I despise Trump but would vote for him over someone who wants to take my family's insurance away

[Banquet_Bear]

@survinga

Those estimates are VERY relevant to your point.

…nope.

You are making an assumption about the costs incurred in our healthcare system

I didn’t make any assumptions.

in your originally flawed question,

My question wasn’t flawed.

and I’m telling you that people who know much much more about US healthcare than you or me don’t agree with you, or at best have a mixed opinion.

My question wasn’t premised on anyone from your citation agreeing with me.

You can throw out the F word.

Fuck yeah.

But those estimates are relevant whether you like it or not,

No matter how much you insist you can’t make them relevant.

because those estimates are about the US.

Irrelevant.

And they are much more relevant than anything about the healthcare system of a country that has less population than Metro Atlanta.

I’ve already explained to you why this line of argument is a fallacy.

[survinga]

@Euphonious_Polemic

This argument seems to pit math, logic and factual analysis against a belief system. Some folks here believe that costs would not go down in a UHC system, because… reasons. Because they believe they might not.

And the belief system will win every time. Because it’s impossible to get someone to change a belief system using math, logic and factual analysis.

Talk to the cost estimates.

Would ‘Medicare for All’ Save Billions or Cost Billions? (Published 2019)

[survinga]

@JohnT

Yes, we know your beliefs. I want to know your math.

Give me the numbers. Let me figure this out for you, then you can make an educated decision based upon your numbers and not what some rando quoted by a single newspaper said.

Talk to the cost estimates.

Would ‘Medicare for All’ Save Billions or Cost Billions? (Published 2019)

[survinga]

@wolfpup

Why on earth would I give up a health care system that pays for all the health care I need, never costs me anything out of pocket, never requires me to do any paperwork, never denies a claim, allows me to see any health care provider I choose, and overall costs half as much per capita as the US private insurance system?

I’m not asking you to give up anything that you have in your country. I have a different view of what is needed - and not needed - in my country.

[JohnT]

Lol. “My cite is my cite.”

If I wanted to argue with the NYTimes, I can contact the authors via Twitter. What do you have to bring to the discussion? Why can’t you answer my questions - aren’t you even interested in finding out how expensive health insurance is for you? PM me if you wish.

[survinga]

@JohnT

Lol. “My cite is my cite.”

If I wanted to argue with the NYTimes, I can contact the authors via Twitter. What do you have to bring to the discussion? Why can’t you answer my questions - aren’t you even interested in finding out how expensive health insurance is for you? PM me if you wish.

I already know my cost. I don’t need any help from you, and there will not be any PM forthcoming. If there was ever a series of posts that missed the point, it would be your series.

Talk to the cost estimates.

Would ‘Medicare for All’ Save Billions or Cost Billions? (Published 2019)

[JohnT]

So went to the cited Urban Institute study, took their worst case scenario for the increase in health costs, divided it by the population, and it’s…

$38 per week.

So all your sturm und drang is about the dollar cost of fast food lunch breaks? You can’t pay an extra $5/day to make sure every American is insured, with all doctors being in network?

[JohnT]

Thank you for prompting me to do this.

Here’s what you would get for an extra $5/day above your current health care expenditures:

1. No networks. Doctors either take UHC coverage or cash.
2. Birth-death coverage.
3. A healthier society resulting in billions saved in sick days.
4. First-dollar coverage for tens of millions.
5. Lower deductibles for tens of other millions (maybe hundreds)
6. No sales commissions paid to insurance agents trying to convince HR departments to shift from Humana to UHC.
7. A reduction in doctor’s staffing and training needs as the multiple procedures needed to be learned to merely get paid from up to 7 different insurance carriers gets reduced to one.
8. Eliminates 600,000 bankruptcy filings each year.
9. Results in a more stable society.

All for a mere $5 a day! Thank you, survinga!

[Grim_Render]

@survinga

The Urban Institute isn’t the gold standard. But people on this board take it as gospel that single-payer will save money. And I think that type of groupthink needs to be challenged, because the opposite could very well be true.

I don’t think you quite understand what “groupthink” means. (And you might want to look up “appeal to authority fallacy” while you are at it).

When people state that UHC is cheaper than what the US is currently messing around with, its not an opinion. Its not groupthink. They are informing you of a fact. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.

When several reports from people who grew up with the current mess state that it’ll be expensive and you find that intuitive, thats groupthink.

[TruCelt]

Look, the equation is very simple. Health insurance companies earn a profit. Every single dollar of profit they report is a dollar that provided no health benefit to an American citizen. Ergo, American’s healthcare dollars are being wasted on insurance company profits instead of healthcare.

In the case of UHC that can’t happen. The dollar might go to pay for healthcare for a different citizen than the one who directly paid it in taxes, but it will provide some healthcare for somebody somewhere.

So the overall healthcare costs for the American citizenry will go down.

[Slash1972]

@JohnT

So went to the cited Urban Institute study, took their worst case scenario for the increase in health costs, divided it by the population, and it’s…

$38 per week.

So all your sturm und drang is about the dollar cost of fast food lunch breaks? You can’t pay an extra $5/day to make sure every American is insured, with all doctors being in network?

Jesus Christ, all that hem-hawing he did about “talk to the cost estimates” and costs will go up!!!OMG!! and it’s only $38 per week?

