Capitalism and health care

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



cdtm
Gouging during a disaster is a common criticism of anti-regulation attitudes. Water is in short supply, so you charge 2,000 dollars a bottle. I think that's something we can all agree is unethical.

But what about the person struck with terminal cancer. As much a disaster as a water shortage, yet they get bled for all their worth. Is this any more ethical then gouging the person dying of thirst after a storm? What's the difference?

The cancer victim isn't exactly in a position to haggle. Oh, sure, they can shop around before a disaster, but almost everybody gets bled out in the end... They're a business, and if you're a captive consumer with a limited budget and an insurance cap, that's not your problem, is it?

Isn't that the health care industry in a nutshell?

SquallX

quanchi112

snowdragon
Originally posted by cdtm
Isn't that the health care industry in a nutshell?

Is that your experience? That isn't mine. Now I will say I was a part of the insurance business for over 10 years, I don't like the model of making money while providing care.

Universal health care has its ups and downs, I think the USA could benefit from said system BUT don't think it is a system that will make everyone not sick and treat everyone the same, it doesn't.

Scribble
The UK and Canadian models are definitely superior to the US one. I don't see why, as a developed people, we can't provide healthcare as a right whilst also having private healthcare for those who can or want to pay. Same as schooling, etc. It's just better for society overall, as far as I can tell.

snowdragon
Originally posted by Scribble
The UK and Canadian models are definitely superior to the US one. I don't see why, as a developed people, we can't provide healthcare as a right whilst also having private healthcare for those who can or want to pay. Same as schooling, etc. It's just better for society overall, as far as I can tell.

The smarter part of the discussion isn't if we should do it , it's how we do it. That is something if done well and communicated clearly would be a huge win for the US. Unfortunately politics tends to cloud the issue and create sides where no one really wins.

Scribble

cdtm
According to someone who works in the drug industry, Obamacare wouldn't have done much for core problems like, say, a hospital overpaying for anti-venom by 3000%, then moving the zero over so a patient needs to mortgage their home to afford it. Meanwhile, you can buy the same stuff for 100 dollars in Mexico.

snowdragon
Originally posted by cdtm
According to someone who works in the drug industry, Obamacare wouldn't have done much for core problems like, say, a hospital overpaying for anti-venom by 3000%, then moving the zero over so a patient needs to mortgage their home to afford it. Meanwhile, you can buy the same stuff for 100 dollars in Mexico.

Thats because it didn't correct the issue of the contracts between insurance providers and the providers themselves.

It attempted to minimize the loss to the consumer but it didn't do a good job in dealing with the money itself.

BackFire
It's worth noting when discussing Obamacare that the original idea was to implement a public option into the system, thereby allowing basically anyone to buy into medicare if they so wished. They were, I believe, one vote short on this, so they had to scrap that part of it.

samhain
Originally posted by Scribble
I don't see why, as a developed people, we can't provide healthcare as a right whilst also having private healthcare for those who can or want to pay.


I'm not sure that's the answer, if private healthcare were to be outlawed then it would improve universal healthcare IMO as rich or poor you'll be treated largely the same, The impetus would be on everyone to opt in to this as your money wont save you.

Eternal Idol
Originally posted by samhain
I'm not sure that's the answer, if private healthcare were to be outlawed then it would improve universal healthcare IMO as rich or poor you'll be treated largely the same, The impetus would be on everyone to opt in to this as your money wont save you.

I agree with this idea. Many people would call it un-American (a term I ****ing loathe, because it assumes the status quo is the best way), but most are getting milked by private insurance companies and would go bankrupt after severe medical problems, while the wealthy are largely unaffected by the costs. It's stupid not to support such a system, but and , I guess.

Scribble
Originally posted by samhain
I'm not sure that's the answer, if private healthcare were to be outlawed then it would improve universal healthcare IMO as rich or poor you'll be treated largely the same, The impetus would be on everyone to opt in to this as your money wont save you. Whilst that could be true, I disagree as a baseline with limiting the market when it comes to healthcare; I think it'd actually stifle it and not allow it to develop as quickly as it could, technologically (among other things). Also, I doubt the current system could turn into your proposed system without decades of reformation first.


