Healthcare Part II

[Swordfish]

A patient who comes in sooner about a problem - before it becomes really serious - will probably have a better outcome and cost the system less than one who waits until it becomes dire. The economic case is clear enough -

The inherent cost savings of preventative care are a myth that has been pretty much fully debunked.

Unless you disagree with the CBO.

So I would say that the economic case is very clear, namely, it will add cost to the system.

[Shryke]

The inherent cost savings of preventative care are a myth that has been pretty much fully debunked.

Unless you disagree with the CBO.

So I would say that the economic case is very clear, namely, it will add cost to the system.

Except the CBO said in that exact document you are referring to that preventative care was also the most cost effective treatment and provided a net benefit.

[Swordfish]

Except the CBO said in that exact document you are referring to that preventative care was also the most cost effective treatment and provided a net benefit.

:lol:

Preventative care adds a net cost to the system, according to the CBO.

So the economic case is quite clear.

Is there something about that you disagree with, or are you once again simply nipping at my heels for some reason?

;)

[Shryke]

Preventative care adds a net cost to the system, according to the CBO.

So the economic case is quite clear.

I'm pointing out that the economic case is not clear at all and you are taking a small sliver of the report you like and ignoring the rest. You know, the usual bullshit stupidity we get from you due to rampant dishonesty and illiteracy on your part.

The rest of the report says "It may add cost to the system, but that extra cost is the most cost effective way of covering the issue". It also states other external factors can make up for the cost.

Basically, preventative care is the most cost effective way to cover everyone, but it does actually cost more to cover everyone then to just let people die in the street. And that there are many potential benefits to a healthier populace that aren't directly seen in medical costs.

The economic case is only "clear" if you narrow your focus alot.

If you wanna actually talk about economics though, let's go back to employer-provided health care and how you can't find an economist with half a brain who wouldn't say it's one of the worst possible ways to provide health care. It's severely inhibits labour mobility which, if you know anything about economics (you most likely don't though), is a bad thing.

Or how about wage stagnation due to rising health care costs?

[Swordfish]

I'm pointing out that the economic case is not clear at all and you are taking a small sliver of the report you like and ignoring the rest. You know, the usual bullshit stupidity we get from you due to rampant dishonesty and illiteracy on your part.

The rest of the report says "It may add cost to the system, but that extra cost is the most cost effective way of covering the issue". It also states other external factors can make up for the cost.

Basically, preventative care is the most cost effective way to cover everyone, but it does actually cost more to cover everyone then to just let people die in the street. And that there are many potential benefits to a healthier populace that aren't directly seen in medical costs.

So then you would agree, that from a purely economic standpoint, preventative care adds cost to the system yes?

:lol:

Because as a refresher, this is the wquote I responded to that sent you off on your little tangent:

A patient who comes in sooner about a problem - before it becomes really serious - will probably have a better outcome and cost the system less than one who waits until it becomes dire. The economic case is clear enough -

The economic case is only "clear" if you narrow your focus alot.

Like talking about cost you mean?

;)

[Week]

The cost of medical treatment can ruin finances. In fact, medical bills led to 62 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007, according to a report in the American Journal of Medicine.

Completely preventable.

[Shryke]

So then you would agree, that from a purely economic standpoint, preventative care adds cost to the system yes?

No, because your idea of a "purely economical standpoint" is so narrow as to be useless and because you are ignoring the greater implications of the letter. Most of all, the CBO is talking about the cost of universal preventative care vs NO preventative care at all.

From a "purely economical standpoint", the CBO is saying that it would cost more vs doing nothing (ps - the US is not doing nothing right now, they just aren't doing everything either) but that the investment is worth the money spent on it. Ergo, it is a cost effective investment. From a "purely economical standpoint", they say it's a good idea because it provides the best return on investment in health care.

Your position only makes sense if all your trying to do is spend as little as possible. In which case, for you, from a "purely economical standpoint", the best solution is to not have any medical care at all.

But this, like your argument, is stupid. It's just another attempt by you to play the usual "gotcha" game bullshit by cribbing a single sentence from a report and ignoring the rest of the document. You are, essentially, representing everything that is wrong with journalism and politics and you should feel disgusted with yourself.

[TrackerNeil]

I feel as though there's alot of this-or-that stuff going on with this debate. Either government cradles every American to its breast from womb to tomb, or else it abandons them to the winds of fate. Either we have insurance reform and long waits for doctors or no reform and short waits. I think it there is space between these extremes, and it is there we should aim our policy.

