Mitt "No insurance for uninsured with pre-existing conditions"

[Traitorfish]

Each and every one of those nations is way smaller than the USA population wise... by the way.
That matters... the bureaucracy must expand to support the expanding bureaucracy...

Is it necessary that a universal healthcare system be run from Washington? It isn't so centralised in the United Kingdom- Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland each having a healthcare system separate from (though closely cooperating with) that of England- and we're a far more centralised country than the USA.

 

[Leoreth]

Each and every one of those nations is way smaller than the USA population wise... by the way.
That matters... the bureaucracy must expand to support the expanding bureaucracy...

Larger population, larger health care budget. Why would the percentage that goes to bureaucracy (or the bureaucracy costs per person) rise for larger countries?

 

[Core Imposter]

No, it's far from extortion. Do you consider it extortion when an Union and management sign a contract? It's the same thing. The single payer entity has a vested interest in keeping the clinics, hospitals, and support services running. The union has a vested interest in keeping the business profitable so it can expand - generating more union positions in the jurisdiction. It's about as far from extortion as you can get.

If said union has bargining power that derives from government regulation then of course it is extortion.

But labor unions and single payer health care? We are far afield.

 

[timtofly]

And right there is the major problem of our society today. We are a selfish lot too blind to see that helping our neighbor in their time of need is the right thing to do. From a moral stand point. From an economic standpoint. From a Christian standpoint. The list goes on.

Why do we need the government to tell us how to live our lives? From my understanding the government was to protect us, not invade our private lives, and demand we give up are souls. I never said to be selfish, I said to use one's money wisely. One can still help others on their own free will. At least unless you can convince me free will is a terrible idea, because no one is capable of helping others of their own volition.

 

[Murky]

Most people are always going to ask, "What's in it for me?" So the tax payer is always going to ask what's in it for them to provide for those without. When the answer doesn't please them they are going to be against whatever it is you're trying to spend their money on.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

GDP would go up. Much of health care spending in the US is digging holes for the purpose of filling the holes back up. That money would be freed up for something useful.

GDP only measures how much you pay and not whether you get anything useful out of it.
You can raise your countrie's GDP with digging holes, or with an inefficient private health insurance system. You can also raise your GDP by privatizing prisons and locking people up at the slightest offense becasue the governmetn will have to pay the private prisons for every inmate.
There are a lot of ways to increase GDP by lowering quality of life, and theer are also ways to increase quality of life that make a country look poorer on paper if you only take GDP into account.

 

[BSmith1068]

Why do we need the government to tell us how to live our lives?

Because we live in a society that values rule of law over anarchy. We live in a society that has a framework for what is acceptable behavior and what is not. Do whatever the hell you want, as long as it is within that acceptable framework. Are laws against murder the government telling us how to live our lives? What about theft, or speeding, or assault?

From my understanding the government was to protect us, not invade our private lives, and demand we give up are souls.

It is. Sometimes that means from ourselves. In this case, it is from our collective selves. Compelling everyone to have insurance (or pay a tax) reduces the cost for EVERYONE. It protects us from ever increasing insurance premiums. It protects us against all the freeloaders out there who won’t pay for insurance because they didn't think they needed it, but really did. It protects us from the ever widening gap between the haves and have not’s. I don’t understand why it is so hard to understand this point.

I never said to be selfish, I said to use one's money wisely. One can still help others on their own free will. At least unless you can convince me free will is a terrible idea, because no one is capable of helping others of their own volition.

You didn’t have to say the word selfish, but your earlier comment is the epitome of it. Unfortunately there are many, many more people that have that same view in this country. Even more unfortunately is that it is to everyone’s detriment.

 

[Leoreth]

If timtofly's reasoning is to be followed, the military can be abolished as well. Surely we can find enough people who buy aircraft carriers and tanks from their own money in case we need them.

 

[peter grimes]

Each and every one of those nations is way smaller than the USA population wise... by the way.
That matters... the bureaucracy must expand to support the expanding bureaucracy...

So what? I don't see why that would be a reason to avoid this. I mean, there's already an enormous bureaucracy in the private health insurance market, in addition to a tier of management whose only goal is to squeeze profit out of the system. You really think that's a better model?

I'd say, rather, that the best way to evaluate whether or not USA can afford UHC is to look at the list of nation above with regards to per capita GDP:
Lux - 85k
Sing - 60
Nor - 53
Brun - 50
HK - 49
UAE - 49
USA - 48
Switz - 43
Ned - 42
Aus - 42

...lets skip to the poorest on the list

Ital - 30
Cyp - 29
Slov - 29
New Zealand - 28
Greece - 28

I'll agree that Greece is not a great example, but Slovenia?! Cyprus?! Italy?!

USA can afford it. But the political system is rigged against it by the for-profit industries that stand to lose.

 

[kochman]

OK, but you also realize that we have the best health care in terms of survivor rates also... right?
It would cost more, but we get more for it...

It would help if we had tons of reform, I believe we could make UHC work, but not as our (entire) system is now.

 

[Antilogic]

OK, but you also realize that we have the best health care in terms of survivor rates also... right?
It would cost more, but we get more for it...

It would help if we had tons of reform, I believe we could make UHC work, but not as our (entire) system is now.

