Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-27-2018, 04:28 PM
SaltyDave SaltyDave is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 1
Healthcare Myths in America

I still keep seeing things about the terribly high cost of Single Payer Healthcare. Why?

We are not the first country to do it. Italy has the 2nd or 3rd best healthcare in the World. Their govt pays about US$3,077/capita/yr. If you look at many studies by Govt and other Credible sources, not Fox News, the US Govt is spending US$9,267/capita/yr* for the 36th best healthcare, and the CDC says that over 400,000 people are dying each year of preventable diseases, we have the 170th best infant mortality, (there are only about 220 countries in the World) the 138th best Maternal Mortality, the 43rd best life expectancy, etc .

So, the ONLY reason for this that I can think of is the Rich Leeches bought our Govt and keep the masses ignorant of the Facts.

EVERY penny you pay in personal cost of crappy healthcare goes to the Leeches. And about $6,000/yr of taxes. Direct to the Leeches. Have I missed something? It seems simple and very sad.

*Source:
Am J Public Health. 2016 March; 106(3): 449–452.
Published online 2016 March. doi: [10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997]
There are, of course, many more issues, but why are we not united behind these? Simply because we allow ourselves to be manipulated by a massive propaganda machine that keeps us fragmented.
  #2  
Old 12-04-2018, 12:09 PM
filmstar-en filmstar-en is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 880
Who profits most?
  #3  
Old 12-04-2018, 12:50 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltyDave View Post
I still keep seeing things about the terribly high cost of Single Payer Healthcare. Why?

We are not the first country to do it. Italy has the 2nd or 3rd best healthcare in the World. Their govt pays about US$3,077/capita/yr. If you look at many studies by Govt and other Credible sources, not Fox News, the US Govt is spending US$9,267/capita/yr* for the 36th best healthcare, and the CDC says that over 400,000 people are dying each year of preventable diseases, we have the 170th best infant mortality, (there are only about 220 countries in the World) the 138th best Maternal Mortality, the 43rd best life expectancy, etc .

So, the ONLY reason for this that I can think of is the Rich Leeches bought our Govt and keep the masses ignorant of the Facts.

EVERY penny you pay in personal cost of crappy healthcare goes to the Leeches. And about $6,000/yr of taxes. Direct to the Leeches. Have I missed something? It seems simple and very sad.

*Source:
Am J Public Health. 2016 March; 106(3): 449–452.
Published online 2016 March. doi: [10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997]
There are, of course, many more issues, but why are we not united behind these? Simply because we allow ourselves to be manipulated by a massive propaganda machine that keeps us fragmented.
You missed a few things, IMHO. First off, while YOU might have 'crappy healthcare', the majority of people in the country have healthcare that is just good enough so that they aren't complaining that much. In addition, while a lot of Americans pine for what our Canadian or European brethren and sistren have, this is what they know...we've had this system in place for generations...it's been here as long as anyone currently alive remembers. And, as noted, it's worked just good enough for the majority that people are leery of switching to something we've never had here. I think, generally, Americans are unimpressed by statements that other countries have done X...I know I am...so we should just be able to do it as well. Especially in this case with an entrenched system that's been with us for generations. Sure, if we could just scrap the whole thing magically and put in place a new shinny system immediately that is up and running right now it would be nice. But the reality is that you can't just do that. Most countries with single payer systems didn't go from a system like ours (which is a hodge-podge kludge that's evolved over decades) to what they have now, and the few who did it (Canada I think) had abilities to enact and a voter base vastly different than our own.

I DO think we should go to a single payer system of some kind, and I do think it would be better than the cluster fuck we have today. I just don't kid myself that it would be easier, or that there would be some vast savings that would happen, especially initially or during the (very long IMHO) transition. One issue is that we have a huge gap between the majority who get fairly decent healthcare and those who essentially get none. That gap is going to cost us, no matter how you slice it, and it will also mean that health care will have to be spread out (or expanded) to cover literally millions that it's not covering today.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #4  
Old 12-04-2018, 12:56 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 27,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
You missed a few things, IMHO. First off, while YOU might have 'crappy healthcare', the majority of people in the country have healthcare that is just good enough so that they aren't complaining that much.
It may be "good enough" that they aren't complaining but it is still crappy health care.

Most people have no clue how lacking their "good enough" healthcare is until they are hit with a catastrophic illness or injury. THEN they find out, but at that point it's too late.

In most countries "medical bankruptcy" is a meaningless phrase. In the US it is the leading cause of bankruptcy,more than half of them.
  #5  
Old 12-04-2018, 01:06 PM
Doug K. Doug K. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Hutchinson, KS
Posts: 3,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
It may be "good enough" that they aren't complaining but it is still crappy health care.

Most people have no clue how lacking their "good enough" healthcare is until they are hit with a catastrophic illness or injury. THEN they find out, but at that point it's too late.

