A short rejoinder to Gordon's nonsens about healthcare - Page 9
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 189
  1. #161
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    17,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3640
    Likes (Received)
    10498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panza View Post
    The problem with the US system is that the insurance business is involved and take a big bite of the cake.
    That's who is paying lobbyists and politicians to keep things as they are.

  2. #162
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    150
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    275
    Likes (Received)
    107

    Default

    Eliminate Health Insurance and make everyone pay out of pocket.

  3. #163
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    gloucester ma
    Posts
    1,914
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    70
    Likes (Received)
    1325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pathogen View Post
    Eliminate Health Insurance and make everyone pay out of pocket.
    yes, of course because dying young is good for the economy

  4. #164
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    10,417
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5843
    Likes (Received)
    4602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gustafson View Post
    yes, of course because dying young is good for the economy
    Horse-puckey.

    A person's genetic dice-roll, life style, "industrial exposures", eating habits, and pure accident - or avoidance-of - are far greater net-net factors in longevity than Health Scare coverage ever was.

    Or ever will be.

    You want long life? Speak to your ancestors about their choice of baby-making partners.

    And your own self about what goes into your mouth and lungs, or onto your skin.

    "Too late now"? Well, yes. It probably IS!

  5. Likes digger doug, Scottl liked this post
  6. #165
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Wyoming
    Posts
    3,053
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    6660
    Likes (Received)
    4697

    Default

    A couple times a year I just have to drop in on this Frankenstein's monster of a thread to see the familiar screen names of those who always have enough time on their hands to keep recycling the same arguments, often several posts in a row, uninterrupted. Is it possible that everybody on PM is either retired or a fulltime internet poster?

    Now to contribute (?) to the subject: We kept the expensive company-paid Blue Cross/Blue Shield even as other companies dropped employee coverage and left their people to deal with the Obamacare exchanges. We figured it would be worth paying the Cadillac tax just to be able to say the company took care of its employees, and so we did.

    I'm now on Medicare (by law) and out of the group, and have to pay out-of-pocket for supplemental coverage. However, under IRS law the company can reimburse me 100%, free of further taxation. Which it does. So, basically, no change for me personally re healthcare expense over the last 20 years. The cumulative cost to the American taxpayer since I went on Medicare, however, has been close to $500K! Had it not been for MANDATORY enrollment in Medicare, my group policy, purchased by company earnings, would have paid for it instead of the taxpayers—including, presumably, the US citizens on PM. To my libertarian/conservative mind, I was prevented from utilizing the free market by an age-discriminating Federal law. Be that as it may, I'm obviously not going to contest the fairness of it. But does it make me a freeloader?

  7. #166
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    17,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3640
    Likes (Received)
    10498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pathogen View Post
    Eliminate Health Insurance and make everyone pay out of pocket.
    I'm guessing you regard yourself as very healthy or very wealthy or both?

    OTOH I think what you might be suggesting is what most countries have. Tax financed healthcare. Everybody pays. Still, even in those countries some take out extra healthcare through insurance.

  8. #167
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    17,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3640
    Likes (Received)
    10498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldwrench View Post
    A couple times a year I just have to drop in on this Frankenstein's monster of a thread to see the familiar screen names of those who always have enough time on their hands to keep recycling the same arguments, often several posts in a row, uninterrupted. Is it possible that everybody on PM is either retired or a fulltime internet poster?
    I regard it as more an exchange of opinions more than arguments. I think the fewest American realize how universal tax financed healthcare works in almost all other countries.

    If the US system was any good I'd imagine many would want to copy it. Hasn't happened, has it?

  9. Likes DCMotors liked this post
  10. #168
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Illinois
    Posts
    20
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    11
    Likes (Received)
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by car2 View Post
    I stopped reading any threads started by Gordon, someone that thinks the complexity and problems of running a hotdog-stand are the same as that of running, say General Motors has little credibility IMO (cf Denmark (pop <6 million), and US (pop >320 million))--notwithstanding many other reasons.
    Such as? Break it down for us a bit.

    It seems to work just fine in many other parts of the world, unlike our current system, which seems to only benefit a fraction of the population (with bajillions of dollars).

    I can't argue Gordon's logic. If our system was great for all the citizens, it would be adopted all over, but it's obviously not.

  11. Likes Gordon B. Clarke liked this post
  12. #169
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,187
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3906
    Likes (Received)
    3722

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DCMotors View Post
    Such as? Break it down for us a bit.

    It seems to work just fine in many other parts of the world, unlike our current system, which seems to only benefit a fraction of the population (with bajillions of dollars).

    I can't argue Gordon's logic. If our system was great for all the citizens, it would be adopted all over, but it's obviously not.
    The point that seems to be missed is that excessive costs are deeply embedded in our health system and just eliminating the insurers alone won't fix that. Most of the countries with NHS type systems started long ago with much less baggage.

  13. #170
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    11,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    45
    Likes (Received)
    5255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scottl View Post
    The point that seems to be missed is that excessive costs are deeply embedded in our health system and just eliminating the insurers alone won't fix that. Most of the countries with NHS type systems started long ago with much less baggage.
    This defeatist crap again.
    If we had started back when Clinton wanted to fix it we'd be done already.

