No announcement yet.

Breast Cancer isn't a concern for females 40-50?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Breast Cancer isn't a concern for females 40-50?

    Originally posted by JCsPlumbing View Post
    Really check those links if you get a chance. Just wondering about others' opinions.


    United Kingdom

    An interview with an expert on the UK's system +

    Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on health care: 8.3

    Average family premium: None; funded by taxation.

    Co-payments: None for most services; some co-pays for dental care, eyeglasses and 5 percent of prescriptions. Young people and the elderly are exempt from all drug co-pays.

    What is it? The British system is "socialized medicine" because the government both provides and pays for health care. Britons pay taxes for health care, and the government-run National Health Service (NHS) distributes those funds to health care providers. Hospital doctors are paid salaries. General practitioners (GPs), who run private practices, are paid based on the number of patients they see. A small number of specialists work outside the NHS and see private-pay patients.

    How does it work? Because the system is funded through taxes, administrative costs are low; there are no bills to collect or claims to review. Patients have a "medical home" in their GP, who also serves as a gatekeeper to the rest of the system; patients must see their GP before going to a specialist. GPs, who are paid extra for keeping their patients healthy, are instrumental in preventive care, an area in which Britain is a world leader.

    What are the concerns? The stereotype of socialized medicine -- long waits and limited choice -- still has some truth. In response, the British government has instituted reforms to help make care more competitive and give patients more choice. Hospitals now compete for NHS funds distributed by local Primary Care Trusts, and starting in April 2008 patients are able to choose where they want to be treated for many procedures.


    An interview with an expert on Japan's system +

    Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 8

    Average family premium: $280 per month, with employers paying more than half.

    Co-payments: 30 percent of the cost of a procedure, but the total amount paid in a month is capped according to income.

    What is it? Japan uses a "social insurance" system in which all citizens are required to have health insurance, either through their work or purchased from a nonprofit, community-based plan. Those who can't afford the premiums receive public assistance. Most health insurance is private; doctors and almost all hospitals are in the private sector.

    How does it work? Japan boasts some of the best health statistics in the world, no doubt due in part to the Japanese diet and lifestyle. Unlike the U.K., there are no gatekeepers; the Japanese can go to any specialist when and as often as they like. Every two years the Ministry of Health negotiates with physicians to set the price for every procedure. This helps keeps costs down.

    What are the concerns?
    In fact, Japan has been so successful at keeping costs down that Japan now spends too little on health care; half of the hospitals in Japan are operating in the red. Having no gatekeepers means there's no check on how often the Japanese use health care, and patients may lack a medical home.


    An interview with an expert on Germany's system +

    Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 10.7

    Average family premium: $750 per month; premiums are pegged to patients' income.

    Co-payments: 10 euros ($15) every three months; some patients, like pregnant women, are exempt.

    What is it? Germany, like Japan, uses a social insurance model. In fact, Germany is the birthplace of social insurance, which dates back to Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. But unlike the Japanese, who get insurance from work or are assigned to a community fund, Germans are free to buy their insurance from one of more than 200 private, nonprofit "sickness funds." As in Japan, the poor receive public assistance to pay their premiums.

    How does it work?
    Sickness funds are nonprofit and cannot deny coverage based on preexisting conditions; they compete with each other for members, and fund managers are paid based on the size of their enrollments. Like Japan, Germany is a single-payment system, but instead of the government negotiating the prices, the sickness funds bargain with doctors as a group. Germans can go straight to a specialist without first seeing a gatekeeper doctor, but they may pay a higher co-pay if they do.

    What are the concerns? The single-payment system leaves some German doctors feeling underpaid. A family doctor in Germany makes about two-thirds as much as he or she would in America. (Then again, German doctors pay much less for malpractice insurance, and many attend medical school for free.) Germany also lets the richest 10 percent opt out of the sickness funds in favor of U.S.-style for-profit insurance. These patients are generally seen more quickly by doctors, because the for-profit insurers pay doctors more than the sickness funds.


    An interview with an expert on Taiwan's system +

    Percentage GDP spent on health care: 6.3

    Average family premium: $650 per year for a family for four.

