|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The only thing a lot of poor people have is jobs... jobs that don't pay well. But you wouldn't know that from Fox.
While its true that a lot of these people are not very financially literate, but a lot of people who just happen to have better education and circumstances are just as bad. The only difference is that the latter group is literally able to afford being dumb with their money.
|
On April 14 2015 09:37 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2015 09:09 IgnE wrote:On April 14 2015 08:30 cLutZ wrote:On April 14 2015 08:21 Acrofales wrote:On April 14 2015 08:04 cLutZ wrote:On April 14 2015 07:55 Acrofales wrote:
Millitron: simple example of why it won't work.
Very simple surgery such as appendectomy.
According to Google the average rate is about 33,000 USD for an appendectomy. Lets be drastic and say this cost is extremely inflated and can be cut down to 1/3. You can thus have an appendectomy for 10,000 USD or die of appendicitis.
How many people have (a) 10,000 USD saved up or (b) ability to QUICKLY get a loan for 10,000 USD to pay for this surgery.
This will wipe out most middle class families readily available savings (those not tied up in long-term investments).
And this is a very simple surgery. Now lets go with open-heart surgery, a liver transplant, chemo therapy, etc. etc. etc.
Unless you really think that healthcare worldwide is so incredibly inefficient that prices can drop to between 1 and 5% of their current costs, you are simply going to have to admit that most treatments are going to be FAR out of reach of the average family.
Luckily only a very tiny percentage of the population ever needs one of those treatments. That's why health insurance works: it is both a mandatory savings account for if something in your body goes wrong, as well as a cost spreader: you pay for your neighbour's coronary bypass. That is how insurance is supposed to work. The issue is that people want insurance that also pays for prescriptions and yearly visits when those are consistent and expected costs. Like Viagra or Birth Control or Plavix. That isn't insurance at that point it is social redistribution (particularly when coupled with the individual mandate). The other problem for our system comes at the other extreme end of the system, where some people are using millions of dollars of healthcare, and the society needs to (unfortunately) allocate resources elsewhere at some point. This is where foreign countries get a large percentage of their savings compared to America (along with drug/device cost controls, and less doctor debt/schooling/salaries). They simply have a much lower threshold where they will conserve resources (because part of the system's efficiency is restricting overall supply). Well, then we get into nitty gritty details. It is simply cheaper (overall) if you go for your yearly check up than if you don't. Lots of things that can go wrong are found out at an early stage when prevention is simple or intervention is cheap. It is thus beneficial for overall healthcare costs if you go for these regular check-ups. However, if they aren't in your health insurance, such check-ups cost a lot of money (couple of hundred dollars every year). So people don't go, and cost their health insurance FAR more money (when they end up in hospital with a heart attack, metastasized breast cancer, or something else nasty) than if the health insurance simply paid for the check-up. As for the other things you mention: I don't think birth control or viagra needs to be in a health insurance package either. That's not to say I don't think birth control should be easily available for everybody, especially the underprivileged who cannot spend those $20 a month for a box of pills (or condoms). However, that is a separate discussion with completely different points of view. If that checkup fact were true, insurance companies would pay for them, or, more likely, give discounts for attending them. Insurance does pay for a yearly checkup. Not sure what world you live in. Then the legislation that mandated it is a nullity. That was my only point regarding that. IF something does reduce the risk of a later catastrophic expenses, then it would be paid for in a free market insurance system so the discussion about it is silly. Really the issue I tried to present is that a lot of the routine expenses are not properly part of an insurance scheme, and if the government wants to subsidize those things they should do it through a tax and spend system, not a convoluted mandate system that hides the costs from taxpayers.
The problem is that in a really free market solution, the insurance companies can also find other solutions to that problem. Like having loopholes where they simply avoid paying for the higher cost procedures, which as i gather is a problem in the US?
