I think it is. You have been oosting constantly about incremental changes, which isn't going to solve the problem. Which makes sense because you deny the problem in the first place. So it follows that the real issue here is diagnosing the problem.
Healthcare
- Thread starter RDCR07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I think it is. You have been oosting constantly about incremental changes, which isn't going to solve the problem. Which makes sense because you deny the problem in the first place. So it follows that the real issue here is diagnosing the problem.
Yea but you don't know Mike's wife so your experience is irrelevant.
If I thought a switch to UHC and single payer was achievable in a short time period I would be all over it. I, like Bernie Sanders, believe extending Medicaid is the way forward. Also like Bernie I believe getting the uninsured cover is the highest priority. Its how we get from A ot B and how long it takes that is the question
It is achievable. We were one vote from a public option in 2009. Single payer is absolutely achievable in 2021.
feck Lieberman.
You are the one making the bold declarations of "facts" and then not backing up your "facts" with anything but your own personal opinion. Just because you say "majority of Americans receive better health care than UK" doesn't make it true. You need to provide evidence not just appeal to your own authority.
And as I pointed out, hundreds of thousands of Americans going bankrupt due to medical bills while zero do in UK, Germany, Japan, Canada, etc illustrates another major problem of the US health system that cannot be reduced to the euphemism "do not like the payment".
Also I don't think anyone said the US health care is objectively "poor", you are just being challenged because you keep insisting it provides better "health care" without providing any evidence of how and why or giving any actual data.
Fact is the US has the least efficient (from the pov of society as a whole), most expensive system that lets far, far too many citizens fall through the cracks both in who even can get access to good health insurance and then in providing a safety net so hundreds of thousands don't go bankrupt. There are numerous other flaws in the HMO dominated system as it really isn't an optimal configuration for society. It does let some free riders snatch up unscrupulous profits though.
It seems to me that you are missing a very big point here Mike. I pay near about 5000 USD with exposure to another 12K because I get healthcare from job. Through my job, I have saved some money that would allow me to spend that amount on insurance for a long time. However, by a twist of fate, if I lose my job, I no longer have that insurance even though I can pay that amount easily, increasing my exposure from 6K a year to ~. Access to insurance shouldn't depend on whether you have a job, it should be better than that. We are not just arguing over if the facilities are better or if you can afford to pay the insurance fee. Plenty of people who can afford insurance lose out on insurance because of how the market is set up.
I'm saying we pay private healthcare prices but it's akin to the NHS in most things apart from wait times for scans etc. The wait times in the emergency rooms are horrific imo for the amount we pay. By private I meant like BUPA.
I am all for UHC. High deductible plans are out of control. You have to be very disciplined and have the means to carry enough in your HSA to cover the maximum annual deductible.
This all started because I said moving to UHC is more difficult because most Americans are actually happy with the Healthcare they get today. American see healthcare as a service rather than a basic human right. When you have insurance and/or money that is fine and treating it like a service is pretty good. the facilities are amazing and the healthcare is very good. On the flip side it fecked up because healthcare should be a basic requirement and available to all.
Scans are pretty important in modern healthcare TBH. Being able to see a specialist at your convenience and actually get none emergency stuff done in a timely manner is huge as well. I know routine checks are easier come by in the US as well. Will double check with the Mrs but she gets some key tests done annually and in the US its every two or three years. Private rooms when you have to go in hospital makes the whole process far better for me. Some of the wards in the NHS are grim, especially in the older Victorian Building.
When I have had something to eat I will write a nice little anecdote about an experience with the NHS that highlights how awesome it is.
The bottom line is it is the $$$ that is the problem and it's why you have the uninsured using the ER as their primary care physician.
Yet another thing you just casually state that isn't true.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...overnment-should-ensure-health-care-coverage/
Even if a healthcare system is working well for the majority, if it's failing a significant percentage of people or even a small percentage then it's failing. Full stop. In Americas case, it's failing millions.
