• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Why people are afraid of universal health care

Just doesn’t feel like a DIY thing.
In the circles he ran in, people don’t do their own dirty work
Toldja so.
Guy named Luigi? Obviously a pro. 😄
To be fair, from the way they got this guy, either they are manufacturing a case against him (all the evidence right there 5 days later?) or he arranged to get himself caught.

I expect that the argument would be "I let you catch me. I would have been in the wind otherwise. It's so easy to just kill a CEO and get away with it... Nobody does it though because they don't understand how easy it really is."
 
I don't know if people are actually afraid of universal healthcare, but it does seem that CEOs of private health insurance corporations that fail the "don't be evil" test should fear their customers.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cnv3dnm64vlo

New York City police have launched a manhunt for a masked suspect who gunned down the head of a US medical insurance giant, in what investigators described as a "brazen, targeted attack".

UnitedHealthcare chief executive Brian Thompson was fatally shot in the back on Wednesday morning outside the Hilton Hotel in Midtown Manhattan, where he had been scheduled to speak at an investor conference later in the day.
I would hope that other insurance company bosses might learn from this that they should care more about their customers as human beings, rather than just as sources of revenue. But I expect that they will instead simply hire more personal security.
And it's somehow different than UHC systems where it's denial by waiting list?
 
I don't know if people are actually afraid of universal healthcare, but it does seem that CEOs of private health insurance corporations that fail the "don't be evil" test should fear their customers.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cnv3dnm64vlo

New York City police have launched a manhunt for a masked suspect who gunned down the head of a US medical insurance giant, in what investigators described as a "brazen, targeted attack".

UnitedHealthcare chief executive Brian Thompson was fatally shot in the back on Wednesday morning outside the Hilton Hotel in Midtown Manhattan, where he had been scheduled to speak at an investor conference later in the day.
I would hope that other insurance company bosses might learn from this that they should care more about their customers as human beings, rather than just as sources of revenue. But I expect that they will instead simply hire more personal security.
I don't know about their history of customer service, but as one of the largest providers of Advantage plans, I have received good service. And, they are accepted by most doctors.
It's the same problem as with UHC--most people aren't expensive and receive reasonably good service. But the expensive ones get screwed.
 
It is dangerous that so many people on social media are using this murder as an occasion to air their concerns about the American healthcare system. A man was murdered in cold blood in what was probably a professional hit, and the response in left leaning spaces has mostly been muted. A large proportion of the comments I see are along the lines of "murder is bad, but maybe healthcare will be less expensive for poor people now," etc.

To me this isn't something to politicize or talk out of both sides of my mouth about. "Murder is bad" is not a liberal or conservative idea, it's a human idea. This is completely out of bounds for a civilized society.
Professional hit?? Doesn't seem like it, just not the typical level of incompetence we see in criminals.
 
BC resident here (yay more anecdotal stuff) I just went through a heart procedure to repair a congenital issue. I was prioritized by risk and everything was A1. Bit of a wait, yes, but all within acceptable time limits based on my condition. Paid zero for entire deal. I know it comes off my taxes, but I didn’t have to take out a second mortgage. You really appreciate it when you need it.

US really has to do this
"Acceptable time limits"--that's the detail the devil hides in. Define atrocious performance as "acceptable."

I started this thread because of it taking 6 months to get a biopsy of a suspicious spot in a mammogram. No indication that they had busted any timelines, just that the result was bad.
 
1) You have never addressed the fact that applying your standards to reality produces a very different result than what you're arguing for.
What very different results are produced?

As far as I can see, every complaint against my position is pointing to the negative consequences that happen with a strict no-exceptions ban in place. On the other hand... nobody has come forward with the slews of dead women that happened when RvW was still in place as it had been throughout the vast majority of my life. So... I don't see that there's anything to address.
Depending on exactly how your words are interpreted I get 28, 32 or 36 weeks. Not the 24 of Roe vs Wade.

And this is not situational, that's always the result.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Please use more words.
You were calling for oversight on third trimester abortions. However, you then presented criteria for what you considered a dividing line--and your criteria are quite different than your original position. By high chance of survival the cutoff is 28 weeks. By high chance of not being seriously damaged the cutoff is 32 weeks. By not needing the NICU the cutoff is 36 weeks.
 
This is misplaced anger. I guarantee that Anthem had plans available with lower deductibles. The fact that you had only one option, with a very high deductible, is the fault of your employer, not the insurer. Your employer selected a plan with a high deductible, and decided to give you only that as an option.

Why do you think that someone else should die because your employer was a dick?
I'm sure you're aware of the problem of adverse selection.

In situations where I have been able to make a reasonable comparison I have found that every time the lower deductible plan is almost always more expensive than the high deductible plan.
 
the lower deductible plan is almost always more expensive than the high deductible plan.
The thread mentions "Universal Health Care", but if people were forced to buy insurance, as Obamacare was originally framed, that would be UHC ... and little better than what we have now.