In most countries "medical bankruptcy" is a meaningless phrase. In the US it is the leading cause of bankruptcy,more than half of them.
Funny, but when I was diagnosed with cancer I found out just the opposite. My health care turned out to be far better than I thought it was.
  #6  
Old 12-04-2018, 01:07 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 27,480
Then you are extremely fortunate. Good for you. If only everyone else had that same good fortune.
  #7  
Old 12-04-2018, 01:12 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
You missed a few things, IMHO. First off, while YOU might have 'crappy healthcare', the majority of people in the country have healthcare that is just good enough so that they aren't complaining that much.
That people (some people) are satisfied with what they have is about human psychology, not the quality of what they have. Our outcomes demonstrate that our healthcare is not good enough. The expense does also.

When I was a kid people thought that American cars, those tailfinned monmstrosities - were good enough. Big daddy government required seat belts and then air bags and then car seats. Only the oil price shock got Americans to buy better MPG Japanese cars which is when they discovered that cars did not have to be crap.
Satisfaction - and lies by the right - might explain why change is so hard, but it doesn't say anything much about quality.
  #8  
Old 12-04-2018, 01:14 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug K. View Post
Funny, but when I was diagnosed with cancer I found out just the opposite. My health care turned out to be far better than I thought it was.
I assume you had insurance. As a ten percenter, with a good job and thus good insurance, my health care was good also. But that isn't true for lots of America.
  #9  
Old 12-04-2018, 01:15 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,116
How do you get from spending 9 grand a person to spending 3 grand a person. The salary of doctors and nurses would have to be slashed. For nurses the average salary would have to fall by $40,000 per year to reach the Italian average. For doctors it would have to fall by $150,000 a year.
There is no conceivable way that doctors and nurses would stay in the profession if they had 66% of their salary cut. Doctors and nurses are not leeches, they are good people who work hard and provide an essential service. They may be overpaid but they are hardly leeeches.

As long as we are talking about medical cost myths, medical bankruptcies are not 50% of all bankruptcies, they are actually 4%. Other countries have medical bankruptcies, for example in Canada 15% of bankruptcies in people over 55 are medical bankruptcies.
  #10  
Old 12-04-2018, 01:23 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Health care in America, for those that have it- is pretty darn good.

Now, Single payer wouldn't be expensive if we took all the money private industry, the government and people are paying into account.

In other words, rather than just saying "Medicare for all costs $XXTrillion" you could deduct what corporate America is already paying for it employees health insurance n(by having a tax that would equal that), what the feds and state are paying for health insurance, etc- and then you'd come up with a tax increase likely smaller that what the average American pays now in Premiums.
  #11  
Old 12-04-2018, 02:22 PM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 30,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltyDave View Post
...we have the 170th best infant mortality, (there are only about 220 countries in the World)
Nope, false. Not even close.

The U.S. does rank behind most other developed countries in infant mortality, but inaccessibility to health care is far from the only problem (a high rate of unplanned pregnancy, a massive (sorry) problem with obesity and different way of calculating infant mortality statistics are also involved).

We actually rank favorably against comparable countries in perinatal mortality.

And infant mortality has been dropping recently in the U.S.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...nt-u-s-n736366

But what do I know? I'm one of the Leeches cackling with glee over the state of health care.

Last edited by Jackmannii; 12-04-2018 at 02:23 PM.
  #12  
Old 12-04-2018, 02:28 PM
Doug K. Doug K. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Hutchinson, KS
Posts: 3,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
I assume you had insurance. As a ten percenter, with a good job and thus good insurance, my health care was good also. But that isn't true for lots of America.
I am far from a ten percenter. In fact, my income took a huge drop, like cut in half, 4 years ago. Our combined incomes probably put us in the bottom 25-30 percent. I have insurance, but it's a fairly high deductible. We had to scrimp to take care of the deductibles. And there are plenty of people who make less than I do but still have the same insurance.
  #13  
Old 12-04-2018, 02:34 PM
JcWoman JcWoman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
It may be "good enough" that they aren't complaining but it is still crappy health care.
Another issue with our current system that is under-appreciated (IMO) is what I recently had driven home - our health care insurance really REALLY needs to be disconnected from employment. I have pretty good insurance through my employer, as do many millions of people. But I recently changed jobs, which resulted in (long story short) having to go 7 FULL weeks without my doctor-prescribed medication for my arthritis. I got by, barely, with over the counter Alleve, but it was not fun and my pain levels still made it hard for me to sleep well.

We should NEVER have an interruption in our medical care simply because we change jobs.
  #14  
Old 12-04-2018, 02:41 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
It may be "good enough" that they aren't complaining but it is still crappy health care.

Most people have no clue how lacking their "good enough" healthcare is until they are hit with a catastrophic illness or injury. THEN they find out, but at that point it's too late.

In most countries "medical bankruptcy" is a meaningless phrase. In the US it is the leading cause of bankruptcy,more than half of them.
It's what they know. Even those who have read about the wonders of healthcare in the UK or Western Europe or Canada don't have a lot of real world experience to compare it too. Again, YOU might think it's crappy because a minority of folks have bad outcomes that cost them everything, but for the majority that doesn't happen, so it's good enough that they hesitate to take the plunge and try something completely different.

