Health-care exchange sign-ups fall far short of forecasts

eohrnberger · Aug 28, 2016

Helix said:
ok, i'll map it out for you.

and....

View attachment 67206490

the take home is that the VA is an offshoot of an organization that is designed to plan and engage in military actions ordered by politicians, not a properly funded universal health care system. the health care systems in Canada and Europe are a more direct comparison.

The VA is an example of how the US federal government performs in the healthcare providing role. There are no military maneuvers in the VA. Military personnel happen to be the patient population. "VA is an offshoot of an organization that is designed to plan and engage in military actions" has no bearing I can see on the healthcare provided. Please demonstrate if otherwise.

You state that "the health care systems in Canada and Europe are a more direct comparison". Canadian and European governments aren't the US government.

In the VA, as will be in any US federal government provided healthcare, be it single payer or be it socialized medicine, the key point, which you also identified, is the involvement of the US federal government, and therefore the bureaucracy, the bureaucrats, as well as the politicians. A fundamental formula for disastrous results, as have been amply demonstrated by the US federal government performance in the running of the VA.

Why would changing the patient population make such a difference? When the same US federal bureaucracy, the same US federal bureaucrats, as well as the same US federal politicians are involved? Just because?

Helix · Aug 28, 2016

eohrnberger said:
The VA is an example of how the US federal government performs in the healthcare providing role. There are no military maneuvers in the VA. Military personnel happen to be the patient population. "VA is an offshoot of an organization that is designed to plan and engage in military actions" has no bearing I can see on the healthcare provided. Please demonstrate if otherwise.

the VA is the healthcare wing of the US military. it is not a universal healthcare system akin to the Canadian or European models. Medicare is the closest thing we have to that, and even Medicare isn't completely comparable.

eohrnberger said:
You state that "the health care systems in Canada and Europe are a more direct comparison". Canadian and European governments aren't the US government.

no kidding. people in those countries don't go bankrupt due to medical expenses. however, i'm still optimistic that the US can manage to figure out a way to solve problems that were effectively addressed by other first world nations decades ago.

eohrnberger said:
In the VA, as will be in any US federal government provided healthcare, be it single payer or be it socialized medicine, the key point, which you also identified, is the involvement of the US federal government, and therefore the bureaucracy, the bureaucrats, as well as the politicians. A fundamental formula for disastrous results, as have been amply demonstrated by the US federal government performance in the running of the VA.

see above, and previous posts.

eohrnberger said:
Why would changing the patient population make such a difference? When the same US federal bureaucracy, the same US federal bureaucrats, as well as the same US federal politicians are involved?

see above, and previous posts.

eohrnberger · Aug 28, 2016

Helix said:
the VA is the healthcare wing of the US military. it is not a universal healthcare system akin to the Canadian or European models. Medicare is the closest thing we have to that, and even Medicare isn't completely comparable.

no kidding. people in those countries don't go bankrupt due to medical expenses. however, i'm still optimistic that the US can manage to figure out a way to solve problems that were effectively addressed by other first world nations decades ago.

Given the same US federal bureaucracy, the same US federal bureaucrats, as well as the same US federal politicians can perform any better than they have with the VA.

True, they don't go bankrupt, they just die if they get cancer, due to the waiting times and related delay in getting treatment, as happened to a Canadian friend of mine's mother. She died waiting for proper diagnosis and treatment, multiple months waiting.

They hobble along on bad joints while they wait for their turn in the joint replacement surgery waiting line.

Helix said:
see above, and previous posts.

see above, and previous posts.

Helix · Aug 28, 2016

eohrnberger said:
Given the same US federal bureaucracy, the same US federal bureaucrats, as well as the same US federal politicians can perform any better than they have with the VA.

True, they don't go bankrupt, they just die if they get cancer, due to the waiting times and related delay in getting treatment, as happened to a Canadian friend of mine's mother. She died waiting for proper diagnosis and treatment, multiple months waiting.

They hobble along on bad joints while they wait for their turn in the joint replacement surgery waiting line.

a handy resource :

Debunking Canadian health care myths – The Denver Post

eohrnberger · Aug 28, 2016

Helix said:
a handy resource :

Debunking Canadian health care myths – The Denver Post

The story I related was no myth. It was personal experience of someone who I know on a personal basis. Where there's one, there's many, without a doubt.

Your much lauded model isn't as good as you might think.

