patrick.net

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?

MisterLefty says

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.

Study after study after study all agree that the US spends 1.5-2X what every other country does. So, it's pretty clear that costs can come down. How much do you pay for health coverage every year? No matter if you're healthy or not.

And your employer doesn't pay for anything. They are taking money that they would have paid you in salary and instead pay it as "benefits" on your health care. It's all YOUR money.

Goran_K says

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?

Yes, of course. Study after study confirm it.

LeonDurham says

And your employer doesn't pay for anything. They are taking money that they would have paid you in salary and instead pay it as "benefits" on your health care. It's all YOUR money.

In all socialized systems, the government takes your money for healthcare? Yes?

Also, with my current insurance plan, I can see a specialist the same day.

Can you do that in Canada or the UK?

Hmm, it's cheaper, but it seems like it's suckier too....

Gee, that sucks. Cheaper seems worse in terms of wait times.

OK--so let's not use Canada's model (although I don't trust those numbers). There are literally dozens of other systems to emulate instead.

But, I'd suspect that we could offer services you could buy that would allow access to Drs. with much shorter wait times if that's really important to you along with the new system.

LeonDurham says

But, I'd suspect that we could offer services you could buy that would allow access to Drs. with much shorter wait times if that's really important to you along with the new system.

Hmm. So you're admitting that rationing is inherent to socialized healthcare, and to get around it, you would need another system to correct for that?

Not a good idea to try and troll a mod Tatupu. Keep it on topic and not personal, or you're going to enjoy this pleasant debate a lot less. :)

Goran_K says

Hmm. So you're admitting that rationing is inherent to socialized healthcare, and to get around it, you would need another system to correct for that?

Nope. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I'm saying that there are wait times no matter what system is in use and one way around it is to allow people the choice of shortening the wait time by paying extra.

LeonDurham says

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

Your comment was about longevity. Arbitrary rankings aren't even data, much less facts. It's basically some pundits top 10 list.

Try using facts to make your case.

The fact is longevity and IMR are both functions of lifestyle choices. Drugs, terrible eating habits, and skipping free pre-natal doctors appointments result in a much higher IMR in our black communities, for example.

Ask yourself why New Hampshire has an equivalent IMR to europe whereas in Alabama the IMR is more than double Europe's.

Ask yourself why the white IMR in US is marginally higher than EU, where black IMR is 2.2 times the white IMR. Keep in mind ALL the poorest mothers have medicaid.

Access to prenatal care isn't a problem for the despondent in the US (though it may be a problem for the working middle class).

fyi--rationing is inherent to ALL health care systems.

Currently, US rations based on a person's wealth.

LeonDurham says

US rations based on a person's wealth.

Yes, and there would be far more care in a free market. I'm glad we agree

CBOEtrader says

Your comment was about longevity. Arbitrary rankings aren't even data, much less facts. It's basically some pundits top 10 list.

Much comment was about measurable outcomes. And those are easily measured and compiled data.

CBOEtrader says

ry using facts to make your case.

I did.

CBOEtrader says

Ask yourself why New Hampshire has an equivalent IMR to europe whereas in Alabama the IMR is more than double Europe's.

Ask yourself why the white IMR in US is marginally higher than EU, where black IMR is 2.2 times the white IMR. Keep in mind ALL the poorest mothers have medicaid.

Access to prenatal care isn't a problem for the despondent in the US (though it may be a problem for the working middle class).

Are there no black people in Europe? Wow--how enlightening.

I'm pretty sure there is a relation between IMR and $$. You think that might have something to do with it??

CBOEtrader says

Yes, and there would be far more care in a free market. I'm glad we agree

Maybe--not sure how to get a free market in health care though. It fails many of the preconditions for a free market.

Extremely inelastic demand. High information inequality.

LeonDurham says

I'm saying that there are wait times no matter what system is in use

Sure, but socialized wait times are enforced as are doctor queues.

Me, I can just pick any doctor with availability, and right this minute I can get a specialist appointment for the afternoon if I wanted.

LeonDurham says

Currently, US rations based on a person's wealth.

Yes, and that's great. The market is determining the rationing, not the same type of guy who works at the DMV.

Goran_K says

Yes, and that's great. The market is determining the rationing, not the same type of guy who works at the DMV.

lol--more trolling. Pretty sure the guy at the DMV wouldn't be leading the US health care system.

(although, with Trump as President you never know. The guy at the DMV is probably better than 50% of the current cabinet)

LeonDurham says

lol--more trolling. Pretty sure the guy at the DMV wouldn't be leading the US health care system.

No one said they'd be leading the US health care system but they would be the type who would be running it administratively.

Long lines, queuing. Sound familiar?

Goran_K says

No one said they'd be leading the US health care system but they would be the type who would be running it administratively.

Long lines, queuing. Sound familiar?

No, not really. The DMV is a state run facility and in my state, the wait times are very short.

And any decisions about how many Drs to hire would be made pretty far up the food chain.

Goran_K says

Cherry picking. The entire civilized world outside the US has national healthcare and most of it is better quality than the US for 1/2 the price.

LeonDurham says

The DMV is a state run facility and in my state, the wait times are very short.

Which state is that tatupu, illinois? "Short wait times" and DMV aren't things that usually go together.

Heraclitusstudent says

Cherry picking.

Cherry picking? Canada is often brought up as a "successful" nationalized system.

The entire civilized world outside the US has national healthcare and most of it is better quality than the US for 1/2 the price.

Better for who? I can see a specialist today. Can you do that in Canada, the UK, or France?

Goran_K says

Which state is that tatupu, illinois? "Short wait times" and DMV aren't things that usually go together.

I believe that's against the rules.