But i agree with your conclusion, it would be a lot better if your government simply threw away your shitty insurance system and goes for something like single payer or a universal insurance system with nonprofit insurers like we have in Germany. Sadly apparently that is not something you can sell to americans for weird reasons, probably because it sounds way too socialistic and doesn't exploit the poor at the cost of the rich enough.
|
On April 14 2015 16:38 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2015 09:37 cLutZ wrote:On April 14 2015 09:09 IgnE wrote:On April 14 2015 08:30 cLutZ wrote:On April 14 2015 08:21 Acrofales wrote:On April 14 2015 08:04 cLutZ wrote:On April 14 2015 07:55 Acrofales wrote:
Millitron: simple example of why it won't work.
Very simple surgery such as appendectomy.
According to Google the average rate is about 33,000 USD for an appendectomy. Lets be drastic and say this cost is extremely inflated and can be cut down to 1/3. You can thus have an appendectomy for 10,000 USD or die of appendicitis.
How many people have (a) 10,000 USD saved up or (b) ability to QUICKLY get a loan for 10,000 USD to pay for this surgery.
This will wipe out most middle class families readily available savings (those not tied up in long-term investments).
And this is a very simple surgery. Now lets go with open-heart surgery, a liver transplant, chemo therapy, etc. etc. etc.
Unless you really think that healthcare worldwide is so incredibly inefficient that prices can drop to between 1 and 5% of their current costs, you are simply going to have to admit that most treatments are going to be FAR out of reach of the average family.
Luckily only a very tiny percentage of the population ever needs one of those treatments. That's why health insurance works: it is both a mandatory savings account for if something in your body goes wrong, as well as a cost spreader: you pay for your neighbour's coronary bypass. That is how insurance is supposed to work. The issue is that people want insurance that also pays for prescriptions and yearly visits when those are consistent and expected costs. Like Viagra or Birth Control or Plavix. That isn't insurance at that point it is social redistribution (particularly when coupled with the individual mandate). The other problem for our system comes at the other extreme end of the system, where some people are using millions of dollars of healthcare, and the society needs to (unfortunately) allocate resources elsewhere at some point. This is where foreign countries get a large percentage of their savings compared to America (along with drug/device cost controls, and less doctor debt/schooling/salaries). They simply have a much lower threshold where they will conserve resources (because part of the system's efficiency is restricting overall supply). Well, then we get into nitty gritty details. It is simply cheaper (overall) if you go for your yearly check up than if you don't. Lots of things that can go wrong are found out at an early stage when prevention is simple or intervention is cheap. It is thus beneficial for overall healthcare costs if you go for these regular check-ups. However, if they aren't in your health insurance, such check-ups cost a lot of money (couple of hundred dollars every year). So people don't go, and cost their health insurance FAR more money (when they end up in hospital with a heart attack, metastasized breast cancer, or something else nasty) than if the health insurance simply paid for the check-up. As for the other things you mention: I don't think birth control or viagra needs to be in a health insurance package either. That's not to say I don't think birth control should be easily available for everybody, especially the underprivileged who cannot spend those $20 a month for a box of pills (or condoms). However, that is a separate discussion with completely different points of view. If that checkup fact were true, insurance companies would pay for them, or, more likely, give discounts for attending them. Insurance does pay for a yearly checkup. Not sure what world you live in. Then the legislation that mandated it is a nullity. That was my only point regarding that. IF something does reduce the risk of a later catastrophic expenses, then it would be paid for in a free market insurance system so the discussion about it is silly. Really the issue I tried to present is that a lot of the routine expenses are not properly part of an insurance scheme, and if the government wants to subsidize those things they should do it through a tax and spend system, not a convoluted mandate system that hides the costs from taxpayers. The problem is that in a really free market solution, the insurance companies can also find other solutions to that problem. Like having loopholes where they simply avoid paying for the higher cost procedures, which as i gather is a problem in the US? But i agree with your conclusion, it would be a lot better if your government simply threw away your shitty insurance system and goes for something like single payer or a universal insurance system with nonprofit insurers like we have in Germany. Sadly apparently that is not something you can sell to americans for weird reasons, probably because it sounds way too socialistic and doesn't exploit the poor at the cost of the rich enough.
To be fair, when our system went tits up, we didn't put 6 million people in ovens and gas chambers to cut costs.
