Universal Health Care in the US. Yea or Nea?

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

So you're still unconvinced that American healthcare produces poorer outcomes for twice the cost than UHC does?

Yup

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

One reason I'm not convinced is because it seems like until 1980 the cost difference between the US, and UHC systems wasn't this lop sided. Then all of the sudden in the 80"s for some reason it starts getting more and more expensive for us. I'm just curious why it worked great for so long and then took a crap all of the sudden. I've seen some people in here talking about how difficult it could be to completely switch over to a UHC system, so I'm curious to see if it's avoidable by fixing what we have. Does that seem unreasonable?

 

[balrog666]

Doctors propose specific measures for improving health - they do not mandate by any executive or judicial fiat (except in very rare cases). Thus we are all dependent on making our own decisions based on the best information we can find for ourselves.

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

I'm not sure that you do get better overall care than we do. I don't like mandatory tax money going to our incompetent government. It discourages development of new tech and drugs. Doctors prefer a capitalist system.

I would also like to hear other people with more knowledge and a cap. perspective argue against socialism. I'm sure others that are equally familiar with both systems but with another view point may be able to contribute things I haven't thought of yet.

I don't understand the urgent need to convince me UHC is the best alternative.

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

The study shows that health care in Canada appears to cost less because relative to the United States, Canadian public health insurance does not cover many advanced medical treatments and technologies, common medical resources are in short supply, and access to health care is often severely delayed.

“On average, Americans spend more of their incomes on health care but they get better access to superior medical resources,” Skinner said.

“If Canadians had access to the same quality and quantity of health-care resources that American patients enjoy, the Canadian health-insurance monopoly would cost a lot more than it currently does.”

According to the most recent data, the United States outscores Canada on many key indicators of available health care resources, including:

• Number of MRI units per million population in 2006: US: 26.5; Canada: 6.2
• Number of MRI exams per million population in 2004/05: US: 83,200; Canada: 25,500
• Number of CT Scanners per million population in 2006: US: 33.9; Canada 12
• Number of CT exams per million population in 2004/05: US: 172,500; Canada 87,300
• Number of inpatient surgical procedures per million population in 2004: US: 89,900; Canada: 44,700.

Even on health insurance coverage, the Canadian system does not perform much better than the U.S. when it comes to actually delivering insured access.

Just another example of how numbers and facts get fudged. The article does go on to suggest other UHC models that might be better for the U.S.

 

[macdoc]

or American doctors order more unnecessary treatments to boost their incomes and cover their asses from malpractice.

Patients in U.S. are being subjected to unnecessary stress as doctor’s order unwanted medical tests even during routine medical tests//. Such unnecessary medical tests put a huge strain on the U.S. health care system, approximating to billions-- of dollars per year. The study, conducted by researchers at the Georgetown University Medical Center and Johns Hopkins University would be published in the June issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

Playing it safe: Doctors order unnecessary tests ; 'Defensive medicine' drives up health care costs $1.4B a year
Article from:The Patriot Ledger Quincy, MA Article date:November 18, 2008 More results for: us doctors order unnecessary tests | Copyright information
Doctors in the state order at least $1.4 billion worth of diagnostic tests and hospital stays each year out of fear of litigation instead of a patient's actual need, according to a report from the Massachusetts Medical Society.

The Waltham-based organization, a trade group that represents doctors across the state, on Monday released the findings of its report on so-called "defensive medicine" - or medical decisions driven by the fear of a lawsuit.

The organization, which surveyed 900 doctors in eight specialties from November 2007 to April 2008, found that, among other things, 13 percent of hospitalizations and 22 percent of X-rays were ordered for defensive reasons.

The organization ...

I needed a CT scan - I had it in 3 days... the delay - a long weekend


BTW MRi costs are going to come down dramatically - and anyone that truly needs one gets one very quickly.

Nice try but wrong.

