Review of canadian stock brokers::What Is Stock Turnover
Review of canadian stock brokers::What Is Stock Turnover
Ask a Veteran to compare the Veterans Administration (VA) Health care system to private insurance and the respondent will likely looked confused and its that paradox that right-wing pundits are banking on to ensure future profits for the insurance industry. Rationality should dictate that an in-place health care system, by design, is superior to delivering health care through a mishmash of profit oriented insurance brokers and the facts support that position. According to the United States Census Bureau, approximately 85% of Americans have health insurance. The remaining 15 % (about 46 million people) are without such coverage for at least part of a year. Of the 100 % that carry insurance, nearly 69% is purchased through the private sector. Of the 69 %, some 60% is purchased from the private sector by employers, while about 9% purchase it directly from the private sector. According to James Limbach, of ConsumerAffairs.com,the private sector cost of insuring a family of four with an employer-sponsored health plan in the United States averaged $12,298 in 2008. In most cases, employers and employees shared the cost. Another study found that they are being crushed by health care costs. In addition, Federal data shows that the annual premium for covering an employee and one family member, known as an "employee-plus-one" plan, averaged $8,535, while the annual premium for a plan that only covered the employee averaged $4,386. Further, small business owners are being crushed by rising health care costs, and feel left out of the current health care debate in Washington, according to a new report released by U.S. Public Interest Research Group. In addition, recent analysis by MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber, commissioned by the Small Business Majority, found that health reform would save up to 128,000 small businesses that would otherwise be lost due to high health care costs. If, however, the rising costs added commensurate value to the participants, then it might be justified, but that's not the case. According to the United Health Foundation, the United States, when compared to health in other countries, is far from the best in many of the common measures used to gauge our healthiness and lags behind its peers in other developed countries. The Foundation reports that: - Japan is the perennial leader in Healthy Life Expectancy (HALE) with a HALE of 75 years on average for both genders. At 69 years, the United States has the same HALE as Portugal and Slovenia. There are 27 other countries that exceed the United States in healthy life expectancy, including Australia, Greece, United Kingdom, Italy, Germany and France. - In 2006, the infant mortality rate was seven deaths per 1,000 live births; the infant mortality rates for Japan, Sweden, Finland, Singapore, Slovenia, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Portugal and the Czech Republic were three deaths per 1,000 live births. Other countries that had lower rates than the United States in this area include Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Of the over 150 countries rated, fully 38 countries had lower infant mortality rates than the United States. - The U.S. is rated average to slightly below average when judged by cancer and cardiovascular death rates and is rated comparably in the prevalence of smoking. - Citizens in the U.S. are clearly more obese than those of other countries, often at more than twice the rate of other countries. - The age-adjusted amenable mortality rate before age 75 for the United States was 109.7 deaths per 100,000 population in 2002, which meant it ranked last among the nineteen countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations. The rate in the U.S. is 50 percent higher than the rate in France, Japan, Spain, Italy, Canada and Australia. - In 1997, the U.S. ranked 15th in this mortality rate. Since then, Finland, Portugal, United Kingdom and Ireland have reduced their mortality rate from disease amenable to care more rapidly than the United States. All now have better rates than the U.S.) - The U.S. ranked second to last when compared to 21 comparably "rich" countries based on 40 different measures in a UNICEF study which looked specifically at child health, The United States fared poorly due to a high infant mortality rate, a high percentage of low birth weight infants and only an average rate of immunization coverage. - The Commonwealth Fund rates the U.S. last in health care system performance when compared to a group of six countries that include Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The Foundation reminds us that while the U.S. spends twice as much as does Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, it is last in access, patient safety, efficiency and equity In a nutshell, Americans getting less value out of every dollar spent. Indeed, a greater portion of gross domestic product (GDP) is spent on U.S health care than in any other United Nations member state except for the Marshall Islands. A study of international health care spending levels in the year 2000, published in the health policy journal Health Affairs, found that while the U.S. spends more on health care than other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the use of health care services in the U.S. is below the OECD median by most measures. Anderson, et al, the authors of the OECD study, concluded that the prices paid for health care services are much higher in the U.S. While several factors contribute to these failures, the primary fault lies with a Congress that, for over sixty years, has failed to design an adequate health care system for the general public. The general approach is to leave the delivery of health care to health insurance companies. These companies treat health care as a business and, understandably, are concerned about profits and investor returns over the health of its participants. Americans are in this position since far too many have continually elected the best politicians that money can buy. The money, in this case, comes from drug-makers, hospitals and insurers who pour millions of dollars into lobbying in order to limit the damage to their bottom line. Lobbying disclosure reports show familiar players at the top of the health-care influence heap, spreading their money around to democrats and republicans alike. For example,the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) recently added $6.9 million to over $148 million in total lobbying expenditures. The American Medical Association has added another $4.4 million to its current total of $204 million. Many health companies and associations have also increased their lobbying expenditures. The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association