Which political party wants you dead?

[ponderingturtle]

The GOP (i.e. Paul Ryan) is at least looking into options to reduce the cost of Medicare/Medicade. Why doesn't the GOP simply get rid of it? Because they actually do care if people die. I know... what a shock.

Not really they just know that they are dependent on the elderly. So their oppose socialism and medicate cuts in an unknowingly ironic fashion.

 

[ponderingturtle]

. . . And that still have for-profit private insurers providing the universal mandatory cover. This is the case in most of Europe (but not the UK. And I have often argued in UHS threads that most of Europe's systems are better than the NHS).

US health insurers might be able to get away with murder, due to incentives so warped you couldn't really design them worse. Doesn't mean that has to be the case, or that insurers can't add value (= do a better job than single-payer)

They can even do the same job with just twice the overhead! Let's hear it for the private sector!

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Which political party wants you dead?

As P. J. O'Rourke observed, evolution doesn't work on things that don't die. Everybody dies, eventually.

Ask not "Which political party wants you dead?" Ask "Which political party appeals to paranoiacs?"

 

[keale]

As P. J. O'Rourke observed, evolution doesn't work on things that don't die. Everybody dies, eventually.

Ask not "Which political party wants you dead?" Ask "Which political party appeals to paranoiacs?"

Malcolm if you cant afford insurance and or cant get insurance because of some pre existing condition do we let Malcolm die?

 

[DC]

If the US were more like beloved Canada and Europe, we'd have an even worse business climate, and our rates of developing new medical tech, some half of everything the world invents, would fall off to match the per-capita of Europe. While this would still be better than North Korea or Somalia, it would be worse than it is now.

Then the rates of life saving due to new tech would slow, and people would die, as the years marched on, who wouldn't otherwise die.


In such a world, you'd be more likely to die with full health insurance from government than a technologically more advanced world with US-style health insurance.


"Giving out free insurance" at the cost of development rates kills far more than it saves. Of course, other business-unfriendly policies unrelated to medical care also affect this greatly, to be sure.

Swiss Pharma is inventing alot of things, especially considering the mimi size switzerland has, why do you thik US companies would not be able to do that? are we swiss so much better?

 

[TragicMonkey]

You seem to be confused about the purpose of insurance companies. They only provide a few services but those services are essential for the function of the medical services market.
1. They assess the (cost) risk of specific patients (e.g., Travis or me).
2. They set standards for cost/effectiveness/benefit of specific medical services (i.e., assessing different cancer treatments wrt patient/disease variables, excluding "experimental" treatments, etc)
3. They offer various levels/prices for coverage based on 1., 2. and options such as deductibles, co-pays, treatment restrictions, etc. all within a framework of federal and state mandates, regulations, and "minimum" coverage requirements.
4. They act as comptroller for collections, payouts, and fraud prevention.

All for a rather low level of profit for a business.

If you exclude item 1. above, then it is no longer "insurance". But items 2/3/4. will will still need to be done and we already know that the Feds stink at all of them because of bureaucratic bloat.
We also know that the Feds and states constantly monkey around with aspects of 2. and 3. without regard for the consequences of their actions and so drive up prices for everyone.
And, frankly, the feds are the worst of all on 4, from a completely screwed up payment system to rampant fraud and abuse with no incentive to improve any of it.

I think we need to get Governments out of the way before they kill the medical service industry entirely.

I know several docs who have converted to totally cash-based clinic services [where you have to file your own insurance forms (if you have it .AND. can do that)]. They rapidly find their businesses booming and their prices dropping, benefiting both themselves and their patients.

I'm getting tired of people telling me I'm "confused" because they disagree with me. Short answer: items 1-4 are already being done by the government, via Medicare. Most insurance companies simply use the Medicare numbers as their base, then add on here and there to ensure profitability. Seriously. For those of us who have worked in reimbursement, the first thing a private insurance company says during an appeal is "well, Medicare only allows $X for that procedure".

And what exactly is "completely screwed up" about the "fed's" payments? Medicare payments are electronic now. They're faster, and far more reliable, than commercial insurers. Medicare doesn't indulge in retractions. The providers I worked for loved Medicare, because there was a much better chance of getting the money -- all the money-- owed, whereas commercial insurers liked to play games, sending less than is owed, hoping eventually the providers would give up and write off the difference. It can take three or four years for private insurers to pay up, and often it's after arguments and appeals and refiles.

