But the problem remains that the costs in the US are substantially higher than other countries that have better results.

I don't mean to start an argument here, but I am unaware of *any* country that has better results -- medically speaking -- than the US.

And, as you are considering your retort, consider that countries that appear "better" than the US statistically -- in any catagory -- tend to have far more homogeneous populations than we do. Also, many of them measure "success" differently as well (i.e. infant mortality).

Remember, the rich in countries with socialized medicine fly to the US on 'medical vacations' to get the quality of care they know they won't get at home.

 

But the problem remains that the costs in the US are substantially higher than other countries that have better results.

The costs of those "better" results could be the factor. Even with the various tax rates in this country, with the annual filing, the effective tax rate can be much lower. Some in the 15 percent bracket actually pays about 6 percent. Maybe it would be better if they actually paid 15 percent. The basic effective tax rate formula is the Taxes Paid / Total income. In other words, there would be no exemptions, no deductions, just a flat tax rate.

Of course if that was the proposal, we would see a whole new crop of critters filling those 535 seats in the Legislative Branch of the government. The tax code influences behavior and employs alot of people, from the IRS down to the tax return preparers and ghost writers (those compensated preparers that do not sign your return). On the good side, there would be less fraudulent returns as there wouldn't be any returns.

But, like Joey says, what are the metrics used for these "better" programs? The number that signed up?

Remember that user fee we paid with each and every phone, starting in the 1990s, that paid for internet access for schools? I believe Al Gore had a big part of recommending that user fee as VP, the universal connect charge. It morphed into another program, one rife with fraud.

With respect to the USF, here's what the FCC states is the purpose:

Carrier Universal Service Charge:

Because telephones provide a vital link to emergency services, to government services and to surrounding communities, it has been our nation’s policy to promote telephone service to all households since this service began in the 1930s. The USF helps to make phone service affordable and available to all Americans, including consumers with low incomes, those living in areas where the costs of providing telephone service is high, schools and libraries and rural health care providers. Congress has mandated that all telephone companies providing interstate service must contribute to the USF. Although not required to do so by the government, many carriers choose to pass their contribution costs on to their customers in the form of a line item, often called the “Federal Universal Service Fee” or “Universal Connectivity Fee”.

I especially like the boldfaced line .... like the company was going to absorb that fee. The promotion from the 1930s to the 1990s didn't include the consumer paying extra.

Business' can use various conversion metrics. Marketing might consider someone calling you for information as a conversion, as they got a response from an advertisement. I think I'd call a conversion when I convert some cash from the customer to the cash flow of the company.

 

I don't mean to start an argument here, but I am unaware of *any* country that has better results -- medically speaking -- than the US.

And, as you are considering your retort, consider that countries that appear "better" than the US statistically -- in any catagory -- tend to have far more homogeneous populations than we do. Also, many of them measure "success" differently as well (i.e. infant mortality).

Remember, the rich in countries with socialized medicine fly to the US on 'medical vacations' to get the quality of care they know they won't get at home.

No argument. I'm not aware of any studies that point to the US as best and why. Can you point me in the right direction?
I guess there are some illnesses that are race specific if that's what you are saying, but I have a hard time thinking that is a difference of any magnitude.
Now if you would have said we were fatter or had more of the population that couldn't afford to go to a Dr. I might have believed that one.
I think rich people come here for our technology. I have known rich people here that have gone to Europe for treatments that were not approved here yet as well.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunr...-10-other-countries/#2715e4857a0b4e25e07d1b96
http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/25/he..._avd_outsourcing08_0529healthoutsourcing.html

 

The costs of those "better" results could be the factor. Even with the various tax rates in this country, with the annual filing, the effective tax rate can be much lower. Some in the 15 percent bracket actually pays about 6 percent. Maybe it would be better if they actually paid 15 percent. The basic effective tax rate formula is the Taxes Paid / Total income. In other words, there would be no exemptions, no deductions, just a flat tax rate.