Too soon?
(Probably not - loose economic history shows that Germany got strong-armed into a lot of things it didn't want to do by European leaders in 2008 playing that card.)
User was warned for this post
The warning was:
Wtf does the Holocaust have anything to do with what's going on in this thread.
Which it was a joke in response to the flip remarks of the American insurance system as shitty and exploitative, and declaring the German system would be so much better.
|
Don't forget starting the biggest war in history. No matter how hard you are trying, you haven't even gotten close to that one yet.
(I do not in any way condone pretty much anything that happened in Nazi Germany. However, since that happened more than 40 years before my birth and i believe in causality, i also don't really feel responsible for that stuff. I do not think that present day Germany has a lot in common politically with 1940 Germany, and i think that is a good state of affairs.)
|
On April 14 2015 19:42 Simberto wrote:
Don't forget starting the biggest war in history. No matter how hard you are trying, you haven't even gotten close to that one yet.
(I do not in any way condone pretty much anything that happened in Nazi Germany. However, since that happened more than 40 years before my birth and i believe in causality, i also don't really feel responsible for that stuff. I do not think that present day Germany has a lot in common politically with 1940 Germany, and i think that is a good state of affairs.)
RE: your parenthetical remark. You don't have to be part of it to agree your country should bend over backwards to avoid any pretense of appearing that way, to the point that it has been willing to be blatantly manipulated rather than giving such accusations any pretense of validity. Also, modern Germany is just as frightened of being Weimar as it is Nazi, which is why German officials would rather contract genital warts than see inflation over 2%.
|
On April 14 2015 20:13 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2015 19:42 Simberto wrote:
Don't forget starting the biggest war in history. No matter how hard you are trying, you haven't even gotten close to that one yet.
(I do not in any way condone pretty much anything that happened in Nazi Germany. However, since that happened more than 40 years before my birth and i believe in causality, i also don't really feel responsible for that stuff. I do not think that present day Germany has a lot in common politically with 1940 Germany, and i think that is a good state of affairs.) RE: your parenthetical remark. You don't have to be part of it to agree your country should bend over backwards to avoid any pretense of appearing that way, to the point that it has been willing to be blatantly manipulated rather than giving such accusations any pretense of validity. Also, modern Germany is just as frightened of being Weimar as it is Nazi, which is why German officials would rather contract genital warts than see inflation over 2%.
You should probably stick to US politics, rather than make wild assumptions about what happened in European and German economic policy since 2008. Lets just say you are completely wrong and leave it at that, ok?
|
On April 14 2015 20:17 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2015 20:13 coverpunch wrote:On April 14 2015 19:42 Simberto wrote:
Don't forget starting the biggest war in history. No matter how hard you are trying, you haven't even gotten close to that one yet.
(I do not in any way condone pretty much anything that happened in Nazi Germany. However, since that happened more than 40 years before my birth and i believe in causality, i also don't really feel responsible for that stuff. I do not think that present day Germany has a lot in common politically with 1940 Germany, and i think that is a good state of affairs.) RE: your parenthetical remark. You don't have to be part of it to agree your country should bend over backwards to avoid any pretense of appearing that way, to the point that it has been willing to be blatantly manipulated rather than giving such accusations any pretense of validity. Also, modern Germany is just as frightened of being Weimar as it is Nazi, which is why German officials would rather contract genital warts than see inflation over 2%. You should probably stick to US politics, rather than make wild assumptions about what happened in European and German economic policy since 2008. Lets just say you are completely wrong and leave it at that, ok?
You probably should learn to recognize a joke.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
he's right about german fear of inflation
|
On April 14 2015 16:38 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2015 09:37 cLutZ wrote:On April 14 2015 09:09 IgnE wrote:On April 14 2015 08:30 cLutZ wrote:On April 14 2015 08:21 Acrofales wrote:On April 14 2015 08:04 cLutZ wrote:On April 14 2015 07:55 Acrofales wrote:
Millitron: simple example of why it won't work.
Very simple surgery such as appendectomy.