upped its lobbying expenditures by $ 5.5 million which raised its total expenditures to over $116 million. GlaxoSmithKline's spending jumped from $1.8 million to $2.3 million;Novartis grew from $1.4 million to $1.8 million; and Metlife Group reported $1.7 million, up nearly 50 percent. Allstate, which spent less than $900,000 on lobbying through March, boosted its spending to more than $1.5 million from April to June. Others simply kept up the pace, including Johnson & Johnson at $1.6 million and America's Health Insurance Plan and Bayer Corp, both approaching $2 million in spending from April to June. The AMA has spent a total of $8.2 million on lobbying through June of this year. Since 1998, the Pharmaceuticals/Health Producers, Insurance organizations, Hospitals/Nursing Homes, and Health Professionals have given over $2 billion ($2,285,182,503) to Washington politicians to protect their vested interests. This averages out to about $ 207 million per year during the past 11 years. The aim of the current lobby effort is to minimize the damage to insurers, hospitals and other major sectors while maximizing the potential of up to 46 million uninsured Americans as new customers and move Americans even further away from cost effective health care . Clearly gambling on peoples health and welfare, through profiteering, is irresponsible and working families will experience double-digit increases in the costs of health insurance, more out-of-pocket costs for doctor visits and skyrocketing prices for prescriptions. These congressionally approved practices are forcing many to delay getting needed medical care or worse, they decline coverage for themselves or their families because of cost. But some favored groups avoid the profiteering pitfalls by depending upon government run and operated health care programs. On the other hand, the government provides cheaper insurance through a variety of government programs. Specifically, various federal agencies provide additional coverage to about 28% of Americans including Veterans, Native Americans, those on Medicare and Medicate in addition to children under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). About 3 % (100%-69%= 31%-28%= 3%) also purchase private insurance while enrolled in government run programs. Over 23 million Veterans will receive government health care through an integrated health care system consisting of 153 medical centers, in addition to numerous community based outpatient clinics, community living centers, Vet Centers and Dorms. Indeed, the VA continually receives the highest marks for health care. As an institution, they have a life-time relationship with Veterans and they use an information technology network (VISTA) to coordinate care of illnesses such as diabetics. They give everyone a health coordinator and track clusters of illnesses in order to provide better solutions. The VA has the highest health satisfaction of any carrier in the Untied States. In addition, their costs are about 2/3rds of Medicare. If we had a public option, the VA would provide an outstanding delivery model given their investments in information technology and their history of cost controls. In addition, another 2.7 million American Indians and Alaskan Natives will receive health services through the Indian Health services which provides outstanding care for some of the nations most difficult cases involving alcoholism, diabetics and chronic eye problems. Further, 49.9 million people, age 65 or older, or with certain disabilities, and people of all ages with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure requiring dialysis or a kidney transplant) will be covered by Medicare. In addition, in 2002, Medicaid covered over 50 million persons (18 percent of the U.S. Population). Indeed, Medicaid is the largest insurer for nursing home care in the nation, covering almost 45 percent of nursing home costs. Further, about 8 million children are in line to participate in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) which provides matching funds to states for health insurance to families with uninsured children in families with incomes that are modest but too high to qualify for Medicaid. On the surface, Medicare and Medicaid seem expensive. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that if current laws do not change, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid combined will grow from roughly 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent by 2035. However, the National Coalition of Health Care reports, that private sector healthcare spending represents 17 % of the gross domestic product (GDP) and is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.3 TRILLION in 2017, or 20 percent of GDP. Therefore the private sector costs are rising at 3 times the costs of Medicare and Medicaid. Of all the programs: 1) private sector, 2) Veterans, 3) Medicare and Medicaid, and 4) Indian Health, the Veterans program is the most efficient and cost effective, followed by Medicare and Medicaid. The private sector is the worst since it places so many roadblocks between the patient and provider in order to maximize profits and cover investment costs. None of the systems are perfect, or health care would not be a problem. They are all riddled with some degree of inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste, fraud and abuse. However, if costs are a measure of these inefficiencies, the private sector is at least 3 times worse than government systems. The primary reason for the increased inefficiencies, in the private sector, come from roadblocks put up by the companies in order to maximize profits, and the enormous costs associated with marketing and other administrative burdens that are not part of government systems. To counter the inefficiencies in the government run systems, the Administration has proposed an Independent Commission of medical experts to deal with a medical system that is based primarily on volume instead of value. The insurance industry object to such oversight since much of the private sector profits are generated from the fee for service model, which pays in relation to the number of services, necessary, or not. Clearly, relying on the private sector to deliver health care services puts Americans at the whim of profiteers, and has resulted in the same problems that drove the economy into a recession. But there is a significant difference. Whereas, the top tier of the Nations citizens, and some politicians, have profited from both wall street chicanery and insurance price gouging, in the latter case the government has provided a safe haven for some of its citizens. Those safe havens are government run programs for the 28 % of Americans that are veterans, native Americans, or are recipients of Medicaid and Medicare. A single payer, government run program will be