Age Cap

[MutantScalper]

Maybe it is because I live in the United States, but I cannot imagine living in a country where I would have to wait so long to get medical stuff done...

At least here, if you have insurance, you can go to your family practitioner and get minor stuff done in about 15 minutes or so....and the emergency rooms are for emergencies so not too much crowding...

The waiting period was only so long because I went to the hospital and there was a line. Usually at the local aid station etc. I'd say it's much shorter.

We have private docs as well, you know. If you want to pay extra for better pain killers when you go to the, say, dentist or something. Our public health care is still very good and the difference isn't IMO that big.

And yes, I know, I shouldn't have gone for bronchitis alone. Then again I didn't know that it was bronchitis or that it was about to end, had it been pneumonia or something I might have taken the antibiotics. Got the thing when I went jogging for a long route with there still being snow on the ground.

 

[Verd1234]

Ah ok, that makes more sense...

I admittedly don't know too much about the Finnish Healthcare system so please forgive my misunderstandings...

 

[MutantScalper]

Maybe it is because I live in the United States, but I cannot imagine living in a country where I would have to wait so long to get medical stuff done...

At least here, if you have insurance, you can go to your family practitioner and get minor stuff done in about 15 minutes or so....and the emergency rooms are for emergencies so not too much crowding...

But if you don't have insurance... shudders

If you can't afford insurance, in MOST cases you can get some version of Medicaid, which costs you nothing, and still have all the benefits of the privately insured. MOST of the 20-30 million uninsured Americans fall into this category. However, several million of those probably choose to be uninsured, due to laziness or choosing to pay as you go. IE, if I'm young and not sick, why pay for insurance. Which I can understand.

"Free" health care is great, until you run out of other people's money. I'd rather pay, then have it taxed right out of my paycheck to the tune of 50% or more.

I usuallly don't argue about what kind of health care system the US should have, doesn't really concern me in any way.

As for the costs though, I will post this.

If however Americans are saying that, say, the public health care for example in Finland is of bad quality then I have to say they are wrong. The problem, if you want to call it that, here in Finland is that the public health care is of so high quality and achieved with a low price that the private health care sector has a difficult time offering something extra that people would be inclined to go for it instead.

 

[Shoveler]

Maybe it is because I live in the United States, but I cannot imagine living in a country where I would have to wait so long to get medical stuff done...

At least here, if you have insurance, you can go to your family practitioner and get minor stuff done in about 15 minutes or so....and the emergency rooms are for emergencies so not too much crowding...

But if you don't have insurance... shudders

If you can't afford insurance, in MOST cases you can get some version of Medicaid, which costs you nothing, and still have all the benefits of the privately insured. MOST of the 20-30 million uninsured Americans fall into this category. However, several million of those probably choose to be uninsured, due to laziness or choosing to pay as you go. IE, if I'm young and not sick, why pay for insurance. Which I can understand.

"Free" health care is great, until you run out of other people's money. I'd rather pay, then have it taxed right out of my paycheck to the tune of 50% or more.

I usuallly don't argue about what kind of health care system the US should have, doesn't really concern me in any way.

As for the costs though, I will post this.

If however Americans are saying that, say, the public health care for example in Finland is of bad quality then I have to say they are wrong. The problem, if you want to call it that, here in Finland is that the public health care is of so high quality and achieved with a low price that the private health care sector has a difficult time offering something extra that people would be inclined to go for it instead.

Cheaper always means better right? Those numbers a bit skewed though as well, comparing a country of 300+ million people and a country of 5 million (Finland, Singapore) is like apples and oranges. IE, it's easier to determine a solution for the masses when the masses are tiny cost wise. The larger a population is the harder it's going to be to take care of everyone. Evan Britain and France only accounting to 60 million each, according to the numbers I could find. The life expectancy bit I mostly attribute to how we eat, we eat like crap, all the time, I'm surprised we live that long. Just to put it in perspective, the US has 260-280 million people that are covered. Probably more than any other country.

But honestly, saying your public health care system is so good that no one would want to pay for private just smacks of dishonesty, especially considering how you described your treatment went, 5-6 hours with a simple problem. The reality is you've already paid (taxes) for the health care that is "free", so why pay again (privately) regardless of the quality. Doesn't sound so great, I would hate to see an actual emergency like a sick child or something. I would have seen the doctor in less than an hour (including the drive) and had a prescription in hand. I don't believe the health care in Finland is BAD, just different, different in a way that is not to MY liking.