Whilst I draw the line at private police forces and prisons, having a private side to healthcare seems fair to me.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I agree with this idea. Many people would call it un-American (a term I ****ing loathe, because it assumes the status quo is the best way), but most are getting milked by private insurance companies and would go bankrupt after severe medical problems, while the wealthy are largely unaffected by the costs.

Yeah, pretty sure we fought a bloody war against the British because the British were bleeding us of our money and not giving us much in return.

Seems American healthcare insurance companies are actually unamerican. hmm

darthgoober
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, pretty sure we fought a bloody war against the British because the British were bleeding us of our money and not giving us much in return.

Not really. I mean yeah the British did technically impose a lot of taxes on us, but they knew weren't exactly wealthy so the Tea Tax was the only one they insisted that we pay. And honestly... they deserved to milk quite a bit of money from us. The whole reason they started with the severe taxes is because America disobey British orders and attacked France which also forced the British to go to war with them. That's also why they started restricting our access to guns. When you get right down to it, our founding fathers were pretty much assholes...

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, pretty sure we fought a bloody war against the British because the British were bleeding us of our money and not giving us much in return.

Seems American healthcare insurance companies are actually unamerican. hmm
No, not really. Brits lowered the taxes in response to colonist protest.

It's not that the taxes were too high, it's that we were taxed, without representation.

In summary, if you want to apply law to people, you need to give them a say in what the law is.

darthgoober
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
No, not really. Brits lowered the taxes in response to colonist protest.

It's not that the taxes were too high, it's that we were taxed, without representation.

In summary, if you want to apply law to people, you need to give them a say in what the law is.
From what I've heard, even the lack of representation wasn't totally Britain's fault. Ben Franklin was in communication with Britain and wasn't telling them about how pissed people were over here. He pretty much always acted like things were hunky dorey right up until the Boston Tea Party.

At least that's what I heard from a guy on Cracked.com. It's very possible that using pushing a skewed perspective of the whole thing.

dadudemon
Originally posted by darthgoober
Not really. I mean yeah the British did technically impose a lot of taxes on us, but they knew weren't exactly wealthy so the Tea Tax was the only one they insisted that we pay. And honestly... they deserved to milk quite a bit of money from us. The whole reason they started with the severe taxes is because America disobey British orders and attacked France which also forced the British to go to war with them. That's also why they started restricting our access to guns. When you get right down to it, our founding fathers were pretty much assholes...

No, the British were taxing the colonials and the colonials were not getting much in return, similar to how many view insurance:

https://www.hoover.org/research/colonial-roots-american-taxation-1607-1700


And the British thought that the Americans must pay for the 10,000 garrisoned troops that remained in the colonies after the French and Indian War:



https://www.thoughtco.com/why-britain-attempted-tax-american-colonists-1222028

Colonial taxes:
Taxes to pay for protection in case a situation comes up to where you need assistance.

American Health Insurance:
Insurance to pay for protection in case a situation comes up to where you need assistance.


And taxation without representation is what got the British into hot water. As I've posted about MANY times, the majority of Americans are not represented in the government.

Here it is again:
https://i.imgur.com/xE11AHm.gif



That's taxation and Health Insurance policy without representation.

Here's another fact for you: a majority of Americans now want universal healthcare:

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/383015-poll-slim-majority-of-americans-support-single-payer-health-care


As time goes on, this margin keeps growing.

darthgoober
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, the British were taxing the colonials and the colonials were not getting much in return, similar to how many view insurance:

https://www.hoover.org/research/colonial-roots-american-taxation-1607-1700


And the British thought that the Americans must pay for the 10,000 garrisoned troops that remained in the colonies after the French and Indian War:

Of course didn't get much out of it. The taxes weren't levied as a cost for services that were currently being rendered, the taxes were restitution for pulling Britain into a costly war with France. They expected us to pay them back some of what they'd already spent, we'd already received the services we were paying for during the war. It's similar to the difference between mowing the lawn in order to get one's allowance and mowing the lawn to work off the cost of you breaking the TV.