Many people, if they could snap their fingers and immediately effect massive change, want Single-Payer Health Care. Go to the hospital and there would be ZERO issue about deductibles. EVERYTHING would be paid by government.

But I wonder how the transition would work in practice. Employees who already have excellent insurance from their employer would feel screwed -- they might have negotiated for good insurance in lieu of pay hikes, and now they face hikes in taxes to cover health for everyone; they lose that free insurance; and the pay hike they waived would still be lost. Similarly, employees of insurance companies would be laid off and unemployed. Stockholders in insurance companies would see their stock prices plummet. Would all this be manageable?
 
Employees who already have excellent insurance from their employer would feel screwed
'Specially the ones who worked for health insurance companies! At least that's what I hear from an in-law who made his fortune in the medical billing business.
Fuck 'em. It's not like they're buggy whip makers; 'most all of them would have transportable skills they could take into a (currently) competitive job market.
 
The US has some different existing dynamics that other countries don't have. We have a deeply entrenched fully private and profit-driven delivery system. We ended up with employer sponsored health insurance endemic in our society over a relatively short span of time - where other countries moved to UHC instead. We have a gordian knot in the US and we can't just cut it in half and be done with it, because there are a lot of negative consequences of that.

My preferred approach for the US specifically is to actually start with the delivery system and just nationalize that sucker. All doctors, nurses, clinicians, therapists, etc. would be salaried government employees (complete with federal benefits). Medical training would be government funded based on aptitude and ability to complete the coursework satisfactorily. Facilities would be government owned - and distributed in a way that allows access in less urban areas instead of the current health care deserts that we're dealing with. Drugs pricing would be negotiated federally.

I agree that nationalizing the entire healthcare delivery system might theoretically solve cost disparities, but achieving that politically is an enormous hurdle. :ROFLMAO:Universal coverage, specifically models like Medicare for All, already have substantial public understanding and some degree of support.

Medicare for All brings all patients into the system, replacing the current patchwork of private insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, and the uninsured who rely on expensive emergency care. By creating one integrated risk pool or regulated set of payers.

So If everyone is covered and there’s a single or harmonized set of rules and fee schedules, then subsequent changes, like altering how care is delivered, reorganizing hospital ownership, or integrating preventative services, become logistically simpler.

However, insurance companies often lobby politicians and use the media to frighten the public with claims of government inefficiency and brand such proposals as “socialist.” Consequently, meaningful reforms are unlikely to occur anytime soon in the land of the free and home of the brave. At least until enough Americans are fed up with being stupid.
Nationalizing it would solve the cost disparities but it wouldn't do much for access, just shift it from a money gatekeeper to a time gatekeeper.

And I do not agree on the logistics. When the government is involved so much focus is put on fair and honest (yeah, right) that it ends up more expensive.

Consider two incidents:

1) My wife bought a 31 pound (by our non-certified scale) watermelon. Oops, the scales at the checkout only go up to 30 pounds, that scale simply responded by declaring it too heavy. (How often does one buy an indivisible chunk of produce that's over 30 pounds?) Once it was figured out what was going on the manager simply offered to sell it to us for the price of 30 pounds of watermelon. Simple fix, the store lost something on the order of a dime.

2) DMV, rolling over the residual value of the old registration onto a new registration. Oops, the dealer abbreviated differently than the old dealer, the names did not match so the system wouldn't permit it. (The abbreviation was essential, their field name was too short.) I didn't realize the amount involved was only about $6 until we were well into trying to find the right procedure to deal with the mismatch. Multiple managers, I'm sure it cost them at least $50 in time to properly document a much smaller amount. Unlike retail, they couldn't simply say this is the right result, make it so.
 
Not all health care systems are for profit. I'll name three of the best known in terms of excellence that exist within the US: Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins and Cleveland Clinic. I know that there are others, but these are three names that most people should be familiar with. I am most familiar with Mayo Clinic which pays all physicians a salary: there is no fee for service component of compensation. I know that Mayo Clinic and I assume the other two also do a fair amount of charity work: gratis or very low cost. Now, these are all very well endowed institutions which, sadly enough, is NOT true for most local clinics and hospitals. However, they do present models for how to center health care on patients and not profits and how to provide excellent care.
Let's look at Mayo. There was an issue discussed on here some years back, some state wanted to mandate some staffing ratios. Mayo said that if they do that they won't be opening a facility there. The bill ended up not passed.

They most certainly care about revenue even if it's not "profit".
 
My personal theory is that this murder was NOT a reaction to any health care decision, etc. but personal, with the messages on bullets chosen to misdirect investigations.
It does have a strong reek of a professional hit.
Disagree. He spent 10 days in town. That's a risk I do not think a pro would have taken. This is intelligent and carefully planned but he spent too much time on it--they'll get him.
 