    Co-payments: 20 percent of the cost of drugs, up to $6.50; up to $7 for outpatient care; $1.80 for dental and traditional Chinese medicine. There are exemptions for major diseases, childbirth, preventive services, and for the poor, veterans, and children.

    What is it? Taiwan adopted a "National Health Insurance" model in 1995 after studying other countries' systems. Like Japan and Germany, all citizens must have insurance, but there is only one, government-run insurer. Working people pay premiums split with their employers; others pay flat rates with government help; and some groups, like the poor and veterans, are fully subsidized. The resulting system is similar to Canada's -- and the U.S. Medicare program.

    How does it work?
    Taiwan's new health system extended insurance to the 40 percent of the population that lacked it while actually decreasing the growth of health care spending. The Taiwanese can see any doctor without a referral. Every citizen has a smart card, which is used to store his or her medical history and bill the national insurer. The system also helps public health officials monitor standards and effect policy changes nationwide. Thanks to this use of technology and the country's single insurer, Taiwan's health care system has the lowest administrative costs in the world.

    What are the concerns? Like Japan, Taiwan's system is not taking in enough money to cover the medical care it provides. The problem is compounded by politics, because it is up to Taiwan's parliament to approve an increase in insurance premiums, which it has only done once since the program was enacted.


    An interview with an expert on Switzerland's system +

    Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 11.6

    Average monthly family premium: $750, paid entirely by consumers; there are government subsidies for low-income citizens.

    Co-payments: 10 percent of the cost of services, up to $420 per year.

    What is it? The Swiss system is social insurance like in Japan and Germany, voted in by a national referendum in 1994. Switzerland didn't have far to go to achieve universal coverage; 95 percent of the population already had voluntary insurance when the law was passed. All citizens are required to have coverage; those not covered were automatically assigned to a company. The government provides assistance to those who can't afford the premiums.

    How does it work? The Swiss example shows that universal coverage is possible, even in a highly capitalist nation with powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit on basic care and are prohibited from cherry-picking only young and healthy applicants. They can make money on supplemental insurance, however. As in Germany, the insurers negotiate with providers to set standard prices for services, but drug prices are set by the government.

    What are the concerns? The Swiss system is the second most expensive in the world -- but it's still far cheaper than U.S. health care. Drug prices are still slightly higher than in other European nations, and even then the discounts may be subsidized by the more expensive U.S. market, where some Swiss drug companies make one-third of their profits. In general, the Swiss do not have gatekeeper doctors, although some insurance plans require them or give a discount to consumers who use them.

    This is from the article. I highlighted what I thought were some interesting points.

    Graphs from the article. I have no citations for the research. Sorry.
    Last edited by BobsPlumbing; 01-18-2010, 10:41 PM.


    • #17
      Re: Breast Cancer isn't a concern for females 40-50?

      Great information JC.

      Definitely adds pertinent info to the subject.
      Northern Kentucky Plumbers Twitter Feed | Plumbing Videos


      • #18
        Re: Breast Cancer isn't a concern for females 40-50?

        I have a family history so it was really important to me.
        I love my plumber

        "My Hero"

        Welcome, Phoebe Jacqueline!


        • #19
          Re: Breast Cancer isn't a concern for females 40-50?

          Originally posted by MrsSeatDown View Post
          I have a family history so it was really important to me.
          You understood the importance based on family history and concern for your health, unfortunately many women do not have that background to draw from and unless guidelines fall on the side of prevention and insurance companies are pressured to support these exams lives will hang in the balance. I think it's a bad idea to have decisions regarding our health left in the hands of business people trying to cut costs and increase profits. A couple years ago I went to the emergency room late at night because I had sores in my mouth that seemed to suddenly appear out of nowhere. This was only two weeks after discontinuing a new blood pressure medication which caused an allergic reaction that made my uvula swell up. In surance company did not want to pay for the E.R. visit saying it was not life threatening. I argued with one of their reps that I felt I might have been having another allergic reaction. Should I have stayed home and possibly died rather than risk the E.R. visit and not having insurance cover the cost? They are putting us in situations where we are pressured to forego diagnosis and treatment, which will no doubt cost lives that otherwise could be saved.


