medical system will lower greatly.

Edit-- Forgot to add, something else that has created this special situation is how much longer people are living too. This will also correct itself in time. Its estimated our generation will not even live as long as our parents due to diet and lack of activity. Even if we do live as long as our parents our generation will prob work longer then those of previous generations due to the longer healthier lives we (could) have.

On the comparison of cost side of things...

For comparisons of cost it might be more beneficial to look at the costs to business vs the cost to the individual for a more accurate way to gage which system costs more to society as a whole.

For the individual we should be comparing quality and care vs cost? and out of pocket costs vs actual coverage. Majority of Canadians medical is covered by work as well, the only difference between Canada and the US is those that are not covered then pay into it directly as a requirement with subsidies for low income earners.

Does this sound better at all?