Merged "Bitter Pill": Major article on US expensive healthcare (Time)

[jimbob]

Because FREEDUMB! and DEATH PANELS! and socalislists and stuff.

Seriously, it really is absolutely insane. And the idea that our system is just fine and is superior to every other heath care system in the developed world is equally insane.

I had to switch doctors because my old doctor gave up my health insurance because they were a pain to deal with. And I couldn't afford to see her without the insurance so I was forced to switch doctors. Where was my freedom of choice there? I liked my old doctor! (fortunately my new one is also pretty good). We switched pharmacies not because we wanted to but because out insurance company told us we had to. Where was our freedom of choice there? And we dare not switch insurance companies because my wife has per-existing conditions. Where is our freedom of choice there? The idea that somehow people with single payer/socialized medicine/whatever you want to call it, have less freedom of choice in their medical care than we do with our current system is not grounded in any reality.

Especially as many in UHC countries also have private insurance - for increased convenience as opposed to necessity.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Sufficient numbers of verified anecdotes *are* data.

A single case can disprove a claim.

I don't know, maybe he's right and I do make too much money. I drive a flashy 2001 Toyota Echo, and my one bedroom luxury apartment costs a staggering $600 a month. My sybaritic excess is draining America of its healthcare dollars! My God, I wear name brand Wrangler jeans, those are sixteen dollars a pair! Me and Romney, plutocrats together!

 

[Dr. Keith]

My God, I wear name brand Wrangler jeans

That is a crime of a whole different sort. <<<sssssSNAP>>>

 

[Nessie]

Nothing

Because like many, if not most Brits, I see no need when I have public coverage paid for from my taxes and at a slightly lower rate than that which fails to provide coverage for a large proportion of the US population.

Plus there is an option to go private if you think you will be seen quicker or want a nicer room in a plush hospital. You can either join a scheme or pay as and went treatment is required.

 

[jimbob]

Plus there is an option to go private if you think you will be seen quicker or want a nicer room in a plush hospital. You can either join a scheme or pay as and went treatment is required.

I was actually going to post that something to that effect.

Private can be nicer, or more convenient, but isn't medically necessary in the UK.

 

[Nessie]

I was actually going to post that.

Private can be nicer, or more convenient, but isn't medically necessary in the UK.

The private sector is also heavily dependent on the NHS. It is not as if the private sector trains anybody, deals with A&E cases and if they do have an emergency, you see an ambulance taking the patient from the private to the NHS hospital.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That is a crime of a whole different sort. <<<sssssSNAP>>>

Actually, Wranglers are great. They're cut differently than Lee or Levis, so they can show off your trunk without smashing your junk. With the bigger brands you must choose between baggy ass or crushed testicles.

 

[Tatyana]

The private sector is also heavily dependent on the NHS. It is not as if the private sector trains anybody, deals with A&E cases and if they do have an emergency, you see an ambulance taking the patient from the private to the NHS hospital.

Private hospitals often do not do their own lab work either, they send it to NHS path labs.

 

[GlennB]

Actually, Wranglers are great. They're cut differently than Lee or Levis, so they can show off your trunk without smashing your junk. With the bigger brands you must choose between baggy ass or crushed testicles.

I get free Wranglers on the NHS for precisely this reason.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I get free Wranglers on the NHS for precisely this reason.

America spends $45 billion annually in jeans-caused testicle injury healthcare expenses.

 

[Dr. Keith]

America spends $45 billion annually in jeans-caused testicle injury healthcare expenses.

I spend $45 weekly in Jane caused testicle care expenses.

Same thing, right?

 

[Praktik]

Canada has many fewer people than the USA.

Canada relies on the USA to defend its borders.

Couldn't resist that one eh?

America is pleased as punch to assist w/ Norad and be a kind of implicit protection for Canada. As far as I know though our military relationship is such that much of our expenditures are quasi-mandated by the requirement that we spend a certain amount to keep good relations with our southern neighbours.

But what expense does America incur to "defend Canada's borders"? Are you suggesting that America would spend less on defense if Canada did not exist and was just an ocean?

I assert that America would be happy to be spending an identical amount on defense even without the onerous burden of "defending Canada for Canadians", which is done not through materials but more through the fact that America would react to an attack on Canada with nearly the gusto it would to an attack on itself - this is because Canada's oil, water and mineral resources represent a geostrategic pillar for America's national security. To respond to such an attack American does not require troops or resources in Canada, but the mobile force projection it already possesses through its air and naval forces. The non-existence of Canada, I suggest, would mean practically little difference in the levels of defense spending America is making today (would still be buying aircraft carriers and ICBMs and jets).

In exchange for this implicit protection Canada is enjoined with carrots and sticks to buy equipment and engage w/ american military (mis)adventures abroad. So there are prices we pay for the privilege of your protection.