According to Google the average rate is about 33,000 USD for an appendectomy. Lets be drastic and say this cost is extremely inflated and can be cut down to 1/3. You can thus have an appendectomy for 10,000 USD or die of appendicitis.
How many people have (a) 10,000 USD saved up or (b) ability to QUICKLY get a loan for 10,000 USD to pay for this surgery.
This will wipe out most middle class families readily available savings (those not tied up in long-term investments).
And this is a very simple surgery. Now lets go with open-heart surgery, a liver transplant, chemo therapy, etc. etc. etc.
Unless you really think that healthcare worldwide is so incredibly inefficient that prices can drop to between 1 and 5% of their current costs, you are simply going to have to admit that most treatments are going to be FAR out of reach of the average family.
Luckily only a very tiny percentage of the population ever needs one of those treatments. That's why health insurance works: it is both a mandatory savings account for if something in your body goes wrong, as well as a cost spreader: you pay for your neighbour's coronary bypass. That is how insurance is supposed to work. The issue is that people want insurance that also pays for prescriptions and yearly visits when those are consistent and expected costs. Like Viagra or Birth Control or Plavix. That isn't insurance at that point it is social redistribution (particularly when coupled with the individual mandate). The other problem for our system comes at the other extreme end of the system, where some people are using millions of dollars of healthcare, and the society needs to (unfortunately) allocate resources elsewhere at some point. This is where foreign countries get a large percentage of their savings compared to America (along with drug/device cost controls, and less doctor debt/schooling/salaries). They simply have a much lower threshold where they will conserve resources (because part of the system's efficiency is restricting overall supply). Well, then we get into nitty gritty details. It is simply cheaper (overall) if you go for your yearly check up than if you don't. Lots of things that can go wrong are found out at an early stage when prevention is simple or intervention is cheap. It is thus beneficial for overall healthcare costs if you go for these regular check-ups. However, if they aren't in your health insurance, such check-ups cost a lot of money (couple of hundred dollars every year). So people don't go, and cost their health insurance FAR more money (when they end up in hospital with a heart attack, metastasized breast cancer, or something else nasty) than if the health insurance simply paid for the check-up. As for the other things you mention: I don't think birth control or viagra needs to be in a health insurance package either. That's not to say I don't think birth control should be easily available for everybody, especially the underprivileged who cannot spend those $20 a month for a box of pills (or condoms). However, that is a separate discussion with completely different points of view. If that checkup fact were true, insurance companies would pay for them, or, more likely, give discounts for attending them. Insurance does pay for a yearly checkup. Not sure what world you live in. Then the legislation that mandated it is a nullity. That was my only point regarding that. IF something does reduce the risk of a later catastrophic expenses, then it would be paid for in a free market insurance system so the discussion about it is silly. Really the issue I tried to present is that a lot of the routine expenses are not properly part of an insurance scheme, and if the government wants to subsidize those things they should do it through a tax and spend system, not a convoluted mandate system that hides the costs from taxpayers. The problem is that in a really free market solution, the insurance companies can also find other solutions to that problem. Like having loopholes where they simply avoid paying for the higher cost procedures, which as i gather is a problem in the US? But i agree with your conclusion, it would be a lot better if your government simply threw away your shitty insurance system and goes for something like single payer or a universal insurance system with nonprofit insurers like we have in Germany. Sadly apparently that is not something you can sell to americans for weird reasons, probably because it sounds way too socialistic and doesn't exploit the poor at the cost of the rich enough.
That "problem" was a problem of anecdotes. One that still happens. Reforming the system based on that would be like reforming the grain industry because you found cyanide in some corn bread biscuits in Iowa.
Also, many of our big health insurance companies are nonprofits (Blue Cross/Blue Shield). The cost problem in the US is because of the reasons I stated above: Higher paid medical professionals (we require more schooling), paying the full cost of medication (without the united states market there would not have been a new drug developed in the last 20 years), and lack of rationing (the main reason).
|
On April 14 2015 10:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2015 08:59 killa_robot wrote:On April 14 2015 08:21 Acrofales wrote:On April 14 2015 08:04 cLutZ wrote:On April 14 2015 07:55 Acrofales wrote:
Millitron: simple example of why it won't work.