Last week, I noticed articles and posts on blogs I follow about a study released in the April 2012 issue of Health Affairs that looked at cancer outcomes in the U.S. compared to cancer care in Europe and announced American Cancer Patients Live Longer Than Those in Europe; Higher-Priced Cancer Treatments in US Offer Better Survival:
The United States spends more on cancer care than European countries, but a new study published in Health Affairs suggests that investment also generates a greater “value” for US patients, who typically live nearly two years longer than their European counterparts.
Tomas Philipson, the Daniel Levin Chair in Public Policy at the University of Chicago, and his coauthors found that the cost of cancer treatment in the United States was higher than such care in ten European countries from 1983 to 1999. However, they also found that for most cancer types investigated, US cancer patients lived longer than their European counterparts. Cancer patients diagnosed during 1995-99, on average, lived 11.1 years after diagnosis in the United States, compared to just 9.3 years from diagnosis in Europe.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/cancer-care-in-the-u-s-versus-europe/

For all cancers, Europe had a much lower survival than the US. Survival for prostate cancer in the US is 91.9% compared to 57.1% in Europe - a 34% difference. The difference for breast cancer survival, however, is 10%. In Europe, the western countries generally had higher cancer survival rates: France led survival for rectum and colon cancers, Sweden led for breast cancer (82%), and Austria led for prostate cancer. Eastern Europe, on the other hand, did not perform as well. Slovakia had the lowest survival rates for rectal cancer in men and breast cancer, and Poland had the lowest survival rates for the other studied cancers.

For this study, the researchers divided the UK into four countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Wales saw the lowest 5-year survival for all cancers in the UK. Scotland had the highest survival rates for rectal cancer in women and prostate cancer, while Northern Ireland had the highest for the others. The general trend in cancer survival in the UK, from highest to lowest, was Northern Ireland, Scotland, England, Wales. This held for all cancers except rectal cancer in women and prostate cancer. Differences in survival rates were not as large as in continental Europe, but still ranged from 5.0% in rectal cancer for women (between Scotland and Wales) to 11.0% for colon cancer in women (between Northern Ireland and Wales).
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/115086.php

The more socialized you get, the more government control of the healthcare system, the worse the allocation of resources. All too typical of government performance.

Helix · Aug 28, 2016

eohrnberger said:
The story I related was no myth. It was personal experience of someone who I know on a personal basis. Where there's one, there's many, without a doubt.

Your much lauded model isn't as good as you might think.

The more socialized you get, the more government control of the healthcare system, the worse the allocation of resources. All too typical of government performance.

yeah, we're doing a great job of "allocating resources" when it comes to health care.

US_spends_much_more_on_health_than_what_might_be_expected_1_slideshow.jpg

joG · Aug 29, 2016

katzgar said:
there is not one bit of truth in what you say

That is, indeed, well argued!

Renae · Sep 2, 2016

Helix said:
no, i don't plan to "shut up" about this topic any time soon.

View attachment 67206476

Of course you don't you're stuck in a fantasy belief that Government should control our lives.

Renae · Sep 2, 2016

Helix said:
yeah, we're doing a great job of "allocating resources" when it comes to health care.

View attachment 67206500

You got schooled, the VA is not a military organization, it's a fully civilian one that caters to military Veterans. Run by the Federal government. It's what awaits America if people like you get your way.

katzgar · Sep 2, 2016

Renae said:
Of course you don't you're stuck in a fantasy belief that Government should control our lives.

that comment is pure paranoid hysteria

Helix · Sep 2, 2016

Renae said:
Of course you don't you're stuck in a fantasy belief that Government should control our lives.

false. i'm capable of looking at the health care systems of other countries and comparing them to ours. it might surprise you that at one point about ten years ago, my views on the issue were quite the opposite of what they are now. having to navigate the system in between jobs was quite an eye opener, and it led me to question my beliefs at the time. and thus began my more critical analysis of the US healthcare distribution system.

Helix · Sep 2, 2016

Renae said:
You got schooled,

an interesting aside, but i very rarely see someone who is actually prevailing in a debate post something like that. the reason : they don't really have to do so.

Renae said:
the VA is not a military organization, it's a fully civilian one that caters to military Veterans. Run by the Federal government.

it's health care for those associated with the military in the US, among its other roles. it isn't analogous to first world health care distribution systems which are designed to provide care for all citizens.

Renae said:
It's what awaits America if people like you get your way.

that's your opinion, which is also demonstrably false.

Renae · Sep 2, 2016

Helix said:
false. i'm capable of looking at the health care systems of other countries and comparing them to ours. it might surprise you that at one point about ten years ago, my views on the issue were quite the opposite of what they are now. having to navigate the system in between jobs was quite an eye opener, and it led me to question my beliefs at the time. and thus began my more critical analysis of the US healthcare distribution system.

No you're not. You're patently dishonest about the subject, ignoring serious quality of life issues and disparate reporting methods because they fit the political narrative you believe its best, which is a Government run, single payer system because you think it's a "Right" for people to have other people forced to care for them.

When you can discuss the matter honestly, you'll have some ground to stand on.

Renae · Sep 2, 2016

Helix said:
an interesting aside, but i very rarely see someone who is actually prevailing in a debate post something like that. the reason : they don't really have to do so.

