Sick around America

[kellyb]

Who predicted it wouldn't be? And that doesn't answer the question. You made a claim about hospitals, not insurance premiums.

I've looked and been unable to find any hospital projections at all. (poor google-fu? Tight lips for stock market reasons? Dunno.)
I did find the AHA endorsing affordable UHC-coverage, though, although that's indirect (at best) evidence that they see an approaching iceburg.
Just looking at the facts, my scenario seems far more plausible than not, though, right?
Do you know of any facts/evidence to the contrary? Is there a hole in my logic I'm unaware of?

 

[Ziggurat]

I did find the AHA endorsing affordable UHC-coverage, though, although that's indirect (at best) evidence that they see an approaching iceburg.

That's not evidence of an approaching iceberg, that's evidence that they think things would be better for them with such an approach. But suboptimal and unsustainable are very different. Hell, even bad and unsustainable are very different.

Just looking at the facts, my scenario seems far more plausible than not, though, right?

It's plausible. More plausible? No, I don't think we can say that. We basically have no evidence at all for that scenario. And the absence of evidence suggests to me that there is probably no approaching iceberg for hospitals, because if there were, I think they'd be throwing the data to show it all over the place. But the relevant data is hard to find.

 

[kellyb]

That's not evidence of an approaching iceberg, that's evidence that they think things would be better for them with such an approach. But suboptimal and unsustainable are very different. Hell, even bad and unsustainable are very different.



It's plausible. More plausible? No, I don't think we can say that. We basically have no evidence at all for that scenario. And the absence of evidence suggests to me that there is probably no approaching iceberg for hospitals, because if there were, I think they'd be throwing the data to show it all over the place. But the relevant data is hard to find.

With insurance premiums rising at 10% a year (!!!), how can we not be moving towards increasing amounts of people being uninsured?

 

[Ziggurat]

With insurance premiums rising at 10% a year (!!!), how can we not be moving towards increasing amounts of people being uninsured?

I didn't say we weren't. But what makes you think that trend will continue forever? It probably won't. Our system is not on the verge of collapse. Hospitals in particular are not in mortal danger, because people will always need, and will always pay (one way or another) for, the services they provide.

 

[DC]

Our system is not on the verge of collapse

source?

 

[Ziggurat]

source?

Source for our system being on the verge of collapse? I mean, besides the whining.

 

[DC]

Source for our system being on the verge of collapse? I mean, besides the whining.

huh? you wrote its NOT on the verge of collapse.

 

[kellyb]

I didn't say we weren't. But what makes you think that trend will continue forever?

How might it not?

Our system is not on the verge of collapse.

I disagree. I think we're mid-collapse already. We in the "lower and middle middle class" are experiencing this. Anecdata, yes. It is what it is.

people will always need, and will always pay (one way or another) for, the services they provide

Pay in part, at least. The percentage of the part they end up paying will vary wildly.

 

[Ziggurat]

How might it not?

Once health care costs start bumping up against other things we aren't willing to cut back on, they will not continue to grow at this pace. Exponential growth trends frequently level off over time, that's a normal course of events.

I disagree. I think we're mid-collapse already. We in the "lower and middle middle class" are experiencing this. Anecdata, yes. It is what it is.

That's not collapse. That's just things being bad. I don't mean to sound callous because I know you've got things rough, but there really is a difference. Note also that I'm not saying that we can't or shouldn't do anything unless collapse is imminent.

 

[kellyb]

Once health care costs start bumping up against other things we aren't willing to cut back on, they will not continue to grow at this pace.

So more people will go uninsured. Etc.

Exponential growth trends frequently level off over time, that's a normal course of events.

Healthcare is not a normal good. Where else are providers legally mandated to provide services without compensation?

That's not collapse. That's just things being bad.

Watching your friends and family being "priced out" at increasing numbers over time sure seems like watching a system collapse, at least.
The POTUS seems to agree that it's a crisis. Take that for what it's worth, I guess.

 

[DC]

i also licked the guy that pointed out most industrialized countrys made a moral decision to cover all its citizens and then work from that given to implement and improve the system.
but UHC is a given. a Human right.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, let's be clear on this, before we end up back in the train-wreck of a thread on "Where do rights come from?"

Rights are what you are granted by the society you live in. So, you have the right to affordable healthcare, and I have the right to affordable healthcare, but US citizens do not. That is a simple fact.