Very simple surgery such as appendectomy.
According to Google the average rate is about 33,000 USD for an appendectomy. Lets be drastic and say this cost is extremely inflated and can be cut down to 1/3. You can thus have an appendectomy for 10,000 USD or die of appendicitis.
How many people have (a) 10,000 USD saved up or (b) ability to QUICKLY get a loan for 10,000 USD to pay for this surgery.
This will wipe out most middle class families readily available savings (those not tied up in long-term investments).
And this is a very simple surgery. Now lets go with open-heart surgery, a liver transplant, chemo therapy, etc. etc. etc.
Unless you really think that healthcare worldwide is so incredibly inefficient that prices can drop to between 1 and 5% of their current costs, you are simply going to have to admit that most treatments are going to be FAR out of reach of the average family.
Luckily only a very tiny percentage of the population ever needs one of those treatments. That's why health insurance works: it is both a mandatory savings account for if something in your body goes wrong, as well as a cost spreader: you pay for your neighbour's coronary bypass. That is how insurance is supposed to work. The issue is that people want insurance that also pays for prescriptions and yearly visits when those are consistent and expected costs. Like Viagra or Birth Control or Plavix. That isn't insurance at that point it is social redistribution (particularly when coupled with the individual mandate). The other problem for our system comes at the other extreme end of the system, where some people are using millions of dollars of healthcare, and the society needs to (unfortunately) allocate resources elsewhere at some point. This is where foreign countries get a large percentage of their savings compared to America (along with drug/device cost controls, and less doctor debt/schooling/salaries). They simply have a much lower threshold where they will conserve resources (because part of the system's efficiency is restricting overall supply). Well, then we get into nitty gritty details. It is simply cheaper (overall) if you go for your yearly check up than if you don't. Lots of things that can go wrong are found out at an early stage when prevention is simple or intervention is cheap. It is thus beneficial for overall healthcare costs if you go for these regular check-ups. However, if they aren't in your health insurance, such check-ups cost a lot of money (couple of hundred dollars every year). So people don't go, and cost their health insurance FAR more money (when they end up in hospital with a heart attack, metastasized breast cancer, or something else nasty) than if the health insurance simply paid for the check-up. As for the other things you mention: I don't think birth control or viagra needs to be in a health insurance package either. That's not to say I don't think birth control should be easily available for everybody, especially the underprivileged who cannot spend those $20 a month for a box of pills (or condoms). However, that is a separate discussion with completely different points of view. They most likely can afford it now, it's just not something they're willing to spend money on. The issue isn't a matter of money, it's of prioritizing. Most people who are dirt poor struggle with daily expenses, while having the newest iphone/expensive cable/internet/etc.I'm sure there are rare cases where their budget is so tight they don't even have $20 to spare, but it's mainly people just aren't willing to spend the money on it. You could make a case for including birth control (has a lot of benefits for woman), but having Viagra included is just hilarious. I don't know if this is just really ignorant or really insulting (or both). The idea that all poor people have brand new iPhones and huge TV's is complete B.S. that's just touted by Fox News to demonize the poor.
It comes from most of the people I know being dirt poor/on welfare and them fitting this. What's your basis for thinking I'm wrong?
|
So why don't all these problems also appear in european countries with a more socialist medical system? Doctors here are still paid well and need lots of education, expensive treatments are very often administered (people have a big aversion to someone dieing due to their insurance not covering their treatment because they fear it could be them next time), especially to very old people.
And i don't really buy into the whole "Well the US is subsidizing everyone else" story, because that sounds way too much like putting a spin on the situation where the fact that your system is just really bad and expensive is turned into some sort of altruistic decision.
|
On April 15 2015 02:02 Simberto wrote:
So why don't all these problems also appear in european countries with a more socialist medical system? Doctors here are still paid well and need lots of education, expensive treatments are very often administered (people have a big aversion to someone dieing due to their insurance not covering their treatment because they fear it could be them next time), especially to very old people.