DarthSkywalker0
The US healthcare system is superior to any Single Payer system of comparable size.

Costs of Universal Healthcare:

Before diving into the costs of health care, we should at least establish a time horizon for the analysis. Most studies, including the one Sanders, cites on his website use a 10-year gap.

Analyses conducted on the costs of Bernie Sanders healthcare plan:

Friedman: 13.8 trillion(2017-2026)

Thorpe: 24.3 trillion(2017-2026)

Mercatus Center: 27.7 trillion(they refer to this as a conservative estimate, likely more)(2019-2028)

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: 31 trillion(2017-2026)

Urban Institute(best study): 32 trillion(2017-2026)

It is also worth noting that Sanders only cites Friedman's analysis on his website. Despite, most academics disapproving of it and the lack of peer review. Why is the Friedman report inaccurate?

1. Friedman assumes that that states will continue to pay for Medicare and CHIP after the elimination of those programs.
2. He severely exaggerates savings from Single Payer.
3. Inaccurately assesses additional associated with the removal of cost-sharing.
4. Provider savings are unrealistic.
More on this topic here: http://prospect.org/article/why-sanders%E2%80%99s-single-payer-plan-would-cost-more-his-campaign-says

Due to these facts, we can dismiss Friedman's two-page invoice and focus on the other numbers cited. What is the cause of the discrepancy between Thorpe(off-hand analysis) and the Urban Institute(peer-reviewed published report)? Look at pg.11&12 of the Institute's study for more information: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/sanders-single-payer-health-care-plan-effect-national-health-expenditures-and-federal-and-private-spending/view/full_report

For the reasons discussed there, I will rely on the Urban Institute as my primary source, when comparing costs. I also want to address one more detail, before continuing. Bernie Sanders' smug video. The Washington Post, of all people, fact-checked this claim. I will briefly report their findings. Sanders manipulates the principle of charity when thanking the Koch brothers. To quote the Post,



Blahous even notes this in the study, but Sanders ignores that fact. The post concludes,



So, in reality, the increase in national health expenditures is close to the one provided in the Urban Institute's study(6.6 trillion). The next two parts will be on healthcare quality and debunking bullshit.

DarthSkywalker0
BTW, the 6.6 trillion is over a ten year period between 2017-2026. In all likelihood, this number would continue to increase.

dadudemon
Originally posted by darthgoober
Of course didn't get much out of it. The taxes weren't levied as a cost for services that were currently being rendered...

AHA! Gotcha!

So it IS like American's Health Insurance system! aaahahahahahahahaha

evil face evil face evil face evil face evil face evil face evil face evil face evil face

Mission "darthgoober Freedom" accomplished.


If you didn't read my post and then laugh, roll your eyes, or say, "Sh*t, d*mmit, f***!", then I didn't "mission accomplish" my invasion into your mind.

darthgoober
Originally posted by dadudemon
AHA! Gotcha!

So it IS like American's Health Insurance system! aaahahahahahahahaha

evil face evil face evil face evil face evil face evil face evil face evil face evil face

Mission "darthgoober Freedom" accomplished.


If you didn't read my post and then laugh, roll your eyes, or say, "Sh*t, d*mmit, f***!", then I didn't "mission accomplish" my invasion into your mind.
Nope, 'fraid that's not what I thought when I read it lol. I was never disputing(or even discussing) any similarities between the revolutionary war and our current health care system, I was only discussing the British's motivation for the high taxes... sorry to get your hopes up lol.

Although, I actually do appreciate the likening you bring up, as it further cements that my principals are pretty consistantly applied since I'm against a more socialized heath care system big grin

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
The US healthcare system is superior to any Single Payer system of comparable size.


I would prefer you delete the "comparable size" qualifier because I don't think anything else out there is of comparable size. Far larger systems exist like China (not single payer). Far smaller systems exist like Singapore's.

