An interesting observation on health care systems

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.quora.com/Which-country...r/Bill-Cravens?ch=10&share=3b9677ac&srid=NNvv

(Note that I have not checked his calculations)

Rather than comparing health care systems overall he compared them by income. If you're poor you're better off under UHC. If you're doing well you're better off under our system. Is it any wonder that those with decent healthcare in the US don't want to give it up for UHC?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://www.quora.com/Which-country...r/Bill-Cravens?ch=10&share=3b9677ac&srid=NNvv

(Note that I have not checked his calculations)

Rather than comparing health care systems overall he compared them by income. If you're poor you're better off under UHC. If you're doing well you're better off under our system. Is it any wonder that those with decent healthcare in the US don't want to give it up for UHC?

What calculations?

Regardless, what does "doing well" mean? Is that upper class? And what does "better off" mean? Are rich people in Canada dying at the age of 60 years old?

 

[skepticalbip]

https://www.quora.com/Which-country...r/Bill-Cravens?ch=10&share=3b9677ac&srid=NNvv

(Note that I have not checked his calculations)

Rather than comparing health care systems overall he compared them by income. If you're poor you're better off under UHC. If you're doing well you're better off under our system. Is it any wonder that those with decent healthcare in the US don't want to give it up for UHC?

What calculations?

Regardless, what does "doing well" mean? Is that upper class? And what does "better off" mean? Are rich people in Canada dying at the age of 60 years old?

Well there were a lot of hospitals built near the Canadian border by those nasty old American capitalists to cater to those rich Canadians. A rich 60 year old Canadian that needs an organ transplant can still get one in the U.S. only a few miles from his mansion in Canada.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.quora.com/Which-country...r/Bill-Cravens?ch=10&share=3b9677ac&srid=NNvv

(Note that I have not checked his calculations)

Rather than comparing health care systems overall he compared them by income. If you're poor you're better off under UHC. If you're doing well you're better off under our system. Is it any wonder that those with decent healthcare in the US don't want to give it up for UHC?

What calculations?

Regardless, what does "doing well" mean? Is that upper class? And what does "better off" mean? Are rich people in Canada dying at the age of 60 years old?

I do agree he could have done a better job of presenting the data. However, does that invalidate the basic point?

 

[RVonse]

https://www.quora.com/Which-country...r/Bill-Cravens?ch=10&share=3b9677ac&srid=NNvv

(Note that I have not checked his calculations)

Rather than comparing health care systems overall he compared them by income. If you're poor you're better off under UHC. If you're doing well you're better off under our system. Is it any wonder that those with decent healthcare in the US don't want to give it up for UHC?

Didn't we already know this? That the rich republicans don't like UHC and that the poor Bernie socialists do?

I don't get what this telling that we already did not know? Or am I missing something else?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

https://www.quora.com/Which-country...r/Bill-Cravens?ch=10&share=3b9677ac&srid=NNvv

(Note that I have not checked his calculations)

Rather than comparing health care systems overall he compared them by income. If you're poor you're better off under UHC. If you're doing well you're better off under our system. Is it any wonder that those with decent healthcare in the US don't want to give it up for UHC?

Didn't we already know this? That the rich republicans don't like UHC and that the poor Bernie socialists do?

I don't get what this telling that we already did not know? Or am I missing something else?

Exactly.

It seems to me the problem the U.S. has is stupidity among poorer people who don't want UHC because it's socialism. Just a bunch of dumb fucks is all. I can honestly understand wealthier people not wanting to be subsidizing less fortunate citizens simply out of selfishness. But when the poorer people don't want UHC because it's liberal socialism and would rather not have Health Care that's what I'm calling a bunch of dumb fucks.

What's even dumber is these less fortunate folks vote for leaders who have socialized medicine at their expense. Like I said, dumb fucks.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

https://www.quora.com/Which-country...r/Bill-Cravens?ch=10&share=3b9677ac&srid=NNvv

(Note that I have not checked his calculations)

Rather than comparing health care systems overall he compared them by income. If you're poor you're better off under UHC. If you're doing well you're better off under our system. Is it any wonder that those with decent healthcare in the US don't want to give it up for UHC?

What calculations?