So ours is better? Dunno the answer, my experience with Social Health care is limited, but not non-existant. My wife had an emergency in Germany, went to a German hospital, after running probably thousands of dollars (if we were in the US) worth of tests, the bill? 100 euros, was pretty nice. However, my brother in law, whom is German, explained exactly how it is paid. A huge chunk of his pay goes just toward medical. Have you experienced the US health care system?

 

[Sander]

Cheaper always means better right? Those numbers a bit skewed though as well, comparing a country of 300+ million people and a country of 5 million (Finland, Singapore) is like apples and oranges. IE, it's easier to determine a solution for the masses when the masses are tiny cost wise. The larger a population is the harder it's going to be to take care of everyone. Evan Britain and France only accounting to 60 million each, according to the numbers I could find. The life expectancy bit I mostly attribute to how we eat, we eat like crap, all the time, I'm surprised we live that long. Just to put it in perspective, the US has 260-280 million people that are covered. Probably more than any other country.

Generally speaking, increasing scale actually decreases per capita costs. So I'm not buying your theory.

But honestly, saying your public health care system is so good that no one would want to pay for private just smacks of dishonesty, especially considering how you described your treatment went, 5-6 hours with a simple problem. The reality is you've already paid (taxes) for the health care that is "free", so why pay again (privately) regardless of the quality. Doesn't sound so great, I would hate to see an actual emergency like a sick child or something. I would have seen the doctor in less than an hour (including the drive) and had a prescription in hand. I don't believe the health care in Finland is BAD, just different, different in a way that is not to MY liking.

No, this just shows that you don't understand the health care system here. If you show up at a doctor with an emergency like a very sick child, you'll get helped very quickly. If you show up with what might be a broken wrist and might be a sprained wrist, you wait a while because there's simply no priority on it.

So ours is better? Dunno the answer, my experience with Social Health care is limited, but not non-existant. My wife had an emergency in Germany, went to a German hospital, after running probably thousands of dollars (if we were in the US) worth of tests, the bill? 100 euros, was pretty nice. However, my brother in law, whom is German, explained exactly how it is paid. A huge chunk of his pay goes just toward medical. Have you experienced the US health care system?

Does it matter how the money gets to the hospitals? Regardless of method, the actual costs are much lower in Germany than they are in the US.
That doesn't mean that a social healthcare system is automatically better than a private healthcare system, but it does mean that the examples of social healthcare systems are better than the mess of a healthcare system that is (or was) the US healthcare system.

 

[MutantScalper]

About the 5-6 hour wait time, it was the first time I ever had something like that, that's why it stuck out. Partly my own fault though, as I explained.

Have you experienced the US health care system?

Well not personally but I do have couple of relatives who live and have lived there. I once heard the amount of how much the health care insurance was per month or per year or something and it didn't sound like much. Although I wasn't able to fully factor in all the variables of the situation though like tax etc.

Just going by the figures such as was in the image I posted.

 

[Shoveler]

Generally speaking, increasing scale actually decreases per capita costs. So I'm not buying your theory.

Per capita MAYBE, overall cost no. We have 45 million (according to Mutant's numbers) uninsured, they pay nothing now, they will probably pay nothing after being covered as well. Increased costs for everyone else. So I'm not buying your general theory either. We should dump 280 million currently insured to secure 20-30 million uninsured (uninsured as least partly by their own choice). Madness. We have "free" insurance here NOW, it's called Medicaid and it's in all 50 states. Same benefits as someone whom is covered privately.

No, this just shows that you don't understand the health care system here. If you show up at a doctor with an emergency like a very sick child, you'll get helped very quickly. If you show up with what might be a broken wrist and might be a sprained wrist, you wait a while because there's simply no priority on it.

I understand just fine, I said sick, not dying, mutant went in sick, he waited. The sick child (fever and such) would have waited also, low priority. As I said before, my wife was an emergency (in Germany), she was seen quickly. Here even as a non-emergency, she would've been seen quickly, understand?

