What would happen if the health insurance economy collapsed

[Treedbear]

That would have been a better plan than Obamacare, but too late no. But to lower health care the government will have to have the backbone to tell people they don't need medical services. Only way to save on medical costs is to ration it.

Or have the backbone to tell people that saving on medical costs is down the list of priorities when it comes to medical care, so they need to pay more so that it won't be rationed as much.

The one thing we need to learn from economics is that the surest way to lower quality, decrease supply and drive up prices it's to increase demand. Good thing I bought my 45" HDTV before the rush.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not going to be cheap, healthcare is expensive.

One way to make health insurance a lot cheaper for everybody would be to just lower the age of Medicare to 50.

It would cost a tiny bit in taxes, but would take a huge burden off the private insurance industry which could lower prices.

That is something that could be set up in less than a year and would yield immediate savings.

Then you slowly move to health insurance for everybody.

That reduces what you pay out of pocket, it does nothing to reduce the cost. Just because you don't see it easily doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That would have been a better plan than Obamacare, but too late no. But to lower health care the government will have to have the backbone to tell people they don't need medical services. Only way to save on medical costs is to ration it.

There are things that reduce medical spending. Off the top of my head:

1) Vaccinations. Have the government provide all recommended vaccinations separate from the health insurance system. I wouldn't be surprised if flu shots for everyone is actually a good idea due to herd effects even if they aren't considered needed for healthy younger adults. (Rather like covering HPV for boys even though they don't have a cervix--the herd effects make this a good idea.)

2) Free long-acting contraception and sterilization. Reduce the number of oopses, increase the wage base that pays taxes.

3) Clamp down hard on drug price shenanigans.

3a) Game #1: Makers of expensive maintenance drug X offer hospitals huge discounts to have their drug be the only one in the class they stock. Patient comes in, patient gets switched to X because they don't have what he's on available. Patient is discharged on X and is now paying more per month.

3b) Game #2: Big rebates to state Medicaid systems to have expensive drug X in the formulary but not it's generic. Since the feds pay a percentage of the bill the rebate is set high enough to make the formulary drug cheaper for the state, the feds eat the big bill.

 

[coloradoatheist]

That would have been a better plan than Obamacare, but too late no. But to lower health care the government will have to have the backbone to tell people they don't need medical services. Only way to save on medical costs is to ration it.

There are things that reduce medical spending. Off the top of my head:

1) Vaccinations. Have the government provide all recommended vaccinations separate from the health insurance system. I wouldn't be surprised if flu shots for everyone is actually a good idea due to herd effects even if they aren't considered needed for healthy younger adults. (Rather like covering HPV for boys even though they don't have a cervix--the herd effects make this a good idea.)

2) Free long-acting contraception and sterilization. Reduce the number of oopses, increase the wage base that pays taxes.

3) Clamp down hard on drug price shenanigans.

3a) Game #1: Makers of expensive maintenance drug X offer hospitals huge discounts to have their drug be the only one in the class they stock. Patient comes in, patient gets switched to X because they don't have what he's on available. Patient is discharged on X and is now paying more per month.

3b) Game #2: Big rebates to state Medicaid systems to have expensive drug X in the formulary but not it's generic. Since the feds pay a percentage of the bill the rebate is set high enough to make the formulary drug cheaper for the state, the feds eat the big bill.

1) It's actually a tough one because you have tradeoffs and not to the costs it would be a hard calculation of average cost of the person compared to the cost in the short term before they died. It improves mortality, but doesn't necessarily decrease cost

2) Mixed too, but probably the strongest argument, though education might be a better cost option

3) I'm surprised for you on this one. The easy answer to reduce cost in drugs is to say we've got enough drugs right now we don't need any more. It's getting harder and harder to make drugs because we've gotten most of the low hanging fruit and we've placed a lot of restrictions into getting them on the market. As I've said we can say we don't need any more drugs.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I keep hearing from the right that if this or that doesn't happen..blah blah that the health insurance industry will collapse. Given I think we need a health care industry not a health insurance one, I really don't care. But of course I'm being knee jerk to some degree.

