tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7126131564610858851.post7063830306085478546..comments2023-09-09T10:21:32.853-04:00Comments on The Hackensack: Health Care in the U.S. versus Single-Payer Systems in Europe and CanadaDaveinHackensackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01313169814904229272noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7126131564610858851.post-8059188838863559472009-03-17T20:38:00.000-04:002009-03-17T20:38:00.000-04:00I completely agree with Ayn Rand. In addition, a ...I completely agree with Ayn Rand. In addition, a few more points on the comparisons with single-payer countries:<BR/><BR/> - the US is much more of a melting pot than many of the countries of Europe - the life expectancy as a whole is swayed much more by the varying ethnic & country origins of the people.<BR/><BR/> - while single-payer systems allow the government to control the costs by restricting access, technologies & drug advancements, our system has the opposite problem where each state has a long list of items that must be covered by insurance (mandates), which drives up the costs and precludes nationwide insurance competition as each state has its own set of requirements<BR/><BR/> - a high percentage of the costs associated with our Health Care system are not paid directly by those that consume healthcare but are paid through 3rd party payers - insurance & the government. This leads to multiple negative results: 1) the market mechanism for the control of costs and the improvement of quality is severely constrained as people don't see a direct correlation between their healthcare spending and their usage of healthcare resources. 2) as opposed to the single-payer system, the government is not constraining the system costs to the same degree by restraining spending on technology, new drugs, etc.<BR/><BR/>It is very clear to me that the only way to control our costs while maintaining the best system in the world is by forcing people to pay directly for their healthcare through tax credits or some other tax-benefited method. If people are forced to shop on quality and, except in the case of catastrophic health issues, spend their own money, market forces will be brought to bear, competition will increase and costs will begin to stabilize.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09911648741344610855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7126131564610858851.post-4542346248740251932009-03-16T18:10:00.000-04:002009-03-16T18:10:00.000-04:00"All other countries benefit from the R&D...<I>"All other countries benefit from the R&D spending that US drug companies put out."</I><BR/><BR/>That's true, and I had the drug companies' R&D spending in mind when I used the more inclusive phrase "the research and development financed by the American health care system". Patients in foreign countries also benefit from the health care R&D conducted by American universities, hospitals, medical device companies, the NIH, the military, etc.DaveinHackensackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01313169814904229272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7126131564610858851.post-66084097579868852342009-03-16T07:55:00.000-04:002009-03-16T07:55:00.000-04:00All other countries benefit from the R&D spend...All other countries benefit from the R&D spending that US drug companies put out. <BR/><BR/>Canada and others pay discounted rates for their Rxs while we Americans pay more to subsidize the rest of the world's care.<BR/><BR/>Now Obama wants to further penalize these companies and make them less likely to spend on drug research. He is an idiot of the higest order.<BR/><BR/>Recent Supreme Court rulings also needlessly attack the drug companies through the court system giving them one more reason to exit the business. <BR/><BR/>As a country we just don't get it.<BR/>These political and judicial positions are weakening our whole healthcare network for the future just to enrich laywers and other nations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com