Oh, Im extremely aware of how much non-profit medical systems make, how much they are endowed, compensation for their CEO’s, etc. That does not alter the fact that at least for some of such systems. physicians are salaried and in my experience, that absolutely DOES change how the physicians interact with patients. Instead of double and triple booking patients, the appointment time belongs to one patient. Questions are welcomed and relevant information gathered and get this: the doctors remember you. Oh, not some of the surgeons—you know surgeons—but yes: the doctors are actively engaged in conversation with the patients, in an unhurried manner.
Disagree. Look at what has been happening--large medical groups are buying up private practices. The doctors are then salaried, but that doesn't mean there isn't pressure from the boss to generate billable activity.
 
My personal theory is that this murder was NOT a reaction to any health care decision, etc. but personal, with the messages on bullets chosen to misdirect investigations.
It does have a strong reek of a professional hit.
Disagree. He spent 10 days in town. That's a risk I do not think a pro would have taken. This is intelligent and carefully planned but he spent too much time on it--they'll get him.
You were right apparently. But give me a little credit - his name even sounds like a hit man!
/bigoted comment du jour
 
Another victim of insane health care system?
I am surprised the guy was walking without a bunch of bodyguards and in bulletproof something everything.
Being assassinated by pissed off "customer" has to be an occupational hazard for medical insurance people.
Insanity of our insurance system or not, life expectancy in the US is significantly higher than in Russia. Especially for the wealthy. Despite the epidemic of gun violence. Maybe because fewer people in the US die from falling from a window or from deliberate poisoning.
You compensate russian accidental falls statistics with fentanyl 1000 times over.
Fentanyl? The real killer is alcohol. And tobacco.
 
I don't know if people are actually afraid of universal healthcare, but it does seem that CEOs of private health insurance corporations that fail the "don't be evil" test should fear their customers.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cnv3dnm64vlo

New York City police have launched a manhunt for a masked suspect who gunned down the head of a US medical insurance giant, in what investigators described as a "brazen, targeted attack".

UnitedHealthcare chief executive Brian Thompson was fatally shot in the back on Wednesday morning outside the Hilton Hotel in Midtown Manhattan, where he had been scheduled to speak at an investor conference later in the day.
I would hope that other insurance company bosses might learn from this that they should care more about their customers as human beings, rather than just as sources of revenue. But I expect that they will instead simply hire more personal security.
And it's somehow different than UHC systems where it's denial by waiting list?
"Denial by waiting list" is a fiction you appear to believe in, that was created by exactly the kind of people who are practically begging for assassination.

What you are actually asking (though you don't know it) is "Is it somehow different to have a system that prioritises treatment based on medical need, as assessed by doctors, than one that prioritises based on cost, as assessed by insurance companies?"

And the answer is YES.

in any system, some people who want treatment right now won't get it.

The only question is whether their wait is mandated by doctors, or by accountants.

And yes, that is a HUGE difference, seeing as you asked. Only an American would even imagine it to be a question at all; And this shows the massive power of propaganda when backed by vast sums of cash.

How can you honestly fail to see that it makes a huge difference whether a doctor says "You don't need treatment right this minute, you can wait", or whether an accountant says it?

Triage should be based on medical questions, not financial ones.
 
It's the same problem as with UHC--most people aren't expensive and receive reasonably good service. But the expensive ones get screwed.
Where do you get this "information"? Have you never actually encountered UHC?

Your proclamations about it have zero relationship to reality. And I say this as someone who has direct experience with two very different UHC systems, neither of which behaves as you assume.
 
Not all health care systems are for profit. I'll name three of the best known in terms of excellence that exist within the US: Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins and Cleveland Clinic. I know that there are others, but these are three names that most people should be familiar with. I am most familiar with Mayo Clinic which pays all physicians a salary: there is no fee for service component of compensation. I know that Mayo Clinic and I assume the other two also do a fair amount of charity work: gratis or very low cost. Now, these are all very well endowed institutions which, sadly enough, is NOT true for most local clinics and hospitals. However, they do present models for how to center health care on patients and not profits and how to provide excellent care.
Let's look at Mayo. There was an issue discussed on here some years back, some state wanted to mandate some staffing ratios. Mayo said that if they do that they won't be opening a facility there. The bill ended up not passed.

They most certainly care about revenue even if it's not "profit".
That state of was Minnesota. Mayo opposed the bill because they claimed it would make their staffing more difficult and harder to schedule because there was and is a shortage of nurses. Whether they were being entirely forthcoming, I don't know.

But caring about covering costs is not the equivalent of caring about profits.
 
Nationalizing it would solve the cost disparities but it wouldn't do much for access, just shift it from a money gatekeeper to a time professional medical assessment gatekeeper.
FTFY.

It would suck if you are a rich man with an ingrowing toenail; But it would be vastly better if you are a poor man with cancer.
 
Last edited:
Nationalizing it would solve the cost disparities but it wouldn't do much for access, just shift it from a money gatekeeper to a time professional medical assessment gatekeeper.
FTFY.

It would suck of you are a rich man with an ingrowing toenail; But it would be vastly better if you are a poor man with cancer.
Yeah... As much as I love my grandpa? That man is getting medical care that could probably save ten people for every day of life he gets.

As much as I love him, that's not right.
 
Back
Top Bottom