Healthcare Part II

[TerraPrime]

That's always been a funny defense of the American system. "You have huge wait times in Canada and Britain." There may some truth to this but those criticizing from that angle don't usually seem to take into consideration the times we have in the US.

The "wait time" argument has been debunked and addressed in numerous way, but it does not want to go away, because it's an easy rallying cry.

All I've got to say is that for several millions, or tens of millions, of Americans, the "wait time" right now is "indefinite." The calculation of average wait time for Americans to access health care is, certainly, not taking into account of these indefinite wait times. I double-dog fucking dare anyone to challenge this point.

[Aemon Stark]

I don't know whether they're running it because it's topical, but Peachtree is showing John Q. now - proof that no matter how valid the message, the ham-fisted, earnest approach still manages to fail. Why is it that serious social problems are inevitably reduced to hackneyed hostage situations in movies?

[Week]

Besides the "it's a Trojan Horse for single-payergovernment take over for every aspect of our society" what other argument is there against [the public option]? Why are options and choices bad?

Get it right. Sheesh.

[Annelise]

Congress should legalize and tax internet gambling to help pay for healthcare reform, says Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

The Oregon Democrat will introduce an amendment in the Senate Finance Committee that would use revenue from taxes on internet gambling to increase subsidies for low-income Americans to purchase health insurance.

The proposal depends on passing into law the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act, which would lift a prohibition on internet gambling while implementing various safeguards to prevent compulsive gambling or underage gambling.

That legislation has already been introduced in the House by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. An accompanying piece of legislation would levy a tax on internet gambling once it is legalized.

PriceWaterHouseCoopers has estimated that taxing online gambling could net the government about $63 billion over 10 years.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...-for-healthcare

What do you guys think.. yea or nay on doing it to raise revenue?

[Shryke]

I don't see a problem with this really.

[Week]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...-for-healthcare

What do you guys think.. yea or nay on doing it to raise revenue?

Kind of funny that MA does not have casinos, yet Barney Frank is the one introducing the bill.

The money needs to come from somewhere, though I'd guess that internet gambling is more likely to hurt the lower classes. Perhaps draw away from lottery money if people choose to gamble in such a way that they can control their fates, or so they think.

Or maybe we should legalize marijuana and tax the hell out of it while cutting down on the war on drugs...has that been discussed on the board before? :P

[mcbigski]

Interesting article in the NYT yesterday about the US Healthcare system.

An American’s life expectancy at birth is about 78 years, which is lower than in most other affluent countries. Life expectancy is about 80 in the United Kingdom, 81 in Canada and France, and 83 in Japan, according to the World Health Organization.

This longevity gap, Dr. Preston says, is primarily due to the relatively high rates of sickness and death among middle-aged Americans, chiefly from heart disease and cancer. Many of those deaths have been attributed to the health care system, an especially convenient target for those who favor a European alternative.

But there are many more differences between Europe and the United States than just the health care system. Americans are more ethnically diverse. They eat different food. They are fatter. Perhaps most important, they used to be exceptionally heavy smokers. For four decades, until the mid-1980s, per-capita cigarette consumption was higher in the United States (particularly among women) than anywhere else in the developed world. Dr. Preston and other researchers have calculated that if deaths due to smoking were excluded, the United States would rise to the top half of the longevity rankings for developed countries.

So despite the drag on life expectancy of ethnic diversity, obesity, and diet, if you exclude smoking deaths, the US would be in the top half for longevity. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Where in the top half, and top half of how many?

(Plus, this is if you magically exclude all smoking deaths, which isn't exactly reality.)

[TerraPrime]

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

So you don't think that having 20 million citizens uninsured qualifies the system as "broke?" Or that the U.S. pays more per capita on health care than just about any other countries? Or that in the U.S., your access to health care is largely tied to your employment? None of these seems "broke" to you?

Also, did the report exclude smoking-related deaths in other countries when making the adjusted comparisons? It's just one report, too, so take that with a grain of salt.

[Week]

So you don't think that having 20 million citizens uninsured qualifies the system as "broke?" Or that the U.S. pays more per capita on health care than just about any other countries?

Or that 20% of health care costs go towards paperwork, administration, etc. where in other developed nations that number is universally (or perhaps nearly universally) below 10%?

[Shryke]

Don't forget that your current system is causing stagnating wages.

[Moshe Goldberg Rubinshteyn]

Interesting article in the NYT yesterday about the US Healthcare system.

So despite the drag on life expectancy of ethnic diversity, obesity, and diet, if you exclude smoking deaths, the US would be in the top half for longevity. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

So, your suggestion to fix healthcare would be to promote smoking in other countries so that the US can rise to the top half in the longevity statistics? As in putting exports subsides for tobacco products in the farm bill? Sounds like a great Washington solution.

[mcbigski]

So you don't think that having 20 million citizens uninsured qualifies the system as "broke?" Or that the U.S. pays more per capita on health care than just about any other countries? Or that in the U.S., your access to health care is largely tied to your employment? None of these seems "broke" to you?

Whether it's 20, 30, or 47 million, it doesn't really bother me. I've never thought it was the government's job to be our mommy. I have my own health insurance policy. It costs me around $500 for three months with a $1,000 annual deductible. Most of those 20 million are healthy and have more than $3,000 per year, they'd just rather buy something else instead of health insurance.