  14. #171
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    17,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3640
    Likes (Received)
    10498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scottl View Post
    The point that seems to be missed is that excessive costs are deeply embedded in our health system and just eliminating the insurers alone won't fix that. Most of the countries with NHS type systems started long ago with much less baggage.
    How long ago is "long ago" to you? While I`m at it what "baggage"?

    History of the National Health Service (England) - Wikipedia

    Those with the deepest pockets (your politicians?) seem determined not to have a cheaper system beneficial to all. In some ways you ("you" as in plural) are very gullible more than naive.

    Those of you that do pay into your health insurances would almost certainly end up paying less for more than you do now. As it is you (the ones that pay insurance) are also paying for those that don't unless your streets are filled with sick and dying people. I think that'd make headlines in your fake news if it was so.

  15. #172
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    17,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3640
    Likes (Received)
    10498

    Default

    I found these, to put it mildly, informative. Don't know if others think so too but it could be interesting to know what others think.

    The real reason American health care is so expensive - YouTube

    Obamacare in Trump country - YouTube

  16. #173
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Illinois
    Posts
    20
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    11
    Likes (Received)
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scottl View Post
    The point that seems to be missed is that excessive costs are deeply embedded in our health system and just eliminating the insurers alone won't fix that. Most of the countries with NHS type systems started long ago with much less baggage.
    Gotcha, so it boils down to just being that way. Oh well. We can't do anything about it, I suppose.

  17. Likes Gordon B. Clarke liked this post
  18. #174
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    11,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    45
    Likes (Received)
    5255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DCMotors View Post
    Gotcha, so it boils down to just being that way. Oh well. We can't do anything about it, I suppose.
    Yep...
    Conservatives hate and fear change.
    Even if it's change for the better.

  19. #175
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    17,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3640
    Likes (Received)
    10498

    Default

    I find this interesting, to put it mildly.

    Trump Smears UK Healthcare, Then Gets Mauled By Brits - YouTube

  20. #176
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Near Seattle
    Posts
    4,418
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2492
    Likes (Received)
    1108

    Default

    Smearing "conservatives" (or anybody else who disagrees with you) misses a key point (as did the Vox video, keeping in mind Vox is fairly left wing...)

    The biggest political force in US healthcare spending isn't really the entrenched physicians, pharma, and hospitals (though yea verily, they are entrenched.)

    It is the current tax structure around employer provided health insurance. One of the largest tax subsidies in the world, which is in effect paid to an active electoral majority.

    You want single payer, you have to explain to all of the people who get insurance *they like* (whether it's good or not) why THEY should pay MORE (at least visibly more) for a system that mostly improves health insurance for OTHER people. This is AFTER the previous champion of such schemes claimed "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" and nobody will ever believe that bS*** again.

    Yes, go back to 1939 and arrange that employers cannot provide health insurance (or any other compensation other than money, equity, and work environment) and you wouldn't have the current mess. (And I actually favor such rules on compensation, but I'm no more king of the world than anybody else.)

    Also, it's not clear the american constitutional or political structure would have any way of prohibiting private care paid for by private means, and so a "medicare for all system" in which well off people use private doctors and hospitals while the bottom say 50% use the public facilities is a possible, indeed likely outcome. Such an outcome would not actually reduce the % of GDP spent on healthcare in the US, and might not actually improve the access to care for the currently underserved groups. (And the usual point claimed for any national structure health insurance system is to either control national costs or improve coverage to underserved populations - a change that fails to address those issues misses the point.)

    Note that this entire discussion is about "formal" healthcare spending - and doesn't count what americans spend on gyms, pseudo-treatments, legit things like message that are maybe not really necessary, unneeded food supplements, and so forth.

    Also, the Vox video misses the claim that many providers lose money or break even at best on medicare, and "medicare for all" would mean "medicare has to pay more, period". Using national (or state) political authority to set all healthcare prices is NOT a way to assure availability of any such services. Indeed there was a claim that Maryland was going to do this - they either didn't, or it hasn't worked well, otherwise we'd be hearing about it all the time.

    Likewise California, an economy on the scale of some Euro countries, was talking about a stateized healthcare system - and the topic has just disappeared from the media....

    The political party that removes the deductibility of employer provided health insurance, or in any other way makes its costs visceral to employees, will be driven from the national stage. That's why all the talk is about people who are NOT covered by employers - and why all of those schemes suffer from payment problems, cost control problems, sick self selection problems, and the private/public schism I discussed above.

    You have to undo employer provided health insurance to improve the american system, and that is profoundly unfeasible.

    Have a nice day

  21. Likes thermite, Scottl liked this post
  22. #177
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    17,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3640
    Likes (Received)
    10498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bryan_machine View Post
    Smearing "conservatives" (or anybody else who disagrees with you) misses a key point (as did the Vox video, keeping in mind Vox is fairly left wing...)

    The biggest political force in US healthcare spending isn't really the entrenched physicians, pharma, and hospitals (though yea verily, they are entrenched.)

    It is the current tax structure around employer provided health insurance. One of the largest tax subsidies in the world, which is in effect paid to an active electoral majority.