There is also a difference between Americans and a lot of other people in other nations, that being an almost innate distrust of big government wrt doing a good job at things. While I know this isn't universal, it's something I've seen a lot of examples of with friends from other countries and those in the US. And to a lot of people it would be a huge leap of faith that we could get such a system implemented, that it would cost less or even the same and that they, personally, would get as good or better healthcare than they currently get. Because, again, for the majority of Americans it is good enough and, again, what they know. So, instead of large systemic changes to bring us to single payer UHC type service, paid for by taxes instead of by deductions from your pay stub and payed for mainly by your employer, we get small changes that often actually muck things up worse. Part of the reason we pay so much for hospital stuff stems from this happening, and it's not so entrenched that just changing that one thing would be a monumental undertaking.

I am totally for a new system, and freely acknowledge that the one we have is broken. I believe pretty much everyone agrees on that second part anyway. But I think it's not so simple as the OP or others on this board, pointing at what other countries do and saying we could just do that.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #15  
Old 12-04-2018, 04:36 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Health care in America, for those that have it- is pretty darn good.

Now, Single payer wouldn't be expensive if we took all the money private industry, the government and people are paying into account.

In other words, rather than just saying "Medicare for all costs $XXTrillion" you could deduct what corporate America is already paying for it employees health insurance n(by having a tax that would equal that), what the feds and state are paying for health insurance, etc- and then you'd come up with a tax increase likely smaller that what the average American pays now in Premiums.
People have done that analysis.

IF we dramatically cut payments to health care providers, and IF we dramatically cut drug prices, and IF we cut administrative costs, and IF we double federal income taxes on individuals and corporations, we save about $2 trillion over ten years AND we increase the federal deficit. I don't have a hard figure on how much the deficit will go up, but I suspect a lot if not all of the $2T is in there somewhere.

So it isn't just a question of saying we just send all of what we are paying in premiums to the government as taxes and then we save money - we have to make dramatic cuts to spending, and we don't even break even then.

We have to make the cuts in spending one way or another. Single payer, or M4A, doesn't change that. I suppose we could have a system whereby the government sets prices for everything in the health care field and the insurance companies don't have to pay for anything above that, but I don't see how that is more (or less) efficient than having the government be the single payer and tell hospitals "here's what you are going to charge - take it or leave it". There is going to be major disruptions either way.


Regards,
Shodan
  #16  
Old 12-04-2018, 04:49 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
People have done that analysis.

IF we dramatically cut payments to health care providers, and IF we dramatically cut drug prices, and IF we cut administrative costs, and IF we double federal income taxes on individuals and corporations, we save about $2 trillion over ten years AND we increase the federal deficit. I don't have a hard figure on how much the deficit will go up, but I suspect a lot if not all of the $2T is in there somewhere.

So it isn't just a question of saying we just send all of what we are paying in premiums to the government as taxes and then we save money - we have to make dramatic cuts to spending, and we don't even break even then.
No, that study does nothing of the sort. It does not consider what Americans are already paying.


https://www.businessinsider.com/bern...e-money-2018-7
The Department of Health and Human Services also measures the total amount spent on healthcare in the US, including by states, private citizens, the federal government, businesses, and more. This all-encompassing number is known as the national health expenditure, or NHE.

According to the Mercatus model, total health spending would actually come in about $303 billion lower in 2031 than under current projections, with $7.35 trillion going to healthcare that year versus $7.65 trillion expected now. Total national health spending would be $2 trillion lower from 2022 to 2031 under the plan, the report found.

While the price tag for the federal government would increase significantly, decreased spending by other groups would lower total healthcare spending over that 10-year period. Meanwhile, the model also assumes that 30 million more people would get access to healthcare, and many people would get more robust services.
"

So, overall, we'd SAVE $2 Trillion. All we have to do is tax corps more to make up what they'd save and raises taxes a bit on individuals to also make up what they;d save- and we'd be spending less.
  #17  
Old 12-04-2018, 04:56 PM
Grim Render Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
How do you get from spending 9 grand a person to spending 3 grand a person.
Generally you consolidate from a bunch of chaotic systems that don't interact well to a single system with bargaining power and massively less bureaucracy. There is a lot of talk about this system or that system, but the thing that keeps costs lower in Western Europe is having one system with one or more entities acting in it, and letting private initiative fill in any gaps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The salary of doctors and nurses would have to be slashed. For nurses the average salary would have to fall by $40,000 per year to reach the Italian average. For doctors it would have to fall by $150,000 a year.
Not really, you know. Its not like the salaries of medical professionals are a big part of the difference between US and western European spending levels. I mean, the big issues are the vast US bureaucracy, medical inefficiency, over-provision, and excess drug costs.

You know, I have the weirdest sensation of deja vu. Its like I've seen this explained to you before. But I suppose there are many people who read this site who never comment, so I guess any chance to point out how messed up the system is, is a good thing.
  #18  
Old 12-04-2018, 05:27 PM
Grim Render Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,098
Anyway, big healthcare myths that I can remember offhand:

1) US military expenses are bigger than US healthcare expenses. In fact many people in the western work think their military budgets are bigger than the healthcare speding

2) The US produces more medical research per head than other large western nations.