 

[Peephole]

If the US were more like beloved Canada and Europe, we'd have an even worse business climate, and our rates of developing new medical tech, some half of everything the world invents, would fall off to match the per-capita of Europe. While this would still be better than North Korea or Somalia, it would be worse than it is now.

Then the rates of life saving due to new tech would slow, and people would die, as the years marched on, who wouldn't otherwise die.


In such a world, you'd be more likely to die with full health insurance from government than a technologically more advanced world with US-style health insurance.


"Giving out free insurance" at the cost of development rates kills far more than it saves. Of course, other business-unfriendly policies unrelated to medical care also affect this greatly, to be sure.

Now I understand. By letting ten thousands in the US die every year, the US is secretly saving millions in the rest of the world!

Thanks Americans. I finally realize you're the good guys after all!

 

[keale]

Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
If the US were more like beloved Canada and Europe, we'd have an even worse business climate, and our rates of developing new medical tech, some half of everything the world invents, would fall off to match the per-capita of Europe. While this would still be better than North Korea or Somalia, it would be worse than it is now.

Then the rates of life saving due to new tech would slow, and people would die, as the years marched on, who wouldn't otherwise die.


In such a world, you'd be more likely to die with full health insurance from government than a technologically more advanced world with US-style health insurance.


"Giving out free insurance" at the cost of development rates kills far more than it saves. Of course, other business-unfriendly policies unrelated to medical care also affect this greatly, to be sure.

Of course theres the little problem that UHC systems around the world have better overall outcomes vs the US health care system and the data is there to support that fact while your just making stuff up with your assertion since you have nothing to support it but hey dont let ideology get in the way have at it.

 

[Peephole]

Being young and healthy, I can get good health insurance for cheap. I think I pay less than $70/month (there is a $5000/year deductible though). I pay like triple that every month for my cell phone.

I am perfectly willing to pay a lot more a month so people like Travis can get covered.

The worst thing about the situation is that in a universal health care system, you'd end up paying two to three times less.

 

[trvlr2]

Of course theres the little problem that UHC systems around the world have better overall outcomes vs the US health care system and the data is there to support that fact while your just making stuff up with your assertion since you have nothing to support it but hey dont let ideology get in the way have at it.

Please. Periods are useful, both for your girlfriend and in written composition.

 

[The Dark Lord]

The worst thing about the situation is that in a universal health care system, you'd end up paying two to three times less.

Uhhm, no. There is no way in hell a UHC system could sustain itself with everybody paying what I do, much less two or three times less. The only reason I pay so little is because I am about as low risk as can be, and the insurance company charges me accordingly. Plus I have a large deductible.

 

[keale]

Uhhm, no. There is no way in hell a UHC system could sustain itself with everybody paying what I do, much less two or three times less. The only reason I pay so little is because I am about as low risk as can be, and the insurance company charges me accordingly. Plus I have a large deductible.

Looks like we pay roughly double vs other industrialized nations

US vs some other countries in 2006



UNITED STATES: 15.9 pct of GDP, $6,657 per capita

BRAZIL: 7.9 pct of GDP, $371 per capita

CANADA: 9.7 pct of GDP, $3,430 per capita

CHINA: 4.7 pct of GDP, $81 per capita

FRANCE: 11.1 pct of GDP, $3,807 per capita

GERMANY: 10.7 pct of GDP, $3,628 per capita

INDIA: 5.0 pct of GDP, $36 per capita

ISRAEL: 7.9 pct of GDP, $1,533 per capita

JAPAN: 8.2 pct of GDP, $2,936 per capita

MEXICO: 6.4 pct of GDP, $474 per capita

SOUTH AFRICA: 8.7 pct of GDP, $437 per capita

SWEDEN: 8.9 pct of GDP, $3,598 per capita

RUSSIAN FEDERATION: 5.2 pct of GDP, $277 per capita

UNITED KINGDOM: 8.2 pct of GDP, $3,064 per capita

(Source: The World Bank)

 

[1337m4n]

I'll admit that in many ways choosing political party affiliation is not easy. There are such banal bloviating blunderous blowhards on both sides that it can be hard to slog through the political spin machine mud.