All THAT said - I like living in a country where my next health crisis does not carry with it the the implicit threat of a financial crisis. My buddy just had his first child born and he didn't have to worry about paying for a delivery on top of all the other expenses a new child needs you to incur... (to say nothing of all the prenatal and postnatal care, and the threat of complications)

And its also nice to have America below me - nice place to visit, even if there are a lot of crazy people there..

 

[TragicMonkey]

America protects Canada in exchange for episodes of DeGrassi. Although the whole arrangement was threatened when Spinner ended up with Emma. Wtf, Canada? Spinner deserved better! He got shot that time, and also had cancer. All she ever did was whine, moan, and show up at school nude that one time.

 

[Praktik]

Joey Jeremiah FTW!!

Though Snake was cool too..

 

[jimbob]

Couldn't resist that one eh?

America is pleased as punch to assist w/ Norad and be a kind of implicit protection for Canada. As far as I know though our military relationship is such that much of our expenditures are quasi-mandated by the requirement that we spend a certain amount to keep good relations with our southern neighbours.

But what expense does America incur to "defend Canada's borders"? Are you suggesting that America would spend less on defense if Canada did not exist and was just an ocean?

I assert that America would be happy to be spending an identical amount on defense even without the onerous burden of "defending Canada for Canadians", which is done not through materials but more through the fact that America would react to an attack on Canada with nearly the gusto it would to an attack on itself - this is because Canada's oil, water and mineral resources represent a geostrategic pillar for America's national security. To respond to such an attack American does not require troops or resources in Canada, but the mobile force projection it already possesses through its air and naval forces. The non-existence of Canada, I suggest, would mean practically little difference in the levels of defense spending America is making today (would still be buying aircraft carriers and ICBMs and jets).

In exchange for this implicit protection Canada is enjoined with carrots and sticks to buy equipment and engage w/ american military (mis)adventures abroad. So there are prices we pay for the privilege of your protection.

All THAT said - I like living in a country where my next health crisis does not carry with it the the implicit threat of a financial crisis. My buddy just had his first child born and he didn't have to worry about paying for a delivery on top of all the other expenses a new child needs you to incur... (to say nothing of all the prenatal and postnatal care, and the threat of complications)

And its also nice to have America below me - nice place to visit, even if there are a lot of crazy people there..

Given that the US spends more of its taxes on healthcare than the UK does then the US would have even more tax money to spend on defence if its system worked like the UK.

 

[funk de fino]

Nothing

Because like many, if not most Brits, I see no need when I have public coverage paid for from my taxes and at a slightly lower rate than that which fails to provide coverage for a large proportion of the US population.

Funnily enough my US employer pays for my Private medical insurance here in the UK. I rarely use it because the consultants and surgeons are usually the same and the wait lists are little different. Just a better room and nicer food in the hospital.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Given that the US spends more of its taxes on healthcare than the UK does then the US would have even more tax money to spend on defence if its system worked like the UK.

Or just cut taxes and/or the deficit.

But the problem with creating a UHS in the US is that some people (mostly on the right) feel that it will be abused by hypochondriacs and people who don't work. They're so concerned with the above that they would rather their own health care cost twice as much as what it should than someone get a free ride. It boggles my mind.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

yeah, why isn't Canada paying more for defending its borders from, um, who exactly? Saint-Pierre and Miquelon? Iceland?

 

[Praktik]

Or just cut taxes and/or the deficit.

But the problem with creating a UHS in the US is that some people (mostly on the right) feel that it will be abused by hypochondriacs and people who don't work. They're so concerned with the above that they would rather their own health care cost twice as much as what it should than someone get a free ride. It boggles my mind.

It is really quite strange to read accounts of decision making during the financial crisis:

- Help Americans underwater in their mortgages? Moral hazard - perish the thought!
- Help investment banks who unscrupulously gambled and lost? There's no other choice!

It's like it's only a moral hazard when poor people get help, but corporate welfare and bailouts for rich people don't create the same perverse incentives... somehow...

More likely - the entire moral hazard argument is semi-bankrupt, at least in the recent American context. As others have mentioned, universal health care would increase risk taking and social mobility...

 

[Praktik]

yeah, why isn't Canada paying more for defending its borders from, um, who exactly? Saint-Pierre and Miquelon? Iceland?

There's that too. If we weren't incentivized to spend by dint of our relationship with the states and a national mythology of being amazing peacekeepers (keeping us involved and committed to certain levels of defense spending through being in NATO) I wonder why would even need more than a very basic army...

Ah well, the other side of the coin is we prosper thanks to being so well integrated in the amazing dynamo that is the American economy - so I think on the whole we likely come out ahead even with the expense Uncle Sam asks we incur to do our part to buttress their MIC...