          • #20
            Re: Breast Cancer isn't a concern for females 40-50?

            I'm designing a booth to take to state fairs and flea markets
            I plan to offer free breast examinations for those between the ages of 18 and 40
            I admit my wife is not too keen about this venture

            I'll have a tip jar placed on the counter

            Cactus Man

            p.s. this is truly a serious issue and you can expect more "change" coming from this


            • #21
              Re: Breast Cancer isn't a concern for females 40-50?


              I know that came from the heart!
              Northern Kentucky Plumbers Twitter Feed | Plumbing Videos


              • #22
                Re: Breast Cancer isn't a concern for females 40-50?

                I assume you all know that that recommendation came from a panel appointed by George W.


                • #23
                  Re: Breast Cancer isn't a concern for females 40-50?

                  Originally posted by Pipestone Kid View Post
                  I assume you all know that that recommendation came from a panel appointed by George W.
                  I was not a fan of our former President, and so far I am not pleased with President Obama or Congress. Who ever is responsible for these recommendations, in my opinion is making a big mistake. Hard to believe the people on that panel were at all concerned for human life over cold,hard money and savings for the insurance industry.


                  • #24
                    Re: Breast Cancer isn't a concern for females 40-50?

                    God save the Queen...and breasts, too.


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by DUNBAR View Post
                      This has got to be one of the most assinine statements ever told. And I'll tell you exactly why they are doing it.

                      This is the big turn in direction, the preparation of this national health care that's coming. We are going to be the victims of "new rules" that they are now shelfing out for us to see.

                      Those making the statements about "not" needing these screenings are paid drones.

                      Then they say that the complications/stress is greater than the detection and it's revelation?

                      Guess what; you get sick and NOW it's up to you to pay for your yearly screening, no matter what a body of money is telling otherwise.

                      Breast cancer is striking at all ages; I find it repulsive that now all of a sudden that politics of health care are deciding who can get cancer at what age ranges?

                      You think your present health care has holes like swiss cheese in what's covered, wait till you see the waiting lines for the common necessity/detection regimines when everybody and their brother has a free ride to the same.

                      This is going to give the health care industry a boner because now, now they can offer a platinum coverage that for the money provides what's above sub par. Even more money with the target being hit like an IED at a school full of kids. Big business cooperating with big government and we are the spectators who'll see this through a bystander's eyes only.

                      I feel sorry for every woman out there that now possibly loses her chance for early detection at breast cancer because the powers that be say it is not necessary.

                      I find that so disheartening because just in this forum community there are wives/girlfriends/daughters that are in their 40's that could easily get hit with cancer in this fashion and no one is resilient to cancer. It strikes without warning.

                      If it can kill/wipe out even the wealthiest/most well known or high status individuals in this land, that proves that early detection should never be used as hinderance.

                      We all know this will cause heartbreak for families as I'm sure this early detection tests are expensive. The idea is to live long and prosperous.

                      As much money as hospitals make off the disease CANCER...they should make the protection affordable for checkups/screenings no more than the cost of an oil change.

                      But that wouldn't make sense would it...something fair to all. Isn't that the rolling tone of national health care? Such irony.


                      I was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 45. The cancer was found during a ROUTINE YEARLY mammogram. If I had not had my mammogram, the cancer would have spread, and I probably would not be here today. Because of the mammogram, the cancer was found early and was treatable.
                      The new health care plan is a health scare plan, as I believe we are moving toward socialized medicine and this ploy of no mammograms until after age 50 is to save money to spread the money around to everyone. Sadly, many lives will be lost. I wrote "Lessons from a Bald Chick' to teach people how to help someone through cancer. I am going to have to add a chapter about a new lesson learned: Our current governement does not care about us or about saving second base. It is all about money. Visit:
                      MB Hall
                      Last edited by ToUtahNow; 12-10-2009, 08:24 PM.