Actually, that’s not my premise. My premise is that the fact that a life was saved does not justify writing a blank check. If you believe ACA is bad policy and will be bad for health care overall, then single examples of people who are better off for it does not justify the policy. Many seniors will be worse off, with less access due to provider cuts.
I don’t know. Universal health care makes sense, but the funding commitment from the people has to be limited.
The example in the OP is interesting. Can anyone here prove that other countries UHC systems would have made this much of a commitment to a newborn in that situation?
Having been in an NHS NICU unit a few years ago, I can tell you the NHS works damn hard to save babies. But here’s their website describing the NHS treatment of congenital heart defects.
Note that this is not an unlimited resource - there is no such thing - but you certainly won’t go broke getting it. And there remain options for jumping the queue - the UK does have private healthcare providers (note that these are often the same NHS doctors that would be treating you anyway, sometimes in the same hospital).
Also, there are some ailments that are so rare and so difficult to treat that only a few hospitals in the world can provide it. Here’s one notable case. But do note the “so rare” caveat.
Now compare that to the number of preventable deaths in the US due to relatively common ailments. I’ll take the NHS, thanks.
Funny thing is, the NHS is better than the US at preventing deaths, but not THAT much better. Given that 20% of Americans don’t have health insurance, our preventable deaths should be 20% more. But it’s actually only 14% worse than the UK:
That’s why I disagree with the premise. There’s no guarantee at all that this newborn would have done better in the NHS.
FTR, I (a bleeding heart liberal who thoroughly supports ACA) don’t think policy should be decided based on their effects on particular individuals or families. The unfortunate but necessary fact is every federal policy seriously effects millions of people. The desiderata have to be variables at the national level, not the effects on particular people.
The response is probably “shop around for a surgeon, or shop around for insurance, or tort reform is all we need, or you need to be able to buy insurance across state lines.” What it really boils down to is “we got ours, fuck you”.
They have no answer because they simply don’t care. If the uninsured die, it’s no loss to them. In their Darwinian world, if you don’t survive, the species is better off.
The difference is less in the survival rate than in the economic impact to the families of those affected. When you have an NHS the family doesn’t take on debt they have no chance of repaying.
Think of this a different way: when it’s your child, what would you do to ensure his or her survival.
Somehow, early on in this whole process, the debate/discussion veered dramatically from “affordable health care” to “universal health insurance coverage.”
Some health care is rare and expensive, and figuring out how/if/when to pay for it, and who pays for it, is a tough question.
I’m a democrat, and I have to agree with post #21:
Universal coverage doesn’t magically create unlimited care for everyone.
Uninsured Americans 2010 = 16.8%
Uninsured Americans 2011 = 17.1%
Uninsured Pregnant Women are provided care and nutrition under Medicare/WIC. Only 13% of WOMEN WHO GET PREGNANT are uninsured
So, you may be proving that universal health insurance is actually a critical factor? Of course, we do pay a heck of a lot more on a per-capita basis for our average outcomes.
If you think about it, it is a cost effect way of culling out those who are unlikely to produce a cost effective work force. After child labor and minimum wage laws are abolished, you really do want workers who can start young and last at least until their 40s on minimum inputs, so we can compete with China!
$10 million. After that you start killing someone else thru indirect effects of lost opportunity. For example, taxes raised might cause a family to put off getting new tires for a car or to not replace the battery in a smoke detector.
That’s because a lot of the people in the US who don’t have health insurance still get health care to one degree or another. They just get it via a ramshackle, capricious, and ridiculously inefficient system of sliding-scale clinics, hospital subsidies, and charitable programs. Most of the cost is still ultimately borne by the taxpayer, and it would probably be cheaper just to pull those people under the umbrella of Medicare or Medicaid.
This is a reasonable response. I’m just wondering what you (or Republicans in general) would say to that family if they told you “we support the ACA because it literally saved our family”.
I’m not really saying that this story means the ACA is a great bill, full-stop (though I do support the bill). I’m actually talking about the politics of it- that this is an extremely powerful story, politically, and I’m genuinely curious how opponents would speak to families in situations like this.
I agree with that, and you can quote me here for future reference:
If ACA DOES improve health care for more people than it doesn’t, and if ACA DOES reduce the deficit, I’ll change my view on it. My issue with it is that I think it makes Medicare worse and puts a lot of employees’ insurance at risk. And I think it will increase the deficit, not reduce it. If I’m wrong, then ACA is a great health care plan. ANd you all know I hate single payer, so if it keeps us from that, I’m all for it.
The problem is two-fold.
One, insurance companies that don’t really cover anything. Mrs. Cad was given a sleep study to check for apnea. It cost $3000 and she has to pay out of pocket $1200.
Two, the outrageous cost of health care in this country. Did you read #1? $3000 to pay for a guy making $15/hr to make notes on a chart. WTF? Look at tightscience’s examples. You cannot tell me that those cost reflect in any way the actual costs of care.
Look I can come up with a lot of stories illustrating my points as can all of you. It remains that insurance is a for-profit business and so their goal is to make money. I can’t really argue that. The reality is that medical costs need to be lowered in this county. I have long thought that the government should have student loan forgiveness programs for doctors that offer low cost health care and free primary care services to low-income or uninsured families. I also think it is reasonable to cap medical expenses in a way that reflects the actual costs. For example, a hospital buys a machine that costs $100,000. It gets used 5 times a day and has a useful life of 5 years. The cost per use is under $54.80. There is no way that a patient or insurance company should be charged hundreds of dollars for that. A charge of $68.50 will give the hospital a 20% profit on that machine. What about the cost of procedures? I believe other countries that have socialized medicine cap those as well.
We agree there is a need for change, but ACA is not the change we need. Americans need the freedom to choose the health care solution that suits them best. We need to stop illegal immigrants from driving up health card costs. We need to give small businesses flexibility to choose the health care plan that is best for their workers. We need to encourage people to come together in faith and community to care for each other. we need to create options like healthcare savings accounts. Blah blah blah blah.
The problem with a zero-budget operating model for health care is that you have no idea what your inflows are going to be, so you can’t really plan any sort of useful budget. But in general I agree that charging $1000 for a $50 procedure is a travesty.
Saint Cad, insurance companies aren’t the primary problem if profit-taking is defined as the problem. Providers are the problem in that case. Insurance company profit margins are low. Drug company and medical device company profits are sky high and doctor salaries are highest in the world. Insurance companies just pay the bills, the high cost of the bills is the problem.
Yes but:
United States total healthcare expenditure per capita: $7960
United Kingdom total healthcare expenditure per capita: $3487
So. 14% worse results at more than twice the cost.
Yup, one thing that reformers rarely seem to touch on directly is that a decent amount of the problem is that physician salaries in the US are a decent amount higher than elsewhere: How Much Do Doctors in Other Countries Make? - The New York Times