Also, from what I can see from the Baucus plan, Americans who get their health insurance through their employers (most people) will be largely unaffected by this reform. Accordingly, I don't understand why those people are so worried.

[Swordfish]

No, because your idea of a "purely economical standpoint" is so narrow as to be useless and because you are ignoring the greater implications of the letter. Most of all, the CBO is talking about the cost of universal preventative care vs NO preventative care at all.

From a "purely economical standpoint", the CBO is saying that it would cost more vs doing nothing (ps - the US is not doing nothing right now, they just aren't doing everything either) but that the investment is worth the money spent on it. Ergo, it is a cost effective investment. From a "purely economical standpoint", they say it's a good idea because it provides the best return on investment in health care.

Your position only makes sense if all your trying to do is spend as little as possible. In which case, for you, from a "purely economical standpoint", the best solution is to not have any medical care at all.

So just sniping at my heels again.

Gotcha!

;)

[Aemon Stark]

The inherent cost savings of preventative care are a myth that has been pretty much fully debunked.

Unless you disagree with the CBO.

So I would say that the economic case is very clear, namely, it will add cost to the system.

An interesting comment, considering I wasn't talking about preventative care, loosely defined, but ensuring that people have access to primary care in the community on an ongoing basis. It will keep some of the more time-consuming and difficult patients out of the ED.

Oh, and once again, UHC does not generally mean anything more than basic dental and vision (and even then, not necessarily for everyone). I have private insurance for both which costs around $250 a year through my school. Maybe it's a bit less than that. I usually wait a day or two (or even a week, gasp!) for a standard doctor's visit, and I have some current referrals for some tests which I can see to anytime - just need to fit them into my schedule. All of that is publicly insured, but the university health clinic has a big list of uninsured services on the wall behind the desk, each with the corresponding price. So this whole wait times issue is, frankly, completely overblown.

[Shryke]

I feel as though there's alot of this-or-that stuff going on with this debate. Either government cradles every American to its breast from womb to tomb, or else it abandons them to the winds of fate. Either we have insurance reform and long waits for doctors or no reform and short waits. I think it there is space between these extremes, and it is there we should aim our policy.

Also, from what I can see from the Baucus plan, Americans who get their health insurance through their employers (most people) will be largely unaffected by this reform. Accordingly, I don't understand why those people are so worried.

Pretty much any serious plan out there being discussed in the US avoids effecting people who currently like their insurance. Mostly because no one wants to step on that landmine.

[tzanth]

If anyone had asked me at that time if I would prefer to be in a system where I could get these services for a nominal cost, but I might have to wait a tad bit longer vs. being in the current system where I could pay dearly, but be seen asap, and in return for paying dearly, get top-notch treatment...I would have chosen the latter.

If you cant afford it, its not much of a choice.

To be honest I dont know much about these most recent plans, except that the republicans seem to be up to their usual bull shit. Frankly its really pissing me off. Why compromise with the bastards when their never going to agree to anything? Why water down our health care when we have (or soon will have) the votes to ignore the nay-sayers? Just pass a real socialized health care plan and get on to other business. :tantrum:

[tzanth]

I was going to say that the Baucus bill to me feels like an incremental approach as opposed to a paradigm shift.

And that's exactly its problem. Passing the Baucus bill would be squandering what might be our only chance to actually FIX health care in this country, rather than just change it a bit.

[Week]

Weekapaug - The study you posted has come under a decent amount of criticism because it was done by Physicians for a National Health Plan. They want single-payer so people say that their motives are questionable on that study. I'm not saying that I am sure that they are wrong. Just that it's always fair to ask questions about the source of studies.

One of the criticism I read put the actual amount of bankruptcies caused by health costs to be more like 10%. I think this came from the Heritage Foundation who many would also call a very biased source. I think one can argue, however, that no bankruptcies ought to be due to medical costs. Even some of the more free-market reform models I've seen have talked about mandating catastrophic insurance coverage for all.

I agree completely, I did notice myself that the source was a panel of physicians. Regardless, whether the number be 10% (I find that highly unlikely) or 60% (higher than I'd expect, but believable), it is unacceptable for people in our society to be bankrupt due to medical bills.

Frankly, I find it pretty disturbing that there is such a lack of respect and care for people in the US without health insurance. I could go on and on, but it would be primarily a rehash of what Shryke, Aemon, and others have said.

[TerraPrime]

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?

So because we had the 3/5 compromise, we can't possibly manage the Emancipation Proclamation? Or is it that our prohibition against alcohol will doom us to a country where no alcohol will ever be legal?