What would happen to our overall economy if the health insurance economy/industry collapsed abruptly? Would it ultimately spread through the whole economy and hurt the GDP? Would our system be able to replace it with health care rapidly enough to not cause a major economic disruption?

It would take an entire set of circumstances happening concomitantly to cause an 'abrupt' health insurance collapse. Something like a pandemic or medical catastrophe that impacts enough lives to blow through all the reserves of the whole industry. And in such a scenario I would hope congress would have the wherewithal to pass emergency funding for the catastrophe itself.

This whole 'collapse of the industry' schtick is nothing more than insurers whining about how they aren't sure how much to charge next year.

And if so, what is the best way to wean our country off one and into another? What exactly would need to happen to make that happen?

The easiest way to move to government provided healthcare insurance in the US would be to expand medicare to cover everyone. If you are a proponent of having the market provide the insurance, then at least take away negotiated prices and let medicare set them. Insurers can compete on claims handling and coverages.

aa

 

[SimpleDon]

I heard recently that private individual policies are only about 5% of all of the health care insurance business including VA, Medicare, Medicaid. So I agree with Don, the major insurance carriers are in no danger of collapsing, imploding, exploding or whatever other scare-word the Republicans are using in lock-step this week.

ObamaCare can't survive long with the Republicans in power, no matter what happened today with the TrumpCare fiasco. They can subject ObamaCare to a death of a thousand cuts. They dealt ObamaCare a serious blow by burying a single sentence in an otherwise unrelated bill when they weren't in power that killed the risk channel of ObamaCare, the reason that the premiums jumped and insurers dropped out of some of the exchanges in 2016, before the election.

Agree with Don again - and "death of a thousand cuts" is a perfect way to put it.

There was an interesting perspective from one of the Senators this morning. He pointed out that Trump used to be vocally in favor of a single-payer system and/or a public option in the current system. He was expressing hope that since Paul Ryan's plan has clearly crashed and burned, Democratic and moderate Republican leaders might be able to get Trump's support for a public option.

If Trump were not a malignant narcissistic egomaniac, I might have some hope, too. Unfortunately, he will never ever cooperate with any congress person who voted against "TrumpCare" even though he himself hated Ryan's plan

Yes, Trump would be a dangerous partner in any attempt to strengthen the ACA. But he would be a necessary partner. He is, like it or not, the president.

His populism is the river that is a mile wide but only inches deep. It is as if he learned it purely by rote and doesn't understand any of even the simplest reasons behind any of it.

He will never be able to satisfy conservatives without damaging the lives of millions of people. Conservatives don't accept the basic premise of insurance, that they will be forced to pay for someone else's medical care, automobile accident, flood damage, etc. on the chance that they will need medical care, have an automobile accident or be caught in a flood in the future. That health care insurance doesn't work well unless the young and healthy buy it to provide medical care to the old and the sick with the anticipation that they will need medical care in the future. That the vast majority of Americans believe that good health care in the world's wealthiest country should be a right and not an option reserved for those who can afford it.

I have more bad news for the conservatives. Still not widely understood is the basic truth that, if you believe in universal health care, that relying on for profit insurance companies to deliver it can't do anything but to increase the costs of medical care. The specialty of the for profit insurance companies is to try to sell policies to the young and the healthy, and not to the old and the sick. This effort is worthless if we are going to try to cover everyone.

If an insurance company does get lucky and succeeds in building a policy pool of people who don't use the benefits much, it only means that another insurance company that is not as lucky is going to have to pay out more in benefits and will have no choice but to raise premiums or to go out of business. Then the lucky company is going to have to pick up the old and the sick and become unlucky.

The only way to avoid this is to have some kind of equalization scheme, either through the government, like the so-called rail channel that the Republicans provided for in the Medicare drug benefit program, or a private means such as requiring reinsurance, insurance for the insurance companies against huge losses. Which, by the way, is another example of profits on the re-insurance only adding costs.