cheaper, more efficient and more effective than private sector options and avoids the pitfalls inherent in profiteering health care options. Potentially, adding family members to the Veterans system, while lowering the age of Medicare eligibility over several years, until every citizen is eligible for a single payer system is one possible solution. Obviously, such a solution would also require a concentrated effort to correct inefficiencies and continue to develop a true health care system, potentially along the Veterans model. Funds saved from insurance profiteering and lobbying, in addition to efficiency savings would, of course, offset the rising costs. The Veterans health care system provides a reliable model of what a government run system might look like. In recent years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the number of patients served by the medical system of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has increased substantially. At the same time, VA's ratings for the quality of care and customer satisfaction have apparently improved, in direct opposition to the public's feelings towards insurance carriers. Further, many people, both within and outside the Department of Veterans Affairs, have pointed to several factors as being key to achieving those results: - Organizational restructuring designed to share decision-making authority between officials in the central office, regional managers, and key personnel at dispersed medical facilities; - Performance measurement targeted toward improving the quality of care; and - Extensive use of health information technology (health IT). The option for a government run system, is known as a single payer system by supporters and demonized as nationalization or socialism by detractors. In extreme cases, a government run system is characterized by Thaddeus McCotter, R. Michigan, Louis Gohmert, R.,Texas, and Virginia Foxx, R., South Carolina, as secret plots to kill older citizens along the same line as the genocides practices by Hitler, Mao and Stalin. These absurd, paranoid, statements follow a script developed by Betsy McCoy, a former New York lieutenant governor, whose, error riddled, propaganda, precipitated the entire paranoia on the right that the stimulus package was going to dictate who, what and how doctors could treat patients. McCoy's diatribes have been picked up by Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and the Fox network, none of whom mention that she is a spokesperson for the Hudson Institute, and the pharmaceutical industry, both of whom hold extreme fears of even slight increases in government oversight. McCoy, sits on the board of directors at Cantell Medical (ph), a medical device company, and formerly sat on the board of Genta, a bio-tech company. Not long ago, the Securities and Exchange Commission reported that just days before she summarized her scare tactics in a piece for "Bloomberg," McCoy received 750 shares of stock options from Cantell Medical worth about $11,000. SEC records also show that she received more than $55,000 from Cantell Medical in the fiscal year ending last July 31st. Many conservatives demonize the Canadian system in an attempt to scare the public away from a nationally run health care system. However, Canada is positive, not negative model (see Canadian and American health care systems compared). Canada's system is largely publicly funded at about 10.0% of GDP. In addition, a 2007 review of all studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the US found that "health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States,. Without a doubt, a single payer option is necessary, if for no other reason, than to give citizens a choice to weigh against insurance plans. But equally important, a single payer system would likely stabilize health care growth at about 10 % of GDP, while improving its value to levels never before obtained. Sources Anderson, Gerard F., Reinhardt, Uwe E., Hussey, Peter S. and Petrosyan, Varduhi, "It's The Prices, Stupid: Why The United States Is So Different From Other Countries", Health Affairs, Volume 22, Number 3, May/June 2003. Accessed February 27, 2008. Congressional Budget Office, "Directors Blog," at: http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=328 Congressional Budget Office, "The Healthcare System for Veterans: An Interim Report," at: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8892/12-21-VA_Healthcare.pdf Families U.S.A.org, "SCHIP and Children'sHealth Coverage:Leveling the Playing Field forMinority Children," at: http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/schip-leveling-the-playing.pdf Limbach, James, "Rising Cost of Health Insurance at Center of Debate: Congress delays action til after August recess at: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/07/health_insurance_costs.html National Coalition on Health Care, "Facts About Health Care," at: http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml Opensecrets.Org, Lobbying Spending at: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php United Health Foundation, Americas Health Rankings; Comparison to other Nations," at: http://www.americashealthrankings.org/2008/othernations.html United States Census, "Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin Status: 2000 to 2003," at: at: http://www.census.gov/statab/www/sa04aian.pdf United States Health and Human Services, Center for Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicareEnRpts/Downloads/HI08.pdf Veterans Administration, "Data," at: http://www1.va.gov/vetdata/page.cfm?pg=15 Veterans Administration, Medical Centers," at: http://www1.va.gov/health/MedicalCenters.asp Wikipedia, Health Insurance in the United States," at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States Wikipedia, "Louie Gohmert," at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louie_Gohmert Wikipedia, "Thad McCotter," at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thad_McCotter Wikipedia, "United States Constitution," at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Preamble:_Statement_of_purpose Wikipedia, "Virginia Foxx," at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Foxx |
Image of canadian stock brokers
canadian stock brokers Image 1
canadian stock brokers Image 2
canadian stock brokers Image 3
canadian stock brokers Image 4
canadian stock brokers Image 5
Related blog with canadian stock brokers
Related Video with canadian stock brokers
canadian stock brokers Video 1
canadian stock brokers Video 2
canadian stock brokers Video 3
canadian stock brokers
Labels: Canada Brokerage Firms, Canadian Online Brokerages, Canadian Stock Broker USA, Canadian Stock Brokers Online, List of Canadian Brokers, Online Stock Trading Canada, Online Trading Canada, Stock Trading in Canada
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home