Your worst offense is your administrative costs ( read insurer rip off );

Administrative Costs in Market-Driven U.S. Health Care System Far Higher Than in Canada's Single-Payer System, New Research Shows With National Health Insurance, United States Could Cover the Uninsured

WASHINGTON, D.C. Bureaucracy in the health care system accounts for about a third of total U.S. health care spending a sum so great that if the United states were to have a national health insurance program, the administrative savings alone would be enough to provide health care coverage for all the uninsured in this country, according to two new studies.

The studies illustrate the failure of the private, fragmented and business-oriented U.S. health care system to control administrative costs, as compared to Canada's single-payer system. One of the studies, in seeking to answer whether the ascendancy of computerization, managed care and more businesslike approaches to health care have decreased administrative costs, answers the question with a resounding no.

The second study provides a state-by-state breakdown of savings each state could achieve if the United States adopted a national health insurance program.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003/august/administrative_costs.php

Don't even THINK you have a case.

 

[volatile]

Do you not think that the higher percentage of "in-patient surgical procedures" might be because Canadians have their minor problems treated earlier, before a hospital stay becomes necessary?

Dan - you've still not explained how the 5th of all Americans that can't even afford enough food to live on are going to be able to afford healthcare if ALL socialised provision is removed. In fact, you've stated outright that death is better than being a social burden, even whilst actively seeking to burden others.

Could you clearly and concisely lay out the system you're proposing, how market forces will reduce prices of treatment sufficiently (taking into account the factors such as staff and equipment costs that Rolfe explained) and how such a system will be accessible to those who need it most. You have lots of bluster, but no facts or reason.

 

[kellyb]

One reason I'm not convinced is because it seems like until 1980 the cost difference between the US, and UHC systems wasn't this lop sided. Then all of the sudden in the 80"s for some reason it starts getting more and more expensive for us. I'm just curious why it worked great for so long and then took a crap all of the sudden. I've seen some people in here talking about how difficult it could be to completely switch over to a UHC system, so I'm curious to see if it's avoidable by fixing what we have. Does that seem unreasonable?

It's because medicine got better. New lifesaving technology was invented. Expensive pharmaceuticals were created. There was a technological boom during that time.

I don't think it's unreasonable to consider ways to fix what we have, but it's not plausible. No insurance company in the US is going to get the bulk purchase power that a government can get, for example. Unless we lock the uninsured out of the ERs, the insured will continue paying for their $1 million med bills for things $100-1000 in prevention could have fixed.
The only way to make our current system work (and we're at a tipping point presently, where everything is snowballing and more and more folks can't afford private insurance) is to lock the uninsured out of the ER. The uninsured will be the masses, and a select few will be insured for an amazingly high price. Complete pandemonium, like you'd see if we "privatized" police forces.
There is still a free medical market with UHC. The only industry booted out is the insurance industry (and even that is only partial).

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Dan - you've still not explained how the 5th of all Americans that can't even afford enough food to live on are going to be able to afford healthcare if ALL socialised provision is removed. In fact, you've stated outright that death is better than being a social burden, even whilst actively seeking to burden others.

Were are you getting the 1/5th statistic?? That sounds totally crazy. Nobody is starving here and your posts have now resulted in you being added to my iggy list. Bye bye

 

[kellyb]

Doctors propose specific measures for improving health - they do not mandate by any executive or judicial fiat (except in very rare cases). Thus we are all dependent on making our own decisions based on the best information we can find for ourselves.

It does not always work like that, though. I was given an unnecessary CT scan after a seizure once. I had just had a CT less than a month before. I told the ER docs that, but they had to give me another, lest they risk being sued.
I was postictal at the time and unable to crawl off the wheelie cart or even negotiate the care I recieved.

And...nevermind that none of us understand the vast landscape of things that happen "medically" well enough to know in a pinch what is or isn't needed.

 

[kellyb]

Just another example of how numbers and facts get fudged. The article does go on to suggest other UHC models that might be better for the U.S.

What is the frayser institute?