Does it matter how the money gets to the hospitals? Regardless of method, the actual costs are much lower in Germany than they are in the US.
That doesn't mean that a social healthcare system is automatically better than a private healthcare system, but it does mean that the examples of social healthcare systems are better than the mess of a healthcare system that is (or was) the US healthcare system

If anything you don't understand. The private insurance isn't going away with the health care reform here, if it was and health care was provided for ALL, I'd be more on board, but that is not what is happening. I keep hearing what a mess it is, it will be more so. What they passed is not health care reform, it's not health care for all. What it is, is forcing the 280 million currently insured to pay for the 30 million uninsured. No "free" health care coming my way, or to any one else currently insured. However there are some things I agree with. Such as pre-existing conditions going away. Not a kids fault that they are born with something, so if you change insurance you're screwed and they won't cover it.

BTW, repubs are probably going to kill/gut the Reform Bill. For good or ill, I don't know.

EDIT: BTW2, I saw some numbers a while back about how much doctors are paid in the US compared to other countries. US was the top average, the next was just over half as much. That alone would skew the per capita costs quite a bit. Not that it's that relavent, the costs are what they are. But, that one factor alone pushes ups the per capita cost quite a bit.

 

[Shoveler]

About the 5-6 hour wait time, it was the first time I ever had something like that, that's why it stuck out. Partly my own fault though, as I explained.

I understand, stuff happens, maybe it was a busy day there, who knows.

Well not personally but I do have couple of relatives who live and have lived there. I once heard the amount of how much the health care insurance was per month or per year or something and it didn't sound like much. Although I wasn't able to fully factor in all the variables of the situation though like tax etc.

Just going by the figures such as was in the image I posted.

It's not much, it just comes down to choices. Do I want to be able to choose how much I pay for health care, or do I want the government to choose for me. I'd rather choose. I'd wager so would a large part of the 45 million uninsured we have. I know it's hard to fathom, but some people just will not pay ANYTHING for health care. Even if they have the funds to do so. I know, I was one in my college days, why spend the money, I'm not sick. Had I walked into any ER, would have I been treated being uninsured? The answer is yes. They'll treat virtually anyone, and bill you later. In fact, you get large discounts if you pay cash (no insurance) up 20-25% off. I seen as high as 50%, I work in the medical field, I see it all the time.

Shov

 

[Sander]

Per capita MAYBE, overall cost no. We have 45 million (according to Mutant's numbers) uninsured, they pay nothing now, they will probably pay nothing after being covered as well. Increased costs for everyone else. So I'm not buying your general theory either. We should dump 280 million currently insured to secure 20-30 million uninsured (uninsured as least partly by their own choice). Madness. We have "free" insurance here NOW, it's called Medicaid and it's in all 50 states. Same benefits as someone whom is covered privately.

From what I know, Medicaid is far inferior. Which would be why the entire system is being overhauled.

Also I don't get your point. I don't care about total costs, I care about per capita costs. Numbers show, your per capita costs are much, much higher than in other countries. How is that better?
Moreover, I cannot fathom how increasing scale will increase costs per capita. How?

I understand just fine, I said sick, not dying, mutant went in sick, he waited. The sick child (fever and such) would have waited also, low priority. As I said before, my wife was an emergency (in Germany), she was seen quickly. Here even as a non-emergency, she would've been seen quickly, understand?

Everyone magically gets seen quickly?
If your wife gets seen with a minor injury quickly that's because someone else is not being seen to quickly - either because they have less money or don't have insurance. Hospitals have to prioritize, and I'd rather they prioritize by severity than by wealth.

If anything you don't understand. The private insurance isn't going away with the health care reform here, if it was and health care was provided for ALL, I'd be more on board, but that is not what is happening. I keep hearing what a mess it is, it will be more so. What they passed is not health care reform, it's not health care for all. What it is, is forcing the 280 million currently insured to pay for the 30 million uninsured. No "free" health care coming my way, or to any one else currently insured.

Actually, making sure that everyone has insurance will probably decrease per capita costs. The problem insurers face right now is that they're insuring the least-healthy part of the population which is forcing costs upward. Because the people who are least likely to fall ill are logically also the ones who are choosing to be uninsured. In other words, insurers are burdened with the least healthy portion of the population. Adding people who are less likely to be unhealthy to the insured populace will mean spreading the costs of the least likely people over a greater number. Hence, insurance will be cheaper for those with major health issues.

Does that remove the choice to not have health insurance? Yes. But this decreases the per capita healthcare costs and more importantly it means that everyone is going to get healthcare if they need it - which I'd argue is a simple human right.

If that's not your thing, that's fine. But to argue that your system is cheaper is nonsense.

Also, don't double post. The Edit button exists for a reason.

