patrick.net

LeonDurham says

How does every other 1st World country do it?

Paying for it would be the easy part! You're cutting the cost in half. The better questions is--"what should we do with the savings?"

I don't know.

How do they do it? How would that translate to the USA? It seems like you know how it would be done. Care to explain?

Goran_K says

How do they do it? How would that translate to the USA? It seems like you know how it would be done. Care to explain?

It's not rocket science. They don't have insurance companies mucking everything up and adding profits at multiple steps along the way. They don't have perverse incentives for Drs to overprescribe medication and diagnostic testing. If you're really interested, there are a LOT of articles that detail what works and what doesn't work w.r.t. healthcare.

(spoiler--the US system doesn't work)

LeonDurham says

It's not rocket science. They don't have insurance companies mucking everything up and adding profits at multiple steps along the way. They don't have perverse incentives for Drs to overprescribe medication and diagnostic testing. If you're really interested, there are a LOT of articles that detail what works and what doesn't work w.r.t. healthcare.

(spoiler--the US system doesn't work)

"They don't have insurance companies mucking everything up and adding profits at multiple steps along the way." - So how do they pay for it?

"They don't have perverse incentives for Drs to overprescribe medication and diagnostic testing." - How do they prevent those "incentives"?

How do they pay for it all?

Empty casting couches make for grouchy stars and entertainment executives. The Allred-Dworkin golem is stalking them! They need to stay out of the purview of her rolling, milky witch's eye.

LeonDurham says

You forgot to mention the 40 point swing in MO allowing a Dem state senator to win the special election. Why didn't you mention that one?

Here we go with the State races again! Republicans are so dominant on the State Level they pretty much can only lose seats at this point.

State ain't Federal! And comparing Special Election State Legislature Battles to the Presidency is laughable.

"Nevermind our performance in Fed Special Elections have been underwhelming. We won a State Seat in Upper New Katmandu!"

TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy says

Here we go with the State races again! Republicans are so dominant on the State Level they pretty much can only lose seats at this point.

I was responding to Goran's posts about R's winning state races.

TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy says

"Nevermind our performance in Fed Special Elections have been underwhelming. We won a State Seat in Upper New Katmandu!"

But I would love to discuss Dems performance in Federal special elections. They're outperforming by about 15% on average.

Goran_K says

"They don't have insurance companies mucking everything up and adding profits at multiple steps along the way." - So how do they pay for it?

"They don't have perverse incentives for Drs to overprescribe medication and diagnostic testing." - How do they prevent those "incentives"?

How do they pay for it all?

They pay 1/2 the cost of what we do! Like I said--the better question is what do they spend their savings on??!!??

LeonDurham says

They pay 1/2 the cost of what we do! Like I said--the better question is what do they spend their savings on??!!??

No, I'd actually like to know how they pay for it. Do you know?

Goran_K says

No, I'd actually like to know how they pay for it. Do you know?

I'm not sure what you're even asking. Like do people pay with cash or with a credit card? I don't know.

They pay much LESS than we do.

LeonDurham says

I'm not sure what you're even asking. Like do people pay with cash or with a credit card? I don't know.

They pay much LESS than we do.

How much do they pay, how is it paid?

Also, you're borderline breaking one of the new rules implemented by @Patrick.

"Being overly argumentative for the sake of argument, harming the spirit of productive discussion"

Goran_K says

How much do they pay, how is it paid?

Also, you're borderline breaking one of the new rules implemented by @Patrick.

"Being overly argumentative for the sake of argument, harming the spirit of productive discussion"

Uh, OK. I honestly don't know what you are asking. Are you saying how can they afford it? Or what method of payment do they use? Or how is the money collected?

Are you trying to make a point about taxes? Who cares whether one pays via deductible, co-pay, or taxes? The total cost is all that matters.

LeonDurham says

Goran_K says

How much do they pay, how is it paid?

Also, you're borderline breaking one of the new rules implemented by @Patrick.

"Being overly argumentative for the sake of argument, harming the spirit of productive discussion"

Uh, OK. I honestly don't know what you are asking. Are you saying how can they afford it? Or what method of payment do they use? Or how is the money collected?

Are you trying to make a point about taxes? Who cares whether one pays via deductible, co-pay, or taxes? The total cost is all that matters.

Total costs to who? Are the total costs the same for everyone?

Goran_K says

Total costs to who? Are the total costs the same for everyone?

Now who's being argumentative for the sake of the argument, harming the spirit of productive discussion?

Love it. Liberals are clowns and show why they are unelectable.

Trump: let’s make America Great!
Liberal response: fuck Trump

Yeah I’ll stick to making America great, thanks guys for the reminder.

LeonDurham says

Goran_K says

Total costs to who? Are the total costs the same for everyone?

Now who's being argumentative for the sake of the argument, harming the spirit of productive discussion?

