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

[Leoreth]

And he clearly lacks a spear! So that system doesn't work either. QED.

 

[El_Machinae]

Measuring medical R&D is actually really difficult, but it's hard to say where the pack is being led. And collaboration is so rampant these days (e.g., Sweden & Iran vs. autism) ...

But the EU is certainly no lightweight. The proportionate utility of the research spending is certainly excellent, the proportionate investment into medical R&D is excellent.

The USA is amazing on that front, too. I'm just saying there's no clear leader.

 

[kochman]

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.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/
There is a chart here that shows overall, by country.
A full 10-20% higher than many WESTERN European countries...
UK, Denmark, Portugal, etc...

 

[Murky]

The mandate will probably get struck down.

 

[Cutlass]

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.

But almost any other use of the money will have a superior long run benefit.

 

[Antilogic]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/
There is a chart here that shows overall, by country.
A full 10-20% higher than many WESTERN European countries...
UK, Denmark, Portugal, etc...

Okay, fine, let's assume the numbers are accurate and not misrepresented in any way. Any comment on the marginal benefits v. costs for the US relative to these countries? Should be an even easier question in favor of the USA now, right?

 

[kochman]

Okay, fine, let's assume the numbers are accurate and not misrepresented in any way. Any comment on the marginal benefits v. costs for the US relative to these countries? Should be an even easier question in favor of the USA now, right?

For you, how does the ratio of you living versus you dying from a common disease compare to how much money you would pay... is it a comparative growth scale? Or, would you pay even 50% higher for 20% better odds?

 

[peter grimes]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/
There is a chart here that shows overall, by country.
A full 10-20% higher than many WESTERN European countries...
UK, Denmark, Portugal, etc...

It's not a full 10-20% higher. It varies by type of cancer, even within the same nation. I'm not sure why they felt compelled to list an average, since my initial reaction is that it's meaningless to average 4 different types of cancers together... but maybe the original CONCORD study explains it?

But since we're talking about cancers, I was curious to see how cancer treatment in our private insurance system compares with that in a UHC system. I came across this study of bankruptcy among cancer survivors:

“On average, bankruptcy rates increased fourfold within five years of diagnosis.”

I remember reading once that when they compare immigrants to the US against their relatives who stay behind the immigrants suffer a far higher rate of cancers. So that's not good at all.

 

[peter grimes]

For you, how does the ratio of you living versus you dying from a common disease compare to how much money you would pay... is it a comparative growth scale? Or, would you pay even 50% higher for 20% better odds?

Ahh, but this misses the point. We're talking about about how much the US spends on average. The US spends far more than other OECD nations - nearly 200%! Are you arguing that the 50 people per 100,000 that the US 'saves' are worth 100 generic OECD citizens? Because that's what it seems like you're saying.

 

[GenMarshall]

Wow, Rommey just wants to dig himself in a hole. First he says he loves fireing people, now he wants to screw people with pre-existing conditions by denying them health insurance?!

Well played Rommey, well played .

 

[kochman]

Ahh, but this misses the point. We're talking about about how much the US spends on average. The US spends far more than other OECD nations - nearly 200%! Are you arguing that the 50 people per 100,000 that the US 'saves' are worth 100 generic OECD citizens? Because that's what it seems like you're saying.

Wow, you are really reaching.
What I said was clear... how much more would you pay for better HC? Linear progressions? Or, even more?

Wow, Rommey just wants to dig himself in a hole. First he says he loves fireing people, now he wants to screw people with pre-existing conditions by denying them health insurance?!

Well played Rommey, well played .

Man, did he just lose your vote?

 

[kochman]

I'm not sure why they felt compelled to list an average, since my initial reaction is that it's meaningless to average 4 different types of cancers together...

They picked common types of cancer... not meaningless.

 

[Antilogic]

For you, how does the ratio of you living versus you dying from a common disease compare to how much money you would pay... is it a comparative growth scale? Or, would you pay even 50% higher for 20% better odds?

Not quite what I'm referring to, but closer. Here's a better question: is it worth sticking with a healthcare system where an additional X% GDP over the next leading system improves average cancer survival by Y% and increases infant mortality by Z% and so on all at once.

If any individual has the money, they can choose to pay more and make the judgment you are alluding to. However, I'm talking about society as an aggregate, not individuals.