Another truth that is still not widely appreciated is that the free market can't provide us with lower costs for medical care than the government can. This is easily seen by looking at the private, for profit Medicare Advantage program and regular government provided Medicare. Even though Medicare Advantage has younger and healthier policy holders the government still has to subsidize the Advantage programs and the for profit insurance companies. Or you can see that the government can provide consistently lower costs by providing not only insurance but the entire range of health care by looking at the VA, which provides the lowest cost medical care in the World, lower than the British NHS.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Or you can see that the government can provide consistently lower costs by providing not only insurance but the entire range of health care by looking at the VA, which provides the lowest cost medical care in the World, lower than the British NHS.

Shhhh.... The big insurers already know that and they don't want their secret information widely known. That's why you see the VA getting bad press and suggestions to privatize the entire operation.

 

[untermensche]

One way to make health insurance a lot cheaper for everybody would be to just lower the age of Medicare to 50.

It would cost a tiny bit in taxes, but would take a huge burden off the private insurance industry which could lower prices.

That is something that could be set up in less than a year and would yield immediate savings.

Then you slowly move to health insurance for everybody.

That reduces what you pay out of pocket, it does nothing to reduce the cost. Just because you don't see it easily doesn't mean it's not there.

It reduces what people forced to buy private insurance must pay.

As far as the rising costs of medicine that is a function of the discipline.

More expensive scanning equipment. More tests and more expensive testing, now genetic testing. More expensive surgical tools, now robotic tools.

The way you stop rising costs is to stop progress.

Otherwise you deal with it by properly funding Medicare and knowing it will cost more every year.

 

[fromderinside]

In my experience the primary problem with health care is that there are few standards, much waste, too much overhead, and almost no cost controls. A pace maker is a pace maker. It is well know the parameters of signal and timing necessary to keep either or both sides of the heart functions. It is also well know what is required and the limits thereof for restarting the heart. Yet, each and every pacemaker brand use proprietary SW for these functions. As for batteries - and I got this one at my last visit where I was told by the tech, he didn't know I came from an R&M high tech background, that his battery was completely different giving me an extra four lyears between replacements - they are standard too with well know connections and adjustments permitted for any time of support life so there is no need for other than case size adjustments to make.

The point. Nothing is standardized and these little five hundred dollars of SW and, at most, about $4000 of HW, are going for anywhere from $70k to , like my last one which added defrib and the wonder battery, $250k. The same is true for beds, connector systems, monitoring, supplies, etc. Hospitals overcharge beyond belief because they can due to lack of price constraining factors one would normally fine in a 'free' market.

The idea that we can't get competitive bids and we can't buy from the low cost vendor is just sheer BS. Inserting a couple hundred competing insurance companies, all with their own enormous inefficient overheads doesn't help as MIlitary Care, MC, and MCaid clearly demonstrate.

Hell, my last emergency ride and tests to a local, small town hospital are still being reviewed a whole year after that ride and poke. Lesson learned: If one has a history of digestive problems and heart problems they will always exclusively concentrate on the heart problems even when the patient is describing a digestive sequence.

To the OP: OC won't fail because most of it is with employers for those under 60 and most of the rest is with MC/MCaid which means too many votes against anybody who tampers with them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are things that reduce medical spending. Off the top of my head:

1) Vaccinations. Have the government provide all recommended vaccinations separate from the health insurance system. I wouldn't be surprised if flu shots for everyone is actually a good idea due to herd effects even if they aren't considered needed for healthy younger adults. (Rather like covering HPV for boys even though they don't have a cervix--the herd effects make this a good idea.)

2) Free long-acting contraception and sterilization. Reduce the number of oopses, increase the wage base that pays taxes.

3) Clamp down hard on drug price shenanigans.

3a) Game #1: Makers of expensive maintenance drug X offer hospitals huge discounts to have their drug be the only one in the class they stock. Patient comes in, patient gets switched to X because they don't have what he's on available. Patient is discharged on X and is now paying more per month.

3b) Game #2: Big rebates to state Medicaid systems to have expensive drug X in the formulary but not it's generic. Since the feds pay a percentage of the bill the rebate is set high enough to make the formulary drug cheaper for the state, the feds eat the big bill.