 

[Shoveler]

From what I know, Medicaid is far inferior. Which would be why the entire system is being overhauled.

What you know about Medicaid doesn't seem to be much:

Virtually all facilities accept Medicaid, in fact more so than the private insurance I currently hold. And the coverage is 100%. Zero dollars out of pocket for Medicaid holders.

I've seen zero proof that Medicaid is inferior, or the Medicaid patients lack or are restricted health care due to them merely having Medicaid.

Isolated incidents, maybe, but that goes for all insurance types, including private. There are places that don't accept my insurance, and that is their choice, and I'm okay with that. They don't want my business, they won't get it.

Also I don't get your point. I don't care about total costs, I care about per capita costs. Numbers show, your per capita costs are much, much higher than in other countries. How is that better?
Moreover, I cannot fathom how increasing scale will increase costs per capita. How?.

In a general sense maybe be you'd be right about scaling cost. You were referring to the US health care multiple times if I recall. See your comment below, I'll point it out for you.

If your wife gets seen with a minor injury quickly that's because someone else is not being seen to quickly - either because they have less money or don't have insurance. Hospitals have to prioritize, and I'd rather they prioritize by severity than by wealth.

Again you don't understand, due to arrogance maybe?
A. She wasn't injured.
B. It wasn't minor.

Every hospital I've ever been in here prioritize by severity, always.

We've been to the ER twice here in the US also and to the hospital in general multiple times, she didn't wait more than 15 minutes each time. Because we had insurance? Because we are independantly wealthy? No because there was no one there in the waiting area. All other patients we saw were being treated already.

The problem insurers face right now is that they're insuring the least-healthy part of the population which is forcing costs upward. Because the people who are least likely to fall ill are logically also the ones who are choosing to be uninsured. In other words, insurers are burdened with the least healthy portion of the population. Adding people who are less likely to be unhealthy to the insured populace will mean spreading the costs of the least likely people over a greater number. Hence, insurance will be cheaper for those with major health issues.

This is why it will go up per capita, but you're assuming they can't afford it, or are the least healthy. Large assumptions to make. Probably millions of college kids here are uninsured, probably the most healthy we have, don't want to spend what spare money they have on health cost, while not sick. I see it all the time.

Does that remove the choice to not have health insurance? Yes. But this decreases the per capita healthcare costs and more importantly it means that everyone is going to get healthcare if they need it - which I'd argue is a simple human right.

We have health care available for all now, it's Medicaid, virtually all health facitlities accept it. Some even with glee, guaranteed pay.

If that's not your thing, that's fine. But to argue that your system is cheaper is nonsense.

Ah, the inevitable cheap shot that I don't care about sick or poor people. It always comes down to that, I thought better of you.

I help the poor and sick on a daily basis it is my job. I don't care or know for the most part what their finances are or insurance info is we take care of them all the same, I don't do billing, I do health care. I also do mission trips to Honduras, as well as send personal aid to Honduras at my own expense, my wife is from Honduras, I felt an immediate attachment for the people from my first visit.
When was your last mission trip? Thanks again for assuming. Oh and before the inevitable "it's your job", these trips are of my own volition. And I was happy to do all of it, then next trip is in December. No one knows the needs of the people more than I. I've seen it all, the dirty and ugly of it.

And at what point did I say it our SYSTEM was cheaper. Again assuming.

BTW, I recommend helping the poor at any time, regardless of where they're from, because it's the right thing to do. It changed my view of life dramatically. What I don't agree with is the method in which the reform is happening here. As I said, private insurance is not going away, so what's getting reformed? The Reforms should provide coverage for everyone the same, not just the uninsured and leave me paying my private insurance AND public insurance for others. All the same. Too much to ask? I guess so.

 

[Sicblades]

Ohh Cannnnaaaaadaaaaaaaaaa.

Why you would go to a Hospital to get a maybe sprained wrist is beyond me. Your family doctor can make a cast quite simply (if it was broken) and the most you'd have to wait is 30 mins. And the elderly are being accused of abusing the system? Gimme a break.

Also; what sander said.

 

[Sander]

In a general stance maybe you'd be right about scaling cost. You were referring to the US health care multiple times if I recall. See your comment below, I'll point it out for you.

That's not an answer to my question. You claim increasing scale will increase costs per capita in the US Health Care system. How?

Again you don't understand, due to arrogance maybe?
A. She wasn't injured.
B. It wasn't minor.