And i don't really buy into the whole "Well the US is subsidizing everyone else" story, because that sounds way too much like putting a spin on the situation where the fact that your system is just really bad and expensive is turned into some sort of altruistic decision.
The US does subsidize quite a lot.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/03/23/the-most-innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/
Researchers in the US write 40% of the world's medical research papers, totaling 1,169 in 2009. The next highest was Great Britain at only around 300. The number for the US has also grown at an above-average rate of 7% between 2005 and 2009.
|
On April 15 2015 02:02 Simberto wrote:
So why don't all these problems also appear in european countries with a more socialist medical system? Doctors here are still paid well and need lots of education, expensive treatments are very often administered (people have a big aversion to someone dieing due to their insurance not covering their treatment because they fear it could be them next time), especially to very old people.
And i don't really buy into the whole "Well the US is subsidizing everyone else" story, because that sounds way too much like putting a spin on the situation where the fact that your system is just really bad and expensive is turned into some sort of altruistic decision.
i admittedly know very little about the US vs. Europe healthcare, but i thought English healthcare was considered pretty bad (the biggest complaint being long wait times and unavailability of facilities/doctors) and France was facing cost increases and deficits.
|
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) will propose broad changes to Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare in a speech in New Hampshire.
According to excerpts obtained by The Wall Street Journal, Christie is proposing cutting Social Security benefits to seniors who make more than $80,000 a year and also eliminate benefits for those making $200,000 or more.
He will also call on raising the national retirement age from 67 to 69.
Christie's proposed cuts to Social Security are even more far-reaching than the entitlement changes in the plan offered by Republicans in the past few years, including changes proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).
"Washington is afraid to have an honest conversation about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid with the people of our country," Christie argues according the remarks reported on by the Journal. "I am not."
The New Jersey governor will also propose gradually increasing the qualifying age for Medicare from its current 65 to 67 by 2040. He will propose moving Medicaid management to states.
In an interview with Yahoo News, Christie offered a preemptive defense of his proposed changes.
Source
|
On April 15 2015 02:08 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 02:02 Simberto wrote:
So why don't all these problems also appear in european countries with a more socialist medical system? Doctors here are still paid well and need lots of education, expensive treatments are very often administered (people have a big aversion to someone dieing due to their insurance not covering their treatment because they fear it could be them next time), especially to very old people.
And i don't really buy into the whole "Well the US is subsidizing everyone else" story, because that sounds way too much like putting a spin on the situation where the fact that your system is just really bad and expensive is turned into some sort of altruistic decision. The US does subsidize quite a lot. http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/03/23/the-most-innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/Researchers in the US write 40% of the world's medical research papers, totaling 1,169 in 2009. The next highest was Great Britain at only around 300. The number for the US has also grown at an above-average rate of 7% between 2005 and 2009.
But that wasn't the argument. The topic was not papers and studies but price and I doubt you believe that pharmaceuticals sell their drugs for lower prices on the European market out of the kindness of their heart.
|
On April 15 2015 02:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 02:08 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 02:02 Simberto wrote:
So why don't all these problems also appear in european countries with a more socialist medical system? Doctors here are still paid well and need lots of education, expensive treatments are very often administered (people have a big aversion to someone dieing due to their insurance not covering their treatment because they fear it could be them next time), especially to very old people.
And i don't really buy into the whole "Well the US is subsidizing everyone else" story, because that sounds way too much like putting a spin on the situation where the fact that your system is just really bad and expensive is turned into some sort of altruistic decision. The US does subsidize quite a lot. http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/03/23/the-most-innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/Researchers in the US write 40% of the world's medical research papers, totaling 1,169 in 2009. The next highest was Great Britain at only around 300. The number for the US has also grown at an above-average rate of 7% between 2005 and 2009. But that wasn't the argument. The topic was not papers and studies but price and I doubt you believe that pharmaceuticals sell their drugs for lower prices on the European market out of the kindness of their heart.
They do it because the marginal cost of a pill is 4 cents and they already have massive sunk costs. The reason they invest those costs in the first place is the US market. However, that is not the #1 reason the US has the most expensive medical care.