First, depends on which survivor rates you are talking about. We aren't doing so well when you look at the rate of mothers dying in childbirth.

Second, is spending twice as much for a single percentage point increase worth it?

Third, innovation in medical treatment, which is heavily influenced by university research money, is a factor here. It's independent of whether or not we have UHC or a privatized system.

 

[kochman]

First, depends on which survivor rates you are talking about. We aren't doing so well when you look at the rate of mothers dying in childbirth.

True... there are areas we are lacking in...

Second, is spending twice as much for a single percentage point increase worth it?

Source?
Cancer survival rates, for example, are way better... that's life and death.

Third, innovation in medical treatment, which is heavily influenced by university research money, is a factor here. It's independent of whether or not we have UHC or a privatized system.

Well, we also get a lot of R&D from pharma companies... and the US does more than its fair share of R&D... So, you get a better product, and you pay more.

Don't get me wrong, if I thought we were in the right position to do so, and quality wouldn't suffer, I'd be all for it.

 

[peter grimes]

OK, but you also realize that we have the best health care in terms of survivor rates also... right?
It would cost more, but we get more for it...

It would help if we had tons of reform, I believe we could make UHC work, but not as our (entire) system is now.

Do we get more for it? I'm not so certain.

Consider these two graphs from the UC Atlas of Global Inequality

From the source:

...average US life expectancy ranks 27th in the world, at 77 years. Many countries achieve higher life expectancy rates with significantly lower spending. The chart below shows the top 30 countries in the world ranked by life expectancy. The red line indicates per-capita health expenditure (right axis), and shows that many countries outperform the US with approximately half the spending.

[snip]

The chart (right) [Actually, the one on the left] also highlights the sharp contrast between the US and Cuba. With a life expectancy of 76.9 years, Cuba ranks 28th in the world, just behind the US. However, its spending per person on health care is one of the lowest in the world, at $186, or about 1/25 the spending of the United States.

[snip]

If there is near universal clean water and preventive care, life expectancy rates can be high. In the US, however, nearly 40 million Americans lack basic health insurance, and are therefore less likely to receive preventive care. In contrast, Cuba has universal health care and one of the highest doctor-to-patient ratios in the world (See Physicians). Although Cuba has limited resources and many economic problems, it has made health care a priority.

 

[kochman]

I love the simplistic "life expectancy" stat...
As if medical care is the only factor... lifestyle, which Americans have a notoriously bad one (in general), is a huge factor.
Yes, if you don't exercise, and you could buy your own McD's franchise based on your life's McD's intake... you might not live as long.

 

[El_Machinae]

GDP only measures how much you pay and not whether you get anything useful out of it.
You can raise your countrie's GDP with digging holes, or with an inefficient private health insurance system. You can also raise your GDP by privatizing prisons and locking people up at the slightest offense becasue the governmetn will have to pay the private prisons for every inmate.
There are a lot of ways to increase GDP by lowering quality of life, and theer are also ways to increase quality of life that make a country look poorer on paper if you only take GDP into account.

True, but that's just a snapshot, right? Overtime, wise use of GDP will cause GDP growth

 

[peter grimes]

I love the simplistic "life expectancy" stat...
As if medical care is the only factor... lifestyle, which Americans have a notoriously bad one (in general), is a huge factor.

But did you just say that it's a good thing? You were talking about survivor rates. Life expectancy encompasses that. Clearly all other nations are outperforming us in the aggregate.

There may be specialized little pockets that the US system performs better, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about UHC and whether or not USA can afford it. We can.

 

[JollyRoger]

I highly doubt this, and it looks like the court watchers that have been on CQ and CNN seem to think we're headed towards a 5-4 against.

That's a pretty good sign that we are not headed that way.

 

[Dachs]

If timtofly's reasoning is to be followed, the military can be abolished as well. Surely we can find enough people who buy aircraft carriers and tanks from their own money in case we need them.

 

[Antilogic]

Source?
Cancer survival rates, for example, are way better... that's life and death.

And mothers dying in childbirth isn't a life or death situation? In any case, I didn't mean for people to get hung up on that particular ratio--I was basically asking whether the marginal costs outweighed the marginal benefits.

US cancer survival rates are usually a few points better than the major west European nations (i.e. UK, France, Germany). You are probably thinking of the sources that compare the US against all of Europe, often including the poorer former Soviet-Bloc countries (i.e. Poland), which brings the Euro-average down. So then you see ridiculous stats where cancer survival in the US is 10-20 points greater than in Europe.

Well, we also get a lot of R&D from pharma companies... and the US does more than its fair share of R&D... So, you get a better product, and you pay more.

Don't get me wrong, if I thought we were in the right position to do so, and quality wouldn't suffer, I'd be all for it.

R&D in pharma companies is largely focused around developing drugs for tiny niche markets and not solving the big problems, largely because they get the best profits from having a monopoly on the sale of new drugs for new illnesses or conditions (i.e. restless leg syndrome and other garbage like that). Competition from generics-producers is a factor here. Research that would actually reduce costs (i.e. continuous manufacturing instead of batch processes) is usually funded through the NIH in partnership with major research universities.

 

[Core Imposter]

That's a pretty good sign that we are not headed that way.

For once I think we are in agreement.