I clicked in thinking this was going to be an interesting topic but your four bullets are idiotic. Why does everything have to be about sending things overseas or make the government deal with it?

Why not start simple, teach better preventative care. What I mean is that the US as a whole is very unhealthy. Rather than having people wait till they get sick, get people to take better care of themselves through eating, fitness, etc. Even have means to reward these people. It's proven people that eat healthy and workout visit doctors/hospitals much less. An article I recently read stated that an obese person visits a doctor 10 times more in a year than a healthy person.

Beyond this I think health plans should be revisited and restructured to make people more aware of their spending. Force people to watch their health care spending and limit it only to procedures that are necessary. It will make you reconsider visiting the ER with a cold rather than calling around, finding a family doctor and seeing him the following day.

> Why not start simple, teach better preventative care.

Better preventative care doesn't reduce costs, it increases them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/business/08leonhardt.html?...

Note that smoking is actually a net benefit. Smokers tend to die about the time that they start collecting retirement benefits. So, they pay in their entire working lives and get almost no return. (Black men are particularly hosed by this while non-smoking white women make out like crazy.)

The article you reference doesn't reinforce your point. It basically states that preventative care is not a proven solution.

If you take the safeway example mentioned in that article. They have successfully reduced health care costs internally: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476804026308603.html

One point made in this article is that most health care costs are in fact preventative.

"Safeway's plan capitalizes on two key insights gained in 2005. The first is that 70% of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior. The second insight, which is well understood by the providers of health care, is that 74% of all costs are confined to four chronic conditions (cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity). Furthermore, 80% of cardiovascular disease and diabetes is preventable, 60% of cancers are preventable, and more than 90% of obesity is preventable."

Given this statement, the money spent preventing these issues will be far less than the amount required to correct these issues in people once they get to the point of needing some type of hospital procedure or operation.

You're assuming that you spend prevention costs perfectly when you can't.

The money that you spend on someone to prevent/reduce a problem is completely wasted if that is not suseptable or is struck by something else. (Also, the cost to deal with obesity and diabetes together is less than the sum of dealing with obesity and diabetes separately.) It's also wasted if the person gets the problem anyway.

And, you're still ignoring the benefits of early death.

I have had to deal with third world programmers. I am not particularly interested in entrusting my life to the medical equivalent. US students are free to go to their med schools but prefer US schools because the quality of the education is so much higher.

The US has excellent health care, but there are two problems: availability and price. If you dont have employer paid insurance, medicare, or excellent health, you are pretty much shut out. The pricing structure is out of whack. My SO takes a drug that costs $700 per month. It went generic in February and in October full competition will kick in and it will probably cost $20-30 per month. Meanwhile we are paying for excessive profits, television ads, and salesmen. I dont know what the price is in Canada or Mexico, but probably much less.

Another example of a completely whacked out pricing system is hospitalization. Several years back I had a pretty routine routine heart procedure. The bill from the hospital was $80,000. The insurance company allowed $20,000 and I only had to pay $2000. Someone without insurance would have been hit with the whole $80,000. And then there was the anesthesiologist who didnt participate in the insurance plan and billed me $4,000. Nobody told me about him beforehand, and you don't do much comparison shopping in those circumstances.

Maybe we could make it illegal for drug companies to advertise directly to consumers.

I think consumers need the materials to make an informed decision. Television ads don't accomplish that. A beautiful woman dancing through a field of flowers doesn't tell me the benefits or side effects, so I agree with you there. Drug ads on TV are about as socially acceptable as cigarette ads. The same picture in print with the full PDR dump on the back may be a different case. The information is there to read, although I have seen a distinct difference in quality between the information for physician and the advice for patients.

That is actually a quite elegant solution, but likely never to happen. The pharma lobbying muscle is up there with casinos.

Your point 1, foreign doctors, already happens. It is called the J-1 visa. Doctors on this visa are required to serve time in an under-served area.. My father is a GP in a rural area, his colleagues are from Pakistan, Nigeria, Uruguay, Argentina and the Caribbean.

Point 3, this is what insurance companies have done since the dawn of the "actuarial sciences."

Point 4, if 24 hour fitness is too expensive, there are YMCA, YWCAs and nice parks in every US city I've ever been in.

Build cities so that they encourage walking and biking, and close out cars with the exception for lorries and other service traffic.

Stop this century-long obsession with working industry hours. Make people stop slaving to the wakeup-work-lunch-work-tv-dinner-tv-sleep cycle that doesnt leave room for physical activities.

A tiny thing I am trying to introduce at work is to have walking-meetings, to leave the office for a little walk instead of sitting in a room free of oxygen. It's the small things.

Let's be clear on what problem it is you are talking about. Healthcare being not-affordable, or in other words too-much for most citizens or in other words insurance being too much? Or maybe healthcare in the sense that we aren't healthy; needing less healthcare?

The question is too vague for me. If we are talking in terms of "sicko" (the documentary) then one solution I have to say is socialized healthcare. I don't feel that social healthcare is necessarily the same as just any other social industry. Therefore people should not react in the same way. Socializing the auto industry is terribly anti-capitalism but its not the same as health-care because there is (or should) be a moral obligation to help people in need regardless of their financial state. You can't morally need a new car. It might still be possible to have private hospitals, for "premium" treatment. That already sounds rather dirty, but it reminds me of the postal service. Having government-run postal service actually made the industry better as a whole. Everyone can send a letter for 42 cents is it? but if they want it there overnight, there's fedex.