You're not reading, due to stupidity maybe? You said that your wife would be helped immediately even if it was minor. Let me quote that for you:
"Here even as a non-emergency, she would've been seen quickly, understand?"
Yes? So if your wife is being seen quickly as a non-emergency, that happens because someone else isn't getting the care.
Unless you have a much bigger nurse/doctor-to-people ratio.

And from what I know of the American healthcare system there certainly is prioritization by wealth/private health insurance. Not in critical situations, but in non-critical situations. That doesn't mean they don't prioritize by severity as well.

This is why it will go up per capita, but you're assuming they can't afford it, or are the least healthy. Large assumptions to make.

No, I'm assuming that the people who are most likely to be insured are the ones who are least likely to be healthy. That's a very safe assumption to make, it's based on simple risk assesment: people who view themselves as being unlikely to

The people who are insured right now are very likely to be the people who are either health risks or are relatively rich and can hence easily afford healthcare. Because the health risks are in the pool of insured people, that pushes up the costs for insurers. By forcing people who are less likely to be health risks, you spread the cost of the riskiest people over a much larger populace - hence decreasing costs per capita.

Probably millions of college kids here are uninsured, probably the most healthy we have, don't want to spend what spare money they have on health cost, while not sick. I see it all the time.

What? That only reinforces my point. Please go back and re-read what I wrote.

We have health care available for all now, it's Medicaid, virtually all health facitlities accept it. Some even with glee, guaranteed pay.

Medicaid is extremely expensive relative to other similar systems. That's a major problem.

Ah, the inevitable cheap shot that I don't care about sick or poor people. It always comes down to that, I thought better of you. I help the poor and sick on a daily basis it is my job (I don't care or know for the most part what their finances are or insurance info is we take care of them all the same, I don't do billing, I do health care), and do mission trips to Honduras, as well as send personal aid to Honduras at my own expense (my wife is from Honduras, I felt an immediate attachment for the people from my first visit). Thanks again for assuming.

Ehm, I appreciate that you feel all indignant about this but I have no idea where you think I said you don't care about people. Please reserve your indignation for people who actually deserve it.

And at what point did I say it our SYSTEM was cheaper. Again assuming.

So ehm...what is your point, then? Because I thought you were saying that the current US system is better. It's a lot more expensive, and the results don't seem to be there in terms of health either: see life expectancy.

BTW, I recommend helping the poor at any time, regardless of where they're from, because it's the right thing to do. It changed my view of life dramatically. What I don't agree with is the method in which the reform is happening here. As I said, private insurance is not going away, so what's getting reformed? The Reforms should provide coverage for everyone the same, not just the uninsured and leave me paying my private insurance AND public insurance for others. All the same. Too much to ask? I guess so.

I'm not saying these reforms are perfect by any means and they could be a lot better - by, for instance, incorporating private insurance in the same system. But the big step in the right direction in my mind, is making sure that everyone is insured.

 

[Shoveler]

That's not an answer to my question. You claim increasing scale will increase costs per capita in the US Health Care system. How?

By adding 45 million people, a lot of which could be high risk. Assuming that all 45 million are mostly healthy is not a safe assumption.

Yes? So if your wife is being seen quickly as a non-emergency, that happens because someone else isn't getting the care.

Again your assuming other people are being by-passed. I haven't experienced that at all. Patients usually being seem quickly and efficiently is my experience.

And from what I know of the American healthcare system there certainly is prioritization by wealth/private health insurance. Not in critical situations, but in non-critical situations. That doesn't mean they don't prioritize by severity as well.

What you "know" about it seems sensationalized, and what you have experienced minuscule.

No, I'm assuming that the people who are most likely to be insured are the ones who are least likely to be healthy. That's a very safe assumption to make, it's based on simple risk assesment: people who view themselves as being unlikely to

So if they're not most unhealthy group, why the out cry? They can work and get insurance, ah, but they choose not to, at least a few million of them anyway.

The people who are insured right now are very likely to be the people who are either health risks or are relatively rich and can hence easily afford healthcare. Because the health risks are in the pool of insured people, that pushes up the costs for insurers. By forcing people who are less likely to be health risks, you spread the cost of the riskiest people over a much larger populace - hence decreasing costs per capita.

My argument is the reverse, I'd say that it would increase per capita to insure THAT SPECIFIC GROUP OF 45 million people, because with some exception (college kids), people that haven't had insurance in years probably have medical conditions stacking up.