3) The poor US performance in infant mortality has something to do with "Different ways of recording it"

4) More people come to the US for medical care then the number of Americans that go abroad for care.

5) Many Canadians come to the US for medical care and few Americans go to Canada for health care.

6) The universal healthcare systems in the rest of the developed work are more expensive than the US system.

7) The US system has good results compared to other developed nations systems.

There are probably many others, but as far as myths go, those are the real howlers that I can think of right now.
  #19  
Old 12-04-2018, 05:36 PM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
Anyway, big healthcare myths that I can remember offhand:

1) US military expenses are bigger than US healthcare expenses. In fact many people in the western work think their military budgets are bigger than the healthcare speding

2) The US produces more medical research per head than other large western nations.

3) The poor US performance in infant mortality has something to do with "Different ways of recording it"

4) More people come to the US for medical care then the number of Americans that go abroad for care.

5) Many Canadians come to the US for medical care and few Americans go to Canada for health care.

6) The universal healthcare systems in the rest of the developed work are more expensive than the US system.

7) The US system has good results compared to other developed nations systems.

There are probably many others, but as far as myths go, those are the real howlers that I can think of right now.
And here's a non-myth: 3 out 4 Americans like their own healthcare. In any other issue, that is a strong consensus. People know about their own healthcare situation, and I would tred lightly around that consensus when discussing things like single-payer.
  #20  
Old 12-04-2018, 05:51 PM
Grim Render Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
And here's a non-myth: 3 out 4 Americans like their own healthcare. In any other issue, that is a strong consensus. People know about their own healthcare situation, and I would tred lightly around that consensus when discussing things like single-payer.
I'd say that consensus would be more important if it was about an issue that was actually possible to keep or sustain. I am sure 3 out of 4 Americans would like being able to teleport and being immortal too.
  #21  
Old 12-04-2018, 06:08 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,841
Quote:
People know about their own healthcare situation...
Not really, no. Most people are healthy, and so are basically not using their healthcare. How can you tell how good it is until you're using it?
  #22  
Old 12-04-2018, 06:17 PM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
I'd say that consensus would be more important if it was about an issue that was actually possible to keep or sustain. I am sure 3 out of 4 Americans would like being able to teleport and being immortal too.
You're just tap-dancing around real polling on a real issue. People don't have to believe in crazy stuff to know if their own healthcare is good or not. And the numbers I quoted on the very strong consensus on the real issue of our own healthcare is fact.

And single-payer is not necessary for sustainability of a healthcare system.
  #23  
Old 12-04-2018, 06:24 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
You missed a few things, IMHO. First off, while YOU might have 'crappy healthcare', the majority of people in the country have healthcare that is just good enough so that they aren't complaining that much.
Part of that is because most people are mostly healthy for most of their lives. People who are truly sick usually end up on a public health care system like medicare or medicaid. So yes people may be happy with their private insurance, but that is because they are healthy enough to work and don't really use it.

So yes people may be happy with their insurance when all that happens is they get a prescription filled here and there. But if they get so sick that they can't work, and they have endless doctor visits then check again and see how happy they are.

Also people like medicare better than private insurance.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/...satisfied.aspx

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
In addition, while a lot of Americans pine for what our Canadian or European brethren and sistren have, this is what they know...we've had this system in place for generations...it's been here as long as anyone currently alive remembers.
That is the same in other countries. They had private health insurance for a while. Lots of western nations didn't have true UHC systems until the 1970s and 1980s. It isn't like they all went from no health insurance to a public UHC system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
And, as noted, it's worked just good enough for the majority that people are leery of switching to something we've never had here.

Single payer healthcare = medicare for all. We've had medicare for 53 years. It is one of the most popular things the US government does, and polls show a majority of hte public want medicare for all (or at least they say they do).

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most...e-tuition.html

Switching to single payer just means switching to a popular medical program that covers 1/6 of Americans and that virtually everyone will eventually be on anyway if they live to age 65.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I think, generally, Americans are unimpressed by statements that other countries have done X...I know I am...so we should just be able to do it as well. Especially in this case with an entrenched system that's been with us for generations. Sure, if we could just scrap the whole thing magically and put in place a new shinny system immediately that is up and running right now it would be nice. But the reality is that you can't just do that. Most countries with single payer systems didn't go from a system like ours (which is a hodge-podge kludge that's evolved over decades) to what they have now, and the few who did it (Canada I think) had abilities to enact and a voter base vastly different than our own.
This is true sadly. The closest comparision is Switzerland, which had a system like ours up until the 1990s.

However in the US, we currently have about 130 million people on medicare and medicaid. We also have tens of millions more on subsidized private plans and other public health plans.

As a stepping stone to single payer, we could expand medicare and medicaid (put both on the exchanges, lower the medicare age to 50, etc). We could also push for single payer on the state level. That'll increase the number of Americans on public plans to 200+ million and ease the transition into nationwide single payer.

Point being, the public sector already covers about half of Americans and pays about 60% of the health care bills (because people who are truly sick tend to end up on the public sector, their overall costs are a little higher despite the public sector being cheaper for healthcare).

