Medical Malpractice - Why is our healthcare so bad?

Why is our healthcare so bad?

Healthcare in the US is the best in the world, for those that can afford it. In the NYC hospital where my relative was treated, there is a floor with hospital room suites and hotel rooms for wealthy foreigners can be treated and have accomodations for their family. If Universal Healthcare was so great in Europe and Canada, why would there be a need for this private floor in NYC? It sounds as if the presidential candidate will have to battle the Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. They have the highest profits. I wonder if they are the largest campaign contributors?

Public Comments

Because there are long wait times in Europe and Canada for treatment, and some people would die waiting if they didn't come here.
The worst thing about our healthcare is really government interference. We also need tort reform so that lawyers and malpractice insurance companies aren't getting such a large chunk of everyones healthcare dollar.
Two words, my dear: Insurance Companies. My husband is a doctor... if you think doctors make a lot of money, they do, but insurance companies rake it in hand over fist and pay pennies on the dollar for procedures, routine health care, diagnostics, lab, etc. It's not just bad, it's purely disgusting. And of course, who gets blamed for it? The doctors do.
some people make too much off of healthcare to let it be available nationwide
Our healthcare can be excellent. We have outstanding medical care in the US - for whoever can afford it. The issue is just that - in catastrophic cases - your average american can not afford it.
Your question is the answer. "Healthcare in the US is the best in the world, for those that can afford it." Unfortunately, a large part of the country cannot afford it. That is why we have one of the highest infant mortality rates and one of the lowest life expectancies in the developed world.
other countries try to give somethink to all its citerzens regardless of their pay package. the army takes care of ppl who dont have money in the usa! a bad deal ?!
Maybe the question should be, why are wealthy foreigners getting special treatment over Americans?
Our fading generations don`t share the world view that we are all in this together.
Actually I have free health care :) yes I am in the US and no I am not insured why would I be I have free health care lol
The health care in the US is an industry that promotes competition among distributors. As such, if a hospital or insurance company can offer some benefit for the payer's dollar, then theoretically that person may be more likely to spend money in that hospital or insurance. The systems of Europe and Canada work under the assumption that everybody is entitled to health care, and that it is a basic human right. Some countries have written into their constitutions or governing documents. On the other hand, in America, health care is not believed to be a basic human right (by some people).
I have a good friend that lives in Canada who needed surgery. The waiting list was three years. He came to the States and had the surgery and is alive thanks to the quality of our care. So much for universal healthcare myth. To see how the Government runs healthcare now, visit any Veterans Hospital. It's appalling.
Cost. Our healthcare is incredibly expensive, and the expense is completely out of line with the norm everywhere else in the world, even if you rate ours the best(it's actually not, except for technology. Japan's health care more or less dominates ours.) And, you're right, socialized medicine ain't great either. Which is why Obama's plan isn't that at all. He is essentially setting up the government as an insurance provider that accepts all comers at low prices. If you're happy with your healthcare, good. Keep it. It might even get cheaper due to competition. But Obama's plan IS NOT a single-provider plan...
There is nothing wrong with our health care. What is wrong is the fact that the medical industry charges insanely high rates for hospital visits and medical procedures. Then there is the pharmaceutical industry that charges insanely high rates for drugs that can be made inexpensively. Once those two industries are in check, we will have great health care in this country that everyone can afford.
Whats wrong is 47,000,000 cannot afford it and it is controlled by insurance company's who could care less about people and most doctors in the U.S. are not qualified to give a aspirin...mistake after mistake..proven fact...I'll take Canada's health care system any day ...sure is nice to know that the rich are taken care of...
Health care, like everything else in the US, is a business and the patient's welfare has been forgotten...if you have the money or insurance you can get care here...obviously this situation needs improvement but I stop short of suggesting socialized medical care, because there is one entity worse than corporations at managing things and that is the government...
It is bad because the main focus of health care in the US is to make money, not keeping people healthy. Insurance companies make money not be approving procedures and tests that people need but by denying them. If you go in and the doctor thinks you need 200 bucks worth of blood tests and the insurance companies deny him permission to do the tests, that is 200 bucks profit for the insurance companies, they make money by dening treatment. I am a 100% disabaled vet, my health sucks but I was fortunate enough to get hurt while in the military, and have worked my way thru the VA red tape, when I go to the doctor, whatever tests or procedures he thinks I need I get, no calls to get permission, or skimping on the tests. I think that is the care everybody in the country should be entitled to, just like education health care should be a right not a privledge.