Then I realize only one party actually wants me dead. That makes things so much easier. Oh sure the other party isn't exactly bleeding from the knuckles trying to save my life but at least it isn't actually making a policy that will ensure my death part of its core position planks.

No, only the Republican Party wants to ensure I will never get health insurance. So it seems I'm stuck with a Democratic Party that is merely indifferent to my potential death rather than actively trying to make it happen. What a great time to be among millions of Americans that can't get health insurance.

YAY two party politics.

>implying third parties don't exist

 

[The Dark Lord]

Looks like we pay roughly double vs other industrialized nations

That doesn't mean that every individual pays double what they would.

There is no way in hell that UHC would mean that I would pay half what I do now. I pay less than $70/month!

 

[balrog666]

Looks like we pay roughly double vs other industrialized nations

US vs some other countries in 2006



UNITED STATES: 15.9 pct of GDP, $6,657 per capita

BRAZIL: 7.9 pct of GDP, $371 per capita

CANADA: 9.7 pct of GDP, $3,430 per capita

CHINA: 4.7 pct of GDP, $81 per capita

FRANCE: 11.1 pct of GDP, $3,807 per capita

GERMANY: 10.7 pct of GDP, $3,628 per capita

INDIA: 5.0 pct of GDP, $36 per capita

ISRAEL: 7.9 pct of GDP, $1,533 per capita

JAPAN: 8.2 pct of GDP, $2,936 per capita

MEXICO: 6.4 pct of GDP, $474 per capita

SOUTH AFRICA: 8.7 pct of GDP, $437 per capita

SWEDEN: 8.9 pct of GDP, $3,598 per capita

RUSSIAN FEDERATION: 5.2 pct of GDP, $277 per capita

UNITED KINGDOM: 8.2 pct of GDP, $3,064 per capita

(Source: The World Bank)

So you want to cut the cost by half? Which hospitals and clinics will you close, which doctors, nurses, technicians will you lay off, which drugs and procedures will you prohibit to contains costs and how will doing any of that improve the delivery of medical services for anyone???

 

[Shalamar]

So you want to cut the cost by half? Which hospitals and clinics will you close, which doctors, nurses, technicians will you lay off, which drugs and procedures will you prohibit to contains costs and how will doing any of that improve the delivery of medical services for anyone???

Who says that ANY of the above would happen?

The role of a Universal 'Health care' system, is to ensure that everyone gets paid. That's all. You already pay taxes into medicare/medicade, and then have to get private insurance on top of that. To top it off, you already have hospitals/doctors writing off procedures that people get, yet cannot pay for.

It has been pointed out in this forum, many many many times, that other countries with UHC of some form, pay much less than what Americans do, for comparable results.

 

[keale]

So you want to cut the cost by half? Which hospitals and clinics will you close, which doctors, nurses, technicians will you lay off, which drugs and procedures will you prohibit to contains costs and how will doing any of that improve the delivery of medical services for anyone???

So you have no argument since you have nothing to support your paranoia?

 

[keale]

Who says that ANY of the above would happen?

The role of a Universal 'Health care' system, is to ensure that everyone gets paid. That's all. You already pay taxes into medicare/medicade, and then have to get private insurance on top of that. To top it off, you already have hospitals/doctors writing off procedures that people get, yet cannot pay for.

It has been pointed out in this forum, many many many times, that other countries with UHC of some form, pay much less than what Americans do, for BETTER results.

Fixed that for you

 

[Shalamar]

Fixed that for you

My apologies.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Of course theres the little problem that UHC systems around the world have better overall outcomes vs the US health care system and the data is there to support that fact while your just making stuff up with your assertion since you have nothing to support it but hey dont let ideology get in the way have at it.

The worst thing about the situation is that in a universal health care system, you'd end up paying two to three times less.

Aggregate longevity statistics don't have to support the case. Many factors affect mortality besides the quality of care. At what age does a premature delivery qualify as "human" to contribute to infant mortality statistics? Many factors affect the total cost figure, as well. Is nursing home care counted? Into which column does the payment that a British medical tourist makes to a private Spanish clinic fall?
If per-operation costs really are lower in the British NHS than in the US, the Brtish government could make money providing care to American patients on American insurance. They don't. Therefore....