Right.

Helix said:
it's health care for those associated with the military in the US, among its other roles. it isn't analogous to first world health care distribution systems which are designed to provide care for all citizens.

There you are being completely dishonest because the VA actually is the closest thing we have to a Single Payer system in the USA, and it's an abject disaster in many ways. Because it doesn't succeed you claim it's not REALLY what you are asking for, because THIS TIME!!! THIS TIME we'll get it RIGHT!!

Helix said:
that's your opinion, which is also demonstrably false.

No, you are too far into zealous adulation of a failed system's false promise to even know what false and truth are.

Helix · Sep 2, 2016

Renae said:
No you're not. You're patently dishonest about the subject, ignoring serious quality of life issues and disparate reporting methods because they fit the political narrative you believe its best, which is a Government run, single payer system because you think it's a "Right" for people to have other people forced to care for them.

When you can discuss the matter honestly, you'll have some ground to stand on.

we live in a first world society, and other first world societies are handling the health care problem better than we are. i will continue to point that out.

Helix · Sep 2, 2016

Renae said:
Right.

There you are being completely dishonest because the VA actually is the closest thing we have to a Single Payer system in the USA, and it's an abject disaster in many ways. Because it doesn't succeed you claim it's not REALLY what you are asking for, because THIS TIME!!! THIS TIME we'll get it RIGHT!!

i'd argue that Medicare is the closest thing that we have, but it's still not analogous to a real single payer system designed to cover everyone.

Renae said:
No, you are too far into zealous adulation of a failed system's false promise to even know what false and truth are.

Canadian single payer is a failed health care system? the data doesn't really support that assertion. perhaps we should ask some Canadian members, and then some of us can post our experiences with the US model.

Renae · Sep 2, 2016

Helix said:
we live in a first world society, and other first world societies are handling the health care problem better than we are. i will continue to point that out.

No, they aren't.

Renae · Sep 2, 2016

Helix said:
i'd argue that Medicare is the closest thing that we have, but it's still not analogous to a real single payer system designed to cover everyone.

Yes we know, they don't have as many restrictions and delays in services as a real single payer would.

Helix said:
Canadian single payer is a failed health care system? the data doesn't really support that assertion. perhaps we should ask some Canadian members, and then some of us can post our experiences with the US model.

Yes it does.
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care | City Journal

How Single-Payer Health Care Failed in Progressive Paradise - WSJ

Don't Import Canada's Ideas on Health Care | RealClearPolitics

I was born in Canada and have seen single-payer lead to rationing and outright rejection of care. My mother died of colon cancer after being denied an early colonoscopy that could have identified the disease at a more treatable stage.

Her experience is not unique. The Health Council of Canada recently reported that Canada's wait times for receiving health care ranked last on a list of 11 developed countries. The country faces a shortage of family doctors, so almost half of Canadians have to go to the emergency room for basic health needs. Even then, 26 percent wait four or more hours to see a doctor in the ER.

Not even Canadians with major health issues get the care they need. The average Canadian waits 4.5 months for major procedures, such as neurosurgery or cardiovascular surgery. Waits for MRI tests average more than eight weeks.

Canadians don't trust their system. Seventy-eight percent of residents older than 45 fear they won't be able to receive timely care. Eighty-one percent expect the care they receive to be of low quality.

Renae · Sep 2, 2016

Helix said:
i'd argue that Medicare is the closest thing that we have, but it's still not analogous to a real single payer system designed to cover everyone.

Canadian single payer is a failed health care system? the data doesn't really support that assertion. perhaps we should ask some Canadian members, and then some of us can post our experiences with the US model.

Fatal Wait Times: How Socialized Medicine Kills |

The Canadian government spends heavily on researching the merits of their health system, and they have found very conclusively that non-emergency care in the country has stifling wait times. In fact, the average time between scheduling a visit and starting specialist care is 18.2 weeks across the country. That means the average cancer patient waits eight months to start treatment! If this sounds dangerous, that’s because it is. Mortality rates have been closely linked to these wait times, and some of the results may surprise you. - See more at: Fatal Wait Times: How Socialized Medicine Kills |

Sweden’s Lead in Europe

If you’ve ever discussed healthcare with a leftist, they brought Sweden into the talk. That’s because Sweden is far and away the leader in successful single-payer healthcare in Europe.

Like Canada, they have invested heavily in making sure their system works. They commissioned an independent study to see how their wait times compare, and they left the rest of Europe in the dust.

Their average wait times were months better than the other countries investigated. Just how good are wait times in Sweden? The average wait time to receive specialist care is just over six months. That’s right. The best socialized healthcare in Europe is almost a clean two months slower on average than Canada.