On April 15 2015 02:02 Simberto wrote:
So why don't all these problems also appear in european countries with a more socialist medical system? Doctors here are still paid well and need lots of education, expensive treatments are very often administered (people have a big aversion to someone dieing due to their insurance not covering their treatment because they fear it could be them next time), especially to very old people.
And i don't really buy into the whole "Well the US is subsidizing everyone else" story, because that sounds way too much like putting a spin on the situation where the fact that your system is just really bad and expensive is turned into some sort of altruistic decision.
We are, through being the only profitable (if you include front end costs) region to sell medical developments. However, the reason the "socialist" systems are cheaper is almost entirely because of rationing. The US basically gives all the healthcare to everyone very quickly. European systems are different in that they don't provide certain services, or there are waitlists for them. This basic difference accounts for somewhere between 50-80% of why US healthcare is pricier than the EU systems.
|
On April 15 2015 02:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 02:08 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 02:02 Simberto wrote:
So why don't all these problems also appear in european countries with a more socialist medical system? Doctors here are still paid well and need lots of education, expensive treatments are very often administered (people have a big aversion to someone dieing due to their insurance not covering their treatment because they fear it could be them next time), especially to very old people.
And i don't really buy into the whole "Well the US is subsidizing everyone else" story, because that sounds way too much like putting a spin on the situation where the fact that your system is just really bad and expensive is turned into some sort of altruistic decision. The US does subsidize quite a lot. http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/03/23/the-most-innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/Researchers in the US write 40% of the world's medical research papers, totaling 1,169 in 2009. The next highest was Great Britain at only around 300. The number for the US has also grown at an above-average rate of 7% between 2005 and 2009. But that wasn't the argument. The topic was not papers and studies but price and I doubt you believe that pharmaceuticals sell their drugs for lower prices on the European market out of the kindness of their heart.
You're right, I don't believe that. They sell for lower prices because of single payer systems.
I've been saying this whole time I'm open to at least trying a single payer system. My whole "get rid of insurance" plan is another option I'd bet would be acceptable.
I disapprove of the ACA because it's a shitty halfway-measure that doesn't really satisfy anyone besides the politicians who can hype it as a huge success, and the insurance companies who now have millions of "customers" (read: hostages). We need either a truly free market, i.e. no corporatist bullshit, or we need a single payer system.
|
On April 15 2015 02:08 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 02:02 Simberto wrote:
So why don't all these problems also appear in european countries with a more socialist medical system? Doctors here are still paid well and need lots of education, expensive treatments are very often administered (people have a big aversion to someone dieing due to their insurance not covering their treatment because they fear it could be them next time), especially to very old people.
And i don't really buy into the whole "Well the US is subsidizing everyone else" story, because that sounds way too much like putting a spin on the situation where the fact that your system is just really bad and expensive is turned into some sort of altruistic decision. The US does subsidize quite a lot. http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/03/23/the-most-innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/Researchers in the US write 40% of the world's medical research papers, totaling 1,169 in 2009. The next highest was Great Britain at only around 300. The number for the US has also grown at an above-average rate of 7% between 2005 and 2009.
What?
1. Academic research is not considered in the cost of medical spending. This is clearly covered by other government institutions (which I agree are well-funded in comparison to some other countries).
2. Pharmaceutical research is paid for in the cost of medicine world wide. The medicine that is patented in the USPTO is equally protected in Europe. Even if the patent isn't deposited in the EPO, the US patents are generally adhered to. Only countries that might not be the case are upcoming economies that are far less interested in innovation and far more interested in getting cheap medicine to their population (India is generally cited as the most egregious offender).
3. It isn't very fair to compare the US to the UK, when the US has ~320million inhabitants and the UK ~60million. If we look at per capita research production, the UK actually outperforms the US using those numbers: 300/60 = 5 papers per million inhabitants, whereas 1200/320 < 4 papers per million inhabitants.
|
On April 15 2015 02:53 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 02:08 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 02:02 Simberto wrote:
So why don't all these problems also appear in european countries with a more socialist medical system? Doctors here are still paid well and need lots of education, expensive treatments are very often administered (people have a big aversion to someone dieing due to their insurance not covering their treatment because they fear it could be them next time), especially to very old people.