Regardless, what does "doing well" mean? Is that upper class? And what does "better off" mean? Are rich people in Canada dying at the age of 60 years old?

I do agree he could have done a better job of presenting the data. However, does that invalidate the basic point?

No derail meant, but I'm 1000% positive that this advice you give is exactly the same advice you should take.

aa

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://www.quora.com/Which-country...r/Bill-Cravens?ch=10&share=3b9677ac&srid=NNvv

(Note that I have not checked his calculations)

Rather than comparing health care systems overall he compared them by income. If you're poor you're better off under UHC. If you're doing well you're better off under our system. Is it any wonder that those with decent healthcare in the US don't want to give it up for UHC?

What calculations?

Regardless, what does "doing well" mean? Is that upper class? And what does "better off" mean? Are rich people in Canada dying at the age of 60 years old?

I do agree he could have done a better job of presenting the data. However, does that invalidate the basic point?

What point?

 

[bilby]

https://www.quora.com/Which-country...r/Bill-Cravens?ch=10&share=3b9677ac&srid=NNvv

(Note that I have not checked his calculations)

Rather than comparing health care systems overall he compared them by income. If you're poor you're better off under UHC. If you're doing well you're better off under our system. Is it any wonder that those with decent healthcare in the US don't want to give it up for UHC?

That's not so much an 'interesting observation' as it is a 'statement of the bleeding bloody obvious'.

What health care system is 'best' is a subjective question that depends on your criteria for 'good' or 'best'.

If you are a rich person who has decided that 'best' means 'most beneficial for rich people', then the US system is fucking great.

If you are an ethical person who has decided that 'best' means 'least likely to entail avoidable death or hardship for anyone', then the US system sucks donkey balls.

If you didn't notice that the categories 'poor' and 'doing well' that you mentioned in your OP represent very different numbers of people, with 'poor' being a sizable majority for any definition of 'doing well' that leads to the better healthcare results being discussed, then you are a fool.

'Doing well' in this context doesn't mean 'middle class' (a grouping that almost all Americans think they belong to). It means hyper-wealthy. A heart transplant in the USA can easily set you back $1.4million. If we define 'doing well' as 'being able to afford $1.4million while unable to work for several months due to a heat condition, while not becoming homeless or dependent on charity', then you will find that more than 90% of Americans are not 'doing well'.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://www.quora.com/Which-country...r/Bill-Cravens?ch=10&share=3b9677ac&srid=NNvv

(Note that I have not checked his calculations)

Rather than comparing health care systems overall he compared them by income. If you're poor you're better off under UHC. If you're doing well you're better off under our system. Is it any wonder that those with decent healthcare in the US don't want to give it up for UHC?

Didn't we already know this? That the rich republicans don't like UHC and that the poor Bernie socialists do?

I don't get what this telling that we already did not know? Or am I missing something else?

Exactly.

It seems to me the problem the U.S. has is stupidity among poorer people who don't want UHC because it's socialism. Just a bunch of dumb fucks is all. I can honestly understand wealthier people not wanting to be subsidizing less fortunate citizens simply out of selfishness. But when the poorer people don't want UHC because it's liberal socialism and would rather not have Health Care that's what I'm calling a bunch of dumb fucks.

What's even dumber is these less fortunate folks vote for leaders who have socialized medicine at their expense. Like I said, dumb fucks.

Incessant propaganda by Faux Newz and other right winged outlets. Yes, ACA is worse than slavery. It's communism! Drooly, drooly drool! We have several right winger radio stations here in Houston that have been playing these games for years and there are no competent news stations on the dial to honestly and conscientiously deal with this issue with any sort of competence. Despite all of that, public opinion is slowly turning around as morons that by into that are set straight by family members who have been saved by ACA. People without decent health care insurance at work and with pre-existing conditions themselves or with children in their families.

If your opinions about health care are shaped by the hysterical rantings of Rush Limpbrain and the shriekings of Mark Levin, or the bloviations of Bill O'Reilly, obviously you are not going to have a true understanding of what all this means. and then the feckless right winged congress clowns repeat the lies because it plays so will to the tea party morons who have been inflamed by the ignorant buffoons on Faux radio and cable.