What you are saying is that you believe affordable healthcare should be a human right granted by developed nations to their citizens. This is a fairly universal belief in European countries, and that is why universal healthcare systems have been developed in these countries (well, that and the sheer pragmatic efficiency of them).

It seems that the majority in the USA do not believe that affordable healthcare should be a human right granted to them and their fellow-citizens. There is a complete absence of a meeting of minds on this point. It seems to be psychological. I'm not sure I even begin to understand it.

Rolfe.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, um... no. That is only possible for a small fraction of medical procedures.

Yep like bypasses and transplants and such. The hospitals will keep the emergecy care area, which is a large loss in general. So they are losing the profitable care and keeping the ones that they lose money on.

 

[Rolfe]

Yep like bypasses and transplants and such. The hospitals will keep the emergecy care area, which is a large loss in general. So they are losing the profitable care and keeping the ones that they lose money on.

More probably joint replacements and other non-emergency life-improving stuff. Cataracts, carpal tunnel syndrome, varicose veins, all the routine boring stuff, yes the stuff that makes the money....

Rolfe.

 

[Ziggurat]

Healthcare is not a normal good.

So what? The leveling off of exponential trends is not limited to normal goods, or good of any kind. See, for example, the population of Europe.

Where else are providers legally mandated to provide services without compensation?

Such costs are actually a small fraction of the totals involved.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/hospitals-see-profits-in-white-house-deal/
"The breakdown estimates that the industry will receive about $171 billion in additional money over those same 10 years as a result of reimbursements for newly insured patients who would be covered under the overhaul plan."
How much is that?
"$155 billion [in cost cuts] was only about 1.5 percent of total hospital revenue over 10 years"
So $171 billion over 10 years is about 1.7% of their total revenues.

Watching your friends and family being "priced out" at increasing numbers over time sure seems like watching a system collapse, at least.

Watching your friends and family getting killed in auto accidents (or train wrecks, or airplane crashes) doesn't amount to our transportation infrastructure collapsing. "Bad" and "collapsing" are very different things, and you are still not distinguishing them. Your argument is emotional, and while I do not doubt that it is heartfelt and honest, it is not logical.

The POTUS seems to agree that it's a crisis. Take that for what it's worth, I guess.

It's worth nothing. Of course he's going to say it's a crisis, he's going to say that regardless of whether or not it is.

 

[Earthborn]

Hospitals in particular are not in mortal danger, because people will always need, and will always pay (one way or another) for, the services they provide.

Sadly this is not true. More and more Americans end up in a situation in which they can no longer pay off their medical debts, which means they are not paying for the services provided by the hospitals.

Exponential growth trends frequently level off over time, that's a normal course of events.

If only Beerina understood this with his claims on ¨medical tech growth¨...

There is no reason though to suspect that this is going to happen soon with medical costs in the US. What is going to stop the increase if more and more people won't be paying for it anyway? Whether medical costs bankrupt you at $20 000 or at $1 000 000 makes little difference. The only thing that might level off the exponential growth is the government stepping in.

Watching your friends and family getting killed in auto accidents (or train wrecks, or airplane crashes) doesn't amount to our transportation infrastructure collapsing.

Having an exponentially increasing number of people getting killed in auto accidents might amount to a "collapse", especially if it is increasing at a higher rate than the increase in the number of cars.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sadly this is not true. More and more Americans end up in a situation in which they can no longer pay off their medical debts, which means they are not paying for the services provided by the hospitals.

"More and more" is still a relatively small number. Again, where's the evidence that this is imperiling the existence of our hospitals?

Having an exponentially increasing number of people getting killed in auto accidents might amount to a "collapse",

You seem to be confused as to what quantities are increasing exponentially.

 

[Rolfe]

It's a shame this thread isn't more active. I've just watched some of it for the second time, and it's realy shocking.

It's making exactly the same points as Sicko, but it seems to me that while threads about Sicko are active because of the ad-hom going on, this one (although more up to date) is just being ignored. It doesn't use the presentational and rhetorical techniques of Sicko so it can't be criticised for that. Does that mean it just isn't hitting home?

I mean, if all that can be said is that the people suffering and dying because of lack of access to healthcare are acceptable collateral damage because people also get killed in car accidents, I despair.

Rolfe.