1) It's actually a tough one because you have tradeoffs and not to the costs it would be a hard calculation of average cost of the person compared to the cost in the short term before they died. It improves mortality, but doesn't necessarily decrease cost

The cost has already been factored into whether they are recommended or not.

2) Mixed too, but probably the strongest argument, though education might be a better cost option

There are a lot of oopses to poor women that can't afford contraception. And overall it lowers healthcare spending.

3) I'm surprised for you on this one. The easy answer to reduce cost in drugs is to say we've got enough drugs right now we don't need any more. It's getting harder and harder to make drugs because we've gotten most of the low hanging fruit and we've placed a lot of restrictions into getting them on the market. As I've said we can say we don't need any more drugs.

It's harder but that doesn't mean there isn't a need for new drugs. So long as there are maladies lacking decent treatment there is a need for new treatments, most of which will be drugs.

- - - Updated - - -

That reduces what you pay out of pocket, it does nothing to reduce the cost. Just because you don't see it easily doesn't mean it's not there.

It reduces what people forced to buy private insurance must pay.

Which, as I said, does not reduce the total cost.

As far as the rising costs of medicine that is a function of the discipline.

More expensive scanning equipment. More tests and more expensive testing, now genetic testing. More expensive surgical tools, now robotic tools.

The way you stop rising costs is to stop progress.

Otherwise you deal with it by properly funding Medicare and knowing it will cost more every year.

Look at my list of things. All would produce actual cost reductions.

 

[whichphilosophy]

That reduces what you pay out of pocket, it does nothing to reduce the cost. Just because you don't see it easily doesn't mean it's not there.

It reduces what people forced to buy private insurance must pay.

As far as the rising costs of medicine that is a function of the discipline.

More expensive scanning equipment. More tests and more expensive testing, now genetic testing. More expensive surgical tools, now robotic tools.

The way you stop rising costs is to stop progress.

Otherwise you deal with it by properly funding Medicare and knowing it will cost more every year.

When I was in Huangdao, China, as part of my employer procedure I went to the hospital when I had a slight cough. As a standard requirement, I supplied blood for 7 bottles, had a chest X-Ray, temperature, ECG, blood pressure tests.

This was standard each time. The cost for this was 10 RMB, not even, US$2.00. Those who were given medicine paid next to nothing.

There's no appointment necessary. Just turn up and push in each queue to get the specialist to see you. Despite the apparent chaos things were very well organised. All test results were available within a couple of hours.

This worked very well. When I was in Beijing I had a company medical in a brand new medical centre. There were 22 tests involved. This was more orderly, but still very fast. However due to the time factor (I only had a few hours). I omitted a few which was okay since there were often more tests for one symptom. This facility was spotless with state of the art equipment, purchased in most cases from the USA.

 

[whichphilosophy]

1) It's actually a tough one because you have tradeoffs and not to the costs it would be a hard calculation of average cost of the person compared to the cost in the short term before they died. It improves mortality, but doesn't necessarily decrease cost

The cost has already been factored into whether they are recommended or not.

2) Mixed too, but probably the strongest argument, though education might be a better cost option

There are a lot of oopses to poor women that can't afford contraception. And overall it lowers healthcare spending.

3) I'm surprised for you on this one. The easy answer to reduce cost in drugs is to say we've got enough drugs right now we don't need any more. It's getting harder and harder to make drugs because we've gotten most of the low hanging fruit and we've placed a lot of restrictions into getting them on the market. As I've said we can say we don't need any more drugs.

It's harder but that doesn't mean there isn't a need for new drugs. So long as there are maladies lacking decent treatment there is a need for new treatments, most of which will be drugs.

- - - Updated - - -

That reduces what you pay out of pocket, it does nothing to reduce the cost. Just because you don't see it easily doesn't mean it's not there.

It reduces what people forced to buy private insurance must pay.

Which, as I said, does not reduce the total cost.

As far as the rising costs of medicine that is a function of the discipline.

More expensive scanning equipment. More tests and more expensive testing, now genetic testing. More expensive surgical tools, now robotic tools.

The way you stop rising costs is to stop progress.

Otherwise you deal with it by properly funding Medicare and knowing it will cost more every year.