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I DO think we should go to a single payer system of some kind, and I do think it would be better than the cluster fuck we have today. I just don't kid myself that it would be easier, or that there would be some vast savings that would happen, especially initially or during the (very long IMHO) transition. One issue is that we have a huge gap between the majority who get fairly decent healthcare and those who essentially get none. That gap is going to cost us, no matter how you slice it, and it will also mean that health care will have to be spread out (or expanded) to cover literally millions that it's not covering today.
A well run single payer plan will cut costs via a variety of methods, and it will reduce the cost curve going forward so medical costs do not grow as much.

But realistically we won't get it anytime soon sadly. Even though people say they like it, on ballot initiatives it still doesn't pass. And if a legislature passes it like Vermont, they back off.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #24  
Old 12-04-2018, 06:28 PM
monstro monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 19,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
You missed a few things, IMHO. First off, while YOU might have 'crappy healthcare', the majority of people in the country have healthcare that is just good enough so that they aren't complaining that much.
I dunno. I hear complaints about our healthcare system all the time. Not just about the bureaucratic and financial nightmares that people find themselves in, but the long waiting times and general incompetency from overworked practitioners. At any rate, most people do not find themselves using their healthcare coverage more than once or twice a year, so they don't see the weaknesses in the system. Nor do they have a reference to compare things to.

Also, in a few years all the Boomers will be elderly and in various stages of physical deterioration. Only a few will still be in the workforce (and those who are left won't be there because they love their jobs necessarily). The typical 50-year-old may not know what's it is like to have to choose between medication or food, but this is a common woe for a frail pensioner living on SS. A lot of people who think things are hunky-dory don't know what's waiting for them
  #25  
Old 12-04-2018, 06:32 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
And the numbers I quoted on the very strong consensus on the real issue of our own healthcare is fact.
...the numbers you cited (well you didn't really cite them as much as "pluck them out of thin air") indicate that (Are you including children and infants?) at least 80 million people do not like their own healthcare.

Consensus is of course important. But you ignore the opinion of millions of people at your own peril. The people that don't like their healthcare are the ones who can't afford it, who don't have insurance, who have to crowdfund to pay their medical bills, who are under-insured, who are dying because they are receiving inferior care. Those people matter, no matter what the "consensus" is on the issue. There is no reason to "tread lightly."
  #26  
Old 12-04-2018, 06:39 PM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
It may be "good enough" that they aren't complaining but it is still crappy health care.

Most people have no clue how lacking their "good enough" healthcare is until they are hit with a catastrophic illness or injury. THEN they find out, but at that point it's too late.

In most countries "medical bankruptcy" is a meaningless phrase. In the US it is the leading cause of bankruptcy,more than half of them.
This.

Vast numbers of morons Americans claim they don’t want universal coverage because they’re healthy now. Their attitude is, “Why should I pay for someone else’s medicine?” Apparently they are completely oblivious to the idea that they are just one car crash away from bankruptcy. Nor can they comprehend how preventive medicine can drive down everyone’s costs.
  #27  
Old 12-04-2018, 06:49 PM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...the numbers you cited (well you didn't really cite them as much as "pluck them out of thin air")
No, there are other threads where that specific stat was cited, including threads where you participated. To say I plucked them out of thin air is a bald-faced lie on your part.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/222992/...&g_medium=copy
  #28  
Old 12-04-2018, 07:02 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
No, there are other threads where that specific stat was cited, including threads where you participated. To say I plucked them out of thin air is a bald-faced lie on your part.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/222992/...&g_medium=copy
...you've cited it now. But you didn't cite it in this particular thread. I think "plucked from thin air" was a fair characterization. You can't expect me to remember every post from every thread I've ever participated?

And its still an irrelevant figure for all the reasons you have chosen to ignore.
  #29  
Old 12-04-2018, 07:20 PM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
I think "plucked from thin air" was a fair characterization.
No it isn't. It's you being wrong, or lying, or both.

Last edited by Bone; 12-04-2018 at 07:32 PM. Reason: Fixed quote tag
  #30  
Old 12-04-2018, 07:35 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,795
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
No, there are other threads where that specific stat was cited, including threads where you participated. To say I plucked them out of thin air is a bald-faced lie on your part.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/222992/...&g_medium=copy

Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
No it isn't. It's you being wrong, or lying, or both.
Do not accuse other posters of lying in this forum. Please familiarize yourself with the rules of the forum (rule #5) posted in the sticky at the top of the forum.

Your one and only pass.

[/moderating]

Last edited by Bone; 12-04-2018 at 07:36 PM.
  #31  
Old 12-04-2018, 07:45 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Not really, no. Most people are healthy, and so are basically not using their healthcare. How can you tell how good it is until you're using it?
Pre ACA, there was some low cost “insurance” that was sold mostly to low income hourly employees through major employers. For around $100 a month you got doctor visits with a small copay,free eye exams and glasses and all sorts of routine healthcare.