In what way is the US Healthcare system superior to any Single Payer or Universal Healthcare systems, out there?


Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Costs of Universal Healthcare:

Before diving into the costs of health care, we should at least establish a time horizon for the analysis. Most studies, including the one Sanders, cites on his website use a 10-year gap.

Analyses conducted on the costs of Bernie Sanders healthcare plan:

Friedman: 13.8 trillion(2017-2026)

Thorpe: 24.3 trillion(2017-2026)

Mercatus Center: 27.7 trillion(they refer to this as a conservative estimate, likely more)(2019-2028)

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: 31 trillion(2017-2026)

Urban Institute(best study): 32 trillion(2017-2026)


...

For the reasons discussed there, I will rely on the Urban Institute as my primary source, when comparing costs.

Okay, fair.


Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
So, in reality, the increase in national health expenditures is close to the one provided in the Urban Institute's study(6.6 trillion). The next two parts will be on healthcare quality and debunking bullshit.


Okay, so what about the United States healthcare costs?


1. As a percent of GDP: 18%

Also, no one uses PPP so that's just nominal GDP, I think. But I could not verify.

2. Per Capita: $10,348

3. Healthcare Outcomes in the United States:
We do anywhere from decent to atrocious compared to our peers:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-healthcare-comparison-20170715-htmlstory.html#

And here's a recent study:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2674671




Now, correct me if I'm wrong, the US is doing very terribly with respect to our spending on healthcare. We should have significantly better outcomes than our peers considering how much more we spend, per capita, right?

DarthSkywalker0
@DDM, I'll address in the next post. I appreciate that someone actually reads my shit. Cheers man. By comparable size, I mean above 10 million.

Emperordmb
PFFFFTTTTT

You either just parrot what your parents say, or go against the grain just to be an edgelord.

You don't have a true valid opinion like your elders on here.

BackFire
Plus he's a jew.

cdtm
Jooooo! mad 1EFA5p4WwXQ

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Emperordmb
PFFFFTTTTT

You either just parrot what your parents say, or go against the grain just to be an edgelord.

You don't have a true valid opinion like your elders on here. Or he's read an article or book on it which he plagiarises. Not that I have a problem with plagiarism online to be fair, almost everyone does it. The days of citation in the time of fake news on message boards is long gone, in fact, it was going out around the time DS0 was being born and surely it's "truly valid" DMB?

DarthSkywalker0
Plagiarism wtf.

dadudemon
Post a photo of yourself in class, Kurk. Take a selfie. Not kidding.

Flyattractor
Welcome To KMC.

dadudemon
Originally posted by BackFire
Just because you didn't release the info at the time of your banning does not mean I knew you would never release the info. I had no way of knowing what you were planning on doing, so the ban was put in place regardless.

Also doxing is really one of the only things that are strictly enforced on this site, it's a big no-no. Plus you'd already been banned for it before.

But you're back now, and I'll tell you what, I won't bother banning you again just so long as you keep whatever information you found to yourself and not post it on the site. Not like it would matter anyways, you'd just make more sock accounts. No point wasting my time. Anyways, welcome back.


Wow, nice. thumb up

BackFire
I should also add that "posting it on the site" means sharing it with other members, especially in a manner that hints that there is intent to embarrass or insult. Just keep whatever you found to yourself and you can stay.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by BackFire
I should also add that "posting it on the site" means sharing it with other members, especially in a manner that hints that there is intent to embarrass or insult. Just keep whatever you found to yourself and you can stay. thumb up

Flyattractor
I post such threads all the time and Backfire turns a blind eye because MUh LEFTY PULLTICS!!!!!!
thumb up


True. Very True.

BackFire
I'm glad we're all in agreement.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Glad you're good, Bada will be fine as long as you don't Dox people Kurk, he's a reasonable guy and I'm sure you are too. Nice to hear everything is going well for you.

hmm

Papa Whirly can be a nice guy at times.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.