Medicaid is extremely expensive relative to other similar systems. That's a major problem.

Maybe, but to imply it's inferior medically, is just plain wrong and misguided.

Ehm, I appreciate that you feel all indignant about this but I have no idea where you think I said you don't care about people. Please reserve your indignation for people who actually deserve it.

This.

Does that remove the choice to not have health insurance? Yes. But this decreases the per capita healthcare costs and more importantly it means that everyone is going to get healthcare if they need it - which I'd argue is a simple human right.

If that's not your thing, that's fine. But to argue that your system is cheaper is nonsense.

If what's not my thing? Simple human rights? Of course it is, the indignation was deserved. Call me whatever mis-giving you want, I could care less about that, I've been called em all. But caring about people I do so whole-heartedly. You didn't answer if you've given of yourself?

So ehm...what is your point, then? Because I thought you were saying that the current US system is better. It's a lot more expensive, and the results don't seem to be there in terms of health either: see life expectancy.

The current US system is better, the Reforms will in effect create a situation were we have both systems in place. If you have private insurance the government won't cover you. Others that don't have private insurance will have mandated tax payer coverage. Both systems running at the same time will not be cheaper, it will cost more.

I'm not saying these reforms are perfect by any means and they could be a lot better - by, for instance, incorporating private insurance in the same system. But the big step in the right direction in my mind, is making sure that everyone is insured.

That I could agree with, but not having them covered under the same plan just seems wrong.

EDIT: Most of this is a moot point anyway, it's highly likely the Republicans are going to repeal. Which is a shame, there are aspects I like, the pre-existing conditions going away for ever being one of them.

 

[Sander]

By adding 45 million people, a lot of which could be high risk. Assuming that all 45 million are mostly healthy is not a safe assumption.

I'm not assuming they're all healthy at all - I'm assuming that they are on average more healthy than those with insurance. Which is a safe assumption, as I've explained.

Again your assuming other people are being by-passed. I haven't experienced that at all. Patients usually being seem quickly and efficiently is my experience.

Could be. Could be that's because of the hospital you go to (you noted not all hospitals accept your insurance, plus I bet hospital quality changes per hospital). Extrapolating that overall your hospitals are efficient because you got helped efficiently is a rather big jump.

The point is that I don't see how American doctors and nurses on average would be more efficient than those in other countries. So unless you have a much greater doctors/nurses-to-people ratio. Which could be the case, but I doubt it.

I'm sure with the lure of money from top-level hospitals those are more efficient, but I'm looking at the system as a whole here, not the top percentile.

What you "know" about it seems sensationalized, and what you have experienced minuscule.

Yes, and what you have experienced cannot be comprehensive for the entirety of the American healthcare system either.

So if they're not most unhealthy group, why the out cry?

Two reasons:
1) Catastrophic injuries and illnesses can create huge debt, and that debt can ruin people's lives. Catastrophic incidents are rare but they are problematic.
2) People avoiding health care because they don't have health insurance - that's a problem too.

They can work and get insurance, ah, but they choose not to, at least a few million of them anyway.

Employers don't always provide healthcare (at least they didn't used to, I'm not sure if recent legislation has changed that). And to characterize the legions of unemployed in the US as not willing to work is bullshit - a lot of them simply cannot find work because there is no work.

My argument is the reverse, I'd say that it would increase per capita to insure THAT SPECIFIC GROUP OF 45 million people, because with some exception (college kids), people that haven't had insurance in years probably have medical conditions stacking up.

I think that's a completely baseless assumption. And even if that is true, it would only create a temporary spike in costs, while the longterm effect may still be an overall reduction in costs.

This.

Does that remove the choice to not have health insurance? Yes. But this decreases the per capita healthcare costs and more importantly it means that everyone is going to get healthcare if they need it - which I'd argue is a simple human right.

If that's not your thing, that's fine. But to argue that your system is cheaper is nonsense.

If what's not my thing? Simple human rights? Of course it is, the indignation was deserved. Call me whatever mis-giving you want, I could care less about that, I've been called em all. But caring about people I do so whole-heartedly.

I didn't mean to imply that you don't care about people. I explained my point of view and my point was that it's fine if you feel differently - if you don't think that's a basic human right or if you feel that people should take care of that themselves. It wasn't meant as a "you don't care about poor people" slight, something you seem awfully defensive about.

You didn't answer if you've given of yourself?

I live in a country where everyone has health insurance and those who need it get financial aid.