And these were among the plans that were eliminated with the ACA. And most of the people that had those plans loved loved loved them. But the catch is that these plans had a ridiculously low yearly maximum benefit of around $2000. I believe that they may have originally been designed as a bridge plan to be used in conjunction with a real insurance plan to cover the deductible.

But people that had never really gotten sick and hadn’t read the fine print honestly thought they had awesome insurance that had been taken away from them. Even though these plans weren’t even technically allowed to be called insurance. Because they didn’t provide any.
  #32  
Old 12-04-2018, 07:49 PM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Part of that is because most people are mostly healthy for most of their lives. People who are truly sick usually end up on a public health care system like medicare or medicaid. So yes people may be happy with their private insurance, but that is because they are healthy enough to work and don't really use it.

So yes people may be happy with their insurance when all that happens is they get a prescription filled here and there. But if they get so sick that they can't work, and they have endless doctor visits then check again and see how happy they are.
I'm certainly happy with my insurance. And I have someone in my family with some very serious, chronic conditions, and who does not work. So, we use our private health insurance quite a bit, and it's done very well for us.

There are some that meet the situation that you mention above. But many who don't.
  #33  
Old 12-04-2018, 07:57 PM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Not really, no. Most people are healthy, and so are basically not using their healthcare. How can you tell how good it is until you're using it?
Well, let's put it this way. People know much more about their own healthcare than they do about the overall healthcare system.

So, if we are discussing single-payer, which in America would amount to a very big change in health insurance & healthcare itself, it's relevant to be informed about people's view of their own healthcare. If we're going to talk about all the things that are wrong with healthcare in America, it's relevant to be informed about people's view of their own healthcare. So, when I say that 3 out of 4 Americans think their own healthcare is good (or even excellent), that's very important for policymakers to consider.

You rarely find an issue where 75% of the public agrees. That is an extremely strong consensus.
  #34  
Old 12-04-2018, 09:48 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
I'm certainly happy with my insurance. And I have someone in my family with some very serious, chronic conditions, and who does not work. So, we use our private health insurance quite a bit, and it's done very well for us.

There are some that meet the situation that you mention above. But many who don't.
I'm glad you're happy with your insurance. But if it were you who couldn't work and had the serious health problems, you may not have a good job that offers you good insurance.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #35  
Old 12-04-2018, 10:34 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug K. View Post
I am far from a ten percenter. In fact, my income took a huge drop, like cut in half, 4 years ago. Our combined incomes probably put us in the bottom 25-30 percent. I have insurance, but it's a fairly high deductible. We had to scrimp to take care of the deductibles. And there are plenty of people who make less than I do but still have the same insurance.
And you are happy with this?
We're not talking quality of care here - someone who goes bankrupt to pay for medical care is likely getting good care. But you being forced to scrimp and save to pay for treatment for something not your fault doesn't sound like a good system to me.
  #36  
Old 12-04-2018, 10:47 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
No, there are other threads where that specific stat was cited, including threads where you participated. To say I plucked them out of thin air is a bald-faced lie on your part.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/222992/...&g_medium=copy
From your link:
Quote:
Gallup measures Americans' views of healthcare costs by asking if they are satisfied or dissatisfied with their own costs and with healthcare costs nationally. One in five (20%) are satisfied with the total cost of healthcare in the U.S. this year, consistent with most of the yearly readings since 2002. At the same time, three times as many, 61%, are satisfied with the total cost of their own healthcare. This represents a five-point uptick from last year but is largely consistent with the general trend since 2002.
This reminds me of a few years back when Congress got a worse approval rating than cancer, but most people liked their particular Congressperson.
Quality of healthcare is irrelevant to this discussion. Someone saved from a heart attack would probably be happy with the quality of his healthcare - even if he goes bankrupt paying the bill.
Not to mention that our pitiful standings in terms of results shows we shouldn't be all that satisfied.
  #37  
Old 12-04-2018, 11:39 PM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I think, generally, Americans are unimpressed by statements that other countries have done X...I know I am...so we should just be able to do it as well.
I agree with you that most Americans think like that, but it's irrational.

Even if one were to think the US is the world's bestest #1 country*, that doesn't mean it's perfect, and that new ideas cannot be brought in from elsewhere. It's a sad fact that culturally, that's exactly what it means: "We're #1, therefore we don't need to listen".
Or of course the more modern version which is "If I can find some way the US is different to country X, that shows it can't work here".

* For the record, I don't think this. Picking an objectively best country would be like picking an objectively best food, and if you were to ask my favorite country, it would not be a contender.

Last edited by Mijin; 12-04-2018 at 11:41 PM.
  #38  
Old 12-05-2018, 12:40 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
Their attitude is, “Why should I pay for someone else’s medicine?”
To which the short answer is "Because everyone else will pay for yours".
  #39  
Old 12-05-2018, 12:58 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,690
also...why are you comfortable paying for someone else's police and fire service?
  #40  
Old 12-05-2018, 01:06 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
I agree with you that most Americans think like that, but it's irrational.
No it's not. Look, the USA isnt Denmark, a tiny Euro nation. What works for many other nations doesn't work on the grand scale of the USA.

