Thanks for a very helpful and informative post, Peter!
Let's look at your points one at a time:
From the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. US government programs account for 45% of all health care spending but cover less than 25% of the population.
Not at all surprising, considering that Medicare/Medicaid covers everyone over 65 (a rapidly growing cohort), plus the poor and the disabled - the populations which have the most cost-intensive health issues. The private insurers have always cherry-picked the healthiest populations. So we've really had government-run health care for years - and it works pretty well for old-timers like me. But it leaves out a lot of the folks who are paying for it.
Article entitled "Why isn't Government Health Care the Answer" from the Free Market Cure.
is a blatantly anti-UHC website, hardly a 'source' for unbiased information.
WHO study used something called "fairness in financial contribution" as an assesment factor in their global rankings, marking down countries with high per capita private or fee paying health treatment.
Um - what's wrong with that? Should only the rich get optimum health care?
Harvard School of Madicine and the Canadian Institute for Health study. 31% of US health care dollars went to administrative costs.
That's a much higher figure than I've seen elsewhere; but it certainly confirms that our health care dollars are being devoured by paperwork! I'd appreciate a link - it could be another good source for supporting UHC!
Cato Institute study shows that regulatory compliance costs pulic 340 Billion dollars in 2005. The biggest part of that money went to compliance with malpractise law, FDA and facilities regulation.
Another indicator of a broken US health care system. Again, I'd appreciate a link to the source.
From an article titled "The Uninsured: Access to Medical Care" from the American College of Emergency Medicine. In 1986 the Emergency Medical Treatment Act and Active Labor Act required all hospital ER's to treat emergency patients regardless of ability to pay. This is an unfunded mandate and now over 50% of all emergency care goes unpaid. This cost is then transferred to the insured resulting in skyrocketing health insurance premiums.
An excellent article! You might have also included their conclusion:
"ACEP advocates for expansion of health care coverage for the uninsured and underinsured and has taken a leadership role in building a national consensus for universal health coverage." From the Institute of Medicine. Between 1993 and 2003 emergency room visits increased 20% and 425 ER's closed.
Again, a broken system that the American College of Emergency Medicine wants to fix by going to universal health care.
I also had a chance to read about the British and Canadian plans. Two years ago, in response to much complaint, the British enacted a maximum 18 week gaurantee. This say that from the time you are referred to a specialist you will be tested and treated within 18 weeks.
That's not bad, I had to wait that long to see a specialist about my cancer, too. Of course, it had to be an approved specialist within my insurer's 'provider network.'
The Canadian plan seemed to be pretty good. The only problems I saw there were limited access to specialists and specialty treatment and Canadiam facilities have not been able to keep current with technological improvements. I don't see a US system being any better.
Why not? Americans have done other things better. Maybe we could copy the French UHC, which allows free choice of doctors.