I pay taxes like everyone else. That's how my money helps others.

The current US system is better, the Reforms will in effect create a situation were we have both systems in place. If you have private insurance the government won't cover you. Others that don't have private insurance will have mandated tax payer coverage. Both systems running at the same time will not be cheaper, it will cost more.

It might, it might not. I haven't seen conclusive evidence either way, but I would put money on this reform proving beneficial financially in the long term (30-years+).

 

[SimpleMinded]

Good lord, thanks for handling this one Sander, there's so much to refute it makes my head hurt.

While the current set-up in the us through the reform might cost the us more (not fully sure why it will but we'll see), ideally it will serve as a transitional thing until they can get it pushed even further towards a European styled system.

And I don't think the Republicans will be able to repeal it as you said they would. While they are promising to, they likely won't be able to fully control the senate and I'd imagine the drawn out process to repeal it would take an incredibly long time and just waste more of the government's resources.

In the end, their whole claim to repeal it is stupid. Why not instead push for further amendments of it to correct the parts they don't like.

 

[Shoveler]

I'm not assuming they're all healthy at all - I'm assuming that they are on average more healthy than those with insurance. Which is a safe assumption, as I've explained.

This is where the inexperience shows. That assumption is just that, an assumption with no evidence supporting it. The assumption isn't more solid because it's yours.

Could be. Could be that's because of the hospital you go to (you noted not all hospitals accept your insurance, plus I bet hospital quality changes per hospital). Extrapolating that overall your hospitals are efficient because you got helped efficiently is a rather big jump.

The point is that I don't see how American doctors and nurses on average would be more efficient than those in other countries. So unless you have a much greater doctors/nurses-to-people ratio. Which could be the case, but I doubt it.

I'm sure with the lure of money from top-level hospitals those are more efficient, but I'm looking at the system as a whole here, not the top percentile.

That's several hospitals, I've had to more around a bit for job purposes, all hospitals take my insurance, just not all doctors. As in their private practice/clinic.

Yes, and what you have experienced cannot be comprehensive for the entirety of the American healthcare system either.

But a far better estimate than yours.

Employers don't always provide healthcare (at least they didn't used to, I'm not sure if recent legislation has changed that). And to characterize the legions of unemployed in the US as not willing to work is bullshit - a lot of them simply cannot find work because there is no work.

Most employers do offer insurance, of course it's optional to accept or not. They offer it to lure employees to work for them, it's a benefit. Even McDonald's offers it's employees insurance. There is plenty of work, maybe just not the work they would like, but there is plenty of jobs. People are being selective, that is their right, but to say there is no work is a farce.

I think that's a completely baseless assumption. And even if that is true, it would only create a temporary spike in costs, while the longterm effect may still be an overall reduction in costs.

I could say yours is just as baseless. Doesn't necessarily make it so. My assumption is just as valid as yours.

I didn't mean to imply that you don't care about people. I explained my point of view and my point was that it's fine if you feel differently - if you don't think that's a basic human right or if you feel that people should take care of that themselves. It wasn't meant as a "you don't care about poor people" slight, something you seem awfully defensive about.

When someone attacks something dear to you, you get defensive. I'm sure that there are topics that you'd be defensive about as well.

I live in a country where everyone has health insurance and those who need it get financial aid.

I pay taxes like everyone else. That's how my money helps others.

I live in a country where everyone has the opportunity to get health insurance, via job, via family, via the government. They CAN get coverage.

I pay taxes as well, I also help others in that way, Medicaid isn't free after all. However, when I say help, I mean ......the extra....what isn't mandated by the government. I only say this because a smart guy like you could help a lot of people. And it changed my life.

It might, it might not. I haven't seen conclusive evidence either way, but I would put money on this reform proving beneficial financially in the long term (30-years+).

Time will tell.

Obviously not going to change each others minds. But good discussion none-the-less.

Shov

 

[Grin]

Let it go Shoveler. Sander can keep this up for about 5-6 pages, trust me, I've been there.

 

[Dead Guy]

I'm not assuming they're all healthy at all - I'm assuming that they are on average more healthy than those with insurance. Which is a safe assumption, as I've explained.

This is where the inexperience shows. That assumption is just that, an assumption with no evidence supporting it. The assumption isn't more solid because it's yours.

Assuming two persons have the same economic resources, and one of them knows he is at risk of a serious medical condition, and the other one is not, you don't think one of these people is more likely to get health insurance?

