Universal health-care is within reach (everywhere except the US)

From the Economist (here): Universal health care, worldwide, is within reach

Excerpt:

... there is a principled, liberal case for universal health care. Good health is something everyone can reasonably be assumed to want in order to realise their full individual potential. Universal care is a way of providing it that is pro-growth. The costs of inaccessible, expensive and abject treatment are enormous. The sick struggle to get an education or to be productive at work. Land cannot be developed if it is full of disease-carrying parasites. According to several studies, confidence about health makes people more likely to set up their own businesses.

Universal basic health care is also affordable. A country need not wait to be rich before it can have comprehensive, if rudimentary, treatment.

Health care is a labour-intensive industry, and community health workers, paid relatively little compared with doctors and nurses, can make a big difference in poor countries. There is also already a lot of spending on health in poor countries, but it is often inefficient. In India and Nigeria, for example, more than 60% of health spending is through out-of-pocket payments. More services could be provided if that money—and the risk of falling ill—were pooled.

The evidence for the feasibility of universal health care goes beyond theories jotted on the back of prescription pads. It is supported by several pioneering examples. Chile and Costa Rica spend about an eighth of what America does per person on health and have similar life expectancies.

Click to expand...

So, why not the US? Where the average life-span is 4 years less than Europe but total Overhead Cost (per individual) of Health Care is twice that of Europe. See that here:


Because the Right wants to assure that the average annual income of a GP remains at $210K* a year ... ?

*See here: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Family and General Practitioners (GPs)

Hell no! In America we like our health care astronomically expensive, unavailable completely to tens of millions and ranked in the 30s when compared to other nations. We're a pay more to get less kind of nation.

Instead of having everything our chosen doctor recommends covered automatically, we prefer to have them fight our insurance company to see if we're allowed to have the procedure at all. In America we literally have death panels staffed by executives at private insurance companies with a profit motive to arbitrarily deny you coverage and the lack of regulation to let them do it.

So get that hoity-toity Euro-socialism out of here. We never, under any circumstances learn from others. 'Murica.

RabidAlpaca said:

Hell no! In America we like our health care astronomically expensive, unavailable completely to tens of millions and ranked in the 30s when compared to other nations. We're a pay more to get less kind of nation.

Instead of having everything our chosen doctor recommends covered automatically, we prefer to have them fight our insurance company to see if we're allowed to have the procedure at all. In America we literally have death panels staffed by executives at private insurance companies with a profit motive to arbitrarily deny you coverage and the lack of regulation to let them do it.

So get that hoity-toity Euro-socialism out of here. We never, under any circumstances learn from others. 'Murica.

Click to expand...

And nobody hardly bothers to dream of better, this being America @2018.

THE CANT DO NATION

Lafayette said:

~ So, why not the US? ~

Click to expand...

You are a nation that is built around the notion of individuals / individual rights, that is set up and guaranteed by your constitution. The notion of caring for or about the weaker elements of your society is alien to a large majority who see people who are in lesser life circumstance as having made a personal choice and thus to blame for their own position.

Like another topic to do with individual rights which I won't mention as it would derail the thread - your constitution will perpetuate these attitudes until it changes. (And I don't see it changing for quite a while)

Until the majority in the US see self interest gains in healthcare and the other issue - nothing is changing.

Infinite Chaos said:

You are a nation that is built around the notion of individuals / individual rights, that is set up and guaranteed by your constitution. The notion of caring for or about the weaker elements of your society is alien to a large majority who see people who are in lesser life circumstance as having made a personal choice and thus to blame for their own position.

Like another topic to do with individual rights which I won't mention as it would derail the thread - your constitution will perpetuate these attitudes until it changes. (And I don't see it changing for quite a while)

Until the majority in the US see self interest gains in healthcare and the other issue - nothing is changing.

Click to expand...

health care here is still collective. we collectively pay through our premiums and cost of care. we also have an inefficient form of universal health care here, delivered at emergency rooms. the thing is that a lot of workers have really good health insurance because they got their jobs in the 1980s or 1990s when we still had unions. they're scared of change, because that might mean that they get thrown out of the kiddy pool and into the hurricane. in reality, we could just do what every other first world country does, and it wouldn't be the end of the world. the elderly are already covered by single payer, and even in our horribly inefficient system, it works pretty well.

Lafayette said:

From the Economist (here): Universal health care, worldwide, is within reach

Excerpt:

So, why not the US? Where the average life-span is 4 years less than Europe but total Overhead Cost (per individual) of Health Care is twice that of Europe. See that here:

Because the Right wants to assure that the average annual income of a GP remains at $210K* a year ... ?