Of course if that was the proposal, we would see a whole new crop of critters filling those 535 seats in the Legislative Branch of the government. The tax code influences behavior and employs alot of people, from the IRS down to the tax return preparers and ghost writers (those compensated preparers that do not sign your return). On the good side, there would be less fraudulent returns as there wouldn't be any returns.

But, like Joey says, what are the metrics used for these "better" programs? The number that signed up?

Remember that user fee we paid with each and every phone, starting in the 1990s, that paid for internet access for schools? I believe Al Gore had a big part of recommending that user fee as VP, the universal connect charge. It morphed into another program, one rife with fraud.

With respect to the USF, here's what the FCC states is the purpose:



I especially like the boldfaced line .... like the company was going to absorb that fee. The promotion from the 1930s to the 1990s didn't include the consumer paying extra.

Business' can use various conversion metrics. Marketing might consider someone calling you for information as a conversion, as they got a response from an advertisement. I think I'd call a conversion when I convert some cash from the customer to the cash flow of the company.

Sounds like a whole new thread.

 

Sounds like a whole new thread.

It could be. I also think it could get out of hand quickly, but, that generic category is the only revenue stream heading towards the DC area.

 

One of the inspirations for my earlier answer was a pretty good essay on Quora. That author is not the only one saying those things, but I found his "scientific" approach refreshing. He dispels a number of myths and diversions.

I'm not sure everyone can access Quore without signing up - let me know. I can make a copy to share here if necessary. It's certainly worth reading if you care at all about this topic.

 

My wife and my friend both had colonoscopies within 2 weeks of each other at the same hospital with the same doctor. Both had Michael Jackson anesthesia. He had very good insurance at the time with GM while she was on Medicare. The cost charged to the insurance and the amount paid by the insurance was different by almost an order of magnitude. With the good insurance paying the higher amount.
Anyone with similar experiences?

Glad you shared this. I've always theorized (and preached it as fact, like a nutjob) that these medical "networks" are a sham. "Network," is just a tame word for "Monopoly." Well, maybe not "monopoly," but something akin to that; I can't think of the right word. Your insurance (assuming HMO) requires you (or, "prefers" as in "preferred network" in the case of a PPO) you see a primary care doctor that is their "network," and that PCP refers you to other doctors in the same "network," and so on.

You stay within network, play the game by the rules, and watch your EOB statements. You will be astounded by the dollar amounts. You go in to get your tonsils out, and in the 15 min you're briefly unconscious under anesthesia, 5 doctors poke their head in the room and then each one submits a bill for several hundred dollars, on paper. Your EOB shows that Dr. Illusion charged $700, of which you're only required to pay $150, and Dr. SmokePuff billed $350, of which you only have to pay $45, and so on. Looking at those big numbers can make you feel like you dodged a bullet; "thank God I have insurance, this would have devastated me if I didn't." But I think it's all just a scam. I think the doctors are in collusion with the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies. They bill huge on the front end and then that money filters back to the insurance company through the backstage entrance (if it ever really gets paid at all). I think that the actual price effectively paid by insurance is probably much less than what is reported to you. Your share of the joint payment is much higher than what you are led to believe, maybe even as much as what the Ins. company pays.

Otherwise, how are insurance companies in business? The amount of people who are 100% healthy and never file a single claim are few and far between (even more scarce lately, with ADD, obesity, restless leg syndrome, peanut allergies, gluten intolerance, etc.). With my family's prescriptions and occasional doctor visits (which altogether isn't much, we're pretty healthy), we are actually "making" money each year with insurance. What we pay for premiums plus copays, is less than the total of my EOBs. The insurance is paying more than I am on paper. I think my family is typical. So if the typical family is paying less than they typical family's insurance company, how are insurance companies afloat?

There has to be some behind the scenes mickey mousery going on, otherwise the Insurance Industry has discovered financial overunity. I doubt that the Banking Industry would allow competition in the realm of financial overunity, so that only leaves the former.

Signed,
Your favorite conspiracy theorist

 

The word "mafia" would be a better one than "network" for what you've just described