You should've asked the "wealthy foreigners". Could've been any of hundreds of reasons. You know what they say about people who as*-u-me.....
greed
Cleveland, Ohio is a hotbed of health care for Canadians, as well. "You get what you pay for." Is true today as it was yesterday.
The main question is why are so many in America uninsured. First if you are poor you are covered by a multitude of coverages NO ONE GOES WITH OUT CARE. The largest share of uninsured are the ones who chose to be for one reason or another but the main reason is cost if the bought insurance then they could not afford the BMW, club membership, golf 3 times a week and a vacation so they do not protect themselves and they are the ones who want the taxpayer to cover them
Our health care is excellent. The fact that more than 15% aren't covered is not. The fact that some families are straining under the costs is not. It needs to be more efficient and less of a cash cow for the insurance industry. Democrats 2008
There are plenty of people who leave the US for health care. Although we do have some very good hospitals such as Dana Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, two of the best in the world - we also have a large majority of sub par hospitals. Overall we don't cover all of our citizens, 47 million have no coverage we are the ONLY western nation that can say that. No western nation can say we let 9 million children go without health coverage, only the US can say that. We have a lower life expectancy than England, Canada, France, Germany, Austria, Australia and when you consider most of those countries have a higher percent of smokers than the US does - that's pretty bad. We have a higher infant mortality rate than those above mentioned countries. Overall our health care is the joke of the western world.
Bad logic going from the specific to the general...but we'll let that pass. Also, MOST wealthy foreigners DON'T come to the US for medical CARE. The percentage actually is about the same as wealthy Americans going to European or even Asian countries for treament. Nobody said that HEALTH CARE in the US is bad...depending on where you live, it's generally quite good. Now if you live in a small town in an out of the way county in Arizona as I do, for first class medical CARE you have to travel either to Phoenix, Las Vegas or LA. Third, the debate isn't even about CARE. The debate is about HEALTH INSURANCE. Nobody has suggested that the federal government put doctors on the federal payroll or that the government should buy up all the hospitals.....that's total right wing radio BS. UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE means that everyone has HEALTH INSURANCE at an affordable price. Not FREE, but AFFORDABLE. If you're going to construct an argument against UNIVERSAL INSURANCE that's legit. But a strawman argument against HEALTH CARE isn't. No kiddin'!
Fraud and abuse are two biggies. Look at Medicaid in a city like NYC. In NYC 10 percent of state Medicaid dollars were spent on fraudulent claims, while another 20-30% were deemed as abuse. That means if 40% of NYC Medicaid dollars were paid for claims tied to fraud and abuse that would equate to $18 billion a year for NYC alone!! We cannot even consider the government getting involved in healthcare until we know how to deal with this waste. Nationwide, such abuse is costing taxpayers $250 billion a year and that number is climbing. Over the next decade Americans need to know that this waste could reach $3 trillion. Does it give you peace to know that you offer up more of your earnings to tax increases that help pay for such abuse? The more Americans we have tied into a government plan, the more opportunities we will see for this kind of misuse. We need to be clear in our understanding about the waste in many government programs.
Now this is my opinion, so please stop reporting me. It was the air traffic control strike. This is how the Republicans see it. One of the most important thing Ronald Reagan did during his presidency was break the 1981 air traffic controllers' strike, which helped break the hold of organized labor over the U.S. economy. Insurance started with larger premiums and less coverage. When Bush got into office and he came up with privatizing the Social Security Medical program the Insurance really got a free reign and has been getting more outrageous every since.
One of the major complaints about the Canadian health care system is waiting times, whether for a specialist, major elective surgery, such as hip replacement, or specialized treatments, such as radiation for breast cancer. In a 2007 interview on ABC News, Professor Regina Herzlinger of Harvard Business School said, "Many clinics all across Canada are illegal for-profit... They know they can't get the health care they need from the legal system, so they're complicit in creating an illegal system that'll give them what they need." [5] A February 28, 2006 article in The New York Times quoted Dr. Brian Day as saying, "This is a country (canada) in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years. "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin. does this sound great??