They picked common types of cancer... not meaningless.

That's not what he is referring to. Different cancers have different incidence rates, different treatments that are applied at different stages, different preventative measures that can be taken, inherently different survivability, etc. This information is normalized ambiguously when you average all the cancer survival rates together.

 

[GenMarshall]

Man, did he just lose your vote?

I had no intentions of voting for him since he made the statement on fireing people and badmothing the Occupy movement. Long before Leno posed the question to him.

 

[Leoreth]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/
There is a chart here that shows overall, by country.
A full 10-20% higher than many WESTERN European countries...
UK, Denmark, Portugal, etc...

I find myself hard-pressed to take an article that feels the need to shout "U-S-A!" during its argumentation seriously.

 

[kochman]

Not quite what I'm referring to, but closer. Here's a better question: is it worth sticking with a healthcare system where an additional X% GDP over the next leading system improves average cancer survival by Y% and increases infant mortality by Z% and so on all at once.

If any individual has the money, they can choose to pay more and make the judgment you are alluding to. However, I'm talking about society as an aggregate, not individuals.



That's not what he is referring to. Different cancers have different incidence rates, different treatments that are applied at different stages, different preventative measures that can be taken, inherently different survivability, etc. This information is normalized ambiguously when you average all the cancer survival rates together.

I'm all for reform... a number of reforms... I am not saying it is perfect by any means.

As for the cancers, show me the stats were it all is closer... which takes into consideration the occurrence of certain types...
I mean, bone cancer is a tough one... also rarer...
Prostate, very common, very survivable now.

We focused on the big ones first... and hopefully they end up helping us with the less frequent ones.

I'm glad I can get the good rates.

 

[Zelig]

Prostate, very common, very survivable now.

Prostate cancer has always been very "survivable", even with no treatment. I don't know how recent treatment stats are, but we can increase survivability rates simply by detecting it earlier and then not treating it. (The earlier it's detected, the more time someone has to die of something else first.)

 

[El_Machinae]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/
There is a chart here that shows overall, by country.
A full 10-20% higher than many WESTERN European countries...
UK, Denmark, Portugal, etc...

I'm not saying the Lancet study is bad, but something to keep an eye on is that this specific study was using records from the early nineties. For those interested in the debate, more modern records might be useful. The Lancet study is certainly a good datapoint, but I'll fill it under 'historical' and would like an opportunity to update it.

The vibe of the United States health care system seems to have changed in the last decade or so.

I'll say again, the American health R&D is pretty impressive. I wonder if there's been any convergence (in outcomes) since the early nineties, and now, when the relative spending diverged significantly

 

[FriendlyFire]

It looks like that is going to be unconstitutional.

Ironic since it was a Republican idea.

 

[timtofly]

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.

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?



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.



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.

As usual, seems that there are those who think that the military should be used for protecting ourselves from ourselves. Of course educating today's children that they can only survive in a socialistic vacuum, that only allows big brother to think for them seems to blind people to common sense.

I grew up in a world where people were free to trust in other people without always having to look over one's shoulder. I guess that world is gone now. If any one thinks my comments are selfish, then they have been brainwashed to think that way. No one is entitled anything. Millions of people have sacrificed their lives so that American's could have the privilege of having freedom. Freedom is not a right, but if you want to live in a socialist country where no one trust any one any more, then so be it. It is not that people are selfish. It is that if one has had the freedom to make choices, they do resent the fact that a governing entity takes away the ability to make choices.

There is no widening gap of haves and have not's. If there is, it is because the government has run out of money, to hand out. If the government has run out, it is because the ratio of those giving is shrinking and those receiving is growing. If your so called gap is growing, where is the governement going to get even more money for insurance? The government "handing" out money is not going to close the gap. If there is a need for healthcare it should go to healthcare. If it is true that medicaid is running out of money, that means there is not enough growth in new jobs and people paying into the system. It does not mean that the government needs to take more money from those who cannot afford to do it now.

Take the cigarette tax: The price went through the roof to help pay for cancer related cost. Has that stopped cancer from spreading? Has it stopped people from smoking? I may be wrong, but it seemed to have just caused the flow of the economy into an area that is a niche. People spending more money on smokes has taken that money from other items. Should the government start rationing cigarettes, to resolve this "great" injustice?