Example answers would be raising taxes, what kind and on whom. The assertion that other countries do it successfully is false they have similar problems and often worse care. State of The art care is often not reimbursed like in the US. Care for elderly is rationed etc.

mell says

xample answers would be raising taxes, what kind and on whom. The assertion that other countries do it successfully is false they have similar problems and often worse care. State of The art care is often not reimbursed like in the US. Care for elderly is rationed etc.

But it wouldn't be a tax increase. We'd be cutting costs.

All independent studies show the same thing. US healthcare system produces worse outcomes for double the cost of most other countries. That is a fact.

It's amazing that these counties achieve better outcomes with all this supposed "rationing". How do you think that is possible?

LeonDurham says

Now who's being argumentative for the sake of the argument, harming the spirit of productive discussion?

I'm asking you who pays, and if it's different depending on who you are (e.g - $100,000 earners vs $30,000 earners). mell got what I was getting at immediately, for some reason you seemed to avoid the point entirely.

Wonder why.

LeonDurham says

mell says

xample answers would be raising taxes, what kind and on whom. The assertion that other countries do it successfully is false they have similar problems and often worse care. State of The art care is often not reimbursed like in the US. Care for elderly is rationed etc.

But it wouldn't be a tax increase. We'd be cutting costs.

All independent studies show the same thing. US healthcare system produces worse outcomes for double the cost of most other countries. That is a fact.

It's amazing that these counties achieve better outcomes with all this supposed "rationing". How do you think that is possible?

That's not what the studies show, in fact it is commonly understood that the US has pretty much for any condition a monopoly on the best therapies out there. That is a fact. What you're referring to is relative outcome and this is influence by many factors. The reason the US system is expensive is mainly because it is the number one country for unnecessary surgeries (of course countries that ration their healthcare do less of those and in the best case may save on many while disadvantaging few), unnecessary medications and generally unhealthy lifestyles. These things have to be addressed but you don't want to end up in Canada, UK or any other country with inferior healthcare with a legitimate condition that would be easily addressed in the US and reimbursed by insurance. Also, there are some benefits in giving access to basic healthcare to everybody in preventing the worst outcomes for easily treatable conditions that a patient without healthcare in the US may not seek because they cannot afford it. Easy wins in terms of statistics (child mortality or other acute conditions). None of that makes their systems better for the individual and most experience similar inflation and of course the questions remains: if you give the same excellent healthcare (better than most if not all other countries) that the US currently provides for those employed: who is going to pay for this?

mell says

None of that makes their systems better for the individual and most experience similar inflation and of course the questions remains: if you give the same excellent healthcare (better than most if not all other countries) that the US currently provides for those employed: who is going to pay for this?

Bingo.

mell says

mainly because it is the number one country for unnecessary surgeries

And the US spends tremendous amounts on end of life care and procedures that are not going to prolong life to any significant degree, but are required under guidelines of senior living centers. My neighbor was placed in one of the most expensive assisted living centers in town because her late second husband, who was 22 years her senior was well off and died 21 years before she did after a brief illness and had provided handsomely for her, after she was well past the ability to care for herself. After six months, she was under 100% care and had to be restrained at all times. Yet she lived another two years like that and when she'd have a medical emergency, she was rushed to ICU where the meter started running--she finally passed away after three such occasions. In a more sensible climate, she would probably have been allowed to die a normal death of whatever the emergency consisted.

Feux Follets says

The same people who gleefully keep us in one war after another !

7 at last count !

No money for health care but we have money to kill and maim people. No money to take care of our wounded "heroes" either when they return from nation building misadventures.

Bingo !

You mean the Democrats who started proxy wars in Syria, and Libya?

LeonDurham says

Better outcomes for 1/2 the cost.

So you want the opposite of Obamacare just like trump. Glad we agree

Goran_K says

Feux Follets says

The same people who gleefully keep us in one war after another !

7 at last count !

No money for health care but we have money to kill and maim people. No money to take care of our wounded "heroes" either when they return from nation building misadventures.

Bingo !

You mean the Democrats who started proxy wars in Syria, and Libya?

Can only assume he means the D and R establishment who are equally guilty for wars and terrible healthcare.

It's interesting how we can all identify the same problem, yet some refuse to blame those responsible.

R's and D's are the same team.

Feux Follets says

Is it simply human stupidity

mell says

hat's not what the studies show, in fact it is commonly understood that the US has pretty much for any condition a monopoly on the best therapies out there. That is a fact

Whether or not that statement is true, it is clearly an opinion and not a fact.


mell says

hese things have to be addressed but you don't want to end up in Canada, UK or any other country with inferior healthcare with a legitimate condition that would be easily addressed in the US and reimbursed by insurance

Why not? The outcomes of such conditions is BETTER. If the goal is to keep living, studies show you'd be better off in either of those countries.

mell says

Also, there are some benefits in giving access to basic healthcare to everybody in preventing the worst outcomes for easily treatable conditions that a patient without healthcare in the US may not seek because they cannot afford it. Easy wins in terms of statistics (child mortality or other acute conditions). None of that makes their systems better for the individual

If you're the individual that couldn't afford it, it sure makes the system a hell of a lot better for you. Don't you think?


mell says

most experience similar inflation and of course the questions remains: if you give the same excellent healthcare (better than most if not all other countries) that the US currently provides for those employed: who is going to pay for this?