Look at my list of things. All would produce actual cost reductions.

Preventative medicine (including change in lifestyle) helps reduce illnesses. It also involves a particular positive outlook on life.

 

[ksen]

It reduces what people forced to buy private insurance must pay.

As far as the rising costs of medicine that is a function of the discipline.

More expensive scanning equipment. More tests and more expensive testing, now genetic testing. More expensive surgical tools, now robotic tools.

The way you stop rising costs is to stop progress.

Otherwise you deal with it by properly funding Medicare and knowing it will cost more every year.

When I was in Huangdao, China, as part of my employer procedure I went to the hospital when I had a slight cough. As a standard requirement, I supplied blood for 7 bottles, had a chest X-Ray, temperature, ECG, blood pressure tests.

This was standard each time. The cost for this was 10 RMB, not even, US$2.00. Those who were given medicine paid next to nothing.

There's no appointment necessary. Just turn up and push in each queue to get the specialist to see you. Despite the apparent chaos things were very well organised. All test results were available within a couple of hours.

This worked very well. When I was in Beijing I had a company medical in a brand new medical centre. There were 22 tests involved. This was more orderly, but still very fast. However due to the time factor (I only had a few hours). I omitted a few which was okay since there were often more tests for one symptom. This facility was spotless with state of the art equipment, purchased in most cases from the USA.

goddamn communists

 

[coloradoatheist]

The cost has already been factored into whether they are recommended or not.

2) Mixed too, but probably the strongest argument, though education might be a better cost option

There are a lot of oopses to poor women that can't afford contraception. And overall it lowers healthcare spending.

3) I'm surprised for you on this one. The easy answer to reduce cost in drugs is to say we've got enough drugs right now we don't need any more. It's getting harder and harder to make drugs because we've gotten most of the low hanging fruit and we've placed a lot of restrictions into getting them on the market. As I've said we can say we don't need any more drugs.

It's harder but that doesn't mean there isn't a need for new drugs. So long as there are maladies lacking decent treatment there is a need for new treatments, most of which will be drugs.

- - - Updated - - -

That reduces what you pay out of pocket, it does nothing to reduce the cost. Just because you don't see it easily doesn't mean it's not there.

It reduces what people forced to buy private insurance must pay.

Which, as I said, does not reduce the total cost.

As far as the rising costs of medicine that is a function of the discipline.

More expensive scanning equipment. More tests and more expensive testing, now genetic testing. More expensive surgical tools, now robotic tools.

The way you stop rising costs is to stop progress.

Otherwise you deal with it by properly funding Medicare and knowing it will cost more every year.

Look at my list of things. All would produce actual cost reductions.

Preventative medicine (including change in lifestyle) helps reduce illnesses. It also involves a particular positive outlook on life.

The cost savings depends on several factors, and sometimes preventative medicine costs more than the costs from it. There was a big uproar a while back when they started recommending waiting later in life to schedule mammograms and the frequency of those.

Doctors do understand that, but it's the patients who must do it and sometimes doctors have found that patients only do something if they are given a pill instead.

 

[dismal]

When I was in Huangdao, China, as part of my employer procedure I went to the hospital when I had a slight cough. As a standard requirement, I supplied blood for 7 bottles, had a chest X-Ray, temperature, ECG, blood pressure tests.

This was standard each time. The cost for this was 10 RMB, not even, US$2.00. Those who were given medicine paid next to nothing.

There's no appointment necessary. Just turn up and push in each queue to get the specialist to see you. Despite the apparent chaos things were very well organised. All test results were available within a couple of hours.

This worked very well. When I was in Beijing I had a company medical in a brand new medical centre. There were 22 tests involved. This was more orderly, but still very fast. However due to the time factor (I only had a few hours). I omitted a few which was okay since there were often more tests for one symptom. This facility was spotless with state of the art equipment, purchased in most cases from the USA.

goddamn communists

See, this is where the left loses healthcare debates. I am happy to support universal coverage at communist style costs. How about a Constitutional amendment that requires everyone be covered but at a cap of $200 per person per year. Then we can gave Cuban style healthcare for all, and leave everything else to the market.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When I was in Huangdao, China, as part of my employer procedure I went to the hospital when I had a slight cough. As a standard requirement, I supplied blood for 7 bottles, had a chest X-Ray, temperature, ECG, blood pressure tests.