And that’s no copays or deductibles or anything?

Who in their right mind would be against that?

[JohnT]

Yup.

Here is the UI report (PDF) referred to by the NY Times: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/80486/200785-The-Sanders-Single-Payer-Health-Care-Plan.pdf

It’s not a large report - about 30 pages - but the key findings are laid out at the beginning (page 2), where they talk about the increased use of medical services will:

Together, national health expenditures would increase by a total of $518.9 billion (16.9 percent) in 2017, and by 6.6 trillion (16.6 percent) between 2017 and 2026.

The next finding seemingly refutes this, but a closer reading shows that it is referring to the Federal government taking over the various State, employer, and household responsibilities in providing health care:

The increase in federal expenditures would be considerably larger than the increase in national health expenditures because substantial spending borne by states, employers, and households under current law would shift to the federal government under the Sanders plan. Federal expenditures in 2017 would increase by $1.9 trillion for acute care for the nonelderly, by $465.9 billion for those otherwise enrolled in Medicare, and by $212.1 billion for long-term services and supports.

However, this is money which is already being spent, just not by the Federal government. The increase which Linden, survinga, etc, all refer to is covered in the first quote.

So, let’s run the numbers!

$6.6 trillion / 10 years = $660 billion/year
$660 billion / 330 million Americans = $2,000/year
$2,000 / 365 days = $5.47/day

Now that is pretty expensive - $22/day for a family of four. But closer reading of the UI document shows that their focus was on the provider cost, with little focus on what people are currently paying or how that payment is structured. However, it does say this:

The remaining $2.0 trillion would be spent on those who currently have health insurance. Their spending would increase 15.5 percent; they would receive more comprehensive benefits on average, and the elimination of cost sharing would lead to greater use of care.

I’ve had renewals this year come in at 30%, just for comparisons sake.

[survinga]

@Grim_Render

I don’t think you quite understand what “groupthink” means. (And you might want to look up “appeal to authority fallacy” while you are at it).

When people state that UHC is cheaper than what the US is currently messing around with, its not an opinion. Its not groupthink. They are informing you of a fact. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.

When several reports from people who grew up with the current mess state that it’ll be expensive and you find that intuitive, thats groupthink.

(eyes roll) OK, we don’t have to call it groupthink. But there’s a dominant conventional wisdom on this board that single-payer in the US will lower healthcare costs. And I wanted people to be aware of what healthcare experts IN THE US are saying about costs and single-payer. Giving your own experience in Saskatchewan or Ontario or New Zealand or the UK doesn’t translate to the US and is irrelevant. It would be like me saying that Country X can have the most awesome military in the world just because I’ve seen the US do it…no, it doesn’t translate. People are making assumptions about healthcare costs, and they should be challenged more than they’re getting challenged on this board.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

I have certainly heard this argument before.

It boils down to “American Exceptionalism”. America is apparently so exceptional in some way, that they are not able to do what every other country in the world with UHC does; Make it cost less. Because reasons.

When digging deeper, it is often really hard to tease out what the argument means by “exceptional” I guess it’s a fuzzy term, and can mean whatever you want it to.

[JcWoman]

We’re exceptionally incompetent. Just can’t say that out loud. And it’s nothing to be proud of. And we don’t really need to be, so why are we fighting so hard to be so?

[JohnT]

@survinga

(eyes roll) OK, we don’t have to call it groupthink. But there’s a dominant conventional wisdom on this board that single-payer in the US will lower healthcare costs. And I wanted people to be aware of what healthcare experts IN THE US are saying about costs and single-payer. Giving your own experience in Saskatchewan or Ontario or New Zealand or the UK doesn’t translate to the US and is irrelevant. It would be like me saying that Country X can have the most awesome military in the world just because I’ve seen the US do it…no, it doesn’t translate. People are making assumptions about healthcare costs, and they should be challenged more than they’re getting challenged on this board.

You have brought the following to this conversation:

1. One cherry picked citation
2. A shitload of assumptions
3. No critical thinking or analysis of your own

There, I’ve identified the groupthink. Feeling challenged yet?

[Slash1972]

@survinga

And I wanted people to be aware of what healthcare experts IN THE US are saying about costs and single-payer

What’s your response to the calculations JohnT did whereby he shows that the costs will go up by a whopping $38 a week?

[JohnT]

I’m not an expert because I’m not quoted in the NY Times.

[Slash1972]

@JohnT

I’m not an expert because I’m not quoted in the NY Times.

Did you get published in the NYT yet? I’d really like to believe what you say!

[survinga]

@Euphonious_Polemic

I have certainly heard this argument before.

It boils down to “American Exceptionalism”. America is apparently so exceptional in some way, that they are not able to do what every other country in the world with UHC does; Make it cost less. Because reasons.

When digging deeper, it is often really hard to tease out what the argument means by “exceptional” I guess it’s a fuzzy term, and can mean whatever you want it to.

No, that’s the argument you wish I was making. What I’m actually doing is finding real cost estimates related to Single-Payer in the US, which show a mixed-bag at best, and which are put together by a variety of healthcare economists, most of whom are not hostile to UHC in the least. I think the “because reasons” crowd is maybe a different group than who you think it is.