That doesnt mean we can't watch and learns but honestly saying "well, 12 other nations that I have cherrypicked out of a list of 200 do it like that, so that must be the very best way." Is just as bad.

I am in favor of single payer, but telling me Denmark has it ain't gonna win me over. What works for a nation of 5 Million, isn't necessarily a good plan for 300 million.

Last edited by DrDeth; 12-05-2018 at 01:08 AM.
  #41  
Old 12-05-2018, 01:44 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
How do you get from spending 9 grand a person to spending 3 grand a person. The salary of doctors and nurses would have to be slashed. For nurses the average salary would have to fall by $40,000 per year to reach the Italian average. For doctors it would have to fall by $150,000 a year.
The ratio of U.S. healthcare spending per capita to Italy's is not 3 to 1; it is 3½ to 1. Cite. Per capita U.S. healthcare spending is twice that of Netherlands but Netherlands has average yearly compensation for specialists of $253,000 compared with $230,000 in U.S. Cite.

And please remember that "per capita" spending numbers reflect division by all the people in a country whether insured or not. If the denominator in the U.S. arithmetic excluded people who lack proper access to health care, the U.S. figures would be even more out-of-line with the rest of the world. (Some of the extra U.S. spending is for insurance clerks whose job is to deny healthcare to some Americans.)

Finally, is anyone talking about slashing U.S. healthcare spending by a whopping 66%? To the contrary, in another thread the worry is about a $32 Trillion increase(!). If the anti-UHC forces cannot decide whether it is a huge increase or a huge decrease in healthcare spending that most concerns them, I'm afraid it's hard to take them seriously.
  #42  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:00 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No it's not. Look, the USA isnt Denmark, a tiny Euro nation. What works for many other nations doesn't work on the grand scale of the USA.
Nobody does this but the US.

If someone floats the idea of high-speed rail in a small country, they don't jump to "We ain't China!" -- you do some analysis of the costs and requirements and maybe decide it isn't for you on that basis.

Pointing out differences between countries is pointless; you can shoot down any proposal if that were sufficient reason in itself.

Quote:
That doesnt mean we can't watch and learns but honestly saying "well, 12 other nations that I have cherrypicked out of a list of 200 do it like that, so that must be the very best way." Is just as bad.
Who is cherry-picking? Go anywhere in the developed world and show me examples of less bang per buck. I'll wait here.

If you think that comparing the US to developed countries is unfair, then OK: I'll concede that the US' spending of $4 trillion a year has delivered better health care than, say, Mali's.

Last edited by Mijin; 12-05-2018 at 02:01 AM.
  #43  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:26 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
Nobody does this but the US.

If someone floats the idea of high-speed rail in a small country, they don't jump to "We ain't China!" -- you do some analysis of the costs and requirements and maybe decide it isn't for you on that basis.
Cite?

And that's not at all what I said. It's fine to say "The USA should have high speed rail, and here are the reasons:...." But telling Americans "you should have High speed rail as Japan has and it works well there" is pointless.

Dont tell Americans (or Canadians , telling Canadians they should do XXX becuase America does will get you a very polite beer bottle over the head) (or French or Germans or Russians) that we should do something because other nations do. America is much larger and populous than any other western developed nation. We are unique.

Just tell us why.
  #44  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:28 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
To which the short answer is "Because everyone else will pay for yours".
Well, I'm fine with cutting someone's Medicare tax in half if they promise to die before they hit 65.
Which would have made a great C. M. Kornbluth story, I think.
  #45  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:14 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Cite?
Cite of what? A negative?

Quote:
And that's not at all what I said. It's fine to say "The USA should have high speed rail, and here are the reasons:...." But telling Americans "you should have High speed rail as Japan has and it works well there" is pointless.
I think you have misheard or misinterpreted what most people are saying in this context.
It's not about emulating other countries.
It's just a response to the idea that single-payer is unworkable: clearly it's very much workable as it works in all manner of countries around the globe.

If you want to focus on why it's better, and not the evidence that it's better, then sure I'd welcome that.

It broadly comes down to being (demonstrably) cheaper, plus allowing full coverage of a nation's citizenry: Just as we'd be appalled if crimes against poor people were going unpunished because few people could afford "Police insurance", so it's appalling that in one of the wealthiest nations many people continue to die, become destitute or endure curable conditions in their daily lives because of lacking health insurance (or insurance companies failing to pay up).
  #46  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:31 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 30,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
How do you get from spending 9 grand a person to spending 3 grand a person.
Economies of scale kick in, and preventative care saves huge amounts in the long run.

Quote:
The salary of doctors and nurses would have to be slashed.
Are you looking at gross salary or net income? Because under UHC nurses and doctors don't have the high insurance costs associated with practising in the US. Student loans are covered, for instance, for doctors taught in the UK. There's no need to pay for healthcare insurance either.
  #47  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:36 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 27,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Dont tell Americans (or Canadians , telling Canadians they should do XXX becuase America does will get you a very polite beer bottle over the head) (or French or Germans or Russians) that we should do something because other nations do. America is much larger and populous than any other western developed nation. We are unique.