And i don't really buy into the whole "Well the US is subsidizing everyone else" story, because that sounds way too much like putting a spin on the situation where the fact that your system is just really bad and expensive is turned into some sort of altruistic decision. The US does subsidize quite a lot. http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/03/23/the-most-innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/Researchers in the US write 40% of the world's medical research papers, totaling 1,169 in 2009. The next highest was Great Britain at only around 300. The number for the US has also grown at an above-average rate of 7% between 2005 and 2009. What? 1. Academic research is not considered in the cost of medical spending. This is clearly covered by other government institutions (which I agree are well-funded in comparison to some other countries). 2. Pharmaceutical research is paid for in the cost of medicine world wide. The medicine that is patented in the USPTO is equally protected in Europe. Even if the patent isn't deposited in the EPO, the US patents are generally adhered to. Only countries that might not be the case are upcoming economies that are far less interested in innovation and far more interested in getting cheap medicine to their population (India is generally cited as the most egregious offender). 3. It isn't very fair to compare the US to the UK, when the US has ~320million inhabitants and the UK ~60million. If we look at per capita research production, the UK actually outperforms the US using those numbers: 300/60 = 5 papers per million inhabitants, whereas 1200/320 < 4 papers per million inhabitants.
1) Private companies perform research, including writing research papers.
2) Sure, but a single pill might only cost a few cents to make. So they don't mind too much to not make 10,000% profits in Europe since they can still get away with it in the US.
3) The US makes 40% of the world's research papers. The US does not have 40% of the world's population. I only compared to UK because I was summarizing the Forbes article.
|
On April 15 2015 02:51 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 02:43 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2015 02:08 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 02:02 Simberto wrote:
So why don't all these problems also appear in european countries with a more socialist medical system? Doctors here are still paid well and need lots of education, expensive treatments are very often administered (people have a big aversion to someone dieing due to their insurance not covering their treatment because they fear it could be them next time), especially to very old people.
And i don't really buy into the whole "Well the US is subsidizing everyone else" story, because that sounds way too much like putting a spin on the situation where the fact that your system is just really bad and expensive is turned into some sort of altruistic decision. The US does subsidize quite a lot. http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/03/23/the-most-innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/Researchers in the US write 40% of the world's medical research papers, totaling 1,169 in 2009. The next highest was Great Britain at only around 300. The number for the US has also grown at an above-average rate of 7% between 2005 and 2009. But that wasn't the argument. The topic was not papers and studies but price and I doubt you believe that pharmaceuticals sell their drugs for lower prices on the European market out of the kindness of their heart. They do it because the marginal cost of a pill is 4 cents and they already have massive sunk costs. The reason they invest those costs in the first place is the US market. However, that is not the #1 reason the US has the most expensive medical care. Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 02:02 Simberto wrote:
So why don't all these problems also appear in european countries with a more socialist medical system? Doctors here are still paid well and need lots of education, expensive treatments are very often administered (people have a big aversion to someone dieing due to their insurance not covering their treatment because they fear it could be them next time), especially to very old people.
And i don't really buy into the whole "Well the US is subsidizing everyone else" story, because that sounds way too much like putting a spin on the situation where the fact that your system is just really bad and expensive is turned into some sort of altruistic decision. We are, through being the only profitable (if you include front end costs) region to sell medical developments. However, the reason the "socialist" systems are cheaper is almost entirely because of rationing. The US basically gives all the healthcare to everyone very quickly. European systems are different in that they don't provide certain services, or there are waitlists for them. This basic difference accounts for somewhere between 50-80% of why US healthcare is pricier than the EU systems.
As a pharmacist who has spent six weeks in retail pharmacy calling doctors and insurance companies to get medications covered by insurance companies for the most basic of reasons, I can assure you this is not the case. Unless you mean that people can technically buy drugs out of pocket for hundreds/thousands of dollars quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