And I'm guessing the Danish Health Services are much like the NHS, and even if waiting time can sometimes be long, then it's still far and away better than a system that let's people go bankrupt because they get sick and don't have the money to be insured.
And I'm guessing the Danish Health Services are much like the NHS, and even if waiting time can sometimes be long, then it's still far and away better than a system that let's people go bankrupt because they get sick and don't have the money to be insured.
Not strictly the same thing. Just because people say the government should ensure all Americans have healthcare does not mean they want to be dictated to on choice and delivery.
It means they think it a right , which you just said it wasn't. Do you ever get exhausted from moving the goalposts so often?
I'm not sure you can really have one without the other.
You're wasting your time, he doesn't even believe what he's saying.
Why not?
Step 1: Individual mandate for everybody.
Step 2: Allow a plurality of insurers (= different plans)
Step 3: Govt. pays for anybody that cannot afford a plan
=> Everybody has healthcare (see 1.)
=> Everybody has choice and delivery (see 2.)
This was exactly Obamacare, and it led to a complete lack of competition among pvt insurance companies and increased govt spending for not-so-special outcomes.
If you want a glimpse of what a 2020 debate would look like and what the GOP push back narrative will be, then watch this.
Last edited:
Not exactly, because the individual mandate was somehow tweaked so that people that didn't want to insure themselves could pay a fine and not do so. What I outlined wouldn't allow that freedom: everybody absolutely has to get insurance (since 'the govt. has to ensure it' was the premise). That would mitigate adverse selection for a bit thus allowing for a better outcome, though I'm in no place to guess how big that would be.
I don't know what the reasons behind the lack of competition was in the US but let me say that the plan I outlined is very abstract and it's success would depend on a whole lot of other things like answers to the questions of transfer payments between insurers for bad risks (the 75+ y/o chainsmoker with a BMI of 35), fixed prices for procedures/drugs etc.
My aim was to show that it's theoretically feasible (in the US, already works in (an)other countries).
The individual mandate wasn't strong enough imo. If the penalty to not have insurance doesn't sting enough, then people who don't want it for whatever reason, aren't incentivized to get it, which of course weakens the pools.
If young and healthy people don't participate because they think they can 'wing it' due to premium costs, then penalising them won't be popular too
I can understand the younger healthy people being reluctant, especially considering they are probably earning less as well. There were plenty of people that were older and earning well that refused to opt in as well. Not having healthcare shouldn't even be an option.
Anecdotal but the ones who seemed to oppose Obamacare although being old often quoted two reasons 1) Pro-life nuts who were convinced that their money is being used for abortion 2) Anti-welfare people who were convinced that they are funding people who sit around and avail these benefits. These two groups wouldn't support ACA even though it would benefit them. I just couldn't understand them, but these were admittedly fringe section. I'm not aware of large swathes of people that you describe who are opposed to having healthcare.
The ACA was a poorly conceived solution. The intentions were good but it was just destined to fail. Insurance companies and States can't be trusted and replied upon to willfully contribute to any solution. It wasn't in their best interest for the ACA to be successful.
Maybe so, but I'm yet to come across older, well earning people opposed to healthcare either in real life or through news and media (unless they are in fringe group of people who are enamored with social/religious reasons).
Just been reading Bernie's Medicare page and found this: "Last year, the average working family paid $4,955 in premiums and $1,318 in deductibles to private health insurance companies."
https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/
Not far from numbers I posted a couple of pages back
It fell short because Republicans were against it, as were some Dems - so the language kept getting watered down to where it lost half of the original intention of what Obama was trying to do. This is why its futile to go for single payer unless there's more of a consensus to ensure it doesn't get stripped down during the legislative debate.
This gallop poll about satisfaction rates is interesting. Satisfaction rates are falling but the majority of Americans are satisfied with the healthcare system. The poll rates all the various payment systems from insurance to Medicaid and also has demographics and party preference.