 

[volatile]

Were are you getting the 1/5th statistic?? That sounds totally crazy. Nobody is starving here and your posts have now resulted in you being added to my iggy list. Bye bye

"No-one"? I already linked you to the statistics that say otherwise. Again, facts are not in line with your perceptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

"Poverty in the United States is cyclical in nature with roughly 12% to 17% living below the federal poverty line at any given point in time, and roughly 40% falling below the poverty line at some point within a 10 year time span.[2] Most Americans (58.5%) will spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75"

Poverty is defined as "the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health."

I guess that is shocking if you don't even know a single person who can't afford a car, but maybe you need to get out more often.

If someone could quote this so Dan sees it, I'd be grateful. I never understand why people would rather ignore the truth than deal with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Hacker-2

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Don't even THINK you have a case.

Actually, your post helps make my case. How do we know which study/rankings are accurate and which aren't? I must have read 20 papers in the last couple of weeks and almost none of them had the same information on them. It doesn't even seem like anyone can agree on exactly how many people don't have HC. We just need to cut wasteful spending and we'll be fine. Contrary to what Volatile thinks, people aren't dying in the streets by the millions.

 

[kellyb]

Were are you getting the 1/5th statistic?? That sounds totally crazy. Nobody is starving here and your posts have now resulted in you being added to my iggy list. Bye bye

What did that person do to you to deserve being added to your ignore list?

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

What is the frayser institute?

Is your Google broken?

 

[volatile]

Actually, your post helps make my case. How do we know which study/rankings are accurate and which aren't? I must have read 20 papers in the last couple of weeks and almost none of them had the same information on them. It doesn't even seem like anyone can agree on exactly how many people don't have HC. We just need to cut spending and we'll be fine. Contrary to what Volatile thinks, people aren't dying in the streets by the millions.

That they aren't now is because you have some degree of inefficient socialised care. If you got rid of that, then people would be dying. You even admitted as much yourself earlier on.

 

[kellyb]

I'm not sure that you do get better overall care than we do. I don't like mandatory tax money going to our incompetent government. It discourages development of new tech and drugs. Doctors prefer a capitalist system.

How, to that bolded part?
I know this is a common anti-UHC myth repeatedly said, but I've never heard how that's supposed to work. In fact, I know how drugs are developed, and that claim totally conflicts with reality as far as I know.

I would also like to hear other people with more knowledge and a cap. perspective argue against socialism. I'm sure others that are equally familiar with both systems but with another view point may be able to contribute things I haven't thought of yet.

It's not a coincidence that you're the only one here arguing this side. ALL the conservative skeptics I know deviate from the party line on healthcare. The decided it's like the police force. It's cheaper and better to just do it via taxation.

 

[kellyb]

quoting to bypass ignore:
(sorry Dan...don't be a wuss)

Originally Posted by DaN K. StAnLeY
Were are you getting the 1/5th statistic?? That sounds totally crazy. Nobody is starving here and your posts have now resulted in you being added to my iggy list. Bye bye

"No-one"? I already linked you to the statistics that say otherwise. Again, facts are not in line with your perceptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty..._United_States

"Poverty in the United States is cyclical in nature with roughly 12% to 17% living below the federal poverty line at any given point in time, and roughly 40% falling below the poverty line at some point within a 10 year time span.[2] Most Americans (58.5%) will spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75"

Poverty is defined as "the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health."

I guess that is shocking if you don't even know a single person who can't afford a car, but maybe you need to get out more often.

If someone could quote this so Dan sees it, I'd be grateful. I never understand why people would rather ignore the truth than deal with it

 

[kellyb]

Is your Google broken?

I just wanna hear you say it.

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

How, to that bolded part?
I know this is a common anti-UHC myth repeatedly said, but I've never heard how that's supposed to work. In fact, I know how drugs are developed, and that claim totally conflicts with reality as far as I know.

See, you kow it's a myth but then I have industry experts saying that government is only responsible for about 4% of avaiable drugs on the market. Who should I believe?

Here's another person saying your facts are wrong and theirs are right: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9981