As for the per capita spending, that doesn't really bother me either. We're getting damn good health care overall. And to some extent it's higher as a percentage per capita in the US precisely because total per capita income is higher. We're not going to spend the same percentage per capita for food in the US that India does, for example, and some of that extra spending is going to go to things like healthcare.

I'll concede that some of the extra spending is due to the coupling of health care coverage with employment, which ought to be phased out to make our economy more competitive globally, but single payer isn't the only way to do that and I certainly don't think it's the best. For one, it wouldn't eliminate the problem with cost controls in the current model - most consumers aren't price sensitive because they don't see themselves as paying for the coverage or the services.

Also, did the report exclude smoking-related deaths in other countries when making the adjusted comparisons? It's just one report, too, so take that with a grain of salt.

The impression I got was that they were comparing it to other countries' mortality ex smoking deaths. Wouldn't be much of a statistic if it said (essentially) 'excluding only our dead people, the US mortality rates compare favorably to the rest of the developed world."

[Shryke]

Whether it's 20, 30, or 47 million, it doesn't really bother me. I've never thought it was the government's job to be our mommy. I have my own health insurance policy. It costs me around $500 for three months with a $1,000 annual deductible. Most of those 20 million are healthy and have more than $3,000 per year, they'd just rather buy something else instead of health insurance.

Or have a pre-existing condition. Or a billion other things that could go wrong.

As for the per capita spending, that doesn't really bother me either. We're getting damn good health care overall. And to some extent it's higher as a percentage per capita in the US precisely because total per capita income is higher. We're not going to spend the same percentage per capita for food in the US that India does, for example, and some of that extra spending is going to go to things like healthcare.

Only if you don't include the people who don't have any. Which is calling "fudging the numbers" in the real world.

I'll concede that some of the extra spending is due to the coupling of health care coverage with employment, which ought to be phased out to make our economy more competitive globally, but single payer isn't the only way to do that and I certainly don't think it's the best. For one, it wouldn't eliminate the problem with cost controls in the current model - most consumers aren't price sensitive because they don't see themselves as paying for the coverage or the services.

It creates cost controls if you do it right. There are many ways to do it right. The current US way is not one of them.

[TrackerNeil]

Whether it's 20, 30, or 47 million, it doesn't really bother me. I've never thought it was the government's job to be our mommy. I have my own health insurance policy. It costs me around $500 for three months with a $1,000 annual deductible. Most of those 20 million are healthy and have more than $3,000 per year, they'd just rather buy something else instead of health insurance.

I wonder how much you spend paying for the ER care of the uninsured. That's not about government being "mommy" - whatever that means - but about good money sense.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

There's a very large difference between "government solves everything" and "healthcare is a right and we need to provide it" or even just "the system we have now is both less effective and less efficient over the whole population than other systems we could be using".

[Trebla]

McBigski - we're never going to be able to talk to the "government can solve all problems" crew. I don't know why I haven't stopped trying, but it's almost a losing cause. They feel so fervently that if more of us just paid more in taxes and funded health care for all, we could conquer diabetes and obesity through "prevention", as if people going to the doctor would somehow make them eat right and take care of themselves.

and somehow the "government can solve all problems" crew will never convince you that not all health issues are that person's fault that can be fixed by living right, looking good, and only purchasing items deemed appropiate by Polly Pointers. :) :) :) :)

TV's bad, shoes good, right?? ;)

[Kalbear]

As for the per capita spending, that doesn't really bother me either. We're getting damn good health care overall. And to some extent it's higher as a percentage per capita in the US precisely because total per capita income is higher. We're not going to spend the same percentage per capita for food in the US that India does, for example, and some of that extra spending is going to go to things like healthcare.

I don't understand this at all. Are you seriously saying that it's a win for the US because they have better health care than...India?

The US ranks the lowest among all 1st world nations in their overall health. There are more outbreaks of communicable (and preventable) diseases. The life expectancy is the lowest. The birth mortality is the highest. Obesity is the highest. There are higher rates of odd things like Autism and MS in the US than anywhere in the world - not just among 1st world nations.

How is this 'good' healthcare?

[Kalbear]

McBigski - we're never going to be able to talk to the "government can solve all problems" crew.

Chats, why do you believe that the government can't solve THIS problem? Every other 1st world nation has some form of UHC. All of them pay less for this care than the US. All of them get more actual healthcare coverage for their citizens than the US. All of them pay significantly less in capita spending. All of them have coverage of EVERY citizen.

Why do you believe that somehow the government cannot fix things such that things are equivalent to every single other 1st world nation?

I don't believe that the government can solve all problems, but you'd have to be an idiot to think that the government can't solve a problem that's been demonstrably solved by 20 other nations in a variety of different ways.

[Swordfish]

I don't understand this at all. Are you seriously saying that it's a win for the US because they have better health care than...India?

The US ranks the lowest among all 1st world nations in their overall health. There are more outbreaks of communicable (and preventable) diseases. The life expectancy is the lowest. The birth mortality is the highest. Obesity is the highest. There are higher rates of odd things like Autism and MS in the US than anywhere in the world - not just among 1st world nations.

How is this 'good' healthcare?

how is most of that even RELATED to healthcare?

Are you suggesting that UHC will bring down rates of MS and autism?

Or that it will resolve the issues around obesity?

I don't believe that the government can solve all problems, but you'd have to be an idiot to think that the government can't solve a problem that's been demonstrably solved by 20 other nations in a variety of different ways.

This first came up in a serious way (hilarycare) almost 15 years ago.

if it's as straight forward as you are implying, why hasn't it ALREADY been solved?