Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When most other countries have some kind of Universal Healthcare, pay 1/2 of what Americans do, and in most cases have better results and outcomes... only the Far Far Far Right-wingers would want it to go even further into free market.
You say that as though we too would have much lower costs and better outcomes if only we socialized health care too.
Then explain how we also have much higher costs with poorer results in our public educational system even though that is socialized.
It is a fallacy to presume that if we socialize health care that our costs will go down. All the so-called studies that predict that costs can even remain the same are based on unfounded assumptions that the govt. would be paying 40% less than the current costs of medical services, i.e. that the MRI facilities charging $2000 for an MRI will be ok with charging $1200, that the pharmas charging $100 for a prescription fill will be charging $60.
This is the problem. No one can pay the enormous costs yet there is a whole subsection who want another whole section to bear those costs. I would think the avg. American would agree with healthcare for all if the left quit lying and using the word "free" and figure out how to tell their constituents, "well.. you want it, you're at least going to have to pony up and help with the bill." Free doesn't mean free for one and twice as much for another. And until it's fair and equitable, it's a nope for me.
The term free is used by many people, regardless of their political ideologies.
Trump ran on a promise to “replace Obamacare with something wonderful that would take care of everybody and the government was going to pay for it”. He did so right along side promising tax cuts.
As the Election Day approached, his message tempered to “ better healthcare at a tiny fraction of the cost”.
By the time inauguration came, he never mentioned healthcare. Shortly thereafter, he let loose with “ no one knew healthcare was so complicated” which meant no one in his inner circle had a clue and there was no plan.
Trumpcare 1 and 2 would have increased the cost of healthcare and left millions uninsured. Trump Admin dodged a bullet when legislation failed.
All is not lost however. No shortage of Republican running in the 2017 midterms suddenly and collectively became passionate about a continued mandate for insurers to cover preexisting conditions. They seemed to grasp doing otherwise was political suicide.
All insurance ( not just healthcare) mutualizes ( socializes) risks.
No one wants to wait 6 months to see a doctor either. Do you have any idea how long people have to wait in the emergency room to be seen by a doctor? I'm not talking about you have a bad infection, I'm talking about you have chest pain and need to be seen now.
Now imagine all the people who don't actually have any coverage whatsoever showing up to the emergency room
Some, with and without healthcare, use the ER for routine healthcare matters.
Many large healthcare systems, especially Level 1 trauma hospitals in poorer communities, carefully screen inbound patients and divert non urgent patients to nearby clinics.
According to the CDC, only 5.5% of ER visits are non- emergency when based on symptoms presented. This is a different way of measuring than by diagnosis.
All insurance ( not just healthcare) mutualizes ( socializes) risks.
When we have all kinds of tests that can predict someone will cost 10x-100x a normal person in health care over the course of their life, it's not risk. It's subsidizing a known case of very bad luck. It's not even risk at the societal level, since we know the incidences and costs of many illnesses already. Given the rates of illness and costs of treatment across society, there is simply not enough money to mutualize all cradle to grave costs from illness.
The insurance model becomes less applicable to healthcare as our knowledge of illness and ability to predict it grows.
With the amount of money at stake, there is no way the left hand (payers) won't eventually know what the right hand (providers) knows. Hence the shift to value based care.
Value based care is definitely better than fee for service care because it controls costs. What no one wants to talk about is that it increases our use of rationing based on pre-existing health, since pre-existing health is a major factor in health outcomes.
Then explain how we also have much higher costs with poorer results in our public educational system even though that is socialized.
Probably because the right devalues education with their attacks on science. It is a schizophrenic message - go to school but don't pay attention to evolution. And ignore what they say about climate change. And ignore what they say about clean air and clean water.
Quote:
It is a fallacy to presume that if we socialize health care that our costs will go down. All the so-called studies that predict that costs can even remain the same are based on unfounded assumptions that the govt. would be paying 40% less than the current costs of medical services, i.e. that the MRI facilities charging $2000 for an MRI will be ok with charging $1200, that the pharmas charging $100 for a prescription fill will be charging $60.
Why is that unfounded? If we have single-payer, and the single insurance provider will only pay 40% less, than the provider of the service either accepts it or goes out of business. I am willing to bet that Pharma can get by with only making a 13% profit margin rather than a 21% profit margin.
The reason medicine is very expensive in the US is due to government interference with the free market, specifically via the FDA, and its protectionist laws and regulations. Medicine was much more affordable before the FDA and big pharmaceutical lobbies are what caused the formation of the FDA, in order to create those protections from competition. This is known as crony capitalism and crony capitalism is nothing like free market capitalism.
I would agree that the FDA is a price protection racket operating under the guise of public safety. But I find it interesting that most of those criticizing the FDA as being a tool of big pharma were screaming that we were all gonna die last month when the FDA was shut down.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by broncosilly
Ain't nothin' for nothin'. Free is a word used for taking others money and giving it away. And no....health care isn't a right.
You can easily make this argument for elective surgery, like liposuction, breast implants, lasik etc
But if someone has a major laceration, a broken arm, or worse something like cancer and can't afford treatment (even with insurance), it just means you then think they should suffer (or die a slow painful death if it's cancer). Most people can't get behind that idea....
The system needs blowing up but going full socialist here is probably only going to make things worse. Unless they put real controls on what the government is going to pay for, who gets what, etc....going single payer will bankrupt us.
Cost controls are an integral part of universal hc systems.
There's a lot of waste in health care, which needs to be cleaned up, too. That would make it more cost effective, whatever health care ends up looking like. The over testing and over diagnosing of health issues is beyond ridiculous. We had an elder the other week whose PCP wanted her to have an invasive test, procedure. She's pushing 90 and is in a wheelchair and her overall quality of life is not that great.
Why over test w/ this situation? Multiply that by tens of thousands, other people w/ other diagnostics. Is it moral for society to pay to do testing and procedures on someone in this situation when their life span is not too many more years and quality of life isn't very good?
Because we do not allow our medical providers to ever make a mistake. If there was a 1% chance that an additional dozen expensive tests could have prevented a mistake then we will hold the provider negligent for not doing the tests.
You can easily make this argument for elective surgery, like liposuction, breast implants, lasik etc
But if someone has a major laceration, a broken arm, or worse something like cancer and can't afford treatment (even with insurance), it just means you then think they should suffer (or die a slow painful death if it's cancer). Most people can't get behind that idea....
Trauma injuries sustained by otherwise healthy people are a small fraction of healthcare costs. Most healthcare costs are due to chronic conditions that occur in a small percentage of the population.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