 

[TV and credit cards]

It seems to me the problem the U.S. has is stupidity among poorer people who don't want UHC because it's socialism. Just a bunch of dumb fucks is all. I can honestly understand wealthier people not wanting to be subsidizing less fortunate citizens simply out of selfishness. But when the poorer people don't want UHC because it's liberal socialism and would rather not have Health Care that's what I'm calling a bunch of dumb fucks.

What's even dumber is these less fortunate folks vote for leaders who have socialized medicine at their expense. Like I said, dumb fucks.

Some people need to be insulted governed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.quora.com/Which-country...r/Bill-Cravens?ch=10&share=3b9677ac&srid=NNvv

(Note that I have not checked his calculations)

Rather than comparing health care systems overall he compared them by income. If you're poor you're better off under UHC. If you're doing well you're better off under our system. Is it any wonder that those with decent healthcare in the US don't want to give it up for UHC?

Didn't we already know this? That the rich republicans don't like UHC and that the poor Bernie socialists do?

I don't get what this telling that we already did not know? Or am I missing something else?

He found that those who can afford care under our system (which is a lot more than just the rich) fare better under our system than under a UHC system. The like/dislike is based on actual outcomes, not just what they think.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you are a rich person who has decided that 'best' means 'most beneficial for rich people', then the US system is fucking great.

If you are an ethical person who has decided that 'best' means 'least likely to entail avoidable death or hardship for anyone', then the US system sucks donkey balls.

If you didn't notice that the categories 'poor' and 'doing well' that you mentioned in your OP represent very different numbers of people, with 'poor' being a sizable majority for any definition of 'doing well' that leads to the better healthcare results being discussed, then you are a fool.

The problem with this is that you are asking people to give up their lives to help the less fortunate.

'Doing well' in this context doesn't mean 'middle class' (a grouping that almost all Americans think they belong to). It means hyper-wealthy. A heart transplant in the USA can easily set you back $1.4million. If we define 'doing well' as 'being able to afford $1.4million while unable to work for several months due to a heat condition, while not becoming homeless or dependent on charity', then you will find that more than 90% of Americans are not 'doing well'.

Most Americans have health insurance. Most Americans can afford (although it might be painful) the maximum out of pocket that those plans have. Note that the hyper-wealthy will not be subject to this effect because they can travel for healthcare.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Incessant propaganda by Faux Newz and other right winged outlets. Yes, ACA is worse than slavery. It's communism! Drooly, drooly drool! We have several right winger radio stations here in Houston that have been playing these games for years and there are no competent news stations on the dial to honestly and conscientiously deal with this issue with any sort of competence.

Yeah, radio is basically useless other than for music these days.

Despite all of that, public opinion is slowly turning around as morons that by into that are set straight by family members who have been saved by ACA. People without decent health care insurance at work and with pre-existing conditions themselves or with children in their families.

But here you're going off track. I was talking about UHC, not about the ACA. The ACA does not contain the fatal flaw of UHC--the lack of any meaningful independent oversight of the quality of care.

 

[bilby]

Incessant propaganda by Faux Newz and other right winged outlets. Yes, ACA is worse than slavery. It's communism! Drooly, drooly drool! We have several right winger radio stations here in Houston that have been playing these games for years and there are no competent news stations on the dial to honestly and conscientiously deal with this issue with any sort of competence.

Yeah, radio is basically useless other than for music these days.

Despite all of that, public opinion is slowly turning around as morons that by into that are set straight by family members who have been saved by ACA. People without decent health care insurance at work and with pre-existing conditions themselves or with children in their families.

But here you're going off track. I was talking about UHC, not about the ACA. The ACA does not contain the fatal flaw of UHC--the lack of any meaningful independent oversight of the quality of care.

Are you out of your mind? Almost All UHC systems have care decisions made primarily by doctors. Not insurance company loss adjusters, as in the US system.

That's not a flaw, it's a vital feature, and the basic flaw in your system. The choice is not "UHC, with 'Death Panels'" vs "Insurance, with no 'Death Panels'". It is "UHC, with life and death decisions made by doctors" vs "Insurance, with life and death decisions made by accountants".

 

[Toni]

If you are a rich person who has decided that 'best' means 'most beneficial for rich people', then the US system is fucking great.