*See here: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Family and General Practitioners (GPs)

Click to expand...

"...the Right wants to assure that the average annual income of a GP remains at $210K* a year ... ?"

Is this a published goal of "the right"?

I don't begrudge anyone the income they may be able to demand for the services they may render.

Helix said:

health care here is still collective. we collectively pay through our premiums and cost of care. we also have an inefficient form of universal health care here, delivered at emergency rooms. the thing is that a lot of workers have really good health insurance because they got their jobs in the 1980s or 1990s when we still had unions. they're scared of change, because that might mean that they get thrown out of the kiddy pool and into the hurricane. in reality, we could just do what every other first world country does, and it wouldn't be the end of the world. the elderly are already covered by single payer, and even in our horribly inefficient system, it works pretty well.

Click to expand...

I just experienced an eye-opener.

I'll be dropping my employer health care plan and picking up Medicare on June 1. When that happens, the plan gets better in many ways and my costs drop.

I don't know if this is the product of horrible negotiation on the part of my company or of great negotiation on the part of the Social Security Administration.

I believe that Medicare is supposed to be self supporting. Does anyone know if that is actually true?

code1211 said:

I just experienced an eye-opener.

I'll be dropping my employer health care plan and picking up Medicare on June 1. When that happens, the plan gets better in many ways and my costs drop.

I don't know if this is the product of horrible negotiation on the part of my company or of great negotiation on the part of the Social Security Administration.

I believe that Medicare is supposed to be self supporting. Does anyone know if that is actually true?

Click to expand...

Medicare isn't perfect, but it's better than the coverage that a lot of workers are getting. as for self supporting, i'm not sure. my guess is that it's underfunded.

https://www.medicare.gov/about-us/how-medicare-is-funded/medicare-funding.html

Helix said:

health care here is still collective. we collectively pay through our premiums and cost of care. we also have an inefficient form of universal health care here, delivered at emergency rooms. the thing is that a lot of workers have really good health insurance because they got their jobs in the 1980s or 1990s when we still had unions. they're scared of change, because that might mean that they get thrown out of the kiddy pool and into the hurricane. in reality, we could just do what every other first world country does, and it wouldn't be the end of the world. the elderly are already covered by single payer, and even in our horribly inefficient system, it works pretty well.

Click to expand...

That's the only way any sort of national care program will ever work. But, Obamacare is in bed with the insurance industry, which adds an entire industry to the mix -- an industry we really can't support. We have to kick the insurers to the curb and implement single payer. And, we will one day, much to the chagrin of the insurers, but...it's the only feasible way.

HowardBThiname said:

That's the only way any sort of national care program will ever work. But, Obamacare is in bed with the insurance industry, which adds an entire industry to the mix -- an industry we really can't support. We have to kick the insurers to the curb and implement single payer. And, we will one day, much to the chagrin of the insurers, but...it's the only feasible way.

Click to expand...

the ACA seemed to be a half measure step towards Medicare for all. i agree that it will probably happen eventually. when and how, i'm not sure.

The U.S. healthcare system has a ton of flaws -- far too many for me to bother discussing here for the DP character limit is just too draconian for me to even consider it -- however, I think it disingenuous to without qualification ascribe their persistence to "the right." The system's shortcomings derive first and foremost from healthcare being construed as a monopolistically competitive set of goods and services best produced and delivered via the correspondingly named market structure. Plenty on the right and left have for at least a hundred years embraced that notion. As long as that notion is the existential foundation of U.S. healthcare, there will be no material improvements of the sort the OP decries.

Can one duly blame "the right" at the moment? Yes, of course. Conservatives hold sway in all three branches of federal government; thus there's no denying they have the formal authority, votes thus power needed to effect sweeping fixes. That they haven't done is nobody's fault but their own.

Unfortunately, politicians, on either side of the aisle, ultimately cannot have their cake and eat it too. They can attenuate the healthcare system so it is highly cost efficient at delivering treatment, medicine and equipment, or they can structure it to be highly efficient at delivering economic profit, which is about what they've been doing. Unfortunately, healthcare is one of those things for which the middle ground is unsatisfying to everyone. No patient wants truly halfway decent care and no healthcare firm's owners want their company to be moderately profitable.

IMO, healthcare should be produced and delivered using the same general market structure used to do the same for tap water.

Xelor said:

The U.S. healthcare system has a ton of flaws -- far too many for me to bother discussing here for the DP character limit is just too draconian for me to even consider it -- however, I think it disingenuous to without qualification ascribe their persistence to "the right." The system's shortcomings derive first and foremost from healthcare being construed as a monopolistically competitive set of goods and services best produced and delivered via the correspondingly named market structure. Plenty on the right and left have for at least a hundred years embraced that notion. As long as that notion is the existential foundation of U.S. healthcare, there will be no material improvements of the sort the OP decries.