This was standard each time. The cost for this was 10 RMB, not even, US$2.00. Those who were given medicine paid next to nothing.

There's no appointment necessary. Just turn up and push in each queue to get the specialist to see you. Despite the apparent chaos things were very well organised. All test results were available within a couple of hours.

This worked very well. When I was in Beijing I had a company medical in a brand new medical centre. There were 22 tests involved. This was more orderly, but still very fast. However due to the time factor (I only had a few hours). I omitted a few which was okay since there were often more tests for one symptom. This facility was spotless with state of the art equipment, purchased in most cases from the USA.

1) That's a subsidized rate. You wouldn't get that price if you had just walked in off the street.

2) The insurance only gets you the cheap local stuff. Need anything good and you're out of luck. My MIL died over there, slowly--many trips to the hospital and the like. They used the normal system for the simple stuff like oxygen but if it mattered they paid cash to get the good stuff.

3) Quality control. There's a reason the locals much prefer American goods--they trust that they're what they're supposed to be. Our bags are normally at least half full of ordinary US goods requested by her relatives.

4) Quality control. Many of those doctors leave a lot to be desired. My wife developed a retinal hole while we were over there. They lasered it shut. When we got home she went to a retinologist here--and found that while they had been correct in their diagnosis and treatment they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn--they didn't even realize they missed the target.

5) Plenty of utter quacks in those hospitals. The hospitals get money for referring to the quacks, the patient thinks they're actually seeing a doctor.

6) What you are describing would be totally unacceptable by US standards--radiation without any decent reason.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The cost savings depends on several factors, and sometimes preventative medicine costs more than the costs from it. There was a big uproar a while back when they started recommending waiting later in life to schedule mammograms and the frequency of those.

Doctors do understand that, but it's the patients who must do it and sometimes doctors have found that patients only do something if they are given a pill instead.

Actually that was more about the lack of medical effectiveness of early mammograms. They found that unless you were at high risk it wasn't beneficial--the gain from catching tumors was more than offset by the harm from going after things that turned out to be harmless.

 

[untermensche]

It reduces what people forced to buy private insurance must pay.

As far as the rising costs of medicine that is a function of the discipline.

More expensive scanning equipment. More tests and more expensive testing, now genetic testing. More expensive surgical tools, now robotic tools.

The way you stop rising costs is to stop progress.

Otherwise you deal with it by properly funding Medicare and knowing it will cost more every year.

When I was in Huangdao, China, as part of my employer procedure I went to the hospital when I had a slight cough. As a standard requirement, I supplied blood for 7 bottles, had a chest X-Ray, temperature, ECG, blood pressure tests.

This was standard each time. The cost for this was 10 RMB, not even, US$2.00. Those who were given medicine paid next to nothing.

There's no appointment necessary. Just turn up and push in each queue to get the specialist to see you. Despite the apparent chaos things were very well organised. All test results were available within a couple of hours.

This worked very well. When I was in Beijing I had a company medical in a brand new medical centre. There were 22 tests involved. This was more orderly, but still very fast. However due to the time factor (I only had a few hours). I omitted a few which was okay since there were often more tests for one symptom. This facility was spotless with state of the art equipment, purchased in most cases from the USA.

Not surprisingly the US has a dictatorial model of health care.

The doctor is at top and all things are to make their life easier.

The patient is at the bottom and they wait a long time to see the doctor.

 

[whichphilosophy]

When I was in Huangdao, China, as part of my employer procedure I went to the hospital when I had a slight cough. As a standard requirement, I supplied blood for 7 bottles, had a chest X-Ray, temperature, ECG, blood pressure tests.

This was standard each time. The cost for this was 10 RMB, not even, US$2.00. Those who were given medicine paid next to nothing.

There's no appointment necessary. Just turn up and push in each queue to get the specialist to see you. Despite the apparent chaos things were very well organised. All test results were available within a couple of hours.