It's 50% cheaper!! We're already paying for it twice over. Why do people think we can't afford it?

LeonDurham says

It's 50% cheaper!! We're already paying for it twice over. Why do people think we can't afford it?

I believe objections are related to the belief that taxes will go up, and be disproportionately paid according to earnings. An examination of taxes related to socialized medicine in other countries might help the discussion along. However, it is true that the cost of drugs in such countries is are cheaper than in the USA. Hence importation from Canada.

MisterLefty says

I believe objections are related to the belief that taxes will go up, and be disproportionately paid according to earnings. An examination of taxes related to socialized medicine in other countries might help the discussion along. However, it is true that the cost of drugs in such countries is are cheaper than in the USA. Hence importation from Canada.

Does it really matter if you pay less total? Who cares if you pay it in taxes vs. deductions out of your paycheck? If the total amount paid is less, then it's a positive.

LeonDurham says

It's 50% cheaper!! We're already paying for it twice over. Why do people think we can't afford it?

How is it 50% "cheaper"? How can it be cheaper if like mell pointed out, the tax burden is increased? Nothing in the world comes for free, even making something "cheaper".

LeonDurham says

Why not? The outcomes of such conditions is BETTER. If the goal is to keep living, studies show you'd be better off in either of those countries.

Source, or you made this up.

Goran_K says

LeonDurham says

It's 50% cheaper!! We're already paying for it twice over. Why do people think we can't afford it?

How is it 50% "cheaper"? How can it be cheaper if like mell pointed out, the tax burden is increased? Nothing in the world comes for free, even making something "cheaper".

I guess it's cheaper for those who expect to pay less into the system than they expect to extract from it.

LeonDurham says

Easy wins in terms of statistics (child mortality or other acute conditions).

Child mortality is largely about lifestyle (drugs, violence, basic health decisions while pregnant) of the mother. Our child mortality in the US is overwhelmingly amongst populations of people w FREE healthcare.

Our less than 1st world child mortality rate is a function of less than 1st world decisions by low functioning segments of our population. It is NOT an indictment of the medical system.

LeonDurham says

If the total amount paid is less, then it's a positive.

Then a largely free market system should be the goal.

I think we should socialize 1 yearly wellness visit (would cost maybe $100/person), and publicly supplement terminal/critical condition insurance for the poor. Everything else should be a free market.

We'd see prices drop to 1/10th of what they are today

LeonDurham says

Does it really matter if you pay less total? Who cares if you pay it in taxes vs. deductions out of your paycheck? If the total amount paid is less, then it's a positive.

I think the debate is whether folks would be paying more overall. Let's say you are reasonably healthy, exercise, don't smoke, and eat well. And your employer covers a good chunk of your medical insurance, for example.

Hassan_Rouhani says

I guess it's cheaper for those who expect to pay less into the system than they expect to extract from it.

Exactly, that's why I asked "cheaper for who", and I've only gotten crickets.

Goran_K says

How is it 50% "cheaper"? How can it be cheaper if like mell pointed out, the tax burden is increased? Nothing in the world comes for free, even making something "cheaper".

Because you'd be paying ZERO to your employer and your employer would be paying ZERO towards your healthcare. So, you'll get a raise too!

This isn't hard. Come on.

LeonDurham says

Because you'd be paying ZERO to your employer and your employer would be paying ZERO towards your healthcare. So, you'll get a raise too!

This isn't hard. Come on.

Yes, but if tax burden is increased, how can you prove that that burden is LESS for me than what I'd pay an insurance company? Can you prove it?

LeonDurham says

Goran_K says

How is it 50% "cheaper"? How can it be cheaper if like mell pointed out, the tax burden is increased? Nothing in the world comes for free, even making something "cheaper".

Because you'd be paying ZERO to your employer and your employer would be paying ZERO towards your healthcare. So, you'll get a raise too!

This isn't hard. Come on.

California's estimate for "universal healthcare" came at 15% of additional tax on top of existing SIT being necessary to pay for it. This is waaaaaaay more than I pay for my employer-provided health plan, co-pays, deductibles and all that jazz.

Hassan_Rouhani says

California's estimate for "universal healthcare" came at 15% of additional tax on top of existing SIT being necessary to pay for it. This is waaaaaaay more than I pay for my employer-provided health plan, co-pays, deductibles and all that jazz.

Exactly, and California had universal healthcare as a bill, but it got shuttered in committee because of "costs".

Now why would the supposed 5th largest economy in the world shutter UHC if it's "cheaper"?

CBOEtrader says

Source, or you made this up.

Is this a joke? Just google health outcome by country.

Here's one:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

Goran_K says

Exactly, that's why I asked "cheaper for who", and I've only gotten crickets.

No, it's cheaper for EVERYONE because it's MUCH, MUCH more efficient.

The cost of all health care is reduced.

How is this not understood?