Some really interesting data in the polling. Satisfactions rates for government provided healthcare like Medicaid, Medicare and Military are much higher than satisfaction rates for private insurance. Another interesting aspect is Democratic voters are much happier with the healthcare system than the GOP voters.
Overall Satisfaction with US Healthcare was 65% in 2016:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/195605/americans-satisfaction-healthcare-system-edges-down.aspx
Overall satisfaction in the NHS was 63% in 2016
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/public-satisfaction-nhs-2016
Some really interesting data in the polling. Satisfactions rates for government provided healthcare like Medicaid, Medicare and Military are much higher than satisfaction rates for private insurance. Another interesting aspect is Democratic voters are much happier with the healthcare system than the GOP voters.
Overall Satisfaction with US Healthcare was 65% in 2016:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/195605/americans-satisfaction-healthcare-system-edges-down.aspx
Overall satisfaction in the NHS was 63% in 2016
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/public-satisfaction-nhs-2016
Last edited:
Thread demonstrating how "access" means feck all
A generic Tamiflu was approved recently. Walmart have Tamiflu for $51 without insurance.
The interesting thing is Americans pay five or six times more for the drug than people in developing countries. So the question is are Americans supporting drug company profits or research and development? My guess is both but more profit than R&D.
Woosh point missed entirely.
That is why nobody should have the choice and insurance should be mandatory with no way to opt out. Age changes and the young ones will later profit from the young people of the next generation - and good health can be temporary.
It should not cost anything extra or max. 5 to 10 $ per prescription so that it is in a range really everybody can handle it. People with financial problems might save money here and risk health like this.
The question is how much responsibility someone wants to give to the "state" and how much to the "individual". Problem here is just that whereas this responsibility is fine with "strong" (that is meant in all kind of meanings: health, wealth, intelligence) people it is not with weak ones. If somebody has 50 bucks left in his pocket for the rest of the month food might be more important than medication.
I guess even the best systems have problems right now with aging population or regional structures - and like this with having enough medical personal available, the service and with financing. But that are for sure noch arguments against this systems - just the task to add more money into the systems to make working in this trade more attractive and to adjust them to a changing society.
I get the point but there are many other variables to consider. Americans generally earn more and pay significant less tax than Brits. As a proportion of disposable income most drugs are not dissimilar to what you pay with the NHS. Many places have a lot of common drugs for free or have a large selection of $4 drugs. We all know copays and meds can be expensive. It is also sensible to ask the doctor to write prescriptions for generics.
Posting one account distorts the facts for people overseas that really do't know much about the US system.
It's ok because Trump just got a massive boost of many more billions to pump in to the US military. The same one that already spends more than the next 8 highest spending countries combined.
#Priorities
It's clear health care isn't one for this current US Government. #Sad
#Priorities
It's clear health care isn't one for this current US Government. #Sad
I totally agree it should be affordable for all and it should be proportionate to income. Very low earners should pay a minimal $5, medium income $10, high income $25, and maybe a very high band of $50. When you adjust the current NHS prescription cost to dollars and adjust to US net incomes the cost is around $20.
It is pathetic when you consider the numbers. Medicare and Medicaid currently cost around $1.24 trillion dollars. That covers over 100 million Americans. So with $330 billion we could add the 30-40 million Americans without insurance to Medicaid.
Last edited:
Eh?
Let's not forget that Trump has also massively cut future funding for Medicare and Medicaid too AND the States that are now denying healthcare to the unemployed and many low hours workers with worked based Medicare.
There really is a huge problem at the moment but It's going to get much, much worse for an awful lot of people.
Eh?
Let's not forget that Trump has also massively cut future funding for Medicare and Medicaid too AND the States that are now denying healthcare to the unemployed and many low hours workers with worked based Medicare.
There really is a huge problem at the moment but It's going to get much, much worse for an awful lot of people.
Medicaid and CHIP cover nearly 70 million people. Medicaid cover around 44 million. So right now the two comfortably cover 100 million I stated. I was just making the point the 2018 budget increases that were passed could have taken care of the uninsured issue.