It's one of the best assumptions I've seen to be honest.

 

[Shoveler]

I'm not assuming they're all healthy at all - I'm assuming that they are on average more healthy than those with insurance. Which is a safe assumption, as I've explained.

This is where the inexperience shows. That assumption is just that, an assumption with no evidence supporting it. The assumption isn't more solid because it's yours.

Assuming two persons have the same economic resources, and one of them knows he is at risk of a serious medical condition, and the other one is not, you don't think one of these people is more likely to get health insurance?

It's one of the best assumptions I've seen to be honest.

What if you didn't know you were at risk? Many people don't know they're at risk for something before it happens.

If one knew that they had a condition, very likely they wouldn't be able to get insurance after the fact. If you find out before being insured it's too late. It would be considered a pre-existing condition, in which there would be no coverage at all. The insurance company will gladly accept your money don't get me wrong, they just won't cover anything related to that disease though at all. Which is the boat that many of those 45 million people are in. If your diabetic and lost your job/insurance to boot, you got re-hired at another business, and they offered insurance, very likely your diabetes will not be covered. An evil side of the insurance companies.

On a side note, if Sander can go 5-6 pages, then we're half way there! Not that I have that desire, I've said my piece. Not much else to say.

 

[Sander]

This is where the inexperience shows. That assumption is just that, an assumption with no evidence supporting it. The assumption isn't more solid because it's yours.

I've explained the logic and you can't refute it, at all. All you can say is 'ASSUMPTION', when it's a logical, reasoned stance.

Let me repeat the logic so you can see it clearly and attempt to dispell it: The uninsured are on average more healthy than the insured, simply because people who are healthy and/or aren't at risk to fall ill (mostly young adults) don't have a lot of direct incentives to get health insurance.
By insuring everyone you'd include the low-risk cases as well - and you're effectivelys spreading the healthcare cost of the high-risk group (which is insured anyway) over a larger group, hence lightening the burden per capita.

That's several hospitals, I've had to more around a bit for job purposes, all hospitals take my insurance, just not all doctors. As in their private practice/clinic.

Again, there's a sample bias there. You may have moved around, but from the way you're talking I bet you're not living in a ghetto. Hospitals in those areas are a lot more likely to be of poorer quality. And that's just one example, there are a lot of different reasons why your experience isn't automatically representative of the entire system.

There are only two ways in which the US can handle more patients more efficiently than other countries: either there are more doctors and nurses for every patient, or the doctors and nurses are better at their jobs.

The first might be the case because the lack of health insurance for a large part of the population probably discourages them from seeking medical help. I don't see why the second would be the case at all.

But a far better estimate than yours.

Fair enough. Regardless, I'd love to have some numbers on this - unfortunately I don't.

Most employers do offer insurance, of course it's optional to accept or not. They offer it to lure employees to work for them, it's a benefit. Even McDonald's offers it's employees insurance.

So not every employer offers insurance.

There is plenty of work, maybe just not the work they would like, but there is plenty of jobs. People are being selective, that is their right, but to say there is no work is a farce.

A lot of people cannot find work. They really, honestly, cannot find work. Go talk to people in areas like Tampa (12.6% unemployment) and then come back and tell me that everyone can find work again.

I could say yours is just as baseless. Doesn't necessarily make it so. My assumption is just as valid as yours.

Really? Because I've explained my logic and you haven't been offering counter-arguments to it. My logic directly refutes your assumption, too, so you would think that maybe there'd be a point to arguing it.

I live in a country where everyone has the opportunity to get health insurance, via job, via family, via the government. They CAN get coverage.

Only if you buy into the idea that everyone can make something of themselves if they just work hard. I never bought into that: luck and opportunity play a much larger role in life than the American Dream would have you believe.

EDIT:

Actually not necessasarily, if one knew that they had a condition, very likely they wouldn't be able to get insurance after the fact. If you find out before being insured it's too late. It would be considered a pre-existing condition, in which there would be no coverage at all. The insurance company will gladly accept your money don't get me wrong, they just won't cover anything related to that disease though at all. Which is the boat that many of those 45 million people are in. If your diabetic and lost your job/insurance to boot, you got re-hired at another business, and they offered insurance, very likely your diabetes will not be covered. An evil side of the insurance companies.

This is a good point, and more reason to mandate insurance as mandating insurance would prevent insurance companies from doing that.