Just tell us why.
It's that "Denmark does it better" or "Germany does it better", it's that Denmark AND Germany AND France AND the UK AND Australia AND New Zealand, and Etc., and Etc., all do it better.

You have to wonder why the US is the only one that doesn't... and it's not because we're getting better results because we aren't.
  #48  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:43 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Economies of scale kick in, and preventative care saves huge amounts in the long run.
No, it does not save huge amounts of money. That doesn't make it bad, but it's not a magic asterisk that will slash costs.
  #49  
Old 12-05-2018, 07:12 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
... One issue is that we have a huge gap between the majority who get fairly decent healthcare and those who essentially get none. That gap is going to cost us, no matter how you slice it, and it will also mean that health care will have to be spread out (or expanded) to cover literally millions that it's not covering today.
No, the gap is not going to cost you, not if it follows the single payer model. The flaw in your argument is that it regards "the majority who get health care" as some kind of monolithic bloc. So if 80%, say, "get health care" and 20% don't, it seems to stand to reason that it will cost proportionately more to get that to 100%. But that's not how health care works in the US. Not even close.

Those who "get health care" all have varied and different coverages, with different premiums and different benefits, often from multiple sources, almost always requiring a contribution of their own funds, resulting in a system of absolutely staggering complexity and burden of paperwork, most of it dedicated to bureaucracy like assessing premium amounts and coordinating and adjudicating claims -- that is, standing between the patient and his caregivers and often preventing the caregivers from actually giving care. And you're actually paying for that. Far from being a monolithic group that "gets health care", the millions of Americans who do more or less get health care comprise a system of millions of different health care coverages, practically each one different in some way from another, the whole of it dedicated to the first principle of rationing health care for the financial benefit of the insurer and the detriment of the patient. That's the burdensome crap that gets thrown out the window, allowing single payer to more cheaply and efficiently provide unfettered uniform and universal services to everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
How do you get from spending 9 grand a person to spending 3 grand a person. The salary of doctors and nurses would have to be slashed. For nurses the average salary would have to fall by $40,000 per year to reach the Italian average. For doctors it would have to fall by $150,000 a year.
As Grim Render notes in post #17, this first of all attributes a greatly disproportionate part of the costs to salaries. Moreover, most doctors in private practice don't generally have "salaries", they have fees which generate income, and the income comes from the difference between fees and expenses. No doctor could reasonably object to lower fees if their expenses are correspondingly lower, because they don't have to maintain an army of clerical staff to do massive amounts of insurance paperwork and chase insurance companies for payment, which often seems like trying to get blood out of stone. This is a central part of the efficiency of single payer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
As long as we are talking about medical cost myths, medical bankruptcies are not 50% of all bankruptcies, they are actually 4%. Other countries have medical bankruptcies, for example in Canada 15% of bankruptcies in people over 55 are medical bankruptcies.
No, just no. Regarding medical bankruptcies in the US, your cite is behind a paywall so provides zero information, but here is a whole set of articles on the subject including a summary of the one you cited. What one can conclude from these papers (as indeed Snopes did when they tried fact-checking some of this stuff) is, for one thing, that this is a complicated and controversial area in which each side has been trying to spin their own view of the statistics. However, it's self-evident that if you have serious health problems and your insurance won't pay (don't tell us this doesn't happen a lot), or you don't have insurance, or are faced with huge deductibles and co-pays, that you will encounter potentially major financial issues. These are things that simply can't happen under UHC, such as in Canada, notwithstanding your misleading cite.

The basic fact of the matter is that in Canada, nobody is forced to choose between treatment and bankruptcy. No one is forced to choose between health care and feeding their family. But these are constant ongoing challenges for millions in the US. As for your cite, it doesn't say what you claim it does. It says that 15% of bankruptcies in Canada for those over 55 are attributed to medical reasons -- that is, health reasons, a category which notably includes factors like the inability to work, and the costs of lifestyle changes unrelated to actual health care. This is why conservative organizations like the Fraser Institute misleadingly cite the simple statistic of higher personal bankruptcies in Canada, without mentioning that they're talking about bankruptcies from all causes, and also forgetting to mention that personal bankruptcies -- which are essentially a protective mechanism for the filer -- are much harder to get in the US than in Canada. So the whole argument you're making is just misleading spin.
  #50  
Old 12-05-2018, 07:34 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 30,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
No, it does not save huge amounts of money. That doesn't make it bad, but it's not a magic asterisk that will slash costs.
I clicked on a couple of the links in that article and that article only seems to look at the US. It also doesn't seem to include the costs of people not being treated. Taxes lost and whatnot.

And they're rather blithe:

Quote:
They found that this probably would have saved about $3.7 billion in 2006. That might sound like a lot, until you realize that this was about 0.2 percent of personal health care spending that year. It’s a pittance — and that was with almost complete compliance with recommendations.
Umm... that's still $3.7 billion.

But then it's the NY Times, which seems to have descended to the level of the Daily Mail.

Last edited by Quartz; 12-05-2018 at 07:34 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017