It is always easier to get votes when you tell people that their problems are not their fault. You get even more votes by telling people that you will make sure they do not have to take responsibility for themselves and their own well being. Healthcare is one such issue. It takes personal discipline and responsibility to eat right, exercise, stop unhealthy habits like smoking, and get regular check ups. Only the last one really costs you anything at all and even then the cost is minimal. Yet these are the most important things you can do to secure a healthy life. No amount of government control, short of mustering every citizen outside for morning exercises on penalty of law, will make this happen. You have to take responsibility for you. There is nothing wrong with healthcare in the US per se. In fact, we have some of the best healthcare in the world here. You can walk into any emergency room in the country and get treated. And if you cannot pay for it, the hospital still cannot refuse you care and they eat the expense. That is why so many hospitals, especially here in Southern California, are going bankrupt. Open a phone book and you can find page after page of doctors offering every conceivable specialty, make an appointment, and be seen promptly. The problem is the cost of delivering this care. There are several factors that drive this and frankly, I do not see how nationalizing healthcare will have a serious impact on it. Nationalizing healthcare would dramatically increase government costs. Not just in the actual cost of service, but also in the national bureaucracy needed to maintain the federal program. You are talking about hundreds of billions of additional spending. Free healthcare is, as you would expect, not really “free”. Also, since it would be so widely available, it would be used so much that the system, without the financial limitation on personal behavior, would be quickly overwhelmed. This is what causes rationing of services and delays. There are only so many hours in a day and so many doctors to see patients. One of the major complaints in countries that have a nationalized healthcare system is rationing; having to wait months for knee replacements or over a year for a new heart valve, and that sort of thing. There are things that can be done to reduce cost, and thus make healthcare more available to the public without the burden of a government bureaucracy. For example, limiting malpractice lawsuits to actual damages is one way. Punishments for gross malpractice should not go to making plaintiffs, and moreso the plaintiffs attorney, independently wealthy. This drives up the cost of insurance to the point that many doctors are simply closing their practices. By limiting lawsuits, you limit the cost of the service, which in turn allows the service to be provided as a lower cost to the consumer. Another option, reduce drug costs by changing patient laws. Currently, a drug company will spend billions of dollars developing a drug. But the process of testing, documenting, and licensing drugs is so long they have only about 7 years to recoup that cost before the drug loses its protection and generic makers, who do not have a high research cost to recoup, can make it at a fraction of the cost of the name brand. But, if we were to expand the patient protection, require a small royalty for the researching company, or a combination of the two, the financial pressure is eased. With more time to recoup costs, drug companies do not have to charge as high a price for their products. A third option that can be done is to focus on the excessive costs of training and equipping a medical professional. Currently, a doctor takes out a gargantuan amount of debt in order to go through medical school. They have to pay this debt back and it takes years, even at their pay rates. Same thing with nurses and many technicians. And the costs of some of the equipment, ultrasounds, MRIs, etc, is astronomical. But, if we make changes in how we train and equip medical professionals, we can lower this burden. I do not have any particular proposals that really get my heart racing, but a creative approach like apprenticeships, programs to start students at lower level technician jobs and working up to a medical doctor, a federal teaching school modeled after Bethesda Naval Hospital or Walter Reed Army Hospital but for civilians, business tax credits for the manufacture or purchase of diagnostic equipment, or even direct government support for medical research tied to providing care to the public are all places to start. There is a lot that can be done that does not require the government taking over an industry. In short, I think the benefits of a nationalized healthcare system, with its accompanying government bureaucracy, are more than outweighed by the negative impacts to patient care and cost. I think that there are plenty of other things that can and should be done to lower costs and improve service that can and should be done. These proposals, like the three I laid out above, I think can reduce costs to consumers, thus making it more available, while at the same time insuring reasonable economic success for medical practitioners, drug manufacturers, and equipment makers. There is a win-win scenario out there, if we are willing to make patient, thoughtful steps and focus on the problem (high cost of service) as opposed to symptoms (people not seeking the medical care they need).