Can one duly blame "the right" at the moment? Yes, of course. Conservatives hold sway in all three branches of federal government; thus there's no denying they have the formal authority, votes thus power needed to effect sweeping fixes. That they haven't done is nobody's fault but their own.

Unfortunately, politicians, on either side of the aisle, ultimately cannot have their cake and eat it too. They can attenuate the healthcare system so it is highly cost efficient at delivering treatment, medicine and equipment, or they can structure it to be highly efficient at delivering economic profit, which is about what they've been doing. Unfortunately, healthcare is one of those things for which the middle ground is unsatisfying to everyone. No patient wants truly halfway decent care and no healthcare firm's owners want their company to be moderately profitable.

IMO, healthcare should be produced and delivered using the same general market structure used to do the same for tap water.

Click to expand...

This post is a tribute to having character limits. The elegance of language is in brevity, not in verbosity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AliHajiSheik said:

This post is a tribute to having character limits. The elegance of language is in brevity, not in verbosity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what I think of your comment, but I'm reminded of Nietzsche when I see remarks about brevity.

As goes healthcare and brevity, I'm reminded of Trump.

code1211 said:

"...the Right wants to assure that the average annual income of a GP remains at $210K* a year ... ?"

Is this a published goal of "the right"?

I don't begrudge anyone the income they may be able to demand for the services they may render.

Click to expand...

No, it's call a manipulation of market-costs in preference to a single-class of individuals .

And you don't begrudge anyone of manipulating a market because you have little or no sense of fair value.

The infographic I put up was supposed to show how the high-cost of Healthcare in America has an effect upon life-span.

But you evidently did not see the relationship - or, do not care to accept the relationship as important.

When we talk about the "Rabid Right", the two words are "spot-on". You (plural) have your set of values that are timeless and in complete disregard for the betterment of the population as a whole.

So, go ahead. Treat my response as a Commie Freak-show. I've got used to it. Moving right along ...

AliHajiSheik said:

This post is a tribute to having character limits. The elegance of language is in brevity, not in verbosity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Yes, like most of the Rabid Right, briefness is their chief characteristic.

Because any plausibility on their part requires a brain and respect for the observed facts. (You did not read the infographic, did you ... ?)

Infinite Chaos said:

You are a nation that is built around the notion of individuals / individual rights, that is set up and guaranteed by your constitution. The notion of caring for or about the weaker elements of your society is alien to a large majority who see people who are in lesser life circumstance as having made a personal choice and thus to blame for their own position..

Click to expand...

Very piercing observation and correct.

The US has a rabid dislike for any notion that confronts them with the fact that we are all dependent upon a common market-economy - and thus one another. This is mostly, I suggest, due to a weird sense of self-accomplishment.

Robinson Crusoe on a deserted island was never a billionaire. He could not possibly have been one. To do so requires a market-economy, preferably with millions of Consumers.

And to generate quickly millionaires, one needs a series of governments (foolishly elected) that bring down drastically upper-income taxation.

Works every time ...

PS: But when push-comes-to-shove the rich prefer that it's somebody else's children who join the Army and die doing the shoving ...

Lafayette said:

Yes, like most of the Rabid Right, briefness is their chief characteristic.

Because any plausibility on their part requires a brain and respect for the observed facts. (You did not read the infographic, did you ... ?)

Click to expand...

Your posts could use a dose of brevity too but that might require you to read your mini manifestos too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lafayette said:

No, it's call a manipulation of market-costs in preference to a single-class of individuals .

And you don't begrudge anyone of manipulating a market because you have little or no sense of fair value.

The infographic I put up was supposed to show how the high-cost of Healthcare in America has an effect upon life-span.

But you evidently did not see the relationship - or, do not care to accept the relationship as important.

When we talk about the "Rabid Right", the two words are "spot-on". You (plural) have your set of values that are timeless and in complete disregard for the betterment of the population as a whole.

So, go ahead. Treat my response as a Commie Freak-show. I've got used to it. Moving right along ...

Click to expand...

I've highlighted the absurd leaps you took that have no relation to anything I posted.

Other factors that can affect life expectancy include our diet, our love of the automobile, guns, war and troop deployments, record keeping including whether or not a baby is alive or dead when it dies and so forth.

Charts like the one you present are not deceptive on their face, but they leave out much that is needed to draw an accurate conclusion.

Are there other people or classes of workers on whom you want to place wage and income caps?

code1211 said:

I've highlighted the absurd leaps you took that have no relation to anything I posted.

Click to expand...

What can I say? Learn how to read?

code1211 said:

Other factors that can affect life expectancy include our diet, our love of the automobile, guns, war and troop deployments, record keeping including whether or not a baby is alive or dead when it dies and so forth.

Charts like the one you present are not deceptive on their face, but they leave out much that is needed to draw an accurate conclusion.

Click to expand...

You don't like the conclusion when it slaps the truth in your face: Americans are paying for the most costly privatized Health-care system on earth and the result is a Life-span 3-years less than in Europe that has a National Healthcare System at half the American total cost per capita.

What is it about that conclusion that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND?

code1211 said:

Are there other people or classes of workers on whom you want to place wage and income caps?

Click to expand...

Don't know what you are on about. Neither do you or you wouldn't be writing it ...

AliHajiSheik said:

Your posts could use a dose of brevity too but that might require you to read your mini manifestos too.

Click to expand...

Useless sarcasm becomes you so ...

Lafayette said:

Useless sarcasm becomes you so ...

Click to expand...

"One liners are no response whatsoever in a debate."

Speaking of one liners, conservatives love the line, "anyone who works hard can make it."

But this is misleading, as we can tell by the failing US healthcare system, which is rife with scandals and corruption.

A better way to measure success is to say "anyone can work as hard or as fast as they care to make it," meaning that hard work requires effort. Someone who is moving at the speed of light might be able to generate as much force as someone who weighs as much as a slowly turning planet. However, human being sometimes overexert themselves. Consider whether or not over exertion is imprudence, and if it is really worth some level of success. If it is as imprudent as not getting a flu vaccine, then merely getting sick is incidental to success over time.

So, anyone who works too hard or too fast can still succeed. It's a free country and we all have to make personal sacrifices. Now consider someone who gets so badly sick or injured that it actually reduces their lifespan. This is not uncommon for men, who work in more dangerous jobs and have a shorter mean life expectancy. Men also have a higher suicide rate, which could account for the short lifespan, but this can also be treated in psychological healthcare.

The reason why we need a better healthcare system, and the reason why my state is moving toward universal primary care, is because men need it in order to live more healthy lives. If we want to foster healthy competition, we need to make sure that we are caring for men and boys. Men and boys take greater risks, and often have less robust support networks than women, which means that they should rely heavily on publicly available support when necessary. Men do not have a shoulder to cry on. In order to reduce the number of suicides we ought to have a stronger healthcare system for men. In order to reduce the number of deaths, we ought to treat injuries suffered in high risk positions. It makes little sense for an employers and insurers to disregard the health of employees due to expense, when we have the technology to treat them.

And while I'm here I just want to add that the healthcare infrastructure in Vermont is pathetically inadequate.

RabidAlpaca said:

Hell no! In America we like our health care astronomically expensive, unavailable completely to tens of millions and ranked in the 30s when compared to other nations. We're a pay more to get less kind of nation.

Instead of having everything our chosen doctor recommends covered automatically, we prefer to have them fight our insurance company to see if we're allowed to have the procedure at all. In America we literally have death panels staffed by executives at private insurance companies with a profit motive to arbitrarily deny you coverage and the lack of regulation to let them do it.

So get that hoity-toity Euro-socialism out of here. We never, under any circumstances learn from others. 'Murica.

Click to expand...

Yawn...

Instead of having everything our chosen doctor recommends covered automatically, we prefer to have them fight our insurance company to see if we're allowed to have the procedure at all

Click to expand...

Happens to a greater degree in countries with universal healthcare.. and in many cases.. to a greater extent.. its why in part they get the cost savings they do.

Helix said:

health care here is still collective. we collectively pay through our premiums and cost of care. we also have an inefficient form of universal health care here, delivered at emergency rooms. the thing is that a lot of workers have really good health insurance because they got their jobs in the 1980s or 1990s when we still had unions. they're scared of change, because that might mean that they get thrown out of the kiddy pool and into the hurricane. in reality, we could just do what every other first world country does, and it wouldn't be the end of the world. the elderly are already covered by single payer, and even in our horribly inefficient system, it works pretty well.

Click to expand...

Unless you're not in employment I guess? I take it workers with union inspired healthcare are OK but how much does that extend to the poor or unemployed? The idea of universal healthcare is universality rather than ability to pay.

jaeger19 said:

Yawn...
Happens to a greater degree in countries with universal healthcare.. and in many cases.. to a greater extent.. its why in part they get the cost savings they do.

Click to expand...

Not in Germany. Any procedure the doctor of my choice recommends, I get. Subjecting yourself to being arbitrarily rejected by your health insurer just because you're afraid of a little regulation doesn't make it better.