Looking at the USA

It’s only fair to analyze the U.S. in this debate. The average weight time for specialized treatments in America is less than four weeks. In some parts of the country, like Boston, shortages have caused times to get as high as eight weeks, but in better regions, like Texas, the waits average less than two weeks.

Absentglare · Sep 2, 2016

eohrnberger said:
Should the VA operate effectively and efficiently with high patient satisfaction one day, I may consider greater government involvement in healthcare.
The VA operating effectively and efficiently with high patient satisfaction would be a demonstration that the federal government is capable of running a healthcare system, and would have earned greater involvement in my healthcare.
Until then . . . not so much.

That's like saying that energy is a bad investment because Enron.

Cherry picking one example and then declaring that the example's performance is necessarily linked to a single variable (public v private) is a huge logical jump.

The majority of the developed world manages healthcare far better than we do.

Helix · Sep 2, 2016

Renae said:
Yes we know, they don't have as many restrictions and delays in services as a real single payer would.

Yes it does.
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care | City Journal

How Single-Payer Health Care Failed in Progressive Paradise - WSJ

Don't Import Canada's Ideas on Health Care | RealClearPolitics

this should help us consolidate this futile discussion into one quote farmed post instead of sets of three posts at a time or whatever.

Debunking Canadian health care myths – The Denver Post

for most of us, unless your health insurance at work kicks ass, your health care is rationed by what your insurance company will pay for or what you can afford. even then, if you're downsized, you're pretty much screwed. it was a grand a month to COBRA my middle of the road health insurance from my last job. try floating that for one person when you're living on unemployment. people in other first world countries don't have to worry about that kind of thing, and they don't have to worry about what switching jobs or starting a business will mean if they get sick.

we could have solved this problem under Truman. now we're dealing with it in baby steps. i'm sure a bunch of people pissed and moaned that Medicare would be the end of the world, but now most of them are collecting the benefits, and Medicare is the norm for retirees. just like Canada wouldn't trade health care distribution systems with us, i doubt that the majority of retirees are willing to trade Medicare for some M-Plan HMO. if you think that they would, run on that platform.

Renae · Sep 2, 2016

Helix said:
this should help us consolidate this futile discussion into one quote farmed post instead of sets of three posts at a time or whatever.

Debunking Canadian health care myths – The Denver Post

for most of us, unless your health insurance at work kicks ass, your health care is rationed by what your insurance company will pay for or what you can afford. even then, if you're downsized, you're pretty much screwed. it was a grand a month to COBRA my middle of the road health insurance from my last job. try floating that for one person when you're living on unemployment. people in other first world countries don't have to worry about that kind of thing, and they don't have to worry about what switching jobs or starting a business will mean if they get sick.

we could have solved this problem under Truman. now we're dealing with it in baby steps. i'm sure a bunch of people pissed and moaned that Medicare would be the end of the world, but now most of them are collecting the benefits, and Medicare is the norm for retirees. just like Canada wouldn't trade health care distribution systems with us, i doubt that the majority of retirees are willing to trade Medicare for some M-Plan HMO. if you think that they would, run on that platform.

Your link is bull****.

Helix · Sep 2, 2016

Renae said:
Your link is bull****.

thanks for sharing your opinion.

kamikaze483 · Sep 2, 2016

Helix said:
the ACA was little more than a baby step towards a genuine first world healthcare system, and now it's looking like it's time to take the next step, which will probably be a public option. the intelligent choice would be to expand Medicare into a single payer system like Canada and parts of Europe have, but it's going to have to be done incrementally here in the states. might take several decades, depending on the makeup of congress and which side controls the presidency. also, we like to waste a lot of money on perpetual wars, so health care initiatives and domestic infrastructure tend to languish on the back burner.

Isn't medicare great? Isn't it so efficient and cost effective? Isn't everything the government does just so much better than what can be done with private enterprise? Nope. And I think it is interesting that those of us who saw that the plan was designed to fail in order to bring about a system of healthcare that the people don't want were not persuaded by the claims of Obama, Pelosi and the rest that it would do no such thing.

Trump might just be crazy enough to just get in there and get the crappy bill repealed, regardless of who would be left uninsured.

Helix · Sep 2, 2016

kamikaze483 said:
Isn't medicare great? Isn't it so efficient and cost effective? Isn't everything the government does just so much better than what can be done with private enterprise? Nope. And I think it is interesting that those of us who saw that the plan was designed to fail in order to bring about a system of healthcare that the people don't want were not persuaded by the claims of Obama, Pelosi and the rest that it would do no such thing.

Trump might just be crazy enough to just get in there and get the crappy bill repealed, regardless of who would be left uninsured.

my guess is that it will more likely be Ryan in a couple of election cycles. he'll probably try to put Medicare on course for privatization, as well. i suppose we'll see how excited seniors are about that when we get there.