Use the existing K-12 system to teach people the basics of medicine and nutrition. The only thing that a person owns is this world is his or her body so we should do this even if we have to get rid of some other subject (though I don’t see why we’d have to).

Not sure how feasible this is but my idea is that everyone would graduate high school with the equivalent of two years of medical school. In addition to the current post secondary education options afforded to high school graduates (college, vo-tech, military, work force, etc.) offer a government-run quasi vocational program that completes medical training. Graduates of this program would have 14 – 16 years of training in medicine and would then be licensed to practice.

This scheme would increase the number of doctors, decrease the need for them, and decrease the extreme asymmetry in medical knowledge between doctors and patients. Furthermore, with nearly ubiquitous medical knowledge we would undoubtedly see more entrepreneurial activity in that space and give innovation a chance to drive down cost and improve care.

Look at what every other western country does. They pretty much all have some form of "socialised" medicine aka universal healthcare. In New Zealand, we spend about 1/4 as much per capita on healthcare, yet we live longer and have better stats re child mortality and the like. We are not particularly good either, there are a lot of countries doing better than us.

The role of insurance is then to cover the difference between basic health care and premium.

The main objections I have seen from yanks is: 1 It's socialism! Maybe, depending on your definition, but it works. The word "socialism" should not be an off switch for your brain. 2 I don't want to pay for someone else's health care. If you have insurance, you already are paying for someone else's healthcare. Sometimes they are paying for you, that's how insurance works.

Tax employer-provided health benefits. This would increase my health care costs, and probably yours too. But it would eliminate the existing disconnect between costs and payers, which would reign in costs.

See chart 1 at http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13899647&... (http://media.economist.com/images/20090627/CBB677.gif). Look at the private vs out-of-pocket gap between the US and Switzerland (or anywhere else, but Switzerland is #2). How do you think taxing employer-provided health benefits would affect that gap?

> How would you fix the growing healthcare problem?

Which healthcare problem?

A huge fraction of the folks in the US without healthcare aren't supposed to be in the US anyway. How much are you willing to pay (or give up) to give them healthcare? And, if you're willing to pay for their health care, why not simply send the money to their home countries to provide healthcare there? (That will help more people.)

Another large fraction make enough to pay for it but have decided that they'd rather not. In many cases, this is a rational decision for them because they're being asked to subsidize others and have decided to opt out.

An interesting fraction are "between" providers for some reason. They'll have healthcare next month, but their place in the no healthcare line will be taken by another temporary. (This is related to the reason why unemployment never goes to 0.)

Take away those three groups, and the problem isn't that big and it isn't growing.

4 is a great idea. It would probably make us healthier.

Apart from that, we simply do not have enough data. What I'd like to do is repeat the RAND experiment. Take a large group of people at random, and give them different amounts/types of health care. Measure their health outcomes.

This will at least give us some data to make a more informed choice.

Expand Qliance: see http://www.qliance.com

You need to define the problem more if you want to talk about a possible answer. Just what about it is "broken"? Is it the fact that people invent treatments that are too expensive for other people to buy? I'm not sure how you would stop that. Is it the fact that large numbers of people have no insurance? Is it the fact that people, with or without insurance, have to make difficult choices in regards to treatment? Would you like to have your politician be involved with things like how many MRIs are in your town? Is there something "dishonest" about insurance companies (as some have suggested) that they need fixing? Would you like not to worry about anything health-related? (highly unlikely to happen, but it's your problem definition)

"How would you fix healthcare" sounds like a simple question, but it's not at all. It's very odd (to me, at least) that we're having a national discussion and planning major changes for something so ill-defined.

I think there's a real problem. If I had to define it, I'd say we have too many people that are uninsured and insurance products are purposely confusing and non-standardized to consumers.

Option 1 although good it probably won't fly well. The first step to cleaning up the existing mess it to stop rewarding doctors based on the number procedure they apply on a patient to cure them in medicare. That is probably the most insane healthcare practice and I don't think it is done anywhere else in the world.

Once the doctors realize that these current practices are not sustainable they probably will come out with some novel ideas like this one http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4585.html.

It doesn't really make sense to have only for profit health insurance companies, look the executive salaries (http://www.prwatch.org/node/8425#comment-4517). With the amount of money the US government is spending on healthcare it would make a lot of sense for us to have a single-payer system.

Yesterday, I had a discussion with my doctor on this very topic. Her office visits take an hour not fifteen minutes. If you need more time than that, she takes it. She does not participate in any insurance plans because they pay $75 or less for a visit.

I think sarvesh has the wrong cause for assembly line medicine. It's not that doctors are doing it to enrich themselves, but that insurance companies are forcing them to do it with unreasonably low payments.

In another reply I objected to recruiting third world doctors because their training was not up to US standards, but I also object because I don't think we should deprive those countries of their services so we could pay them like janitors here.

- Stop the INDUSTRY (or not stop it, turn it Green)

- Good and healthy food

- Practice sport?

This should be enough