    You want single payer, you have to explain to all of the people who get insurance *they like* (whether it's good or not) why THEY should pay MORE (at least visibly more) for a system that mostly improves health insurance for OTHER people. This is AFTER the previous champion of such schemes claimed "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" and nobody will ever believe that bS*** again.

    Yes, go back to 1939 and arrange that employers cannot provide health insurance (or any other compensation other than money, equity, and work environment) and you wouldn't have the current mess. (And I actually favor such rules on compensation, but I'm no more king of the world than anybody else.)

    Also, it's not clear the american constitutional or political structure would have any way of prohibiting private care paid for by private means, and so a "medicare for all system" in which well off people use private doctors and hospitals while the bottom say 50% use the public facilities is a possible, indeed likely outcome. Such an outcome would not actually reduce the % of GDP spent on healthcare in the US, and might not actually improve the access to care for the currently underserved groups. (And the usual point claimed for any national structure health insurance system is to either control national costs or improve coverage to underserved populations - a change that fails to address those issues misses the point.)

    Note that this entire discussion is about "formal" healthcare spending - and doesn't count what americans spend on gyms, pseudo-treatments, legit things like message that are maybe not really necessary, unneeded food supplements, and so forth.

    Also, the Vox video misses the claim that many providers lose money or break even at best on medicare, and "medicare for all" would mean "medicare has to pay more, period". Using national (or state) political authority to set all healthcare prices is NOT a way to assure availability of any such services. Indeed there was a claim that Maryland was going to do this - they either didn't, or it hasn't worked well, otherwise we'd be hearing about it all the time.

    Likewise California, an economy on the scale of some Euro countries, was talking about a stateized healthcare system - and the topic has just disappeared from the media....

    The political party that removes the deductibility of employer provided health insurance, or in any other way makes its costs visceral to employees, will be driven from the national stage. That's why all the talk is about people who are NOT covered by employers - and why all of those schemes suffer from payment problems, cost control problems, sick self selection problems, and the private/public schism I discussed above.

    You have to undo employer provided health insurance to improve the american system, and that is profoundly unfeasible.

    Have a nice day
    I'm not sure if that is a "reply" to my post #175 or not but why does everything have to be about "left" or "right" to some?

    I wrote that I found the video interesting and not that it was gospel.

    Even in countries that have a "one payer system" there is still private insurance available. My wife and I, for example, have a private insurance that covers us outside our own country as we do travel frequently. The price for this is a just over $100 a year. Travelling and not having this insurance is just plain stupid.

    Many companies here also have private insurance for employees as it often ensures a speedier treatment bearing in mind that companies still have to pay employees when ill.

    It makes no difference to me what the USA does or doesn't do but my point is that some of you should look at how other countries do it. Even the USA might learn something.

    No, you can't do the same but maybe, just maybe, food for thought?

    Healthcare in Denmark - Wikipedia

  23. #178
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Near Seattle
    Posts
    4,418
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2492
    Likes (Received)
    1108

    Default

    My principle goal in starting and commentng in this thread is to illumuniate some of the complex realities of healthcare in the united states. It is about very entrenched positions of money and power and the practical limits of government power, in particular limits of government ability to serve the poor.

    Any plan for improvement, or disimprovement, that is not focused on these issues is side show at best.

  24. Likes Scottl, Bobw liked this post
  25. #179
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    17,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3640
    Likes (Received)
    10498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bryan_machine View Post
    My principle goal in starting and commentng in this thread is to illumuniate some of the complex realities of healthcare in the united states. It is about very entrenched positions of money and power and the practical limits of government power, in particular limits of government ability to serve the poor.

    Any plan for improvement, or disimprovement, that is not focused on these issues is side show at best.
    So "the people" have no hope of getting what they want or need in "the land of the free"? You'd still be a colony with that line of thought.

  26. #180
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,187
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3906
    Likes (Received)
    3722

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DCMotors View Post
    Gotcha, so it boils down to just being that way. Oh well. We can't do anything about it, I suppose.
    The first part of doing anything about it is to look at WHY American health costs are so high. If it is the insurers' fault than why are the "chargemaster" prices so staggeringly high?

    I mentioned in a post that an uninsured friend was billed nearly $1,500 for minor stitches (less than 1 inch) in a cut finger. That's an enormous amount of money for something that involved hours of sitting and waiting and minutes of treatment. Until and unless the root causes of such outrageous pricing are examined in detail switching to a "single payer" system would either result in massive tax increases or rationing of health care.

    Quote Originally Posted by Miguels244 View Post
    Yep...
    Conservatives hate and fear change.
    Even if it's change for the better.
    Keep peddling those tired old lines. Progressives like yourself always try to limit choices and then insist that THEIR way is "change for the better" while dismissing anything that doesn't fit the narrative. I'm in my 60s and remember when most health care was self-pay and was not only affordable but convenient. Doctors made house calls and there were not only plenty of hospitals but also cheaper and even free clinics. Once middlemen got introduced between provider and patient cost began to rise and the trend has accelerated with each growth spurt of "the middlemen" which includes government.

  27. Likes digger doug, Bobw liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •