Healthcare Projected To Cost Near $50 Trillion Over Next Ten Years

[Slade3200]

So I just gave you the math, and clearly the math... not your opinion.... but math suggests that it will be expensive.

There is no evidence of a single country anywhere on this planet, that had a reduction in health care costs, from moving to a socialized system.

There is plenty of evidence that they reduce the quality of care, to reduce cost. If you are ok with having a lower chance of survival, there are plenty of free-clinics in the US, to choose from. Or you can disappear from a VA waiting list, if you like. That always saves costs.

18 Veterans Died on Secret VA Waiting List

But hey... the VA is cheaper care, yes? That's the goal.

There are lots of countries with lower costs and higher ranked care than us.

In regards to Andylusions linkt to the article "18 Veterans Died on Secret VA Waiting List", that's a drop in the bucket compared to the number of Americans who die because of NO ACCESS TO health care:

Study: 45,000 Deaths Per Year Due to Lack of Health Insurance

The USA quite noteably has the highest rate of maternal death in child birth and the highest infant mortality rate in the first world. This is why reproductive health care MUST be mandatory for all health insurance policies sold and employers should not be able to dictate what is covered in their employees healthcare coverage on the basis of religion. And yet these same people are screaming about the deaths of babies via abortion.

About that study:

"Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, noted: “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”"

Yeah, no chance she came to a solution and then found the evidence to support it, instead of the other way around. No bias at all.

And let's take a look at the methodology, shall we? (I know this won't mean jack to people like Dragontwat, who just see a headline and run with it, but for those who think logically, it's sort of important.)

"The researchers analyzed U.S. adults under age 65 who participated in the annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) between 1986 and 1994. Respondents first answered detailed questions about their socioeconomic status and health and were then examined by physicians. The CDC tracked study participants to see who died by 2000.

The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured. As expected, death rates were also higher for males (37 percent increase), current or former smokers (102 percent and 42 percent increases), people who said that their health was fair or poor (126 percent increase), and those who examining physicians said were in fair or poor health (222 percent increase)."

So basically, they just assumed that the uninsured who died did so because they were uninsured. Correlation does not equal causation. Most of them were probably also wearing pants, but I don't think that means that wearing pants killed them.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

And this from FactCheck.org:

"As for PNHP [Physicians for a National Health Program], two of the authors have strong connections with the group: Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein, a professor and associate professor of medicine, respectively, at Harvard Medical School, are co-founders of PNHP, a group of physicians that advocates for a single-payer health care system."

Again, no chance of bias there, eh?

As far as I can determine from available info, the researchers didn't do any follow-up with the study subjects beyond finding out if they died or not. So they had no way of knowing whether or not someone who was uninsured at the time they filled out the survey remained uninsured, or vice versa. And no one appears to have questioned whether or not the people involved made any effort to find other ways to obtain healthcare, or if they just assumed that because they didn't have traditional insurance, that was it.

For that matter, there doesn't seem to be data on the attitudes of any of these people toward healthcare and doctors. We know from various studies that there's a correlation between the uninsured and lower levels of education. Do we know if any of these people were uninsured - and subsequently not making much effort to go to the doctor - because they took the "no news is good news" approach to medical care? You don't feel sick or in pain, so you don't need it?

May I ask a two simple questions? Do you think our nation would be better off if everybody had affordable access to healthcare and regular doctors visits? Do you think the private insurance / Medicare / Medicaid system we currently have is the best way to achieve this?

I deny that people do not have access to health care, and regular doctor visits. I have personally gone to the doctor without insurance. The cost was a hundred dollars. You can work at Wendy's and save up $100. Cancel your phone, and go to the doctor. Most people pay $100 a month for a cell phone. Do without for one month.

And don't tell me you can't, because I've done it.

If you can afford starbucks, you can afford a doctor visit.

Further, I know people who had no insurance, and no money, and went to the hospital, and got full treatment for cancer.

So this idea that people don't have access to care, I just simply don't buy it.

Lastly, the solution is free-market capitalism. Get government out of the insurance business. Privatize medicare and medicaid. Deregulate the industry.

Prices will fall. In 2006, before democraps screwed everything up, I had a insurance policy for $67 a month, that covered doctor visits, medication, and had catastrophic insurance coverage, up to a million dollars.

It was considered 'high deductible' at $2,000. Now high deductible is $7,000, thanks to democraps. And the cheapest premium is $300 a month.

Further, deregulate health care providers. Allow free competition between hospitals. The prices will fall.

That is the solution.

Access to care is a very clever phrase I notice being used more and more. Your friend with no money who got cancer treatment... who ended up paying for it? A $100 doctor visitor is great but what if you have a chronic illness or need surgery. How much does that cost? What if you were in an accident. Know how much an ambulance ride and a week in the ER costs?

These are the things that will bankrupt people as very few could afford to pay for them out of pocket

 

[Andylusion]

I don't want them to have a plan.

I get what you're saying, and ultimately I agree. I don't want government "planning" my health care. But they've been planning (taxing, regulating, subsidizing, mandating) it for some time now, and they've really fucked it up. All that needs to be undone. But undoing it will be a major legislative undertaking.

Well... yeah. In an ideal world, we would push for a massive repeal, like happened when Reagan deregulated the airlines. I don't think the rest of the public is educated, or moral enough to go for it.

 

[dblack]

Access to care is a very clever phrase I notice being used more and more.

Yes. I've noticed as well. I wish more people did.

It's the usual Orwellian wordsmithing. It's generally used as a replacement for "can afford/can't afford" health care. The intent is to implicate a shift of responsibility from the buyer, to the seller. Saying someone can't afford health care suggests they're poor - that they're unable to support themselves. Saying that they are "denied access" shifts the blame to the provider, suggesting that health care providers are stingy jerks if they don't want to work without pay.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Cannot tackle healthcare until you tackle the 14th Amendment.

 

[Andylusion]

There are lots of countries with lower costs and higher ranked care than us.

In regards to Andylusions linkt to the article "18 Veterans Died on Secret VA Waiting List", that's a drop in the bucket compared to the number of Americans who die because of NO ACCESS TO health care:

Study: 45,000 Deaths Per Year Due to Lack of Health Insurance

The USA quite noteably has the highest rate of maternal death in child birth and the highest infant mortality rate in the first world. This is why reproductive health care MUST be mandatory for all health insurance policies sold and employers should not be able to dictate what is covered in their employees healthcare coverage on the basis of religion. And yet these same people are screaming about the deaths of babies via abortion.

About that study:

"Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, noted: “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”"

Yeah, no chance she came to a solution and then found the evidence to support it, instead of the other way around. No bias at all.

And let's take a look at the methodology, shall we? (I know this won't mean jack to people like Dragontwat, who just see a headline and run with it, but for those who think logically, it's sort of important.)

"The researchers analyzed U.S. adults under age 65 who participated in the annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) between 1986 and 1994. Respondents first answered detailed questions about their socioeconomic status and health and were then examined by physicians. The CDC tracked study participants to see who died by 2000.

The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured. As expected, death rates were also higher for males (37 percent increase), current or former smokers (102 percent and 42 percent increases), people who said that their health was fair or poor (126 percent increase), and those who examining physicians said were in fair or poor health (222 percent increase)."

So basically, they just assumed that the uninsured who died did so because they were uninsured. Correlation does not equal causation. Most of them were probably also wearing pants, but I don't think that means that wearing pants killed them.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

And this from FactCheck.org:

"As for PNHP [Physicians for a National Health Program], two of the authors have strong connections with the group: Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein, a professor and associate professor of medicine, respectively, at Harvard Medical School, are co-founders of PNHP, a group of physicians that advocates for a single-payer health care system."

Again, no chance of bias there, eh?

As far as I can determine from available info, the researchers didn't do any follow-up with the study subjects beyond finding out if they died or not. So they had no way of knowing whether or not someone who was uninsured at the time they filled out the survey remained uninsured, or vice versa. And no one appears to have questioned whether or not the people involved made any effort to find other ways to obtain healthcare, or if they just assumed that because they didn't have traditional insurance, that was it.

For that matter, there doesn't seem to be data on the attitudes of any of these people toward healthcare and doctors. We know from various studies that there's a correlation between the uninsured and lower levels of education. Do we know if any of these people were uninsured - and subsequently not making much effort to go to the doctor - because they took the "no news is good news" approach to medical care? You don't feel sick or in pain, so you don't need it?

May I ask a two simple questions? Do you think our nation would be better off if everybody had affordable access to healthcare and regular doctors visits? Do you think the private insurance / Medicare / Medicaid system we currently have is the best way to achieve this?

I deny that people do not have access to health care, and regular doctor visits. I have personally gone to the doctor without insurance. The cost was a hundred dollars. You can work at Wendy's and save up $100. Cancel your phone, and go to the doctor. Most people pay $100 a month for a cell phone. Do without for one month.

And don't tell me you can't, because I've done it.

If you can afford starbucks, you can afford a doctor visit.

Further, I know people who had no insurance, and no money, and went to the hospital, and got full treatment for cancer.

So this idea that people don't have access to care, I just simply don't buy it.

Lastly, the solution is free-market capitalism. Get government out of the insurance business. Privatize medicare and medicaid. Deregulate the industry.

Prices will fall. In 2006, before democraps screwed everything up, I had a insurance policy for $67 a month, that covered doctor visits, medication, and had catastrophic insurance coverage, up to a million dollars.

It was considered 'high deductible' at $2,000. Now high deductible is $7,000, thanks to democraps. And the cheapest premium is $300 a month.

Further, deregulate health care providers. Allow free competition between hospitals. The prices will fall.

That is the solution.

Access to care is a very clever phrase I notice being used more and more. Your friend with no money who got cancer treatment... who ended up paying for it? A $100 doctor visitor is great but what if you have a chronic illness or need surgery. How much does that cost? What if you were in an accident. Know how much an ambulance ride and a week in the ER costs?

These are the things that will bankrupt people as very few could afford to pay for them out of pocket

Yes, of course it is expensive. Again, I went to the hospital without insurance, and I got a bill. A really expensive bill. You know what I did? I paid it. Required 3 years of paying it down every single month, but I paid it.

You know what is even more expensive? Dying. I would much rather pay a bill, than pay with my life.

Death after 34-hour ER wait was preventable: judge

34 hours in the ER, never seen by anyone.... turns up dead.

You know how long I waited in the ER? 20 minutes. Of course I went to a private for-profit hospital, and dead patients do not pay the bill. You know that right? If the patient dies, they tend to not pay the bill. The hospital just eats it.

Of course I didn't die. I got good high quality care, and was more than happy to pay the bill, given I believe that good service is worth paying for.

NHS patients dying in hospital corridors, A&E doctors tell Theresa May

"Doctors running 68 A&E departments tell PM patients are dying prematurely because staff are too busy to treat them"

Patients stuck in A&E for up to 46 hours

"The number of hospitals recording A&E stays of more than 20 hours has doubled in just one year, a Telegraph investigation discloses"

Death rate 'much higher' in English than US hospitals

"This story was covered by most UK news outlets, including The Daily Telegraph, which reports that NHS patients are 45% more likely to die than patients in the US. The Telegraph says that data "over more than 10 years found NHS mortality rates were among the worst of those in seven developed countries"."


Now let me explain.....
A&E means "accident and emergency" department of a UK hospital, and would be what we call the Emergency Room of a US hospital.

Now the reason that deaths in UK hospitals are much higher than in US hospitals, is really simple.

When the government is in charge, and no one is paying the bill for ER service.... the government has to simply by law, make out how much they are going to fund the department. The amount of funding is static. It doesn't change.

The problem is, while the funding is static.... the demand is, like everything in an economy, dynamic. Meaning that if more people want service, that doesn't mean there is more money.

In a capitalist system, the more demand, the more money is available. More people show up at my ER, the more money I get for treating them, which allows me to higher more doctors, expand the number of beds, and hire more nurses.

In socialized system, the more people show up...... nothing. I being the one running the hospital, do not get more money, because care is free, and the patients are not paying anything. Without that extra money, I can't hire more people, I can't buy more beds, and I can't hire more nurses.

See what you want, is you want a system where there is no cost, but you get the same level of service. But this is impossible. If you don't pay for it, then there isn't more cash to provide more service.

What you want, is literally impossible to have.

So you have two choices....

A system where you have rationed care, and people wait 3 years for treatment, or you have a capitalist system where you get what you pay for it.

That's it. There is no other alternative. Except perhaps a short term alternative. You can jack up government spending massively, and you'll have fantastic free care.... until the country goes broke. Then you'll have no care at all.

 

[dblack]

Well... yeah. In an ideal world, we would push for a massive repeal, like happened when Reagan deregulated the airlines. I don't think the rest of the public is educated, or moral enough to go for it.

I think they could be. We need a Martin Luther King - a charismatic leader/spokesperson for libertarian government. Someone who can communicate the vision clearly yet passionately. Our nation is in a very loose state of flux right now. It could really go in any direction.