This worked very well. When I was in Beijing I had a company medical in a brand new medical centre. There were 22 tests involved. This was more orderly, but still very fast. However due to the time factor (I only had a few hours). I omitted a few which was okay since there were often more tests for one symptom. This facility was spotless with state of the art equipment, purchased in most cases from the USA.

1) That's a subsidized rate. You wouldn't get that price if you had just walked in off the street.

2) The insurance only gets you the cheap local stuff. Need anything good and you're out of luck. My MIL died over there, slowly--many trips to the hospital and the like. They used the normal system for the simple stuff like oxygen but if it mattered they paid cash to get the good stuff.

3) Quality control. There's a reason the locals much prefer American goods--they trust that they're what they're supposed to be. Our bags are normally at least half full of ordinary US goods requested by her relatives.

4) Quality control. Many of those doctors leave a lot to be desired. My wife developed a retinal hole while we were over there. They lasered it shut. When we got home she went to a retinologist here--and found that while they had been correct in their diagnosis and treatment they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn--they didn't even realize they missed the target.

5) Plenty of utter quacks in those hospitals. The hospitals get money for referring to the quacks, the patient thinks they're actually seeing a doctor.

6) What you are describing would be totally unacceptable by US standards--radiation without any decent reason.

1) No dispute; but the point is, this is possible.
2) This was only for flu and colds. I have never had major treatment anywhere.
3) Make sure the US goods are not imported from China. Some hospitals and dentists (in 2009) had purchased modern equipment from the USA and Europe (Beijing this time).
4) See point 2. Hope this was corrected.
5) I can’t say. Apart from sometimes using Western medicine I used TCM. This treated the a serious DVT which was not handled in Germany. However I’m fortunate to not have any major physical illnesses apart from this. Now mental illness is a different issue 
6) However, there are around 210,000 deaths each year in the USA medical errors in the USA (though lots more are helped).
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-many-die-from-medical-mistakes-in-us-hospitals/

The US needs a cost effective health system and certainly looking at countries which provide this could assist. Obama Care is a great concept but is extremely costly taking up 17% of the GDP vs European countries which are around 10 %. (Cuba’s also around 10 %  )

 

[whichphilosophy]

When I was in Huangdao, China, as part of my employer procedure I went to the hospital when I had a slight cough. As a standard requirement, I supplied blood for 7 bottles, had a chest X-Ray, temperature, ECG, blood pressure tests.

This was standard each time. The cost for this was 10 RMB, not even, US$2.00. Those who were given medicine paid next to nothing.

There's no appointment necessary. Just turn up and push in each queue to get the specialist to see you. Despite the apparent chaos things were very well organised. All test results were available within a couple of hours.

This worked very well. When I was in Beijing I had a company medical in a brand new medical centre. There were 22 tests involved. This was more orderly, but still very fast. However due to the time factor (I only had a few hours). I omitted a few which was okay since there were often more tests for one symptom. This facility was spotless with state of the art equipment, purchased in most cases from the USA.

Not surprisingly the US has a dictatorial model of health care.

The doctor is at top and all things are to make their life easier.

The patient is at the bottom and they wait a long time to see the doctor.

A few extra hundred dollars makes the patient's life easier.

- - - Updated - - -

When I was in Huangdao, China, as part of my employer procedure I went to the hospital when I had a slight cough. As a standard requirement, I supplied blood for 7 bottles, had a chest X-Ray, temperature, ECG, blood pressure tests.

This was standard each time. The cost for this was 10 RMB, not even, US$2.00. Those who were given medicine paid next to nothing.

There's no appointment necessary. Just turn up and push in each queue to get the specialist to see you. Despite the apparent chaos things were very well organised. All test results were available within a couple of hours.

This worked very well. When I was in Beijing I had a company medical in a brand new medical centre. There were 22 tests involved. This was more orderly, but still very fast. However due to the time factor (I only had a few hours). I omitted a few which was okay since there were often more tests for one symptom. This facility was spotless with state of the art equipment, purchased in most cases from the USA.

goddamn communists

China only recently went socialist on its healthcare.