The health care issue has not been already solved because after the collapse of Clinton's effort, there has been no work put into it until we got a new president who set the item high on his domestic agenda. Bills get passed by the political will of the legistlators. Not only do we have more voters in favor of reform than we did 15 years ago, we also have a different president, a different WH staff, and a different Congress. The political climate is different now than it was 15 years ago.

Also, you're miss-representing the other side by claiming that we say it's straight forward. It is not straight forward by any means. The argument has never been that "this is so easy, why aren't we doing it?" The argument is that offering all of our citizens basic health care is fiscally and politically feasible, because we have had examples of this happening in many other countries. Doing so does not have to bankrupt the country, or drop the quality of care we currently receive (for those of us who can afford health care), or increase our wait time substantially (for those of us fortunate enough to be able to wait for health care), or any number of other possible short-comings touted by the opposition. That's the point in using the examples of other countries, not that what they have achieved was straight forward of easy.

Finally, your argument applies just as well to anything that you want to propose for change. Unless you stake out your position on no reforms at all, incremental or otherwise, then this argument is rather pointless. If you want to point out that UHC is not possible because it if were, it would have happened already, then I can just as easily point out that extending COBRA or Medicaid is impossible, because if it were possible, why don't we see it already? See how silly this argument is?

Re: Chataya

Oh please. Wanting the government to step in to fix the health care problem does not mean that we want the government to fix everything. Seriously. :rolleyes:

[Annelise]

I was going to say that the Baucus bill to me feels like an incremental approach as opposed to a paradigm shift.

Speaking of.. let the haggling begin (anew): http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/59807-f...healthcare-bill

if you read further (I believe the next page after where you got your quote), you'll see that I elaborated off of ztem's point.

Yes, I see it now. If I read it before, I don't know why it didn't stick. Well, I have a better idea of your position now anyway. :)

[Shryke]

I agree completely, I did notice myself that the source was a panel of physicians. Regardless, whether the number be 10% (I find that highly unlikely) or 60% (higher than I'd expect, but believable), it is unacceptable for people in our society to be bankrupt due to medical bills.

Frankly, I find it pretty disturbing that there is such a lack of respect and care for people in the US without health insurance. I could go on and on, but it would be primarily a rehash of what Shryke, Aemon, and others have said.

Considering the majority of studies seem to come in closer to the 50% mark, I wouldn't trust the 10% number at all.

Not that I'd suggest trusting he Heritage Foundation in the first place, but still.

[Swordfish]

Also, you're miss-representing the other side by claiming that we say it's straight forward. It is not straight forward by any means.

I wasn't representing the other side at all actually.

I was responding directly to one persons opinion that anyone who doesn't believe that the federal government can pull this off is obviously an idiot, since other countries do it.

It wasn't a generalization, it was a specific response to a specific comment made by a specific poster.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Swordfish

I wasn't representing the other side at all actually.

I was responding directly to one persons opinion that anyone who doesn't believe that the federal government can pull this off is obviously an idiot, since other countries do it.

It wasn't a generalization, it was a specific response to a specific comment made by a specific poster.

I don't know about that. Here's the context:

Kalbear: 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:

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?

I don't see how you get the idea that Kalbear is arguing that implementing UHC here in the U.S. is straight forward, from what you quoted him on. Just to safe, I checked the entire post from Kalbear, too:

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.

I really don't see how you get the idea that Kalbear thinks this is a straight forward proposal. He's saying that it's been done in other countries, therefore, why does Chataya think that we cannot do this?

But, whatev.

[Swordfish]

Re: Swordfish

I don't know about that. Here's the context:

I don't see how you get the idea that Kalbear is arguing that implementing UHC here in the U.S. is straight forward, from what you quoted him on. Just to safe, I checked the entire post from Kalbear, too:

I really don't see how you get the idea that Kalbear thinks this is a straight forward proposal. He's saying that it's been done in other countries, therefore, why does Chataya think that we cannot do this?

But, whatev.

No, he's saying it's been done in other countries, therefor chataya, or anyone else who doubts it, is an idiot.

If you'd have to be an idiot to even presume to doubt something can be done, then there is certainly at least an implication that it should be a slam dunk.

Acknowledging that it is complicated and that there are a lot of things that could derail it would make calling someone an idiot for questioning it pretty odd, wouldn't you say?

I'm not sure why you feel the need to speak for him, since he's responded himself, but you're right, we're into semantics at this point.....