If you are an ethical person who has decided that 'best' means 'least likely to entail avoidable death or hardship for anyone', then the US system sucks donkey balls.

If you didn't notice that the categories 'poor' and 'doing well' that you mentioned in your OP represent very different numbers of people, with 'poor' being a sizable majority for any definition of 'doing well' that leads to the better healthcare results being discussed, then you are a fool.

The problem with this is that you are asking people to give up their lives to help the less fortunate.

Nonsense. Under the private insurance scheme, we are demanding that less fortunate people give up their lives in order to maintain profits for insurance companies and access to affordable health care for those who are fortunate enough to be able to afford premiums and deductibles.

I've been extremely fortunate that both my husband and I have had access to excellent insurance benefits and also have had the benefit of good sense to cover one another so that when we've had health care needs--such as cancer--we not only had access to excellent health care but also had the freedom to not be concerned about the financial aspects of accessing that care. We were not going to lose our home or our cars or all of our savings in order to obtain lifesaving treatment.

What is really, truly horrible is that we make more than our children do combined--and have much less expensive, much more comprehensive health care benefits than any of our children.

That's wrong. Absolutely wrong.

Every single person should have access to the same level of excellent health care at the same cost we paid out of pocket

'Doing well' in this context doesn't mean 'middle class' (a grouping that almost all Americans think they belong to). It means hyper-wealthy. A heart transplant in the USA can easily set you back $1.4million. If we define 'doing well' as 'being able to afford $1.4million while unable to work for several months due to a heat condition, while not becoming homeless or dependent on charity', then you will find that more than 90% of Americans are not 'doing well'.

Most Americans have health insurance. Most Americans can afford (although it might be painful) the maximum out of pocket that those plans have. Note that the hyper-wealthy will not be subject to this effect because they can travel for healthcare.

Most Americans do not require transplants. But even with good insurance, it can be extremely difficult to get your insurance carrier to cover the costs of a transplant. A friend recently had a liver transplant and needed to come up with (only) $20K of the cost. That alone would break a lot of Americans. And that keeps a lot of Americans off transplant lists...And that's not counting the cost of follow up care or antirejection drugs that are required for life. The cost of those drugs is extremely high, often not covered by insurance and does also keep some people off of the transplant list.

That's wrong. It's absolutely immoral.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Worldtraveller]

View attachment 19098

Totally reasonable. Damn poor people shouldn't go having heart conditions, amiright, Loren?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What is really, truly horrible is that we make more than our children do combined--and have much less expensive, much more comprehensive health care benefits than any of our children.

That's wrong. Absolutely wrong.

Every single person should have access to the same level of excellent health care at the same cost we paid out of pocket

Luckily my kids are okay, but they do pay more for their care than I do.

It's a fact that socialized, liberal, UHC, single-payer healthcare will save this country trillions of dollars, not to mention the freedom it will give the individual otherwise. But it will certainly never happen in my lifetime, I'm 65, because as a country we don't have the intellect to make it so. We're stuck with a corrupt system that rewards profitable insurance companies instead of providing services at cost. I see no end in sight to this madness.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you out of your mind? Almost All UHC systems have care decisions made primarily by doctors. Not insurance company loss adjusters, as in the US system.

That's not a flaw, it's a vital feature, and the basic flaw in your system. The choice is not "UHC, with 'Death Panels'" vs "Insurance, with no 'Death Panels'". It is "UHC, with life and death decisions made by doctors" vs "Insurance, with life and death decisions made by accountants".

View attachment 19091

Doctors may decide what a patient needs, but the government decides the capacity and thus when it will actually happen--and they're the same people that decide whether the system is doing a good job. Thus you end up with big delays for quality of life things (and sometimes with identifying deadly things) being declared acceptable. You end up with unsafe conditions being tolerated. (A US hospital that had feces running down the walls wouldn't be operating! Yet it happened in England.)

The accountants are a greater threat under UHC than here. Yes, we do have problems but when our insurance companies get too far out of line they tend to get smacked down. An example from some time ago comes to mind--the insurance refused to cover HIV treatment as a pre-existing condition. Looking at all the data it was obvious that the "pre-existing" was a human stuck in the past--they wrote the previous year instead of the current year on one critical lab report. The jury hit them for $15 million for that.